Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/27/2004 R May 27,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida May 27, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Raymond Bowie Roberta Dusek Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte 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: May 27,2004 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 RULES AND REGULATIONS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 26, 2004 B. HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-012 228 SABAL PALM ROAD, NAPLES, FL EDWARD MCCARTHY AND DOROTHY LEWIS RITA CRISP ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6,2.2.2,2.2.2.2.1 AND 2.1.15 LAND AND STRUCTURES NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND IS BEING USED AS MULTI F AMIL Y RENTAL. ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS NOT HA VING RECEIVED REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS THROUGH CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2004-028 3341 CORANA WAY, NAPLES, FL PAUL J ZAINO RITA CRISP VIOLATIONS: ORD 99-51, SEC 7, LITTER AND EXOTICS ORDINANCE LITTER AND WEEDS CONISISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: SHEET METAL, WOOD SINKS AND CABINETS. 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-025 48 MOON BAY, NAPLES, FL GEORGE & SANDRA PARSONS CAROL SYKORA ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6,1.8.7,2.1.11,2.1.15 PAR 1,2.2.10 SUB SECS 2.2.10.2.1, 2.2.10.4, 2.2.10.4.3.2, 2.2.10.4.3.3 LAND AND STRUCTURES NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT AND NOT MEETING COLLIER COUNTY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6. PARAGRAPHS 1,2,3,5, AND 6 ALL IMPROVEMENTS NOT HA VING RECEIVED REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS THROUGH CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TIONS: 5. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-026 1361 LAKE SHORES DR, NAPLES, FL ROBERT AND DEBRA LOCKHART DENNIS MAZZONE ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6,2.1.11,2.2.4.2.1 AND 2.7.6 PAR 1 & 5 STRUCTURES ERECTED AND NOT BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT. ALL IMPROVEMENTS NOT HAVING RECEIVED REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS THROUGH CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2004-014 3176 AND 3175 KAREN DR, NAPLES FL CLAUDE MARTEL JEANNE NADEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 99-58, PARAGRAPH 1, THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING ORDINANCE: FAILURE TO COMPLETE, SUBMIT AND OBTAIN A RENTAL REGISTRATION CERTIFICA TE FOR RENTAL UNITS, AS REQUIRED 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion/Request for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Steven Johnson 2. BCC vs. Diana Hall CEB NO. 2003-057 CEB NO. 2003-036 B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Steven Johnson 2. BCC vs. Diana Hall 3. BCC vs. Wooten 4. BCC vs. Ronald and Shelly Brown 5. BCC vs. Kelly Capolino 6. BCC vs. Carter Fence 7. BCC vs. Monika Van Stone 8. BCC vs. Herman Haeger 9. BCC vs. Robert and Susan Dixon 10. BCC vs. Thelma Novello CEB NO. 2003-057 CEB NO. 2003-036 CEB NO. 2003-041 CEB NO. 2004-017 CEB NO. 2004-006 CEB NO. 2003-021 CEB NO. 2003-048 CEB NO. 2004-018 CEB NO. 2004-003 CEB NO. 2004-003 C. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) D. Request for Foreclosure - (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Brown 2. BCC vs. Kelly Capo1ino 3. BCC vs. Herman Haeger CEB NO. 2004-017 CEB NO. 2004-006 CEB NO. 2004-018 B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Steven Johnson 2. BCC vs. Diana Hall 3. BCC vs. Wooten 4. BCC vs. Carter Fence 5. BCC vs. Monika Van Stone 6. BCC VS. Robert and Susan Dixon 7. BCC VS. Thelma Novello 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE June 24, 2004 11. ADJOURN ~---'"~ ..- CEB NO. 2003-057 CEB NO. 2003-036 CEB NO. 2003-041 CEB NO. 2003-021 CEB NO. 2003-048 CEB NO. 2004-003 CEB NO. 2004-003 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May we have the roll call, please? MS. HILTON: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. HILTON: Bobbie Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Raymond Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett and Albert Doria have an excused absence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda before us? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. Yes, we do have a few changes to the agenda that was posted. There's a request for a continuance for the case Board of County Commissioners versus Edward McCarthy and Dorothy Lewis. And that is in your packet, or you should have received a letter from the 2 May 27, 2004 now property owners' attorney, indicating that he's unable to make the meeting today. But they are still willing to enter into a compliance agreement with the county. So there's that request. We're adding that to the agenda. There was a request for Case No. 2004-028, but that's being withdrawn. And there was a last minute request for the case Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Lockhart, 2004-026. So there are two continuance requests on -- under 5.A. And then there is an addition to new business. Motion for an extension. That's Board of County Commissioners versus Carter Fence. And then we're removing the request for imposition of fines for Item No.5, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Kelly Capolino. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And our two continuances requests are going where? MS. ARNOLD: They would be 5.A. So it would be 5.A.l and 5.A.3 -- I mean 5.A.2. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other changes? MS. ARNOLD: Not from staff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion to accept the agenda as changed. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept our agenda as changed. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, rules and regulations. By the way, for the record, I believe Mr. Bowie has received permanent status on the board from an alternate. Congratulations. So he will participate 3 ----... May 27,2004 fully at all times. Approval of our rules and regulations. We've gone through these and -- many times. And the last time, last meeting, we gave everybody one last chance to read through them. Are there any changes, corrections, that anybody would like to make before we possibly accept them as presented to us? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I would entertain a motion to accept our new rules and regulations as presented. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion, move to accept. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept our rules and regulations as before us. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: We would just need the signature -- Shanelle has an original. Just everyone's signature, and we'll get the other members' signature. The matter will be brought to the Board of County Commissioners just as a course of business. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you'll remind us before we all depart, everybody make a mental note to sign before we leave. Approval of our minutes from our last meeting. They were submitted electronically to us. Any corrections to those? If not, I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. MR. BOWIE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 4 May 27,2004 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll now open our public hearings. First item, motions to continue. MS. ARNOLD: The counsel for the purchaser on this property, Robert (sic) Withers, sent you a letter, and Shanelle should have presented that to you this morning. Staff is working with this attorney, Mr. Duvall, as well as Rich Yovanovich, who represents McCarthy and Lewis, the prior owners, to try to come up with a compliance agreement. And he's committed to having that executed before your next meeting. So that will be presented to you at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I believe we've had two continuances on this case. At both times Mr. McCarthy assured us, which is why we granted the continuances, that he would not sell the property. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's now turned around and sold the property. So any advice? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think the order, as I recall, both times was contingent on his not selling the property and giving any prospective buyers notice, as I recall. So you can look at the last order and it's the pleasure of the board. MR. BOWIE: I find this very disturbing. It's clear that the respondents here, McCarthy and Lewis, spoke with forked tongue to us on at least two prior occasions. On the last occasion their representation was memorialized into an order reflecting that representation. And their action, of course, contravenes their representation. It's my belief that the applicable statute here in Section 162 of the 5 May 27,2004 Florida Statutes says that this purchaser, Mr. Withers, steps into the shoes of the existing respondents; that he does not need to be reserviced with the notice of violation or any of the case materials, he's presumed to know of them. And he steps into their shoes in the part of this proceeding we're at now. He's basically a substituted respondent. So I feel very little sympathy, since he knows what he's doing, Mr. Withers does. Obviously McCarthy and Lewis knew very well what they were up to. I can't see honoring this. I would like to proceed, and perhaps with the force of an order behind it, Mr. Withers will be even further induced to enter into a compliance agreement. So I'd like to proceed with it. And I'd like to move that Roger Withers, who is now the -- entitled to this parcel, be substituted as the respondent in this case. MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Bowie, may I interject before we go forward with the motion? One thing that I'd like to point out to the board is that there is a provision in Chapter 162 which requires the county to give the subsequent purchaser a reasonable time to correct the violation. I agree with what you're saying in that the documentation is to be provided to the subsequent purchaser, and he does stand in the shoes of the former purchaser. But if we were to go forward, we had not given the new purchaser a reasonable time to correct, and quite possibly any finding of violation could be undone by a circuit court. The county's position is that we not go forward for that reason. MR. BOWIE: Well, I don't know. I would have to say that this entire matter on behalf of both McCarthy and Lewis, as well as Mr. Withers, just reeks, reeks of bad faith. And I don't see any grounds on Mr. Withers' part for us to cooperate in that kind of activity. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: From what Jennifer has just told us, we really 6 --- May 27,2004 have no choice then. MS. RAWSON: Would you read them the statute? MS. BELPEDIO: I believe that it's in 162.09, but let me just verify that. I read it yesterday. MR. BOWIE: 162.09 I think is what our order last month referenced. 162.06, perhaps. MS. BELPEDIO: 06, perhaps. MR. BOWIE: Paragraph 5, yeah. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay, I think -- it was here. I know that it was here, and I'm looking for it for you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 162.06, Item 5. MS. BELPEDIO: That sets forth what's required by the former owner. But I'm looking for the county's requirement to provide a reasonable time to correct. Here it is. It's under 162.09, Paragraph 5, sub-paragraph D. Failure to make the disclosures described in Paragraphs A, Band C before the transfer creates a rebuttal presumption of fraud. If the property is transferred before the hearing, the proceeding shall not be dismissed, but the new owner shall be provided a reasonable time to correct the violation before the hearing is held. I apologize for the delay. I knew it was in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it's what, 1 -- MS. BELPEDIO: It's in 162.06, Paragraph 5, sub-paragraph D, in the second paragraph of D. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 162.06? MS. ARNOLD: 06, Paragraph 5. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Sub-paragraph D. And it's the second paragraph under there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you're saying this failure is on the part of county? MR. BOWIE: So the statute is saying to us that even when-- 7 May 27,2004 even though perhaps McCarthy and Lewis have breached the order in which they agreed for the continuance last time, that a transfer did occur. And that the purchaser, whether he's complicit in this or not, must be given a reasonable time to comply with the alleged violation before even a hearing is held against him. MS. BELPEDIO: Yes. And it's my understanding that the closing occurred on Monday. And when we spoke to Scott Duvall, who's the attorney for the now owner of the property, we did provide him with a reasonable time to correct. There is no requirement that it be set forth in writing, and that time is accruing. MR. BOWIE: Reasonable is being defined as what here now? Till the next month's meeting? MS. BELPEDIO: I'm of the opinion that it is what is reasonable to correct the violation in question. It really depends on what the violator intends to do. And we were -- the Code Enforcement Director and I were informed by the attorney that the intention is to demolish the structures, rezone the property and possibly put it up for sale for another purchaser to buy. He's agreed -- the attorney has agreed that two or three weeks was appropriate. So he's committed to that. MR. BOWIE: I think reasonable too needs to be taken in context here. Certainly McCarthy and Lewis are experienced real estate players. Mr. Roger Withers, the purchaser of this property, is a licensed real estate broker of long standing in this community, is also quite an experienced player in this kind of business. In that kind of context, I think reasonable should be given the shortest possible time frame. If we have to give some kind of reasonable period, it should be as short as possible. We're not dealing with babes in the woods here, either on the part of the buyer or the seller of this parcel. These people know what they're doing, the time frame for their closing, three days before this hearing, I think was done in complicity to avoid this hearing. I would like to see 8 May 27,2004 something as short as possible for a compliance agreement acceptable to this board, and if not, we come down on them with both feet. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson, I have a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I'm disturbed by this just as Mr. Bowie is. Under oath the previous owner agreed to certain terms, and so in a sense he's perjured himself. And I am wondering if the fact that he came here twice and under oath agreed to certain items, if that is not in fact notice from the county to the new owner. MS. RAWSON: Probably you're correct. However, if I read the statute again, it basically says while it might be a presumption of fraud to transfer, the new owner shall be provided a reasonable period of time to correct before you have a hearing. So, you know, I think we can't have a hearing today. But if it's the pleasure of the board to set a new date, if for nothing else, to come in with a status. And if there suspects that they're going to sell the property or tear it down, I'm not sure what they're going to do, but you can certainly have them come back in and give you an update, a status. Kind of interesting to have them come back before you anyway and ask them why they said one thing and did another. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, if -- if the board were to grant a continuance to our next meeting, at that meeting we now have Mr. Withers in place of McCarthy and Lewis. At that time should some compliance agreement not be reached, we are then free to proceed as if it were still McCarthy and Lewis against Mr. Withers; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes. If you substitute him today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, if we make the substitutions, since Mr. Withers is requesting the continuance, rather than the person who the case is against, can we do that at the same time we would possibly grant the continuance, substitute Withers for McCarthy and Lewis, or do we have to do that when the actual case 9 '---'~ May 27,2004 comes before us? MS. RAWSON: I think you can do them both today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, can we do it during this continuance motion, or do we have to wait till we actually do the hearing of the case? MS. RAWSON: Since your motion for continuance has been filed by Mr. Withers, he's really subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of this board. So you can substitute him today and then you can grant a continuance pursuant to this particular statute, in the section of the statute. You know, we'll put that right in the order that that's why the continuance is being granted, because we have to provide him a reasonable time to correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody understand that? We all on board? (All nod in agreement.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So before us is a request by the new purchaser of this property, Roger Withers, asking for a continuance to our next meeting, which would be June 24th. And if we were to do same, we would want to replace Mr. Withers under the statute, put him in place of Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Lewis. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the continuance as requested by the new owner, Mr. Withers, for the McCarthy and Lewis case, and that we also substitute the name, Mr. Withers, in place of McCarthy and Lewis, and the reason for the continuance will be per Florida Statute 162.06.5(D). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that get us what we need, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, there is a motion on the floor. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There is a motion and a second. Any further discussion? 10 May 27,2004 MR. BOWIE: I think we're all compelled to vote for this by state statute. But I find it most, most, most distasteful to have to do so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree with Mr. Bowie. MS. DUSEK: I agree also. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree also. MR. BOWIE: Just for the record. The players in this are getting something they don't deserve. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All discussion's completed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. DUSEK: May I just ask Ms. Rawson something outside -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: -- of the case now? If someone comes before this board, as McCarthy and Lewis have done, and lies, and we know that they've lied, they've come under oath, is there any recourse whatsoever? MS. RAWSON: Well, the statute says it's a rebuttable presumption of fraud. But you're -- that's beyond your jurisdiction to determine if it is or isn't, and if there's a penalty associated therewith. MR. PONTE: Do we have any responsibility to put it in the hands of the county, or does the county have any responsibility, knowing that a fraud was committed, not to pursue it? MS. RAWSON: Well, I would address that question to Ms. Belpedio, whether the county has any responsibility. MS. BELPEDIO: Can you please restate the question? MR. PONTE: The question was this: Knowing that a fraud or apparent fraud has been committed, does the county have any 11 May 27,2004 responsibility to pursue some action in that fraud situation? MS. BELPEDIO: Assuming that there was some fraud, I can't tell you that the county has a direct responsibility. I think the subsequent property owner would have the responsibility if there was fraud. But if -- you know, if there's perjury or something else, that can be considered. But that's more of a State Attorney matter. MR. BOWIE: Yeah, I think under the statute that governs this, the reference to presumption of fraud pertains to the buyer and the seller. So if a fraud was perpetrated, it's not against us, it would be against the purchaser. And that's for the purchaser to determine, if the seller did not comply with the statute. We, however, maybe could refer the record in these proceedings thus far with Withers and Lewis, as well as our order, we might want to refer this to the State's Attorney. MR. PONTE: Well, yes, as a perjury -- MR. BOWIE: As a perjury. MR. PONTE: -- committed. MR. BOWIE: That's a possibility. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd have to read our order, but you're right. Okay, our -- MR. PONTE: Excuse me, excuse me. Jennifer, if a perjury has been committed in this instance, is it the responsibility of the county to take it further? I don't think we just let this go. MS. BELPED I 0 : Well, this would be something for the Board of County Commissioners to make a decision upon. I can't tell you whether or not there was in fact perjury, I don't have the minutes in front of me. I don't know if the person was under oath. I think in these sorts of situations, it's possible that persons may say at the time their intentions were, things changed. So there are subtle differences. And if this is something that the board believes ought be explored by 12 .-- --~---->- May 27,2004 the county, I ask that there be a motion, a second, majority, and then it would be slated for the Board of County Commissioners to review and determine whether or not they are going to forward it to the State Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Shanelle, do you have our order that we issued on this case last time? Without that in front of me, I don't -- MR. BOWIE: I think we have it in our packet on their case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is it? MR. BOWIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: In the order it says that the respondents' motion for continuance is granted because the respondent represents to the board that no closing on the potential sale of the real estate will occur before the next board meeting, and that any prospective purchaser will be fully informed of the alleged code violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the order, combined with a reading of the minutes to make sure he was under oath at the time, and if he were, then I think that strengthens the case. So if we are interested in requesting that it be reviewed for the purpose of possible perjury, then a motion to make that request of the county to pass it forward to the Board of County Commissioners for review would be in order. MR. PONTE: I would make that motion, because I think if we let it slide, then we are at the situation where people can come before us and not honor the oath that they are taking and commit perjury without any threat of recourse or guilty. So I think we've got to do something. MS. DUSEK: You want to make a formal motion? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I make a motion that the county be requested to investigate the possibility of perjury being committed before this board in the case of the Collier County Commissioners versus McCarthy, CEB 2004-012. 13 -~'" May 27, 2004 MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the item? MR. BOWIE: I think specifically what we should ask of the County Commissioners is that they refer to the State's Attorney's office for possible prosecution. MR. PONTE: I amend that to include that. MR. BOWIE: Second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further discussion on the item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second item for motions to continue. Mr. Zaino? MS. ARNOLD: Actually, Mr. Zaino withdrew his -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Withdrew it, okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- his motion. And the next motion is Mr. Robert Lockhart. A letter was delivered by Mr. Lockhart to our office this morning as we were walking out, and so we weren't able to make copies for you all, so I'll read it. It is -- it says, in response to your alleged violation in the above referenced case, which is 2004-026, please be advised of the following schedule for correcting the issues: Plans illustrating the additions made by prior owner to the original residence will be completed by June 1, 2004; and two, building permit applications be prepared for owner/builder, including any required subcontractor and submission of same by June 7, 2004. Accordingly, I hereby request this additional time to be granted to resolve this issue. I apologize that 14 May 27,2004 I cannot be present at the meeting. Should there be comments or questions, please advise the undersigned. And it was signed Robert K. Lockhart. And staffs position is that we probably should be proceeding with this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I'm about done on continuances. We have a request to continue to our next meeting. Supposedly as it was read, these issues will be resolved before the next meeting. However, personally I'm done with continuances. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the continuance. MR. PONTE: Before we vote on that, I'd like to say our position of the board really is to bring violations, eradicate them and come into compliance. The dates that have been just mentioned in that letter are not off in the distance, the future. They're very, very close by us. I would say we grant the continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My only problem is if he doesn't do them, another month has gone by and he has some excuse and we're here again and he could have another request for continuance. MR. PONTE: Well, that's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, let's just get on with it and we can give him 10 days or 30 days till our next meeting to solve the problem. Ifhe solves it tomorrow, more power to him. And then it's just a dead issue, it's moot. So I'm not in favor of it. I like Bobbie's motion to deny it. Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we now have a second to the motion to deny the request. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. 15 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MR. PONTE: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 4-1. No other motions to continue. If none, we'll now open our public hearings. First case, 2004 -- oh, that's one that's continued, okay. That's Mr. Lewis -- or what's his name now? MR. BOWIE: Withers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Withers. okay. First case is 2004-028. MS. ARNOLD: That's Mr. Zaino. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Zaino. County Commissioners versus Mr. Zaino. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Paul 1. Zaino, Z-A-I-N-O. CEB Case No. 2004-028. And the respondent is present in the courtroom. We have previously provided the respondent and the board with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 7 of Ordinance 99-51, the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. 16 ._..._-~._.^ ...---- May 27,2004 The description of the violation: Investigator did observe weeds and litter on the property, consisting of but not limited to sheet metal, wood, sinks and cabinets. Location where violation exists: 3341 Corana Way, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Paul 1. Zaino, 3341 Corana Way, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: February 27th, 2004. Date owner given notice of violation: February 27, 2004, certified mail, return receipt requested, and property and courthouse posted. Date on which violation to be corrected: March 4,2004. Date of reinspection: May 26th, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Rita Crisp, to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. CRISP: For the record, my name is Marguerite Crisp, also known as Rita Crisp. On March 30th, I visited a site with the address of 3341 Corana. I observed litter consisting of but not limited to scattered throughout the property. One thing that I'd like to add, too, is this has been a recurring problem at this property. The litter consisted of, as I said, and not limited to, sheet metal, wood, cabinets, sinks scattered throughout the property. The weeds were also over 18 inches. On the revisit to the site, as of yesterday, the litter has been removed. However, the violation for the weeds still does exist. I do have pictures to show you from my first site visit. As you can see, the wood and debris that's scattered throughout the -- looking at the property, that would be the right-hand side. And as you can see around the area, the weeds consisting of over 18 inches. 17 May 27,2004 And as we continue on down, more of the weeds you see. It's very hard to tell, but you'll notice there's a number of lines there going across. That's some type of old cage, like an old bird cage or something of that nature. In addition to that, you'll notice the old dresser, which was stated to me that it was waiting for Waste Management. However, that day was not trash pickup day. And as you can tell, it's not set at the right-of-way area. In addition to that, we also have a little better view of some of this. MS. ARNOLD: I apologize, I don't know why the visualizer is showing such poor images. MS. CRISP: I'll walk you through it. As you can see, we got some tarps, which was explained to me to be an old kids' pool that's laying there in the corner between the sink and the sliding glass doors. As you can also tell, there's some oak cabinets that are crumbling apart set there also, in addition to the sliding doors and whatnot. And once again, as you can tell, old pieces of wood scattered throughout, along with some paper-like material, cardboard-like material there in the right corner of your picture. And once again, as you can see, which was explained to me afterwards, that that used to be a kids' pool that's laying there in the middle of the view screen. And it also gives you a little better view without the light parts of it, of the corner there, a tarp that's, you know, frailed (sic) and falling apart in addition to the wood and old pieces of plywood that's scattered throughout the left side of your view screen. MS. DUSEK: Rita, you said that the litter had been removed. The pictures you're showing us, all of this has been removed, or is this what is presently there? MS. CRISP: All of this has at this time been removed from adjacent properties views. MR. PONTE: You mentioned this was a recurring problem. Has 18 May 27,2004 this happened before? That is, has the respondent been cited as being in violation and he has removed all the violating debris and now returned it? And so is this an ongoing situation? MS. CRISP: In the past year, 2004, we have had between four and five cases dealing with litter in the yard or in the right-of-way, consisting of refrigerators -- a little bit of everything, quite honestly. The previous cases were handled by other investigators. Since I -- and quite honestly, a lot of the litter that you see there had been on previous cases and been removed and then has reappeared. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This, however, is the first time you have brought this respondent before the board? MS. CRISP: Yes, sir. As I said, it's a recurring. Not repeat, a recurrIng. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have you had any comments from Mr. Zaino about the weed issue? Has he contacted you and said gee, I cleaned up the litter and I'm going to do the weeds? MS. CRISP: He has stated to me that the problem has been taken care of. But as I have explained to you folks, not all of the problems have been taken care of. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I have one question for Rita. Rita, are (sic) the items pictured been removed from the site? MS. CRISP: As I explained, they have been removed where they are not viewable from adjacent properties. Let me break it down for you. It's now behind the left side of the house behind a stockade fence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that acceptable to the county? Is that what has to be done or does it have to be removed from the property? MS. CRISP: In accord -- the way I interpret the ordinance, it 19 May 27, 2004 cannot be viewed from adjacent properties. That's my interpretation of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So how he's repositioned all this cannot be seen from an adjacent property, that's what you're telling me? MS. CRISP: Correct. The litter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Okay, any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Mr.-- MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, Ms. Rawson, I have one question for you. How does the civil judgment affect what we are going to do today? MS. RAWSON: It doesn't. MS. DUSEK: It doesn't, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Zaino, if that's correct, come forward, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning, sir. Tell us your side. MR. ZAINO: Okay. She said that the problem hasn't been fixed as of yesterday for the weeds. Now, I know that I spent many hours out there cleaning my weeds. And there isn't any more 18-inch weeds. She said she had a picture of it. I didn't see that one today. As for this litter that's there, she did explain to me I had to move it and I moved it. But what she's talking about is litter that's in my backyard. When they first came out back in February, there was -- it's all in your paperwork there, these guys all came out February 27th and cited me for a refrigerator, and I took care of that problem. This has something that was in my backyard that when I asked the first code enforcement gentleman that is there any other problems, because he gave me -- on 3/12, it says right in here at above location property was cleared of debris, refrigerator was removed, violation 20 May 27,2004 abated and a green card. And it also says that everything has been cleared up and that there was no problems. And I also talked to him on the phone and asked him, is there any other things that I need to move to make this problem go away, and he said no. And that particular stuff there was there at the time when I asked him that. So when he told me I didn't have to move that stuff, I didn't think I had to move it. So then when she came down, that's how this repeat offense came into effect. So I was a little confused on why I'm getting taken into this situation for this stuff that they're showing for when it had nothing -- I was never really cited for it before. She also -- there was a situation about my car. That's been satisfied, too, as far as I know, with tags on here that don't exist and that do exist. And that's why I'm a little confused about the situation is because they were talking about previous things that were in the front of my house, but now she's talking about things that are in my back of my house which was also -- there was a fence that was up previously that my next door neighbor had that was down that she supposedly was driving by one day -- that she told my girlfriend that she was driving by and saw her. But then when she came back and told me she said that there was a call. So I was still a little confused about the whole thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You got the package, which is-- we're calling the County's Exhibit A, correct? MR. ZAINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm looking at Page 13, which is dated April 8th. MR. ZAINO: Yes. That was when I received a citation on my door, and she said I had 30 days to fix the problem. And I had the problem fixed by May 8th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But I mean, this is talking about sheet metal, old swimming pools -- MR. ZAINO: Exactly. 21 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's part of what we're seeing. MR. ZAINO: That's what that is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, you have been cited for it so now you need to explain, have you got rid of all that stuff or moved it to where -- MR. ZAINO: It's been moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. ZAINO: It's been moved. It's no longer in that location, you can't see it, like she said, from an adjacent neighbor. It has been moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now tell us about the -- well, for lack of a better word, weeds. MR. ZAINO: Weeds. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, tell us what's happening there. MR. ZAINO: I work long hours, sometimes I don't have time to mow my yard. I took care of the problem. My yard's been mowed. There is no weeds that I know of that's over 18 inches in my yard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Zaino? MS. DUSEK: Mr. Zaino, when were the weeds mowed? MR. ZAINO: When she -- when I had that original citation, I've been mowing them since. They were roughly two, three weeks ago. I have this letter in here stating that I have to take care of the problem within 30 days or they're going to send out an appointed lawn maintenance guy to take care of it and I'd have to -- and I'd have to pay for that, which nobody came out and mowed my yard because I took care of it. MS. DUSEK: So you've been taking care of it on a regular basis? MR. ZAINO: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: So as of today -- MR. ZAINO: It got out a little out of hand, you know, I let it go, 22 May 27,2004 and so I got cited for it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Zaino? MR. PONTE: Just one. What's your intention to do with all of this material that you have now fenced in? Is it to keep it there fenced in, or are you going to -- MR. ZAINO: No, I'm in the process of adding an addition to my house. The slider, that's the addition, that's going to go the addition. The sink is for the addition. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. ZAINO: The wood -- the wood that's down there, I'm making shelves out inside my house. And they're not old, and they're not rotting away. They're all brand new. I got them from my dad. He bought a house and I got some stuff that he was remodeling, that's what I got. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other question -- MR. ZAINO: And-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, sir. MR. ZAINO: Like I said, they're not rotting away. They were-- I put them out to the side. And they way they're so messy like that is I've got a five-year-old and a three-year-old and they were all playing with them one day, and that's -- you know, I didn't -- I had them all stacked up. They got moved from my children. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. DUSEK: Rita, I have a question for you. When were you last on the property? MS. CRISP: I was last on the property yesterday afternoon. The area that I'm speaking of about the weeds still existing over 18 is in the dog run area. MS. DUSEK: But the rest of the yard has been mowed? MS. CRISP: I'm sorry? 23 May 27,2004 MS. DUSEK: The rest of the yard has been mowed except for that one area? MS. CRISP: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? MR. BOWIE: I think the respondent wishes to say something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, yes, sir. MR. ZAINO: I also -- I'm kind of confused. She said that all the stuff that I had was moved to the other side of my house. If it was fenced in, how did she see it? Because you can't see it from the front of my house or the side neighbors. MS. CRISP: I'd be happy to explain that. MR. ZAINO: And I also noticed that somebody opened up my fence that was screwed shut. MS. CRISP: I'll be happy to answer that. At this time his fence is starting to fall apart and one slot from the stockade fence is missing, which makes it very easy to view the yard. However, can the adjacent properties view it that easy? No. But on my inspection, a thorough inspection, that piece, as of even yesterday, is still laying on the ground. So technically that piece that's fallen off is now litter. So if we want to look at it that way, the litter has not been removed. But it was one piece of wood. I'm not here to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we have the picture. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. You may sit down. At this time we close the public hearing portion on this case and deliberate if in fact there is a finding of fact that a violation -- as I remember, Ms. Rawson, did or still does exist, we're allowed either/or? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 24 May 27,2004 MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Paul Zaino, CEB case 2004-028, that a violation did and partially still does exist. The violation is of Section 7 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the Collier County Land Development Ordinance. The description of the violation: An investigator did observe weeds and litter on the property consisting of but not limited to sheet metal, wood, sinks and cabinets. However, also this -- as of today, the litter has been removed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion that-- MS. ARNOLD: Can I make a clarification? 99-51 is not the Collier County Land Development Code, it's the weed and litter ordinance, so that's incorrectly stated. But the ordinance references a correct reference, 99-51, but it's not the Land Development Code. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that motion with that correction. MR. PONTE: Seems to me that this violation has been abated, and what we're talking about in terms of an existing violation is, I would gather, a relatively small area of weeds. The respondent has announced plans, what he's going to do with the material. It's in an area that can't be viewed, and I don't think it is the position of this board to penalize people who have come into compliance. And that's the situation here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First, we haven't penalized anybody yet. MR. PONTE: No. Or attempt to penalize them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're finding right now is did a violation exist, which we're allowed under the statutes and our ordinance, or does a violation still exist. And I think what Bobbie has said is, based on what she's heard, she's of the opinion that yes, a violation did exist and some of it has been cleaned up, and some of the violation still exists. That's why she's making a motion that there is a finding of fact. I think I have that right. 25 May 27,2004 MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion and at this point without a second that a violation does exist -- MR. BOWIE: I second it -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- or did and/or does. MR. BOWIE: I'm going to second that, with the correction that Michelle Arnold had noted as to the proper county ordinance reference. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Reference. Okay. So we now have a motion and a second that a violation did and/or does still exist, so that everybody understands. Okay, 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 we get to order of the board. I guess I would start by saying I probably recommend to my compadres, for lack of a better word here, hearing the testimony from both of them, I think some of this stuff has been cleaned up to meet the, quote, requirements of the ordinance. And a small portion of it still exists. And we should understand that probably it's pretty easy to eliminate what may still exist. So we should keep that in mind if we're going to order some type of action which may be coupled with some type of fine. MS. DUSEK: I have a question for Ms. Rawson. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Ifwe ask the respondent to remove the remaining weeds and then we say within a certain period of time, and if the violation has been corrected within that period of time, that's fine. But 26 May 27,2004 if the violation continues, how do we -- ifhe's corrected it within a period of time but then the violation continues at a later date -- MR. PONTE: You mean the weeds grow back. MS. DUSEK: And they're not attended to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I'm with you so far. MS. RAWSON: Well, then probably the county's going to bring the case back to you as a repeat violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it has to be brought back us before it would be considered repeat. I think if there is any recommendation for an order to clean up within "X" period and/or a fine is put in, I think we should also state that when it's cleaned up, the respondent be required to have the county come out and review the site to in fact know that it has been cleaned up. That way the respondent knows that he's done what he was asked to do, and the county knows that he did it, and that they can report to us that yes, in fact he did it. Now, the fact that it may grow back, that's what weeds do, will be something for a later date if the county decides to take action later and cite him again. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move this, then, as the order of the board, that the board, in Case No. 2004-28, Board of County Commissioners versus Paul J. Zaino, order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate the remaining violation of the weed control ordinance within seven days from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspection. MS. DUSEK: Before we have a second on that, another question for you, Ms. Rawson. MS. RAWSON: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: We did "did" or "does". And the "did" part was 27 May 27,2004 litter. Ifwe don't say "and litter", even though it has already now as of this date been removed and the litter reoccurs again -- MS. RAWSON: Again, it will be a repeat violation brought back to you. MS. DUSEK: But if we don't put the litter in, it has -- we haven't cited him for that, so it couldn't be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but he's on -- he's on the record as testifying that he's cleaned it up, but he's abated it. And we're not going to fine him for something he's already done. We haven't done that in the past. We just make note that we're on the record that a violation did exist, and he's told us he abated it. So it is on the record. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. RAWSON: It's just been partially corrected. And I'll put in the order that the litter has been removed so there will be a record. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: I'd like to just suggest to the board that $50 is a bit steep for a small patch of 18-inch weeds, and that the fining mechanism, the fine should be $25 that I would suggest. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that. MS. DUSEK: I think he's going to clean it up this afternoon. MR. BOWIE: I would think so, within seven days. MS. DUSEK: You know, I don't think the dog run is going to be a task for Mr. Zaino to clean up. MR. PONTE: I don't either. It just -- it just rather bothers my logic and sense of perspective in terms of other cases and other violations to slap a $50 fine on something we expect is going to be cleaned up and is indeed of very minor nature. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask this question. I think Mr. Zaino has tried to do the right thing and I think he's presented himself as that he's making the effort and will continue to make the effort. I would maybe ask Mr. Bowie if he would amend his motion and 28 May 27,2004 Bobbie would amend her second that in this instance where it is such a small item, i.e., the county has said it's in the dog run area, if we reduce the fine from $50 to $25. MR. BOWIE: I'm amenable to that because I do believe, based upon what Mr. Zaino has told us, he's going to take care of this certainly within the seven days, so it's probably just academic. But I'm amenable to reducing it to $25. MS. DUSEK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we have a motion and a second. He has seven days to correct the remaining violation or a fine of $25. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Zaino, do you understand, sir? MR. ZAINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Open the public hearings again and go to Case No. 2004-025, Board of County Commissioners versus George and Sandra Parsons. If you gentlemen would like to sit down till the county presents the case to us, that's fine. Otherwise you're going to stand there for a little bit. MR. PARSONS: That's fine. MS. HILTON: This is Board of County Commissioners versus George and Sandra Parsons, CEB Case No. 2004-025. The respondent is present in the courtroom and represented by counsel, Neil Morales. We have previously provided the respondent and the board with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this 29 -----'''.- May 27,2004 time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 2.1.11,2.1.15, Paragraph 1,2.2.10, subsections 2.2.10.2.1, 2.2.10.4, 2.2.10.4.3.2, 2.2.10.4.3.3 and 2.7.6, Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 and 6 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: The existence of a prohibited second residential use of a 60 by 165 single lot in a mobile home district in Collier County known as Lot 48 of Township 51, Section 15, Range 26 of Collier County records, also known as 48 Moon Bay Street, Naples, Florida. The existence of a 12 by 62 replacement mobile home, reference Collier County building Permit No. 77-2060, for a 10 by 64 trailer, and an approximate 48 by 12 and a half concrete block second residence with related porch and deck improvements exceeding Collier County setback requirements. The existence of an 8 by 10 aluminum laundry facility not meeting setback requirements. All above noted structures, improvements and use not having received Collier County zoning and planning review and approval, not having received Collier County building permits, inspections, or a certificate of occupancy, constituting a violation of Collier County mobile home zoning district regulations. Location where violation exists: 48 Moon Bay Street, Naples, 30 May 27,2004 Florida. Name and address of owner: George and Sandra Parsons, 50 Moon Bay Street, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: October 10, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation, October 28th, 2003. Date in which violation was to be corrected: November 28, 2003. Date of reinspection: May 26th, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time I'd like to turn the case over to Investigator Carol Sykora to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Good morning. On October 7th, 2003, I received a citizen complaint anonymously, and the complaint stated that there was an addition put onto a trailer that extends too far out, and they also stated that they are renting this mobile home and the addition to two different families. On October 10th, 2003, I investigated at 48 Moon Bay, the parcel in question. I found a mobile home with a concrete building structure at the rear of it, and I took pictures at that time. I went to the property appraiser's and obtained a property card on this property. On October 22nd, 2003, Investigator Dennis Mazzone and I obtained a signed entry consent by the tenant of the mobile home to enter beyond the closed fence gates. At that time we measured both the exterior surface of the mobile home structure, the concrete block structure at the rear of the property, and also a shed facility, aluminum laundry facility that had electrical and plumbing in it, a washer and dryer. We drew a sketch at that time. This is the property sketch that we drew, not to scale, but we did take measurements all around the property at that time. 31 May 27,2004 I spoke to Mr. Parsons, who actually owns the property next door also, and that's where he resides, at 50 Moon Bay. And he did advise me that he was renting out both the mobile home and the concrete structure at the rear of the property to two separate families. This particular property is in a mobile home subdivision, and it's single- family zoned. And I advised him that only one family could live on the parcel of land at that time. Mr. Parsons met at our office. Investigator Mazzone and I met with him. All the violations were explained, and he signed the notice of violation. At that time the notice of violation included the mobile home, the concrete building at the rear and the shed. No permits were found for these structures. The mobile home, I did find a permit for it; however, the measurements were different than what we had measured. But consequently, I went down to the area and spoke to a long-time resident, had been there for 30 years, and she stated and signed a statement that the mobile home was never changed out. So benefit of the doubt, I did drop the mobile home violation. So the only thing that I'm asking Mr. Parsons is about the concrete building in the back and the shed. The mobile home is not a part of the violation any longer. A benefit of the doubt. Measurements could have been off, and through her statement I decided not to pursue that. Mr. Parsons was consequently advised of this also, that the mobile home was not involved, that the building behind it and the building that houses the laundry must be permitted or removed. I also did advise him for a second time that two families were not allowed on this parcel because of the zoning. Consequently, a CEB warning letter was sent in December of 2003. I also obtained a meeting with permit department. Dennis Mazzone and I attended. Wanda Warren and Johnny Sanchez. At that time options were given to Mr. Parsons as to how to resolve his 32 May 27,2004 situation. He was told that either he could obtain a possible variance for the setbacks, because the concrete structure at the rear of the mobile home was too close to the water's edge, and also too close to the property line. If not, he would have to obtain a demolition permit and remove the structure if he could not obtain a variance and consequent permits. He advised also that the building was no longer occupied at that time. That was March of 2004. But after obtaining the demolition permit, Mr. Parsons called me and said that he really couldn't afford to demo it and that he didn't know what to do. And that's when I prepared it for the Code Enforcement Board. Do you have any questions? MR. PONTE: So at this point the concrete block structure is not occupied; is that correct? MS. SYKORA: That was a while back. I don't know if he re-rented it or not. That's not my area any longer, and I really don't know if he's renting it now. But he did say that the tenant that was in there when this investigation started had vacated. I really don't know if he re-rented it or not. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Carol, looking at your drawing, I see where the enclosed porch -- the item next to that, is that a deck or what is that? MS. SYKORA: Okay-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or that is part of the concrete structure? MS. SYKORA: Onto the concrete structure there is -- also attached to that is an enclosed porch that actually hangs over the waterway, and that is included as part of the concrete structure. That also is in violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SYKORA: The setbacks from a waterway would be 10 feet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And this only sets back what, 33 ------ May 27,2004 about seven and a half, is that what you're telling us here? MS. SYKORA: Yeah, well, the enclosed porch, actually, is over the water. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Over the water. MS. SYKORA: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) MS. DUSEK: Carol, just reclarification. The concrete building, shed and laundry area are what is in violation? MR. BOWIE: Right. MS. SYKORA: Pardon me? I'm sorry. MS. DUSEK: The concrete building, shed and laundry are what is in violation? MS. SYKORA: The concrete building, the addition on the rear of it, the porch addition and the laundry facility, which is a shed with a washer, dryer, electrical and plumbing. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (No response.) MS. SYKORA: These are pictures over here of the concrete building that extends across from that side over to the left, and it is not -- there's no entryway from the mobile home into it, but it's just basically right up against the rear of the mobile home. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask a question of Carol? Carol, did you do a -- research to find any -- and find any permits for the structures that are on the site? MS. SYKORA: I researched the two permits that were listed on the property appraiser's card. And also through old permit books, by name I researched thoroughly and none were found for the concrete structure or the shed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Carol. 34 May 27,2004 Mr. Parsons and Mr. Morales. MR. MORALES: Morning, members of the board. I'm Neil Morales -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me have you sworn in here before we start. Mr. Parsons, are you going to speak? MR. PARSONS: If I'm asked any questions. MR. MORALES: Yes, he will be speaking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You need him sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn in.) MR. MORALES: Neil, N-E-I-L. Prior to proceeding, I'd like to make a point of clarification. We want to make sure that in case that this situation needs to be appealed that we're able to use this record. And I just want to make sure with Counsel that this would be a record that we can use in an appeal process. MS. RAWSON: Yes, it is. Plus I will send you a copy of the order. MR. MORALES: Okay. Appreciate it. Members of the board, just to give you a little background on what's going on here, Mr. Parsons purchased this property a few years ago with the understanding that everything on this property was pretty much permitted and okay. Once he purchased this property, I guess there was an immediate code violation, anonymous tip that brought it to the attention of the code enforcement people. The problem here is that -- is that there really is not a code enforcement violation. If you look at the property J.D. card -- and at this time I'd like to admit the defense packet as Exhibit 8 for this proceeding. And if I may motion the board to accept this packet as our evidence in this proceeding at this point in time. May I do so now, to move to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What is this packet? MR. PARSONS: -- introduce the packet? 35 May 27,2004 MS. ARNOLD: You have that in your packet. MR. MORALES: It's a defense packet? MS. RAWSON: You need to give a copy to the court reporter. MR. MORALES: Oh, I apologize. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't get one of those. If everybody's got one, I'll catch up. And if we need a motion to accept it. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the defense package A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second it. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the Defense Exhibit 8. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MORALES: Thank you. I'd like to address your attention to this property I.D. card that is really the crux of this situation. I have it listed as Exhibit A. On here it specifically mentions the type of structure that was built at a certain date and time a few years ago. In fact, we're looking at probably a good 20 or 30 years ago. Now, the county is historical for not having some sort of record regarding a lot of old permits. And there's a lot of old permits that have been lost. And that's pretty much common knowledge among the citizenry here. And we believe that given the fact that there's a possibility that this permit may have been lost, because it's such an old permit -- I mean, we're talking about like 1960's or so. Given the fact that it was such an old permit, what we're saying is that giving him the benefit of the doubt -- give Mr. Parsons the benefit of the doubt. We need to look at some other item to see if there was a possibility there 36 May 27,2004 was a permit in existence at that time. As again, this property LD. card shows, it illustrates the type of structure that is there. And that type of structure fits the -- fits the description of this building. And if I may have the picture again, please, for the -- just for illustrative purposes, the picture that was just on the screen a moment ago? MS. DUSEK: I think he wants your drawing. MR. MORALES: Yeah, the drawing, please. The drawing. I apologize, I didn't specify. Okay. As you can see by that drawing, that drawing is obviously a concrete block structure. Now, according to the permitting information here, it specifies that this structure was in existence prior to that time. And I'd like for you to take a moment, please, and read some of the descriptions of what was on this property. And this is going back to like the 1970's or so. Just to draw your attention a little more specifically as to why I would like you to take a look at this property LD. card. If you look at the -- and again, I'm referencing Exhibit A. If you look at the floors it says -- it's marked right there that the floors are concrete. Now, there is no other structure on this land, from at least my understanding, that has concrete floors other than what's up on here, okay? Also, you can see that it says roofing is built up. You can see that it says there's two rooms there. You can see that the exterior walls are stucco. So there is some doubt as to whether or not this was properly permitted back in the 1960s or '70s. And it is our argument to the members of this board that this was properly permitted, but that for whatever reason, given the historical nature of what's gone on in this county, permits have not been able to be found. Anyone who wants to find an old structure, maybe in the Golden Gate City area, again, Port au Prince, and decides to do a permit search is on a very caveat emptorn 37 May 27,2004 basis, because when they look in these records, it's very scant. I myself went down to the county and saw that most of the permits that are in the past are on microfiche, and some of them are not very well maintained. And I know it's hard to look at a sore thumb, but that is the case. And if this gentleman is going to be facing some serious fines and, you know, the penalties, we should at least give him the reasonable doubt as to whether or not this permit was actually in existence. Now, pursuant to all the other issues that have occurred after -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, I have a question. MR. MORALES: Okay, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're wanting the board to accept that the property appraiser's property card is evidence that a permit existed in the county? MR. MORALES: The evidence that there was a possibility that a permit did exist in the county, because they did see it there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. My problem is -- I'm very familiar with property appraiser's office. When they go out and do this, they don't dig up all the permits. They visualize things, okay? They don't come back to the office, sit down and pull all the permits. That's not what they do. So I'm having a little trouble accepting that you're trying to get us to understand that because items have a little circle in them that that means somebody actually saw a permit. Because I know that's not how that works. MS. DUSEK: I also have a question. Looking under roofing where it says built up, it looks like there's a question mark in the next box. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Same under frame, there's a -- MS. DUSEK: And the same with the -- yeah, with the floors. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's a lot of question marks. Plus it shows a little structure 20 by 34, and we're looking at something different here, so -- but anyway, I'm having real trouble with your 38 May 27,2004 explanation of what this card is. This is a record made up of someone who goes out to assess a piece of property and they make their notes and come back and fill out a card. They don't then go down to wherever records are and pull all those records. As I understand it, that's not what they do. So I'm having a little trouble the way you're trying to get us to do this. Have you got something else for us to show that that's how this was done? Because that's not my understanding of their job. MR. MORALES: Well-- and that's what I'm saying, there's a little more to this. And I was -- I would like to continue, if that's okay, and see if I can address your concerns. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just -- right there, when you said do all this, I stopped, because that's not how I know the system. MR. MORALES: I understand. And with all due respect, the system in Collier County is not perfect. And we can all pretty much admit that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not saying perfect or not. I'm having problems with you telling me that because this card is marked, that means somebody saw a permit. I'm having a problem with that. MR. MORALES: Well, that's just one crumb of the entire cake, Mr. Chairman. The other crumbs that we're looking at here is obviously the circumstantial situation. I mean, when we look at the way that these old permits have been maintained in the past, we will see that a lot of permits, especially for the older areas, the outlying areas in Collier County, have not been perfectly maintained. Now, we also have affidavits to show that this structure has been there historically. And I'm sorry it's not part of your packet. Ifit's possible, I'd like to circulate this to the members of the board, some affidavits of individuals who have signed this, stating that this structure has been there practically forever. And also there's a letter from Mary Edwards that also states that it has been there for quite 39 -~-",~,., May 27,2004 some time now. Again, if anything, there's an equitable argument. The equitable argument is that the county has been making its tax monies on the structure. I mean, if we have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not there's even a permit that exists, we also have a question as to whether or not the county has been properly compensated for this structure. And also, I'd like to draw your attention -- but first, if I may, circulate the affidavit to you all, with your permission? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you submitting that as some kind of exhibit? MR. MORALES: I'm submitting this as an exhibit, I guess B. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that B? MR. MORALES: Yes, Chairman. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the defense packet Exhibit B. MR. MORALES: Okay, thank you. And if I may just-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just a minute. Is there a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. All those in favor of accepting Exhibit B, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MORALES: Thank you. As these affidavits will show, and this is pretty much sworn by most of the people that are in that area, they -- and again, we're talking about a low income area that this will definitely be a very detrimental situation for Mr. Parsons, because he's also a man of limited means. The persons in this area, all they have is really their word, okay? And their word is that they've seen this structure out there pretty much for the last almost 30 years. The structure has been in existence, the county has never had an issue with it prior to. And again, there is that 40 May 27,2004 reasonable doubt as to whether or not a proper permit existed at that time, since -- we're talking about 30 years that the county never even really raised the issue. Now, also regarding to the Land Development Code -- and I even included this in the defense packet, Sections 1.8.3, 1.8.4, 1.8.10, and 1.8.12. In there it talks about nonconforming uses. And if anything, if these allegations are to be correct, then we have a nonconforming use. The building that's out there was built -- and again, we have plenty of documentary evidence and testimonial evidence to show that that building was out there prior to that time, prior to the time of the Land Development Code. And according to these regulations, that -- it states very specifically in here that any type of structure built prior to, built prior to and otherwise lawfully built or whatnot, should be made an exception too to the general rule. That's what the Land Development Code is. So in other words, if this structure was built after the Land Development Code was enacted, then obviously it falls under these regulations, these setback requirements and what have you. If it falls prior to, then there should be an exception made. And again, it goes back to another crumb of the entire piece of this cake or this pie that we're trying to demonstrate to the county how it's simple to just look at something and say well, black-and-white, that's what it is, move on. But it's really not, there's a lot of other issues that are involved there. Also, regarding some of the tax collector information I included as Exhibit 9, going back to equitable argument, the tax collector has also accepted the fact that this structure was out there. I mean, when you look at Exhibit 9, you look at the amount of taxes he's paying for the structure. It shows improved value on the land. It shows that the land value is 23,000 improved value is $14,000 something, for a total of$37,000 something of taxable value. So even the tax collector has looked at this and said we're willing to accept. Finally, with regards to some of the case law they provided in 41 May 27,2004 there, we're saying that there's an issue of hardship. Again, people in this area are of limited means. And most of these code enforcement regulations are really impacting the weakest individuals in our society. I mean, obviously we're not going to have Land Development Code setback problems in Port Royal or Royal Harbor, but we will have them in these outlying areas where a lot of people are trying to make a living. The same people that serving us day in and day out. And if anything, if there's an equitable argument to be made here, it's to be made based on all these crumbs that are making this pie. And that is that we have a possibility that there's a doubt as to whether or not a permit actually existed. We have the tax collector making revenues on this. It's not as if the structure was not a -- was somehow jeopardizing or taking monies from the public coffers. And we also have a gentleman who has corrected all obligations aside from demolishing the structure, because, again, it goes back to hardship. It cost him a lot of money. Now, he does have a demolition permit, and the permit still has not expired. So there's also an argument as to whether or not the -- whether or not it's premature at this point to even make a decision, given the fact that he still has a time frame to demolish this situation. And looking at the way that the situation is, he is trying his best to make sure he's in compliance. But at the same time, we're here to demonstrate that there -- that there is some equitable decisions. And also, we've included some case law, particularly R.W. Cotney versus Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, 140 So.2d 877, Florida Second DCA, 1962. In that case it states specifically that -- let me just quote it. Where -- if there is -- just to paraphrase, if an unreasonableness of tearing down this structure -- and again, the structure is not affecting anyone. If the unreasonableness is shown for hardship, that there is a possibility that the courts might allow for an injunction to stop the county from actually having him tear this thing down if it shows that there is no reasonableness to tear this thing 42 May 27,2004 down. And finally, with regards to the anonymous individual that the county claims has called and reported this case, which is really what gives this -- the enforcement board the power to go out and investigate and whatnot. We still don't know who this, quote, unquote, anonymous person is. We've spoken to pretty much all the neighbors. As you can see, the neighbors are swearing affidavits. They're not having an issue with this. They've been out there all 30 something years, and it's kind of unusual how all of a sudden it's just kind of crept up in the last minute here and is affecting Mr. Parsons to the point that he's not going to be able to comply. It might even come to the point that if the board rules in such a way that it will affect him so negatively, he might not be -- he might be forced to disassess (sic) of the property some way or the other. I mean, there's just no way he can really comply, given the amount of potential fines or whatnot that he may be looking at. So without further ado, I would like to allow Mr. Parsons to state a few things that are going on there. Of course, if you have any questions for me, please let me know. MR. PARSONS: Hi. My name is George Parsons, I own the property in question. I bought the property approximately two years ago. I've lived in Port au Prince since 1988. The place that I bought, the trailer and the back part, have always, both places, been rented. When I purchased this property, I was never told anything about setbacks. It was a cash deal. When I say cash, it was not mine, but it was cash. Family loaned the cash, so on and so forth. When you pay cash -- and I didn't know this. When you pay cash, you don't have to do the property things, apparently, I guess not. But I was never told of any violations of that property by the previous owner or anyone. And Ms. Sykora, when she left that notice on my fence back in October, I was for it. I didn't know anything about this. I didn't even 43 May 27,2004 know what setbacks were. I never heard of them. I never had an issue with setbacks. I bought that place as an investment property. From what's going on here with the county, an investment to me is you buy something and you make money on it down the road. And I've done nothing but lost. And it's not my fault. I mean, that place was built, my God, 40 years ago, I guess. I didn't know about any of this. I don't feel that I should be penalized or anything like that. I'm not renting it. Carol told -- Mrs. Sykora told me I could not rent it, and I don't rent it. It has not been rented. They moved out, I believe, right after the first of the year. And there's never been a tenant in there since and there's not going to be. I'm not going to rent it, because I don't need anymore problems. I just want to get past this whole deal without going in financial distress that I can't really do. This thing is a solid concrete structure. I can't take a sledgehammer to it. My God, it would take me and everybody in the Army to tear this thing down. It's -- whoever built it had to work for Krehling. My God, it's solid concrete, it's six to eight inches thick with three-quarter inch rebar in it. It's a monster to tear down. I can't do it. If I could tear it down myself I could do it. If it was just a little -- yeah, I would tear it down. I can't. I don't -- you know, I don't feel that I should be penalized because I didn't know anything about it. I did not know that this place violated any code enforcement policies at all. Honest to God, I didn't. The metal shed she's speaking of, I did move it. I moved -- that was a nightmare. I moved that. It's a Ted's Shed, it's a big heavy thing. I moved that and I'm three inches off, they told me. Well, I have not moved it the three inches. I'm still regaining my strength from moving it the last time. There is plumbing, there is electric to it. And I said that I would take all that out to make it -- to please everybody. I'll pull it all out of there. I just -- you know, I just don't feel I should be able to -- that 44 May 27,2004 shed sat there for 20 years, the same place. Plumbing and electric. Nothing. No problems. Here somebody must have called up and made a complaint and I've been wrestling with this thing every night when I go to bed ever since. It's a tough deal. And no, I don't feel that I should be penalized for it. And to my -- the way I understood, there was a permit for it. And two people on the street said they remember the actual owner, and I can't think of his name now, Guthrie or Guntry or something like that, back in those days. I did not live there then. And they -- you know, he had permits. I didn't visually see them, because like I said, I wasn't there. But these people were there. And they know that. They seen the permits. And that's all I can really tell you. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Parsons, I'm sorry that you have this problem that you bought it and not knowing there were no permits. However, it's potentially still in violation. There are a number of properties in the county that are sold without permits, and it's unfortunate for the new owner. Now, it has been suggested that you try to get a variance. Have you made any attempt to do that? MR. PARSONS: No. I'm not sure how to go about all that. MR. MORALES: If I may interject, please? An after-acquired variance is $4,000, and there's no guarantee that they're even going to think about allowing him to go forward on this thing. I researched it for Mr. Parsons. I've pretty much explained to him -- I don't think he recalls right now. But basically, it's after-acquired variance is $4,000. On top of that, you have to have a meeting. I believe you've got to submit like $500 so you can meet with the manager and a few other individuals, engineers. And $500, I mean, that's a pretty steep fee just to have a meeting in which you don't know what the result will be. And on top of that, a $4,000 permit application, which again you don't know what the result will be, and you might end up back here again. So that's the situation that Mr. Parsons is facing. Either find a 45 May 27,2004 contractor that will do it next to nothing, which is almost unheard of, or look at a variance over $4,000 and he's in limited means, no matter which way you look at it. The county would pretty much have to put a lien against this property, foreclose on it and then end up having to tear it down itself, which is going to cost the county even more money. So it's almost a vicious cycle that we're looking at here. And there needs to be some sort of equitable remedy or at least some sort of situation that the county can change in its policy in order to help individuals like Mr. Parsons. Because like I said, this is affecting individuals in the outlying districts of Collier County. It's not -- it's not -- for the new developers -- I mean new developers are obviously meeting the requirements on the building code and whatnot. But it's the individuals such as Mr. Parsons that are being the most affected. And that's why we're here, to make an equitable argument, more than anything else. MR. PARSONS: As soon as he mentioned the $4,000 thing, I do remember Mr. Morales telling me about that because that's -- I don't have the 500 for the meeting, let alone the 4,000 just to take a shot on it and maybe get turned down. I don't have that money. So I do remember Mr. Morales talking to me about that variance thing. MR. PONTE: Did you obtain an estimate as to the cost of the demolition of the building? MR. PARSONS: I got an estimate from Waste Management on -- I didn't even get the estimate. A man from Waste Management came out to my property and looked at it and started laughing. He says, you've got to be kidding. I said no. He said I can't -- he said I'll just give you the best price I can, he said, because what we do is we bring the dumpster out. He said, you're going to have to tear it down, load our dumpster with that concrete. And he said we weigh it at Waste Management. And I forget how much he said. He said it's so much per ton. And he said you're going to take a -- he told me, you're 46 May 27,2004 going to take a beating big time on this. And that's the farthest I got with it, because I don't have the money. MR. PONTE: When does the demolition permit expire? MR. PARSONS: I don't have that in front of me. I don't know when it expires. MR. PONTE: Approximately 30 days, 90 days? MR. PARSONS: No, it was six months, six months. But I don't remember exactly which month I purchased it. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Mr. Morales a couple of questions? Mr. Morales, you had included in your packet a letter from Ms. Mary Edwards, which is one of the sworn affidavits that you submitted. MR. MORALES: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: Could you read what Mrs. Edwards is noting in that letter -- MR. MORALES: To whom it may -- MS. ARNOLD: -- or statement. MR. MORALES: I'm sorry. To whom it may concern: I, Mary Edwards, have resided at either 46 Moon Bay Street or 47 Moon Bay Street for the past 30 years. The mobile home located at 48 Moon Bay has never been replaced since 1977. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Is that the same structure that Mrs. Edwards' affidavit is noting in -- MR. MORALES: I assume that the structure that she is discussing is going to be the concrete structure. MS. ARNOLD: How do we tell that from your affidavit? MR. MORALES: Unfortunately -- I can see your point. The thing is, though, that when she discussed the mobile home, she mentioned specifically mobile home. However, when we talk structure, we're talking about like a concrete structure. And no one really refers to a mobile home as a structure. MS. ARNOLD: I refer to it all the time. But I -- so you're not-- 47 May 27,2004 you're telling us that it's not clear what structure she's referring to in the affidavit; is that correct? MR. MORALES: I'm stating that she did make a distinguishing remark as far as mobile home and structure. She stated structure in this one, while she stated mobile home in this one. So basically she stated the structure would be the structure that's up on there right now. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Also in your exhibit, you have noted several sections of the Land Development Code. MR. MORALES: Right. MS. ARNOLD: What Land Development Code is that? MR. MORALES: That's the Collier County Land Development Code. MS. ARNOLD: And when was that particular one that you included in there? MR. MORALES: This was -- this is what I got right off the Internet. I mean, this should be all updated since the last session. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So the date is for -- you don't know when that was done? MR. MORALES: I believe the date down here says 5/21/2004. It's kind of cut off at the bottom down there, but it does say 5/21/2004. That's when it was taken off there. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. But you don't know what version or when that particular one was adopted? MR. MORALES: It should have been the latest version, but I can state that now I don't have the exact session law on when it was passed and when it was proposed and all. But I do know that this is the latest one that we can get that the public is relying on off the Internet. MS. ARNOLD: Did you look for any Land Development Codes or zoning regulations at the time that you're stating that the structures were built? MR. MORALES: There really is no way to find out. I mean, we 48 May 27,2004 -- at least I couldn't find any regarding that. MS. ARNOLD: So you didn't find any, okay. MR. MORALES: Regarding back then, just regarding the LDC of today which is being here enforced today. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Section 1.8.10, nonconforming structures, it's your Exhibit 3. MR. MORALES: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: It's indicating that where a structure is-- lawfully exists at the effective date at the adoption of this ordinance. Are you indicating that your client lawfully obtained permits for the structure in question? MR. MORALES: No, what I'm indicating is that the person who -- my client did not build the structure. What I'm saying is the person who built the structure about 30, 40 years ago, there's a reasonable doubt as to whether or not there was even a permit on hand. I mean, there's a chance that there was a permit, given the fact that both the tax collector and the property appraiser are seeing something there as opposed to of actually finding the permit itself. Because like I said, historically older permits, for whatever reasons, just haven't been really maintained as well. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Are you saying that the diagram that's on the screen, is that a pretty good representation of what exists on the property? MR. MORALES: I'm stating -- I'm not an engineer. I mean, we're assuming that it is. Again, she said it wasn't drawn to scale. I did not draw it so I don't want to sit here and say that that is exactly the way it should be or it isn't. I don't want to admit either way. All I know is that assuming that this would be the structure in question, and assuming the structure in question meets all the specifications, then yes, there's a possibility. But I'm not going to say that yes, that is the structure. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The aerial photograph -- let's find it. Do 49 May 27,2004 you have that? Would you say that's a good representation of what's on the site? MR. MORALES: Again, I couldn't tell you. I mean, I'm seeing an aerial photograph. I'm seeing -- MS. ARNOLD: Have you been to the site? MR. MORALES: I have. But I have not seen -- I can't tell you from an aerial standpoint whether or not that is the location. I just -- when you look at this information here, all I have is a picture. I mean, this could be anything. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Parsons, can I ask you, does that look like your property? MR. PARSONS: No. MS. ARNOLD: It doesn't look like your property? MR. PARSONS: As a matter of fact, Mr. Mazzone is sitting right back there, he took me to whatever department it is in the very early goings of this, back in -- I'm going to say November or something, and we went through the records to try to find aerial shots. No, no aerial shots. And he even made the statement to me that back in them days, they flew high and things -- he didn't basically -- they were very lackadaisical. He did not say those words, but he did say they flew high and they didn't take the pictures, they -- you know, he took me there to look through the books and -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay, okay, you've answered my question, you've answered my question. MR. PARSONS: No, ma'am. No, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. If this were your property -- because I can have the investigator come back up and answer whether or not -- where they got this photograph from and verify where that particular property -- if that were your property, is the structures in question closer than seven and a half feet to the side property lines? MR. PARSONS: I can't -- I don't know. I couldn't tell that from that picture. 50 May 27,2004 MS. ARNOLD: Have you been to the site? MR. PARSONS : You're talking about my property now? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. You indicated in your testimony that you moved your mobile home in an effort to -- I mean, not your mobile home, your shed in an effort to try to meet the setbacks; is that what you said? MR. PARSONS: That's correct. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. You said that it didn't quite make it. MR. PARSONS: Yeah, it was three inches off. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, okay. Now, where you moved your shed to, is it anywhere in close proximity to the setback for your structure that we're talking about? MR. PARSONS: Where I moved my shed to? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that you said doesn't meet the setback, it's off. MR. PARSONS: Yeah, okay. MS. ARNOLD: Where is the boundary for your shed in relation to the boundary for that structure? MR. PARSONS: The boundary for the shed from my fence line, you mean? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PARSONS: I guess it's -- right now I guess it's 15 feet or 16 feet away from the -- my fence line. The structure in question is -- I never measured it. I don't know. I honestly don't know. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, that's all have I for now. MR. MORALES: If I may ask some questions, myself? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. MORALES: The -- you brought up a good point regarding this map here. I just want the -- actually to make a few statements. The board at least should look at the -- we don't see anything indicating whether or not this is Mr. Parsons' property. As far as these pictures are concerned, they're pretty much dated back in October. 51 May 27,2004 There's a bunch of changes that have taken place, according to both petitioner and respondent. With regards to this ordinance code here, we also don't have the date when this was passed into session law or whatnot. Regarding this supplement here, Number 7, again we don't know what that means, whether or not that -- this is a new code or this is an older code. Regarding all the exhibits put forth by the inspector, again, we don't know if this stuff is accurate as they're claiming it to be. All we do know is that the testimonial evidence is overwhelming as to what is going on out there, and the property I.D. card shows that there is something out there that has been identified back in 1970. There is a doubt, ladies and gentlemen, a doubt as to whether or not this permit was actually in existence at that time. There is a doubt. And that doubt, we believe, in fairness should be resolved on behalf of Mr. Parsons, given the fact that Mr. Parsons has purchased his property with good intention, given the fact that Mr. Parsons is trying to meet what the requirements are, and given the fact that the testimonial evidence again is overwhelming as to the structure that is out there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I have a question for either of you. MR. MORALES: Okay. MS. DUSEK: According to today's zoning ordinances, do you agree that the structure does not meet setback requirements for today's ordinance? MR. MORALES: If I may? I'm right now kind of befuddled because she didn't -- Ms. Michelle Arnold did raise some valid arguments as to what today's ordinance really is. We would like to say one way or the other, but at this point in time there was a question raised as to whether or not the ordinances that we had before us are the correct and exact ordinances, so I'll have to defer the answer to the 52 _.,-..,.,~,_'_"'_-- . May 27,2004 question -- MS. ARNOLD: No, my question was whether or not you knew when that ordinance was adopted. I didn't raise any validity questions. MR. MORALES: Well, then -- but Your Honor -- I'm sorry, I apologize, I'm just used to talking to the court. MS. DUSEK: Thank you. MR. MORALES: The thing is, as far as the validity, I guess you can say it's an indirect argument. Because if we're not sure what code is in existence at this point in time, at least we don't know if this is the amended version or an older version or whatnot, then to honestly answer to say is this code being violated, is the today's present current code being violated, it's hard to say, because again if we did accept all these codes, then we'd have another argument. But given the fact that there is a question as to the validity of whether or not this is the exact code today, I don't want to on the record on something that is so exact, and given the nature of my profession, I have to be exact. And I do apologize. MR. BOWIE: Michelle, can we ask you or Jennifer, is in fact the code provided to us with our packets, your office's packet, the current existing county code reference to this situation? MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Bowie, it should be. And what I can do right now while the hearing is proceeding is verify and go page by page with the book that I have that I'm sure is up to date, and then I can tell you more accurately. MR. BOWIE: That would answer that question then. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I mean all the ordinances that we have submitted with this particular case have been taken out of our Land Development Code book. We use the same -- in some instances we use the same reference as Mr. Morales probably did when he went on the municipal code. It's the valid code. And again, my question was not one of validity, it was more of timing. Because he was testifying that this was a nonconforming 53 ----->_.,-",-"",-,""--,- May 27,2004 issue, where the codes were adopted after the structure was placed on the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a question. Phrase it as best as I can. Mr. Morales, you're trying to get us to accept the property appraiser's card as verifying that things were done correctly, i.e., permitted. If I look at the property appraiser's card in your exhibit, which I think is -- I'm looking at Page 3 of that property card up in the upper right-hand corner, it says 003/004. And there's a little drawing over to the left of, I think what was there whenever this was done, assume it's '70 or '71, I guess. Looks like '71 down in the bottom, 5/7/71. I see this drawing, we have 20- foot wide, 34- foot long, then 12-foot, and then a 15-foot. And if I look at the sketch of what sits there now done by the -- Carol, which is Page 39 of the county's exhibit, I can't get anything to match. So if it was 20 by 34 back in '71 and what you have now is something that's -- well, let's see, the concrete structure is 12 and a half foot wide, the trailer's 62. That's 74 and a half, so that doesn't match that little drawing. Obviously there's been a change. MR. MORALES: If I may-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. MORALES: -- respond? We already heard from Ms. Sykora that she's not -- she didn't draw it to scale, her drawing. However, we have a picture up here that we're assuming to be the address, even though we don't have any real evidence to show that this is the address, but let's just take it for argument's sake that this is the address. If you look at this picture -- and again, no one's going to be drawing everything perfectly here -- and you put it up to what is over there, you see a structure that looks almost similar to what you have up there. Assuming again this is the address. I mean, you see a little turn right here, and you see how it goes kind of down on a vertical 54 May 27,2004 here, and then you see this on this side? And again, just to make it clear for the record, I'm pointing to the property I.D. card and I'm showing that -- I'm demonstrating how the drawing is very similar to what is the alleged property on here. So when you look at this picture, you see it with the little left turn, and as you can look -- as you can see on that exhibit, there is that little left turn there as well. And this is going back, as you said, sir, back to like the 1970s or so. And then of course if you look at the trailer, we can assume that that little -- that little lines that they have there, the little dotted lines next to that, that's the trailer that they were talking about in question. So in essence, what this picture really does is help -- I mean it helps verify what our point is. And that is, given the historical way that the county has held old permits and given the fact that some of these old permits have been lost, for one reason or the other, there is a pretty good possibility that this was permitted. And given the fact that the county hasn't enforced this since 30, almost 40 years, there is a good chance that this wasn't an issue until recently. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So what you're saying is since the little picture is on the property card and it looks like that, that this in fact is the property. MR. MORALES: Oh, well, not -- what I'm saying is that we're alleging -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That that's not the property. That that's not the property and this is not the property. It can't be one or -- it the property or it isn't. MR. MORALES: Not to interrupt, and I apologize, but we're saying that if we take the inspector's argument 100 percent, if we give them every reason of the doubt as far as that card is concerned, as far as that up there, I mean, just assuming for argument's sake, then their argument meets with our argument to verify our position is what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to say we agree or we don't agree with 55 May 27,2004 that. We're just saying that if they are correct, and they're the one bringing this before you today, then we are taking their -- and it's their burden, it's their burden to show you that this is not the case. And all we're saying is that this is the case, and it does -- there is again that reasonable doubt issue there that we need to take into consideration before we penalize anyone. In any administrative hearing or court in this country there needs to be some sort of proof to say yes, you have met your burden and this burden is this. There is doubt here. There is doubt. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But -- I don't want -- I don't want to make a decision based on somebody else's piece of property, and both of you have said that that's not the property. MR. MORALES: We're saying we're not sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but now you're saying because of this card and that they match -- MR. MORALES: Sake of argument, sake of argument. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- it is the property. And so what is it? Is it the property or isn't it? MR. MORALES: We're saying for the sake of argument if we assume that it is the property, then we are correct. We don't know -- we cannot honestly stay here and say that that is the property, because we don't have any address, we have no location, we have no landmarks to base it on. We have a zoomed in picture -- if anyone takes a picture of someone else's home, even one of our homes and takes a picture of it and zooms it up there, sometimes there's going to be some doubt as to whether or not that's that home. And we're trying to state for the record a fact finding mission here that that is or that isn't. And we don't know. I mean, we're just saying that based on that picture, it is kind of hard to tell. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Morales, on the property card that you were making reference to, do you see that other structure, the shed that your client testified about? Do you see a depiction of -- 56 May 27,2004 MR. MORALES: Of the shed? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. MORALES: Just to make sure I understand your question, are you asking me whether the shed appears on this picture or appears there? MS. ARNOLD: On the property appraiser's diagram that you've been making reference to. MR. MORALES: Correct. You're asking whether or not the shed appears on this diagram? MS. ARNOLD: That's exactly right. MR. MORALES: Okay. I will have to say that given the fact that it's not a structure, it is a moveable object, I would say no, it's not on there. MS. ARNOLD: And it's not a structure. The shed is not a structure. MR. MORALES: It's a movable object. It's something that can be moved. It's not something that most -- and again, I'm basing this on dealing with other codes and other jurisdictions. Usually a structure is something that's connected to the ground, something that is solidified. Otherwise it could be a car. You can't say a car is a structure. MS. ARNOLD: So this moveable object with -- does it have plumbing in it? MR. MORALES: I could not tell you that. I did not verify-- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Parsons, did you testify that there was plumbing and electric in that structure? MR. PARSONS: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Parsons, the trailer that's on the property, the county has depicted it, it's like 12 by 62. What size is the trailer? It's yours, you ought to know how big it is. MR. PARSONS: No, I don't know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You don't know. It's just there. Okay. 57 "_e..~",,,,,....._~........,...._.., May 27,2004 MR. PARSONS: You're right, it's just there. Sir, may I ask you with due respect how big is your home? I don't know how big my home is. I don't know. If I knew this question was going to be asked of me, I would have gladly measured it. But 12 by 62 does sound correct to me, but that's just -- it could be 10 by 62. I'm not -- I wouldn't give you 100 percent answer because I wouldn't know for sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Morales, since we're --let's get back to the card. Same card with the little structure. Move over to the right a little bit, you see there and a note, oh, what -- about three inches up, it says trailer. Well-- MR. MORALES: Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt, but where exactly are you referring to? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bottom of the card, you got the little picture. MR. MORALES: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Move over to the -- as I'm showing it to you, move over to the left, oh, inch and a half and down about a half inch, there's a word written, C -- I can't see, CAO something, but right beside it -- MR. BOWIE: Looks like Cavalier. That's a model of mobile home. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And it says trailer, 12 by 48. MR. MORALES: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, I'll ask Carol, did you -- on these measurements, did you measure the trailer, Carol, or -- MS. SYKORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- did you just stand out on the street and guess it was 60- foot long? MS. SYKORA: No, we obtained a signed entry consent to enter through the fence by the tenant. Dennis and I together measured the trailer. However, we measured it differently than what the permit that 58 May 27,2004 was for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't care about the permit. Did you measure the trailer? MS. SYKORA: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And it's 12 by 62? MS. SYKORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Back to Mr. Morales. The property card says there's a trailer 12 by 48. Tell me how we get different? It says trailer, 12 by 48. MR. MORALES: I'm still kind of -- okay, okay, I'm sorry, sir. I finally found it, I finally found it, okay. It says trailer, 12 by 48, correct, and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, now. She just said they actually measured it, it's 12 by 62. So the trailer had to be changed at some time. And you had a lady saying it hadn't been changed in 30 years. I'm getting confused by all this everything's the same and there's a hardship and the permits were lost. But obviously there's been a change from the property records to what's sitting there. English is English. 12 by 48 isn't 12 by 62. I'm sorry. MR. BOWIE: It seems pretty clear that there's been a change in the mobile home that's sited on this lot. If you want to use Exhibit A, which is the county property appraiser's property record card, what was there at the time of this, which is assessed to, I guess, 1980 was a 12 by 48 Cavalier trailer built in 1965. What in fact was conveyed to the respondent here by deed was a 1974 Grand mobile home, which is different than what is shown on this property record card, and that was as of the date of conveyance of August, 2001. MR. MORALES: May I respond, please? And again, I apologize for interrupting. But the issue before us today is the structure that's here, not the mobile home. The inspector specifically stated that we're not dealing with the mobile home issue at this point in time. And whether or not it's a Cavalier or -- I'm not familiar with 59 May 27,2004 the different types. But assuming that it's a different type, it's really an irrelevant line of questioning that we're going under. What we're trying to discuss here is that concrete structure. That's really the crux of what's going on here is that concrete structure. Whether or not it can be torn down, that's where the hardship -- when you focus on the concrete structure it makes everything else pretty clear. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But they kind of go together because if we assume what's on the drawing is the concrete structure and the county went and got permission to go on the property and measure it, I'm having trouble making the dimensions work. MS. SYKORA: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On the concrete side. If I blank out the mobile home and you have this straight concrete structure, which is roughly -- it says 12 and a half by -- you'd have to have 20 plus 12, so that's 32. So it's 12 and a half by 32. I'm not getting that out of this property appraiser card. MR. MORALES: Can I make an observation? When you look at where it says trailer, if you look underneath trailer, you see that there's something else there. Now, we can't really understand what that is, because again, I guess the way things were handled back then, it was kind of a little quicker or a little more informal or whatnot. But when you look at the way that was written, there's something else there. You see? It looks like it's a C -- I can't make out the words. But it looks like there's a B -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not saying that the concrete wasn't there. I'm saying if I remove the trailer from the county and I go back to this -- MR. MORALES: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and I assume that the little drawing isn't the trailer but it is in fact -- MR. MORALES: The concrete structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- your concrete structure -- 60 May 27,2004 MR. MORALES: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- I can't get the dimensions to work from what's sitting there today. So something's different and I'm having trouble understanding why they're different. MR. MORALES: And if I may help fill in the gap for you. Ms. Sykora specifically mentioned earlier in her testimony that she did not do a scaled dimensional drawing. So the numbers that she has to give us are not really accurate. Assuming that these numbers are accurate, there's a possibility that if it was remeasured or if it were redone, that these numbers could probably add up better. But that was just a scaled drawing. She kind of just looked at it and had an idea of how that went. It wasn't properly drawn by a person licensed in that field. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Parsons, it's your concrete structure. Is it a straight structure or is -- I mean, you know, is it just long and skinny, is it like a rectangle, or has it got other pieces sticking out or -- MR. PARSONS: No, it's like an L, a small L. Like the long part would be, if you will, and then short like this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Carol, I have a question for you. And of course to all of you. You remember that you're under oath and I assume what you're going to tell us is all correct. Is this a picture of the property that you actually physically went to and measured? Is the picture that I see right now -- MS. SYKORA: Yes, it is. I obtained it from the GIS maps off the county computer website. May I say something? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask you a question first before I forget it. The measurements -- and I'm not saying I want it in inches, I mean, feet is fine. On your little drawing here, if I removed the mobile home you have a concrete structure that's roughly 12 and a half 61 May 27, 2004 feet wide is what this says, then you go up from one end to where the trailer touches it is 20 feet. Is that close? MS. SYKORA: Close. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you measure that, roughly? MS. SYKORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know whether you stepped it off or used a tape. MS. SYKORA: We used a tape. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But then -- okay. Then the trailer is 12, so if the trailer wasn't there, there'd be another 12 foot. And then when you go past where the trailer is, what's that 16 and a half? Is that part of the concrete structure or is that a pad, or what is that? MS. SYKORA: That's part of the structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the structure is really 20, 30 -- 48-foot long? MS. SYKORA: Right. But on that little section over there was the electric meters attached to that part. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But the concrete structure is 48 feet long -- MS. SYKORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- if the trailer wasn't there, roughly. MS. SYKORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, give or take a -- MS. SYKORA: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- half a foot or something. Okay, so we've got a concrete structure that's 48 feet long. And then where the porch is, the porch goes out over the water, correct? MS. SYKORA: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. On your little drawing, Mr. Parsons says the building is L-shaped. Is the L shape made up of the porch or is there an actual concrete type L? MS. SYKORA: I believe it's -- there's some photographs here 62 May 27,2004 that may be -- this is the left side of the question -- where you're questioning me about, this is how it looks. The mobile home is yellow, and that in the back is the concrete. So it pretty much extends -- keeps on extending past the mobile home. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm looking for is -- back to your little hand sketch, is if I remove the mobile home from the sketch, I have a rectangle that's 12 and a half by 48 feet long that runs across there, okay? And then the porch sticks out over the water. I'm trying to figure out, since Mr. Parsons says this concrete structure is shaped like an L, is the enclosed porch the L? MS. SYKORA: I believe that's -- yes. Otherwise, if the mobile home was removed, it would be one big long concrete building, and then behind is the enclosed porch, which extends over the waterway. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if that's the way it's laid out, then again, my numbers for some reason aren't working, because if I'm looking at the property appraiser, and they use tapes, I try to make this look like the L, the L being the porch and the concrete block structure. The concrete block structure here says it's 34 and they measured it and it's coming up 48. Even if you fudge a foot you can't get from 48 to 34. The 20 works out about right, 12 and a half and seven and a half. That's 20. Then you have 15 foot, which is about what the porch IS. SO -- but the existing concrete structure is longer than what the property appraiser says. That's where I'm having problems making all these numbers match, unless something's been changed at some point. I'm not saying Mr. Parsons did it, but when he bought it, it had been changed from what's original. And using your argument that you don't know when -- what Land Development Code was in effect and everything, I mean, you know, there's no permits, sorry. Something's changed and there aren't any permits. That's what we're trying to find out, permits. MS. DUSEK: In your measurement, and even in the county's 63 May 27,2004 measurement, they could possibly be off inches, but not several feet. When you went out and measured, after you measured the structures, did you also measure where that structure is according to the property line for setbacks? Did you measure that out? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I think we have the two issues here of -- MS. SYKORA: Well, let me -- yeah. Right on the edge, right here, it was three feet from the property. Three feet from the property line. MS. DUSEK: Okay, and that was your measurement? MS. SYKORA: Yes. And an argument as far as the permit issue goes, I was in doubt over the mobile home because of the difference in the measurements, so I did not pursue that. But as far as the concrete structure, the setback requirements back in the Seventies were virtually the same as they are today. And there was no variance or request on file, so consequently, a permit couldn't be obtained for this structure because it did not meet setbacks, was too close to the water's edge, too close to the property line. MS. DUSEK: So whether we use 1970 ordinance or 2004 ordinance, it basically says the same and this structure does not meet the setbacks. MS. SYKORA: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: And in all of your research looking for permits, you were unable to find any permits? MS. SYKORA: I was unable to find any permits for the concrete structure. There was a doubt in my mind as far as the mobile home because of the variance of all the dimensions, of us measuring. Benefit of the doubt, I did not pursue that because of that. But I was not doubtful about the concrete structure at all. MS. DUSEK: So under the assumption that there could have been a permit, coming from the respondent's side, if the ordinance said that they would not give a permit in 1970, and they won't give a 64 May 27,2004 permit today, I think that defeats your assumption that there might possibly have been a permit. MR. MORALES: If I may respond? May I ask her a question or a few questions regarding that? Ms. Sykora, did you check to see if that parcel where Mr. Parsons -- well, the property in question was ever united with other parcels around that parcel? Did you ever check that? MS. SYKORA: No, I did not. MR. MORALES: Did you ever check to see when that lake was dug and see exactly how it was dug and for what purposes it was dug? MS. SYKORA: I believe that -- it's a canal that used to be Gulf accessible. It has been there for a long period of time. MR. MORALES: And do you know exactly when that was -- MS. SYKORA: It was closed off. I don't know the date that it was created. MR. MORALES: See, there's an argument as to how these setbacks were probably violated. There's a possibility that it wasn't violated on the end of the property owner, that it was violated on the end of whoever did whatever they did. For example, they parceled it out, they didn't it parcel it out correctly. Or if they dug the canal too deep on excavation, for example. That could violate the setback requirements that were already met when that first happened. So in other words if the property was already there but then it wasn't parceled correctly, or the property was already there and they dug deep, they dug the canal too deep; in other words, coming towards the violation, if you will, then there's an argument to say that this was properly permitted. Because again, it goes back to that reasonable doubt, that possibility. And it's up to them to make their burden to show that this setback requirement -- these setback requirements were violated, and to show that they were violated pretty much showing how the lake would -- how the lake setback requirements were not met, how the neighboring lots were not met, and to make sure that if 65 _'M._~ May 27, 2004 this was permitted back in the 1970s, because there is that possibility that this was not a united parcel before. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Carol, do you know if the deck, the wooden deck has -- sits on pilings, or does it just cantilever out? MS. SYKORA: I believe it just is like a deck that extends out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I find it a little hard to believe that somebody dug the canal wider and dug underneath somebody's deck. But that's neither here nor there. Let's get back to these dimensions on the property card that you seem to use all the time as gospel. I just did some rough calculations. I'm not a rough engineer, but math is pretty easy to do. Assuming that this second item under the trailer is talking about the CBS building, which I think is what it's talking about, if I do the math, taking the dimensions that are there, I do come up with 528 feet. If I do the math on the structure as measured by the county, the concrete structure, I come up with 681 feet. So obviously something's been changed from back at day one, you know, and I don't know where the permits are. You're telling us that we need to believe that they're lost and they're not referenced on the property card. So your turn. MR. MORALES: If I may, that difference, that 681 feet difference again is not a certain fact. I mean, again we're basing it on numbers from not having exact numbers before us. Nowhere on there CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm sorry, sir, you keep saying exact numbers. You're an attorney and I guess that's what you do. But give them credit that they might have messed up by a foot. There's a big difference when you go from 528 to 681, a whole lot more than one foot by one foot. Let's be reasonable about it. You know, they measured it with a tape measure. Give them a couple of inches, give them a foot that they messed up on. This is a lot more than a foot. I'm sorry. 66 May 27,2004 So let's -- you're wearing me out with the argument that this isn't exact. We know it's not exact. I started out by saying it's not exact. I'm just doing what's here. There's 34 on a property card by 12. Multiply it out, you get something. Then you take eight by 15, you get something. Add them together. Gee, I come up with 528. They're their numbers. I don't know if they're exact. I have to assume they were measured. I'm taking Carol's measurements. She said she measured it. I do her numbers, I get 681. There's a difference. Something's changed. I'm sorry. MR. MORALES: Can I ask Carol, then, if I may, Ms. Sykora, when did you measure it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, God, now it grew. Okay, I'm done. MR. BOWIE: You know, I honestly think the issues have been adequately vetted here. And unless there's something new to produce, I'd like to move that the hearing be closed. MS. DUSEK: Well, let's allow him to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any more questions for Carol and/or Mr. Morales? MS. SYKORA: I'll answer Mr. Morales' question. The property was measured by Dennis Mazzone and Ion October 22nd, 2003. MR. MORALES: And what method did you use to measure this property? MS. SYKORA: I used a tape measure. MR. MORALES: And with this tape measure that you used, do you have it here today? I mean, is there any way we can show what type of measurement and device he used -- MR. BOWIE: Probably one that you buy at Home Depot. MR. MORALES: Well, we're assuming-- MR. BOWIE: We don't know the exact model, perhaps, or where it was manufactured-- MR. MORALES: There's different types of tape measures. I mean, there's different types of tape measures -- 67 May 27,2004 MR. BOWIE: There's Stanley and there's a whole bunch, but I think -- again, I think the issues have been adequately vetted, and now we're just getting into silly trivia. And again, I'd like to move that the hearing be closed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any other questions, sir? MR. MORALES: At this point in time, I'd just like to close and say that, again, looking -- MS. BELPEDIO: Excuse me, I would like to call a witness on behalf of the county as rebuttal evidence. I'm not in objection to the attorney making closing, but the county hasn't had an opportunity to rebut his case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BELPEDIO: I'd like to call Dennis Mazzone with Collier County Code Enforcement. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. BELPEDIO: Dennis, can you briefly tell the board what your position is, how long you've been with the county, and briefly what your involvement with the case has been. Just, you know, if you've been on the property and things of that nature. MR. MAZZONE: For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone. I've been an investigator with code enforcement for in excess of 18 years now. I've been with the county for perhaps 22 years. I have worked using the county records, the permitting records and the property appraiser's records for all of that time. MS. BELPEDIO: Dennis-- MR. MAZZONE: Yes? MS. BELPEDIO: Sorry. Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt you. MR. MAZZONE: In this particular case, I was asked to assist the investigator, as it would take two people to measure this property, for one. And other reasons would be that I was a bit familiar with the neighborhood, and having been there myself on different occasions. 68 May 27,2004 I've never been on this particular property that -- excuse me. Never having been onto this property, but being familiar with this property, because it's a gated property. We had gained access by getting permission from the tenant. And we took our measurements, we measured it with the standard measuring device that we measure all our properties with, which is a tape measure issued to us. We did it the best we could, traversing the property, awkwardly sometimes, because there was a -- there was some water in our way, in our path, and we had to do it the best we could. But the measurements are as true and as accurate as we could have gotten. I have to say that in researching this property, we -- we're trying to come up with as much information that would be beneficial to the owner of the property as possible. We didn't want to make this any harder on him than it had to be. When we researched the information for the mobile home itself, we had in fact at that point seen a drawing submitted to Collier County for the placement of the mobile home. Supposedly it was a surveyor's type of situation where in placing that mobile home never did it show another structure as part of this overall sketch of the property. That also gave us more credence as to believing that the concrete structure simply didn't exist at one point. MS. BELPEDIO: Dennis, have you had occasion to review the property appraiser's card that was submitted in the defense package in this case? It should be similar to the -- MR. MAZZONE: Yes, I have. MS. BELPEDIO: I'm going to put it in front of you. Dennis, is this the first time that you've reviewed a property appraiser's card? MR. MAZZONE: No, I've reviewed them all through my term as an investigator. MS. BELPEDIO: Is it fair to say that you've seen hundreds or maybe even thousands of property cards in your years with Collier 69 May 27,2004 County? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, I have. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. Now, you've heard some testimony that this property may have been part of another property, and that there was a failure by the county to pull records from adjacent properties. MR. MAZZONE: Yeah. In regard to that, normally speaking, if a property has been -- has developed as the result of a bigger parcel, it's now a -- it's split into more than one parcel, those notes would be found in the upper right-hand corner, just below where the property-- where it states Section, Township and Range. It says subdivision name. And then it gives it a legal description. And just below that legal description, there's usually a notation of it being split into a smaller parcel at one point. We have found cards like that. And we would probably would have proceeded differently then. No such notes appear on this card. MS. BELPEDIO: And what is that that you're looking at identified as? Does it have an exhibit number or something on it? MR. MAZZONE: I'm going to place it on the viewer. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: You want this portion? What do you want, this? MS. BELPEDIO: And can you point out to the board where the notation would be if it existed? MR. MAZZONE: The notation would normally appear in this area, just below the legal. If it were to be split or divided, there would have been a notation on the property card. MS. BELPEDIO: I have no other questions. Thank you, Dennis. MR. MAZZONE: You're welcome. MR. MORALES: If I may -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Morales? MR. MORALES: If I may examine? 70 May 27,2004 MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. MR. MORALES: Good day, sir. With regards to the splitting of the property and the way that it's notated on this property sheet here, when exactly did the county start doing that, and notating the split of the property on the property I.D. card? MR. MAZZONE: I'm not an employee of the property appraiser's office, sir. I don't know when they would have started that practice. MR. MORALES: So it's your testimony today that you do not work for the property appraiser; is that correct? MR. MAZZONE: I do not, sir. MR. MORALES: So as far as you -- understanding how these property cards are designed and created or whatnot, you've never actually designed or created any of these property cards yourself? MR. MAZZONE: No, I'm -- I wished I had those capabilities. I don't. I'm not that talented. I merely work as a code enforcement investigator, and I take information that's been documented on cards, and I have been doing that for years and using that information. And having been familiar with the use of many cards, I've seen them where they have denoted where it's been documented that it's been changed, the parcel has been split. MR. MORALES: You've seen them where they have done that, but have they done that in all cases? Could you testify to that, that every case that a parcel's been split it would show the notation here on this record? MR. MAZZONE: I can't attest to that, no, sir. MR. MORALES: So it is possible, then, that there could have been an error here as far as the splitting of the parcel? MR. MAZZONE: There's been a lot of possibilities here that -- with the -- what you've been throwing out at us, yes, sir. MR. MORALES: Sir, you stated that you had permission from 71 May 27,2004 the tenant to go into this residence; is that correct? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, we did. MR. MORALES: And how come in your plaintiffs packet, your petitioner's packet doesn't show a copy of this notice of entry? MR. MAZZONE: One moment, please. We do have that. The investigator states that she did have that. Now, I don't know why it's not in the packet, but we do have the entry consent. I was there, and I will attest to that. I'm under oath. We gained, of course, access through the consent of the tenant. MR. MORALES: Can I request a copy of this for our records? Because we do not have any. MR. MAZZONE: Certainly, we'd be happy to provide that. Yeah, we didn't enter the mobile home, sir. We only entered onto the property. We never went inside the mobile home or the other -- or the concrete structure. We merely entered the property to take measurements from the exterior. MR. MORALES: But you entered this property with this notice that you mentioned earlier? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct, that's correct. MR. MORALES: With regards to the time you spent on this property, you stated that you were kind of brought in at the end of this case; is that correct? MR. MAZZONE: No, I never said that, sir. MR. MORALES: Okay. Could you please explain to me then, or elaborate exactly what time you had to do whatever you needed to do to prepare for today? MR. MAZZONE: I don't quite understand what you're saying. MR. MORALES: Let me clarify. I apologize. As far as -- you're here to testify on behalf of the county, correct? MR. MAZZONE: Correct. MR. MORALES: And in your testimony, you did prepare to come today to discuss the issues before this board, correct? 72 --,.- May 27,2004 MR. MAZZONE: No, sir, I did not. I'm here on another matter. MR. MORALES: You're here on another matter? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. MR. MORALES: With regards to this matter, how much time did you spend on this matter as far as your investigation, your looking at the reports, your looking at the permitting records, your looking at all that? MR. MAZZONE: Collectively, I would say two days worth of work, sir. MR. MORALES: So it's your testimony here today that you spent two days looking through all these records, looking through all these permits, looking through all this information? MR. MAZZONE: I said collectively. It's hard to calculate how many hours I spend on a particular case. I spend hours on many cases throughout the entire county for many other investigators besides myself. I can't remember how many hours I dedicated to this case. I'd say two days worth of hours, maybe three, depending on the meetings we had with your client and the time in the field and looking at the paperwork that Carol has. Just to assist in the office. I put my work aside to assist when asked. MR. MORALES: With regards to the meeting you had with my client, is it not true, sir, that when you met with my client, you told him that one of the options he had in solving this situation was to get a demolition permit and tear down that structure; isn't that correct, sir? MR. MAZZONE: We tried to explain to him that he had many options. One would be to get the administrative variance, if that were a route he would like to -- prefer to take. And then after getting the variance, he would have to get -- we tried to explain the full picture. He would still need to get the permits that aren't noted in our system, if the variance was allowed. And then he would have to get all the inspections through to a certificate of completion for that project or he would have to obtain -- we gave him the options where he would have 73 May 27,2004 to obtain a demolition permit and remove the structure. MR. MORALES: Did he not obtain this demolition permit? MR. MAZZONE: He did, yeah. MR. MORALES: And what time frame does he have to tear down this structure, according to this demolition permit? MR. MAZZONE: I don't recall when the permit -- off the top of my head when the permit was issued. But it would give him six months to accomplish that. MR. MORALES: Is it safe to say that we're still within the six-month time frame? MR. MAZZONE: I believe we are, sir. MR. MORALES: So wouldn't it be your testimony today that this is premature? I mean, if he does tear the structure down, he would be in compliance, would he not? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir, this is not premature. We're discussing permit matters here. And as you had -- you were -- part of your argument, if I recall, was that a permit may exist. We're stating that through our research and everything we've looked at, we cannot find proof that a permit does indeed exist. N or do we ever find that through the research of our -- even the oldest records for this district in the Seventies would the zoning allow for the type of setbacks that are in existence today. MR. MORALES: But with regards to the settlement you're trying to achieve with my client, one of the options was to obtain a demolition permit, correct? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. MORALES: And he did obtain a demolition permit; is that not correct? MR. MAZZONE: He obtained a permit. But part of the request was then to of course carry through the completed demolition and the removal of not only the structure but the existing -- the debris that would result. That's part of the order. 74 May 27,2004 MR. MORALES: Is it not -- MR. MAZZONE: Which he signed, by the way. MR. MORALES: Is it riot logical to say that he still has time to do what you've asked? MR. MAZZONE: It's not just logical, it's real. He does have time, yes. MR. MORALES: So in essence, ifhe does do what you've asked, then he has pretty much complied with your demands, correct? MR. MAZZONE: That's an if. Ifhe were to do that, certainly, yes. MR. MORALES: But we're not certain. At this point he could comply, correct? MR. MAZZONE: I would hope that he would, yes. MR. MORALES: No further questions. MR. MAZZONE: Any other questions by the board? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody from the board? Thank you, Dennis. MR. MAZZONE: You're welcome. MR. MORALES: In closing, if I may? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. MORALES: Again, when I first started out I stated that this is an equitable argument more than anything else. There is possibilities, and again, we're looking at this possibility, we're researching it. There's a possibility the permit may have existed. N ow whether or not you want to take what we're saying as fact is another story, but the bottom line is that there's tax revenues being assessed on this property, this man has been paying the taxes on that structure, and as a result of that, there is an equitable argument as far as that is concerned. As far as the equitable argument given the living conditions in this area, this gentleman, it would be -- he would be suffering some major hardship if he had to go through with having to tear down this 75 _.- May 27,2004 structure himself. As you can tell, he's a man of minimal means, and it's very difficult for him to do what he needs to get done in that area. But that's not to say that he cannot get that done, which leads to the third argument, which means this situation before this board is not ripe. In other words, the county itself has just submitted to you through the cross-examination testimony of this gentleman that he still has a time frame to comply. And that is part of the settlement agreement. And it is not fair to say I'm going to give you a chance to comply but then before the time frame is over I'm going to penalize you. It's not fair to say. I would suggest that the fair route would be if this board cannot find an equitable argument to help this man get past this situation, at least to give him the chance to comply within the time period that he was given. And if that time period is not met, then it would be fair to say that we would be before this board again and we'll be discussing why that was not done. But as of this point in time it is fairness, it is justiciable, it is not ripe, this claim to be before this board. So he still has his chance to comply, and I believe that if the county in good faith is trying to reach a settlement with Mr. Parsons and they have provided this as an option, they should at least allow him to achieve this option. And basically that's my closing. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Morales, we did ask Mr. Parsons when he obtained that demolition permit, and he did not give us an answer. He said he didn't remember. MR. MORALES: Ifhe may-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's dated-- MR. MORALES: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and that's fine. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Morales. Does the county want to have a closing? 76 ._-~- May 27,2004 MS. SYKORA: As a result of that demo permit, yes, he did, in March, March 8th, 2004. But after obtaining the permit I talked to Mr. Parsons, and he advised me that he couldn't afford to demolish this, that it was going to cost too much money after he talked to Waste Management. Then an issue about permits on the property card was brought up to a supervisor, and then I advised that those were checked out at the beginning of this case, almost a year ago. So it's been like this off and on. And so unable to make up -- after the permit meeting he decided to get the demo permit within a week or so. Then he decided that that was going to be too expensive. So that is why I prepared it for the board. And amongst, he was mentioning selling the property. So I thought I best get it here, let a decision be made and end it that way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. MS. BELPEDIO: Mr. Flegal, I'd like to make a brief legal closing argument and then have Michelle complete the closing argument with the facts. I think you've heard throughout this case that it's common knowledge that the permits don't exist. Everybody knows that Collier County records aren't very good and they're not perfect and we can all admit that. I think that's what you're hearing. I would submit to you that that's all speculation, that's just one person's opinion. You have not heard any evidence that Collier County records are not complete. You have not heard any witness, any records custodians come in and say the records are not good and valid. The county has made their prima facie case because we checked the records. You heard the investigator state that the records were thoroughly checked and she did not find permits for the concrete structure. According to case law, the burden then shifts to the property owner to rebut the presumption that there are no records. Again, I have not heard any evidence that the records are incomplete. 77 May 27,2004 Therefore, the county has met its burden and there is competent and substantial evidence to support a finding of violation for the permits. Secondly, I've heard some -- you know, some argument that, you know, there's doubts, there's reasonable doubts. I want to remind this board that this is a civil proceeding, this is not a criminal proceeding. In criminal proceedings the county or the state would have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not the case here. Here it is by a preponderance of the evidence. That is 51 percent, by the greater weight of the evidence. So if you believe more than likely that not a violation exists, you can find that there is a violation. Another thing that was I believe raised is that, you know, the property appraiser has assessed the property over a number of years and collected taxes. I think this board may know, but I'd like to just make argument for the record that the property appraiser's is not the county. The property appraiser is a separate constitutional officer who appraises the property for tax purposes. There is no evidence in the record that somehow, because the property appraiser, a separate authority, has picked up the property that the county has authorized development. I haven't heard anything to that effect. You all know that that's not the case. Another thing that was raised is that there's some sort of equitable argument, equitable estoppel. And that usually occurs when there was some representation by the county that was relied upon to the detriment of the property owner, and that reliance was justified. I have not heard any evidence that somehow the county represented to this property owner or a prior property owner that these structures in question were lawful. And the last legal argument that I have to make is to point you to the case law that was provided in the defense package. I'm of the opinion that these cases discuss vested rights, and the facts in these cases show that someone had applied for a permit, and while a permit was pending, the law changed. 78 May 27,2004 Now, we have provisions in the Collier County Land Development Code that talks about vested rights and applications. I think the arguments that opposing counsel's trying to make is more along the lines of legally nonconforming. I don't believe that he's met his burden. It's for the defense to show that the property has been legally conforming. And as you may know, that occurs when a property, a structure was lawful and then the regulations changed, rendering it unlawful. I haven't heard anything about regulations changing and somehow now the structure is unlawful but it wasn't before. I haven't heard that. So for all those reasons, I don't believe legally there is any defenses. I don't believe the evidence exists. MR. MAZZONE: If I may rebut the legal closing, because we did a factual closing, now it seems that we're having a legal closing as well. I'm just going straight back to the point that we mentioned earlier. Legally speaking, the county is giving him an option to comply and he's made in good faith to make that option in the sense that he's applied for the demolition permit, regardless of what hearsay conversation he may have, which is not admissible in any court of law, where he might have stated whether or not he mayor may not be able to comply with this thing. He still has a time to comply. He may win the Lotto tomorrow. Or he may have a rich relative or he may have someone that might be able to help him out. He might have someone in the construction business. He still has that amount of time to comply. So if anything, we're asking from a legal standpoint if this thing can at least be adjourned until past that time. In other words, given the option to meet the settlement offer that was proposed by the county that he is trying to meet. Now, if he didn't get the permit, if he didn't go for the demolition permit, that's one thing. But he went for the demolition permit and 79 May 27,2004 he's still in the process of trying to get this thing resolved. So just -- I mean, if we can boil this down to everything that we discussed here today, everything, we can look at this one option that nobody is contradicting here, that everybody is pretty much meeting the burden on, and that is that there was a settlement offer on the table, it was taken, and now he still hasn't a the chance to finish up what he started. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I close the public hearings on this item, and we'll be doing our debate. Comment for my members. Remember that we're here because the county has said that in this case there are no permits for the items presented to us as violations. We've heard testimony from the county and from the respondent. We've been given the evidence and the exhibits from both sides. I'm -- what was not given to us to read and see, we cannot consider. There's been talk of some kind of an agreement that was not presented to us. So as far as we're concerned, having not been given that agreement, that agreement can't be considered. Nobody read the agreement to us, nobody gave it to us as an exhibit. Remember that before us is violation of the code, and did we hear sufficient evidence from both sides to make us believe that there is or there is not a violation of the code. MS. DUSEK: Before I make a motion, Michelle, I did not get Sections 2.2.10.4. That was the only one I didn't review. And I just wondered if you could read that, or someone could read that to make sure that that is part of this violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two point -- what was it again? MS. DUSEK: 2.2.10.4. MS. BELPEDIO: Ms. Dusek, that reminds me, I had promised-- MS. DUSEK: I'm sorry? I didn't hear you. MS. BELPEDIO: I would withdraw my inquiry. MR. PONTE: Before a motion is made, there are just a couple of 80 ~'---- May 27,2004 things here I think to consider. Violations may exist as they involve the Ted's Shed structure. Those are rather clear. We didn't hear very much testimony about those. And we do have and did receive testimony from Investigator Mazzone -- MS. ARNOLD: Could you put your mic closer? MR. PONTE: And we did receive testimony from Investigator Mazzone that there is still time on the demolition permit for that demolition to occur within the terms of the permit. Are you suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that because we didn't see the permit that that is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, what was given -- what was talked about a lot was there was some kind of agreement between the county and the respondent to do this. But as I understood what Mr. Mazzone said was there was a meeting and this was one of the suggested ways to solve a problem, you know, get a variance or get a permit. And on the respondent's side they keep saying that there was some kind of written agreement. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we haven't seen that, so we don't know that that exists. Now, he does in fact -- there is a copy of a permit in here, and that's -- but at the same time the respondent stood up under oath and said he couldn't afford to tear the building down. His lawyer under oath said the exact same thing, but then turned around and tried to use the argument that it's a hardship to tear the building down. And then in closing he turned around and said oh, well, but he could win the lottery . Well, we could all be dead tomorrow, too, and that's a great thing, but right now the idea is what does the evidence say, does he or does he not have the required permits that he needs to be in compliance with the code? MR. PONTE: Yeah, there were a lot -- there are a couple of issues here. He has the permit that allows him to demolish the building. The respondent also vacated the building. There are no 81 May 27,2004 people there renting, and haven't been since January. So he's attempting to come into compliance. There are violations, I would assume, that exist in the Ted's Shed property because of wiring and plumbing. But at the moment I think we are premature in going forward against the respondent regarding the cement structure. He has time to demolish it, perhaps as much as three months, from what has been suggested, and by whatever means. He might be able to come up with the money, perhaps could even change his mind and decide to do it. Or it becomes part or contingent on the possible sale of the property. So I think we have to look at the violations that exist now, and the cement structure doesn't violate anything because he has a permit to demolish it that's still effective. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not true. He's in violation, and until he tears it down he is in violation. He has a permit to tear it down. But until he actually tears it down, he's in violation of not having a permit. The fact that he went to get a permit to tear it down just means he's thinking about a way to resolve his violation. But the violation exists until the structure disappears. And since it's been brought before us we can't just set it aside. He either is in violation, and if we would order him to do something, part of the order would maybe be enough time to reach the end of the demolition permit. If he has three months left, say we gave him 90 days to comply, he already has his permit and that's fine. So we could take that into consideration. But he is in violation of the ordinances, and until he removes the structure, he remains in violation. The fact that he just got a permit doesn't mean, oh, well, now I'm in compliance. No, the building still sits there. Until it disappears, it's a violation. MR. PONTE: No, he's not in compliance, but he's working towards compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But he's still in violation, because we didn't order him to tear the building down or get -- we haven't ordered him to do anything yet. That's supposedly some 82 ---. May 27,2004 agreement between he and the county that we really don't know about. He just ran out and got a permit to demolish it. Okay, that's nice, but you're still in violation, as far as we're concerned. It looks like you're working toward it. It's like the gentleman who cut the grass. He cut half of his yard but he didn't cut the other half. Yeah, he's trying to abate it but he didn't, so we told him abate it in seven days. This is the same thing. We think he's trying to solve the problem because he went and got a permit to demolish it. But he hasn't done it yet, so he's still in violation. And that's the way that works, okay? Until he actually does it, he's still in violation. MS. ARNOLD: The section that you-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifwe find him in violation. MS. ARNOLD: The section that you asked about was 2.2.10.2; is that the one? MS. DUSEK: No, it was 2.10.4. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have -- we go beyond the .4, but we don't have actual .4. We don't know if that says something specific as an opening paragraph or whatever. MR. BOWIE: What we have begins with 4.3, I believe, but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't have actual-- MR. BOWIE: -- it seems to be all the relevant provisions that relate to this, however. MS. DUSEK: I'm sure that it is. MS. ARNOLD: We don't have it. MS. DUSEK: Since we haven't seen it, do we eliminate that? MS. RAWSON: Unfortunately, I don't have it either, because it was not in my packet, and I don't have the entire Land Development Code here. MS. DUSEK: So we eliminate that? MR. BOWIE: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, since we don't know what it says 83 --, May 27,2004 MS. ARNOLD: There's -- it's not 2.10, it's 2.2.10. MS. DUSEK: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2.2.10.4. MS. DUSEK: 2.2.10.4. MS. ARNOLD: It should be on your Page 34, or twen -- wait, let's see -- 24. Page 24. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 24 starts at 2.2.10.4.3. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And what are you looking for? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you took the three off, 2.2.10.4. MR. BOWIE: Which is also referenced here too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, yeah. .3 is referenced, but you stop at 4. And I don't know if there's -- sometimes the -- that may be the opening heading of a section or article, and then you go into the further breakdown, and sometimes it actually has its own paragraph that says you must do the following. And we don't know what it says. That's why the question. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. I'd like to read to you LDC Section 2.2.10.4: Dimensional standards. The following dimensional standards shall apply to all permitted, accessory and conditional uses in the mobile home district -- in parentheses it says MH -- and the provisions that follow mention minimum lot area, minimum lot width, yard requirements, front yard, side yard and things of that nature. Would you like to see a copy of this sheet? MS. DUSEK: That's all right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we just needed to know what it said so we know can we make a decision, is he in fact in violation or not. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus George and Sandra Parsons, CEB Case No. 2004-025, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6,1.8.7,2.1.11,2.1.15, Paragraph 1,2.2.10, subsections 2.2.10.2.1,2.2.10.4,2.2.10.4.3.2,2.2.10.4.3.3, and 2.7.6, Paragraphs 1,2,3,5 and 6 of Ordinance No. 91-102 of 84 May 27,2004 Collier County. The description of the violation: The existence of a prohibited second residential use of a 60-foot by 125-foot (sic) single lot in a mobile home district in Collier County known as Lot 48 of Township 51, Section 15, Range 26 of Collier County record, also known as 48 Moon Bay Street, Naples, Florida. The second structure is a concrete block with related porch and deck improvements exceeding Collier County setback requirements; the existence of an 8 by 10 aluminum laundry facility not meeting setback requirements. All above noted structures, improvements and use not having received Collier County zoning and planning review and approval, not having received Collier County building permits, inspections or a certificate of occupancy, constituting a violation of Collier County mobile home zoning district regulations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The only thing I'd like you to add is when you said Ordinance 91-102, would you put as amended? MS. DUSEK: As amended. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that motion. MS. RAWSON: Just one correction for the record. I think it's 60 by 165, and I think you might have said 125, unless I misheard you. MS. DUSEK: I might. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. 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: Order of the board. 85 May 27,2004 George, I think here is the place that -- MR. PONTE: This is where it's going to get interesting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if you want to consider that, you know, he's gone and got himself a permit and there's still time existing, this is when you would -- MR. PONTE: Certainly is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you know, put in enough time period to allow that to reach its expiration date. Let's see what date it started. MS. DUSEK: It appears from the recommendation that the only recommendation in here is for a building permit. We -- at least I am under the assumption that he will not be able to get a building permit, unless he goes for a variance. So I think we have to look at that very carefully. And if he does the demolition, if my calculations are right, he has until September for whatever date it started in March. MR. BOWIE: September 9th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it's dated, approved 3/9. MR. LEFEBVRE: You got it today. MS. DUSEK: Okay, I do remember. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He has till 9/9/04. That's when his permit runs out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Today is what, 5/27? MS. DUSEK: September 9th you said? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, that's when his six months is up on the permit. What I'm -- MR. BOWIE: About 90 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It works out to be about 99, so I said 100. What I'm thinking of is he needs -- there's two options. He can submit everything and go for a variance and get it, or remove the structure. That's pretty much the only two options. So what I'm looking at, in line with the recommendation, I do 86 May 27,2004 fine until I get down to after the word encroachment where it goes within 60 days. I would probably at that point put in the other option, or remove the structure. I mean, he's already got a permit so all you would have to say is or remove the structure within -- and then we insert the proper date for the permit, which if we round it and said 100 days, that's when his demolition permit dies. MS. DUSEK: I also think that still giving him the option to do the variance, that this should all be within that 100-day period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. BOWIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying we need to add that in, give him the option to get the variance and/or remove the structure within 100 days from this hearing. Ifhe doesn't do either, then if you want to impose some type of fine, that's when that will start. MR. PONTE: You want to -- when you talk about demolishing it, you also want to I think make sure that the respondent knows that the debris has to be removed. So it's not just demolishing it, it's moving the debris. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, well, yes. Ifhe leaves that there-- MR. BOWIE: That's part of the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think the permit includes cleaning the site. And then following along, getting all the inspections and COs, if those are -- either/or are applicable within "X" after such and such. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make this motion then. I'd move that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and either abate all by submitting a complete and sufficient application for building permits for the concrete block structure and the structure containing the laundry facility, including any required variance or setback encroachments within 100 days from the date of this hearing, 87 May 27, 2004 or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violations continue. And further, must obtain all inspections and certificate of completion within 60 days after obtaining the required permits or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violations continue. Or alternatively, respondent may remove and demolish, within 100 days from the date of this hearing, all of the non-permitted or nonconforming structures or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, are you in -- on board with us there? MS. RAWSON: I am. I just haven't figured out what 100 days from now is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, probably works out to September 10th. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. Yes, I got the rest. MR. PONTE: I wasn't clear on the -- clear enough on the 100 days. Then we slipped him to 60 days. MR. BOWIE: That's ifhe gets the variance-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's if he gets the variance. MR. BOWIE: -- then he must implement that. MR. PONTE: Obtain all inspections and certificate of completion within 60 days. MR. BOWIE: And that's 60 days beyond that point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that's -- if he gets -- if he goes the variance route and he gets his permits, then he has 60 days after he gets the permits for the variance, he's got to do all his inspections and everything. MR. BOWIE: Get his inspections and the final certificate. 88 May 27, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what we're trying to say. MS. DUSEK: And Michelle, is that a -- let's assume he decides to do the variance. Is 100 days a reasonable time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but he can come back and ask for an extension if he actually -- MR. BOWIE: Has it in motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- goes in motion and is scheduled to go before the Board of County Commissioners. Because it is a long process. So we would expect, I would think, at that time if he's going that direction that his attorney would come before us and say we're going this route and we don't want you to impose the fine, could we get an extension before you impose the fine. And I'm sure, having been told that, that we would be amenable to making a change. But until that actually occurs -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the board said obtain a variance or permits -- obtain permits and any applicable variance within 100 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think that should be sufficient. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If it's not, on the variance side, again, he can come before us. His attorney can come back. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, if they've submitted something and, you know, it's being delayed, you know, for no fault of their own, you know, the county's delaying a decision or whatever, that would be noted anyway from staffs perspective, because they have no control over what county's time frame is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So everybody's on board with -- MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) 89 May 27, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Gentlemen, you understand? MR. MORALES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. Cherie', you need a break? Let's take a quick five minutes, would that work? Cherie', you need more? Ten? All right, we'll give 10 minutes. It's 12:03. 12:13. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we'll call the cord -- excuse me, I can't even say it now, we've had a break. I call the board back to order, please. Shouldn't take a break. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I want to make a couple requests to modify the agenda a little bit further. We have two more public hearings. One of the respondents is not here. The other one is here. So if we could hear that one next? And I understand that we are going to probably be losing our quorum by two -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- so if we could hear those items where the respondents are present, move those up. Under Item 6.A.1, Mr. Johnson is here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Ms. Hall is here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And Mr. Carter is here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, that's the order they're in on my sheet anyway. MS. ARNOLD: But I'm just saying if we can hear those before the second public hearing, the other public hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? Do you want to amend the agenda to hear the Martel case and 90 May 27,2004 then after the Martel case close the public hearings and move -- drop down to new business and hear the motions or requests for extensions of time, and then after that go back to the public hearings, if there's still time? MR. PONTE: I think -- I make a motion we just follow Michelle's lead here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I forgot, two other respondents are here. And I apologize, Mr. Bass. Mr. Bass is representing Dixon Towing, as well as Mr. Wooten. So we've got Item 6.B.3 and 9, if we can hear those as well, too. MS. HILTON: And also, the respondent, Mr. Haeger, is here as well. MS. ARNOLD: Oh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So-- MR. BOWIE: Maybe we need to ascertain from the board members how long each of us can be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have two members that have to leave by 2:00, so -- MR. BOWIE: I'm going to have to leave about 1 :30. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So what we're going to do is in addition to what I just said under 6.B, we're going to have Wooten, Haeger and Dixon move to the top of the list so we can do those, and then fall back to the public hearing, if there's still any time. Anybody have a problem with that? MS. DUSEK: Now, are we hearing the one? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we're going to hear one public hearing right now, and then go into these other items so that we can get everybody out. And if we run out of time -- MR. BOWIE: It sure would be helpful -- it sure would be helpful if all of those who are appearing here today could observe succinctness, please. 91 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Stay on, stay on point. MR. BOWIE: Please, to the point. We don't need any Perry Masonisms here. Please get to the point, say what you need to say, please. It will help everybody. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Help yourself and help us, because if we run out of time, you'll be back here next month. So I need a motion to adjust the agenda as we have just discussed. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we amend the agenda as just discussed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to amend the agenda as we have just discussed. Any further discussion? (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: Okay. Let's hit the -- we'll open the public hearings and do Case 2004-014, Board of County Commissioners versus Claude Martel. MS. HILTON: The respondent is present in the courtroom. And this is Board of County Commissioners versus Jean Claude Martel, CEB Case No. 2004-014. And we have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. 92 May 27,2004 MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Ordinance 99-58, amending Ordinance 89-06, Section 6, of the Collier County Housing Ordinance. The description of the violation: Failure to complete, submit and obtain a rental registration certificate for rental units. Location where violation exists: 3175 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, and 3176 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Jean Claude Martel, 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: August 19, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: August 21, 2003. Date in which violation was to be corrected: August 27, 2003. Date of reinspection: May 26, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And at this time I'd like to turn the case over to the investigator, J eanne Nadeau, to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. NADEAU: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Investigator Jeanne Nadeau with Collier County Code Enforcement. On August 19th, 2003 I received an action order for properties not having rental registrations on file with Collier County at the address of 3175 Karen Drive and 3176 Karen Drive. After researching our computer system, the CD Plus, and the tax collector's records, I found that Mr. Jean Claude Martel was the owner of the two 93 May 27, 2004 properties in question. I tried to call Mr. Martel several times on the 11th and 18th of August, 2003, and the phone line was busy each time. I then had a notice of violation mailed to Mr. Martel on the 18th of August. On the 26th of August, I received a green card back with his signature. On September 9, 2003, I checked our rental registration again. Still nothing on file. On October 15th, 2003, a CEB warning letter was sent out to Mr. Martel. On November 13th, 2003, I observed that Mr. Martel was still not in compliance, he was still in violation. On December 18th, 2003, I phoned Mr. Martel and advised him he would be going to the CEB for not registering his rental properties with code enforcement, as required by the Collier County Housing Ordinance. On January 28th, the violation still remained. And I checked with Indira Raja, the rental registration technician, and still no registration. The owner at this point had plenty of time to comply, and in February of 2004, the case was placed in the CEB. The owner then stated to me that he would not come into compliance, that he pays enough money to the county in taxes. On March 9, 2004, I went to Mr. Martel's residence with my supervisor, Shawn Luedtke, and issued a notice of violation to him. I again asked him if his property is being rented. He stated yes, and he was not going to pay any more money to the county. On April 8th, 2004, I again visited with Mr. Martel at his residence and asked him again if his properties at 3175 and 3176 Karen Drive were being rented. He stated yes, and that he still was not going to pay any more money to the county, that he pays enough in taxes. On May 10th, 2004, I again visited Mr. Martel at his residence and asked if the properties in question were still being rented. He 94 May 27,2004 stated yes, and he was not going to pay any more money to the county. MR. PONTE: Jeanne, how many properties are involved here? How many rental units? MS. NADEAU: Two in this one, sir: 3175 and 3176 Karen-- MR. PONTE: I didn't know if there might be multiple units at each of those addresses. MS. NADEAU: They're mobile homes-- MR. PONTE: I see. MS. NADEAU: -- across the street from each other. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? MR. MARTEL: Voila, is that my turn? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not yet. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Would you like to swear Mr. Martel in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MARTEL: I went to pay the registration out there and they keep going up and going up, and I got fed up with it. And I give them $40 for each rental now. That's ridiculous. My tax went up $1,000 a year last year, you know, and that put me short, you know. And I pay $7,000 a year property taxes. You know, looks like you're going to raise up every year, you know, it's ridiculous, you know. You can't live no more. I told them, I said I gave them $10, I offer them $10 for each property. That's what it used to cost, you know, in the -- I said you got to -- it was $30 last year. Now they want $40 this year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is that all you have to tell us? MR. MARTEL: Pretty well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's fine. I mean, if that's -- 95 May 27,2004 Ms. Nadeau, you may sit down. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that all you have to say, sir? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Martel? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: You say that it's -- the taxes are $7,000? On what? I'm looking at the tax -- MR. MARTEL: Eight piece of property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because I'm looking at the two -- in the exhibit here, it's Page Number 15, and it states that gross tax on the first one for -- let me see if I get the right address. Let's see, incorrect address. MR. BOWIE: 3175. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, thank you. Gross tax $917.24. And you flip to the next page, Page 16, and this is for 3176 Karen Drive. It states the taxes are $1,214.18. MR. MARTEL: That's the highest one right there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. That adds up to like 2,131 and some change. That doesn't add up to $7,000. And I -- is it correct that you -- did you pay your $30 last year? MR. MARTEL: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: You didn't pay the registration fee for last year then. Were they rented last year? MR. MARTEL: Huh? MR. LEFEBVRE: Were they rented last year? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Are they rented now? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martel? 96 May 27,2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You may sit down. MR. MARTEL: Huh? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can sit down now. I close the public hearings on this case and move to finding of fact by the board, if in fact a violation exists. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Jean Claude Martel, CEB Case No. 2004-014, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Ordinance No. 99-58, amending Ordinance 89-06, Section 6 of the Collier County Housing Ordinance. Description of the violation: Failure to complete, submit and obtain a rental registration certificate for rental units. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. 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: Order of the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and that the respondent complete and submit for each property its own rental registration certificate within five business days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day for each property will be incurred until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further 97 May 27, 2004 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: Mr. Martel, do you understand? We've told you -- we're ordering you that you have to pay. You have five business days, which makes it by next Friday. If you don't pay, we're going to institute a fine of $50 a day for every day that it continues, okay? We'll close the public hearings section and move to new business, and the request for extensions or motions for extensions. And the first one is Steven Johnson. Are you Mr. Johnson, sir? Okay. Dennis, if you'll be sworn in, we'll do both of you at the same time. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Johnson, you're first, since it's your request. MR. JOHNSON: I come in front of this board roughly -- it's been better than 90 days. They give me 90 days to remove some debris and have a roofover permitted and finalized, which I have done. My roofover has been permitted. It has been final inspected. And the day that it was done, Mr. Mazzone was called and told it was done. Since you don't want nobody to be a Perry Mason, I'm just going to cut it short. I have a picture of what my property did look like. Mr. Mazzone got 5,000 pictures of what my property looks like today. And I've done everything that the board's asked me to do, except I've still got a little more stuff to remove. And I just need some more time. Mr. Mazzone says he's not going to ever close my case, so I don't know how much time I need. You'll have to ask him about that. 98 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, since you're the one removing it, you tell us how much time you need. MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'm going to have to go out of town and work for a few days. It'll be another week or two before I can get started back. I've got a couple of trailer loads of stuff to remove off the property. And then everything else I got is under roof. And if that's a violation, everything around me is a violation, so I don't know. I have here a copy of something that the county put out. I seen it about a year ago and it just surfaced again. And according to the county codes, and this is something that the county's put out, everything around where I live, every place down there is a violation. So I don't know if I can ever bring it up to code or not, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. For clarification, let me ask a couple questions. I assume you're asking for an extension of time. Our order said you had to be in compliance by April 20th. MR. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So since we're at the end of May, you're already out of compliance. And what you're saying is you need some more time yet. MR. JOHNSON: Well, that's because the board -- this is the first time I could get in front of the board since I've asked for this to be done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just want to clarify -- MR. JOHNSON: I understand that I'm over the limit. But that's not my fault the board didn't convene before today that I could get in front of them, evidently. I had requested a hearing in the time limit that I was given. It was right there at the end, but I did request. This is the first time they said I could get in here since I've asked. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: And basically I can't sell my property with 99 May 27,2004 fines against it. If I could sell it, I'd sell it, go away and leave this county alone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else you'd like to tell us? MR. JOHNSON: I'd just like to go to lunch. Let's all go to lunch. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We would, too. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Johnson, I just have a question. Here I am. What else has to be done on your property, specifically, from what you were asked to do? MR. JOHNSON: All right, I was asked to get my roof permitted and finalized, which I did. I was asked to remove my deck, which I did. I had a boat lift in my yard that I had planned on putting up at a later date when I could afford a permit. It's on a trailer now. Everything I've got is basically on a licensed trailer to be removed. I'm moving everything out of this county to central Florida. So it takes me a while to make a load. I have seven trailer loads in another county just to get it out of this county. I have no plans on ever bringing it back here. Anything I've removed is gone. Now, I do have a couple of vehicles that are unlicensed. Where the people are, there's no phone lines. I've got to get ahold of an estate and try to get ahold of some paperwork. I am going to remove them out of this county. But at $2.06 a gallon, I'm not doing a whole lot of driving lately. MS. DUSEK: You've done your permitting? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am. I've got a copy of the permit, the CO number, all that crap here. And I'd also like to say, I have a picture of what my place looked like. And I think Dennis Mazzone will tell you, it don't look nothing like no more. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let me ask a question of the county. Michelle, I see he's under the request for extension of time, 100 --- May 27, 2004 but also we have a request by the county coming up to impose fines, and you're imposing the fines because he's past the time limit. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And he's not in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, okay. So I guess I'm -- I understand what he's saying. I'm more prone, I think, for the board to consider when we get to the imposition of fines -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, if I may, Dennis Mazzone has some information with respect to, you know, whether or not some of the issues that he's indicating he's done has actually been done to the extent that he says it's been done. So if we can just have Dennis kind of speak to Mr. Johnson's comments. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm prone not to change orders, personally, but -- do you have anything to tell us, sir, before we let the county tell us their side? MR. JOHNSON: Well, when I first come in here today, the issue of committing perjury, does that include code enforcement's also? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As far as we're concerned, it's everybody . Nobody gets -- MR. JOHNSON: All right, I have something on tape. The County Commissioners has it, the Sheriffs Department has it and the state has it. I'll give you -- I'll send this board a copy of the tape. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't help you there, you need to go to them. MR. JOHNSON: I will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't help you there. You're in the wrong place to do that, so -- MR. JOHNSON: I just want to make sure that it includes code enforcement officers also. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It includes everybody, as far as I understand it. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No special treatment. Are you done, 101 May 27,2004 sir? MR. JOHNSON: Yep. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, you may sit down, sir. Dennis? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. For the record, Dennis Mazzone, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. The three situations which Mr. Johnson has been cited for are still in violation, according to my last visit, which was yesterday. Mr. Johnson was originally noticed one year and nine days from today. It's been over a year that we've asked Mr. Johnson to comply, giving him plenty of time. The violation of the -- for -- regarding permits, indeed, Mr. Johnson has obtained a permit and the CO for the roofover. The permit request by us was also to include a deck, which Mr. Johnson is still in the process of removing. That deck is just partially removed. And as it sits, it poses somewhat of a dangerous situation to anybody on that property. The boards that he has removed have been stored in the yard area as used lumber. And some of the other items in the yard being stored would include an engine block that's been there repeatedly, and we've been photographing, and other numerous items that we -- one would not normally not find in one's yard that we consider to be litter or improperly stored items. As far as the use of the property, that's still in violation. It has not changed. He's storing recreational equipment, unlicensed vehicles, boats, trailers and such, not only on his front yard and side yards, but on the neighboring yard immediately to the north of him, he's still doing that. They are his equipment. Some of them are licensed to him. He's admitted that they are his equipment. And on my recheck yesterday, I obtained four sworn statements from the local sheriffs office while I was there. They are the ones that -- I didn't ask for these, they provided them to me. The statements are from the citizens of Plantation Island which attest to the fact that Mr. Johnson, indeed, 102 May 27, 2004 he's been moving items off of his property, but onto property -- neighboring properties that have been left abandoned because either the people are away on vacation or at their permanent homes, or they're just not there for whatever the reason. But we even ran the tags on one of the vehicles stored there to further confirm that these statements would be accurate, that they are Mr. Johnson's. They say there are eyewitnesses that Mr. Johnson placed these items there, and they are numerous. The tag comes back -- license plate F60 FET comes back to Mr. Johnson, and it is indeed his pickup stored on another property with vehicle parts in the back of it. There's an abandoned boat that Mr. Johnson has left adrift. It is now lodged, creating a hazard at another neighboring property. The neighbors are just beside themselves. They've gone to the state to ask for assistance here to try to get that boat out of the water. It's full of dismembered trailer -- boat trailer parts and rusted other parts that Mr. Johnson put in this boat, from what the neighbors are saying. And they swear to that in these four statements. I would like to see Mr. Johnson comply, of course, but I wouldn't give any additional time to do this. I think he's got ample time. MR. JOHNSON: Can I answer that? Because just what he said, the boat he's talking about does not belong to me, and it never did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Just let the county have their say, you had yours. Let's hear what they have to say first. MR. MAZZONE: In closing, I'd just like to say that as far as the boat and the equipment that's being stored on neighboring properties, they are not my words, they are the words of the residents who have sworn on these statements that they witnessed Mr. Johnson placing this, taking it from his property and storing it so it would not be seen by the county and so that we would then see that his property was clear of these items. But even in spite of these items being removed, his property still remains in violation, with numerous equipment being stored 103 May 27,2004 improperly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Dennis, are you going to -- the statement that you say you received from the sheriffs department or whatever, are you going to submit those as evidence? MR. MAZZONE: Sir, I don't know if that's appropriate, but they certainly are yours if you wish them. They may -- I will submit them, yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I ask you that because you've -- basically what you're telling us is hearsay. If you want to submit sworn statements by somebody as evidence, you should. MR. MAZZONE: Then I do at this time submit these as evidence that these are violations remaining. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do we have a motion to accept the county's evidence? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's evidence. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's evidence consisting of these sworn statements. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else, Dennis? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the request for an extension of time. MR. PONTE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request for an extension. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying 104 May 27,2004 aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next request, Diana Hall. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. HALL: I approached today and asked for an extension. On or about September 25th, the board panel met on the behalf that I had a violation of abandoned building. I've since obtained the permit, brought the property under code, and I ask that, you know, I be granted and extension for -- to complete the project and bring it to a CO, and that the fines be waived at this time. I started the -- when I started the building process, I resided in Gainesville, Knoxville County, and in the middle of the project, you know, I had a lot of vandalism and people going in stealing and carrying on. But it was hard to manage from Alachua here. And I had a subcontractor that was supposedly taking care of the business for me that panned out to be not so credible as I thought. But, you know, that was just a loss that I had to suffer. Along the way, I incorporated other people to try and, you know, submit bids to complete this proj ect, and to no avail. I relocated my family here. I live here now. And I am financially doing as much as I can with what I can to bring this under compliance that everything will be situated and I can get it completed as soon as possible. And I ask if I shall that, you know, if I be granted like six or seven months, that my permit is still active and it had been extended on, and I'm continuing to work faithfully to get it completed in time. And if you all would take under consideration all things above and give me an extension, I'll greatly appreciate it. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. Jeff Letourneau, the investigator on this case, is unable to be 105 ._---^'~_." May 27,2004 here. But he did indicate to me that Mrs. Hall is working towards compliance. I just wanted to note that as a part of the board's order, it ordered the county to board the facility if permits weren't obtained. We actually -- a permit had been obtained within the time period noted by the board. However, we did not see any activity, and I think that was the time period that Ms. Hall was moving down here or whatever. So we proceeded, in accordance with the board's order, to board up the facility. And as a part of the fine that is being proposed today is to include that expense for boarding up the structure; however, we don't have any objections, because of the situation, removing that as a part of the penalty at this particular time, because of what the investigator has indicated to us in terms of what Ms. Hall was able to do and what she's since been able to do since she's moved to the county . CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The previous case and this one, we were dealing with extensions of time. We hadn't got into the impositions of fine, and they kind of both overlap and that -- so I guess you're asking us to do two things: Give you an extension of time of our order, and not impose the fines that the county's asking us to impose at this time. You're asking us to do two things. MS. HALL: That's correct, sir. I thought that, you know, because it was late coming up, next, that we were pushed for time, that I would ask for an extension. In addition, you know, ask that the fines be waived and that the continuing accrual of daily fines would not be assessed to, you know, what is brought here to the court today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that -- MR. PONTE: Additionally she's asking for the cost of the boarding up to be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Michelle has said that she would forego that. But I want -- we need to do two things, okay? First, do we want to amend our order to grant an extension of time? If we do 106 May 27,2004 that, that would automatically eliminate any fine the county is asking to impose, because we're changing our time. Otherwise, what we could do is if we don't amend our order to give her more time but we don't impose any fines, they just continue to run, and at some point when she is done we can either waive all the fines or fine or something. But anyway, so there's two things you need to do, and you need to think about that as you're listening to what she and the county are saYIng. So there's two separate issues. And if you do amend the order, you would automatically eliminate the imposition of any fine, because it was supposed to be complied with back in I think December or something like that. So if you move it forward, this is already the end of May, so you'd have to move it to -- and she just said she'd like another six months or so. So now we're down to getting to November or December of this year. So if you would amend your order to move it that far forward, you automatically eliminate the county requesting that we impose any fines, because they would be moot at this point. She wouldn't be out of compliance. MS. HALL: Sir, if I could just say something, that when the original order was put into place, I had a proposed person that was going to complete the dwelling, which turned out to be a scam for me to sign the property over so he could just take it from me. And I just took it upon myself to step in as pro se and address the court, you know, in writing, because I was not able to be here because I thought he was doing what, you know, legally should have been being done. But, you know, you can only trust a person with as much faith as you can put into them. So I took it upon myself to not to ignore the code by not being present and not addressing it in some kind of written form. But I did address the court in a written form. And now I'm asking you today that because I am physically doing it myself, if you would extend the time 107 May 27,2004 and it would automatically eliminate the fines that I can bring it under compliance in a timely manner. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, ma'am. MR. BOWIE: Let me ask you, ma'am, do you have an owner/builder permit now for this property? MS. HALL: Yes, I have a owner/builder permit that's active. MR. BOWIE: You're on-site supervising all of the contractors? MS. HALL: Yes, sir. And it's going on as we speak. MS. DUSEK: Now, if I understand it, Michelle, you all weren't aware that she had the building permit and you went ahead and boarded up? MS. ARNOLD: Well, no, we knew that the permit was obtained, however, we didn't note any activity going on, so -- the permit was actually obtained in November, and, you know, in reviewing the order, it said proceed with activity with respect to -- MS. DUSEK: But it says that if the respondent has not taken any action to comply with Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1 says by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit application. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. HALL: I did that. MS. DUSEK: So it appears to me that she did do Number 1 and that Number 6 should not have taken place. MS. ARNOLD: But no, it says also in Number 6, it says 1 or 2. MS. HALL: Well, the man should have gave me an option. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's not argue a technical point, because first we need to decide, are we going to grant an extension. If we do that, this all dies anyway. And -- you know. So first -- that's why we have to split them. You just can't make a decision that we're going to start waiving costs. First her request is to amend our order to give her more time. Let's do that first. Do we want to -- you know. Do you have anything else to tell us, ma'am? 108 May 27, 2004 MS. HALL: No more than I already said, you know. As long as everybody's clear on what I'm asking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we are, ma'am. You may sit down. Thank you. So now what the board has to decide is do you want to amend the order based on what she has told us and what the county has told us. That's number one. And if, if you don't amend the order to give her more time, then she has asked that we waive the cost and then we need to consider do we want to waive any costs and how much. And I know Michelle has said as far as the boarding up, the county is willing to forego that part of it, and only that part of it. So there's two steps, but let's take the first step. Does the board want to amend the order and grant more time? That's the thing you should think of first. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the request to an extension of time, and I would put that time at three months. MR. BOWIE: Three months to do what? MS. DUSEK: To complete her -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Complete our original order, I guess. MR. BOWIE: To get a certificate of occupancy for this? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. BOWIE: I don't think that's going to happen. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'm just starting with that. We can amend that motion, but -- MR. PONTE: Let's take the motion as it is and extend it to six months. That what she is asking for, and I think it will take six months to get her CO. MS. DUSEK: That's fine. I amend the motion to six months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And at six months from today which, you know, May to June, July, August, September, October, November. So it will be basically till November something or other. Say November 25th or thereabouts. How's that? 109 May 27,2004 MS. DUSEK: That sounds fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's six months. And that's our next -- that's our meeting in November, unless there's a schedule conflict with vacations or holidays or something. But anyway, that gives her six months from today. Is that okay in your motion? Okay? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. MS. DUSEK: That's correct. And that's the extension of the original order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're amending our order from whatever it was, December of -- 24th of '03, we're going to amend it to bring it forward to November 25th of '04, okay? That's what we would be doing. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, you on board with us? MS. RAWSON: I got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 4-l. Ma'am, you have until November 24th, okay. And right now no fines will be imposed because we've changed the order, so nothing's on the books. MS. HALL: Thank you, I appreciate that. 110 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next is Carter Fence. MR. BLUNT: Good afternoon. Steve Blunt, on behalf of Carter Fence. I also have Mr. Ken Carter here. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, tell us why you need an extension, or -- MR. BLUNT: Well, first of all, my client would like to apologize for having to be here again. We were here in November asking for an extension of time and this court -- or this board graciously granted us a six-month extension. And at that point in time we thought that was going to be sufficient for the completion of my client's new facility. Unfortunately, in January of this year they discovered subsurface muck on the site that he was attempting to develop. And for the next several months, my client had to remove some acre and a half of muck from the property and de-muck the property, which slowed down the process. And that is why we were not able to finish the new facility by the April deadline set by this board. My client is doing everything he can to come into compliance. We've been moving forward diligently on the proj ect. We had some permitting problems early on, which is why we were here before. But at this point the new facility is almost complete. The roof is on. We anticipate that it will take us about four months to get the CO, and once we have the CO, we'll be able to store material on that site, rather than at the subject site. I don't want to belabor the point, other than to say my client has been going all out to get this done. He's at this point spent some $200,000 over his budgeted amount in an effort to get this done quickly and to get into the new facility. He's doing everything he can, and we ask for this board's indulgence for four months to give us an opportunity to get it done. And that is why we are asking for an additional four months. 111 May 27, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so -- just so we are real clear why you need the extension is in building the project you ran across something unforeseen under the ground, for lack of -- I don't know how else to say that. MR. BLUNT: That would be correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you were ordered by what, environmental or something to clean it up? Or-- MR. BLUNT: Well, the land -- you could not build on the land, the building would sink into the muck. So we had to dig in and remove an acre and a half of muck at a cost of some $80,000 in order to move the project forward, in order to move forward with the permit we had obtained to build this building and yard to store this material in. So that was an unforeseen time factor that we didn't anticipate when we were here before. Had we known that, we would have asked for more time back in November, had we known we had this additional work to do. It's just -- it's a difficult thing to do. You have to have everything trucked offsite and then fill dirt trucked in and -- I'm sure you can imagine, you know, $80,000 worth of fill dirt, it's a lot of dire, and it's large area to de-muck. And it's a complicated process. And you have to bring in engineers to inspect and go through the process of ensuring that you now have created a stable ground to build on, because the building has to be safe. And that was the unforeseen circumstance that we ran into. So we think, under the circumstances, given my client's effort, that an additional four months is not unreasonable. In some ways my client's already paying a fine. He certainly didn't want to pay an additional $80,000 to build his building. But that's what he's had to do. And we're basically here just throwing ourselves on the mercy of this board and asking, please, for four more months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Questions from any board members? MS. ARNOLD: I just have a comment. I know that Mr. Carter is trying to comply by getting the building built and then relocating his 112 May 27,2004 business off the estate site, but a part of what we had requested is that he try to remove some of the heavy equipment and some of the storage equipment to an alternate site to minimize the impact to the surrounding neighbors. And according to the investigator, that has not been done. So I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention. MS. DUSEK: Well, that's what I was just looking at, at the description of the violation relates to occupational licenses? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, he has a home occupational license, I believe. MR. BLUNT: And I would point out to the board that there has been no complaints from neighbors, to our knowledge. That no one has complained. We've made -- my client's made every effort to keep the materials hidden from public view. To be perfectly honest, there was a significant amount of material on the property at one point in part because my client was trying to complete the fences for Golden Gate High School and North Naples Middle School. And so that was a large quantity. Those were large jobs. MS. DUSEK: Is the storage and building material still on the property in question? You haven't removed it to an alternative site? MR. BLUNT: No, because there's a problem in finding an alternative site, because to find a site to store this type short-term within Collier County and within an area where he can still access the materials is just extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive. It's-- I don't even know that any's available at any cost for short-term storage of this type of stuff. And again, had we not run into this muck problem, we would be done and we wouldn't be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. BLUNT: Thank you. MR. PONTE: I think that given the unexpected developmentsb 113 May 27,2004 here, that the respondent -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George, get closer to your mic., please. MR. PONTE: We'll get a lavalier microphone for George. I think that in light of the unexpected situation the respondent encountered here, that we should favorably grant the four-month extension of time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Comments from any other board members? MS. DUSEK: I'm looking at the order of the board, and it says by ceasing all actions inconsistent with the provisions of Land Development Code. I'm not sure exactly what those provisions are, not having it in front of me. Ifhe was supposed to remove the material to an alternate site, although I don't see that specified, then he really hasn't done what he was asked to do. Yes, I know he had a problem with the new site that he's working on, which is where he wants to place it. But that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Looking at the description of the violation, and again, we don't have the entire package, it states that he had -- he was having workers on the property, outside storage of materials, including building materials, and having deliveries made from said property. So we have -- I guess running a business from the property was -- MR. BOWIE: One of them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- one of the many violations, not only the storing but, you know, all that. Granted, he's bought a site and he's trying to move everything so he can abate it in that manner. I tend to agree that we don't know, and we can get him back up here and ask him, ifhe's -- other than the storing of his materials, which his attorney says he can't put anywhere else, has he ceased everything else? And if he hasn't, then I guess he just needs to do that, because that's not an excuse that you can't move. I think he can do 114 May 27,2004 some of what we've asked him to do. Maybe he can't do it all. Maybe that's what we need to find out. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, do you have any input here? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get Mr. Carter up and ask him. MS. ARNOLD: According to the investigator, employees are still coming, deliveries are still being made and equipment is still there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, let's ask Mr. Carter so he can tell us and see what his answer is to that part of not complying with our order. MR. CARTER: The board, I feel that I'm trying to do what I can to minimize the impact to neighbors. Again, I had looked into a site. There was nothing available on a short-term lease to store outside materials. Most of the material I have and most of what I was looking to rent was for warehouse, and there's plenty of warehouse space, but nothing that would accommodate outside storage. We do have a fence up around the property there to hide from County Road 951, because it abuts up to 951. And I assure you, you can't see any materials from 951, because there's a fence. There is an eight-foot fence on the side of the shop. Unless the door is open, you don't see the material inside there. I have had a difficult time coming into compliance, and I'm not going to deny that. And I appreciate the time that the board has given me at this point. The permitting process was -- it took quite a bit of time to get through the permitting process, and we probably would have already had encountered the muck at a more timely manner and probably be out of here now. But with the way the wheels turn and Collier County's permitting and then some of the problems that we've encountered, it just has been a battle to try to get things in control. MS. DUSEK: Can you tell me, do you still have workers on the property? MR. CARTER: Yes, I do, ma'am. 115 May 27,2004 MS. DUSEK: And you still have material on the property? MR. CARTER: Yes, I do, ma'am. MR. BOWIE: It honestly concerns me a little bit that this case has already been continued or extended, what, twice -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Once. MR. BOWIE: -- I think, did we get to this point? Once before. And it does involve heavy commercial business use of a residence, a home. And I hate to think that we in any way sanction the argument that here I've started a heavy commercial use of my home and I'll stop doing it when I can find a more appropriate site. I don't think that's an acceptable argument. MR. BLUNT: And that certainly is not the argument we're trying to make. And I want to make it clear with regard to the employees that are there, they're retrieving materials from the site and leaving. They're not there all day every day. A new job comes up, a crew goes and picks up the materials that they need for that job, they take it to the job site. So there's not any ongoing operation at the subject property. There's people coming and taking things, then at a-- you know, when there's another job maybe there's somebody coming to take some more things. But there's not a constant work force at the location. I don't want to give a misimpression. And again, I think, you know, given the funds expended by my client already trying to come into compliance, we -- he's absolutely doing everything that he knows how to do. MS. DUSEK: I'm having a difficult time with the fact that as I look at the description of the violation and the order, I don't see that any of this has been done, except possibly the occupational license. MR. BLUNT: The site does not look the same as it did when the original violation occurred. What he's saying is that he rearranged things, made sure that it was not visible, tried to minimize the impact from off of the property. MS. DUSEK: I think the order was to cease activity with the 116 May 27,2004 workers. MR. BLUNT: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: But that's still continuing. And the material is still there. MR. BLUNT: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: So what he has done -- and I'm sorry he's had to go through all of the expense of the other property, but what he's been doing is developing another property so he could move all of this to that, the other property. But that is not what the order said, it was not what the violation was. MR. BLUNT: I believe originally when we appeared before this board, that was with the board's blessing. And we all anticipated that it would be done in six months, and that's how the original order was entered was you have six months to -- because that's what we asked for originally to try to go build this building. So we were -- we were -- at least we believed we were doing that with the board's blessing until we can get this building built. I mean, that was the agreement that was struck between the county and my client. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We understand that part of it. What we're saying is then we amended our original order, trying to give him every opportunity. N ow we want to -- you're asking us to amend it again. And I guess the board feels, you know, we keep -- we keep giving you all these chances. And in all honesty, I'm quite sorry when somebody tells me you can't find somewhere in Collier County to move something to. Doesn't work for me. Sorry. With all the property in Collier County and you're telling me you can't move something somewhere else? MR. BLUNT: Not where it would be code compliant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's so many industrial parks here, and I know there's vacant property in industrial parks where somebody that's just sitting there would say yeah, I'll rent it for "X". I don't have -- right now I'm making zero on it. You know, I've got an empty 117 May 27,2004 building and I can't seem to rent it to anybody, I'll take some -- I'm just saying, it's hard for me to accept that with all the industrial parks that I've driven through in Collier County. And unfortunately I drive them through about once a week. So that's where I'm having a little problem. We've been trying to help. It's kind of like, you know, give an inch, take a mile. We keep giving you inches and we don't -- we're not getting anything back. Work's still going on. We said cease all operation. We'll give you six months, but you've got to cease everything. Well, you keep working. Then we said okay, you're not done, we'll give you another extension, but we didn't say don't cease operation. The cease operation is still there. You know, there was "X" items in the order, and the idea behind the order that you were in violation of. Having workers on the property. That's easy to cease. Guys, don't come here anymore. Real simple sentence. Outside storage of material. There, now you're telling us you don't have anywhere to put it. Okay, we're kind of living with that. And then it says including building materials, so again, that's storage. Having deliveries made from said property. Easy to stop. Whatever is there, don't take any deliveries. But now you're telling me, well, because I can't build my other site, I've got to keep bringing stuff in, shipping stuff out. You're not really trying very hard, sorry. You're not doing anything to come into compliance with even parts of our order. So that's where we are. That's why we're having this problem. MR. BLUNT: With all due respect, I believe what the order provided for was for us to come into compliance by November 22nd. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. BLUNT: It wasn't -- I don't think the order says -- and I'm looking at the last order -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, but then when you came 118 ---_.~ "--~",._. --~.._"----- ~ --- May 27,2004 MR. BLUNT: The board understood that he was going to stay in business, that he was going to continue to operate. His only option would have been to shut down his business. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But what we're trying to get at is you're here again saying gee, it hasn't worked, help me again. Well, you know, you can come back in four months and say, you know, now we ran into stones and now it's going to be another six months. At some point you've got to be doing something to help us. We're helping you a lot, and you're not doing anything to help us. MR. BLUNT: And I think what I want this board to understand is that the $80,000 expended on de-mucking the property was in order to do this the quickest, fastest way. He didn't go have additional geotechnical studies done to determine if he could do it cheaper with piling or if he could do it in some other manner. He knew he had to go and he ordered the place de-mucked. And it took the time that it took. And we don't want to be here anymore than you want us here, I promIse you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess I'm just thinking that, you know, to help -- and again I go back to, you know, finding a place to move this. Yes, he had to spend $80,000 for this one, and I'll call it small item, because he's spending a lot of money to do the whole proj ect. But he could have gone and whatever it cost to move everything and said I moved everything, I'm in compliance, you guys go away and leave me alone now. But instead he came and asked us, hey, how about extending this again? You know. Well, at some point we're looking for -- we're giving. I don't see anything coming my way. It's always -- you know, it's kind of like your dad, he's always giving you an allowance and you're not doing anything for your dad. And that's the way we are. We're giving you a lot of time, what are you doing for us? All I hear is gee, I can't find any place to store this stuff. Sorry, that's not washing with me. Gee, I spent $80,000 of my own money to dig dirt. Fine. I'm sorry for that. 119 >.---.. May 27, 2004 What are you doing to do what we told you to do, other than I bought a piece of property and I'm de-mucking it and I want to build a buil -- invest some money and go store it somewhere else and be rid of us and we'll be rid of you. That's what we're looking for. What are you doing, other than asking me for more time? MR. BLUNT: What we're doing is pushing our contractor and the county permitting process, et cetera to get this done as quickly as possible and within the time frames set forth in this board's order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're going to run out of time. MR. BOWIE: I think the chairman's whole point is that it was the respondent's choice to develop a new site rather than to move the existing business operation to an existing site, perhaps in an industrial park, which could have accommodated it in a much shorter of an order than this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else for Mr. Carter or his attorney? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. BLUNT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Members? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the request for an extension of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. 120 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PONTE: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 4-1. George dissenting. That handles all our requests for extensions? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, but we do have-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now we're going to go into imposition of fines, and you gave us three names that you want to move up. MS. ARNOLD: Right. The first one is Board of County Commissioners versus Wooten. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. You have Wooten, Haeger, Dixon. And the Carter Fence people are in line, I assume they're going to stay for that. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, this particular item is an imposition of fines. And I just wanted to point out for the board that the order of the board had a conflict in it. It had -- in its order to correct, it indicated obtain -- abate all violations by obtaining necessary permit by 120 days, or within 120 days, and it dated April 23rd, 2004. The hearing actually took place in October of2003. And 120 days from that date is actually February 23rd of 2004. I mean, all through the order the dates are noted as either April 23rd, 2003 or 2004. The respondent has obtained a building permit. The permit -- this information's all been brought to me this morning. The permit was issued -- or applied for on March 10th of 2004, approved on that same date, and it was picked up on the 22nd of 2004. All before the April 23rd date, however, after the February 23rd date. And the certificate of occupancy occurred on May 25th, 26th of this month. The original purpose of us bringing this matter to you was indicating that non-compliance, but I stand corrected, they are in compliance with the board's order. There is the matter, however, of the discrepancy with the order with respect to a February 23rd date and the April 23rd date. 121 May 27, 2004 So I guess -- I don't know, Jean, if you want to address how we-- MS. RAWSON: Actually, I thought we fixed that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just finally found the order, so give me a chance to try and match what you're saying. The order says get everything within 120 days. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I.e., April 23rd. You're saying 120 days isn't April 23rd? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, I guess-- MS. DUSEK: Which do we follow, the 120 days or the April 23 rd? MS. RAWSON: I think we follow the 120 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, that was my next question. I have to ask our lawyer which is -- MS. RAWSON: The 120 days, that was the order of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I mean, in all honesty, and I know I've done it once today, I think, we normally don't pick a date. We normally say some period of time. If somebody writes April 23rd and that's wrong, I guess I, not being an attorney, would probably look at that as something like a scrivener's error. 120 from such a date "X" doesn't get me there. So somebody doesn't know how to read a calendar and so we still stick with 120 days. Would I be along that line, Jean, if I was -- MS. RAWSON: You would be right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And I probably am the one that didn't read the calendar right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so-- MS. RAWSON: But your order was clear, it was 120 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, okay. So that's probably the way I would look at it and then, you know, let some judge tell me that I 122 May 27, 2004 interpreted it wrong. So I'm running on the basis that they had 120 days. Now, where does -- what's the county have to say? MS. ARNOLD: We just -- you know, with that clarification, we just need to recalculate what the fines amounts are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Why don't you do that while we have Mr. Wooten and his attorney tell us what they'd like to tell us. Yes, ma'am. Let's pause a moment for our recorder. We have a technical glitch here. Okay. MR. BASS: May it please the board, Ray Bass, representing the respondent, Wooten Farm Partnership. I'm a lawyer in private practice. My office address is 2335 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 409. The firm name is Bass and Chernoff. And Eugene Wooten is present. This discussion about the time period I don't believe is relevant. And I don't believe it is, it might be, but I don't believe it is because that's not within the scope of the affidavit of non-compliance. The investigator that went out went out on the basis of the compliance date being April 23rd, 2003, as he says in his affidavit. He used the same date that the board ordered. Now -- you know, so I don't know why we're -- why we would even be considering, you know, the date, because the investigator went out to do inspections, you know, pursuant to the court's order as he -- as the board's order as specified to be April 23rd, 2004. The issue in the affidavit of non-compliance is non-compliance by April 23rd. It says it's an affidavit that they did reinspections on April the 22nd -- I'm sorry, April 26th, 2004, and again on May 5, 2004. That's the issue here today, not whether it was April 23rd or February 23rd. And if I need to address other reasons why the April 23rd date would prevail over 120 days, I will. But that's not an issue that's been framed by the affidavit of non-compliance. 123 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Are you done? MR. BASS: I just need to know, you know, if we need to address that issue or not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I have some questions for your client. MR. BASS: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you swear Mr. Wooten in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Wooten, what day did you come into compliance? MR. BASS: He doesn't know. But I can tell you, we have an affidavit from the sign company I have as a defense exhibit I'd like to give you. I've given a copy to you. I've marked this as Exhibit A. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, compliance meant CO, and so the CO was -- May 25th is when the inspector did the inspection, and it was done in the system the 26th. So the 25th, if you want to do it based on the inspection by the inspector himself. MR. BASS: I'd like to address that if I could. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, you -- yeah, we need -- if they want to submit an exhibit we need a motion to accept their exhibit. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we accept the exhibit. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the respondent's exhibit. Would you submit it, please. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Abating all violations within 120 days, causing inspections to be scheduled and approved in order -- MR. BASS: I also have an exhibit to show. I also have an 124 May 27, 2004 Exhibit B, which I would be submitting at this time, too. And that's the county's -- I also have an Exhibit B here, which is printed off the county's website on inspection history. And I've given a copy of that to Mrs. Arnold as well. So we wanted to -- showing the inspection history on this particular sign inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We need a motion to accept this Exhibit B. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept Exhibit B. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the Respondent's Exhibit B. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Could somebody bring those so we could see them. Shanelle, would you get us, so we can at least take a look at it. MR. BASS: Just for the record, I've given the court reporter the originals of A and B, and these are copies. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MR. BASS: And copies have been provided to the staff as well. The affidavit ofMr. Carpenter, the sign contractor, does speak for itself. It shows the sign was completed on April the 20th and they called for inspections, and it was originally scheduled for April 22. Beyond that, you know, there was no control over when the inspection gets done by the inspector, but Mr. Carpenter has said that the sign was not changed or modified any from the time it was completed on April the 20th. So the order of the board was to -- to address Mrs. Arnold's last statement about when we were supposed to have it inspected. The order of the board -- excuse me -- was causing -- let's see, I had it -- 125 May 27,2004 MS. ARNOLD: Causing all inspections to be scheduled and approved -- MR. BASS: Right. MS. ARNOLD: -- and approved in order to obtain a certificate of completion within 120 days. MR. BASS: That is correct. And, you know, the respondent does all he can, he doesn't control when inspections take place. The inspection, according to the contractor, was scheduled originally on April the 22nd. And you can see from the county's website on inspection history that that's when it was originally scheduled. And so we can't help when they go out and do the inspection. We can't force them to go do an inspection. Keep in mind, if you would, that this is a location that's approximately 35 miles east of Naples. So I think that it's -- I think the evidence should be pretty clear that there was compliance, certainly -- certainly with the spirit of the board's order, over things that we had control over within the time period that was stated in the order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The order says abate all violations and obtain necessary permits within 120 days. The date of this order is 30 October. MR. BASS: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 120 days gets me to February? Your affidavit says that the permit was issued and erected in April. April is after February. So you weren't in compliance with the order of 120 days. MR. BASS: Well, but that's not an issue here. I mean, Mrs. Arnold brings it up now, but it's not an issue that's framed by the affidavit of non-compliance. They're talking about -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The affidavit of non-compliance isn't an issue to start with, with us. MR. BASS: What is the issue? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're here because we're going to 126 May 27,2004 impose fines, and you're trying to tell us why we shouldn't impose them. MR. BASS: No, I don't think it's been determined that you must impose fines yet. I think that's -- the board has to make that determination, first of all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But to impose the fine we have to find that were you in compliance or weren't you. The order says within 120 days of the order. You've given us an affidavit from your people that says you weren't in compliance by the date the order said you should be in compliance. MR. BASS: That is not correct. Let me explain why. Okay. You got -- there are two -- there is a date in the order and then there's a number of days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. BASS: Okay. Now, the way that it is -- it should be properly -- the proper interpretation of that -- of course, if you're going to go with what the attorney says, I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it's our attorney, that's where we'll go. MR. BASS: No, I understand that, but let me tell you why I submit that that is not the correct way to do it. And, of course, Ms. Rawson knows I have the utmost respect for her, professionally and personally. But we disagree about this, and here's the reason why. For example, in financial transactions, if you write out a check and you put a number where you put, like $100 on the check, that is -- that is superfluous and surplusage to the check. The only number that counts on the check is the number you write. That's the number on a check that is paid by the bank, by law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. BASS: In a court order, for example, or anything else in the law where there is a number and the number is then written out in -- it's spelled out, it is the spelled number that counts, the other one is 127 May 27, 2004 disregarded. And the reason why that's the law is because it has been determined a long time ago as a matter of common law that if a person takes the time to write out the number, write -- spell it out, then it is presumed -- it is conclusively presumed that that's the date, or that's the number they meant. And there's no reason to disregard those kinds of rules that we use every day in society and put some other -- and use some other means of interpreting it, when in this case we have the court -- the board's order that it be done within 120 days, and that is defined in the order as April the 23rd. That's by -- that was defined in the order what 120 days was. So I just don't see that as being a major problem here. I don't see it as being a major problem. Mr. Flegal, apparently you do have quite a bit of conflict with that, and I appreciate your point of view. But I'm simply saying that that has not been the problem here. That's not even within the scope of the non-compliance affidavit. The non-compliance affidavit is talking about -- talking about activity after April 23rd. Apparently the code enforcement board -- the code enforcement investigator was using the April 23rd date as well. And so I don't think the board should disregard that. MR. BOWIE: But I can see, given the discrepancy in reference to any actual date in the 120-day period, that we might want to give them the benefit of the doubt and deem April 23rd to be the operative date. MS. RAWSON: I would agree. Even though, if you went back and looked at the record, I'm sure that what you said as the board is the 120 days, because that's what you always say, if I were in appellate court and I was not looking back at the record, really, but I was looking at the written order, and what Mr. Bass says is really correct, statement of the law, it -- I don't really know what an appellate court might do. It is confusing. And it's compounded by the fact that the affidavit uses the April 23rd date. 128 May 27,2004 MR. BOWIE: So if we go with the April 23rd date, it seems that they certainly applied for the permit in a timely manner. They applied for the permit on March 27th. However, they didn't get the final approval until May 25th. So there is a matter in which that was not done in a timely manner, and that's -- pursuant to our order, that's $25 a day, running, I guess, from April 23rd. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd just like to make a comment. I kind of disagree with the April 23rd date, being that today, if you go and you look at our record today, we've had everything state days, and we even had one case where we said September 9th, but we didn't say September 9th, we said at six months out, whatever it was. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 100 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: We didn't say -- give a particular date. So if you look back, we've always stated a day period, a period of days. We've never given -- so I would look at that as a clerical error versus MR. BOWIE: Well, it was a clerical error, but it was an error nonetheless. And it does appear in the recorded order. MR. LEFEBVRE: But I'm just saying that if you look historically, we give days, we do not give a date. MS. DUSEK: If you look back in the minutes, you probably would not see the April 23rd date, but you would see the 120. And it would be interesting if that date were January 23rd. That would have given you less time. MR. LEFEBVRE: February. MS. DUSEK: No, if February is 120, and we're saying April was written in. But what if it had been a clerical mistake to say January, that would have given you less time than 120. And would that have been acceptable? I don't think so. And I think the minutes would show that we said 120 days. MR. BASS: Well, that may be the case -- that very well may be the case, but that's not what this order says. And that's what we really 129 May 27,2004 need to go by. The history of the board is one thing -- MS. ARNOLD: But the order actually says April 23rd, 2003, which is last year. It also says April 23rd, 2004. So which April 23rd do you rely upon? We don't know. MR. BASS: I have to tell you, I've never seen the 2003. For some reason my eye always saw it as 2004. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. BASS: But everybody has been relying -- everybody has been relying on April 23rd, 2004, including the code compliance investigator. Everybody's been doing it that way. And as counsel tells you, you know, that is the proper way -- at least I think she agrees with me, that that is the proper way to -- if it's written out, then that's the proper interpretation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Even right now, incorrectly, which should draw your attention to it even more, that maybe you should -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think we've worked that to death enough. Let's do something else, or we could be here for three days going back and forth. We need to end it somewhere and let us make a decision. MR. BASS: Okay. Well, here's my point. My point is -- you know, Mrs. Arnold brings -- again, has repeated that -- or somebody on the board repeated that well, yeah, we got it completed by April the 20th, and yeah, the inspection was scheduled for April 22nd, but it wasn't -- but the final inspection wasn't until -- by the building department, I guess, wasn't until sometime later, I guess, May 5th, and then the CO for it was issued May 25th. That's not something that Mr. Wooten has any control over or the contractor either. I think you all know that we can't tell them when they have to go do inspections, we simply have them scheduled. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But there's nothing in his record or his sign man's record that gee, I called and they didn't come out, so that's a little strange, let me call again, let me call. They didn't keep 130 May 27,2004 trying, they just called once and said we don't care if he comes or not, we've made our call, we're done. MR. BASS: Well, that is the way you do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh. Well, that's the way you do it. MR. BASS: No, I don't do it any way, but that's the way it's done is what I meant. That's the way it's done. A contractor calls and says I need an inspection. When the inspection happens, he either gets signed off or it gets turned down. And when it's turned down then you're notified about that. But, you know, you don't sit there, you know, and bug them to death. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You don't -- oh, really? Okay. MR. BASS: Well, I mean, I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I-- MR. BASS: You may know something more than I do, and I'm not in the building industry. MS. DUSEK: Let's make an assumption that it was the April 23rd. We're making an assumption. MR. BASS: Okay. MS. DUSEK: It shows that he applied April 20th. MR. BASS: No, not he applied, it was completed. The sign was completed on April the 20th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He requested it April 22nd. MR. BASS: And the inspection was scheduled for April 22nd. MS. DUSEK: Now -- then I don't know when he applied. But I am assuming that it was closer to the date when he called for the inspection. And he had until October, from October, six months, to have taken care of all of this. He probably wouldn't be here right now. MR. BASS: I'm not really following you, because what happened was this: He goes and hires a sign contractor to handle this. And they have to design the sign, they have to go through the permitting process to get the permit issued. They erect the sign. They call for the inspection. That's what happened. 131 May 27,2004 MS. DUSEK: I understand all of that. I think that can be done in a much more timely manner than up until the last -- assuming that the April 23rd date is correct, which I don't agree with, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I -- again, we can argue all afternoon and for probably the next six months, so everybody -- at some point we need to stop and make a decision one way or the other. And if it doesn't go their way, they can do whatever they're allowed to do under the law. MR. BASS: Well, can I say one final-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But we need -- at some point we need to make a decision. MR. BASS: Okay. I don't think there is anything else here that needs to be said, but, I mean, this is -- this is like -- I mean, have you had any clearer case of somebody getting into compliance today? No, you haven't. And I don't -- I'm not sure what the objection is to finding that he's in compliance timely under the circumstances that have been given to you. I just -- I don't see why that would -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you haven't let us make a determination yet. We keep talking it to death. That's what I'm saying, at some point we need to stop -- MR. BASS: I see what you mean now. I gotcha. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and you let us decide what we're going to do. MR. BASS: Okay. You're right. I'm done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There has been no determination. MR. BASS: Unless there are further questions, I'll be through. MS. ARNOLD: You -- the board, you have several options, you know, considering the date errors. There is the option of -- and this is the most of your February 24th through May 25th, which would be a fine of $2,275 per day (sic). Or you have the option of going to the 24th through the date the permit was obtained, which was a March date, March 10th, which 132 May 27,2004 would be $400. We could -- you also have an option of going from, again, the February 23rd date to the date of -- that it says in the computer that the final was -- the certificate of occupancy was issued, and that was -- oh, I'm sorry, I said that date already. You also have the option of going from February 24th through April 22nd, which is the date that he requested the inspection, and that would be 59 days. MR. BASS: It's on April 23rd. MS. ARNOLD: You also have that option, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You may have the option of another fine. MS. ARNOLD: Right, and that's -- MR. BOWIE: The fairest thing to do would be to levy a fine in the amount of $25 a day for failure to obtain the approval of the permit, which was approved on May 25th, and have that fine accrue from April 24th through the date of May 25th when it was obtained, plus the operational costs. And I'd like to make that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we're going April 25th? MR. BOWIE: April 24th, the day after the 23rd, based upon the discrepancy -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To May 25th, is that what you said? MR. BOWIE: -- to May 25th, which is when the signed permit got approved, according to this record here. MR. PONTE: I don't follow the logic, I'm afraid, of starting the meter after the inspection has been requested and within the time frame that we've agreed here, and -- MS. ARNOLD: The only thing with the inspections, I just want to -- I'm sorry to interrupt -- is with this particular sign, I know that there's at least two inspections that are required. The structural component of it is done and then a final with respect to the size and the -- just, you know, whether or not the size meets the requirements 133 May 27,2004 of the -- so there are two inspections that are done. And I don't know, based on the information that we have today, when either of those things were performed. I do see an inspection, and that's probably why there are a couple of different dates. There was an inspection certificate that had -- that you gave me, Mr. Bass, that had a date of May 3rd on it, which is different from the May 25th date. So I don't know, you know, what the differences are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'd like to do -- at some point we need to find an end to this piece of spaghetti here. I think there is some concern about how the order is written and interpretated (sic) -- interpreted, days versus a written date, when who did what and all that. It may be that the most efficient course of action for the board would be to think about, we have an imposition of fine amount and then we have an actual fine amount. Based on what I just said a second ago, it may be the most efficient course of action to impose our operational costs and no fine cost. MR. PONTE: If that's a motion, I'd second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I throw that out for the members to think about and then somebody else can make the motion. I don't want to do it as Chair. MS. DUSEK: You're saying, as-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I'm saying impose the operational costs, which, regardless of whether we ever impose a fine or not -- first of all, we don't have the power to waive operational costs. All we have the power to do is waive fine costs. So out of this 2,005.75, there's $1,180.75 that's operational. We can't touch that. So he's going to pay that unless he wants to go to the Board of County Commissioners. The only thing we can waive is the $825, if we want to do that. So that might be the most efficient, rather than try to second guess everybody's days, date, who called when and -- I don't know, it's 134 May 27,2004 -- I mean, for $825 we've all sat here and wasted four times that. I'm sorry -- and wasted may not be the proper word, but -- we need a decision. MR. BOWIE: I think we're going to have move because I'm going to have to leave shortly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I know you're -- MR. BOWIE: And I'd like to make that motion, that simply the imposition of costs be imposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And no fine. MR. BOWIE: And no fine. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 4-l. We're going to impose the operational costs, which we have no power to waive anyway. MR. BASS: We understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've got about 15 minutes before three of you have to leave. We had some other people here, I think. I've lost track of my schedule. (At which time, Mr. Bowie exits the boardroom.) MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Bass has the other one, which is Robert and Susan Dixon. 135 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And was there somebody else besides them? Yeah, Mr. Haeger. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah, Mr. Haeger. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ray's left. So we've got time to try to do the both of you. First on the list is -- Haeger comes before Dixon. So, Mr. Haeger, if you'll come up, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I haven't found you yet, but that's okay. MR. HAEGER: Hopefully it's there somewhere. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll catch up, sir, you just go right ahead. MR. HAEGER: Okay. I'm here today. I was here on April 22nd, as the board may recall. It was a little bit of a clerical misunderstanding where my case was supposed to be heard on the 22nd but inadvertently had gotten scheduled for March. And I requested a re- hearing, and I was granted that on April 22nd. And when we -- when Jeff Letourneau was -- he was the investigating officer. When they presented their case and I presented my case, it came to be that 90 percent of what the violations on my property were already cleared up. Basically, what it was is that I have the -- you know, the original notice to appear on April 22nd, and my whole plan and theory was is that by the time I came in front of you I would be, you know, all cleared up. I got in the mail the letter of the executive summary and past order, and the reason I'm here today is because I have a -- the staff requests the board to issue an imposition of fine and lien in the amount of 1,100 bucks -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let me just stop you one second. I just found it, and that money is for the operational costs in prosecuting the case. In other words, bringing it forward, okay? In other words, just like court costs when you go to court -- 136 May 27,2004 MR. HAEGER: Okay. Well, that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Under the law, we don't have the power to waive that. MR. HAEGER: Okay. Well, under the law, if you went to county court here in Collier County, with my same sort of circumstances, my court costs would be approximately $150. If I went to criminal court, circuit court, and with one appearance, my court costs would be approximately $300. What I'd like to know is why -- you know, $1,100, that's outrageous. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But that's from the time they start till the time they bring it before us, whatever it costs the county to prepare your case -- MR. HAEGER: I would like to have a breakdown, a cost per -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to work that out with the county. We can't order them to do that, nor can we waive it, nor can we change it. They say this is the amount -- MR. HAEGER: Then who do I see about changing it? Because I'm not paying it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The County Commissioners. We can't help you. Under the law, we have that power. MR. HAEGER: Then I have to go in front of the County Commissioner Board -- the Board of Commissioners? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. We don't have the power to change it, so they're the -- they're the top in the county. MR. HAEGER: So, in other words, I would have to request a hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners to do something about this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. They have the power to waive those things, we don't. MR. HAEGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we just can't help you here. We can waive fines but we can't waive operational costs. 137 May 27,2004 MR. HAEGER: Well, it says here -- it doesn't say anything about operations costs, it says the imposition of a fine or lien. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So, it's a lien. MR. HAEGER: I'm reading it's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have the same things, sir. I have the same piece of paper. MR. HAEGER: Doesn't say anything about, you know, operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, it does. After the numbers -- MR. HAEGER: Well, the operat -- well, a fine and a lien is -- and it says operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. When we issue an order imposing this it becomes a lien on your property. And until you pay it it's a lien on your property. If you go to sell your property, a title search will kick this out as a lien of $1,100 -- MR. HAEGER: Well, I don't intend on selling it, I'm going to die there, so, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just telling you, sir. You need to listen very succinctly. It's a lien on your property until you pay it. That's what our orders do. MR. HAEGER: But I can go in front of the Board of County Commissioners to request either this be waived or -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They're the only ones that have the power. We don't have any power. MR. HAEGER: Well, that's why -- that's what I'm asking you, who do I have to go in front of? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, I've said they're the only ones that have the power to do this. MR. HAEGER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, it's a lien. They have the power to remove it. MR. HAEGER: Only took me five hours to find that out. 138 May 27,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Bass or the Dixons? I've got to find it. I need to read it and see -- same thing. MR. BASS: I'm not going to be testifying. And in fact, there's not going to be any testimony, I don't think. MS. ARNOLD: I could probably speed this up. My staff is saying that they're going to request that we continue this, and we have no objections to -- and hopefully this will be cleared up at the next hearing, so we could probably just remove this from the agenda. And if we need to put it back on the agenda, we will. MR. BASS: That's correct. If it's not continued it will take beyond 2:00, I'm quite sure of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And we're going to lose some people and we won't be able to hear it, so -- does the board have any objections to taking the county and respondent's attorney's recommendation that this be moved to our next meeting, which is in June? MR. PONTE: I have no objection. MS. DUSEK: No objection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want to make the motion, George, or Bobbie? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we continue this to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George, second? MR. PONTE: Yes, second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to continue this to our next meeting. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was best. Okay, that was everybody that you had moved up. I would make a request to my fellow board members that all the remaining items -- there's one case and some other new business and 139 May 27,2004 old business be moved to our -- added to our agenda for next month. If somebody would -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we move the remaining items to the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we still have one party here? MS. DUSEK: -- next month's-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he wasn't brought to the front of the list, plus everybody's getting ready to leave. I mean, two of you have to leave, so we wouldn't have time to do much. We have a motion to move everything to our next meeting -- continue it to our next meeting. MR. PONTE: Second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) MS. RAWSON: So that would be the hearing on Lockhart-- MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: June 24th. MS. DUSEK: Yes, Lockhart. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're going to have the hearing on Lockhart -- MS. RAWSON: And the imposition on Brown, Van Stone, Novello -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have Hall, Brown, Van Stone, and Novello and Dixon. Because Dixon, with Mr. Bass, was just here. And then all the old business. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, we still have Haeger, because we really didn't do anything on that. He just was -- did you make a motion on Haeger to impose it? No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, no -- MS. ARNOLD: I didn't hear that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. I told him we couldn't waive 140 May 27,2004 it, but we didn't impose it. So Haeger we'll have still to impose. So he's got between now and then to -- if he can do something about it, because it's not imposed yet. Does that catch everybody, or did we miss anybody? MS. ARNOLD: I think you got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ifwe missed anybody inadvertently, just bring them forward, okay? Motion to adjourn? Yes. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to bring a comment for some -- a matter to your attention. Mr. Robert Dowling has missed several meetings, the April 22nd meeting, April 7th, March 25th -- well, he did call. And he missed the workshop. He's only been to one meeting since his appointment. I don't know whether the board wants to take -- make a recommendation to bring to the board -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we talked about this before. I would probably make a recommendation to my board members that we move to ask the county -- ask staff to ask the Board of Commissioners to remove Mr. Dowling and appoint somebody that-- we need people that can serve. Maybe he had good intentions at the beginning, but they haven't panned out. We need people that can come to the county and help us. I would ask for you to make that recommendation. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I second it. MS. ARNOLD: And the other is just -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: The other item is I just wanted to remind you all that with your approval of the rules and regulations your meetings are 141 _._._"___.__m'_ May 27, 2004 going to start at 9:30. You all don't have to be here until 9:30, because we're going to be doing the prehearing at 8:30. So we have to be here earlier and you have to be here later. MR. LEFEBVRE: And when -- MS. DUSEK: Is that beginning in June? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, now that we've approved our new rules. Did we get a motion to adjourn? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we did. MR. PONTE: We did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And did -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thanks everybody. (The meeting adjourned at 1:54 p.m.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :54 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, Chairman 142