The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 06/24/2004 R June 24, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida June 24, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Sheri Barnett Raymond Bowie Albert Doria, Jr. Roberta Dusek Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 24, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. Location: 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 27, 2004 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue - (No request submitted at the time of this agenda) B. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: 2004-012 CASE ADDR: 228 SABAL PALM ROAD, NAPLES, FL OWNER: EDWARD MCCARTHY AND DOROTHY LEWIS INSPECTOR: RITA CRISP VIOLA TlONS: 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. 2. CASE NO: 2004-022 CASE ADDR: 4290 A V ALON DR., NAPLES, FL OWNER: COLLIER COUNTY LESSOR: COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION LESSEE: GULF COAST SKIMMERS INSPECTOR: TOM CAMPBELL VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6 AND 2.1.15 LEASED LAND NOT BEING LEGALLY USED AND NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS OF THE LEASE ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 3.3.11. ._m~__ CONDITIONS OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) BEING EXCEEDED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FROM LESSOR. 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. ORD NO 99-51, SEC 6, 7 AND 11.1 WEED, LITTER AND EXOTICS ORDINANCE LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: WOODEN PALLETS, PLASTIC PIPE, PL YWOOD, LUMBER SCAPS, LANDSCAPE DEBRIS, JUNK LADDERS, PLASTIC BOTTLES, POP CANS, PAPER, METAL AND PLASTIC TRASH. ALSO WEEDS OVER 18" INCHES. 3. CASE NO: 2004-026 CASE ADDR: 1361 LAKE SHORES DR, NAPLES, FL OWNER: ROBERT AND DEBRA LOCKHART INSPECTOR: DENNIS MAZZONE VIOLATIONS: 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. 4. CASE NO: 2004-029 CASE ADDR: 10823 TAMIAMI TRAIL UNIT A, NAPLES, FL OWNER: GUY AND MELINDA FRACASSO INSPECTOR: SHAWN LUEDTKE VIOLA TlONS: ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 1.5.6 UTILIZING DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AS SEATING AREA CONTRARY TO THE PERMISSIBLE USE. THIS IS A REPEAT VIOLATION. ORD 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 AND SEC 2.7.6.5 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ERECTED BEHIND THE SHOPPING PLAZA WITHOUT PROPER BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. THIS IS A REPEAT VIOLATION. ORD 93-64, AS AMENDED, SEC 4 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WITH AN ENCHROACHMENT INTO THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. THIS IS A REPEAT VIOLATION. 5. CASE NO: 2004-028 CASE ADDR: 2840 4TH AVE N.E., NAPLES, FL OWNER: GARY D WILSON INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLA TlONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.6.7.1.1 NUMEROUS VEHICLES THAT ARE/WERE INOPERABLE AND DID NOT HA VE ANY CURRENT OR VALID TAGS. ORD NO 99-51, SEC 6, 7 AND 8 WEED, LITTER AND EXOTICS ORDINANCE LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: WOOD, METAL, TIRES, PAPER, FOOD CONTAINERS, CAR PARTS AND PLASTIC. --.,.,.,.- --,---,,--_.---- D. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Aljo Inc CEB NO. 2003-055 3. BCC vs. Dreamscape Homes Inc CEB NO. 2003-047 4. BCC VS. Keith T.Heckrnan CEB NO. 2003-058 5. BCC VS. Keith T.Heckman CEB NO. 2003-059 6. BCC vs. Gopal Motwani CEB NO. 2003-034 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Brown CEB NO. 2004-017 2. BCC vs. Herman Haeger CEB NO. 2004-018 3. BCC vs. Claude Martel CEB NO. 2004-014 4. BCC VS. Paul Zaino CEB NO. 2004-028 5. BCC VS. Robert and Susan Dixon CEB NO. 2004-003 6. BCC VS. Southern Development Co. Inc CEB NO. 2003-005 7. BCC vs. Southern Development Co. Inc CEB NO. 2003-006 B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC VS. Carter Fence CEB NO. 2003-021 2. BCC VS. Monika Van Stone CEB NO. 2003-048 3. BCC VS. Thelma Novello CEB NO. 2004-003 4. BCC VS. Donald Gray CEB NO. 2004-005 5. BCC VS. Deborah Katchur CEB NO. 2004-015 8. REPORTS 1. BCC VS. Philip & Anna Marrone CEB NO. 2001-013 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE July 22, 2004 11. ADJOURN ----- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please make note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll call, please. MS. ARNOLD: Cliff Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. ARNOLD: Roberta Dusek. MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. ARNOLD: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Sheri Barnett. MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Albert Doria. MR. DORIA: Here. MS. ARNOLD: And Ray Bowie. MR. BOWIE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Just so the board knows, we have a new alternate that was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, but that person won't report until next hearing. And also, the board did take action to remove the other alternate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, there are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any agreements that you need to tell Page 2 .-.- June 24, 2004 us about? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. As you all know, this is a new process that we are going through today, and there were a few glitches, as always with new processes. Oh, for the record, I'm sorry, Michelle Arnold. We do have some changes to the agenda. Prior to the public hearing process, there is a request to move a couple items that are on your agenda currently up to be heard first. So we'll be moving 6.A.l, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Deborah Katchur up first, and that's a motion for an extension of time Then we will hear 6.B.l, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Carter Fence for imposition of fines. Next, 6.B.2, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert and Susan Dixon for imposition of fines. And 6.B.8, Board of County Commissioners versus Donald Gray. Those three imposition of fines will be heard. And now for the modification to the order of our public hearings. After our motion for continuance that you have on your agenda, we will hear a stipulated agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and Roger Withers. Your agenda indicates Edward McCarthy and Dorothy Lewis, but that's incorrect, because at your last hearing you changed the name. And then we will hear a stipulation for Case No. 2004-022, which is the Board of County Commissioners against itself, Parks and Recreational Department. Then we will hear Item 3. There's also a stipulated agreement that was agreed upon, 2004-026, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert and Deborah Lockhart. And the final stipulated agreement is for Board of County Commissioners versus Gary Wilson, which is 2004-028. We're going to shift because I'm not sure Mr. -- for the -- someone representing Fracassos? Page 3 .--- June 24, 2004 (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: No. No one in the room for that. So that will be the last item on the public hearings. There is a respondent present for 2004-016. The order is for those that are present that would go first that are stipulating, okay. I hope you all were able to follow that. MS. DUSEK: The last part, 2004-016, did you say we're going to hear that case, or that was a stipulated agreement? MS. ARNOLD: Sixteen we will hear before 029. So we're just shifting the orders, because both are contesting, but one person's present, the other person's not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think I got that all worked out. Okay, any other corrections, changes, modifications, shuffling, whatever you want to call it, to our agenda? MS. ARNOLD: You want some more? It doesn't have to be added, I will be kind of discussing for the board, just for informational item, the special master process that the board adopted at their hearing on Tuesday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we do that under -- MS. ARNOLD: Comments. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- reports or comments, either one? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everyone understand all the modifications to the agenda? If so, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as modified. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as modified. Any discussion? If none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. Page 4 .-- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Approval of our minutes from May 27th meeting. Anybody have any changes to the minutes? They were sent, again, electronically to us. If none, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Michelle, are we going to do our stipulations first and then these other extensions and impositions? MS. ARNOLD: No, we're going to do the extensions and impositions first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First item on the modified Page 5 "- June 24, 2004 agenda is a request for an extension of time. BCC versus Deborah Katchur. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, Ms. Katchur is here, and she's present. What she's requesting is the board give her additional time for compliance. And if you want to step up to the -- you can use that podium. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: You can just start speaking to the board, tell them why you need additional time and what you've done to come into compliance thus far. MS. KATCHUR: I did everything that I could to come in compliance. I removed a kitchen from my home. But I ran into some difficulty with the septic company, finishing in a timely manner and getting my architectural plans. I have obtained all that and I did get my permit yesterday, and I would ask for another 60 days to have all my inspections. MS. ARNOLD: If the board recalls, this is a case where an addition was made to a single-family home without building permits. I met with Ms. Katchur yesterday, and she explained that she didn't actually have possession of the house until December of last year, where there was, I guess, some personal issues. And she actually purchased the property June of last year? MS. KATCHUR: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: So there was some difficulty for her to actually start getting permit applications and those things prior to the time she did. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, how long will it take her to get the inspections? MS. ARNOLD: The inspection side of it, did they tell you? Did you talk to them yesterday? MS. KA TCHUR: Well, just in case anything is -- needs to be corrected, I was asking for 60 days. I did obtain my permit and Page 6 -'-" .-._- June 24, 2004 everybody, you know, can come out and do their inspections. But I just wanted time, if anything was wrong, to be able to fix it. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, everything is done, it's already completed, but I guess she may need time to fix something that was maybe done incorrectly. She obtained a building permit yesterday and she did provide us a copy of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. My first question is when did you submit your application for the permit? MS. KA TCHUR: I didn't actually submit it. Somebody else submitted it. And since my name was on the deed, I was able to use that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But you did -- I mean, our order said submit an application. Our order doesn't say actually get the permit by a certain date, it says submit a complete sufficient building permit application within 60 days. So what I'm trying to understand is you're asking for an extension, and I'm not sure of what. Because we said just submit the application, not get the permit. MS. ARNOLD: It says following that to obtain inspections -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: After, 60 days after you get the permit. So when did she get the permit? MS. KATCHUR: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yesterday. She got 60 days. That's what the order says. You got a permit yesterday, you get 60 days after you get the permit. So why do we need to give you another 60 days? MS. DUSEK: The only thing that I see is that she was supposed to get the permit by May 24th. She didn't get it until June -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, it says -- MS. ARNOLD: No, he's right, it just says complete and submit the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- it says submit the application. It Page 7 -< ~--~--,-,,-_.,- .---- June 24, 2004 says nothing about getting a permit. That's why I'm a little confused on what you're asking us to do. MS. ARNOLD: You're right, Chairman. She doesn't need additional time. MR. DORIA: Sounds like she's got her 60 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, you already have it. If you just got your permit yesterday, you got 60 days to get all the inspections. You don't need anything from us. MS. KATCHUR: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me. Before she leaves, it says submit by May 24th, so she submitted and got her application. But -- now, does she have 60 days from May 24th? MR. DORIA: No. MS. ARNOLD: She has 60 days from yesterday. MR. BOWIE: From obtaining the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item 2 says after you get -- it says 60 days after obtaining the permit. She just obtained it yesterday. She got 60 days. You don't need anything from us. MS. KATCHUR: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: After those 60 days, for whatever reasons that's not sufficient, then you should come back. But I'm not prone to give you another 60 on top of 60. MS. KATCHUR: No, I didn't want that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think you have everything in the order you need from what you're telling us. So right now I think you're in good shape. MS. KATCHUR: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Then imposition of fines. First item, Carter Fence, Case 2003-0211. Now we've got to find Carter Fence. MS. ARNOLD: This is a request for imposition of fines. This case was heard by the board on May 22nd, 2003. A finding of a Page 8 -..- June 24, 2004 violation was found and the respondent was ordered to cease all actions inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code and by coming into compliance with the requirements of the Land Development Code provisions regarding home occupations within six months. That was November 22nd, 2003. Also, the respondent was -- was ordered that ifhe did not comply with that order, that the board would impose fines of $100 per day each day the violation continued. The board, on November 13th, did grant an extension of time to April 22nd, 2004 and ordered compliance with that extension of time. On the 27th, the respondent requested -- the 27th of May, the respondent requested an additional extension of time. And at that time, the -- the request was denied. The violation still continues, the fines are continuing to accrue, and staff is requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $6,200 for a period of April 23rd, 2004, through June 24th, 2004, and operational costs of $1,054.40 for a total of $7,254.40. MS. BARNETT: There was the one correction on our executive summary, the decimal place was in the wrong spot. It was $725.40. MR. PIRES: I'll take it. MS. ARNOLD: He'd rather have $725. MS. BARNETT: I'm sure. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Pires is here representing Carter Fence. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Michelle. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you very kindly. For the record, Tony Pires, with the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo representing Carter Fence and Ken Carter. And I wish we could go with the scriveners error that was in the executive summary, but the decimal point, unfortunately, apparently has moved to the right, as we stand here today. First of all, I want to again thank the staff and the board for their Page 9 ---,'.',,- -,._--~- June 24, 2004 considerations in the past on this particular issue. If you recall, way back when this was brought to the board's attention, we recognized that there is an issue that needed to be resolved, and we entered into and agreed to the initial order, and we asked you and you all were very kind enough and extended the courtesy of extending the time frame to April 22nd for completion -- for compliance to occur. As indicated, I know the board at the last meeting denied the motion for an extension of time. Unfortunately, my client is frustrated, too. I know you all are frustrated. I'm sure Michelle's staff is frustrated with the whole situation, the frustration caused by the unfortunate circumstance of subsurface muck conditions and soil conditions at the new site where the fencing operation will occur, White Lake Corporate Park. The contractor is anticipating getting the CO mid-August, August 13th. I asked my client to make sure that was not a Friday so that we could make sure that we have everything in a row at that time. What we're asking for, because of those intervening unfortunate circumstances, we're not aware of, number one, any available three-acre sites to store the stuff in the meantime. We understand the concern expressed by the staff and by this board with coming into compliance. What we would request is that -- request a delay in the imposition of any fine or any alternative to make a conditional -- and triggered only if my client does not come into compliance by August 13th of this year with the moving into the new facility and out of the existing operation. Once again, we appreciate the considerations you've extended in the past and we also appreciate the professional manner in which the staff has conducted themselves in this regard. Thank you. And I'm available for any questions that you may have. Page 10 - ^--~-~ June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, you want us to not impose the fines for -- to maybe, possibly our next meeting and/or do what, now? MR. PIRES: I would request, first of all, not impose any fines at all, but I'm sure that's a request that would not be well received. So in the alternative to try to at least maintain some credibility, request that if there is to be an indication of an imposition of a fine, that it basically be held in abeyance or held sort of over the head, and that it only be triggered and imposed effectively if my client has not completed the operations and ceased -- and complied with the order as of, say, August 13th of this year. MR. BOWIE: This is really another request for extension of time -- MR. PIRES: It's sort of a modification of what we -- yes, it's sort of like a conditional imposition of a fine, if that's possible. I know Ms. Rawson will advise you whether she believes that's appropriate or not. MR. BOWIE: Which was -- which was voted upon also at our last meeting and denied. MR. PIRES: That's correct, the motion for extension of time was denied, that's correct. MS. DUSEK: You said that your client has had difficulty in finding a three-acre parcel in which to put the elements that we've asked him to move. MR. PIRES: For storage of materials in the interim, zoned appropriately, that's always the issue. MS. DUSEK: That I find very hard to believe, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When we impose the fines, they still have -- if I'm remembering correctly, after the fine is imposed they still have the right to come before the board and ask us to reduce it or Page 11 ."_0" .^-~-- ~-- June 24, 2004 abate it, correct? MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess for that reason I'm prone to impose the fine or at least right now move ahead with imposing the fine, and when the problem is solved and Mr. Pires and his client would like to come back and ask us to reduce or abate for whatever reasons, I would be more prone to listen to you. I say that because when we don't impose the fine, my fear is we now do not have -- without imposing it we don't have a lien on the property from the county's standpoint. That doesn't occur until we impose these fines. So anything can happen. He could decide tomorrow to sell the business and whatever and you have to tell the new -- but we don't have the county protected. That's why I'm not really a big purveyor of keep moving fines ahead. You have the right to come back to us. MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Your client does, so -- I understand your concerns. Sound valid. But from my standpoint I think I side on the side of caution for the county. And I would probably recommend that we deny your request to set the fines ahead to some other date, and we just move ahead with imposing them for those reasons. But that's -- I'm one of seven, so -- MS. DUSEK: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I'm a little confused, because we were having a debate in the previous months about the position of the public being able to come back and ask for a reduction or an abatement of fines once they've been imposed. I'm not sure what the position actually is. I thought that they would not be allowed to do that anymore. MS. RAWSON: There's an Attorney General's opinion that says once it's been recorded that you lose your jurisdiction to do that. So it's my recollection that it's been the position of this board, notwithstanding the Attorney General's opinion, that you have indeed Page 12 .--.-- --- June 24, 2004 allowed people to come back and ask that the fines be reduced or abated. MS. DUSEK: So we've never taken the position of the State Attorney General. MR. BOWIE: Right, we've never concurred in that opinion. MS. RA WSON: It was a previous Attorney General's opinion. MS. DUSEK: We never found out -- okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And I don't want to say to our side, at least the governing body here has not seen to restrict our decision to proceed in that manner. So right now we're still operating on the basis that we have the power to do that and we are doing it. And until somebody tells us we're not allowed, we will continue. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the request for an extension of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second to deny the request to not impose the fines. Do I hear any more discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now we will need a motion to impose the fines as requested by the county. Page 13 _,._.,__0_._ - '-"-"---'-~-'---'-- June 24, 2004 MR. BOWIE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested by the county. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next, Board of County Commissioners, Robert and Susan Dixon, 2004-003. MS. ARNOLD: This is -- this case was heard by the board on February 26th, 2004. The board found that there was a violation and ordered the respondent to comply with the Land Development Code regulations within 15 days of the hearing or -- and comply and complete the same within 60 days of the hearing, April 27th. The respondent was also further ordered to comply with the various sections of the Land Development Code, and indicated if they did not comply with that, the time frame specified, $250 per day would be imposed for each violation that continued. The respondent has noted -- was also ordered to notify us upon compliance with that order, and they would also be responsible to pay operational costs. Staff is -- has -- if you recall, this item was on the agenda last month, and we requested an extension of time to resolve matters between the respondent and the county. We've since done that. They Page 14 -,--" June 24, 2004 are in complete compliance. There was some confusion as well with the site development plan, which we had further discussion with the respondent as early as this morning. So the amount that was originally intended to be imposed or requested to be imposed has been modified, and staff is now requesting that we impose fines in the amount of $1,000 and operational costs in the amount of $1,241. 75, for a total of $2,241. 75. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Are Mr. and Mrs. Dixon here? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Dixon is here. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. You worked this out and got a number that's satisfactory? MR. DIXON: Well, satisfactory would be a hard term to use in this case, but when I consider how much I would have to pay a lawyer to come in here and to argue the point, it would probably be cheaper to do this. MR. BOWIE: It's not satisfactory but it is acceptable. MR. DIXON: That would be correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The lesser of the evils, correct? MR. DIXON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If you are relatively satisfied, we will proceed in that vein, okay? MR. DIXON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You may sit down. We do have a new amount that the county wishes to impose, and the respondent is reasonably satisfied with the new numbers. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just note something for the record? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to note that Mr. Dixon was previously represented by Attorney Ray Bass, and Ray Bass was unable to attend today. And Mr. Dixon has waived -- and allowed us to proceed without his attorney. Page 15 -- .----.-- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MS. ARNOLD: Is that correct? MR. DIXON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Based on that, I would entertain a motion to impose the fines as requested by the county, which are $1,000 for the fine and $1,241.75 for the operational costs. MS. BARNETT: Can I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: -- just ask a question as to when they came into compliance? Because from the information that we had, it doesn't reflect just $1,000 fine. So I'm trying to get a handle on why the change. MS. ARNOLD: Well, they actually came into compliance with what they thought they had to come into compliance with. There was some confusion on the site development plan. So there's debate between a particular area on there, whether or not it can be used at all. I think it was an oversight on their part. They're trying to fix that right now. They're in the planning department process to amend the SDP to identify that you actually can use that portion of the property for what it's being used for. They have agreed, and they've done it, removed everything off of that piece of property in question just, you know, to be cautious. And so they're, until the SDP is amended, going to keep everything off of that location until it's been approved by the county. So that was the confusion. They complied with what they thought the order had indicated, and __ MS. BARNETT: Okay. Because in our packet the affidavit of non-compliance is dated -- MR. BOWIE: May 4th. MS. BARNETT: -- May 4th. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. And as I said, we actually were in discussions up until this morning, right, because of that confusion. Page 16 -_.,-_..,.~-,--- -"-_.^._~~-_.._.- ~ ---.'..-.--......-..-..- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To be technically correct, since our order had a specific date in it and we're now hearing there may have been some confusion, and the county and the respondent have worked out what, for lack of a better word, a proper fine amount would be, based on those conditions, would the board not -- I guess would the board, to be correct in approving the new amount -- actually we are reducing the fine from "X" down to -- otherwise, we would have to, I assume, correct our order, since it sounds like there's some confusion as to what it was. Because our order said do it by a certain date, and it wasn't done, so the fine should be $11,007 -- MS. RAWSON: Right, at $250 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and they've agreed to $1,000. So what we need to do is accept a reduction from this to this, correct? MS. RAWSON: And you can say it as a stipulated agreement, the board agrees to the stipulation to the reduction of the fine to $1,000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Just so we're all on the same page. Everybody on the board understand that? Okay. If so, then I would entertain a motion to do that. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move this then, that the board, in Case No. 2004-003 impose the stipulated fine of $1,000, plus $1,241.75 for the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, for a total of $2,241.75. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the stipulated agreement amount. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 1 7 _....~-""'..."... " June 24, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. BCC versus Donald Gray, 2004-005. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This case was heard by the board on March 25th. The board at that time found there -- a violation did exist and ordered the respondent to abate all violations by either removing the subject canopy structure or by submitting a variance within 60 days, which was -- would expire May 27th, 2004, and by reporting to the Code Enforcement Board on that date. The respondent was also ordered that if they did not comply, did not either remove the structure or obtain a variance by that date, that a fine of $ 7 5 a day would be imposed or continue to accrue each day the violation continued. The respondent was also requested to ask the inspector to go out to the site to perform a site inspection for compliance or to verify compliance, and ordered that operational costs would be assessed. Staff at this time is requesting that the board impose the fines in the amount of $2,025 for the period between May 28th and June 24th, and an additional $1,290.31 for operational costs, for a total of $3,200 -- no, sorry, $3,315.53 -- oh, 35 cents -- 3,315.35. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And we have this -- Mr. Gray? MR. LENSE: No, my name is Pablo Lense, from the law office of Pablo E. Lense, 2660 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida. Co-counsel for Mr. Gray along with the Vega Law Firm. I thank the Page 18 June 24, 2004 board for letting me address the board this morning. Ms. Arnold was present at an emergency hearing that was conducted on this matter on Monday of this week. Briefly, after the order of this board, which was signed on April 1 st of 2004, Mr. Gray appealed this. He filed an administrative appeal to the circuit court, dated April 27th, 2004. Subsequently, myself had discussions with Ms. Belpedio, the county attorney's office, with reference to possibly staying this matter pending resolution on either the variance or an appeal. Ms. Belpedio has a different viewpoint of our communication. Apparently we had some type of miscommunication. But be that as it may, when this board issued a notice of hearing scheduling this hearing today for imposition of fines, we went to court on Monday on an emergency basis, and Judge Brousseau, he denied the motion as to staying the hearing held today. Without putting words in the judge's mouth, we're actually awaiting the actual transcript of the order. I believe Ms. Arnold can concur to me, the judge had mentioned that he would most likely -- first of all, it was denied without prejudice, meaning we can come back after we exhaust our administrative remedies and he would most likely be inclined to stay any enforcement actions. We did not receive, as the notice for today discusses, which my understanding is that it would only discuss the affidavit of compliance or non-compliance that was provided to me for the first time Monday afternoon. Respectfully we're saying that, number one, this is not a timely notice as to today's hearing with reference to non-compliance, but also, Mr. Gray -- the statute in question of this board says it may order a fine. It's obviously discretionary in nature. We're also taking the position that there's a case out there, a very similar case called the Massey case, Charlotte County, where he's entitled to his due process rights before the actual imposition of the fine. In other words, he's entitled to a notice, an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful place and meaningful time, as the case states. Page 19 - ~--- ._.._--------,,~ .,..... June 24, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Well, Counsel, you seem to be here today. MR. LENSE: Yes, I am. MR. BOWIE: This is your opportunity to be heard, is it not? MR. LENSE: Well, this is the opportunity. I'm also requesting of this board that we either stay the imposition of the fine, pending the determination of the circuit court, and abate any imposition of the fines. This is going to be most likely resolved on appeal probably, and I can't -- I don't want to put any time frame to that. I would definitely say some time within the next three to four months, I would imagine. The reason for my appearance here today is because, number one, we were under the impression that this was already stayed pursuant to the appeal. Although the order says it doesn't, we had had previous conversations with the county attorney's office with reference to this. And also, pursuant to the administrative -- excuse me, the hearing held on Monday, the judge has indicated he would most likely be inclined to stay in the enforcement of any actions. But we don't want to get into the position where there's an imposition of fines and then it makes it -- doesn't make it cost effective to proceed on the appeal. The appeal is proceeding, it's a different interpretation of the findings of the facts of the board, obviously. We're asking this board as of today, number one, he has not had, and this is not an evidentiary hearing today, Member Bowie, with reference to his opportunity to be heard. So we're requesting that the board abate any type of imposition of fines and liens, and actually request an extension of time until the circuit court, acting under the appellate capacity, can make a rendition (sic) on this matter. There's certainly -- if I may just have one more other thing? There certainly would not be to my knowledge any prejudice to the county in allowing this abatement, pending determination from the appellate court. Page 20 -- ~-~" ._-.. June 24, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman? I was at that hearing on Monday that was held. And I don't want to put any words in the judge's mouth either, but he did deny the request to stay this hearing, and he indicated that he should go through and exhaust all of his administrative abilities, go through this hearing process. And he also indicated that if the matter did come back, that there -- the ability to stay the accruing fines after the amount imposed by the board would be a consideration, meaning he would post some sort of a bond or __ for the amount that this board, if you choose to impose it, so that there would be some assurance that those fines would still be there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As the board's attorney, are you familiar that this appeal has been filed and all that? MS. RAWSON: I was provided with copies of his motion to stay. And I did know that there was a hearing in front of Judge Brousseau this week. I was not present at the hearing, nor have I been provided with Judge Brousseau's order. But I am listening to the same explanation of what he said that Ms. Arnold said and the attorney said. Appears that Judge Brousseau denied the stay of this hearing. And I tend to agree with Mr. Bowie, this is -- the hearing is today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, this is the -- MS. RAWSON: And I don't think Massey really, basically, is on point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I mean, this is -- and as I remember, when we impose fines, is not the imposition of fines in 162 an administrative procedure? MS. RAWSON: It is an administrative procedure. Nevertheless we always give people -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We always try to give due process. MS. RAWSON: -- give notice. Page 21 -_.~-_.__._._._---- ".--....- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that being said, we've heard the respondent's attorney asking us not to impose the fines for these specific reasons. Do you have anything else to say, sir? MR. LENSE: No, Your Honor -- or no, board member, excuse me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right. MR. LENSE: I just want to just clarify one thing. The certificate of service I have for the administrative -- notice of administrative appeal does have Ms. Rawson being notified on, I believe, April 27th. MS. RAWSON: Yes, I did get it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If there's nothing else, thank you, SIr. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the extension for the imposition of fines. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request for the imposition. MR. BOWIE: Extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Extension of imposition of fines. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. Page 22 .._...._.~,----<- -~.+." . ~._. June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now we would need a motion to impose the fines as requested. The fines and operational costs as requested by the county. MR. BOWIE: I'd move that in Case No. 2004-005, that the board impose fines, liens in the amount of $2,025 for the period of May 28th, 2004 through June 28th, 2004, at a rate of $75 per day, plus $1,290.35 for the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, for a total of $3,315.35. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested by the county. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Now that was everything, right, Michelle? Now we can go to the actual public hearings and start with stipulations; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three, four. That was the four items that -- MS. ARNOLD: There is one motion for continuance and then Page 23 _.~- .__.~. June 24, 2004 we can do the stipulations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, you're going to do that first? Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, because then we can modify the agenda further, if you approve it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll open the public hearings. And the first item to be conducted under the public hearing is a motion to continue, BCC versus Fracasso, is that -- I hope I'm saying it correctly. I apologize if I'm not. Case 2004-029. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. You have a letter from Guy Fracasso. And that is 2004-029, if you all want to read that. You should all have a copy of that. MR. BOWIE: Is there anyone here from this respondent? MS. ARNOLD: No, they're not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And this is a case we haven't heard yet, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Right. And actually, this is coming to you on your agenda as a repeat violation, because this is something that you've previously heard and found in violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And he corrected it and come back, or he just -- MS. ARNOLD: No, it wasn't corrected, but there was no consequences identified in your previous order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So he's basically saying that rather than hear the order today, he wants us to put it off or he wants us to hear the order and extend it? I mean, what's he really asking us to do? MS. ARNOLD: It sounds like he's wanting you to continue it to a later date. He'll be out of town today. I mean, essentially he's not available for this hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If that's the case, let me ask the county, is there a problem if we would move this case to the next Page 24 _.___..__._.__v____,_~ -.---. ._-~ June 24, 2004 month's hearing? You have a problem with that? MS. ARNOLD: No, I don't think so. I think the problem's still going to be there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we haven't heard it yet, we're not really doing anything other than moving it to next month. Okay. I wouldn't have a problem doing that, since he's not here. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, have we not -- I'm maybe confused with all the scrambled eggs, but I thought that this case has been in progress since September of '03, and it doesn't take that much time to move a dumpster. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well-- MR. PONTE: And I'd like to know when the SDP was applied for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I think what the county is telling us, this is a repeat violation, so there was a previous case and what we have to do is separate the two. And this is a new case being brought before us on a repeat violation status. So we haven't heard this case yet. And what the respondent is asking us, don't hear it because I'm not here and I'm working on it, could you move it to a later date. And the county seems to be willing to let us hear it next month, so -- MS. DUSEK: I have a slight problem with that, only because it is a repeat violation and he knows the process, he knows what he has to do. I don't see any reason to delay it. He knew what he had to do. MS. ARNOLD: Staff also points out that there is a concern because the dumpster, the position of the dumpster is creating a hazardous condition for the adjacent day care, so that's a part of your consideration. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're now changing your position and would rather hear it? MS. ARNOLD: It's up to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We just need to know the county's Page 25 _....... __'W_^_'~ .~.,-- . .-. June 24, 2004 side. If you don't have a problem moving it forward, we might consider that. If you do have a problem then -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm just -- I guess I'm taking the position he's requested the extension because he's not available. Give him that opportunity to present to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He says he got some kind of a permit and I don't know what that is, we don't have it here, so -- MS. ARNOLD: No, we -- MR. BOWIE: It's a dumpster moving permit. I'm only joking about that. It wouldn't seem that moving a dumpster back to its rightful location and enclosure is such an insuperable task that requires a permit. You put it back where -- MS. ARNOLD: What I think he's trying to do is to get additional seating for his restaurant. MR. BOWIE: But that's nothing with putting the dumpster back where it needs to be. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the approved location for the dumpster is where he currently has his seating. So he's trying to continue to utilize probably the location and then work through the permit process. MS. BARNETT: He's trying to get the dumpster permitted somewhere else. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is this the Mexican restaurant? MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I remember it now. MR. BOWIE: Yeah, we have in our file an order imposing fines in this dating from back in January. MS. BARNETT: That's for the first case. This is the second case. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And there were different stipulations in your order. However, with the -- for the portion of the order that Page 26 ---"._.. -- June 24, 2004 refers to relocation of the dumpster, there was no -- there was a time frame established, but no fine amount established, I believe. Let me look. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we have this letter from the respondent, this is for a case we haven't heard yet, and he states that he will be out of town, and that's obviously his reasons for not being here at the hearing, if we proceed -- if we deny the request to move it ahead and we go ahead and hear the case, is that a problem? MS. RAWSON: It could be. He could, you know -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, since he's told us he can't be here. MS. RAWSON: Correct. You know, he could you know, file an obj ection that you violated his due process rights and proceeded without him. Unless it's a serious health and safety hazard. If the county has no obj ection to moving it to next month, that might be the most prudent thing to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I was thinking. MS. DUSEK: Jean, excuse me. So if someone comes before us with the request because they're not going to be in town -- MS. RAWSON: You have to look at every case separately. MS. DUSEK: I know, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If they just don't show up, that's one thing. But he's actually given us notice that he won't be here. MS. RAWSON: Every case is -- you have to judge on their own merits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, every case is different. MS. RAWSON: You can look and see what the alleged violation is and see what the respondent has done. In this case he has affirmatively written to you, which we are going to consider as his motion to continue. Page 27 .,-----_. - June 24, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Michelle, can I ask a question? Because did you just state that staff had a problem with it because of the safety and health issue to the day care that was adjacent to this property? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MS. BARNETT: So that could be a safety/health issue? MS. RAWSON: If it's a safety/health issue, that puts a different light on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that we deny the continuance. MS. BARNETT: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? My only discussion is if the problem's been in existence all this time, I guess I have a serious difficulty accepting that now the county's coming forth and saying whoops, it's a safety and health issue. If it's been going all this time, how come just now it's appeared to be that, unless something has drastically changed. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, in my recollection from the previous meeting, they did bring that up because of the kids in the area, because it is a day care center. And when the trucks have to come in to dump it, sometimes it created a safety issue for the children because it's actually -- the trucks now have to come on their property to dump the dumpster. I recollect that at the initial meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: So they did bring it up initially. We apparently -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But not as a -- MS. BARNETT: It was a safety issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it was. Now all ofa sudden it's -- this is a -- we haven't heard it yet, but from what they're saying, it's a repeat violation of the same thing, but now it's become a bigger Page 28 ~~---_...._.- - June 24, 2004 Issue. Okay, we have a motion and a second to deny the request for a continuance. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed. So we have 5-2. Okay. That was the only motion to continue. Now we'll do the stipulations. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Stipulated agreements. MS. ARNOLD: You should have had several copies of them this morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First one being, I guess, Withers. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. PONTE: What's the number, please? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2004-12. Which your compliance agreement -- it's the one prepared by Jennifer Belpedio. It doesn't have a number on the top of it. It may be somewhere in the -- here it is, on the -- toward the end of the first sentence, about in the middle, right above the word "recitals, 2004." MR. PONTE: I have it. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Roger Withers, CEB Case No. 2004-012. The -- we had previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A Page 29 ~.-._..,~- --_..'--,- ~-- June 24, 2004 at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.7.6, 2.2.2,2.2.2.2.1 and 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed carport converted to living structure with electrical, air conditioning and plumbing improvements, all done without first receiving authorization of a Collier County building permit and having received all of the required inspections and certificate of completion. Also observed the existence of multi-family structures on agricultural zoned property. All same improvements having been placed, constructed or installed on parcel less than five acres, and exceeding legal conformed use. Location where violation exists: 228 Sabal Palm Road, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Roger Withers. Page 30 _"'m."" _'__..~___"M___"_ ----,- June 24, 2004 Date violation first observed: October 1, 2003. Date owner -- date owner given notice of violation: The previous owner was notified August -- on October 24, 2003. And the new owner was notified in February, 2004. Date on which the violation was to be previously corrected: Was November 29, '03 and October 15, '03. Date of reinspect ion: Was June 23,2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the respondent and his counsel is present in the courtroom. And at this time, we would like to turn the case over to the investigator -- no, sorry. MS. ARNOLD: This is a stipulated agreement so, I mean, the attorneys are here to speak to the board on the matter. MR. DUV ALL: For the record, my name is Scott Duvall with Cummings and Lockwood. I represent Mr. Withers. Also here is Rich Y ovanovich from Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, and he represents Ed McCarthy and Doris (sic) Lewis. Before we get too far in the compliance agreement, Michelle pointed out a typo or an error on Page 2, Paragraph 2. That's been corrected. There's also another one on Page 3, Paragraph 6 in the second line. There's a reference to respondents, that really should be Withers. So if everybody's okay with that, we'll make that change on ini tial. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's a spelling error in Item 11. MR. DUVALL: Good catch. I'll talk to Jennifer about that. MR. BOWIE: I would just like to confirm, perhaps through Jean, this agreement is nothing more than a proposal, a stipulation that is presented to us for our adoption; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: That is correct. MS. DUSEK: Jean, so that I understand it also, if we accept this stipulated agreement, this compliance agreement, then we don't hear the case. Page 31 -..----.-....- ____.~,h.'N'... June 24, 2004 MS. RAWSON: That's correct. Basically, if you approve the stipulation, it will be attached to the order as Exhibit A. MR. DUVALL: I might also want to point out to the board that Mr. Withers has already undertaken -- and actually the prior owners had already undertaken to evict the tenants. They're all gone. There's one tenant that remains. Actually, he's not living there, he's got some personal effects that are still at the property. But we are permitted to have one -- use one residence for rental property. So as it stands, we've already complied with the beginning terms of the compliance agreement. We've already gotten quotes for demolition of the existing structures. So we're well on the way of complying. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Withers bought this property with the full knowledge, according to the stipulation, of this proceeding, correct? MR. DUVALL: He did. And actually, I probably should point out, Mr. Withers was an investor on the deal that came in. I represent another individual who is a joint venture with Mr. Withers on this transaction. Mr. Withers didn't come into the transaction until May, early May. So he found out about it. The prior -- my other client had known about the violation previously. So everybody was made -- informed of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, if we were to accept this agreement, and let's do worst case, say they don't comply, then does code enforcement have to bring it to us so that we can basically start from square one and hear the case, since we haven't heard anything yet? MS. RAWSON: I think so. But as I recall, reading this agreement, all they're agreeing to is that they won't schedule the Code Enforcement matter for hearing, so long as they're in compliance. So that does not preclude them from bringing this case back if they're not in compliance. MR. DUV ALL: I think we're agreeing to a continuance until Page 32 ---.----- - June 24, 2004 we've met all the terms, at which time then the case is started. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I mean, it's giving them a year-- MR. BOWIE: A year plus six months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to get their approval, and then plus another 60 so, you know, you're getting 14 months. So I guess what I'm looking for is if we accept this and they get down kind of to the end and -- I mean, what happens if something doesn't occur at the end of 12 months? MR. DUVALL: If I can point out, the 12 months is for the rezoning of the property, if we're going to apply for a rezone. If we're not going to apply for a rezone, I think it's a total of 90 days to have the structures removed. We've got 60 days to either obtain a permit for the structures or obtain a demolition permit and then another 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item 5 says no later than 12 months you either get the rezone or you remove the duplexes. So that's still 12 months. MR. DUV ALL: That's in the event we go forward with a rezone as opposed to a demolition. And during that 12 months we're not going to -- the properties still won't be occupied. I mean, we're not going to be permitted to have them occupied anyway. MS. BARNETT: I don't know about anybody else, but I have a problem with Number 12. Because if they comply, we don't even get operational costs back. And anybody else that has been in front of us that we've been looking at fines, we've at least -- they've incurred operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And Jean, as I remember, for that reason we couldn't agree to accept this, because this board doesn't have the power to waive administrative costs. We can only -- our power is limited to fines, not administrative fees. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if we accept this, we're basically Page 33 ---.'..--- _._._____'~"._.."..o_.__.~_.___'_._._._____ June 24, 2004 waiving the administrative fees which we don't the power -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I didn't notice anything in the agreement about costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it says, Item 12 -- MR. BOWIE: Item 12 is very clear about that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- it says no fines, fees or costs shall be due, and we can't -- MS. ARNOLD: But this is -- because technically this hasn't gone to hearing, so you -- MS. RAWSON: That's true. MS. ARNOLD: Now, if we were to come to -- go through the hearing process, of course those operational costs will be assessed. But in this particular case, we've kind of entered into a compliance agreement before this board has even -- before the matter has actually been placed on the agenda. The other stipulated agreements have been placed on the agenda and they've stipulated to the violations and we're going through this process. This one is a little bit different in that the matter's been continued a couple of times and we had a change in ownership. And the reason why we're entering into this agreement the way we are is because of the change of ownership, and we want to give the current owner adequate time to comply, which we didn't have an opportunity to do through the enforcement process. MS. BARNETT: But he was aware of it. MS. DUSEK: That makes -- that brings another question in my mind. Jean, if this property changes hands again, owners, then we start all over again, and this will have gone on then for -- it could be a year and a half, two years, and nobody will be brought to task about it. MS. RAWSON: Any time the property changes hands, you're faced with having to bring it back. Page 34 ..-----.-...".., -~,_._-_. ____M...__..... --- June 24, 2004 MR. DUV ALL: I would think a new owner would be subject to the compliance agreement, if it's already been entered. MS. DUSEK: Well, it doesn't say anything in here. That's what bothers me, that we didn't have something in writing in our previous order with Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Lewis. Otherwise, we wouldn't be sitting here right now. MR. DUVALL: I can't speak to that. Rich is here, I can have him -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. That's not a completely accurate statement. What had happened was Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Lewis came to you originally in April and asked for a continuance, and there were two conditions of that continuance. And the reason it was rushed to this board -- because I was working with Ms. Arnold and Ms. Belpedio -- was because they were aware of the sale of the property, which my client had disclosed to them. And you wanted to make sure that any subsequent purchaser would know about the code enforcement violations. So it was continued until April with an agreement that my client would not sell the property and would not -- and the subsequent purchaser would know about the code enforcement violations. I then appeared before you and said I've had some issues with zoning, I've dealt with staff, we have reached an agreement as to what would be appropriate terms for a continuance regarding this matter so we wouldn't get into the code enforcement hearing. Your staff agreed and recommended instead of doing a motion to continue that we come back with a compliance agreement to continue this, which we did, and I sent you a letter and attached a copy of the order. And we have fully complied with both code orders to get a continuance. Mr. Duvall and his clients will tell you throughout this proceeding that they knew about the code enforcement violations. And in fact I spoke to his client before Mr. Duvall got involved. I Page 35 -..-..----..-"".-..-.--..-- June 24, 2004 then, when Mr. Duvall got involved, I sent them a letter with a copy of the cases. I had met with staff as far as what the bullet points of the agreement was going to be. I let Mr. Duvall know that. We did not get a draft in time to get it finalized before your last hearing, else we wouldn't be here, it would have been all done and over with and Mr. Duvall's client would be going along exactly as we proposed. Mr. Duvall's client knows about this problem. We can make sure that anybody -- Mr. Duvall, I'm sure, will make sure that any subsequent purchaser knows about that. Everybody has been involved -- everybody has been fully notified about this Code Enforcement Board matter. So any -- any implication that people didn't know what was going on is not a fair characterization of what actually occurred factually. And your process worked. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, but that's not the issue. We -- I agree that everybody -- all parties knew about the issue. MR. BOWIE: Except this board, perhaps. MS. DUSEK: No, I -- well, we weren't told that everybody knew, but we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I told you I would notify people at the hearing. MS. DUSEK: Yes, at that point you did. That's not the issue. The issue was that Mr. Lewis, I believe it was, stood right where you're standing and promised us, this was not written in the record but it was a promise under oath that he would not close on that property until this issue was resolved. And it was something like the following Monday or two weeks later or whatever that the property closed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not true. MS. BARNETT: It is true. MS. DUSEK: Well, I can't be accurate on the date -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's months later. It is -- he came to you in March. Page 36 _._.~_..._--"-,,-.- .._"~--_.- --- June 24, 2004 MS. BARNETT: He stated it in April. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And he did -- and he said that I will not -- he said in March. MS. BARNETT: He also said it in April. Because you just stated it just a few minutes ago. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was here, Ms. -- I was the one in April. MS. BARNETT: You were here in May. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I may be a month off. Okay, so it was the April 1 st order that came out that Mr. Bowie was referring -- MS. BARNETT: It was the first continuance. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that was your April 1st order. And that's when he said we will -- MS. BARNETT: I specifically asked the question of him. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it was reflected in the order that we would not sell the property until the next Code Enforcement Board hearing. MS. BARNETT: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what the order says. MS. BARNETT: Our recollection of it is that we would not sell it until we had this item resolved. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But anyway, when I appeared before you in May, the only continuance request was that we get the compliance agreement done at your next meeting. And I -- May 3rd, I went to staff and said we need to meet so we can meet the deadline. And we hammered out the terms that was going to happen. At that point the county attorney's office took over the drafting of the agreement. We did our best to comply. If we had had a draft sooner, you would have had the compliance agreement signed in time to -- and we wouldn't be here worrying about this issue in the future. I don't think you have that issue to worry about in the future. MS. BARNETT: I think what our problem is, and this is -- I'm speaking for myself, because I believe the previous owner -- and Page 37 ."--_._"--~---- -" '-'- June 24, 2004 we've always had trouble with continuances because of this issue. Once the property passes, the problem passes with the property and then it has to all come back up again. So we were trying to make sure that we did not run into this problem and, therefore, we wanted it resolved, but we also wanted the party that was responsible for letting it get in that position be the party that resolved it. And it's not happening in that manner. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I've got to defend my client. It wasn't because we didn't try to push this to conclusion through our own efforts. We went ahead without a compliance agreement and without any finding of violation, immediately sent out letters to the tenants that you need to leave. And they have left. So without a compliance agreement in place and in good faith, we went forward and did what we said we would do, which was make sure nobody was occupying the units. We met with staff to get -- to move forward with finalizing the compliance agreement terms. I don't think it's fair to characterize that my client didn't try. And Mr. Duvall will tell you and his clients will tell you that they knew what was going on. And we would have had this resolved last month, based on the same terms. MS. RAWSON: If I could, I can read to you from the March 25th minutes. Chairman Flegal: All we want -- we don't want to get into this case, but I want from you is your assurance that you will not close on the property until after our next board meeting, which is April 22nd. Mr. McCarthy: I will be here with my attorney, and we will not be closed before the 22nd of April; is that what you're saying? Chairman Flegal: Yes, sir. Mr. McCarthy: Okay, you have my assurance. Chairman Flegal: Okay. With that assurance, would the board make a motion to continue this to our next meeting. Ms. Barnett: I will make a motion to continue this until our next Page 38 e.....,"___. . ... ~ -,-""- June 24, 2004 board meeting on April 22nd. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that -- we fully complied with that. Exactly with the dialogue. MS. DUSEK: When did the property close? MR. BOWIE: The 24th of May. MR. DUV ALL: May 24th, I believe. MS. DUSEK: When did the property close? MR. BOWIE: May 24th. MR. YOV ANOVICH: May 24th. MR. BOWIE: Three days before our last meeting. MR. DUV ALL: So I mean, I think we did exactly what we said under oath. MR. BOWIE: Again, I share some of the opinions that have been expressed here, and I think this board did address this situation by the motion we passed at our last meeting, you recall, as a matter of record. I think what we should do at this point is focus on the substance of this compliance agreement, and as to which I share a number of the concerns that have been expressed regarding that as well. There are no consequences in this agreement, no consequences whatsoever for the respondent, either as to the past conduct, the past violation, which still continues, nor as to any assurance that this is going to be cured. It's nothing more to me than a glorified substantial continuance for a period up to 14 months. And I think if the history of this sorry case proves anything, it's that there has to be consequences, serious consequences to any continuance we grant to any of the respondents in this case. And there are none in this compliance agreement. None whatsoever. For that reason, I think it fails and this board should reject it. MS. DUSEK: Are you making a motion? MR. BOWIE: I make a motion that the compliance be rejected. MR. DUV ALL: If I may address that. If I may address that. I Page 39 ~ _.-.--,--._--- ---_.._--'..._,~ June 24, 2004 disagree. I think we're asking for a continuance, we're not asking for you to waive fines or potential fines right now. I think if we don't comply with the terms, the matter is still open. At that point if we don't comply with the terms, whatever you decide to do, you decide to do. It's certainly in our best interest to comply. I think we've already shown very good faith in getting the all tenants out. We've already gotten quotes to do the demolition. I'm not going to suggest that that's our only course of action, because we might decide to do a rezone. But, I mean, I think we've shown very good faith in complying with these terms. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. MS. ARNOLD: There is also the option to modify what's before you and, you know, add or delete language to this, as long as the -- you know, they're willing to agree to whatever you all are wanting to include. MR. BOWIE: I think we reject the agreement first, then maybe we can reconstruct it. I think any reconstruction has got to entail fines for what's happened in the past and further fines if there's no compliance, as well as the administrative costs. At a minimum. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, since we haven't heard __ MS. RAWSON: You haven't heard the case, so you don't even know if there's a violation -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RA WSON: -- so you don't want to get ahead of yourself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. We don't know if in fact there is any violations, because this agreement doesn't stipulate that in fact some kind of violation does exist. It's just saying hey, give us "X" time to solve something. Nobody's admitting to what that something is. And you're asking us to agree to that. And I think that's where the board's having a problem. And we can't -- we can't establish a fine system on something we haven't heard that we know is a violation. So we can't say we want to penalize somebody "X" because of Page 40 '-'---,- --....._~..__..,...,,_.. ,.-....--". June 24, 2004 something we don't know about yet. So I'm kind of leaning toward -- I don't like the agreement because I don't think it's sufficient enough. So from that standpoint, I kind of agree with the rest of my colleagues that I don't like it as written. If it were changed somewhat to show that both parties agree that yeah, there is a violation and the one party is going to work diligently to try to resolve it and they've agreed to some time limit, that's a step in the right direction. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Chairman, if I might add, if we deny this compliance agreement and we hear the case and we impose a fine, if we find that there's a violation, at that point, from that point on they can come together again with the county and bring us another stipulated agreement or some sort of conclusion to this before our next meeting or for whatever time frame we give them. But right now there's no substance in this compliance agreement. I think we should deny it, I think we should hear the case and make our conclusions from hearing the case. If it goes against the respondent in that time frame, he can come back with another agreement with the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a -- as I remember, a motion and a second already on the floor to deny it. We have to solve that problem first, unless the parties would remove it from the floor. So right now there is a motion and a second to deny the compliance agreement presented. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, before you make a -- take a vote on that, I think the property owner was wanting to speak to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. DUV ALL: That's correct. MR. WITHERS: I'm Roger Withers, for the record. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. WITHERS: I don't object to what you do. But in terms of Page 41 _.,____.,,__w.... June 24, 2004 what's really -- what's your desire, you had a problem on that property for some time. I've agreed to correct the problem. I think it's already corrected. But I feel like you've been on a major witch hunt for a couple of years now. But I'm just the new witch. I had never met Mr. McCarthy, didn't know him. I met him the day after we closed on it, which was the day before the Thursday which __ your hearing which I was incredibly villainized without any opportunity to be here and know about it and what was going on. And I think in all fairness you should recognize, you know, what is your goal here? If your goal is to correct a problem that has bothered the county and the county staff, you have the opportunity to do it without further expense to the county, your time and trouble. Everyone's been removed. We've cleaned up the property. I have no intentions of inhabiting those buildings or having anyone else inhabit those buildings. We're removing all of the fixtures and equipment from them. They will be removed either by the East Naples Fire Department for practice bum or they will be removed from the property and taken to the dump. Your field inspectors are welcome to visit the site on a daily basis. Weare moving as quickly as we can to either rezone or totally return the property to a vacant five-acre tract. And I did buy it as an investment, not to reside there. And I think there are other things happening on that corridor that perhaps influence what's being done with this particular property. But I ask you to look at the compliance agreement I signed in good faith, knowing what the issues were. Admittedly, I only knew days, not weeks, not months, not years, but I did sign the agreement with full knowledge of all the terms and all the consequences. And if you want to impose a penalty for me not complying for what I've agreed to, that's fine, I think you should, and I think you have the right to do it. But I think we need to bring this matter to closure, because it seems it's turning more of a witch hunt than it is a zoning Page 42 _.._._.....,..,----_.,--~, -_._'--.-~.,~_.'._-~'. ,....~~_wm..,_ June 24, 2004 issue. And I have no problem, but I don't want to be a new witch, you know. And I want to work cooperatively, but in all fairness, I think you've chosen a task without recognizing what your goal is. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Withers? MR. WITHERS: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Ifwe hear the case and if we do find a violation and we give you a certain amount of time to correct that, then you'll pay no fines. You'll pay probably administrative costs. MR. WITHERS: Make them punitive, if you desire. I don't have a problem with that, because my intentions are pretty clear. You know, my path of the property is very different than the previous owner's, so that's the reason I don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Withers, couple of items. MR. WITHERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I've been on the board eight years. To my recollection, first time -- we haven't heard the case yet, but it was brought up March, we continued it. We continued it in April, we continued it in May. So we haven't heard about the problem yet. It just started this year, so I don't know what witch hunts you're referring to. Secondly, the investigators don't work for this board, they work for the county. We don't have investigators. So you need to understand, we're here, when the county brings us a case, we hear it, determine if you're a violator and order you to do something, okay? MR. WITHERS: Right. I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, we haven't done that yet. You've come before us with an agreement that you and the county say you worked out. And as far as we're concerned, the agreement doesn't say there's a problem. That bothers us, because the county originally came to us saying there was a problem and they wanted us to hear it and now it's been continued and we haven't heard it. But Page 43 ....-..-.- ___.C. --, ,...,.--.., ",-..- June 24, 2004 now you're bringing us an agreement. So that's where we're coming from. MR. WITHERS: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're to decide is there a problem, and if there is, we'll decide how it's to be corrected. And if it's not corrected, we'll impose fines. We haven't got that far yet. MS. RAWSON: If I might, on the compliance agreement on Page 1, under recitals, second paragraph, there is an admission, almost. The county has alleged that the violations of these ordinances exist. I think if you simply ask him if he would agree that they exist, you know -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but that's -- his agreement that there are in fact violations aren't in this agreement. The county's saying there's alleged violations. MR. DUV ALL: If it would please the board, we would stipulate to violations, provided we don't comply with the terms of the compliance agreement. So in the event we didn't comply with these terms, we would stipulate to a violation. If that would make it easier. That seems to be your concern. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if there's a violation, then we need to order you to do something. And if you don't do it, then we'll set up a possible fine if you don't comply. What we're saying is when we read this agreement, you haven't admitted that there's a violation, and there's a, hmm, we'll do something by some date and then if it doesn't work, then the county's going to bring it back to us and ask us to make a decision anyway. So we'd rather see an agreement that solves all those problems in one shot rather than come back and have to start at square one again a year from now or whatever. That's our problem with the agreement. MR. DUV ALL: And I recognize that, and I think that's what I'm trying to address. I mean, I don't want to say there is a violation, because then we're doing away with the due diligence -- I mean, the Page 44 -.-....---.. ..-----.., June 24, 2004 due process of actually having a hearing. I would rather say in the event we don't comply with these terms, we would stipulate to a violation as of the day we were supposed to comply. And what you do at that point, impose fines, do what you need to. MR. BOWIE: I think we have a motion-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We still have a motion-- MR. BOWIE: -- to reject the agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and a second on the floor we have to resolve. Any other comments before we -- MR. WITHERS: Would it help if I stipulated to demolish the properties that you're having a problem with within 90 days of turning a permit? I mean, I don't have any problem helping you accomplish your goal, as well as accomplishing mine. So I'd like to bring closure to this as quickly as possible, too, as opposed to having strung out additional agreements and hearings. MS. DUSEK: Ifwe hear the case, Mr. Withers, and we find a violation, we'll stipulate time frames and things for you to do. So it will be a better guide for you, actually, than this compliance agreement. MR. DUVALL: With all due respect, if we come to a -- have the process, have the hearing, my client would have to pay for administrative costs, many of which, most of which were really from the prior owner. MR. BOWIE: Well, and rightfully so. By operation of law, he's the substituted respondent. He steps into their shoes. That's to be anticipated he would. MR. DUVALL: I recognize that. Again, I think -- I mean, you also had concern about the one-year period for rezone. We can strike that and just go forward with tearing down the buildings, just demolish the buildings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think what the board intent is, and I Page 45 ~ --".-.,.... ...-,..-...--,,--.---, -"~""-_._.._- _"___n~__"~~__>_ _. June 24, 2004 may be getting ahead of my colleagues, but I think we're leaning toward rejecting this agreement and possibly suggesting a rewrite of this agreement, maybe, rather than hearing the case. I'm leaning out, because I've heard that somewhat as a possible option rather than actually hearing the case, if some other things were put in here. MR. BOWIE: This is -- MR. WITHERS: I didn't author this agreement, so therefore, I take no pride of authorship. Nor did I participate in the drafting of this agreement. I am only -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we didn't either, sir. MR. WITHERS: -- coming in. So it's understanding it was mutually prepared by the county, county staff and the participants. So I recognize you didn't draft any portion of it, and I not only didn't draft it, I didn't even read it prior to my building -- purchasing the property, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're being asked to okay it, and that's our problem. We don't want to okay it because we feel there's things missing. MR. WITHERS: And likewise, I'm being able to okay it and I didn't draft it. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Can I ask something over here? Can we continue this until after the other public items and then maybe myself and the attorney and the property owner can go and renegotiate this and get back? MR. PONTE: I think the only way we can get this back on track is to hear this case and it will all get cleared up. MS. ARNOLD: Well, what I'm trying to avoid is going through the whole testimony and -- MR. BOWIE: I would agree. MS. ARNOLD: -- I think we can resolve this if we continue it, not to another hearing, a little bit later. MR. BOWIE: I think Michelle has a decent suggestion here. I Page 46 -.- "."~.._.".----^-, --. June 24, 2004 think we reject the compliance agreement and follow that perhaps with a motion to give the parties -- sit down with the county 30 minutes. MS. ARNOLD: I don't think you have to reject it, you just need to continue it. MR. BOWIE: No, we want to reject the agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't like it. You're going to have to rewrite it anyway. MR. BOWIE: I want to drive a stake through the heart of this entire thing once and for all, okay? Kill this compliance agreement. It is not acceptable. Give you 30 minutes to sit down and come up with other terms to stipulate to us and come back to us within 30 minutes. And if not, we hear it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we -- instead of 30 minutes, can we give them until the last item on the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. BOWIE: I'm a little fearful. Some of us are going to have to leave by that time, and I think this matter is too important a matter to risk having that happen. We lose a quorum, or some of us who feel about -- strongly about this might not be here. MS. ARNOLD: What time do you need to leave and we'll just bring it back prior to your -- MR. BOWIE: I think a number of us feel strongly about this case. We want this heard while we're here and we want it heard today and resolved today. MR. PONTE: But I wouldn't want to be asked to vote on something, an agreement that I haven't seen and read, and it would be all verbal, we're substituting this word for that word, this paragraph for that paragraph. I want to see it in writing. MS. DUSEK: Let's vote on the motion on the floor. MS. ARNOLD: And that's what we intend on doing. MR. PONTE: In 30 minutes? Page 47 ----_.._.._..'~-~ .- June 24, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Well, if we take some action right now, maybe I'll be able to negotiate something with -- MR. DUV ALL: And perhaps the board can give some suggestions as to what would be acceptable. MR. PONTE: I don't think it's the board's position to try and do that. We're all head what the board has had to say. You know where we're coming from. Get the pen and pencil out and redraft it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board hasn't heard the case, so we don't know all the facts of the case. Only the parties do. And what we're saying is you presented us a piece of paper to approve and we don't like it, so we're going to reject it. You all need to sit down. You've heard why we don't like it. And if you want to come up with something else to present to us, you're more than welcome to do that. Otherwise, in the scheme of things as we go through the public hearings, we're going to hear the case. So, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. MS. DUSEK: We have a motion and a second on the floor. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to call a question on the motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we let the Chairman ask the attorney a question before we vote so we know what we're doing, please? Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifwe reject the agreement, can we, upon rej ecting it, state that parties are suggested to try to work out another agreement before this item comes up on the agenda a little later in the public hearing? MS. RA WSON: You certainly can, because I think probably all the parties in the room have heard what you think, and I believe they can modify the compliance agreement, perhaps, so that you would approve it. And that's going to save this board a lot of time, rather Page 48 ~."- June 24, 2004 than having to start from square one and hear all the facts. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: So yes, you may put that in your motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. All I'm suggesting is, in rejecting the compliance agreement, that we give the parties direction to try again and present another compliance agreement -- I don't think this has to be modified that greatly -- prior to -- there's one, two, three, I think there's four, five, there's at least five cases prior to this, and it's 11 :00, so 12:00 -- we'd like them to come forward sometime 12:30-ish, thereabouts, and say excuse me, we have an agreement redone and we'd like to present it. With that in mind, everybody understands what we're trying to do. We have a motion and a second to reject the compliance agreement before us. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifnone, all those in favor of rejection, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, this compliance agreement is rej ected. The board would like to stipulate that the parties try again and come back to us, say, by 12:30. MS. DUSEK: Did we vote on them doing that? Do we need to vote on that, Jean? MR. BOWIE: I think we should. I'd like to move that -- Page 49 _.._."...~~. - June 24, 2004 MS. RAWSON: You need to vote. MR. BOWIE: -- that this case, 2004-012, be deferred till 12:30 or soon thereafter as it may be heard, or until such time as the parties can present to us a stipulation at that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A revised stipulation agreement. Okay. Do we have a second to Mr. Bowie's motion? MS. DUSEK: Before there's a second, so I understand it, you said around 12:30? MR. BOWIE: Well, we might be in the process of hearing another case, but as soon as that case is resolved after 12:30 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then we'll do it then. MR. BOWIE: -- either they have a stipulation they can present to us or we hear this case on its merits, if not. MS. DUSEK: Is that all part of your motion? MR. BOWIE: Yes. MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to direct the parties to come up with a revised compliance agreement and/or the case will be heard approximately 12:30-ish, if there's an opening at that time, or as soon thereafter as possible. That's really the motion; correct, Mr. Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. Page 50 .._...,~>--_.."- June 24, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next agreement -- do you need a break, Cherie'? I'm sorry. Okay. Let's take five minutes, please. It's three minutes after and we'll go to 11 :08. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the board back to order, please. Next stipulation is Case 2004-022. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is the Board of County Commissioners versus Collier County Real Property Department and Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, and Glenn Herriman, that's H-E-R-R-I-M-A-N, registered agent for Gulf Coast Skimmers Water Ski Show. CEB Case No. 2004-022. And we had previously provided the respondent and the board with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. 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. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. Page 51 ....-.-.--,,--,..--- - June 24, 2004 Any opposed. (N 0 response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent was here earlier. They left after they entered into the agreement. The alleged -- the violation is of Sections 2.7.6, Subsection 1; Section 1.5.6,2.1.15; Section 3.3.11 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, and Ordinance 99-51, Sections 6, 7 and 11. The description of the violation: An unpermitted fence, weeds over 18 inches, various litter consisting of but not limited to wooden pallets, plastic pipes, plywood and lumber scraps, landscape debris, metal and plastic trash. Also, illegal storage of building materials, including but not limited to concrete blocks, roof sections, old trailers, ladders, metal items, all without an active building permit. Location where violation exists: 4290 Avalon Drive in Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Collier County, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: August 11, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: Collier County Real Property certified mail, received on or about May 10, 2004. Collier County Parks and Recreation, Marla Ramsey, certified mail, received on or about May 10, 2004. And Glenn Herriman, certified mail received on or about May 10, 2004. Date on which the violations were to be corrected: Was May 20th, 2004. Date of reinspect ion: Was June 23,2004. And at this time, I would like to turn the time over to the supervisor, Patti Petrulli, for the introduction of the stipulation agreement. MS. PETRULLI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and board. For the record, my name is supervisor Patti Petrulli. Page 52 --..-- -- June 24, 2004 We did reach an agreement with the county and the Gulf Coast Skimmers. Everything has been -- has come into compliance, with the exception of just two items: And I believe everyone has a copy of the agreement and the stipulation. On Article 1 there, the respondents agree to obtain the fence permit within seven days from the date of this hearing and to remove the light poles within seven days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $25 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. And Item 2, the respondent agrees to maintain the property free of similar code and ordinance violations, as well as all other code violations. And in this agreement, the petitioner agrees to waive the operational costs for Case No. 2004-022. And that's dated this date, the 24th of June, 2004. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question. Your Item 1 on your stipulation is about getting this fence permit in seven days and to remove some light poles. Where do the light poles -- where are they a violation? I'm not seeing that in Item 2 on the first page. You give me the violations, but I don't see anything about light poles. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir, let me bring investigator Mr. Tom Campbell up. He may have some photos that will help describe this situation with the light poles. MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, Tom Campbell, Code Enforcement Investigator. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CAMPBELL: The light poles are considered litter. They're not installed, they're laying on the ground. They thought they'd have some future use for the aluminum tubing, and I think there's five or six -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. CAMPBELL: -- just laying on the ground. They have a container, a 30- foot container coming today, which is the size they Page 53 .---., ^'- June 24, 2004 need to remove those. So I do not see a problem with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just wanted to know. MR. CAMPBELL: They have all the paperwork set for the fence permit, and that should go through fairly -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I just wanted to know how we got the light poles. MR. BOWIE: One other question while you're there, sir. One of the findings here is that there is a 400-gallon, approximate, gasoline tank-- MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. MR. BOWIE: -- that was found to be leaking. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. MR. BOWIE: I don't see anything in this compliance agreement, this stipulation that addresses this. MR. CAMPBELL: Right. When I became aware of the 400-gallon tank leaking into the soil, I brought in our pollution control people and were responded very quickly. Now, this goes back into, I believe it was, August or September of last year. The leak was abated, corrected immediately, within a day. And the Gulf Coast Skimmers brought people in. They dug out several 55-gallon drums of the soil. I witnessed that. And it was removed. That was the first of my issues. And that has been abated a long time. And I'm monitoring that. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, before this takes on more coloration of a hearing in progress, I've got to have some questions answered. In this stipulation agreement, what bothers me most is that a fine has been stipulated to. By whom? I thought that this board levied fines. Did I miss a point? MR. BOWIE: Well, I think that, again, this has the status of a recommendation for our adoption. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. The county -- Page 54 ..--.--.-"'. June 24, 2004 MR. PONTE: Well, it's an agreement signed by the Code Enforcement Department. MR. BOWIE: So is the other one regarding the Sabal Palm property. MR. PONTE: Yes, I know. I understand that. It seems that somehow or other we've taken a turn in a direction of which I am totally unfamiliar. MS. RA WSON: Let me see if I can help, George. In a court of law, it's not unusual at all -- as a matter of fact, I would say probably 90 percent of our cases are resolved by stipulated agreements. And what happens is if it's in a criminal case, it's the State of Florida and the respondent's -- or the defendant's attorney. In the civil case, it's the two respective attorneys that enter into a stipulated agreement and then take it before the judge, which is you. And the judge then looks at it and decides whether or not to approve it and agree with it. The judge always has the discretion to change it or not to approve it, the same as you do. The whole reason this whole process was started is in an attempt to reach agreements, that's why we meet 30 minutes later, so that you don't have to hear all of the facts of all of the cases and spend your whole day here. Because if people are going to admit to violations and figure out when and how they're going to be able to come into compliance, you know, then it's going to save everybody a lot of time and basically ultimately get us to the final goal, which is to get all of the violations into compliance. So that's basically how it works. That does not take away the authority that you have to impose fines, because you may accept, reject or modify any of these agreements. MR. PONTE: But it means that we're agreeing to something that we haven't heard. MS. RAWSON: That's right. Because they're stipulating to the violations. Page 55 ----- .,-,.,--- ._~- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, they've admitted there's a violation, and they and the county have come to an agreement, and all they're saying is rather than -- and I'll just pick out, rather than spending an hour to go through everybody's testimony, both sides are agreeing they could live with this if we would accept it. Now, we can say yes, no, or change it. And that way we save the hour and maybe only spend five or 10 minutes. So we've saved 50 minutes. That's why we put this in process. MR. PONTE: It hasn't been a time saver today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MS. DUSEK: I have one question on Number 1. Well, let's see, on the second page. And it says obtain the fence permit within seven days, but it doesn't say to do anything with that permit after a certain amount of time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, no, the problem is if you read Item 2, one of the violations is they have a fence that exists which they didn't get a permit for. So now you have to get a permit after the fact which says the fence you have sitting on your land is now legal because you have a permit. You don't have to do anything other than go get the piece of paper. MS. DUSEK: Right. Okay. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I had one question on Number 3. Are we allowed to waive the operational costs? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. My question to Jean was going to be since it says the petitioner agrees to waive the operational costs, the petitioner happens to be the Board of County Commissioners and they have that right, as I understand it. MS. RAWSON: They have that right, you don't have that right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That's why it says the petitioner agrees to waive. So in accepting this particular waiving of operational costs, we're accepting the person's authority that has the authority to waive them. We're just saying okay, you want to waive Page 56 ._".._-_..._..~.._..,~ -- June 24, 2004 them, we agree with you. But they have that power, we don't. MS. RAWSON: That's true. It's their costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If it just said waive the operational costs, then I'd say we can't do that. But is says the petitioner is waiving it. So that's the Board of County Commissioners and they do have that power. MR. BOWIE: Especially in this particular case. Normally I'd be against waiving, waiving the operational administrative expense, but in this particular case the County pays it, it's paying from one pocket into the other, so it makes no sense. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MR. BOWIE: So in this case I would be in favor of it. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement on CEB case 2004-022. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. The next one is stipulation, I think, on agreement. Page 57 -- June 24, 2004 MS. HILTON: Lockhart. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Lockhart. 2004-026. MS. HILTON: Yes. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert K. and Debra T. Lockhart, CEB No. 2004-026. And we had previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MS. HILTON: Let the record reflect that the respondent, Mr. Lockhart, was present at the pre-conference meeting this morning. The violation is of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.11, Section 2.2.4.2.1, Section 2.7.6, Paragraph 1 and 5, of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of violation: The existence of an approximate eight by 19- foot roofed structural improvement to the southwest portion of an existing residential structure in a residential single- family RSF -4 zoning district known as 1361 Lakeshore Drive, Page 58 - June 24, 2004 Naples, Florida. Also an approximate roofed 11 by 28- foot structure improvement to the rear northwest portion of the same existing residential structure. Improvement to rear of same structure of a 10 by 12 screened room. Location where violation exists: 1361 Lakeshore Drive, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Robert and Debra Lockhart, 1361 Lakeshore Drive, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: December 22nd, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: March 3rd, 2004. Date in which violation was to be corrected: April 15, 2004. Date of reinspection: June 23, 2004. And at this time, I would like to turn the time over to the supervisor, Patti Petrulli, to present the stipulation agreement. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. Chairman and the board, I have been given some information here that I'd like to put on the record. As of the date June 27th, 2001, Robert Lockhart, according to a quitclaim deed, is the only person on the deed, and Debra was removed. MR. BOWIE: We have a copy of that in our file as well. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. Mr. Lockhart, in our meeting this morning, has agreed to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and that amount comes to $1,209.75. He's also agreed to abate all violations by showing proof of Collier County building permit for structural improvements within 15 days or a fine of $50 will be imposed each day the violation continues. He also must obtain Collier County Building Department review and approval for all non-permitted additions and improvements, and any required building permits within 45 days or a fine of $50 will be imposed each day the violation continues. Page 59 -"..~...~-,-..-"-'- .-- June 24, 2004 Upon issuance of any required permit, request all related inspections through to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for all allowed additions, improvements and use within 180 days or a fine of $50 per day. He's also agreed to obtaining -- if he does not receive the permits, must obtain a Collier County demolition permit for removal of all non-allowed, non-permitted additions, improvements, uses and remove resulting debris to the proper storage or proper disposal, restoring all premises to comply with all provisions of the Collier County RSF -4 zoning district regulations within 60 days from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. D, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out to perform the site inspections. And that was dated today, 6/24/04. MR. PONTE: Question: Why was he given a half a year, 180 days? MS. PETRULLI: I believe the concern there was that he's going to have to bring in architectural plans for anything. He's planning on making some changes in his modifications, even though he is going for permits, so he will need to bring in some plans, and we were allowing for that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm a little confused, so let me start back on the first page. I think this agreement -- since you say pay all operational costs and you did give us a number, I think this agreement should so state that number. I think you said it was $1,209.75. MS. PETRULLI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item B, you start out by stating improvements within 15 days or a fine. What you don't state is 15 days from when. I think it should be of this board accepting the stipulation agreement so that there's a time when the 15-day clock Page 60 ...-...---- --- June 24, 2004 starts running. Item 2 you state that's an "or". When you were reading it off, it was like it was an additional thing, he could do -- what I'm reading, one or two. And then after you get through two, or he could do C. So I'm a little confused there. Does he have to do both one and two or one or two? And then if he doesn't do one or two, is C an or? Or must he do C, too? MS. PETRULLI: Mr. Chairman, let me bring the investigator, Dennis Mazzone, who could explain this to you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone. I'm an investigator for code enforcement, Collier County. The agreement that we entered into with Mr. Lockhart -- Michelle Arnold was also present at this signing of this document. The 15 days, the first stipulation, was to show proof of an existing permit. If he had an existing permit for any of the additions that were found on his property, he was to show such permits or pay the $50 after the 15 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I understand that. But the 15 days is supposed to start today is what I'm saying, if we accept this agreement. Or did it start last week or -- MR. BOWIE: Well, I think the way this is worded, it starts from the date the parties signed this agreement, which was the 24th of June. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but it really doesn't-- MR. BOWIE: Which is okay with me. MS. RA WSON: That's today. MR. BOWIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now -- go ahead. MR. MAZZONE: I'm not certain as to when the time for it to start has been established. I don't know that. But I know that the next item was the 45 days. If he did not have permits, we gave him 45 Page 61 .----.....-.....<.-^.-.... .--.- June 24, 2004 days to obtain the permits or after that time a $50 fine was to be incurred. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So Item 2 under B is an "or". He either chose to prove within 15 days or he has 45 days to -- MR. MAZZONE: To obtain the permits ifhe doesn't have them. Does that clarify that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it says review and approval for all non-permitted additions. Does that -- the approval, are you saying that's a permit? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Don't you think we should say a permit, rather than just say review and approval? I mean, approval to me would be I bring the drawings in, you look at them, say hey, they're approved. But you didn't give me a permit and I'd be okay. MR. MAZZONE: No, I agree with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want a permit, right? MR. MAZZONE: I agree with you. I didn't write this stipulation, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, I'm just -- you're asking us to approve it and I have some problems with it. MR. MAZZONE: We're looking for the issuance of the permits and the -- the approval and the issuance of the permits -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: -- and to obtain them, of course, within 45 days. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, in the same manner of this housekeeping, very last fine, just above C, it just says days or a fine of $50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just haven't got that far yet. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so the two is an "'or"', gets permits within 45 days or this fine gets imposed. Page 62 .......,,-...----.. -~.-".'"- -....- June 24, 2004 Now, the next sentence bothers me in that upon issuance of any permit, you're giving him 180 days to get inspections? Is the county that far behind or something? Why are we giving him a half a year to get inspections? MR. MAZZONE: That was -- initially, we had 90 days in there, thinking that if there were some other alterations that he needed to do, he could accomplish that within the 90 days. Mr. Lockhart expressed his concern that that was not enough time and he wasn't happy with that. So between he and the director, they agreed with the 180 days. But it certainly is your prerogative to make the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I guess I'm a little confused. We're saying that he's -- he gets a permit, Item B. One, he gets a permit for structural improvements within 15 days, or two, he gets permits for non-permitted additions and improvements. But then when you go to the inspection, you're saying you're giving him 180 days because he may want to do other stuff. So are you saying he's going to submit documents to do additional improvements, or non-permitted improvements? I mean, I'm getting confused by this. That's why I'm asking these seemingly strange questions. MR. MAZZONE: Mr. Lockhart indicated that he may, as he put it, alter or change what has already been done. So not only would he have to get the permit, but he'd have to submit some updated paperwork and the revisions, and then he would be making those changes, and that might take him, he said, perhaps 180 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But he's in violation of doing certain things that he's admitted he's already done. Now he's saying oh, but I may want to do more stuff. That really isn't part of this, unless I'm missing something. MR. MAZZONE: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've cited him for doing -- for picking apples, and you're giving him so much time to get a permit to pick apples. And he says but I may want to go pick oranges. We Page 63 ---- June 24, 2004 don't really care because you haven't cited him for that. MR. MAZZONE: Or pick some more apples. And I agree with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I'm a little confused as to really what we're -- you want us to approve that (sic) you all have agreed to. MR. MAZZONE: Well, I can't speak to that now because Mr. Lockhart's not here to put his input in on this. Michelle Arnold's not here. But certainly it was our intention to get Mr. Lockhart to show proof, number one, that he had permits, if he did have them, and giving him those -- that 15 days would have been more than ample, especially after all the time that's passed since the case has started. If not, we then wanted him to obtain permits. And that would -- had been our goal if this case were to be heard, within 45 days and/or the fine would have been incurred. Now this 180 days, I don't have that in front of me, I don't have your -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it says upon issuance of any required permit, request all related inspections to the -- through the issuance of CO for all allowed improvements or use within 180 days. So it basically reads like once you get your permit, request inspections and you got 180 days to do that. I would think if you got your permits, you're getting a permit basically after the fact, because he's cited for doing certain things, which means he doesn't have permits. You're telling him to go get them after the fact, and when you get them, call for the inspections. And I don't understand why we have to give him 180 days to get inspections on something that he's getting permits for after the fact. MR. MAZZONE: Because at that point it was Mr. Lockhart's argument that he may change what is there, and it would then take him more time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Wouldn't that require a new permit? Page 64 __._._~_._._'"W,_._ . _.h"_,_~,_, June 24, 2004 MR. MAZZONE: No, under the permits that he's obtaining, he may increase or change or alter what's already there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you cited him for not having -- MR. MAZZONE: That's correct, for -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- a certain thing. MR. MAZZONE: -- what's there currently. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's where it should end. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifhe wants to build a new building, we don't really care at this point. MR. MAZZONE: And I don't disagree with that. That was not our intention. Mr. Lockhart had interjected his thinking there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, am I misunderstanding this? MS. RA WSON: No, you're not. You've got to look at the violations that -- or in the notice of violations and follow that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, what he wants to do is really immaterial. We're interested in his violation, and if getting a permit corrects it, we're happy about that. And if part of the permit process is to get an inspection, now that you got the permit, that's what we want. But if he wants to do new additional work, we don't want to know about it, we don't want to hear about it. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't want to give him 180 days to do all that. If he gets his permit in 45 days, then I suspect that a normal time to get inspections is probably 30 days. Because you're getting the permits after the fact anyway, so the stuff should be sitting there. He's already corrected this stuff and -- or he's already done this, and what you want him to do is go get a permit for what he's done, correct? MR. MAZZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: I would be a little bit -- a little more generous here in saying at least 60 days, because -- Page 65 -----. -'.-...-.-- ._- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For inspections. MR. MAZZONE: I'm sorry, yes, sir, for inspection. Because if there is something that is not done to our code, he would have to of course then bring it up to our code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I agree in substance with what the Chairman said about the period for the permitting. It should only be for those items which exist now rather than further improvements he might wish to make. But on the other hand, you know, this is not an imminent health, safety or welfare danger. I would think in order to hold this compromise together that we might want to respect the 180 days and allow this respondent that period of time. MR. PONTE: We have never had a period like that for a time to conclude an item. 180 days is a half a year. MR. BOWIE: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: Let me see -- MR. PONTE: It's too soft. MS. DUSEK: -- if I understand, Dennis. I'm going to repeat what I think you're trying to accomplish, and tell me if I've misunderstood. First of all, you want him to show you permits that he says he already has, and if he doesn't show them to you within 15 days, then you're going to give him a fine of $50. MR. BOWIE: Or-- MS. DUSEK: That's the first part of it's that -- MR. MAZZONE: To address that, he never makes the statement that he has the permits. MS. DUSEK: Okay, so -- MR. MAZZONE: But He never denies that there were permits. MS. DUSEK: All right. So ifhe can't show the permits, then he has the option of obtaining permits within 45 days or a $50 fine. MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. Page 66 .--."..---- -,--_.,.....,,, June 24, 2004 MS. DUSEK: And then inspections and certificate of occupance (sic) within, whether it's 90 days, 100 days -- 180 days or a $50 a day fine. MR. MAZZONE: Well, if I may also mention, if he does not -- if he does not obtain these permits, his alternative would be to obtain the demolition permit -- MS. DUSEK: That was my next part -- MR. MAZZONE: -- and to then remove all of this -- MS. DUSEK: So it's basically showing permits, no permits, then you get the permits. If you can't -- and then if you do get the permits, you get the inspections and the COso If you can't get the permit, then you demo -- demolish it. MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. Within 180 days. Yeah, that would be in the last and final phase of what he would have to do. Ultimately if he cannot get the permits within 45 days, then -- or he doesn't wish to, his alternative is to obtain a demolition permit -- MS. DUSEK: Okay, right. MR. MAZZONE: -- and to remove these very detailed structures. MS. DUSEK: Now maybe I'm getting too detailed, but in the first part when it says show the permits or you'll -- and if you don't have the permits, you get fined $50, it seems to me that shouldn't be there as a fine, but it should just kind of go into the next part, which is or obtain permits. Because if he can't show you permits, we don't want to fine him $50 a day just because he couldn't come up with it. MR. MAZZONE: I would agree with that, yes. And I would just like to mention that on my visit to this property I did notice -- the second or third visit into the property, there was a for sale sign then placed on the property. MR. BOWIE: There we go again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Another one. Give me a break. MS. DUSEK: I in essence agree with the general intent of this Page 67 ---"-- ._-~._-- June 24, 2004 compliance, but there are some things that have to be cleaned up. They have to be a little clearer before we -- MR. MAZZONE: And I agree. I think that everything that you stated is pretty accurate. And if it were changed to read so, I don't see why we couldn't live with that. I don't know about how Mr. Lockhart would react to that, but certainly -- or Michelle Arnold. MS. DUSEK: And Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: If we -- if we ask that they revise this stipulated agreement and the respondent is not here to accept that revision, then do we have the choice of either postponing until the next meeting that they come back with a revision, or do we also have the option of going ahead and hearing the case when the respondent is not here? I mean, what -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you can modify the stipulated agreement, as long as you're modifying in -- I think the word one of you used was cleaning up some of the language in the agreement. If the agreement is basically in theory what is written here, if you want to change some of the words to make it clearer, I mean, I think you have the right to do that, without having a whole hearing. MS. DUSEK: And that would be accepted by the respondent, even though he signed -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's an order. He doesn't have any choice. MS. RAWSON: It is an order of this board. MS. DUSEK: Even though we might make some changes? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: In the days, for example. MS. RAWSON: You can do that. MS. PETRULLI: If it would help the board, if it was going to be any less than 180 days, Mr. Lockhart was not going to sign. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, unfortunately if we order it less Page 68 ------- -~--" ---.,-,.- June 24, 2004 than 180 days, he doesn't have a choice, unfortunately. MS. DUSEK: But that's was my concern, the fact that he agreed to this before a hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but it's been testified to that he agreed to this because he has additional things he wants to do, and unfortunately that's not what he's cited for. MS. DUSEK: I understand. But then he's not -- he would not have agreed to this and we would be hearing the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but -- MR. MAZZONE: And that's correct. MS. DUSEK: So that's what concerns me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's agreeing to -- he wants a longer period so he can do other things. You have to get back to the case. The case is he's cited for painting his barn red, period -- MS. DUSEK: I understand all that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- not that he wants to paint it later. So whether he likes the 180 days or not is immaterial. We have to understand what he was cited for and go there, period. That's what we have to do. MS. DUSEK: I understand that. But he's not here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But we are allowed to change this agreement whether he likes it or not. MS. DUSEK: I understand. But he -- there was testimony from Dennis and from Patti saying that he would not have signed this if he doesn't have the 180 days. Therefore, we would be hearing the case. So I feel uncomfortable changing this, you understand? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, I understand. But what you're missing, I think, is -- MS. DUSEK: No, I'm not missing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You are, please. MS. DUSEK: No, I'm not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He wants the 180 days to make Page 69 __m June 24, 2004 additional changes. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Additional changes aren't part of what he was cited for. So we don't really care that he wants 180 days. That's immaterial, because he wasn't cited for something he hasn't done yet. MS. DUSEK: I understand that completely. MR. DORIA: He's not here to present his case, Mr. Flegal. MS. DUSEK: That's what I'm trying to get across. He's not here to have due process, is what I feel, if we change that 180 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with that anyway. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just add something? I don't know ifmy mic. is on? The reason -- you're absolutely right, he wants additional time because he's requesting a permit to do things above and beyond what he currently has. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: And we granted it. The county agreed to that because he's not going to get a separate permit for what he has and then get an additional permit for the modifications. And that's why we agreed to the time frame that we did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: That's what I'm concerned -- that's fine. But if we as a board change that date and we've had testimony that he would not have signed this agreement and we would have heard the case, he would have been here then to have presented his case, that's what concerns me. Not that he's going outside of the realm of what he's been cited for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you're letting him go outside. And we must come back to the fact that our only power is he is cited for something. We make a determination, did he do something wrong or didn't he? If he did, then we order him to do something. That he Page 70 -- "_..- June 24, 2004 would like to do something different is irrelevant. We must stick to what he was cited for. MS. DUSEK: You're missing my point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I'm not. MS. DUSEK: You are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He wants the 180 days to do other things. MS. DUSEK: And I understand -- MR. BOWIE: I think what Bobbi's concern is, that if we make a material alteration or try to make a material alteration accepting the stipulation, you no longer have a stipulation. There's no longer an agreement. MS. DUSEK: That's correct. MR. BOWIE: And the respondent is not here for any hearing. MS. DUSEK: That's correct. MR. PONTE: We certainly have had hearings in the past when the respondent has not been present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. DUSEK: But he was here this morning, and he was here because he thought he had an agreement. MR. PONTE: He also left. MR. DORIA: He thought he had an agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he doesn't have an agreement until we approve it, so -- MR. DORIA: Well, haven't we granted Michelle Arnold-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we can't grant anybody power to do something that we have the power to do. MR. DORIA: Then why is it signed by her? MS. ARNOLD: No, I'm signing it on behalf of the county. It's not on behalf of the board. MR. BOWIE: It's a stipulation subject to our agreement is all it IS. Page 71 ~" .--- ~.._. . June 24, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. And the only thing that -- and the reason why the county has agreed to the time frame is because we need to give a reasonable amount of time. And the permit that he's going to apply for, it will take about that time frame to comply, to obtain the certificate of completion or certificate of occupancy. And that's the reason why we indicated that. MR. BOWIE: Well, I'd like to move that the substance of this agreement, subject to certain clerical and grammatical corrections, be accepted by this board. MR. DORIA: And I second. MS. BARNETT: Wait a minute. Before you make that, I want to get to the next one where it says or a fine of, and has just $50. MR. BOWIE: I think we already addressed that's one of the __ MS. BARNETT: It doesn't say per day, and nobody's ever brought it up. And I would like it to specify per day. MR. BOWIE: It's going to have to say impose -- that's one of the clerical items that's got to be reflected in this, it's got to say $50, just like all of the other fines, imposed for each day the violation continues. MS. BARNETT: We had corrected all the others and not got to that one. MR. BOWIE: Well, that's one of them, obviously. I think that was brought up, yeah. MR. DORIA: I second your motion. MS. DUSEK: Jean, do we have to be specific from this board in the modifications that we want? MS. RAWSON: Here's what I think you should do. If you're going to modify an agreement, I think you need to be very specific about how you're going to modify it. And then I'm going to actually write on the attachment to the order what your modifications are. You're going to approve it as modified. If it's going to be substantial enough that the respondent needs to be present, you know, then that's Page 72 -'--~-~-_.._" . '_"'h ---- ~"'_'_h...___m'__ __n .... ,.. . ...._ June 24, 2004 going to be another problem. What I just suggested to Shanelle, and we'll talk about this later, is that in the future maybe we'll hear all the stipulations first and have the respondents remain here so that they don't leave until you've approved them, so they'll be here to testify, so we won't have this problem again. But back to your original question. If you're going to make the modifications, make them very specific. For example, I just wrote in per day after the $50, because what you're going to do is approve it as modified. MR. BOWIE: This is what I would move in my amended motion then, that we accept this stipulation agreement as modified as follows: That in A, the bottom of the first page, pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, in the -- we add in the amount of one thousand, I believe it was two hundred and nine dollars and seventy-five cents. That we, in B, add the word an existing in front of Collier County building permit, so it reads abate all violations by one, showing proof of an existing Collier County building permit. MS. DUSEK: And you need to take out -- MR. BOWIE: And then we delete -- then after that we delete or a fine of $50 will be imposed for each day the violation continues. We deleted it. MR. PONTE: What are we deleting? MS. DUSEK: The $50 per day ifhe doesn't show an existing permi t. MR. BOWIE: That we add, just before the parenthetical two, we add "or". Or two, rather than two or. Or two, must obtain Collier County building, delete department review and approval and add permits. Must obtain Collier County building permits for all non-permitted additions and improvements and any required building permits within 45 days. The rest of it -- the rest of it continues. Page 73 -~,_.-- ..- _.-,_..., ..------ -- June 24, 2004 Then when we get down to after the material about Certificate of Occupancy within 180 days or a fine of $50, we add, after $50 there, we add the words $50 imposed for each day the violation continues for, instead of C we say three, because this is a third alternative, three, must obtain a demolition permit and so on. C would simply become three. D then would no longer be D, it would become C. Because you have three alternatives there, one, two or three. And that's my amended motion. MR. DORIA: And I second that. MS. DUSEK: I second -- oh, Albert. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept the agreement. Any further discussion? MS. DUSEK: As modified. MR. PONTE: Yes. I'm not happy with the 180 days. No one has explained to me yet and convinced me that a half a year is necessary . MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, my comment is that it seems now the board has put itself in the position of accepting agreements for things that are not violations, because people want to do things, and that they've basically said we won't agree to it unless you give me what I want. MS. DUSEK: That's not true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's not what the board is here to do. The board is to find violations and order them to correct them within a certain amount of time. We seem to have passed that for some reason. MS. DUSEK: I totally disagree with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. And if there's still discussions, we will go on. Are we ready to vote? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. Page 74 -"--- ,,-_..._- ~._"- --- June 24, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed. Aye. MR. PONTE: Opposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So it passes. Next agreement, Board of County Commissioners and Gary Wilson, 2004-028. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Gary Wilson. We had previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a motion to accept the County's Exhibit A? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I have a second? MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? Page 75 .^_._....__...,",-,,--~._-_.- "'~'-- . .-- ~-~ June 24, 2004 (N 0 response.) MS. HILTON: Let the record reflect that Mr. Wilson was here this morning at the pre-conference meeting. The violation is of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.6.7.1.1, and Ordinance No. 99-51, Sections 6, 7 and 8. The description of the violation: Observed numerous vehicles that were inoperable and did not have any current or valid tags. Also observed litter consisting of but not limited to wood, metal, tires, paper, food containers, car parts and plastic. Location where violation exists: 2840 Fourth A venue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Gary Wilson, 2840 Fourth Avenue Northeast. Date violation first observed: February 3, 2004. Date owner given notice of violation: Was February 3rd, 2004 by certified mail, return receipt requested, which was returned claimed on February 12, 2004. And in the meantime, the crossover in the mail, the property and the courthouse had been posted while waiting for the green card to be returned. Date which violation was to be corrected: Was February 10, 2004. Date of reinspect ion: Was June 23, 2004. And I would like to turn the time over to the Director Michelle Arnold for the stipulation agreement. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I didn't know I was going to do that. The agreement that is being presented to you all today -- I don't see it. I don't have my copy. The respondent has agreed to stipulate to the violation. The violations are actually abated at this time. The investigator went to the site and found that all of the inoperable vehicles have been removed. The -- there are two unlicensed vehicles that remain on the property, and they have now been -- valid Page 76 ."-. ~ -.,'.- --- June 24, 2004 tags have been placed on there. The respondent agrees to maintain the property free of violations of county codes and ordinances. And they've also agreed to pay the prosecutional costs in the -- for this particular case. MS. DUSEK: So you're saying that everything has been abated? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: And that all you're asking is that he pay operational costs. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, what was the amount on the operational costs? MS. ARNOLD: That's $1,090.75. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept this stipulation agreement with the one change, that we add the amount of operational costs of $1 ,090.75. MS. BARNETT: I'll second. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agreement, with the noted change. You actually put in the dollar figure, correct? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. Page 77 _.- " ,.,.... June 24, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a new compliance agreement between the county and Mr. Withers. Has everybody had a chance to review it? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MS. BARNETT: No. MS. ARNOLD: There are some typos in there that __ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I know you were trying to do it rather quickly, so that's understandable. MS. ARNOLD: Do you want me to kind of walk you through some of the changes that were included, or -- MR. PONTE: Direct us to the changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it's down to four pages instead of five, so I think there's probably -- MR. BOWIE: That's progress right there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- a decent number of changes. Why don't we -- let's take a couple of minutes and everybody read the new agreement to try to get a handle on it. Since we rejected the old one, let's concentrate on the new one to see -- rather than say what was changed. Just read the new one. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Has everybody had a crack at 't? 1 . MS. ARNOLD: The major changes, of course are that on Page 2 of 4, there is a whereas clause that's been added to include the stipulation of the respondent that the violation existed. There has been additional paragraph added, Paragraph 4, that speaks to the __ either obtaining a permit for the duplexes or demolishing -- to demolish the duplexes within 30 days of obtaining a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, for clarification, Item 6, you're Page 78 ~.- ..- -^ '""'-'- .-< June 24, 2004 asking us to agree to your -- accept your stipulation agreement, but Item 6 says that -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you want us to continue the matter? Now, you get one or the other, we either accept it or we continue it, we don't do both. MR. BOWIE: I think that's a holdover from the previous agreement, perhaps. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I mean, if we're going to accept the agreement, then he's got to comply with whatever's in that. It's not just going to be we're going to put it as continued so that he __ we'll talk about it later. So I don't see the need for six, unless somebody can convince me it's something different. MS. ARNOLD: What do you want to do? We'll delete that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Seven and eight, are they conflicting? Seven says that your -- as long as they're making good faith efforts, you won't bring the matter back to the board, but eight says that if he doesn't comply with the stipulation, we're going to penalize him. Again, I think you need to do one or the other. MS. ARNOLD: I think we just don't -- we don't need seven either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Number eight? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, eight is okay, as long as seven's out, that if he doesn't comply -- MR. BOWIE: There's more consistency then. MR. LEFEBVRE: When would the fine be imposed, the fine __ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he's got hearing -- or he's got days in here to do certain things, so -- MR. BOWIE: Look at three and four. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Page 79 -....-....-.--- ...,."-,,- .- June 24, 2004 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. DUSEK: So my understanding is that that $25 each day would apply to each one of the violations. Is that the way I interpret it? It would apply to Number three? MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we maybe add that in under three and four? MS. DUSEK: And four? That's what I thought. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the different interpretation __ MS. DUSEK: Is eliminated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. BOWIE: Each day either of the violations continues is what you're saying. $25 per day that either of these violations may continue, to make that clear. MS. ARNOLD: Well, you could just modify Paragraph eight to say if they don't -- if they don't comply with either four or -- and/or five, Paragraphs four or five. MR. LEFEBVRE: Paragraphs three or four. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, three or four. MR. BOWIE: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I'd like to tie it in so there's no misconception down the road. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you want to put that in -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Number eight. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And where it may impose fines in the amount of $25 -- MR. LEFEBVRE: $25 a day the violation continues. MS. ARNOLD: It already says that if they fail to comply with the terms of the agreement, which would include both of those paragraphs. But if you want to be more specific to identify __ MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to be specific as possible. MS. ARNOLD: -- you can just add on there, you know, paren, Paragraphs three and four. Page 80 ---... --- _ ft_. ~~---- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, how about with the terms of items three and/or four above. MR. LEFEBVRE: Paragraph three, yeah, in regards to -- MS. BARNETT: Michelle, there's no mention of operational costs. And in the past we've always had the operational costs to follow the properties. And I -- was that left out on purpose? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Because as I explained before, this was a different circumstance. We weren't actually bringing -- this was a continuation, it wasn't something that we were bringing to the board. So I don't even think we know what those costs are, do you? Oh, you do? She knows what they are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'd like to see, if the county is going to do that, as you did in one of the previous stipulations __ MR. LEFEBVRE: Lockhart? MS. BARNETT: The second one. MR. BOWIE: Yeah, Lockhart. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Lockhart. MS. BARNETT: That the petitioner -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It was the Parks and Recreation. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the Parks and Recreation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say the petitioner agrees to waive the operational costs for Case Number -- I'd like that put in, because the petitioner happens to be the county, and only the Board of County Commissioners can waive operational costs. This board cannot. So that's the sentence you need in there, if that's what the county wants to do. MS. DUSEK: And why would you waive them? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's their privilege. If the Board of County Commissioners wants to do it, I don't have a problem, as long as they're the ones doing it. Because they're the ones with the power. We want to be consistent. MR. BOWIE: In Paragraph four, I have a question. Four of one Page 81 _...,--~ June 24, 2004 reads either obtain required permits, on the next page, for anyone of the three duplexes. For anyone of the three? And what happens to the other two, they remain unpermitted? MR. DUV ALL: The zoning would allow us to have one guest home as well as the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess what we're saying, though, the paragraph says you can get a permit for one but it doesn't say you have to get rid of the other two. MR. DUV ALL: Then we'd have to demo the other ones. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but you don't say that. MR. DUVALL: That's certainly the intent, certainly the intent. Our intention is to demo them all, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. Intent's wonderful but if it's not on paper -- MR. BOWIE: So I guess the intention is -_ THE COURT REPORTER: Whoa, whoa, I'm getting about five people talking at the same time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I mean, this seems like a weaseling out. We get permits for one and we get to keep the other as a freebie, the other two as a freebie. This should say one, obtain required permits for the three duplexes. MR. DUV ALL: Our intention is not to weasel out. MR. BOWIE: Or, or has been before, or obtain a demolition permit for the three duplexes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For anyone of the three duplexes __ MR. BOWIE: Or-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Obtain a demolition permit for the __ MR. BOWIE: This is one agreement that's got to be as tight as tight as possible, given the history of this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For the remaining duplexes or all three -- for the remaining duplexes, or all three duplexes. Okay. So ifhe Page 82 ~-_.-..._-,. ....--..- ---- June 24, 2004 wants to keep one, that's fine, but he has to get rid of the other ones. MR. BOWIE: Wait a minute, ifhe wants to keep one? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, right here it says either obtain a required permit for anyone of the three duplexes __ MR. BOWIE: Yes, that's the problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- then or obtain a demolition permit for the remaining or all three duplexes. MR. BOWIE: My understanding is that no duplex is permittable -- MS. BARNETT: He's allowed to have one guesthouse. MR. BOWIE: A guesthouse, but not a duplex, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Actually, they have permits for I think at least one of those duplexes. There is a valid permit for __ MR. BOWIE: For a duplex? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. They actually have a permit for one of them. So -- but if you modify the language -- because he's already explained it's their intent to remove all three -- to say obtain __ MR. BOWIE: I don't want any possibility that some poor tenant is going to be stuck back in anyone of those sweat-ridden slums. MS. ARNOLD: Well, if you modify it to say obtain required permits for the three duplexes, if they've already obtained permits for one or more of those duplexes, then they would only need one permit for the structure that's unpermitted. So if you -- is that correct? Am I -- so you can modify it the way you were suggesting, Mr. Bowie, that you strike through anyone of -- and just say for the three duplexes, and we'll be covered. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We just want it, you know, one direction. We don't want -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And good intentions are wonderful, but past history tells me if it's not on a piece of paper, we have no way to do anything with it. And most lawyers will agree, if it's not Page 83 -- '..--.. June 24, 2004 written down, pfft, it doesn't account for anything. Okay, any other items? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I'd like to discuss this featherweight fine that's being proposed here of $25. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, we go back to it's being presented to us on the basis that that's what the parties have agreed to. And I guess they're relying on each other's, for lack of a better way to put it, gentleman's agreement that they're putting forth their best effort to resolve the problem and they want it resolved in a timely manner. And they're both trying to work toward that issue, therefore, they feel a large fine isn't necessary. Now, that's before they come to us. That's before they got to us. MR. PONTE: It's already post the precedent, it doesn't-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but, you know, again, it's something that they've agreed to and are coming to us and say this is what we think we want to do, do you have a problem with it now, and obviously that item gives you a problem. MR. PONTE: I have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just trying to explain why they're doing it. Not that they're right or wrong, but this is why they're doing it. MR. BOWIE: I mean, I kind of concur with George, $25 a day almost seems like a reasonable business cost, you know, and it shouldn't be that. MS. DUSEK: I agree. So what is your suggestion toa modification? All parties are here. MR. PONTE: Well, let's discuss it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Look at what they have to do. MR. PONTE: As I can tell you, as I know that $25 is too low and not consistent with our fining patterns of the past, I think that you have to think in terms of an order of 75 to $100 a day. It has to have some teeth. Page 84 "_'~H"_ -,~- .~,-_.. -..-...- June 24, 2004 MS. BARNETT: George, I'm in agreement with you, especially because you're usually the one that wants to reduce fines. MS. DUSEK: So are you suggesting 75? MR. PONTE: 75 or $100, whatever-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What are you comfortable with, based on past history? MR. PONTE: $100. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One of the other. MR. PONTE: $100. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other comments? MS. DUSEK: I was feeling comfortable with 75. MR. BOWIE: Flip a coin. Eighty. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's stick with 100. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think in this case, looking at what he has to do and knowing that the gentleman is going to continue to make his best effort to resolve all these problems, I think in the long run it's probably a moot point. But I understand the concern, and I have no problem with the $100. MS. RAWSON: Let me say this. You really can't impose fines until you make a finding that there's a violation. MR. PONTE: Well, then how do we get out of that conundrum? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's easy. We get out of it -- we get out of it by not approving the stipulation and hearing the case __ MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or asking the two parties if they accept it and permit the change to be made; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Well, yes, you have to make a finding that there's a violation before you can impose any fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll tell the parties then that the board isn't happy with the $25 a day and we would strongly Page 85 --- ."...,. .--- June 24, 2004 recommend a higher number. Could you get your heads together and come up with a higher number. Otherwise, the alternative is it appears that we may reject your agreement. MS. DUSEK: I just have to make a personal comment also. It concerns me that there are no operational costs. I know that's the county's decision. But in looking at the case just -- that came previous to this where he had complied, he's paying operational costs. And this case has been continued now two or three times. That's just my personal comment. I know it's the county's decision. MR. PONTE: No, but I agree with you. MR. BOWIE: I agree with you as well. MR. PONTE: It has to be consistent. MR. BOWIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that's just something we have no control over. MS. ARNOLD: Is the board agreeable to adding additional time to the amount of time that they would have to remove the structures, so instead of 60 days -- well, the 60 days to obtain the permit would remain, but they would be given an additional 30 days to remove, just to make sure that they can contract somebody to actually get out there and remove the structures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're saying the 30 days for demolition, instead of 30, make it 60; is that what -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And then the fine amount would go up to $75 per day. MR. DUVALL: Or 100, I don't care. MS. ARNOLD: Or 100. Either one. MR. BOWIE: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. George, if we make the-- wherever it says 30 days, we make that 60. And when it says 25, we make that 100. That's what they're saying they'd agree to. Would that be comfortable? Page 86 ..._----_.,.~ June 24, 2004 MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anybody else? MS. ARNOLD: So in both Paragraphs three and four, we would change the date to raze the buildings to 60. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not a problem. I understand that. And we're -- MS. ARNOLD: Changing the fine amount to -- MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move adoption of this compliance agreement as modified. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion-- MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that that's fine, except that, you know, I think somebody should recite all the modifications on the record, especially since the respondents are here. And I want to make it perfectly clear, you know, they have the only original signed copy. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we actually didn't sign it. We wanted the board to approve it and then we would execute it. MS. RAWSON: Okay, that's a good idea because --let's go through all of the changes on the agreement, and then if we make those changes and everybody signs it, then we can just approve the signed copy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I'd amend my motion then that the compliance agreement be adopted by this board, subj ect to the parties signing it immediately hereafter and subject to the following modifications: First modification would be in Paragraph three; two, for the demolition permit where, after following building being razed within 60 days, rather than 30 days. And Paragraph 4.1 would read obtain required permits for the three duplexes, rather than anyone of the three duplexes. Obtain required permits for the three duplexes. Page 87 .. '-"-'~"-'''~~--''''''''~ --.- June 24, 2004 And in the following sub-paragraph two, building being razed again within 60 days rather than 30 days. Paragraph six is deleted. Paragraph seven is deleted. Paragraph eight becomes six. And in that paragraph, the fines will be in the amount of $100 per day either of the violations continues, as said, if they -- MS. ARNOLD: If they fail to comply with the Paragraphs three and four. MR. BOWIE: If they fail to comply with either Paragraphs three or four. Then we would have as a new Paragraph seven that petitioner waives all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. Paragraph nine then becomes eight. Ten then becomes nine; 11 then becomes 10; 12, 11, and 12,11. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And that's it. I think. Is that in line with what everybody remembers? MR. LEFEBVRE: There's one typo, Page 2, Paragraph two. MS. DUSEK: Rental. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, the word rental is misspelled. MS. ARNOLD: There's other misspellings. MR. BOWIE: My motion incorporates that spellcheck be applied to this document. MS. ARNOLD: Well, you know, the computer did tell us that it did it. But we trusted the computer. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, is that all right what we were doing? MS. RA WSON: That's good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And hopefully then they'll just revise the agreement and we'll have a signed copy that I can attach to the order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I know we already have a second, but let me ask a question before we vote. Does the county Page 88 -~-'~-_._.- '<-" June 24, 2004 and the respondent -- do you have any problem with what we're asking you to do, either of you? Everybody in line, so once we agree you are going to sign this thing and we can get on with it? Is that okay? Michelle, is that okay with you? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the compliance agreement as modified. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Gentlemen, I appreciate your patience. Okay, last compliance agreement, Case No. 2004-018, BCC, Herman Haeger. Oh, no, this isn't a compliance agreement. MR. BOWIE: No, that's a request for reduction. That's something else. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Sorry about that. Cherie', you okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That being done, we're down to moving Mr. Posada. He is the first actual public hearing, Case No. 2004-016; is that correct, Michelle? Page 89 _."----~". -'--.-- June 24, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. But I think Mr. Haeger is requesting that you consider his item for a request for reduction prior to that public hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That wasn't one of the changes we agreed to in the beginning, but do the board members want to move that -- make a motion that we move Mr. Haeger up before the public hearings and consider the request for reduction of fines? MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion to that effect. MR. DORIA: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to modify the agenda to hear Mr. Haeger's request for abatement, reduction or abatement of fines. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Mr. Haeger, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. HAEGER: I'm here again -- good morning, board members. I'm here again this morning after appearing at the Collier County Board of Comn1issioners' meeting this past Tuesday, where I was told I was there as the -- to discuss the operational costs imposed by the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. And I was told at that time that the board will wait until -- this is directly from their agenda on this past Tuesday, the board is going to wait until after this item is heard at the June 24th, 2004 CEB meeting before making any Page 90 '_.'w___ w '--'-- -"-----y, June 24, 2004 decisions. I have already gone down and gotten on the next board meeting because I -- I mean, I really don't understand what's going to happen today. I was told to go to that meeting by your -- by your board because you can't do anything about the operational costs. Well, I went down there and when I left here that -- on the -- in the May meeting, I didn't realize that you hadn't -- you didn't maintain a quorum because the meeting was prolonged, you know, I mean, it went to like 2:00. You didn't have a quorum so you couldn't impose my operational costs, you know, you just ran out of time. So when I went in front of the -- I wasn't aware of that. When I went in front of the board, the commission, I was told that well, don't worry about it, because you haven't been fined yet, or, you know, you haven't been imposed by the operational costs. So I'm back here again today. At the commission meeting Ms. Arnold told me to go to the Code Enforcement Board, pick up the form which you all have in front of you that I filled out for the respondent's request for reduction or abatement of fines. Well, I don't have any fines. As you know, all my -- all the violations were corrected prior to the April 22nd meeting. And that was attested to by Investigator Letourneau. And so here I am again in front of you today -- excuse me. I'n1 sorry, I don't know how to turn the thing off. So I'm here in front of you today to request that you at least reduce -- I'm looking for a reduction in the cost of the operational costs and administrative costs imposed by Code Enforcement Board. And everything that I have in front of you is I have -- I have __ you know, I plant -- I'm sorry, I plant trees. I mean, I don't even know how to put numbers in this thing, so I'm just going to leave it open like that so -- very sorry. What I've included in my packet to you is the affidavit of compliance that was handed -- or in the packet submitted by Investigator Jeff Letourneau saying that when he did arrive out there Page 91 -- .,-~---- June 24, 2004 to do his final inspection, everything was okay. I have a breakdown of administrative costs of what comes to $1,156.25, which I'll get to in one second. I have a copy of the executive order or summary and past order that's included in your notice of hearing packet. And on the bottom, I've all highlighted -- on the recommendation, it says the staff requests that the board issue an imposition of fine or lien in the amount of $1,156.25 for the operational costs in the prosecution of this case. The violation was abated before any of the fines were __ began to accrue. The next page is a copy of the first bill that I had gotten from ESP Management for waste management, and that just shows that one of the dumpsters were taken off-site. The thing -- I'm looking for -- the page that I'm looking for -- I think you may have a page that I don't have in here. The question that I arise (sic), it says even in your -- even in your own -- oh, here it is. The page that -- the initial page of notice of hearing. And under the hearing procedures, it says on part two, paragraph two, if prior to the scheduled hearing the violation is corrected, the case may be presented to the board. The board may -- and the word may is highlighted -- upon the finding that a violation did exist impose a fine for all the costs that were incurred by the county. Well, I already admit I had violations. I did correct the violations and the violations, almost 90 percent of theIn, were corrected prior to our board meeting -- or to the meeting that I had here. Again, the word board may Impose. Section three, if the violation is previously found by the board and reoccurs, which doesn't apply, again, it says the board may, upon finding of a repeat violation, impose a fine. Well, I don't have a repeat violation. But again, your wording in your own notice of hearing says the board may apply, doesn't say it has to, the word may, okay? And if you go through the -- my request for the reduction of fines, I admit that the violation -- you know, the Page 92 .~._, June 24, 2004 violation existed, I admit that the -- all the violations have been corrected, even prior to the hearing thing here. And it says the hardship -- well, I have a small landscape company in town. I hire a high school kid to help me during the summertime. And I'm going to pay $1,000, I'm not going to hire the kid. As simple as that. I can't afford it. It's not like, you know, I've got money coming out -- you know, I don't even know how to do this thing. It cost me almost $1,000 to get rid of all the violations. I have the one -- the one invoice from ESP Management here. There's another dumpster sitting out there now ready to be taken away that's full, but I don't have the $180 to pay for it to, you know, to get it out of there. So there's -- you know, and then we had two people plus myself spend two days out there cleaning up all this -- all the little trash, all the -- you know, removing the pots from the property, getting -- towing the trailer off the property and all. And I don't want to get away with it scot-free. I do -- you know, in other words, it cost the county something to do my case. I'm more than willing to pay like three, maybe three, $400 to prosecute the case or their cases, but I think that $1,000, $1,100 is just way out of line. And if you look at the page that has all the breakdowns on it, okay, $730 for their sending out their investigators. He visited 13 times. Well, most of those 13 times were way prior to the actual __ the case being brought here to the hearing in front of, you know, the notice of hearing. There's another one in here, it says lOP hearing, which is evidently the thing that's happening today. I've already been charged for it. I've been charged $100. Well, I'm charged $25 for an investigator and 75 for the supervisor. I see the supervisor sitting over there. The investigator is not here, the one that was on my case, but I'm paying $25 for that investigator. Page 93 --"" --,-..--.. June 24, 2004 And then the other one, the recording fees, as you might remember, my case came up twice. You heard my case in March of -- March 25th, I believe, where I was never notified of it. I had to spend literally several days going to county commissioner, county manager's office and everywhere to get my hearing rescheduled because I was never notified of the March 25th hearing. Finally you approved it, you gave lue another hearing on April 22nd. At that time everything was completed. Everything was -- all the violations were abated. I have two recording fees there. Why do I have two recording fees? Is that because the original notice or finding of fact on March 25th was recorded and then the finding of fact that really applies to me on the 22nd, that was recorded again. There's two recording fees. I don't understand that. What I'm asking for is, Board Members, is to simply -- you know, I know I have to pay something. I put it in my request that, you know, I'd be more than willing to pay three or $400. But the $1,100 is just out of line. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, first of all, the county staff is not asking us to impose a fine on you. MR. HAEGER: I realize that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So there is no fine. And fines are what this board can reduce or waive. The county is asking us to impose operational or adn1inistrative costs. MR. HAEGER: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Under the law we have no power to fool with those costs. If the county wants them imposed, we can impose them. If you want them waived, only the Board of County Commissioners can do that. The law doesn't give us the power -- MR. HAEGER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to do that. Page 94 -"'.'-"'..- ~._-...~ June 24, 2004 MR. HAEGER: But I have to be here in order to get to there. Because I've already signed up for the July 27th meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, I understand. I'm trying to explain our system. MR. HAEGER: What I'd like to find out is, I was -- I've been sitting here since 9: 3 0 this morning. I've watched this thing on, you know, the matter you just resolved. Why -- I've been here since April, okay, I've seen that same case come up four different times. Why is the county not requesting operational costs on them when I am sure with two brigades of lawyers having private meetings with the county staff, having county investigators go out there numerous times, how come they are asking for no operational costs when my __ the majority of my violations, all my violations, were 450 feet off the right-of-way, off the road, not visible by anybody unless you're in a helicopter or a pelican flying by? Because I don't have any lawyers next to me. Why is the county not asking for operational costs which you just approved and which Mr. Bowie has -- you know, I mean, he made a statement in the beginning of the meeting, the beginning of the hearing, he is not -- you know, he is not conducive to reducing any operational costs, yet you just passed a stipulation which involved no operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And when we did that, what did the statement say? It said petitioner waives it. The petitioner is the Board of County Commissioners. Board of County Commissioners is the petitioner in all cases. MR. HAEGER: Well, that was recommended by Ms. Arnold. MS. ARNOLD: That's absolutely right. MR. HAEGER: Pardon? MS. ARNOLD: That's absolutely right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's right. And the Board of County Commissioners agreed with her recommendation. So we're just concurrIng. Page 95 .._-~ '.-.----., June 24, 2004 MR. HAEGER: But they just -- you just -- you mean, in other words, you went down to the Board of County Commissioners right now and asked them if they wanted to waive that? Because that was not involved in the first lTIotion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir-- MR. HAEGER: No, the thing is I want to be treated fairly. I want to be treated fairly. I don't have four lawyers next to me, okay? If somebody gets -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't waive those requirements. MR. HAEGER: Then why did Ms. Arnold tell me yesterday or Tuesday to go to her office to pick up this form to submit this form to you? Does she just like making an idiot out of people who don't have lawyers standing by them? MS. DUSEK: Mr. Haeger, if I might. MR. HAEGER: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: We can impose the operational costs, we cannot reduce them. Now, the county has been sitting here listening to you, and -- MR. HAEGER: I hope they do. I realize the entire county has this on TV, and I hope they do, because __ MS. DUSEK: No, excuse me, what I mean is Ms. Arnold is representing the county, and she's heard what you have to say. It's really up to them to make a change in this operational cost, if they choose to. They may very well choose to do that. We've heard what you had to say. MR. HAEGER: Okay, fine. MS. DUSEK: Now we will discuss this. MR. HAEGER: Fine. Thank you. I'll leave this open so it doesn't bleep anymore. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, operational costs, we don't have the power to reduce or waive. We have a request to reduce or waive the operational costs. Page 96 ~"- June 24, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Well, this actually, if you note, is a request for reduction or abatement of fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And there is no fine. MR. BOWIE: So there are no fines, so the petition is not really applicable here. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, what is your -- do you have anything-- any adjustment to this? MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make a couple of comments. My decisions have nothing to do with whether or not somebody has a lawyer standing next to theIn. And I treat each case on its own merits. And in the case of Mr. Haeger, this case dragged on for two years and -- MR. HAEGER: How long? MS. ARNOLD: -- there was -- there was a substantial amount of time that my staff took with Mr. Haeger to try to comply with what the requirements were before this matter came to the board. Mr. Haeger chose to comply with the board's order or our request until -- I mean, actually before we actually heard this particular hearing. That was his intent. And -- but yet we've expended a lot of time to get to the point that we are today. So that's the reason why we are actually imposing fines. He made a comment to the Board of County Commissioners when he was at that meeting on Tuesday that we were preventing him to complete his house, but the case, I just want to make clarification -- MR. HAEGER: That's not true. MS. ARNOLD: -- that this case was not related to the construction of his home, this case was related to the operational (sic) of a landscaping business at a location that had no certificate of occupancy for a residential structure, and so technically is an unimproved property. He had a occupational license for that location. It's since changed. He has removed all of the debris that Page 97 -_....,......,_._.,."-,-----_._-,_.._--._~-"- .._. -~-,.,- June 24, 2004 was associated with his business and we are happy that he's done that. I see in his argument that he thinks that our operational costs for the inspectors is unreasonable. I disagree with that. I see that he's questioning whether or not the imposition of fine hearing is reasonable. I don't have any obj ection reducing that portion of it, because technically there aren't any fines. But we still have to do recording for the original order that was filed by this board. We also have to do recording of any action taken by this board today with respect to imposition of the operational costs. So those -- that is why there is the filing fees that are noted. And the filing fees have actually gone up recently, and we're charging him the costs in this estimation for the prior filing fee amount. So we're not actually charging him the full amount that we are able to charge him. So I'm agreeable to reduce the imposition of fines portion of it. All other costs I think are appropriate, because we've expended those costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First of all matter of -- yes, sir. MR. HAEGER: Just one more comment. She said that this case went on for two years. Well, from July '03 to February, '04 is not two years in anybody's calendar. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I misspoke. MR. HAEGER: And secondly, when she said that the investigation charges are comparable -- are in line, well, it happens that the investigation charges, if you -- and this is the same comment that I made in front of the Collier County Board of Commissioners, and this I got from the State's Attorney's Office and three other lawyers that were sitting in the State's Attorney's Office when I went to inquire about it. If a person went in front of the county court on a one-time appearance and had to pay court fees in the county court in Collier County, the fees were approximately $130 to $170. Ifa person went to circuit court here in Collier County on a felony Page 98 __M .-"--- June 24, 2004 charge and it was a one-tinle appearance, in other words, it was a guilty plea, just like what all these hearings are about, the court costs would be approximately $300. And from what I understand, court costs are the investigation charges, the charges that -- you know, to bring the actual case in front of a judge. Well, why is it $300 if you have a felony case on a one-time appearance in Collier County and when you have plastic pots sitting in the backyard, it's $730? That's all my questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're mixing apples and oranges ___ MR. HAEGER: No, I'm not mixing apples and oranges. I'm mix -- I haven't shot anybody -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, you spoke, I get a chance to speak. Do you understand how it works? You've had your time, now I get my time. You don't get to interrupt everybody. At some point you're done, other people talk. MR. HAEGER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Now pay attention. You're mixing apples and oranges. These costs are from day one whatever it takes to get all this infoflnation together to bring it here. If that's one day or one year, whatever it takes the county to get it before us, they're allowed to ask for their money back. And that's what they've done. Now, we haven't agreed to it yet. First thing we're going to do is you've asked us to waive or reduce fines. There is no fine. There is no fine in this case. That's what you've asked us to do. MR. HAEGER: This is the form that Ms. Arnold told me to get. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Secondly-- MR. HAEGER: She knew there were no fines. I'm sorry. I'm just going by -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You either sit there and be quiet or we'll have you removed. You had your time. Do you understand, sir? Page 99 - '--- .., ,,--,----~-~-~.,'~ ----,,-_.-- --.-- ----- June 24, 2004 Secondly, we're being asked down the road to impose operational costs. That's an item that we do not have the authority under the statutes to reduce or waive. So whether there is a fine, which there isn't, or whether this request is to reduce the operational costs is something under the statutes we have no authority to do. So before us we have a request to reduce fines and/or since it's the only form the gentleman was given, to reduce or abate the operational costs, which we don't have authority to do. MS. ARNOLD: And what I've noted is that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We haven't got down to where we're even going to impose them yet, so let's first do his request to reduce or abate a fine or an operational cost. We haven't imposed anything yet. If when we get to that far the county wants to change the amount, they can do that before they present it to us. MS. DUSEK: Jean, the county presents this to us as a recommendation, that staff request. If we choose not to impose operational costs, do we have that authority? MS. RAWSON: No. The petitioner, the county, has the right to waive or reduce costs. You don't have that power. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: So the county -- at this point where we're at with this is the county is making a request for the imposition __ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not yet. MR. BOWIE: -- of the costs; is that correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not yet. We haven't got that far yet. MR. BOWIE: I thought we moved that up as the first thing on the agenda -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, what we moved up was his request to abate a fine. MR. BOWIE: Well, we can't address it, because there are none. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, correct, there are no fines, and there are no operational costs yet. But we can't reduce or abate them Page 100 June 24, 2004 anyway. So whatever his request is for, we can't do it, because there are no fines and we can't lower operational costs. So his request is for something we can't do. What I'm saying is when we get down the agenda to actually imposing items the county wants, whether it's fines and/or operational costs, at that time in his particular case the county can say we want to impose operational costs of "X". And it can be something different than they gave us on a piece of paper to consider, because it's their number. They can change it, we can't. MR. BOWIE: Could we then move forward with the next item on the agenda, which is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, right now we have his request we need to do something with, which is -- MS. BARNETT: Well, in the case -- if we can't do anything with it -- MS. DUSEK: We can't do anything so there's nothing -- just there's nothing to vote on because we can't do it. MR. BOWIE: We can't do it. MS. DUSEK: So I guess we move right to what the staff is requesting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, he's asked us to do it. We need to vote no, because it's something we can't do. MS. RAWSON: I think it's his request before the board. You need to make a vote on it. For whatever reason, you need to vote on it. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that in Case 2004-018, Board of Collier County Commissioners and Herman Haeger's request to reduce operational costs, due to the fact that that is not in our realm of duties that is allowed by law, that we deny this request. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request. Any further discussion? Page 101 --..---"..,.-- _. ----....- June 24, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifnone, all those in favor, signify by . saYIng aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Where did Michelle go? Now, are we to the public hearings? And Mr. Posada, I think is the -- they wanted it moved up. Make note that Mr. Doria had to leave and is excused. MS. HILTON: This is in the Board of County Commissioners versus Chris Posada, P-O-S-A-D-A. CEB Case No. 2004-016. And we have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I n1ake a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. Page 102 ---..-.-----.>..---.-..--- -->,".~ June 24, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: Let the record reflect that Mr. Posada is present in the courtroom. The violation is of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, Section five, Subsections 1,3,5, 11, 12(A) and 12(C), and Ordinance No. 99-51, Sections six and seven. The description of the violation: Did witness a dwelling which is creating an immediate safety and health hazard to occupants and adjacent neighbors due to lack of maintenance, obsolence (sic) or abandonment and which contain defects which increase the hazard of fire, accidents or other calamities. The kitchen sink is draining into a bucket and not connected to the sewer. Walls around the bathtub are rotten. Electric is not up to code. Wiring not insulated. Roof leaking and causing mildew to form on the ceiling. And there's one meter for both dwellings. Also observed litter consisting of but not limited to auto parts in the front and back yard, household appliances in the backyard and on the side of the house and other miscellaneous litter. Location where violation exists: 5238 Holland Street, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Chris Posada, 5238 Holland Street, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: February 20th, 2004, for the minimum housing violations, and December 18th, 2003 for the litter violation. Date owner given notice of violation: February 20th, 2004, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and regular U.S. mail and posting of property and courthouse. And the notice of violation for the litter on December 18th, 2003 by certified mail, return receipt requested, and regular U. S. mail and posting of property in Page 103 ----- "~"". June 24, 2004 courthouse. Date on which the violations were to be corrected: March 5, 2004 and December 18th, 2003. Date of reinspection: June 23, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent certified regular mail and posting of property and courthouse. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, to Marguerite or also known as Rita, Crisp to present the case to the board. MS. CRISP: Good afternoon. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. CRISP: If you guys will just bear with me today, because I'm feeling just a little bit under the weather. We're going to start out first with the litter. On December the 18th of 2003, I observed litter consisting of but not limited to, as Shanelle mentioned, household appliances, auto parts, a little bit of everything. And I'll show you the pictures on my first visit, what I observed. Okay, the first picture I'm showing you here is the area of the front yard. As you can see, the different miscellaneous items that are throughout the bushes here. In addition to that, next view is actually the rear yard -- bear with me, they're not in exactly sequence -- observing the appliances. Some are flipped over on their sides, some are standing upright, in addition to all the other miscellaneous debris around it. And a little better view backed out where you can see a little bit of everything. The -- I say auto parts, mechanical parts, I'll call them, and along with a better view of the household appliances. In addition, in the backyard -- it's very hard to give you the overview picture of everything as you're looking at it, so just keep in mind all the different things I'm mentioning to you that are in the Page 104 .---..'....., June 24, 2004 backyard, the front yard, the side yard. Once again, we're talking about the backyard. All of these items, the wood, the paper products, the extra bicycle parts. This picture just below that we'll move to is also the backyard area. As you can see, some type of aluminum metal. I wasn't about to go through each and everyone to figure out exactly what it was. But it's definitely litter. And then last but not least, this is going to be the front yard. And the first picture that I showed you, you really didn't get a good look. This is actually looking from out his front door towards the road, which is what each and every neighborhood -- each neighboring property gets to look at from their property each and every day. As of this morning I did a site visit at 6:30 a.m. I would have to say the violation still remains and it has been added to. It looks even worse as of 6:30 this morning. To move along to the minimum housing problems that we have on this property -- just let me back up just for a second, if you don't mind. On January the 16th, I spoke with Mr. Posada, I actually pointed out each and every litter problem that we had on the property. He was a little confused about, you know, what do I need to clean up. So I took the time to point out each and every problem that he had there. On March the 24th, as I was saying, as of this morning, too, there has been no atteInpt to remove the litter and it has been added to. Now we'll move over to the minimum housing. While there for the litter cases, I began to notice other problems. And I made contact with his tenant, Jose, who lives in the -- I want to call the right-hand side of the duplex. I obtained the entry consent from Jose. While I was there -- we're going to start off with just the rental side of it. Okay, first of all, you're going to notice that there's a difference Page 105 --..----.--.,.- -----. _~~'_.m '--,.-- June 24, 2004 in level. The flooring here, as you see where the tennis shoes and the feets (sic) are showing, they step down to come into the bedroom area, which is going to make it so that if we get any type of a hurricane or anything like that, it's going to flood out. This is a bedroom where the tenant's children stay in. Obviously there's a minimum housing issue, considering they will be in water at that level -- excuse me, that elevation. This next picture shows you the actual electrical box. You'll notice -- this is actually the top. You'll notice that the wiring coming out of that has no insulation around that. In accordance to county code, there should be insulation that raises up above that where it enters into the box. Once again, in the rental part of the duplex, this is the kitchen sink drainage. As you can see, it's draining into a bucket. This is the tenant's bathroom. If you slip in that bathtub and you land on that wall, you will be in that wall. There isn't -- all that's there is the contact paper that you see. There's nothing behind that wall holding that wall there. I explained to Mr. Posada that he needed to pull permits to do the repairs on this property. He said I can do it, I can handle it. I explained to him they have to be done with a valid permit from Collier County. And since it is a rental dwelling, he is unable to pull that permit. A licensed contractor will have to pull that permit. He can do that simply with a general contractor, which will cover his structural problems, his plun1bing problems and his electrical problems, which I haven't got to yet. This is one of the electrical boxes in the dwelling. It doesn't take an electrician to tell that we've got a problem there. Since we spoke, he -- against what he's been told that he cannot do the repairs on these buildings due to the fact that it's a rental property, he would have to have a contractor do that, unless it was, for instance, my own home, I could pull builder -- an ownerlbuilder's Page 106 ~-"._-""-~- ... --.,.--.. ~'--'""~"^_.-- June 24, 2004 permit because I live there. But since it's a rental property, he's not able to do that. However, he tried to do some fixing, and I just want to point the things that he did to fix this property. This is the electrical box I showed you a few moments ago. And all that has been done is wood put over the front of it. There is no insulation been added to those wires. As you can tell, the bucket is no longer there. He has closed it. But knowing a little bit about plumbing, there is no P-trap, which allows toxic gasses to back up into the home. Each and every sink in this dwelling does not have a P-trap, which is allowing for the toxic gas to seep back into the hon1e. This is, once again, why it's very important that he gets a licensed contractor to help him with this work. The bathtub that I showed you previous with the bad walls, he made his attempt to fix that. That is a non-pressure treated piece of wood. I believe it's part of the items that we've seen in the backyard. As you can see, it's been placed up over just around the water outlet and sprayed with a can of black spray paint. To date nothing has changed, no permits have been pulled on this property, and it is still in the same condition that you see the pictures today. Do you have any questions for me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are there people living in this dwelling? MS. CRISP: Yes, sir. Mr. Posada lives in one side of it, and then he has a husband and wife and two children living in the other side. And I will say for their sake, they have done everything they can do to make it livable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are the problems all confined in the rental side or -- MS. CRISP: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- both sides? MS. CRISP: No, sir. In the owner's side of the dwelling, the Page 107 ."'.",..'_~_____ """0' .--........-.. -- June 24, 2004 bathroom doesn't work, the shower doesn't work, the bathtub doesn't work. All the fixtures. As you'll look in the paperwork here, we had a site visit by one of the inspectors for Collier County who took the time to go out and do a site visit with me. I'm not an expert when it comes to building, I'm only an expert that there's a violation there. So he took the time. And you'll find that -- and my pages are not numbered, forgive me -- but you'll find that in the case where it lists it right down to -- and this is only what we can see. You have to understand, once a contractor gets into this building, there is no doubt in my mind that there's going to be some more problems further, once you get into a wall or whatnot. Mr. Posada has had some folks go out and do some bidding for him on this. And I have had communication with them. One of the companies that contacted me, because they wanted to make sure that they were going to help out Mr. Posada with their violations that he had at the property and make sure that they took care of any problems, you know, that code enforcement had brought to their attention. Give me just a second here. MR. PONTE: While you're finding that material, how many children are actually involved here? MS. CRISP: Two children. MR. PONTE: Two. MS. CRISP: And I would guesstimate their ages about seven to 10. MS. HILTON: The report Rita was talking about is Pages 37 and 38 of your packet. MS. CRISP: Thank you, Shanelle. The contractor that went out to the property that priced it, he tried to explain to Mr. Posada that it was going to -- it was going to take some serious money to bring this property up to a safe place to live. That contractor has since then backed out of -- he's not interested in doing the property, fixing the property. Page 108 - ----.. --- "- June 24, 2004 During the inspection of the property by that contractor, it was asked of that contractor if he got halfway done with the job, and for instance, Mr. Posada stated if it caught fire, would you be covered? At that time, that contractor decided he was not interested in doing any work at this property. He was also told by the owner that the tenant in the other side, the rental side of the dwelling, would be responsible for his own fixing of his side, which is not the way it -- the property owner is responsible for this, not the tenant. MR. PONTE: Are the safety violations or threats of such a severe nature that the tenants should be removed from the property? MS. CRISP: I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, Mr. Ponte, I went to our building department, the electrical department and everyone. As a matter of fact, my director asked me that exact same question. And due to the fact that it was a family living there, they were not comfortable with kicking u telling them they had to leave with no place to stay. So yes, there is definitely a safety issue, if for nothing else alone, the electrical. But yes, there is definitely a safety issue. However, Mr. Posada does own other rental properties within the area. MS. ARNOLD: It should have nothing to do with this case, though. MS. BARNETT: Has anybody thought about talking to a fire inspector? That was a question. MS. CRISP: I'm sorry. MS. BARNETT: Has anyone thought about talking to a fire inspector? MS. CRISP: Basically if it was a commercial property the fire inspector could go in, but since it's a residence -- MS. BARNETT: Isn't rental commercial? MS. CRISP: Not according -- I tried that. I tried that, too. MS. BARNETT: That answers my question. Page 109 ..----"_.__.._,~.- ----- "- --'-" ---"..- ~-~- June 24, 2004 MS. CRISP: I tried that, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any more questions as regards to the violations that have been presented? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Alleged violations. I better say that, since we haven't determined yet. No other questions? Thank you, ma'am. Michelle, you have anybody else? MS. ARNOLD: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Posada is here, not here? MS. RAWSON: Here. MS. ARNOLD: He's here. MS. CRISP: Mr. Posada? MR. POSADA: I'm not a public speaker. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay, sir, come forward and tell us whatever you like, or if you have nothing to tell us, we understand that, too. MR. POSADA: I'm not a public speaker. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. POSADA: I'n1 not contesting it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're just giving you the opportunity, sir. If you'd like to say anything, you're more than welcome to do that. MR. POSADA: Let me explain something. I been working with these people for two, three months, but they -- they nag me and nag me. They're like an old woman. Every time. And I said well, I'll fix it, I'll fix it. I'll go get the permits. When I go over there, they said yeah, we're working on the permits. Warren -- I don't know first name, but Warren, just she write the permits. And I go there, they say yeah, we're having it ready. And then I went to find a contractor to do the job on the house, and there they go to that girl, and then the permits are not there. And then I Page 110 ------ ._-^ - June 24, 2004 send another one there, and then he came back, he said oh, we'll fix it for you for $50,000. But you got to have the money up front. And I said well, I don't have anything like that, so I don't even know who you are. Because he didn't have no permit. He said but he can do it. And I said no, I'll give you the money, then you'll haul ass with my money, then I won't have nothing. Because I didn't know who he was. And I couldn't COIne up with the $50,000 up front. I don't know who they are, who they are. He's related to the Griffin -- another guy, they work for then1, you know. But they didn't have no permits. Then I went over there to -- to that Horseshoe thing there, and they didn't have them, the permits. Well, how can you hire people like that if you don't get no permits? And I -- and then I went to make sure, I went to the -- to where you pick up your permits and I asked them, is there any record there that been print permits? And they look at the computer, said no, there's nothing here. So I went -- so I went out. Then I get -- they send Ine in the mail the report of all the violations and all that. And then I went -- I went back to see if I can get the permits, and they wouldn't issue to me. I don't know what position it is to find out to get a permit, if the owner does that or the contractor. They didn't explain me that, nothing, you know. And so my -- I found a guy that worked for the -- what do you call that, for -- llama te -- what do they call that, the people that build houses for the poor? And this guy is -- he volunteers because he's building his own house through them. Habit (sic) for Humanity, yeah. And this guy come to ll1Y house and he said oh, the sink was leaking, you know. And we put a hose just temporarily up. Because you couldn't go at night to go to the -- the hardware store to get the right thing. But we got it fixed now, that, it's fixed. Because they -- and they were using a bucket, too. I didn't know they were using a bucket on the other side to catch the water. But we got a septic tank, you know. Page 111 "--- -- June 24, 2004 But it wasn't -- it was leaking, you know. They didn't know how to do it. But it's fixed now. And then they complain about the electricity. The electricity, it was a duplex, then when I bought it. Then when I want -- when I want to move in, I had four kids so I couldn't use it as a duplex, so I changed it to a single-family unit. So I called the company, the electric company to take one meter off of that, and just left one. And that was another -- a few spots on the outside. That was because there used to be -- to the carriage (phonetic) go to another little shed in the back. But the 1960, that Hurricane Donna come by and blew the building away. So we left it -- when I bought it, I don't know if -- there was some stuff laying all around, so we had to haul it off, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask you a couple of questions, sir. Have you filled out any paperwork and applied for any permits? Did you fill out any paperwork at Horseshoe Drive to ask for permits? MR. POSADA: Oh, and by the way, that property -- see, I live -- I used to live at big national -- Big Cypress National Park, and when the government bought us out, he's the one that gave me the money to buy that house there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. POSADA: And it was the government bought it, that was -- you thought, oh, everything is all right, everything working all right, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but -- MR. BOWIE: This was never a government owned house. They gave you funds and you bought it from a private owner. MR. POSADA: They didn't give me a -- what you call -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's back up. Have you filled out any forms down on Horseshoe Drive and given them to those people? MR. POSADA: The federal government is more bigger than Page 112 ~-"-" -----. ""- June 24, 2004 you and me. And if they bought -- if they buy you a house, you think it's all right to move in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Pay attention, please. Have you filled out any paperwork at Horseshoe Drive and asked for permits? Did you fill out any forms at all down on Horseshoe Drive? Yes or no. MR. POSADA: If them violations what that is there, I wouldn't know until later on, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. POSADA: But I didn't build the house. I bought it from the federal government. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. POSADA: They gave me the money to so I can buy it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. MR. POSADA: Dan Farrell is the one that -- they work for the federal government. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Why don't you have a seat, sir, okay? I think that's what we need to do and try to work this out. Would you mind sitting down, sir? Do you understand me? Can you sit down, please? MR. POSADA: Sit down? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. POSADA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. POSADA: And look, I got the book for home improvement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Yes, sir. That's fine, sir. Okay. Is there any paperwork at Horseshoe Drive that's been filled out -- MS. CRISP: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- by either himself or a contractor? MS. CRISP: No, sir. Page 113 ""- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: None. Okay. MS. CRISP: As of this morning before I came here, no, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you know ifhe's ever been to Horseshoe Drive to ask for paperwork? MS. CRISP: We have had three meetings with him at Horseshoe. We have had one meeting with him at his property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: And did he understand whatever these meetings were about, did he understand your conversation? MS. CRISP: Yes, ma'am, he did. He understood it well enough when I told hin1 that we were going to be sending him certified notice of the notice of violation, that he refused service and I had to go post it. MR. CURIALE: Mr. Chairman, can I say something? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. And you are who, sir? MR. CURIALE: I have no representation for him whatsoever. I am just here for a meeting. Would I be able to say a few words? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: It's up to you. Maybe he's going to offer some help. MR. BOWIE: Is it in reference to this case? MS. RA WSON: I think he's going to offer some help. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Sure. Come on up, sir. MR. CURIALE: I don't know this person from Adam. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just one moment, please. MR. CURIALE: My name is Mario Curiale. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CURIALE: I really feel really bad about this, okay? It make me emotional. For what is -- this poor guy in here, he's doing so much to try to help out, and yet the code enforcement, they have so many smarts, why can't they get this poor guy, take him into the Horseshoe Drive and guide him to a permit process, instead of Page 114 -_._-_..~ ""- June 24, 2004 having this guy, the poor guy, I don't know who he is, you know, he's a human being, for God's sake. A lot of times they don't have the possibility to do that. So if we spend all this effort to do stupid things, why can't we spend a few minutes to do the right thing? Guide him to Horseshoe Drive, take it in front of the permit procedure, tell him what they need to do and they have so many volunteers, so many people that can guide him to help these people. And there's nothing wrong with that. Either rich or poor, these people have a place to live. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If all you're going to say -- MR. CURIALE: It is very, very inappropriate -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is what should be done, we don't need that. MR. CURIALE: -- so we guide something. Let this poor guy -- help him out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we haven't even got that far, so -- MR. BOWIE: Sir, are you volunteering to help him do that? MR. CURIALE: I'll be glad to volunteer to help him out as long as we have a guidance that we have somewhere to stand by with. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We haven't got that far. We thought you were going to have something pertinent to say, so -- thank you. Okay, anything else for the inspector? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. All right, at this tiIne we'll close this portion of the public hearing so we can debate the alleged violations. First order of business is a finding of fact. Does in fact a violation exist, before we get to any -- what we'd like to see done. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Chris Posada, CEB Case No. Page 115 _._..--_._._-~ '^~-~ -- June 24, 2004 2004-016, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, the minimum housing ordinance, Section 5, Subsection 1, 3, 5, 11, 12(A) and 12(C), and Ordinance 99-51, weeds, exotics and litter ordinance, Sections 6 and 7. The description of the violation: The inspector did witness a dwelling which is creating an immediate safety and health hazard to occupants and adjacent neighbors due to lack of maintenance, obsolescence or abandonment, and which contain defects which increase the hazard of fire, accident or other calamities. Kitchen sink draining into bucket and not connected to sewer. Walls around tub, bathtub rotten. Electric not up to code. Wiring not insulated. Roof leaking and causing mildew to form on ceiling. And one meter for both dwellings. Also observed litter consisting of but not limited to auto parts in front and backyard, household appliance in backyard and side of house, and other miscellaneous litter. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? Or violations, I should say. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifnone, all those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next, order of the board. Page 116 ---~. _'''__.c,__,,-,, -,.....-. -- June 24, 2004 There are -- we should keep in mind, there are really two sections. There's two violations. There's a litter problem, which may be the easiest to solve, and then there are the minimum housing violations, which may be a little more involved. MS. DUSEK: Now, just to be sure, since we have two separate sections of violations here, our total can exceed -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's $250 -- MS. DUSEK: For each one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- for each violation. And in all, I guess let's take worst case, you have two ordinances involved but you have, like the mininlun1 housing ordinance, you have one, two, three, four, five, you have six violations being cited out of that one ordinance. And in the weed and litter, you have two sections in that. So hypothetically you have eight violations, okay? That's worst case, if you're looking for lin1its. MS. DUSEK: That total amount is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, and you're -- the 250 is per violation. So again, you have a potential of eight violations. So it would be -- you could do 250 eight times. MR. PONTE: Before we get too deeply into that, let's just have a little discussion with what the realistic remedies might be here and realistic fines, given that we're looking at liens on property that is worth "X". Realistic expectations in terms of time of clearance. I think there's a lot to deliberate here before we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think -- yeah, the litter is probably relatively easy to ask hin1 to resolve. I mean, that seems like you bundle stuff up and set it out for Waste Management or you haul it to the dump or something. It seen1S relatively easy, based on the pictures. MS. BARNETT: I think we have to make sure he understands that it is litter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well-- Page 11 7 --'.'0'-"_',---.-- ----- _._~-_._,--~_..- -- June 24, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Because I think -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- yeah, it may be stuff to him. MS. BARNETT: -- the appliances to him might be of some value. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, then he can sell them. He's going to have to remove them, I hope, for our order. Whichever way he removes them, we just want them gone. And then when you get to the housing, I think we get into where he may need some assistance from someone to do the right thing, whether that's -- whether the staff can help him fill out the paperwork or whether -- we can't order a contractor to help him, we can only order him to do something. MR. BOWIE: Well, what he's going to have to find is a general contractor to pull these permits, and the general contractor can do all of this for him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. BOWIE: Okay, so there is somebody who can help him, it's called a general contractor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But we can't order a contractor to work for him. So that's where we need to I think ask the county either to at least turn him in the right direction or something, because just telling the gentleman to hire a contractor I don't think is going to resolve the problem. MS. ARNOLD: The only thing that we can do, because we cannot recommend a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MS. ARNOLD: -- contractor, is give him a list of contractors. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. But I think maybe if we can get him to come see you or son1eone else and before he leaves he really understands it, here's a list of people that you should telephone and ask if they can help you. And understand that's the most you can do. But he needs to understand that once he's given the list, that and the Page 118 "^"__'_.__'m'____ " '~-'~ - June 24, 2004 telephone book, he needs to do it, that you can't do it for him and we can't do it for him. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think he's tried. MS. CRISP: We have given him -- I have given him three lists of the same people. The key is, the reason why he can't -- and what I've tried to get him to understand, the reason why he cannot pull the permit himself is since it's a rental dwelling. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, but he was up here and said that it's not a duplex, that it's a single residence. He had one of the boxes taken off. MS. CRISP: The house is separated into two separate dwellings. There is no connecting through door. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but is there one electrical box, two electrical boxes? MS. CRISP: There's one -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you telling me that one side doesn't have power? MS. CRISP: There's one electrical meter and then there's that other thing that I showed you in the pictures, that other electrical fuse box thing. And I'm going to be honest, I couldn't get real close to it except in the picture itself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since you've been there, are you telling us that he and his family are on one side and there's some other family on the other side? MS. CRISP: Right, he has come -- yeah, he has told me the reason why there's not a connecting door is he don't want no theft. So that's why they have their side, he has theirs. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I think what he stated was originally it was a duplex, he converted it to a single-family home, had them remove the box. Now it's been converted back to a duplex. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is whatever order we might come up with, there's no -- there's no Page 119 _,_u. ,_ ,_.,-.,..'. _."". .~___.._ -.',_..--0"- -"- June 24, 2004 order that can compel somebody to pick up a telephone and go through the phone book dialing people. We can say do something by a certain date or get fined, and that's kind of the extent of it. MS. BARNETT: Can I ask -- Cliff, can we ask the county to intercede here because of the safety issue? THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, could you pull your . ? mlC. up. MS. BARNETT: I'm sorry. Because of the safety issue of fire hazard with the electrical systems, as set up as they were, can we deem the county to do it and then give him the bill? MS. ARNOLD: To do what? MS. BARNETT: Hire a contractor and have it taken care of. MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. BARNETT: I'm just asking. MS. ARNOLD: We don't have the ability to ask somebody else to do work on property that is not owned by the county. MS. BARNETT: Okay. MR. PONTE: I don't know, seems whatever we do here, the question is whether or not the respondent comprehends what we will be instructing him to do. And if we have any doubts about his ability to comprehend it, we in other cases have insisted, for example, that somebody have an interpreter. Is there a social agency that should be involved here that I'm not aware of or how we get it involved or whether we can or -- MS. CRISP: We actually sent him down to the SHIPS program and stuff of that nature. But once again, it falls back. They can help him on his side, but they cannot do anything on the rental side and whatnot. When we first started the case, Mr. Posada was coming to the meetings with us, he was calling contractors. As soon as he got the first bid on what it was going to be about to do some of this work is when the -- that's when he shut down. Page 120 --~-~---,~-- ._e, ---- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think the bottom line is what we need to do is come up with our order and say this is what we want done, give it to the gentleman and move on. We can't run it for him. We're just going to have to make an order and he either follows it or not and we just treat it like everything else. There's not a -- unfortunately we're not the caregivers here, so we're just going to have to come up with an order and move along. MS. DUSEK: I'll get started. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by -- under the first section of litter, remove all litter consisting of but not limited to auto parts in front and backyard, household appliances in backyard and side of house and other 111iscellaneous litter. The litter must be removed within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, the county may after 45 days hire a contractor to remove the litter and debris listed above and impose the cost against the respondent. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can I stop you just a second. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We seem to be maybe wanting to do something that's not -- we're giving him 30 days to do something and then he gets fined. But alternatively we're saying at the end of 45 days the county can step in. So there's a I5-day period where he'd get fined. I think if we're going to do anything, shouldn't the two days match? MS. RAWSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So it's either got to be 30 in both cases or 45 in both cases. I'm just trying -- so we don't -- we don't want to Page 121 ..~...."._,,--._- ~-"" ._'--. "- June 24, 2004 fine him and then turn the county loose on him. That's really not fair. MS. DUSEK: I'm just wondering ifhe can do it in 30 days. Well, I think it's -- MR. PONTE: Say 45. MS. DUSEK: Forty-five; 45 for both. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Now to minimum housing. Respondent must use properly licensed contractors to abate the violations. Contractor must pull required permits within 30 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. And follow through with all required inspections to CO within 45 days after obtaining permit or a fine of $150 per day the violation continues. I'm going to change that to 100. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so we're -- MS. DUSEK: We're 100 and 100. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but I want to understand what we're penalizing him for. We're saying that he has to get the permits. MS. DUSEK: Within 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or get fined for -- by $100. And then ifhe doesn't get the inspections, he's going to get fined for $100. Doesn't that seem a little excessive just for getting an inspection? I mean, that's really all you're doing the second time. That's why I'm wondering. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with the first number or raising it, but I do with the second number, because it only relates to an inspection. MS. DUSEK: So we'll go $50? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that would be more acceptable. MS. DUSEK: Okay, that's fine. The second part, n1ust have inspections performed when repairs are made and allow code enforcement and a building official on-site Page 122 ---.-- --0- June 24, 2004 to make official inspections within one day after repairs are made or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. And I think probably the one day should be changed. MR. PONTE: Well, I think the reason it's there is because of the safety issues. MR. BOWIE: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: Well, we've given him 30 and 45. It seems to me that should be like immediate. So to have the inspections done within one day -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I'm getting lost. MR. BOWIE: How is paragraph two any different than the latter part of paragraph one? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Paragraph one we're saying get a CO -- MR. BOWIE: Right, right, and inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- which means they're going to inspect everything. MR. BOWIE: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then paragraph two says get the inspections when you n1ake these repairs. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think two should just be deleted. MS. DUSEK: Let's eliminate it. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And I think we should give him more time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Than the 30 days? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, what -- you got a recommendation? MS. ARNOLD: Well, give him a couple of months, 60 days. And I think it's going to take him, just looking at the extensive work Page 123 ~,c.,.~ _.._-~. -_.- -- June 24, 2004 that needs to be done on that property, more than 45 days to get somebody to finish it, probably, as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the 45 days is inspecting it. MR. BOWIE: Well, just to pull permits. MS. DUSEK: But the -- if we have the first part -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says all required inspections to CO within 45 days. MS. ARNOLD: Right, to CO. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that's just the inspection portion of it. MS. ARNOLD: To CO is what -- MR. BOWIE: To CO. MS. ARNOLD: To CO means completing. MR. BOWIE: Within 45 days after permitting. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: All right. But pulling permits within 30 days, you think that's a difficult problem? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: I'm only concerned about the safety here. MR. BOWIE: I am, too. MS. ARNOLD: I know. I know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, he's got to find somebody, we understand that, which is going to be the biggest problem. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: And you're suggesting 60 days for pulling permits. I mean, I want to give him as much help as we can; however, the safety is the main criteria here. And I don't know what the alternative is. If he doesn't get a licensed contractor, then the issue still exists after 60 days, and who knows what may happen within that 60 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: How about if we add in there removal of the tenants if permits aren't obtained. Page 124 ---'.- .-'-'- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Make note that Mr. Bowie had to leave for a scheduled meeting. We still have a quorum, so it's not a problem. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I don't think that -- you know, I don't think the time makes too much difference, because I feel very, very apprehensive about anything really getting done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask -- MR. PONTE: So when you say it's 30 days or 60 days, I think the net result's going to be the same. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask Jean a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In this instance where we have a rental unit and it's been presented to us that there is a safety and health problem and we set up "X" days for him to do something, if it doesn't occur, would we -- could we ask that he remove the tenants because of that? I mean, we're willing to live with a shorter amount of time, but I don't think we're willing to live with forever because of that issue. Is that a problen1 or -- MS. RAWSON: Well, generally we don't tell people to evict their tenants. If there is a serious safety and health reason -- you know, the problem is he can't fix the tenant's property because he doesn't -- can't get in there. You know, I guess if that's the only way to abate the violation, then I suppose that's the only way to abate the violation, remove the tenants. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I think what the board is looking at is we're willing to accept some period of time, since it's been going on, for hiIn to resolve the problem with the people there. But beyond that, we feel, rightly or wrongly, that we shouldn't impose these unsafe conditions to them any longer until he repairs everything. So I'm just asking, is there a way for us to resolve that or do we just have to stay away from that issue? MS. RAWSON: I don't think you can order him to evict his Page 125 --.-.-.... ~-_...- ~,-^' "- June 24, 2004 tenants. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So having that up front said to us, then we need to -- whatever date you're comfortable with, whether it's 30 days or 60 days, then we just have to have that date come and go and then start imposing the fine. Understanding that after the fine's been imposed for three months, we also have the right to ask the county to foreclose, which may be the only result. MR. PONTE: Then I think we ought to make the time as short as possible. MS. DUSEK: Well, in a compromise position, which I always try to do, why don't we say 45 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I knew that was coming. MS. DUSEK: So in the second, minimum housing, both dates will be 45. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Forty-five, okay. And we're -- MS. ARNOLD: That was to obtain the permits? MS. DUSEK: Obtain the permits and the CO. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, instead of30, 45. And then the CO still within 45 -- MS. DUSEK: And then -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's still 100 and 50, right? MS. DUSEK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: And then the last part is to notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to COIne out and perform the site inspections. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody understand? So I don't have to try to go back through all that. Jean, you have it down? That's the main thing. MS. RA WSON: Yes, I think I do. MS. DUSEK: I think the main parts were in the first part, litter, was to change that to 45 days. Page 126 -.--.--.- ____.~d._. ,........ __ _..... June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: And then in the second part under minimum housing, both 45 days, change the 100 for the CO to $50, strike number two, and number three remains the same. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Point of clarification just on my part. In previous orders we have, and actually today we've stated in one of our orders or potential orders, that we would ask the people to have their tenants removed after a certain period of time and -- MS. BARNETT: Unpermitted duplex. MS. RAWSON: Well, of course that's part of the compliance agreement. I mean, that's what they agreed to do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So that's something that's agreed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's something they worked out. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So that's the difference. MS. RAWSON: In order to abate violations, it could be that the respondent has no other choice but to evict his tenants. My concern is that you don't order hiIn to file an eviction suit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. In those cases, I think he agreed that probably what he's going to do is bulldoze the buildings anyway, so he agreed to remove all tenants from his property and disconnect the electric and the water and so on and so forth. That was his decision, not ours. All we did was agree to what he said he would do. MS. DUSEK: You know, in line with that, I know Gerald's concern, and it is mine also, and it seems to me in the past that we have asked them to ren10ve tenants. I may be mistaken. But in the case where you have an unpermitted building, it's zoned single-family and they're doing multi-family, can we not ask them to close down or get rid of the people? And the second part to that question, when he is getting rent money from these people in this duplex and he is putting them in Page 127 M..''"'^._...,._........___._ _.,--,"' --- June 24, 2004 harm's way, I can't understand why we can't say you can no longer do this until you get this building brought up to -- MS. RAWSON: You could give him so many days to get the building brought up to code compliance. If it's a violation of a zoning, I mean, I think some other board will hear that. You can give him so many days to bring it up to compliance. Now how he does it, by evicting the tenants and then getting in there and fixing it, is probably up to him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our authority is limited, I think, to is there a violation, if there is, we give him "X" time to correct the violation in whatever way he sees fit, and/or impose a fine at the end of that term. I probably agree and understand what Jean is saying, that our authority is not broad enough to include the power to evict. It's just say do something within "X" days or get fined. I think that's our limit. Maybe that will be changed sometime, I don't know. MS. DUSEK: Well, I hear you. I'm just concerned about the people in that unit -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that and -- MS. DUSEK: -- and safety is so important to all of us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We just unfortunately are kind of limited, so we'll have to live with that right now. Okay, so everybody understands the motion? MS. BARNETT: I understand her motion and I will second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 128 ~,_..~ .---- '----"'- -..- June 24, 2004 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. No, we have one more. Oh, this case? MS. DUSEK: With this case? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, with this case; no we're done with this case. Okay. You need some time? MS. RAWSON: We have more than one because we have a number of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have some other, a lot of other stuff to do yet, so -- let -- she needs a break, so -- let's take five minutes. Is that enough for you, Cherie'? We need five minutes for our court reporter. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll call back to order. We don't have that far to go, if everybody will bear with us. We have a request from our previous parties to make a comment, so let's slide them in and -- MR. DUVALL: Not really a comment, just saying we've executed the compliance agreement, as amended, and hopefully we can wrap it up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Terrific. MS. RA WSON: I have a signed copy which I can attach. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Terrific, gentlemen. Thank you for your patience and your endeavor. Okay, back to public hearings. Last case, 2004-029. Where did Michelle go? Guy and Melinda Fracasso. I hope that's correct. I I'm Page 129 June 24, 2004 sorry if it's not. F-R-A-C-A-S-S-O. MS. ARNOLD: I have another request, I'm sorry. Mr. Curelio (sic), Mario, would like you to consider his request for reduction of fine, if that's okay. The Fracassos are not here. MS. BARNETT: He's been here all afternoon. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll close the public hearings and let's listen to Item 6.C, is that one and two, are they both his, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2003-005 and 006. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just give us a minute to find you in all this paperwork. MS. ARNOLD: It's probably toward the end of your packet. MS. BARNETT: Southern Development. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I know, I just -- for some reason I can't -- MS. BARNETT: I think it's right under -- I think it's towards the top. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's Melinda Fracasso, the next case, and that's not them, that's Haeger. Southern Development there we go, on the bottom. Okay. Found you. Okay, sir. MR. CURIALE: First of all, I would like to say thank you for allowing me to intervene. I don't know if I did the right thing or the wrong thing, but I was speaking -- my heart told me to do that and I did that. And I hope it was the right thing. I really don't know. Back to my issues over here, is that we have been here for a long duration of time. As you all know, we all have matured with age, I guess. I have been here about four or five years. And through the encounter of so many additional expenses and delay in the project, we right finally came up with the conclusion that says it's not Page 130 ----- _._-_._~ --- June 24, 2004 worth to going back and forth anymore, make anymore assumption to this. The project has been on a standstill for about two years, and so many additional expense has been encountered by me, and I reach a point I really had to finalize this, because no matter which way we tried, we tried twice with a rezone, that did not work. We tried with the SDP, that did not work. Excerves (sic) for a bunch of money that I had to pay for. And I think if we would had some kind of a share of a meeting within staff, n1yself, the environment (sic) all at one time two and a half years ago, I would have saved myself a ton of money and we would had solved that thing immediately, instead of take so much time and effort from this board, myself, staff and everybody else included, too. With all this taking place is sometimes the board makes a decision to base some kind of criteria that they -- and then all of a sudden takes place -- a judgment takes place on a piece of property. When a judgment goes in there, it stalls everything. I mean, I went through the loop to try to figure what way to do it. I finally raised my hand and I gave up. I says okay, no matter what I try don't work, what can we do to solve? And we come up with a conclusion to make a donation to Collier County land reservation -- preservation, whatever, and that donation was a very stiff one, which was about almost $17,000. Above and beyond that, I paid over about $2,600 worth of administrative fees. And above and beyond that, I spend over $20,000 for the engineer just to redrawing plans, and he attend about four meetings on Iny behalf. And all the carrying costs to carry the construction project which is like abandoned on 41. And everybody asks me questions, say what the heck you doing with the property? You going to do anything with that, you ain't going to do anything with that? So it got so boring that I could not deal with that any longer. So I believe about three weeks ago, I made a final decision and I had to go convince my land institution that we need to come up with Page 131 ~~-_._- -^-- June 24, 2004 about $20,000 worth of lump sum. And it took me a long, long process for me to try to let them understand where I was. They wanted me to go through to continue the process, but I said look, I can't keep doing this. I got a life to live, I need a place to go. I am a builder, I can't be stand still in here. So we decided to go, we would go into first West, the outer land preservation to do it, and then we went back with the Collier County, we did that. But the only drawback that I have is that, you know, as a builder myself and developer for over 30 years, you know, it makes me feel really painful to the fact that I know the process, okay. This misunderstanding of 111e to pull a clearing permit which would have cost me 150 bucks, it cost me over $250,000 altogether. That is a major blow from my own personal dealing. I'm not a corporation, I'm a single individual. And I work for a living. And I hope I live long enough to live even more and maybe I can learn from that. But this was really a big stiff fine to be imposed. And I hope that we can move on, and the only thing I'm look for right now, if after all the payments that I have made and all kind of concession and all kind of arrangement and any kind of a procedure that I took in order to eliminate the deficiencies, that we be able to finalize this chapter by abating such thing called a fine, fees, whatever. That's what I'm looking for, for you boards (sic) to abate those fines and let's move forward. And I hope maybe you next time will look ourselves in a different criteria, not by looking on the fines. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Maybe I'm a little confused. Somebody needs to -- MS. ARNOLD: What's happened is he has -- he's now in compliance because he had an option of mitigating, and a part of the mitigation option is to donate funds to a public environmental agency, and -- actually it doesn't have to be public, an environmental related. And he's now done that. Page 132 ~,,_.. - "--- June 24, 2004 There should be in your packet a receipt in the amount of $16,998 -- 989.50 which was paid on June 15th of this month. He's also paid the operational costs for both cases. We have two cases, similar violation, but it was two different properties, in the amount of $1,202.50, and also $1,180.75. I think he's saying that he'd like the fines that have accrued thus far -- because it's taken him from the time that the board told him to come into compliance to the 15th of June -- to be abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. In reading this, I was having a problem, because we haven't imposed any fines yet, and he's paid the operational costs. So there are no fines -- the county hasn't even requested us to impose any yet. So he's asking us -- MS. ARNOLD: Actually, we did impose fines, according to Shanelle, in Janu -- actually, in April. April 26th is when it was signed. And so the April hearing is when we imposed fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we don't have a copy of that. MS. BARNETT: It's in here. MR. LEFEBVRE: What is the amount? MS. ARNOLD: It's after the receipt, the order imposing fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says order that the fines at a rate of $50 per day continue, but not be imposed. So we haven't imposed any fines. That's my problem. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, you're right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're asking us to waive something we haven't even imposed yet. But we don't know what the fines are because the county hasn't imposed them. So that's where I'm -- we don't know what we're doing. We can't waive or reduce something we don't know what you want us to even start with. That's why I'm confused. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I guess I'm going to have to look to Jean to find out what -- Page 133 ,-,--~_._-- "- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but what is the number? First of all, he's asking us to do something and we don't know what the number is, because you haven't asked us to do anything. So we can't help him till you ask us to do something. MS. RA WSON: What are the number of -- what fines does he owe? What's the amount? MS. ARNOLD: That's what I'm trying to find out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you say he came into compliance by -- MS. ARNOLD: June 16th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- by giving this land, I guess, this $16,989.50 item, the mitigation? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And he did that in June of this year? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And he was supposed to be done by November of last year. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I'm being told that the outstanding fine amount is $11,300 per case. So $22,600 total. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: And Michelle, may I ask again, he's paid $16,989 -- MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: As mitigation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Now what -- so the county has fines that they haven't asked us to impose yet of 11,300 on each case. And he's asking us to, I guess, waive both fines. Now, what's the county's position? Since you haven't asked us yet, we'll ask you in Page 134 _ ~.'''~M -_.,_.,._-,--,--_.".,_.~~~ ~- --- June 24, 2004 advance. MS. ARNOLD: You know, considering all that he's been through and the fact that he's essentially been fined what the mitigation costs, the county doesn't have an objection to abating those fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Abating both fine amounts? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think for future reference, just as a side note, anybody that wants to come before us to ask for a reduction or abatement, they -- from the board's standpoint, I don't think we want to hear them until the county has actually asked us to impose some amount, which normally happens toward the end of an agenda. So I think any request for reductions need to occur after we consider what you want to us do, so we have -- MS. ARNOLD: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- both sides of the question that we can understand what we're doing. I think it makes it easier. So before us right now we have Mario asking us to abate these two amounts which turn out to be $11,300 on each case, and the county is in agreement with that abatement. MS. DUSEK: I n1ake a motion that we abate the 11,300 for the one case and 11,300 for the other case, for a total of 22,600. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have to impose them first or skip right to -- MS. DUSEK: Well, the county has pretty well withdrawn the fines, from my understanding. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since our order said the fines would continue until imposed, I think at this point, Jean, rather than abate them, since they have not yet been imposed, would it be correct to change the order to read that the fines at this point are -- MR. PONTE: Waived. Page 135 ---.,'.- ..-- ""- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- removed or waived or -- MS. RAWSON: We've not imposed them at all yet? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. All our order says is that they should continue -- order that the fines at a rate of $50 a day continue to accrue until compliance, but not be imposed at this hearing. So we never have imposed them, we just said they should continue. So-- MS. RAWSON: Well, you can just abate all fines on both cases. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We don't have to specify an amount; it's just as of this date -- MS. RAWSON: I can put the amount in the findings of fact, but in the order you can just say you abate all fines on both cases. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Because he's paid the operational costs, which is fine. We can't do anything with that. Okay. So we're abating the fines, and Jean is happy with that, so -- we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. CURIALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. Sorry you had to wait so long. MR. CURIALE: I'm glad this case is over. MS. ARNOLD: Mario has this own personal seat over there. MR. CURIALE: I thinking of changing color right now. Page 136 .--------.-----. ' ...__...~_."'--,,.-'" --'-- June 24, 2004 Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. Okay. Are we ready to do the -- I notice, Michelle, that we've been going all this time. Do we have another person in the audience? Do you want to try to do that since the other -- MS. ARNOLD: Sure. That is Item No. 6.B.7, Claude Martel. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Martel, yes. MS. ARNOLD: And we actually have him on the agenda for imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: And let me find it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I assume he wants to make a comment, that's why he's here. MS. ARNOLD: Claude, do you want to talk to the board at all? The fines that are being imposed are operational costs only. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. MS. ARNOLD: And let me just get to the case and then we can kind of -- because I'm making a modification as to what was in your -- I'm doing a lot of modifications today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, wait a minute. I'll tell him something in a minute and maybe it will preclude him wanting to say anything. Because if this is totally for operational costs, it's an item that this board has no power to change, okay? So if you ask us to help you, I just need to tell you in advance, on this item we can't help you. MR. MARTEL: Well, I want to register-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that's fine. We'll let you do that, sir. I just want you to understand, there's no way for us to help you on this item. And we'll give you the chance. MR. MARTEL: I don't know why you charged me a $520 fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, it's not a fine, but we'll let the county explain it, maybe that will help you. Page 137 _00 .-._-- M...~__" ~"- June 24, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This item was heard before the board on May 27th, 2004 and the board found a violation and ordered Mr. Martel to obtain his required rental registrations. He did obtain it within the time frames that the board specified, so there are no accruing fines. The only thing that has -- is being requested is the operational costs, and I'ln actually making a modification from the $520 specified in the executive summary to reduce it to $305 for operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Cherie', you want to swear him in? We'll let him -- (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Martel, what the county has just said, instead of the 520, they reduced that to 305. And that's the cost that from day one in finding out about your violation and in doing everything they did to bring you before us, and then we issued an order and you resolved the issue, that's their cost to get you here, for lack of a better way to put that. That's what the number is for. We as a board by Florida Statute don't have the power to do anything about that number. We can't reduce it any more. They've reduced it and we will accept that. But we can't reduce it any more. We just don't have the authority. So if you have a problem with the number, the only group that can help you is the Board of County Commissioners, because they have the power to do sOlnething about that that we don't. MR. MARTEL: The one down the end of the hall over here? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, you would have to go to a county meeting, and then I'm sure there's a process you must go through. And I don't know what that is so I can't help you there. But maybe Michelle can tell you what the process is, if that's what you want to do. But sir, you're welcome to tell us whatever you'd like. We just can't reduce this number. So I wanted you to know that up front. Page 138 . ---..-...--- .._~_.,- June 24, 2004 MR. MARTEL: Well, I don't know. I don't think I going to pay for that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If you ask Michelle, she's tell you the process you have to go through. MR. MARTEL: I don't want to deal with people like you guys. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, was the amount 305 or 325? MS. ARNOLD: 305. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 305, yeah. And we have a lot of others to impose so we'll just wait and impose it down the road. We were trying to handle his reduction and we found out what it's for. So let's get back to Mr. -- is it Fracasso? Fracasso. Am I -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, Fracasso. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Guy and Melinda Fracasso. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Board of County Commissioners versus Guy and Melinda Fracasso, CEB No. 2004-029. And we had previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of inforn1ation that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEIZ: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Section 1.5.6, 2.7.6, Page 139 ,--,~~,-,--,-,,-""""'" -,-~-,-,- --..-- June 24, 2004 paragraphs one and five; 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. And Section 4 of Ordinance No. 93-64. This is a repeat violation and previously brought before the Code Enforcement Board on September 25, 2003 under CEB Case No. 2003-028. The description of the violation: Observed a dumpster enclosure on the southwest corner of the property erected behind the shopping plaza, encroaching into the right-of-way without building or right-of-way permits obtained. Second, using the permitted dumpster enclosure, the left south side of the plaza, for outside seating of restaurant. Location of violation: 10823 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Guy and Melinda Fracasso, 750 Southern Pines Drive, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: November 20th, 2002. And repeat violation observed on April 15th, 2004. Date owner given notice of violation: April 15, 2004 by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular U.S. mail, and posting of property and courthouse. Date in which violation was to be corrected: Was May 2nd, 2004. Date of reinspection: June 23, 2004. And result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent certified mail, return receipt requested, regular U.S. mail and posting of property and courthouse. And at this time, I would like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom? (No response.) MS. HILTON: And he is not. And I would like to turn the case Page 140 -.--..-.-" ,,-" __n.' .,'" June 24, 2004 over to the supervisor, Shawn Luedtke, to present the case to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKE: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Supervisor Shawn Luedtke with Collier County Code Enforcement. On April 22nd, 2004, I performed a site visit at 10823 North Tamiami Trail -- that's a shopping center located right here -- in reference to a prior CEB case that we had in front of -- Upon my arrival, I observed that the dumpster on site still was in the unpermitted location, encroaching into the Collier County right-of-way, and the permitted location still being used for outside seating of nearby restaurant. On that date I sent an amended notice of violation, mailed it certified to Mr. Fracasso. To date the notice of violation still occurs in accordance with the board's prior order. In the meantime, we've received numerous calls about the dump truck. And let me show you this on the map to kind of show you where the potential safety issue is. This street right here was 108th A venue North. What's happening is they put a cut-off at this location so the dump truck cannot access all the way down the road. This is where the unpermitted location is of the dumpster, and I can show you photographs of these in just a second. Here is where the permitted location is, where it should be located. What's happening is the dump truck is required to come down 108th, pull into the day care parking lot, access the dumpster, lift the dumpster up over the truck, while sitting in the day care parking lot. Trash spills out into the parking lot of the day care. You've got kids coming in and out at that hour. It is a potential safety hazard, in my opinion. You've got glass on the ground. We all know that stuff falls out of dump trucks, glass, food from the restaurant, all kinds of items, and let alone you have a huge truck doing a three-point Page 141 ----.-. -'~-,"...,- June 24, 2004 turnaround on a little, little street. So those are the safety issues. Let me show you a close-up of the location here. Right here is the permitted location where they are using for outside seating. As you see, they've placed a table with an umbrella in there and they are using that for a restaurant located right here, this restaurant. The unpermitted location, it is encroaching into the right-of-way. It is right here. It encroaches about five foot into the Collier County right-of-way, right on the property line of the shopping center and the adjoining day care. At this point we have proceeded to process the case for CEB hearing on reoccurring violation. Any questions? MR. PONTE: Just one. Is the -- is a permit necessary to move the dumpster back to its original location? MS. ARNOLD: Are you referring to the existing location? MR. PONTE: No, the one that was originally permitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's permitted to be somewhere, and right now I think you said there's tables and seating or something here? MR. LUEDTKE: That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ifwe order him to put the dumpster back where it was originally was permitted to be, he doesn't need anything to do that, correct? MR. LUEDTKE: There would be no permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He just needs to do it. MR. LUEDTKE: Exactly, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: I think what George is trying to refer to is there is a -- MR. PONTE: No, that was the -- that was -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what he wanted. MS. BARNETT: That's it. Oh, okay. Page 142 , ...~-"- ---- June 24, 2004 I only have one question. With the way it looks like it's designed and the way the road is designed now, how is a truck going to empty that one? MR. LUEDTKE: I'll put the aerial back on. MS. BARNETT: Okay, they go in through the parking lot there, I guess. MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, what they would do is pull down 108th here, pull into the shopping center, access the dumpster right here in the shopping center. They would not go down 108th at all towards the day care. MR. LEFEBVRE: You said this is a repeat case? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it was corrected at one time? Was the dumpster put back in its -- MR. LUEDTKE: It was never corrected. The order of the board was, on the prior case, to cease the tenant -- or to cause the tenant to cease utilizing the area for a dumpster unless it's permitted. That's the occupying of the one section. And No. five of that section is to relocate the dumpster to its permitted location. The problem we have was there was no fines assessed or time limits assessed to those orders. That's why we have it back in front of you. MR. PONTE: Now, it says here that an amended SDP had been applied for. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MR. PONTE: Was that recently or was that some time ago? MR. LUEDTKE: Within the time frame of your order, which did have a fine amount on the prior case. Within 90 days, by December 24th they were in compliance with submittal of the site development plan. So no fines were assessed for that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm a little confused. Looking at our previous order, 028, the order of the board was he had to do Page 143 ~._.".._+ ......... ,----- ~,~,,-_. ----.- "._._-".,-,,,. ..-- June 24, 2004 something within 90 days, and -- and ifhe didn't do all that, there was to be a fine of $100 a day and then something else. And then in January of '04, we issued an order imposing fines in that. So obviously -- and it says as of that time he wasn't in compliance, but we imposed the fines as of that date and I assume the fines are still running. Or has he complied? MS. ARNOLD: No. What -- what we're trying to address is the dumpster location. And in the order, it told the respondent to relocate the dumpster to the pennitted location, but it didn't say by within so many days, nor did it apply -- I mean, the fine amount is not relevant. It just says -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, but it's a repeat violation and you've cited the same three, four articles. I looked that up. So what I'm saying is, if we're going to have a repeat violation of the exact same four, which is the way this is written up, then we're trying to just establish he hasn't con1plied with our last order because there's fines imposed, okay? Is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So this time I think what you're saYIng IS -- MS. ARNOLD: Shanelle's saying no. MS. HILTON: The fines were from December to January 12th, the date that they subn1itted the required documents for the SDP. So technically they did c0111ply with your order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. To be a repeat violation, it says item four, to cause a tenant to cease utilizing the area for a dumpster unless permitted. I understand there's no money associated to that, but has he ceased utilizing the dumpster area for its permitted purpose? Yes or 110. MR. LUEDTKE: No, the situation has not changed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The item five was relocate the dumpster to the permitted location. He hasn't done that either? Page 144 --_.'-- ""- June 24, 2004 MR. LUEDTKE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And -- okay. MR. PONTE: In his -- in the respondent's note, he says that he received the SDP on June 14th, just a couple of weeks ago. What bearing does that have on this case? MR. LUEDTKE: Depending on the extent of the site development plan, I know that they're going to renovate their parking lot, from what I understand by talking to the planners, to make this parking lot a horseshoe, placing the dumpster in the middle here where it can be accessed right here from 1 08th A venue. I do not know how long it's going to take for the construction of this process, so I couldn't answer that. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Shawn, under 2761 that you've cited him for, I assume because the dumpster where it is now doesn't have a permit. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And under five -- tell us what we're doing, why we're citing him for 276.5. And I understand 156, and it's again because the structure is altered against the original permit. MR. LUEDTKE: Sir, it's also addressed in the unpermitted dumpster enclosure, but let me get the exact wording on that section. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you saying that because he moved it to this new location, it's an improvement of the property prior to getting a permit? MR. LUEDTI(E: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for Shawn? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. DUSEK: Well, when you cited him this time, what was his Page 145 -~_. -.--.- - June 24, 2004 reaction? Or what did he say, or they? MR. LUEDTKE: I have not had any contact with him, other than through certified mailings. I know he did make the request that you heard earlier, I believe, a request for an extension in writing to Shanelle. I don't know, Shanelle, have you had any other contacts with him? MS. HILTON: I had a phone conversation with him, and he just grumbled about how long the process took and the dumpster had been there forever and the day care lady was just giving him a hard time. And I told him if he wanted to request a continuance, he needed to put it in writing. But other than that, it was just basic -- he was just upset. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Shawn. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Close the public hearings, and we need a finding of fact. And this is a repeat. He was cited before and an order issued on the san1e sections of the various ordinances that he is cited for at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County COInmissioners versus Guy and Melinda Fracasso, CEB Case No. 2004-209 (sic) that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6,2.7.6, paragraph one and five; and 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section 4 of Ordinance No. 93-64. This is a repeat violation, and previously bought before the Code Enforcement Board on September 25th, 2003 under CEB Case No. 2003-028. The description of the violation: Observed the following, a dumpster enclosure, southwest corner of property, erected behind the Page 146 .__n_ "'.._-~ June 24, 2004 above-noted shopping plaza, encroaching into the right-of-way without building or right-of-way permits obtained; using the permitted dumpster enclosure left, south side of plaza for outside seating of restaurant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. Is there a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. Comment, as you're thinking of an order, I think we should be very specific about relocating the dumpster. I think we should be very specific that he should cease utilizing the dumpster immediately and moving it back to where its permitted location is. And since he has not done that in violation of our previous order from October -- or signed in October, so it was from September -- I personally am, being a repeat violation, am strongly recon1mending a $500 a day fine. MS. BARNETT: I'll throw out in the discussion -- MS. DUSEK: There's no chance of me voting for a $500 a day fine -- MR. PONTE: No. Nor me neither. MS. DUSEK: -- on a dumpster. I mean -- Page 147 -...----,.- ~,.,- ._.~~ June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we issued an order and he didn't want to do it, so -- MS. DUSEK: Well, I know, but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you know, obviously he doesn't care about $100 fine, so -- MS. DUSEK: Well, I think we can certainly increase the fine, but I can't go along with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about 250? MR. PONTE: I think the staff recommendation is correct at 150. MS. DUSEK: I agree. MS. BARNETT: I was just going to make comment that I think we ought to give him five days to put the dumpster back into its originally permitted location or fine him $250 a day. That was going to just be my first initial feeling, because I want him to move it back. MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. BARNETT: And I want to put weight to that. And I think if we slap him with 100, $150, he's going to say pfft, because he's already done that to us. MR. PONTE: Can you imagine how little he makes in that little alcove? It's not worth it. MS. BARNETT: That's why I want him to make it -- to make him move it. MS. DUSEK: I think -- MS. BARNETT: I feel pretty strong about that section of it. The rest of it I haven't got to yet, but -- MS. DUSEK: Seven -- if you do the seven days, we have to think of a weekend. MS. BARNETT: I said five. MS. DUSEK: I know, but that might include the weekend, which he might not be able to do, so -- MS. BARNETT: Waste Management will move things on a Page 148 _.~-,-_....., >._-~ ~- .-. "-._,-_.,, June 24, 2004 Saturday. They won't do it on a Sunday, but they will on a Saturday. MS. DUSEK: But that's -- you're actually then putting four days. I mean, you know what I'm saying? Because you have to include Sunday there. MS. BARNETT: Well-- MR. PONTE: All right, so you just -- what you'd like to do is just say everything seven days. MS. DUSEK: Seven, yeah, I think, because that includes one day when he couldn't do anything, so it actually makes it six days. MR. PONTE: Yes, yes. Say seven. MS. DUSEK: Okay, I'll start the process. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, remove the dumpster to its permitted location and enclosure that is encroaching into the right-of-way behind the plaza to its properly permitted -- within seven days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Cease using the permitted dumpster enclosure for outside seating within five days from the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violations have been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we'll go with 200 instead of250. MS. DUSEK: That was my motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Now you can do whatever -- MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. MS. DUSEK: Oh, there was a second to the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MS. BARNETT: I just want to make sure we've stamped this so he can't squiggle out of it again. Page 149 .,-----..----- ---....-< ~'-".-- "- June 24, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Well, I think the last order only fined him for an SDP. We didn't fine him for anything else. SDP. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. You told him what to do and he just said I'm not going to do it, so this time you're telling him to do the same thing over -- MS. DUSEK: Well, he's getting fined for it this time. I think they'll probably -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He hasn't -- well, anyway, 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. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? No. That finishes the public hearings. Imposition of fines. We have Brown as the first one, 2004-017. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next case is Ronald and Shirley Brown. This case was heard by the board on March 25th, 2004, and a finding of violation was made. The respondent was ordered to obtain all required inspections and obtain a certificate of completion by April 30th, 2004. Respondent was notified that if they did not comply by that date, fines of $25 per day would be imposed. The respondent was also ordered to pay operational costs in the amount of $648. Staff is at this time requesting the board impose fines -- MS. HILTON: She has made payments, so the balance is 350. MS. ARNOLD: But wouldn't we impose the full amount? MS. BARNETT: Actually, I think what happened was in your order, as long as she was making the fines -- she was making payment, but then at the end if she did not make a payment or she Page 150 .-.' . . _.~..-'--,.- ----~~- --_.- -- June 24, 2004 missed a payment, we were supposed to institute the remaining amount of the fine. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I didn't see that here. So the balance is $350. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, explain that to me again? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I didn't -- MS. BARNETT: In our order we allowed her to make payments, and it was agreed upon, but there was also -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, really? MS. BARNETT: Well, with them. They set it up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm reading the order, I don't see that. MS. BARNETT: It was -- there was something in our packet and it stated they agreed to accept -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's go back to the order. The order just says pay $648.10, period. MS. BARNETT: I can find it. MS. HILTON: Yes, there's a stipulation for settlement. And she agreed to pay, over a seven-month period, $95.58. She has been making her payments, but we've never imposed fines, so we don't technically have a lien. We've only done the findings of facts. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but I think we should -- I mean, the stipulated settlement wasn't recorded as a part -- was it recorded as a part of the order? MS. HILTON: Yes, it was. MS. ARNOLD: Oh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It was? MS. HILTON: Yes, it was attached and recorded with the order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but I mean-- MS. BARNETT: It's here. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay, yes. Under the board's order it does say that the respondent shall comply with the stipulated dated -- the Page 151 -.... .--.... ""- June 24, 2004 stipulations dated March 24th. It's on the second page. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm looking at an order, and I see recorded. MS. ARNOLD: Right. On the second page of the order, Cliff, it does say in that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm looking at the first page, findings of fact and getting to the order, blah, blah, blah, blah -- okay, order of the board, the violations -- are being corrected and the respondent shall comply with the stipulated order attached hereto, Exhibit A. Okay. And Exhibit A says -- okay. Now, the agreement says she's supposed to be paying $95.58 a month which started in April of this year, is she doing that? MS. HILTON: Yes, she's making her payments. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, then what are we trying to impose something for? I'm lost. MS. RAWSON: I think that what they're trying to do is impose the 350 so it's a lien on the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but we ordered her to pay this full amount and Inake payments. And if she's making the payments, what are we imposing the penalty for? I mean, I'm lost. I'm not understanding. MS. ARNOLD: I'm kind of lost too, because the lien -- the order is a lien on the property -- MS. RAWSON: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: -- notice on the property, which is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, she's not in non-compliance yet. She's making the payments, so she's doing what we told her to do. And until she fails, why do we want to do anything different? I'm lost. If somebody can help me. MS. ARNOLD: And I don't know if we need do need to -- do we need to, Jean, because the order itself even tells you what the fine -- the operational cost aITIOunt is, and we've got the stipulation Page 152 _o~__'"~ .~_..w. .~"-~~-"--~ . June 24, 2004 attached to it -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And she's making the payments we said so-- , MS. ARNOLD: -- and it's all there in the public record, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So -- yeah. It's all been recorded. We don't need a lien on the property because she hasn't done anything wrong yet. She's doing exactly what we told her to do. MS. ARNOLD: Did she miss any payments, Shanelle? MS. HILTON: No. I was just perfecting the file, that's all. MS. DUSEK: And I agree with Cliff. MS. RAWSON: No, I think we're fine. MS. BARNETT: I do, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, she's doing what we said. If she misses the payments, then I think she should -- you know, the county should come back and say okay, she missed a payment and we're want to put a lien on the property. I guess unless somebody says I'm wrong, I think we're okay the way we are. MS. BARNETT: I made the assumption she had missed a payment because we were hitting the balance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Monika Van Stone, 2003-048. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This particular case was heard by the board on November 13th, 2003. A violation was found and the respondent was ordered to obtain a building permit within 90 days. Also ordered to request all inspections and certificate of completion within 45 days of getting that building permit. She was further ordered that if she didn't comply with paragraph one, $50 per day would be imposed. And if not, failing to comply with paragraph two, an additional $50 per day would be imposed. She was further ordered to pay operational costs. And we've already imposed the fines for the operational costs. And at this time we're requesting the fine an10unts for -- in the amount of $6,650 be Page 153 .~.. .,--. --..--... "- June 24, 2004 imposed at a rate of $50 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And she's still not in compliance, correct, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that -- we -- she is still in non-compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we have a request to impose the fine portion only, because operational has previously been imposed. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion? MS. DUSEK: I nlake a motion that we accept staffs recommendation for the imposition of fines for case 2003-048. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thelma Nuvallo -- Novello, I guess, maybe. MS. ARNOLD: We're actually going to impose for Herman Haeger. MS. DUSEK: Haeger. MR. PONTE: We had Haeger? MS. DUSEK: No, that was only his motion to -- Page 154 ---- June 24, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Yes, you heard his motion for reduction. And I think you all are well aware of what this situation is. I don't need to go into that. It's only operational costs that are being imposed. I have had a very heated discussion with Mr. Haeger out of in the hallway, and the county's requesting that the fines in the amount of $626.25 be imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: 626-- MS. ARNOLD: 626.25. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did he agree to that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he did. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I n1ake a motion that we follow staffs recommendation to in1pose a fine of $626.25 in the case of 2004-0 18. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested by the county. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now Ms. Novello -- Novallo. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This case was heard by the board on the 26th of February, this year. The respondent failed to follow the board's order, so at this time we're requesting that fine amounts in the amount of $4,350 be iInposed, as well as an additional $1,290.50 (sic) for operational costs be imposed, for a total of $5,569.50. Page 155 ----....- ~._'- June 24, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's 1,219.50, isn't it, not 90. MS. ARNOLD: I'lll sorry, did I say 90? Yes, 19. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. That's fine. Do I hear a motion to impose, as requested by the county? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we impose the fines of -- what was the total amount? 5,569.50 in the case 2004-007. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as requested by the county. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: The next case is Claude Martel. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Martel. MS. ARNOLD: This case we're asking for the operational costs in the amount of $305 be imposed. MS. DUSEK: I n1ake a motion that we impose -- ask the county to impose $305 in the case of 2004-0 14. MS. BARNETT: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine amount -- the operational cost amount, as requested by the county. I need to try and -- we need to try and shy away from the word fine when we do operational costs so that we don't confuse the public any longer. Page 156 --"""'~~-~._"'-'-" "'_.._~.._~---"_."_.,._,._..'~~ --- June 24, 2004 We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is it Ms. Katchur? MS. ARNOLD: Actually, we don't need to do that because of the prior action taken by the board. So that one's removed from the agenda. I should have noted that when we took action on that -- or non-action. So we're down to Paul Zaino. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: In this particular case, we're requesting that the operational costs in the amount of $465.05 be imposed, as Mr. -- is Mr. Zaino in compliance? MS. HILTON: Yes, he was in compliance the day after the board hearing. MS. DUSEK: That was 464.05? MR. PONTE: 465. MS. ARNOLD: 465.05. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we accept the board's recommendation and iInpose the operational costs of $465.05 to Mr. Paul Zaino in the board Case No. 2004-28. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the operational costs as requested by the county. Any further Page 157 ----~.,.,. '--~~'"---'~-" . --- --~. -"- June 24, 2004 discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, let me back up. And why did we skip Ms. Katchur? MS. ARNOLD: Because she was here prematurely. Remember, she actually had 60 days for obtaining the-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: CO. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I remember now. That was an easy one, that's why I don't remember it. MR. PONTE: It was also yesterday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry about that. MS. ARNOLD: Seems like last week. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that's right, she didn't need to be here. Okay. And our abatement of fines, we took care of Mario. We're down to foreclosures. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We're requesting that the board forward the following cases to the county attorney's office. It's actually one, two, three, four and five, instead of six. Aljo, Inc.; Dream Home, Inc. -- Dreamscape Homes, Inc.; two cases for Mr. Keith Heckman; and one case against Gopal Motwani. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request to forward these Page 158 - -,,~. ..-- June 24, 2004 five cases to the county attorney's office. MR. LEFEBVRE: I Inake a motion that we forward them for foreclosure. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to forward the cases, these five cases, to the county attorney's office for disposition. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Affidavit of compliance. MS. ARNOLD: We're just here to report to you that we have filed affidavits of con1pliance for Board of County Commissioners versus Brown; Board of County Commissioners versus Herman Haeger; Claude Martel; Board of County Commissioners versus Paul Zaino; Board of County Commissioners versus Robert and Susan Dixon. And both cases against Southern Development have also come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: We're also filing affidavits of non-compliance for cases against Carter Fencing, Monika Van Stone, Thelma Novello, Donald Gray, and Deborah -- or actually that's not on there. She actually should COIne back eventually once the time frame expIres. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We also have a report from Page 159 ._..._--_._----...,----^~.._._.. .." . _._._-~,_.._. "-- June 24, 2004 Roetzel and Andress on the Philip & Anna Marrone -- Marrone? Sorry that I messed that up. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the Marrones. That's the sign case. That's the neverending sign case. MR. PONTE: Little Italy. MS. ARNOLD: Little Italy. Let's see. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's still pending in court, so -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's still going on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Just wanted to provide you all with that information. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That brings us down to comments. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I just wanted to bring up to the board that the Board of County Con1n1issioners did adopt a new ordinance on Tuesday, the 22nd, to iU1plement or incorporate a new process, a special master process. It's not one that would be replacing the Code Enforcement Board, so I wanted to kind of put that into the record. It's an alternative enforcement process. The Florida legislatures have adopted a new procedure for the courts where fines and forfeitures and filing fees have increased, and they're no longer going to be directed back to the local government, they're going to be directed to Tallahassee, and if any -- to fund that whole system. It's not likely that Collier County is going to see any funds returning this way. We're more than likely a donor county. So to help maintain some of the funds when we go through that process, we've incorporated the special master process. So we've added this process to -- for our citations, the things that are currently going through the court system. Rather than being filed with the court system, it will be filed with the county. If someone contests it, then they go before the special master. The process is put in place so that they can also have the ability to go to the courts if they're not satisfied, or the county has the ability to appeal it to the courts as Page 160 -.... ~"~-~_..~"".,,, '-'---~ -.-- June 24, 2004 well, if the decision is not satisfactory for either party. We're hoping that this process is going to be something better for the community. It's going to -- instead of having to wait 60 and 90 days to actually see a judge, this, we're hoping, will be available to the public more quickly. We're expecting the special master to at least start out meeting twice a month. And hopefully we can get cases to that person Inore expediently. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, a couple of questions that I had. And I'll say the n10st prevalent was, how will it be determined what cases come here versus what cases go to the special master? Is there a criteria for that for you all, or -- MS. ARNOLD: No. I mean, it's no different than -- we're not doing business any differently than we're currently doing. The cases that have been brought to the Code Enforcement Board will continue to be brought to the Code Enforcement Board. And typically you guys handle the ones that are more complex, you know, dealing with building permits, if they have to go through the site development plan process. If there's something that, you know, some sort of agreement needs to be n1ade to come into compliance. It's not the litter is there, pick it up. It's more -- if you have a litter case, it's combined typically with, like the you had today, a minimum housing code case that, you know, is going to take some time to comply. Typically what goes to the court and will be going to the special master is like parking on the grass, you know, the parking violations; we've got some quick litter violations, and the things that are quickly abated will typically go to -- and usually how we address those is we'll issue a notice of violation. They don't comply with that notice, we can cite them for it. And failing to issue a citation -- and that's an immediate fine. And failing to comply with that, the fine amount can accrue -- or not accrue, but increase. They have the ability to contest it, just like a traffic ticket. If you get a traffic ticket, you've got 30 days to either pay it or contest Page 161 -,--" " >~---" -"-,.- "'.'- June 24, 2004 it. So those are the types of things that are going before the special master. MS. DUSEK: Is this special master a judge? MS. ARNOLD: It can be an attorney, it could be a judge, it could be a mediator. Jean could be the special master. Mr. Bowie could be a special master. MS. RAWSON: I read what it said in the paper, the qualifications are that you have to be an attorney and a mediator or arbitrator -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- and apply for the job. MS. ARNOLD: The duties of the special master are very similar to that of the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Our next meeting is July 22nd. MR. PONTE: At 9:30? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 9:30. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's based on our new procedure. Beginning these agreen1ents. And I hope that we learned today that maybe there's a better way to compile the agreements where they are presented to us. One thing I noted during a couple of our breaks that our people are saying on the board is I understand it's our system that we put in to try to help things along, but if there's a way -- what we need is some time to read these one, two, five, six pages, rather than these people are the first things out of the box and we've got to read them in 30 seconds. That's, I don't think, really fair to us. We need to read them and understand then1 and then maybe -- I don't know, but maybe our questions will go down if we're trying to have some time to assimilate them, rather than trying to make a decision in 30 seconds. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And I'm sorry I was out of the room for Page 162 ---.-,.- "-....-.-. ---~-_.~ -- June 24, 2004 most of them. Maybe too what we could do is walk the board through it. I mean, after all, the county has sat down with whoever the respondent is to con1e to some conclusions, so we could possibly explain what the intended agreement is supposed to -- I don't know whether or not that was done. MR. PONTE: We have to carve out some time, because if Shanelle is reading another case while we're reading yet another case, you know, we're doing two things at once. We're not really listening to Shanelle. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, I see what you're saying. MR. PONTE: Because we've just been handed a stipulation agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need time to read the pages and-- MS. ARNOLD: Well, they should have been given to you in the beginning of the meeting. I didn't realize they were just handed out right before each -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, and I think they need to be other than -- I realize they're stipulated, but maybe we need to do -- we need some time to assimilate this information other than here's four pages, they're here, we want you guys to approve it. Well, wait a minute, I need to read it, understand it, maybe even ask a question or two. So we need that tin1e somehow. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we need to tweak the system to get that. MS. ARNOLD: You'll see when you go back to your offices or homes that we are sending you an invitation for a workshop prior to the next meeting. MR. PONTE: Oh, golly. Good. MS. ARNOLD: So we can kind of go through a lot of this at that workshop. That's the intent of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's cool. Page 163 ""- June 24, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Also, I have another comment. On the operational costs, since that's something that you can do and you truly don't need -- I don't think that you need our approval for that -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: -- why do you bring them to us? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they can't be imposed without us. She can reduce them before they get to us, but once she-- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, usually the problem is I don't hear these things until you're hearing them, half the time. That's why they don't get done prior to bringing them to you. Nobody's made the request of us to even do them or -- you know. So we're going to do a better job about informing people that that's something that can be negotiated. MS. DUSEK: With you before they come here. MR. PONTE: And can you do anything to cut back on the agenda changes that are made? This -- today really resulted in like scrambled eggs up here in front of -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, that's not going to change. Ifwe continue to keep the -- well, the movement of some of the items that were there, we were trying to accommodate other people's schedules. But the beginning -- the public hearing part of it is going to be continually changing, just depending on whether or not people are contesting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I think what we're talking about is we're moving motions for extension up first, motions for imposition of fines that they want to argue. No, that ain't going to work from now on. I'll recommend to my people that we don't -- we don't approve that. We want you to present the imposition to us first so we know what you're talking about, then they can come up and say we'd like you to reduce that amount. Not we're here to ask you to reduce something that you haven't even asked us to do yet. I don't like that Page 164 -----,.~.",-.._.._,...._-"--.,_.._._.,--- ---..-. ~..~~- June 24, 2004 system. So yeah, that will change, because we just -- I will recommend highly we don't approve that as an agenda item change. We need to be orderly. If those people can't devote a day like we're devoting a day, unfortunately that's really too bad. I have other things to do too, but I'm willing to sit here as long as it takes, and they'll have to do that, too. MR. PONTE: It really gets things mixed up, Michelle. Because I came with three books that -- that I had to put together. Some pages had to be repunched because the punching wasn't aligned. It took time to put that book together. Now we've got three books here, and the first thing happens is your books are all out of order. Well, it just creates chaos. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to be orderly. And I'm glad to try and accommodate, you know, somebody if it's not -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, if the board doesn't want-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- disaccommodating us. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Well, and if the board -- you have the option of not approving those changes. MR. PONTE: That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I think -- MS. ARNOLD: If you don't want to move those people up, you could say no, we have to wait. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're trying to be convenient to everybody, but I think the expense is there's a lot of confusion that's taking more time than it's worth. So that will be, I think -- MS. RAWSON: We can talk about all this at the workshop. One thing you do need to know, and Mr. Bowie's gone, he could agree with me, when you go to court, there are pro se people without attorneys and people with attorneys, and as an accommodation to attorneys, the judge always calls the attorney cases first. That's because clients are paying these attorneys by the hour and they're trying to save the litigants money. Page 165 _..._.,,-_..._._,~-~-~- .... -- June 24, 2004 So, you know, keep that in mind. You're not doing it just because you're doing a favor for an attorney, you really are saving the litigant money if you pulled the attorney cases to the front. Especially if they have an agreement signed with the county. That's generally what happens as a protocol in the courthouse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But if we haven't had time to read the agreement -- MS. RAWSON: No, I understand what you're saying, which is different. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that -- I'm sorry, I can't be that accommodating to an attorney. He'll have to wait till I can least read what they're asking me to agree to. Next meeting, July 22nd. And an upcoming workshop that Michelle will e-mail, if it's not ready done. MS. ARNOLD: I think it was July -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. (The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.) ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3 :00 p.m. Page 166 _0.-' --- June 24, 2004 COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM Page 167 --" " -_..'.._---_.,.,,-"._.~.- .~_._-