Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/22/2004 R July 22, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida July 22, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Sheri Barnett Raymond Bowie Roberta Dusek Nicholas Hemes Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator 1 --_... CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 22 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 VERBA TIM 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 - June 24 2004 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-035 11339 TAMIAMI TRL E, NAPLES FL SEVEN STORES L TD MICHAELLE CROWLEY ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.5.12.1, 2.5.13.1,1.5.6,2.5.5.2.5.8,2.5.5.2.5.5 A TEMPORARY VINYL SHELL GAS LOGO SIGN INSTALLED ON POLE SIGN IN FRONT OF BUILDING WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A SIGN PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS THROUGH CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. EXISITING POLE SIGN DOES NOT CONFORM TO CURRENT CODE AND MUST BE REMOVED OR REPLACED AND A PROPERLY PERMITTED GROUND SIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGN REQUIREMENTS. 2004-034 2079 54TH TERR SW, NAPLES, FL RICHARD, PREMISE AND RIGAURD CALIXTE ED MORAD VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.6.7.1.1 UNLICENSED AND/OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES WITHOUT VALID TAGS POSTED. 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-033 6017 HOLLOW DR. NAPLES, FL WALSH, MARTIN & HOLLY RITA CRISP SECTION 104.1 OF ORDINANCE 98-76 NOW KNOWN AS SECTION 104.1 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE . -"'''---'''~'._~' SCREEN ROOM ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND ROOF FROM UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE IS CAUSING DRAINING ONTO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-019 710 16TH ST SE. NAPLES, FL VARGAS, mLIO & ALBA JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLA TIONS: SECTIONS 2.7.6.1 AND 2.7.6.5 OF ORDINANCE NO 91-102 AS AMENDED OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE GARAGE CONVERTED INTO LIVING AREA WITH ELECTRICAL, A/C AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS. ALL IMPROVEMENTS ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT, RECEIVING REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUP ANCY. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion/Request for Extension of Time - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC Ys. Guy & Melinda Fracasso CEB NO. 2004-029 C. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) D. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC YS. Manuel & Miriam Rosa CEB NO. 2003-055 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC YS. Guy & Melinda Fracasso CEB NO. 2004-029 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS a. Rules and Regulations 10. NEXT MEETING DATE August 26, 2004 11. ADJOURN July 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 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 we have the roll call, please. MS. HILTON: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Shanelle Hilton, CEB coordinator. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. HILTON: Bobbie Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. HILTON: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. HILTON: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. HILTON: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. HILTON: Raymond Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. MS. HILTON: Nicholas Hemes? MR. HEMES: Present. MS. HILTON: And Albert Doria has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions to the agenda that has been submitted to us? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, for the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. 2 July 22, 2004 We have -- we're going to be putting two items under non-contested cases, and that is CEB Case No. 2004-035, Board of County Commissioners versus Seven Stores, Limited. And CEB Case 2004-033, that is Board of County Commissioners versus Martin and Holly Walsh. Additionally, we will be requesting a continuance of Item 6(B)( 1), which is Board of County Commissioners versus Guy and Melinda Fracasso, Case No. 2004-029. We're going to continue that to the next month's hearing. And subsequently, we are continuing the affidavit of non-compliance for that particular case as well. So those items will be removed off today's agenda and placed on the next month's agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I was going to say, on the agenda we have, that case isn't here, so __ MS. ARNOLD: On the new agenda it should be with your __ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, they've been removed. MS. ARNOLD: Your old one should have had it on there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But you gave us a new agenda, so it's -- the agenda as written doesn't show them at all, so __ MS. ARNOLD: Right. And that's just to reflect what we're requesting to change today. MS. BARNETT: What was the name, again, Michelle? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Don't worry about it, it was __ MS. ARNOLD: Fracasso. MS. BARNETT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other changes to the agenda we received this morning? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the agenda as amended. MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's been a motion and a second to approve the agenda as submitted to us and changed. 3 "-"-.'''---'--'-'''-'''- July 22, 2004 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? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes of June 24th. They were sent to us electronically. Any changes, additions, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve as submitted. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve our minutes of June 24th as submitted. 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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) 4 July 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll now open our public hearings. There are no motions to continue. First item is our non-contested case, No. 2004-035, Board of County Commissioners versus Seven Stores, Limited. MS. ARNOLD: And Michaelle Crowley is here for that particular case. MS. HILTON: And also, we need to enter the evidence packet. We have a packet that we had previously provided to the board and the respondent 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. LEFEBVRE: 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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) (Speaker sworn.) MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. My name is Michaelle Crowley, I'm a supervisor for Collier County Code Enforcement and the investigating officer -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pull your mike down, please. MS. CROWLEY: I'm the investigating officer in this particular case. I would advise the board that the parties have acknowledged and have reached a resolution of all outstanding issues. The respondent acknowledges that a violation existed, as outlined in the statement of 5 July 22, 2004 violation that's included in the packet. I would advise the board that the violation has been abated to the extent that the offending sign in violation has been removed as of two days ago, and in its place is a newly permitted approved ground sign for the Shell Station at the location of 11339 Tamiami Trail East. The respondent has also submitted, and we received yesterday, a check in the full amount of the administrative costs outstanding for the prosecution of this matter. And that the only issue remaining, now that the sign has been installed, is that it have its final inspection and receive its CO. And there's an agreement that that will take place within the 90 days from today, in which case that would resolve all the matters regarding this particular violation. The representative from the tenant, Randolph Ramthal, is present and is here to acknowledge and is on behalf of Seven Stores, Limited, the landowner, that the violation existed and will confirm that this is the agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone have any questions for the county? MS. BARNETT: Does it take 90 days to get it CO'd? MS. CROWLEY: It can. One of the issues is the -- I actually did a site visit yesterday to confirm, and the sign can actually be raised in height. Under our Land Development Code, it can be up to eight feet above centerline grade of the roadway. It's approximately five- foot-six from ground level, which is actually below centerline grade. So I've discussed it with Randolph, and he's been in touch with the sign contractor. And what they need to do is they need to get one of their engineers down here with a laser so that they can actually increase the height of the sign up to the maximum allowed, which is eight feet above centerline grade. And the 90 days is just in case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, if you'll come forward. 6 July 22, 2004 (Speaker sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We understand that there's an agreement between you and the county. Do you agree that you have been in violation of the ordinances that they have cited you for? MR. RAMT AHL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you agree that you're correcting them per this agreement that you and the county reached this morning? MR. RAMTAHL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you are going to -- and you're agreeing to pay the administrative costs that they have presented to you? MR. RAMTAHL: Yes, it's already paid, I guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you also agree that you can accomplish getting the CO that's required within this 90-day time limit? MR. RAMT AHL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any board members have any questions? MS. BARNETT: If he doesn't get the CO within 90 days, is there anything stipulated in the agreement? MS. CROWLEY: There is. There would be a stipulation that a fine of $25 plus costs be imposed on a per daily basis beyond that 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's something the board may want to consider. At this point, do you also agree that should you not do this, this amount that you and the county have talked about, you would accept -- pending that the board agrees with that amount of money, we may or we may not, we don't know yet. MR. RAMT AHL: I don 't fully -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. She's saying that if you don't 7 July 22, 2004 get it done in 90 days, you have agreed that there will be a fine of $25 a day. MR. RAMTAHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm telling you is as soon as we're done talking to the two of you, the board is going to deliberate on this agreement. If we like it, we will approve it. If we don't like it, we have the power to change it. MR. RAMTAHL: Very good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? So you need to understand that, okay? MR. RAMT AHL: Good, I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, very good. Any other questions from either party? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, both of you. You may sit down. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to clarify that he's agreed to pay $25 per day plus additional costs. MS. DUSEK: That would be additional administrative costs? MS. ARNOLD: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll close the public hearing portion and go to the order of the board. Again, first item being finding of fact. We have a stipulation from both parties that a violation did exist and an agreement that in fact a violation did exist. MS. DUSEK: So Jean, we have to go and make the motion that there was a violation? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Seven Store, Limited, and the Circle K Corporation, owner, and Michael Martin, CPA, as registered agent, in the case CEB No. 2004-035, I make a motion that there was a 8 July 22, 2004 violation. The violation is of Section 2.5.12.1, 2.5.13.1, 1.5.6, 2.5.5.2.5.8 and 2.5.5.2.5.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of the violation: A pole sign advertising the former business of Texaco does not conform to current code and must be removed or replaced with approved and permitted ground sign in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion before us that in fact a violation did exist. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second to the motion. 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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. Jean, I need to ask a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In making our order, do we just state that there has been an agreement reached between the parties that the violation did exist and has been corrected, except for obtaining a certificate of compliance, and that the agreement is that that certificate be obtained within 90 days, should it not be obtained in 90 days, a fine would ensue of "X"? Right now it's 25, as has been presented. 9 ----- July 22, 2004 Also, that -- the other item is that he's agreed to pay the administrative costs, whatever that is. Rather than an amount, we 're just going to say the administrative costs. MS. RAWSON: Correct. Just like any other hearing, two steps: First of all, that a violation did exist, which you just voted on; and second, what the order of the board would be, you know. And if you agree with the proposal that has been agreed to between the county and the respondent, so long as it's reasonable, then that's the order of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: We can just make the motion that we agree with the stipulation. Do we have to go through each part of that stipulation? MR. BOWIE: I think we have to be detailed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to be detailed. MS. RAWSON: I would say that you agree with the stipulation, but then I would detail it on the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would see like a -- I guess a preface to start our order that it has been stipulated by both parties that the violation did in fact exist and has been corrected. And the order of the board is as follows: Item one, the respondent has agreed to pay the administrative costs in the prosecution of this case. Item two, that the respondent obtain a certificate of compliance for the sign within a 90-day period. If that doesn't happen, a fine will be incurred of -- and if we agree with the $25, say the $25. And that's it. I guess just two line items. I think we got it all, don't we, Jean, something like that? MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make a motion then that in recognition of the stipulation between the parties and in recognition that the violation has been abated, the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case; that the respondent be given 90 days to secure a certificate of completion as to 10 July 22, 2004 the new signage, failing which, a fine of $25 a day will be imposed for each day that the certificate of completion is not obtained. MS. DUSEK: Plus additional. MS. BARNETT: And any additional administration costs. MR. BOWIE: Well, I think that should be in the fine-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As I understand right now, the county gets prosecutorial costs to bring it to us. Once we issue the order, those costs cease. The continuation of costs is if and when we get the change to our authority; is that not the way it reads? MS. RAWSON: Well, actually, in this particular case you're giving him 90 days to come into compliance, because he's got to have the certificate of completion. So it's not really in compliance yet. So the amount of the costs can run until it comes into compliance. And I think he's agreed to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's not the way I read it, but okay. MS. DUSEK: So Ray, are you putting that into your motion, any additional -- MR. BOWIE: If that's the way it's going to be in any event, then I don't think that needs to be stipulated in a motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Wasn't your first requirement that he pay the administrative costs, period? And we didn't give an amount, so wouldn't that cover whatever it is? MS. RAWSON: I don't think we have an amount yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. And we don't -- as long as we don't put an amount in there, it's whatever it is, whenever it's done. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I have one question. He has already paid some administrative costs. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: So that is already an amount. 11 -.-.-.. July 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But we don't have that in our order. MS. RAWSON: We don't know the amount __ MR. BOWIE: We don't know the dollar amount. MS. RAWSON: -- and if he's already paid part of it and there are additional costs that will be incurred between the time he comes into compliance, and obviously there will, because there are recording fees, and he's agreed to pay it, I think all we have to do is say that the administrative costs, you know, will continue to go until he comes into compliance. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Next case is Walsh, Martin and Holly, Case No. 2004-033. MS. HILTON: Yes. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to 12 _.. July 22, 2004 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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Okay. We have Rita Crisp here for this particular case. MS. CRISP: Good morning. (Speaker sworn.) MS. CRISP: For the record, my name is Rita Crisp, code enforcement investigator for Collier County. The violation noted in the referenced notice of violation is accurate, and they have stipulated to their existence. And Mr. Walsh is present today at the hearing. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs at $666 that has incurred in the prosecution of this case, abate all violations by obtaining a building permit for the described structures improvements through the Certificate of Occupancy within 60 days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed on each day the violation continues. Alternatively, within 45 days from the date of this hearing, obtain a demolition permit to remove the unpermitted structure and follow through with all required inspections to obtain the Certificate of Completion, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. He also needs to notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to go out and to perform a site 13 -- July 22, 2004 inspection. MS. DUSEK: Rita, what you have just cited is more or less the recommendation that you gave us earlier? MS. CRISP: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you both have agreed to that, correct? MS. CRISP: Yes, ma'am -- sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Rita? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Walsh? (Speaker sworn.) MR. WALSH: My name is Martin Walsh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Walsh, do you agree that in fact a violation does exist on your property? MR. WALSH: Yes, I do, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We've been told that you also have agreed to a stipulation between you and the county that either (A), you will get a building permit within 60 days, and if you don't, a fine of $100 a day will incur. Or you can get a demolition permit and have that completed in 45 days, or a fine of $100. Was that your understanding of the agreement you both reached? MR. WALSH: Yes, that was my agreement, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you also agreed to pay the operational costs, which currently is, I think, 600-some dollars. But you understand that until you do all this, that amount is going to go up? MR. WALSH: Yes, I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRISP: If I may just clarify, that's also including the Certificate of Occupancy with the building permit or a Certificate of Completion with the demolition permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, that's what I understand that you 14 July 22, 2004 all worked out. So whatever it takes to finish it off within the 60 days or the 45, whichever route you choose. Any questions from any member of the board? MR. BOWIE: Here again, although the amount of $666 was mentioned, we're not going to be incorporating that into our order, because the actual amount is left open. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would agree that's what we should do when we get to that part, yes. Any questions for either the county or Mr. Walsh? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, both of you. You may sit down. We'll close the public hearing portion of the case and get to the finding of fact of the board. Again, the parties have agreed that a violation does exist, so -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Martin and Holly Walsh, Jr., CEB Case No. 2004-033, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 104.1 of Ordinance 98-76, now known as Section 104.1 of the Florida Building Code. Description of the violation: A screened room erected without first obtaining authorization of a building permit and roof from unpermitted structure is causing drainage onto adjacent neighbor's place. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that the violation in fact does exist, which is per the agreement. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. 15 --~.- July 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. In this one, again, we have an agreement that a violation does exist. He has agreed to pay the operational costs. There are two options: He can get the __ either a building permit and complete everything through the Certificate of Occupancy within 60 days, or a fine of $100 has been recommended and agreed to by the parties. Or he can get a demolition permit and remove everything and get the certificate within 45 days or a fine of $100 per day. In either case, he also must notify code enforcement to come out and do a site inspection. MR. PONTE: If you want to make that a motion, we'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll gladly make it a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the item? (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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) 16 July 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back to public hearings. Case No. 2004-034, Richard Premise and Rigaurd Calixte. If I messed that up, I really apologize. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the last name is, yeah, Richard. MS. HILTON: Yes, this is Case No. 2004-034. Premise Richard, P-R-E-M-I-S-E. Last name Richard. And Rigaurd, R-I-G-A-U-R-D, Calixte, C-A-L-I-X-T-E. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information we'd like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: 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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is not present in the courtroom. The alleged violation is of Sections 2.6.7.1.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: An unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicle without a valid tag. Location where violation exists: 2079 54th Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Premise Richard, 2079 54th Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida. 17 July 22, 2004 Date violation first observed: November 25, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: November 25, 2003. Date in which violation was to be corrected: December 4, 2003. Date of reinspect ion: July 21,2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent certified and regular U.S. Mail, and the notice of hearing was personally served on Ms. Richards (sic) on July 12th, '04 by the investigator, Ed Morad. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Ed Morad, to present it to the board. (Speaker sworn.) MR. MORAD: For the record, Ed Morad, code enforcement investigator. I'm sure you checked your case -- reviewed your case history, so I will be brief. At 2079 54th Terrace, on November 25th, 2003, while on routine patrol, I noticed an unlicensed vehicle. No one was home at the address, so I left the NOV and then we mailed the NOV certified mail. Since November 25th, 2003, I've spoken with the owner, Ms. Richard, four different times, advised of the violation, advised of the ordinance, and I advised the due process and also the Code Enforcement Board action. Also, I either left my personal business card with her but with the prop -- at the property, and also our department door hangers, requesting return calls, which I never got. I did an official posting on the property with Ms. Richard present, because she wouldn't sign for it as a personal service. Also posted the notice of violation at the courthouse. Also posted a CEB warning letter at the property, and also posted an official notice of hearing at the property and also at the courthouse. As of yesterday afternoon, late afternoon, the violation still exists. 18 -~. July 22, 2004 Any questions? MR. PONTE: Investigator, just clarification. We're talking about one car with -- that's not tagged? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Total? MR. MORAD: I'm sorry? MR. PONTE: That's the total violation? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. MS. BARNETT: Ed, I was just curious, on some of the photography that is in the packet, actually ours is Page Number 20. I was looking at the temporary tag that was placed on there, and I caught that the color of that Lincoln was blue, which is also the color of her other Lincoln that is tagged. So I was curious if you were ever able to visualize the VIN number to correlate whether or not that was even a proper temporary tag. MR. MORAD: I checked with the vehicle registration who issued the temporary tag, and it was for the one that was currently untagged at the very beginning of the investigation. MS. BARNETT: So the -- okay. MR. MORAD: Yeah, in defense of Ms. Richard, she did purchase two temporary tags, which both have obviously expired. The last one expired in July, I believe -- I mean -- MR. PONTE: April. MS. BARNETT: Is there a problem with getting title on this car, which is why she can't get the tag? MR. MORAD: My conversation with her is that she invested a large sum of money to repair the vehicle. She doesn't want to cut her losses and either put the vehicle -- you know, have someone pick up the vehicle, like a tow truck company, and she won't put it inside her garage either. She said the garage was filled with items. So I don't know why else she wouldn't want to -- MR. PONTE: And what's the price of a tag? 19 July 22, 2004 MR. MORAD: I don't know. MR. PONTE: Thirty-five dollars? MR. MORAD: I guess it depends. I really don't know. It's not very much. Obviously, you need the insurance also. MR. BOWIE: But she never explained to you any complication as to why she couldn't secure a tag for this vehicle? MR. MORAD: No, not really. It's kind of puzzling. I spoke with her adult children, both male and female. They're confused on why she doesn't purchase -- other than the fact that, like I said, she had it -- spent some money on a transmission job. Obviously the mechanic didn't do the job correctly, so her attitude to me was that she's invested a lot of money into the automobile. She doesn't want to have a junkyard tow truck company come pick it up, and she doesn't want to take the time or the effort, I guess, to clean out the garage to put it inside, and that way she would be -- the violation would be abated at that time. MR. HEMES: Ed? MR. MORAD: Yes. MR. HEMES: Did you ask her if she has a certificate of insurance on this vehicle? MR. MORAD: No, I didn't. MR. HEMES: That could be the reason that she doesn't want to spend any more money. MR. MORAD: That could be. Obviously you need that in order to get a current -- a valid tag, yes. MR. HEMES: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anymore questions for Mr. Morad? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Since the respondent is not present, we'll close the public hearing section and go to finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of 20 -,~ July 22, 2004 County Commissioners versus Premise Richard and Rigaurd Calixte, in case CEB No. 2004-034, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 2.6.7.1.1 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: An unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicle without a valid tag. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: Perhaps as part of the finding, we need to add that this vehicle is not in an enclosed garage or storage area, which would put it in violation of the statute. There's a whole lot of unlicensed vehicles sitting in people's garages, which I understand is fine. This vehicle is not garaged. I think that's an element of the violation, is it not? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under the -- under the section that they've been cited for, that's a part of it. So I think it's automatic it's a part of it. It says shall not be parked or stored on any residential zone or designated property including the Estates, other than in a completely enclosed building. So that's part of the ordinance section they were cited for. Okay, we have the motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? 21 July 22, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. PONTE: Just a comment. This is such a venial violation that has taken on such an inordinate amount of time, cost and man-hours, that I think when we address ourselves to a fine, it should be considerably more than $25 a day. The respondent just must be brought by the scruff of the neck to correct this very, very simple violation. I think our -- the fine that we impose should reflect that. And $25 a day is less than the cost of getting a tag. MS. DUSEK: I think because you said it was a simple violation, I don't feel comfortable giving a very large fine. I think that if this person has to pay $25 a day, that that will have an impact on her. Because right now she doesn't want to spend whatever it's going to take for a tag or the time to clean out the garage. I think if she knows she's going to have to pay the county some money on a daily basis until it's corrected, she'll correct it. MR. PONTE: Just one little correction. I didn't say it was a simple violation, I said it was a venial violation. It's smaller, smaller than simple. MS. DUSEK: You said that first and then you later said -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if any of us, in our reviewing of what we have heard, determine that, you know, 25 may be inappropriate and they -- you have another number, whether it's 35, 45, 50, whatever, we all understand that we can propose it, see how the other members feel, and hopefully we'll have an order. MS. BARNETT: I just throw out the thought that if she doesn't want to pay -- it's usually $35 for a vehicle, maybe a little bit more for a truck, but I'm going to say on an average of about $35. For the tag, I think if we were imposed the fine more along that $35 range, that maybe she would move a little quicker. And I'm kind of in agreement with you, 25 she might look at it and go, eh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's draft up an order, understanding 22 July 22, 2004 the first item should be operational costs. MR. PONTE: All right. I'll do it, but what I'm going to do, just so -- we might as well discuss it right now. I'm going to take the county's recommendation as is, with the exception that the fine I'm going to suggest is $50 a day. So rather than go through the reading of all this recommendation, which is going to be a verbatim statement, where are we at $50 a day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to say something so we can get it in the record, George. Okay? MR. PONTE: All right. I make a recommendation that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and that the respondent must properly register and license all unlicensed and inoperable vehicles within 14 days of this hearing, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternately, the respondent may store the same within a completed (sic) enclosed structure or remove from the property within 14 days from the date of this hearing, or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to come to the property to perform an on-site inspection. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. MS. DUSEK: I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion on this? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: I disagree with the $50 amount. Inherently this board -- or historically this board has always applied a fine in regards to the severity of what's occurring on the property, and I don't think a $50 fine is -- I think it's too large. MS. DUSEK: I agree. 23 July 22, 2004 MR. LEFEBVRE: According to this violation, it's a very small violation, and that's been stated by the board. And with that we're going against what we historically have done. I would like to see either a 25 or a $35 amount. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pick one. MR. LEFEBVRE: $35. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Is that a motion to amend? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to amend to $35. MR. BOWIE: To $35. And I second the motion to amend. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. George, would you amend your $50 down to 35? MR. PONTE: I'll amend it to 35. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And would your second do that? MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have an amendment and an agreement to amend the original order of the board. Do we need to vote on the amendment first, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, if she's amended -- if George has amended his motion, then you're going to vote on George's amended motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody ready? $35 and 14 days, either way they go. They can get the tags or she can put it in the garage or have it removed from the property. That's her three options. And whichever one she doesn't do in the allotted time is $35, okay? And she is to pay operational costs. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. 24 July 22, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back to public hearings. Case No. 2004-019, Julio and Alba Vargas. MS. HILTON: Yes. This the Board of County Commissioners versus Julio and Alba, A-L-B-A, Vargas, V-A-R-G-A-S. CEB Case No. 2004-019. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that will we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is not present in the courtroom. The alleged violation is of Section 2.7.6.1, and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed the garage of the primary structure has been renovated into living area with electrical, air conditioning and plumbing improvements, and a patio built in rear 25 July 22, 2004 yard. Also, improvements built without first receiving authorization of a Collier County building permit, having all of the required inspections, and receiving a Certificate of Occupancy or Completion. Location where violation exists: 710 16th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Julio and Alba Vargas, 710 16th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: November 10th, 2003. Date owner given notice of violation: November 10th, 2003 by certified mail, return receipt requested, which was returned unclaimed; regular U.S. Mail and posting of the property and the courthouse. Date on which violation was to be corrected: November 24, 2003. Date of reinspection: July 21 st, 2004. 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 the property and the courthouse. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to Investigator Jeff Letourneau to present the case to the board. (Speaker sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case started back on -- last year, the 10th of November. I got an anonymous complaint about some construction going on on this property. I arrived on the scene and noticed that they were renovating their garage and they had just laid the groundwork for a lanai or porch in the backyard. I went back, checked. There wasn't any permits for either one of these items so I mailed an NOV. Upon further rechecks, I noticed that the porch renovation had been removed, but I still had not gotten any contact from the property 26 July 22, 2004 owner. On December 8th, I received a call from the property owner, Mr. Vargas, who stated that he was going to get a permit for both the garage enclosure and the patio, so I gave him some more time. I went out there on the 5th of January and met with Mr. Vargas, who stated he was waiting for some paperwork to be done, engineering details drawn up and everything, and he would be in to apply for the permit. At that time I served him a notice of violation. Later on that month on the 20th I called Mr. Vargas who still said he was going to apply. Eventually he did apply in early February, but the permit got held up by the state department for, I think, his septic wasn't big enough to accompany the bigger living area, so he ran into some problems there. You know, he couldn't fix the state's problem, I don't think -- he ran out of money. So I had scheduled this case to go before the CEB in March, but then I received a call from a Mr. Gonzalez stating that he was going to attempt to buy the property and he was going to help Mr. Vargas either get the permits or remove the offending improvement. So I pulled the case back and, you know, let him have some time. Later on, I think -- let me see here -- in April or March they still had not completed any kind of work. Then I went out there on a recheck on -- let me see, May 18th, and noticed that they had begun disassembling the garage improvements. So they had started, but as far as they got, they got the door back on and some of the front house was restored to its original condition. But the back of the garage still had a room that was built on it and there was electric work still that was done, non-permitted, and AC work. Let me break out some color pictures here. As you can see in these pictures, the front stoop had been still renovated where they had a new door and window area right there, which needs to be permitted. And the back shot shows where they had not completed the disassembly of the garage, where they had still a room right there. 27 July 22, 2004 Let me put up a little drawing now. As you can see, this would be the garage door area, and this is a stoop. This is where the window and the door renovation is still in place, and the new room right here is __ the dotted line shows where the new wall was put in, and there's still an AC vent right there. So in order to achieve the originally permitted structure, they'd have to remove that wall right there, get rid of the AC, make that back into a wall without the doors and windows, and take care of the electric that they added in there. And none of that has been done as of today. So the basic violation still is that wall, the electric, the AC. The garage door is back in place. The porch area is no longer a violation, they removed all that. So that's -- I went there yesterday, and that's where we stand. MS. BARNETT: I have a concern and I don't know how to address it. Jean, because we have a third party that states that he was planning on buying the property, do we have a problem forthcoming like we've had in the past? MS. RAWSON: Hopefully not. All you can do today, especially since the respondent is not present, is to find whether or not they're in violation, make an order, and the order will run with the land, as soon as they record it. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'd like to make a statement about that, too. I spoke to Mr. Gonzalez maybe a couple months ago. They had another complaint about the property regarding litter, and he cleaned that up pretty quick. But he told me that he was not going to be able to take care of the garage. You know, they got kind of mad at me for __ you know, they said I was hounding them. I said alls you have to do is remove that wall and take care of the door and the windows and the electric and, you know, I close the case out. But I haven't heard from him since. I don't think he -- I don't know if he's going to buy the property. 28 July 22, 2004 When I went there yesterday, there wasn't anybody living there, it was totally empty. So I -- you know, I really don't know what's going on with this property. But the violation does exist, so -- MS. BARNETT: Do you know whether or not they've removed the interior wall of the garage? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. I went there yesterday and took pictures of that and the interior wall is still there. See, I can still get a good view through the door and the windows right here. MS. BARNETT: I'm talking about in your drawing, not the dotted line but the solid line that was actually part of the original garage. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have no idea what's going on back there. I've never been in the house. MS. BARNETT: I think that might be a problem, because I think maybe what they've done is tried to enlarge their house. MR. LETOURNEAU: Or made like a separate little -- I don't -- another room there. I don't know what's going on. They might have enlarged the house, obviously. MR. BOWIE: Looks more like an attempt to convert a single- family home into a duplex, separate entrance and all. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, they're just -- they're trying to add on living space, I think. I never really saw the blueprints of the application of the permit, so I don't know what was going on back there. But it's a violation either way. MR. PONTE: I was interested in your comment that the house is now vacant, empty. So the electrical work that is incomplete or unlicensed or unpermitted is not a hazard to anybody because there's no one there; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's correct. I don't know anything is a hazard right now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you know if the power's on, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't have any idea. I think it is on, 29 ·~,c_·,·,,~__···· July 22, 2004 though, because I think I saw the -- actually, yeah, the porch light was on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Jeff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since the respondent is not present, we'll close the public hearing. First item is finding of fact that in fact a violation does exist. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Julio and Alba L. Vargas, CEB Case No. 2004-019, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Observed the garage of the primary structure has been renovated into living area with electrical, air conditioning and plumbing improvements, and patio built in rear yard. All same improvements built without first receiving authorization of Collier County building permit, having all of the required inspections, and having received a Certificate of Occupancy or Completion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. 30 July 22, 2004 MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. My only comment would be, reviewing the recommendation of the county for what has been done to this home, and although some things have been worked on to bring it back into compliance, I'm -- and based on some past cases, in fact, one we just had not recently, more than 25, 30 minutes ago, something like that, I think $50 a day is too low and it should be 100. Other than that, I don't have a problem with the time limits. MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll start by just following the recommendation of the county, that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit application for described structure improvements within 45 days of this hearing or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Must get all required inspections performed and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within 30 days after obtaining the required building permits, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, respondent may within 30 days from the date of hearing obtain a demolition permit and convert the garage back to its original permitted use and follow through with all required inspections and obtain a Certificate of Completion, or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Respondent must also notify the code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any 31 July 22, 2004 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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That completes the public hearing section. Under our new business, we have a request for a foreclosure. MS. ARNOLD: Was there a question? No? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bobbie didn't know if we had imposed a fine yet. And I was looking here, and we did that back in our February meeting. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The item that's being requested to be forwarded for the attorney's consideration is Board of County Commissioners versus Manuel and Miriam Rosa, and that was Case No. 2003-055. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request that we forward to the county attorney with a recommendation for foreclosure or collection Case No. 2003-019. Do I hear a motion to do so? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we request that the county proceed with the foreclosure for Manuel Rosa, Case 2003-019. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to -- and a second to forward the case to the county attorney's office for foreclosure or collection. Any further discussion? 32 July 22, 2004 (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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Completes new business. Old business is a -- nothing. Any reports? I don't see any on here. Under our comments, in our workshop we had discussed right now we're operating on the basis that we start at 9:30 and the county gets together with folks at 8:30, and there was some discussion that maybe the board needed to get together just in case we needed to review documents or anything, rather than have the confused chaos we had in our first attempt at this procedure. Today's went pretty well, I think. At the workshop I asked Jean and Michelle to try to work out something where we could change our articles so that we could do that, because right now our articles read that we meet at 9:00, which is not the case since we're under our new operations, so we have to change that. They have forwarded a recommended sentence to be put In. At this time we can review this sentence, whether we like it, want to change it, whatever. And then at our next meeting, as I understand our procedures, we vote to actually incorporate it as part of our rules and regulations. MS. RAWSON: And then of course you'll all have to sign it. 33 -,.. ._---~,,-"._." July 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Then there'll be -- it will be an amendment and we'll have to resign, although we just did that, but we can change the rules and regulations that govern us, kind of like every other month. One month you have to discuss the change and see if it's what we want to do and then at the next meeting we actually do it. We're not tied to we can only change them once a year. So a recommendation's been made to us. When I read through it I only had two, I guess, recommended changes. It says right now: The board shall begin its meeting to conduct organizational matters at 9:00 a.m., and the public portion of the meeting will commence. I changed the "shall" to "may", because rather than force us to meet at 9:00, I think it's something we need to have some flexibility in. If we don't have anything to discuss, I don't think we need to call a meeting to order and sit here for 30 minutes. MS. RAWSON: Which paragraph and __ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm under the bold underlined that was sent to us. MR. BOWIE: Article 5, Section 2 on Page 2. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Article 5, Section 2. It's the bold underlined sentence. Did you get a copy of that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the first -- it says the board shall. I'd like to change that "shall" to "may". And then when you go all the way down through the sentence where it says the public portion of the meeting will commence, I changed that "will" to "shall" commence. So those were the only two changes I'd like to see made. MR. BOWIE: One other, just for grammatical purposes. We have the board shall begin "it's", it, apostrophe s. The apostrophe just shouldn't be there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MR. BOWIE: Other than that, it looks good. Even though we discussed this and agreed to it at our workshop meeting __ 34 July 22, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we didn't have this actual sentence, and it has to be brought to us in an actual board meeting for us to discuss, and once we all say yes, we like it, now at our next meeting, Michelle will present this as a change to our articles to us and we will vote on it, and if we pass it, then it probably at the next meeting they'll give it to us to sign. But once we vote on it, that's the way it is. We just haven't signed it yet. So today is merely the formality of saying do we want to make this change, and should it be like we just now discussed or should it be something different? If everybody is in agreement, then it will be presented formally. So if you'd like to make any changes or haven't any, then we'll __ I'll ask Michelle to present it to us formally as we've just made these minor changes by myself and Ray. Anybody else have anything? MR. PONTE: No changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, would you do that for us, please? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. Just for a matter of information, after you all sign it, we bring it to the Board of County Commissioners. It's just an administrative, more informational -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we just like to inform the county what we're doing, although the regulations are ours. We do that as a formality because they, in essence, in the structure are kind of our boss. They put us here. MS. DUSEK: Essentially this went into effect today, by __ physically. I mean, people were here at 9:00. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but the-- MS. DUSEK: So when -- what my question is __ MS. RAWSON: Actually, it went into effect last month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, but our -- 35 --~.. July 22, 2004 MS. DUSEK: To be here at 9:00? MS. RAWSON: No. The informal meeting didn't go into effect really last month, but the meeting with the respondents before we actually started the meeting went into effect actually last month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The problem was, what we did and what we have in writing don't match. So we need to change what's in writing. MS. DUSEK: But we can go ahead and do this without having it approved, is my question, formally. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're doing it, but officially the county -- the county residents don't know of it, because what they're being sent are the articles of ours that say the meeting starts at 9:00. MS. DUSEK: Right. I'm just saying we can as a board go ahead and do this without having a formal approval. MS. RAWSON: Yes, we've done it for two months. But I think the respondents have all been notified in advance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, they're being told by the county. MS. RAWSON: That's the key. But we also send them the rules and regulations, and they really should comply with what the notices say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're trying to get everything to match and right now it doesn't, so -- MS. DUSEK: So we aren't allowed to -- I mean, we just have to follow this formality, we can't go ahead and vote on it today? MS. RAWSON: You sure could. MS. DUSEK: I mean, I'd like to see it voted on and put into motion. MS. RAWSON: I think Michelle might even have it __ MS. ARNOLD: No, I don't think we have it on the __ MS. RAWSON: Oh, okay. Well, we'll give it to you -- you can vote on it today and sign it next month. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move, then, that the Collier County 36 -'".-.. July 22, 2004 Code Enforcement Board rules and regulations be amended. The amendment is to Article 5, Section 2, that there be added to Article 5, Section 2 a new provision at the end of the existing, which is as follows: The board may begin its meeting to conduct organizational matters at 9:00 a.m., and the public portion of the meeting shall commence at 9:30 a.m.; further deleting the reference in Article 5, Section 2 to 9:00 a.m. where it appears after fourth Thursday. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I want to ask you a question to make sure we don't -- I mean, they're our rules, so I guess we can do whatever we like. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In Article 13, Section 1, it says we can change our rules and regulations, providing a notice of a proposed change is giving to the board at a preceding regular meeting. And we haven't done that. This is the first time we've seen this at a regular meeting. MS. RAWSON: I think that we had the discussion at the workshop, which is not a regular meeting, but certainly is a special meeting, and we had a quorum there. So because we had this discussion and almost, although I don't think we formally voted on it, we certainly had a consensus that this should be done at your workshop. Now we're presenting it to you, actually bye-mail last week? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: So everybody has seen it in advance, and now you are at a public meeting to discuss it further and vote on it. I think it's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, good. I just don't want to us get in trouble. We have a motion and a second that we adopt the change as Mr. Bowie read it. Any further discussion? 37 July 22, 2004 . aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, you'll bring us a new form to sign next meeting, please? MS. ARNOLD: I will, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all under comments. Our next meeting date is August 26th. And we will now remember that we meet here at 9:00. What I would propose that I'm going to try to do is that time should be used if there's something for us to discuss or maybe the county has something for us to see before. So I'm going to ask Shanelle and Michelle that if they have any of that information to e-mail it to me so that we can say yes, we need to get together, you know, and all of you -- or if any of you have something that you think we as a board need to discuss in a -- I'll call it an administrative workshop forum between that 9:00 and 9:30 time, if you'll send that to Michelle or Shanelle so they can disseminate it to everybody and then we'll say yes, we need to be there at 9:00. I don't think we just need to show up at 9:00 and sit here and look at each other. MR. PONTE: No, but I thought the reason to sit here at 9:00 and look at each other, we were looking at each other between reading the stipulations that were going to be arriving on our __ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, based on how it worked today, (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying 38 . '·"~·_'·"h____A'__.'. July 22, 2004 there was nothing to read, and I think that procedure went rather smoothly. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think, too, George was concerned about maybe reorganizing his book. Your book. That was discussed at the workshop that if we give you the changes based on the shuffling of the hearings, whether they're contested or not, you could organize your book so that you flip from one case to the other, rather than having to go maybe from one to five to -- back to two. MR. PONTE: That's okay. But does this mean this draft will not ever see the light of day? MS. ARNOLD: That's what we discussed at the hearing, correct. Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We're not going to follow that format. MR. PONTE: We're not doing that at all. MS. RAWSON: But there will generally be a revised agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Because the people who reach agreements with the county are going to be moved to the top. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. RAWSON: So since you will almost always have a revised agenda, and you might want to, you know, pitch your other one, put the revised one in there and then reorganize your books, that gives you the time to do that. I just might caution you, if there is something administrative or otherwise that you need to discuss as a board, of course, it has to be in the sunshine, we'll need the court reporter, and we probably will not have Michelle, because she's busy talking to the respondents. But you'll have me. And we need the court reporter to be present because we can't have a discussion about anything pertaining to the board's business that's not in the sunshine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. And recorded. 39 _.,.,.~ July 22, 2004 MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're still on tap for 9:00, Cherie'. MR. PONTE: I just want to be careful that we don't clutter up the 9:00 to 9:30 with housekeeping items or whatever that's going to take our attention away from what the real purpose of the 30 minutes preparation time was, and that is to stay current with what's going on out there. MS. RAWSON: I agree with you, George, and I don't think that's the purpose of that 30-minute time. I think that what Cliff was saying is, in the event that that happened to be a necessity and you didn't have very much reorganization to do, we could use it. MR. PONTE: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Under the procedure that was introduced today for the stipulations, I don't think we're going to be getting in advance some written agreement like we were getting initially that we would have to review four or five pages written by some attorney, all in different formats. So we're not going to have that concern or have to deal with this. MR. PONTE: What we have had today was a very nice experience, very comfortable. However, it was a sugar-coated change. We had five cases, and we have been promised that what will happen is that the caseload will increase substantially. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And it will increase next month. I wanted to make sure that it worked this month. MR. PONTE: So it's not going to be just as easy as this, today's breeze. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think Michelle today was trying to spoon feed us very slowly so that we could understand this is how it works, and next month she's going to bring the big snow shovel. MR. BOWIE: We're going to get the rest of this month's cases next month. MS. RAWSON: Well, the ultimate goal is that you are able to 40 _.. July 22, 2004 hear and, you know, we can process through the system a lot more code enforcement board cases. Because if the stipulations come to the top, they're reasonable, you don't spend a lot of time on them, you listen, you approve, change, whatever, then we move to the contested hearings, we could really cover a lot more cases. MR. PONTE: I'll say. MS. BARNETT: In helping anybody, I don't know if this will, but for myself this worked out very well for me this month, due to the problems I had last month trying to organize my book. At each beginning of each case, I stuck a little sticky note with the person's name and the case number on it so that I could read it, and then when I had a change, all I had to do was pull that whole section and revise it. And it worked out real easy. MR. BOWIE: And those stick-em notes even come in different colors so you can -- bad, worse and worst. MS. BARNETT: Yeah. I was sitting there at my desk reading through this and I was like, there's got to be a way I can organize myself so that I will be able to organize myself again. MS. DUSEK: Well, this is what I do, which I think is very simple. I take the page that they give it us, I put -- it's Number 4, whatever it is, public hearings. And then I put whatever case it is, B-3, and the name and the case number, and it's clipped, so that if she says all right, that's going to go to Number 2 now, then I just slip it under -- I take the whole case and slip it under Number 2. MS. BARNETT: The problem with it, Bobbie, though, last week, we went through, what, 12 changes, I think? And we were digging through all of the papers, rearranging, so __ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, everybody has to come up with their own system that's comfortable. And whatever works for one may not work for another. MS. ARNOLD: And last week, I just want to say, was a learning . expenence. ----..-- 41 July 22, 2004 MR. PONTE: I'll say. MS. ARNOLD: I mean, last month, last month was. And today was much smoother. And we'll give you guys a lot more to deal with next month. And maybe the month after that even more. MR. PONTE: See where it breaks. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question to you which is outside of code enforcement but indirectly involves us, and that's the parking issue. Is there anything that the county is considering by having, for example, the employees park in the next county so that we can have spaces here for us? And I'm being facetious about the county, but I mean the outside spaces. MS. ARNOLD: There are some shuttle services available, because you just can't predict -- there are public spaces that are dedicated on the west side of the building, but they get taken up quickly by just the amount of business that goes on, whether it's in the county government agency or in the sheriffs office. And unfortunately we are having a very big parking problem right now. They are constructing a parking garage and hopefully it will alleviate the problem when it's completed. But there are shuttle services that are available; it's just trying to find it. MR. BOWIE: I think it's called the CAT bus, you know, you catch it in Immokalee. MS. RAWSON: Well, you can see the garage is up. It's just not completed yet. But when the garage is completed, that's going to help a lot, because in order to build that garage, they had to take a lot of those spaces. So the people that used to park over there are now parking where you like to park. I have the same problem every day at the courthouse, just so you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We get our once-a-month physical walks. That's our workout for the month, walking to here. Next month, the 26th, is that what I said? 42 ---- '~'-'~_" July 22, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody remember, new times, same place. Any other items? MS. BARNETT: I make a motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any other 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. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:45 a.m. Code Enforcement Board Clifford Flegal, Chairman 43 ---.-