The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 09/23/2004 R September 23, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida September 23, 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 Nicolas Hemes Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Leonardo Bonanno, Operations Coordinator 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: September 23, 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 - August 26, 2004 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Motion to Continue - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) 1. BCC ys. Kowalke B. Motion/Request for Subpoena's CEB NO. 2004-037 C. Motion/Request for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Gomez 2. BCC Ys. Byrd 3. BCC ys. Robert France CEB NO. 2004-011 CEB NO. 2004-010 CEB NO. 2004-001 B. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2 . CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-040 5790 12TH AVE S.W., NAPLES, FL SUMMERS, RONALD TOM CAMPBELL ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 2.7.6.1 AND 2.7.6.5, PARAGRAPH A ADDITION ADDED TO SECOND FLOOR LOFT/OFFICE WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS. 2004-042 1120 ROSEMA Y LN, NAPLES, FL ESTES, BRAD AND PHYLLIS RITA CRISP ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 2.7.6.1 AND SECTION 106.1.2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 2002-01, OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SHED CONVERTED INTO HABITABLE LIVING SPACE WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS 3. CASE NO: 2004-044 CASE ADDR: 819 CHURCH STREET, COPELAND, FL OWNER: CAINVIS REYNOLDS AND EDIE HUNTER INSPECTOR: JOHN SANT AFEMIA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.6.7.1 UNLICENSED AND/OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES WITHOUT VALID TAGS POSTED. 4. CASE NO: 2004-045 CASE ADDR: 210 BROCKINGTON DR, COPELAND, FL OWNER: MONROE GRAHAM AND DAISY BELL INSPECTOR: JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.6.7.1.1 UNLICENSED AND/OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES WITHOUT VALID TAGS POSTED. 5. CASE NO: 2004-047 CASE ADDR: 216 BROCKINGTON DR, COPELAND, FL OWNER: RATHER KNIGHTON, C/O JACK KNIGHTON, JR INSPECTOR: JOHN SANT AFEMIA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.6.7.1 UNLICENSED AND/OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES WITHOUT VALID TAGS POSTED. 6. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-048 1815 47TH AVE NE, NAPLES FL LEOBARDO & MARITZA GUTIERREZ JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: FBC 104.5.1, PARAGRAPH 4, AS ADOPTED BY ORD 2002-01 UNSECURED PATIALLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE DEEMED ABANDOl' AS PERMIT NO. 2002090941 EXPIRED 7. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-050 1 05 WOODLAWN A VENUE DEBBI MASCHINO CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC(S) 1.5.6,2.1.15 AND 2.2.2.2.1 BOAT TRAILER WITH AN EXPIRED TAG LOCATED ON AGRICUL TURALL Y ZONED PROPERTY 8. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-051 265 ROSE BOULEVARD DEBBI MASCHINO CAROL SYKORA ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC(S) 1.5.6,2.1.15 AND 2.2.2.2.1 ORD NO. 2002-01 SEC 103.11.01 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WITH AN ADDITION BEING UTILIZED FOR STORAGE, AN OCCUPIED CAMPER AND THREE UNLICENSED AND/OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES ON PROPERTY 9. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-052 210 ROSE BOULEVARD RUSSEL & KATHERINE SMITH CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC(S) 1.5.6,2.1.15 AND 2.2.2.2.1 SEVERAL UNLICENSED/INOPERABLE VEHICLES ON AGRICUL TURALL Y ZONED PROPERTY 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion/Request for Rehearing (- no requests submitted at the time of preparation of this agenda) B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Greg & Jane Bee 2. BCC vs. Robert G. France 4. BCC vs. Julio & Alba Vargas 5. BCC vs. Avin Noel & Marie Chavanes CEB NO. 2004-021 CEB NO. 2004-001 CEB NO. 2004-019 CEB NO. 2004-038 C. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines 1. BCC vs. Monika Van Stone 2. BCC vs. Guy Fracasso CEB NO. 2003-048 CEB NO. 2004-029 D. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Steven Johnson 2. BCC vs. Paul Zaino 3. BCC vs. Claude Martel CEB NO. 2003-057 CEB NO. 2004-028 CEB NO. 2004-014 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE October 28, 2004 11. ADJOURN September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. 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 we have the roll call, please. MR. BONANNO: Chairman Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Ponte? MR. PONTE: George Ponte, here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MR. BONANNO: For the record, Albert Doria has called in and will not be appearing today. Mr. Hemes? MR. HEMES: Present. MS. ARNOLD: Hemes, I'm sorry. And Ms. Arnold? MS. ARNOLD: I am here. MR. BONANNO: And for the record, I am Leonardo Bonanno; I win be fining in for Ms. Hilton this morning. MR. BOWIE: Were all of the members of the board called present? I don't believe I was. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Bowie? I'm sorry. 2 September 23, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Present. Anybody else missed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's not leave anybody out. Since Albert is not here this morning, our alternate member, Mr. Hemes, will participate fully. MR. HEMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. Yes, there are changes to the agenda that was posted. Under public hearing No. C -- Letter C under motions for request for extension of time, we are removing Item 2, Board of County Commissioners versus Byrd. In terms of the order of cases for public hearing, we are moving up -- there is a stipulation that was signed for Gutierrez, which is Item No.6. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And there is a stipulation that was signed for Smith, which is Item No.9. And I'm missing one here. That's it. Also under new business, request for imposition of fines, all the items listed, one through four under B are being removed from the agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Those are all the changes we have at this time. MS. DUSEK: And I just wanted to note, these are actually typographical, but under public hearings where it says Hearings B, that should be D, should it not? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: And new business should be listed as No.5, rather than 6. MS. BARNETT: And also in that regards, B(l), (2), (4) and (5), it should be (1), (2), (3) and (4). Under request for impositions of 3 September 23, 2004 fines that we just took out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have any more changes, additions, corrections? If not, I would entertain a motion to accept the agenda as corrected and changed. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Approval of our minutes from August 26th meeting. Those were sent to us electronically. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we accept those minutes. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as sent to us. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. 4 September 23, 2004 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We'll now open the public hearings. MS. BARNETT: Wait a minute, Cliff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. BARNETT: We did not ever accept the minutes from the workshop. MS. ARNOLD: But they're not on the agenda, so we'll have to bring them back. You all should have received those. MR. BOWIE: We did. MS. BARNETT: Much better. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we've opened our public hearings. First item is B, Board of County Commissioners versus, is it Kowalke, I believe, Case No. 2004-037. Motion and request for subpoenas. MR. RANKIN: Yes, Your Honor, or whatever it is on the Code Enforcement Board. My name is Douglas Rankin and I am appearing for the Kowalkes. Since for obvious reasons of the preserving the attorney/client privilege and the work product privilege, I do not want to give away more of my case than I have to at this stage, so I would like direction. You all were furnished with -- I believe with copies of subpoenas I asked for, and you were furnished with my request for time. So if you'd like to know specifics, then I need to know specifically what you need to know, treading as lightly on those two privileges as we can, because I think it would be at a great prejudice to my clients if they had to present their entire case here today ahead of the hearing for the review of the opposing party, when they will not be required to 5 September 23, 2004 do that. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know whether or not you all received copies, because they -- we received a copy of his request for a subpoena on Tuesday. MR. RANKIN: And so did the secretary of the board. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And the requirement for submittals to get things to the board in a timely manner is Friday prior to the hearing. MR. RANKIN: Well, the letter I was sent by the Code Enforcement Board secretary said that I needed to have them filed before this, and I needed to be here today. My actual hearing isn't until October. There was no mention in that letter or anywhere else that I can see that I required (sic). And there were actually three packets delivered: There was one packet delivered to code enforcement, there was one packet delivered to the secretary of the board, and there was one packet delivered to the county attorney representing code enforcement, I guess. MS. ARNOLD: We have a copy here that I can provide to the Chairman. There's several individuals that are being requested for subpoena. MR. RANKIN: And I have here a copy in just a minute of the letter I received that asked me to be here today, because there really is no notice of hearing that asked me to be here today, there's simply a letter that asked me to be here today. So I'm here in compliance with that letter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have the letter that was sent to him so I can see it? MR. RANKIN: Here is the letter that I'm here on today. This is my only notice -- or my client's only notice to be here today. I believe that's the correct letter, dated -- MS. ARNOLD: This item was before the board and he -- the -- Doug Rankin had requested a continuance. 6 September 23, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Yeah, for two reasons -- MS. ARNOLD: The board -- can I finish my sentence, sir? The board granted that motion, and also directed that Mr. Rankin come back for subpoenas and also directed that Mr. Rankin come back to explain why he needed over three hours for the public hearing process. And I believe that was sent to -- MS. RAWSON: There's an order on the motion to continue which actually says that it will be heard today. That was sent to Mr. Rankin on the 31 st day of August. MR. RANKIN: Right. But that letter there from this board's secretary says it's not actually going to be heard till October, and I'm simply to appear here today to justify the time and justify the subpoenas. In fact, the letter doesn't even ask me to submit the subpoenas ahead of time; I did that as a courtesy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The sentence says: However, any subpoenas that you intend to request must be timely submitted for the September 23rd, 2004 meeting. What part of that sentence don't you understand? Must be timely submitted for the September 23rd meeting. You want your letter back? MR. RANKIN: Okay. And is it in the rules that they have to be there the Friday before? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you got that letter on the 30th of August, correct, when it's stamped? MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. And with all the hurricanes and all the other delays, I couldn't get things done until Tuesday. I'm sorry. Plus we had trouble finding some of these people to get the addresses. In fact, you'll notice, one of the things that is still missing is names and numbers. I am here pro bono representing these people who are old, sick and disabled and can't really afford to be here. And this -- in fact, I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, I'm listening. 7 September 23, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Anyway. Also, it's our position that we are here in retaliation for my clients exercising their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is a previous case against my clients which was finally dismissed after -- before it got to this board after three attempts for them to enforce it after they were informed they were violating that act. They finally did dismiss that. The other thing we've got here and the reason I have to issue these subpoenas, sir, is because your packet that you have been forwarded -- and I've just double checked with your clerk as to what you've been forwarded -- only furnishes you three of the about eight or nine permits my clients have. They have additional permits. Additionally, as the subpoenas I need there are for the fact that they probably have more. And the problem is that the records for this county for permits more than a few years old are unusable. There are three groups of permits available to this county in terms of indexing their permits. The most recent computer system only goes back a few years. Even that shows permits that were not furnished you that are relevant on the matters we're here today on. Second of all, the system before that, called the WHIP system, is hit and miss on some of the permits. It is the previous computer system, but they -- the persons there at the county will admit to you that it is not accurate. Beyond that, and actually before 1989, you have to go through manual records. They are not alphabetized by letter, they're only alphabetized all the A's. They're not necessarily under the owner's name, they're under the contractor's name or maybe whoever pulled the permit's name. And those records are interesting to look at, shall we say. I would not insult my seventh grade son by saying he could do better. He could. A lower grade could have been -- done better. Those permit records are virtually unusable. So when you are told that there are no permits or the records don't show permits, you will find that that is a statement that the 8 September 23, 2004 records don't necessarily show anything prior to a particular date unless you want to spend hundreds of hours, and even then you're going to miss some. That basically my subpoenas are for, of course, Michelle Arnold who will be here, so I don't imagine I really need that one. The other one is for Carol Sykora -- I pronounce -- mis -- I will apologize if I mispronounced that name, who is the person who signed the complaint that is here before you today, although she's not the code enforcement officer we've been dealing with recently. Another one is Ed Perico. Because many of the items before you have already been settled previously. There was a code enforcement case against my clients before I became involved on these very items. They were asked to get permits. They got them. They called for the inspections. It was over, supposed to be, until we raised this Americans with Disabilities Act item on their parking issues, and then all of a sudden these matters come back up again. These are some of the permits that have not been provided to you. Ed Perico was involved in that matter at the time. One of the reasons I held up getting these subpoenas to you is because I still don't know where to find Ed Perico. The next matter -- subpoenas I'm looking for are records -- two record custodians that I spent a great deal of time with over at developmental services. One is a Peggy who is the one who has access to this WHIP system that covers '89 to about '86, sort of. And the other one is the one who's been in charge of records since about the late Eighties. And by the way, she is not at all to blame for the records I just referred to earlier, they are -- predate her. But she is the one currently in charge of them, and that would be a Sonia, who's the records custodian of the records at developmental services there for all the building permits. And as I said, there are eight or nine more -- excuse me, there are eight or nine permits, not the three you have been given. 9 September 23, 2004 Also, I would like the property appraiser. That is an issue that -- for these aerials. If you don't want somebody for these aerials, I don't really need him, because I have since surpassed their records. In some cases I have found their records are more accurate than developmental services in terms of what permits people have. This is not one of those cases. But their aerials do show when things were built and the like. And let me first go over the three items that we're here -- we're going to be here about in October. One is my clients' carport. That's a screened porch. They have a permit for the carport. They have a permit for the roof. They have a permit for the vinyl siding and they have a permit for the screen. Yet we're still here. Of course those permits aren't a part of your packet. I don't know why that's the case, because I've been going back and forth with -- well, first code enforcement officer, Carol, refuses to speak to attorneys or respond to their communication in any fashion whatsoever. John, who's the new one -- and I apologize for using his first name, I don't know what his last name is, it's difficult to produce -- has been a lot more forthcoming in that matter. And he and I have been going back and forth on this for six or seven months. Ever since we received the first notice of hearing to be here, which turned out -- and I'm not sure there's a procedure in your rules for this, but it turned out they issue notice of hearings even if you're not on the agenda, just think you mean it, and so we prepared for that and then pulled it, showed up and found it wasn't even a real notice of hearing. But be that as it may, that -- anyway, we -- and he is well aware of most of these permits. In fact, he found one that I couldn't find after myself and my staff spent hours and hours at the records division at developmental services, such as it is. Those permits are not for you in your packet. By the way, there is something that is before you in your packet that I'm going to have to obj ect to. There is a document in your packet 10 <.-'~~'''."-"-'''''''-'-'_'''''''''- September 23, 2004 -- because I just checked with your clerk, that I was -- that I was never furnished a copy of and which is the recommendations sheet from code enforcement. I would suggest under your rules that's ex parte communication with you, since I was never furnished a copy of that document. The second item is a workshop behind the carport. My clients have a permit for that roof. They have a permit for the vinyl siding around it. The only thing they don't have a permit for, we think, because you don't know what anybody has a permit for back in the mid Eighties because your records are unusable -- not your records, but the county's records are unusable during that time period in terms of finding things -- is the actual structure inside of that. And at the time my clients tried to get a permit for that. They were told they were entitled to one, but they were told that nobody was going to go out to Plantation Island to do it and therefore, just go ahead and build it and leave us alone. And in fact they have not only approached building department about that at the time, they also approached the then county manager Neil Dorill and also their county commissioner at the time, Anne Goodnight. And the response from them was go away, go ahead and build it, we're not issuing it. And by the way, if you don't leave us alone, we're going to do some -- make some zoning changes out there that you won't like. And you need to take -- the board, I would suggest, needs to take a drive through Plantation Island. You will find my clients' property is one of the three or four best looking properties out there. You will also, taking a drive through Plantation Island, see numerous code violations on the other properties. The code enforcement officer who signed this complaint, Carol, lives there. MR. BOWIE: You know, Counsel, I do think that argument is irrelevant; that somebody else does something doesn't necessarily justify your clients from having doing it. MR. RANKIN: It depends on when there's selective 11 September 23, 2004 enforcement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're not going to argue selective enforcement. You're still trying to convince me why we need to approve these subpoenas. MR. RANKIN: The subpoenas that are for Anne Goodnight and Neil Dorrill I just explained, because my clients did everything they could, short of breaking the law, i.e., going in there with a gun and forcing them to issue a permit for the inside structure of that workshop. However, they do have permits for the vinyl siding over top of it and the roof over top of it that were issued by this county. And they would have a permit for the inside structure, except for what I just indicated to you. That's the two subpoenas there. And there is a former code enforcement officer who worked on this that we can do without, I guess, Elton Sellers, because my clients' former attorney back in that era had a chat with these people about this. They even hired an attorney back then to try to get the permits. And they were not told that they couldn't have the permits or there was any reason they couldn't build anything out there, they were told that we're -- you can have -- excuse me, you can do it, it's lawful to do, but we're not going to issue the permit because we're not going out there. And then they were threatened if they raised any further -- anything further. The third item we're on here is a dock. Part of what they're trying to classify as a dock is part of my clients' vinyl seawall which was properly permitted, and is again one of the permits they didn't share with you. The only part of their dock that doesn't have a permit was built in 1979, and I can prove that by aerials. It is about four by six feet. Back then, state and federal permits were not required for docks of that size in that location at all. And back then, as in now, anything under $500 that didn't have electrical didn't need a regular permit either. They -- actually, one of the pictures you have been given in your 12 September 23, 2004 packet for my clients' case, which is the reason we have to subpoena some of these people also, isn't even of their property. All they have on the alleged dock is their top of their seawall has a wood cap on it. Back on their property they have a little wood walkway on the ground; that's on the ground and on the top of the seawall. On the permit the top of the seawall shows a wood cap for it that's part of that walkway. The only part of their dock is this little dock that's been there since 1979 that doesn't require a permit then and can't require one now. Those are the three items we're here on. And I have proven this to them, I have shown them these permits. And the other reason I'm going to -- I was objecting to that recommendations is we have been told on multiple occasions what we needed to do. Of course actually last year and the year before that, my client was already before code enforcement, not this board, on these matters, was told what they needed to do. They did it. They got the permits, they called for the inspections, and this was supposed to be over. All of a sudden we're back here again. And then they were told by the code enforcement, oh, you just get an engineer's letter or you get a builder to look at it and tell us it's okay and we'll leave you alone. We did that and they're still after us. The recommendation in your packet is that we pull permits that we already have, except for maybe the wood inside that -- inside of the workshop, and come back and see you. That's not what they've been asking for, because they know they already exist with the exception of the two-by- fours that hold up that workshop. The roof and structure on top of it and the vinyl siding on the outside of it are already permitted. This is the reason why basically there's three groups of people. The code enforcement people are going to be here, Michelle Arnold, Carol and John. I don't need their subpoenas. As far as the records custodian over at developmental services, I clearly need those because I need to show you what permits exist, 13 September 23, 2004 since they're not admitting what permits exist. Even though they've got copies of them, you're not being furnished with them by them. They know about them. In fact they found one -- I'll give them credit, they found one of the ones I couldn't find, which is one for the screen for the carport we're here on. And those are not in your packet and not been provided to you. The other ones are Neil Dorrill and Anne Goodnight for their part in this matter. And I don't know what the heck my clients were supposed to have done back in that era. And we all know what has happened to Neil Dorrill since then. So we know, unfortunately, with this recent conviction -- or adjudication withheld, excuse me, that this -- what was going on back in that era. We know about what the prosecutor has said back during that era about institutionalized corruption. And Anne Goodnight appears to be one of the people who wasn't involved in that, thank God. I was surprised she was involved in this as far -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's stick with -- MR. BOWIE: I think we're getting into issues that are much, much broader than the code enforcement violations -- MR. RANKIN: Well, no. The question is, my clients -- my clients, the only thing they don't actually have a permit for that they may have been required to have a permit for is the internal structure of that workshop. And they did everything they could, aside from show up at code -- at the building department with a gun and make them give them one. They hired an attorney, they approached the county manager, they approached their county commissioner, and they approached the building department at the time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We need to establish some real basic facts here. First, this case has not been heard by this board. So the documents you're talking about that the county has submitted to us are not evidence yet, because we haven't heard the case. That's their side. 14 September 23,2004 You obviously have another side. And you'll get a chance to submit whatever you want; all these so-called permits, whatever. And you'll submit them in a timely manner. There is so many copies, so many days ahead, none of this oh, there's a storm and I -- that's all -- I'm sorry, that's all hogwash. The storm wasn't that bad here, people were working, offices were open. Sorry, doesn't work with me. MR. RANKIN: I'm sorry. Just all three of them put me behind. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The old saying, that dog don't hunt here. Sorry. You'll get a chance to submit all that and prove that maybe they don't know what they're talking about. But you'll do that when we hear it. Now, in addition to wanting these subpoenas, how long do you think this is going to take to put on your case? MR. RANKIN: Well, what I had to do in making my estimation, since these permits are known to exist and they're not putting them forth, I had to put in their time to actually call in the records custodian to authenticate permits and all this other nonsense, just like I would in a court of law, and authenticate other records that they're not admitting exist and other code enforcement cases that have -- that they're not indicating to you that exist. If I'm not -- if I'm going to get a stipulation from the other side about admitting those permits, then that will eliminate a lot of time. That will probably -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What do you mean admitting them? You can just submit them. MR. RANKIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They can be on your evidence side. Submit whatever you like. MR. RANKIN: I'm sorry. I'm used to courts where you're required to go through certain prerogatives and predicates to get things admitted to evidence when they are disputed. 15 >"-'-'-'''<"",~"",,-~.,..,."",,,..¥ September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You bring it here and if you want to submit it, you submit it. We'll take it and read it. And if we think it's part of the case, fine; if we don't we'll just dismiss it in our heads. But you can submit whatever you'd like. MR. RANKIN: What I'm indicating to you is for instance, if the code enforcement people will be here, the Carol and the John and the Michelle Arnold that have dealt with these cases before, then I don't need their subpoenas if they'll be here. I definitely do need to have Mr. Dorrill and Ms. Goodnight be here. I can do without the property appraiser. But these two people from records custodian at developmental services, I definitely need them, because what will happen at the end of that is not only will I show you the permits my clients do have, but I will show you that there are probably others out there that due to the recordkeeping proceedings of this county, no one's going to be able to find ever. I personally have seen many cases of this. The records beyond that in 1989, and actually into the Nineties on some of them, are in a bunch of loose leaf folders and they're alphabetized only by letter. All the Ks are in there, and you have to go through all the Ks. And there are two books of those for each period. And they're not under the owner's name necessarily, they're underneath the contractor's name or the like, so finding anything in that era is next to impossible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your clients don't have copies of these, I assume. MR. RANKIN: They have copies of some of their permits, yes, sir, they do, but not all of them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RANKIN: And there have been numerous problems down in that area, you know, from weather stuff and all that over the years. This is an island in the middle of the swamp outside -- alongside the fIver. 16 September 23, 2004 The other thing, quite frankly, that we're -- but that's what we need to have, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have some kind of time estimate as to putting on this case that you're looking at? Our rules stipulate we give you normally about 20 minutes unless you need something longer. MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have some kind of estimate? MR. RANKIN: I had a three-hour estimate if I had to put on all the predicates I'd have to put on in a court of law. If you're telling me I don't need to do that here because your rules of evidence are more relaxed -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They are. MR. RANKIN: -- then I can cut that down to about an hour and 45 minutes, depending on how much resistance I'm going to get in terms of our two hours, and how much resistance I'm going to get because most of the time, when these cases come before you, I assume that they submit to you all their records on a case or all their permits that they have on a case that are relevant to the items there before you. That has not happened here. This packet is missing at least half -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But you get to submit your packet to go against their packet, so you can -- like I said, you submit whatever you want and we'll read it. MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? So be assured of that, you're allowed to submit any document or documents, pictures, whatever that you would like to submit. MR. RANKIN: My only thing that I can't submit, Mr. Chairman, is these actual county records, because they're obviously not going to turn loose of those. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that part. MR. RANKIN: And I need to be able to -- I will be happy -- in 17 September 23, 2004 fact I have copies of all the permits, that's why this file is so thick, and aerials and all that. And if I don't need the predicate for those then that'll be fine. But, you know, it's just that in most -- and this is the first case I've seen in 21 years of practicing in this county where there has been a dispute over known permits not being submitted that are relevant to issues. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Rankin? MR. RANKIN: Yes. MS. DUSEK: It's my understanding you want two subpoenas? MR. RANKIN: Well, I want four, actually. MS. DUSEK: Four? MR. RANKIN: Two at -- one is for Neil Dorrill, and the other is for Anne Goodnight. And the other two are for records custodians over at developmental services. MS. DUSEK: Okay. So you're asking for four subpoenas and an hour and 45 minutes? MR. RANKIN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bear with us a moment. Michelle, I need to ask you a question before I ask the board members something. Next month if the board so chooses to grant this amount of time, do you have any feeling for what our caseload is next month if we set aside an hour and 45 minutes, roughly, say, two hours for this case by itself? MS. ARNOLD: So far I have about five cases that are slated for next month, but we could do some juggling, if we need to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if the board is willing to grant that amount of time, ballparking say two hours, you can manipulate our agenda so that rather than have a special session, we can do it in a regular session? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. RANKIN: I do not intend to waste this board's time, Mr. Chairman. My clients can't afford for me to be here. I just don't like 18 September 23, 2004 to see old, disabled people get treated like this, that's why I'm here and CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. That's why we're going to try to work this out. And that's why I'm telling you that you can submit whatever documents you want to submit so that we can get them on the record. And whatever you feel is pertinent that you feel will help your clients, we want you to submit. Two things the board needs to consider: The time that Mr. Rankin wants for our next meeting, ballparking two hours for his case, that's in excess of our allotted ballpark 20 minutes. We need to say yes, we could -- we're willing to give him that much time. And then the other item is the four subpoenas that he's requesting that we issue. So -- MR. PONTE: I don't have any problem with the amount of time if the case is scheduled in the final position so that it is the last case of the day that we hear and that other petitioners and respondents aren't blocked. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. We can make that -- we can make it last on the list. Anybody else have any comment on the time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Well, what kind of time are we looking at? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll ballpark two hours for his case at our next meeting, rather than the normal 20 minutes. And we'll make it last on the -- MR. BOWIE: I think the only issue we have here, Counsel has basically said such, is the existence or not of permits for some of these older improvements. And Doug, I think you mentioned you have in your possession, or your client has in their possession some of these older permits. MR. RANKIN: Yes. 19 September 23, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Great. If that's the case and we're only trying to establish this, and this is the only issue, I can't see why it would take that long. MR. RANKIN: Well, why we're here -- nice of you to mention that. Why we're here is because I think what has happened -- and this is something in -- that was in the newspaper just on August 8th, so it corresponds with when this case was filed, of where it turns out there's some kind of special designation over Plantation Island. And even though we have all these permits issued and approved and all this a year ago, two years ago, three years ago that cleared up all the matters that are now before you, they're going back and trying to undo them because it appears, based on what their own people say in this article -- that's the other reason we'll be discussing them -- that they maybe shouldn't have issued any in this area. MR. BOWIE: I don't think that's an element -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, you need to understand -- MR. RANKIN: That's why we're here, and that's why I'm afraid I'm going to get a fight on them, because normally I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First of all, you need to understand what the board does. The board's only role or authority, is the best word, here is if there is a possible violation to any ordinance, it's brought before us, it can be brought before us, and we look at only that. That's all -- we're limited to that. Any other purviews of the law that are out here, I'm sorry, we don't have that power. That wasn't granted us. If they said your client painted something red and the statutes and the ordinance, rather, says red isn't allowed, that's all we read. We read that one sentence and anything that's related in the ordinance, and that's our only decision. Anything else, any federal laws and all that, sorry, we have no power there. All we say is yes, this building's red, no, it's not red. Yes, he had a permit, no, he didn't have a permit. The end. You have to limit it to that, because beyond that we can't help you. 20 September 23, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I'm indicating to you is what I'm dealing with is that. And it's not -- the permits exist. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, that's what we want you to do when you come. MR. RANKIN: Except for the permit for the inside of that structure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, then that that will be your argument to prove versus what they say when you all get here. Okay? MR. RANKIN: And the other thing is that the fact that -- you know, and I've just -- my understanding is they had a duty to submit to you all their known permits on this matter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they haven't submitted anything formally yet. There's been no evidence submitted to us in a hearing because we haven't had a hearing on this item yet. Okay? So there is no, quote, formal evidence submitted to this board yet. MR. RANKIN: And the other thing is -- sir, of course the other thing is determine whether or not there needed to be a permit in the first place, for instance, for that little piece of dock that under their own code says you don't need a permit for that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That again is something you have to at your time, if you can prove to us that wasn't required, fine, that's great. But you need to be able to prove it to us. MR. RANKIN: But I'm also dealing with a case where this has happened once before, where pictures that are in the packet to be submitted and in code enforcement cases before, are not even on my clients' property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But-- MR. RANKIN: That's why I anticipate problems. This is not going to be something quite as simple as what you indicated, solely because it appears there's a dispute of facts. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Unfortunately, I guess what my thought process is, they can submit whatever they like. You submit 21 September 23, 2004 whatever you like. Don't walk in here and say I'm going to rely on what they submitted. I know attorneys don't do that, I'm sorry. I haven't met any of you fellows or ladies that do that. You submit your own stuff. That's what I expect you to do, to counteract what they submit, add to, whatever. So please do that. MR. RANKIN: My clients just feel as citizens of Collier County that they shouldn't be drug before a board for not having permits when the county knows they do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you know how it is. Anybody can be sued. That's why there's a lot of lawyers in the United States. You can sue anybody for anything. So they're here, and if you can prove that they're not guilty of something, that's great. You prove it to us and we'll say sorry, no deal. Go. MR. RANKIN: And as far as -- MS. BARNETT: I'd like to make a comment -- MR. RANKIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: -- if I could. I think that we're just beating a dead horse here. And Mr. Bowie, I understand and appreciate your concern about the time restraint, but I think if we slate two hours and it's less than two hours and it's our last thing on our agenda, we just get to go home earlier. I think that's the end of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That will be the day. MR. RANKIN: And Mr. Chairman, one exception I would take with the federal law comment. It is against federal law to retaliate against people for standing up for their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't help you here on that. You're in the wrong place. We can't help you. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully disagree and finish, please? This department cannot retaliate against somebody for violating 22 September 23, 2004 that Act and they cannot ask you to do so and this board cannot do so in a retaliatory act for my clients exercising those rights. That is something you simply cannot do. I'm not your attorney, but you can't -- you know, if -- MS. ARNOLD: And I have to strongly object that there is no retaliation here. We have a case and it will be presented to the board when it's on the agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We haven't heard a case yet, so let's not make a big deal out of a case we haven't heard. Let's first hear a case. Right now this is all, I'm sorry, nothing because we have no case. So right now the board has to decide on the time. MR. BOWIE: Why don't we just focus our discussion on the time element and somebody make a motion and we'll vote on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two hours max for our next session. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we give this case two hours at our October meeting and -- MR. BOWIE: At the end of the agenda. MS. DUSEK: At the end of the agenda, and grant the four subpoenas. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RANKIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? MS. ARNOLD: Just for procedural purposes, if Jennifer can just mention how those subpoenas need to be processed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We haven't voted on those yet. But we'll give Jennifer a chance to say how she'd like it done. Plus I need to ask Jean how it needs to be done, since she's our attorney. And we order them to be issued. Let's stick to the time right now. We have a motion and a second 23 September 23, 2004 to set aside two hours at the -- for the last case in our public hearings for our next session. Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: This is just the motion on the time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Time, time only. MR. BOWIE: Not the subpoenas. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. We haven't done subpoenas yet. We've separated them. So this is just the time. Any further discussion? MS. DUSEK: The only comment I would like even though I made the motion is that we stick to the two hours and we don't go into two hours and 15 minutes or whatever, since we are giving the extra time. And I think that we can stipulate that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not a problem. We can handle that part of it. Okay. Any more? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Anybody opposed? MR. BOWIE: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have 6-1. Okay, next item. Mr. Rankin has requested four subpoenas be issued. Jean, re-enlighten us of our process. MS. RAWSON: Well, what I will do, based on your vote, is issue an order that says the subpoenas will be issued or the subpoenas won't be issued for a number, I think is his request. And then actually, I'm not the one who issues them. And we'll hear from the county 24 September 23, 2004 attorney about how they actually get issued. I'll write the order that says what your request is. If you order that they be issued, they'll be issued. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning, I'm Jennifer Belpedio; I'm an assistant county attorney with the county attorney's office. I just wanted to bring to your attention Section 2-10.15 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances. This is the codification of your Code Enforcement Board ordinance. In this ordinance it requires that every subpoena for testimony be brought to the clerk of the circuit court for Issuance. I just wanted to bring this to Mr. Rankin's attention. There's some specifics that are required. Certainly I can't provide legal advice to Mr. Rankin, and he can do what he desires to do, but I think it's important to mention this to him, because certainly persons being subpoenaed or perhaps the county could challenge the issuance of the subpoena if they're not in compliance with these provisions. I can certainly provide a copy of these provisions to Mr. Rankin. MR. RANKIN: No problem. MS. BARNETT: Jennifer, can they be done in a timely manner for this next hearing? MS. BELPEDIO: I can't speak on behalf of the clerk's office, but my understanding is that if he were to show up at the clerk's office with the forms, that it would be a relatively simple process. I think it's a matter of signing and stamping and perhaps a payment of a fee. MR. RANKIN: Right. What's happened in the civil court system the last several years, we don't -- we just issue them ourselves as attorneys. This is a special procedure for your board. I'm aware of it. And I have great confidence in our efficient clerk of courts. MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I thank you, Jennifer. Okay. As I understand it, Mr. Rankin, so we don't -- before we 25 September 23, 2004 vote on this, we have four subpoenas: One is for Mr. Dorrill, one is for Ms. Goodnight. MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One is for a -- MR. RANKIN: I had to use their first names, since I don't believe they give out last names. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is it this -- a records custodian named Peggy in development services; is that one? MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the other one is for a records custodian named Sonia. MR. RANKIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Both at Horseshoe Drive? MR. RANKIN: Correct me if I'm wrong, she's the head of the records department there, I believe, since 1989. MS. ARNOLD: She is one of the employees with records. She's not the head of records. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This just says records custodian, so I don't -- MR. BOWIE: Can you supply us with their last name? MS. ARNOLD: It's Peggy Jarrell and Sonia Grafton. Grafton? Grafton. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we have four specific names. MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we need now is if the board wants to issue -- order that these subpoenas be issued, we need a motion to do so and a second and a vote. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. BOWIE: I move that we issue subpoenas on behalf of the respondent at the request of the respondent for the two records custodians, Peggy and Sonia, whose last names were just disclosed to us. 26 September 23, 2004 Certainly the issue of whether permits exist or not or whether the records are in such a situation as whether we can even determine whether permits exist is certainly proper and relevant for their testimony, and I think we should subpoena the two records custodians as requested. MS. DUSEK: You're just requesting the two -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your comment on -- MR. PONTE: What's your feeling about Mr. Dorrill and Ms. Goodnight? MR. BOWIE: I haven't made any motion that we subpoena them. Frankly, I don't believe that a former county commissioner or a former county manager would have been involved in permit issuance matters at such a level to as to make relevant or proper subpoenaing them into this case. MR. RANKIN: If I may, Mr. Bowie, my point is my clients not only went to the building department, they not only went to have their attorney go to the building department, they also went higher up that ladder as far as they could go, and that is where -- they couldn't go any higher at that time except maybe to sue the county or to commit an unlawful act to make the county issue them. And I think my clients are entitled to put on that evidence, because what else would you have my clients do? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not saying -- because the board hasn't voted, I'm not saying it's not going to happen, I'm just -- I'm going to ask you a question, you tell me if it's feasible. Is there any way you can get and submit to us in your documentation a possible affidavit from either of these people? MR. RANKIN: I can get an affidavit from my clients that tells you the personal conversations they had with these people. I have not talked to either one of these people in some time and I don't know whether they would be willing to say that or not. And I've never talked to them about this case. And I would assume that this would 27 ,-,-"""""-~,,,,,",,,,--"';,"-"~'~'" September 23, 2004 not be something they would be -- I don't know whether they'd voluntarily admit to say it or not. And in fact, I would suspect that that, at least in one case, may not be the case. The other person, I have a great deal of respect for her and her honesty and integrity. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It was just a question. MR. RANKIN: But I don't know whether or not-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just asked the question. Right now we have a motion before the board from Mr. Bowie to issue two subpoenas rather than four. It has not been seconded. So any further discussion, any questions? MS. BARNETT: I don't know about how anybody else feels, but I feel like I'm uncomfortable with the respondent has requested the four, he's cut it down from the original eight, I think, that he had requested, or seven. If he feels that he needs it, I don't think it's necessarily our position to say whether he does or not. MR. PONTE: I agree with you 100 percent. Absolutely right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand both sides of the coin, so I really don't have a comment. I understand what Mr. Bowie's saying and I understand what -- he's asked for four and unless there's some overcompelling reason to turn the four down -- MS. DUSEK: Well, since there wasn't a second, I guess the motion dies. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, since there hasn't been second, so MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we give the privilege of the four -- issue the four subpoenas. Make it simple. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to issue the four subpoenas as requested. MS. BARNETT: Second. MR. HEMES: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second, either Sheri or Mr. Hemes. Any further discussion? 28 September 23, 2004 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? MR. BOWIE: No. I still believe only the two are relevant and proper. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 6-1. Jean, will you get an order requesting the four subpoenas be issued? MS. RAWSON: I will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Rankin. MR. RANKIN: Thank you, Your Honor. And I wish this had been settled at a lower time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Next item, we're into motion to request for extension of time. A Mr. Gomez, Case No. 2004-011. MR. MOLINA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. My name is Eric Molina. I represent Florida Community Bank, which has obtained title to the Gomez and Izquierdo property through a foreclosure action. We've reached -- code enforcement and the bank has reached a stipulation concerning my request for an extension of time. I don't know if Ms. Arnold intended to present it or if I should present it. MS. ARNOLD: I think you could just present the points that we've agreed to and the board -- and we can confirm that we're in agreement on those matters. MR. MOLINA: Has the board been provided a copy of the 29 ,.,_~.._....~=."'M·""__'.~""'-_·'""~'··'>·"^'···'·· September 23, 2004 stipulation? MS. ARNOLD: No, that's just -- MR. MOLINA: In my motion I requested a one-year extension. Code enforcement and the bank has agreed to extend the compliance date through to the expiration of the permit date, which is July 23rd, 2005. Additionally, the stipulation indicates that all of the fines and operational costs in the amount of $755, which had been due in the case, have already been paid by the bank, and that the certificate of completion will be obtained within that same stipulated period of time, on or before July 23rd, 2005. And that should the property not be brought into compliance prior to that date, that the owner will be fined $100 per day. That's basically the substance of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I have a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since this is a case we haven't heard yet, and this is a request for an extension of time -- MS. ARNOLD: You have heard this case. The board has entered an order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, where is the order? MS. ARNOLD: The order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't see that in our package. All I see is information like this is a new case. MS. BARNETT: The case we saw this summer and I believe we gave them -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. On April 22nd of this year you all actually had a hearing and entered an amended order of findings of facts. I can give you a copy of that. Can you give it to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can I see it, please? MS. ARNOLD: In that particular order, the board gave a 60-day time period for compliance. 30 September 23, 2004 What the issue was is there was an excavation permit issued some time ago for the digging of a lake. It was on the Gomez property and the adjacent property owned by Mr. Byrd -- or Mrs. Byrd, I'm not really sure. And at that particular time the bank was in the process of foreclosure when we heard the case. They had not actually completed that process. And now they've since acquired the property . They've made efforts to try to come into compliance. They've actually already applied for a new excavation permit for the Gomez property and are taking every effort to complete that excavation. However, with the rainy season, the property is under water and it's going to make it very difficult for them to comply within the time frame that the board had specified. I believe they do have the contractor here today to kind of give information to the board, if you all need any further information. We've consulted with the engineers that issued the excavation permit from the county, and they feel that, you know, the time frame specified for the permit is a reasonable time to try to get the property dried out and then the work done to complete that process. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, you said that they applied for a new excavation permit? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Is that the one that he's talking about that would expire on July 23rd? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct. MR. MOLINA: Just to add to that, if I may. I'm sorry for the interruption. The amended order was entered on May 27th. The bank obtained title to the property July 7th through the foreclosure action. As Ms. Arnold explained, the bank has renewed the permit since that time, has contracted a licensed excavator to complete the restoration work necessary to bring the property into compliance, and has paid all the fees and operational costs incurred by the county in 31 September 23, 2004 connection with this matter. The only reason that the property has not been restored to this point is because of the condition of the property which has been created by circumstances obviously beyond the bank's control. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, since we have an order issued to Gomez and Izquadero (sic) -- I don't know if that's right and I apologize. MR. MOLINA: Izquierdo. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Izquierdo, okay. And they're no longer the owners of the property -- MS. RAWSON: You need to substitute the owner. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Before we vote on the motion to continue, do we vote to substitute the owner or how does that happen? MS. RAWSON: We do. I would like to have, of course, the full name and address of the bank. MR. MOLINA: Sure. Perhaps Mr. Munoz could more easily provide that. He's the vice president of the bank. MS. RAWSON: And I'll send you a copy of that. If you have a card, I'll send you a copy. MR. BOWIE: Can I just ask a question as to this particular case, which I think also relates to the next case we have on the agenda? This is regarding the Byrd case. MS. DUSEK: It's been pulled. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's been canceled. MR. BOWIE: It's been canceled. But it's -- my understanding was when we dealt with this in May is that this excavation extended across both of these properties; is that not correct? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we looked back at the information in the packet, and the original case, the excavation included both properties. That's why both properties were brought to you. But the amended order that was issued for the board only involved the Gomez case. 32 September 23, 2004 The excavation permit that is being -- has been obtained only involves the Gomez property, because of course the bank has no jurisdiction over the other. So all of the -- the original order that was imposed on the first case for Byrd is in place. The fines are accruing. We have no contact with the Byrds. They have never contacted us, so -- MR. BOWIE: My only question would be is it in fact feasible to complete an excavation as only to one property where the existing partially completed excavation stretches across both? MS. ARNOLD: That's why they had to get a new excavation permit, to modify what was previously approved to just affect the one property . CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, because I mean, I can vaguely picture what it was. It was kind of like a lake deal or something. I guess at the property line you can put something in so the -- I mean, you can't dig a lake and not have it go over there unless you put some kind of a -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. There has got to be some filling in to-- MR. BOWIE: Okay. So some fill is involved as well. MS. ARNOLD: -- and the setback requirements that are made and all. MR. MOLINA: Yes. The excavator that was contracted by the bank has been contracted to perform all of the restoration work necessary to bring this subject property into compliance with this county's ordinances and codes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. HEMES: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, go ahead. MR. HEMES: Does the bank have any aspects to acquire the Byrd property and make it contiguous? MR. MOLINA: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, would you, in looking at our order, amended order, put it that way, would you go back over so -- 33 September 23, 2004 what I'm trying to do is -- I'm having a hard time remembering the stipulation that you've reached with -- the county has reached, to tell us what that is so that I can compare it as we go down to our -- we had six items in our order, and with six things that were supposed to happen. So let's see, did you -- are you covering all those or are you asking us to issue an amended order totally different? MS. ARNOLD: Of course I don't have a copy of your order in front of me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't either -- MR. BOWIE: We don't either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have your copy. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, you have my copy. But the order, I believe, for the board indicated one, to obtain -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would it be easier if I read them off and you tell me what the new deal is? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that would probably work better. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The first item was they had to reapply for a new excavation permit within 60 days. MS. ARNOLD: And they've done that. And they've done that. They've complied with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So you don't need to change that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then item two was alternately, they could fill in. But you say they've got a new permit, so item two isn't really applicable. MR. MOLINA: That would be correct, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it. And if I might approach, I could provide the board with a copy of the signed stipulation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just want to make sure that we -- if we're going to agree to what you two agreed to, I want to make sure that you cover everything we ordered you to do. Not you 34 ..-.-., -.,.",."<,","""",,,---,,~,,--;,~-~..~,-,,-,,...~-.,.-.-..>."-,,,",_. September 23, 2004 specifically but, you know, the prior owners. Because if not, then we may want to add that in. Item three was that if they didn't get their permit to do the excavation by a certain date, there would be a fine. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Item two -- item one needs to be modified in your order because item one is what talks about the reapplying of the excavation permit, and then by -- within 60 days. And then it also says, and finishing the excavation according to the county standards and obtaining all required inspections and certificate of completion within 60 days. That's the portion that needs to be modified. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To one year? MS. ARNOLD: To -- you can say to July 23rd of2005. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And item two is alternatively filling it in? MS. ARNOLD: Right. And that doesn't need to be modified because that's just kind of giving them an option. They decided on their option. Item three -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's if they didn't get the permit by June 20th, which is what we gave them originally, 60 days from reapplying, which they did. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And it doesn't really -- it needs to be modified because it doesn't really speak to the second part of that paragraph that talks about, you know, the inspections and certificate of completion, what happens if they didn't comply with that date. Because there are now two dates relevant in that paragraph one. There's a June 20th date which they complied with and now the July 23rd, 2005 date. So that paragraph needs to be modified to reflect in the event they don't complete the project by July 23rd, 2005, a fine, I think, of $100 per day, was that what it indicated? MR. MOLINA: One hundred dollars per day. MS. ARNOLD: Hundred dollars per day would be imposed each 35 September 23, 2004 day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Then item four was -- of course that just goes with item two if they decide to fill it in. So that doesn't need to be changed, right? MS. ARNOLD: Right. All the rest of it I think is okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, as far as the operational costs, we're leaving that like it is. They're going to pay -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, they've already paid it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it says until it comes into compliance. We're not going to come into compliance for a year, they haven't paid it all yet because -- in other words, you're saying you guys are going to do it from free -- for free from now on, there'll be no charges. MR. MOLINA: If I might elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman? Actually, in renewing the permit they prepay all of the inspection fees up and through the 23rd of July of next year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But that's not what this says. MS. ARNOLD: Well-- yeah. Yeah. This is for our visits. And hopefully we won't need to visit but once more once they call us to tell us that it's in compliance. Because we're not going to monitor it, because now as he had indicated, there is an inspection -- I mean, a permit for the excavation, and that -- those inspections should occur as a part of that permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess what my feeling to my fellow members is on item six where we always ask -- order them to pay operational costs, that we don't change that. If you don't have any costs, that's fine, but I think it should be left in the order. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So there needs to be two changes to amend the order. MR. MOLINA: Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we at least include that the bank has paid all of the operational costs up and 36 September 23, 2004 through this date, which has been confirmed by code enforcement to be the case? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I guess we can say that operational costs incurred as of the date of the order have been paid. But operational costs -- MS. ARNOLD: Additional operational costs may occur. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Additional operation costs till the completion of this order -- MS. BARNETT: May occur. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that you'll have to order to pay any additional operational costs incurred in coming into compliance. Yeah. If they don't charge any, then there's nothing to pay, it's just a sentence that -- it's there. If they come up with some money and ask you to pay them, you're going to have to pay them. If they don't, you don't have to pay them. Okay? You understand? MR. MOLINA: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have an extension of time, so we would have to amend our order. There are three things we have to do, the third being the change in the operational cost language. MR. BOWIE: We need to substitute the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. First item would be to substitute the bank for the current respondent. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we substitute the new owner, the bank, for the previous respondent. MS. BARNETT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to substitute respondent. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. 37 September 23, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next item is if the board agrees to amend order 2004-11 by adding to our item one a completion date of July 23rd, '05. Michelle, is that correct? Did I get the date right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Rather than -- right now the order says within 60 days and we're going to change that -- instead of within 60 days thereafter, change that to read no later than July 23rd of '05. That would be the change we make to item one of our existing order. MR. BOWIE: I think we also need to add the other requirements. In other words, we need to require that the excavation be completed in accord with the excavation permit that has now been issued. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the first part of that sentence is as is. I'm only changing some words. So we would rewrite the sentence, but we're just going to change the last one, two, three, four, five words by adding some additional. But the sentence will be quite long. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we amend our current statement to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's item one only, because I have some other ones to change. MS. BARNETT: Our current statement item number one to include the date of July 23rd of '05. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And let me get the rest of them 38 September 23, 2004 and you can just add it to your motion. The next item would be to add to item three of our order where we state that they have to pay $150 a day fine if they don't obtain the permit by June 20th. We're going to add to that, that failure to obtain inspections -- all required inspections and a certificate of completion by the required date would result in a $100 a day fine. That's what they -- both parties have stipulated to. MS. DUSEK: So what you're doing is amending the 150 to 100? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we're adding a -- we're adding another portion to the sentence. The 150 stands, but we're adding a second part, because we currently didn't ask them to get inspections and a CO. MS. DUSEK: Would you read that first part again? MR. BOWIE: This unfortunately becomes very confusing because we weren't furnished copies of the order as part of the packet, which we should have had. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now it says -- right now it says that if respondents do not comply with paragraph one, which is to get a permit by June 20th, 2004, there will be a fine of $150 a day for each day that the violation continues. It says nothing about getting inspections and a CO. What we're going to add is you must get inspections and a CO and if you don't, it's going to cost you $100 a day. MS. BARNETT: I add that to my motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does everybody understand that? MR. MOLINA: Mr. Chairman, if I might just interrupt a moment. That is incorporated into paragraph one of the order, that they obtain all required inspections and certificate of completion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But when we tied in our order item three, we only tied item three to getting the -- a permit. We didn't tie it into -- MR. MOLINA: Item three read that if the respondents do not 39 September 23, 2004 comply with paragraph one of the order, they will be fined at that rate per day. MS. ARNOLD: Item three read if they don't comply with paragraph one, and it's specified a date, June 20th. MR. BOWIE: Is there any way we could put a copy of this on the overhead so that we could all see this, this language that we're talking about? Since we weren't furnished copies of it. MR. MOLINA: I think if we just -- if I might just suggest this, if we changed the June 20, 2004 to July 23rd, 2005, it would resolve all the other issues without having to amend further language. MS. RAWSON: Actually, I agree with the attorney, that's just what I did. MS. DUSEK: I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Whatever's the simplest, that's what we want to do. MS. DUSEK: That's a good suggestion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would the county go along with that, if we just changed that date? MS. ARNOLD: As long as he's agreeable to what it says there, and it says 150, as opposed to 100. MR. MOLINA: Well, could we also amend that pursuant to our stipulation, that it read 100, rather than 150? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MS. BARNETT: So then for my motion, it would state that in number three, that the respondent -- if they cannot comply -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't you just back off your motion first -- MS. BARNETT: Just back off and wait 'til the end? Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then we'll start all over. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, I need to ask you a question. If we just change the date in item one, the end of the sentence gives them another 60 days past the July 23rd, '05. Right? 40 . ,....._.~___I"""~"""'""~~··.,.,~'".."., ".__"""0'_'" . September 23, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: What we were requesting is that the paragraph one read -- I hope you guys can see this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: By reapplying for a new excavation permit within 60 days, June 20th of 2004, and by finishing the excavation according to Collier County standards, including all setbacks, and by obtaining all required inspections and certificate of completion by July 23rd,2005. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I have a question, Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: The stipulation that he read, can we vote on the stipulation, which would then amend our order, rather than having to go through each one of these? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: That's what I think is the simplest to do. Ifwe can accept the stipulation that the county agreed upon, then we don't have to go through each one of these items and break them down and redo MS. RAWSON: It amends the order-- MS. DUSEK: It amends the order. MS. RAWSON: -- and basically makes it 100 instead of 150 and gives them 'til July 23rd, 2005. MS. DUSEK: That's what I would like to propose. MR. PONTE: I would second your proposal. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county and the respondent's stipulated agreement. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement. MS. BARNETT: I will pull my other motion off the floor. MS. RAWSON: Okay. We need to withdraw that one. 41 .- -_....-_..._._"-,~~~"--_.-"._...,- September 23,2004 MS. DUSEK: I'm sorry, I forgot about that. MR. BOWIE: It wasn't even seconded. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, it wasn't seconded. Any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Because I haven't seen it. MR. MOLINA: The board will then just simply enter an order adopting, ratifying this stipulation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, may not order -- whatever that agreement is, which we haven't seen. MR. MOLINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the next one is France, Case No. 2004-001. Yes, sir. MR. LOMBARDO: I'm Chris Lombardo, of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. I represent Mr. France. We're here today to ask for some -- an extension of about 60 days. And I want to preface this by explaining, we have tried to be extremely cooperative from the outset and with the circumstance. And if you recall, the situation is rather unique. Mr. France owns a piece of property out in Golden Gate Estates. He believed he brought a rectangular piece of property that was roughly five acres. 42 September 23, 2004 His surveys, every single survey, a survey that was taken before his house was built, showed it was that. The survey that was taken before the CO was issue for the house showed it exactly as that. And he built a -- subsequently, he built a metal building, he had a survey conducted to site it. The survey showed it exactly as that. It was surveyed after the completion of the metal building for the CO and it showed it exactly as that. And the county issued permits all along the way. He did -- he followed the rules, he followed the rulebook, and 10 and behold now several years later we find out that the northwest -- excuse me, the northeast corner of that property, 200 by 200, actually belongs to the county. And the metal building that my client built, a portion of that metal building actually ep.croaches on the county property. Rather shocking situation for my client. When we last were here, we told you that there was a municipal or governmental structure on the north -- excuse me, on the southwest corner and we thought there might be some confusion, that the county may have actually built a structure on the southwest corner, believing that's where they should have been. It turns out that that structure belongs to the City of Naples and is a Naples -- and is a water monitoring structure for which, by the way, there is no easement nor deed. And that is yet another day and another issue to resolve. We went forward with your permission to try to negotiate with the county to resolve the -- to hopefully either work out an arrangement with the county or purchase the 200 by 200, because the county is not using that property for anything, at least at the present time. There is nothing on the property that would indicate the county is doing anything. There are no plans that we're aware of that would indicate that the county is going to do anything. Initially we had difficulty because the county denied owning the property. When we explained to them that the county does in fact 43 September 23, 2004 own the property because we were being told we had to remove our structure because it was on county property, then we went through a little stretch where we were told, well, we're not interested in selling it. At that point we started making arrangements to remove the building, and then we were told no, we've had a second thought, we've decided we will sit down and talk to you about selling the property. At which point we followed up in June and said fine, let's set a meeting, let's sit down and talk about it, let's appraise the property and we'll move forward. We waited, and that's probably my fault. We waited through most of June, July, following up, hearing that they're still interested. And then in late August, and unfortunately the letter was received last week, and I cannot explain why, but Mr. Chairman, I would tell you unfortunately during those hurricanes, the postal service, unlike the county, may not have been working at full speed, despite the wind, rain and whatever stance that they do take. But unfortunately last week, after I asked for the extension, I received a letter from the county telling us that in fact they don't want to sell the property to us. And so now we have a rather difficult predicament. My client, who is an auto mechanic, who is a hard-working fellow, who has lived in Collier County most of his life, who followed the rules, who did this by the book, got permits, built his building with a permit, now finds out that his building is not on his property, it is on property of the county, the county will not sell him the property, and we're faced with the sad circumstance of having to remove a $30,000 structure or move the structure. I was just discussing with the county attorney, we have a dilemma. We fully intend on moving the structure. We fully intend on pulling a permit to either move or demolish the structure. We recognize that we have one slight problem and that is that we have to get the county to join us in pulling the permit because the structure in part is on the county property. And we are a little concerned about the 44 .......-..-.,......--"""""-"'''.-..>.'" September 23, 2004 time it will take to convince the county to join us in getting the permit to demolish the building so that we don't get cited by the county for not pulling the permit to demolish the building. And so as I sit here and think I saw this once in a Monty Python skit, I assure you that all we are trying to do is cooperate and get there, and what we don't want to do is on top of all this, get hit of with a, you know, several hundred dollar per day fine while we try to work through this, particularly when we moved forward and we did what we said we would do, and in fact my client immediately removed any of his personal property from the area of land that he thought for the last umty ump years was his and he pulled it aside so that nothing was sitting there except for the building that we could not move. My client has cooperated. We went forward and unfortunately and I find ourselves in a Catch 22, and that is we had to wait for the county to tell us that in fact they did not want to sell the property, knowing full well that on the other hand the county was getting ready to fine us for exceeding our window of time. Not a pleasant spot to be in. And so -- MS. DUSEK: I would just like to move forward with this and I'm -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me -- let me just ask something, because we don't have it. We issued an order, correct, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the order say? MS. ARNOLD: The order gave them until -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd like to know what we're dealing with rather than just move ahead. Tell me what we're doing. MS. ARNOLD: August 26th of this year. And, you know, we don't have any objection to you all extending the time period, because we were copied on the letter from the county attorney's office that was dated August 23rd of this year, indicating 45 September 23, 2004 that they have no intentions of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So right now our order says they have to accomplish all this by August 26th of this year? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And also I just wanted -- because Mr. Lombardo indicated that, you know, he's hoping that he has the county's cooperation with getting the demo permit. In the closing paragraph from the county attorney's office, it did give them permission to enter onto the property, do what they needed to do, so I think he does have the county's cooperation with that. MR. LOMBARDO: We're hopeful that's true, and I have no reason to doubt that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Lombardo, what kind of time are you looking for here? MR. LOMBARDO: Sixty days is what we would like to have. We've already talked to a contractor, we're trying to make arrangements and, you know, unless we have an issue getting our permit, we should be able to accomplish that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So what the board needs to do is amend its order from August 26th of this year to an additional 60 days. MR. BOWIE: How about have operational costs been paid in this matter? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Probably not. We're not going to change that part of it. I think we're only going to change one item, which is extend the date from August 26th to -- August, September to October, roughly, 26th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you looking for two months from today? MR. LOMBARDO: I would prefer to have two months from today, if we could. 46 ....~.._----"'"'-~,_.,.-..." --"., September 23,2004 MS. DUSEK: So you're asking actually for 90 days. MR. LOMBARDO: That's -- I'll accept that, 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, because you're already past, 30 days past, since it said August. This is September. So we need 90 days from then. Okay, 90-day extension. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the extension for 90 days in the CEB Case No. 2004-001. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant a 90-day extension. Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: It concerns me a little bit that the respondent is asking the grace of this board to extend the date of compliance by 90 days. I have no problem with that, but it concerns me a little bit that this request is being made of us without any offer to pay the operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's still in the order, so he still has to pay those. MR. BOWIE: Well, I'd like to move the due date on that up. I think extending that 90 days, there's no grounds for that. I think it should be due and payable maybe within a period of 10, 15 days. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Bowie, he's going to incur more operational costs because they're going to have to go out there and inspect it and everything like that after he is finished with the demolition. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I don't think -- from all our other orders, operational costs are not normally not paid until everything's all done. Is that correct, Michelle, when you -- after you get all the inspections and the COs and they call you out and you say yeah, you've met the order, that's when they pay you the operational costs? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it all depends. I mean, they could ask what the costs are and they could pay it now or they could pay it later. 47 September 23,2004 There's no due date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, yeah. The sentence just leaves it open to you can ask them for the money whenever, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So that will still stand. You'll still owe that money whenever it is they and you want to work out you having to write them a check. MR. LOMBARDO: That's understood. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we're back to a 90-day extension, to which we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. It's nine minutes of 11 :00. Let's take a nine-minute break. Back at 11:00. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's 11 :00. The board will be called to order, please. We're now into the actual public hearings of cases. MS. ARNOLD: And I do have a request. You have a Case, No. 48 September 23, 2004 2004-042, it's the Board of County Commissioners versus Brad and Phyllis Estes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Staff is at this time asking to remove that from the agenda and it will probably come back at a future agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We've had a request by the staff to amend our agenda to remove Case No. -- due to our amended agenda, which would really be Case No.4, which shows as Case 2 on the actual paper sent us. So if somebody would like to make a motion to -- MS. DUSEK: Just tell me-- MR. PONTE: We're just deleting the case, aren't we? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're going to delete the case from the agenda. It's Case 2004-042. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we amend the agenda to eliminate Case 2004-042. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to remove the case from our agenda. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The first case is Case 2004-048, 49 September 23, 2004 Gutierrez. MS. ARNOLD: This particular case, the county has stipulated -- entered into a stipulated agreement with the respondent. So we have Jeff Letourneau here to speak on this. (Speaker sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This case started back in June 23rd, 2004. I received an anonymous complaint about a structure that had not had any work done on it in a long time. At the site I noticed that the structure appeared to have not been worked on for quite a while. After reviewing the permit, I found that no inspections had been done in over six months, and therefore, I deemed that -- the permit to be in an abandoned condition as according to Ordinance 2002-01, 104.5.144. I then posted the property, had a notice of violation sent certified mail. On July 17th, I found that the permit had not been renewed, so I officially posted the property and the courthouse with a notice of violation and had it sent regular mail. On August 11 th, the permit was still in the same status, so I went to the owner's address of record at 584 105th Avenue North and posted it there. I did some research on the original permit and came across the original builder. I called him up and I got a phone for the -- finally got a phone number for the owner, Mr. Gutierrez. I called him up, I explained what was going on and -- MS. ARNOLD: Jeff, if I can interrupt. If you would just tell the board what the violation is and then what we've agreed to, and then the attorney will just confirm that we -- we're in agreement and then the board can kind of go on. You don't need to go through your testimony. 50 September 23, 2004 MR. LETOURNEAU: All right. The violation is that the house being built at 1815 4 7th Avenue Northeast, the permit is deemed null and abandoned because it hasn't had an inspection in over six months. MR. JANEIRO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jeff Janeiro. I represent Mr. Gutierrez. We're going to be using Maria Lewis. She's a translator for Mr. Gutierrez, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Do they need to be sworn? I don't think they were. MR. BONANNO: Yes, they need to be sworn. MS. ARNOLD: They weren't in the room. (Speakers were duly sworn). MR. JANEIRO: Basically we've agreed to submit a variance petition within 45 days of this -- of the board's disposition today. And within eight months, rather than 120 days of that petition being granted, hopefully, we'll have a CO. And that's about that. MR. BOWIE: What about the building permit application being renewed? MR. JANEIRO: The building permit application, we'll renew that as soon as we get information on the variance. If it's granted, we'll renew it at that point. Ifnot, of course there's no reason to renew a building permit prior to the disposition on the variance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any kind of agreement on possible fines if you don't meet any of these dates? MR. JANEIRO: It's enumerated here in the stipulation, $25 per day if we go over the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 45 days. MR. JANEIRO: -- the 45 days. And $100 per day if we go over the eight months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And there is no part of your agreement concerns the possibility of a demolition permit, right? MR. JANEIRO: There is the possibility of a demolition permit, 51 September 23, 2004 but hopefully we'll be in contact long before that is needed. There is a provision that says that if we need a demolition permit to remove the structure within 60 days of this hearing. So if we hear back that they're not going to grant the variance within 60 days of this hearing, we'll apply for a demolition permit and begin that process. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So your agreement contains that; is that what you're telling me? MR. JANEIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just make a comment that in all fairness, perhaps what we should require them to do is remove the structure within 60 days of the determination of the variance request. Because the variance could take more than 60 days and more than likely it will take more than 60 days from this hearing. MS. BARNETT: So you're saying 60 days from the variance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, 60 days from the-- MS. ARNOLD: Determination of the variance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, would you just itemize what the stipulation is again? Just go like number one, number two. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. They have to submit an application for a variance within 45 days of the hearing or $25 per day would be imposed each day that time period is passed. They need to complete the inspections and obtain certificate of occupancy for the construction of the building in addition to obtaining a new building permit, because the old one is expired, within eight months of a determination of the variance. Alternatively, they would have, with the modifications, 60 days after the determination of the variance to obtain a demo permit and commence the demolition of the structure. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, was there also a -- 52 September 23, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Or $100 per day would be imposed for each of those alternatives. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If he gets the variance, fine, then you have to get a building permit. MR. BOWIE: How about operational costs? MS. ARNOLD: They -- we would ask that they pay operational costs in this case. MR. BOWIE: And that's acceptable to you as it was phrased? MR. JANEIRO: Yeah, that's acceptable to us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Then I'd like to move adoption of the stipulation as it's been reached. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your client's agreeing to this stipulation? He has no problems with it? THE INTERPRETER: Yes, he says everything is fine. He's agreeable. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Fine. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation agreement between the respondent and the county. There's four items on it. Everybody understand the four items? Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. 53 September 23, 2004 Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. JANEIRO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next is Case 2004-052, Russell and Katherine Smith. MS. ARNOLD: The investigator on this case is Carol Sykora, and Mr. Smith is also present. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: Mr. Smith is -- for the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Morning. MS. SYKORA: Almost good afternoon. Mr. Smith has signed a stipulation agreement this morning. He's agreeing that the violations noted in the notice of violation are accurate, and he stipulates to their existence. And the violations are that of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 2.2.2.2.1 of Ordinance No. 90-102, as amend, of the Collier County Land Development Code: The outside storage of several unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicles on agriculturally zoned property. He's agreed to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, which is the total of $350; abate all violations by affixing a current and valid license plate to each vehicle and repair defects so vehicles are operable within 20 days of this hearing, or storing all vehicles in a completely enclosed building within 20 days of this hearing, or removing all vehicles from the property within 20 days of this hearing, or a fine of $50 a day will be incurred until the violation is abated. And also the respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Smith, did you understand and 54 ...~---~,~«~----- September 23, 2004 agree with all this? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you agree to the agreement? MR. SMITH: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the stipulated agreement between the county and the respondent. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement between the county and the respondent. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Next, Case 2004-040, Ronald Summers. MR. BONANNO: This is the Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald Summers. We have previously submitted a packet of information to the respondent and the board that we would ask be submitted as Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. 55 ,_, ......,."_,,_.._'."",..,....,,~,,>'''^. __'-u'_,__.n ""' "..., _._..,._~~~., September 23, 2004 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MR. BONANNO: Let the record show that the respondent, Mr. Summers, is appearing today. This Code Enforcement Board Case 2004-040 is a violation of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.6.7.5, Paragraph A of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The violation is described as an addition to the -- excuse me, the addition of a second floor loft and/or office without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit, having all of the required inspections and receiving a certificate of occupancy. The address of the violation is 4776 Radio Road, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 00384000001. The owner of the property is Ronald Summers, who is located at 5790 12th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. The violation was first observed on March 16th, 2004. The notice of violation was dated March 17th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected on April 1st, 2004. The date of reinspection was July 26th, 2004. And the result of that reinspection were that the violation remained. 56 September 23,2004 MS. BARNETT: Would you repeat the Folio No., please? MS. ARNOLD: It has been changed because it's not the correct one as stated on the deed, so we noted in the record the correct Folio Number. MS. BARNETT: Okay. But I didn't catch it while he was reading it. MS. RAWSON: It's the one that's on the deed, not the one that's on the statement of the violation. MS. ARNOLD: You want him to read it again? MS. BARNETT: If it's on the deed, I can look it up. Thank you. MR. BONANNO: And at this time, I will turn the case over to the investigator, Tom Campbell. (Speaker sworn.) MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, my name is Tom Campbell. I'm the investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. I was in the area -- this property is part of a complex, a condo complex that's known as Radio Road executive warehouses condominium. The unit we're talking about is Building C, Number 101. And the violation is that a second floor 10ft was added without permits with the ancillary stair, and the loft is used for three offices -- is divided into three offices and occupied by employees. I was in the area -- they have restricted parking there, and I was following up on a case I had for a parking violation. I noticed a blue pickup truck in the -- blocking the aisleway, so I pulled my truck over to the side and walked into the building because it's right in front of Mr. Summers' place of business. And I thought possibly that somebody had just run in and was in violation of blocking the aisleway. I found the subcontractor and told him, and he gladly moved the vehicle. And while I was there, I noted that there was a second floor addition -- and you have that in your packet with the pictures -- with the stairwell. I knew that these were restricted as to single-story 57 "..~-"""----"""--,,,,<,.,...~~...,, September 23, 2004 warehouse spaces, and I took a photograph at that time. I didn't approach the owners because I wasn't sure if they were permitted or not. I went back to the office. Tuesday morning I had a chance to -- the following morning, which was the 17th, I had a chance to investigate it, and I found out that there was no valid permit on record and the premises had been built illegally and occupied as an office illegally. I contacted Mr. Summers -- I stopped out -- we immediately mailed a notice of violation. Nobody was at the site when I attempted personal service, and then we mailed the notice of violation by certified mail. Mr. Summers contacted me a few days after that and -- a few days after receipt of the certified letter, and he said he wanted a meeting. And we established a meeting on May 17th. And at the meeting, Mr. Summers, Mr. Sweeney, another owner out there, was present, along with Ms. Arnold, Ross Gochenaur of the planning department, Ms. Petrulli, my supervisor, and myself. We explained there were some issues about the parking spaces, and we explained that the -- you know, they previously put in for site development plans amendments and it was denied twice, and it was really useless for their trying to amend the parking. That issue was addressed. And then we went to Mr. Summers' problem with the illegal 10ft. Mr. Summers acknowledged that he had built the loft and that he was in the process of relocating. We suggested that he relocate the office immediately to, you know, get in compliance and get a demolition permit to pull out the wall. He said that's not advantageous to him, that he'd like to get a deferment so he could continue with construction of the new facility. And he was told that we had to proceed -- we don't have jurisdiction to authorize that type of extension of time. He was -- it was explained that we'd proceed toward the Code Enforcement Board enforcement and presenting the case here, that 58 . ~w~___'"...._,_,'~~_;_ September 23, 2004 administrative costs would be -- probable costs would be what they would be, and at that time he could make a presentation to you all for any further extensions than we had allowed. And we proceeded to -- he didn't make compliance on several previous -- subsequent visits, and so we proceeded here to the Code Enforcement Board. I made a visit yesterday. The unit was still not in compliance. Nothing had been done. In the morning I checked and there had -- at that time there was no permit. Since that time, this morning Mr. Summers gave me a copy of a demolition permit that he had gotten, I think it was 1 :30 or 2:00 yesterday afternoon for demolition of that 10ft. What we're asking for is that the respondent be found in violation of the code and ordered to pay all administrative costs; be ordered to get the demolition permit, which he has already done, but to demolish the loft, get the associated inspections and the certificate of occupancy all within 60 days from the date of this hearing and -- or a fine of $100 a day be imposed. This is yesterday's photograph that the -- it's in addition -- it's almost identical to the photographs that you have in your packet. So that's the status of the situation as of yesterday afternoon. And the $100 a day beyond the 60 days and that when he has the problem abated, that he contact us and I'll make an inspection and close the case. MR. PONTE: Investigator, I have a question. Are there people working in the loft? MR. CAMPBELL: I believe there are three. At one time I saw three ladies employed there, yes. MR. PONTE: And do they work in that 10ft during their entire work day or are they even -- MR. CAMPBELL: I'm presuming they do. One of my concerns is that the loft covers about half of the floor space above a warehouse, and that's filled with PVC pipe and plumbing items. Mr. Summers' 59 September 23, 2004 business is plumbing. And I believe there is not only PVC piping there but there are solvents, glues, the glues associated with that. The stairway comes down to the middle of that first floor, and it's a few steps away from the door and exit. And we're thinking about a fire. And it could be a catastrophe if somebody were caught upstairs. MR. PONTE: Is it a hazardous situation? Are there any windows up there? MR. CAMPBELL: There is one window up there. I talked to the ladies on one of my visits and I said, you know, if there should be a fire, don't hesitate to go that route. MR. PONTE: Why are we giving -- or suggesting to the respondent that he has 60 days to fix the problem if we've got a hazardous condition here? MR. CAMPBELL: I contacted the fire marshal. And that's the jurisdiction. And I believe that was on 5/17. And I really did not receive a response from them. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Summers, your turn, sir. MR. SUMMERS: Yeah. First of all, I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I'm not an attorney. I didn't -- I've been laughing about that the whole time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. SUMMERS: And Tom has been very kind, because we have butted heads. This is, you know, a very touchy situation for me, because it's an expensive proposition. And I did sidestep the county as far as building this. Although when I built it, I was very concerned as far as doing things up to code. I have engineered trusses in there. This doesn't look very good, the 60 ""_,,.,_.""""'-~""""""'''_'''''''-'.''''''"''-'- ., September 23, 2004 picture, because that's the warehouse area. The actual office area looks just like this. It's got, you know, drywall, it's got -- it's very professionally built. And that's one of the reasons I think that the fire marshal hasn't responded to this, because the issue was brought up four years ago. We met with the county, sat down, and I think Michelle Arnold was there at that time. And we had a big panel, we had a lot of people there. And there were a lot of issues brought up with the fact that how this building got built in the first place with the assumption that we can even have businesses in there. And I realize it's not the county's fault that I was misled to the idea that I could have a business in there. I also realize that I built it without a permit, which brings me to your -- in front of you with a plea. And I'm really at your mercy, because whatever you guys deem that I have to do, that's what I've got to do. But there's a lot of issues involved in this park, and I really think that this park had brought out a lot of things that made the entire county change their permitting issues. I don't want to go back to why the building was built and how many parking spaces there were in the beginning, but the SDPs have been changed to allow more parking area in that. And when I first bought the building, I came from Enterprise Park, and there's no -- there's no parking there whatsoever. So when I bought this place, the realtor, I told him, I says I have a business and I want to put a business in there. He showed me a piece of paper -- I don't have it with me, I do have one -- and it stated all the accessories that we could have: Air conditioning and all that kind of stuff. I was misled in that sense. And so when I sidestepped building the unit, I was simply trying to save my company some money. That's all I was doing. I didn't know that I was doing anything wrong. And where I'm at right now is I have bought a piece of property 61 September 23, 2004 and right now I have (sic) in the planning stages of building. There's a rendition of the building and I have some pictures of the upstairs office right now. But like two years ago I bought a half acre piece of commercial property. Since time has gotten ahold of me and really put the squeeze on me, I've gone to a contractor and told him that I've got to do something about this. So right now I'm in the middle of, you know, creative financing, how am I going to get this building built. And I have 15 employees over the summer, and it goes as high as 20 employees. So I have an obligation to them, I can't -- right now the company rents this building for 1,300. Another thing that's happened since this has occurred, I've went around and checked to see how much it would cost to rent another place. Just for the office of the size that we have, it's the exact amount that we're renting the space that I have for that office. So we'd have to move into an office, build it up, pay that in addition to the warehouse. And my business has been getting by with $1,350 rent this whole time. And it's not that it can't handle that expense, but what I see is, if I have to spread myself out that thin, this building gets further and further away. I'm not really sure when this building can be built. Gates McVey -- we appeared, I think it was about a month ago, with a representative from Gates McVey, and I'm sorry, but the county did the same thing to me that Doug was talking about, and that was that I had a notice to appear and it really was just a preliminary or it was just a -- it wasn't my date to appear. So I had the contractor at that time to let you know that I was in the process. And I don't have any representation here today. But I think what I'm asking for is they've given me 60 days. This is a 900 square foot, or almost 1,000 square foot second building structure. It's like a house out there. To tear it down is going to take more than 30 days, not to mention the time that it takes me to do that, 62 .-..~~,---_._..._~" September 23, 2004 find a place, set up the offices and the computer equipment and the files and all that kind of stuff. There's a lot of address changing. Just a very expensive proposition that puts me further away from this. And I think what I'm doing is, the only thing that I can ask you for is an extension greater than 60 days, at least a year. And if I can't make this here surface in a year, then I'm going to come back and ask for another extension and let you know where I'm at that time. I would like to say there has not been one complaint with me being there for five years. I've been there for five years, not been one complaint. The only complaint I got is from the county, and the only reason that they knew that I was there is because I had a guy down there doing some work and he left a door open. But the construction industry is such a difficult trade, we're constantly going around finding out, you know -- we put buildings together, and that's the furthest away from our ability to obtain a building to house our business. And so frankly, I just cheated the system so I could have my business grow and I could, rather than operate out of my house, be in a commercial area where I'm supposed to be. I'm a very clean plumbing contractor. And if you look at the pictures, everything's lined up. There are solvents in there, those can be removed and relocated if there's things like that that would make the board happier. But I don't like a mess, and I'm constantly on my guys as far as keeping the outside clean, the inside clean. And I'm just not -- I'm not a trashy plumber. So that's one of the reasons that we haven't been -- haven't had any complaints, because we're just -- my guys come in in the morning, use the business as a warehouse, but yet we have people up there in the office to conduct business. I don't know what else I can say in my defense, aside from showing you what it looks like on the inside, but -- MR. PONTE: Mr. Summers, my concern is for your employees. 63 --,..,..,..~.,._.._---_.., September 23, 2004 And is there any way that you can find alternative office space for them? I mean, certainly I think 60 days is much too long a gamble. Now I hear you talking about a year. MR. SUMMERS: Well, yeah, I can find office space. And like I said -- all I'm saying is if I'm forced to find another office space, it's going to put me further away from here and -- MR. PONTE: Well, the alternative is that you're putting employees at risk. MR. SUMMERS: I would like to dispute that, but I'm not going to insult your integrity. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Summers? MR. SUMMERS: Yes. MS. BARNETT: In that dispute, I'm going to ask you one question, because I'm sort of siding with my colleague: Is there more than one exit out of your office complex, the second loft? MR. SUMMERS: No, there isn't. MS. BARNETT: So if there were a fire below, how are your employees going to get out? MR. SUMMERS: If I could make a second exit, and make that happen, I'd do that. If I could just stay there. MS. BARNETT: That's where our concern is. So that's what I'm having a problem with. And that's also why you have code -- code enforcement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess, Mr. Summers, hearing what you're saying, I understand everything you've said, except that you have a business where you built a 10ft without permits, you admitted that you did it without permits. You've been there five years, and now you want us to give you up to another year's extension to violate the codes, which I'm not in favor of doing. I'm leaning toward the 60 days, and I guess you understand that if we would follow the recommendation of the county and you don't remove it and we impose some type of a fine, the fine's going to cost 64 September 23, 2004 you a lot more money than moving your offices. MR. SUMMERS: It's going to do that right now. I've got a structure out there I can't get down and it's going to take 30 days. Not only that but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. MR. SUMMERS: -- I have to find a place and relocate. Sixty days doesn't find me much time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just trying to tell you that we're not really in the business of because you don't want to spend money to relocate we're going to let you continually violate an ordinance. That's not what we do. Okay? If you're guilty, and you've admitted you're guilty, because you said you did it without permits, that's pretty straightforward. Now we're going to order you to do something else. And I want you to understand that. I don't know what that is yet, that has to be a consensus of the board. But we're looking to you, if you want to tell us you're willing to do something else, that might help. But I'm personally not interested in giving you a year's extension. That's just unreasonable to me. There's other spaces in this town you can rent that it's going to cost you money. It's kind of like insurance, you know, you don't use it and then you use it one time. Well, you got away with it five years, now you're caught. MR. SUMMERS: I know about insurance. You can ask Tom, he knows my story. Insurance isn't what it's all cracked up to be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MR. SUMMERS: And pretty much with these -- pretty much with these codes, it's the same thing. These are codes that are simply put out there for the public to adhere by, and yet there's other towns that have not quite the same codes, and for years we haven't had problems with, you know, what I have up there. What I'm going to ask is that the board be reasonable and give me enough time to get out of there. I have been looking around for a 65 .-..""'.---'''''''--....--....' September 23, 2004 place and I do have a place in mind to move to. I haven't neglected my responsibility as far as looking for an alternative if the board wasn't willing to work with me. So if you would at least allow me enough time to get out of there and get into the office that I have found that we can move into regardless of the cost. The only thing I said about the cost was it's going to put me further away from this. Not your problem, I understand. I'll just submit it in my next plumbing -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How much time do you need to move? MR. SUMMERS: I would like at least six months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Six months to move some administrative offices. MR. SUMMERS: Well, not to move. That's to move and to tear down. To move, I only need a couple of months. I guess as soon as I leave here, I'm going to go ahead and secure the property. But as far as tearing down that structure, you know, there's a lot in there to -- I've got a lot invested in that structure, regardless if I put it up illegally or not. I would like a little bit of time to disassemble it. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about if we break this down to two different issues. The first issue I think is a safety issue with having people, employees in there. If you were to take it and maybe give a short time for you to move your employees, that would be one time frame. The second time frame would be to remove the structure. I think what we're trying to get at is to have the structure vacant. We do not want to have employees at risk, as it stands now. So if we can remove those employees, have it vacant, maybe we would be able, be willing __ I know I would be willing to give a little more time to have the structure removed. Because that's going to be added expense. MS. BARNETT: Having personally moved an office because I have an associate that used to like to move every two years, we've been able to do it in a week. And we are a financial advisory office, 66 September 23, 2004 and we have files that we have to keep in place and in order, as well as our equipment. So I think two months to move an office is a rather long time. MR. SUMMERS: Did you plan? Did you spend any time planning or did you say okay, let's move and move? MS. BARNETT: We planned. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. That took a little bit of time as well. All I'm trying to say is that when I leave here, I'm not going to go pack a suitcase and leave. I can't. MS. BARNETT: We located a location, which took probably a couple of weeks, but you said you've already done some of that footwork and have one in mind. We then signed a contract. And from the time of the contract, it took us one weekend. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. I don't know why you're trying to squeeze me so tight here. I've been there for five years. Two months is a reasonable amount of time to move-- MR. PONTE: The reason we're concerned is that you have three employees working in a firetrap. MR. SUMMERS: Okay, you can -- you know, you can make something sound really bad. Anybody can do that. Making things sound horrible is a very easy thing to do. Being pessimistic and horrible and that is an easy thing to do. I'm trying to keep my company intact, move things without losing records and that sort of thing, and give my employees a chance to prepare for that. There's not only just moving the stuff, but it's the whole structure of my company, how things are going to operate. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Summers, you've been actually in violation for five years, and you were notified in March of this year. So you've had at least six months to make preparation to move. And I am certainly not inclined to give you any more than 60 days to have you move completely out of there, do whatever has to be done. 67 ,-,-......-_-'~",'-~^.,.,,'_._~_._"'...,."~.,-,.""" September 23, 2004 MR. SUMMERS: Sixty days is fine. That's all I'm asking for, 60 days, two months. Sixty days is fine. MS. DUSEK: Where was your earlier comment of -- MR. BOWIE: A year. MS. DUSEK: -- a year, then five months -- MR. SUMMERS: Well, that has already been sidestepped. You know, you said you weren't going to let me stay in there for a year. So I said well, how about six months to tear it down, as Gerald had mentioned. You know, six months to tear it down but get the people out of there. Two -- you know, 60 days if you can get the people out of there, relocate. Because I do want to secure the place that I have found before somebody else does. MS. DUSEK: It's not going to take you 60 days to move people out. It will not. And you've had time. I'm sure this has been in your mind since you were cited this year. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. I guess what I'm-- MS. DUSEK: I have one more question, excuse me. When you added this, did you have a contractor? MR. SUMMERS: No, I didn't. MS. DUSEK: You did it yourself? MR. SUMMERS: I had people that have worked in that trade do the work on the side. I didn't do it myself. MS. BARNETT: From the pictures, it looks like a very nice structure. MR. SUMMERS: Oh, those pictures aren't anything. MS. BARNETT: Well, I'm just saying. But we have concerns, one that I pointed out to you about the lack of exits in case there were a fire below, which is where the solvents and those types of things that can be flammable are. That's where our major concern is, and that's why we want to see your employees moved to a safe haven. And that's where we're really trying to drive home to you. We're not trying to be -- squeeze you, as you're saying. We wanted to let you know 68 >"'"'.."""~'-"'-----'.~ September 23, 2004 that's our concern. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. I understand. Then I'd like to ask the board to give me 60 days to move out, to vacate the office area and relocate that. And are you saying to me that you don't want me using the warehouse at all? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You weren't cited for the warehouse. You're cited for the loft that you built without a permit. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. So if I move the office out of there -- I'm asking if I can have 60 days to move the office out of there and then an additional six months to prepare and find out how to get that thing tore down. And get it tore down within six months. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question for you. A demolition permit, how long does it take to get one? MS. ARNOLD: He has one. He obtained one -- MR. CAMPBELL: He picked one up yesterday. MS. DUSEK: That's right. MS. ARNOLD: He obtained one yesterday, and it's good for six months from yesterday. MS. BARNETT: I may be in -- I'm just going to throw a number out here, 45 days to get his office moved-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's us-- MS. DUSEK: We haven't cited him yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's finish with getting questions, and then we'll get to debate whether he's in violation and what we want him to do. Any other questions for Mr. Summers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald Summers, CEB Case No. 69 September 23, 2004 2004-040, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5, Paragraph A of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Addition added to second floor 10ft office without first obtaining authorization of a Collier County building permit, having all of the required inspections and receiving a certificate of occupancy. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Order of the board? Mr. Summers, you can sit down, sir, you don't have to stand there. MS. BARNETT: I'll go back to my jumping -- I was thinking along the lines of possibly giving him 45 days to completely move his office. That's securing another location, because there is contractual agreements that you have to sign and that type of thing. And possibly 120 days from this date to have it completely demolished. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the demolition permit is for six months, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but you can give-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, we can give a shorter time frame. I 70 September 23, 2004 think if the property is vacated, the second floor, it's removing the safety issue. I think maybe the six months at that point, I'd be comfortable with six months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that's what you're proposing anyway, 45 days to move the people and six months -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Forty-five days and six months. MR. PONTE: I -- fires start fast, they're quick, and they're deadly. Forty-five days is unconscionable. I can't see that at all. It would be two weeks and then we're at risk. And if the employees are not out of there in two weeks, there should be a fine of $250 a, day. This is a serious situation. We've got three women working in a windowless loft with one exit, and inflammable materials and possibly inflammable materials stored beneath them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. George, how about if we -- to help maybe ease it -- and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with 45 days. To help the people that are up there, what if we order him to immediately remove any flammable materials from his warehouse? That gets those out of there, which are the biggest threat of fire. We can order him to remove them immediately. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then give him "X" time, whatever it is that we can come to agreement on. Would that work for you? MR. PONTE: That works for me. MR. BOWIE: My concern about that is we're asking him to do something which is not required of him by statute as a condition of allowing him to continue to do something which is prohibited by statute. That worries me a little bit. MS. DUSEK: That worries me also. And I think that he should have to remove everything out of there immediately. People especially. I think 45 days is too long. He's known about this since March. He could have made preparation, knowing that he would be coming before the board. 71 September 23, 2004 So I feel that, with George, that there is a strong safety issue, even if the flammable material was taken out. If for some other reason the downstairs caught on fire, there's still risk. So I'm not in favor of having any flammable material removed, I'm just in favor of getting the people out of there and having that office closed up immediately. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question/problem. He was cited for not having a permit for building something. Through the information that's come forward to us, we're concerned about people, because there may be a safety hazard/fire. In his information to us, he cites that this could be financially threatening, I guess, to his business in having to do all this and the costs associated and so on, so forth. What -- how far is our latitude? If we order him to get all the people out tomorrow, which he wasn't cited for that, he was just cited for this permit, and financially, you know, if something happened to his business -- I'm looking for how far can we go. And I don't want to overstep our bounds. MS. RAWSON: He was cited for building this -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Without a permit -- the second floor without a permit. MS. RAWSON: Which he has admitted to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He admitted it. MS. RAWSON: So you're going to have to order him, if that's the pleasure of the board, to remove his office and demolish the improvements. You can put that in two stages, which I think is Ms. Dusek's motion. It's okay to put it in two stages, because what you're telling him is you don't have a permit and so therefore you're going to have to demolish the improvements. You can do that in two stages, if you want, or you can do it all within a certain period of time. He wasn't cited for any of the hazardous violations or fire code 72 September 23, 2004 violations, and that wouldn't be your prerogative anyway. But you do need to always consider if there are health and safety issues, which I think you've done. So all you have to do is, you know, give a reasonable order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: And I don't -- Bobbie, I understand your concern, but I think in moving an office and locating a space, even though he has had time, he has not done that. You've got to give him a reasonable amount of time to get that done. And I think immediately is not reasonable. I'll be glad to change if you guys can come up with a number for me. MR. PONTE: Fifteen days, how's that? You did it in 15 days. MS. BARNETT: Yeah. MR. PONTE: Only you weren't in a hazardous situation. So then how about seven days, does that sound more reasonable? MS. BARNETT: I don't know if that's possible with trying to procure a place, getting a contract signed and getting all of your office packed up and moved. That's my concern. MS. DUSEK: I think that's a problem he's going to have to face. And also, just as an addition, I work for a large company, and we moved in just a matter of days. So I think that's a problem he's -- the mechanics of it he'll have to face. I think we need to give him a short time frame to do it. But a reasonable -- I mean, I'm not saying -- when I say immediate I don't mean tomorrow. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about 21 days? MR. BOWIE: In terms of what's reasonable, I mean, it's certainly not uncommon for a -- a business to lose its lease with 30 days notice. If you're on a month-to-month you may get 30 days notice that your lease is terminated and you move. You find an alternative location and you move. So that's certainly not an uncommon situation. And that's typically 30 days. 73 September 23, 2004 MR. HEMES: And then there's also plenty of temporary office space available that he could move into on a month-to-month basis, and that he could sign up for tomorrow. MS. BARNETT: So 15 days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, what we need to do is have somebody make a motion with a date for I guess in two parts: One, a date to move the people and the second, a date to remove this unpermitted structure. And let's see how it flies. I mean, we can each have our own recommendations, but until we put a motion forward where everybody can say yea or nay or ask you to change it. So let's put one forward and see what we do. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we ask the respondent to remove his employees within 15 days from this hearing to another location for his office complex, and that we give him 60 days from this date to demolish his structure that was built without a permit. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second, 15 days to remove the employees, 60 days to remove the unpermitted structure. MS. DUSEK: Or a fine of what? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we haven't got that far yet. The motion is just for those two, and then there'll have to be a motion to add a fine, unless we can convince both parties to amend the motion to add a fine and the operational costs and the second agrees. MS. BARNETT: Okay. A fine of -- I will amend my motion to add a fine that if he does not have the employees moved within 15 days, that a fine of $200 a day will incur. And that if has not got the demolition completed after six months, that $100 a day will incur. MS. DUSEK: Operational costs? MS. BARNETT: And operational costs. MS. ARNOLD: Did you say 60 days first time, not six months? MR. HEMES: Sixty days you meant, not six months. 74 September 23, 2004 MS. BARNETT: I actually said six months for the demolition, after the people were moved out. MS. DUSEK: I thought you said 60 days. MR. HEMES: You said sixty days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said sixty days. MS. BARNETT: I meant six months. I'm sorry. MR. HEMES: Well, I'll withdraw my second then. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said 15 days and 60 days. Now you want to -- he's withdrawing his second, so -- MS. BARNETT: Okay, I'll go back to -- I guess I'll say 15 days and 60 days, then. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So it is 15 days and 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: You renew your second then. MR. HEMES: And I will renew my second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Plus the -- MS. BARNETT: Plus the fines of$200 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two hundred and 100. MS. BARNETT: And any operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And operational costs. Okay. Everybody understand the motion and the second on the floor? Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: Could I just ask one thing, sort of as a friendly suggestion, that you both want to amend this motion perhaps not just to require that he cease staging or locating employees in this loft addition, but that he cease all use of the loft addition. MS. BARNETT: So done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody understand that? And I assume the amend will go along with that addition -- MR. HEMES: Definitely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is to remove the employees within 15 days and cease use of the space at the end of that 15-day period, or a 75 September 23, 2004 fine of $200 a day, and remove the unpermitted space within 60 days or $100 a day fine if it's not removed. Everybody understand? MR. BOWIE: Plus operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Plus the operational costs. I'm trying to keep with the space first so we all understand where that is. The operational is easy. Everybody understand that? MR. HEMES: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion about it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 6-1. Mr. Summers, you still here? Yes, sir. Do you understand what we've done, sir? MR. SUMMERS: I don't know why, but yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Next case, 2004-044. I know I'm going to mess this up. Canvinas (sic) Reynolds and Edie Hunter. MR. BONANNO: It's the Board of County Commissioners versus Reynold Cavins and Edie Hunter. We previously submitted a packet of information to the board and the respondent that we would like to be entered as Exhibit A at this time, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's 76 September 23, 2004 Exhibit A. MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BONANNO: I'd like to ask if the respondent is in the room today? (N 0 response.) MR. BONANNO: Please let the record show that the respondent is not appearing today. Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2004-004 is a violation of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.6.7.1. The violation is described as an unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicle in the rear of yard. The violation exists at 819 Church Street, Copeland, Florida. More particularly described as Folio No. 1134802005, 135229 un -- excuse me, 135229 unrecorded parcel 73 described as -- I'm sorry. Again, I'm just filling in. The name and address of owner or person in charge of the location is Reynolds Cavins and Edie Hunter, P.O. Box 461, Copeland, Florida 34137 and P.O. Box 348, Everglades City, Florida, 34139. 77 -~-_... -'^.....~._.~-"'" September 23, 2004 The violation was first observed on May 19th, 2004. The owner was given the notice of violation on May 20th, 2004 by certified mail, return receipt requested, of which green card was returned signed for by respondent on June 21st, 2004. The violation was to be corrected on June 28th, 2004. There was a reinspection on August 17th, 2004, and as of that date, the violation still remained. I will now turn the case over to the investigator, John Santafemia. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: It's still morning. Good morning. For the record, my name is John Santafemia, code enforcement investigator for Collier County. On May 19th, 2004, while patrolling the Copeland area of unincorporated Collier County I observed five vehicles being stored in the rear yard at 819 Church Street. I spoke with the property owner, Mr. Cavins, and advised him that all the vehicles need to be -- need to have valid license plates affixed and be operable. I also informed him that an alternative was to remove the vehicles or store them in a fully enclosed building. On June 8th, 2004, I completed a reinspection of the property and noted that the vehicles remained on the property. The condition of the vehicles was unchanged and they were still being stored in the rear yard without valid license plates. I attempted to make contact with Mr. Cavins; however, no one was at home at the time. I obtained photos of the vehicles and prepared a notice of violation for the property owner of record, which was sent via certified mail. On June 28th, 2004, I completed another reinspection of the property and again noted no change in the condition of the vehicles. I received the return receipt from the certified mailing at that time, signed on June 21 st, 2004. At that time, I sent Mr. Cavins a Code Enforcement Board warning letter. 78 September 23, 2004 On July 20th, 2004, I completed a reinspection of the property and again noted no change in the condition of the vehicles. On July 23rd, 2004, Mr. Cavins contacted me and advised me that he had begun to remove the vehicles and he needed more time to comply. I agreed to extend the deadline and advised him that if he were not in compliance by my next inspection, I would forward the case to Code Enforcement Board. On August 11, 2004 I completed an inspection of the property and noted that four of the five vehicles remained in the rear yard and the condition was unchanged. And at that point I prepared the case for this board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for the investigator? MR. PONTE: Just one. Investigator, in your oral statement you said there are five cars? MR. SANTAFEMIA: There were initially five vehicles. On my last inspection, which was August 11 th, one vehicle was removed. So there remained -- four vehicles remained on the property. MS. BARNETT: Is one of those a trailer? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Pardon me? MS. BARNETT: Is one of those a trailer? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Yes. MR. HEMES: That's an Oldsmobile, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I saw a camper there. MR. SANT AFEMIA: There was a -- there is a camper back there. I don't have a picture of it at this time, but it's in your packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's in our packet, that's where I get mIne. MS. BARNETT: No one's living in that, though? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. MR. BOWIE: It's amazing to me that he could even have removed one of these, seeing the condition there, without destroying 79 September 23, 2004 exotic species or something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it looks a little -- MR. BOWIE: It's kind of become part of the landscaping. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. DUSEK: I have one. Not for the inspector but either for Jean or for Michelle. Could someone explain what the corporate deed is? How does that differ? MS. RAWSON: I think this is the case where I don't know that I have the complete legal. A corporate deed basically tells you whether it's the name of the corporation or not. In this particular case, you've cited an individual, not a corporation. MR. BOWIE: It's not titled in the name of a corporation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I mean what -- how is that coming up? A corporation sold it to two people. MS. RAWSON: That's why it's the corporate deed. It was sold to the Cavins by a corporation in Fort Myers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: By a Temple of Judea. MR. BOWIE: Which is not really relevant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's just some corporation sold two people a piece of land. MS. RAWSON: I think what I'm missing is the Exhibit A, which is the full legal. But that's okay, I'll get it later before we record it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Finding of fact by the board. Thank you, sir. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Reynolds -- excuse me, Reynolds L. Cavins and Edie Hunter, in CEB Case No. 2004-044, that a violation does exist. 80 September 23, 2004 The violation is of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.6.7.1. Description of the violation: Unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicles in rear of yard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion in fact a violation does exist. Is there a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. MS. DUSEK: Before we finish up, looking back at what I said, I know that right now the vehicles are in the rear of yard. Should we just leave that part out? Because if they were to move it to the front of the yard, does that eliminate them the violation? Do you understand what I'm saying? Should I just say -- MR. BOWIE: It says remove from property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just from the property. Is there a house on this property, sir? MR. SANTAFEMIA: There's a mobile home. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mobile home. Okay. Let's just say from property. MS. DUSEK: From property, okay. Or on the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion and a second that in fact the violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? 81 September 23, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. PONTE: I have a question. In the recommendation from the county, recommended a fine of $50 a day. Is that -- each vehicle that's not tagged is a violation. So are you talking about $50 per vehicle or $50 -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: Per vehicle, that's correct. MR. PONTE: Per vehicle. MR. SANT AFEMIA: I think it's also important to know that prior to this case, to me opening this case, I had met with the Copeland Civic Association president, and in July of this year they had a clean-up weekend out there where they did also accept vehicles, which all the residents were aware of. So he did have the opportunity to at no cost to him get rid of anything he wanted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George, in line with that, Jean, let me ask you a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think I know the answer, but I'll ask it anyway. There was one violation tag issued for all these vehicles located. If we wanted to do $50 per vehicle, because each one is a violation, would we not have to do -- there'd have to be five violations. And it's one violation for five vehicles. That's the way the tag was written up when he gave them a ticket. MS. RAWSON: Well, on the statement of violation they've been charged with unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicles, with an liS", in rear of yard. So I think you can make it per vehicle. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And in the NOV, it did say five vehicles. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't want to get trapped where we do something that -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I always look at the statement of violation as the charging document, if you would, and it's got an "s" after 82 September 23, 2004 vehicles. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So George, your -- you can do that if you'd like, per vehicle. MR. PONTE: Yes, per vehicle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And right now he's told us there are only four left. MR. SANT AFEMIA: At the time of my last inspection, there were four. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if you want to do something like that, George, then you would have -- rather than use a quantity, make it -- and this is just a suggestion, not what you're going to do. It would be $50 per day -- MR. BOWIE: Per vehicle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- per vehicle violation, with no number of vehicles. That way if he goes there and there's 10 vehicles, then it's 10 vehicles. So don't put a number of vehicles in there, just $50 per day, or whatever number per vehicle per day. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make a motion then that in the case of-- Case No. 2004-044, that the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and further abate all violations by either obtaining a valid license plate for all vehicles and make all vehicles operational within 30 days or a fine of $50 per vehicle will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Or alternatively, respondent within 30 days will remove all unlicensed inoperable vehicles from the property or store all the vehicles in a fully enclosed building or a fine of $50 per vehicle will be imposed for each day the violation continues. And further, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm the abatement. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second 83 September 23, 2004 for the order of the board. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2004-045, Monroe Graham and Daisy Bell. MR. BONANNO: We have previously submitted a packet of information to the respondent and the board, and we would ask that that be entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. 84 September 23, 2004 MR. BONANNO: This is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2004-045, the Board of County Commissioners versus Monroe Graham and Daisy Bell. The violation is that of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.6.7.1. The violation is described as unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicle parked in side yard. The violation is located at 210 Brockington Drive, Copeland, Florida. More particularly described as Folio 1134640005. The name and address of person in charge of location is Monroe Graham and Daisy Bell, P.O. Box 122, Copeland, Florida, 34137. The violation was first observed on June 14th, 2004. The owners were given notice of violation on June 14th, 2004 by certified mail, return receipt requested, returned unclaimed, and regular U.S. Mail and posting of property and courthouse. The violation was to be corrected on July 12th, 2004 and August 9th, 2004. A reinspection occurred on August 17th, 2004, and as of that date the violation still remains. I'll now turn the case over once again to John Santafemia. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, my name is John Santafemia. I'm a code enforcement investigator for Collier County. On June 14th, 2004, while patrolling Copeland area of unincorporated Collier County, I observed a vehicle being stored in the side yard at 210 Brockington Drive. Upon closer inspection, I noted that the vehicle was a white Cadillac and did not have a license plate affixed and appeared inoperable. I stopped and spoke with a female resident at that location, explained that the violation -- that it was a violation of county ordinance to store an unregistered vehicle in a residentially zoned area of the county unless it was in a fully enclosed building. I requested 85 September 23, 2004 she correct the violation as soon as possible. She failed to respond verbally; however, she nodded as if she understood. On June 21st, 2004, I completed a reinspection of the property, noted that the vehicle remained on the property. The condition of the vehicle was unchanged and was still being stored in the side yard without a current license plate affixed. I attempted to make contact with the resident; however, no one was at home at that time. I obtained photos of the vehicle and prepared a notice of violation for the property owner of record, which was sent via certified mail. On July 12th, 2004, I completed another reinspection of the property and again noted no change in the condition of the vehicle. I had not received the return receipt from the certified mailing at that time; therefore, I scheduled the case for another inspection. On July 19th, 2004, I completed a reinspection of the property and again noted no change in the condition of the vehicle. I still had not received the return receipt from the certified mailing of the notice of violation, so I decided to wait several more days. On July 21 st, 2004, I had not received the return receipt back; therefore, I prepared an updated notice of violation for this violation. I completed a reinspection of the property and again noted no change in the condition of the vehicle. I attempted personal service of the notice; however, no one was at home. I then posted the notice of violation on the door and also at the Collier County Courthouse. I obtained photos of the po stings and a copy was sent to the owner via first class mail. I completed the affidavits of po stings and mailings at that time. On August 9th, 2004, I completed a reinspection of the property. I noted the vehicle remained in the same location with its condition unchanged. The original notice of violation was returned unclaimed by the post office. I then began preparing the case for Code Enforcement 86 September 23, 2004 Board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions of our investigator? MR. PONTE: Just one. Is this just one car parked under a tarpaulin? Is that what we have? MR. SANTAFEMIA: That's correct, it's one vehicle, and I believe that's a rug. MR. BOWIE: It's colorful. Could I just note one thing? Apparently in the title of this case, the name of one of the respondents is -- it's not fully correct. If you look at the deed, Daisy Bell is actually Daisy Bell Graham, the wife of Monroe Graham. And maybe we need to amend the case to reflect that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think that they were saying -- I'm guessing, the way they have it written it, they have Graham, comma, Monroe and Daisy Bell. I think they mean Daisy Bell Graham. I think that's what they're trying to say. Maybe it's not the clearest writing, but I think that's what they were trying to do. And they did on their notice of hearing probably do it wrong, because those letters have Bell, comma, Daisy, so they did give her a second name of Bell. So I think we need to make note, do we not, Jean, that in accordance with the deed that it is Monroe Graham and Daisy Bell Graham? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for our investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. First item of business is do we in fact have a violation? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Monroe and Daisy Bell Graham, in CEB Case No. 2004-045, that a violation does exist. 87 September 23, 2004 The violation is of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.6.7.1. Description of the violation: Unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicle parked on property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation exists. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second to the motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Jean, do we need to make a motion and vote on this name change, or -- MS. RAWSON: I think we have to change the heading on the caption. I don't think it's a significant change because her name is Graham, comma, Daisy Bell. But I'm going to just change it on the caption to Daisy Bell Graham so that it complies with the way it looks like on the deed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On the deed, okay. Order of the board for the violation. MR. PONTE: Let me just make a suggestion. What we have here borders on a parking violation. One vehicle. And I think the amount that is fined ought to reflect that it's one vehicle and a parking violation. So, you know, when we make the finding, how about $25, 88 September 23, 2004 rather than 50. In the other case where there were multiple vehicles involved, it was obviously much more serious than just one car parked on your side yard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand your comment. I don't see the difference, but I understand what you're saying. He's got it covered up, where the other vehicles weren't covered up. Looks a little like the bumper's tore up and some other stuff are missing and maybe it's been in a wreck and-- MR. HEMES: He's planted trees in front of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's a little bit more than parking. MR. PONTE: In theory he has it behind a hedge. MS. DUSEK: I personally look at it as the same violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, so do I, so -- but I understand what you're saying, George. Okay, order of the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: One, obtaining a valid license plate for the vehicle and make operable within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Or two, alternatively, respondent may within 30 days from the date of hearing remove vehicle from described property or store vehicle in a fully enclosed building. Or three, respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. MS. BARNETT: Question, first. Gerald, would you like to include operational costs in that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He said that first. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. 89 "---,.....~..".." ,... --_._..~.._""--~.. September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask a question? Just like the prior recommendation, it didn't include a fine after the alternate. MR. LEFEBVRE: To include. MS. ARNOLD: What fine amount are you all suggesting? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's stick with $50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second and a revision to the motion which I assume the second will agree to. MR. HEMES: Yes, I will. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 6-1. Next case, 2004-047, Rather Knighton. MR. BONANNO: We've previously submitted a packet of information to the board and the respondent and would like for that to be entered as Exhibit A at this time, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. 90 September 23, 2004 All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is the respondent here? Okay. MR. BOWIE: Could I note one thing? And that is in our packet of materials, we should note that this property has been conveyed by a tax deed to a Glenn McGee as a result of unpaid real estate taxes. And hence, Mr. Knighton or Rather is no longer entitled to the property as of the date of this, May 28th. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we-- MR. BOWIE: July 12th, rather. MS. ARNOLD: The packet was served to Mr. McGee. MR. BOWIE: It was? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we need to add him? MR. BOWIE: He needs to be added as a respondent, yeah. MS. DUSEK: Was he notified, Michelle? If Mr. McGee was added, was he notified? MS. ARNOLD: He was provided -- personally served the packet on -- a Glenn McGee was personally served on 9/10, September 10th. And I think he's the one that signed the notice of violation as well. He resides at the location, but I will have the investigator kind of speak to that. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, also just noted for the record and it's just a technicality, that I've noticed on every one of the last four cases, 91 September 23, 2004 where the description of the violation on that page in our packet, where it goes through regarding the violation section, every one of them is 2.7.6.1 rather than 2.6.7.1. It's an inversion of the number on every one of them. MS. ARNOLD: And what are you referring to, the statement of violation? MS. BARNETT: Yeah, where it says description of violation, on those pages in our packet, up at the top. MS. ARNOLD: On Page 4? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, the very first page that you give to us. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. MR. PONTE: Executive summary. MS. BARNETT: And it's been in every one of the cases that way, so just to make a note of it. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. All right. As long as it's right in the statement and on the NOV. MS. BARNETT: But I just -- because the packet is evidence, I wanted to make a notation. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, since the property's been sold, what do we need to do? MS. RAWSON: We have to add the new owner. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all? We need -- do we need to make a motion to do that or -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Bowie? MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that the name of the new owner of the property, which is Glenn McGee, be added to Case No. 2004-047 as an additional respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion to add Mr. McGee. Do I hear a second? 92 >..<"-",.".,,-~,_...,.> September 23, 2004 MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. BONANNO: This is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2004-047, the Board of County Commissioners versus Glenn McGee. The violation is that of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.6.7.1. The violation is described as an unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicle parked in side yard. The violation is located at 216 Brockington Drive, Copeland, Florida. More particularly described as Folio No. 1134801608. The name and address of the owner in charge of the property where the location exists is Glenn McGee. The violation was first observed on April 30th, 2004. The notice of violation was given to the person in charge on May 5th, 2004 by certified mail, return receipt requested, returned claimed. The violation was to be corrected on May 17th, 2004. Date of reinspection was August 24th, 2004, and as of that date, the violation remained. Once again, John Santafemia. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, my name is still John 93 September 23, 2004 Santafemia, and I'm still a code enforcement investigator for Collier County . On April 30th, 2004, while patrolling the Copeland area in unincorporated Collier County, I observed a vehicle being stored in the side yard at 216 Brockington. Upon closer inspection, I noted that the vehicle was a blue van and did not have a current license plate affixed. Noone was at home at the time. On May 5th, 2004, I completed a reinspection of the property and noted that the vehicle remained on the property. The condition of the vehicle was unchanged and was still being stored in the side yard without a valid license plate affixed. I attempted to make contact with the resident; however, no one was home. I obtained photos of the vehicle and prepared a notice of violation for the property owner of record. I posted a courtesy copy of the notice of violation on the door to the residents and sent a copy certified mail. On June 8th, 2004, I completed another reinspection of the property and again noted no change in the vehicle, no change in the condition of the vehicle. I had not received the return receipt from the certified mailing; therefore, I updated a notice of violation for posting on my next inspection. On July 21 st, 2004, I received the return receipt back signed by a Glenn McGee who was the new owner of the property. I completed a reinspection of the property and again noted no change to the vehicle. I attempted personal service of the notice; however, no one was home. I then posted the notice of violation on the door and also at the Collier County Courthouse. I obtained photos of the posting and a copy was sent to the property owner via first class mail. Affidavits of posting and mailing were completed. On August 11th, 2004, I completed an inspection of the property and noted the vehicle remained in the same location with its condition 94 September 23,2004 unchanged. I then began preparing this case for Code Enforcement Board to gain compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Got off easy that time, John. Okay, we're down to finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Rather Knighton and Glenn McGee, in CEB Case No. 2004-047, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.6.7.1. Description of the violation: Unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicle parked on property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation exists. Is there a second? MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that the respondent pay all 95 September 23, 2004 operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by first obtaining a valid license plate for the vehicle and make operable within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Or alternatively, the respondent may within 30 days from this date of hearing remove the vehicle from the described property or store vehicle within a fully enclosed building, or $50 a day will be incurred. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And ask for inspection, please. MS. BARNETT: And the respondent will also notify code enforcement for the inspection when the violation is abated. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. MR. PONTE: Before seconding, I'll ask you again to consider a $25 fine rather than 50. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You going to let the 50 stand? MS. BARNETT: I'm going to let my 50 stand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I think we have to be consistent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. And your second, sir? MR. BOWIE: Yes, it stands. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. 96 ..,.,~_"_<._"_......".,,.._.__'~<Æ'. September 23, 2004 Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 6-1. Next order is 2004-050, Debbi Maschino. I hope I said that right. I apologize. MR. BONANNO: We have previously submitted a packet of information to the board and the respondent, and we would ask that that information be submitted as Exhibits A and B. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A and B. MR. HEMES: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A and B. All those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response). MR. BONANNO: Let the record show that Terrell Smith is here on behalf of the respondent. This is Code Enforcement Board Case 2004-050, Board of County Commissioners versus Debbi Maschino. The violation is that of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 2.2.2.2.1 of amended Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The violation is described as a boat trailer with an expired tag located on agriculturally zoned property. 97 September 23,2004 The violation exists at 105 W oodland Avenue, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No. 189080006. The name and address of the person in charge of location where the violation exists is Debbi Maschino, 1 05 Woodland Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34119. The violation was first observed on June 17th, 2004. Notice of violation was given to Ms. Maschino on July 12th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected on July 19th, 2004. Date of reinspection was September 7th, 2004. And as of that date, the violation still remained. And now I will turn the case over to Investigator Carol Sykora. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can sit back down, sir. MS. SYKORA: This case began on June 17th, 2004 when I received an anonymous citizen complaint about an unlicensed trailer with a boat on it. I went to the location at 105 Woodland Avenue and found a boat on a trailer with a license plate A62 TR W, which expired June, 2003. I had -- on June 30th, I had visited again and found the violation remained, and I had sent a notice of violation by certified mail and posted a copy as a courtesy on the door. On July 12th, I visited and I also obtained a signed notice of violation by the owner, Debbi Maschino. I also explained the violation to the owner and how to correct it. On July 22nd, I visited the location and found that the violation remains. At that time I sent a Code Enforcement Board warning letter for August 26th, 2004. I also visited the location on July 27th and then again on August 11 th, 2004, and the violation still remained. On August 26th, Debbi Maschino, the owner of the property, did appear at the Code Enforcement Board hearing because of the warning 98 September 23, 2004 letter. I explained the case would not be heard at that time but would be heard in September if the violation was not abated soon. She advised me at that time that they were waiting for the title in the mail. However, this was never mentioned previously. On September 1 st, 2004, the violation still remained and I prepared and submitted the case for the Code Enforcement Board to be heard today. However, this morning I checked on the violation and a current tag had been affixed to this license plate, so the violation is now abated. However, I'm requesting that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred of the prosecution of this case. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Carol, I have a question for you. Let me go back and double check the tag, just to make sure. Why did we -- why are you citing 2.1.15? MS. SYKORA: This is an agricultural zoning. And 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 2.2.2.2.1 of the Collier County Ordinance 91-102, as amended, and it is in agricultural zoning. It's an illegal outside storage of a vehicle, which is unlicensed. MR. PONTE: I think one of the questions, Carol, I had when I looked at it, and this is sort of a -- either I don't understand it or I'm opening up a Pandora's box here, but it seems that me that 2.6.7.1.1 would more accurately reflect an unlicensed vehicle. I don't understand its relevance to the agricultural area. MS. SYKORA: Okay. In agricultural zoning, that ordinance does not apply. It's not worded that way in the ordinance, per se, as -- it just says residential. And agricultural is basically not included in that ordinance so, therefore, we use the illegal land use. And it's not an acceptable use in agricultural zoning. That's why we go for that ordinance in lieu of that one, because it's not worded correct that way. MR. PONTE: Thank you for the explanation. 99 ----~-_.. " September 23,2004 MR. BOWIE: But then the issue becomes, does it not, not whether the trailer is properly licensed, but whether it should be stored there at all. MS. SYKORA: It may be allowed to be stored there if it's properly licensed. There's no restriction in agricultural zoning about the location of -- it could be in the front yard, that's fine. But it needs to be properly licensed. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have another question. You said that you drove by this morning and saw a sticker affixed to it. Has anybody provided you actual registration forms stating that it's -- MS. SYKORA: No, I just drove by this morning about 6:30. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have evidence of that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it's not his turn yet, so -- let's just wait. MS. SYKORA: It was the same license plate that was affixed before. It was the same date of expiration, except the year of the sticker. MS. BARNETT: Carol, I've got to go back to 1.5.6. In reading that, and maybe I just don't understand, but it says no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used in whole or in part other than specifically permitted. How does the boat fit into that? MS. SYKORA: Well, the way it says -- in each zoning district, the land or the -- land or water used, whole or in part, because they're using the land for illegal outside storage of an unlicensed vehicle and/or trailer. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, can you clarify that for me? Because I don't understand that. Because to me it looks like it's talking about if you build a building, it has nothing to do with the -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay. It says --1.5.6 says no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used in whole or in part other than specifically permitted by the 100 _.......8···'__·_··" September 23, 2004 provisions of the zoning district. So it's talking about the buildings, the structures shall not be erected. The land cannot be used or the water cannot be used in conflict with the zoning district. MS. BARNETT: Okay. But if she says that it doesn't matter where you park a boat or a trailer in an agricultural thing because it's not precluded, how is that a problem? MS. ARNOLD: Well, the land -- without it being properly licensed, it's illegally stored. So the land is being used as -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Illegal storage. MS. ARNOLD: -- illegal storage. MS. BARNETT: Okay. MR. BOWIE: It's not licensed as storage. MS. BARNETT: I just -- I couldn't get a -- MS. SYKORA: I also included that -- the ordinance, 2.1.15, prohibited use and structures also with that along -- to coincide with illegal land use. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions for the investigator? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Smith, sir. Your turn, sir. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Debbi is unable to be here this morning. Her uncle is in Sarasota Hospital on life support. MS. RAWSON: Excuse me, would you state your name for the record? MR. SMITH: Sorry. Terrell 1. Smith. I cohabit at 105 Woodlawn Avenue with Debbi. We are a couple and have lived as a couple for quite some time. We were here last month at this time. I explained to Carol about the boat trailer, about the boat was a gift to me, there was a problem with the title. Took a while to get the title. Got the tag affixed, it has proper registration on the trailer now. 101 September 23, 2004 It's all my doings. I can't stipulate anything for Debbi. This is all my mess, not hers. And that's all I have to say about it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now you do have a proper license on the boat? MR. SMITH: Yes, it's properly licensed, it was just completed the other day at the registration office. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MS. DUSEK: Do you have evidence of that with you today? MR. SMITH: I do not, ma'am. All I can say is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you're giving testimony that in fact it is. MR. SMITH: I'm under oath and I'm telling you that it's legally licensed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Smith? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. SMITH: Thank you. I'll talk to you again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have evidence that in fact he did get a license, so as of right now it is properly licensed. However, you can keep in mind that we're allowed to fine. So we need a finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Debbi 1. Maschino, in CEB Case No. 2004-050, that a violation did exist. The violation was of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 2.2.2.2.1 of amended Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: A boat trailer with an expired tag located on agriculturally zoned property. MR. PONTE: Could you just add to that in your description that the -- as you say the violation did exist, say that the violation has been abated? 102 -0' _'_N_'"'__''''''''' ' September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I was going to ask her to do that in her order, but -- MR. PONTE: Good thinking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that he would have to show proof that it's been abated. So you don't need to do that in finding of fact. So we have a motion that in fact a violation did exist. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. Whoever makes the motion, I would kind of try to recommend that we say that the violation has been abated and that we request that evidence of such be presented to code enforcement so that they know in fact it has been abated. MS. BARNETT: I'll attempt to make this motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll help you. MR. PONTE: Wait a second. We have testimony from the code investigator that it has been investigated, she saw it this morning at 6:30. MS. BARNETT: She said she saw the little yellow -- 103 .-.-- September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She saw the tag. MR. PONTE: Yeah. MR. BOWIE: So what more evidence do you need? MR. PONTE: Yeah, what more evidence do you need? MS. BARNETT: That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, because it has already been abated, but I would like that the respondent notify code enforcement, have the investigator verify that the registration is up to date and current, and ask for the final inspection, which confirms the abatement. MS. DUSEK: Did you say operational costs? MS. BARNETT: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. I didn't hear you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we want to set a time frame on that? MR. SMITH: Today? MS. BARNETT: Five days. MR. SMITH: Today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, if you can get the piece of paper and get together with them, that would be great. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there going to be any fine imposed if that's not the case? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm just asking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I don't think so. The investigator says she saw the tag and he says he did it, so we'd just like him to show us a piece of paper just to make sure. Not that we don't believe him, but everybody sees paper, then they know it's a fact. MS. BARNETT: I think I understand Gerald's position, though. If I don't fine him and he doesn't do it, then we're in trouble. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think since the investigator says it's on the -- I'm satisfied. Unless he tore it off somebody else's tag, which I'm sure he didn't, so -- 104 September 23, 2004 MR. BOWIE: You ever tried to get one of those things off? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They don't come off real easy. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Smith, I'm sure you'll take care of that for us. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2004-051, Debbi Maschino agaIn. MR. BONANNO: We have previously submitted a packet of information to the board and the respondents, and I ask that it be entered as Exhibits A and B at this time, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A and B. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to -- for the County's Exhibit A and B. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 105 < .~.~;..,-,----_. September 23, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BONANNO: Let the record show that Mr. Smith will again be appearing on behalf of Ms. Maschino. This is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2004-051, Board of County Commissioners versus Debbi Maschino. The violation is that of Section 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 2.2.2.2.2.1 of amended Ordinance No. 91-102, Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 103.11.1 of Ordinance 2002-01, adopting and amending Chapter 1 of the Florida Building Code. The violation is described as a recreational vehicle with an addition being utilized for storage, an occupied camper and three unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicles on property. The violation is located at 265 Rose Boulevard, Florida. More particularly described as Folio No. 18912000. The person in charge of the location where the violation exists is Debbi Maschino, 105 Woodland Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34119. The violation was first observed on June 28th, 2004. The person in charge was given notice of violation on June 29th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected by July 28th, 2004. A reinspection occurred on September 7th, 2004, and as of that date the violation remained. Once, again, Carol Sykora. (Speakers were duly sworn.) 106 September 23, 2004 MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. On June 28th, 2004, I received an anonymous citizen complaint reference a trailer with people living in it. I investigated at the location at 265 Rose Boulevard and found a recreational vehicle with an addition that was in disrepair, and it was being utilized for storage. There was a camper behind it which appeared occupied and three unlicensed inoperable vehicles, all on agricultural zoned unimproved property. The property has no bona fide agricultural use and no existing principal structure. I determined that the violation existed because the structures are not a permitted use. A notice of violation was served and signed actually by Terrell Smith, who lives on the adjacent property with the owner. On July 12th, 2004, I obtained a signed notice of violation from the owner, Debbi Maschino. I explained the violation and why it was a violation and how to correct it at that time. Ms. Maschino stated she did not have the money to correct these violations. On July 22nd, I visited the location and found that all the violations remained. At that time, I sent a CEB warning letter for August 26th, 2004. On August 11 th, I visited the location and found that all the violations still remained and no demolition permit had been obtained at that time. On August 26th, the owner of the property, Debbi Maschino appeared with Mr. Smith at the Code Enforcement Board hearing because of the warning letter. I had explained the case would not be heard at that time, but it would be heard in September if the violations were not abated soon. I advised a demolition permit would be required to remove the structures. Mr. Smith stated he would not remove the structures, so I prepared the case for the Code Enforcement Board hearing on September 23rd, 2004. 107 September 23,2004 Do you have any questions? MS. BARNETT: Is the camper occupied? MS. SYKORA: Pardon me? MS. BARNETT: Is the camper occupied? MS. SYKORA: The reason I thought it was occupied, it was clear that there was an extension cord hooked up to it. I do have a picture of that added in your packet. I did not observe a person in there, but if it was utilized for storage, why would an extension cord be hooked up to it? It appeared that someone was living in there. There was stored items covered over outside of it. And I had several people on the street tell me that people were staying in there in the evening, whether it be off and on or every night, but it's one of the small type campers. This is the recreational vehicle with the addition onto it that's being utilized for storage. That's part of the recreational vehicle there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is this an actual -- this looks more like a trailer to me, so I'm -- MS. SYKORA: It's a -- MR. BOWIE: It used to be something. MR. SMITH: It's nothing now. MS. SYKORA: The windows are all broken out of it. It's in great disrepair. And then the front part of is like an addition that was put onto it. There's no wheels on it anymore, but it was more or less a recreational vehicle. MR. PONTE: Carol, I'm just curious, do -- the Waste Management containers there, do they contain garbage that would indicate somebody was living inside? MS. SYKORA: They -- it was like there's some trash around, and it looked like there was things stored outside of the camper itself. Now, this structure here is basically, I believe, being utilized for storage purposes, furniture and things like that. But it's basically an unsafe structure because of the busted windows, a fire hazard, the 108 ^"--~"....."._.~,.._.,."..,,,"-",._,....^ September 23, 2004 neighbors have been complaining about it being unsightly. And I determined that it was also unsafe to be in the area. The little camper sits behind this. And as of this morning, the camper was pulled out a little bit onto the -- more visible. That's the camper which sits behind this. And there's some stored items covered up and some debris in the trash can there, so -- I just did not visibly see anyone living in there, but all evidence, someone was in there off and on. Plus, like I said, people that live in that area keep complaining that someone stays in that little camper at night. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Mr? Smith. MR. SMITH: Once again, Mr. Chairman, Terrell Smith, speaking for Debbi Maschino. This structure was here when I bought the property, okay? People lived in it when I came there. I wouldn't let my dogs live there. As for the little recreational vehicle out back, I let a friend park it there. It's been there longer than he said it would be there. The only thing that was ever done in there was when it rained, a couple of beers were drank in there. I offered to let Carol in to the little trailer to see that there was no way anybody could sleep in there. It had things stored in there. It's been moved. It was supposed to have been gone last weekend. This is all my mess, it's not Debbi's. Just a little insight here, she's had a rough way with her family. I've been off on disability from my job since the 1st of February. Due to go back to work on November the 1 st. Haven't been up to snuff. It's not the excuse, it's just fact. No one was ever living in this trailer. The other trailer, it's had power connected to it for 35 years. And 109 September 23, 2004 today they told me that there was no permits ever drawn for it. Title search was done on this. There's insurance on this structure through the carrier, the homeowner carrier. Nobody lives in it. All that's stored there is furniture. The part the furniture's stored in is dry. There are windows busted out of the back side and the one window on the side, yes. And it does look like hell. The vehicles, they're mine. One of them is to be carted off, if not today, tomorrow. The other two are -- they're not registered, they're titled in my name. I used them both in my former job. All I can say is I need to get rid of them. It's none of Debbi's doings, it's mine. And I'll pay the consequences for it, although it will be in her name. That's all I can say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Mr. Smith? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Finding of fact by the board? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Debbi J. Maschino, CEB Case No. 2004-051, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.15 and 2.2.2.2.2.1 of amended Ordinance No. 91-102, Collier County Land Development Code, and Section 103.11.1 of Ordinance 2000-01, adopting and amending Chapter 1 of the Florida Building Code. Description of violation: A recreational vehicle with an addition being utilized for storage, a possibly occupied camper and three unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicles on property. MS. BARNETT: Second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 110 ._=",,.._-""""""'-' September 23, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just before we have an order, couple questions. There appears to be five vehicles, I guess, is what we're looking at; is that correct? MS. SYKORA: There's three vehicles. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, recreational vehicle, the addition -- MS. SYKORA: A camper and the recreational vehicle, the addition. So you could say five, but I didn't -- I kind of did it separately. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the -- MS. SYKORA: I mean, as far as the -- our recommendation was a little bit -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The item you're calling a recreational vehicle, which I'm calling a trailer -- MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify something for you? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. SMITH: That is a house trailer from the 1950's. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I thought. MR. SMITH: And like I said, it was there when I bought the property, and it had people living in it since 1960, the later part of the Fifties, since 1960. They told me today -- I had the code enforcement come by once when I bought the property like six years ago, and they did a search on 111 .._,""'" -, ,- 1 rIW "",-",_.~_.,,~ September 23, 2004 it. And they said then that well, we can't find any legal permitting, but that doesn't mean it wasn't permitted. And so they went back to the aerial photos. And they came back and they said well, it's here in the aerial photos, so it has to be here. And that's the only thing that was ever -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have a title? Did you ever get a title to this structure or anything? MR. SMITH: No, no, it's deeded. It's on a foundation. It's on a foundation. There's no wheels under it. MS. BARNETT: It's not a vehicle then. MR. SMITH: And it's deemed a storage -- like I said, it has insurance through the homeowners on it. It's deemed storage only. Like I said, people lived there when I came and they were asked to leave. MR. BOWIE: There's no way that's what's cited here as a camper can be licensed. MR. SMITH: Well, it's not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The little one might could be licensed. MR. SMITH: Well, yeah, but that's fine. It's -- MR. BOWIE: But referred to here as the camper, okay. Is that-- MR. SMITH: It's an 18-foot recreational vehicle camper. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's the little one? MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The big one, rather than call it an RV, it's basically a storage shed? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. It has furniture and assorted records and stuff in it. It's dry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A trailer that's been turned into a storage shed, pretty much. MR. SMITH: Well, it was a trailer and then obviously someone back in the Sixties built the front part onto it. People lived in it up until 1987, '88, so -- 112 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you for the information. MR. BOWIE: Could I just ask perhaps of Carol, is any occupational use of such a camper permissible in this agricultural zone? MS. SYKORA: No, it's not a permittable use on this property. He doesn't have any bona fide agricultural use there. It's in a basic residential area. It's not in a farming area. So it would -- I'm considering this property as unimproved because this structure was never permitted there. The property card just has storage on it for what they're being taxed on. In my opinion, the front part of this was illegally put on. And I call it an RV, if that's what you want to call it. It's a very unsafe structure because the windows are all busted out. Kids in the area could get in there, get hurt. And fire hazard with all the storage in there, and there's no basic principal structure on this property that is permitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I notice on the property card -- I really can't tell what date this was, but they have an item one, looks like mobile home, 8 by 40. That's probably what this trailer is, about that size. And then it looks like they added some sections to it for property value-wise, which they're showing is improved value to the land, a little under $10,000. Okay. So it's basically storage, according to the -- what the appraisal office has gone out and judged at some point in time, which may have been somewhere between '77 and can't tell whether that's '80 or not, but looks like 1980. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. SMITH: I was speaking with Dennis this morning, and the young lady over here. We have no problems if we're given an amount of time that this structure could be demolished. Like I said, we've had __ we've been having some financial problems over the past nine 113 September 23, 2004 months. And if we're given proper time, there's no -- there's nothing tying that to that piece of property or to us that we wouldn't demolish it. But, you know, they -- I didn't know it didn't have any permits. They had said something about it before and the code enforcement came by and they said well, everything's okay, and -- you know. But that's many years in the past. MR. PONTE: Mr. Smith, what in your mind would be proper time? MR. SMITH: Six months. I can't afford to have it demolished professionally. I'll have to do it myself. I'll have to draw the permit and I'll have to do it myself. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're back to the order of the board. Thank you, Carol. MS. SYKORA: Thanks. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody want to make a stab at something? MR. PONTE: Well, I think we could kind of discuss what you think is sufficient time for this. I mean, the County is recommending 45 days and Mr. Smith is saying-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, understanding that, you know, that his -- that their predicament, and that he's at least stated he's willing to try and remove it by demolishing it. I think there's some of this things (sic) that can be done immediately. As for that one structure -- MS. BARNETT: Well, isn't a demolition permit good for six months? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I think if he goes and gets the 114 September 23, 2004 permit and whatever that costs within the next couple of days, I wouldn't have a problem living with six months, just to get rid of that one item. He can correct all the other items pretty quick, getting the cars removed and getting his friend to get his little camper out of there. That eliminates three-quarters of the problem. And he's down to just tearing this thing apart. I could live with that, I guess. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion that in the CEB order that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate the violation by, number one, apply for and obtain a Collier County demolition permit for the removal of the recreational vehicle with the addition. Must remove the recreational vehicle with the addition and all related debris from the property within six months from the date of this hearing or a $50 per day violation will be incurred. Number two, must remove all of the unlicensed inoperable vehicles from the property within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be incurred until the violation is abated. If vehicles are moved to another location, a current and valid license plate must be affixed to each vehicle. Defects must be repaired so vehicles are operable, or store vehicles in a completely enclosed structure. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we're considering, under removing all the unlicensed vehicles, the little camper, not just the three cars, correct? Is that what we're assuming? MS. DUSEK: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand that, Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Should we not have a separate time limit for obtaining the demolition permit? Certainly to obtain the permit doesn't 115 .---- ",..~..-_ 1'" September 23, 2004 take six months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We told him he had to do it six months from today. So he has to go get the permit within the next couple of days, so -- MR. SMITH: Can you make it from the time I get the permit? And I'll get the permit in a week's time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we'll just leave it still six months from today, you know. That may shortchange you one week, but I don't think that's going to hurt you, sir. MR. BOWIE: And in the past the fines have been per vehicle. And perhaps we need to stipulate that as well. MS. DUSEK: So noted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yeah. The -- on her item three, it's $50 per vehicle per day, and there are four, as I said. There are three automobiles and one camper, all that need licenses. But it's per vehicle with no number. Everybody okay with the motion? MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) 116 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand, Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: I do fully. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. SMITH: Thank you very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to need to excuse myself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. For the record, make note of that for us, Debbi -- or Cherie'. Sorry. I'm looking at Debbi's name. Too many names. Let's take five minutes. We don't have a problem with that. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's call the Code Enforcement Board back to order, please. See if we can't finish this up. We are through our public hearings, so I'll close that section. We're now into new business. And first up is request for a reduction or abatement of fines. First item, BCC and Monika Van Stone. Is Ms. Van Stone here? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, she is. You have been provided a copy of her request for abatement of fines. And the investigator on that particular case is Jeff Letourneau. He's also here if you have any questions of him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Swear her in and let her tell us. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, Ms. Van Stone, would you tell us where you'd like a reduction, please. MS. VAN STONE: Well, I'm hopeful that it can be either reduced or abated. This whole scenario -- MR. PONTE: I'm going to ask you please to get a little closer to the microphone. MS. VAN STONE: Oh, certainly. I'm sorry. This whole situation I inherited when I purchased the property, I would say absolutely through no fault of my own. Records were not 117 ~~'''"..'._'''''''---"'--' September 23, 2004 available to me, as to the situation. And it has been brought up to compliance. I have paid for the administrative or operational costs many months ago. And I'm hopeful at this point in time that you will be able to assist me in this matter, because funds are presently not available to myself at all. And that's a short synopsis and as short as I can probably make it. You have all your notes in front of you, which -- MS. ARNOLD: This case, just to refresh the board's memory, is one where the violation was a conversion of a garage area to living facilities. And I'll let the investigator kind of give you a little bit of that. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: There was also a small shed covering up some laundry equipment outside too. But both these have been abated as of I guess about a month ago, or maybe a couple of months ago. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the amount of the fine stands at what, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I'm going by what Shanelle's fax to Ms. Van Stone is. It's about $8,000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that's just the fine portion? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else, Ms. Van Stone? MS. VAN STONE: Again, through no fault of my own I'm in this position. But I'm just a consumer. I realize this type of thing occurs quite regularly. Perhaps there could be something done in the future with this type of matter so that consumers can perhaps avoid these situations, either through -- with regard to the real estate board or yourselves, perhaps something can be amended for future purposes, because it is unfortunate. Not a two by four had gone in by myself. This all was preexisting over probably -- the house dates back to '69, approximately, so I can only assume the rest, you're talking 35 years plus.h 118 September 23, 2004 And that's pretty much everything that I can add to it at this point. And again, all my notes are there, they're notarized, and they are truthful. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: These items that you list that you've had to payout or costs that have been given to you, this administrative cost, $3,600, is that -- what is that number? Is that just for your time or something or just-- MS. VAN STONE: Absolutely. I've had to take a great amount of time off. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's for you. The debris removal, is that something you paid somebody to do already? MS. VAN STONE: Debris removal still has to be. I don't have the funds presently. And also, there was a cost factor there involved for the demolition of it. And to save myself costs for this matter, I've had to demolish it, because that was a lesser cost than having to go the other routes. I have, as I say, come into compliance with this, and again feel a little victimized. But as I understand it, this type of thing exists quite often. But it doesn't necessarily lessen my affliction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Any questions for Ms. Van Stone? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask that the investigator just give his position on this? MR. LETOURNEAU: My position is I can see both sides of the point as I'm looking at it, because I think the two things were probably built before Ms. Van Stone bought the property. But she did have a long time to take care of the issue once she was notified. So, you know, I guess -- MS. BARNETT: I do have one question for you, Ms. Van Stone. When with did you actually acquire this property? MS. VAN STONE: We're talking -- this will be the third year 119 "d'"''___'''''~''''-''''' September 23, 2004 this fall. And it was definitely prior to my purchasing it. All these items were intact, and they are in fact listed with the realtor that I purchased this from, which happens to be Premier Properties. And they're reputable enough. And investigatively, my attorney did everything according to the record, re: the search. But this type of record -- these types of records are not available, certainly were not available to the attorney. So I was very much in awe over all this. And yes, it did take a long longer, but again, never having been in this position, I didn't know who to go to, who to -- there were suggestions made to me as to having this remedied in other -- in other fashions. And this type of thing does take, bureaucratically does take a fair length of time. And I've approached many sources, engineers and onward. Again, they happen to be in your notes. And it does take a fair length of time and it did take a fair length of time, and I could not accomplish that within the realm of that time frame. MS. DUSEK: Jeff, what was the time frame from when she was first notified? MR. LETOURNEAU: All right, let me check the records here. Met with renter, Denise. Okay, my first record of receiving any kind of call back from a representative of Ms. Van Stone was on 7/30/2003. And we haggled and did all the stuff and the case came before the CEB it looks like in November 13th. So there was almost four months before it came to the CEB. And then it was another probably eight months, I guess, before it was abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When it came to the board, we gave her 90 days; is that what we did? MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. And it looked like it didn't get abated till I think July of 2004. So a total of 12 months since she was notified until the time it was abated. MR. HEMES : Jeff, what is the current condition of the property? I see there's debris mentioned. 120 ,...._.,-,,--_._"'"'..._"'..~ September 23, 2004 MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, most of the debris is contained in the garage -- the legally permitted garage that the apartment was actually in. So it's not really a violation, she was just has to get rid of it, you know. MR. HEMES: Thank you. MS. VAN STONE: May I just add a few? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. VAN STONE: I did not evade the situation. I had to attend to a family member's -- I mentioned this last time when I stood before you. My mother's ill health. I was out of town. I did give this to my attorney to hopefully resolve and he unfortunately didn't. I came back to the same situation and then followed hopefully the proper procedures. Again, not having been in this position, I did everything to the best of my ability. I realize there was a longer time frame involved here, but again, not knowing which route or route to take, time had gone on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Ms. Van Stone, did you ever discuss with the-- MS. VAN STONE: Attorney? MS. DUSEK: Not the attorney, but not sure on which route to take either with the attorney or with the code inspector. MS. VAN STONE: Yes, there were many -- there were a few, more than a few, routes that I could have taken, but as was then relayed on to me by these people, it would have been a very costly factor, other than demolishing these structures, which I purchased and with good money. And obviously now the property isn't in the same condition. MR. BOWIE: I understand any fines of this nature can be and of course are a financial burden. MS. VAN STONE: Yes. MR. BOWIE: The question would be, being the owner of the 121 ~"._- September 23, 2004 property, unfortunately it falls to you to pay these fines. You indicate that you purchased this property, everything was in the condition that it was in. There was of course no disclosure to you by the seller that any of this was in violation of ordinances. You indicate a real estate agent made affirmative misrepresentations to you, and maybe an attorney as well. You may have to pay some of these fines, but you may have recourse against some of these other parties, you should understand that. MS. VAN STONE: That also -- that is also a cost factor then to myself. And I'm not in that position. MR. BOWIE: You're not in a position to sue? MS. VAN STONE: To -- again -- yes. That would take many thousands of dollars, obviously. And I'm not in that position. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. VAN STONE: And I certainly had not visualized this occurrIng. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Ms. Van Stone? We need to make a decision. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am, we'll make a decision. MS. VAN STONE: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. MS. BARNETT: Michelle? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now she's -- Ms. Van Stone is asking us to, I guess, abate the entire amount of $8,000. So that's where you need to be focusing your attention. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, can you give me a breakdown as to what those costs are? I mean, how they -- is it all operational costs? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's $50 a day in fines. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the 8,000 is related to the $50 per day from February 12th of'04 to July 21st. 122 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't reduce any operational costs. MS. BARNETT: She's already paid those. MR. BOWIE: Those have all been paid in any event. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So it's a total fine of $8,000 right now we're dealing with. Any motions, recommendations? MR. PONTE: Well, I can sympathize with the respondent's confusion. However, the total abatement of the fine I don't think is warranted either. After all, this has been in progress for a year and that seems like more than sufficient time to have accomplished things. So I might consider reducing the fine, but certainly not abating the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other thoughts? Any thoughts on reducing it to what? MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to note that I want to make -- I would like to verify whether or not the operational costs have been made. We don't have the file here, but that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's something we can't reduce anyway, so they're not up for any kind of discussion. We don't have the authority to reduce the operational costs, so that -- she'll have to pay those, period. We can't touch those. MR. PONTE: The other item I just might mention is that we do have a respondent who has brought the property into compliance, and that's our primary purpose, and that's been accomplished. So we might think of that as we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have an amount of $8,000 that we're trying to deal with. We have a suggestion from George that he's willing to do something less than that. Anybody want to put a number forth to see if we can come to some kind of agreement as to should it be less than eight and what should it be? MS. DUSEK: Let's see, if she actually went five months over what she should have -- is that correct? 123 ......h.'_«<_",·....";,·_->··-···, September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Roughly, if you take the 8,000, divide it by 50, you get a little something over five months. MS. BARNETT: If her first 90 days was a little too short. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And she did state in her write-up that she didn't -- I realize she was working on something she'd never done before, that she didn't think 90 days was sufficient that we gave her. I don't know whether she worked on it every day or -- you know, that's neither here nor there. At the time our instructions were 90 days, we felt comfortable and we did it. So hindsight is a terrific asset, but -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we reduce the fines by $3,000. MR. PONTE: I think that's a substantial percentage. I'd go along with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you going to second it, George? MR. PONTE: I will second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to reduce the fine from 8,000 down to 5,000. Any discussion? MR. BOWIE: I think we need to adopt some rationale for this. In other words, any time we at our discretion reduce fines, I think it should be based upon some rationale that is legitimate to the circumstance. MS. RAWSON: If I may, the rationale, it's found in the statute, that you, when making your decision, looked at the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the respondent to correct the violation, whether there were previous violations committed by the violator, the cost upon the violator to correct the violation, the reasonable time necessary to correct the violation, the value of the real estate compared to the amount of the fine lien, any hardship the fine would cause on the respondent, the time and cost incurred by the code enforcement to have the violation corrected, and any other equitable factors. So that's really what's been going through your heads. MR. BOWIE: Those are the factors that should have been going 124 September 23, 2004 through our heads. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what was going through our heads. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: There is the consideration of had Ms. Van Stone obtained a demolition permit, she would have had six months to do the demolition, and you can maybe utilize that time frame from your hearing date, which was November 18th -- or November 13th of 2003 and possibly come up with some -- MS. DUSEK: So if she would have obtained a demolition permit immediately, she would have had six months to complete the demolition. We gave her three months to do it. And I think that that's what I took off was three months. MR. BOWIE: I think that's a fair enough adjustment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with that. I just did it and it works out to -- MS. DUSEK: Close to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Okay, any further discussion on the motion and the second for reducing from 8,000 to 5,000? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Van Stone, that's the best we can do for you under the circumstances. We've reduced it to $5,000. 125 September 23,2004 Next item is BCC versus Guy Fracasso. And I apologize if I messed that up. MS. ARNOLD: Rachel Loukonen is here representing Mr. Fracasso. So Rachel, if you want to just go ahead and present your request. MS. LOUKONEN: Sure. I didn't know if Shawn wanted to say something before we begin. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, you're the one that's asking to us to do some -- are you an attorney or -- MS. LOUKONEN: I'm an attorney. Do I heed need to be sworn in? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, since you're requesting on behalf of them to reduce the fine. That's what we've done in the past. MS. RAWSON: We always swear attorneys in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. LOUKONEN: I just want to make sure everyone got a copy of the packet that I submitted last month. I tried to set out as rationally and chronologically as I could what exactly has happened in regards to the Sunset Plaza. But first I'd like to preface this argument by saying that Guy Fracasso owns several properties and has been a wonderful manager and is a reasonable person and has worked hard to correct the violations on this property. Essentially he purchased the Sunset Plaza back in '96. At that time, the southwest dumpster pad, which you can see on a picture which I've provided in your packet, the southwest dumpster pad, which was at this location, was already there and had been there for about 15 years. Not that that makes a difference, but just the old buyer beware comes into mind. Shortly after that, he replaced the dumpster that was sitting on that pad with one larger to accommodate the refuse that was being produced on the property. 126 ,"."'~,,^'--=""'.''''- September 23, 2004 Several years later he was cited by the Code Enforcement Board and was asked -- and I have also put in this packet a copy of the order that was part of the findings of fact and the order of the board. And I've highlighted those portions that are relevant to this discussion. For one, the order of the board described the violations as a dumpster enclosure that was erected behind the Sunset Plaza, which is the southwest enclosure, which was in the right-of-way and did not have the right-of-way permits obtained. The second thing was using the permitted dumpster enclosure for outside seating of the restaurant. In this order you'll see that the board asked Mr. Fracasso to complete -- or submit a complete and sufficient site development plan for all improvements or remove the said structure within 90 days. They also -- two and three discuss more fully about obtaining the site development plan. And then if you look at number four, it says to cause the tenant to cease utilizing the area for dumpster unless it is permitted, to relocate the dumpster to a permitted location, and then the board, you know, naturally stated that there would be a fine if this was not done. So Mr. Fracasso, being a reasonable person, read this order and, seeing that he had replaced the dumpster he had with one that was too large to fit into that enclosure that was permitted, he decided his best option was to go forward and go ahead and get a site development plan approved that would accommodate a larger dumpster. He wasn't able to put the larger dumpster into the permitted location. So at that stage he made a decision as a businessman it was worth it for him, if the refuse use was going to continually be at the level it was currently being produced on the property, he needed to go ahead and get a larger dumpster, get a new dumpster pad and enclosure built. So he submitted the site development plan December 22nd. The original order had given him until December the 24th to get that submitted. He submitted it December 22nd, two days before. 127 September 23, 2004 However, Mr. Fracasso did not notify the code enforcement inspectors and let them know that he had made that improvement, that he had submitted that site development plan at that time. Shawn Luedtke, upon doing a search of his own, saw on January 12th that -- or January 2nd, actually, he realized that the site development plan had been submitted. On January 12th, he submitted an affidavit of compliance, which Mr. Fracasso received a copy of and which is also in this packet. The affidavit of compliance, and I've highlighted that portion that is the most relevant, of course, because it says that the reinspection revealed that the corrective action ordered by the board has been taken. So Mr. Fracasso gets this affidavit of compliance and thinks to himself, self, I've complied, I've submitted my site development plan, I'm moving on, I'm improving my property and I'm in complete compliance with the order of the board that was issued. After that, the board issued an order for fines based on the time period from December 24th through January 2nd. Fracasso actually ended up paying $900 more than what the order had originally requested that he pay. Whenever he later paid it, he called in and spoke with the county attorney who actually fined him through the January 12th, instead of just the January 2nd. So Mr. Fracasso ended up actually paying $900 more than was actually ordered by the board, although he had been in compliance before the drop dead date, which was December 24th. So on April 1 st of this year, the amended site development plan with the new dumpster pad was approved and he was well on his way. He got his building permits and he was on his way to getting his dumpster enclosure -- his new dumpster enclosure built on the property . In getting this dumpster enclosure, not only did Mr. Fracasso have to find a new location, but the county also required him to close off another entrance into his property, which was an added expense as 128 ,""o~,..~·"..,_...,___..,,,,,<_·,·,,·~,,_ú< September 23, 2004 well, but one he was willing to take in order to have this problem fixed. The problem, and the reason that we're here today, is because after all of this occurred he received another notice of violation, citing him for the exact same violations. And the order that was proposed by the -- the order that was actually given by the board gives him -- and I've included that as Exhibit E. The new order that was given by the board requires different actions for Mr. Fracasso. So when he gets this order, he's confused. And he's reasonably confused because he cannot understand why he received an affidavit of compliance and now he's being cited again with a new order based on the same violations. And that's why we are here today. Because he is in full compliance. And I believe Shawn Luedtke and everyone here will agree, he's in full compliance. And the reinspection has been done on the property, and we're here today just saying that we would like an abatement of fines, because he has been in compliance with -- according to the affidavit, since January 12th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let me ask a couple of questions. MS. LOUKONEN: Certainly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Where is the dumpster now? MS. LOUKONEN: The dumpster is located -- if you'll look -- did you get a copy of it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. LOUKONEN: The dumpster is this area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is it still in the southwest corner? MS. LOUKONEN: It's right here, actually. It's in the parking lot. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. LOUKONEN: And he actually moved it from here over to this location. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When did he do that? 129 September 23, 2004 MS. LOUKONEN: The actual work was completed in mid- August, meaning the actual pad was built, the enclosure was put together and the actual dumpster was moved into that location in mid-August. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just note -- go ahead, if you have more questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell me -- since we don't see it here, tell me what we're talking about fine wise. What's at question here? What's the amount of the fine? And I assume this fine relates to the first order of the board, not the second order, correct? MS. ARNOLD: It's relating to the second order of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the first order of the board, there was no fine equated to that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. BELPEDIO: There was. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we're dealing with only the second order of the board, okay, which says remove the dumpster and enclosure that is encroaching on the right-of-way to its properly permitted location within seven days. Now, you've just told me, ma'am, that this was moved last month. Seven days was -- we gave him till July 1 st. July 1 st and sometime in August doesn't work for me. MS. LOUKONEN: Let me back up just a moment as well. Whenever he received his notice of the hearing on the second order that we're discussing now, whenever he received that notice he asked for a continuance and was not given that continuance, so he wasn't even present at the hearing to argue against himself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MS. LOUKONEN: He received -- the order was mailed on the 30th and asked for compliance that day and the day after. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's back up with that. 130 ......--"'...--".;'"'''.'' September 23, 2004 MS. LOUKONEN: And if we back up even more, again, the dumpster that was actually there on the property was too large to move into that space. And so coupled with that and the knowledge that he was in compliance, based on an affidavit of compliance, he felt well, what I need to do is try to call the county and tell them what's going on. So we have several months of conversation before he ever hired counsel. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. A couple of things going back to our first order. The affidavit of compliance I understand, because we told him in item one to get a site development plan. MS. LOUKONEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And he did that and that's I'm sure why Shawn issued an affidavit of compliance. Now, what you didn't -- you highlighted it, but what he didn't understand is there were two other items in that order. He had to cease utilizing the dumpster unless it was permitted. Submitting an SDP doesn't permit it, okay? That's just you're going in to get it changed. So it was still there, probably. And then it says relocate to a permitted location. He probably didn't do that. And you didn't get fined for any of this. But he wasn't totally in compliance with the order, because unless he ceased using the dumpster and moved it, he wasn't in compliance. He did submit an SDP. MS. LOUKONEN: Again, my argument is that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So first of all, there's no fine associated with that, so I'm not interested in even considering the first order. We don't have a problem there, as far as I'm concerned. MS. LOUKONEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now let's get to the current order which is where he's being fined. The current order told him to remove the dumpster and enclosure out of the right-of-way by July 1 st. And you told me just a few minutes ago that he didn't do this until some time in August. 131 "'~~""....._-~'''''..~.. --,- September 23, 2004 MS. LOUKONEN: It was, right, closer to probably the second week in August. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So he's automatically in violation of my -- of the board's order there. And he had to cease using the dumpster within five days, which was back in June 29th. Since he didn't move it, I assume he didn't cease using it. Okay? So now, tell me why we shouldn't fine him. MS. LOUKONEN: Because again, it goes back to the original order. When he received the original order, he submitted a site development plan and received an affidavit of compliance. At that time he made a decision, I can't remove the dumpster and I can't move it to this other location, but I can submit a site development plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But he wasn't in compliance. I told you that with the first order he was to cease using the dumpster and move it to a permitted location, not just submit an SDP. So he submitted the SDP, that's great. But at the same time, he had to quit using it and move it to somewhere where it's permitted. And he obviously didn't do that. MS. LOUKONEN: I think Mr. Fracasso would like to say something about the -- but you'll need to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, he's more than welcome to say anything. You need to be sworn in, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. FRACAS SO: The reason is we have approximately three-and-a-half months to get a building permit so we can move the permitted dumpster to a permitted site. You can't move it to a permitted site and build it without a building permit. Once we received the building permit, we started the next day on building the dumpster pad. We can't comply with your order without 132 September 23, 2004 a building permit. There wasn't anyplace to put it. We explained -- the county knew it. The people in the planning department knew it. The people in the building department knew it. The people in the code enforcement department knew it. Don't understand why we were getting cited. We've been working on this for over six months with the county. We have met with everyone; planning, traffic, code, building, you name it. I told them I would do everything in my power to cooperate with whatever it was that they wanted done. And from the time you're telling me to move something to a permitted location without a building permit. Can't do that. As soon as we got the building permit, we moved it. MS. LOUKONEN: And I think this reiterates the point that I've been trying to make. He believed reasonably that he was in compliance, because based on what he was getting from the county, based on what he was getting from the planning and development, he believed what he was doing, expending close to $20,000 at this point, was getting him where he needed to be to put him into compliance. MR. FRACAS SO: I'm still under oath? You know, the permitted dumpster, it was a permitted dumpster location, by the way, the one that they're complaining about. It was built there in 1979 and it's been used for a dumpster pad since that time. And all of a sudden it becomes a violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At the southwest corner? MR. FRACAS SO: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At the southwest corner? MR. FRACAS SO: At both pads, yes. They were at both pads, that's where they were. They had two dumpster sites for over 20 plus years. All of a sudden they become a violation. And as soon as I got word of their violation and their unhappiness with it, I pledged every ounce of my cooperation with the county to take care of the problem. 133 September 23,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're telling us that there was a permit issued for the dumpster pad to be in the right-of-way? MR. FRACASSO: To be in the right-of-way. Not only that, all of the previous building permits that we requested, we submitted site plans showing that dumpster pad exactly where it was, and at no time did anybody in the county ever complain about that dumpster pad, and issued building permits, seeing the site development plan that was attached. I have never not cooperated with this county. I've got numerous of properties and I don't want any problems with you, I don't want you to have any problems with me. I've spent $20,000 correcting this silly little problem. And to me, that is a tremendous amount of money. I would put that dumpster pad on top of my building. I would empty the dumpster with a helicopter, if that's what you people want. MS. DUSEK: In the first order it asks you to remove it to a different location? MR. FRACASSO: Yes. MS. DUSEK: And you did that? MR. FRACASSO: I started the process of doing it, yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: But did you do it? Did you move it? MR. FRACASSO: But we couldn't move it. There wasn't anyplace to move it to. We had to get a permitted dumpster location and have a site plan. We had to then submit for a building permit. After the building permit we then had to start the process of building the dumpster pad. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Fracasso -- MR. FRACASSO: It all took a long time to get this taken care of. MS. BARNETT: I hate to be a devil's advocate here, but you had a building permit or a cited site that you had a table in for people __ that you utilized at this time for people to sit at prior to them waiting. 134 ",..",-.._,~--""".~,.-".>","". "' September 23, 2004 MR. FRACAS SO: No, the seating, no, I was never a part of the seating. MS. BARNETT: While they were waiting to be -- into your restaurant. It wasn't -- MR. FRACASSO: Not my restaurant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, he doesn't own a restaurant. He owns the whole complex. MR. FRACASSO: I own the complex. MS. BARNETT: Okay. Well, there was a permitted site there, even though it was for a smaller dumpster. MR. FRACASSO: Yeah, but it couldn't be used-- MS. BARNETT: Could it not have been a temporary solution to have ordered a smaller dumpster and had it dumped more often? MR. FRACASSO: No one asked me to go to a temporary solution. I thought I was on the right page or the same page as every other department in this county, because I was in constant contact with them. MS. BARNETT: One of the orders of this board was to move it back to a permitted site. MR. FRACASSO: But the dumpster there could not be moved back into that location. MS. BARNETT: But a smaller one could have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, okay. Let me -- I guess he just said something, and so it's confusing for me. You said there was two permitted locations -- don't sit down, sir, because you're going to answer questions. You just said a little bit ago there were two permitted previous locations: One in the right-of-way. I assume -- MR. FRACASSO: Well, it was two feet into the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In the right-of-way is in the right-of-way. MR. FRACASSO: Okay. Well, regardless. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One was in the right-of-way and the 135 September 23, 2004 other one was I assume where the seating area is. That was probably the second permitted-- MR. FRACASSO: Well, it wasn't a seating area-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it's where it is now. MR. FRACAS SO: -- it was people waiting to be called to a seat inside the restaurant. He had a few complimentary chairs out there is what he had. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine, fine. When our order said move it to a permitted location, why couldn't you put the dumpster back there? MR. FRACASSO: Because it wouldn't fit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why couldn't you put a smaller dumpster back there? MR. FRACASSO: Well, that we could of, but we didn't-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whoa, whoa, whoa -- okay. You're making a lot of excuses why you couldn't do something. MR. FRACASSO: No, I'm not making any excuses, sir. I'm not making any. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We said move it to a permitted location. That area where the gentleman was having people stand around, or whatever they're doing, was a permitted location. You could have moved a dumpster to that location. You chose not to do it. MR. FRACAS SO: All right now, let's be logical here. That is right next door to an entrance of a restaurant. You as a person who goes to that restaurant to eat, would you like to walk right through that dumpster pad to get to that restaurant? I mean, let's be logical here. I tried to be logical and I tried to comply, and that's what I'm doing. I'm telling you right now, I have been trying to comply. I was on the same page with every department in this county over a dumpster. I never once said I would not comply. And any department head, you can go to Cheryl who is the planning department, you can go to the building department, and there isn't one 136 .---- September 23,2004 person there that will not tell you that I was not cooperative. MS. LOUKONEN: I think the point that I'm trying to make is that he received the order and he believed he was in compliance. And he has done everything within his power to remedy what he believes was the problem. And by doing that, he submitted a site development plan and he's expended a substantial sum of money and invested a substantial amount of time. And when he received the affidavit of compliance, his first thought was I'm on the right track, I'm apparently doing what I've got to do to comply with the order. Because the affidavit of compliance is very general, it's very vague, and I can see where an average person, any reasonable person would be -- would believe that if an affidavit of compliance that reads that the reinspection revealed that the corrective action ordered by the board has been taken, what -- that means every, every part of that order was complied with. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. LOUKONEN: And that's where he stands. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess reasonable person that you've interjected gives me a problem. You get a notice that says you've complied with something. MS. LOUKONEN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Bear with me. I'm a reasonable person. So I'm going to read my order. My order says submit a site development plan. Reasonable person, he did that. You go on down, it says cause a tenant to cease utilizing the dumpster area unless permitted. If he has a permit, I guess he can show it to the county. I don't know if he did that. MS. LOUKONEN: And let me interject there, because the first time I went over this order with him, I said what does that sentence mean to you? His comment to me was that means that I can put that dumpster in an area that is permitted and put that dumpster, I have to get a permitted location. 137 """-'''''--."'--'~.'...'.-. September 23, 2004 So in his mind, this sentence number four, to cause the tenant to cease utilizing the area for dumpster unless it is permitted, in his mind that sentence read get a location. Because when you're reading it from the beginning and you go from one to two to three and they all discuss submitting a site development plan to get a permitted location, he read number four and believed what this means is I've got to get a permitted location and I've got to find a right place. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Great argument, doesn't make sense. Great argument, doesn't make sense. Let's read the sentence. You just made it and you're standing on it. Cause the tenant to cease utilizing the area unless it's permitted. How can you -- MS. LOUKONEN: Which is sitting -- it's sitting on a southwest dumpster pad that he is being told is not permitted. He is going to cease using that area by submitting a site development plan, and that is what he believes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, no, no. It doesn't work that way. MS. LOUKONEN: It may not work that way, but that's what he believed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can I finish the sentence? Am I going to get to talk now? It says cause the tenant to cease utilizing. It doesn't say cease utilizing once you submit the plan, it says cease. You know, when you tell a child stop doing something, that doesn't mean stop six years from now, it means stop right now. We said cease utilizing, i.e., stop now until it's permitted, not hey, submit a piece of paper, keep using it for six years. Sorry, it just doesn't wash with me. MS. LOUKONEN: And that's fine. But at the end of the day, he's still expended a substantial amount of money, the property is in complete compliance, it's better now than it was before. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's get back to the current order, which is where he's being fined. That order he's not being fined for 138 .."",,,"",._--,,,_...~-".,,--".~..,,, September 23, 2004 anything. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, can I ask one question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. BARNETT: Because he made the comment that that southwest pad had been permitted. MR. FRACASSO: When the center was originally built. MS. BARNETT: Is there anything -- MR. FRACASSO: No. The one that they ordered me to vacate. MS. BARNETT: Is there anything that you have that could substantiate that? MR. FRACASSO: No. 1976 or '79, you try to find county records -- MS. LOUKONEN: I tried to get county records and could not get anything that was -- MR. FRACASSO: It's not -- not even available. MS. LOUKONEN: There was nothing. There was not a site development plan at that time. But like I've said earlier, when he bought the property, it had been in use for 15 years at that time. MR. FRACASSO: But again here, we don't have a problem. I'm in compliance. I agreed to be in compliance. I agreed totally to cooperate with whatever it is they wanted. This is what I don't understand, why we're here taking so much time of everybody in this room when I'm in compliance and I would cooperate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not disagreeing that you're not in compliance with our first order. You're not being fined for the first order. That's gone, it's out of here, dead, forget it. The second order issued in June the 29th, which says this is a repeat violation. The first order's gone, you've complied with it, but now you've done it again. MR. FRACASSO: No, I did not do it again. We were in process of taking care of the violation. What you're saying is maybe I should have made a decision in retrospect to get a smaller dumpster. That 139 September 23, 2004 was not considered, only because we already had the dumpster emptied four times a week and the dumpster has a tremendous load problem there. To get a smaller dumpster was not, you know, really an acceptable thing to do, because we have too much trash being removed from that site. Although it might make sense, yeah, let's get a smaller dumpster, put it in there, that was not -- you know, in retrospect maybe, maybe, okay, that might have been okay, but it wouldn't have worked. You would have also complained about that. Then, because of the trash right at the front door of a restaurant, we probably would have killed the gentleman's business. Probably. So that's something I didn't want to be a part of either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, what's the fine? MS. ARNOLD: My estimate, it's about $7,000. Can I just note, and I just want to point out some clarifications. I think what Mr. Fracasso was saying is that there was a permit for the original area, and we did not bring that -- MS. BARNETT: He was saying both. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, he just under oath told us there was a permit for using the right-of-way. I don't know. MR. FRACAS SO: No, I said it was when it was built back in 1979 or so, that's when that dumpster pad was built. So I -- you know, when you have to look at it as part of the overall building plan, you assume that, you know, that not only did he receive a building permit to build the center, he built the dumpster pad at the-same time that was also permitted, but I can't prove that. MS. ARNOLD: And we did not dispute that in the case, the original case, nor did we dispute it in the second case. The area under question was the location of the expanded dumpster that was located next to the day care in the right-of-way. That was the area. And we-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you said you put a bigger dumpster in there, and that's on the record. MR. FRACAS SO: No, no, we put a -- there's always been a 140 "...,;.~.............._~,,~....,,_...,- September 23,2004 dumpster in there. What we did was to put a bigger dumpster to take care -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I just said. MR. FRACAS SO: Yeah, but take care of the tremendous amount of trash. That's the reason we had to put a bigger dumpster. MS. ARNOLD: Let me -- we have looked at this particular issue; obviously we brought it back a couple of times. We continued to get complaints from the adjacent property owner. I don't doubt that Mr. Fracasso and his representatives have contacted all the -- those that were involved in the planning departments and building departments and those types of things. We believe that the effort that he's done and the compliance that he's achieved at this point is definitely an improvement over what we had, and we're satisfied with that. It's in compliance. Staff is not objecting to the request, simply because we're in a situation where we're in compliance. There are -- were some circumstances which were difficult for him to obtain compliance; basically moving a larger dumpster to a location which wouldn't fit and the fact that, you know, the dumpster location wasn't one where the waste management department would have preferred to it be. The new location now where they've moved it to in this area is definitely a more suitable location for this center. MS. BARNETT: Well, honestly, where I'm having trouble with this is going back to our first order. If that southwest corner site was a permitted site, which we cannot tell at this point, he technically was in compliance in full at that time, even though it was in the southwest corner. MS. ARNOLD: What southwest corner site are you referring to? MS. BARNETT: According to her little-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At the day care. MS. BARNETT: By the day care, in the right-of-way. MS. ARNOLD: No, that was not a permitted site. 141 .- q-,-"---""";"'~" -""~" September 23, 2004 MS. BARNETT: That's what he was saying and testifying, that it was back in the Seventies. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Fracasso, that particular area in the right-of-way you're telling me was a part of the original location for the dumpster? MR. FRACASSO: That is correct. MS. ARNOLD: And the pad that was located -- MR. FRACASSO: To my knowledge, that is correct. MS. ARNOLD: And the pad that was located there was just done for beautification, where the original dumpster -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Where the seating area or standing area or whatever. MR. FRACASSO: No, the center had two pads for two dumpsters. It had two separate pads for two separate dumpsters. That's what it had. And it always had two dumpsters there. What we did was remove one dumpster to go to just one instead of two. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you build the original center, I mean? MR. FRACASSO: I did not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you don't know that maybe the second pad was added later, you're just-- MR. FRACASSO: I was told it was built at the same time, that's all I know. MS. BARNETT: And that's where I had a problem, because we don't have records to go back to look at that, and that's what I was asking for. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, that would be-- MR. FRACASSO: Believe me, I wish we would have had. MS. ARNOLD: That would be the first time that the county permitted a dumpster in the right-of-way that I've seen anywhere. I mean, it's not something that is allowed in the right-of-way, because utilities are run in the right-of-way, there's drainage and issues. 142 September 23, 2004 MR. FRACASSO: I can't speak to that, I really can't, because I wasn't around here in '79. MS. DUSEK: What are you basing your knowledge of a permit that would allow a dumpster in the right-of-way? MR. FRACAS SO: Well, because I've since submitted approximately three building permits showing that site plan and showing that dumpster pad, and at no time did anybody -- and it shows a two feet encroachment into the right-of-way, and no one has ever objected to it. So I'm assuming -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, but when you submit it, you're asking to move it. MR. FRACAS SO: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said -- the paperwork you submitted says oh, I don't want it here, I want it over here. So I guess that's why they're not objecting, because you're moving it. They know it's in the wrong place, so there'll be no objections. MR. FRACASSO: Well, once it was pointed out to me and they said it was in violation, we said we'd cooperate and move it. I wasn't even aware that it was in violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's why there's no objection. Okay. We need to get down to making a decision whether we want to do anything about this. We can argue -- MS. LOUKONEN: I'd like to make one comment in regard to the second order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUKONEN: Again, Mr. Fracasso had requested a continuance on that hearing and wasn't given one and there was no explanation as to why he wasn't given a continuance. Whenever that order was entered he was out of town on business and had contacted Shanelle Hilton to let her know he would be out of town, because he didn't receive notice of the hearing until it was too late to make the attendance. So when that order was entered, he was not even able to 143 ,~,._--~_._...- September 23, 2004 argue against, you know, what the board was going to order at that time. MS. DUSEK: May I ask Shawn a question? MR. LUEDTKE: Ma'am. MS. DUSEK: I'm getting a little bit confused now with the first order and the second order. Basically what I understood is there was a dumpster that was in an illegal spot on the first order and he was asked to move it. And he __ my understanding was he did move it or he did come into compliance, but then later it was moved back again; is that correct or incorrect? MR. LUEDTKE: No, he never came into compliance -- oh, I'm sorry . (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKE: No, he never moved the dumpster at any point. The reason we signed the affidavit of compliance was because that he submitted the SDP, which was a requirement by this board. MS. DUSEK: But that was only part of our order. So why was he given that -- MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. But we had no recourse for enforcement because he didn't come into compliance with removing the dumpster, which was one section, because there was no fine associated with it. So that was the reason that we had to bring it back in front of the board again, so you could rehear it and then attach a fine to the violation. MS. DUSEK: You're going to have to run that by me again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's pretty -- when you read the order, so you understand, we told him item one, submit an SDP. If you don't submit the SDP, there's going to be a fine of "X". And as we went down the order, one of the two other items were cease using the dumpster, and the next item was -- I've forgotten now. MR. BOWIE: Relocate. 144 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Relocate it to a permitted location. But with those two items, we didn't assign any fine, we just said do it. MS. DUSEK: All right. But in order to come into compliance, he would have to do those, would he not? MS. LOUKONEN: That would be our stance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not arguing with or against whether the letter issued by the county that he's in compliance is technically correct. They looked at the fine portion and said he's in compliance. If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. I mean, but there's no fine for that order. We're here to talk about $7,000 for the second order. So the first order, we're not trying to fine him, and he thinks he was in compliance. But then he got another order saying you have to do this, and he obviously hadn't done it and he's being -- he was fined. And now he's saying because of these circumstances, I'd like you to abate or reduce the fine. MS. BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Can you give me some direction here? Because I'm kind of confused, if -- because -- I think I'm kind of grasping this, but maybe I'm way out over here. But it looks like in his eyes he was given a letter of compliance that I think a normal person would feel that he had complied. And now he's got hit with another NOV and he's going, why. MS. RAWSON: I think that's what his testimony was. MS. BARNETT: And because one order sort of follows the other, because we're saying it's a repeat violation, if we've given an order of compliance, how are we -- I'm -- MS. RAWSON: You have to decide if a reasonable person, when receiving an affidavit of compliance that says you're fully in compliance, means that you've got to go back and read the order and figure out if you're in compliance for one, two, three, four, whatever your board's order said. 145 >.......~,-_...-.,--'"..,._'". September 23, 2004 His testimony, as I understand it, is that when he saw that, he thought that meant he was fully in compliance. Some of your board members' discussion and the way they look at it is well, no, he should have gone back and looked at the order and he's not fully in compliance, he was only in compliance to number one, which is getting the SDP. So, I mean, that's something that you guys are going to have to wrestle with. I think I understand, you know, both sides of this argument. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I definitely understand both sides, and you could -- I guess a reasonable person could sit here and say there are people who would say hey, I'm in compliance; boy I slipped through those two, they didn't even check me on those. There's people that do that. I'm sure this gentleman is not -- MR. FRACASSO: That was never my intention, never. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you'd let me finish your sentence (sic), you know. MR. FRACAS SO: Okay. But that was not my intention. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can I finish my sentence? MR. FRACASSO: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I said I'm sure this gentleman is not one of those. See? Let me finish before you speak. Now, let's get back to the existing order. Then it was brought back before us that the problem still existed. And we had a hearing and we made a determination and issued another order which has resulted in a fine. The gentleman feels the fine is incorrect for the various reasons he's submitted to us. We need to determine if we think it is incorrect totally, partially. At some point we have to stop going back and forth and make a decision; otherwise, we could be here for the next three months. At some point we have to say we all understand and we want to try to do the right thing and we're going to do it. MR. BOWIE: To me, the only maybe reasonable response upon 146 ~-""'---~';"-"~ . .... September 23,2004 receiving the notice of violation in the second case, Case No. 2004-29, upon a respondent receiving a notice of violation in this case which alleges repeat violations of matters that the respondent deemed had been corrected previously in the prior case, would have been to contest that right-of-way -- MS. LOUKONEN: We did. MR. BOWIE: -- and defend it on that grounds. But I don't remember that having been done. MS. LOUKONEN: What's happened procedurally is he received a notice that the hearing was going to take place. He had been calling the Code Enforcement Board but had not been getting any feedback -- but I'm sure they keep records of the calls that come in -- explained to them he's got a notice of violation and he doesn't understand what's going on, because I received my affidavit of compliance. At that point he contacted Shanelle Hilton, and there's a copy of that fax in there to her, explained to her he could not make the hearing. The board went on with the hearing and order -- and that's whenever the second order was fashioned. At that time, once he received that second order in the mail, that's when he hired counsel. And that's when we stepped in and we submitted a rather lengthy argument for either having a rehearing or either going straight from the rehearing, and instead of putting the board through a rehearing on this matter, just go to an abatement of fines, because at that stage we would be able to go through all the factual issues and give you a concise, nice statement as to why we believe there should be an abatement of fines at one hearing instead of dragging it out over two. Because the other -- we don't want to send a message to this board saying well, let's drag it out for a month and another month and another month. We wanted to get this resolved. We wanted to impart upon the board the fact that we're not trying to hide from this, we want to get this resolved and we want to move this along. 147 September 23, 2004 MS. BARNETT: I can go back from my memory, if I recollect, the reason we did not continue it was because we were concerned about the day care, because they were the ones that were filing the complaint, saying that it was hazardous possibly to the children with big dumpsters coming through there and being that the right-of way, et cetera. So we felt there was a safety issue, which is why we did not give him the continuance. If that helps clarify that -- MS. LOUKONEN: That's fine. There was just nothing in the -- there was nothing stated in the order on his motion for continuance. There was no reason given. MS. BARNETT: That was in our discussion, so I helped to clarify that for you. MS. DUSEK: Shawn, do you remember when you cited him for the second time, what that date was, or month? It doesn't have to be the exact date. MR. LUEDTKE: I want to say it was in June, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, beginning of June. Because we put it -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. And now he's in compliance as of the middle of August? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that's what she said. MS. DUSEK: And coming into compliance was moving the dumpster and ceasing the operation until it was moved; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MS. DUSEK: May I ask you, from June until the middle of August, why did it take you two months to move the dumpster? MR. FRACAS SO: Because we were building a dumpster pad that would accept the dumpster where you wanted it to be moved. And like I said, it took us close to three months, two and a half months to get a building permit to build that pad. Once we got our permit, we moved right along with it. Believe me, we did. And I couldn't move it to a permitted pad, you know, unless I'm supposed to make a 148 ^, ,..",.~,...".",,",,..,,,-;..._,,--">,,-,..,- September 23, 2004 decision to use a smaller dumpster. That I didn't do. MR. BOWIE: But we do have in our file copy of the correspondence from Mr. Fracasso to -- addressed to Shanelle Hilton to this board dated June 17, 2004. This is when I believe it was scheduled for hearing on the second case and he requested an extension of time for the hearing. In this letter it says -- he acknowledges we've been working with the county to fix the problem. It has taken us 11 months to get a building permit to fix the problem. Our permit was just released Monday, June 14th. Now, let's take care of it. Please continue this hearing to a later date. This letter does more than request an extension of time on the second case, it kind of ties this in with the whole notion that this is in fact a continuing violation dating 11 months back to the time of the first case. So I don't know how, sir -- MR. FRACASSO: No, it's not a continuing violation. MR. BOWIE: I don't know how you can tell us that you really believed that the affidavit of compliance you received resolved all of the matters resolved in the 2003 case, when the letter you sent us June 17th requesting the extension of time references this to being a problem continuing back 11 months and hasn't been resolved. MS. LOUKONEN: When he says problem, he's talking about the fact that from the time he originally hired engineers, which there's a timeline that I submitted with the original request for rehearing, from the time he hired engineers to get the site development plan, to submit this to the county, from the time that process began back in October, it's July now and he's still wrestling with the same problem, trying to fix it. He's not saying there's a problem, he's saying this is a problem I'm trying to fix. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry. Okay. You submitted an SDP December 22nd, you got approved April 1st. Three months to get the SDP approved. Then from April 1st, when did you submit 149 -, ..".._~---,~--",-,-.,- September 23, 2004 your request for a building permit? MS. LOUKONEN: The building permit was issued actually on June the 10th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand when it was issued. When did he submit it? You left that part out. MR. FRACASSO: My contractor would have to answer that. I can't really remember, but it was the same -- MS. BARNETT: He says 11 months in his letter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, wait a minute. Eleven months ain't going to wash with me so that's why I'm trying to figure out these dates. MR. FRACAS SO: I believe it took approximately two and a half months to get the building permit released. So if we back up from that date to two and a half months, that's when we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You don't-- MS. LOUKONEN: I believe I have it in my file. And my -- if I remember correctly, it was within that same week that the amended SDP was approved. And I believe I have a copy of it in my file that I could pull out real quick from the construction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we got a permit issued in June 10th and you complete the construction of this pad in mid-August, which is June, July, two months to build this pad. MS. LOUKONEN: Right. To get concrete was another story. But it did end up taking about two months. Exactly two months, actually. MR. FRACASSO: It took us several weeks to get concrete just to pour the pad, because we were so small. We only needed six yards. We were on the back of the list. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. LOUKONEN: And again, with that, he also had to make improvements to the actual road. He had to get rid of another entrance coming into his property. So it was more than just building a 150 d_'''-....''''''___~.--"~,-~·_~··,~'''·,_...,·,·"''-'''''"''''''''''''---'--<···_·,~· September 23, 2004 dumpster pad, he had several things that the county wanted him to do. In order to move that dumpster, he had to do other things to the parking lot, as well to the landscape. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So from when you submitted your SDP, December 22nd, till the hypothetically mid-August when you finished the pad, December 22nd to January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, eight months, not 11. MR. FRACASSO: But you're not aware of the six meetings I had with the county trying to get the process started. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, I wasn't even addressing the meetings. I looked at my colleague and said not 11 months. Eight and 11 ain't washing with me, it's eight. Your lawyer's put the dates down. I assume she did the right thing. It's eight months, not 11. Okay. Are we done asking questions so we can make some kind of a decision? MS. DUSEK: I'm thinking this way: I could understand why there might have been some confusion on his part when he got the affidavit of compliance. However, I think he's a pretty intelligent person and might have assumed that that was overlooked. And I don't believe you intended to do anything wrong, believe me. You seem like a person of principle and responsibility. However, you didn't come into compliance on two parts, even though they gave you an affidavit of compliance. So you were re-cited again for those two parts. I'm willing to compromise on the fact that the affidavit of compliance was confusing and to reduce the fine; not abate it, but reduce it by half. MR. PONTE: My feeling is that the affidavit of compliance is an affidavit of compliance, and that the average person would interpret it as saying I am in compliance. My feeling is that the fine should be abated. MS. BARNETT: George, I'm going to go in between the two of 151 September 23,2004 you, because I think once he got the second NOV, he realized that there was still a problem. He did ask us for a continuance, which we did not give him, so he was again under the gun. I do realize that there are some shortages as far as concrete shortages currently with building issues and that type of thing. He got the building permit as of 6/14. He got it put in, I'm going to say mid-August. I think it warrants some kind of fine. I think a little less than half. I'm going to say $1,500. MR. PONTE: I think the fact that we didn't continue the case was a poor judgment on our part. MS. BARNETT: We were worried about the safety of the kids, though, I remember at the time. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I remember that being a factor. But nevertheless, we should have continued the case or reheard it. I think we're somewhat at fault here. And I would vote for abating the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: From my part, I would be willing to, with a stretch, side with Bobbie. I would go along with a 50 percent reduction, but no more. It's a second violation. A prudent person should have got it, said wait a minute, I thought it was done, it isn't. I ought to come forward and ask what the heck's going on. None of that happened. They made a decision to wait till it was all over with to come in here and ask us to abate the whole thing. That's their decision, they're allowed to do that. I'm not at this point willing to give it up. I know he's done a lot of work and he's tried real hard, but I'm not impressed that he tried as hard as he could have. MS. ARNOLD: I want to state that they didn't wait until the entire thing was abated before they came in, because they had, after the board heard the case the second time, requested a rehearing and also an abatement of fines at that particular time. So they were within the time frames. They didn't wait until compliance was met before they approached the board. 152 _"'''''"'''''___''''''_'~_~'''.^'M'>··'··· ,'. September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They asked for a rehearing? MS. BARNETT: Last week -- or last month. MS. DUSEK: Well, they had to make a decision whether it was going to be a rehearing or an abatement of fines. And the decision was an abatement of fines. And I don't feel it was a poor judgment for us to hear the case at that time. I think that that dumpster being in the right-of-way of the day care center was an important issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Okay. So anyway. All right, we've had some discussion, does somebody want to make a motion to see what happens? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we reduce the fine to $3,500. MR. BOWIE: Do we know for a fact that the fines are $7,000? Do we have an exact amount? MS. ARNOLD: When is the exact -- I was going with an August 6th comply by date. MS. LOUKONEN: It was -- right, it was within the first week of August that compliance was met. There was an affidavit from the construction company that I submitted with the request for rehearing. And in that affidavit, he suggested that it would take about a week more. And I was being a bit lenient by saying mid-August. But I have a -- my suspicion is that it was closer to the end of July, within the first week of August at the latest. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, at this point whatever fines have amassed, it's up to the board. Regardless of what the amount is, if the board wants to set a fine of some number and call it quits, they have that right. So whatever the current number is, Bobbie's making a motion that the fine be $3,500, period. Whether it's seven, eight, 10, immaterial. She's saying $3,500. MR. PONTE: I think that's much too high. Way too high. I think the fines should be abated. I think that all of the people involved here have been confused on both sides. And I'll go back to saying that 153 September 23,2004 if you receive an affidavit of compliance, it indicates that you're in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The fine -- again, the fine has nothing to do with the first order. MR. PONTE: It has to do with the action, or the lack of action on both sides. MS. LOUKONEN: And might I add, it also has to do with whether or not you're viewing this as a repeated offense, which doubles the fine. And quite frankly, if you receive an affidavit of compliance, you would hope that it means what it says and that you can rely on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But then when you get another order for another thing, you -- you know. Sorry. Anyway, we have a motion on the floor, is there going to be a second to it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, somebody want to make another motion? MS. BARNETT: I'm going to make a motion that the fine be $1,500, only because I feel that there was negligence on the part that he realized that there was another issue that wasn't resolved when he got the second notice. So I feel that that's grounds for something. And so that's where I would like to leave my motion, at $1,500. MR. HEMES: I'll second Sheri's motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for a $1,500 fine. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. 154 -,._~."..........._--,~........,.".~. September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. How many do we have? One, two, three, four. All those opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. MS. DUSEK: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 4-2. Motion carries. Fine's $1,500. Okay. Request for foreclosures. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. In your packet you should have received a request for the foreclosure of case against -- Board of County Commissioners versus Steven Johnson, CEB Case 2003-057; Board of County Commissioners versus Paul Zaino, CEB Case 2004-028; and Board of County Commissioners versus Claude Martel, CEB Case 2004-014. And we're requesting that this be forwarded to the county attorney's office to take the appropriate action. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we ask the county to go ahead with the foreclosure -- MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. MS. DUSEK: -- or submit it to the county for foreclosure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have no affidavits of compliance or noncompliance. No reports. Any comments? MS. DUSEK: I have one. On the stipulations that you do, is it possible to at the very least have it so that it's on the viewer, since we 155 -..... ...<".._~.........."""'''''..--_...""''"--~. September 23, 2004 can't get copies? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else? Next meeting's October 28th here at our 9:30 time. MS. ARNOLD: And I just want to make a comment about the packets and everything else. Hopefully they'll be in better order next time. Just because we were kind of in transition with Shanelle gone, half was done, half wasn't done. So we made do as best as we could. MS. BARNETT: How is Shanelle doing? MS. ARNOLD: She's at home recovering. I'm not really sure how long she's going to be out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell her we miss her and we send our best. MR. HEMES: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to adjourn. MR. BOWIE: Second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And a second. All those in favor. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Thanks, everybody. Oh, for your patience and your virtues. 156 -,~.-..._----_-.-~"">'-" September 23, 2004 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:25 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. 157 _.o_,~_",·_'_^ ,-,-,_._"->.-",.~.._,.,-,,,-,----.,,,---"---,., -.".