The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 10/28/2004 R October 28, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida October 28, 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 9:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Sheri Barnett Raymond Bowie Albert Doria, Jr. Roberta Dusek Nicolas Hemes Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Leonardo Bonanno, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 28, 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 - September 23, 2004 Regular Meeting July 15, 2005 Workshop Meeting 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-067 1034 HIGHLAND DRIVE, NAPLES, FL ROBERT PEKAR RITA CRISP VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, 1.5.6 AND 2.6.7.1.1 ORD NO 99-51 SEC 5,6,7 AND 8 ILLEGAL STORAGE OF UNLICENSED VEHICLES. 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-037 37 CLARY COURT, PLANTATION ISLAND, FL FRED & NORMA KOWALKE CAROL SYKORA *RESPONDENT WAS GRANTED NO MORE THAN TWO (2) HOURS TO PRESENT THIS CASE AT THE CEB MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23,2004. VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1,2.7.6.5 AND 2.7.6.5(A) FAILURE TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS FOR STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS MADE ON PROPERTY. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC VS. Julio & Alba Vargas/Sonnia Tibanear 2. BCC VS. Greg & Jane Bee CEB NO. 2004-019 CEB NO. 2004-021 B. Request for Extension of Time 1. BCC VS. Diana Hall CEB No. 2003-036 C. Request for Foreclosure Initiation 1. BCC VS. Baker Towing CEB NO. 2003-026 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE November 29, 2004 11. ADJOURN October 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, 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 -- I'll be all right -- shall be responsible for providing this record. We've waited too long. I can't speak. May we have a roll call, please. MR. BONANNO: Chairman Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Doria? MR. DORIA: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. MR. BONANNO: And Mr. Hemes? MR. HEMES: Present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes? MR. BOWIE: Just one, Mr. Chairman. On approval of the minutes, Item 3, I know we all are great believers in advanced planning, but you see a reference there to our workshop meeting minutes of July 15th, 2005? That may be a little too farsighted, okay? Page 2 October 28, 2004 I'd like to just amend that to 2004. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No problem. MS. ARNOLD: I also have some changes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. I'm going to ask that the board hear the items under new business first before the public hearings. So that would be the requests for imposition of fines and the requests for extension of time. And then we would go to public hearings and then refer back to the foreclosure portion. MS. DUSEK: Do you also have an affidavit of noncompliance that you added this morning? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I'll just go through those with the imposition of fines -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- and foreclosures or whatever. Also, just wanted to make note that the items on the agenda should be after public hearing, No.4, it should be 5, new business, 6, old business, and so on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifnone, I'd entertain a motion to accept the agenda as changed. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as changed. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. Page 3 October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes. We have two sets. First one is September 23rd, 2004. MR. BOWIE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted. Any 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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Minutes of our workshop from July 15th, 2004. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MR. BOWIE: Second. Page 4 October 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept those minutes as submitted. Any 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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First item will be the request for imposition of fines. BCC versus Julio and Alba Vargas, and is that Sonnia Tibanear? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that's good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If I murdered those, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: This particular item was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on July 22nd, '04. You have a copy of your order. At that particular time, the board found a violation and ordered the respondent to comply by September 5th. We are at this particular time, because the project is not yet completely in compliance, asking that the board issue fines in the amount of $3,825 for a period of September 6th through October 27th at a rate of$75 per day, plus $1,575 for a period of October 6th through October 27th for -- again, a rate of $75 per day, plus operational costs in the amount of $655.83. The total fines that we're asking to impose today are $6,055.83. Page 5 .~_.....~...,"-_.._-_.__..~-- October 28,2004 The prior owners -- at the time of our hearing, the owners of the property were the Vargases. Now the property's been sold and the owner's son is here as well. So both parties are here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do either of the parties wish to speak? You, sir, come up front, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pull the microphone down, sir, if you would. Thank you. MR. VARGAS: Is that good? Okay. My name is Julio Vargas. I used to own the house at 710. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can you speak a little louder, sir? MR. VARGAS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There you go. Thank you. MR. VARGAS: Okay. We sold the property to Ms. Tibanear, and because we couldn't afford to fix up the property. I was supposed to be -- we had someone in there working and they took off on us. I have copies here of the contract and everything that it was sold as- is, because we couldn't afford to fix it, so we had to sell the property. I don't know what else to say. I got to take it from here. I'll give you the contract so you can see. MR. BOWIE: Is your buyer here? MR. VARGAS: Yes, sir. Well, his son is -- her son is. MR. BOWIE: And you made disclosure to this buyer of the code enforcement lien on the property at the time of the sale and the closing? MR. VARGAS : Yes. He was aware. Code enforcement officer that's here also, they've talked to each other also before we made the deal so-- , MR. BOWIE: So they're aware of it. MR. VARGAS: He knew everything that was going on and, you know, everything was -- nothing -- everything was legal. I just Page 6 October 28, 2004 sold the house to him because I couldn't afford to do it. It was sold under property value because of that reason, and that's all. I have all the contracts here, all the copies, and the gentleman's here also from the code enforcement. He can tell you he was there, too. He talked to the lady's son and -- I don't know what else to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Anything else you wish to tell us? MR. VARGAS: No, sir. I don't know what else to tell you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Vargas? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly. On the recommendations, the imposition of fines, you have 3,825 for the period of September 6th through the 27th of October at $75 per day, which is correct. And then you have 1,575 for the period of October 6th through October 27th, which is the same time frame. MS. ARNOLD: No. One is September and the other one is October. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One is September, one is October. MS. DUSEK: September 6th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And October 6th. MR. BOWIE: Through October 27th. MS. DUSEK: Through October 27th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And then -- MS. DUSEK: Then the next period is October 6th through October 27th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Twenty-one days. MS. DUSEK: But the way I'm reading it, it looks like -- MR. BOWIE: They overlap. MS. BARNETT: They overlap. MS. ARNOLD: The order specified a number of different Page 7 October 28, 2004 things to do, and there were fines -- MS. DUSEK: So this was two different time frames. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we had an item five in the order. MS. DUSEK: Okay, that's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then there was some different time frames that they had to meet. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. All right, sir. You, sir, are you the new owner's son? Would you come forward, sir? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. GONZALEZ: My name is Honado Gonzalez. I am Sonnia's son, who is the property owner right now at this time. Well, I will try to explain briefly, because this been coming out already for like almost a year. When I was introduced to the property itself with the intentions to buy, I been told that the property have some problems with the code enforcement. So before I went any farther, I -- and only I as an only person -- after six months, a code enforcement officer were trying to locate the owner and he never shows up or nobody ever shows up. I went myself to the code enforcement. I meet with Jeff here present. I meet with Shanelle who was kind of, I think, in charge of the office. And I asked all the facts why the property was on the illegal sites on the code enforcement, because I did want to buy property to my mother, like it was clear from any kind of legal issues. Even though there was no lien or anything or any penalty at that time. So I got together with Jeff here, and I got the list of things that were considered like violations at that time, which I have here. And I personal, before I did any buy, I agree with the owner to do all the setbacks to what it was before, the original property, to have it up to Page 8 October 28, 2004 code before I went to buy the house. And I been working for three months on that property before I did buy the house to make it clean and clear. And the time that -- pardon me. That something else he referred, that the property was supposed to be sold as-is, but that was never clear. I have a pending case here with the lawyer. I can show you all the documents. That they kind of tricked out. I was supposed to get some money for repairings on the house which they keep. They make a letter they will give them money for getting the right permits if the time being to put it like it was before prior to code, because it would cost so much money to have a new septic tank I couldn't afford it. So that was the whole agreement. And I have his letter signed by him and his wife before the closing. Which it didn't happen that way, and that's why I have a lawyer working on the case right now towards Julio Vargas and his wife. That have nothing to do with this case, but just I'm letting you know this. There is other things. It got so complicated at the time after three months me working, sending back all the remodelings, and it was kind of a discordance between what the code enforcement officer say he have to be back and what the owners who was the buyer at that time say it was done and that was assisting and it didn't have to be touched. So I got to the point I say I'm not doing nothing no more on the property until you clear up yourself with the code enforcement and you take care of it yourself. I am backing out of this deal. So Julio told me he went to the code enforcement and he had spoke with supervisor down there, and everything was clean and clear. Well, it happened that wasn't true. I been told that Julio just went to the code enforcement to complain of harassment or something like that. He never cleared up the situation. I was never informed that the situation wasn't cleared out. That's Page 9 October 28, 2004 why I bought the property. Later on, like two months later on, I get there is violations are still inside the property. So I get again -- I meet again in the code enforcement office. I want you to know this as well, that in all this period of time, who was almost like for a year, the only person who ever shows up, it was me regarding that. And I can cite Jeff, code enforcement and he knows how many times I show up, he knows how many times -- he knows the improvement on the property at this point for what it was and what it is right now. The neighbors know the improvement on the property as well. So I was kind of tricked out in the whole deal. And either economically, because I never got to improve to what it was supposed to be, the property, when I got it sold -- when I got it -- we bought it. Also, as well legally , because it was no what I been told, that it was clean and clear. And before I bought it three months, I was pursuing to have the property cleared. So from my point of view when I bought the property, it was clean and clear. And all the remodeling that the previous owner have done without any proper permit have been lasting like for nine months or something like that. Which he ever (sic) show up in any court or any code enforcement. I was the one who took care of it. I was the one -- before even I bought the house, I wanted to have it clean and clear. That was the deal. And I been told by him, and I didn't have the other way to know if that was clear. I check up public records to see there was a lien on the property myself. I have the record here. And there was nothing on the property. So I kind of trust what he told me, that he has straight out the situation with the code enforcement. All the -- there is only a minor change that they haven't been taken care, which I was explaining to the director of the code enforcement agency, I wouldn't have any problem to take care of that. From my understanding, that was an issue. It didn't -- it was not Page 10 October 28, 2004 supposed to apply, but she explain me it does apply either way; he did it or somebody else did it, it have to be out. From my understanding, that was clean and clear. So I have no -- MR. BOWIE: Are you acknowledging that the property right now, as now, is still not in compliance with the order of this board? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. I was citated by -- there was a note left on the property and I kind of get together with Jeff again. I say, well, there's still some improvement that we have to be taken care. And I personally went to the code enforcement office and asked which were those improvement. There was a wall on the back. I took care of the wall on the back. And there is still like a small room who being still setting there. And Jeff, I invited Jeff, I get him in the room to see, thinking that everything was taken care, and he said no, this have to go also as well. So I was supposed to meet with the director to see, because it's been dragging out for so long time. I didn't know it was already going like to court. I have the best intention to work it out. And as well, I've been -- we have to understand something here as well. Where all the most of the citation have been going to the name of Julio Vargas and his wife, I never been informed of that. This letter that is the letter of this meeting, it came in my mother's name. So that's basically one reason why I think I was involved. Because to my understanding, they been dragging out that situation for almost a year. He never take care of it. He didn't care less or I don't know what the reason why. Since I got involved in the property, I been kind of worried and concerned for the wellbeing and try to work it out with the officer -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When did the property change hands? When did you actually buy -- MR. GONZALEZ: 23 of July. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: July 23rd. MS. ARNOLD: We actually had our hearing on July 22nd. Page 11 October 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay. MS. ARNOLD: If I may add, I think that Mr. Gonzalez wants to request additional time to comply, because he has, as he had indicated, and I think Jeff Letourneau will be able to provide you verification of this, he has been working with Jeff to try to come into compliance with the board's order. But he indicated in our meeting that he wasn't able to do it. He needed some more time. And maybe you can tell the board how much more time you think. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. I will have like -- I don't know if it's too much to ask, like 15 to 20 days. I will have to do it on the weekends, is the time for taking out like the walls and the garage assisting walls. And 20 days, I will do it. I would then ask Jeff to come to check it out. And there is something else, like there is some fines and penalties and costs, which been dragging away also for so many time that I wasn't even involved with the house that I didn't even knew about it. So now somehow my family, my mother gets involved, as well as in the citations. And I will ask the commission as well to consider that to apply those fines or those charges to the person who been running around from you guys. I mean, to the person who never cared about it. Not to involve somebody who been taking care of the property itself, or been working on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The fines run with the property, so who owns the property is the person that the fines go to. When did they actually submit for a building permit? That was one of our things, you have to submit a complete and sufficient permit application. Did that happen and when? MS. ARNOLD: No. There was an option to remove or demolish the improvements, and that's the option that he took. So Page 12 -..~_.,._._,-"."_._--_..,.,," .,",.__......."~",--~_...~...._,_._....._- October 28, 2004 they didn't submit for a building permit for the construction. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but he took the alternative which says obtain a demolition permit and convert the garage back to its original -- okay, did he get a permit to demolish? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County code investigator who was in charge of this whole operation. In all reality, they did -- the Vargases did submit, apply for a permit to try to take care of this, you know, after I had been on the case for a few months. They put an application in. But they ran into problems with a septic situation where they needed a bigger drainfield, septic tank and all the other stuff, and they didn't have the money to take care of it. I'm just going to go over a little background of the case. I got a call from Mr. Gonzalez, stating that he was interested in buying the property, during this whole situation. And I told him the garage had been renovated, they needed to take care of it, either bring it back to its originally permitted condition or follow through and get this permit together. Well, I guess they found out that it was going to be too much money to fix the septic, so they tried to get the garage back into its original condition. They put the door back on, they did some other things in there, but it never got quite back to its original condition. There was always something wrong with the back wall, and the south side of the garage still had a non-permitted door and windows in it. During -- so I was going to submit it for CEB earlier until Mr. Gonzalez came up, and so I gave him a couple of months to take care of it. Well, it never got taken care of and I told Mr. Gonzalez that I couldn't deal with him since he wasn't the property owner anymore and I was going to bring the case to the CEB eventually. What happened was another case opened up on the property Page 13 October 28, 2004 regarding litter and trailers and everything else, and that got taken care of. I am of the opinion that Mr. Gonzalez got confused that once he took care of the litter and the trailers, that there wasn't any more code violation on that property. I never really had any contact with Mr. Gonzalez after that until the property got sold to him. So I don't know what went on between the two parties that way, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I want to know from the county is our order gave them two alternatives: They were either to get a building permit or get a demolition permit. Did they do either? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So right now there's -- neither permit exists. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the violation still exists, period. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, the county is asking us to impose these fines because there's no building permit been applied for, nor has a demolition permit been applied for to convert the garage back, which is something you're going to have to do, so you're still in violation. Now, what are you asking us to do? Because right now as it stands, you're in violation. And it's -- I say you because you're the current owner. The violation is on the property. You happen to own the property, so you're it. That's just the way it goes. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. I would take care personally. I would raise (phonetic) up with the code enforcement officer of that violation. I would correct it. Just I asking 20 days to take care of it. I think I been proving myself so far that what I say, I been done it. I don't know if I do as far a good impression. Page 14 October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Mr. Gonzalez, did you realize that you had to apply for a permit to either convert it back or demolish? MR. GONZALEZ: Well, the problem is at the time I bought the property, it was -- well, the property was set back to what it was, its original condition. I was not the owner of the property, I was kind of doing it like to take care, because nobody will take care of the property, that the property wouldn't go into foreclosure or something like that. So the property was either being sold or being lost. MS. DUSEK: So are you saying that you were never informed that you had to get one of these permits? MS. ARNOLD: He couldn't get the permit because the property at the time was not in his name. MS. DUSEK: I realize that. But after his -- after you took ownership, did you realize that there was an option of getting one of these two permits? I realize it wasn't within the time frame originally for the homeowner, but were you ever informed that this was something that had to have been taken of? MR. GONZALEZ: Well, when I took ownership of the property, from my understanding the property was already clean and clear. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, based on what we've just been told, it sounds like, and Jeff has confirmed it, what the gentleman is trying to do is convert the garage back. Since he's doing that, he has to get a demolition permit. The only part of our order that would apply would be paragraph six, which is one $75 penalty starting August 21st. Well, starts August, say, 22nd. Rather than two $75. So while we're conversing here, do me a calculation using just paragraph six, $75 a day from, say, August 22nd till you stopped on these, October 27th. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we'll do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand that you have to get Page 15 October 28, 2004 a permit to convert the garage back? It's called a demolition permit. You have to go down to Horseshoe Drive, and I don't know what you have to fill out, but I'm sure someone in Michelle's office, Jeffmaybe, could lead you through that to get you to the right person. But you're going to have to get that permit, not just convert it back. Because you'll still be in trouble because you won't have a permit to convert it back. Do you understand? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, I do. Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: We have estimated that it's approximately 78 days at $75 per day, is $5,850. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Then we have to add on there your operational costs, or does that include the operational costs? MS. ARNOLD: No, it doesn't include the operational costs. It's SiX -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 655.83? MS. ARNOLD: I think what Mr. Gonzalez is wanting to do is extend whatever time period -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. Yeah, but they got to request the right thing. We've just been told that they're not going to get a building permit, that they're demolishing it. So we can't impose a penalty for not getting a building permit when that's not what they're doing, so we need to know what it would cost to do it the way he's just testified he's doing it. MS. DUSEK: I come up with a different amount of days. MS. ARNOLD: How many days did you come up with? MS. DUSEK: Sixty-seven. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What did I say, August 22nd through October 27th? So there is -- 27 and 30. I've got 66. MS. DUSEK: That's what I had, too, 66. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sixty-six days. Page 16 October 28, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: Okay, 66. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: It 4,950. MS. DUSEK: Jean, just refresh my memory. We've given an order. We're now ready to impose fines. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: The person has asked us in a roundabout way to extend the time frame. Can we do that after we've given an order and before we impose fines? MS. RAWSON: You have to act on the extension first. If you do an order imposing fines, then when he completes the work, he can always come back and ask you to abate the fines. MS. DUSEK: But at this juncture we haven't imposed the fines. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. DUSEK: Can we extend the time? MS. RAWSON: He's made an oral motion. You can act on his oral motion, if you see fit. MR. BOWIE: He's asking for an extension of 20 days? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. MR. BOWIE: To get the demolition permit and complete all that's required here? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: I'd like to ask the county, is that realistic? Can you do that in 20 days? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's realistic. The demo permit's real easy to get. About 50 bucks. Just go down there and pick it up. And then he's only got like two walls to remove out of the back of the garage to come into compliance. MR. PONTE: Thank you, Jeff. MR. BOWIE: So you understand what needs to be done? You need to get a demolition permit and complete this work. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, I do. Page 1 7 October 28,2004 MR. BOWIE: And you say you can do that within 20 days? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. MR. BOWIE: So if we're going to treat this as a motion, a request for an extension, I'd like to move that the respondent be granted the extension of 20 days in order to get the demolition permit and complete all the work that's required to comply with the order of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before we get a second, everybody understand what the -- the order originally said Item No.3, alternatively, obtain a demolition permit and converting the garage back to its original permitted use and by following through with all required inspections and obtaining a certificate of completion within 30 days, i.e., August 21 st. So we've got to change the August 21 st date to 20 days from today . You can't just add 20 days, because it's already past. That only gets you into September. So that's what we've got to -- we've got to change August 21 st to something else. MR. BOWIE: Twenty days from this date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We've got to change that Paragraph 3 to read by getting his certificate of completion by -- MS. ARNOLD: November 17th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: November something. MR. BOWIE: 17th? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that what it works out to, Michelle, the 17th? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I believe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that's what you need to -- if you're going to make a motion and second it, to give -- to grant any kind of extension, let's put a date to it. MS. DUSEK: Ray, if you include that in your motion, then I will second it. MR. BOWIE: Well, then it's a motion to extend to November Page 18 October 28, 2004 17th, 2004. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item three of our order. Do we need to change anything else, Jean? I mean, the other one, the fine, which is item six, is based on the August 21 st date, do we have to change that, too? MS. RAWSON: You need to say -- if you give him an extension of time, just give him a date in which he has to complete the work, and that will modify that order. So if he doesn't complete it by that work (sic), then you'll be back here on a motion for fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Bowie made a motion to grant an extension to November 17th on Item 3, which is applying for a demolition permit, doing the work and getting a certificate of completion. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. George. That's fine. Bobbie, would you second the new -- the date put in? MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on it? (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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? Page 19 October 28, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, you have till the 17th to get your permit and get the work done or the fine starts to accrue again. Okay? MR. GONZALEZ: Thank you so much, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Next item is BCC versus Greg and Jane Bee. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on April 22nd and the violation was found and the respondents were ordered to comply by revegetating their property by August 19th. The respondents are in compliance, and at this time we're just asking that the board impose a fine in the amount of$939.51 for the operational costs in this case. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we impose the operational -- MS. ARNOLD: I just want to -- before you make a motion, there is -- the respondents are here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Bee, one thing you need to understand, on operational costs, this board does not have the authority to waive those costs. By Florida statute and the county ordinance, we don't have that power. We can reduce and abate fines, but we do not have the power on the operational costs. That's something totally different. So if that's what you want to ask us, we don't have the power to change that, okay? What I suggest is, the people that have the power to do that is the Board of County Commissioners, not us. So you would -- you know, if you'd like to go talk to your commissioner of your district and tell him your problem and see if they would let you bring it forward, that's your privilege. But we can't help you, okay? Do you want to make a -- MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we impose the fine of Page 20 October 28,2004 $939.51 in the CEB case 2004-021. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the operational costs as requested. 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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is that it, Michelle, just those two? MS. ARNOLD: No. We have one request for an extension of time. It's Diana Hall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. BCC versus Diana Hall. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And this is being requested by Mrs. Hall, so she's present to present. You should also have had -- received a letter from Mrs. Hall, explaining that -- why she's making this request, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is Mrs. Hall here? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, she is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you like to come up and tell us, ma'am. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 21 October 28, 2004 MS. HALL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Morning. MS. HALL: Well, you know, the case came to court on the 27th of May, and I was granted time to November. And since then, the funds that I been working toward getting the C.O. on the project, I have an agency that came in that, you know, agreed to help, and with the help that they're agreeing to do, they're requesting more time so we can get it done in an orderly fashion. So I ask the panel today, if you will, grant it so me and the agency can go ahead on and do the final close-out phase on this and have this removed from the docket forever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, you've got till November 25th. Are you saying that's not enough time? MS. HALL: That's not enough time, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How much time do you need? MS. HALL: Ninety days, 90. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ninety days beyond that? MS. HALL: Yes, sir. I don't know exactly how long it will actually take, but we're in the final phase of it and I don't want to cram and run out of time and come asking for another extension, so I ask the Court, if you would, grant feasible enough time that we can have it, and if we don't need it, we'll still have it on the record as stated. MR. BOWIE: Could I just ask of the county, has the respondent here acquired all of the required permits? MS. HALL: Yes. Everything's up to code. MR. BOWIE: That's what you're saying, but I want to hear them comment. MR. LETOURNEAU: Do I have to swear in again in on this or CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, it's a new case. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Ms. Hall's done a great job so far getting Page 22 October 28, 2004 it done. She got the permit, she's getting all her inspections, and she just didn't really get enough time to get it all done, I think. But as far as I'm concerned, she's done a good job. MS. DUSEK: And she's been moving at a good pace? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, she has. Uh-huh. I mean, you know, she's not a builder where it can put it out in six months. She's doing it herself. And as, you know, an owner builder like that, she's done a great job so far. MS. DUSEK: Jeff, in your opinion, is 90 days a reasonable time, or is that an exaggerated time? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, it's a reasonable time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Ms. Hall? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. HALL: All right. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we grant the 90-day extension. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that motion. MR. BOWIE: That would be -- since we want to set definite time frames for this -- MS. DUSEK: Ninety days from November 25th. MR. BOWIE: Which would be through February 25th, 2005? MS. DUSEK: So in my motion I will say February 25th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2005. MS. DUSEK: 2005. MS. BARNETT: And I will amend my second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to extend the completion date of our order, Item 2, to February 25th, 2005. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying Page 23 October 28, 2004 aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am, you've got till February 25th. MS. HALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Is that it, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was the three? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Get to our public hearings. First case, 2004-067, Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Pekar. MR. BONANNO: This is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2004-067, Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Pekar. The violation is that of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Collier County Ordinance 99-51, and of Sections 1.5.6 and 2.6.7.1.1 of Collier County Ordinance 91-102. The violation is described as the illegal storage of unlicensed vehicles. The violation is located at 1034 Highland Drive, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 29780720005 The person in charge of the location where the violation exists is Page 24 October 28, 2004 Robert Pekar. The violation was first observed on May 13th, 2004. The violator was given notice of violation on May 13th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected by May 16th, 2004. A reinspection occurred on October 27th, 2004, and as of that date the violation still remains. I am going to turn over the case now to one of the investigating officers, Patti Petrulli, code enforcement supervisor. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BONANNO: I'm sorry, Patti. I just -- we had previously submitted a packet of information for this case. I'd request that that be entered as Exhibit A. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: Good morning. For the record, Patti Petrulli, supervisor, code enforcement. In response to a complaint on May 6th of 2004, investigator Rita Page 25 October 28, 2004 Crisp visited a site, a residentially zoned property at 1034 Highland Drive and observed an inoperative white vehicle without a current tag. On a recheck visit in July another vehicle, a silver van with no tag, was placed on the property. The white vehicle at this time has a current tag affixed, but it is still inoperable, causing a safety issue because it sits up on jacks, auto jacks. The van at this time still has no tag. On July 2nd, 2004, a citation was issued by way of certified mail. The certified mail was returned unclaimed, as well were all the other notices. Investigator Crisp then posted a notice of violation at the property and at the courthouse on July 2nd of 2004, and sent a copy regular mail, which was not returned. On October 1 st of 2004, myself and Investigator Rita Crisp did a site visit so that I could view the violations and present this case to the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Pekar has at this time made no attempts to contact the investigator. I would like to say, I was at the residence yesterday about 5:15, 5:30 and nothing has changed. The inoperative vehicle is still up on the jacks. I believe we have some photos that we can display of the vehicle that's on the jacks. And as you can see, it sits up, it's suspended. And the fear is that if a child or even an animal is playing, if you bump those jacks, that's going to come down. The tarp on the inoperative vehicle is in the same place it was when the investigator and I were there on October 1 st. Nothing has been -- there were no attempts made to come into compliance at all. That is the white van that still has no tag on it. We're also dealing with another violation on the property which is a litter and weeds violation. On July 20th, when Investigator Crisp Page 26 October 28, 2004 had gone out to check on these inoperative vehicles, she did observe weeds over 18 inches and litter consisting of but not limited to tree branches, bike parts, tarp and rotted wood tables. On October 1 st, myself and Investigator Crisp did a site visit once again so that I could view the violations and present this case to the board. Those violations of the items stored outside are still there. There have been no attempts to correct that violation either. I believe we have some photos for you here. Yes. And as you can see, there's a fallen down wooden fence there. It looks like pieces of carpeting. There's some old bicycles and tarps, and just debris. But I must say that it looks like the lawn has been mowed recently, so that violation of the weeds has been violated -- or excuse me, come into compliance in the front yard. I did not have access to the rear yard, so I cannot testify to that. I do believe that we do have a neighbor of Mr. Pekar's that would like to speak, if that is permissible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Patti, you're telling us that your Item 2, which is the weeds and litter, is the county satisfied that that's been complied with? MS. PETRULLI: The weeds have been, the grass has been cut, but the tarps, the wood and the items that were left out are still there. It's not in compliance. MS. BARNETT: It's just the weeds. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, just the weeds. Have you had any contact with this gentleman whatsoever, you or Ms. Crisp? MS. PETRULLI: None whatsoever. And we've made several site visits. And as I said, I was there yesterday about 5: 15 . We can get no contact from the gentleman. MR. BOWIE: Does it look like anyone is residing, occupying Page 27 October 28, 2004 this property, or is it possibly abandoned? MS. PETRULLI: I haven't seen anyone there. Investigator Crisp, I believe, did see the gentleman inside the house one day. But according to the neighbors, yes, he is living there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Ms. Petrulli? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Patti. MS. PETRULLI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr., is it Klingenberg? MR. KLINGENBERG: Yes. I would like to say a few words, if I might? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have something specific for the case? MR. KLINGENBERG: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As to the violation? MR. KLINGENBERG: As to the violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Swear him in, please. You get two minutes, sir. MR. KLINGENBERG: That's all I need. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KLINGENBERG: My name is Martin Klingenberg. I'm the attorney here representing myself. The backyard of this place looks like a junkyard. I first filed a complaint 18 months ago to try to get this rectified, and there were some notices put out in front. And he treats these notices somewhat like an invitation to join the Book of the Month Club. I'm trying to sell my residence, the place I own next door, which he's made it impossible to do because this junk has just continued for 18 months. And this car wasn't just here from May. That's what I wanted to add. This car was sitting here 18 months ago on these stands, and nothing has changed in the front of the house. He did mow the grass, that is correct, but in the backyard, it Page 28 October 28, 2004 looks like a jungle. And not only that, there's huge piles of -- pieces of steel and metal. And I know they didn't have access to the backyard. And this is the point I wanted to add to this, that the guy has done almost nothing. I've spoken with him and he does live in there. That's another part I would like to add. He comes there once or twice a day, but no one -- and no one sort of can speak with him. And he's not too accessible, he doesn't answer his door and he sort of is very reclusive. But this problem, as I say, has gone on 18 months, and it's -- and not only myself, but the neighbor next door is also somewhat, you know, very concerned about this, and we're just hoping that at last it can be made to go away. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: Before you sit down, I have a question for you. Here I am, over here. MR. KLINGENBERG: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. DUSEK: Are you saying that the backyard, besides the litter that is there, the weeds are high? MR. KLINGENBERG: The weeds are high, and -- it is correct, it's almost impossible to get back there. But I just looked over the fence yesterday and I can testify that the weeds are high. Plus there's huge pieces of junk. I'm not talking -- you know, I'm not someone who's pushing about a few small problems. You can see from that first picture that the staff showed you, the front and the back are reflective of each other. He has no cars back there, but -- MR. BOWIE: Perhaps you could contact the code inspector and allow them access to your backyard so they can view the rear yard of the subj ect property as well. MR. KLINGENBERG: Oh, okay. That's a good idea. I'd certainly welcome that. Because I have a high fence there -- I built a fence there not to look there. MR. BOWIE: If you give them permission, they can hoist Page 29 October 28, 2004 themselves -- MR. KLINGENBERG: Or we put a ladder there and they could MR. BOWIE: Yeah. MR. KLINGENBERG: Yeah. That'd be -- thank you very much for that suggestion. MR. PONTE: One question, sir. Is this a highly residential area so there are a lot of children around? MR. KLINGENBERG: Yes, there are a lot of children. I can say that because I've been there the last few days when school's out and there's a lot of kids walking down the street. There must be a near -- I don't know whether there's a nearby a school, but many children are walking there at 2:30, 3 :00 down that -- down the street. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. BOWIE: So we've heard testimony that perhaps the problem with the unmowed weeds has not been fully abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As far as the backyard goes, yes. MR. BOWIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we'll close the public hearings at this time on this case. We need to have a finding of fact by the board that in fact violations do exist. MR. BOWIE: Well, I'd like to move that the board find in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Pekar, Case No. 2004-067, that a violation or violations does exist. The description of the violations: Violation of Ordinance 91-102, Section 2.6.7.1.1, unlicensed or inoperable vehicle located on residentially zoned property, as well as violation of Ordinance 99-51, Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, as amended, by 2001-21, existence of litter and weeds over 18 inches on residentially zoned property. And further, violation of Ordinance 91-102, Sections 1.5.6, existence of unauthorized outside storage of items, consisting -- Page 30 October 28, 2004 constituting an illegal use of residentially zoned land. MS. BARNETT: I will second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second that in fact violations do exist on the subj ect property. Any further discussion? MR. HEMES: Yes. I'd like to amend the first part to show it's vehicles, rather than one single vehicle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I assume, Mr. Bowie, it's all right? MR. BOWIE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sheri? MS. BARNETT: Same here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by, one, obtain current tags and affix to all vehicles garaged on this property, and render said vehicles operational, or store said vehicles in a completely enclosed structure Page 31 October 28, 2004 within 30 days of this date, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Number two, mow all weeds and remove all litter within 15 days of today's date. If weeds and litter have not been removed or abated within 15 days, the county will contract the removal of the litter and the mowing of the weeds within 20 days of this date and assess the owner the cost incurred for the abatement. And number three, all litter or personal property items must be either disposed of properly as trash or stored within a completely enclosed structure within 15 days of this date, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day that violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated or violations have been abated in order to schedule final inspections. MS. DUSEK: I second that motion. MR. PONTE: Before we second it, let me just express a concern here, and that is the vehicle that's on jacks, that looks very insecure and poses a serious threat. I think the motion is fine, if he can just add something that addresses that specific situation. And I think the fine for that particular continuing violation that's been going on since May should be hefty, and the time to correct it, that is, get the jacks out from under the vehicle, very short. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question. In this case where it appears, based on the pictures and testimony from the investigator and the neighbor that this vehicle has been on jacks for some time, is there a measure that we can take to rectify that specific problem? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think your -- the original motion was to make the vehicle operable or store it within 15 days. Obviously if you're going to store it or make it operable, you're going to have to take it off the jacks. Page 32 October 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Well, I'm just thinking, ifhe chooses not to pay attention to our order, since it is dangerous, and especially since there are possibly children going up and down the street, is there more that we can do? MS. RAWSON: Well, if you're going to have the county go out and mow the weeds, I guess you could have the county hire somebody to take it off the jacks. MR. BOWIE: I think in order to get to it, they've got to remove the van first; isn't that correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, depending on how they take it off. If they take a hand jack, they could probably go around, jack it up and set it down on the street and let him jack it up later. But at least we get it down flat. I'm just worried about being up on what looks like one center jack that's really not too stable. How far we as a board can -- MS. RAWSON : Well, you could shorten the time length to take the car down off the jacks. MR. BOWIE: Well, the-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What did you say, Ray? MR. BOWIE: The county proposal was 30 days. It doesn't take that much to get a license for a vehicle or to take the car down off the jack. I would say give him 10 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Rather than 30. MS. DUSEK: Can you somehow separate the two vehicles -- or the two violations so that the tag is one violation? Maybe we're going to make this four violations, getting the car off of its jack another violation with another fine following -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. DUSEK: -- perhaps what George has suggested, a much stiffer fine, since that's a safety issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, we can do that. We can just -- Page 33 October 28, 2004 and Ray's item one, if he'd like to revise it, he could say that obtain a tag for the one vehicle within "X" days or a fine of "X". And for the vehicle up on jacks, remove it from the jacks in "X" days or a fine of "X". That's up to Ray. He made the original motion. Ifhe'd like to revise it in that method, he can do that. MS. BARNETT: Jean, I have a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: As a board, do we have the right to say they have to take it off the jacks? Because I know that the parameter that we're working at is an unlicensed, improperly stored vehicle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's one vehicle. MS. RAWSON: If you decide as a board that it's a safety and health issue. MS. BARNETT: Okay. So that's what the parameter would be? MS. RAWSON: It would be. MR. LEFEBVRE: Could we have the county remove the vehicles from the property? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the license plate is -- MS. RAWSON: I doubt it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The license plate should be easy. I mean, he just has to go down to the tax collector's office. I mean, come on, that's not a -- MS. BARNETT: Unless he doesn't have tags. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- large challenge. Sorry. The one taking it off the jack, I don't know what he's waiting for, parts, whatever, probably just doesn't want to fool with it, from what I have heard. In that case, set it on the ground and leave it there and jack it back up later. If we can just get it flat on the ground, then it's not a danger. Page 34 October 28, 2004 MR. PONTE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I'm for giving him a short amount of time to do that and a hefty fine if he doesn't. And also, Jean, if we -- since we're sending the county out to do his weeds, if he doesn't remove it from the jack within "X" days and a hefty fine starts, can we give a couple of days after that, send the county out and just say set it flat on the ground? In other words, remove it off the blocks and set it down on the concrete? MS. RAWSON: Does the county have these capabilities? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, all that's going to take-- I've worked on a lot of cars -- is a floor jack. You jack it up, pull the block out and set it down on the ground. I mean -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I don't think that the question is whether or not we can physically do it, it's whether or not we can legally do it. Jennifer did indicate that we may be able to do repairs, but the removal of the vehicle from the property is questionable. MR. PONTE: Not to remove -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm not interested in removing it. MS. ARNOLD: I want to answer both questions. We may be able to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't want to remove it. Can we just set it on the ground? MS. ARNOLD: We may be able to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's -- if we order the county to do that, can you just go out and set it on the ground? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And then we'll -- you know, once it's setting on the ground, it's still inoperable, his fine keeps going, we've just taken away the possibility of somebody getting hurt. Ray, you want to do that? MR. BOWIE: Let me specifically amend my motion to address the safety concern by adding an item number four, which is that the Page 35 October 28,2004 vehicle currently up on blocks or jacks be lowered to the ground within 10 days this date, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day that violation continues. In addition, the county will be authorized to enter upon the property and lower the vehicle to the ground, remove it from the jacks or blocks that it's up on, and the cost thereof will be assessed to the owner. MS. BARNETT: How many days? MR. LEFEBVRE: How many days? MR. BOWIE: That's 10. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to see five days. I don't see why it couldn't be -- MR. PONTE: Me, too. MS. DUSEK: -- a shorter period of time. It's been there for 18 months, he's had 18 months to correct this himself. MR. PONTE: I agree, five days, max. MS. DUSEK: And it's a safety issue. MR. BOWIE: Well, if it's been up there for 18 months and nothing happens, how much of a safety issue is it for the next five days? MR. PONTE: It's been up there 18 months during which their schools have been in recess. Schools are now active. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, Ray has made a motion, he's made it for 10 days. If nobody wants to second it or -- MR. BOWIE: Just getting notice to the gentleman is probably going to take more than five days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second that motion. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask for clarification? You indicated 10 days to -- for the respondent to lower the vehicle. How much time thereafter will you give the county to do that? MR. BOWIE: As soon as can be done, if he doesn't do it after the tenth day, I assume. Page 36 ---,-,.,--,,,,,,",,,,..,.,,,,-~,,,,,,,---......-,-,---..,,,.._,~_._,,.,...._--- October 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that work for you? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As soon as possible after the 10 days. In other words, if you want to show up the morning of the eleventh day, that's fine by us. Great, in fact. Will that work, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody understand the motion and the second? 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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before I open the public hearings to get to our next case, do you need some time? Let's take 10 minutes. It's 10:30; 10:40 we reconvene. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll call the board back to order, please. We'll open up the public hearings. The next case is 2004-037, Fred and Norma Kowalke. I hope I said that right. I apologize if I Page 37 October 28, 2004 didn't. MR. BONANNO: The county has previously submitted a packet of information that we'd ask be submitted as Exhibit A at this time, please. MR. RANKIN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I noticed in the other hearings that the gentleman over there and Mrs. Arnold were testifying without being sworn in. I would request that they be sworn in also. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, they don't give testimony, they just present the case. MR. RANKIN: I make that request for the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. HEMES: I'll second it. 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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BONANNO: This is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2004-037, Board of County Commissioners versus Fred and Norma Kowalke. The violation is that of Sections 2.6.7.1, 2.6.7.5 and 2.6.7 .5A of Page 38 October 28, 2004 Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended. The violation is described as a dock, screen enclosure and workshop erected without first obtaining required building permits, inspections and a certificate of occupancy. The violation is located at 37 Clary Court, Plantation Island, Florida, Folio No. 00121492001. The individuals in charge of the location where the violation exists are Fred and Norma Kowalke, P.O. Box 42, Everglades City, Florida 34139. The violation was first observed on November 7th, 2003. The owners were served a notice of violation on November 20th, 2003. The violation was to be corrected by December 15th, 2003. A reinspection occurred on October 27th, 2004, and as of that date the violations still existed. I will now turn the case over to one of the investigating officers, Carol Sykora. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. The violation was a dock, screen enclosed porch addition and workshop with glass windows which extended the entire length of the mobile home, all constructed without Collier County building permits. On November 7th, 2003, I received an anonymous complaint with pictures attached that a carport was enclosed and a dock was built with no permits at 37 Clary Court. I went to this location and spoke with the owner, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Kowalke. The Kowalkes produced two permits: No. 79-5053, which was for the mobile home, and 80-5584 for a screen room at the rear of the mobile home. I pulled those permits, and a drawing that came with that permit of the screen room showed it to be at the rear. That would be the Page 39 October 28,2004 trailer and then the screen room is at the rear. Permit history was researched by checking the property card, the county computer system and looking in county permit books by name. No permits were located for the dock, the screen enclosed porch addition or the workshop. Permit No. 82-1008 was located for the enclosed porch, which was at the rear of the mobile home where the permitted screen room existed. I have a drawing that was submitted with that permit to show where it was located. As you see, the porch is located at the rear, exactly where the screen room was permitted. Which it was enclosed with glass windows. The carport is on the side of the trailer. On November 20th, 2003, a notice of violation was posted on the property and sent by certified mail. Mr. Kowalke requested an extension, due to his health, which was honored by me. On December 18th, 2003, I suggested to the Kowalkes to request a meeting with the permit department to determine what is required to obtain permits. On December 30th, 2003, I attended a meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Kowalke and permit technician Johnny Sanchez. It was determined a survey, certified engineer drawings were necessary to obtain the permits, or a permit by affidavit from an engineer where the engineer takes responsibility for the structure. Permits also needed to be acquired for the dock. On January 15th, 2004, Engineer Jim Herst called me and advised that he would not certify the structure to today's standards. He could explain how it was constructed, but he would not certify and seal the drawings. On February 19th, 2004, I advised the Kowalkes permits needed to be acquired. Mr. Kowalke advised me to contact their attorney and requested I leave the property; therefore, a CEB warning letter was Page 40 M ....__,___,___"'_"'"",,__ .......,. ,. ~'_N.",___.~_~....""'=.~,____',__. October 28, 2004 sent for March 25th, 2004. On March 18th, 2004, I received a phone call from a contractor who was a neighbor of the Kowalkes. He advised me he's attempting to assist the Kowalkes to obtain engineer drawings necessary. However, on April 2nd, 2004, I spoke to this contractor, and he advised the Kowalkes decided to work with the prior engineer, Jim Herst. I called Jim Herst. His office advised there had been no contact from the Kowalkes since he originally was contacted by them. MR. RANKIN: For the record, Mr. Chairman, I want to object to the hearsay testimony about the contractor and the engineer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Noted. MR. RANKIN: Doug Rankin for the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. MS. SYKORA: I am under oath, may I add? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Keep going. MS. SYKORA: April 7th, 2004, for the second time I researched old permit books thoroughly in the records room to determine that nothing was overlooked. No additional permits were found, so I prepared the case for the Code Enforcement Board. On April 26th, 2004, I turned the case over to Investigator Santafemia, due to my change in territory. Before I turn this case over to Investigator Santafemia, I would like to explain the violations and show pictures. First, the dock that extends across the rear of the property line, from property line to property line. It has been argued that this dock existed and therefore it did not need permits. However, a survey -- this has to be proven; a nonconforming structure has to be proven, either by having it on the property card prior to 1990, or a sealed survey. The survey that I have was dated 1987, and it showed a small dock extending out. So therefore, in the ordinance it says the determination of a legal nonconforming status will be established by presentation of a signed, Page 41 October 28, 2004 sealed survey, a copy of the property appraiser's record, or other dated photography or documentation showing the facility existed in its present location and configuration prior to 1990. Any expansion of the facility, no matter how insignificant, will void legal nonconforming status and require strict compliance to the code. MS. BARNETT: Carol, I have a question in this drawing. It looks like there's some penciled in markings? MS. SYKORA: I -- that was done by meetings that I had, I believe. MS. BARNETT: Okay. Because it clouds the issue, because it looks like it -- MS. SYKORA: Right. MR. BOWIE: You can sure tell a surveyor didn't draw that. MS. BARNETT: Right. I can tell. I said it was penciled. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're dealing with the dock right now. MS. SYKORA: Right. I'm just going over the dock issue. MS. BARNETT: It looks like it extended, though, if you see the pencil line up at the top? That's why I was curious. That's what was MS. SYKORA: Right. I've been to several meetings on this, and everybody kind of got their hands on the paperwork. This is the picture that was sent in by the complainant. It's argued that this is not the correct dock, but I can show that it was with another picture that I took on a prior violation. It shows the dock extends over the water. There was a prior violation in 2003 of a seawall, and at that time I took a picture where you can see the seawall without the current dock in place. As you see, the seawall does have a wooden cap on it, but there's no dock; it's gravel on the other edge of it. And in the shadows, you can see the old dock extending out. So this new dock has been totally just recently done within the past couple of years. Page 42 October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, Carol, when was this picture taken that you're showing us right now? MS. SYKORA: January, 2003. It was on a prior violation. I had taken it because there was a complaint that no permits for the seawall, and that had been abated since then. MR. RANKIN: I would request that we keep that picture available, readily available for later, please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Show us the other picture, Carol, where the -- there you go, okay. MS. SYKORA: This was the picture sent in by the complainant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So back here where we see the -- I can't really tell what that is. Is that like a 12-by-12 at the very back side? MS. SYKORA: Those are steps. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, go over the other way. Over to the other side. Over, over, right there. That's-- MS. SYKORA: That would be the end of the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the seawall, right, that we saw in the other picture? MS. SYKORA: Yeah, you can kind of see -- if you look close underneath in the shadows, you can see the seawall, how it is from the other picture. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you go to the first -- one of the first pictures you showed that showed the length of the dock, the new dock, and if you look at that cap to the left where the gravel is, that looks very, very similar to the one -- MS. SYKORA: Right. It's the cap to the seawall. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, the cap to the seawall. MS. SYKORA: Which didn't exist in January, 2003. The wood is all new on there, and the contention that it was just boards flipped over, it doesn't apply, because I had been there the prior year and-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 43 October 28, 2004 MS. SYKORA: And it does actually go from property line to property line, so it does not meet setbacks. Now, this is a picture of the actual mobile home. And on the left side where the latticework entryway is is where the violation of the screen enclosed porch exists. And this is a picture of the screen enclosed porch, which is like a wood frame addition with the screens in it. And attached to that behind it is a glass enclosed workshop. You see the screen enclosed porch is in front and then the workshop. And this is the rear of the workshop. Now, this is exactly where the carport that was permitted was located, in this area next to the mobile home. There was no permits to enclose that as a screen enclosed porch. MS. DUSEK: Carol, the first picture you showed us -- I'm getting a little confused -- where the latticework was? MS. SYKORA: Uh-huh. MS. DUSEK: Can you put that back? That one. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's the front view. MS. DUSEK: Now, this is the front of the house. MS. SYKORA: That's the front of the house. MS. DUSEK: What was done to the front of the house? MS. SYKORA: Actually, it's like a double-wide mobile home with a screen enclosed porch. So it's all been vinyl sided over. It actually looks like one from the front. If you walk in those doors, the actual screen porch itself, the entrance to the mobile home is inside. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you telling us that looking at this, if all this latticework and such were all removed and the vinyl -- is this where the carport was? MS. SYKORA: Yes. That's where the carport was permitted to stand, right there. Instead, it's all the screened room and then the workshop. This is a not-to-scale drawing of the property, which you may better understand it. The mobile home is right there. The prior screen Page 44 --,-..--.---...------.- October 28, 2004 room, which was converted to an enclosed porch, is right there. There's another screen room on the rear of that. And on the side is where the carport used to exist, but now it is the screen enclosed porch. And behind that is the glass enclosed workshop. Now, the other permits that were pulled on this property that was not in your packet, I did not include them because they were not pertinent to this case. All but one was prior notices of violations that were through complaints. And they were not included, because I didn't feel they were pertinent to the case. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The carport itself, if I'm looking at this where you say former carport Permit 82-1008, is the width of 14 foot that, and then how far does that run? Is the trailer -- MS. SYKORA: The actual -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm looking at the permit and the permit says 14 by 22 and I'm trying to figure out, where does the 22 end? MS. SYKORA: Well, I can't even prove that the carport was converted into it. I'm just saying that's where the carport was permitted. They could have torn down the carport and put this up. I can't prove that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SYKORA: I don't know if they used the existing roof. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You don't know how much distant this is? MS. SYKORA: This does extend from the front of the mobile home to the rear of the mobile home, the whole -- the screen room -- the screened porch enclosure and the glass enclosed workshop is from front to rear. It doesn't end halfway, it's the total length, including the latticework at the front. MS. DUSEK: The total length of the trailer? MS. SYKORA: Yes. Page 45 . ·,·_.~",.m,,"""__'··_Ù'··. "__,__.,_____ October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: And how long is that? How long is the trailer? MS. SYKORA: On the permit it was size 22 by 44. MS. DUSEK: So the screen enclosure and the workshop is what used to be a carport or a carport area? MS. SYKORA: That's where the location of the carport existed. The carport was permitted; however, due to this as a violation, I don't know if they took the roof of the carport down and totally did this, or if they just enclosed the carport. But I'm just saying that that's -- where the carport existed is the same location as where the violation is. MS. DUSEK: So they formerly had two permits for enclosed screened porches? Or for screened porches? MS. SYKORA: The first one was at the rear of the mobile home. They obtained a permit for the screened porch at the rear of the mobile home. Then later they got a permit to enclose it to make it into a glass enclosed porch. The one behind that, the octagonal shape one, was a notice of violation that I had a complaint on two years ago, and they got a permit for just rescreening it, per the director of the building department. MR. RANKIN: If the board has no further questions, I might request either now or later that I cross-examine this witness, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But we're not done yet, sir. I'll give you a chance. MR. RANKIN: I just want to make sure I reserve my right. MS. DUSEK: Just so I can clarify it in my own mind, the two issues we have are the dock and the carport or carport area, which is now the enclosed screen porch and a workshop. MS. SYKORA: Yes. The dock issue and also the screen enclosed porch and the workshop behind it with the glass windows and door. MS. BARNETT: Carol, I was looking at the permit application, Page 46 .. .... ~ . P" ~-"""""'..._.__._"'-'-_.'~-"~" October 28, 2004 I guess it is 82-1008 in your packet. And I know English language, to me it says enclosed porch, carport and new roof for the use. Now, is that intending that they enclose -- they're allowed to enclose the porch and the carport? That's kind of how I -- MS. SYKORA: The picture, the diagram that came with that permit, shows just the carport, the porch at the rear. There was also another document with that permit that just says carport. MS. BARNETT: Okay. But my question is, it looks like they possibly were allowed to enclose the carport part. The problem -- I understand that the workshed or the work section has not been permitted, but it looks to me possibly that they were allowed to enclose the carport. I don't know, I'm asking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess I read it differently. MS. SYKORA: The carport was permitted at that time, and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I read the permit as they're asking to enclose a porch, which is -- go back to the other drawing, Michelle, that you just covered up, please. There you go. Which is this one in the back of the trailer right there. They're asking, I assume, to enclose that, comma, build a carport, which is over on the left, the whole length, with -- and a new roof. I assume what you're going to do is probably reroof over the whole structure so it looks good. That's normally the way they do trailers, they put a roof over everything; helps cooling and all that other stuff. But anyway, that's the way I look at what they're saying, that they've asked to do three things: Enclose a porch, build a carport and put a new roof over everything. It's not to enclose the carport. It doesn't say that. It says to enclose the porch, comma, carport, coma, and a new roof. So that's three items. MS. BARNETT: So I guess it determines on how you read it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. BARNETT: That's where I'm -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we don't have the county's Page 47E .--- October 28, 2004 interpreter here. MS. SYKORA: Plus another portion of that permit, as Michelle's putting up there now, shows carport, comma, new roof. So it was for the structure of the carport. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they got a C.O. for a carport and a new roof, which is part of your package. MS. DUSEK: Was the enclosed porch, which they were permitted to do, and the carport built at the same time? MS. SYKORA: The permit was pulled for both. MS. DUSEK: For both at the same time. MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: And that porch, which was on the back of the -- MS. SYKORA: The rear. MS. DUSEK: The rear, was not there until they did the permit, and the carport was not there until they pulled the permit. MS. SYKORA: The enclosed porch at the rear of the mobile home was permitted for a screen room. MS. DUSEK: A screen room. MS. SYKORA: And then they in turn obtained the permit to enclose it, which it is a glass enclosed structure. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would object to her answering questions about what was actually built unless she can show that she was there in 1982 or had knowledge of 19 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we're asking the questions and she's answering as noted. MR. RANKIN: But the question was asked. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's answering our questions. Okay. Did you get your answer? MS. SYKORA: Is that okay? MS. DUSEK: Yes, I understand. MS. SYKORA: It was permitted as a screen room initially, and then later it was permitted to enclose it into a porch. Page 48 October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: And that was in 19 -- I'm looking at a -- I think it's a permit, looks like a permit, that said 1982, enclosed porch, carport and new roof, which we were talking about earlier. That-- they didn't ask at that time to enclose that screen porch on the rear of the trailer. MS. SYKORA: Yes. That's what that permit was for, to enclose that. MS. DUSEK: And they were adding the carport at the same time. MS. SYKORA: Right. All on one permit. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to object to her testifying as to what permits that she has no personal knowledge of at the time in '82, because I don't think she's been indicated to be a building expert or a permitting expert or is even licensed to be a permitting or building inspecting person at all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Noted. MS. SYKORA: I'm testifying as to what permits that I pulled. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're testifying. You submitted these documents, you've read them and you're giving us your opinion of the documents you've submitted. MS. SYKORA: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. MS. SYKORA: And the documents that I found records. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, we understand. Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) MS. SYKORA: Before -- I need to turn this case over to Investigator John Santafemia, who actually took over the case and had correspondence with the attorney. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before you leave, Mr. Rankin gets the right to cross-examine you. Everyone on the board done asking questions? Page 49 October 28, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Rankin? MR. RANKIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the question before I begin. I think she sort of wrapped her opening statement and her testimony all into one. Do I have an opportunity at this point to make an opening statement and then cross-examine her? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When it's your turn to present your case. MR. RANKIN: Okay. So -- I was just trying to do it because what I would ask her later on, what I would ask her would make more sense if you knew our side of the story. Were you -- when did you first come to this area of Plantation Island? MS. SYKORA: I've been a code enforcement investigator for three years. I started November, I believe, 5th. MR. RANKIN: What year? MS. SYKORA: Three years. 2000. MR. RANKIN: 2000. MS. SYKORA: 2000. Initially I had this area from the beginning. MR. RANKIN: Were you on my -- when was the first time you were on my client's property? MS. SYKORA: The first time? MR. RANKIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. SYKORA: It was in 2003, I believe. MR. RANKIN: Do you have any knowledge as to what the back part or all -- the dock part, alleged dock part, and all that of my client's property looked like prior to that year? MS. SYKORA: Prior to me being there, no, I did not. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Are you a licensed -- are you a permitting official? Have you ever issued a building permit? MS. SYKORA: No, I have not. Page 50 "_"<~~''''_''~''''''«<,,,,,~~_;',';e'','~''''_~''''';~"''~''_"''''''''_',. .. ,., , October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Have you ever inspected a building permit? MS. SYKORA: The only thing I have done with permits is to pull them for cases that I have and research them. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Now, what I would like to do is start off with something at the first thing. If you could put that alleged picture of my client's property that allegedly shows the seawall without the alleged -- and it's not a dock, it's a walkway. Back up, please, I'd like to ask you some questions about that. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, since they asked their packet to be submitted -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When it's your turn to submit your case, sir. MR. RANKIN: Okay. I just want to make -- I also want to make sure that you all did in fact receive my packets. There were two packets. One was a large box delivered -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When you submit it, you can ask us to make sure we got it. Let's stay on track here. MR. RANKIN: All right. This picture is in with a group of other pictures, isn't it, in your code enforcement case? MS. SYKORA: This particular picture is from a prior violation that was called in by a complainant that I investigated. MR. RANKIN: And you testified that you took that picture? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I did take it. MR. RANKIN: And you testified you took-- MS. SYKORA: It's attached to my case. MR. RANKIN: And you testified that you took that picture in 2003 or thereafter, right? MS. SYKORA: 2003. I believe January. MR. RANKIN: And you testified that that's a picture of my client's property. MS. SYKORA: Yes, it is. MR. RANKIN: Do you have the -- and I know you all have this, Page 51 ~._--_._-_.,'---- October 28, 2004 because I've seen it in meetings. Do you have a printout from the property appraiser's aerials that are available on-line of this property? MS. SYKORA: I did not receive anything on-line. I personally go to the property appraiser's office to obtain my property cards. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Rankin, let's stick to what was submitted to the board and the questions she answered of the board. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, the problem-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you have something you want to submit later, you can submit it. Cross-examine her on what she has testified to this board and the documents she submitted, period. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, if I might explain, it is our position that that is the particular picture that's not of my client's property . CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then you need to submit it with your case. MR. RANKIN: And I cannot prove that she has just testified falsely under oath unless I have this other document. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then you submit it when you do your case, SIr. MR. RANKIN: Will I be allowed to recall her at that time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, I'll give you that right. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Thank you. All right. First of all, you said this -- you responded to an anonymous complaint at this location? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I did. MR. RANKIN: Isn't it true that you in fact instigated these matters? MS. SYKORA: Absolutely not. Pictures were attached to this case. In fact, the complainant would have been here today. He would have testified that he was the complainant. MR. RANKIN: And there had been a previous complaint on this property done by you back in January of '03 on the same matters, Page 52 October 28, 2004 wasn't there? MS. SYKORA: No, not on the same matter. It was about the seawall. There was a complaint about the screen room, which is at the rear of the mobile home. The octagonal shaped one, the last structure on this property. MR. RANKIN: And there was also something about a fence; is that correct? MS. SYKORA: Yes, there was. MR. RANKIN: And the like, okay. And you submitted that initial complaint back in January of'03. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, let's get to this complaint. We don't have prior complaints here. We're dealing with this complaint. Let's stay on point, sir. MR. RANKIN: Okay. I will, sir, in a minute. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, not in a minute. Let's get to this case. We don't want to hear about something we have never seen. We've never seen these complaints, to my knowledge, so let's stick to this. I don't know what you're talking about, and this board doesn't either, so stick to this. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, I need this to prove -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you present it in your case. We don't ask somebody to talk about something we don't know anything about. If you want to submit all this data on when you present your case, you do that. Then we'll know what you're talking about. MR. RANKIN: As long as she'll be available here for me to call back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I told you that once, I'm not going to tell it to you again. MR. RANKIN: All right. Would you put back up the picture of the now existing alleged dock, please. What do you see running along the edge of that alleged dock? MS. SYKORA: Which edge? Page 53 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: The edge near the water. It's a fence, isn't it? MS. SYKORA: It's just a border that's -- so probably someone doesn't fall off the dock. MR. RANKIN: Right. But it's a fence, isn't it? MS. SYKORA: You could consider it a fence; it's part of the dock. MR. RANKIN: Isn't in fact that fence there when you were there in January of'03? MS. SYKORA: No. The fence you're talking about was on the property line, not that fence. MR. RANKIN: And you're testifying under oath it didn't extend around on the dock? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I'm testifying that that dock was not there in 2003. MR. RANKIN: And let's get the dock straight. The little dock that showed up on that survey, that's still there, isn't it? MS. SYKORA: No, it's not. MR. RANKIN: It's not there, huh? MS. SYKORA: Doesn't extend out like that anymore. Even if it was there, that part of it would be okay, but the rest of the dock is illegal. MR. RANKIN: And why do you think this is a dock? MS. SYKORA: Because it does extend out over the water. MR. RANKIN: And you're testifying under oath that when you were there first in 2003, what we see in front of us didn't exist? MS. SYKORA: That's correct. You can see the cap of the seawall in that picture on the left-hand side. MR. RANKIN: That's not my question. MS. SYKORA: And the picture that I had prior to this shows that this dock did not exist. MR. RANKIN: So it's your testimony that that, what we see Page 54 October 28, 2004 there, is not -- did not exist when you were first there in 2003? MS. SYKORA: It did not, no. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Are you familiar with the property appraiser's website where they have aerials for the county? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Do you know when the last time they shot aerials was for this area that's on there now? MS. SYKORA: No, I don't work for them. MR. RANKIN: You never used this device in your work? MS. SYKORA: I use several devices in my work. MR. RANKIN: Do you never use this device in your work, and those aerials? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I have. MR. RANKIN: Do you know what year it is? MS. SYKORA: But I'm not authority on it. I don't know what year that they end or took or whatever. MR. RANKIN: Now, back to where I started. You said this started with an anonymous complaint. MS. SYKORA: Yes, it did. MR. RANKIN: This did not start with you approaching my clients? MS. SYKORA: No, it did not. MR. RANKIN: And then you going next door and approaching that neighbor? MS. SYKORA: This did not begin with me. The neighbors in that area were fighting and calling on each other for two years now. MR. RANKIN: And isn't it true that this started when you approached my client and then my client refused to say anything about their neighbor and you approached them about their neighbor? MS. SYKORA: No. In fact, their neighbor I get along with. I've had -- I've taken him to the Code Enforcement Board. MR. BOWIE: You know -- excuse me, do you really think this Page 55 -'~'-"""".'--~"'~-'''-~'"'-~'''"'''.'-'''''''''''''''~_._.~''-~~--'........""'--"""-"',-""'.....",_._"-_.....,."',...- October 28, 2004 is relevant how -- how this complaint -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you've asked the same question four times. So let's pick another question. MR. RANKIN: And you did not tell their neighbor that they were the ones that were trying to turn him in? MS. SYKORA: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I don't think any of this is relevant -- MS. SYKORA: They know who's turning in each other in. MR. BOWIE: -- whether there's a code violation-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's all stop and understand what we're here for, because it's not going to be a long day. There's a permit violation, you're to cross-examine her on what she testified to this board, period. Not whether she went to the neighbor, whether she -- that's irrelevant. She didn't testify to that to us. Do you understand, sir? MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. So I'll have to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Get on point and get to these permits. MR. RANKIN: So I need to raise those later -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You do it when you present your case. You present anything you like. Until then, you ask her about what she told us, period. Do you understand, sir? MR. RANKIN: All right. Do you have any -- and the only reason, Mr. Chairman, I'm doing this is because in a court of law, if I don't raise these things now I'd be waiving them, but you have a different procedure -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But this isn't a court of law and we have a lot more flexibility. So when you present your case you present whatever you'd like. But right now cross-examine her on what she told us, period. MR. RANKIN: Do you have any personal knowledge as to what was actually built from that '82 permit? Page 56 _'~^""'__"U' ..m"""_""""_'.""~'" ,.__.....~_~_~_·_"~_'''~.''...''M·....~__,.w.__._,.__·_,·",·''"--'-'"'''-~''-''' ".~.,,...,,,..,"__....,,,,,,~~., October 28, 2004 MS. SYKORA: I have knowledge from the permits that I pulled that were in records. MR. RANKIN: And that diagram in that permit is only from the aerial shot; is it not? Shows the roof line. MS. SYKORA: The diagram is what's submitted when the permit is applied for by the person that wants the permit. MR. RANKIN: But the diagram that was submitted with that permit is strictly looking down from the sky, correct? MS. SYKORA: It's just a drawing that's submitted with the permit to show the areas of what they want to permit. MR. RANKIN: Right. Is there any front, rear or side elevations submitted with that permit? MS. SYKORA: No, because that wasn't required back then. MR. RANKIN: So in terms of you testifying as to whether or not the carport was enclosed from day one, that's an assumption on your part? MS. SYKORA: It's not an assumption. MR. RANKIN: Did you see that carport back in 1982? MS. SYKORA: No, I did not. MR. RANKIN: Are there any drawings in that permit other than MS. SYKORA: But I know the carport was enclosed with screens. MR. RANKIN: Are there any aerial -- any pictures in that permit other than the straight look-down aerial? MS. SYKORA: The picture that came is the one I displayed. MR. RANKIN: Right, the drawing. MS. SYKORA: That drawing was submitted to request the permit. MR. RANKIN: And as one of the board members pointed out, the way you read that permit, it can be read that there was enclosing the porch and the carport, correct? Page 57 October 28, 2004 MS. SYKORA: I did not read it that way. I don't believe that it was meant to be. I believe it was for a carport, for the rear enclosure. If you want to get technical, then they've got a violation at the rear then. MR. RANKIN: No. MS. SYKORA: Because that's enclosed. The screen room is enclosed, so -- MR. RANKIN: Is there a -- that can also be read as to enclose both of them, right? MS. SYKORA: No. Because the way it's listed, it's for a carport. The drawing shows the carport, the drawing shows where the porch will be enclosed. MR. RANKIN: It actually shows it what, 14 by 22; is that correct? That's the one. Would you put that up on the monitor, please? I'd appreciate it. MS. SYKORA: After I look at it I will, sir. I believe that this shows 14 feet, the porch length, and 24 across. The carport, I can't hardly read it, it says 44. MR. RANKIN: All right. You testified that you went to the property appraiser's property card, correct? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I always visit. I never ask for it to be faxed. MR. RANKIN: I'm going to ask you to look at this, since you testified about it. Is this the property appraiser's property card for this property? MS. SYKORA: Yes, it is. MR. RANKIN: Would you put that up where the board can see it, please. So they can see the drawing, please. There you go. All right. Now, we look at what you call the carport. Is that thing any -- look anything at all like what the drawing is with the permit? Page 58 .-,_.,.,-.,...-..._-.. ".. October 28, 2004 MS. SYKORA: Let me explain a little bit about the property appraiser's card. Number one, it's when they visit there -- MR. RANKIN: Are you an expert in the property-- MS. SYKORA: -- they draw what is existing there. They do not know if it's been permitted or not. Whatever is there the year that they go out, they draw it down and you're taxed on it. MR. RANKIN: Excuse me. So you -- how do you know that the property appraiser drew that from going out there? MS. SYKORA: Through my education for code enforcement and speaking to property appraisers. MR. RANKIN: All right. And did you ever work for the property appraiser? MS. SYKORA: No, I did not. MR. RANKIN: Have you ever been trained to do what they do? MS. SYKORA: No, I have not. MR. RANKIN: Have you ever understood or researched their internal office policies? MS. SYKORA: No, I have not, but I have spoken to them and -- MR. RANKIN: Okay. MS. SYKORA: -- I have gone to school -- MR. RANKIN: Why don't you tell me the notation they put on a drawing like that when they get it by a drive-by as opposed to a permit. You don't know it, do you? MS. SYKORA: They are not there -- they are not there to establish if permits are available or not. If they have a permit number, it will be put on the property tax card. MR. RANKIN: Oh, so it's your testimony that they put the permit on the property card every time, huh? MS. SYKORA: Not every time. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Does this property card-- MS. SYKORA: That's why I research more thoroughly than just going by the property card. Page 59 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Does this property card have an '82 permit anywhere on it? MS. SYKORA: Well, your copy, I can't really read it. MR. RANKIN: Well, you've got your own, you say you researched it. Do you have it with you? But you don't know anything about a special notation the property appraiser puts on cards when they see -- when they pick up something by a drive-by as opposed to a permit? MS. SYKORA: Most of them are basically drive-by. They go by, they look and see what's on the property, they draw a sketch of it. You'll have to ask someone from property appraiser's for all of their -- MR. RANKIN: I have. MS. SYKORA: Well. MR. RANKIN: Well, you've been -- you're the one who's testifying as to what they do, ma'am, and you haven't asked them? MS. SYKORA: Pardon me? MR. RANKIN: I said you're the one up here testifying as to what they do and you've never asked them? MS. SYKORA: I have spoken to them. I also go to school for code enforcement. Base training. MR. RANKIN: And how long have you been in this code enforcement job? Three years. MR. RANKIN: And do you have any experience with the property appraiser prior to that? MS. SYKORA: No. MR. RANKIN: Did you even know that they have a special notation when see a drive-by -- when they do a drive-by as opposed to a permit? MS. SYKORA: It's for tax purposes. That is the -- that is what your property card is for -- what you are being taxed on, not that you have everything permitted. Page 60 October 28, 2004 I also go by this for permit numbers. I also go through the records, through old books, I thoroughly research my cases before I would even give a notice of violation. MR. RANKIN: You do? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I do. MR. RANKIN: The current computer system, how far back does it go? MS. SYKORA: I believe you subpoenaed people here -- MR. RANKIN: That's not my question. MS. SYKORA: -- to talk to them about it. MR. RANKIN: You said you researched -- MS. SYKORA: It's 1990 in our computer system. MR. RANKIN: Oh, you're testifying-- MS. SYKORA: Prior to that -- MR. RANKIN: -- the computer goes back to 1990? MS. SYKORA: Our CD Plus. MR. RANKIN: So you're telling me that if I go over to the records department -- you're the one that said you researched these things all the time. MS. SYKORA: Yes, I do. MR. RANKIN: And you're telling me that the current computer system goes back to 1990? MS. SYKORA: The first thing I do when I get a permit issue is I go to the property appraiser's and pull-- and get a copy of the property card. If there's permit numbers on there, I will research on microfilm, however I can do to obtain that permit that's listed on the property card. Also, current permits, 1990 would be listed usually in our CD Plus system. MR. RANKIN: So you're telling us -- MS. SYKORA: I also go to old books that are available, research by name. There's several ways to research back to the Fifties, Page 61 _""._^_....._.""__~_,.......,, ,."_o......·...~_.".._~~,~~__ October 28, 2004 Sixties. MR. RANKIN: So you don't even know that the computer systems only go back to 1995? MS. SYKORA: Our computer system that I have access to is 1990. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Well, we'll see. By the way, 1986, let's pick a year, 1986, when one of the things here that we're talking about was built, the little hole back there in the corner that you allege which is now part of the workshop, how do you have to research permits in that era? Or can you even do it? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I can. MR. RANKIN: How? MS. SYKORA: If they're not on the property card, I'll go by name into the old books, go name to name. I've spent, basically, two days in there going through old books. MR. RANKIN: Do you know how the '86 permits are arranged? MS. SYKORA: There's a WHIP system that we do not have access to, they can research permits for us. MR. RANKIN: So you think the WHIP system goes back that far? MS. SYKORA: I am just telling you how I can obtain permits. MR. RANKIN: My question, do you think the WHIP system-- MS. SYKORA: I'm not thinking anything, sir. I'm just telling you how I obtain permits. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Now, the '86 book, have you ever opened that '86 book for researching permits? MS. SYKORA: I have opened several books in the records department. MR. RANKIN: Isn't it true that the '86 book is by permit number, it is not by name, and it is by whoever pulled the permit, not necessarily the property owner? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I object. She did not testify Page 62 October 28, 2004 anything about the '86 permits or the books or anything like that. She told the board what she did to do research. Mr. Rankin is asking about information in the records department and our permitting department that Ms. Sykora did not testify about. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, she did in fact testify, and we could have the court reporter spend some of our time reading it back, that she searched all these years. And my clients bought and started building in '79, so '86 is currently within the years of range that she alleged that she checked. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, she told you how she checked, so let's move on. MR. RANKIN: All right. And isn't it true that the '86 book, if it's not -- that you have to go through every line of it, line by line, and if it's by some contractor as opposed to the owner, you can't find anything? MS. ARNOLD: Again, Mr. Chairman, she didn't testify how she looked at the books or how the books are organized, she -- MR. RANKIN: But she said she did -- MS. ARNOLD: -- indicated what she -- she indicated what she did personally and didn't indicate 1986 books. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Excuse me, you testified earlier that you checked for permits on this property, correct? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. RANKIN: You said you found an '82 permit, right? MS. SYKORA: I have checked -- MR. RANKIN: What year is this? MS. SYKORA: -- and researched for permits on this property. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And one of the years you researched was '86, right? Or you alleged you researched. Because between '82 -- today's 2004, right? MS. SYKORA: That's correct. Page 63 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: And '86 is between '82 and 2004, isn't it? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. So you alleged earlier under oath that you checked for '86, didn't you? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, she didn't say '86, I remember that. So let's -- she checked for permits, she didn't say specific years. You're the one picking the year, so let's move on. MR. RANKIN: All right. And did you ever once contact me, even though I called you and sent you several letters? MS. SYKORA: No, I did not. I was asked not to. MR. RANKIN: In fact, did you refuse to contact me? You were told my clients -- MS. SYKORA: I did not refuse to contact you. I was asked by my director, Michelle Arnold, not to contact you right away. MR. RANKIN: And didn't you in fact tell my client, Mrs. and Mr. Kowalke, that you don't talk to attorneys? MS. SYKORA: No, I did not. In fact, I believe the reason that my director asked me not to contact you is because the only thing you were interested in was my property. MR. RANKIN: Well, since you brought that up, thank you very much. You have a very big dock on your property, don't you? MS. ARNOLD: Objection-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, we're not here about her property. Get to the permits on hand, period. Do we understand that, everybody? These permits. Period. Nothing else. MR. RANKIN: Okay. So the person, a county employee-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't care about what she's got on her land or whatever. These permits are the case that's here. MR. RANKIN: Right around the corner from his house, my client's house. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't care. Do you understand? Page 64 <~'~~""~"~'"'' ._-"".._'^---"-~-'" ",--, '.'~~_.__,"...~".. ~.".",__. ...._.w.._~_....."..~_~,__^,.__,".,.".._..~.._..._.<~"'''_,,~...._,"""'~.""_""'" ~--"'-- -<¡ .."',......-- October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Yes, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Your client's permits here. That's what we're dealing with. Stick to that, period. MR. RANKIN: But she brought it up, Your Honor. Okay, let's see. I'll have to reserve the rest of it for my case then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Very good. MR. RANKIN: And I will be calling her back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, the next investigator, please. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. After receiving this case from Investigator Sykora, I -- in late April, 2004, I was present at a conference call which included myself, director -- Code Enforcement Director Michelle Arnold and my supervisor, Code Enforcement Supervisor Dennis Mitchell. And the conference call was with Attorney Mr. Rankin. During this conference call -- MR. RANKIN: I obj ect, Your Honor, that was a settlement conference. Under Florida law, it's privileged. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Proceed. MR. SANT APEMIA: During the conference call, we reviewed the file and went over the permits that we did have versus the permits that we were unable to locate. It was also determined at that time that I make a site visit to verify what was out there for myself. On April 29, 2004, after conducting the site visit, I spoke with Mr. Rankin and advised him that the Kowalkes needed to obtain engineer affidavits for the enclosure that was converted from the Page 65 --_....~._"_.~._--..,<_._.__...,-"-,_._-""'-----<,..".,,-"",,--_..,,"" October 28, 2004 carport, the workshop to the rear of the enclosed carport and the portion of the dock that was altered. On June 8th, 2004, I spoke with Mr. Rankin who advised that engineer Jim Herst was handling the permit issue and it should be completed soon. He also advised he believed the issue of the screen room was previously addressed -- or addressed, I'm sorry; however, researching the permits that were in the file indicated that that enclosure was actually for the rear porch on the structure. I contacted Mr. Herst to verify that he was working on the Kowalke permits. Mr. Herst advised me that he did review the information that was provided to him by Mr. Rankin; however, he was not providing affidavits certifying that -- the engineering of the structures. MR. RANKIN: As previously, I object to the hearsay testimony. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Noted. MR. SANT AFEMIA: On June 24th, 2004, I received a letter from Mr. Rankin advising that he did not feel that his client, Mr. Kowalke -- Mr. and Mrs. Kowalke were in violation in this case. And at that time, the case was decided to move forward to CEB. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The sketch/drawing that's before us, other than the permits that are noted on here, since you took over and whatever investigating or looking into that you have done, have you found any other permits than the one referenced on here? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No, sir, I have not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To the best of your knowledge, the drawing depicted here, is that the structure that exists? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Rankin? MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman. Page 66 October 28, 2004 Did you research the aerials for this area from the property appraiser's -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: No, I did not. MR. RANKIN: You did not, okay. And when was the first time you were on my client's property? MR. SANT AFEMIA: It was shortly after the conference call. I believe late April. MR. RANKIN: Of 2004? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Correct. MR. RANKIN: You'd never been on or near my client's property before that? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No, sir. MR. RANKIN: Okay. All right. And you said you didn't find any more permits. Aren't there a whole series of permits in 2003 and 2004? MR. SANTAFEMIA: I didn't find any permits that weren't already in the file. MR. RANKIN: But all that's been submitted to the Code Enforcement Board here today -- actually the first packet a couple of -- month ago only had the '79 and '80 permit in it. The packet that your agency submitted to them today has the '79, '80 and '82 permit in that packet, right? MR. SANT AFEMIA: The permits that I saw after reviewing the file were pretty much all the permits that we could find associated with the property. Not all of those permits were significant to this case. They were prior cases, prior permits that were not in issue for this case. MR. RANKIN: There -- but you do think -- there is a Permit 2003-021961 for a roof and fence, right? MR. SANT AFEMIA: I believe so. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And would you agree with me that that thing on the edge of the dock -- alleged dock -- Page 67 "'~""_..._,,~-~-- '_-~_'-'._"_..,~,, ""-"'~-"-"'-"-""""""-----"-"""~ October 28,2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, sir. The county submitted a stack of documents that we accepted and they submitted certain permits. If that's not one of them and you want to submit that, then you do that. That's not something they have submitted. So let's not question them about something they haven't submitted to us, okay? If it's not in our packet and I don't see that number on here, then you submit it and then we'll deal with it. MR. RANKIN: It's there. We'll do that in a minute, okay. Sir, have you visited the property? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Yes, as I stated, I did do a site visit. MR. RANKIN: All right. The part that's covered by the '82 permit, the alleged carport, how far back does that structure extend? Does it extend about a third into this alleged workshop? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Are you referring to this part here? MR. RANKIN: Yes. MR. SANT AFEMIA: It extends -- I'm sorry, ask the question again? MR. RANKIN: Does it extend about a third into the workshop area? Let me -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: Well, there is a wall and I believe a door dividing them between the carport area and the workshop area. MR. RANKIN: And in fact that wall is about where that dot is on the carport area, right? If you look at the thing here, it's about right there, isn't it? MR. SANTAFEMIA: I couldn't say. I didn't take any measurements. MR. RANKIN: And in fact -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: I know that the room in the rear, the workshop area, is significantly smaller than the carport area. MR. RANKIN: And in fact, in reality this roof goes like this, doesn't it? MR. SANTAFEMIA: I'm sorry, I couldn't-- Page 68 -..,.---..~-",-_. <'H'_~_'__"~'~_'"""'"""""'''''''''''"'_~'"_"''~_'~~'''~_'_',~,.~....,.o._....._""","._.,_"_>~__..,~.,_.~....." October 28, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: In reality -- Mr. Rankin, could you go on the mic? MR. SANT AFEMIA: I can't hear you when you walk away from the mic, sir, I'm sorry. MR. RANKIN: I can't point from over here, because I don't think they'd like me to have a laser pointer in here. In reality that roof on the carport is notched and it's -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. Okay, I know what you're talking about, yes. MR. RANKIN: -- and it's like this? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Yes. And the photos do show that. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And the carport ends about where the notch is, right? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct, okay. MR. RANKIN: Do you have any knowledge about what was permitted and C.O.'d in '82, as far as that carport goes? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Other than what's in the file, no. MR. RANKIN: No, okay. And do you have any knowledge about how my client's rear water area looked prior to you coming there? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. MR. RANKIN: And did you check for permits? MR. SANT AFEMIA: I did not go to records and research on my own for any permits. I met with Investigator Sykora and went over the file, and she assured me that she had done the research, and she is very competent at doing that. So no, I did not do any further research. MR. RANKIN: And without being -- I'll get to that later. Okay, no further questions at this time for this witness, but I reserve the right to call him back at part of my case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Noted. Anything else from the board? Page 69 ~-'~._--~.,. '--~"'--'._-~< October 28, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. County have anything else? MS. ARNOLD: The county has no further witnesses. I think we're going to enter in the respondent's exhibit. I'm sorry, we have something further. Jennifer Belpedio has something to say. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, assistant county attorney. The county at this time would like to move this board to exclude any documents in the property owner's package that seem to be newspaper articles. It's the county's position that these newspaper articles are not relevant to the present matter, which as you know is a permit case. From my review of these documents, they seem to be talking about drug smugglers and rum runners. I -- by any stretch of the imagination, I cannot conceive as to how these would be relevant to the case at hand. Typically when an attorney moves for evidence to be excluded before it's actually presented and discussed by the opposing counsel, it certainly is typical that that attorney can proffer the evidence and explain to the board as to why he believes that it's relevant. Without going through his whole case, he can certainly give a brief explanation. MR. RANKIN: Thank you, I intend to do so. And unfortunately I'm at somewhat of a handicap in doing this because I haven't even given my opening statement yet. Normally in a court case we'd have both given our opening statements and then we'd be moving down the road with you having some idea of where I'm coming from. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me see if the county's done yet, and then we'll let you do your thing. MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, sir, we are completed. But as Mr. Rankin may know, in court proceedings we have what they call motions in Page 70 ~ ., . _·c"~~"..~,..~.......,._"__,,,,...,,,_,,_.,,.~,.".._,,..,,..,,,, .... October 28, 2004 limine, and attorneys typically move the court in advance of the presentation of documents or other evidence. It's considered to be an efficient means to handle evidence. MR. RANKIN: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would remind you, as you indicated before and as your rules indicate, the Rules of Evidence don't apply here. If it had of, about 90 percent of what they testified to wouldn't be here, because they don't have the expertise or the personal knowledge to have done so and we would get to go home at this point. Basically if you all will review the permits they've submitted so far, you can see in '79, '80, and '82 -- and by the way, there is something in your packet that will confuse you a little bit. My clients did in fact buy this property in 1979. There's an '86 deed they've submitted in your packet. There's a series of them, in fact, that correct mistakes. They have in fact owned it since '79, they didn't go do their research and go back to get the right first deed. So that's why you all may think my clients didn't buy it till '86. You'll notice '79, '80, '82, my clients are legal each and every step of the way, with the except -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, do you all want to enter in his exhibit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He hasn't submitted it yet. That's his -- MR. RANKIN : Well, I request it be submitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's not have the county submitting his evidence. Let him submit his own evidence. MR. RANKIN: Well, in that case, in order to deal with her motion in limine, I delivered two packets to the Code Enforcement Board, 15 copies of everything. The first box was delivered on Wednesday, well before your deadline. The next two documents were delivered early Thursday, also well before your deadline. The only thing I'm going to need to help you with on those Page 71 ~--""-""'-"-"""""-'-"""._""~"-.~-'~'- "".'._,.-._.~." ,," ..... October 28, 2004 packets is of course these aerial photographs, I had no ability to copy those for you. I have the originals with me today . You have copies of the pertinent parts. I want to make sure you got everything that was submitted. There's quite a long list. It consists of the same -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, first you need to ask us to accept your exhibit whatever and -- you haven't done that yet. MR. RANKIN: I ask you to accept my -- all the exhibits I submitted on both Wednesday and Thursday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, now, for your own information, as we have received this stack of papers with a rubber band on it, they're not numbered or anything, so we have no way of knowing what you submitted. MR. RANKIN: Well, we'll go down through that. If I need to, and if somebody at the staff level had mistake with it, I have the lady who made the copies and delivered them on call to testify, if we have to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So you're asking us to accept your exhibit -- MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the respondent's Exhibit A. MR. RANKIN: And just to make sure you got everything, the two items I submitted on Thursday was a letter to their environmental person with some attachments. And there was also a letter regarding why Mr. Kowalke is not here today. And I'll deal with that in a moment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RANKIN: But if you got those, then we'll assume for the moment everything's there. And as I proceed through my case, since we don't want to take up your whole day, we'll see if there's something missing. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Chairman, I actually prepared Mr. Page 72 October 28, 2004 Rankin's documents. I wasn't told to separate into two packets, so you'll find the two letters that he's referring to at the back of the rubber banded section. It's all one big packet. MR. RANKIN: I was just making sure that that -- MR. BONANNO: Yeah, I did receive everything and they all have the exact same copy of everything. MR. RANKIN: Good. All right. I move for the admittance of those matters. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Chairman, before accepting his packets, can we ask him to explain the pertinence -- MR. RANKIN: Yes. MS. BARNETT: -- of the newspaper articles? MR. RANKIN : Yes, you can. And I will tell you the pertinence. Because regarding one small piece of my client's property, which can be aptly described as this little square here, there is a possibility my clients don't have a permit for that part. But there is two questions involved in that. A, if they don't have one, there's some question about that. They have to get one. And then the second question related to that is what year's standards apply to that. Because there is a dramatic difference between what the codes were when that thing, we are going to testify, was actually built -- MS. BARNETT: Mr. Rankin, I still do not understand how that ties into -- MR. RANKIN: If you wait just a minute, it's going to take me a couple of minutes, since you didn't have my opening statement, and it's the reason why there's a couple of witnesses here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's do it this way. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As I remember, anything that we determine is irrelevant, we don't have to pay attention to. So would we be correct if we let him submit his package and then having not known what's in it, because he's just now submitting it, technically, we Page 73 October 28, 2004 can set the irrelevant things aside, correct? MS. RAWSON: You can. You can enter the whole packet and then just consider the weight of the evidence. I mean, there's no harm in admitting it. Only you can determine the purpose for which you intend to use it in determining whether or not there had been a violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I have a question following that. If we submit the whole package, then that means he can address any part of this package in his statement, his testimony? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Providing it's relevant. MS. RAWSON: Well, no, Ms. Belpedio has the right at that moment to make the very same objection she's made in her motion in limine. She can object to the relevance of that particular document. MS. DUSEK: So at which point do we make that determination? MS. RAWSON: You can make it now, because she's made a motion in limine to exclude part of that whole packet. MS. DUSEK: So we can exclude that part now. MS. RAWSON: You can, or you can take the packet and as we go through the case and the motions are made, make a decision at that time. MR. BOWIE: Why don't we hear from Mr. Rankin the relevance of these newspaper clippings -- MR. RANKIN : Yes, sir, that's what I was trying to get to. And unfortunately everybody keeps having questions because, again, you don't know where we're coming from. Although you did get a hint last time I was here. As I said, there's two questions regarding that little square back there, which is: A, do we have a permit and if we don't, we need one. And then the other thing this board is going to have to determine is what year's standards apply to it. Because as you're going to hear in a Page 74 October 28, 2004 minute, if we don't have one, we did everything we could to get one at the time. You will notice -- and let me just start my -- do you want me to -- anyway -- MS. BARNETT: I just want to ask a question. MR. RANKIN: Sure. MS. BARNETT: Maybe I can clarify this for myself and maybe you can just move on to your opening statement. Are you trying to set the tone of the time with these articles? MR. RANKIN: That's right. That's the reason why we were told we were entitled to a permit but nobody from the county would issue it at the time because they didn't want to go out there and get shot. I will tell you personally, and you can put me under oath if you want, the day before that raid I was run out of that area at gunpoint. And if you think that's not relevant as to whether your county staff is going to go out there and deal with permits in that area, we've got a problem. And I needn't remind this board, for those of you who were around, about another group of this situation that happened at this same time period for different reasons in another part of the county by the name of Looneyville. As you'll recall, in that particular instance the county would not simply go out there because it was too far and too much of a bother. Here, not only was this too far, this -- in case anybody here doesn't know where Plantation Island is, it's between Everglades City and Chokoloskee. Everglades City, as you know, has their own permitting matters. You have no jurisdiction there. And -- but Plantation Island is not in the City of Everglades, so you do have jurisdiction there. MS. BARNETT: Okay, I think you've answered my question that this is basically just used to set the tone of the time. Page 75 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Yes. Because I'm sure we're going to -- when we get some witnesses up here, you're going to hear my client's testimony about what egregious steps they went to in 1986 to get a permit -- whether they ever got one or not, we're not quite sure, and I don't think we'll ever know, we need to find out about your records -- but why. Because everybody's going to say, oh, we wouldn't have done that, you know, and this is to back up those arguments because -- MS. BARNETT: Mr. Rankin, you've satisfied my question. MR. RANKIN: Thank you. Okay, do I now begin with my case, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're up there, sir. MR. RANKIN: Okay, thank you. MS. BARNETT: Do we have to vote in whether or not we accept his -- MR. RANKIN: Yes, I believe that's what we need to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we've been waiting to vote in his package, if everybody's -- MS. DUSEK: Are we voting on the whole package? MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we go ahead and accept his whole package, and we can weight it as we go. MR. BOWIE: I agree that we should accept it, but that doesn't mean we necessarily have to receive any testimony or any kind of exposition related to this kind of material. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When somebody submits it, then we accept it and Mr. Rankin's position is he then has to provide testimony on all this stuff to show why it's relevant and what it means. At the time he does that, of course the county has the right to object and we also have the right to say, you know, we're not getting it, just like we've done. We don't understand the relevance. And if he can make it work for us, then that's fine. If not, we move on to the next item. But right now, I think it's going to be easier to move the case Page 76 -'-'---'.'-~""'."'." October 28, 2004 along if we accept everything and then take it as he is going to present testimony to show why it is relevant, and then we can then say yes or no. I think that's going to be the easiest, rather than try to ferret it all out in the beginning. Does that make sense, George? MR. PONTE: Yes, it does. I just was thinking that we should all be reminded of the guidelines we set up for this, and that it was a two-hour guideline. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the clock started at 11 :43. It's his nickel, not ours. So we have a motion to accept the package as submitted. Do we have a second to that? Ray, you want to second? MR. BOWIE: I'll second it without any determination as to relevance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Yeah, we're just accepting it and he's got to prove it. Okay? Everybody understand, we're accepting the package as submitted, with no connotation other than he's submitted some documents right now. MR. RANKIN: But they are officially now before the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of accepting the Respondent's Exhibit A, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? Page 77 ~.",,--~-_..._._._., -- ...- -_.....,-"..~~"~--"'..,, October 28, 2004 (No response.) MS. DUSEK: No. MR. RANKIN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, since you said I am on my nickel, I'd like to get my opening statement out of the way and get you some testimony. I will give you a brief history of this property and show you where we are. I will also tell you, this is not the usual code enforcement case. You asked why, whether she came out there whether there was an anonymous complaint or not, because I have seen newspaper articles and some of them quoting some members of this board or code enforcement that have indicated that people are here because there's a ruckus between the neighbors. Also, the other thing that my clients are greatly distressed about on how this matter's worked over the last couple of years, which is one of the reasons why Mr. Kowalke is on an operating table this morning with a heart incident, is because of how this matter's been handled. This matter, as my client will testify to, started when she was approached by the -- Carol Sykorski (sic) or however you pronounce it, code enforcement person and asked to tell on her neighbor and said she wouldn't do it. So she goes next door and tells the neighbor, well, these other people told on you, da de da, which is supposed to be against their policy. The neighbor then comes over and -- MS. ARNOLD: I have to object, because he's testifying. He's not -- MR. RANKIN: Well, I'm giving an opening statement. I'm saying that my client will testify to these things and that's what I'm allowed to do in an opening statement in any court in this land I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Proceed, sir. MR. RANKIN: The neighbor then came over and dang near beat the living daylights out of my client, Mr. Kowalke. It's my Page 78 October 28, 2004 understanding that's not supposed to happen. And that is how this thing started. This thing started actually in January of '03, when Carol Sykorski (sic) filed an original code complaint, which is in your packet. This code complaint, you will see in a minute, covers many of the same exact items that we're here on today, either directly or indirectl y. You will then also see that my clients at that time didn't hire an attorney, they went over and said what do we need to do to fix this? And they were told they needed to get certain permits. And they got them. And then three months later after they got all the permits and everything was C.O.'d, Carol comes back again in November of '03 with the same darn thing in a different guise. Now, one of the problems we've got here, and I'm -- the reason this is relevant is I'm arguing estoppel and detrimental reliance and a few other legal terms I can think of and settled and previously adjudicated. N ow I'm sure what I'm going to get from the county attorney is because this wasn't drawn up in a settlement agreement and signed and dated and all this other nonsense, that it doesn't bind the county. Well, if that's going to be the case, then every future person that gets one of these code enforcement matters that settles with these people better get it in writing or they run the risk of having happen what happened to my clients three or four months later being hit right back with the same darn things. And that is what has happened here. And if that's what's going to happen, then you all are going to have an awful busy schedule. And we also think that legally, that is impermissible under the way this board and this code enforcement has operated in the past. Those -- the previous complaint in January of '03 dealt with no Page 79 October 28, 2004 permits for roof, vinyl siding, fence, screen room and seawall. And that matter was dealt with by my client obtaining the following permits that are part of your packet. There's also a fourth permit that's not really relevant, it just goes on to show that my clients have always tried to be good people and do what they're supposed to do. In Permit 2003-11649, they got for the screen room in the back, as indicated by them. Permit 2003-021961 they got for a roof and a fence. It is our position that this fence goes all the way around the property, including what you saw on that dock, or alleged dock. And we'll get to that in a minute. It will also say that -- notice that's for a roof. Well, that roof went over everything that you see there, including the little square we're going to be talking about later on. Let me take you back to the beginning. In 1971, Plantation Island was cleared and filled. In November of '73, some regulations came into place that limit things out there. By that time, my client's property was a cleared, flattened, white piece of sand that already had a septic tank and a driveway on it. In May of '74, the gentleman who developed that property and took pictures and the like of that nature that -- killed himself, and that was the end of the development of Plantation Island at that time. In 1979, my clients were one of the first persons to buyout there. They, unlike you people you see in those articles, they are retired -- disability retired people from Michigan. They don't have any relatives out there and they never set foot in Plantation Island prior to '79. At the time they moved out there, it was a pretty nice place to live. That changed in a hurry. 1979, they legally pulled that permit to put that trailer there. Law abiding citizens. I would suggest to you, if you check the records, you're going to find they're going to be one of the few that did that. In 1980, they pulled a permit to add that porch behind the mobile Page 80 October 28, 2004 smaller versions of these. These aerials which go '81, '85, '91 and '95, spell out what's there and as it was built according like I indicate. Also, you'll look at that '82 permit, you will see, contrary to what they say, the only view of that is straight down. There is no view to tell you whether or not it was screened in at the time. My client's testimony will be when it was C.O.'d, it was screened in. Now, this little area back here was open in the back, it had a Ted's Shed halfway sitting in it and halfway sitting out into the area behind it, and there was a -- there's a sliding glass door that's still there today that separated those two areas. My clients then, in 1986, will testify that that's when they decided to get rid of the Ted's Shed and fill in that square back there. At that time, they will testify, that they went to the building department and they were told they were entitled to a building permit, that there was no problem with them building that workshop there and -- but go ahead and build it, because we're not giving you a permit because we're not going out to that place, for a couple of reasons, one of which is relevant in that article. And if you look at that article, it indicates to you very clearly what people in that area -- not my clients, my clients were very upset about what was going on around them -- thought of outsiders and especially government-connected ones. They also had some problems at that time. There were crab traps stacked to the sky on either side of their home. The one trailer on one side, such a good friend of Carol's, had its 900 gallons of gasoline in a bulk container stored underneath his home. And then the one on the other side had 600 gallons of gasoline stored under his home. And we've got the pictures of the tanker truck delivering it. And my clients -- MR. BOWIE: Again, is this really relevant to this property? MR. RANKIN : Yes, it is. Yes, it is. MR. BOWIE: -- and these, particularly the permits or lack of permits? Page 82 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Yes, it is. Because again, my client's testimony, well, they built this in '86 and they tried to get a permit, they did everything they could to get a permit at that time. My clients, when they were -- got this response from building, they hired an attorney . You'll see a bill in there that covers their will and trust and also covers him calling a couple of zoning officials trying to deal with this matter. It didn't go anywhere. They then approached the county manager at that time, and uh-uh. They all, though, then met with their then county commissioner twice, once at Everglades City Hall when she had a meeting out there for the neighbors and once here in this building. And the end result of that was we're not going to do it, go away, you go ahead and do what you want, get out of here. And that was the end of my clients coming in to get permits, because that was how it happened at that time. And it's our position -- and by the way, however, it is also our position that when you see the '86 book, and it was subpoenaed to be brought here, so we'll see if they brought it, contrary to the testimony you heard, the current computer system doesn't go back very far at all. The WHIP system only goes back to about '95. Before that -- or '92 or something like that. Before that you have to go back into books. And as we'll see in a little bit, the '86 book is not in alphabetical order, it's numerical order by permit number, and that is the only method of accessing those permits that are now on microfilm, and it's by the name of who applied for the permit. So if they put down my client's contractor or something like that instead of my client's name, you'll never find it. And that's been true -- I've seen a number of cases come before this board where they've made the kind of representations they made to you earlier. And you saw just how much knowledge they have to back up those searches. They don't. Also, you'll notice how much knowledge they have of what the Page 83 October 28, 2004 -- how the property appraiser works. Remember, the current property appraiser was the number two guy for the former property appraiser. They haven't changed how they work out there very much in a very long time. And you'll also notice that the '79 and '80 permits are on this property card, which you have in there. The '82 one isn't. And neither is anything else. And in fact, these were pulled fairly recently, these were pulled back in 2004, and they don't have the three -- 2003 permits on them and they don't have the 2004 permit, which is not relevant, where my client bought and put in an air conditioner. It's just doesn't -- there's (sic) not there. They don't always do that. And it is my clients' position they did that. Then in about 1999, 2000, my clients' position, '98, '99, 2000, somewhere in there, they built what you see in the back of that property now. They built that seawall, they built that alleged dock. And let me talk -- straighten up the dock thing and why this got confused. Because until about a couple of weeks ago, the dock we thought they were talking about is that little square one you'll see in the survey. And I knew they were out of it there, because not only is it on this survey, it's on this 1981 aerial here that I'll be happy to pass around. And back in 1979, something that costs less than $500, you didn't need a permit for, and you didn't need any state and federal permits back then for docks either, or anything else. And that dock, also my client will testify, is still there. It's the -- you'll notice in their own pictures, that little thing that sticks out underneath the existing walkway. It's still there. Hasn't been moved, hasn't been messed with. When they put in that seawall, they put in the cap and walkway you see there. And they put in that fence around it. Along comes 2003 and they're visited by code enforcement for the first time in January of2003. And they complain about the seawall and the fence and all this nonsense. Page 84 October 28, 2004 So my clients go down, they apply for a permit. My client will testify that the guy who approved that permit was standing on this thing. She claims it wasn't there. And also in your packet is the aerial photographs, which I'll be happy to pass around a little better picture of, from 2001. These are what is currently, if I may approach? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, just stay there. You're going to have somebody testify to all this stuff. Right now you're doing an opening statement, so keep going. MR. RANKIN: Anyway, but you'll see that in this 2001 photograph, the stuff she claimed that wasn't there in 2003 has been there since 2001 and before. And so I don't know what her problem is. It's our position that she didn't take that picture. That's a picture that somebody gave her back from when my client was building this. And you'll notice all the rest of the pictures in those code enforcement things have their little date thing on them? You'll notice suspiciously that one's missing that date thing. It also looks different than the other pictures. That is not one she took, that's one that was given her. It is my clients' position that that picture is of a neighbor's property. And she'll tell you the neighbor's name, because I don't know it. Or it was a picture taken back during that time period while that was being constructed, which was way before 2003. And basically when the gentleman was standing on top of that walkway okaying the permit for the seawall he was standing on top of and the fence he was leaning on and talking to my clients about crabbing, that they could -- oh, what about the walk -- this? Oh, it's just a walkway, you don't have to worry about that. He said, I C.O.'d the permit for the dock -- for the seawall and for the fence that runs along the edge of it, which are 2003-11649 and 2003-021961, and walked away. And that's when my clients thought this was over. Well, surprise, surprise. And of course this little workshop addition had always been Page 85 October 28, 2004 there during these time periods. And in fact my aerials here bear that out, because it's on the '95 aerial. And all this stuff was there in January, '03 when along they came. And this is how we find ourselves here. My client's position is, as far as the carport goes, it's a carport, per se, but it's always been enclosed. All they did was change how the screening was held up. And if they need a permit for that, fine. And by the way, my clients will also testify, we've tried to apply for these permits just to get this thing over with. And they can't even make up their mind and they're holding off on issuing us anything until this board makes a ruling. So here we are. Because we met with building, we've met with code enforcement, we've met with environmental. Second thing is this walkway. And remember, this is not an accurate picture. There is a square dock still underneath there. Still exists, which until a few -- and if you look at correspondence or testimony before a few weeks ago, that's what we thought they were talking about, because this nonsense walkway isn't really a dock, in our opinion, it's just a cap to the seawall. And it was there when they permitted the seawall and the fence that runs atop it. So the question is do we need that. The only thing we may need a permit for, and quite frankly I'd love to see them prove we don't have one for '86, because you look at the '86 book and good luck. My younger child that's now in seventh grade could have done better when he was in third or fourth, and that's just the way things were kept back then. Because the computer system that covers that era is long since in the junkyard. So the only other method you have of accessing is this little loose-leaf book that's pretty useless. And it takes you hours even to go through and see if there isn't even a name Kowalke in there. But that is the only -- this little square here, which is clearly a workshop and the like. Page 86 October 28, 2004 And my clients were never, before I came before you the first time, asked to get a permit for that. They were told, well, get a builder to call us up. In fact, allegedly the contractor that she testified about was one she sent over, some friend of hers. He said this is fine, this will be here longer than the mobile home. And then we got the engineer to call them up and tell them okay, fine. Then they wanted a letter. We got them that, it's in your packet. Then they wanted an affidavit, and that's where the engineer drew the line. And I don't blame the poor guy, because -- first they want a verbal opinion, then they want a letter and then they want an affidavit. He drew the line at that, yeah. Doesn't mean he doesn't think it's okay, but he drew the line at that point, because -- and he also saw what had happened to my clients and was somewhat concerned about getting further involved in this when they keep bringing these cases up. That's one of the reasons we're also standing before you, because at least this time we'll know what's done here. And for those other people in Collier County, if you settle on these things, you better get it in writing from the view of what's happened to my clients. At this point, I call Mrs. Kowalke to the stand, please. And she might have to sit down for some part of this. She has also been disability retired for some time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just one second. Cherie', are you all right if we keep going? Okay. Before your client testifies, let's take five minutes and give the court reporter a -- (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get back to our seats, please. Mr. Rankin, you may call your witness, sir. MR. RANKIN : Yes, sir. Do we want to wait for Mr. Bowie or just go ahead and start? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right, we can go ahead and start. MR. RANKIN: If you don't mind, can she sit down, please? Page 87 ·____~·._·~·,'_··_·_._,·__._"'_N_···'_,.·_____,._·n._'. " October 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're going to have to have something for her to speak in. Is there a -- see if it will -- there we go. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. RANKIN: Would you state your name, please. MRS. KOWALKE: Norma Kowalke. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're going to have to hold the microphone up, ma'am, okay? Thank you. MR. RANKIN: All right. Where do you live? MRS. KOWALKE: 37 Plantation Parkway, Plantation Island, Everglades City. MR. RANKIN: Is that the property we're here talking about today? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. When did -- and who do you live there with? MRS. KOWALKE: My husband, Fred. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And where is Fred today? MRS. KOWALKE: In the hospital. MR. RANKIN: All right. When did you all first come to view this property? MRS. KOWALKE: 1979. MR. RANKIN: Okay. When you first viewed the property, what did it look like? MRS. KOWALKE: It was just bare, except the septic tank stuck out of the ground. MR. RANKIN: Okay. All right. Did you all buy this property? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: When? MRS. KOWALKE: In February of 1979. MR. RANKIN: Why do we see '86 deeds in their packet? MRS. KOWALKE: When we had to get a survey, they found out that everybody's property was off, so they resurveyed it and got it Page 88 ",,---.._-- , October 28, 2004 correct the second time, in '86. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pull the mic. a little closer, ma'am. Thank you. MR. RANKIN: And what did you all do next with the property? MRS. KOWALKE: We had a double-wide mobile home put on in November of '79. MR. RANKIN: And what did you do to the property in 1980? MRS. KOWALKE: We had -- they called it a screen room. It's always been just exactly like it is. We had a contractor from New York State that was down here for the winter come in and build it. Fred wasn't physically able to do anything at that time. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Why wasn't he physically able to do anything at that time? MRS. KOWALKE: Fred's a high risk heart/lung patient. He had to quit work when he was 47. We had to sell our home and move to Florida. We didn't even sell our home, we left a kid at home and came down here. MR. RANKIN: All right. When you built the trailer in '79, did you have a permit for it? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: And is that the permit we've been talking earlier that's dated '79? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And in '80 when you built that porch, did you get a permit? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: And is that that '80 permit we've been talking about? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: All right. And when it was C.O.'d -- it was C.O.'d, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. Page 89 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: And what did it look like when it was C.O.'d, when the inspector was standing there doing it? MRS. KOWALKE: Just exactly like it does today. MR. RANKIN: Okay. All right. What did you do to the property in '82? MRS. KOWALKE: I think that's when we built the carport and we had put a new roof over the whole thing. MR. RANKIN: All right. Now, was that always a -- was that ever really a carport? MRS. KOWALKE: We've never had anything but a truck in Florida, and it -- no way could you get a truck in there, or even like you said, a small car. MR. RANKIN: Okay. When you built that, how did the side of it look? Vis-a-vis the -- have you got the pictures there, please? Just a minute, I'll find them. I apologize. Too many things in too many places. Anyway, but you saw the pictures they had up -- we'll find them in a minute. Oh, here they are. Sorry. There we go. All right. And I'm going to show you some pictures of which the board has a copy of. And the one picture I'm going to show you is of the side here. This is the side of the carport, I believe. What did that look like in 1982 when it was C.O.'d? MRS. KOWALKE: Just like that, except it was wood instead of aluminum. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And this is the picture dated '03 -- seven -- actually July 3rd, '04, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And then I -- the only way I know, because I don't have one of those fancy items over here, this is -- and that is the picture. And you're saying that that carport looked exactly like it does now, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. Page 90 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Okay. You notice that notch in the roof there? MRS. KOWALKE: Yeah. MR. RANKIN: Okay. That notch in the roof, I'm going to show you the property appraiser's card on this. Property appraiser's card on this where you see the little notch in the roof. Has there been any change in that roof to that area since '82? MRS. KOWALKE: It was just extended out when they put the new roof on. MR. RANKIN: Okay. But I mean, what we see on the property appraiser's card was what was built in '82, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay, would you tell me what the inside of that looked like? Well, I got a better question. The current workshop, where does it begin? MRS. KOWALKE: About a third of the way. MR. RANKIN: Right where the notch is, right? MRS. KOWALKE: A little past where the notch is. MR. RANKIN: A little past where the notch is. So actually the workshop we're talking about, part of it was permitted in '82, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. All right, what happened in '86 when you all wanted to build the workshop? Did you go see -- what happened? MRS. KOWALKE: We went down to code enforcement and there were three people sitting there smoking cigarettes, reading the paper. MR. RANKIN: Building or code enforcement? MRS. KOWALKE: I don't know which one. Building then. There were three people sitting there smoking -- two were smoking cigarettes, one was smoking a cigar. They were reading the paper and drinking coffee, and they said you come in here at 9:00 in the Page 91 October 28, 2004 morning, you give me a headache, just go on out there and do whatever you want, we don't even want to know you're out there. MR. RANKIN: Okay. What -- did you stop at that point in terms of trying to get a permit? MRS. KOWALKE: No. We went back someplace and tried to get another one, and they said we had to put a tube in our driveway. MR. RANKIN: Did you put a tube in your driveway? MRS. KOWALKE: No way possible. MR. RANKIN: All right. But did you then have an attorney do some work for you? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes, we went to Mr. -- MR. RANKIN: The bill we submitted. MRS. KOWALKE: -- Sevelli. Excuse me, I forgot his name. And he went down and visited with I think Ann Goodnight and some of the other officials. And they told him that everything out there was the way it was supposed to be. And he said just wait till this is all over and we'll get them for a wrongful death suit, because they were damaging Fred's health. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And what was going on at that time out there? MRS. KOWALKE: They had crabbers out there, they had the chemicals for the crab traps, they had gas tankers. It just -- we just had to leave all the doors and windows shut and stay in the house. MR. RANKIN: Did you even have garbage service back then? MRS. KOWALKE: No, I'm the one that got garbage service out there. I kept calling and calling, and finally the guy says call me long -- it was long distance. He says, call me collect, because we've got to get this -- everybody, they burnt boats, they burnt their garbage, they burnt pressure treated wood, plastic bottles. MR. RANKIN: Did you complain to the county about these matters? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes, I did. I was trying to save my Page 92 October 28, 2004 husband's live. MR. RANKIN: Did you finally get somebody out there from the county? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: What did he tell you? MRS. KOWALKE: He said he'd get his knee caps shot off. MR. RANKIN: All right. And that was -- all right, did you then go to see the county manager about these matters? MRS. KOWALKE: I called him. And I asked him ifhe would allow those crab traps on Marco Island, he said absolutely not. I told him this is my home and it means as much to me as anybody else's home. MR. RANKIN: Did you try and get permits from him, too? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes, I think so. MR. RANKIN: Okay. What happened next? Was there a meeting in Everglades City? MRS. KOWALKE: There was -- we had our boat sunk, we had garbage thrown in our yard, we had dead rats thrown in our yard, we were threatened. So we had a meeting down at the City Hall in Everglades City for all the Plantation Island people there, just figure out what they wanted to do out there, with Ann Goodnight and I don't know who all else. Then we had a meeting here with Ann Goodnight and some of the other officials. The last time I talked to Ann Goodnight, she said if I didn't stop complaining she was going to make the whole island a fishing village, and we knew we couldn't live there. MR. RANKIN: Okay. So what did you do about -- when approximately did you build this workshop addition? MRS. KOWALKE: I don't remember. MR. RANKIN: Okay. MRS. KOWALKE: I really don't. MR. RANKIN: All right. Well, let me show you a few aerials Page 93 October 28, 2004 to start off here for a minute here, and let's start with the earliest one, 1981. And I'd like you to point out your house, if I could, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's some documents you want to submit as evidence? MR. RANKIN: We're getting there, sir. And I'm submitting -- since code enforcement didn't submit Adam's piece one piece at a time, I would like -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they submitted a package and you submitted a package, now you're waving around some drawings that we haven't seen. So are you going to submit -- MR. RANKIN: They're part of your package. MS. BARNETT: They're pack -- with that thing -- MR. RANKIN: They're part of your package, Mr. Chairman. This is what I spoke to you earlier. These drawings are part of your package. In fact, because I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to give us some references or some way so we can look at the same thing. MR. RANKIN: I took care of that for you, Mr. Chairman. Since I couldn't copy them, each -- you have all four of these and I wrote on them the years, okay? You should have one with 1981. You have the smaller versions. I'll be happy at this hearing to turn over to you the larger versions. MS. BARNETT: Here's '81. MR. RANKIN: Yeah, 1981. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RANKIN: All right. And Mrs. Kowalke, would you do me a favor? Because I even sometimes lose it, and point out your house to me so I can get it right here. That one there? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: All right. And if I could, I'm going to have to Page 94 October 28, 2004 use their microphone. The only way to see this is to -- you'll see the road comes through here and makes a turn. There's the house just beyond the turn, if you go straight. That's on the water. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RANKIN: All right. And you'll see there, if you'll look closely, you'll see their mobile home there and you'll see their porch there in 1981. And you'll also see a little dock there, if you look real close. It's out by the water. Sitting right there, a little dot. And that, like I said, until recently, that's the dock we thought they were talking about. This is 1981, so the only thing that's there is the mobile home and the dock and the little porch. Right there is the little dot. You see the bump there? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yep. MR. RANKIN: All right. And that's the mobile home. You'll notice the car, the alleged carport, none of that's there, just the porch behind it. Just the mobile home with a porch behind it. All right. And if you all would like to see the larger one, I'll make it available to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay, putting it up there helped. MR. RANKIN: Now, Mrs. Kowalke, let's look at the 19 -- I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I got the wrong one. No wonder I'm really confused. That was the '93 one. We'll skip -- we'll get back to that in a minute. I'm sorry, let's do this right. Anyway, same place for the house. This is 1981 -- yeah, February, '81 -- and right there, yeah, same mobile home, same little dock there. Okay? In fact, you can see a little boat sitting next to it. MS. ARNOLD: And this you're saying is the second property? MR. RANKIN: That's why I was confused last time, because I had the wrong aerial. This is the -- back to '81. You can verify that, if you'd like to. MS. ARNOLD: February-- Page 95 ..~._---_.,._-".... .",.,..~"'......,-~- October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: February, '81. Right there. I apologize, I had the wrong one. You see a little mobile home there with the dock and the little boat sitting on it, in fact. There we go. All right. That is your -- is that your house, Mrs. Kowalke? MRS. KOWALKE: I think so. Well, it's hard for me to see from here. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Let's go on to 19 --let's go on to 1985. All right, Mrs. Kowalke would you look at this map, please, and show me your house. MRS. KOWALKE: Right here. MR. RANKIN: Right, there you are. And that -- is the only thing that's missing from what we see today is that little notch, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. You should have one in your package, 1985. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, can't see anything from there. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make an objection, because I don't really know what Mrs. Kowalke is pointing to when she's pointing to these maps for Mr. -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's noted. MR. RANKIN: Mrs. Kowalke, would you like to come up here, please, and do it instead? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not that one. The little T-shaped one. MR. RANKIN: No, that's not theirs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it was on the other map. You can't be changing it now. MR. RANKIN: No, let me pull it up for you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RANKIN: And we'll do it right. MR. LEFEBVRE: The first time he was pointing at that, the Page 96 October 28, 2004 T -1, the first time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Yeah. MR. RANKIN: That's right there, okay? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That big square? MR. RANKIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. That ain't what you showed us in the 1981. MR. RANKIN: Let's look at it right quick here. MS. ARNOLD: So it's the third structure in? MR. RANKIN: Third structure in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. He showed the fourth structure in on the '81. MR. RANKIN: Let's look again, here. No, third structure in. Here's the '81, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not the one you just had up there a minute ago. No, that's still the same one that was there. MR. RANKIN: There you go. That's your house right there. There's the Plantation Parkway coming in and turning, you're just beyond the turn, right? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. MR. RANKIN: That's yours. And you'll notice there in the little corner, that's where the workshop extension wasn't built yet, right? MS. ARNOLD: Are you testifying? MR. RANKIN: Is that it? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. I don't have 20/20 vision. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I was objecting to your attorney. MR. RANKIN: Mrs. Kowalke, is that your property there? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so that's -- it's the third one in, okay? Now let's see the '81 again, because that's not what you showed us before. MR. RANKIN: My problem I'm having, sir, is that these are all Page 97 October 28, 2004 in different orientations and it's difficult to make sure you're in the right place. And you can verify you witnessed the '81. And there we are. The third structure in -- whoops. One, two, three, third structure in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You need to move it over, because we don't see anything. MS. BARNETT: There we go. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now move it down. There you go. MR. RANKIN: One, two, three, third structure is, dock with boat. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RANKIN: Okay. So it's the same structure except you'll notice the stuff on the side isn't there that they permitted in '82. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Right now it's a lot smaller than the other one. MR. RANKIN : Well, these are different years. All right, Mrs. Kowalke why don't you stay there for a minute, please, let me get these out of the way. All right, Mrs. Kowalke, to make things easier on them, let's skip ahead to 2001. There we go. There we go. Third structure in, 39, 38, 37. What lot is yours? MRS. KOWALKE: Thirty-seven. MR. RANKIN: Okay. So that's your property, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: And this is the aerial, and if you'll look here on the edge, looks like on their thing it says shop 1103. What do you see here on the edge? Is that your -- well, let's put it this way: When did you build the current existing walkway and fence? MRS. KOWALKE: The same year we put the seawall in. It was part of the seawall. MR. RANKIN: What year was that? MRS. KOWALKE: I think it was 1990 -- or 2000. Page 98 - ~ ..-~..------.~^.-~._.."....-,.----- October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: 2000? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes, I'm sorry, 2000. MR. RANKIN: When you look at this, is that -- do you see that walkway here or not? MRS. KOWALKE: It's always been there. MR. RANKIN: Okay. So in 2003, what was there? MRS. KOWALKE: Same thing that is there now. MR. RANKIN: Now, a minute earlier -- could we have that picture, please, that we have in your packet? Don't touch me, lady. All right. Mrs. Kowalke, what is this a picture of? MRS. KOWALKE: The people on lot 38's seawall. MR. RANKIN: Do you know who took this picture? MRS. KOWALKE: Carol Sykora stood in our yard, on our seawall that had the walkway and took that picture next door. MR. RANKIN: In fact, what do we see in the shadow here? MRS. KOWALKE: His dock. MR. RANKIN: Okay. All right. And so look at this. So that would have been -- 38 is next door, right? MRS. KOWALKE: I'm sorry -- 36, I'm sorry, 36, yes. MR. RANKIN: Thirty-six. So the seawall she took the picture of is over here? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: We look here, and this -- so the seawall we see a picture of is that? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Past -- when the seawall was built, was it ever like this for any length of time? MRS. KOWALKE: Just till it took them long enough to put that little addition on. So neither one of us would fall in the canal. MR. RANKIN: In 2003, early in 2003, was there a code case brought against you? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. Page 99 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Okay. Let's start out before that. When did you first meet this Carol person? MRS. KOWALKE: She called on the phone and said would you tell us what Bob Shipman is doing over there, that she didn't want, and excuse my language, a goddamned Copeland out there on that point. MR. RANKIN: Where does Bob Shipman live? MRS. KOWALKE: He lives 37 -- this is 36, he lives over here. He's got four lots. And he had seven families living on those four lots. MR. RANKIN: All right. What did you tell her? MRS. KOWALKE: I told her we didn't want anything to do with code enforcement. MR. RANKIN: Okay. What happened next? MRS. KOWALKE: That evening Mr. Shipman came over, knocked on the door and started cussing us out and -- MR. RANKIN: What did he say? MRS. KOWALKE: He called Fred a bastard. MR. RANKIN: And why? MRS. KOWALKE: Because we'd turned him in. MR. RANKIN: Did you ever have any problems with your neighbors before that? MRS. KOWALKE: Mr. Shipman always did a lot of burning, but other than that, no. MR. RANKIN: All right. Was there a code enforcement case brought against you in the beginning of 2003? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And at the 2003, did that code enforcement case concern this alleged dock area here? MRS. KOWALKE: That dock there. MR. RANKIN: The walkway. MRS. KOWALKE: The walkway was there. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Did they ask you to get some permits Page 100 October 28, 2004 back then? MRS. KOWALKE: For the seawall. MR. RANKIN: Yes, and for-- MRS. KOWALKE: The fence. MR. RANKIN: And the fence. MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: At the time when they asked you to do that, was the fence -- where was the fence? Was it just on the side, was it all the way around, what? MRS. KOWALKE: It was all the way around. MR. RANKIN: Do you have any medical disabilities where there's concern about you falling? MRS. KOWALKE: I have no peripheral vision and I have a knee joint replacement that wasn't done right, and I'm kind of clumsy. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Tell me when, if ever, that walkway existed without that fence on it. MRS. KOWALKE: Just long enough to get the fence built. MR. RANKIN: You heard her testify that when she came there allegedly in 2003, there was just a seawall and nothing else. MRS. KOWALKE: That's not true. MR. RANKIN: All right. Did the gentleman from building come out and C.O. the permit for the seawall and the fence? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes, he did. MR. RANKIN: Where was he standing when he did that? MRS. KOWALKE: He was standing on what I call the boardwalk, with his hands on the fence. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And did you make inquiries of him about this walkway? MRS. KOWALKE: No. He was standing on it. I figured being as we got the permit for the seawall and the permit for the fence, it was what they saw. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And what if any changes have occurred Page 101 .______.,"___.~__"~,_,..".___,.......__...,,~~_._'C_·__'..""A,_.. October 28, 2004 in that from when you got those permits till today? MRS. KOWALKE: Nothing. MR. RANKIN: And were you asked to get any other permits at that time? MRS. KOWALKE: Uh-- MR. RANKIN: Okay, let's skip that one for a minute. I'll just confuse you. Let's show you a picture of the front of your home. Back in 1982, when you built the carport, of course, was the vinyl siding there then? MRS. KOWALKE: No. We had the vinyl siding put on after that. MR. RANKIN: Was that laticework there? MRS. KOWALKE: No. MR. RANKIN: Was that front screened in and did it have a door? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Was it the same door that's there now? MRS. KOWALKE: No. MR. RANKIN: Okay. What have you done to the carport, either on the side or in the front since it was built in '82? MRS. KOWALKE: Just put new screen in it and had covered it, took the -- put aluminum siding where the wood was. MR. RANKIN: But it would -- and we'll look back at the side there, but what if anything, you know -- and where did the original carport end? MRS. KOWALKE: It was partway about in here. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And from here forward, what if any change has taken place other than what you just described? MRS. KOWALKE: Nothing. MR. RANKIN: All right. Now, this area here that they're talking about in the rear of the property, the alleged workshop area Page 102 ._.. "~__"~_""__""'_"»__."""'''~~~<'''_'_''.''~'"'''p",._.·.....,...'___·H·"_·"N_'^·.·~__"~ ,."__,"_~~_'.'"_.~,~_."~."'"',..~_,.~,_,..~,,,.,.",~__ .., " October 28, 2004 here, what is -- is that living area or is that a workshop? MRS. KOWALKE: It's just a workshop. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And how long has it been there? MRS. KOWALKE: A long time. MR. RANKIN: All right. And let's take a look a moment, if we could here, at the -- this one's pretty bad off. Let's take a look at the '93 aerial, if we could, please. And you want to verify that this is the '93 so I don't make a mistake again? November, '93. All right. And here is the third one in, one, two, three; is that your house? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: And you'll notice, is that a roof there now with a -- a little hole that was there before? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And in fact you can even see that it's newer, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: All right. All right. Did you tell this code enforcement lady, Carol, to call your attorney? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. I don't know if this is relevant or not, but they come out and told me we couldn't park my handicap truck in our driveway, and I told her to get ahold of the ADA and I told her to get ahold of Mr. Rankin. MR. RANKIN: And what was her response? MRS. KOWALKE: That she wasn't dealing with the ADA and she wasn't dealing with a lawyer. MR. RANKIN: Okay. How many times did we have to go after Carol before she finally backed off on the parking space? MRS. KOWALKE: The fourth time. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And they claim they dismissed that case in February of '04. When did we get notice of that -- or when did you Page 103 ~"- .^_.'~_..."" ..."_......~.,... -<'. October 28, 2004 get notice of that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, let's stick to these permits. We're not dealing with a handicapped permit. MR. RANKIN: Well, the reason, Mr. Chairman, that this -- we believe this is relevant is because it is illegal to -- to retaliate against people -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That case is not before us, so it's not relevant. That has nothing to do with these permits, so it's not relevant. Get to these permits. MR. RANKIN: Well-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Period. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, what we -- I think we've tried to show is that these permits were dealt with and addressed in January of '03. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: These permits are fine. Handicapped permits we're not worried about. Get off that subj ect and get to these. MR. RANKIN: Respectfully, for the record I make a proffer that the reason they're pursuing my client so vigorously, or at least they were pursued so vigorously on the matters that are before the board today, is in retaliation for us standing up for her rights as a disabled person. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's stick to these permits, sir. MR. RANKIN: All right. When you -- when they came back at you on the workshop, what did they ask you to do? MRS. KOWALKE: To get an architect. MS. ARNOLD: Are you leading the witness? MRS. KOWALKE: No. I don't remember his name. MR. RANKIN: Okay. All right. What did Carol tell you about a contractor? MRS. KOWALKE: She told me we -- no, she didn't tell me. One day this man come knocking on the door and said Carol sent him over there. Page 104 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Who did the man say he was? MRS. KOWALKE: I'm not good at remembering names today, I'm kind of -- MR. RANKIN: Was he an architect, was he an engineer, was he a contractor? MRS. KOWALKE: He was a contractor. MR. RANKIN: Okay, and -- all right, go on with what you just said. MRS. KOWALKE: And he said he wanted to come in and examine it. And he called Carol and said that it would stand longer than the mobile home would stand if we had a hurricane. And then he come back to us and said that she said she needed him to do something different. And so he got some other people to call us and come out, and we thought it was all pretty well settled. And every time we got one thing settled, they wanted something different. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Did we get an engineer to come look at it? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Who was that? Was that Mr. Herst? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Did we submit a letter from Mr. Herst to the board today? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: What did Mr. Herst say? MRS. KOWALKE: He said it would be standing there a lot longer than the mobile home would. MR. RANKIN: Do you know about whether or not Mr. Herst was asked to call them before they asked for that letter? MRS. KOWALKE: He said he called Carol and told her that it would stand there a long -- you know, longer than the mobile home, that it would be the only thing left on the island. Page 105 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: And then we got the letter. And then what did they want? MRS. KOWALKE: They wanted us to have -- tear it down or bring it up to code. MR. RANKIN: Did they ever tell us to get a permit for it until recently? MRS. KOWALKE: They -- when it -- they had us meet at code enforcement with -- I don't know what the man's name is right now. And he said that he didn't know what to do with -- about Immokalee, let alone what we were going to do about there. We had another meeting with Ed Perico, and he told us go home, don't worry about it, it was going to be all taken care of. And-- MR. RANKIN: And you're still here today. MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to object to the conversations that Mrs. Kowalke had with other -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Noted. MS. ARNOLD: -- individuals, like Mr. Rankin objected to staffs conversations. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that that -- for the record, I would ask that that of course be applied evenly. They're clearly both hearsay, but without that hearsay testimony, they don't have a case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I noted it when you objected to theirs, so just -- I've noted it now. Keep going. MR. RANKIN: Mrs. Kowalke, just for purposes of some other witnesses we're going to call, I'm going to show you some photographs that you -- and I'm going to ask you if you took them. Did you take these photographs I'm showing you here? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. When did you take these photographs? MRS. KOWALKE: About three or four years after we moved in Page 106 > ,._..~,.....~."_"___._.._.,,___~A_.,,..,,.,,____ October 28, 2004 the crabbing started out there. MR. RANKIN: Why don't you tell me, what is this a photograph of? MRS. KOWALKE: That's a gas tanker parked in front of my house. MR. RANKIN: Well, what was it doing? MRS. KOWALKE: Loading the gas tanks underneath Mr. Shipman's house. MR. RANKIN: Did you complain to the county about that situation? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Objection. It has nothing to do with in case. MR. BOWIE: What is the relevance of this, what some neighbor did on his property? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I wonder what it has to do with these permits. MR. RANKIN: What it has to do with, sir, is -- the relevance is it is our position, if we need a permit -- and we'll get to that in a minute -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What her neighbor does means absolutely nothing. MR. RANKIN: -- it could be by '86 standards. And this is simply to bolster the fact that when we get people up here in a minute, they're going to claim that these conversations she testified to earlier never happened, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First of all, what her neighbor does doesn't interest this board. It's what she does or did or did not do that interests us, okay? So let's stick with her property and what she did or her husband did. That's what we're interested in. MR. RANKIN: There's also another relevance to it, Mr. Chairman. What town -- we don't want to be specific for her purposes. Page 107 October 28, 2004 Where does Carol -- what town does Carol -- or area does Carol live in? MS. ARNOLD: Objection, has nothing -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's irrelevant where the inspector lives. MR. RANKIN: What's relevant, sir, and we're going to bring this into -- and I raised this earlier, part of the reason we're here also, and here again, when I don't know of another case in code enforcement that's been settled and brought back up again; is when you live out in there and you're -- and this lady lives around the corner and you're a friend of hers, you're fine. If you're not, your life is going to be a living hell for the rest of your life. MS. ARNOLD: Objection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir-- MR. BOWIE: I think that's totally, totally irrelevant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Irrelevant. Well, please, sir, these -- this NOV that was given to this lady and her husband about no permits, you need to convince us that she doesn't need permits. Don't tell me about the neighbors, don't tell me that the inspector controls the area. I don't want to hear that. Tell me why she doesn't need permits. MR. BOWIE: Or that she has them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I mean, that's all we're interested in. MR. RANKIN: Let's go back. And the only thing, Mr. Chairman, I would indicate, and I misunderstand, so this board has absolutely no supervisory control over anything that code enforcement does, no matter how egregious? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MR. RANKIN: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're here to determine that she's in violation or not of the code. MR. RANKIN: I misunderstood that this board had a little more Page 108 October 28, 2004 authority than that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, they do not. Read the statutes, sir, we don't have that power. MR. RANKIN: I will. Thank you. What -- do you have a permit for that carport as enclosed, or do you not? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Did you get a permit for the seawall and the fence on that dock as it exists now in 2003? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Have there been any changes made to that since then? MRS. KOWALKE: No. MR. RANKIN: Was there -- and we already went over where the gentleman was standing when he inspected that. And do you have a C.O. for that fence and that seawall? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: And let's go one last thing, and you already testified as to that. Have you ever had any problem about your property being kept up? MRS. KOWALKE: No. MR. RANKIN: Did you have any issues about not getting permits -- what if any issues did you have about not getting permits prior to 1986 when you tried to get that permit? MRS. KOWALKE: None. MR. RANKIN: And what if anything did you build prior to 1986 that you didn't have a permit for? MRS. KOWALKE: Nothing. MR. RANKIN: Have you ever -- I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ma'am, if you'd like to sit Page 109 _.__w."._"....^.,......".~__"______"_....·.,~·.· __""' ..., .'"..·>·,"~~....<>_,_'M"~__·,·",..,,._._·._·,,' r'.A."+·..._·.",....___ "~ .. --,--~----,.~ October 28, 2004 down, we'll ask you some questions. You've been standing a long time. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, would you like the color photograph of the 2001? Because you have it, it's just black and white. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I found it. It took me a while, but I found it. MR. RANKIN: It's black and white. Do you want the color one? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think any of the board members do. We found it in the package. MR. RANKIN: All right. And -- oh, and -- I'm sorry, one last question I forgot to ask you, Mrs. Kowalke. Of course you lived there in 1983 when they had the drug raid? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: What was going on in your neighborhood at that time? MRS. KOWALKE: Everybody was hauling drugs. MR. RANKIN: Was there a problem with anybody from the government coming into that neighborhood after that raid? MS. ARNOLD: Objection, has no relevance to this. MR. RANKIN: Yes, it does. Because my client applied for and would have been given a permit if the official at that time would have done what they were lawfully supposed to do. MS. ARNOLD: The question was, did your client obtain a permit? That's the only question, whether or not they tried-- MR. RANKIN: No, it is not. MS. ARNOLD: The question is whether or not they obtained it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, what I think you need to do, your client is going to say nobody would give her a permit, and you should have found these people and brought them here and let them tell us they wouldn't give her a permit, so -- Page 110 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: We did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, then-- MR. RANKIN: We'll get to that in a minute. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you'll get to it. So let's get on with something else. MR. RANKIN: But the other thing is, the other relevance is the era in which the codes apply. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, you know. MR. RANKIN: All right, Mrs -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Finish asking her your questions, sir, so we can get to it. MR. RANKIN: Mrs. Kowalke, do you know whether or not they ever actually issued you a permit that you applied for in '86? MRS. KOWALKE: I don't remember. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Did you apply for one in '86? MRS. KOWALKE: I'm sure -- we applied for a permit for everything we did, until they told us not to come back. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And that day you talked about you walked into the department and they were smoking and doing whatever else they were doing, drinking coffee and watching the thing, did you apply for a permit that day? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Do you know whether or not they issued one? MRS. KOWALKE: No, I don't. We had to get out of there because we -- Fred can't stand cigarette smoke. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And did you have somebody helping you with the construction at the time, a contractor? MRS. KOWALKE: The one that -- the first building that was built, which is called a screen room, we had a contractor from New York State that comes down here do it. MR. RANKIN: But I mean the addition to the workshop. MRS. KOWALKE: Did we have a contractor? Page 111 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: To do the addition to the workshop, did you have anybody helping you with that? MRS. KOWALKE: Just some of the kids out there. Fred can't do physical work. MR. RANKIN: All right. Do you know whose name that permit would have been issued in, if it was issued? MRS. KOWALKE: No. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Thank you. MRS. KOWALKE: I just know he was a contractor from New York State. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOWIE: This -- excuse me, this out-of-state contractor that you acknowledged did this work, did he have a Florida state contractor's license? MR. RANKIN: 1980, ask them. MRS. KOWALKE: I don't know. MR. BOWIE: Ifhe didn't, how did you expect to apply for and get a permit? MR. RANKIN: No, no, no, the 19 -- MRS. KOWALKE: That building is already permitted. MR. BOWIE: That was permitted. MR. RANKIN: Welcome to Collier County in that era. Okay. And let me make sure -- I have no further questions of this witness at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mrs. Kowalke, you say you have a permit for the -- MRS. KOWALKE: Who's talking to me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I am. MRS. KOWALKE: Okay. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say you have a permit for the carport to be enclosed. MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. It was right on one of the permits, an Page 112 October 28, 2004 enclosed carport. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you know which one that was? When was that? What year? MRS. KOWALKE: Either the next year after we bought the mobile home or the third year after we bought the mobile home. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, for us to find a permit in this stack of papers, I need to know a period, because, you know -- you need to direct me. You say you have a permit, I'd like to see it. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, she did testify -- remember, they bought it in '79, she testified one year or two years after. In -- never mind our packet, in their packet you have the '79 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, she just stood over there and you asked if she had permits, and she said yes to everything, and I'm asking her to tell me which one it was. That's my privilege. She said she had it, I want to see it. In your package, I assume. MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir, it's in the code enforcement package. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, let's get to it. Now, are you answering for her or is she going to answer me? MR. RANKIN: No. I don't expect her to dig through these matters, sir. But she already testified it was one year or two years after she bought, which would have been '80 or '82 in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a permit number at the top, ma'am, in the -- probably in the left corner? MRS. KOWALKE: 820Jl -- this is hard to read, 303? I can't read it, really, to swear to anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 821. MR. RANKIN: She's trying to read, Your Honor, the 82-00 something 308. Application for building permit dated 3/4/82. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 8200. MR. RANKIN: I did not re-enclose it, sir, because it's in their packet which is before you in evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, so you didn't submit it? Page 113 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: No, I didn't. I tried to take mercy upon submitting you documents they'd already submitted, since even though they didn't submit it the first time, they did submit it the second time. MS. ARNOLD: Objection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll find it in a minute. Is it in their package? I must be getting there. MR. RANKIN: And I may have submitted it, too, but I tried to take mercy upon you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And what was the number you just read? MR. RANKIN: It's hard to read, sir, so I'm going to have to guess at it. 82-00 something 308, I think, or 008. MR. BOWIE: It's 1008. MS. BARNETT: 1008. MR. RANKIN: 1008. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Because I was going to say, there's no permit number like that anywhere -- MS. DUSEK: Did you say it's 82-1008? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Well, that's what he said. No, he said three eight, so -- MR. RANKIN: It looks -- it's so mangled. MR. BOWIE: It matches up with the permit which we have here, 1008. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, this is the permit -- if this is the one we're talking about, to enclose a porch, I assume build a carport, the way I read permits, and add a new roof. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I could also say that it could mean to enclose a porch or enclose a carport. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Doesn't say enclose before the word carport; that's the only reason I said that. MS. BARNETT: But if I were to put a sentence together and Page 114 October 28, 2004 say it is a -- MR. BOWIE: If you look at the permit itself, it should be very clear. Of course, there's a comma after enclose porch. MS. BARNETT: Right. But if I were to put together a sentence and say it is a red apple, bicycle and something else, we would infer that it's a red bicycle and as well as red apple. MR. BOWIE: Except syntactically it would make no sense to enclose a new roof. MR. RANKIN: But of course, Mr. Chairman, the only evidence you have before you, since the permit only shows an aerial and none of these other people were there in '82, the only evidence you have before you to what was built is what you see here in the words that can be read either way and her testimony that it was in fact built that way. MS. BARNETT: I'm not trying to say either is right or wrong. I'm just saying I don't want to interpret something that we don't have an actual factual interpretation for. It could be either/or. MS. DUSEK: There's another section or another part of the permit which says project, carport and new roof. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the bill, isn't it, or the -- from the MS. DUSEK: Well--- MS. BARNETT: That's the job -- MS. DUSEK: Inspection card, Collier County card. MS. ARNOLD: Right. That's the inspection card. Can I ask a question? Because this was also provided by both Mr. Rankin and our staff. There's a certificate of occupancy for that permit in question, and I'm going to put it up here. Can you tell me what the type of occupancy is noted on that certificate of occupancy? If you need to come up and read it a little bit closer, you're welcome to do that. And I can show it to you, Mrs. -- I'll bring it over and show it to you. Page 115 October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Now, there's another permit that I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let her answer this question first. MRS. KOWALKE: Carport and new roof? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. RANKIN: I would ask you, Mrs. Kowalke, who signed that document, the certificate of occupancy? MRS. KOWALKE: Wayne -- I don't know how to pronounce it -- Scarborough. MR. RANKIN: Who signed the one that says enclosed carport -- enclosed porch, carport and new roof? Whose signature is on the bottom of that document, that application? On the bottom of the application you're holding right there. MRS. KOWALKE: I can't read that. MR. RANKIN: Is that your husband's signature? MRS. KOWALKE: I don't know. I can't tell. Can you? MR. RANKIN: Basically, my position, Mr. Chairman, is she can't be responsible when somebody in the staff was just not going to type everything on those other cards. The one that ought to go by is the one that they filled out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think that's a great excuse, except, you know, when you get a C.O., if it doesn't say screened porch then you don't have a C.O. for it, and to say gee, somebody didn't type it in. I mean, you can use that excuse for anything in the world. You were supposed to give me a million dollar check but you didn't type it. I'm sorry, that logic don't work. Got to get a little realistic here. If it's not typed on there, it's not because somebody forgot, it's because that's not what it was. MS. DUSEK: I have a -- in the package, the defense package, there's also a separate permit which shows just a screened room. There's also another express permit which shows just a screened room. MR. RANKIN: That's the back one. MR. BOWIE: That's the back. Page 116 October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: That's the back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the little room in the back. MS. DUSEK: Okay. MR. BOWIE: That's 1980. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mrs. Kowalke, you say you got a permit for a fence; is that correct? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that -- when you got that, that also included a fence that runs on top of your boardwalk, I think is the word you used. MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do you remember when that was? MRS. KOWALKE: Last year, 2003. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: '03? MRS. KOWALKE: Well, it was either the end of2003 or the first of 2004. MR. RANKIN: I gave you the permit number. MR. BOWIE: Right. We have that. MR. RANKIN: I gave you the permit numbers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I want -- I'm trying to find that. Bear with me. MS. DUSEK: I also have in front of me, which we all have, another permit for an approval date, 1/28/03, for a screened porch. It does not say carport with it. It's separate. MR. RANKIN: No, that's -- yeah, that's right. That's that little thing on the back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the back room. MS. DUSEK: Well, this is '03. MR. RANKIN: And I'll tell you, I thought so, too, at the time. And in fact, since the screen was changed out on the carport between the two dates, you could also argue that covers it, too, because it's -- Page 11 7 October 28, 2004 you also look at another document in there that's a part of that permit, it says screen only per building official. Which makes a lot of sense when you consider the carport was already screened and already built and already like that. But then it's got a drawing of just the little thing in the back. But the bottom line is, all this stuff was there in January and looked at once and then looked at again the same year, and they then do something else. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mrs. Kowalke, this fence that you have, how does it run? Now, you say it runs across your boardwalk. Is that the width of your property? Does it run from kind of property line to property line, all the way across your property? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does it run up the sides or anything? MRS. KOWALKE: It runs up one side. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Runs up one side. All the way to the front of your yard or -- to the street? How far does it go, ma'am? MRS. KOWALKE: It goes up to the -- almost the edge of the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MRS. KOWALKE: We didn't build it on the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm looking at a permit in '03, which is to reroof and put in a 36-inch wood rail fence. Is that what you're talking about? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have some questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this 36-inch fence at all altered at any point from when the fence was originally installed? MRS. KOWALKE: We put a little piece of screen wicker -- not wicker, bamboo, just along maybe six feet of it. I don't know how Page 118 October 28, 2004 many feet. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm looking at two photos, specifically one that was on Page No.7 of our -- of the Collier County Code Enforcement exhibit, Page 7, the bottom photo, it shows that it was taken on 11/20/2003. It shows a boardwalk with a fence. And a photo on the same year, January 14th, 2003. I'm just wondering, is this the property line fence? It looks like a similar construction. Is that the property line fence? MRS. KOWALKE: It's right on the property line, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So it's similar construction. MR. RANKIN: I can have her identify some photographs and place it on the board. But you already have copies of it. These are in color, if it would help you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. RANKIN: Would you look at these photographs, Mrs. Kowalke. And I've only got these photographs in my hand. Is -- that's the walkway, right, with the fence? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: And that's the fence on the side of your property? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: And that's the fence on the other side of your property up by the road, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: That's a fence on the side? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: And that's where you put the little bamboo on, right? MRS. KOWALKE: Yeah. It's more than six feet. I knew we had some left. MR. RANKIN: And then there's the side fence? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. Page 119 ",_."._..._-_....-.-^,-, .. October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: And then there's the other fence? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MR. RANKIN: If I could submit these, please, Mr. Chairman. You have copies of those in my package that you've already admitted, but they're probably difficult to read because they're photocopies instead of the originals. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, since we're on the fence, can I ask Mrs. Kowalke a question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: I do have a copy of -- well, the permit that was issued for reroof and 36-inch wood rail fence, and that was provided in the defense packet. I want to show it to Mrs. Kowalke and then show it to you and then ask a question. (Discussion was held off the record.) MRS. KOWALKE: It went across there, too. I don't know who did that highlight. It was always clear across. It was that way when Carol was out there. MR. RANKIN: I object, because we have no evidence as to how the highlight ended up on there. If she's going to submit that, I object, because there's no evidence as to how that highlight got there. MS. ARNOLD: What I'm showing is the actual application filed for the permit for the reroof and the 36-inch fence. MR. RANKIN: That's not the actual one, is it, though? That's a photocopy, isn't it? MS. ARNOLD: No. It's what was provided to me just now from one of your witnesses from the records room, okay? So it's the actual one. And the -- what is on the visualizer is the map that was submitted with that permit application, and as you can see, it says right here, 36-inch wood. It's also pointing and highlighting the side yard of the fence -- of the property. MR. RANKIN: I'm going to object on two grounds: One, she's never been sworn in and she continues to testify. Page 120 October 28, 2004 MS. ARNOLD: I'm explaining what I'm going to ask Mrs. Kowalke. And I'm just showing the board what I just showed you and Mrs. Kowalke. Is that correct, Mr. Rankin? MR. RANKIN: And I don't know where it came from. And-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that's fine. MS. ARNOLD: What I was going to ask your client was is this the map that was submitted and the application that was submitted for the reroof and the wood fence. MRS. KOWALKE: Why would we just put this amount when the whole thing was fenced? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know. I'm asking you whether or not this is what was submitted with your application. MRS. KOWALKE: No. It was submitted for along the one wall, along the edge of the water. The fence was always planned to be the way it is now. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. But is this the map that was submitted? Was that what was attached to the application in the folder that I just showed you? MRS. KOWALKE: I don't know what she's trying to say. MS. ARNOLD: Is that the map that was attached to the application that I just walked through with you a minute ago? MRS. KOWALKE: The picture I saw had the yellow line across there and down the front. When we left zoning, that's what I saw. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. But is -- what did I just show you? MRS. KOWALKE: You just showed me it was along one wall. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. MR. RANKIN: Mrs. Kowalke, the aerial photograph from 2003, Lot Number 37, we had up on the viewer earlier, does this show a -- what does it show regarding a fence? MRS. KOWALKE: Across the front and down the side. MR. RANKIN: And on the water? MRS. KOWALKE: Well, yeah, this is what I call the front, Page 121 October 28, 2004 along this -- along the canal. MR. RANKIN: Yes, ma'am. Okay. And by the way, again, you all do not have a -- all you have is a black and white of this, and it would help -- here is the aerial. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can the board finish questioning your client? MR. RANKIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Questions from members of the board for Mrs. Kowalke? MS. DUSEK: Mr. Kowalke, I understand that you had permits and C.Os. for vinyl siding, seawall, a new roof and a fence. So those we're not questioning today. Do you have a permit for the dock or the boardwalk, whichever -- it's your interpretation that it's a boardwalk, it's the county's interpretation that it's a dock, because it hangs over the water. Do you have a permit for that? MRS. KOWALKE: When they came out and gave us the final inspection, they gave us a final inspection for what's standing there. So I had assumed that I had one for everything that was there. It was all there at the time they came out and did the final inspection and the man -- MS. DUSEK: Did it say on the permit that it was a dock? MRS. KOWALKE: No, not that I know of. MS. DUSEK: Do you have a permit for the workshop? MRS. KOWALKE: No, I don't think so. Unless -- I don't know. Andrew hit that house and a lot of our paperwork was lost. It just drowned. It took part of our roof off. MS. DUSEK: Do you have a permit for the screened enclosure? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Not the screened room in the back, but is there not another screened enclosure? MRS. KOWALKE: The carport is screened. Page 122 October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Do you have a permit for that? MRS. KOWALKE: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Can you -- I don't see one for the screened part. I see one for the carport. MRS. KOWALKE: I thought that was the one we just did which said enclose porch, carport and new roof. MS. DUSEK: Well, the carport and the new roof, I believe, are in a separate part. According to the information I have in front of me, it shows it's separate. It shows enclosed, screen port, one, carport and roof. Separate items. MRS. KOWALKE: I don't understand what you're saying. MS. DUSEK: I just wanted to know if you had a permit for the enclosed porch, for the carport and for the dock. MRS. KOWALKE: To the best of my knowledge, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think she's trying to say that she considers that one permit to cover everything. Any additional questions for Mrs. Kowalke? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: County have any additional questions for her? MS. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Rankin, next witness, if you'd like. MR. RANKIN: Yes. I'd like to call-- there are two record custodians that I subpoenaed. The nice lady in the red hair, if you'd refresh me as to your name. MS. GRAFTON: Sonia. MR. RANKIN: Yes, would you come up, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to come up, ma'am. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Chairman, the respondents have now 29 minutes left in the time you've allotted. MR. RANKIN: We're planning on moving. Sondra (sic) -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just a moment, please. Swear her in. Page 123 October 28, 2004 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. GRAFTON: My name is Sonia Jo Grafton, G-R-A-F-T-O-N. S-O-N-I-A. MR. RANKIN: All right. Where do you work for the county? MS. GRAFTON: I work for the operations department. And I'm customer service specialist. That's my title. MR. RANKIN: In what area of the county do you work with? MS. GRAFTON: In the records room. MR. RANKIN: How long have you worked in the records room? MS. GRAFTON: My anniversary date is November 6th, 1989. MR. RANKIN: Is there anyone else who's worked in that records room as long as you have? MS. GRAFTON: I don't think so. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Thank you. The current computer system, not the WHIP system but the current computer system, what year does that go back to? MS. GRAFTON: I'm going to say when I type in an address, I do as much as I can in CD Plus. That's the system you're referring to? MR. RANKIN: Yes, CD Plus. MS. GRAFTON: And I have gone back to 1990. MR. RANKIN: How far back does it go in terms of most properties? MS. GRAFTON: I don't know. I mean, I just happen to have -- give me an address and I'll put it in and I'll see what I see. MR. RANKIN: Is there a point upon which its reliability begins to diminish in terms of finding permits? MS. GRAFTON: I don't understand that question. MR. RANKIN: The WHIP system, what year does that cover? MS. GRAFTON: I don't really use the WHIP system. MR. RANKIN: We'll talk to somebody who does in a minute then. Page 124 ,·.·>.,__.__.·._.".".·.·_"<.,___.,,·,,,,·_·,'·_<_·'..~o...._~_ October 28, 2004 In 1986, how do you have to look up permits? MS. GRAFTON: What I usually ask from the customer that comes in the room, if they don't have a property history card, I prefer a property history card, that's the only way -- MR. RANKIN: But if you have to look them up on your indexes, what index do you have available for 1986 permits? MS. GRAFTON: I have reference books. MR. RANKIN: Did you bring those today, as your subpoena requested? MS. GRAFTON: No. I did not see that on the subpoena, so I did not bring them, sir. MR. RANKIN: All right. In 1986 -- can I have your subpoena, please? Let's see. Now, let's see. Okay. Okay, and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Rankin, let me see the subpoena, please. MR. RANKIN: Sure. Okay. Did you bring printouts from the most recent computer system of my client's property? MS. GRAFTON: I brought those, and I have checked those out to Peggy Jarrell. MR. RANKIN: Okay. What do you mean you checked them out to Peggy -- MS. GRAFTON: She checked -- I checked them out. She asked for them so I -- she checked them out, that county employees can check out building permit files. MR. RANKIN: Do you have those with you? MS. GRAFTON: Yes, I do. Peggy Jarrell has them. MR. RANKIN: What permits do they show for my client's property? MS. GRAFTON: What permits. You mean -- rephrase that question. Page 125 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: What permits-- MS. GRAFTON: What kind of permits or how many permits? MR. RANKIN: No, numbers, permit numbers. MS. GRAFTON: Oh. We have microfilm permits -- MR. RANKIN: No, no, no. I said -- one of the things in your subpoena is a computer printout on my client's property from the most recent computer database. MS. GRAFTON: Computer printout. MR. RANKIN: Yes. MS. GRAFTON: I brought the actual files and gave them to-- MR. RANKIN: You didn't bring the computer printout? MS. GRAFTON: No, I did not, sir. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And that is on your subpoena, isn't it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's printouts from 1996 to present. MS. GRAFTON: I did not bring the printouts, I brought the actual files. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And actually, when I was visiting with you at records, didn't you tell me that the current system really only went back to 1996? MS. GRAFTON: Current -- I can't recall that, sir. MR. RANKIN: Okay. But you didn't bring the computer printouts, as it indicated? MS. GRAFTON: No, I did not. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Well, what permits did you find in the current computer system? MS. GRAFTON: I brought the permits that you have on my subpoena. MR. RANKIN: You didn't run any check on my client's property at all? MS. GRAFTON: I did from -- I just brought what you asked me to bring. MR. RANKIN: The index book for 1986, how is it categorized? Page 126 October 28, 2004 MS. GRAFTON: It is a building permit applications for 1986, and I don't have the book in front of me. As far as I know, when I look up the book I go by either whoever pulled the permit, either the owner's name, the contractor's name or any information given to me from the customer. MR. RANKIN: And that 1986 book is by permit number, isn't it? MS. GRAFTON: Uh-huh. Permit number, owner -- MR. RANKIN: But there is no alphabetical by owner, is there? MS. GRAFTON: No, it's A's, B's, C's. MR. RANKIN: But you have to go through the entire book just to find the name, don't you? MS. GRAFTON: If you know the name, yes. MR. RANKIN: And if it's in somebody else's name other than the owner, can you find it? MS. GRAFTON: I've got to know the name. MR. RANKIN: Okay. All right. And that's about all I have of you. MS. GRAFTON: Thank you. MR. RANKIN: And -- wait a minute, why don't you tell me, tell me which permit numbers you found for my client's property. Let's look at those permit numbers. MS. GRAFTON: Every one that's on the subpoena that you gave me I brought a copy of the microfilm or the actual file. MR. RANKIN: Which one of those are my client's permits? MS. GRAFTON: 79, 1980,80 -- I'll say the numbers. 79-5053 is the trailer. 80-5584 is the screened room. 82-1008 is enclosed carport and reroof. 87 is not. 2000-0003 -- well, on this thing it says dash, but it's really -- I think it's not supposed to be a dash there. It would be 2000-003-1164 is a screened room, no electric. MR. RANKIN: Okay. MS. GRAFTON: And then Permit No. 2000-003 is supposed to Page 127 October 28, 2004 probably be 43465 is a seawall. And 2003-211961 is a reroof and 36-inch wood rail fence. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Can we take a look at that permit, please, real quick? MS. GRAFTON: Peggy Jarrell has the file. MS. JARRELL: Are you going to call me up? MR. RANKIN: You got it? MS. GRAFTON: Yes, she has it, sir. And the last one is a AC replacement. MR. RANKIN: Right. MS. GRAFTON: 2004. MR. RANKIN: Thank you. All right. I have no further questions of this witness. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, ma'am, I have a question for you. You didn't -- tell me what permit number -- is it 80-5589? MS. GRAFTON: 80-5589, according to the microfilm record that I looked up, is a Marco Island permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And what's this 87-506? MS. GRAFTON: That is another permit for not that address. MR. RANKIN: You've already ruled the usefulness of those irrelevant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. They're on your subpoena, I just want to know what they are. MR. RANKIN: I'd be happy to tell you, but you won't let me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. If she says they're not on this property, I'm not interested. They're here, I just want to know what they mean. Okay. Anybody else have any questions for her? MS. BARNETT: I do. Because you stated something that I wanted to clarify, and I can't remember the numbers because I don't have them in front of me. MS. GRAFTON: Okay. Page 128 October 28, 2004 MS. BARNETT: But there was the one that you specified you had the screen enclosure, it's one -- the first screen enclosure, and then right after that you said something about an enclosed carport. MS. GRAFTON: Okay. It says 1982,82-1008. Is that the one you're referring to? MS. BARNETT: I believe so, yes. MS. GRAFTON: It says it's an enclosed carport and reroof. MS. BARNETT: So it does say enclosed. Okay, I just wanted to clarify -- MS. GRAFTON: Wait, did I -- I've got to look up my form. I've only got this little piece of paper. MR. RANKIN: I object to the witness being coached. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have the actual permit in front of you, ma'am? MS. GRAFTON: I have it. Peggy Jarrell has-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I said do you have it in front of you? MS. GRAFTON: No, I've got my sheet of things for what it was. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's fine. MS. GRAFTON: It's all -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll get to that, don't worry about it. I just asked you if you had them in front of you and you said no, so that's fine. MR. RANKIN: Who made those notes that you're reading? MS. GRAFTON: These are notes that Peggy Jarrell made for me to -- MR. RANKIN: And what does Peggy Jarrell do? MS. GRAFTON: Peggy Jarrell works in the addressing department and she is part of our operations department. MR. RANKIN: Between the two of you and this code enforcement officer, who has better knowledge of building permits? Page 129 October 28, 2004 Well, scratch that. MS. GRAFTON: Well, Peggy works in the addressing department, I work in the records department. So I -- I look for records in the records department. That's what I do. MR. RANKIN: And records are building permits, right? MS. GRAFTON: Building permits, all kinds of files, anything to do with building a building. MR. RANKIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions from the board for this witness? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any from the county? MS. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next witness, sir. MR. RANKIN: I call Peggy Jarrell up. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, one of Mr. Rankin's witnesses indicated to me that they had a 2:00 meeting with the Board of County Commissioners and was wondering whether or not he wanted to take him out of order. MR. RANKIN: I don't know how we're going to do that, we're in their room. MS. ARNOLD: It's not within this room, it's within their conference room. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Who is it? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Dorrill. MR. RANKIN: I'll be happy to call him real fast, then. Mr. Dorrill, then. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. RANKIN: Mr. Dorrill, would you state your name, please. MR. DORRILL: Neil Dorrill. MR. RANKIN: All right. When were you county manager of this county? Page 130 October 28, 2004 MR. DORRILL: 1987 until 1997. MR. RANKIN: And what was your position prior to that? MR. DORRILL: I was the assistant county manager, public safety director and administrative assistant to the county manager. MR. RANKIN: And what was the year for that assistant county manager? MR. DORRILL: 1984 until 1987. MR. RANKIN: Right. Have you ever spoken, to the best of your knowledge, with my client, Mrs. Kowalke? Of course, unfortunately you can't talk to her husband today, he's not here. MR. DORRILL: Not to my knowledge. MR. RANKIN: You heard her testimony. Obviously I can't impose the rule when this thing is televised. You heard her testimony earlier about how she approached you and Ms. Goodnight about these matters in Plantation Island? MR. DORRILL: I stepped out in the hall, but I overheard it on the speaker. MR. RANKIN: Have there been problems in Plantation Island? MR. DORRILL: Historically, the types of problems that we had during my watch as county manager dealt with animal control and roadways and water, potable water. MR. RANKIN: Never had any sewer problems? MR. DORRILL: Not that I recall. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And you didn't have any problems with garbage service out there? MR. DORRILL: We had general problems prior to the imposition of mandatory collection, and we increased the capacity of the Carnestown transfer station that is just north of Everglades City, and we had made arrangements through Waste Management to have a commercial dumpster placed at the end of the initial path road. MR. RANKIN: Are you familiar with an area of the county called Looneyville? Page 131 October 28, 2004 MR. DORRILL: Vaguely. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Do you remember there was a controversy there about county employees not wanting to go there and issue permits? MR. DORRILL: I think that -- my recollection is that occurred after the time I left the county in '97. MR. RANKIN: So that occurred after that. Did you ever have any problems with county employees, especially after 1983, wanting to go out into the Plantation Island, Chokoloskee area? MR. DORRILL: None. MR. RANKIN: Never had any problem at all? MR. DORRILL: Not within the areas that I mentioned in our working with the City of Everglades down there and three different mayors during the time that I was county manager. MR. RANKIN: Of course you're aware that Plantation Island is not in the City of Everglades? MR. DORRILL: That's correct. MR. RANKIN: In fact, it's about a mile down the road, isn't it? MR. DORRILL: It's probably about a mile to the east of Everglades City. MR. RANKIN: All right. There wasn't any problem with animosity toward government people there after '83? MR. DORRILL: None that was ever reported to me, and certainly none through the code enforcement department, because at that time the majority of the top officials were former law enforcement officers. MR. RANKIN: Well, we're not talking about code enforcement, we're talking about building officials. MR. DORRILL: Well, code enforcement and building officials at that time would have meant the same thing to me. MR. RANKIN: And my -- you never -- my client never talked to you about the crab traps and about her trying to get a permit there? Page 132 October 28, 2004 MR. DORRILL: Not that I recall, no. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And you say -- and you're not aware of any problems out there where even to this day several of the neighbors other than her have their sewage going directly into the bay or into 55-gallon drums? MR. DORRILL: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's not worry about the neighbors, let's worry about -- MR. BOWIE: We're talking about one property and the presence of not -- of a permit. MR. RANKIN: It goes to the credibility of the witness. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He says he doesn't remember talking to your client, okay, so he answered that question. Let's get on to another question. You asked him that twice. MR. RANKIN: Did you ever have any difficulties with permits being issued during that era in rural areas? MR. DORRILL: None that were ever brought to my attention, no. MR. RANKIN: I have -- did you ever attend meetings or meet with people from Plantation Island during that time period? MR. DORRILL: Not unless it was part of a public meeting or workshop involving the City of Everglades, which was sort of the central point for the overall community down there. MR. RANKIN: At that time, wasn't it illegal for county commissioners to deal directly with departments? They had to go through you to go through the departments, didn't they? MR. DORRILL: No. Commissioners -- in fact, we wrote the county manager's ordinance during the time that I was in the county manager's office, and commissioners have never been precluded from making inquiries or requesting information or coordinating site visits. They do not have the ability to direct a county employee to perform some operational aspect. Page 133 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: So if somebody had problems with performing -- getting a county employee to perform their function, commissioners would have had to come to you, right? MR. DORRILL: Or either the division or department director, if there were problems of that nature. MR. RANKIN: They were not required for those matters to go through the county manager? MR. DORRILL: Not for routine matters, no. We had 1,000 employees at that time. MR. RANKIN: You never met with a Mary Lee Lane, Ann Goodnight, Neil Dorrill, Ms. Crosby? MRS. KOWALKE: Somebody named Mitzi. MR. RANKIN: Somebody named Mitzi, a Crosby and a Woodcock during that time period? You never had a meeting with those people? MR. DORRILL: Well, obviously Mrs. Goodnight was the county commissioner representing that district at that time. So the answer is yes. Mary Lee Lane was a former zoning official. And I'm not sure that at that time that she either worked for the county or had returned to the county but in a different capacity. MR. RANKIN: So she would have been involved in an issue like this? MR. DORRILL: Ms. Lane was a consultant after she initially left employment with the county. I have no idea when the time frame for that would have been. MR. RANKIN: But when she was with the county, what did she do? MR. DORRILL: She was a clerical employee in the zoning department, as we referred to it at that time. MR. RANKIN: And they would have been involved in this kind of issue where my client was trying to get a permit issued, wouldn't Page 134 October 28,2004 she? MR. DORRILL: Not if she was in the zoning department. MR. RANKIN: And you don't know of anyone named Mystic or Misty? MR. DORRILL: That name's not familiar. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Is this Crosby Woodstock? Mr. Crosby and a Mr. Woodstock. MR. DORRILL: Those names aren't familiar to me. MR. RANKIN: To the best of your knowledge, you never participated in a meeting with those names all put together? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, not that I recall. MR. RANKIN: Would my client even know who Mary Lee Lane was, any -- to your knowledge? She wasn't out there in the front with the county, was she? MR. DORRILL: I don't know how your client would in any way be acquainted or have knowledge of her. She was a county employee. She left county employment for a period of three to five years. She returned to the county. And at that time she returned, I'm not sure what department she was in. MR. RANKIN: Did you ever meet with an Attorney Sevelli? You know who is Sevelli is, right? MR. DORRILL: Not offhand, no. MR. RANKIN: He's been an attorney here for 20,30 years, I believe, wasn't he? You never met him? MR. DORRILL: Not to my knowledge. MR. RANKIN: How long have you been in Collier County? MR. DORRILL: Twenty-five years. MR. RANKIN: And you never met Mr. Sevelli? MR. DORRILL: Survelli? MR. RANKIN: Sevelli. MR. DORRILL: Not to my knowledge. MR. RANKIN: His office is right down the street on Airport Page 135 October 28, 2004 Road. MR. DORRILL: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't understand the relevance. Let's get along. I've lived here 16 years and I don't know a whole lot of people. Let's move along. MR. RANKIN: The relevance, Mr. Chairman, is that is the attorney that we have the bill in your packet who approached him and the zoning officials. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he says he doesn't remember, so let's go. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And that's all I have. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, thanks for the courtesy of letting me go early. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else have a questions for Mr. Dorrill ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: County? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Now back to this Peggy person. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. JARRELL: My last name is Jarrell, J-A-R-R-E-L-L. First name is Peggy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're going to need the mic., ma'am. MS. JARRELL: I'm sorry. My name is Peggy Jarrell, and I work for Collier County and I do the addressing for Collier County. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Are you familiar with the WHIP system? MS. JARRELL: Yes, I am. MR. RANKIN: What is that? MS. JARRELL: It's our old computer system before we got CD Plus. Page 136 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: What years does it cover? MS. JARRELL: It covers from '89 to '96. MR. RANKIN: Is there any computer system that currently is accessible that -- or has it been accessible in the last two years that goes back any further than that? MS. JARRELL: That does not -- it does not go back before '89, no. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And if the old system goes back to '89, how far back does the CD system go back reliably? MS. JARRELL: CD Plus, we tried to get permits into that database when we established it in '96. And I think we tried to get as many from '90 back -- from '90. MR. RANKIN: But it's not reliable prior to '96, is it? MS. JARRELL: I have the old WHIP system. I'm the only one that does in the building that I know of. MR. RANKIN: Did this Carol person that we saw testifying earlier, the code enforcement person, ever come to you and ask you to run WHIPS on my client's property? MS. JARRELL: Yes. And I also did, too. MR. RANKIN: Okay. In fact I asked you to do it, too, right? MS. JARRELL: Correct. MR. RANKIN: Yes. Okay. So she didn't search it, did she, like she testified? MS. JARRELL: Who, Carol? MR. RANKIN: Yes. MS. JARRELL: Yes. She came and asked me if I had anything through WHIPS, and I told her no. MR. RANKIN: But she didn't do the searching like she testified. MS. JARRELL: She can't get into my data base. MR. RANKIN: And you're telling me that what she told us earlier about going in her system that she has access to where prior to '96, just isn't there, is it? Page 137 October 28, 2004 MS. JARRELL: There are some permits in CD Plus that are prior to '96. I'm not saying there isn't. MR. RANKIN: But not many? MS. JARRELL: There are quite a bit. We tried to get as many as we could download. MR. RANKIN: And did you run any printouts from my client's property? MS. JARRELL: I ran all permits I could find on that as part of it. MR. RANKIN: And those are the -- you're the one that generated the list she talked about earlier? MS. JARRELL: Correct. MR. RANKIN: I'm sorry, names are not my -- MS. JARRELL: Sonia. MR. RANKIN: Sonia. And did you find any others? MS. JARRELL: No. MR. RANKIN: Are you familiar with those index books I was talking to her about? MS. JARRELL: Yes. MR. RANKIN: Okay. '86, how is that indexed? MS. JARRELL: Usually by -- they put in the permit number, which is actually in sequence on how permits are distributed. MR. RANKIN: So the whole year is in a book from one through whatever, right? MS. JARRELL: Yes, sir. MR. RANKIN: There is no alphabetical index, is there? MS. JARRELL: No, sir, it's by permit numbers. MR. RANKIN: Thank you. And so -- and it's also the names that are attached to those permit numbers. Are those always the owner's names? MS. JARRELL: No. It's whoever applied for that permit. MR. RANKIN: Do you have any way of telling reliably Page 138 October 28, 2004 whether or not my client was ever issued that '86 permit that they tried to apply for? MS. JARRELL: No, sir, because that wasn't part of your subpoena and I did not look in '86. MR. RANKIN: But is there a reliable way to do so? MS. JARRELL: You can -- no, not unless she knows the contractor or unless it was in her name. MR. RANKIN: Okay. So if some contractor did it that they don't remember anymore after what, 19 year -- 18 years, that there's no way to find it, is there? MS. JARRELL: No, sir. MR. RANKIN: They're not indexed by GIS, you know, individual into the property and all that? MS. JARRELL: No, sir. MR. RANKIN: Are you familiar -- have you ever used the property appraiser's records before? MS. JARRELL: Yes, sir. MR. RANKIN: Do they necessarily always put down the permit numbers on the cards? MS. JARRELL: No, sir. MR. RANKIN: And do they in fact have a special notation when they pick up something by driving by that they don't pick up off a permit? MS. JARRELL: If they have the property card in there and there's an addition or something on that property, they'll note the date that they went by and saw the addition for the assessment of it for taxes. MR. RANKIN: Right. And so we look at our property card here -- let me find it for just a minute here in the midst of all this. And I don't know if you were watching it before -- here it is. Are there any such notations on my client's permit card? MS. JARRELL: No, sir. Page 139 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: And of course the current property appraiser was the assistant for the former property appraiser, wasn't he? MS. JARRELL: I'm sorry, I don't know that. MR. RANKIN: The current -- you don't-- MS. JARRELL: The what? MR. RANKIN: The current property appraiser was the assistant for the former property appraiser, wasn't he? MS. JARRELL: I don't know that information. MR. RANKIN: You don't know that. Has that policy there been consistent, throughout your experience? MS. JARRELL: About them not adding screen enclosures to the property card? They don't do that. MR. RANKIN: And how long have you been in your employ with the county like in these kind of matters? MS. JARRELL: Since May of'90. MR. RANKIN: And are you aware of anybody else over there that has better indication of these kind of records than you, or has been there longer doing this? MS. JARRELL: No. MR. RANKIN: And Ed Perico, what was his job there? MS. JARRELL: When he left, he was the building and -- director over building and permitting. I'm sorry. MR. RANKIN: And when did he leave? MS. JARRELL: When did he leave? MS. ARNOLD: I can't tell you. MS. JARRELL: I can't -- June. Just recently. MR. RANKIN: June of2004, or June of2003? MS. JARRELL: No, 2004. MR. RANKIN: All right. I have no further questions for this witness, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, your name again, ma'am? Page 140 October 28, 2004 MS. JARRELL: Peggy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Peggy, okay. The permits that you found for this property. MS. JARRELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, is there a permit for a boat dock? MS. JARRELL: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a permit that says convert a carport to a screened enclosed porch, or enclose a carport? MS. JARRELL: I can look through here and see. Not enclose the carport. There's a permit in here for a screen -- to enclose -- a screen enclosure and for a carport and reroof, which is that 1008. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But there's not a permit that says convert a carport to a screened, enclosed porch, or screen in a carport or some combination of that -- enclose a carport. I'm trying to think of all the variables, and I'll miss them, I'm sure, but -- MS. JARRELL: Not unless it has -- screen, no, that's for a screen room, no electric. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is there a permit to add a workshop with glass windows? MS. JARRELL: It just -- no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Other members of the board? MS. BARNETT: Just so that I can get clarification from someone that's been in records a long time. On the 82-1008. MS. JARRELL: Correct. MS. BARNETT: I'm going to go back to -- it says enclose porch, carport and then -- and new roof. MS. JARRELL: Correct. MS. BARNETT: Are there any other permits that you're aware of that could have meant that there was an enclosed porch and enclosed carport when it was written that way, or would they have spelled out -- Page 141 October 28, 2004 MS. JARRELL: They would have had to spell it out, and I'm sure that there would have been a larger fee involved with it. MS. BARNETT: Okay. That was the clarification that I needed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else from the board? MR. RANKIN: I have one follow-up request, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not done yet. Anything from the county? MS. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Mr. Rankin. MR. RANKIN: I have one follow-up question, if I could, please. There's a 2004 permit for a reroof, or a roof, 2003 permit. MS. JARRELL: Reroof and a 36-inch wood rail fence. MR. RANKIN: All right. The roof part of it, we saw earlier that what we're talking about is that little hole. What is the -- that permit show as far as the roof? And the point of this, Mr. Chairman, is that roof over top of this workshop we're talking about, we clearly have -- MS. JARRELL: Usually they don't have to show how -- unless they're building a new roof or a reroof, you don't have a site plan for it. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Chairman, there are two minutes remainIng. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And a roof is going to show us what as to why a permit for enclosing the walls? MS. JARRELL: It does have screwed to house with egress (sic) and metal hangars with two-foot, six-inch rafter. MR. RANKIN: The point is, even if you find out the two walls, one and one-half wall of the workshop need a permit, the roof of it already has one is the point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She wasn't cited for a roof, so that's Page 142 October 28, 2004 why I don't understand. MR. RANKIN: She was cited for the workshop as a whole. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the addition of a workshop and glass windows. MR. RANKIN: It's very vague. It's just like the dock situation as to what we were cited for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Glass windows and a roof don't even come close to matching where I went to learn about building, so -- sorry . MR. RANKIN: All right. I have no further questions. At this point I'd call Ann Goodnight. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I do have a question of this witness. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: We had -- I provided a copy or showed a copy or the original permit for the reroof and 36-inch fence. Can you tell me or explain for the board what the fence portion of it was permitted for, as it's your understanding? MS. JARRELL: The fence, when they put up a fence permit, we have to highlight it with a yellow marker to show where they're locating that fence. It has to be on the job site copy and it has to be in the building permit file. That is definitely shown that this fence was done for the side of the house -- the side of the property, excuse me -- and nowhere else. MR. RANKIN: I have a question. Are you familiar with the property appraiser's website in terms of the aerials that are available? MS. JARRELL: Yes, I am. MR. RANKIN: What year is those aerials for the county? MS. JARRELL: Those aerials were probably taken back in maybe 2003; 2002, 2003. MR. RANKIN: If I could, please, whoever has that copy of that color aerial. Is this what you'd see off of their aerials? It has the copyright Page 143 "-"'-"-"''""'''--'''"'''-'.'"'''-'''*"'~~-'-~_._.'''~-~-~--,~"...-,-_..._~.~- ",.__""_"_"_~,~m,_"",,,,_,___."""'~___·~___""_'H·V·__ October 28,2004 down in the bottom. Is that a printout from one of their systems? MS. JARRELL: Well, it has that date on it. MR. RANKIN: But I mean, it's got a printing at the bottom. That's the Collier County Property Appraisers. MS. JARRELL: Correct. MR. RANKIN: Thank you. No further questions. Commissioner Goodnight. MS. ARNOLD: Is it the date that norm -- I mean, do they have those in there for when it was actually flown? Is it -- is there -- MS. JARRELL: I don't know the exact date when it was flown. I know that they're not like probably this year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They're not. MR. RANKIN: They're not, 2001, 2002, which is before 2003. Which makes a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, before we move on, Mr. Rankin, we agreed last month you get two hours. Your two hours are up. If you need more time, you need to ask us and the board will vote whether we give you any more time. MR. RANKIN: We're talking five minutes for Commissioner Goodnight -- we're talking five minutes for Commissioner Goodnight, assuming the county doesn't drag it out. MS. DUSEK: Are you just asking for five minutes? MR. RANKIN: That's assuming they don't drag it out, that's all I'm going to take. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pleasure of the board? Okay. MR. PONTE: I would, just -- if we're going to grant the extension of time, I want to have an extension of time that would include some sort of summation to bring this all together. MR. RANKIN: I'll be happy to do so. MR. PONTE: It's the responsibility of the attorney to do that. Page 144 _.."._.".~~,....,,,_~_..~."."_.,,w~,,,"___",,.,_"___··_·_-.."· .,- .... . ......_..._~,-_ October 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's-- MR. BOWIE: All within the five-minute period. MR. RANKIN: No. In that case, I'll need a little more time, because I'm sure you all are going to have a lot of questions, as you have. MR. BOWIE: I would like to truncate this as much as possible. MR. PONTE: I would too, but I still need a summation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. It's 1 :52, sir, you've got 'til 2:00, then you're done. Period. MR. RANKIN: Okay. This will be quick. Commissioner Goodnight. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. RANKIN: State your name, please. MS. GOODNIGHT: My name is Ann Goodnight. MR. RANKIN: And were you formerly a commissioner of this county? MS. GOODNIGHT: Yes, sir, I was a commissioner from 1984 until 1992. MR. RANKIN: And did part of your district include Plantation Island? MS. GOODNIGHT: Yes, sir. MR. RANKIN: Are you familiar with Plantation Island? MS. GOODNIGHT: Very much so. MR. RANKIN: Are you familiar with sewer problems out there, or sewage disposal problems out there, like county manager allegedly wasn't? MS. GOODNIGHT: No, sir, to my knowledge there was never any sewage problems while I was a county commissioner. MR. RANKIN: You don't know that a lot of houses out there don't even have septic tanks? MS. GOODNIGHT: No, sir, that was never brought to my attention. Page 145 October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Did you ever meet my client, or did my client ever contact you? MS. GOODNIGHT: On numerous occasions, yes, sir. MR. RANKIN: And are you familiar with the meeting in Everglades City that she was spoking ( sic) about -- spoken about? MS. GOODNIGHT: I cannot tell you that I'm familiar with the one where you named certain people in being there, but there was a number of meetings in Everglades City, along with one that was also at outdoor resorts. MR. RANKIN: Did any of those meetings include Manager Dorrill ? MS. GOODNIGHT: I cannot tell you who all attended the meetings. MR. RANKIN: Okay. What were those meetings about that are relevant to this matter today, since there's a number of them? MS. GOODNIGHT: I don't know that there's anything relevant, as the board has said, to this matter concerning the building permits. At that time there was considerable problems with odor from crab traps. As the attorney has said, there was some problems with fuel tanks being there. There was also problems with garbage, there was problems with roads. There was also a problem that had to do with a boat being in the canal. And we were trying to address all of these problems. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Do you ever recall my client approaching you about having -- being told the county people wouldn't come out there and give her a permit? MS. GOODNIGHT: No, sir. MR. RANKIN: What would you have done if she did? MS. GOODNIGHT: It would have been taken care of. MR. RANKIN: How? MS. GOODNIGHT: Because I would have gone to the county manager and I would have told the county manager that this was not Page 146 _', _....-.~."<._,.,.___~"''',.,..__,.O'_...___.~,,__;,.__,_._,......,._,,__<___"~'_" ..,."_,,......,_..,_.__~._,_,__..,,_ ""H - ---- October 28, 2004 consistent with what was happening in the rest of the county and it would need to have been taken care of right now. MR. RANKIN: And if he didn't do it, would-- MS. GOODNIGHT: Then my power of vote to fire him would have been right there. MR. RANKIN: Okay. And were there problems with government officials going into Plantation Island, especially after '83? MS. GOODNIGHT: Well, I can't speak to '83. I didn't take office until '84. But no, sir, I'm not afraid to be anywhere in this county. I grew up in the Everglades area. I fished, hunted and everything there, you know. We cleaned up Immokalee. I don't think that Immokalee is any worse than what Plantation Island is. MR. RANKIN: They weren't running -- they didn't have big drug busts in Immokalee, did they? In fact, two major ones and a few minor ones. MS. GOODNIGHT: I'm not sure that there hasn't been some of the people that lived in Immokalee that wasn't part of that, no, sir. MR. RANKIN: All right. And it would not be out of character for -- you heard my client testify about the one person they managed to get out there said he wasn't going to do anything, he was going get his kneecaps shot off. MS. GOODNIGHT: Well, I don't know anything about that. MR. RANKIN: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from the members of the board? MR. RANKIN: And if it would -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from the county? MS. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. GOODNIGHT: Thank you. MR. RANKIN: Okay. I'll make this a quick summation, as you requested. Page 147 -~--_.~._~-,~--;-^-_.- October 28, 2004 It is our position that my client has a permit for the carport as it exists, and it was built that way in the beginning. The only evidence you've had here today about how that thing was built is a permit that can be interpreted three or four different ways. And if you look at that permit and its accompanying matters, you'll notice they are kind of not exactly what you would call a professional job. And that was the way things were done back then. That's not my clients' fault. The one piece of paper my client signed says it's enclosed, enclosed, enclosed. And you've had testimony from my client here today that it was that way from the beginning with the exception of her swapping out the screen and the door and putting up the laticework. As far as the alleged dock, let's get unconfused for a moment. There is a dock out there that, prior to 1990 -- heck, it's prior to 1981 -- that is still there. That's not an issue. And if we're going to make any orders, let's make sure we differentiate, because until about three weeks ago, that's the dock we thought we were dealing with, because we didn't consider these other things -- this other thing to be a dock at all. The other thing is that aerial there that you all have looked at, we didn't manufacture this thing, the property appraiser and the airplanes did, and it makes a -- unfortunately indicates that Carol's testimony was clearly wrong, because you can see in 2001, 2002, early 2003, whichever it was, but definitely not mid to late 2003. All this nonsense existed on my client's seawall just exactly the way it does today. And this is a photograph, and it speaks a thousand words and it doesn't lie. And we didn't take it, the county did with an airplane. And you can go, if you want to recess for a couple of minutes in the other room and borrow one of their computers and look at it for yourself, because it's still there and they haven't updated them yet. The City of Naples has got more recent aerials, these are about 2001, Page 148 . - ""'~""'-"'-""~-~'--'^""--<""""-"'-~"---'- October 28, 2004 2002. In January, 2003, code enforcement comes out there and they say you've got these problems. So my clients don't hire me, they do what they did last time. He go over to building, they get the permits. Ed Perico, as my client testified to, they came out there, they got the permits, they did their thing, and they got three permits during that era, all at once. And we're talking the seawall. And you can argue that the -- this thing is a part of that seawall, and the fence that runs along the edge of it that this aerial clearly shows, regardless of what their alleged permit shows now -- and I don't know how that got done. But this clearly shows it was all there at the time those code enforcement people were out there, at the time those building officials were out. And they cleared this. They gave them a permit for all this. And the guy -- you heard my client say the guy was standing on it when he signed off on it. Now they're back at us again. So I've got my estoppel argument on, really, all of this, at that time, except the workshop, maybe. Because if you're going to rule that because my client's didn't get a signed settlement agreement or some nonsense from the first code enforcement matter that they did what they were told and settled, then you're going to have a lot of people that are going to be very skittish to settle with these people, because, you know, they're not going to get it in writing, they're going to have to all hire attorneys to make sure it's written and done right. So there's no question that this was done. It was this is what you need to do, they did it. That's why I'm here this time, because they don't believe them anymore. And then you heard testimony, this time they say okay, she sent a contractor out there. Contractor says it's fine. Then they told us to get an engineer. The engineer called them up and told them it was fine. Then they said oh, have the engineer send her a letter and tell us Page 149 -".----'-_...._.".~-,.."".,.,~-,,~~-_.~".........."'.,..~.,-"...._;-.,----'---"'''--- October 28, 2004 it's fine. It's fine. And you have that letter in your package. Then they wanted an affidavit, and the engineer says I've had enough of this nonsense. You know, again and again they keep changing what they wanted. They finally tell us now we want you to get permits. So we go out there the other day and we say look, building officials, do you need this -- what do you need for this alleged dock? What do you need for the fact that the only thing -- this carport that we already did, what -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Your time's up, Mr. Rankin. MR. RANKIN: Okay. But basically my position is we are legitimate. And also, the other thing is, they cannot prove whether or not my clients ever actually got a permit in '86 for those two -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir. MR. RANKIN: -- one-and-a-halfwalls of the workshop. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Time's up. MS. ARNOLD: Can I have some closing statements? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am, county can have a closing statement. MS. ARNOLD: I'd just like to mention to the board that I think we have shown you that there was no permit for a dock. You've heard testimony that -- from Ms. Kowalke that there was a permit for a fence around the dock that exists today. You've heard in contradictory testimony from the records department that indicated the fence permit that was issued was merely for the side yard, not including the dock. We've also showed that and we've even heard Mr. Rankin contend that there is no permit for the workshop. We have also showed that on the -- the information that was submitted for the carport, it was for a carport, it was not for an enclosure. You heard testimony from the records room that indicated had it been for that additional enclosure, the fees would have been Page 150 ___"_<.,0' ",P", ·_._r__".._.<._,.,.,"~__·~'~"~'___".___"_'···~~__""·'_"'"...."..>"..."....~._.._"...v_'..'.·,."..."",....·...___.....~.._."'''''''''''..K·, ....~___m~._..'~""___.___'____"·,,.,·_"·"'_~·,_ ,,-. October 28, 2004 totally different. We also have provided you information with respect to the surveys that were submitted. Mr. Rankin provided you that survey as well. The surveys submitted by a professional engineer, surveyor, indicated the structure that we're talking about was a carport at that particular time. It did not describe it as a screen room, it did not describe it as a mobile home, it described it as a carport. I think that we've provided sufficient evidence to show that all the violations that we're bringing to you today are in fact in violation to the codes, and they failed to obtain the necessary permits that they need. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. RANKIN: The only thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, in one minute, is that they have the burden, I don't have the burden, and I think they failed to meet it. MS. ARNOLD: I just provided that burden of proof. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I close the public hearings at this time. I would remind the board that -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. Jennifer did have one comment to make with respect to Mr. Rankin brought up the fact that there is estoppel discussion, and she would just like to give her legal opinion on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, Jennifer. MS. BELPEDIO: I don't know if Mr. Rankin gave you any details regarding what equitable estoppel is. And I think he's arguing that somehow his client relied on something that the county did, and because of that, his client shouldn't have to get a building permit. What I found in my legal research over the past couple of years in this area regarding whether or not a government can be equitably estopped from, you know, enforcing and challenging a person for not having a permit is that the courts very rarely apply equitable estoppel against local governing authorities. Page 151 October 28, 2004 And what they ultimately speak to do is to prevent from sanctioning an unlawful act. That -- the fear is that things may happen inadvertently, there may be mistakes, there may be investigators or building officers, investigators that do not observe something that's in violation, and the fear is that later when the county does observe or become aware of the information of the violation, that the county would be prevented from enforcing. And the courts are looking at how can we allow violations to exist, how can we sanction violations. So the courts allow the counties to enforce many years after the violation first existed. I don't know if that helps you, but that's just what I found in Florida case law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that's what I remember, so -- MR. RANKIN: Well, my response to that, Mr. Chairman-- since she had a couple of minutes, I think I have a couple minutes of rebuttal -- is twofold. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's just giving us some information, she's not rebutting you. MR. RANKIN: It's twofold. One, the case law is not quite as clear as she indicates. There are exceptions. And you notice she said almost always or most of the time. Second of all, you've got a policy decision to make here, because you're the one that gets to hear these. And this is being televised throughout Collier County. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're aware of the television. It's public. MR. RANKIN: And if -- basically what you're -- if you rule against us in the future, what you're telling everybody in the future is they're going to have to be very, very, very careful settling with them, which means more and more of them are going to come here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't you wait until we issue an order before you start telling people in the television audience what Page 152 ._,"'__~. , ~",,"'.' ..,.....,,^....<__~__,..',.___~_____'"'''....,~,.._,... ..",.~~_..,,_.._.~."'"">o_,~,"._«"''",_. . .""^'.....".....-.__.._~-_.,-"""..__....."''"'''----- .._·,__··_'m__~"'~·__ October 28, 2004 they got to be wary of. You wait till we issue an order. Then you can say anything you like to the public. Don't tell us what we have to be wary of. We know what we're doing. I don't like scare tactics and that smacks of it. So don't tell people things that we are going to do until we do them. Understand? MR. RANKIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, public hearings are closed. We're done hearing from anybody. Period. I hope that's plain English for everybody. Is there anybody that does not understand that statement? No one talks. Now, I would remind the board that the information given by Ms. Arnold and by Mr. Rankin is not testimony. We shouldn't base any decision on that. We base the decision on the testimony of the witnesses and what weight we put to the documents they presented. With that in mind, what we need to do is determine a finding of fact, if in fact there are any violations concerning a boat dock, a conversion of a carport to a screen-enclosed porch, and the addition of a workshop with glass windows. There's no concern whatsoever about a fence involved in this. MS. DUSEK: I make a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, those are the three items we're to be concerned with. MS. DUSEK: I'm going to make a motion, but I will also say that I think that there has probably been some confusion and misunderstanding in gathering information from the Kowalkes. But what we have to do is follow what the code says. And in my opinion, there was not proof today that the owner of the property did in fact have permits for these violations. So I make a motion that in the case of Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Fred and Norma Kowalke, CEB Case No. 2004-037, that there is a violation. Page 153 October 28,2004 The violation is of Sections 2.6.7.1, 2.6.7.5 and 2.6.7.5(A) of Ordinance 91-102, as amended. The description of the violation is a dock, screen enclosure of carport, and workshop with glass windows erected without first obtaining required building permits, inspections and a certificate of occupancy. MS. BARNETT: Bobbie, excuse me. Before anybody seconds that, I need a clarification as to the violation of the sections, because in one section and on our discussion it says 2.7.6.1, 2. -- MS. DUSEK: Those are typos, I'm sure. MR. PONTE: Yeah, because the others are just transverse. MR. BOWIE: I think it's 2.7, is it not? MS. DUSEK: I think it's 2.6. Well, just look at the code. But I think it's 2.6. Because I noticed that in the beginning. MS. BARNETT: Because I have -- MS. DUSEK: I'm sorry, it is 2.7. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2.7.6. MS. DUSEK: 2.7.6 on each of those. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I think what they're trying to say is point one is item one, which is zoning action on building or land alteration, permits. Because then there's an item two, item three, and it just goes on. MS. DUSEK: All right, I'll reverse that 2.6 to 2.7.6. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And then the next one is -- MR. BOWIE: 2.7.6-- MS. DUSEK: 2.7.6.5 and 2.7.6.5(A). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Yeah, in the same section. Everything is 2.7. MS. DUSEK: Yes. Right. Good observation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you that get it straight, Sheri? MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. Okay. Page 154 ,'_._" ·~·..~...."_"O'_"''''_'"_''__'--'''·'_'''''''__~_·_·_'_'_~"'_ "",,,~»__._..._,,,_,,,....., ......... "'. ' --""."""'....""'----"'-.--.-'"<-.-".-.'.. _.._-"........'...._-,~~.- October 28, 2004 We have a motion on the floor and finding of fact that there is violations. Is there a second? MR. DORIA: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second from Albert. Did you get that, Cherie'? 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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Well, since there's dead silence, then I'll break it. I'll start. I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient building permit application for the boat dock, screen-enclosed carport -- MR. BOWIE: Yes, let's call that a carport. MS. DUSEK: -- carport and workshop with glass windows within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation occurs -- continues. Number two, must get the required inspections to be performed Page 155 October 28, 2004 and obtain a certificate of completion within 30 days after obtaining the required building permits, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, the respondent may, within 30 days from the date of this hearing, obtain a demolition permit to remove the boat dock, screen-enclosed carport, workshop with glass windows and related debris to an area intended for such disposal, following through with all required inspections and obtain a certificate of completion for each structure or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent must also notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated, in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. PONTE: That's fine. I just make a suggestion. I think the time of 30 days should be extended, particularly now that we're racing into November and December. I think it's a rather complex thing to get done, and given the distance that the site is located at, it will take time to get somebody out there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's your recommendation, George? MS. BARNETT: I'd concur with George, too. And I'd also like to remind everybody that the husband is currently going -- undergoing surgery, so that could take some time. MS. DUSEK: Well, is 60 days a better time frame? MR. PONTE: Sixty days is short, but it's better. I would have, I guess, optimally thought 90 days. It's been going on since 1979. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Yeah, I mean, at this point in time -- I must agree with everybody, time is not a big deal. We don't have to do this tomorrow. The world isn't going to end. Why don't we -- and I think most people would probably agree, I don't know about Bobbie, but I'll throw it out. Why don't we give them 90 days and let's see what happens. How's that, George? Page 156 "_~,.,.,»,<._.~",,. .~'~<m~_"'__"~"'~____"___"'_"_U__"" ""_"~"_"~___'''_"'__~'^'·'''''_'"''"''.__.'~''~'''''''_'____C___,.,"'_,,-..-_.....,...,_=_.,_____..........-,..,,_~~>*'_.."""'.,..^._.._".~-~- October 28, 2004 MR. PONTE: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Albert? MR. DORIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I can't see down. The answer, my friend? MR. HEMES: Yes, that's a yes. MS. DUSEK: I amend the motion to 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is that satisfy (sic) with everybody? Okay. We have a motion on the floor. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MS. ARNOLD: I have a point of clarification. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: It's 90 days for submittal. Is it an additional 90 days to require inspections? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I think once they -- MR. BOWIE: Should be 30. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the 30 can stay on the inspections once they get everything. MS. ARNOLD: And then -- and then the alternative is also 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, because the demolition permit is kind of a quick thing that they can walk in and get really quickly, if I remember. So the first one is the only 90-day one. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, since she spoke first, I do have a request to just be clarified as to precisely, because there's some fuzziness in each one of these items, what exactly it is that we need to deal with. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to get a permit. Now, you Page 157 October 28, 2004 have to work that out with the county. We're telling you to get a permit. MR. RANKIN: What I mean, if we choose the demolition item, for instance -- of course we're all clear here that we're not talking about the '79 dock that's underneath this, we're talking this walkway extension, number one. I just want to make sure we're clear on that. Number two, the carport, we're not talking taking down the carport, we're basically talking taking out the screen and taking out the door in the front. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. RANKIN: All right. And in the workshop, since we have a permit for about one-half of that one wall and the roof over it, what do we have to take out there if we chose that option? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it says here you have -- you put a workshop in with glass windows, so if you say you had a half a wall, then I assume a half a wall is all you're allowed. MR. RANKIN: And then also the -- well, we have front, half of the side and we have the roof over top of it, too. So theoretically we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You weren't cited for any kind of roof. You keep bringing a roof up, and there is no citation. MR. RANKIN: Well, it's the roof over the workshop, that's why I'm trying to get it clarified. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody keeps saying roof. Please, please, it says the addition of a workshop with glass windows. I do not see the word roof. Quit bringing it in. What they did is there may have been a roof there and you closed it in. People do that, just with lanais. You have a roof, you enclosed the three sides, the roof was there. Let's move along. Don't make it difficult. MR. RANKIN: Just want to make sure I'm clarified, because at one time their position was it included the roof too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they didn't cite you for the roof, so they don't get that luxury. Page 158 "~___,.._.",',_.~.""__",.,, '_'_"_~__·___'"'_·~'_"M~~"ffi'___""_"____'"·~~·'·''''~-'''--~-,--""",,,_.,,' .",-"..._-- October 28, 2004 MR. RANKIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, the word roof isn't here. Forget it. It's like fence; fence isn't here, forget it. Quit trying to sneak things in, folks. You want something in, write the word down. Now, we have a motion and a second, as I remember. 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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Last item on the agenda, I believe, is our foreclosure initiation. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. There is one case that we're requesting that the board authorize us forwarding to the county attorney's office for processing and that is CEB Case 2003-026, Board of County Commissioners versus Baker Towing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a motion to forward this on to the county attorney's office for foreclosure? MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bobbie made a motion, George -- MS. DUSEK: No, George made the motion and I seconded it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I'm sorry. I have them backwards. Page 159 October 28,2004 I'm trying to listen to everything. Okay, we have a motion and a second to forward Baker Towing to the county for foreclosure. Any discussion on the item? (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. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No old business, no reports. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to bring up something. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: In the future, I don't know if we can do this just verbally and for the record, but I would like to see when the respondent is going to submit a package, that it be numbered and organized so that we can follow. MS. ARNOLD: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Jean, in our-- MS. RAWSON: I would like to say that that's really not the job of the secretary. MS. DUSEK: No, I don't -- no, I don't -- MS. RAWSON: That's really the respondent's responsibility. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The reason we're saying this is in our rules, okay, it just says the respondent must submit by such a day. So Page 160 _N""""·"__."'_'·'_'~v" ··'_'·.'·.T_"'··"~~"·'~·~~~_"_""'__' ..... .," _,..,__.,"~.,__........._.., Of. - -___"".""......",_...__..._._._ October 28, 2004 can we -- MS. BARNETT: Amend it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- bring it up here and amend it, say at our next meeting where we maybe add a sentence where they must submit the package with a table of contents and pagination so that we know what's there? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you certainly can. MR. BOWIE: At least -- at least pagination. It's not too hard to write numbers consecutively from one on, okay, at the bottom. MS. DUSEK: I didn't mean for your group to do it, Michelle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we don't want our secretary to do that. So if everybody understands, what we'll try to do -- and Jean, if you could come up with -- I think it could be a simple sentence. If you'll have that for us at the next meeting, maybe we'll vote that in to add it into that paragraph. And I don't remember which one it is, but MS. ARNOLD: Can we also look at the time of that submittal as well? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we say five working days, so, I mean, that's it. MS. ARNOLD: Is it five working days? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Business days, it says, I'm sorry. It says business days. So it's already in there. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says five business days. So at that point, if they submit it late, then it's our decision whether we want to accept it one day or whatever. I just don't want it submitted when they walk in this room. We're not going to do that anymore. They need to get it to you, hopefully, our secretary, five days. If they come four days, just inform us and we may bring it to their attention. But if they walk in this room when we're ready and Page 161 October 28, 2004 hand you a package, you need to tell us and I don't think that's going to fly anymore, so -- MS. RAWSON: One more thing. I don't believe the court reporter has the respondent's packet. MR. BONANNO: I did give her what -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll give her mine. MR. BONANNO: -- I believe is a complete one when I came in. I have an extra as well, if you need it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cherie', you can have mine. MR. BONANNO: Yeah, yeah. That has both of them in it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mine is going, so if you need one, I'll gIve you one. The next meeting is in this room? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In November. MS. ARNOLD: And it's the 29th. And it's a Monday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, because of the holiday. So everybody remember, November 29 is a Monday. Okay? Because of the holiday. MS. RAWSON: November and December are a little different. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, November and December are always our two months where we kind of have to flex a little. So same time, time hasn't changed, just the day. Okay? Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd entertain a motion. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we adjourn. MR. HEMES: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. Page 162 October 28, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DORIA: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Thank you very much. ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:20 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 163 ._---_......~._.._~~"'... ....~"',,>~-,"-,-,~"._._.._----~,._.~._._--_._-- ".-.._""" .... ..._,....____~..,....,,_""""'~____...,._,,~,. J>..J....,- _.~'--,......