Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/27/2005 R January 27, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, January 27, 2005 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. (Absent) Roberta Dusek Nicolas Hemes Richard Kraenbring 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: January 27, 2005 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 - November 29, 2004 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion to Continue 1. BCC vs. Martha Lee Johnson CEB NO. 2004-077 1. 2. Motion/Request for Extension of Time BCC vs. Robert G France B. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TIONS: ---~-' CEB NO. 2004-001 2004-074 905 ALACHUA STREET, IMMOKALEE, FL HECKMAN, KEITH JOHN MARSH Ord. No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 1.5.6 and 2.7.6 Illegal outside storage of, but not limited to, disabled vehicle, vehicle parts, mobile home and tractor-trailers. Fence erected without building permits. 2004-075 219 2ND STREET S., IMMOKALEE, FL TAYLOR, RALPH W AND JEAN JOHN MARSH Ord. No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 Addition to permitted primary structure with electrical, plumbing and air conditioning improvements without first obtaining the authorization of a Collier County building permit. ~----.._,._- 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-071 3935 24TH AVE S.E., NAPLES, FL STORMER, HELEN JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: Ord. No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, sections 2.7.6.1 and Sec 2.7.6.5 Two guesthouse type structures with electrical, air conditioning and septic improvements erected/placed without first obtaining authorization of building permits. 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-081 5750 14TH AVE SW, NAPLES, FL WHITE, DOUGLAS S. JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: Ord. No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, sections 2.7.6.1 and Sec 2.7.6.5 Guesthouse/office type structure with electrical, air conditioning and septic improvements, erected on subject property without first obtaining authorization of building permits. 5. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-077 411 JONES STREET, IMMOKALEE, FL JOHNSON, MARTHA LEE PHILLIP SALINAS VIOLATIONS: Ord. No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, section 1.5.6 Mobile home structure erected and illegally connected to primary structure utilities and being utilized for multiple-family residential all inconsistent with zoning district. 6. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-078 1421 PEACH ST., IMMOKALEE, FL BLOCKER, RICHARD CRISTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: Ord. No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, section 2.7.6 and sections 104.1.1, 104.1.3.5, 105.5, 106.1.2 and 106.3.1 of the Florida Building Code, as adopted by Ord. No. 2002-01 Shed type structure erected and (illegally) connected to utilities without required building permits and being utilized as a laundry mat with operable washers and dryers in a Village Residential zoning district. 7. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-076 20610 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FL HAMILTON, JOSEPH TRAVIS SNODERL Y VIOLATIONS: Ord. No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, section 1.5.6 Wind Dancer Airboat Tours Pole Sign erected without required building permits 6. NEW BUSINESS 1. A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 2. 3. BCC vs. Glenn McGee (new owner) (Rather Knighton, former Owner) BCC vs. Momoe Graham and Daisy Bell BCC vs. Avin Noel and Maria Chavanes .--..,.--.-..-.......-.----,--- CEB NO. 2004-047 CEB NO. 2004-045 CEB NO. 2004-038 4. 5. 6. BCC VS. Robert P. Pekar BCC vs. Taylor Village Condo Association BCC vs. Seven Stores, Ltd. CEB NO. 2004-067 CEB NO. 2004-064 CEB NO. 2004-035 B. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) C. Request for Foreclosure 1. BCC vs. Robert Lockhart CEB NO. 2004-026 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. REPORTS A. County Attorney Quarterly Report 9. COMMENTS a. Rules and Regulations, changes to be signed at Jan 27,2005 meeting b. March Annual Meeting c. Election of Officers 10. NEXT MEETING DATE February 24, 2005 11. ADJOURN .'---- January 27, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please make note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Roll call, please. MR. BONANNO: Chairman Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Doria? (No response.) MR. BONANNO: For the record, Mr. Doria has not called in today. Mr. Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. MR. BONANNO: And Mr. Hemes? MR. HEMES: Present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we have six regular members and both our alternates are here, one of the alternates -- Mr. Hemes, I Page 2 -~ January 27, 2005 believe you're our first alternate, you will participate today, including voting, to make seven members who can vote. MR. HEMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions? MR. BONANNO: Yes, sir. Staff has notified me that there are several cases that have been stipulated and can be heard first. The first is actually first on the agenda, Case 2004-074. So no change is necessary for that one, but that is stipulated. Item number four under public hearings, Case 2004-071, owner Helen Stormer has also been stipulated. And item number five, the case against Douglas White, Case No. 2004-081, has also been stipulated. So if you'd like to hear those three first, we can accommodate those folks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other changes, additions? MR. BONANNO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MR. BOWIE: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 3 January 27, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Approval of our minutes from November 29th. Any changes, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, I would entertain a motion. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the minutes from the last meeting. MR. PONTE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, public hearings are now open. First item, we have a request for a motion to continue. Case No. 2004-0077 (sic). Martha Lee Johnson. MS. ARNOLD: Is Ms. -- is the attorney requesting the extension here? Colleen-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. MacAlister, from Legal Aid. MS. ARNOLD: -- MacAlister here? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Apparently she's not here. You all were provided a letter from Ms. MacAlister, requesting an extension or additional time to prepare the packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does county have a position? MS. ARNOLD: Staffs not objecting to that request. MS. DUSEK: I have no problem with that. Page 4 January 27,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments from the board? Ifnot, I would entertain a motion to place this at next month's meeting. MR. PONTE: I have just one comment. This has been going on -- notice of violation was January 5 of2003. And here we are in 2005. And here we have a situation where the attorney didn't appear. Seems a long, drawn-out period of time for them to just continue it for another month. MR. LEFEBVRE: The violation was actually first observed on November 7th, 2002, so we're looking at over two years. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But is this not the first time it's been brought to the board, Joe (sic)? MR. BONANNO: Yes, sir, it actually is the first time it's been brought. MS. BARNETT: I'm afraid if we don't give them the right, then they'll have something come back, because the attorney has only been contacted and the attorney is the one that's actually asking for the extension to prepare the case. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we give the extension of time to the Martha Lee Johnson Case 077. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To when? MS. DUSEK: To the February meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to place this case on our February agenda. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Page 5 ...-. January 27, 2005 MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Five to two. Next we have a motion for an extension of time. Case No. 2004-001. Robert G. France. MS. ARNOLD: We have Attorney Carlo Zampogna here representing Mr. France. MR. ZAMPOGNA: Good morning, members of the board. My name is Carlo Zampogna, Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, attorney for Robert France. We're here today presenting a motion for extension of time and waiver of fees. An order was entered for compliance on March 2nd, 2004, and we were supposed to come into compliance by December 22nd, 2004. We have been attempting to -- we've been attempting to work with the county to propose I guess a viable solution to bring our property into compliance. On December 14th, we went in front of the Board of County Commissioners for a public petition and offered a partial exchange. Since that time, we've been working with county staff and have come up with what appears to be a viable solution to bring our property into compliance with the Land Development Code. Actually, we came-- went in front of the board just on Tuesday, January 25th, and presented our final proposal. There are a few things that we need to hammer out and make sure that everything goes smoothly. However, it will take an additional three to four months to complete this transaction. I know that our motion does say 60 days from December 22nd; however, if I could amend that motion. I don't know how many days would be appropriate for that. Page 6 January 27, 2005 At this time we'd like to consider -- if you could consider that, the amendment as well. And we would also present a status report in writing to the board so that you can see how we are progressing with closing this transaction, so you're not left in the dark. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question. You asked for a motion to continue once and we granted it, you asked for a motion to extend and we granted it. Now you're back again asking for a motion to extend. MR. ZAMPOGNA: We've been working with the county. This is all in good faith. We have been working with the county . We worked with Collier County Real Estate Services and presented a few proposals to them, perhaps buying the county's land, and that didn't go through. We also offered the county our land as surplus and that didn't go through. So then our final option, we did go and present a public petition to the board, and that's what's taken so long. MR. PONTE: There was supposed to be a meeting on the 25th of January. MR. ZAMPOGNA: There was, and we did have it. MR. PONTE: And what happened? MR. ZAMPOGNA: And the board approved it. The board has instructed county staff to continue to work with us and complete this transaction. MR. BOWIE: That seems awful vague. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MR. BOWIE: What you're offering to do is to try. Nothing more. MR. ZAMPOGNA: We're actually not trying, we're (sic) actually have a proposal in place which does bring our property into compliance. And right now it's just being reviewed by utilities. That's the final step. And then a few -- there's a survey that needs to be done. MS. ARNOLD: Board, Jennifer Belpedio has been involved in some of the negotiation that's been transpired between Mr. Zampogna, Page 7 January 27, 2005 his clients and the utility administration, so she may want to add on there to indicate whether or not this is proceeding in good faith. MS. BELPEDIO: I do. Thank you, Michelle. My name is Jennifer Belpedio, I'm an assistant county attorney. I agree with what Mr. Zampogna is saying. I believe that, and the county believes that he is working diligently to achieve a resolution with the county. In fact, the terms of the agreement have been reached. It's just that this is not your typical agreement or method to achieve compliance. It's a little different than just obtaining a permit. There will be a real estate transaction. There will be a lot line adjustment. And what's necessary at this time is that there be terms identified in an agreement to memorialize and implement it. It's not that there's an agreement to agree. An agreement has been reached. From what I hear from the multiple attorneys in our office that are working on this matter, it will take three months at least to achieve compliance. But I assure you that the county has every interest in working with this property owner. We're seeking to obtain the property for well sites. This is something that the county wants and it's certainly not something that's going to languish. I can certainly answer any questions, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jennifer, you say three months. So if we would extend this to our April meeting, that gives you roughly three months. Do you think that will be sufficient time for something to happen? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, sir, I think it's sufficient time for more than something to happen. I think the agreement will be drafted and it will be implemented. There's also consultants working with the county on this case, and I don't see why that wouldn't be an appropriate date. I think that's a good suggestion that Mr. Zampogna made to this board, that he provide status checks by writing to this board. And if it's determined for some unforeseen circumstance that more time is Page 8 January 27, 2005 necessary, this board will know well in advance and will make sure that it's with sufficient detail. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: Cliff? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: May I make a suggestion, that rather than April, we do it to May? That gives them an extension for one more month and maybe everything would be completed by then and we wouldn't have to then make a term of extending it. Just to err on the side of caution. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would certainly be an option. I guess if we do anything, I would recommend that the board consider if we make a motion to do this, we make the motion contingent upon the respondent's attorney filing a report with us at least five days prior to each meeting before whatever date is we place it. If we make it in May, then before our February and our March and our April meeting, at least five days before that meeting, we would expect a status report of what's going on. I would also state that what we should do is put out that failure to provide a status report would be basis to immediately place the case on our agenda and proceed, so that we don't have excuses like gee, I forgot. That doesn't work with me, I'm sorry. You make the report. If you fail to make the report, my recommendation to my fellow board members would be we put you on the next agenda and we proceed. No excuses. MR. ZAMPOGNA: I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We expect you to do something. MR. ZAMPOGNA: We will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not just gee, I got an extension. MR. PONTE: Is what you're suggesting that he file a report every month? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Until it comes up in whatever the Page 9 --__.0"__- .. ". "~-------'"..._., January 27, 2005 day is you pick. April, May, whatever date. But he has to do it monthly. And if he fails to do it, then it would be placed on the next agenda. Ifhe failed to do it in February, then in March we're going to proceed with it. There's no excuses, none of this I'm working with the county . We gave you a chance, we've been nice a lot. And we're going to proceed. Understand, sir? MR. ZAMPOGNA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's if the membership agrees. That's just my recommendation. MS. DUSEK: I have a little bit different take on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. DUSEK: For the most part I agree with everything you've said. Hearing the strength from the assistant county attorney and how diligently they all are working and how many people are working on this, I can't imagine that it's not going to come to a conclusion within that four months. I do think that he should give us a report every month. But stipulating that five days prior, and if he didn't do the five days prior to that we put the case on the next month, I don't agree with that. I do agree that we should give him the four months and that he should give us a report every month. Failing to do so, I don't feel strongly that we should just automatically put the case on the next month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I said that because this has been going on for a while now, and it's -- you know, we need to get some kind of action. I don't think this board is here just to continue something forever. We need to make some kind of decision. They have the right to ask us to do something different, if they don't like what we've done. I just think we need to get on with it rather than oh, let's grant an extension. Well, then three months later let's grant another extension __ Page 10 January 27,2005 MS. DUSEK: I think we've heard that they certainly are doing something. And that's the difference. And this sounds like it's much more complicated than -- MS. BARNETT: Well, this is a case, I think that there was a question as to whether the county owned the property originally or the property line was on the individual's side and there was a disagreement back and forth and they're trying to iron that out. If I recall, the actual problem is that he built the building, had all the permits and everything, and it happens to be on the county property . So I think this is a two-sided issue. The county has to come into agreement with him or vice versa for them to settle this. And I don't think it's either party's fault that they have to come. And it takes time to get to that type of agreement. Because as Jennifer has stated, they have to redraw the lines, and that takes some time. I'm of the feeling that we need to go ahead. And I know we've given extensions, and we don't usually like to give extensions. I think this is not a case where anybody is in harm. There isn't anything pending that is of danger to anybody. It's a matter of who owns the property and where the line is. And I think it's something that we should be able to look at in that retrospect and go ahead and grant this final -- hopefully final extension. I kind of agree with Cliff, though, that I do believe the gentleman needs to give us a monthly update, if we give him an extension. And the five days is so that our recorder can get it into our packet. And I think that that's fair. Also, I like the fact that if you don't do it, I think we have the right to say okay, we have something we have to do. Because we want to know what's going on. Because we've done a couple of these and people have said that they were going to come back to us and then we didn't hear from them. So I'm kind of in agreement with Cliff in that. Page 11 January 27,2005 MR. PONTE: Well, I agree that that should be extended, but I'm having a little problem with the monthly reporting. I'm not comfortable with that. It seems like a make work project, and we would just be repeating ourselves. And perhaps every 60 days we should have a report, but I think monthly is just creating work. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I only say that for one reason: We had a case, we had a motion, we had an extension. This is the fourth time this case has been before us and now it's going to come back for a fifth time. Talk about make work. MR. BOWIE: I think I would concur with the requirement of monthly reports. I'd like to hear what's going on and, further, that what is going on is in fact in good faith. So I think in addition to us getting monthly reports, I'd also like to each month get some affirmation from the county, through Jennifer or whomever, that the progress in that report is still continuing as a matter of good faith. And I think that too should be a requirement. MR. HEMES: On another issue, Michelle, could you give us an indication of how much expenditures have been placed on this case to date, as it has been running for quite a while? MS. ARNOLD: Do you want that number as of today? MR. HEMES: Please. MS. ARNOLD: Let's see, we do have that number. I'm going from memory, because I was asked this question and it was brought to the board's attention on Tuesday. I think it's about 800 and some dollars, almost $900. MR. ZAMPOGNA: $815 and change. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. HEMES: Have you paid any of these charges? MR. ZAMPOGNA: No, but my client is willing to pay all charges that are due to the Code Enforcement Board and also due to the county. We have accepted that we will pay for all application fees and all Page 12 January 27,2005 survey fees and all the costs necessary to implement this. MR. HEMES: Thank you. MR. BOWIE: Well, I'd like to make a motion that we grant an extension of time in this case, Board of County Commissioners versus Robert D. France, Case No. 2004-001; the extension be no later than our May, 2005 meeting. And that the extension be conditioned upon the respondent reporting to us in writing within five days of each successive monthly meeting. And further conditioned upon the county affirming that progress toward resolution is continuing in good faith. And that failing either condition being met, that no further extension will be deemed granted beyond that month in question. MS. DUSEK: I can't go along with that. Especially the latter part. I could go along with the first part, but with circumstances -- what we want people to do is come into compliance. Both parties, both the county and the respondent, have been working on this. And they're not -- it's not as though they've slacked at all. And to penalize them if they can't come into compliance in four months, which I think they will, to say that we would never give another extension, I think is not fair. MR. BOWIE: Well, this doesn't say will never give another extension. It just says if there's any evidence that the progress is not continuing in good faith over these four successive months -- MS. DUSEK: I think we'll know that. MR. BOWIE: -- that at that point we will review it, and we will not be deemed to continue with the extension beyond that month. Nor I think does it prevent us from granting a further extension, come May, 2005, if we're asked to do so. MS. DUSEK: I'd like for you to simplify that motion, that's my personal feeling, so I that would feel -- MR. BOWIE: Well, my concern I think is shared by the Chairman. There's been a continuance, there's been an extension. This has gone on and on and on. And I think yes, maybe we can allow Page 13 January 27, 2005 it to go on for four additional months, but I think there needs to be some fairly stringent conditions as to allowing it to go on any further. MS. DUSEK: I might just remind everybody again that this is not your ordinary case of just getting a permit. It's very complicated. And that's why it has taken so long. So I think there should be some thought when we decide on the motion. MR. BOWIE: To me it just sounds like another real estate transaction. Parties sit down, sign a contract, this is where the boundary is, this land is deeded to this land, switch, swap, whatever, done deal. Maybe the bureaucracy moves a little slower than the private sector was, but I can't see why a real estate transaction of this nature can't be negotiated and put in writing within 30 days, deeds and all. MR. PONTE: Let me ask the county: Is there a reason? MS. BELPEDIO: My understanding is that it's being determined whether or not the property that will be acquired from Mr. France is suitable for well sites. There's requirements for well sites and where they're placed and how deep they are. So it's not just a matter of you can put a well site on any parcel or property of any dimension. That's my understanding. MR. BOWIE: So failing that determination, there's no deal with him them, correct? MS. BELPEDIO: I think with everything there can be terms that will make it work. It's just a matter of what size works. And where it is. It's a matter of is it one foot over from this side or one foot over from that side. It's not that there's any circumstances that would lead me to believe that it's a deal breaker. There's -- it's just a matter of making sure that the county has what it needs for the well sites and Mr. France has what he needs to meet his setbacks on his property to allow him to have the metal shed structure. MR. BOWIE: Again, I'm amenable to go with the four months. But I'd sure like it hedged with certain conditions so that we can verify Page 14 January 27, 2005 the progress and the continued good faith of that progress. MS. DUSEK: I would agree with that motion. MS. BARNETT: I think I'm getting the opinion that you would agree to the motion as long -- that they would have to come back and give us updates -- MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. BARNETT: -- you just don't want us to have the hammer-- MS. DUSEK: I don't want -- MS. BARNETT: -- that if they don't do the update, that we would then -- MS. DUSEK: That we would then penalize them from not asking for another extension -- or granting another extension. So if you simplify it to that, if you can amend your motion -- MR. BOWIE: Well, I -- MS. DUSEK: -- that we could give them four months and -- MR. BOWIE: Yeah, I would just add that nothing in this motion would preclude them at any time from asking for another extension. Which -- MS. DUSEK: Would you do me-- MR. BOWIE: -- I think goes without saying. MS. DUSEK: Would you just repeat your motion, the way you want it voted on? MR. BOWIE: It's that we grant the motion to extend. That the motion -- the extension be no later than our May, 2005 meeting. That the extension be conditioned on two things: Number one, that the respondent submit a written status report of five days prior to each of our successive monthly meetings through May, 2005. And further, condition number two, upon the county affirming that progress is still continuing each month in good faith. And that nothing further in this motion precludes the respondent from requesting a further extension of time, if circumstances should warrant. Page 15 ~~-- January 27,2005 MS. BARNETT: You took out then the fact that if they don't send us the update -- MR. BOWIE: We would, I presume, have that option to amend this extension of time -- MS. DUSEK: I'll second your motion before it changes. MR. BOWIE: Because we would -- MS. BARNETT: I was just trying to clarify. MR. BOWIE: If the conditions are not met -- if the conditions are not met, we would always be able to curtail the extension at that point in time. So I don't have any problem with that. MS. DUSEK: Did you get the motion? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I'm seconding the motion before there was any more discussion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand the motion, I understand the second. Jean, I have a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The last part of Ray's motion said it was contingent upon the county affirming. We have no power over the county doing anything. MS. RAWSON: I don't think we can order the county to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This really has no bearing on this motion. Because we can't order the county to do anything at all. MS. RAWSON: We can certainly-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can request them -- MS. RAWSON: We can certainly-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- but we can't put it in an order -- MS. RAWSON: -- ask counsel to give us a status report five days prior to the meetings. We can certainly grant the extension till May 26th; that's our May meeting. I don't know if we can order the county to affirm. Page 16 January 27,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's no way that we can put in an order that the county has to do something. So I think that part of it is not going to be applicable. Am I correct there? MR. BOWIE: See, my concern would be, if we don't have an affirmation from the county's side that what we're hearing from the respondent each month in these status reports that this is in fact in good faith, we could get forth months of flimflam-ery -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unfortunately we have -- MR. BOWIE: -- playing for time. We've already seen some extensions of time here, and I wouldn't tolerate that. MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe the county's adverse to providing that information, if you -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We just -- it means nothing in an order, because we have no power. MS. RAWSON: As a practical matter, the person that's going to present you with the status report is the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And we can request -- MS. RAWSON: So you can ask questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, we can ask the county that when they present the respondent's status report, could they also affirm that this is in fact true and you all are working together? MS. BELPEDIO: Sure, we can-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the best we can do is ask you to do that. MS. BELPEDIO: Well, you can, but certainly we can agree to it today and it can be put into the order as binding as an agreement from the county. We're not adverse to providing you with the affirmation. MS. BARNETT: Can we change the one word, rather than requiring the county -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I need from Jean is, is it legal for us to do anything like that? I don't want to write an order that's not -- MS. RAWSON: I think if you have the respondent file the status Page 17 ..- >_.._---_.,-^_.'""'--,.--..~_.,......_...~ '<--.--- January 27,2005 report to the board within five days, then the county is going to present it to you, and then you have the option, as of course you also do, to ask the county and the county attorney questions. And if it's not going well, I think she'll tell you. So-- MS. DUSEK: You're suggesting that we leave that part of the -- MS. RAWSON: I am. MS. DUSEK: Okay. Ray, you'll amend that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We still don't have any power. MS. DUSEK: We don't have the right to do that? MR. BOWIE: Then I think the second condition, rather than requiring an affirmation of good faith progress from the county, that we make it again conditioned upon the written status report. The first condition would remain as is. And perhaps number two could be that our continuing the extension of time will be only upon our own determination -- MS. DUSEK: Well, that would be the case-- MR. BOWIE: -- that progress is being made in good faith. MS. DUSEK: I don't think you have to put that in the motion, though. MR. BOWIE: Well, I think the respondent quite honestly needs to be kept under the gun. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with that. MR. BOWIE: Yeah, I think we need to keep them under the gun. I just don't want to see four months of written reports stating basically we're trying and we're going to try again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, they've had -- they've been working on it for nine months and now we're giving them another four months. I'm not happy about this, but I understand. Okay, how about this last sentence where -- I like what Ray said on his last sentence where we can -- it's our determination that when we review the status, as to making the next decision. That's fine, isn't . J ? It, ean. Page 18 ,.,-"~_._---~,^~,--,,.- -'"--- January 27,2005 MS. RAWSON: That's okay. MS. DUSEK: Wouldn't we automatically do that? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, but if it's in writing, then it's there, the respondent and his attorney's attention that you are on notice that what you present to us is going to be reviewed and affect this continuance, rather than be just understood. MS. DUSEK: So what we're doing is basing this motion on our review of the report each month. And if we don't like the review, then the extension of time is canceled. Is that basically -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, what he submits-- MS. DUSEK: -- what you're saying? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- in the report and what the county tells us doesn't match up. We can then -- MR. BOWIE: Curtail the extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- call for it to be presented before us as a -- on the next meeting. In other words, if he submits something that says A -- MS. DUSEK: Yeah, I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and the county says B, I mean, they're supposed to be working together, why don't they match. So you still want to second? MS. DUSEK: I'm thinking. Maybe somebody else wants to second. Because '-- MS. BARNETT: I'll second it, just so that it gets through, and then we can vote on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second. She's withdrawing her second because she's not happy with the change, and Sheri is seconding the new -- the amended motion. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the item? (No response.) Page 19 January 27, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carries. Okay, sir, you understand? MR. ZAMPOGNA: Yes, sir, thank you very much. MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Public hearings. We have a stipulation on Case 2004-074. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And supervisor John Marsh will present the stipulation that was agreed to. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MARSH: For the record, my name is John Marsh, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is Case No. 2004-74, County versus Keith Heckman. The violation was illegal land use and non-C.O. of a fence permit. To this point, the illegal land use has been abated. The only violation that still exists is the C.O. of the fence. There was a prior fence permit which may be able to be C.O.'d, so the respondent has agreed to pay costs in the amount of $372.96, and he's already abated the items on the property. And he's agreed to get a fence permit and/or C.O. within 30 days or a fine of $50 per day, as the violation continues. MS. DUSEK: I'm sorry, the fence permit and C.O. would be in Page 20 January 27, 2005 how many days? Thirty, did you say? MR. MARSH: Thirty days. There was already a fence permit issued, but it was never C.O.'d. So it's a possibility that permit can be C.O.'d. Ifnot, then get a new permit. MR. HEMES: Can this be accomplished in 30 days? MR. MARSH: It should be. It's just a matter of a fence permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fence permits, Michelle, aren't they pretty quick? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. They can get an express permit for a fence. MS. BARNETT: Was there anything stipulated that ifhe didn't MR. MARSH: Right, if he doesn't, then the fine of $50 per day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Heckman, do you agree to all this? MR. HECKMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No problem? MR. HECKMAN: Ain't gonna matter. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement between the county and Mr. Heckman. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to accept the stipulated agreement between the county and Mr. Heckman. MR. BOWIE: Should the terms of the stipulation be stated for the record? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, the county-- MS. RAWSON: I think he did state them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, you satisfied with that? MS. RAWSON: It's basically only the fence. The other has been abated -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- right? Page 21 January 27,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's been abated, and they've agreed on a cost. And he will obtain a permit or C.O. within 30 days and $50 a day. MR. HECKMAN: If they'll give me one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, everybody on board? Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, gentlemen. We also have a stipulated agreement on Case 2004-071, Helen Stormer. I hope I said that right. MR. LETOURNEAU: Do I go? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to have you sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This case resolves around two guest house type structures that were built on this property with plumbing, electric and septic improvements that were never -- a building permit was never obtained, inspection, C. O. Before this meeting I met with Ms. Colon, who is the property owner's daughter and has I guess power of attorney for that property Page 22 . .~_._---,,-> January 27, 2005 and they've agreed to a stipulated agreement. It basically follows the guidelines of my recommendation, except we changed the 90 days to 120 days to get the violations abated. And I'd like to point out that the permits have already been applied for. They haven't been obtained yet, but they've already been applied for. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you both agreed, Jeff, on the obtaining the permits within 120 days and/or $100 a day fine? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you ruled out the demolition permit part of it? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's still part of the agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, as you presented it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Jeff, I have one question. Do we have proof of Power of Attorney? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't have proof of that, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll ask her in a minute. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure whether or not Jennifer obtained that information. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's just ask her. If she's here, let's find out if she has -- ma'am, do you have Power of Attorney on this property? MS. COLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Can you give a copy of that to the county? MS. COLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, do you agree with what Mr. Letourneau said on this agreement that you both agreed to? MS. COLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any problems at all? Page 23 January 27, 2005 MS. COLON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Okay, we have a stipulated agreement presented to us between the county and the -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the operational costs were also added into the agreements. MR. BOWIE: And what is the amount? MS. ARNOLD: It's $647.77. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but until it's completed, there'll be other operational costs. So what the board is going to do is request that you pay the operational costs whenever this is over. Whatever that amount is. That's what we do normally, and it's not that we tell you to pay something today and then for the next three months you get off scot-free. Sorry. When it's done, it's done, and whatever you owe, you're going to have to pay, okay? MS. COLON: Yes, sir. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement between the county, Board of County Commissioners versus Helen Stormer, with the understanding that it would be 190 days from -- excuse me, I'm looking at 90 -- 120 days from the date of this hearing. And to include all operational costs. This is from the original recommendation made by the county. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Also, what you left out is there's a fine of $100 a day if she fails to comply. MS. DUSEK: That's in the original recommendation, so-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- I said within the original recommendation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but we -- Jean, you got all that? MS. RAWSON: I think I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Jeff, do you want to -- for the Page 24 January 27, 2005 record, do you want to tell us about the alternate of getting a demolition permit, since that was part of the agreement? That hasn't been read into the record, so would you do that for us? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, must obtain a Collier County demolition permit and remove the structure and all related debris to an area intended for final disposal within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's if she fails to do the first item, correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Which she's already applied for the first permit, so, you know, I highly doubt that's going to come into effect, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just -- you have two options, ma'am: You can get the regular permits and do what you want to do, or you can get a demolition permit. So you have two options. MS. COLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that was -- that's what you understood originally? MS. COLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we have a motion from Bobbie. MR. HEMES: And a second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a second? MR. HEMES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Anymore questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifnone, all those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. Page 25 January 27, 2005 MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. We have another stipulated agreement, Case No. 2004-081, Douglas White. MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm David Bryant, I represent Mr. White, who's present before you today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, one moment, please. Jeff, are you ready? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, I am-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, just a moment. Cherie'? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is this Mr. White back here? MR. BRYANT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bring him up and swear him in, because we're going to ask him a couple questions. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: This case involves a guest house/office structure built without obtaining a Collier County building permit for it. I met with Mr. White and his attorney, Mr. Bryant, this morning before the meeting and they have agreed to a stipulated agreement. Basically it follows the same guidelines as my recommendation, but we added a little note at the bottom. It says go through the whole -- Page 26 "_"_~>.·._~·w.,.,_.·". 11M. .._,- January 27, 2005 number one, obtaining the permit for the structure within 60 days, a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. And must obtain all required inspections, certificate of occupancy or completion within 60 days of the permit issuance, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Or after the 120th day from this date is what Mr. Bryant asked us to add in there and we agreed to it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Run that by me again? Or what now? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, let him explain it better. MR. BRYANT: I don't think Jeff inserted the addendum. What we want to be sure is there's not any question about if Mr. White didn't do what he has agreed to do, which there's no question he's going to, that we would know when the fine would start to run. And what the agreement was is that it would begin the 120th day after the date of this hearing today, if he does not complete everything he's supposed to do, or he's required to demolish the building. MS. BARNETT: That's not how it reads, though, because you have -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So what you're saying that you and the county agreed to basically is you get 120 days from today, and if you don't do it, then it's $100 a day. MR. BRYANT: That's correct. Because we've got 60 days first to get the permit, which we should have hopefully within -- I'm hoping within five weeks. According to what I have been told at the planning and building department, it's taking roughly six weeks to get a permit through permitting. So the county was kind enough to agree to 60 days to get the permit. And then 60 days after that he has got to have completed everything the permit is required of him. And if he doesn't have that completed within that final 60 days, which would be the 120th day from this hearing, then the fine would start to run. MS. BARNETT: I understand what --y Page 27 January 27, 2005 MR. PONTE: That's a half a year. MS. BARNETT: -- you're saying, but that's not what this is saying. This is giving it two breakdowns. If you don't finish the first item within 60 days, then a fine of $100 a day kicks in. So you have a 60-day window there. The second is if you completed that, that's fine, you don't have that $100 a day. But if you don't have the $100 a day, then you have the second part that states that if you have not received all the required inspections and the C.O. within 60 days after you've obtained the permit, then another $100 a day kicks in. MR. BRYANT: Well, in all due respect, Ms. Barnett, I don't read it that way. I don't see two $100 fines there. I think it's one $100 fine. But I wanted to be sure that there was no question when it would start. And the reason I was requesting this of the county, and Ms. Arnold -- Michelle has been just very kind to meet with us, her staffs met with us, and we've worked this out so that we've got plenty of time to get the permit. Because that's the only thing I'm worried about, dealing with planning and zoning a lot, the permit process has been very slow. That's so why I wanted it to be clear, that if we haven't done everything within 120 days of today's date, the fine starts. MS. BARNETT: I understand what you're saying. MS. ARNOLD: And I read through the stipulation that was signed, and it is confusing the way it's written. And I talked to Jeff and what he's indicating is that he -- he's in no objection to just extending everything to 120 days. So they would have 120 days to obtain the permit and also the certificate of occupying. And then therefore -- MS. BARNETT: I think it's a lot clearer-- MS. ARNOLD: -- $100 per day. MS. BARNETT: -- and that's what I was getting to -- Page 28 "'.---"^ January 27, 2005 MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. BARNETT: -- going to Jeffnext. MR. BRYANT: I should have had Ms. Arnold speak -- MR. PONTE: We're talking about a half year, 180 days? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, we're talking about 120 days to get the permit, all the inspections and get the certificate of occupancy. MS. DUSEK: With just one fine? MR. LETOURNEAU: With just one fine, yes. $100 a day fine to kick in if they don't have all that completed within 120 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Does that negate the demolition part of this, though? MR. BOWIE: Yeah, is that withdrawn? MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir, it is. And we agreed -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They're leaving that out. MR. BRYANT: And I would share with the board also that the drawings have all been completed and hopefully we'll be submitting them by next week. And I provided the county with a letter from the individual and company that's doing all the drawings, telling them that we are following within this time frame. MS. DUSEK: And have you agreed to operational costs? MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am, we have. Today's date it's $537.26. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, we don't want to put an amount in. We want -- just the sentence will read -- I mean, I know what they agreed to, but the board has the right to change any of these stipulated agreements. And my recommendation to my board members, fellow board members, would be that he's responsible for all operational costs, as usual, upon completion. MR. BRYANT: And we have no -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If this is going to go on for another 120 days, there's going to be costs. So if you put a number in today, the Page 29 January 27,2005 number's the number. You don't want to do that. MR. BOWIE: Well, I'd like to move that we accept the . stipulation as it's been related to us, and that that stipulation include respondent paying all the operational costs, and obtaining building permits, as required, as well as all required inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy within 120 days of this date or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day this violation continues. MR. BRYANT: We have no objection to that, members of the board. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before we go on, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand what we -- MR. WHITE: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we understand the agreement. And we made one minor change. Do you understand that? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have a problem? MR. WHITE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you, sir. Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor to accept the stipulated agreement, with a minor change on the operational costs. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Page 30 January 27, 2005 MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. BRYANT: Thank you. And I just want to thank Ms. Arnold and her staff for being so helpful in bringing this to a conclusion, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Okay, now, regular public hearings. Case 2004-075, Ralph and Jean Taylor. Jean, are you okay? MS. RAWSON: I'm fine, thank you. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB Case No. 2004-075, Board of County Commissioners versus Ralph and Jean Taylor. The violation is that of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. The violation is described as no permits for alterations of structure, improvement to property prior to obtaining permit, electrical, plumbing, doors, windows, walls. The violations exists at 219 Second Street South, Immokalee, Florida. The person in charge of the location where the violation exists are Ralph and Jean Taylor. The violation was first observed on August 6th, 2003. A notice of violation was served on August 13th, 2003. Violation was to be corrected on or before September 4th, 2003. A reinspection occurred on December 29th, 2004. And as of that date, the violation still remained. I will now pass the case to the investigator, John Marsh. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before we begin, are the Taylors here? Okay, go ahead, Mr. Marsh, thank you. Page 3 1 January 27, 2005 MR. MARSH: For the record again, John Marsh, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. On August 6th, 2003, a complaint was received anonymously that improvements were being made to a structure at 219 Second Street South, Immokalee, without permits. MR. BONANNO: I'm sorry, John? Over here. I'm sorry, I have to introduce the packet into evidence. My fault, sorry . MR. MARSH: I'm sorry. MR. BONANNO: No, no, my fault. The county submitted a packet of evidence labeled Exhibit A for this case. We'd like to have it entered as Exhibit A, please. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BONANNO: Go ahead, John, I'm sorry. MR. MARSH: No problem. This case was started by Investigator Rick Torres. He made a visit the same day that the complaint came in. He observed Page 32 January 27, 2005 improvements being made to said property, interior walls, electrical, plumbing and windows. No permits were posted. There are no permits on file with the county. On August 7th, Investigator Rick Torres returned to the site, posted a stop work order, and a notice of violation for making improvements without a permit. A notice of violation was sent certified mail to the property owners, Ralph W. and M. Jean Taylor of Fort Myers. It was learned by Investigator Rick Torres that the property was in the process of being sold, but to this date no change of ownership has occurred. Investigator Rick Torres and myself have made many site visits and had conversations with the respective buyer, his attorney and contact with Mr. Taylor, but the violation remains and no permits have been issued to this date. MS. BARNETT: I just have one question, and it's a curiosity question more than anything else. Why did it take from September 4th to today before we saw it? I mean, that's over a year. MR. MARSH: When the case first started back then, there was a prospective buyer for the property, so it was the idea that the prospective buyer was going to get the property and get the permits and such. So everything's been going back and forth between the buyer, his attorney and the property owner. Rather than us pushing the case along without giving them a chance to -- you know, the new buyer to get the property, because he's the one that actually was starting to make the improvements -- some kind of a deal between the buyer and the property owner, so the buyer went in and started making, you know, improvements. So that's why it's taken this long. Finally got to the point we said, well, nothing's moving along, nothing's happening, let's take it to the board and we'll get something happening. MR. PONTE: Excuse me, the windows in the photographs look open. Is the building open and accessible to homeless people? And is Page 33 --->-.--.....,.._~._,,_.....,,--, ,.",,---.,~-,,-.,.." January 27, 2005 there any evidence that it is being used as a shelter? MR. MARSH: I was there yesterday for an inspection. It does look like people are living in there. Some of the doors on the new walls that were put up look like they have locks on them. So people are out of them at the present time, but they've locked their rooms. The holes that you see that are windows, some have fans stuffed in them, some have some makeshift bars put on them. But they are basically still open. MR. PONTE: So there's a safety hazard for anybody living in this building. MR. MARSH: I guess you could say that. MR. PONTE : Well, if we say that, then I would think -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: John, do we have -- MR. PONTE: -- we have a different problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have basically people living, possibly living in a structure that has not been C.O.'d for these improvements; i.e., the electrical, the plumbing and all this? MR. MARSH: Right, there's a possibility. I can't say for sure there are. Just -- I was not allowed access into the building. The owner or the manager were not there so, therefore, I couldn't get in. I could only see from the door being opened down this hallway. So I couldn't say for sure if there are people living in there or there aren't. MS. BARNETT: Is this a rental property? MR. MARSH: I would assume that that's what they're doing. At one time before they did all of this it was just a big open building with beds all in there, and they used to rent out a space, rent out a bed. Now evidently they put walls up so they could have rooms. MR. PONTE: So what you noticed is when you looked into the building and along the corridor, that there are a series of locked doors inside the building? Is that what I'm seeing? MR. MARSH: Yes. Either the owner or management locked them up so people won't go in them or -- Page 34 January 27, 2005 MR. PONTE: They're padlocks? MR. MARSH: Yes. Right, that's -- MR. HEMES: John, do you have any idea how many people are living in this structure? MR. MARSH: No, sir. MR. HEMES: Guess? You know, six, 10, 12. MR. MARSH: Well, this is only one section of the structure. This would be the right side of the structure. There's another whole part of the unit on the other side to the left side, which we have no problem with at the present time. At this time I think there are four rooms on each side of the hallway. The rooms probably are maybe -- and I'm only guessing, maybe eight to 10 foot wide by maybe 10 foot deep. So they're not very large rooms. MS. BARNETT: Are they still renting out --like in the other side of the structure that's just open, are they still renting out space? MR. MARSH: I can't say for sure on that. MS. BARNETT: Because I'm wondering, does this fall underneath the code for the amount of people allowed to stay per square foot in an area? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It wasn't written up for that, so we can't really -- MS. BARNETT: I'm uncomfortable about this whole thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well-- MR. MARSH: I am, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we can't say anything about that, because it's not what he was written up for. MR. PONTE: One other question, Investigator. Is there any evidence around of people using the building, like are there bicycles outside or carts or anything of that nature? MR. MARSH: Yes, there are people that hang around there, sitting around out front, sitting around out back. Page 35 January 27, 2005 It's a section of the area where there are a lot of homeless people, a lot of people that aren't working; they just wonder around, hang out. It's hard to say who belongs where, really. Sometimes you see them on this corner, next time you see them on another corner. There just -- they wander around all day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: John, this 30 days to get proper permits that they need for what they've done -- and obviously they're not finished, based on the photos -- is that reasonable? MR. MARSH: They have had two different contractors in that were going to get blueprints and plans, and that brought up -- and supposedly -- I really believe the whole thing hinges on the person that's buying the property getting the paperwork done so he can have ownership of the property. And then I believe he has the paperwork ready for the permit. His attorney stated to me that he had papers drawn up and everything to getting (sic) with the owner of the property, you know, to do just that. So it's a matter of getting that done. So maybe this is just the push to get things done and then they can get the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Based on what we see in these pictures, if we issued an order stating that, you know, they had to get proper permits and inspections and -- for any improvements and secure the building, but prior to that we ordered them that, you know, they can't, I don't want to say grant, but they must vacate that section of the property until it comes up to code, can we do that? Since we have all these open windows and I see wires hanging from the wall and open boxes. I mean, it really is -- looks unsafe, just from the pictures. I haven't been there, but -- MR. BOWIE: Well, there's been no -- nothing established that any of these spaces are occupied. They may be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we want to make sure that they're Page 36 January 27,2005 not. MR. BOWIE: Perhaps we could incorporate into the order that the premises be secured as to the windows and doors, be secured against public entry. MS. RAWSON: I don't think we can order people to vacate. I mean, I don't really think we have that kind of power. I think you can certainly order that the windows and the doors be secured while they're getting the permits. But I don't believe we can evict people. MR. MARSH: If I may say -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If it's getting ready to be sold -- I mean, we need to get something on the record, otherwise we're going to change hands and we're going to have to start all over again. MR. MARSH: If I may say, the fire inspector has been over there, and he says he believes that the building would be able to pass for permitting and plans and such. The pictures that you see are from the beginning of when this was first started, but since then, they have gone in and they have done work in there. And they have covered up the open boxes and such and been taking care of that, so there really isn't the hazard that you think it may be. The only thing that possibly is a problem right now is the open holes in the walls. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Chairman, considering the amount of time that's passed, is it prudent to put a time date or limit on when this work should be completed by? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we're giving him 30 days, if we do anything, to get the proper permits and inspections. And I assume when he gets the permits for these improvements coming with the permits, would they not have to get a C.O. for the improvement? MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Within that 30-day period? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I asked John. He said it could happen. Page 37 January 27,2005 MR. MARSH: They should be able to get the permit and then get the C.O. Because like I say, they have at times continued to work and finished up the proj ect there, even though there was a stop work order on it. MR. PONTE: I would think we'd have a hazard and that the order that we might make should be two parts: That is, secure the building, block those windows, make sure the door is sealed. And that to be done within the next 10 days, if not sooner. MS. BARNETT: I have a question for Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: If the building has not been permitted and it hasn't got a C.O., then it can't technically have occupants, can it? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but we -- they're not written up for not having the building C.O.'d. It's they've made improvements that aren't permitted or C.O.'d. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The structure's bigger than what we're seeing, so that's two different things. MS. BARNETT: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make this motion then. In the Case No. 2004-75, Board of County Commissioners versus Ralph W. and Jean Taylor, that there be a finding that no permit has been obtained for alteration of the structure or improvements to the property or the obtaining of permits for electrical, plumbing, doors, windows or walls, and that this violation be found to exist. MS. BARNETT: Second. MS. DUSEK: Violations of which sections? MR. BOWIE: The stipulated Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of county ordinance 91-102, as amended. MS. DUSEK: The Collier County Land Development Code. MR. BOWIE: Right. Page 38 January 27,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a -- MR. BOWIE: Only one that has that number. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board -- I'm sorry, any nos? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board? MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make this motion: That the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by, number one, securing all exterior openings in the structure against public entry or occupancy within 10 days of this date, or a fine of $50 per day will be assessed for each day that violation continues. Number two, obtain permits for all alterations or improvements within 30 days of this date, or a fine of $50 per day will be assessed for each day that violation continues. Two separate violations, two separate fines. MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. MS. DUSEK: Should we not include that they get the C.O. within a certain amount of time? If they get the permits and it's not C.O.'d, it's still a violation. Page 39 January 27, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Isn't that a requirement of the permit? MR. BOWIE: Isn't that stated in any permit? MS. ARNOLD: Well, they would have, if they obtain a permit, six months to obtain an inspection. So the permitting process goes on and on until the inspections are requested and then a C.O. is obtained. But if the board would desire that this -- the improvements be done more expediently, then yes, you would probably want to stipulate that they obtain a C.O. within a certain amount of time. MR. BOWIE: But the mere fact they get a permit will give them, by default, six months, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Six months by default. Without you saying get this done within so many days, they will have six months to get an inspection. Not necessarily a C.O., an inspection. And then once they obtain an inspection, they then are granted another six months to go through -- so the permitting process gives them a lot of time to obtain a C.O. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Bowie, generally I think we usually do include that after they get the permit, they have so many days to then get the inspections and the final C. O. before we move to the second half. I was curious if you would like to amend your motion to include that. MR. BOWIE: Well, I'd be happy to amend it further then that they be required to get all inspections and certificate of occupancy for the structure within 120 days -- I think would be reasonable -- 120 days of the date of the permit they secure, or again a fine of $50 per day will be assessed for each day that violation continues. So that would be a third violation set of fines. MR. PONTE: Well, I second the amended motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion on the motion as amended and seconded? (No response). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying Page 40 .,--" January 27,2005 aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Marsh. MR. MARSH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. Let's take 10 minutes. It's 10:34. Let's be back at 10:44, please. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we call the Code Enforcement Board back to order, please. Back to our public hearings. The next case being 2004-078, with Richard Blocker. MR. BONANNO: The code enforcement department has provided an exhibit of -- excuse me, a packet of information to the board that we request be entered as Exhibit A at this time, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. HEMES: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 41 '___M__"··_U.' January 27, 2005 MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, my name's Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. MR. BONANNO: I'm just going to read some stuff on the record before you go, okay? Her first time. MS. PEREZ: Everybody's looking at me. I thought that was my clue. MR. BONANNO: The violation is that of Sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, and Sections 104.1.1, 104.1.3.5, 105.5, 106.1.2, and 106.3.1 of the Florida Building Code. The violation is described as an unpermitted shed structure in the rear yard, utilized as a Laundromat, with operable washers and dryers in a village residential zoned parcel. The violation exists at 1421 Peach Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. The person in charge of that location is Richard Blocker. The violation was first observed on December 15th, 2003. A notice of violation was served on December 29th, 2003. The violation was to be corrected by January 26th, 2004. A reinspection occurred on December 21 st, 2004, and as of that date, the violation still remained. I will now turn it over to our eager investigator, Ms. Perez. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. On December 15th of2003, I initiated the case as a patrol case. While visiting surrounded areas on pending cases that I had, I observed a woman drive towards the shed, which had the front light on. She then entered and she remained inside the shed for several minutes until coming out with a basket full Page 42 January 27,2005 of clothes. I then presumed that the shed was being used as living quarters. I then made a thorough investigation on the property, which resulted in finding that the shed was being used as a Laundromat with multiple washers and dryers. No permits were found in our system or in the property card. And then on December 29th of2003, the notice of violation was received by certified mail. After numerous visits to the site and phone calls to the property owner and the proposed contractor who was working on getting the permit for him, I had no result. The permit has still not been obtained and the violation still continues to remain. MS. DUSEK: When did you say you posted the violation? MS. PEREZ: The first day when I was on the case? It was on December 15th, 2003. MS. DUSEK: But after that, then you posted violation when? MS. PEREZ: Well, I went ahead that same day, I, you know, researched the property. I went onto the property and saw that it was the -- that they were actually using it as a Laundromat. And on December 29th, they signed for the green card, the property owner signed for the green card, certified mail. MR. PONTE: I take it this is coin operated, is it? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. BOWIE: Let me ask, other than this structure in which these laundry facilities are located, is there any other structure on this particular property? Is there a residence there as well? MS. PEREZ: Yes, there is a mobile home, a single-wide mobile home on the parcel. MR. BOWIE: And is that where the respondents reside, in that mobile home? MS. PEREZ: The owner? No, it is a rental property. MR. BOWIE: That's a rental. Page 43 January 27, 2005 MS. PEREZ: This is a rental property, yes. MR. HEMES: Is it registered as such with the county? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. HEMES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there more than one rental unit on the property? MS. PEREZ: He owns that -- where the shed is located, he rents that mobile home. And surrounding there there are other parcels that also belong to him that they -- or to the property owners that they also rent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we're assuming that these other trailers go to this shed to do their laundry? MS. PEREZ: Yeah, I -- more than likely, yeah. I haven't -- I didn't speak to the other properties, I just went towards this one. But more than likely, they are multiple, so they probably do use them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for the investigator? MR. PONTE: When you approached the owner, has (sic) he give you any explanation or detail or what he might do to correct the violation? MS. PEREZ: He had a contractor that I've spoken with him as well who said they were going to the county to get the permits, and just every time I'd call, either -- when I would call the property owner, Mr. Blocker, he'd tell me, you know, to talk to the contractor. I'd call the contractor and he was always coming down to get the permit. But in file in the computer system, they never applied for it. MR. PONTE: And the contract is still on the job, as it were. MS. PEREZ: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Ms. Perez. Page 44 January 27,2005 MS. BARNETT: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Finding of fact is -- MS. BARNETT: In the case, CEB Case No. 2004-078, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Richard A. and Jewel M. Blocker, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1,2.7.6.5, of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended in the Collier County Land Development Code. And 104.1.1,104.1.3.5,105.5, 106.1.2, and 106.31 of the Florida Building Code. Description of the violation is a non-permitted shed/structure in the rear yard, utilized as a Laundromat and operable washers and dryers in the village residential district. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. Ms. Perez, you may sit down. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, I was looking at the recommendation of the CEB, and I don't see any fines attached in regards to the violations. Do you have any suggestions or does the enforcement Page 45 January 27,2005 officer have any? MS. PEREZ: It's my first packet. I don't know exactly. From other cases they are saying that there is a long process within the county. I guess it's taken a while for the permits to go through. So if the board would be agree to do the 45 days for them to be able to get the permit and the C.O., I would -- MS. ARNOLD: The question is how much per day after -- MS. PEREZ: Well, I would say $50 per day, if the board agrees with that. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make a motion then in the case -- MR. HEMES: I have a question, before you go to your motion. The Blockers are not here -- I just want to make that point -- to represent themselves. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. and Mrs. Blocker? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't see them stand up before. Go ahead, sir. Okay. MR. BOWIE: Motion in Case No. 2004-078, that the board order the respondents to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case and abate all violations by either, number one, comply with all county codes, ordinances and state building code; by obtaining, if obtainable, all permits, inspections and certificate of completion required for the above described structure within 45 days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $50 per day will be levied for each day this violation continues. Or, second, to remove or demolish the offending structure, including all material and related debris, obtaining a demolition permit from this county for this purpose within 30 days and completing the demolition within 30 days, or a fine of $50 per day will be assessed for each day the violation continues. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. MS. DUSEK: The only change I'd like to see is that we keep the Page 46 January 27, 2005 days the same, so that they would have the choice within 45 days of either demolishing or getting their permits. MR. PONTE: I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ray? MR. BOWIE: No problem with that. I'll accept that, 45 days for either alternative. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sheri, you -- MS. BARNETT: I'll amend my -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have an amended motion and an amended second. The 45 days will be in both places, either to obtain all required permits, inspections and C ofC's (sic), or a permit to remove and demolish the structure; $50 a day attached to each one. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case is 2004-077. Martha Lee Johnson? MR. BONANNO: Actually, Mr. Chairman, that was the one that was extended earlier today. MS. RAWSON: That was continued. MR. BONANNO: We're on to Case 2004-076 versus (sic) Wind Page 47 "-.-. January 27,2005 Dancer Air Boat Tours. And Joseph Hamilton is the owner. Mr. Hamilton, are you present today? (N 0 response.) MR. BONANNO: I guess not. The Code Enforcement Department has provided a packet of information that we would ask be entered as Exhibit A at this time, please. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BONANNO: This is Case No. 2004-076, Board of County Commissioners versus Wind Dancer Air Boat Tours, Joseph Hamilton, owner. The violations are that of Sections 1.5.6,2.5.12.1,2.5.12.4.9, and 2.5.13.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 91-102, as amended. The violation is described as the Wind Dancer Air Boat Tours pole sign without required permit. The violation exists at 20610 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The person in charge of the location where the violation exists is Page 48 -"-'-'"'-"-'''-''-'~~' .. -- '--'''-.",-_.,,,,,,.,,~_.,,,.- January 27, 2005 Mr. Joseph Hamilton, owner. The violation was first observed on March 23rd, 2004. A notice of violation was served on August 27th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected on or before September 7th, 2004. A reinspection occurred on December 7th, 2004, and as of that date, the violation still remained. I will now turn the case over to Investigator Travis Snoderly. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNODERL Y: Good morning. Investigator Travis Snoderly, Code Enforcement Sign Specialist with Collier County. As you have already heard, on March 23rd, I made a site visit to Wind Dancer Air Boat Tours at 20610 Tamiami East, on routine patrol. I discovered a pole sign at the subject that did not have a permit number displayed -- as is required by Collier County ordinances -- advertising the air boat company operating business at that location up until yesterday. I conducted research and determined that while there is no valid permit on that sign, a permit 2003021572 had been issued. However, it expired without required inspections or certificates of occupancy on the site. On March 26th, 2004, a notice of violation was prepared and served certified mail to the property owner, Joseph Hamilton. It was returned undeliverable on April 9th, and subsequently personal service was made the same day on Arlene Daniels, who identified herself as the person in charge at the location. A corrected notice of violation was then prepared and served on August 27th to again Arlene Daniels, the person in charge of the Air Boat Tours Corporation. An extension was granted September 9th for seven days due to a death in the owner's family. Contact was made on subsequent occasions, which has yet to result in abatement of the violation. Page 49 January 27, 2005 To day, the property owner also has made no further contact with me regarding the violation. A visit yesterday determined and confirmed that the violation remains and no permit yet has been applied for. And this is the photograph -- well, it's a little difficult to see there -- as of yesterday . You should have a much better photograph in your packets. But the sign remains, as you can see, as it did with the photograph taken in May. MR. BOWIE: Let me -- one question, please. It's noted here in your report to us that there was previously a permit issued for a sign of some type. Did this respondent pull that previous permit, the same respondent? MR. SNODERL Y: Yes, that is true. Actually, a contractor that Mr. Hamilton had hired did pull a permit in 2003. No inspections or C.O. was ever issued for that permit. And that is one of the reasons why we provided so much time for the respondent to comply with our request, as well. MR. BOWIE: I just wanted to then confirm that it is possible for them to obtain a sign permit for this parcel that is zoned conservation use; is that correct? MR. SNODERL Y: That is correct. There is a conditional use on the parcel, which allows for the operation and any subsequent accoutrements that they'd like to put there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The sign that exists, since they had a -- you say they had a permit but it wasn't-- MS. BARNETT: Inspected. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- inspected and signed off on, correct? MR. SNODERL Y: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does this sign meet the sign ordinance, as it exists? MR. SNODERL Y: That question is one that is a very valid question. I have taken measurements of the sign and it measures Page 50 January 27,2005 approximately 23 -- in excess of 23 feet tall. As code enforcement's not involved directly with the process of permitting signs, I would leave that type of decision to our folks that are in sign review within the community development organization. However, it is of my opinion that the sign could receive a permit, with minor modifications being made. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's really where I was going. MR. KRAENBRING: Is this business still in operation? MR. SNODERL Y: Yes. As of yesterday, there were vehicles coming and going. I was not on the respondent's property; I was actually in the right-of-way. That's why I can't confirm that there was any business being transacted at the distance that I was from the property, though. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. First order of business is finding of fact that in fact a violation does exist. MS. DUSEK: I'll make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Wind Dancer Air Boat Tours, Mr. Joseph Hamilton, that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6,2.5.12.1,2.5.12.4.9,2.5.13.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 91-102, as amended. Description of the violation: Wind Dancer Air Boat Tours pole sign without required permit. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 51 January 27,2005 MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that in Case No. 2004-076, Board of County Commissioners versus Wind Dancer Air Boat Tours, Mr. Joseph Hamilton, that the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by, number one, obtain permit for the subject pole sign, if available, and all required inspections, including certificate of completion; or, number two, remove the pole sign within 30 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be assessed for each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What about the -- MR. BOWIE: I don't think we can do that. The other recommendation here, I'm not incorporating into my motion. I'm a little bit concerned that the second recommendation is something in the nature almost of an injunction against possible future violations of ordinances, and I don't think that it's proper or even within the authority or the power of this board to issue or enjoin potential future violations. MS. ARNOLD: Could I have a question or clarification on your motion ? Was there a time period associated with obtaining the permit? MR. BOWIE: Thirty days, either to obtain the permit through certificate of completion or to remove the pole; 30 days for either Page 52 -~.. January 27,2005 alternative, or $50 per day. MS. BARNETT: Mr. Bowie, in order to remove the pole, is he going to have to have a demolition permit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think so. Is that not correct, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. BOWIE: I would amend that -- to stipulate that, to obtain a demolition permit and complete the demolition and remove all debris within that same time frame, as part of the second alternative here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We now have a second to the motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. SNODERL Y: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That concludes the public hearings on cases. We'll now go to our new business and request for imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: The first item is Board of County Commissioners versus Glenn McGee, who is a new owner. We had a Page 53 _.._--"'~-"-~"-~-'-'"".". January 27, 2005 prior case against Rather Knighton. That particular case was heard on September 23rd -- or 22nd; we've got two dates -- on September 23rd, 2004, and the board found a violation did exist. The finding of facts and conclusion of law is attached for your information. The respondent in this case has complied with the board's order, and we are at this time requesting that operational costs in the amount of$480.32 be imposed. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, I have a question for you. When I was reading through the affidavit of compliance, it stated that the reinspection was done on November 2nd, although our time line ended October 23rd. And the fine is including that time frame. Was that because the inspection wasn't called in prior to that, or was that just because the inspector didn't get out there to reinspect? Or can you tell me? MS. ARNOLD: The question is whether or not we did the reinspection on the 2nd of November? MS. BARNETT: In other words, our time line that we said he had to come into compliance was October 23rd. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. BARNETT: The reinspection was not done until November 2nd. And the fine is -- and it said at that time he was in compliance. Do we know when he came into compliance? Was that when he called it in or is that because we just didn't get back to reinspect? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not really sure. I don't know. I'm asking for fines between October 24th and November 2nd. I'm assuming that the investigator went out on the date of compliance and seeing that there wasn't compliance, then fines accrued through November 2nd. MS. BARNETT: Maybe I can ask the respondent as to -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. ARWOOD: My name is Ralph Arwood. I hold a mortgage Page 54 January 27, 2005 for Mr. McGee. He asked me to come and speak at this meeting. Mr. McGee did comply with the board's order and it was done by the date you requested. MS. BARNETT: On the 23rd? MR. ARWOOD: Correct. MS. BARNETT: Does he have anything he can give me to verify that, or did he do the work himself? MR. ARWOOD: He did the work. I think the board should note, the whole procedure started back in April. You've been serving papers to a woman who's been dead for eight years. I don't know who got those papers, but they weren't coming to Mr. McGee. Mr. McGee became the owner of the property in July of this year at a tax sale. Since taking over the property, he's gone to great effort to improve the property. He's removed two trailers from the property that were literally caving in, were definitely a danger to people. He's also removed more than a dumpster load of other garbage that was on the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, we're only concerned with the vehicle. It's nice that he's cleaning the property up, but we're only interested in this particular vehicle, and that's why we need to make our decision. So if you'll tell us about that. Are you satisfied with his answer? MS. BARNETT: Did he call for an inspection? MR. ARWOOD: Yes. MS. BARNETT: What day? MR. ARWOOD: I'm sorry, do you remember the date? He called when the vehicle was removed, but I can't give you an exact date of that. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know -- do you know who he called? MR. ARWOOD: Mr. McGee doesn't have a phone. He had his boss at Everglades City call the people listed on the paperwork, but I can't tell you who he spoke to. Page 55 January 27,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And what is it that Mr. McGee is asking us? MR. ARWOOD: He doesn't feel he should be fined or penalized. He's complied with your request in as timely fashion as he could. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're asking us to abate the $500 fine? MR. ARWOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: We don't have the code inspector in this case here today, do we, who could -- MS. ARNOLD: No, but I can give him a call. MS. BARNETT: I'm just curious, because I have a question as to whether or not -- if it was, you know, the fact that the county didn't get out there to inspect it, then I don't think we should fine him for those days, ifhe was in compliance. We don't know. MS. ARNOLD: If you want to give me -- well, you know, I can call him in five minutes or you can decide not to impose those fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was going to say, rather than hold this up, the board, based on what they've heard, can make a determination whether they want to, you know, abate the fine portion altogether, partially, or just leave it stand, rather than delay it any further. MR. BOWIE: I think it's only 10 days, it's only $500, I think we should give the respondent, especially since he's the new owner of the property, the benefit of the doubt and that we should abate the fine portion, the $500 and levy only the operational costs, $480.32, which we cannot waive. MR. ARWOOD: Why is that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: By law we're not allowed to waive that. We can waive fines, but we can't waive operational costs. MS. BARNETT: Operational costs are the costs -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Like court costs, we can't waive that. We have no power under the law to do that. Page 56 January 27, 2005 MS. BARNETT: -- that it took the county to bring this to us and what they have had to expend. MR. ARWOOD: I don't really think that's fair to Mr. McGee. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It may not be fair, but unfortunately we don't have the power, so we can't help you. Okay? We can only do part of it. MR. BOWIE: When he purchased this property, he basically steps into the shoes of the prior owner. MR. ARWOOD: He had no way of knowing that. The prior owner's been dead for eight years. MR. BOWIE: No, no, it's not a matter of the prior owner's living or dead. It's a matter that there was a lien on the property. MR. ARWOOD: No, there was not a lien at that time, and there was no way to find out that there was a lien. MR. BOWIE: Even if there wasn't, he still steps into the shoes of the prior owner. When you buy something, or you even buy it at a tax sale, you're stepping into the shoes of the prior owner to some extent. MS. ARNOLD: The county has the option of waiving those, and we can release those -- MR. BOWIE: You would be amenable? MS. ARNOLD: -- operational costs. Sure. MR. ARWOOD: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: So we're withdrawing our request to impose the operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That way we have nothing to consider. MR. ARWOOD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. (At which time, Ms. Dusek exited the boardroom.) MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Monroe Graham and Daisy Bell. This case was heard on September 23rd, and the board found a Page 57 _ ^___"A""~"~"'__ January 27, 2005 violation did exist. You all have a copy of that order. The respondent has failed to comply with the board's order, as stated. An affidavit of noncompliance has been filed. And we are now requesting that the board impose operational costs in the amount of $483.83, plus fines running from October 23rd through -- October 24th through January 27th at a rate of $50 per day for a total of $4,750, and a total fine amount, including operational costs, would be $5,233.83. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One little housekeeping. Cherie', make note that Bobbie had to leave, and she left about three minutes ago, I guess. Okay? And our second alternate will vote now, since we're another member short. Sorry to interrupt you, Michelle. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we accept the recommendations and go ahead and impose the fine of $5,233.83 in operational costs. MR. HEMES: I'll second that. MS. ARNOLD: And they will continue to accrue until complied. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent here? MS. ARNOLD: No, not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine and 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. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. Page 58 January 27,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Avin Noel and Maria Chavez (sic). Chavanes. This case was heard on August 26th, 2004; at which time a violation was found. The respondent has failed to comply with the board's requested order, and an affidavit of noncompliance has been filed. The code enforcement department is now requesting that the board impose the incurred operational costs in the amount of $623.83. Additionally, fines in the amount of$7,150 for the period between September 6th through January 27th. So the total amount today is of $7,773.83, which will continue to accrue. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion to go ahead and impose the lien in the amount of$7,773.83 for fines and operational costs to continue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that. MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines and costs, as requested by the county. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 59 January 27, 2005 MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Pekar. Mr. Pekar is present. The board did hear his case on October 28th, 2004, at which time a violation was found. The respondent failed to comply with the time periods noted in the board's order, so an affidavit of noncompliance was filed. The code enforcement department is at this time requesting operational costs in the amount of $537.75 be imposed. Additionally, the fines in the amount of $4,000 for the period between November 8th, 2004 through December 18th, 2004 be imposed. As of today, I believe he, Mr. Pekar -- the property is in compliance. The respondent also has fines in the amount of $4,000 for paragraph two of the board's order, for the period of November 28th through January 7th, and additional fines in the amount of $3,500 for the period of noncompliance for paragraph three of the board's order for November 13th through December 18th. And we -- the county had to actually abate a portion of that violation, and we incurred the cost of $1 ,300.50. So all those fines and costs to the county are being asked for imposition today. And the totalof$13,387.75. MR. HEMES: That was for the removal of the car on the jacks? MS. ARNOLD: The lowering of the car off the jack. MR. HEMES: That was left there in the driveway? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I believe there are tags now on that vehicle, as well. MR. PEKAR: There were tags already, and I did the work myself -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, sir, we need to swear you in, if you're going to speak. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 60 January 27, 2005 MR. PEKAR: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your name, please? MR. PEKAR: I'm Bob Pekar. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. You had something to say, sir? MR. PEKAR: Yeah, I did the work on the car myself while they were there. They showed up one morning and I had no idea they were coming. So it's a car that's tough to get parts for, so I had to get one out of a junkyard and I had it jacked up for a while. I put it down and got it back. So I did that myself. And I spent the whole morning helping them clean my yard up. I couldn't have done it myself, so in one way I'm glad that they came, but I'm asking for you guys to help me with the fines and abate those, and the -- you know, the operational costs, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What are you asking us to do, sir? Waive everything? Is that what you're saying? MR. PEKAR: Well, I realize the guy that came to do the work has to be paid, so I'm willing to make a payment arrangement with them to do that. But as far as the fines and the operational costs to the county, I ask those to be abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First the operational costs, we have no power to waive that. That's up to the county. If they want to do that, they'll have to tell us that. As far as the costs they incurred in doing whatever they did, again, if they want to tell us to waive that, that's fine. And now the other is four, eight, $11,500 worth of fines you're asking us to waive totally? MR. PEKAR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And why? MR. PEKAR: I wasn't able to -- one, I didn't know, okay? It was a matter of cleaning the yard up. And I went out and spent all day helping them do that. I just don't have the money to pay. I really Page 61 ,.'- ""---,,._~-"_.~._'." -,". .".-. .'~..- January 27, 2005 don't. I went through a divorce about six years ago and, you know, I did let my yard -- my lawnmower was broken, so I wasn't able to mow the lawn, so I had to do it by hand a few times. They did -- MS. BARNETT: Robert, didn't you receive the information on the fact that you were cited, and didn't a code enforcement officer speak to you? MR. PEKAR: I talked to somebody I think last June or so. And then we had all those hurricanes and stuff. So it's been, you know, difficult to try to -- I had a mechanic actually come to my house and do the work on the car, okay? And-- MS. BARNETT: The concern we had on the car is there were neighborhood children and the car was not really stable, even though it was on ajack. MR. PEKAR: Well, it went through -- MS. BARNETT: Someone could have gotten hurt. MR. PEKAR: I had five different jacks under there, so it was really stable. It went through all the hurricanes. MS. BARNETT: A car on a jack is never stable. I don't care -- from the standpoint -- MR. BOWIE: Let's not -- we don't want to debate the violation again. The violation's already been -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The violation's over with. Let's talk about why you want us to waive -- MS. BARNETT: But you were aware of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- $11,000 -- MR. PEKAR: Huh? MS. BARNETT: You were aware of the violation. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Basically you're asking us to waive this money because you say you can't pay it. MR. PEKAR: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not super to me, but I'm sorry. Page 62 January 27,2005 MR. BOWIE: I'm a little concerned, too, you said you were taken by surprise when a personnel from the county came out to remove the car. And you were taken by surprise when personnel came out to remove the weeds and cut the lawn. But you received a copy, I assume, of the order of the board that told you that if this wasn't done within a certain time frame -- MR. PEKAR: No, I didn't receive that. MR. BOWIE: You don't get your mail? MR. PEKAR: I didn't receive that. MR. BOWIE: You didn't receive this? MR. PEKAR: No. MS. BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: I'm sure it was mailed out, right? MS. RAWSON: There's an affidavit of mailing. MR. HEMES: 13th of January. MR. BOWIE: And the mail did not get returned, so presumably it stuck, in other words. That's your address and it got delivered there. MR. PEKAR: I don't remember seeing it. I'm sorry. MR. BOWIE: So I don't think there was any real element of surprise, not reasonable element of surprise. MS. BARNETT: That's what I was thinking, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so we have a request for Mr. Pekar to basically waive not only the four, eight -- what did I say, $11,500 worth of fines, but the $1,350 that the county spent abating his violation. We can't touch the operational costs, so -- so we're up to $12,850. Michelle, any comment? MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, we're not waiving the cost to the county, because that was actually costs that the county actually had to go out and pay a contractor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. Page 63 January 27, 2005 MS. ARNOLD: And the operational cost is staying as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, okay. The county's not willing to abate any of their costs, so we're down to whether we want to do anything with the $11,500 worth of fines. MR. KRAENBRING: In the spirit of compromise, or is this -- MS. BARNETT: I haven't seen anything that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's made his request. Basically he's saying he wants us to waive the fines because he can't pay. MR. PEKAR: Excuse me, I in good faith went out there and worked with the people all day, you know, the whole morning. MR. BOWIE: Only after they showed up. MR. PEKAR: I didn't know they were coming. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have to remember, sir, that you own this property and it got in this condition. It didn't happen over a day, it happened over months. So obviously you weren't interested in taking care of your property. Understand where we're coming from? Your grass didn't grow, you know, three feet high overnight. MR. PEKAR: I had the front mowed, but not all the way in the back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There was other issues. I'm just trying to tell you that this all didn't happen overnight. It happened over a long period of time. You chose not to take care of your property. You were cited for it. It came to us. We said fix it by such and such a date or you're going to get fined. For whatever reason, that didn't happen. Then the county had to go out. Then all of a sudden you got interested. N ow you're asking us to waive all the money because you don't have any money. MS. ARNOLD: I would add, though, that Mr. Pekar did assist with the abatement while the contractors were out there. I mean, he's correct in that while the contractor was there lowering the vehicle, he was out there to assist them. While they were cleaning his property, Page 64 January 27,2005 he was out there to assist as well. Just to give the board some information. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He didn't do anything prior to that. I guess my comment to my fellow board members is I'm not really seeing any evidence that makes me want to waive any amounts of these fines. I'm not convinced that it's in the best interest of the county. I understand the man's problem, but he can sit down with the county and work out a payment problem (sic). I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, over whatever period of time it takes. MR. BOWIE: In other words, there are payment plans, installment -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county will work with you. MR. BOWIE: -- payment plans available. MR. PEKAR: It's a lot of money for a little bit of weeds. I understand that. It's a little bit of overkill, I think. You know, I did buy a new lawnmower, so I'm able to mow the lawn now. And the vehicle always had a tag on it. MR. LEFEBVRE: You have to understand our view: If it was such a small problem, it should have been corrected way before when you -- MR. PEKAR: Yeah, I know. And if I had known about it, I would have. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you must have received -- MR. PEKAR: You send me something in the mail; I don't go through all -- I get a lot of junk mail, too. I'm sure you do. MS. BARNETT: So when you -- MR. LEFEBVRE: When you walk out of your house every day, you see -- MR. PEKAR: Make me pay $13,000 for some weeds? Please. MR. LEFEBVRE: It should have been taken care of a while ago. MR. PEKAR: I know it should have. I agree with that. But that's still not -- that's not right. It really isn't. But I'm willing to pay Page 65 -~~-,,,..,..._.....,.__..,._~ January 27,2005 what the county paid out in their operational costs, okay? I think that's fair, okay? And I'm sorry about my weeds. But had I known about it, I would have done -- I spent all morning -- I could have been working, I spent all morning and part of the afternoon with the people out there doing the work. So I -- once I did find out about it, I did in good faith help them to solve the problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the board is having a problem with you -- with it being so long the way the situation was. And then all of a sudden when you had to clean it up, it was finally cleaned up. When we had to send out a crew. That's what we're having a problem with. You have to understand our point of view. MS. BARNETT: George, you've been awfully quiet. MR. PONTE: Yes, because I -- it seems like deja vu. The thought that I have is that we -- it's a tough case. However, the fine of $100 a day was imposed after giving it very, very careful consideration. There were -- there was major concern about the car on jacks, no matter how stable you say it was. It didn't appear to be to us. My other thought is, though, I certainly understand the hardship that you would have in paying the fine. Everyone who comes before us and finds themselves confronting a large fine has a hardship paying. If this board were to back down and just reduce all fines, the orders of this board would not be heeded at all. People would just know that they could get away with it. And so those are my thoughts. MS. BARNETT: You usually are one that weighs on the side of let's go ahead and take it and look at it retrospectively and give the benefit to the individual. That's why I wanted your input. I feel strongly about it as you do in this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's -- we need to move on. We need to make a decision either to abate the fine entirely, partially or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- deny the request for any abatement. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we deny a request for Page 66 January 27, 2005 any abatement and that the fines, as recommendation originally how the board -- decided. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Be imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- be imposed. MR. BOWIE: So that would be a lien for $13,387.75 combined MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, that's correct. MR. BOWIE: -- for fines, operational and abatement cost? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, that's correct. MR. BOWIE: I second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request for abatement and move on and impose the fines as requested by the county. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MR. KRAENBRING: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, one, down at the end. MR. PEKAR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Next item, Taylor Village. MS. ARNOLD: The next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Taylor Village Condo Association. This matter was brought to the Code Enforcement Board on November 29th, and we entered into a stipulated agreement at that Page 67 January 27, 2005 time, which the board approved. The respondents stipulated to pay operational costs in the amount of $650. Additionally, the respondent has failed to meet the time frames associated within that stipulated agreement, so staff is requesting that the amount -- the fines in the amount of $3,600 for the period between January 9th, 2005 through January 27th, 2005 be imposed at this time for a total of $4,450.30. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you are, sir? MR. FLOOD: Peter Flood, Your Honor, representing Taylor Village Condominiums. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you their attorney? MR. FLOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. FLOOD: If I may address the board in regards to this issue. We believe we were in compliance with the -- which was stipulated to. Following the stipulation and findings of fact, we had a meeting, which Michelle attended. I have the contractor here who attended it and so forth. There's an SDP in regards to this matter that was originally thought to be the problem. When we arrived at that meeting 10 days -- within the 10 days in compliance with the order, it was discovered, and Michelle can also verify this, that all the violations that Mr. Campbell had premised the findings of fact on and all the problems, it wasn't the SDP that was -- had been submitted to the county. There was an amended one. So 90 percent, the majority of those violations, weren't even -- there weren't any violations at that point. We all had a meeting. Michelle was there, I was there, people were there. What was discussed was to bring it in compliance with the original SDP, the amended SDP. Mr. Bob Peterson from the county was there at the meeting. He agreed to that. That's what we have attempted to do. In addition to that meeting, Michelle was at the meeting, Mr. Page 68 . <0_ ~"'''-".~,____",__",_~",>......,.~,". January 27, 2005 Campbell was concerned about some sinkholes. And we were concerned about some sinkholes in the back of the property which was resulting in some of the violation. Silting of the canal. They have subsequently dug those sinkholes and discovered tremendous amount of debris in the sinkholes. Weare 10 days away from -- 10 days, approximately, away from completing the -- correcting the problem at the site. We're asking the board that based on what has occurred -- and I think Michelle can enlighten the board also -- to either continue any discussion of fines and costs, and/or abate any fines and costs, because we have been in compliance with this -- the findings of fact. As we knew them at that point in time. We tried to comply with them, but, you know, the violations that Mr. Campbell kept bringing against us for a year, they just weren't based upon the proper site plan. Am I making myself clear? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: I do want to -- MR. FLOOD: If I may, Michelle? Michelle's been very gracious. Tom's been -- Tom and Michelle and myself and everybody were surprised, and correct me if I'm wrong, Michelle, at the meeting, we were all surprised that there was an SDP that, for example, like the downspouts, Tom cited us for downspouts, illegal downspouts. Well, they weren't illegal downspouts, because they were on the amended SDP, which were approved by the county. So a majority of the things we were cited for were correct. There were some things that needed to be modified. I've got the contractor here who was the original contractor for the developer. And most of the violations that remain or occurred were minor in the effect that there were modifications done to the SD P to bring them into compliance. The major problem, and we were concerned about with, and we Page 69 ····-·_····"_·.·.__0._ -,- -~--~-"-,,~- ._.... .. January 27, 2005 want to do a corrective measure, was the silting of the canal. I don't know if everybody's familiar with this property. There's a silting problem. Tom and I and Michelle and everybody discussed, and correct me if I'm wrong, Tom wanted to -- Tom's not here today, but Tom wanted those sink holes explored to determine what was causing that silting of the canal. Well, we got into it, and these are the problems we've discovered during this time frame. And how many dumpsters have we removed, Don? Three dumpsters full of debris. And we didn't want to impact the bank by removing the rip-rap and things along those lines. So we are trying to comply with what we agreed to. But what we agreed to was based upon a false premise, based upon an SDP that was Improper. So we're trying to work with everybody. We've got no problem with the operational costs. We're about 10 days away from completing everything. I talked to Bob Peterson yesterday. He basically agreed with what we discussed at the meeting, that being that to just bring it in compliance with the original SDP. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle? Understanding what he said, and you mayor may not have been there, recommendation to you to consider before you say something. Hearing this and that there may have been another SDP and so on, so forth, might be a good move to withdraw this, see that this all gets resolved and come back to us and say this is what it is next month. MS. ARNOLD: Well, what I was going to mention is that the problem that brought us to this site to begin with was the silting, the problem along the banks. And the area -- or the code that was cited wasn't related to the SDP. I mean -- and obviously there was a problem with the bank and why it was going into the canal. We could -- if Mr. Flood would like -- I'm sorry, I drew a blank Page 70 January 27,2005 there -- to argue, you know, SDP, whatever. The issues in that are -- were not in violation can be totally voided. But the fact still remains that there was a violation with the bank construction and the rip-rap that was there, and that portion of it has still not been complied with. MS. BARNETT: I'm trying to remember the case, but I thought some of it was blamed on the downspouts that were helping wash into. And that's kind of what we were basing some of our decision on. And that part he is saying was in the revised SDP for those downspouts, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Right, we were -- MS. BARNETT: That he was supposed to remove those and -- MR. FLOOD: Right. The-- MS. ARNOLD: The reason why they felt that the banks were eroding may have been a contribution to the downspouts that were added. In the SDP that we looked at at the time didn't have any downspouts on it. Apparently the SDP that was amended did have some downspouts on there. MR. FLOOD: Right. And Michelle's correct, we were all shocked when we went to the meeting that some -- getting back to the rip-rap that needs to be removed, that rip-rap was not -- was installed in accordance with the letter that we worked with Tom on October 31st with Bob Peterson of the county to try to stop the silting problem. That's when that rip-rap was installed, correct? This is Phoenix's developer. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LANE: Jeff Lane, from Phoenix Associates. MS. ARNOLD: Right, there was an agreement between Phoenix and Bob Peterson, but obviously it didn't work, because there was still erosion that was occurring along the bank. MR. LANE: Yeah, the -- MS. ARNOLD: There was an attempt for some solution for the erosion that was -- and they agreed to this rip-rap. But then because it Page 71 -~. '''-'''-'-'-''-- -q7'"" ......"".,,~..,~",.'''''~._.. January 27,2005 didn't work, Bob Peterson was asking that it be fixed. And when we met with everyone, there was an agreement to provide Bob Peterson and his staff over in waste -- in the water department, stormwater department, a solution to correct the problem. And I don't believe any of that was submitted to. MR. LANE: My understanding, and I could be wrong, but my understanding of the meeting that I attended with Mr. Flood and yourself and several others is that the basis of the problem was to replace whatever -- do whatever was necessary to bring the SDP into compliance. We had tried to address the issue on three different occasions; one, vis-a-vis the rip-rap, which didn't work. The silting issue is still one that needs to be addressed. But prior to doing that, when we went after the sinkholes and found the debris, we had to pull that out, that material out. That had to be refilled. Now we have to go in with what's called a grab ball and pull the silt back up on the bank itself and redefine the swale, which we're in the process of doing right now, and probably will be finished with next week. But what we didn't anticipate was what we found when we went to fix the sink holes, which was apart from the issue to begin with. But to get to the problem, we had to solve first things first, which none of us knew was there. So that's how -- the problem is -- we've tried to address the problem three different times, and now what we're doing hopefully will work and the SDP will be in compliance and everyone will be happy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Basic question: Are you in compliance with the site development -- or the stipulated agreement, yes or no? MR. FLOOD: Right now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was my question. I didn't give you any time, I said are you in compliance. If you're in compliance, then there's no fine. Are you in compliance? MR. FLOOD: I would say no. Page 72 ",0_'-" January 27, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So why shouldn't we impose fines, if you're not in compliance with the agreement? MR. FLOOD: Because the agreement itself is premised upon a false assumption. You can't come in and -- on the stipulated facts, when we were here and stipulated to the facts, Mr. Campbell for a year has been coming in and telling us we're in violation of this site water management plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's stop a second, because item one of your stipulated agreement says eliminate all illegal rip-rap and swale repairs immediately and resolve canal bank, including silt removal from canal within 10 days. Is that done and was it done within 10 days? MR. FLOOD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It doesn't say anything about site development plan. MR. FLOOD: No, it was not done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you haven't met your agreement, okay? MR. FLOOD: But hold on a second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So why should we waive the fine? MR. FLOOD: We had a meeting within 10 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Isn't what it says. It says eliminate it all. MR. FLOOD: We had to have the meeting with the county in 10 days in order to address all the issues in regards to corrective measures of finding the problem for the silting of the bank. At that meeting, when Mr. Campbell and we were all there, he wanted the sinkholes, he believed it was the sinkholes were the problem of the silting of the canal. At that meeting, the proper SDP came out and 90 percent of the problems to 98 percent of the problems that he had been violating us on weren't violations. Page 73 _,..__,__~__",O January 27, 2005 You have to understand the sequence of events. We signed a stipulation of facts based upon an improper premise, that being that we weren't in compliance, the property wasn't in compliance with the SDP. When we went to the meeting on the tenth day, we were in compliance. There were a couple issues, the rip-rap, you are correct, I don't mean to belabor that, you are correct. But the rip-rap was not removed within the 10 days. We decided with Mr. Peterson to bring the property into compliance with the original SDP, the amended one that nobody knew about at that point. We'd been trying to correct the sink whole problem that Mr. Campbell is aware of. And based on the sinkhole problem, this is what we've developed. And we believed this is causing the silting of the canal, okay? It's not the rip-rap in and of itself. And they've been working on the property for -- when did you start working? MR. LANE: 3rd of January. MR. FLOOD: The 3rd of January. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, just to point something out. I was looking at our findings of facts and conclusions. On number three, if you'll read that for me. I understand that they didn't do one and two technically on time. But number three -- MS. ARNOLD: They actually did. They did two on time. They did meet with the county, and at that meeting -- that's the meeting he made reference to -- we all met. And at that meeting, we kind of furthered that statement in three where they needed to supply us with some written documentation as to what they were going to do; get with Bob Peterson, how are we going to resolve that problem. And that part of it I'm not aware of ever happened. MR. FLOOD: Bob Peterson, you need to talk about -- I spoke with Bob Peterson, trying to contact him for 10 days. His understanding at the meeting was to bring it merely into compliance with the original SDP. Page 74 January 27, 2005 I asked him to come here today, and he said he couldn't come here today, so -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, my recommendation is we hold off and continue this until the next meeting -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Withdraw it? MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe that we need to withdraw it, because -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if you're going to leave it to us, then we've got to implement something. MS. ARNOLD: Right. I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You asked to us implement fines. What do you recommend we implement? MS. ARNOLD: My recommendation stands. You know, the fact that the purpose -- why we were alerted to the site is not corrected. The SDP, I'm willing to withdraw that whole section. But we also cited them for county ordinance for the canal banks not being constructed correctly and meeting the code. And that part of it is what they're trying to fix now, and they hadn't complied with our stipulation. MS. BARNETT: Okay, Michelle, if you're willing to pull out the section of the SDP part. MS. ARNOLD: Section 3.1.1. MS. BARNETT: Okay, if you pulled that out, in stipulation number three, they're supposed to bring it into compliance, and then number five said if the respondent does not comply with paragraph three of the order within 40 days, then there will be a fine of $200 per day. So do we need to adjust our fine? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I guess we would. Yes. MS. BARNETT: Can you recalculate it for me, then? MS. ARNOLD: We would have to -- MR. FLOOD: Can I say one thing? Michelle made a statement that we built the wall on the canal. We never built the wall on the Page 75 January 27,2005 canal. It was built by south water management. The only thing we ever did was try and get the -- MS. ARNOLD: I said rip-rap. MR. FLOOD: The rip-rap. No, what you said, we built the canal. We did that in regards to the -- by Mr. Peterson and the county to stop the silting problem. But that didn't stop the problem. The silting problem is a result of the sinkholes. MS. ARNOLD: The amount is now -- what I'm looking at is item six, which was by complying and implementing proposed remedies within 30 days, and that was at 250 per day. And so we calculated from December 29th through the 27th, today, and that would be 7,250. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And this is based on what, item six? MS. ARNOLD: Item four. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item four. MR. BOWIE: Six ties into four. MS. ARNOLD: Well, it refers back to item four. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're saying that on December 29th they got approval from the proj ect manager? MS. ARNOLD: No, they had up until December 29th to get approval from the project manager, and they didn't. MS. BARNETT: So that initially -- MR. BOWIE: I think the recommendations you've made here in your report to us are not founded on the right provision of the board's order. You're asking for $200 a day in a certain time frame. Apparently it's been acknowledged that that's not a violation and never was, because -- MS. ARNOLD: Right, which was why -- MR. BOWIE: -- an incorrect SDP was utilized in formulating that. MS. ARNOLD: Which is why we're modifying -- MR. BOWIE: However, in the board's order there is also a Page 76 January 27, 2005 reference here in paragraph six, which you just referenced -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. BOWIE: -- which ties into four, which in turns ties into one, the matter of the illegal rip-rap and swale repairs, which hasn't been done, they've acknowledged it hasn't been done, and that's a fine of $250 a day. MS. ARNOLD: And that's the number that I just calculated. MR. BOWIE: Right. MS. BARNETT: But that wasn't what was presented to us -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. BARNETT: -- that's not in here at all. MS. ARNOLD: Right. That should have been in there, but it wasn't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When you read the order, a lot of things have to happen. I understand what they've said, but what I haven't seen the county do yet or anybody agree, item four in the order said that they have to implement -- complete and implement the remedies within 30 days after receiving approval from the county project manager. When did they get that approval? MS. ARNOLD: They've never received approval. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If they didn't ever receive that approval from the County Manager, you can't implement any fines, because the fine is based on complying with that sentence. So if you never gave them approval, you can't fine them. MS. ARNOLD: The fine's based on us first having a meeting, and the meeting was held -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, the fine says that in item six that if the respondent does not comply with paragraph four, which says they have to get approval, after complying with paragraph four of this order within 30 days of receiving the approval from the county project manager, then there'll be a fine. If they've never received approval, you can't implement a fine. You first have to give them approval and Page 77 '-"''-~~''- < -"-~"",>..~.~__...,.,,....,,,,,,.,.,,,,, ".4__~"____'·.,___~._"_......._._...._.._,_"_._._,^,,,__ January 27,2005 then if they don't do it, they get fined. The two work together. So just because they didn't do it by some date is immaterial. It's not tied to a date. It's tied to 30 days after receiving approval. If you've never given me approval, there's nothing, zero. You can't fine them for something you didn't do. It says you have to give them the approval, then 30 days later, if they don't do it, they get fined. So you need to find out why the county project manager, whoever that is, because that was part of -- MS. ARNOLD: Because nothing was submitted. I've indicated that, there was nothing submitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Then we go down to -- MS. ARNOLD: You can't approve something we don't have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's go up to number five. Number five, which is the $200 a day fine, says that if respondent doesn't comply with paragraph three -- paragraph three is they have to submit the written proposal to bring the property into compliance. Did they ever submit that? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Then that part of the order with the fine, you can do something about. MS. ARNOLD: No, because it's related back to the -- MR. BOWIE: Well, this is a confused morass, admittedly. The way this order is written is frankly poor. But what we're hearing is that the paragraph three shown here is simply not applicable as an element of the violation any longer. Plus it's since been discovered that the items cited here are not in fact in violation of the correct SDP. So there was no violation to begin with. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the -- it's the same SDP number, but it's been -- it has since been amended. And the map that was brought, or the diagram that was brought to this board was the earlier SDP, not the amended SDP. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, are they in compliance with the Page 78 ---.-..-,. January 27,2005 amended SDP? Yes or no. MS. ARNOLD: With respect to the canal banks, no. MR. BOWIE: Unfortunately, the way this order is written, there's no penalty for doing anything without the canal banks or the rip-rap, as I read it. MS. ARNOLD: Right, there's no penalty associated with one or two. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's one of the problems, in somebody writing a stipulated agreement and getting us to approve it, that when you leave things out, you pay the price. So basically, as Mr. Bowie says, I'm -- there's nothing to impose a fine of, other than items four and six, which there's no fine because nobody's done anything yet. So until they do it, four and six are just hanging out there forever. The only thing we can impose is the operational costs and, you know, we can impose them right now and they'll just continue to run because this isn't resolved yet. MR. BOWIE: I would concur with that. MR. HEMES: Would it not be true that the respondent has made a clear effort to get this situation under control and that therefore we should continue this matter, just giving the operational costs -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, that's the only thing we can impose at this time is the operational costs, and they'll just continue until the thing is done. MR. FLOOD: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. FLOOD: You know, Tom and Michelle have been great to work with. This is an unfortunate situation for my client. Taylor Village has come in from the earlier development. We want to make it right. The problem was in discovering where the problem is coming from. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Page 79 ,,~_.._".- January 27,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MR. FLOOD: The problems that we originally thought in the findings of fact are were in fact not the problems. This is the problem, as Tom correctly pointed out. Correct, Tom? Tom pointed out that he thought that the sinkholes were the problem with the silting. When we got into the sinkhole problem, it became a bigger problem than any of us realized was occurring. And we're not sitting here in front of people saying hey, we're not -- we'll pay the operational costs, we have no problem with it. We're trying to do everything in our power to get this corrected and get out of your hair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We understand that. We're just saying other than operational costs, which you're going to have to pay anyway, because we can't waive those, there's nothing for us to impose. So we're not having a problem with what you're doing, and we understand that -- MS. BARNETT: Because you have to submit something to the county to get approval. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All we're saying is we can only impose one thing right now, which is the operational costs, and they'll keep running until you're all done. And at that time, whatever the amount is, you'll have to pay that amount. And if there's any fine, it hasn't started yet because the county needs to do something. MR. FLOOD: We're just all trying to get along. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. But, you know, we're being asked to do something we can't do. MR. FLOOD: Michelle's been great, Tom's been great. We're all trying to get along and get it resolved. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that at this point, given the constraints of this order and what's been discovered since, that only the operational costs be imposed. Page 80 --,.", '" -.<-,._, ~ " ",-,~".'.-.'----'" January 27,2005 MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. MR. PONTE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the operational costs. That will continue to run until the completion of the case. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. FLOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Last item, Seven Stores, Ltd. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, this item was heard on July 22nd, 2004, and at the time a stipulated agreement was approved by the board. Respondent was ordered to pay operational costs in the amount of $1,700 -- $1,076.25. The respondent failed to comply with the order, and there was an affidavit of noncompliance recorded. The Code Enforcement Board department is now asking that operational costs in the amount of $1,076.25 be imposed, not 230, and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What was the new amount, Michelle? I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: $1,076.25. Page 81 January 27,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. HEMES: I'd like to move that we accept the-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And there's no fine, correct? MS. ARNOLD: There are fines, but I'm just making sure that they are the right ones. Yes, from October 22nd through January 27th at a rate of $25 per day, that amount is 2,425. So the total amount should be $3,501.25. MR. HEMES: I move that we accept the code enforcement's department on Case No. 2004-035, Board of County Commissioners versus Seven Stores, Ltd. and the Circle K Corporation, and Michael Martin, CPA, as registered agent. The fines are operational costs of $200.30 -- MS. ARNOLD: No, that's not -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's amended. We changed that. MS. ARNOLD: $1,076.25. MR. HEMES: Total amount of the fine is now $3,501.25. MR. BOWIE: I second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the operational and fine costs, as requested by the county. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 82 ,_.-,. January 27, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that finishes the imposition of fines. We have a request for foreclosure. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that is the Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Lockhart. That was CEB Case No. 2004-026. We are requesting that we forward to the county attorney's office to address -- MR. BOWIE: I move that we forward to the county attorney's office a request that foreclosure on the code enforcement lien be commenced in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Lockhart, Case No. 2004-026. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to forward Case 2004-026 to the county attorney's office for foreclosure. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, next item, old business. No old business. We have a quarterly report from the county attorney's office on our liens and foreclosures. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, Jeff Klatzkow is here to present that report to you. MR. KLATZKOW: For the record, Jeff Klatzkow, assistant county attorney. Well, this is the first meeting, January of 2005, so I guess we'll Page 83 January 27,2005 talk about last year. Last year the county attorney's office disposed of approximately 25 cases that were sent our way, collecting total fines of approximately $51,200. Year to date, we've disposed of approximately four cases, collecting approximately $15,000 in open fines or operational costs. The way it's working is I guess we're averaging about two cases a month from you and we're pretty much disposing two cases a month. Some of these cases we're collecting fines, others, the liens are remaining on the property because they're homesteaded property with people with limited resources, so there's no point sending them to collections, and we'll just wait to the day that they actually sell the house. I'm willing to take any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Maybe I just need a little education, Jeff. On some of these items, in reading through your report -- which is very good, thank you -- a couple of them just caught my attention that maybe I just don't understand, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We say -- where we have like Higgenbothom, they filed bankruptcy and did so on and so forth. And then there was another one about -- I think it says there's a -- property was sold, and so on and so forth, but there was a big second mortgage and all that. Aren't we under an ordinance amendment? Didn't we move our position to a superior position where, you know, we're kind of like right up there with the tax people? MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're inferior. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's not what I remember from Ordinance 99-26. MR. KLATZKOW: We're inferior liens on these. We just are. A mortgage holder will take precedence on us unless our lien is recorded first in time. We just are. Page 84 January 27, 2005 There are other ordinances in the county that are superior. I think water and sewer fall there. But my understanding is that code enforcement liens are not superior. MR. BOWIE: I thought there is a provision in the Florida statutes that allows counties as a matter of local option to enact an ordinance that does give super priority status to code enforcement liens and makes them co-equal to real estate taxes and therefore superior to any mortgage lien, whether recorded prior to or subsequent to. And I don't know how our liens are being wiped out by these lender foreclosures statutorily. I don't see how that's happening. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, if you remember way back, we brought this up. In fact, I think I was the one that brought it up, and-- MS. RAWSON: Yeah, we've had this discussion before. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. And we asked -- oh, I can't remember the young lady's name that works in the attorney's office. MS. ARNOLD: I think it was Heidi Ashton that did that at that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Was it Heidi? That's not the name I'm remembering. But anyway, we asked about could we not move our position up, and it was yes, we could. We would have to go to the state and ask them if we could do that. And the board said gee, would you do that, and that was done. And then there was an amendment to the code enforcement ordinance, and it stated that we were now placed in a superior position. That's where I'm getting confused as to why aren't we. MR. KLATZKOW: I will look into that, and your next meeting I will give you a definitive answer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I think, unless I missed it, I wrote down 99-26 was the ordinance, and it changed Section 11 to put us in a superior position. So when I was reading through these I kept thinking gee, how did Page 85 January 27, 2005 we -- maybe I'm not -- maybe I don't have the latest ordinance, or -- that's why I wanted to ask you. MR. KLATZKOW: I will double check. MS. ARNOLD: I actually have it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did we get knocked out or something? Because we fought pretty hard to get that done. Because we didn't want these fines to just be waived. MR. KLATZKOW: I will double check and-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. MR. KLATZKOW: -- next meeting I will give an answer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I thought maybe I missed something, and that's why I wanted to ask you the question. MR. KLATZKOW: Maybe I missed something. You know, it's possible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's okay, it's not a problem. The other question I had was on Houston, Unlimited. I understand the property is homesteaded and there were no -- the fellow took it out of his company's name and transferred it to himself and so on and so forth. But under the Florida statutes, when you sell a property or transfer it and all that, you're supposed to do certain things to notify that owner that there's a pending -- all these things are pending. And if you don't do that, that's what the statute basically says is fraud. So we're saying, you know, gee, this guy doesn't have everything. But if he didn't do all these things he was supposed to do and he this just to get away from paying you folks, let's do something else to him. MR. KLATZKOW: If I've got a homesteaded property with somebody with no assets -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I mean, he took it out of his company. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. But at the end of the day Page 86 January 27, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And-- MR. KLATZKOW: -- at the end of the day he's living there and he has no money. Now, a year from now, two years from now may be a different story. But that's my understanding of what's happened there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then on the first page we talk about Fernandez and it says we have this amount it says needs to be recorded. I thought all these liens were recorded automatically. Are you telling me now that they're not recorded? MS. RAWSON: All of our orders are recorded. MR. KLATZKOW: Your orders are recorded. Sometimes they need to be amended because there's an error in the order. There was an error in this order that needs to be amended. We didn't go through it because at the time we thought we were going to get collections anyway. That fell through. So at this point in time we need to go back and amend the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I mean, we can't amend something if we don't know what we're supposed to do. So now that you explained that, I understand. MS. ARNOLD: Do we need to amend the order or record the amended order? MR. KLATZKOW: We need to record the amended order. MR. BOWIE: Couple of situations here I note here, too, where while the respondent may have been homesteaded on the particular property where the violation occurred, there's some notations here where that same owner owns other property which is not homesteaded, and I'm wondering why we're not foreclosing on that. F or example, Lopez. Property may be homesteaded, but also owns another vacant parcel. There's one of them. There's another apparently where mail sent to the homesteaded address was returned and the county was able to ascertain -- apparently the property owner Page 87 January 27, 2005 had moved, had a new home address, in which case he abandoned that property as his homestead. Go after him, it's abandonment. He's not living there. MR. KLA TZKOW: Some of these cases are cleaner than others, and those cases are more apt to get foreclosed on. Other cases I would say had hair on them, in which case, I'd just as soon leave the lien on the parcel for a while. My expectation, the way real estate moves in this county, is that as people sell these things, these liens get paid off anyway. So if I've got a -- if I've got a particular case that has a little hair on it, I'd just as soon wait to see -- a year or two to see what happens and they tend to resolve themselves that way. MR. BOWIE: But my concern about the philosophy of waiting is that it's all well and good if the next owner of the property doesn't homestead it while the lien's there and it certainly can be foreclosed. But if the current owner is homesteaded and he sells it and the next owner homesteads it, you've got the same problem. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. What I'm saying is if I've got a case that's entirely clean, I'm moving here with a foreclosure. If I've got other cases that I'll just say has a little hair on it, in those cases I'm waiting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It was a great report, Jeff, thank you very much. MR. KLATZKOW: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next is case -- comment, 2004-046, Petruzzi. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Mr. Petruzzi is requesting to speak to the board. He feels that -- this case was heard by the board in November. Mr. Petruzzi was not present at that hearing. He feels that he didn't get adequate notice. This is a property off of Bayshore Drive. The stilted mobile home and litter and debris are amongst -- are around the property. And you all ordered that the process server issue the notice Page 88 January 27, 2005 -- or the order for this property. Mr. Petruzzi did not get his order within a timely fashion, or within the time frame that the board requested that it be delivered. The process server failed to deliver it timely. He didn't deliver it until December 23rd, I believe, which was almost a month after your hearing. And so -- but the reason why Mr. Petruzzi's here, I think, is because of the notice of hearing. But I just wanted -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, for us to rehear a case and we have no information, I mean, we'd all be sitting here blind. MS. ARNOLD: No, I'm not ask -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that ain't going to happen. MS. ARNOLD: I don't think he's asking to rehear it. He just has some comments, and we're giving him an opportunity to speak. MR. BOWIE: I suppose his recourse would be to appeal the order of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, and there's a time limit to do all that stuff. So, I mean, what I don't want to do, Michelle is -- and I understand he's here, is I don't want the board to sit here and all of a sudden have an influx of people that could just show up and say gee, I'd like to make a comment. If you want to appeal our decision, there's a way to do that. If you want to make just a general comment, then -- I mean, we could be flooded with people who just want to come in and say we don't like what you did or we did like it or I want another chance. You understand what I'm trying to say? MS. ARNOLD: I understand -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, give us some help here. I mean, I'm -- MS. RAWSON: I don't remember the date of those orders. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't either. MS. RAWSON: This is 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have anything. Page 89 January 27, 2005 MS. RAWSON: He may be past the time to appeal. MS. ARNOLD: He has passed the time. MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You this we did this at our November hearing? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he did. MS. RAWSON: But his time for appeal is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: November, December, January. It's gone. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Petruzzi did not say he is here to appeal your record. Obviously it wouldn't be the right venue for him to appeal. He has requested time to speak to the board, so I put him on the agenda to comment. I don't know what he's going to comment about so-- , CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the pleasure of the board? MS. BARNETT: He's here. MR. PONTE: We don't know what he's going to comment about. The agenda should have an item, not just be open-ended, in my mind. We ought to at least know what he's talking about. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think so. If the board wants to hear him, it's up to the board. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, why don't we hear him with a time frame? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Make a motion. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we hear him, give him five minutes to speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Please understand that when we do this, you're subject to any and everybody that we have a case on coming in to do the same thing. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying, when you set a precedence, we open ourselves up to have this happen, and -- MS. BARNETT: Well, let me ask Jean this: Ifwe don't let him Page 90 January 27, 2005 speak, Jean, are we in violation of his due process? MS. RAWSON: Well, you're probably not in violation of his due process rights, but, you know, I don't -- he's here, he's been waiting all day, he's on the agenda. If you put a time limit on it, I don't see any problem with his getting to have his say. From a legal standpoint, it's probably not going to make any difference. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to let Mr. Petruzzi speak for a maximum of five minutes. Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No second. That motion fails. Any additional motion to -- regarding Mr. Petruzzi? Shorter period of time or -- none. MS. BARNETT: I don't think it would behoove me to do it. Nobody's willing to step up to back me, so -- I think it's rude of us not to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't we give him three minutes. Let's cut the time down. He's here-- MR. PONTE: If every -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MR. PONTE: If all of the other arguments that you put forward are valid, whether it's 30 seconds, three minutes, five minutes or 10 minutes -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. I'm just throwing out options. If it's no, it's no. That's fine. MS. BARNETT: My concern is he contacted Michelle, he asked for it, he was put on the agenda, and now we're being rude to him in not letting him speak. MR. PONTE: I don't know what he wants to talk about. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we didn't know what it was. We didn't know he was here. It doesn't say that. It just says a case. We don't know on the agenda whether that's -- Michelle wants to tell us something or say that it went south, so -- Page 91 January 27, 2005 MR. BOWIE: And there are other provisions within our rules which allow for a petition for a rehearing, a petition for abatement. You could bring all kinds of petitions and requests. I don't see where this respondent has brought anything within the rubrics of those other appeal procedures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, there's forms he could fill out, you know, about if he doesn't like the fines, or he can write a letter to us and say he didn't like what we did or whatever. I understand that he's waited. And, you know, we apologize for that, since we didn't know what it was. But we are concerned with, as a couple of us have stated, setting a precedence where people can just call in, and we don't know what's going on and then all of a sudden we've got to give everybody three or five minutes, and we have no information in front of us and not knowing what they want to talk about. We really don't have a way to respond other than sitting here saying okay. I mean, I think that's wrong for us to do, to be caught blind-sided by somebody talking about something we know nothing about. MS. BARNETT: Well, Cliff, shouldn't we address that for future situations in our bylaws -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. BARNETT: -- and go ahead and allow this gentleman to speak, seeing as he has sat here all day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's up to the board. And right now they're not willing to do that, so -- MR. BOWIE: Well, I'd like to move that just in a case of exceptional circumstance, without it being deemed to have any kind of precedential value or impact, that we allow this particular respondent a period of perhaps two minutes to state a case. MR. PONTE: I think it establishes a very dangerous precedent. We must know what the agenda items are. To just have an open door item on an agenda -- Page 92 January 27, 2005 MR. PETRUZZI: No sense me staying here listening to this. MR. PONTE: -- makes no sense whatsoever and is a very dangerous precedent. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think it's resolved. MR. BOWIE: I think the petitioner has withdrawn his request. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whatever. The next item under comments was rules and regulations. Everybody signed them except Albert, who isn't here, so you can issue them as is, so they're not -- and the next item at our March meeting, everybody's reminded that's when we elect our new officers, new chair and vice chair. People eligible for that are our full-time -- I don't want to say full-time, wrong word. Our regular members. Trying to look for a word. There are seven of us. But in voting, all members have the right to vote, including the two alternates. But only members who are our regular members can hold the two offices. So think about it and we take nominations from the floor in March and then we vote. You know, we do everything in the public, so no big secrets. And our next meeting is February 24th here. MS. BARNETT: Unless I hear from the county, I won't be here, because my tenure is up. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I was going to mention that a couple offices are -- the terms have expired, but of course if the interest is still there, you can -- MS. BARNETT: I reapplied, but I haven't heard. MS. ARNOLD: -- resubmit an application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And who are our two members? It was Sheri and Albert? MS. ARNOLD: I believe it's Albert. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Sheri said she's reapplied, so-- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And the alternates have an opportunity to apply for those -- Page 93 January 27, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, since there is an open position of a regular member, even though it's Albert, and we all like him, you two alternates can reapply to move up. You just not -- it's not automatic. You have to reapply. So you have the opportunity to do that and be considered, along with Albert, if he so chooses. Okay. Next meeting, February 24th. Anything else? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Under comments. I'd just like to compliment Leonardo for putting together the packet in the new format. I found that they're easy to use, very comprehensive, and I appreciate all the extra effort and the thought that went into creating this new form. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to second that. MR. HEMES: I'll third it. MR. BONANNO: Thank you all very much. I just want to thank actually the code enforcement investigative staff. Since I've been sitting here assisting you all in Ms. Hilton's absence, they've been very accommodating with some new procedures our office has, so a lot of the things you do see are a combination of my work and mostly theirs. So the credit is due to them as well. Thank you very much, though. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If that's all-- and we can't help you with a raise. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion to adjourn. MR. HEMES: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to adjourn and a second. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor? MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 94 January 27, 2005 MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you all. ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:32 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 95