The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 02/24/2005 R February 24, 2005 .- TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, February 24,- 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 (Absent) 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 ____0 d,,_ '''''-',,-,'-''''-' "...,....,,,_._.,.....~.._~.'".,~y.. ---~_..._,~._".-. "--"'-~- - CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 24, 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 - January 27. 2005 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS -. B. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: 2004- 72 CASE ADDR: 820 20TH A VENUE NY, NAPLES OWNER: JAMES & SHERRY MARSHALL INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: Ordinance 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(d), as well as Ordinance 2002-01, the Collier County Building Code, section 104.5.1.4 Enclosure of garage and lanai, as well as the construction of a chicken hut, all without Collier County Building Permits. 2. CASE NO: 2005-01 CASE ADDR: 2181 16th A VENUE SW, NAPLES OWNER: KARUCHY SIERRA INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 Enclosure of garage and lanai, as well as the construction of a chicken hut, all without Collier County Building Permits. 3. CASE NO: 2005-02 CASE ADDR: 610 SUNSET DRIVE, GOODLAND OWNER: HOLLY HEATH INSPECTOR: LARRY SCHWARTZ .,-- VIOLATIONS: Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 Double-wide mobile home, carport and lanai without Collier County Permits. --...- " -_.._~_._-~;-~-_.,"^ ._.__.....w._._.__."'__ - 4. CASE NO: 2005-03 CASE ADDR: 4259 23rd PLACE SW, NAPLES OWNER: ALEXIS P ALOMEQUE INSPECTOR: SHA WN LUEDTKE VIOLA TIONS: Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 1.5.6, 2.1.11,2.1.15(1),1.8.7,1.9.2,2.2.5.2.1, 2.2.5.4.3, 2.2.5.4.62.7.6.1 2.7.6.5 and 2.7.6.5A, as well as ordinance 2002-01, the Florida Building Code, secs. 104.1.1, 104.1.3.5, 106.1.2 and 106.3.1 Garage converted into living space, structural addition to the rear of residents, detached structural addition in rear yard and a canopy in the rear yard all erected/modified without Collier County Permits. 5. CASE NO: 2004- 77 CASE ADDR: 411 JONES STREET, IMMOKALEE OWNER: MARTHA LEE JOHNSON INSPECTOR: PHILLIP SALINAS VIOLATIONS: Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 1.5.6, 2.1.11,2.1.15(1),1.8.7,1.9.2,2.2.5.2.1,2.2.5.4.3 and 2.2.5.4.6 Prohibited uses and structures. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens .- 1. BCC vs. Roger Withers(new owner) CEB NO. 2004-12 (Edward McCarthey & Doris Lewis, former owners) 2. BCC vs. Sonnie Tibbanear CEB NO. 2004-19 3. BCC vs. George & Sandra Parsons CEB NO. 2004-25 4. BCC vs. Debbi Maschino CEB NO. 2004-50 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS a. Reminder - March Annual Meeting - Election of Officers 9. NEXT MEETING DATE March 24, 2005 10. ADJOURN .- -- -'--- February 24, 2005 .- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please take 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. N either Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll call, please. MR. BONANNO: Chairman Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. - MR. BONANNO: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Doria? (N 0 response.) MR. BONANNO: For the record, Mr. Doria is not present and did not call in. Mr. Hemes? MR. HEMES: Present. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Present. MR. BONANNO: And for the record, Mr. Bowie did notify us that he wouldn't be appearing today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, since we have one, two, three, - four only five regular members present, both our alternates will participate and vote in the proceedings today. Page 2 ~....._,.-,,--..----^.~-.- .~-~'"<>, ---- ._-- February 24, 2005 "- Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, revisions to our presented agenda? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. We do have two stipulated agreements, and so those items will be heard first. And the first one will be 2005-01, and that's Board of County Commissioners versus -- whatever, Karuchy Sierra. And the other one is 2005-02, Board of County Commissioners versus Holly Heath. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll move those up. Any other changes or additions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MR. PONTE: So moved. ,,- MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as changed. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) _. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes from January 27th, 2005. Any changes, additions to those? Page 3 _,_"__,~.__"___^,,_,,^,,,"',_,.__.^^_,,..u._ February 24, 2005 MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we accept the minutes. MR. HEMES: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as submitted to us. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll now open our public hearings. The first case, we have a stipulated agreement on Case 2005-01. MS. ARNOLD: Jeff Letoumeau, the investigator for that case, will present the stipulation. And the respondents are present; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: That is correct. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This morning Ms. Sierra came in and signed a stipulated agreement with my supervisor, Dennis Mitchell, and agreed that the violations were actually correct. Which read: The enclosure of the permitted garage and lanai and a chickee hut built, all without - obtaining proper Collier County building permits for them. The agreement states that she has agreed to pay all operational Page 4 ___,..__.,_..._m"_"'__""_"~_,,___,_,_,_,_,,,,,,_,'~_ "~..,- ---- February 24, 2005 - costs in the amount of $358.87 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by obtaining Collier County permits, if attainable, for the garage and lanai conversions and the chickee hut and follow through with all the required inspections and certificates of completions or occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violations continue, or must obtain a Collier County demolition permit and restore the property to its original permitted condition, removing all the related debris to an area intended for such use within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. MS. DUSEK: I have one question. I'm not sure whether, Jean, it .-- may be you. In the obtaining, if permittable, the permits for the garage, lanai and chickee hut. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Should we not have garage and lanai separate from the chickee hut? If he gets -- or she gets them for the lanai and the garage but not for the chickee or vice versa? Rather than lumping them all together? MS. RAWSON: We can ask the Code Enforcement Board investigator or some staff member if there's a difference in obtaining for a lanai and garage and chickee hut. I'll bet there is. And if you could be denied one and granted another. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, you could. That's feasible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, unless I misunderstood what you're -- didn't you say by obtaining building permits? Wasn't that plural? -"'"0 MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, obtaining Collier County building permits. Page 5 ,.-... --,--'-"",,, ......_- February 24, 2005 - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So hypothetically, since there's three items, she would need -- and I don't know how they group the permit -- three permits or two permits or something. Since you used the word permits. Jean, does that protect us? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think Bobbie's point is well taken, what if she got two and didn't get the third, is she in violation or not? MS. DUSEK: What I would like -- MS. ARNOLD: The only -- excuse me, if I may interrupt for a second. The only reason that they wouldn't give her a permit for any of the structures is if there was an encroachment of any sort, meaning they wouldn't meet setbacks. And Jeff may be able to answer this, but I don't believe any of the structures are encroaching into any of the setbacks. .-- MR. LETOURNEAU: No, I don't think there's any setback problems. And I actually believe that Ms. Sierra's going to go down today and submit -- she's got plans to submit after this meeting. So I think most likely one permit contains the lanai and the garage, and the other one's probably for a chickee. Oh, you're not really sure, okay. MS. DUSEK: Well, that's my only concern, I would like to suggest that we just separate the two and instead of $100 a day, do a 75 for the garage and lanai and a 75 for the chickee hut. That's a suggestion on my part. Because I'm not sure if she doesn't get one that we should violate her. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess I need to ask Jean a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We also -- this agreement has an "or" in it, that or she could get a demolition permit so -- in 60 days. So if she submits for three permits, let's say, she gets two and not the other one, --'- she then has to turn around and she has the right to get a demolition permit -- Page 6 - .. "~'-"---'-<-'-~'~'~"" 'e'_"""_~' ~'~,M~."."'''_' ,,_ ' ~-"- February 24, 2005 - MS. RA WSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- for that one. MS. RA WSON: Correct. If she for example got the lanai and the garage and not the chickee hut, she's got 60 days to demolish the chickee hut. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But why do we need to separate anything? I mean, I'm just confused. I think it's all working, but maybe I'm not understanding it. MS. BARNETT: Well, I had a question about the 60 days versus 90 days. Because one, the building permit is longer than the demolition permit. So she has up to 90 days to get a permit, so she could say I'm trying to obtain a permit in that 90 days and say that expires and her 60 days is already gone. MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm not sure why the staff recommendation is 90 and 60, but I'm sure they have a valid reason. .- MS. BARNETT: I'm just curious. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, basically the building permits are a lot harder to obtain than the -- the demo permits, you just walk in there, on one hour or so you get a demo permit. MS. BARNETT: But what if it takes her 90 days to find out that she's not going to get the building permit that she needs. Then her 60 days is already expired. MS. ARNOLD: Then we would not hold that against her and she would -- MS. BARNETT: But it says either/or and it gives her a 60 day from this date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What if we recommend, since you made this agreement and you're presenting it to us, and we'll ask both of you, but I kind of agree with Sheri, I would be prone to make the comment to the other board members that we make both days the -.". same, 90 and 90. That way if she doesn't get, or it appears she's not going to get building permits, she can turn around and quickly get a Page 7 -,.~- ,H_.____.,._.____'"'..--._ .--- February 24, 2005 - demolition permit. Because they're both 90 days. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know, does that work for you, Sheri? Is that more comfortable? And then we'll ask the lady, but let's first see if -- MS. BARNETT: That's fine with me. I just think they need to be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Keep everything at least on the same table -- MR. LETOURNEAU: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- date-wise. Okay, Bobbie, you still have a concern about the three of them? MS. DUSEK: No, if Jean thinks that that "or" will satisfy -- MS. RAWSON: I think the "or" will satisfy it, because if she doesn't get the building permits, then she could get the demolition - permits. That probably covers it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ms. Sierra? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're in agreement with this? MS. SIERRA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we said? MS. SIERRA: And I just want the board to know that this is not that I -- something that I did do, this was something that was done in '94 by my ex-husband. I had no idea of permits or anything like that. And someone called and said this was going on, and Jeff came out and I was like I don't know anything about this. But we've been working together. And it did take me a while to get the plans, because the architect or engineer was a very busy person, and I'm not the only client he had, apparently. But I am trying to straighten this out. "",.-. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What the board -- the agreement that has been presented to us, we're going to make one change, and it is the Page 8 --..'" ,- ..,---~"---~--,.,,-- .".....-.-- February 24, 2005 -- 60 days for the demolition permit, we're going to increase that to 90 so that both of them are 90 days. Do you have a problem with that? MS. SIERRA: No, I appreciate that. That's very good. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, before she leaves today, I'm going to have her -- I'm going to change that and have her initial the stipulation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. That's the only change that the board would recommend. Any other questions for the investigator or Ms. Sierra? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. You may sit down. MS. SIERRA: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as amended. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement as amended by the board. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The next stipulated agreement is Case No. 2005-02, Holly Heath. Page 9 ---'~ __'.._a_'.~____. ~._'...- .._..,..~- February 24, 2005 - MR. SCHWARTZ: Morning, members of the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SCHWARTZ: A stipulation agreement was signed this morning between Ms. Heath and my supervisor as to the matter. The violation noted was that a double wide mobile home, carport and lanai with no Collier County permits. The -- Ms. Heath agreed to pay all the operational costs in the amount of $623.04 occurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by applying for Collier County permits, if attainable, for the double wide mobile home, carport and lanai within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $75 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. And obtaining all required inspections and certificates of occupancy, completion within 60 days of permit issuance or a fine of $75 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit and remove all structures and all - related debris to an area intended for final disposal within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $75 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. And that the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for the investigator? MR. LEFEBVRE: One question. A dollar amount was put on for the operational costs. And typically there's going to be more operational costs incurred. So isn't it correct that we leave that open until you're done with your final inspection and everything? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions? MS. DUSEK: I just have one technical question that I think already answers itself, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. On the sheet that we have that describes the violation and the .~-" recommendation, you have a violation of2.7.6.5.A of Collier County Ordinance No. 91-102 (sic). But on the statement of violation and Page 10 -~-,. .~_u "~"".'<'''.'" _~,.~.~,""'_'N~'" ... .--- February 24, 2005 .- request for hearing, that particular violation is not stated. So I'm just bringing that to your attention. And I think the statement of violation is the one that holds, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's written in your stipulated agreement? MS. ARNOLD: It has 5 and 5(A). But I don't know if it -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because that will be what the order says. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, 5(A) just specifies that they need to go through and obtain certificate of completion, which is what the -- within 60 days, which is what pretty much the stipulated settlement agreement is. MS. DUSEK: But should that be removed, since it wasn't in the statement of violation? MS. ARNOLD: Well, both the notice of violation and the -- stipulated agreement contain it. MS. RAWSON: The 2.7.6.5.A and 2.7.6.5? MS. DUSEK: So Jean, is that all right then, if it's not stated in the statement of violation? MS. RAWSON: The statement of violation is the charging document, so that's really the one we go by. But you know what? Their stipulation supersedes it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Supersedes everything. I mean, they've agreed to a document, so -- MS. RAWSON: If they agreed to 2.7.6.5.A and 2.7.6.5 and 2.7.6.1, we'll put all three of them in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, first of all, unless I've forgotten how to read code, they -- she's been cited for 2.7.6.5 and 5.A. A is part of 5. So since she's been cited for 5, A is automatic. MS. RAWSON: Yes. -,~. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's just a part of it. MS. RAWSON: It is. Page 11 - ",___o.____','_~,.._,._'".~ -,", - ---- February 24, 2005 - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you don't need to cull it out. Is that correct, Jean, or did I -- MS. RAWSON: It is correct. I'll probably put it in the order, since it's in the stipulation, but you're right, it's redundant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ms. Heath? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I assume you've agreed with everything in this stipulated agreement? MR. HEATH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The one change the board is going to make to this agreement is on these operational costs for prosecution, there's a dollar amount, I guess in -- of six something, I think. MR. HEATH: 623. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we're just -- we're going to take -",- the dollar amount out, because the costs are going to continue until this is over. MR. HEATH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? And so there'll be some additional costs. We're just going to say -- we're going to change that agreement that you agreeing to pay the operational costs in the prosecution of this case -- MR. HEATH: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- period, no dollar amount. Is that fine with you? MR. HEATH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Ms. Heath? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. MR. HEATH: Thank you. - MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as amended. Page 12 "."~-- -".,,"'~'~--'.'"'"-'--~'-''' , -.".- February 24, 2005 '~'- MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement as amended by the board. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? ,,- (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Case No. 2004-72. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, there has been a request from the attorney representing Martha Lee Johnson to be moved up on the agenda, if it's possible. So if we can hear her next. And that's item 5, 2004- 77. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the board have any problems with moving what's on our agenda as Case No. -- listed as Case No.5, moving it up -- MS. BARNETT: Is there a reason? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- for right now? And the reason being, Michelle, that we want to move this up? MS. ARNOLD: Not really. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I don't know if the MarshaUs are here, but why are we -- _."'~ MS. ARNOLD: No, they're not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They're not. Okay. Page 13 --"'- ~.,'""_. - .-. '~--,..-.-.._,-"" February 24, 2005 -- MS. McALISTER: Colleen McAlister. I'm an attorney with legal aid for Martha Johnson. The reason I asked them to move it up is I had originally thought that I would be able to give this board some absolute hard deadlines on demolition of the mobile home today. But because the application process -- we've not heard back from Social Security verifying income, we have not yet placed the tenants that are currently living in the mobile home. I'm asking the board if we can continue for one more month. And probably by the next board meeting the mobile home will be gone, but I can't give you some absolute hard deadlines today, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So what you're asking us to do is move this up and then you're going to ask us for a continuance? MS. McALISTER: Correct. That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, Michelle, this is -- have we heard - this case before? MS. ARNOLD: No, we haven't heard this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is the first time. MS. BARNETT: Yes, it is. I thought we continued it last month. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it was continued from last month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. I kept thinking, something rings true, but I don't remember the case. So this is a second continuance. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The attorney did request it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, first order of business is the board has to agree to move the case up. MS. BARNETT: As long as the other people are not here, I don't have a problem with that. But if the other people would be here, then I -- - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, you're saying the Marshalls aren't here? Page 14 -.."---- ~,-~.- February 24, 2005 - MS. ARNOLD: Yes, they're not. And they're not going to be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. So the Marshalls are not here, so we're not putting a hardship on them. Does the board agree to move -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we move the case of Johnson forward. MR. PONTE: I'd like to discuss that first. There are a couple of considerations here. This case first came before -- or to the attention of the board in the year 2002 as a matter before code enforcement. November of 2002. That's when the violation was first observed. We're along in 2005 and we're still on the same case. Also, I'm concerned with the fact that it was Ms. McAlister's evaluation that the other agencies would put this case on a fast track - and be done in a minimal amount of time. We're now looking at an undetermined amount of time, and certainly not on a fast track. MS. McALISTER: I can address those points, if you'd like. MR. PONTE: Please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's first decide if we're even going to hear it out of order. MS. DUSEK: That's what my motion was, just to hear it now in front of the other cases. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I would ask, Bobbie, if you wouldn't mind, in moving it up let's just swap the Marshall case and the Johnson case. That way the Polomeque -- I hope I said that right -- if they're here, that doesn't put any burden on them, that just moves Marshalls to last. So we're just swapping -_ MS. DUSEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- one case for the other, and it doesn't - create a hardship on anybody else. MS. DUSEK: Okay. The motion would be then to move Case Page 15 --.. --'- .. -.""- February 24, 2005 - No. 2004-77 to the position of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2004-72. MS. DUSEK: -- 2004-72. And reverse those, just change those positions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion to swap one case for the other in order. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a second to do that. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. - MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the next case is 2004-77, Martha Lee Johnson. And I assume what we're going to hear is a request for a continuance. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we weren't aware of that request, so we were planning on presenting the case. But obviously she's here to request another continuance, you'll hear that first and then __ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's let her tell us what she wants and then I'll ask the county if they have a problem with it. MS. McALISTER: Mrs. Johnson has applied for a H.O.M.E. -- rehab loan. Currently Wendy Cloff at the county has sent out the verifications, the income verifications to Social Security for both her Page 16 '"'-'-',~ -~F__ ~_.._. February 24, 2005 - and her handicap son. When those come back, the funds, the actual funds for the demolition can be approved in a matter of just a few days. In the interim, we have sent out -- both myself and Rick Torres from the county have sent out bid requests. There must be at least three bids submitted to the county for the cost of demolition and removal of the mobile home. We sent those out. I sent mine out with the request they make known to me their available dates to actually do the work, as well as a price so that we'll know precisely when we can have the home removed. The bigger problem is the fact that there are two tenants, an elderly couple living in the mobile home. Under the federal guidelines, we cannot dispossess those tenants without placing them in suitable alternate housing. There is a program with funds available currently now being .- administered by the Collier County Housing Authority which grants a rent subsidy to low-income people, similar to a Section 8 voucher. I've talked to Angela Edison at the county. She has talked to the tenants. In fact, she's meeting with the tenants today in Immokalee at Friendship House to talk about where we can put them. There's two problems with that: Number one, they're elderly, and they're not suitable in all kinds of housing. And number two, Immokalee at this time of the year is very full. So Angela and I met yesterday in Immokalee and talked about it and realized that we're going to have to both go out there and literally find alternate housing. But the federal government will not pay for the cost of demolition of the mobile home until we have placed the elderly couple. Nor do I believe that we want to be in the position of putting an elderly couple out on the street. They are willing to move, Mrs. Johnson's willing to destroy the mobile home. Phil Salinas from Code .- Enforcement has been out there to look at the property to see if there are any other potential code violations that can be remedied at the Page 17 w_~_"..__". -~........_-~" ,-"'~. '..'-"'--- February 24, 2005 - same time that the mobile home is demolished, including some appliances that are sitting around. Mrs. Johnson understands that all of this is going to happen in, you know, a logical sequence of events. And my problem is at this point is that everything is going to wait until we can find someplace for that couple to live. And when I first talked to Mr. Marsh this morning, I said I can't possibly promise you seven days. So it may be that -- it may be that Friday we find alternate housing. I just don't know today where we're going to put them. She's meeting with them today. We're moving as quickly as people can make these things happen. MR. PONTE: Is the elderly couple living in the rose colored mobile home that's depicted in our packet? MS. McALISTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George, you have to be careful, nothing ._"- has been submitted to us yet. We haven't -- we're not hearing the case, we're just hearing that she wants to move it forward to next month, so -- MR. PONTE: I'm just looking at the deplorable conditions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we can't use any of that information yet. We actually haven't heard the case. MS. BARNETT: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. BARNETT: How do you feel? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I feel that the attorney's here, we have the case. If there is additional time other than the seven days that's being proposed, that's being requested, we are willing to listen to the amount of time that she thinks would be sufficient to get the elderly couple relocated and then have the structure demolished. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess in hearing the attorney, my - comment would be they seem to be trying to resolve the code infraction, but there's some federal guidelines giving them the Page 18 .- -, '-""-~ ..-..... ""- February 24, 2005 --- problem. Moving the case forward to next month I don't think hurts anything. If we hear it today we're going to possibly make a decision, if they resolve everything within 30 days. And in 30 days I think this is going to go away. If they can find everything and there won't be a case to hear. MS. ARNOLD: But we will still be bringing the case to you is my point. That's exactly my point. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I'm kind of leaning towards going ahead and hearing it, because this has been going on since 200 -- MR. LEFEBVRE: November, 2002. MS. BARNETT: -- 2, and I hated to stall it any longer. I think understanding the federal guidelines, we can use that in our stipulation of what we tell them that they have to do, but I don't think that that's grounds to stop, because everything's here. This is my personal . . opInIon. - MR. KRAENBRING: Is Michelle -- you're saying that regardless of what we do today, we're still going to have to be hearing it next month? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: So is that double the work in a way? MS. BARNETT: Well, if we make a stipulation today and it's cleared up next month, we're not going to hear it. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the continuance. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request to continue the case. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. - MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. Page 19 -.-.... ----""."", "---" February 24, 2005 - MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry, we're going to hear the case. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB Case No. 2004-77, Board of County Commissioners versus Martha Lee Johnson. The violations are that of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, paragraph one, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.2.5.2.1, 2.2.5.4.3, 2.2.5.4.6 of Collier County Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. The violation is described as prohibited uses and structures. The location exists at 411 Jones Street, Immokalee, Florida. - The person in charge of that location is Martha Lee Johnson. The violation was first observed on November 7th, 2002. A notice of violation was served on June 13th, 2003, and the violation was to be corrected on or before July 5th, 2003. A reinspection occurred on December 7th, 2004, and as of that date the violation still remained. The Code Enforcement department has provided a packet of information labeled Exhibit A for the board's consideration that we ask be entered into evidence at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying .- aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. Page 20 .....--,.-.-...".. .-- February 24, 2005 "-. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) MR. BONANNO: And Phillip Salinas is here to present the case to you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SALINAS: Good morning. For the record, Phillip Salinas, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, Immokalee area. On November 7th, 2002, Investigator Claudio received a complaint from tenant Moses Magwood. Complainant stated that the landlord who owns a mobile home at 411 Jones Street does not want to fix the problems inside the home. Investigator Claudio investigated a site visit on that same day and observed a pink mobile home located behind the main principal structure at the said address. After researching the permit records, the investigator found that the placement of the mobile home on the property was completed without first obtaining, if obtainable, the required Collier County building permit for such improvements. On November 14th, 2002, Investigator Claudio sent the property owner a notice of violation via certified mail. The property owner, Martha Lee Johnson, received the notice on November 19th, 2002. After numerous site visits, Investigator Claudio observed that the mobile home still remained in violation. On May 9th, 2003, the case was assigned to Investigator Lopez, who along with the help of Investigator Mazzone together draft .- another notice of violation, and on June 4th, 2003 attempted personal service but to no success. Page 21 -.," ,-"",,'<.,,- ,.~._.~- February 24, 2005 - On June 5th, 2003, notice was sent via certified mail, which the property owner received on June 13th, 2003. Again, after numerous site visits, Investigator Lopez observed that the mobile home still remained in violation. On October 22nd, 2003, the case was assigned to Investigator Salinas and a site visit was performed. Investigator Salinas spoke to the property owner, who stated that she was still unable to remove the mobile home due to financial reasons. Again after numerous site visits, Investigator Salinas observed that the mobile home still remained in violation. To date the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone have questions for the investigator? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I have one. The folks that are living in the pink or rose-colored mobile home, - the photo that you've submitted is of a premises that I could only best describe as delapidated. There seem to be holes in the wall of the mobile home. What's the story there in terms of health or safety hazards to the occupants of that mobile home? MR. SALINAS: Health and safety hazards, I would say that the conditions are unlivable. I did not gain access to the interior of this home. It's always been padlocked. When I took the case over, I simply was just going to speak to Mrs. Johnson and observe the mobile home myself, and which I did take a few photographs of. But it is directly behind the home. I do not believe the plumbing is hooked up to it. I don't know how they use water or flush toilets or anything like that. I do know __ I want to say electricity may be hooked up to it or not. I don't see a power wire going directly to it, so I don't know if it's underground or where it may be. I don't know as far as utilities. -- I've never spoken with the tenants, though. Never been able to locate them or get them there at the time of visit. Page 22 ---~,~..". --- ~-- February 24, 2005 - MR. PONTE: So we don't know whether these are the same tenants who made the original complaint in 2002? MR. SALINAS: No, along the code case detail, there have been different tenants along the way coming and going. MS. McALISTER: I can speak to the original tenants. The original tenant that made the complaint was actually kicked out by Mrs. Johnson because he took the whiskey and became loud and disorderly on her property at night, and so she told him to leave. And his answer to being kicked out was to turn her in. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Ma'am? .-, MS. McALISTER: I can only say at this point that, you know, if the county wants to stipulate to some agreement, I will agree. I would like this board to understand that Mrs. Johnson looks out her front door -- and perhaps this may partially explain why she's done nothing. She looks out her door and sees far more egregious violations right across her street. That doesn't mitigate her responsibility for taking care of what's on her property, but she lived in that trailer 40 years ago while her house was being built. The house was built directly in front of the trailer. When she moved in her house she put tenants in there. She's never rented it for more than two or $300 a month to other people in need in Immokalee. The current tenants, quite frankly, I have talked to and I've spoken to them twice, they're happy there. The reason they're happy there is because they're safe. And despite the fact that the conditions may be deplorable to us, they're better than a lot of other conditions -~-. that would be available to them in Immokalee for the price that they can afford. Page 23 ....- _.W~',-..,._", .~._~- ,._,-,- --....'....".-......----.-,. -.--- February 24, 2005 -, Therefore, again, I go back to the idea that we have to find them decent affordable housing, and that's a problem throughout the county. And it doesn't serve this board or any agency or jurisdiction within this county to ignore the fact that that's a very, very real problem. Therefore, in entering some stipulation here, I would ask that you give us the time to find them appropriate housing. Mrs. Johnson's perfectly willing to tear the trailer down at this point. Although she thinks I'm a crappy lawyer, because I couldn't figure out a way to get her to slip by. And I've tried to explain to her that my personal opinion is it's for her benefit and the tenants that live behind her to find them decent housing and get a fire hazard away from her home. But as I say, you know, the problem is finding housing at this point in the year. I'm willing to do anything. Her income is about $16,000 a year. She currently has a $30,000 mortgage that some __ -- somebody lent her on a $700 a month income. So my concern is protecting her property, her homestead, because that is a first mortgage on her property. I've tried to do that so that she didn't really incur any additional outlay of expense. And that's what the rehab loan is. She also has an additional payment of her car, so she has basically 9,000 in disposable income. So any kind of fine this board would levy on her is just beyond her ability to pay. So if the county wants to propose a stipulation and give me enough time to do this and agree that should we not find -- I don't think there's anyone in the county that doesn't really want to get this couple into alternate housing. And certainly it's not in my position -- I only met Mrs. Johnson the middle of January, so I can't speak to anything she did or didn't do before that time. All I can say is at this point she understands that the home has to go, and it will go as soon as we get the tenants that are there out. ........~. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have you been inside this mobile home, or have you -- Page 24 -~.~--- ",._,-,- ...-.._~,,~_."._-- "-- February 24, 2005 - MS. McALISTER: No, I actually talked to Mrs. Johnson about it when I was over there yesterday. They're there during -- I've met them when they've come home in the evening, and they've never invited me in. Mrs. Johnson says they don't invite anybody in because they have all their stuff in there and they have padlocks everywhere. She said it's full of crap, was her phrase yesterday. They apparently trade in junk during the day and they keep their stuff in there. I don't know, I think there is plumbing. I know there is electricity, because it runs from her house. And I'm sure there's water, because she says she pays the water bill for the trailer and she pays the electricity, and they just pay her $300 a month. They were not happy with the idea that they had to leave there. And I explained that that really wasn't an option, so our options were where were they going to leave to. And they made it clear to me that they want to stay in Immokalee, they've always been in Immokalee, - and they don't want us to relocate them into Naples. He has a big yellow panel truck that he collects his stuff in that they do, whatever they do during the day. And so that's a consideration when we find them alternate housing is it has to be somewhere where that truck can be parked by their residence. So it's a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anyone have any questions? MR. HEMES: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. HEMES: Is there a valid rental agreement between Mrs. Johnson and these tenants? MS. McALISTER: No. But that would be par for the course in Immokalee. There are no rental agreements in Immokalee. There's an honor agreement between them. His biggest concern was he'd already paid February, and were we -'- going to make him go out before the end of February, and would he get a rebate on part of his $300. Page 25 ..~, '" "~';~->'--"" ~"";- February 24, 2005 ,,- MR. HEMES: Okay. So legally she could give them a 30-day notice to evict them. MS. McALISTER: Legally, she can give them a two-week notice, because it's an oral tenancy and they pay month to month. They're not contesting that, and if they did, the only attorney that could help them would be me, and I'm trying to help both of the parties in this particular situation. And we're not evicting the -- the Chapter 83 makes some accommodation for the fact that they're in an uninhabitable environment. So there's no legal problem with asking them to leave. And they didn't -- you know, they were given the notice prior to the 15th of February. So there is a two-week period in there which is adequate. It was not in writing, but again, they're not -- they're not concerned about that, as much as where are we going to go. MS. BARNETT: How long do you think it's going to take you to - find them a suitable home? MS. McALISTER: I'm not sure. I met with Angela yesterday from Collier County Housing Authority. She was meeting with them today at Friendship House in Immokalee to talk about it. And then she was going to call me this afternoon and she and I were going to sit down with the head of the housing authority, who also lives out in Immokalee, and sort of put our heads together about where we could relocate them. MS. BARNETT: Well, you had indicated that within 30 days you thought the trailer would be gone. MS. McALISTER: I think we'll get the -- I think that -- you know, either we're not going to find -- we have to find something for them within the 30 days. There's -- there's -- Angela can't commit that money to this couple and leave it sitting there and not help someone else without us proactively really working to get them -- the funds, the - temporary rental assistance funds that are available to help them, are available only because somebody else just dropped out of the Page 26 ._-'-'--'---~ -""'-......__.~-" .--... February 24, 2005 .'-' program. So in order to use those funds, we have to use them fairly quickly or she'll have to give them to someone else. So we're all cognizant of all kinds of deadlines operating here to try and accomplish them. MS. BARNETT: I'm trying to look for a number for you that I can put into this agreement that we have, rather than seven days. MS. McALISTER: I would ask that you give us 30, which is why I asked for the continuance, because it was my intention that I could come back in 30 and say the problem's resolved. MS. BARNETT: That's what I was -- MS. McALISTER: Okay. MR. SALINAS: If I may say something. Mrs. Johnson has known in the past about, of course the violation, the trailer being there and she's always had tenants. She's always had tenants come and go and she's always stated in some of the narratives from the past ~- investigators that she was trying to, you know, give the tenants time to actually find a place to live. And once they did move out, she was quick to put somebody right back in, or somebody came to her and say can I rent it and she said yes. Had she, you know, followed what the investigators always told her to do, get the tenants out, then we'll work on the trailer, we wouldn't be going through this matter right now of giving somebody time to find, you know, a place to live so they can release funds to have the trailer removed. I mean, it's just a comment I'd like to make. She's been aware, but she's always been able to put tenants in over and over and over again. But had she, you know, listened the first time and removed the tenants completely and never let anybody in, we'd be able to demo. the trailer right now. MS. DUSEK: Did she -- I have a question for you. MR. SALINAS: Yes, ma'am. __ MS. DUSEK: Did she ever have an attorney working with her? Did she have somebody working with her? Page 27 --- ----_. .,',----"-".~ --- February 24, 2005 - MR. SALINAS: No, ma'am. She had -- the investigators in the past spoke to her and I believe they spoke to one of her sons or a son-in-law. MS. McALISTER: They probably spoke to her niece, who is extremely hostile. And she was in fact the one that accused me of being a lousy lawyer for not finding them a loophole. Because it's her contention, look, my aunt sits here with this little trailer behind here and all these other things are out here in the county. I mean, I defend people every day who have raw sewage flowing from their toilet to the underside of their mobile home. I mean, believe it or not, in Immokalee this trailer is not the bottom of the heap, by any stretch of the imagination. These people actually -- the tenants that live there are not unhappy because truly in that price range it's not a bad place to live in Immokalee. And I think you have to have a -- you know, perhaps I ""- sound more accommodating to them living there, only because I have the perspective of seeing what other people do indeed live it. I might also say that Mrs. Johnson has a handicap son, and her attitude about putting people in there has always been that that was her way of giving something that hopefully someday when she's not living here, other people would be as accommodating to her son in the community. She's not really out to spite code enforcement of Collier County, she's just an old lady in Immokalee that doesn't understand why they're picking on her. MS. BARNETT: It's also an income stream for her. MS. McALISTER: Very much so. I mean, she gets the two or $300, which is absolutely necessary. As I say, you know, somebody gave her $30,000 on a $700 a month income as a mortgage. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They let her buy her car. It's not our - problem. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Ms. McAlister a question? Page 28 --'~'- --_._" "~~-" ,-,~- _.""- .._-- February 24, 2005 - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: You'd indicated that you were going to be meeting with the elderly couple at Friendship House. Are they at Friendship House right now? MS. McALISTER: No, they're not. That's just -- they don't have a phone, so a lot of people in Immokalee that don't have a phone use Friendship House for a phone and for a meeting place. Their truck, their panel truck can't make it all the way into the housing authority on Golden Gate Boulevard, so Angela arranged to meet with them at Friendship House. I'm not meeting with them there today, she is. Because she's in charge of the rental assistance program. So she's the one that's going to meet with them today, get their housing criteria, income qualify them, and then she's going to call me and we're going to try and figure out where we're going to go from there. -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I have a question for you. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If the board, in issuing an order, sets a time limit, which is what we normally do, "X" days or whatever, and it's not met and then the fine starts, is the board in any way, because of this federal regulation about moving somebody without first having them a place to live and all that, are we in trouble in issuing an order saying this all has to be done in 30 days? MS. RAWSON: You're not in trouble for issuing any kind of order you want to issue. They always have the right to come back. And Ms. McAlister I'm sure would come back and say, you know, you gave me 30 days, it took 32 days to find this couple a home, and we couldn't do it for 32 days, and please, you know, waive the fines. As long as you keep in mind that we have federal agencies and bureaucracies involved here that take time and you make a reasonable _. order, you're not in any trouble. And she always can come back and say this is what happened. Page 29 -,-,,-'---'-.'. "..,----,...-'~,.. q- ..----- February 24, 2005 - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. BARNETT: In making an order, is there anything that says that we can't stipulate two or three days after the placement of the couple that is currently living or residing? MS. RAWSON: Well, you can ask Michelle that question, because it puts a burden on the inspector. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we don't know when they're going to get their prices and when whoever they hire to demolish the unit is going to schedule it. So if we say gee, they find a tenant a place to live tomorrow, they can't demolish the next day if they don't have anybody under contract that can do it the next day. MS. RAWSON: Of course. And the problem with that is that means that the inspector's going to have to go figure out what's going -. on every day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. And I think we just need to pick a time limit and live with it, and that way the inspector can go out in 30 days or whatever the number is and say gee, it's all still here, and he writes it up and the fine starts, or everything's gone or he's been called for an inspection. So I think we just need to pick some number that everybody's comfortable with, whatever that is, understanding that there are these federal guidelines and regulations that say they have to do certain things with these tenants before they can do anything to the trailer. So any other questions for either the investigator or the attorney? MR. KRAENBRlNG: Yeah, I have one question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRlNG: Had the tenants been given an eviction notice? -- MS. McALISTER: No, they haven't. MR. KRAENBRlNG: The reason I'm asking is just in order to Page 30 -.'-^" ...,.,...---^ ~._,- February 24, 2005 - try to determine a time line. Because you say that you need to have two weeks for -- MS. McALISTER: We are prohibited from evicting them in actuality under the federal guidelines. What the federal guidelines require is relocation, not eviction. I certainly would not want to give them an eviction notice. I think that would also jeopardize the federal rehabilitation funds, which the federal government is clearly not in the business of tearing down something and putting someone on the street. So we've not evicted them, we're relocating is what -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And this board can't order you to evict anyone. We don't have that power, okay? All we can say is you're in violation of the code and we're going to give you so long to resolve it. And if you don't resolve it in that day, then some kind of fine's going to kick out. How you get from here to there, we really don't care, as long as it's within the law. And if the law says you have to ,- find these people a place to live, then you must do that. And if, as Jean says, the time line comes and the fine starts and you're over it, you always have the right to come back and ask the board for some consideration. But -- so the eviction really doesn't mean anything. We just have to pick a number that we're all comfortable with and they have to find a way to meet it. And if they can't, then they come back and ask us for some kind of relief. Any other questions for either -- these people? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. First order of business would be in fact is there a violation. Finding of fact. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Board of Collier County Commissioners in Case CEB No. 2004-077, that there - is a violation. The violation is of Sections 1.5.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, paragraph one, 1.8.7, 1.9.2, 2.2.5.2.1, 2.2.5.4.3, 2.2.5.4.6 of Collier Page 3 1 ---- ~-,~..,---_.,. ~.,,---,<.,..- -- February 24, 2005 - County Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation: Prohibited uses and structures. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. - MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. PONTE: Well, in framing this order, I think we should be cognizant of the fact that the respondent has ignored the board and tried to subvert the purpose and intent since 2002. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, first we all need to understand, this case has not been before the board until today, so this is -- so no one has ignored the board. They may have ignored the county, but they haven't ignored the board. MR. PONTE: Okay, I stand corrected. The violation, as described by the county, not this board, has been an ongoing situation and investigation since 2002. I think that's severe. And I think we shouldn't lose sight of that when we frame the ,- fining. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody just needs to keep in mind Page 32 -'- ,- .,~.,.._-,- ........ ..... ~-,.,_._--.".~.._~-~_.'^ .-.- February 24, 2005 - these federal regulations that are governing the tenants, whether it was the best thing for the owner to do or not. But that needs to fit in to whatever it is we do, because that's something that can't be changed. We have no authority to change any kind of federal regulations, so -- MS. BARNETT: Cliff, do we have these federal regulations because of -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I couldn't hear you. MS. BARNETT: I just said do we have the federal regulations because of the loan application? Because usually if there's a tenant agreement, you give them an eviction notice and they're gone. Is the reason that we have the federal guidelines -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think based on what the attorney said is that the tenants are elderly and if you're going to displace them from someplace, the federal regulations state that you have to -- MS. BARNETT: Please, I just need a clarification for my own -- MS. McALISTER: The reason we're confronted with the regulation is because she has applied for a federal rehabilitation loan to demolish the trailer because she can't afford to demolish the trailer on her own. I might also state that part of the reason Mrs. Johnson ignored this order and the procedures in 2002, as I said, is she has a very angry niece that has sort of pushed her, pushed her, pushed her in the direction that she had a right to keep her trailer. She had a right to keep her trailer. And she'd look around the community and say look, everybody else gets to keep their trailer, you get to keep your trailer. Mrs. Johnson herself is a 71-year-old diabetic with narcolepsy that did nothing, you know, overt to thumb her nose at the authority of the county. She's merely an old lady who has a very, very angry young niece that has pushed and pushed and pushed her. And as I _. said, even last week called me, you know, yelling at me that I was not representing the best interest of her aunt, because I finally recognized Page 33 "---~,,"" -------' -- February 24, 2005 - that the trailer had to do go. So in that consideration -- MS. BARNETT: The reason we have the federal -- MS. McALISTER: Is the loan. MS. BARNETT: -- is because of the loan, okay. MS. McALISTER: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's come back to the order of the board, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a recommendation, see if this flies, that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by, one, must vacate mobile home structure and cease use within 30 days of hearing or a fine of $80; two, must obtain a Collier County demolition permit within 30 days for the removal of the -- all the all non-allowed, non-permitted improvements and remove mobile home structure and - related debris to proper storage or proper disposal within 45 days of obtaining demolition permit or a fine of $50 a day. MR. PONTE: I don't think the fine of $80 a day is sufficient to accurately reflect this continuing violation. MS. BARNETT: George, it doesn't even say $80 a day, it just says $80. MR. PONTE: It's $80. MR. LEFEBVRE: $80 a day. MR. PONTE: $80 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The order is what's important, not what's written down on a piece of paper. MR. PONTE: And I think that fine of $80 a day is insufficient. I think this is a very severe situation. I think also that Ms. Johnson, though 71 now, was a lot younger when this started. So her age of 71 I don't think is a -- should be a consideration, shouldn't play on our -> emotions. I would recommend that the fine be $150 a day. Page 34 ,-~'_.. ,~"".."-_..~_.._._.,~_. -- February 24, 2005 - MS. DUSEK: In your recommendation, George, this is to vacate? Because we have two different fine structures here: One is for $80 a day and the other is for $50 a day. And we have to keep it within a 250 range. MR. PONTE: Right. I'd say the -- well, we've got two different items here. I think the fines should be the same in each case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. In structuring anything, please remember that our $250 limit is per violation, okay? There are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- there are eight violations. So if we're going to take the removal of the people, then it should be structured toward some violation which is the prohibited use, I'd say, 2.1.15, because they're using it because it does have all the permits and everything. Then if -- then the other money can be on the other violations, because they don't have the permits to have a trailer there in the first _. place. MR. PONTE: Well, I would just think that Charles' (sic) recommendation is correct except for the fining amount, and in both cases, $150. MS. BARNETT: On this lady's limited income, which has been stipulated by the attorney, I might go halfway with you. I can see the evicting part going 150 or somewhere in between 80 and 150, but I don't think both. MR. PONTE: There were very few respondents who come before this board who don't have limited income. So that's not a case. It's a lien against the property is the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think -- I could go along with George on the -- whatever the number is, if it's 100 or 150, on getting the people out of there and using the unit anymore. And we know they've applied for a loan. So $100 a day on the other would be fine with me, -- because we know they're trying to get a loan, and as soon as they get the money it's going to be gone anyway, so I don't have a problem, Page 35 --" ._._~_.~.- ..---.,-. "--'-' -- February 24, 2005 ,-, and that keeps you in your 250 a day range, if that's what you're trying to do. Now, how you manipulate the funds, I don't care. The second one on actually removing the structure, the attorney has told us they've applied for this loan, they feel they're going to get the loan, it's just taking time. So we know that's going to happen, so I don't think that's a biggie, that's just bureaucracy when they get the money. The more important thing is we need her to stop renting the place out. What her reasons are are immaterial. MS. BARNETT: That's why I said I can understand the higher fine on the tenant issue, but I'm not so inclined to do it on the demolition issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Whatever the numbers are, I'm not for one or the other. Everybody just, you know, come up with a number that's satisfactory and-- MS. DUSEK: Gerald? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we'll vote on it. MS. DUSEK: Are you agreeable to amending your motion to any of those? MR. LEFEBVRE: I could see maybe going up to $100 a day on each of them, but I really cannot see going much higher than that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, it's your motion, so whatever -- MR. LEFEBVRE: $100 a day for each. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For each, okay. MR. HEMES: I'll second your motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second for the operational costs, item one; item two, to vacate the structure within 30 days or $100 a day; item three, to get a demolition permit and remove the structure within 45 days; was that correct? -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or $100 a day. And item four would Page 36 -'^'~ -,-_.._-~_..'- _~__.__"J"_'_ -,- February 24, 2005 .-- be to notify the investigator when the violation has been abated. I think I got it all. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? MS. BARNETT: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think it's 6-1, if I counted right. ,......,.~ You understand? There'll be an order issued. And Jean, I guess you need to make sure that she gets a copy of it to make sure. MS. RAWSON: Oh, I will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case in line is 2005-03, Alexis Palomeque. I know Johnsons have been put down in their place. There's one in between them. That's why I said to swap them. Since the Marshalls weren't here. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB Case 2005-03, Board of County Commissioners versus Alexis Palomeque. The violations are that of Sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5 and 2.7.6.5.A of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. And of Sections 104.1.1, 104.1.3.5, 106.1.2, 106.3.1 of Ordinance 2002-01, the Florida Building Code. The violation is described as the prohibited conversion of a -- garage into living space, addition to rear of the residence, detached structure in rear yard and a canopy in the rear yard, all erected or Page 37 '~-'- . ---".,,---~"~ .._~.,.- February 24, 2005 -- altered without permits. The violation exists at 4259 23rd Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. The person in charge of that location is Alexis Palomeque. The violation was first observed on June 25th, 2004. A notice of violation was served on June 28th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected on or before July 28th, 2004. A reinspection occurred on July 28th, 2004, and as of that date, the violation still remained. The Code Enforcement department has submitted a package of information labeled Exhibit A that we ask be entered into evidence. MS. DUSEK: Before we do that, I'm not sure this is the part or the place to bring this up. And I'm talking to you now, Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: In this statement of violation, there is a violation 106.3.1, which states that they have to connect utilities. No person ,,- shall make connections from utility source of energy. And yet in the description of the violation that is not mentioned. MS. RAWSON: Well, the statement of violation is the charging document, if you will. So what it says on the statement of violation and request for hearing is what is before the board. MS. DUSEK: And so in that description of the violation, in the statement of violation, it doesn't mention connection to the utilities. Is that -- am I being too technical, or does it just go along with the fact that they're not allowed to do this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I think -- my thought process would be that the violation says the prohibited conversion of a garage into a living space. When you do that, you must connect utilities, or it wouldn't be a living space. MS. RAWSON: It's all inclusive, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that gets it all. .-- MS. DUSEK: Just wanted to be sure. I make a motion that we accept the County's Exhibit A. Page 38 --.-- .'M"~__'''.'''''--- ..-.----.-- ....._- February 24, 2005 - MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MR. BONANNO: Code Enforcement Investigator Shawn Luedtke is here to present the case. -- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKE: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case started on June 25th, 2004 by Investigator David Schrivener. He responded to 4259 23rd Place Southwest where he observed a large detached structure in the rear yard. This structure is directly behind the main residence. You can see actually some plumbing pipe running right here from the main structure to this detached structure. Also, he observed a lanai that has been attached to the rear of the house that's been enclosed. And also, he observed a garage that had been converted into a living space. And also a canopy frame in the rear yard, which is -- all of these structures and additions were done with no permits applied for. Three days later, on June 28th, Investigator Schrivener issued a - notice of violation to the owner, giving 30 days to come into compliance. Page 39 --- '-"-'~~ ,~._. . --- February 24, 2005 - Thirty days later a recheck showed that that the violation remained, but the owner had met with permitting and was attempting to get the permits necessary. On September 14th, Investigator Schrivener met with the owner and permitting so he could get everybody in one room and one page and explained what needed to be done, you know, laid it out with the owner what he needed to do as far as getting demo permits, renovation permits or permits for the structure in the back. Explained it, laid it all down, permitting was in the room, she was in the room, and our investigator was in the room. On October 15th, a month later, violation remained. Investigator Schrivener advised that the owner needed to obtain at least the demo permits for the detached building and enclosure of the lanai as soon as possible. Several more rechecks were made by Investigator Schrivener and ,.,,,- myself, showed that the violation remained. On September 21 st, I prepared this case for the Code Enforcement Board. I'll say that I did check the site approximately two weeks ago, and the detached structure had been removed. The enclosure of the lanai was returned to its conforming lanai, but no demo permits were obtained for any of this. It was just -- they did it on their hone. The conversion of the garage into a living space remains as of this morning. No permits have been applied for anything. I'm sorry, the canopy has been removed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just so I understand, this structure that looked like it was a freestanding one-car garage, this structure, you're saying this has now been converted back to a garage? MR. LUEDTKE: No, I'm sorry, that's been removed from the site. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The whole structure? - MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, fine. And this wooden structure Page 40 ""..- - .".~-- -~---_.,..-.... ".-"- ~-- February 24, 2005 - where they put up MDF around the lanai, that's all down? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes. The walls are down, it's back to the lanai. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the little tented area, that's now gone? MR. LUEDTKE: The canopy, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the only thing that remains is where the original one-car garage was, that's still there? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: Except they did that all without a demolition -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But everything was done without a permit. MR. LUEDTKE: Everything was done without permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just want to make sure that I know what was put up, taken down. It would affect, I think, any kind of a ".-- time line we'd come up with. You know, the fact that they removed something and don't have a permit, that's one thing. But where you've got to physically go in and tear something apart or get some other kind of permit, there's a different time line for that. MR. LUEDTKE: Definitely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for our investigator? MS. DUSEK: Now, just as a reminder to myself, and this goes to either Shawn or Michelle, these structures have been removed, but they were in violation prior to that. So we still go ahead with the violations prior to them being removed? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, removing them is also a violation, too. MS. DUSEK: I understand that too. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He compounded it. MS. BARNETT: Shawn, I just had a question. - MR. LUEDTKE: Ma'am. MS. BARNETT: This goes back to when the structures were still Page 41 -.. """"'-'--' ~<,---" ^- February 24, 2005 .,_", there and they had all this piping. There's one picture in our packet that shows the separated structure and then the I guess portable garage together. It's this one right here. MR. LUEDTKE: With the wooden fence in between? MS. BARNETT: Yeah. But it looks like there's piping that's just laid on the ground. Was there any sewer or anything that was leeched out into this property, or do you know? MR. LUEDTKE: There was no sign noted -- there was no notes made by Investigator Schrivener when he was initially out there and did the investigation and throughout the time he had this case, and I never saw any raw sewage. MS. BARNETT: It's just -- is that like maybe landscaping sprinklers or something that's laying out in the yard that just isn't buried? I don't understand what this extra piping is that makes a T. Not that one, Michelle. I'll just bring it over and show you. - Keep going. It's this one right here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. You need to tell them. MS. DUSEK: Page 5, the middle picture. MR. LUEDTKE: It's a sewer pipe. But we didn't see any sign of any leakage. Investigator Schrivener, I'll just -- his notes real quick, says a complete structure built in the rear yard; sewer pipe is run from building on top of ground. Water is connected by hose from main residence. And those are Investigator Schrivener's notes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I'm a little -- the question isn't for you. Okay, Sheri, tell me, what's the problem? MS. BARNETT: I was just wondering if there had been sewage leaked out on the property itself. It was just a health issue question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But they haven't been cited for that so it's -- our problem is they need to get the permits to do or undo -. what they've done. If in getting the permits an inspection crops up a health issue, then that's something we can't, you know, solve. Page 42 --'"'" r ^~"'---"--~' "--- ..-~". ~--- February 24, 2005 - MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? We need to stick with right now they've been cited for these permits of doing all these things without permits and then they've removed them without permits. So we need to stick to that. And the inspectors will find out, when they go out to check, they're removing all this, if they've created another problem which will be any kind of leak. Okay? MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First order of business is finding of fact. Does in fact violations still exist or did they exist? Remember, - we can find that violations did exist, even though they've been removed. MR. PONTE: Before we try and do that, just I'd like the legal thinking on this situation, which is very unusual in that the violation has -- there was a violation because they didn't have permits. The violation has been abated and they didn't get permission to do that. It seems like I've just fallen down a big rabbit hole here and I don't know what to think of it. MS. RA WSON: I think all the violations haven't been abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, they haven't. MS. RA WSON: But the point is, if the violations did in fact exist, then you have a right to hear this case, even if they've been abated. This is not the first time that we've heard a case which the violations have been abated like the day before you heard the case. But you can still hear the case. - MR. PONTE: Yes. No, it's not the hearing of the case, it's the question in my mind, if you are going to have a violation for an action Page 43 .-- n.~",",._.,~~...^ -"-._- '-'- February 24, 2005 ^-,- and that action is corrected but the action -- the corrective action was taken without getting a permit to do it, now we have two questions, two different cases? Do we come back here and say okay, we didn't cite you for not getting a permit for taking it down but we're going to do that after we get rid of this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, no. What we need to do is, there was a violation and he abated it himself and the case is before us. So what we would find is in fact the violation did exist. Our order would be that there was a violation and we're going to order you to either get the permits to accept the violation or get a permit to remove the violation. So he has to do one or the other. He's already removed it, but he did that without a permit. But our order would tell him we're acting like the violation is still there. We're going to give you two options: Get a permit to keep it or get a permit to remove it. He's already removed it. He needs one or the other permits, and that's what - we're going to order him to do. MR. PONTE: Can you get -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which he does, we don't care. MR. PONTE: Can you get a permit for something that's already done? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, he can go get a permit even though he's removed it. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He can do that after the fact. MS. RAWSON: After the fact. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But we have to give him the order to do one or the other. Which he does, we don't care. MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that correct, Jean? .- MS. RAWSON: That is correct. You can get after-the-fact permits. Page 44 --~-. ~'-~---'""--" .00'''_''--'''-' --'~"- February 24, 2005 .....". MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. BARNETT: In that case, I'd like to make a motion that Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2005-03, Board of County Commissioners versus Palomeque Alexis, that there was a violation. The violations of Sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5, 2.7.6.5.A of Collier County Ordinances 91-102, as amended, and violations of sections 104.1.1 and 104.1.3.5,106.1.2,106.3.1 of the Florida Building Code, as amended by Ordinances 2002-01. MS. ARNOLD: Can I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We want to say one thing. You said that there was a violation. In fact that the violation did exist and still exists, because he hasn't corrected all of it, he's only corrected part of it. MS. BARNETT: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Also, just a minor correction on the Ordinance 91. -_. You forgot to say 102, you said 02. So just make sure that goes in the record as 102. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 91-102. And did you get the other? Did she get both ordinances? Because there's two different ordinances. Okay. MS. BARNETT: With those corrections -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was trying to keep track of it so I wouldn't forget that rather than "was" there, there was and still is a violation. MS. DUSEK: Also, one more correction. I think that the first name is Alexis. I think you read it as his (sic) last name first. Those are just minor corrections just for the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact the -- MS. BARNETT: I didn't give a description of the violation, but is that all right? - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, go ahead. MS. BARNETT: The description of the violation is the Page 45 -,. -~.""- ".~..,-........__._" -.,.--- February 24, 2005 ...-, prohibited conversions of a garage into a living space, additions to the rear of the residence, detached structure in the rear yard and a canopy in the rear yard of this RSF-3 zoned property, all erected and altered without permits obtained. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that a violation did and still does remain. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. ~- MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. George, you want to make a -- MR. PONTE: Not yet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're still thinking about this, aren't you? MS. DUSEK: I think it's -- the recommendation is pretty clear. I will make the motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required building permits or demolition permits, if attainable, and follow with all inspections through certificate of completion for the prohibited conversion of the garage, .- addition of two resident canopy erected in rear yard and detached structure within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be Page 46 ,--... -. ..__. -+"'---""'<--.-' .--....--,.," -- February 24, 2005 _. imposed for each day the violation continues. And that the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. PONTE: There would just have to be an addition there, wouldn't there? You have to get a permit to demolish. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, she said that. MS. DUSEK: I did say that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She said obtain all required building or demolition permit. So she gave him the option to do one or the other or both in this case. Ifhe keeps the garage conversion that's actually in the house, which I suspect he's going to try to do, he'll need a permit for that after the fact, and he'll need an after-the- fact demolition permit, so he will end up getting two, I suspect. Okay, George? MR. PONTE: Yes. .,,-~ MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 90 days is a little bit long. MR. PONTE: Yeah, seeing it's already been done, I rather agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's ask Michelle. Michelle, ifhe wanted to get an actual permit for this garage conversion, about how long would that take? MS. ARNOLD: He would need the 90 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He would need the 90 days. I would suspect he needs some kind of drawings -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and engineering and all that kind of mess. If he keeps his current garage conversion, that will probably take that long. Okay, Gerald. So we have a motion on the floor. Do we hear a second? MS. BARNETT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. - Everybody understand the motion? Any further questions? (N 0 response.) Page 47 -.,... _.~,-~-- '........, ._^-""'-_.~ ".- ~- February 24, 2005 .-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Last case, Case 2004-72, James and Sherry Marshall. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB Case 2004-72, Board of County Commissioners versus James and Sherry Marshall. -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I'm going to interrupt. I think we're going to ask for a continuance of this case. I did speak to Mr. Marshall yesterday. He indicated to me that he would not be able to be here. Myself and Jennifer Belpedio did. And he did express a concern that he received the packet on the 17th, but the packet required that he submit his response -- or a defendant packet to us by the 14th, so he didn't have sufficient time. So we don't have any obj ections to continuing this to the next meeting. And we'll send a notice to that effect, that it was continued. And I expressed that to him. But, you know, also expressed that you all would have to allow that to happen. MS. RAWSON: Why don't you just remove it from the agenda -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just remove it from the agenda. MS. RAWSON: And then you can put it back on the agenda next month. .-. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we don't have to give you a continuance. Page 48 .~^ ~ - -~"'---"^ .-,.-- -..,'...-- February 24, 2005 ,;- MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're just requesting to remove it. MS. ARNOLD: Sure, I'll do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board -- I'd entertain a motion to permit the county to remove this item from the agenda. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to remove this item from the agenda. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. - CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take -- it's 10:52. Let's come back at 11 :00. That's eight minutes. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the board back to order. Public hearings are closed. We've accomplished all that. Let's get to our new business. Request for imposition of fines. MR. BONANNO: CEB Case No. 2004-12, the Board of County Commissioners versus Roger Withers. This case was first brought before the board on June 24th, 2004, actually in the name of Edward McCarthey and Doris Lewis, for a violation that's described as the existence of a carport converted into living space with electrical --^ improvements, all done without proper permits. The respondent was ordered to abate all of the violations in Page 49 "'---- <"-"~._..-." ~..__..."__'~'e_'" -- February 24, 2005 - accordance with the orders that you should all have attached. The Code Enforcement department is asking that you impose fines in the amount of$I,100. Also, pursuant to a stipulation agreement that was reached with these individuals, the operational costs were waived. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Withers is present, and I do believe he would like to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: -- make a comment to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. WITHERS: Everything is correct. And I did everything that I could as quickly as I could. But between September and November 3rd, there were four hurricanes in Collier County. I signed the compliance agreement on the 24th of June, I took out the demo .- permit on August 14th. I had received the notice of commencement on August 16th. It was demoed on September 1 st through the 7th, 8th, somewhere there. My contractor could not get dumpsters from Waste Management. They considered intentionally destroyed materials on a site that was not inhabitable to not be a high priority. We could not get dumpsters from Waste Management through the rest of September. My contractor subcontracted to Bonnie Jolly, who has her own dumpsters. She removed it as quickly as we could. And we called for a final, final inspection. And that's the sum total of my story. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, this fine is for 11 days, and you're asking the board to do what, waive all of it, part of it? Give us something else. We've heard your story, but what -- MR. WITHERS: I'm sorry, I'm asking you to waive the fines, because it was a hardship that was totally beyond my control. And I ,,""'-~ stepped up to the plate when this has been a multi year running problem and did everything as quickly as possible to solve what had Page 50 -~"., "....""",-,,-,~. -"."".- M'., . ~'-""- February 24, 2005 - been a long problem. It wound up being a very unpleasant experience with me. And anyway, it's done, it's over. I did everything I could to cooperate. I would appreciate your help to cooperate with me in light of I had no control over those circumstances. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Withers, are you saying that the only reason you didn't get into compliance on the date that we had stipulated is because of the hurricanes? MR. WITHERS: Oh, absol-- the dumpster -- the lack of dumpsters, period. Pure and simple. The buildings were destroyed, along with the time frame of -- I gave you. They were in the first week in September. And from that time we were trying to get dumpsters from Waste Management. Ultimately could not, and we were told you're not going to get them until problems in Lee County, Charlotte County and other areas subside. So that's the reason we went with another contractor, sole reason for the delay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just want to make a comment. If I'm not mistaken, this was the property where the attorney came in to us the beginning -- or spring of last year and stated that he won't -- probably won't transfer until we hear the case and so forth. I think that was -- MS. BARNETT: Right, and then the property transferred and this poor man got stuck with everything. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So right now Mr. Withers is asking to us waive the $1,100 fine. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, do you have any comment? MS. ARNOLD: He's absolutely right. We verified that he demoed -- demolished the buildings when he indicated he did. It's just that they weren't -- MS. BARNETT: He couldn't get it removed. "",-- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, he couldn't get it removed from the site. And when it was finally removed from the site, we did again go out Page 51 -'~-'- -."-----"-. ,,,,,,...,-,."-"_. ""'.,- "" ~." -...---.-- February 24, 2005 - and it looks 100 percent better than it was. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that the fine be waived. MS. DUSEK: I second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to waive the fine as presented before us. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? ."'-';0 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine is waived, sir. MR. WITHERS: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one is case 2004-19. MR. BONANNO: CEB Case No. 2004-19, Board of County Commissioners versus Sonnia Tibbanear was brought before you initially on July 28th, 2004 for a violation described as a garage renovated into living area with plumbing and electrical improvements. A patio was also constructed in the rear yard. All of this done without the proper permits and certificates of completion. This case was originally filed against who Julio and Alba Vargas, who were the previous property owners. The son of the current property owner, Ms. Tibbanear, is present, and you did meet him on October 28th, 2004 when he came before you and asked for an extension. ~, Both of your past orders are attached to your packets. I was just informed that the Code Enforcement Department has Page 52 .._~ ' .....^_.~_._..""~"...,,~""' <-,_..~ ~--- February 24, 2005 - decided to waive the operational costs in light of the circumstances of this case. So the only matter outstanding is a total of $300, because he wasn't in compliance by the deadlines that you set. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Gonzalez is present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And again, I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzalez is who? MS. ARNOLD: The son of the current property owner. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question. I guess my mind is fuzzy today and I'm not totally understanding why we are eliminating operational costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's the county's privilege. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the -- we're recommending not to impose it, just because again, like the prior case, this property owner wasn't the one that created the violation. After he obtained -- or his mother - obtained the property, they did everything they could to try to comply with our request. MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I speak, or do I have to -_ CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, just one moment. So really, what we're looking at for us is the lien is $300. The operational costs of700 is being waived by the county. So we're down to only considering a $300 fine. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: This case was against the Vargas's. He was in position to buy the property, and I think, if he can correct me, that the Vargas's told him that they had abated all the violations before he even got the property. He came before the board afterwards and asked for an extension. And he had problems getting a demo permit because there was some question in the permitting department of whether or not some of - the garage had been reverted back to its original condition or just part of it. And that went on for a couple of weeks, probably. And by the Page 53 ,.~ ,,~~ - ~.,_. February 24, 2005 - time he got the demo permit, it was almost too late to get everything done on time. So that's why the fines had went on. So in all reality, he did everything he could to try to get that demo permit and the garage back to its condition. Is that about right, sir? MR. GONZALEZ: That's right, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. Well, sorry about that. Yes, I did have a delay of I think it was two or three days, because once you apply for a permit, you have to be granted the permit in building department. Once the permit is granted, they have to be processes take place, a few days to be processed. And after it's been processed through building department, they have to send a building inspector to give the final C.O. So I was finally approved to being processed for the permit on __ - after trying for a few days, after a week, I have to meet with the director of building department. I was approve on -- I was approved to apply on the 12th, 11. Because before that, I couldn't be getting approved to apply. They wouldn't get any -- how you say it -- they wouldn't give me any papers saying I had apply for a permit. So I finally get approval for applying on 12th 11, and they have to submit it inside there, and then they approve it on the day, on the 11 th, 11-19. So a few days later, like six days almost, later. But then they have to send an inspector which take more time because the inspector who work with code building permit. He won't make it the same day. So he say when he have to schedule. He's busy. And that wasn't through November 22. So even though I got -- tried to work it out on time, I couldn't get this person, building inspector, before the 22. It was not out of my - ball. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Page 54 ._--."",- ------_.~",.,- ,-....,"',.._,~., .-,- February 24, 2005 -. MS. ARNOLD: Could you just state your name for the record so that the court reporter has it. MR. GONZALEZ: Yeah. My name is Arnado (phonetic) Gonzalez. I'm the owner's son. The owner is Sonnia Tibbanear. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. So again, we're -- the county has asked us to -- MS. ARNOLD: I don't think he said it but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- impose a fine of$300, which is four days, so -- MS. ARNOLD: I think he was requesting, he didn't say it but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, I think he's asking us to waive the four days, $300, so -- MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we waive the fine. ",- MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to waive the requested fine of$300. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? .- (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There will be no fines, sir. Page 55 --,--,...~..~. - ",",,--," .-.,-. - ""-"'- February 24, 2005 - MR. GONZALEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Last one, Case 2004-50. MR. BONANNO: CEB Case No. 2004-50, Board of County Commissioners versus Debbie Maschino. This case came before you on September 23rd, 2004, and actually at that meeting the violation, which at the time was a boat trailer with an expired tag, was abated. So the Code Enforcement Department is only asking for operational costs in the amount of $386.83 for the prosecution of this case to be imposed at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And the board remembers, these are costs that we cannot do anything about. We can't waive them or reduce them. And the county hasn't asked that they be waived, so we have to impose them. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose -- MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. .- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the operational costs as requested. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that ends our new business. Old business, we have a request for a foreclosure on Case 2004-16. - MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I guess that's Board of County Commissioners versus Chris Posada. We request that we forward this Page 56 -~". . "~'-...... - ..._----_...,<>....<_.~.._.__._- February 24, 2005 - case to the county attorney's office for foreclosure or handling accordingly, as there's outstanding fines in the amount of$20,814.25. And they are still accruing because the violation has yet to be abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a motion to forward the case to the county attorney? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we forward this Case 2004-16 to the county attorney's office. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to refer Case 2004-16 to the county attorney for foreclosures. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. .- MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No other old business. We have a report on the Robert France case. And it is from their attorney. MR. BONANNO: A condition of your order of January 27, 2005 granting an extension to this respondent was that he provide this report to the board periodically. Assistant County Attorney Jennifer Belpedio is here, if you have any questions about the report or if any verification is needed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jennifer, just one question. Is the county happy with the progress? - MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, assistant county attorney. I can certainly speak to whether or not we believe Mr. France is Page 57 .-. .'_'-~'_""",,~.,,_._.~-,_. -" February 24, 2005 .- pursuing his end of the agreement with due diligence, and I believe that he is, in my experience, in working with his attorney. I certainly believe if there was any perception by any of the numerous staff persons that have been working with Mr. France or his attorney that he is not diligently pursuing what he's required to do for the property exchange, that I or Michelle would know about it, and I do not. So we're very satisfied. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Thank you. Okay, that's all our reports. Yes, sir? MR. LEFEBVRE: One thing. Regarding 228 Sable Palm Road, Mr. Withers, did we do anything regarding what the attorney said about he wasn't going to close on the property? Was there any action taken on that at all or any follow-up? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, there's really nothing we can do. I mean -- .~,- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- other than remembering that someone came before us and made a statement and the statement appeared to be untrue. I mean, that's about the extent that -- maybe the next time someone tells us that something isn't going to happen, we find a way to handle it differently. And that would have to be on a recommendation from our attorney as to what we might could do to see that that doesn't happen again. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I have a comment. This is to Michelle. For years we never had an executive summary, and then you initiated the executive summary, which I thoroughly liked. It helped me tremendously. And then a few months ago it's not there anymore. I would like very much to have it come back. It's easy for me to follow the time line and know more thoroughly about the case. ,- MS. ARNOLD: Whatever the pleasure of the board is. I know that we have some other issues to discuss with respect to a workshop, Page 58 " "-'..--------...- "-...,<p,.- February 24, 2005 ,,- so maybe we can discuss that at -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, one of my -- I was going to throw out to the board, I think it's time that we have a workshop, because there are some items. And what I was going to recommend, if everybody -- if you have an item that you think we should all discuss to whether it be how our board secretary sends something to us or in what form or whether it's anything else that maybe we should be doing as a board, even if it relates or doesn't relate to our rules, if you could jot those down or e-mail them to either Leo or Michelle, I'd like to ask Michelle to try and find a time when we could have a workshop and discuss these things so that Jean could look at them and say yes, you can do that, or yes, it's a good idea or here's my suggestions. We haven't had one where we discuss among ourselves for a while anything, and I think it's time we do that again. So if anybody - has any suggestions or items they want to talk about at a workshop, if you would get that information to either Leo or Michelle, and we'll try to find a time when it fits into our schedule. MS. DUSEK: Well, let me say, in addition to the executive summary, which I just assumed is a format, a way of presenting everything to us, I don't think it needs to be discussed at a workshop, but that's just my opinion. But I also want to say, what has been done has been such a tremendous help, the way you've organized each of these cases. It is so much easier to follow, and I do truly appreciate that. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. MS. BARNETT: Also the timely manner in which we're receiving them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're trying to say, Leo, good job. MR. BONANNO: Thanks again. Ifwe can do this every month, that's fine. Page 59 ...._...',w..,._._... ...,.,~,_~_ '-'-.--..,-",^".. ---~-,~-,<.,"._.,,"'......"' -.-- February 24, 2005 - MS. BARNETT: Are we in the comment section yet? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we're in the comment section. MS. BARNETT: I have one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. I can wait. MS. BARNETT: And it has to go with the fact that we've got elections coming up. And Jean, are we allowed to, like at a meeting if the board so chooses, change something? MS. RAWSON: Two things happen at the meeting in March: One is, and what you should all be doing now is taking a look at your rules and regulations, because we change them periodically as needed. But we always review them at the March meeting to see if there are any revisions that are necessary. So that's one thing we do. And the other thing is we elect a chair and a vice chair. MS. BARNETT: Can the regulations be -- or our rules be - changed prior to that meeting? You said periodically, so can we change them at that time? MS. RAWSON: Well, we change them all during the year when you vote that there's a necessary change that needs to be made. MS. BARNETT: Okay, I'm only bringing this up because I started trying to think of the officers for the board. My only personal opinion. And because of our current regulations, one of the people that I think that has and can serve us well as a board chair would not be eligible. And I only know personally of one other person that I feel has been on the board long enough that would be willing to do it that is capable. So I think that's limiting our scope of who we could put as chair. And because of -- our rules state that one person cannot do it after having served two terms, that would mean that Cliff would not be eligible, because he has been the chair for two terms. So I'd like to bring up a discussion with the board as to whether or not we want to _., look at that article and maybe change it. I mean, I -- in all honesty, I can think of Robbie is eligible and Page 60 "---,,-_., ~"'"",--""-,_..._---,,,-,,,,,.,..-.""",,,,_.,,,,,,_... .. .. ...... ',~...,~-"---~...-,.,-~"'"".,"", '- February 24, 2005 - capable, and Cliff. I don't think George is interested in it. The rest of us haven't served long enough, I don't feel. MS. DUSEK: I have a very strong opinion about that. And several years ago we brought this before the board and had a major discussion about it. And it was passed. Because in almost all boards or committees, a chairman usually serves two terms and then someone else takes over, you know. I think you sell yourself short in assuming -- or all of us -- assuming that someone else couldn't chair. And I think it's an opportunity for someone to chair. And you always have the guidance of Jean and Michelle and the rest of the board. It's just a matter of leading people through it. I think it's a very healthy rule to have someone come in after two years. And you have a different slant, you have a whole different approach. You're still covering the same things. And I feel like any - person on this board could do it, to tell you the truth. Maybe not everybody chooses to do it, but I think it's a healthy rule to have. If you look at the County Commissioners or the City Council, you'll see that those are usually two terms. And I think it's just a healthy rule to have. MS. BARNETT: Like I said, I just brought it up for discussion. Because I myself do not feel like I know all of the -- MS. DUSEK: Dues you learn. MS. BARNETT: -- rules well enough to be the chair. You know, that was just my feeling. So like I wanted to bring it up for discussion. Does anybody else have any thoughts? (No response.) MS. BARNETT: Okay, then I guess we'll leave it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Reminder, next month is our election of -- chair and vice chair. Something will take place. And if there's something that we want to discuss about our rules and regulations, you Page 61 . ._"._~,----- > ----."--.- February 24, 2005 -,." can bring it up. Remember that in normally in changing our rules and regulations, if we're making some major revisions of lots of words and everything, it's the time to present it. We can all discuss it and then we would vote on it at the following meeting. Unless it's something, maybe a word or something that we could make a quick decision on or a time line or something. But if we're going to rewrite a paragraph, our normal practice is present it to us, we'll talk about it, and then we actually vote on it at the following meeting. That's been our practice in the past. Our next meeting is March 24th in this room at 9:30. Anything else? (No response.) MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we adjourn. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to adjourn and - second. All those in favor? MR. HEMES: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. ,-"'- Page 62 .-.... ,.~'---,_...'"........-.~. ,-,-. . ,"'"_.. --- February 24, 2005 - ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :27 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN -~. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. - Page 63 ~_..,__ "__~M""'__"'_'_'" ._.~..__.._..__..__>"_.." -.....-........--..-,--. .--.-