Spec Master Minutes 02/25/2005
February 25, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
Naples, Florida, February 25, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Special Master in and
for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date
at 8:45 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
.'-
SPECIAL MASTER: Honorable Brenda Garretson
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT:
Leonardo Bonanno, Secretary to the Special Master
1
COLLIER COUNTY CClOE ENFC)RCEMENT
CO!'vlMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENfAL SERVICES DIVISION
2800 N. ¡lorscs!hJC Dr .
Naples, Florid" 34104. 239403-2440. I:AX 239403LJ4.\
Hearing of the Special Master
February 25, 2005 8:45 AM
HEARING AGENDA
A. Call to Order
i) Special Master Brenda Garretson Presiding
ii) Hearing Procedures
B. Collier County Code Enforcement
BCC vs. Georqe & Peaay Archibald - Case CO 2004060580
BCC VS. Rosa Quinones & Jairo Laverde - Case CO 2004100006
BCC vs. Stephen & Anita Anthony - Case CO 2004070200
BCC VS. Fabian & Maria Luzardo - Case CO 2005010315
BCC VS. Francis Oscar Olson IV - Case CO 2004120853
BCC VS. Jason Mardis - Case CO 2004110262
BCC VS. Loreynis Sanchez - Case CO 2004110857
BCC VS. Gladys Colas & Maraarett Jean-Francois - Case CO 2004040674
BCC VS. Guillermo Martinez - Case CO 2004090706
BCC VS. Jose Acosta - Case CO 2004110136
BCC VS. Gerald Davidson - Case CO 2004090262
BCC VS. Jose Luis Fernandez - Case CO 2004090757
BCC vs. Garv Wittenberq - Case CO 2004100422
BCC VS. Flora Santos - Case CO 2004110360
BCC VS. Shervl Ann Nelson - Case CO 2004080942
BCC VS. Shervl Ann Nelson - Case CO 2004080930
BCC VS. Vicki Cohen - Case CO 2004090339
BCC VS. Total Care Services of Florida - Case CO 10276
BCC VS. Joseph Lombardo - Case SO 100120
2:30 PM
BCC VS. Rav Van Tassel - Case SO 134158
BCC VS. Keri Kuvpers - Case SO 139125
BCC VS. Alan West - Case SO 140593
BCC VS. Edward Lewis - Case SO 141733
3) Adjourned - Next Hearing Scheduled for March 4, 2005
February 25, 2005
HEARING OF THE SPECIAL MASTER
February 25, 2005 - 8:45 AM
HEARING SUMMARY
A. CALL TO ORDER:
The hearing was called to order by Special Master Brenda Garretson at 8:45
AM.
All those testifying at today's proceedings did so under oath.
B. HEARINGS:
Collier County Code Enforcement
BCC vs. Geon!e & Pe2:2:V Archibald - Case CO 2004060580
This hearing was requested by Carol Sykora, Code Enforcement Investigator, who
was present.
The Defendant was also present.
An anonymous call was received on June 16, 2004 concerning a two car garage that
was built without the proper Collier County building permits being obtained. A
violation was then sent to the owner with a stop-work order and amended to include
violation of electric being installed without proper permits. A contractor was
obtained on July 26, 2004. On November 5, 2004 an extension was granted Mr.
Archibald for 90 days to obtain the necessary drawings for proper permits. On
January 13, 2005 Investigator Sykora spoke with Peggy Archibald and stated she
could not grant another extension.
The Defendant pulled a Demolition permit and engaged a Contractor to remove the
Garage. He felt the 60 days was ample time for removal and will comply.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 91-102 sec. 2.7.6.1,2.7.6.5 and
2. 7. 6. 5a andfound in compliance with obtaining the Demolition Permit. Mr.
Archibald was ordered to complete the Demolition by April 26, 2005 or a fine of
$50 a day will be imposedfor each day the violation remaills. Operational Costs of
$198.06.
Rose Ouinones & Jairo Laverde - Case CO 2004100006
This hearing was requested by Carol Sykora, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant was also present.
On October 8,2004 Investigator Sykora received a complaint from the Inspection
Department there was no Certificate of Occupancy or Completion for permits
#20060591 for a pool and #200080459 for a pool screen enclosure in the Vineyards at
1006 Fountain Run. October 8, 2004 a notice of Violation was sent. October 21,
2
February 25,2005
2004 the owner was told of the requirements to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy or
Completion. December 7, 2004 Premier stated they will handle the responsibility of
correcting the complaint. Other requirements for compliance were needed. Nothing
has been done to date.
Investigator Sykora mentioned they have the permits, but are incomplete as they have
expired.
The Defendant, Rosa Quinones, stated she did not know there was a problem and
thought it was resolved and admitted they need to get permits.
The defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 91-102 sec. 2.7.6.1,2. 7.6.5a. The
Defendant was ordered to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy by March 27, 2005 or
fines of$50 will be imposedfor each day the violation remains. Operational costs
of$147.58 will be paid by March 27, 2005.
BCC vs. Stephan & Anita Anthony - Case CO 2004070200
(Request for reduction of Fines by Defendant)
Carol Sykora, Code Enforcement Investigator and the Defendant were both present.
The violation was for unlicensed or inoperable vehicles and is now in compliance.
Fines were imposed along with operational costs which have not been paid to date.
The Defendant, Ms. Anthony, stated she wanted the fines waived as she is having
financial difficulties.
Investigator Sykora, Code Enforcement, had no objection to reducing the fines.
The Defendant was found guilty and the reduction of fines denied. $2,200 fines
and $158.07 operational costs are owed. A payment schedule can be worked out.
BCC vs. Fabian & Maria Luzardo - Case CO 2005010315
This hearing was requested by Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant is also present.
This is a repeat offense. In 2002 a complaint was received that appeared to be
abandoned. Permit was in abandoned status. Mr. Luzardo died in the process of
building the house. The permits were re-issued, no inspections done, re-issued again
and then only one inspection done with the permits running out again six months
later.
The permit is now in an abandoned status. The house is almost finished according to
the pictures shown.
3
February 25, 2005
The Defendant, Maria Luzardo, showed pictures of the house and stated she is not
able to finish it in 60 days. She lives in Miami and her son will live in the house.
Investigator Letourneau stated he has received numerous complaints throughout the
neighborhood.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 2001-01 sec 104.5.1 and ordered to
obtain all permits needed, Certificate of Occupancy or Demo the structure and
obtain a Certificate of Completion by August 26, 2005 or $100 fines will be imposed
for each day the violation remains. Operational Costs of $169.89 will be paid by
August 26, 2005.
BCC vs. Francis Oscar Olson IV - Case CO 2004110262
This hearing was requested by Jeff Olney, Code Enforcement Investigator who was
present.
The Defendant was not present.
An evidence packet was presented. Several photographs were shown of the
driveway. Other photos were shown of a van parked in the right-of-way in front of a
County lift station with "no parking" signs and sometimes located behind the lift
station. The property where the van is parked belongs to the Homeowners
Association, not Mr. Olson. December 29,2004 a violation was mailed to Mr. Olson
and cited for illegally parking at residence and prohibited use of the land next door. It
is an unimproved lot that needs a principle structure. A vehicle can not be parked on
it.
After receiving the notice the van was moved for a short period of time and was then
again in violation. Dating back to 2002 a citation was issued for the identical
violation nine times.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 04-41 sec 2.02.03 & 4.05.03a. Mr.
Olney was ordered to pay a fine of $250 for the immediate violation and to remove
the van by March 2, 2005 or fines of $50 a day will be imposed for each day the
violation remains. Operational Costs of $180.76 are to be paid for a complete total
of $430. 76.
BCC vs. Jason Mardis - Case CO 2004110262
This hearing was requested by John Santafemia, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant was not present and was properly noticed.
November 6, 2004 a "sweep" was conducted in Golden Gate City. The property at
24th Place had several items stored in the rear yard. Attempted to contact resident to
no avail and left his card at the door asking for a call back. Returned to location and
items remained. He personally attempted to serve the violation and found no one at
home. The violation was then mailed by Certified Mail with no return receipt
4
February 25,2005
,...,_."
received in return. The notice was then posted on property and adequate postings and
affidavits were completed.
The Mardis' are living in Kentucky and renting the property. An inspection of the
property shows a topper from a truck remaining on the property with the rest of the
items disposed of.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordin all ce 04-41 sec 2.02.03. Operational
Costs of$101.25 are to be paid and remove the truck topper by March 4, 2005
otherwise a fine of $50 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains.
BCC vs. Loreynis Sanchez - Case CO 2004110857
This hearing was requested by John Santafemia, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant was not present and properly noticed.
On November 22,2005 the property was inspected from a complaint received
regarding work being done without permits. Upon that inspection it was noted new
windows were installed and the exterior was being prepared for new stucco.
Remodeling of the property is being done without permits. With no one being home,
photos were taken and a card left at the residence. Photos were offered into
evidence. Other attempts to contact the residents were made with finally a certified
mailing with a return receipt in which was signed. Met with owner's wife and
planning to find out what permits were required. As to date permits have not been
applied for.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 04-41 sec 10. 02. 06B1 & sec 104.1.1
and ordered to pay Operational Costs of$128.33. He was also ordered to obtain the
necessary permits for renovation work being done by March 27, 2005 or a fine of
$50 a day will b imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter. He is to
get the appropriate inspections and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within 60
days (April 27, 2005) or a fine of$50 a day will be imposed for each day the
violation remains.
BCC vs. Gladys Colas & Mar2:arett Jean-Francois Case CO 2004040674
This hearing was requested by John Santafemia, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant, Gladys Colas, was also present with her daughter Nadia St. Martin,
who is translating.
On December 3,2004 a complaint was received concerning an inoperable vehicle in
the rear of the property. After inspection it was found a notice of violation was also
issued in May 2004.
5
February 25, 2005
Inspecting the property yesterday afternoon it was found the vehicle has been
removed.
The Defendant stated the vehicle has been removed.
The Defendant wasfound guilty of Ordinance 91-102 sec 2.6. 7.1.1 and ordered to
pay Operational Costs of$101.33 by March 7,2005.
BCC vs. Guillermo Martinez - Case CO 2004090706
This hearing was requested by Shawn Luedtke, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant was not present.
On December 16, 2004 Investigator David Scribner discovered a shed in the rear yard
of 176 43rd street SW without building permits being obtained. Pictures were offered
into evidence. A notice of violation was served to Mr. Martinez giving 30 days for
permitting and to come into compliance. An extension was granted as Mr. Martinez
was attempting to obtain the proper permits. As of today, no permits have been
applied for.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 91-102 sec 2.7.6.1,2. 7.6.5,2. 7.6.5a,
& 104.1.1. and was properly noticed. Mr. Martinez was ordered to obtain a
Building Permit or a Demolition Permit and demolish within 14 days (March 11,
2005) or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains
thereafter.
Operational Costs of $98.66 were imposed and required to be paid by March 11,
2005.
BCC vs. Jose Acosta - Case CO 2004110136
This hearing was requested by Shawn Luedtke, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant, Jose Acosta, was also present.
On November 3,2004 Investigator David Scribner observed a garage converted into
an apartment at 2197 44th Terrace SW. No permits obtained. On November 15,
2004 a Notice of Violation was issued giving 30 days to comply. January 25,2005
the violation remains. A permit was applied for on February 4th to enclose the garage
for converting into a wet bar and game room but no permits had been issued to date.
The Defendant offered papers from a planner into evidence. A translator, Flora
Santos, was sworn in.
The garage is to be a bar and game room along with a bathroom installed. He does
not intend to use it as an apartment. There seems to be some confusion as to the
process he needs to follow.
6
February 25, 2005
This case was CONTINUED until April 15, 2005 to give the Defendant ample time
to review information with his permitting agency.
BCC vs. Gerald Davidson - Case CO 2004090262
This hearing was requested by Shawn Luedtke, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant was not present.
On September 7, 2004 Investigator David Scribner observed property at 4273 20th
Ave. being used as a rental dwelling without the proper registration. Stephanie Allen
was the tenant occupant. A Notice of Violation was issued and posted the next day
on the property. On September 21 st the property owner requested an extension. On
February 7,2005 a fax was received from Mr. Davidson informing them the unit is no
longer a rental.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 89-06 as amended by 99-58, sec 6
and was noted the Defendant had been properly noticed of the hearing.
Being in compliance the Operational Costs of $98.88 were imposed.
BCC vs. Jose Luis Fernandez - Case CO 2004090757
This hearing was requested by Shawn Luedtke, Code Enforcement Investigator.
On September 16, 2004 Investigator David Scribner observed a garage converted into
a living space at 4340 22nd Place SW. A Notice of Violation was issued with 30
days to comply. Mr. Fernandez did contact Investigator Scribner for elevation
drawings but no permits obtained to date.
The Defendant stated he is doing a conversion and is aware of what is to be done to
comply. He is having difficulties in getting the drawings completed and needs to
submit a permit.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 91-102 sec. 2. 7.6.1, 2.7.6.5, 2. 7.6. 5a
& 104.1.1. He was ordered to obtain the proper permits and Completion of
Occupancy by March 27, 2005 or afine of $50 will be imposed for each day the
violation remains. Operational Costs of $1 00. 98 were imposed.
BCC vs. Gary Wittenber2: - Case CO 2004100422
This hearing was requested by Heather Grimshaw, Code Enforcement Investigator
who was present.
The Defendant was also present.
There were calls and concerns of litter at 8 River Court. Beer cans, cartons, soda cans
etc. were observed for the property on October 7th, 2004. A Notice of Violation was
issued Mr. Wittenberg. Other complaints have been received from the public. He
was told of his responsibility to monitor and maintain his rental property. A letter
was requested from the manager of the Double Suites Hotel as to their concerns and
7
__...·.k·_,"_
February 25, 2005
to call when litter is observed. A packet of letters and photos were submitted into
evidence.
On January 13, 2005 she again observed litter on the property.
Pictures were shown of the property on different occasions with beer cans, shopping
carts, clothing and bottles.
The Defendant stated the property is State Licensed and presented inspection reports
showing no violations. The tenants have been there for 7-8 years. Mr. Wittenberg is
trying to educate and work with the tenants. He stated the property is in compliance
with the zoning.
Special Master Garretson mentioned the shopping carts are in violation as it is
considered theft and litter and also litter is not permitted outside a residence.
On February 14,2005 the notice was sent by Certified mail and it was noted Mr.
Wittenberg received the posted notice.
The Defendant wasfound guilty of Ordinance 99-51 sec 6-8 and ordered to abate
the litter by March 4, 2005 or afine of$50 a day will be imposed for each day the
violation remains thereafter. Operational Costs of $1 08.23 are to be paid by
March 4, 2005.
BCC vs. Flora Santos - Case CO 2004110360
This hearing was requested by Heather Grimshaw, Code Enforcement Investigator,
who was present.
The Defendant, Flora Santos, was also present.
More than one complaint had been received with numerous attempts to contact the
owner of the boat to no avail. Cards had been left and violation posted on the
property. The violation was a boat parked in the driveway.
The Defendant has now sold the boat which took a longer time to clear due to
personal problems.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 04-41 sec 2.01. OOB and noted it has
now been brought into compliance with the boat being abated. Operational Costs
of$100.50 were imposed to be paid by February 28,2005.
BCC vs. Sheryl Ann Nelson - Case CO 2004080942 & Case CO 2004080930
This hearing was requested by Ronald Martindale, Code Enforcement Investigator
who was present.
The Defendant was not present.
Both cases are for the same Defendant for a violation of delinquent rental registration
on two separate properties. Case was started in August 2004 with Certified mail
being returned as undeliverable. Both properties and other locations were posted with
8
February 25,2005
violations with no response. The Defendant did pay delinquent dues and has been
abated and in compliance in both cases.
The Defendant was properly noticed in both cases and found guilty of Ordinance
89-06 as amended by 99-58 sec 6 & 2004-58 sec 7. The Defendant has been brought
into compliance with abatement and Operational Costs of$243.65 were imposed
and to be paid by March 28, 2005.
BCC VS. Vickie Cohen - Case CO 2004090339
This hearing was requested by Ronald Martindale, Code Enforcement Investigator
who was present.
Mr. Vader Loomis was present in the Defendant's absence.
On September 9,2004 an anonymous complaint was received concerning a fence
being collapsed and falling into a neighbor's property. The property was overgrown
with weeds and apparent no one was living on the property. A Notice of Violation
was issued for the weed growth which was abated. Additional time was requested
from the property owner for addressing and taking care of the fence, which was
granted. On October 21 st the property had been cleaned from litter and weeds.
Photos were shown taken on February 8th showing the fence still in disrepair.
Investigator Martindale has been contacted by Vickie Cohen that some of the fence
has been removed, but this has not been verified. The last time the property had been
observed was February 7th at which time they were not in compliance.
Mr. Loomis stated a permit was needed to demolish the fence, and then found one
was not needed. Some of the fence has been removed. The Condominium
Association removed the old fence and put a new fence in.
Investigator Martindale stated the entire fence needs to be removed. When more than
50% is down, it needs to be connected, replaced or totally demolished. The fence on
the south side has been removed and the north side hasn't fallen over nor anything
else done to it.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 91-102 sec 104.1.1 and ordered to
come in compliance with taking the fallen part of the fence down. Operational
Costs of $156.42 was imposed to be paid by March 28, 2005.
Investigator is to confirm abatement.
BCC vs. Total Car Services of Florida - Case CO 10276
This hearing was requested by Cristal Segura, Code Enforcement Investigator who
was present.
The Defendant Mr. Bruce Delia and Mr. Peter Flood, Counsel for the Defendant were
both present also.
Investigator Segura received a complaint on December 7, 2004 regard a tree pruning
violation. In observing the property on 121 Sable Lake Drive, it was found a live oak
9
February 25, 2005
,...-....
tree in the front of the home had been severely pruned incorrectly or "topped"
according to the National Arborist Standards which Collier County follows. (4.06.05
or Ordinance 04 41 as amended. A photo of the tree had been taken. Total Tree Care
had done the work and the owner was unaware it had been an illegal pruning. The
tree has been removed and replaced with another tree in a different location. The tree
company was notified of the violation according to County Code. They had been
notified in the past of a violation in 2000 by a different investigator. Citation was
issued to Mr. Delia and his company for doing the improper pruning on the canopy
tree.
Mr. Flood asked Investigator Segura if she was familiar with Ordinance 0446 in
issuing citations. She responded "yes." Several questions were asked ofInvestigator
Segura concerning repeat offenders, sending prior notices prior to issuing citations.
Two prior citations had been issued Mr. Bruce Delia on April 4, 2000 for work done
on Berkshire Commons for severe pruning and topping of various trees according to
Investigator Segura. Mr. Delia's company was under another name in 2000.
Several questions between Counsel and Investigator Segura concerning the company
that was issued the citations being Mr. Delia's were given. Mr. Delia is operating as
a Corporation and the one to receive notices according to violations according to Mr.
Flood.
Mr. Bonanno reminded Counsel that Mr. Delia is being cited under Ordinance 04-41
as amended sec 4.06.0511 and the one the Special Master will rule under at this
hearing. He also reminded him Ordinance 04-46 are the rules that govern today's
procedures. Dialogue pursued concerning the Ordinances and citations. Mr. Flood
stated there was no written notification of violation of the Ordinance and asked the
hearing be dismissed on the fact that she has no authority to hear the case
procedurally and technically because the Ordinance was not followed in issuing the
violation.
He asked the previous violations be stricken as it was not the same entity or
corporation.
When a second citation is issued, it is a stronger fine, but Investigator Segura is
charging for the first offense of$105.00.
Bruce Delia stated a statement was made of a violation at the address mentioned and
it was not.
Mr. Flood asked the citation again be dismissed as the officer did not follow proper
procedure set forth in section 10 in Conduct of Hearing - para. 2b. He stated she
admitted she did not issue a notice to the person committing the violation of the code
and ordinance.
10
-.--
February 25, 2005
,-
A discussion between the Special Master and Counsel was held on the different areas
of the Ordinance and various sections pertaining to Notice to Correct and Conduct of
Hearing were read. No corrective action is possible as the tree was topped.
Special Master Garretson ruled to deny Mr. Flood's motion to dismiss the citation.
She stated it would be futile to issue a notice to Mr. Delia as Investigator Segura
would not be able to tell him what to do.
Photos of the tree were shown. Dialogue of incorrect pruning, topping a tree and
pruning according to National Arborist Standards followed between Counsel and
Investigator Segura.
Mr. William Delia discussed details of properly pruning of trees, stress to trees and
safety issues. He stated the County has told them in Michelle Arnold's office that if a
tree has been improperly pruned in the past, there is no way to properly prune it
afterwards and maintain the health of the tree, so consequently can continue to prune
it in the same manner.
Discussion followed on grandfathering of the Ordinance due to topping of trees in
general. Mr. Delia also discussed the Arborist standards, health of the tree and safety
issues. The Ordinance addressing Pruning Standards was also discussed. (4.06.0511)
Investigator Segura stated the tree should have been removed when initially topped as
the County does not allow for a tree to be grandfathered when initially topped. The
County was not aware of it, which is irrelevant at this time.
Mr. Flood read from the Ordinance be cited for.
Investigator Segura stated when a tree is topped it makes the tree unsafe. When the
branches grow back, they are weak and prone to breakage. That makes the tree
unsafe.
Special Master Garretson responded that the County is following a set of standards
and have been put on record what they are. (ANSI A300)
Investigator Segura explained the standards are explicit to topping stating that it is not
an acceptable pruning practice according to the National Arborist Standards.
The standard practices handed to Special Master Garretson were ANSI A300 of the
Tree Shrub and Other Wooded Plant Standard Practices under Pruning, under
4.46. The definition of topping is: the reduction of a tree size using heading cuts
that shorten limbs or branches back to a predetermined ground limit. Topping is
not an acceptable pruning practice. Exhibit A - (Photograph on overhead) It is a
prime example of the definition just read.
11
February 25,2005
,..-
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 04-41 as amended sec 4.06.05Jl and
4.46 of the standardjust read into the record. Operational Costs of$159.38 was
imposed along with $105 citation to be paid by March 28, 2005.
BCC vs. Joseph Lombardo - Case CO 100120
This hearing was requested by Deputy Shannon Lee, issuing officer, who was
present.
The Defendant's brother was present as he was driving the vehicle in question. His
Counsel was also present.
On December 28, 2004 there was a hit and run. The witness that called the officer
identified the hit and run vehicle as being parked in a handicap zone that was properly
marked. The witness that called the Deputy identified the driver driving the car. The
officer stated he was not required to put a name on the citation. He asked the suspect
about the incident. The suspect stated he did hit the car and didn't think anything of
it, and then he wasn't sure he hit the vehicle and the officer also noticed alcohol on
his breath. The person identifying the driver (witness) did not want the officer to
arrest him with a DUl. The Deputy stated there was no crime then and dropped the
criminal case. But the officer did cite him for the parking violation of which the
suspect admitted to. He did put the name of the registered owner on the citation.
Mr. Flood, Counsel for the defendant, asked several questions on the parking of the
vehicle being in the handicap parking area. Pictures were offered into evidence. It
was determined the area was marked with the blue lines and marked for handicap
parking. The pictures were addressed concerning the walkway, other cars in the area
and the area being clearly marked. The pictures being viewed were taken by Mr.
Lombardo on January, 2005.
Mr. Lombardo explained further the pictures displayed on the overhead. The
defendant stated he bumped the other car and they were both going to go their
separate ways. It was dusk when the incident occurred. The defendant stated he did
not realize it was a handicap parking spot when he pulled into it. He was in a hurry
and did not see the handicap sign or markings. He stated he did not pull into it
knowingly and it was not clearly marked. He also admitted to having a couple of
drinks with a friend and a glass of wine.
Much discussion followed on the pictures taken with trees obscuring the area.
The officer stated the pictures were taken at an angle that didn't allow clear visibility
of the parking space in question.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 80-47 sec 6 and ordered to pay a fine
of $250 and $30 Operational Costs to be paid by March 28, 2005. Total of $280.00.
Lunch Recess - 1 :00 PM
Reconvened - 2:32 PM
12
February 25, 2005
BCC vs. Keri Kuypers - Case SO 139125
This hearing was requested by the Sheriffs Officer, Deputy Mike Thomas who was
present.
The Defendant was also present.
Deputy Thomas sated that he issued this citation on December 4, 2004 during the
Snow fest event. The Defendant was issued a parking citation for parking in an illegal
area along side the roadway. Deputy Thomas started that a "NO PARKING" sign
was present.
The defendant, Keri (Kuypers) Squittieri, stated she did not see the "No Parking"
signs. She admitted since there were signs, she was guilty.
Special Master Garretson agreed to accept the Defendants guilty plea of Ordinance
80-47 sec 6. The Operational Costs of$30 were waived and thefine reduced from
$30 to $15 which was paid at the time of the hearing, February 9, 2005.
BCC vs. Edward Lewis - Case SO 141733
This hearing was requested by Lawrence Keller, Sheriffs Officer, who was present.
The Defendant was not present.
Officer Keller stated he was on duty in the Pine Ridge Crossing Center/Target. After
checking carefully for a handicap permit a citation was issued to the Defendant.
The Defendant admitted he did not have a handicap sticker or sign. He did give the
officer a letter from his Doctor stating his medical condition at the time. The letter
was offered into evidence.
Mr. Bonanno explained Mr. Lewis can contact the Tax Collector's Office to obtain a
valid handicap permit. If one is issued, the citation can be reduced by $20 by the
Citation Processing Office.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 80-47 sec 130-67, but if the
Defendant can obtain a valid handicap permit he is to show it to provide evidence to
the Citation Processing Office and pay the $20 fine by March 11, 2005. If he is not
eligible for a Handicap Permit, he is ordered to pay thefine of$250 by March 11,
2005. Operational Costs were waived.
BCC vs. Alan West - Case SO 140593
This hearing was requested by the Sheriffs Officer, Lawrence Keller, who was
present.
The Defendant was not present.
There was a note presented from Mr. West. He was contending the citation was not
clear with a legible copy. He has asked for a continuance. Officer Keller stated there
are legible copies.
13
February 25,2005
The case is continued to March 4, 2005. A legible copy of the citation will be sent
to him.
BCC vs. Ray Van Tassel- Case SO 134158
This hearing was requested by Bill Hems, Sheriffs Officer who was present.
The Defendant was not present.
Mr. Bonanno spoke with Mr. Van Tassel who had a medical procedure. Mr. Bonanno
spoke with his wife notifying her of the new hearing date in addition to mailings
notifying him of the date.
Officer Hems stated on November 22, 2004 a black Chevy Camaro car was parked in
the right-of-way at 2212 45th Street SWat 11 :00 AM. A ticket was issued for $30.
The Defendant was found guilty of Ordinance 80-47 sec 130-66 with notice
properly given. The Defendant was ordered to pay the fine of $30 and Operational
Costs of$30 for a total of $60.
Mr. Bonanno announced that Investigator Carol Sykora was recognized as
Collier County Employee of the Month.
The next hearing is scheduled for March 4, 2005.
*****
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the Hearing was
adjourned by order of the Special Master at 3:14 PM.
FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER
Leonardo Bonanno, Secretary to the Special Master
14
.-.--