Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/30/2005 R March 30, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida March 30,2005 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 Roberta Dusek Nicolas Hemes (Absent) Richard Kraenbring (Absent for part) Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for Code Enforcement Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Leonardo Bonanno, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: MARCH 30, 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 VERBA TIM 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. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2005 5. PUBLIC BEARINGS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion for Extension of Time 1. 2. BCC vs. Martha Lee Johnson BCC VS. Fred and Nonna Kowalke CEB NO. 2004-077 CEB NO. 2004-037 2. Motion for Continuance I. BCC vs. James & Sherry Marshall CEB NO. 2004-72 B. BEARINGS I. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-72 820 20TH AVENUE NY, NAPLES JAMES & SHERRY MARSHALL JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: Ordinance 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 1O.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 Pennits. 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 5. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 6. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 7. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2005-05 1812 LEED AVENUE, IMMOKALEE JEAN-BAPTIST LAMOUR CHRINSTINA PEREZ Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5, as well as secs. 104.1.1, 104.1.3.5, 105.5, 106.1.2 and 106.3.1 of the Florida Building Code. Enclosing of an attached carport with now expired pennits. 2005-06 1826 IMMOKALEE DRIVE, IMMOKALEE RAUL & CARMEN DIMAS CHRISTINA PEREZ Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 2.7.6.1 Enclosing of a carport without Collier County Permits. 2005-09 249 WEST DELAWARE AVENUE, IMMOKALEE EJ PROPERTIES, LLC - LEONARDO D. STARKE, ESQ. REG. AGENT PHILLIP SALINAS Ordinance 89-06, as amended, the Collier County Standard Housing Ordinance, sec. 5 paras. I, 11, 12i, 12k, 12l, 12n, 12p, 16c, 16d Rental Unit in disrepair. 2005-11 2228 42nd STREET SW, NAPLES MIGUEL & DAIMA FERNANDEZ SHAWN LUEDTKE Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 2.7.6.1 2.7.6.5 and 2.7.6.5A, as well as ordinance 2002-01, the Florida Building Code, secs. 104.1.1 and 106.1.2 Conversion of a single family residence to a multi-unit rental property without Collier County Permits. 2005-12 2571 WILSONS BLVD NORTH, NAPLES BENITO RAMOS & SONIA TEJADA JEFF LETOURNEAU Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 Pole Barn converted into an enclosed structure without Collier County Permits. 2005-13 2960 56th AVENUE NE, NAPLES ERNESTINA SACCA JEFF LETOURNEAU Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, secs 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), (B)(1)(D), and (B)(D)(I) Erection of a guesthouse without Collier County Permits. 8. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2005-14 3584-3586 MERCANTILE A VENUE, NAPLES JOHN LEE ARNOLD & DEAN ARNOLD CHRISTAL SEGURA VIOLATIONS: Ordinance 04-41 ,as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,sec 4.06.05(J)(1) Excessive Pruining of required Black Olive trees. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. William Petruzzi CEB NO. 2004-46 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. REPORTS A. CEB Case 2004-01 BCC vs. Robert France: Status Report a. The Respondent was ordered to furnish a status report prior to this hearing as a condition of the extension of time granted at the hearing of January 27,2005. 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE APRIL 28, 2005 11. ADJOURN _ ,.".....___^"~_~_~.,~'_."~.M._ March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the 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 training thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May 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: Mr. Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MR. BONANNO: For the record, Mr. Hemes notified us he will not be participating today. And for the record, Mr. Kraenbring is not here, and I haven't received notification. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. We have six of our regular members here. We do have a quorum. We will proceed. The approval of our agenda. On our agenda, we have item two, the election of officers. I would like that item moved down to position eight and just move everything else up. We'll do all the county business first and then the election of officers. Page 2 - '~-'~"---"''''''''- March 30, 2005 MR. BOWIE: Do you need a motion to that effect? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Please, sir. MR. BOWIE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any other changes to the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Board Director. We have three stipulations that were prepared today, so those items will be moved as the first hearing items. And they are item number three, CEB Case No. 2005-06, and that will be item number one. CEB Case 2005-11, and that will be number two. And then Case No. 2005-12. And I just want to also make a correction to the agenda, under Case No. 2004-72, and that's Board of County Commissioners versus James and Sherry Marshall. The description of the violation was incorrect. It's actually a wooden shed built without permits and a house semi-built under Permit No. 86-2791, which expired, and all being there without the required inspections and certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, I would entertain a motion to accept the agenda as changed. MR. PONTE: So moved. Page 3 -- March 30, 2005 MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as changed. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes from February 24th, 2005. MR. BOWIE: They look good to me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want to make a motion, sir? MR. BOWIE: I do. Move to approve the minutes. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as submitted. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We now open our public hearings. First item are motions for extension of time. First one being BCC versus Martha Lee Johnson. Page 4 March 30, 2005 MS. McALLISTER: Good morning. Holly McAllister on behalf of Martha Johnson, attorney with legal aid. I filed a motion. We were here 30 days ago on the matter of removing her trailer. We have since -- I have since spent the last 30 days trying to get bids for the demolition of the trailer. There are three contractors in town that were willing to bid on doing the work in Immokalee: Apex, Bradanna and Jackie Williams. Apex has gone out and told me they will not bid on the job since they cannot get their equipment back there to do it and they are not interested in doing any sort of a hand demolition. Bradanna I received -- and if you would like copies, I brought them -- I received on Friday a bid from them, finally. I worked with them very closely over the last 30 days. They originally went out there, determined that they could not get their equipment back there, came back, called me, we talked some more. They had a thought that perhaps they could go out there and use a crane to literally lift the trailer out, place it on the street, chop it up and get rid of it. Took a crane operator out there, he said there was no way. We had visions of a trailer falling apart in the sky. And he agreed. He said it was -- it was not stable enough to do that. Went back out there, rebid the job as being dismantled and removed by hand. And I have that bid, which is $15,800 to do the work. Jackie Williams, who lives in Immokalee, I have spoken to him five times, his wife probably twice that many times. He kept promising me that he would get out and get me a bid. I explained the deadlines. He understood. Mrs. Johnson told me that he finally went out there yesterday afternoon. The county's also waiting on two other bids from him. So we expect -- I expect something from Mr. Williams in the next couple of days, since now I know he's actually been there to look at the project. I am not sure, quite frankly, on Bradanna's bid, whether $15,800 Page 5 March 30, 2005 is really the -- well, if we really have to do it this is what we want to do it for, so I really need a second bid in order to compare costs between two different contractors. That is the big hang-up. We have determined -- I have worked very closely with the tenants in the unit. They have proved to be less than cooperative in leaving, to put it mildly. I have sent them notices that the trailer will be demolished and they will be gone. In talking to the county, we have decided that we have met our legal obligation with respect to trying to assist them in relocation, and at this point, whenever we get a contractor that will do the job and sets the dates, we will simply evict, if we have to. Under current Florida Statute, I don't need to really follow precisely Chapter 83, because this is a code enforcement issue, fines are pending, so there is a slightly different set of criteria. And they know in fact and have known for the last, you know, seven weeks that the trailer was going to be demolished. That's where we are. With respect to her rehab funds, the maximum amount she's given is $15,000. We had to finally walk the applications over to Social Security -- not only hers, but five other people in the county -- to get income verifications. We have Mrs. Johnson's income verification. They wanted yet another form for the son. Rick Torres from the county is out there today getting a second signature from him, and Wendy Klopf for the county will walk it over. We should have her funds in place by Friday. Wendy has -- the original application to Social Security went out on February 17th. And she has spent, again, the better part of the last six weeks trying to get Social Security to respond, not only to Mrs. Johnson but others. So her funds are in place. At this point Bradanna told me -- I called Bradanna yesterday and asked them when they could do the demolition, if indeed we accepted their bid, and they told me Page 6 March 30, 2005 sometime the second half of April. So I fully expect that, you know, Mr. Williams probably will fit within the same time frame and I think in 30 days the entire issue will be settled and the violations will be abated. MR. BOWIE: You're asking for a 30-day extension? MS. McALLISTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, since we don't have a copy of the order, tell us the timeline, please. MS. ARNOLD: I don't have a copy of the order either. MS. DUSEK: If I remember correctly, didn't -- you came in last month -- MS. McALLISTER: I did, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: -- and asked for an extension. MS. McALLISTER: Uh-huh. Well, no --last month I asked-- yes, I did. I asked for an extension, because last month we didn't have any -- I sent out bids, I hadn't heard from anyone. We hadn't heard back from Social Security. I did. This month I feel like -- you know, quite frankly, several staff members at the county and myself have spent the last 30 days trying to pull this together. And I would also like to point out, I would hope that this is not going to be the last trailer that code enforcement will target for removal. And we have all sort of gone to school on how this is going to be done, so -- MS. DUSEK: One question. Whatever bid you accept, is the respondent going to be paying for this? MS. McALLISTER: Well, she will pay for it. The home rehabilitation funds are a loan. MS. DUSEK: Yes. MS. McALLISTER: They become a lien against the property, a 10-year lien. The lien is forgiven at the rate of 10 percent per year as long as she maintains residency. If she sells the property, whatever point the lien is at at that point Page 7 March 30, 2005 will become a lien that will be satisfied by the new owner or proceeds of the sale. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, we are trying to pull up the order now so-- , CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I thought there had been another extension, that's why I was kind of trying to get a timeline. I thought this was a second request. MS. McALLISTER: If I may, I asked for an extension the very first time. Mrs. Johnson came in to me about five days before her first hearing before the board and brought her papers in to me. So there was an original first extension. I asked for an extension last month because we just didn't have anything to give you in terms of definite deadlines and that was denied. And fines were set to start accruing as of Monday, the 28th. I have a copy, if you'd like to see a copy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, that's okay. MS. DUSEK: I personally have no problem in giving you an extension, because it sounds as though you're working very diligently to get this accomplished, and that's what our whole purpose is, to have you accomplish this. So I make a motion that we give the extension for 30 days. MR. PONTE: Can I just ask a question Ms. McAllister a question? MS. ARNOLD: There was -- can I just note, that we -- there was a motion for a continuance of the hearing, and we did grant one continuance, and then we heard the case last month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so there's not been an extension of time while they're trying to resolve these problems, it was just -- MS. ARNOLD: Of the hearing itself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- before we heard the case itself -- MR. BOWIE: This is the first request for an extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 8 March 30, 2005 MR. PONTE: I just have a question for Ms. McAllister. With the number of parties that were involved here, do you think that 30 days is realistic, or should it be somewhat longer? And the reason I'm asking the question is just so that we can ease the docket level. That is, if, rather than coming back in 30 days and asking for another 30 days, would it be more realistic to be 60 days? MS. McALLISTER: I didn't even presume to ask for 60 days. I would love to have 60 days in case Mr. Williams' bid is better and he needs that extra time. But I don't know. He's not responded to me yet. So I can't say that for sure. I do know that Bradanna could get the job done by the end of April. I'm guessing that Mr. Williams will. If the board would grant me the 60 days, I could absolutely -- MR. BOWIE: This might not be the situation where you go with the lowest bidder or take the time to find the lowest bidder, necessarily. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The current bid you have, you have the money to pay the current bidder, correct? MS. McALLISTER: Well, her bid -- the bid is $15,800, and she will be get 15,000 in rehab funds. The problem I have with only having one bid is that I have no way of knowing whether this bid reflects a hard cost for doing the job or it reflects if we really have to go out there and put a crew out there for six days, this is what we want to do it. I have no way of knowing that. I do know that when I had long conversations with Apex, that was his problem. He just did not want to commit for any price a crew of six-day job of hand demolishing a trailer. He just didn't have time for that. He could do a lot of other business. His bid, if he had been able to do it with his equipment, would have been $4,500. So there's a huge difference in cost. And, you know, that's why I think it's absolutely important that we hear from the third contractor Page 9 March 30, 2005 that will do the work out there, so that I have some gauge of whether this is a reasonable bid or a bid like okay, well, if we can get this much money, we'll do it. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, I have a question. Wasn't this a case, though, that was quite long in coming to us. Like they've been several years involved in this? MS. ARNOLD: According to -- do you know when -- let me ask the investigator. MS. McALLISTER: I know. MS. ARNOLD: According to the investigator, it started in 2002. MS. BARNETT: That's what my concern was, is this has been going on for several years now. MS. McALLISTER: Well, if I may, it started in November of 2002. It was first observed in November. She was served in June of 2003. She was given three weeks to abate the violation in June of 2003. A reinspection was not done until January of2004, and it was not filed until December of 2004. So even though there has been a considerable time frame here, that was not necessarily Mrs. Johnson. It was the county took a considerable amount of time to go -- MS. ARNOLD: And I would have to object to that. It's -- we're MR. BOWIE: The history is interesting, but Bobbie, you made a motion to extend for 30 days. I'll second that motion. Let's move on. MS. ARNOLD: Can I have a request? There is a structure that has some health, safety issues. Ifwe could at least give some consideration to having at least the tenants being relocated out of the structure, and then the extension would apply to the removal of the mobile home, that would be greatly appreciated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was one of the questions I was going to ask. Page 10 March 30, 2005 MS. DUSEK: Can we evict somebody? MR. BOWIE: We can't evict tenants. MS. RAWSON: No. MS. DUSEK: I didn't think so. MS. RAWSON: And I think Mrs. McAllister, what she testified that she is working feverishly to get them out. But I don't think you have the power to evict people. MS. DUSEK: I didn't think so. My motion stands. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second. MS. ARNOLD: I wasn't requesting that you evict them. Ms. McAllister had indicated to me that within seven days she could have the tenants relocated out of there, because she's met the requirements of the code. So if we could get her to give a commitment to that is what I was trying to -- MS. McALLISTER: Well, I didn't say I could have them relocated. I said I could evict within seven days. It would be my position here that once I get a hard deadline on when we could actually demolish the trailer that I would evict. If I can give them an extra two or three days to find a place to live -- MR. BOWIE: I don't see how we can compel a landlord to actually remove tenants from a property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't have that power. MS. DUSEK: I think the motion for 30 days-- MR. BOWIE: You can evict them but that doesn't mean they're gone. MS. DUSEK: The motion for 30 days is to accomplish all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We have a motion and a second. My next statement was is there any further discussion? And I guess the only discussion I would have is I would tell my fellow board members I'll vote for this this time. And the reason I say that, I've heard the comment that there's only three people that could Page 11 ..---..- March 30, 2005 remove a trailer. I find that hard to believe. I think any contractor can demolish anything, and if you have to do it by hand, there's a lot of contractors in Collier County. Maybe if you were going to do it by crane, that limits it, but hand demolishing, there's a lot. So that said, any other comments? All those in favor of the extension, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 30-day extension mechanic. MS. McALLISTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next motion for extension is BCC versus Fred and Norma Kowalke, and I hope I say that right. I apologize if I don't. MR. RANKIN: Yes, you did, Mr. Chairman. I'm Douglas Rankin, I'm here for the Kowalkes. Mr. Chairman, board members, I technically and legally, based on your order, didn't need to request an extension, because we are in compliance. The reason I did so was to let you know where the status was, and more importantly to get Developmental Services Building Department, which you, of course, you don't have direct power over to resolve this matter and issue our permit or tell us what else they -- come to some conclusions, they could issue a permit and we could comply. A copy of your order is part of the packet there. If you look at Page 12 .. -----.---..- March 30, 2005 the order on the second page where you say what needs to be done, first thing is my client needed to submit a complete and sufficient building permit application for the described improvements within 90 days. January 26, 2005 -- and if you want to place me under oath, I'll be happy to do so, because I was present at all the meetings. Our first meeting with building to get that permit was a week and a half prior to the hearing at which this order was issued. You will see numerous correspondence attached to my motion that says we did everything we could and we finally got answers on what we needed. We got a surveyor to do what we needed to do. He did it. And he got it submitted several days ahead of that deadline. And I personally was at the meeting with building that took place a week and a half prior to your hearing, and I was also personally present on January 19th, 2005 when we submitted the last pieces of paper they needed. No member of code enforcement was present at either one of those meetings. And it was stressed numerous times, because I brought in a box about the size of that table with me when I was applying for that permit with the Kowalkes, do you need anything else, absolutely anything else? The answer was no. Then in due course, we did not just sit back and twiddle our thumbs, we -- myself and the Kowalkes both stayed on, politely and plenty, building to get them to move ahead. There were some questions regarding environmental that have already been dealt with because my property is grandfathered under those rules. And basically what the purpose of this was finally jostled loose what we needed. I got a fax of a letter that was sent to my clients. They got it about the 15th of March. It came into my office on the 19th of March. I was out of town until the 25th. Finally, from building department, it says what we need to do. There has been a debate because it's not sure the quote, unquote dock is -- mayor may not be a dock under their building rules. And there are numerous Page 13 March 30, 2005 overlays on Plantation island: Mobile home overlays, environmental overlays and all that. So the debate was, was the setback for this dock, walkway, whatever you want to call it zero, seven and a half, ten or 15? They finally came to a conclusion on this letter of March 10, which I have not given to you. I'd be happy to give it to you. I've showed it to code enforcement this morning. But they finally come to conclusion there is in fact a setback and they say 15. And we could argue with them but we're not going to. We're just going to go ahead and take down that part of the outside the -- within the 15 feet and then they will issue the permit. And then we need to comply. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Rankin, this is all great information. I'm having a problem. You're asking for an extension of time and you've already said that your client has complied with item one of our order -- MR. RANKIN: I'd be happy to-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me finish, okay? Since you've complied with item one of our order, the next requirement of our order is to get the inspection and obtain a CO 30 days after the permit. We have nothing in our order that says -- orders the county to give you a permit within X days. So you've complied with item one. The rest of it is really immaterial. You've done what we asked you to do and you want an extension and you've already complied with our order, so -- MR. RANKIN: Let me tell you why. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- I'm at a real loss why you're continuing to go on. MR. RANKIN: Let me tell you why. I just had this same discussion with Ms. Arnold at the beginning of this day so we could take this off the agenda, and they were all of a sudden trying to possibly take the position, which I would testify against, because I was personally present at these meetings and I'm the one that had all the correspondence with building -- because I had the same question you Page 14 March 30, 2005 did when I caulked in here. Because the purpose of what I did was to let you know we were in compliance and also get building to tell us what we needed so we could get a permit and comply with number two. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, you don't do that. MR. RANKIN: I know. But anyway, so I said to her, can't we just take this off the calendar this morning, because its purpose has been fulfilled and I don't really need it, technically and legally, because I haven't -- we haven't obtained the permit yet, even though we've done everything we can to get it. And she said no, because we may take the position that you didn't file a complete application by January 26th. And I will testify to you that every person at building I have talked to personally or corresponded with said we have in fact submitted a complete application. They were simply deciding what rules they needed to apply to it and then tell us what we needed to do in order to comply to it. And the letter I just got, and I'd be happy to share with you -- it's my only copy, they don't even have it -- doesn't say that we haven't -- didn't submit a completed application. What it says is in order for them to approve what we're going to do and issue the permit we need to take down 15 feet of either end. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's stop for a second-- MR. RANKIN: So the only reason I'm still standing here is because Michelle Arnold had a question as to whether we complied with number one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Her question to you is immaterial to me. What I need to understand and this board needs to understand, we said submit something by a certain date. MR. RANKIN: We did it, in spades. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before the county can say you didn't, Page 15 March 30, 2005 before us, they have to come to us and ask us to impose a fine. They haven't done that. So whatever you're talking about is moot, as far as I'm concerned MR. RANKIN: Okay, then that's fine with me-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- it's done. And I still don't understand why you're here -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, can I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you said you've met our requirement MR. BOWIE: I think he's here out of an abundance of precaution, perhaps. MS. ARNOLD: Well, can I clarify-- MR. RANKIN: I'd be happy to leave, because I don't need to be here either. MS. ARNOLD: Can I clarify -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you're asking us to do something we can't, so -- MS. ARNOLD: Well-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- get them to do something. We have no control -- MS. ARNOLD: It's not a matter of us getting him to get us to do something. There is a question whether or not their application that was submitted by the time that the board ordered it to be submitted was complete and sufficient. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not the board's concern. MS. ARNOLD: But it would be the board's concern, because if we later on, which we normally do, wait until some of these time periods are passed before we ask for imposition of fines, we wouldn't come back after each time period to ask for imposition of fines -- MR. BOWIE: But you're not asking for it now? MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely-- Page 16 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're not asking for it now, so we're not going to referee. MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's our position that the application was not complete and sufficient. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Again-- MS. ARNOLD: And if it's not complete and sufficient, he would technically need an extension of time without getting fined for that portion of the order. MR. BOWIE: We don't have on our agenda any motion to impose fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So we're not interested in -- MR. RANKIN: No problem, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say you submitted an application. That's what we ordered to you do. Did you get a rejection letter from the county? MR. RANKIN: No, we just got-- MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he-- MR. RANKIN: -- because we filed this, we finally got jostled loose a letter that tells us what we need to do, and we're going to be doing it. And then they're going to be issuing the permit and then we're going to be having the inspections and then this will be over. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You submitted your application -- MS. ARNOLD: We don't have an issue with respect to the imposition of fine for the Johnson's case either. But they -- they had a deadline that was specified in the order that unless the board granted the extension, the fines would start being imposed. This is a similar situation. There's a deadline in here of 90 days for them to obtain -- or to submit a complete and sufficient building permit application. They submitted something, but the question is whether or not what they submitted was complete and sufficient. And it's our position that what was submitted, because the question was regarding the dock, which was very much a part of our Page 1 7 ~_.."u. March 30, 2005 case that was brought before the board, that the application that was submitted was not complete and sufficient; therefore, that deadline was not met, because he has to now submit something else to the county to speak to the dock. MR. RANKIN: No, I don't have to submit something else. What I have to do is submit a revised version of what I already submitted. But I am here to -- if the board thinks this doesn't need to be handled, I'm not here to beat a dead horse. The only reason I'm still standing is because Mrs. Arnold suggested I needed to still be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, this board isn't a referee. You two have issues, work them out somewhere else. We're not going to referee any wrestling matches. That's not what we do. MR. RANKIN: Thank you, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? Period. Now, we have a request for a motion of extension of time. MS. DUSEK: I thought he withdrew that. MR. RANKIN: I withdraw it. And the only reason I'm here then CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's terrific, if that's what you'll do, sIr. MR. RANKIN: And I withdraw it conditionally, that if I need to use it in the future -- MR. BOWIE: You could bring it back -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can come any time you like -- MR. RANKIN: -- it's not withdrawn as though it were never filed. And like I said, the only reason I did this was to diligently perform our functions and to try and get other people to diligently perform them, which did occur. And then, as far as I'm concerned, except for possibly needing this extension in the future, if they try and take that position, we're done today, unless the board has any other ideas. MS. DUSEK: So your motion is being withdrawn conditionally? Page 18 March 30, 2005 MR. RANKIN: Conditionally, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Next we have a motion for a continuance. Is this the telephone -- MR. BONANNO: Did you want to handle the stipulated cases? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or do you want to do your stipulations first? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, why don't we do the stipulations first so we can really -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll hold that one in abeyance and go to the three stipulation agreements. First one being case 2005-06. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: For the record, Christina Perez, Code Enforcement Investigator. This morning after discussing with Mrs. Dimas the stipulation, we came to the agreement that she would agree to the stipulation agreement. She agreed that she would pay the operational costs, and she would abate the violations by getting her permits, inspections and certification of completion within 60 days, or a fine of 50 days (sic) to be imposed for each day after the violation continues. Or if she did not wish to permit the improvements, she would remove the non-permitted improvements and all related debris within 60 days or a fine of $50 to be imposed for each day the violation continues. MS. BARNETT: Just a correction. You said 50 days, it's $50 per day. MS. PEREZ: I'm sorry. Yeah, $50 per day. MS. BARNETT: Did you request her to get a demolition permit in order to remove that debris that's not permitted? MS. PEREZ: Well, actually at this point she has within the last couple of days and weeks, she's been working to get her permit. She has gotten a permit issued to her and inspections have been -- the inspection process has taken place. So she's just about -- Page 19 March 30, 2005 MS. BARNETT: So there won't be any demolition, okay. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just have a question of clarification. Did she stipulate to the violations noted on the -- in the NOV? Did she stipulate that she was in violation? MS. PEREZ: Yes, she was aware of the Notice of Violation. The stipulation states the case number and the date that the notice was issued to her. It was personally served to her, so she did stipulate and agree to the violations that were on the Notice of Violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mrs. Dimas, ma'am? Do you agree to everything the investigator said? You're agreeing to all these items that will be in the agreement? You did have a violation and we're going to give you possibly 60 days or $50 and you're going to pay the operational costs. Is that everything you've agreed to? MRS. DIMAS: Yes, yes, sir. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement in this case, 2005-06. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement as submitted to us. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Page 20 March 30, 2005 The next one is case 2005-11. That's also a stipulated agreement. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKE: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. We came to a stipulation for a building permit violation for the location at 2228 42nd Street Southwest. I met with Mr. Fernandez yesterday. He agrees that the violation does exist. The stipulation we came to is pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case; abate all violations by obtaining all required permits, structural, electrical and plumbing, or a demo permit for these items; inspect and obtain a certificate of occupancy for the prohibited conversion within 90 days or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed for each day the violation exists. MR. BOWIE: Let me ask a question about that. Is it at all permissible under the zoning for that area to grant a permit for the conversion in a single-family home into a multi-family? MR. LUEDTKE: Well, the use issue has been abated. That's taken care of. What we have is the plumbing and the structural and all that, which could be permitted. Granted, no, he cannot revert it back to multi-family use, and he is aware of that. MR. BOWIE: But he could get a permit to have four separate bedrooms, adjoining baths and kitchens. MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, he can-- MR. BOWIE: Just he would not be able to rent any of those out. MR. LUEDTKE: Exactly, yes, sir. MS. BARNETT: What would the purpose be, then? I mean, aren't we -- I can't ask the question -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not here on a zoning violation, it's just he did work without a permit and that's what we need to be focused on. Whether he is zoned properly, that wasn't brought to us, okay. So we have to, unfortunately, sidetrack that. MS. BARNETT: It says RSF zoned. Page 21 -- March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, it's zoned and the county has said that issue has been solved. So his only violation is the work he's done without permits, as I understand it. MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, Shawn? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that's what we need to focus on. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement in case 2005-11. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? My discussion would be, sir, do you agree that there in fact is a violation? MR. FERNANDEZ: There is. I purchased the house that way and I'm responsible for that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you agree to get the permits and do everything within 90 days or a $50 fine is going to be imposed? MR. FERNANDEZ: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you agree to pay the operational costs? MR. FERNANDEZ: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. We have a motion and a second. The respondent has agreed to the stipulated agreement. Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: In the event that permits could not be obtained, is demolition also suggested as an alternative? MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, that's in the stipulation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If I remember what Shawn said, that was an item, too. Page 22 March 30,2005 MR. LUEDTKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Thanks, Shawn. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The next stipulated is 2005-12. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Investigator. Before this meeting, myself and my supervisor, Dennis Mitchell, met with one of the owners here, Ms. Tejada, and she has agreed that there is a violation of a permitted pole barn that was enclosed structure without obtaining a Collier County building permit for it. She's agreed to pay the operational costs and abate the violations by either getting a Collier County building or demolition permit, all the required inspections and certificate of completion for the pole barn within 60 days or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. MS. DUSEK: You did say operational costs? MR. LETOURNEAU: I did say operational costs, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Tejada, do you agree that a violation exists. MS. TEJADA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you agree to either get a building Page 23 March 30, 2005 permit or a demolition permit within 60 days and all the inspections? MS. TEJADA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or a fine could be imposed of $100. MS. TEJADA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that you're going to pay the operational costs? MS. TEJADA: Yes. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement in Case 2005-12. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement presented to us. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. TEJADA: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that's all the stipulated agreements. Do we want to do our motion for continuance by phone? It's about ten after 10:00, let's take five minutes and give Leo time to get us set up for this. (A recess was taken.) MS. RAWSON: And Chairman, I think we need to probably swear Leo in so he can testify that he recognizes his voice. And then Page 24 March 30, 2005 we'll have the court reporter swear him in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Cherie, you want to swear Leo in -- do everybody. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Leo, we're going to ask you, is this in fact Mr. Marshall, you recognize his voice. MR. BONANNO: Yes, I believe it is. (The speaker was duly.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have a motion before us for a continuance. MR. MARSHALL: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you tell us why you would like this continuance, sir. MR. MARSHALL: Well, it's in my review of the codes, and also subsequent to a conversation I had with Michelle Arnold, I was informed that Section 10.02.02 of the Land Development Code provides for a request for an interpretation of the code be made by the County Manager or designee. Also, part of my defense is based upon a conflict of a prior code, and that's, I believe, is found in Section 1.9 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Now, the rules and regulations of the Code Enforcement Board does not give the board jurisdiction to hear that type of argument, statement, evidence or defense alleging that any provision of the county's ordinance is unenforceable due to a conflict with Section 1.9. As I state in my motion for continuance, the rules and regulations do state that due process will be observed and will govern the proceedings. However, it's my position that if I'm not allowed to argue or to present evidence that a prior code relieves me of this alleged violation, then due process cannot be had. So I think that it's Page 25 March 30, 2005 appropriate in this circumstance to allow the County Manager or his designee at this point, which I believe will be the chief building official, to entertain and make a ruling on my request for an interpretation of the code. At this point in time, I've been directed to converse and deal with Rebecca Paratore, a paralegal for the county attorney, and she's preparing copies of the table of contents from the 1982 zoning ordinance of Collier County. And once I get the table of contents, I will be able to request from her those portions of the code which I will use to prepare my request for interpretation to the building official. So that is basically the grounds and the basis for my requesting a continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bear with us a second. We're thinking. Jean? MS. BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. I think he's asking you to continue this because he's working on his legal defense, and it's not yet ready. I think, really, that's the basis of his request. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's kind of where I was going, but -- let me ask the county, what's the county's position on the request for continuance? MR. LETOURNEAU: My position is this case has been going on since 12/31/02. He's had over two years, three months to try to get this thing situated. He's in violation not only of the Land Development Code but of the building code of an abandoned permit that -- the structure's been sitting there for I don't know how long, since the 80's, I guess, like a quarter of the way built, and he hasn't made any attempt to finish it off. MS. ARNOLD: We have had correspondence -- or Jennifer, with respect to this continuance that Mr. Marshall is requesting today. We did grant him a continuance last month, and we feel that he had Page 26 March 30, 2005 sufficient time to try to get some of the information that he was claiming to attempt to get. Jennifer is here to kind of speak to his continuance or provide some answer to his continuance, so maybe you want to listen to what she's got to say before -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My basic question on the county's side is we have a person requesting a continuance, and I want to know your position, are you -- do you have a problem with it or do can we -- would you recommend that it be granted? So, let's hear what the county has to say. MR. LETOURNEAU: We object to it. MS. ARNOLD: Let Jennifer speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jennifer, do you have a comment that you would like to add? MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning, Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney. I wanted to provide some factual information that our office is aware of. Mr. Marshall is correct in that he's been working with Becky Paratore, who is a paralegal in the county attorney's office. The notes that I have from Ms. Paratore reflect that it has been a month since we started communicating with Mr. Marshall about his request for public records. It's taken a month now and we're at the point where we're told that we will receive a check for the records that are requested. There's -- I have three pages of notes from Ms. Paratore, and it's taken a lot of effort to find out what it is that Mr. Marshall wants. It's certainly been more than any other public records request that I've worked on or seen while working for the county. Regarding Mr. Marshall's request for an interpretation, Mr. Marshall may believe that an interpretation will provide him with a defense. Without getting into the merits of the case, what's alleged is that Mr. Marshall does not have an active building permit. The county alleges he had a permit and it's expired, and I cannot Page 27 March 30,2005 find any defense that can be achieved through a request for interpretation. I've also provided a letter to Mr. Marshall that the request for interpretation that he had submitted to the county manager's office would be summarily considered incomplete by the Planning Department. Our office does not make those decisions, but there was little to no information provided, and I was confident that under the Land Development Code it would be considered incomplete. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me just ask just a real simple question. I've heard from the investigator. From your point of view, are you for or against continuance? MS. BELPEDIO: Ultimately the decision is up to the Code Enforcement Department as the prosecutor. It seems that Mr. Marshall has dragged his feet in requesting the interpretation and requesting legal provisions. I can support the code enforcement's position in objecting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Marshall, have you heard all this? MR. MARSHALL: I heard most of it. That last little bit dropped off. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What Ms. Belpedio said was she supported the Code Enforcement Department's objection to a continuance. MR. MARSHALL: I understand that. Ms. Belpedio also mentioned something that is entirely not true, and I'd like to address that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Shortly, sir, please. Go ahead. MR. MARSHALL: Well, Ms. Belpedio said that a continuance, that I requested a continuance of the original hearing. My position on the original hearing was, and it's stated in paragraph number one of my motion for continuance, that Collier County requested and was granted a continuance on that matter for its failure to timely serve its Page 28 March 30, 2005 notice of hearing so as to allow me time to prepare my defense packet. I got the, I guess you'd call it, the table of contents and I guess the charges originally on February the 11 th, I believe, and they needed to be -- or they were mailed on the 11 th and needed to be returned by, let me see here, February the 14th. And they were mailed out on the 11 tho So my position as to the last hearing was the county can do whatever it wants to do. So for Ms. Belpedio to stand there under oath and say that I requested a continuance of the first hearing is not true. And it's so stated in my motion. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken -- well, I didn't have that notarized, but I'm under oath. So I didn't request a continuance of the last hearing. So for her to stand and say that is not true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, noted, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Marshall, this is Michelle Arnold, the Code Enforcement Director. MR. MARSHALL: Go ahead. MS. ARNOLD: It wasn't Ms. Belpedio that mentioned the continuance, it was me that mentioned the continuance, and what I said was that we granted a continuance of the last -- for last month. I didn't indicate that you requested it. MR. MARSHALL: I believe if you read back in the record, you know, unless I'm deaf -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's not get into that -- MR. BOWIE: I think that's immaterial. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not going to get into a big argument here, sir, so let's move on. Any board member have any questions for Mr. Marshall on this request or anyone from the county on the request only? MS. DUSEK: Mr. Marshall. MR. MARSHALL: Yes. MS. DUSEK: This is Bobbie Dusek, a board member. Page 29 March 30, 2005 Your request is so that you can find an interpretation of the zoning law or the code law as opposed to what we have in our rules and regulations, is that -- MR. MARSHALL: Yes, ma'am. I am entitled to present the defense, and your rules do not allow me to present the defense based upon a conflict of the code; so therefore an interpretation of the code by a county official is the method for me to prove my defense. I mean, I'm entitled to that. MR. BOWIE: I don't see anywhere in the ordinance cited here or any other, perhaps, that would give the County Manager or his designee the authority to resolve or interpret any conflict, alleged conflict of county ordinances. That's something presumably a judge would do. MS. DUSEK: It's my opinion that he's cited for not having building permits. I can't imagine that interpreting the rules and regulations versus the county code laws and ordinance will have any effect on the permitting issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You either have a permit or you don't. One question. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A little guidance, please. I understand that he's basically -- when we boil it all down -- saying he wants to try and amass a whole lot of information to come and present if we're going to do this case. It appears that the items he wants to amass may be irrelevant. I mean, you either have a permit or you don't. You know, it's kind of interpreting the word is again. And we're not into that. What would your -- as our legal representative, your recommendation to the board be? MS. RAWSON: Apparently he wants to present a defense packet to you. I don't know whether he plans to be here personally if it was continued to do that or not. Page 30 March 30, 2005 You know, I don't know what will be in his defense packet. He doesn't have it here today. I don't know whether it's relevant or not relevant without having seen what it is he's amassing. So it's just basically up to the board whether or not you wish to grant the continuance or not. MS. DUSEK: Ifwe deny the motion, have we jeopardized his due process? MS. RAWSON: Assuming that something in his defense packet would have been relevant to his defense, he can make that allegation. MR. BOWIE: But did he not have opportunity to, as any other respondent would have, to submit that defendant's response packet to us prior to this hearing? MS. RAWSON: Of course he did. And he's obviously got a copy of the rules. But I believe he filed a motion for continuance instead of doing that. MR. BOWIE: Well, that's his role of the dice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think he's done that so that he can proceed on another course. MS. BARNETT: Jennifer-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess from a -- MS. BARNETT: I had a question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. MS. BARNETT: If I could. Did you make the statement that there they were waiting on a check for him to receive certain documents, that he has to -- I'm guessing that he's the one that has to provide the check? MS. BELPEDIO: After weeks of working with Mr. Marshall, our office was able to secure a commitment from Mr. Marshall that he will submit a check to our office, which is a condition precedent to our office or any public agency making copies of public records to be sent to a person. The concern from me is that Mr. Marshall, when I had spoken to Page 3 1 March 30, 2005 him many weeks ago, had committed to submitting the permit application and that it was coming through a courier to the county at 3:00 the afternoon that he had said it would be coming. To my knowledge, no application has been submitted. So it's difficult for me to rely upon the statement that we will receive a check for public records. I hope the check is coming. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess what I might recommend to my fellow board members is, based on what Jean has told us and the comment from the county and the comments from Mr. Marshall, possibly in this case at this precise moment in time, not in the future but at this precise moment, better safe than sorry. A continuance till next month, with the proviso -- and I will do it strongly, that Mr. Marshall is going to have to do the things he says. We understand his plight, but he has to participate vigorously in seeing that these things get accomplished. That said, I think we need to make a decision on whether we would want to grant a continuance. MS. DUSEK: I have one more question for Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. DUSEK: We've heard testimony that this case began in 2002, which Mr. Marshall has been aware of the violation all this time. We continued the case, or the county did, last month to this month. Now, with -- in all of that time, haven't we given him his ability for due process? MS. RAWSON: That's a call that you'll have to make. I don't know what he's going to have in all of these public records. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the catch. MS. RAWSON: -- for his defense. And apparently he hasn't received the public records yet, because the testimony is that he hasn't paid for them. And I don't know what's in there that he will use in his defense. So it's your call. Page 32 March 30, 2005 MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we grant Mr. Marshall a continuance to next month with the strong suggestion that he get everything in order. MR. MARSHALL: I'd like to address the board, if I might. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, sir. MR. MARSHALL: As I mentioned earlier, it was Section 10.20.20 of the Land Development Code that outlines the procedure for a request for an interpretation, and Michelle Arnold may be pointing me in that direction. The provision of that section of the code states that after the acceptance of a request for interpretation, 45 days within to make their response. I don't see how the county's going to be able to make an interpretation of anything that I request of them within 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At this point, sir, I guess all I can tell you is you've asked this board for a continuance. Right now the board is saying they may be willing, there's a motion which has not been seconded, to give you an additional, roughly, 30 days till our next meeting. What you need to do is if that's done, is to proceed vigorously with whatever it takes to get whatever you need accomplished. Do you understand? MR. MARSHALL: Well, I understand what you're saying, but what needs to be accomplished needs to be accomplished by the chief building official, not by me. So you're putting a 30-day time restraint on him and he's not even there to attend the hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, you need to understand, this board has no control over the county. You've asked for a continuance of a request that has come before us to prosecute a violation. What we're saying is in our determination, right now the best we're willing to do is a 30-day or to our next meeting. MS. RAWSON: April 28th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: April 28th. Do you understand? Page 33 March 30, 2005 MR. MARSHALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now we have a motion before the board to continue this to our next meeting. Any further discussion? MS. BARNETT: It's not been seconded. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, I'm sorry. Do we have a second on it? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: Well, I just have to state for the record, while much in favor of course of due process and opportunity given to any respondent, I think there's more than enough process here than has been due. MS. DUSEK: And I would agree with you. MR. BOWIE: I don't see anything of substance being alleged in this motion for continuance that would justify granting one. MS. DUSEK: I agree. MR. BOWIE: So I'm opposed to it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Let's call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Those opposed? MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Nay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, three. So the motion fails. Any other recommendations? And I gather it wouldn't work _. because if there's three against any type -- so we're done. Mr. Marshall. Page 34 March 30, 2005 MR. MARSHALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board has voted not to grant you a continuance. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You understand, sir? So what would happen now is the case would be heard today. Do you understand that, sir? MR. MARSHALL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you are the next item on our agenda, so -- let's call for case 2004-72. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB Case No. 2004-72, Board of County Commissioners versus James and Sherry Marshall. The violations are that of Sections 10.02.06.B.1A and 10.02.06.B.1D of Collier County Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. And of Section 104.5.1.4 of Collier County Ordinance 2002-01, the Collier County Building Code. The violation is described as numerous wooden sheds built without proper Collier County building permits, a house that was -- that is semi-constructed under Permit 86-2 -- MR. MARSHALL: They denied it, the continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can you hear us, Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: No. MR. BONANNO: Should I start again or -- MR. MARSHALL: Go ahead. I had been grabbing some papers, so I missed that last little bit. MR. BONANNO: Mr. Marshall, if you'll look on Page 3 of the packet you were provided, I'm just reading that information into the record. Do you have that in front of you? MR. MARSHALL: Yes. MR. BONANNO: Okay. Mr. Chairman, can I just pick up where I left off? Page 35 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, go ahead. MR. BONANNO: Okay. The violation is also described as a semi-constructed house built under Permit No. 86-2791, with expired permits and without obtaining the required inspections and certificate of occupancy. The violation exists at 820 20th Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120. The person in charge of that location is James C. Marshall. The violation was first observed on December 31 st, 2002. A notice of violation was served on January 11th, 2005. The violation was to be corrected on or before January 17th, 2005. A reinspection occurred on February 28th, 2005, and as of that date, the violation remained. I'll now turn the case over to Jeff Letourneau. Also, I've submitted a packet of information labeled County Exhibit A that I'd ask to be entered at this time. MS. DUSEK: I move that we accept the county's Exhibit A as evidence. MS. BARNETT: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 36 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before we begin, Jean, we originally swore Mr. Marshall in for his name. We must now swear him in again before he's going to give any testimony? MS. RAWSON: Either that or you can remind him that he's still under oath. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just want to make sure that he is, and when we get to him, will you remind him? MR. BONANNO: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case first started on December 31 st of 2002. I received an anonymous complaint about a pole barn built on this property. I went out there, I found a -- what looked to be a pole barn but later turned out to be a semi-built house and three small wooden sheds. After researching the property, I discovered that the pole barn structure was actually supposed to be a permitted primary structure, under permit 86-2791, which had since expired due to the inactivity of the -- no inspections or CO on it. There was never any permits pulled for the wooden sheds out there. I got ahold of Mr. Marshall -- let me see -- actually he called me on February 20th, 2003, and we started correspondence in about how to bring about compliance with these issues. He stated that he was going to, you know, get a permit for the house or get it reissued and, you know, finish off the primary structure. After almost two years of him coming in, you know, periodically and working with a Mr. Gray, an architect over in Miami, we gave him two years to submit a permit and he never did. He said he was going to numerous times and that date passed. We gave him some more time. And eventually here we are, two years, three months later Page 37 March 30, 2005 without any permit issued or even applied for. MS. DUSEK: That permit, 86-2791, was that prior to him calling you in February of2003? MR. LETOURNEAU: That permit was issued in-- MR. BOWIE: 1986. MR. LETOURNEAU: 1986, yes. Right. And I guess Mr. -- I don't know the circumstances of Mr. Marshall, but he started to build it, got it probably a quarter of the way done and then failed to complete it. And it sat there till 2002, until somebody complained about it -- because it's way back in the woods, you can't really see it-- until somebody complained about it and then I had to deal with it when I went out there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, the pictures that we have here from December of '02, basically today maybe being more overgrown, would they be the same? MR. LETOURNEAU: They're pretty much the same. There was a litter issue out there when I first went there. Mr. Marshall did complete that and take care of that. But they basically are the same, yeah. It looks like a pole barn now, it's got -- It's a huge structure with huge beams, and it's basically the same now as it was back when I first saw it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect that Mr. Kraenbring is now in attendance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So noted, please. Any other questions for the investigator? MS. ARNOLD: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Letourneau -- Mr. Marshall, just to let you know who's speaking, it's Michelle Arnold, I'm asking Jeff Letourneau a question regarding the permit. Was there a CO issued for this? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, never a CO issued for it. And the Page 38 March 30, 2005 ordinance I'm using on this particular violation is the building code ordinance, because the permit was actually issued at one time, but it's deemed abandoned because there wasn't any inspections in six months or a CO, so he failed to complete the permit. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Letourneau, was there actually evidence that some sort of a certificate of completion was issued by the building department? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, there was. Back in, I think, the early '90's, we switched over computer systems from one to another. I think it was WHIPS over to CD Plus, and apparently a CO was issued in error during this process. And Mr. Marshall brought that to our attention that his structure was CO'd. But obviously it never was inspected, I mean, and completed as a primary structure. So I went to the Building Department and the head of the building department, Mr. Hammond, and I submitted, you know, the evidence to him and he revoked that permit due to the error that it was issued in between computer transfers. And in all reality, that happened quite often when they switched it over. So I've got the piece of paper here. I don't know if it was submitted to you or not, but that was a CO being revoked by Mr. Hammond. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. No, we don't -- I don't see that one. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'll bring it up. MR. BOWIE: The original building permit application, though, was for a residence; is that correct? The one dating from 1986? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, that was for the primary structure of that property, a residence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Marshall, are you there? Page 39 March 30, 2005 MR. MARSHALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, you want to tell us your side of this, sir? MR. MARSHALL: Yes, first I take issue with-- MR. BONANNO: Mr. Marshall, I'm just going to remind you that you're aware you're still under oath? MR. MARSHALL: Yes, I am. MR. BONANNO: Okay, thank you. MR. MARSHALL: I take issue with a couple of things that Mr. Letourneau said. When I first received information about the county going out to my property, he told me that the -- he found out about my structure because of some aerial photographs that had been taken. Now he stands here and he says that he had an anonymous complaint. I received three complaints from Mr. Letourneau in this action. The first action says -- or the first complaint says there were no permits. So Mr. Letourneau started off this whole situation here by making false statements. He's a Code Enforcement Investigator. And it's apparent he's done absolutely very little investigation in this case whatsoever. If he would have -- he probably doesn't have a copy of my original plans there, but you will see on the plans that one shed is drawn on the blueprints. So for him to say that the sheds were built without permits or without the county's knowledge is not entirely true. I think it's in his latest notice of violation he comes out and says that there have been no inspections in over 18 years. That's also not true. So apparently he's done no investigation into the inspection records whatsoever. Besides that, Mr. Letourneau in all of his complaints said that there was no CO issued. When I contacted Ms. Smiley in the permitting and reviewing to find out what I needed to do to submit my plans -- which she has the plans right now, the plans have been Page 40 March 30, 2005 submitted -- she informed me that a CO had been submitted on March the 9th, 1999. The next day I called Mr. Letourneau and asked him, did you do any research on whether or not a CO had been issued on my property. And he said, of course I had. Well, of course he hadn't. So then after that, I guess, is when he got in touch with Mr. Hammond to find out about the CO and whether or not it had been issued in error. He mentioned something earlier about the computer making a problem in the early '90's. 1999 is not the early '90's. So I don't think Mr. Letourneau is being entirely forthcoming with his presentation of the facts today. As regards Mr. Gray, Mr. Gray was the engineer who engineered and sealed my original blueprints. I thought it was in my best interest to deal with him in submitting the plans for renewal. Mr. Perico, who was the chief building official when this started, he was my building inspector. In a phone conference I had with him, he reminded me that since the new code came in in 2000, that the plans would have to meet the new code. And I felt it was in my best interest to deal with Mr. Gray. I'm living in Tennessee, Mr. Gray is in Miami. We made a trip down there within the first year, met with Mr. Gray at the property. We came down in September of 2004 to submit my plans. And I had spoken to Mr. Mitchell about this. On our way down there, my wife's dad has a severe heart attack and Mr. Mitchell extended the meeting we were supposed to have in September and said he would give me whatever time I needed. We were there when Hurricane Jeanne hit. We came back to Florida. My wife's father died. The same morning we got the message that he died, about an hour later Mr. Letourneau called me. This was in November of 2004. So my plans were sealed on December the 30 -- well, I do have them in my closet. My plans were sealed about two weeks after Mr. Letourneau actually put this before the board. Page 41 March 30, 2005 So we have not been uncooperative in this and we have -- you know, he may think we've been dragging our feet, but we put as much time and effort and money into this as we could. It was never our intention to disregard, you know, the county working with us and letting us get our plans put forward. Besides that, I said earlier that, you know, my defense, which I still believe I'm not being given a chance to make, is found in Section 1.9 of your code, which says the code does not affect prior offenses, rights, et cetera. Nothing in this code or the ordinances adopting this code shall affect any offense or act committed or done, any penalty or forfeiture incurred or any contract or right established or accruing before the effective date of this code. It is our position that we have an established right that we have accrued before the 1992 -- or 1991 Land Development Code came into effect. That's the defense we're not being allowed to put forward today. MR. BOWIE: Let me ask a couple of questions of the county. The respondent said he has now a building permit application submitted and pending. Is that true? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, that's not true. He has not submitted a permit application as of today. MR. BOWIE: And as regards to his argument that the code prior to the current code effective in 1992, what he says, that the prior code which would have governed the 1986, the original residential permit application, can you testify or confirm that under the prior code, as existed, let's say in 1986, that the same result would have obtained that, in other words, it would have expired as it would now, six months after issuance if there was no progress being made on it? MR. LETOURNEAU: I can't honestly say what that code said back then. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: Yes, ma'am. Page 42 March 30, 2005 MS. DUSEK: Have you submitted an application for permits? MR. MARSHALL: My plans are there with Alamar Smiley and a check is there. What I asked her to do -- she had sent -- it was my understanding that I could use my prior permit application from my first phone conversation with her. She has since sent me another application. But since I had this motion for continuance pending, I just asked her to hold off and just hold the check until after the hearing. So -- but my check is there and my plans are there, three copies of the sealed blueprints are there. Alamar Smiley has them. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: Yes. MS. DUSEK: When did you become aware in your ownership of this property that you needed a permit for those sheds or those buildings? MR. MARSHALL: Say that again, please. MS. DUSEK: When did you become aware during your ownership of this property that you needed permits? MR. MARSHALL: No construction was begun without permits. No construction at all was done without permits. None whatsoever. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Marshall, is the permit that you had obtained in '86 for the primary structure still in effect? MR. MARSHALL: Say that again? MS. ARNOLD: Did you obtain a permit in 1986 for this structure? MR. MARSHALL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Is it still in effect? MR. MARSHALL: You folks say it's not in effect -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm asking you -- MR. MARSHALL: -- I guess that's a determination for the county, I would imagine. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Marshall, did you obtain a letter dated February 8, 2005 from Bill Hammond, the building director? Page 43 March 30, 2005 MR. MARSHALL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: What did that letter say with respect to the certificate of occupancy for your Permit No. 86 -- MR. MARSHALL: You'll have to give me a minute to find it. You want to give me a minute to try to find it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. Take all the time you need, sir. MR. MARSHALL: In regards to what, what was your question? MS. ARNOLD: The certificate of occupancy for that permit. MR. MARSHALL: Did I get one? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Did you get this letter of February, sir? MR. MARSHALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have it in front of you? MR. MARSHALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. MS. ARNOLD: What did it say regards to the certificate of occupancy regarding that permit? MR. MARSHALL: It says the same thing your copy says, I would imagine. It's already been entered into evidence, I mean -- I don't -- you know, it's kind of redundant. MS. ARNOLD: Can you tell us for the record, please, what it said. MR. MARSHALL: You want me to read the entire letter? MS. ARNOLD: Sure, it's real short. MR. MARSHALL: February 8th, 2005, James Marshall, 3241 Southwest 104th Court, Miami, Florida, 33165. Subject, Permit No. 86-2791. Dear Mr. Marshall, this letter will serve as official notification of the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy for the permit noted above. Our records indicate a CO was issued on 3/9/1999. The CO was issued in error and is invalid for the following "___ reasons. The project has not been constructed to the point where the building will serve the purpose of the approved design, and Page 44 March 30, 2005 accordingly no final inspections have been performed to ensure compliance with all applicable codes. It is strongly recommended you contact Code Enforcement Investigator Jeff Letourneau at 239-403-2341 to discuss this matter. Sincerely, Bill Hammond, Director of Building Review and Permitting, carbon copy filed, Michelle Arnold, Director, Code Enforcement, Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Department Supervisor, Building Review and Permitting. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And is -- so is your building completed in accordance with the permit that was issued? MR. MARSHALL: Not according to this letter. MS. ARNOLD: And do you have a Certificate of Occupancy in accordance to this letter? MR. MARSHALL: Apparently not. MS. ARNOLD: Are you aware that the fact that -- the point that you made with regards to the six months has since expired because that permit has not been obtained any inspections for a six-month period? MR. MARSHALL: I don't know if that -- I don't know if that was the particular code then, if it was six months. I think -- MS. ARNOLD: That's what you're indicating to us today, isn't it? MR. MARSHALL: Say that again. MS. ARNOLD: Isn't that what you indicated to the board today, that that code back in then in '86 gave you a six-month period? MR. MARSHALL: No, I'm not. I'm not indicating that at all. I'm saying what the code says is if I have an established right for the building to remain there under a code prior to the 1991 code, the 1991 code doesn't affect that right. Like Mr. Letourneau says, he doesn't know what the prior code states, and you probably don't either. I don't. And what time code states is the basis for my defense, which I'm not being allowed to make. Page 45 March 30, 2005 MS. BARNETT: Mr. Marshall, I have a different question for you on a different line. You stated that on your original blueprints there was one wood structure besides the home, correct? MR. MARSHALL: Correct. MS. BARNETT: Okay, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. MS. BARNETT: How many wood structures are on the property besides the home? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe three. MS. BARNETT: So there are no permits then on two of the wood structures, as I understand it, because you only had one on your blueprint, correct? MR. MARSHALL: Say that again, because I think you're wrong. MS. BARNETT: Okay. You told me when I first asked you if you had -- how many wood structures were on your original blueprint besides the original home. You said one. I just asked Mr. Letourneau how many other wood structures are on the property besides the wood home, and he said three. So that means that there are two structures that are not on the original blueprint or permit, correct? MR. MARSHALL: No, there's only -- there's the main house and the 20 by 20 pole barn behind the house are on the blueprints. The little eight by nine or whatever it is that is over the well was there during all the times I had my inspections. Mr. Perico saw it there. There was no requirement by Mr. Perico to get a permit. Under the present code any storage building under 720 square feet is not even required to meet the wind born velocity codes. So that structure over the well was not built without the county's knowledge, and I was not required to do anything about it. Mr. Perico came out there and gave me at least four inspections, I believe. Those are the only two structures that are there. Page 46 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's get back to the violation, which is on this one structure. Mr. Marshall, do you have your '86 permit there, a copy of it handy? MR. MARSHALL: I don't -- it's in my house. I don't have a copy of the permit in front of me, I do not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have one? MS. ARNOLD: We do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, do you have a copy of the '86 permit? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Could we see it, please? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, I do, sir. I'll submit it right now. MS. BARNETT: Can you put it on the overhead? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Put it on the overhead, please, if you could, so we can at least -- what I want to look at is the form and format of it. Bear with us, Mr. Marshall, we're trying to get something on a viewer so we can all see it. MR. MARSHALL: Yes, sir. MS. BELPEDIO: At this time, the county would like to move the permit application and approval into evidence as our exhibit, Composite Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bobbie, you want to make a -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit B. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of accepting the county's Exhibit B, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 47 March 30, 2005 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. MARSHALL: I would object to the entrance of that exhibit. I don't have a copy of it. I feel I should have been a copy of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Noted, sir. MR. BOWIE: It's your permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What it is is your permit, so -- MR. MARSHALL: I understand that. But you're entering it into evidence and it should have been provided to me, that's all. I mean, I'd like to be able to look at it, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's noted. You said you had one in your house, so -- MR. MARSHALL: Well, you know, I may. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We noted it, so just bear with us. MS. BELPEDIO: This evidence is being entered as rebuttal evidence in response to the defense that's being raised now by Mr. Marshall -- first raised. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I asked to see the permit, so let's get the permit up where I can see it, okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, this first page looks like the actual application with, I guess, the money that was submitted for the original permit. This next page would be the owner builder information, Mr. Marshall being the owner builder. MS. ARNOLD: You want me to make it closer? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Okay, can we see the next page, please? MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, this is the actual permit Page 48 March 30, 2005 application, right here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Michelle, is there more to this? MS. ARNOLD: This is the application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, I understand that. Okay. MR. BOWIE: This permit expires if work authorized is not commenced within six months from date of issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What's the -- now, do we have the issuing date of a permit? MS. ARNOLD: This is also in the permit file. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Well, I found the paragraph I wanted, which I thought was on there. It's on that page you just flipped over, six months. Okay. MR. BOWIE: 2/7/90. MR. LETOURNEAU: If you notice on this last page, the permit - was canceled. MR. BOWIE: 8/21/89. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know if that circle goes with the okay or -- I mean, we have no way of knowing that. He could have wrote permit has been canceled yesterday for all we know. Canceled in '92. MR. LETOURNEAU: This is the inspection sheet, which you see -- I think the last inspection was 5/31/91, it looks like. And if you can see on that print down there, it looks like it was canceled by someone, S.D., on 11/3/92, it looks like. And that looks like payments done by Mr. Marshall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Michelle, can you bring that up? All that flipping around didn't get -- I actually need to see it where I can look at the numbers, not have them fuzzy and flipping. What I was looking for on this permit, Mr. Marshall, and I'm _ going to read it. This is your Permit No. 86-02791, and your name is on the bottom under what I'm going to read part of it. Well, I'll read it Page 49 March 30, 2005 all. It's got your signature. All work under the approved building permit shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and additional stipulations and! or conditions of the permit. The approved permit expires if work authorized is not commenced within six months from the date of issue. The permit fee will be quadrupled, plus a maximum penalty. The permittee further understands that only licenced contractors, blah, bah, bah, bah. Okay? Now, back further under your permit, you have to get various inspections. And I think you said inspections were done? Am I correct in remembering that you said that? MR. MARSHALL: Well, I believe you issued the records there. I heard somebody say something about them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You submitted a set of plans to get this permit for a -- I'm trying to find where it actually says here what you're going to build. This says single-family residence. That's the only thing I see called out. MR. MARSHALL: Well, you have to look at the blueprints to see what's on the blueprints. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, what my point is for a single- family residence and looking at the inspections, the last inspection was in May of -- 31 st of '91. And that was for parcel -- partial insulation of the roof. MR. MARSHALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, there's nothing on anything else, no final building inspection, no elevations, no mechanical inspections, no final plumbing, no anything. So you haven't done any work or got any inspections since 1991. MR. MARSHALL: Well, if the permit expired or was canceled in '92, it wouldn't help me to go out there and work without a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, then, now we're back to the violation that you have a building that isn't permitted. So in other Page 50 March 30,2005 words -- MR. MARSHALL: But the thing is, you know, we're talking about, you know, you're violating me under the 1991 Land Development Code, okay? And all I'm saying is that, you know, the code that I was given my permit under was the 1982 or the 1986 code. And if either one of those codes provide that I have an established right that you cannot knock the building down, then you can't make me knock the building down, and that's what apparently Mr. Letourneau wants to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, sir. MR. MARSHALL: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know what Mr. Letourneau wants you to do. You need to be worried about what this board wants you to do. MR. MARSHALL: Well, I think -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, bear with me, okay? Now, what's before us is you have a partial building that the county says you don't have any permits for. Now, what we're going to establish is you either have a permit or you don't. And whichever, then we're going to either order you to get a permit and finish the building or get a permit and tear the building down, okay? We haven't done that yet, we're still trying to make sure that there is or is not a permit. Now, I'm looking at this '86 permit. You've just acknowledged that it was canceled. That tells me there isn't a permit. So I'm hard pressed on your argument that whatever code was in existence, you just said you didn't have a permit. MR. MARSHALL: Okay, what I'm saying is if the 1982 or 1986 code does not provide and give the county the authority to knock the building down after the permit expires, then you will not have the authority to do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First of all, we haven't said knock the building down. Page 51 March 30, 2005 MR. MARSHALL: I understand that, sir, and I'm not-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then quit worrying about that part of it until we order you to do that, okay? Worry about what we're going to order you to do. Now, first of all, again, you got a permit in '86. You didn't complete the permit. It got canceled. You just acknowledged it got canceled. Therefore, you do not have a permit. And that's the violation. Now, we haven't told you what to do yet, but do you understand? You're in violation because you don't have a permit. MR. MARSHALL: I believe I understand the county's position, if that's what you're asking me. MR. BOWIE: Now, is the respondent aware that what the county is recommending is to give him a period of time to secure a permit to finish this? Is he aware of that recommendation? MR. LETOURNEAU: We submitted that with the notice of hearing that we sent to him, yes. MR. BOWIE: So he has gotten this notice that what is being proposed by the county is that he be given 90 days to secure a new permit for this residence, correct, and to complete it to the point of certificate of occupancy within 180 days. MR. LETOURNEAU: That is correct. MR. BOWIE: So I think that is the preferred alternative you're proposing, rather than to propose that we order it torn down, demolished. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One or the other. MR. LETOURNEAU: Whatever satisfies the code. MR. BOWIE: So I want to make sure that the respondent understands that he's been given an opportunity here to do apparently what he's already got in motion to do. He says he's submitted a check for a permit, he's submitted plans to finish this, and he's at this point prepared to submit the permit, get -- activate the permit application. Page 52 March 30, 2005 MR. LETOURNEAU: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand -- and again, the county is recommending to this board to make a decision to do one of two things: Order you to get whatever permits you need and however __ in some period of time finish this, get a CO so that everything is the way it's supposed to be, or, big or, or order you to get a permit and tear it down. Now, we haven't made a decision yet, but that's the county's recommendation. Do you understand that? MR. MARSHALL: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We don't want any question marks that it's just tear it down. Their recommendation to us is one or the other. MR. MARSHALL: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And if we do anything, we would give you that option. We'd say do one, get your permits, or get a permit, tear it down. We don't care which, just do one of them. Now, you've already told us you're in the process of going for the permit, which sounds terrific. MR. MARSHALL: Well, what I'm really in the process of doing is finding out which rights have been established by the prior code. If I find out that I have a right established by the prior code and that you're trying to enforce a right or authority which you don't have, then I'll address that. Which is why I was asking for a continuance. So I will use the 90 days that you give me to do that in consideration of what you're giving me the 90 days for. But I'm not going to abandon what I believe might be a right at this point in time, because I've still not been given the opportunity to make that defense. Page 53 March 30, 2005 MS. BARNETT: Mr. Marshall, first, we haven't given you any time frame yet, because we haven't even gotten that far. That is just what the county has made a suggestion to us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you have the right to do whatever you want to do, sir. We're not going to take away any of your rights, you know. We're just going to order you to do something, and we haven't determined what that something is yet. But you still have all the rights you like to do anything you'd like to do, okay? MR. MARSHALL: Well, except make a defense on a conflict with the prior code, that's the right that I don't have. MR. BOWIE: You may have that right to go to court, too, and do that there. That may be true. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Marshall a couple of questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Marshall, it's Michelle Arnold. Mr. Marshall, is the '86 code still in effect, to your knowledge, that you're making reference to? MR. MARSHALL: Say that again. MS. ARNOLD: Is the 1986 code still in effect? MR. MARSHALL: Well the -- what I've requested -- MS. ARNOLD: Is the '86 code still in effect, Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: I'm answering your question. Will you let me answer your question? MS. ARNOLD: Go for it. MR. MARSHALL: The code that I -- the table of contents I requested from Rebecca Paratore is the 1982 zoning ordinance. If I have an established right that was established through the 1986 code, that right is still in effect. So yes, that's the answer to your question. The answer is yes. If I have an established right, that right is still in effect. It's unaffected by the 1991 Land Development Code. MR. BOWIE: We're not going to be in a position to make that Page 54 March 30, 2005 determination today. MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me, sir? MS. ARNOLD: If I can just continue to just ask a couple more questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. That's not our purview anyway. MS. ARNOLD: Is the 1982 code still in effect that you made reference to? MR. MARSHALL: Any right established under the code would be in effect, yes. MS. ARNOLD: To your knowledge, is the 1982 code appealed and replaced by a newer code? MR. MARSHALL: Haven't received copies of the code yet, so I can't answer that question. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. On your notice of violation, what code were you cited under? MR. MARSHALL: Is this -- this question is a little redundant. I think it's been asked and answered. MS. ARNOLD: Will you answer it for me one more time? MR. MARSHALL: What page is it on? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Four. MR. BONANNO: Four. MS. ARNOLD: Your notice of violation is on Page 4. MR. MARSHALL: What would you like me to read? MS. ARNOLD: The ordinance numbers under notice. MR. MARSHALL: The ones that are handwritten? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. MARSHALL: Okay, I'm going to read the left column up and down then I'll read them across -- MS. ARNOLD: Just read the ordinance. Up and down. MR. MARSHALL: Up and down? MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. Page 55 ,.--- March 30, 2005 MR. MARSHALL: 2002-01,04-41, amended 04-01 amended-- MS. ARNOLD: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Marshall. Was the 1982 code cited under there? MR. MARSHALL: It doesn't appear to be on my copy. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, was the 1986 code cited under there? MR. MARSHALL: It doesn't appear to be on my copy. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anyone from the board have any further questions of the investigator or Mr. Marshall? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, gentlemen, thank you. If you'll just bear with us, the board will now make a determination. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus James C. and Sherry Marshall, in the CEB Case No. 2004-072, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 10.02.06.B.1.A and 10.02.06.B.1.D of Collier County ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, and of sections 104.5.1.4 of Collier County ordinance 2002-01, the Collier County Building Code. The description of the violation is that there are numerous wooden sheds built without obtaining proper Collier County building permits for them. Also, a house that was semi-built under Permit No. 86-2791, which has expired without obtaining all the required inspections and certificate of occupancy. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 56 March 30, 2005 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we follow the county's recommendation. Number one, for the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: For all non-permitted sheds or accessory structures on described property, must obtain all Collier County building or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Number two, for primary structure, must obtain a new valid Collier County building permit within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed each day the violation continues to exist. And must obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy within 180 days of permit issuance or a fine of $100 a day -- be per day for the violation if it continues to exist. Number three, obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit and remove the structure and all related debris to an area intended for such use within 90 days of this hearing -- that's in the event he cannot get the permits -- or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The only thing I ask, Bobbie is your item one, you had the operational costs and this combined. Would you separate those, please? MS. DUSEK: All right, yes. So it will be actually four items, Page 57 March 30, 2005 then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Chairman, was there a "or" put in between two and three, that's all? MS. DUSEK: It wasn't. But then I did say in that number four, which is now number four that if he's not able to get the permits -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She added in the last sentence, ifhe's not able to obtain a permit for the structure. MR. KRAENBRING: Just asking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Understand. Okay, we have a motion on the floor for the order of the board. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, but I have to add one last part to that, and that's that the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Inspector when the violation has been abated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That would be number five. MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion with five items in it. Everybody understand the items? Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second from Gerald. Any further discussion? MS. BARNETT: I was just thinking because the gentleman is in Texas -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's in Tennessee. MS. BARNETT: Or Tennessee, rather, making it easier on him if we would kind of coordinate the days to 90 days in the very -- number two, I guess it would be, Bobbie, for the outbuildings to correlate with the home so maybe he would only have to make one trip for inspection purposes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, Item two you said 60 days, item three we said 90. MS. DUSEK: That's fine. Page 58 March 30, 2005 MS. BARNETT: To give him -- MS. DUSEK: That's fine. MR. BOWIE: Is that acceptable to the second as well, then? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Gerald, is that okay with you? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So it's been amended to the 90 days in each of the items, right, for the non-permitted will be 90 rather than 60. That's the only change. MS. DUSEK: But the 180 days still remains? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Stays the same, yes, ma'am. Okay. Everybody understand? All right, we had a motion and a second on the five items. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Marshall. MR. MARSHALL: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you still there? We made our ruling, sir, and you will be getting a copy of this order direct! y. What we've done is we're ordering you to pay the operational costs in bringing this case forward to the board. We're ordering you to get the necessary either building permits or Page 59 -_._"------_._.,..__..-~..._-.._..."-_..,.._'..~,,'-_.'.~...---.......----- March 30, 2005 demolition permits on your sheds and accessory structures, not the primary structure, okay, within 90 days or a fine of $50 a day. We've given you a choice -- MR. MARSHALL: Repeat that, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On the sheds that you have there, and the accessory structures, not the house, okay, we're dealing -- we have two different -- we're separating them. So on the sheds and accessory structures we're giving you 90 days to either get the required building permits or a demolition permit, that's your decision, within 90 days, okay? MR. MARSHALL: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or a $50 a day fine will start. On the primary structure, we're giving you 90 days to get a building permit or a fine of $100 a day, or you can get a demolition permit for the primary structure within 90 days or a fine of $100. If you do get a building permit on the primary structure, we're giving you 180 days to get all your inspections and your CO. MR. MARSHALL: All right, does the board understand that that's less time than the permit allows by law? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand our order, sir? MR. MARSHALL: Yeah, I'm just asking if you understand what the law is? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand our order, sir? MR. MARSHALL: No, I don't. That part of it I don't understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But that's what's coming forth to you. Okay? MR. MARSHALL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. That concludes that item. Thank you, sir. MR. MARSHALL: I have a question. I would like a copy of the transcript of the hearing. Page 60 ^-"- March 30, 2005 MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Marshall, it's Michelle Arnold speaking. You can request it from the clerk of the board, and you at that time will have to pay for the transcript. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we have a court reporter, and you have to request it through them, and whatever it costs, you'll have to pay for. MR. MARSHALL: When you say clerk, is that Leo. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we have a court reporter here. MR. MARSHALL: Who's the clerk of the board? MS. ARNOLD: The clerk of the Board of the County Commissioners. And what we can do is I can provide you that information who you need to request it for via e-mail, since that's a good way of communicating with you. MR. MARSHALL: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir? MR. MARSHALL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Let's take ten minutes. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's call the Code Enforcement Board back to order, please. I think we're -- Ray's out in the hall? MS. BARNETT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, would you be so kind as to stick your head out the door and see if Ray's there, please? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. He's coming. He's on the phone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Okay. We're to case 2005-05, Jean-Baptist Lamour. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB case 2005-05, Board of County Commissioners versus Jean-Baptist Lamour. The violations are that of Sections 2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Page 61 March 30, 2005 -. Code, and 104.1.1,104.1.3.5,105.5,106.1.2 and 106.1.3 of the Florida Building Code. The violation is described as a carport attached to living structure enclosed in 2001. A permit was issued with no inspections made, and therefore, a permit has expired. The violation is located at 1812 Lead Avenue, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. The person in charge of that location is Jean-Baptiste Lamour, 1812 Lead Avenue, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. The violation was first observed on March 25th, 2004. A notice of violation was served on April 16th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected by April 24th, 2004. A reinspection occurred January 13th, 2005, and as of that date, the violation remains. The code enforcement department has submitted actually two _. packets of information labeled Exhibits A and B that we ask be entered into evidence at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibits A and B. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second -- George -- to accept the county's Exhibit A and B. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) Page 62 ._._- March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BONANNO: And for the record, Christina Perez once again is the investigator in this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cherie', would you swear them both in at the same time, please. MS. ARNOLD: Cherie', before you swear, I just want to let you know that this is the daughter for the property owner, so if she can state who she is on the record and give us that information and that she's received authorization to represent her mother -- father, I'm sorry . MS. PIERRE: My name is Linda Pierre and I have been given permission to be here for him, since he's unable to be here. Pierre, P-I-E-Ft-Ft-E. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, Jean, do we have to have some written evidence that she has permission, or do we accept it just because she's being sworn in that she will speak? MS. RAWSON: In the future we're probably going to provide the respondents with some sort of written authorization, but if she testifies that she's the daughter and she has the permission, and for whatever reason, if she didn't, I'm sure we'll hear about it. I think we can accept it. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Pierre, if you'd like to sit down until the county tells us, it would probably be easier on you, because they're going to do their side, then we'll ask you to come up and do your side. MS. PEREZ: Okay. For the record, once again, Christina Perez, Code Enforcement Investigator. On March 25th, 2004, while conducting a routine patrol, I came across the property in question and observed a concrete wall and what appeared to be a newly installed window, so the label that was still attached to the window. Page 63 March 30, 2005 After researching what seemed to be the new carport enclosure, the result was that there had been a previous code case on the same violation and the property owner had been issued a permit in 2001 for the alterations now still in question. The permit that was issued in 2001 had not received any inspections that was aspired (sic), therefore resulting in a permit violation. On the same day the case was started, the notice of violation was posted and the certified mail -- and mailed certified to the property owner's mailing address and a receipt was then returned signed. After numerous conversations with the owner's daughter Linda, who has helped with translating information to her father, Jean-Baptist, the violation continued to remain. Several site visits followed, with no progress of a permit being submitted. Recently Mr. Lamour has showed interest in complying. His daughter Linda presented engineer blueprints to the permitting office in Immokalee and currently continues to gather other information that she still needs to be able to submit for reapplication of a new permit. MR. BOWIE: The permit that was issued in 2001 was for the enclosure of the carport into a living space? MS. PEREZ: Yes. They've submitted it for a storage place, for a storage room. And it was -- the blueprints were submitted, it was approved, but no inspections were ever made. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is it a storage place or a living area? MS. PEREZ: No, from what I saw -- from what I had been able to see, it's just storage. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Storage, okay. Any other questions for the investigator? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Ms. Pierre. I'll ask you, since you told us before you were sworn in, do you have authorization Page 64 March 30, 2005 to represent your father? MS. PIERRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. You want to tell us your side, ma'am. MS. PIERRE: I do agree with her, and it is right. And the reason that we didn't get any inspections made, because we were unaware that we needed inspections made, because when we went and got the permit, she told me that's all that we needed and that's why we didn't call for anyone to make inspections. And when she did come to us and told us that, well, this is -- we were trying to see what went wrong with us having the permit and it expiring, because we weren't -- we didn't know that it could expire. And she explained everything to us that we needed inspections done and everything. And now that we got blueprints done and everything and we're in the process of getting everything done, situated. MR. BOWIE: Why wasn't this matter stipulated earlier this morning? MS. PEREZ: I was not -- I had not gotten responses if she could stipulate for her father, since he wasn't here. And after we had done the process, then Jennifer arrived, so that I could ask her that question. But it was already too late. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone have any questions of Ms. Pierre? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. MS. PEREZ: The recommendation that I make to the board is to allow the respondent to pay all the operational costs and to comply with the Collier County codes by obtaining, if obtainable, all permits, inspections and certification of completion required for the description of the enclosed carport within 60 days or a $50 fine to be imposed for every day after. Page 65 March 30,2005 Or, if the respondent does not wish to get the permit for the non-permitted improvements, the respondent will then have to get a demolition permit and remove the non-permitted improvements and all related debris within 60 days or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed after. MR. BOWIE: Could I ask the respondent, is this time frame acceptable to you? MS. PIERRE: Yes, we have pretty much everything done and it should be fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If there are no further questions of either the investigator or the respondent? Thank you both. You may sit down. Finding of fact by the board? MS. DUSEK: I have one question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: On 104.1.3.5, I was just wondering, I guess I'll ask Michelle this, if this does in fact apply to this case? MS. ARNOLD: 104.1.3.5? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. BOWIE: I don't see it. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Page 11. MS. ARNOLD: It's 104.1.3.5 says a building permit shall have been issued prior to the commencement of work at this site -- activities prohibited -- then it goes on. But yes, it would say it would be applicable. MS. DUSEK: Okay. And also, once again, I guess it's in the notice of violation, but it's not in the -- whatever we call this summary, and that's 2.7.6.5A. MS. ARNOLD: Just what's important is what's in the charging ,,_ document, which is the statement of violation, so -- MS. DUSEK: All right. Page 66 March 30, 2005 I make a motion that in the case of Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Jean-Baptist Lamour, in the case CEB No. 2005-05 that a violation does exist. The violation is of Sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5, and we don't have 2.7.6.5A listed there. So should we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Five is sufficient, because it covers everything under five. MS. DUSEK: Well, okay. I know I've asked that question before -- of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, and 104.1.1,104.1.3.5,105.5,106.1.6, 106.3.1 of the Florida Building Code. The description of the violation: A carport attached to living structure was enclosed in 2001. A permit was issued but no inspections were made, therefore, a permit expired, no valid permit has been issued. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One correction, Bobbie, you said 106.1.6, it's 106.1.2. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the only thing -- MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. Page 67 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BARNETT: I know it's not probably going to pertain to this particular case, because it looks like they're moving forward with the permits; however, in the county's recommendation, it says that if the respondent wishes to obtain a permit for demolition. I think it's if they can't obtain the permit, then they need to obtain, not if they wish to obtain. Just a little note of verbiage. MR. BOWIE: Well, I don't know. Are you saying that -- only if it's legally impossible for them to get a permit for completion would they be able to get a demolition permit? So it has to reach the point of legal impossibility, or just to give them an option to do that if they prefer? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item two as I read it, it says that if the respondent does not wish to permit any of the non-permitted improvements, then they must obtain a demolition permit. We're not giving them -- MS. BARNETT: An either/or. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they have an option. If they don't want to get a permit for this then they -- that's their decision. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I guess I was just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're trying to give them an option. MR. BOWIE: -- make sure what Bobbie was suggesting. MS. BARNETT: It was just worded a little different for me than what we usually have. It just kind of bothered me -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She can get home and make -- and her Dad can make the decision, yes, say I decided not to do this. Well, then he must get a demolition permit, if he doesn't want to get a regular permit. That's what they're telling him. MS. BARNETT: Okay. Page 68 March 30,2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now it's order of the board. Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: One other point. I'm not sure if the inspector mentioned, if we do agree to this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we'll have to add that to it. MR. LEFEBVRE: The respondent-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we'll put that in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's now down to the order of the board, so this is a time when we'll decide what we're ordering them to do. Bobbie, you want to go for it? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make an order. MS. DUSEK: Okay, go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make an order that we follow the investigator's suggestion and then adding where it states the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MS. DUSEK: Do we need to read that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since it's an exhibit, can I just give a synopsis of it, Jean, will that suffice? MS. RAWSON: That will suffice. MR. BOWIE: The respondent already indicated she agreed with the recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion, and before we get a second, I'll encapsulate it, that one, the respondent pay all the operational costs incurred in the prosecution. Two, that they comply with all the codes and ordinances by getting any permits, inspections and COs for the enclosed carport within 60 days, or a fine of $50 a ._, day. Or if the respondent does not wish to get a permit, then they must Page 69 March 30, 2005 - get a demolition permit and remove the non-permitted improvements within 60 days or a fine of $50. And four, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated so that they can get a final inspection. Okay, that's an encapsulated version. Everybody understand? And we would entertain a second to that motion. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a second from Mr. Bowie. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Pierre, do you understand, ma'am? It's what you all had talked about previously, that's all we've done. MS. PIERRE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Next case is 2005-09, EJ Properties. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB Case No. 2005-09, Board of County Commissioners versus EJ Properties, LLC. The violations are that of Sections -- Paragraph 5 -- no, I'm sorry, Section 5, Paragraphs 1, 11, 12(I), 12(K), 12(L), 12(P), 16(C), 16(D) of Collier County Ordinance 89-06, as amended, the Collier County Standard Housing Code. The violation is described as a rental unit in need of repair per Page 70 March 30, 2005 Collier County Ordinance 89-06. The unit does not meet the housing code minimums. The address is located at -- excuse me, the violation is located at 249 West Delaware Avenue, Immokalee, Florida. The person in charge of that location is EJ Properties, LLC. The violation was first observed on January 15, 2004. A notice of violation was served on June 24th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected on or about July 24th, 2004. A reinspection occurred on February 2nd, 2005 and as of that date, the violation still remained. The Code Enforcement Department has submitted a packet of information labeled Exhibit A that we ask be entered into evidence at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A. 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. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BONANNO: Code Enforcement Investigator Phillip Salinas is here to present the case. I would just ask if there is anyone here representing EJ Properties? The registered agent is listed as Leonardo D. Stark, Esquire? Page 71 March 30, 2005 F or the record, it doesn't appear that anybody is here for EJ Properties. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Salinas. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SALINAS: For the record, I'm Investigator Phil Salinas, Code Enforcement, Immokalee area. This case has gone through two owners. On January 15th, 2004, a complaint was received concerning the housing conditions of a rental unit at 331 South Second Street. The complainant, Ms. Williams, unit number one, stated that her unit was in bad condition. The described conditions were holes in the walls, cabinets rotten, oven not working, outside light not working and no ventilation screens on windows. A site visit was conducted on that same day, and Ms. Williams, who I met on-site, made access to the unit possible. A housing inspection was conducted and as the results found that the unit was not in compliance with the housing code minimums. Upon completion of the inspection, a Notice of Violation was drafted, with the observed violating sections noted and sent by certified mail to then property owners Edward and Alice German. After numerous site visits, the repairs were still not made and the property remained in violation. On the visit date of April 8, 2004, research found that the property had changed ownership and address number to EJ Properties, LLC, and new address of 249 West Delaware Avenue. After conducting site visits, only the window screens and outside light had been replaced but no other repairs were made. On June 24th, 2004, after failing to make repairs or replacements, a Notice of Violation was drafted and sent by certified mail to the new owner's registered agent. Since receiving the Notice of Violation, numerous site visits and conversations with owner's caretaker, the unit is still in violation and Page 72 March 30, 2005 in need of repairs. Along the way in this case, I was able to speak to the first owner, Mr. German, who always assured me that repairs would be made. He told me he did have the materials to make it sufficient, I guess, to a usable state. But along the way he said he was anticipating on selling the property, so he wanted to hold up. Property was then sold to the new owners, EJ Properties, LLC. Once they purchased it, I was still able to speak to the previous owners, since that was the new owner's father. He gave me a contact number of the caretaker, which is the new owner's brother. The same story was told there, we had the materials, we just need time. Was told we don't have the keys to access the unit, only the tenant does. But along the way, they were able to make some repairs as far as the screening on the windows. I believe they fixed -- the outside lighting was one of the first things they did. And they replaced, I believe, the door hardware. I did speak to the tenant yesterday. She did call me. I was hoping somebody could come in today and we could maybe settle this before coming in this morning. But nobody showed. She tells me the repairs have been all completed, but she wasn't too sure if somebody was going to come in on the property owner's behalf. So she says they're done, they're completed. I have yet to see it. I couldn't access it yesterday, she wasn't available. But to her knowledge they're complete. But to me I've only seen just the windows, the door and the exterior light, and that's it. But the new owners did make an attempt. They did call me. But, like I said, they would call, I would call them, they said yeah, we're going to do it next week, or I haven't gotten the materials yet, but -- I believe the tenant told me within the past 10 days, or once they received the posting on the door of the hearing, they got on the ball and did the repairs, but it just took them awhile to get to it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did the tenant tell you that she's Page 73 March 30, 2005 satisfied that everything is done? MR. SALINAS: She told me yesterday she's satisfied, but she also started talking about that the new owners were possibly thinking of shutting the place down -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's immaterial -- MR. SALINAS: And I told her, I said, well, I mean, I'm not-- the county's not asking them to shut it down, we're just asking them to make the repairs. If they made the repairs and you're happy, I mean, there's -- it's fine, this will go away, I mean -- as far as -- we'll give them, what, 14 days, and if they're completed within 14 days -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So she's happy as of yesterday on the phone? MR. SALINAS: She's happy as of yesterday on the phone, but I have yet to visually see -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand you haven't seen it, but she's told you she's happy? MR. SALINAS: She's happy. And she is the one who made the complaint. But yesterday seemed like she sort of wanted to withdraw that complaint, you know, she was sort of -- MR. BOWIE: Sounds like we're into a landlord tenant dispute is what it sounds like. MR. SALINAS: Right, right, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for our investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. SALINAS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Understanding that even though verbally the problems seem to have been corrected, we can't issue an order after the fact, so right now we need a finding of fact on this case. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus EJ Properties, LLC, in the CEB Case Page 74 March 30, 2005 No. 2005-009 that a violation does exist. The violation is of Section -- Paragraphs -- Section 5, Paragraphs 1,11, 12(I), 12(K), 12(L), 12(N), 12(P), 16(C), 16(D) of Collier County Ordinance 89-06, as amended, the Collier County Standards (sic) Housing Code. Description of violation: Observed rental unit number one, Ms. Williams occupant, in need of repairs, per Collier County Ordinance 89-06, as amended, the Collier County Standard Housing Code. Unit does not meet the housing code minimums. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that in fact a violation does exist. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we've had a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. Understanding we've had a verbal that they've been solved. And in reading what the discrepancies were, these are all short term items. Yau could probably complete them all in two days. I've done a lot of remodeling, so I know. I don't think we need a lot of time here. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a recommendation that the CEB order respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by, one, must restore Page 75 March 30, 2005 rental unit and deficiencies noted in the Notice of Violation to a good or usable state in accordance with the minimum standard described in the housing code within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day. The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MR. BOWIE: Let me just mention this: While it's clear we would have jurisdiction over a matter like this, it also seems to me that it might be more appropriate that in cases like this which involve physical property conditions or defects that fail to meet minimum housing codes, that these kind of cases I think would be more appropriate to set for hearing before the special master that now exists rather than this board. And that's just my opinion regarding the severity of this and the type of issues involved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion. And did we get a second? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? Page 76 March 30, 2005 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 2005-13. Ernesta (sic) Sacca? I hope I said that right, I apologize if I didn't. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB Case No. 2005-13, Board of County Commissioners versus Ernestina Sacca. The violations are that of sections 10.02.06.B.1.A, 10.02.06.B.1.D, and 10.02.06.B.D.I of Collier County Ordinance 2004-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. The violation is described as a guesthouse built in the rear of the property without obtaining a Collier County building permit. The violation is located at 2960 56th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. The person in charge of that location is Ernestina Sacca. The violation was first observed on May 19th, 2004. A notice of violation was served on February 4th, 2005. The violation was to be corrected on or about February 16th, 2005. A reinspection occurred on February 17th, 2005 and as of that date, the violation still remained. I would ask now if Ms. Sacca is in the room? Apparently not. Once again, Jeff Letourneau is here to present the case to you. The Code Enforcement Department has provided a packet of information labeled Exhibit A that we ask be entered into evidence at that time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to accept the county's Exhibit A. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 77 March 30, 2005 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again for the records, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Investigator. I received a complaint actually from the violator, Ms. Sacca back in May 19th of 2004. The complaint was she had some people that were living in one of her guest house behind her main house that were not complying with the rental situation. I did some research and found that the primary structure was permitted but there was two guesthouse type structures in the backyard that weren't permitted. I went there and I spoke to a woman, Ms. Luna, who stated that she was renting the primary structure and that somebody else was renting the guest house directly behind the house. So I called Ms. Sacca. I told her the bad news that, you know, she wasn't allowed to rent the guest house behind the house, and in fact the two structures weren't permitted in the first place. So we went along, she got a demolition permit for the guest house or whatever structure it was way in the back of the property, and got it demolished and CO'd, the demolition. But she failed to get a building permit or demolition permit for the other guest house. But as of, let me see, March 25th of this year, five days ago, they have applied for the permit of the guest house behind the original house. So she's still in violation, but she has submitted the permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, I'm looking at the first set of pictures. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. If you see the one up on the screen right here, that is the actual guest house, that's behind the house. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And I assume picture two is just a rear view of that. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's a -- yeah, another angle. And the last picture would be the one that got demolished. Page 78 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was going to say, because they're not -- I've tried turning it around and I can't get the same thing, and the antenna's missing, so I'm assuming that's the one that's gone. MR. BOWIE: They did a complete rehab on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It wasn't working out here. Okay. MS. DUSEK: Okay, so she has applied for the permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right, she just took a little bit too long to -- she drug her feet a little bit on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Jeff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, let me call you back, please, a minute. Would you like to tell us your recommendation of what we should do? MR. LETOURNEAU: My recommendation would be to pay all operational costs incurred in this prosecution and obtain a Collier County building or demolition permit, all the required inspections and certificate of occupancy/completion for the guest house within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Also to notify me when the project is completed. MR. PONTE: Jeff, just a question for you. saying that she's applied for the permit, what's your reason for suggesting $100 versus $50, for example. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, I actually wrote this up a few weeks ago, so it was before she applied for the permit. So that's up to your discretion on what you guys want to do that for. I mean, the structure's already built, she just needs to get the permit and then the inspections, there's no really -- Page 79 March 30, 2005 MR. PONTE: So $50 would be -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Fifty's, you know, fine, yeah. MR. PONTE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, I noticed you made a change. You said 60 days. Your written recommendation says 90. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, does it? I've got -- I must have something wrong -- I got something here then. I might have changed it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is 60 sufficient for you and her or does she need the 90? MR. LETOURNEAU: Now that I'm thinking about it, she might have to do a couple of adjustments, because -- if I'm looking at the permit right here, she is turning it into a CBS storage/workshop, not really a guesthouse, so there might be some alterations she might have to do, 90 days might be more feasible for her. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Public hearing section is closed. Now we need the finding of fact. MS. BARNETT: I make the motion in the case of Code Enforcement Board against Ernesta (sic) Sacca, Case No. 2005-13, that violation does exist. The violations are contained within the charging documents. And the description of the violation is a guest house built in the rear of the property without obtaining a Collier County building permit for such improvement. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation does exist. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. Page 80 March 30, 2005 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a recommendation that in CEB -- that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by, one, obtaining a Collier County building or demolition permit, all required inspections and certificate of occupancy or completion for a guest house within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to determine abatement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd like to ask one thing. We said certificate of occupancy or completion for a guest house. Can we leave out guest house, just in case she decides to make it something else? As long as she gets a CO or a certificate of completion, we don't care what she uses it for. How's that? Could you make that change, sir? Just leave out the guest house part. MR. KRAENBRING: Leave out the guest house. Fine, I agree. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for our order of the board. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 81 March 30, 2005 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? MS. DUSEK: No opposition, but one question. Now that you changed guest house. Should that be changed in the statement of violation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's what she was originally cited for, but she since told Jeff she may do something else, so I didn't want the board to order her to get something for a guest house when she may just turn it into a storage shed. MS. DUSEK: So it's all right to leave it in the description of violation? (At which time, Mr. Kraenbring exits the room.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. She's changing midstream, so -- that's not the code's fault that she may do something different. Next case, 2005-14, John Lee Arnold and Dean Arnold. MR. BONANNO: This is CEB case 2005-14, Board of County Commissioners versus John Lee Arnold, the Second, Trust and Dean A. Arnold, Trust. The violations are that of Sections 4.06.05.J.1 of Collier County Ordinance 2004-51, as amended. The violation is described as excessive pruning of 11 required landscaped trees. Eleven mature black olive trees were completely defoliated and hat racked or topped. The violation is located at 3584 through 3586 Mercantile Avenue, Naples, Florida. The person in charge of that location is John Lee Arnold and Dean A. Arnold, 3073 Horseshoe Drive South, Suite 118, Naples, Florida, 34104. Page 82 March 30, 2005 The violation was first observed on September 16th, 2004. A notice of violation was served on December 14th, 2004. The violation was to be corrected by January 14th, 2005. A reinspection occurred on January 20th, 2005 and as of that date, the violation remains. For the record, sir, are you one of the Mr. Arnolds? MR. ARNOLD: Lee Arnold. MR. BONANNO: Lee Arnold, okay. And also Christal Segura is the investigator/environmental specialist in this case. The Code Enforcement Department has provided a packet of information labeled Exhibit A 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. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second to accept set the county's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SEGURA: Good afternoon. Again, for the record, my name is Christal Segura. I'm an Environmental Specialist in the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. The case initially started on September 16th, 2004. We received a complaint from a certified arborist in the Transportation Department Page 83 March 30, 2005 that he drove by the property and he observed several trees were hat racked or topped. The investigator at that time was Summer Brown. She is a former investigator with the Code Enforcement Department. She met with the owner on the site and observed 11 recently topped mature black olive trees. They had been about 99 percent defoliated, as you can see by the photos. Mr. Arnold -- she met with Mr. Arnold on-site and he stated that the branches of the trees had broken off during Hurricane Charley and clogged up the storm gutters, which caused their building to flood. Hurricane Frances was approaching so they decided to cut the trees -- or to prune the trees to prevent more damage during the next hurricane. Summer Brown advised him that day to hire a certified arborist to evaluate the trees to determine whether or not they could be correctively pruned or if they would need to be removed and replaced. Mr. Arnold disputed the order due to the natural disaster and the circumstances they were placed under. He then added that the trees hadn't been pruned for years and the last time they were pruned, they were pruned exactly the same way. Summer told him that day that was probably why the branches broke off during the storm. On December 14th, Summer had not obtained compliance yet, so she issued the owners a Notice of Violation to hire a certified arborist to evaluate the trees to determine whether or not they could be correctively pruned, otherwise, the trees would need to be removed and replaced as the code states. Then the owners were ordered to bring the trees back into compliance by implementing the plan that would be submitted by the certified arborist. On January 20th, 2005 the case was turned over to myself. A certified arborist's report was submitted to the county by a certified Page 84 March 30, 2005 arborist named Mark Chin of Harbor Landscape. And I believe that's in the packet that you all received. The report stated that the trees were beyond repair and recommended their removal and replacement. The report also stated that topping or hat racking a tree is one of the most harmful pruning practices one can do to a tree and it results in an unhealthy and hazardous tree. Over the next few weeks I made several phone calls to the owners with no return calls back. On February 18th, 2005, I made contact with Mr. John Arnold. We discussed the case and the requirements and informed him that he needed to proceed and comply with the requirement of hiring a certified arborist to evaluate the trees as soon as possible. He disputed the requirement again, but asked me to fax him all that he needed to do, a list of trees for replacement, so on, so forth. So I faxed him another copy -- or actually a copy of the Notice of Violation that he already had and the order to correct and the list of native trees and so on and so forth. On February 22nd, 2005, I received a call from Mr. Lee Arnold disputing the requirement. He then said he hired a second certified arborist for a second opinion, Mr. Jason Alzamorra (phonetic) of General Tree, and he stated that the trees could be corrected. I asked him if he had that report in writing, he said he did not. I called the certified arborist myself by phone and he stated that the information that I received was false, and indeed the 11 trees would need to be removed and replaced. He hadn't seen worse pruning in the county for years. And to this date, the trees still exist on the property and the violation has not been abated. MS. DUSEK: I just have one curiosity question. Are the trees dead at this point? MS. SEGURA: No, they're not dead. I do have some pictures of Page 85 March 30, 2005 what they look like. I took this about a month ago. They are resprouting. However, half of the trees' canopy itself was completely removed and the trees were defoliated, so the only defense mechanism the trees has is to regrow water sprouts, which are very weakly attached to the tree in an effort to create leaves again to photosynthesize. And these branches that are growing back are very unstable and are very prone to breakage, especially in windstorms and hurricanes. MS. DUSEK: So in your opinion there is no chance of recovery to the way it was prior to this hat racking. MS. SEGURA: No, ma'am. The trees will grow back with these weakly attached branches, but they are very unsafe. And I am a certified arborist as well, and when I initially saw the trees, I knew that there was no way to restore the canopy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions of Ms. Segura? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Mr. Arnold, sir, your turn. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. Yeah, I disagree with some of those statements there, but in '92, during Hurricane Andrew, a couple of those trees laid over and I trimmed them identically like you see there now, and they growed back and they were just fine. During the last hurricane we had, there was very few branch failures. There was just a couple. Most of our problem was the leaves -- those trees were twice the height that you see in that photo there, over the eave. And the leaves went up on the eave of that building, and that's a 15,OOO-foot building there, and the one in the rear is a post office, 15,000-foot, and we had flooding. And Andrew from Fisher that leased that building at the time from us was here. He had an 11 :30 obligation, he arrived at 8:30, things got drug out, flooded out there, Fisher International, which is a computer company. That building was full of computer equipment. Page 86 March 30, 2005 I paid $5,000 to have the carpets sucked dry and we had to replace baseboard and drywall, quite costly. The post office had water in front of it from a tree that was hanging over the gutters of that area. So myself this year again, we topped the trees where they're about even with the eave height, because we're in the cone of uncertainty, where that hurricane that came over Cuba. And we thought we were going to have that big problem again. So to prevent, you know, further building damage, we cut it down to the eave height to prevent anymore tree breakage or any more leaves and flooding. And I have some photos of the trees yesterday. I don't think they've ever looked better. I'm having my yard man pull the little suckers off that she's referring to. And I also have a letter here from the little restaurant in the corner here, Johnny's Diner. They received two to three inches of water in there from those leaves clogging the gutters. And also the trees that were hanging over the building and against the building were pruned back. We're going to try to keep them at this height to prevent future leaves from getting on top of the roof and in the gutters. And we had a little building damage. And when I first met Summer Brown out there when she called, we discussed what we did, and I asked her what the fine was. She said there is no fine. So I said well, it's a non-issue that we're out here, then. So she went away. Later on they brought back this thing that the trees will need to be replaced. I think it's senseless, a waste. That just gets passed on to the users, the tenants, and the area maintenance. And they're beautiful trees, they've been there for 30 years. There's no sense in cutting them down, throwing them out. That's pretty much my opinion. If you have any other questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't mean to oversimplify this, but Page 87 March 30, 2005 based on what you've just told us, all this damage that you sustained was because there was leaves in the gutter. Sounds like a maintenance problem to me. Why would you cut a tree down because you don't get up and clean the gutter? MR. BOWIE: Or screen them. MR. ARNOLD: Well, during the windstorm that we had the situations, the leaves blew up there. Those trees had a lot of leaves on them, and we had the maintenance guys on them. But during the hurricane, the leaves blew up there, and there were green leaves up on that roof from the storm and it blocked the gutter. Nobody was at work that day, and the next morning we just had a flooded building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do you know Mr. Mark Chin? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I called him and had him go by there. He verbally told me, which is no good for anything, but verbally told me that he thought the trees should stay there for a year and then reevaluate them. I never got anything from him. Then I talked to him again and he said he'll get the report over to me. And that same day I told the investigators, and I did call them back in a timely manner. It's hard to get through to them because they're out in the field during the day and I'm in my office when I called then back. And he said he'd send me over the information. He never did. But about an hour or two later I get a call back from -- that the county called him, and his whole story changed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you get a copy of a letter from him? MR. ARNOLD: No, that's why I -- I called him back. I let it go. It was kind of out of site, out of mind. I let that go for two months or something. Never received anything, because I thought it was just done with. And then -- so I contacted him again, and he said he'd get that over to me. Then the contacted the code enforcement arborists, and Page 88 March 30, 2005 then they contacted Mr. Chin and then he called me back and his whole story had changed at that time. MR. BOWIE: But you never received a copy of the letter he presumably mailed to you that is part of this exhibit, the county's exhibit? MR. ARNOLD: We contacted two arborists, and the one I personally contacted never sent us anything. MS. SEGURA: So you're talking about Mr. Jason Alzamorra -- MR. ARNOLD: I think that's the one, yes. MS. SEGURA: -- the second one, who did never -- or did not submit a report? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. SEGURA: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chin might have been the first one that you all contacted -- MS. SEGURA: No-- MR. ARNOLD: -- or Dad contacted. MS. SEGURA: We didn't -- yeah, the owner contacted the -- MR. BOWIE: His letter recites that a Mr. John Arnold retained him to do this inspection. MR. ARNOLD: Correct, and that would be my Dad. I'm Lee Arnold. MR. BOWIE: Let me ask, too, who did this hat racking? MR. ARNOLD: I did. MR. BOWIE: It wasn't done by a contractor. MR. ARNOLD: No, I did because we were in an emergency situation there. We had -- if you'd recall last summer, we had storm after storm coming our way, and it was quite costly, the clean-up. So I did the trimming myself and with the help of my lawn maintenance. We contacted several people in the phone book for trimming these trees, but they seemed to be quite busy at that time. And I also called FP &L to get Asplundh out there because I didn't want to go by Page 89 March 30, 2005 the trees by the power lines because I didn't want to electrocute myself over a tree, so we left those alone. About a month ago they came out and did a worse job than I did trimming them, they just chopped the tree in half. And that's where those trees are today. But it took them quite some time to get out there because they've been backed up. Next time we have a hurricane, I'm calling the county and they can come out and trim them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Arnold? MS. DUSEK: Not for Mr. Arnold -- well, I don't think it would be for you, it would be more for the county. Don't you have to have a specialist trim trees, certain trees? Don't you have to have someone who's licensed, say, like for oak trees or other types of trees? You can't do it yourself? MS. SEGURA: Normally, I know that on single-family homes you can trim your trees yourself. But if you hire somebody, they need to be a licensed contractor with the county. They need to be licensed to actually trim trees for liability and workmen's comp -- MR. BOWIE: If you hire somebody to do it, they have to be licensed. MS. DUSEK: I know that. I just thought that had to be. MS. SEGURA: I'm not certain about commercial properties, the licensing requirements, or if the owner can actually do it or not. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for either the investigator or Mr. Arnold? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask the investigator to explain just what the requirements are with respect to you do cut -- whomever cuts the trees, what does the code require? Page 90 March 30, 2005 MS. SEGURA: Well, the pruning code specifically follows the current tree, shrub and other woody plant maintenance standards, the American National Standards for pruning, Standard Practices NC8300 of the National Arborists Association. It also specifically states that trees shall not be severely pruned in order to permanently maintain growth at a reduced height or spread, and that severely pruned trees shall be replaced by the owner. Under the maintenance section of the code, it states that any plant materials of whatsoever type or kind required by these regulations shall be replaced within 30 days of their demise and/or removal. So even if we're act talking about an act of God like a hurricane, you know, even, for instance, if these trees were struck by lightning and they died, they would still have the requirement of replacing them, because they're required landscaped trees. MS. DUSEK: I'm going to ask the question again, because I'm kind of on the fence here about these trees. When I look at the pictures that you're showing, it looks like they've just been mutilated. Then when I see the pictures that Mr. Arnold is showing, it looks like they're starting to come back. And according to your testimony, what we see coming back are just like little feeder pieces, they're not ever going to develop to a major limb; is that correct? MS. SEGURA: That is correct. This is a topping brochure that's put out by the International Society of Arboriculture stating why topping hurts trees, and it specifically states that topping creates hazards: The survival mechanism that causes a tree to produce multiple shoots below each topping cut comes at a great expense to the tree. These shoots develop from buds near the surface of the old branches. Unlike normal branches that develop in a socket of overlapping wood tissues, these new shoots are only anchored in the outermost layers of the parent branches. These new shoots grow very quickly, as much as 20 feet in a year in some species. Unfortunately, Page 91 March 30, 2005 the shoots are very prone to breaking, especially during windy conditions. The irony is that while the goal is to reduce the tree's height to make it safer, it has made the tree more hazardous than before. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Arnold has some exhibits that he wants to introduce into evidence. He's given them to the court reporter. I believe it's a letter and some pictures. And maybe we can just put them up on the screen. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call them all Exhibit A for the -- MS. ARNOLD: And can we enter in the brochure as county's Exhibit B -- or C. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: B for the county and A for -- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the respondent's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the respondent's Exhibit A. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now we have an Exhibit B for the -- MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion to accept the county's Exhibit B. MR. PONTE: Second. MR. BOWIE: What was county's Exhibit B? Page 92 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The brochure that she has. MR. PONTE: I'll second. You made a motion to accept, correct? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And George has made a second. All those in favor of accepting the county's Exhibit B, signify by saYIng aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Okay, let's see Mr. -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Arnold's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Arnold's exhibits. MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to explain what they're looking at if you look at the screen? MR. ARNOLD: That's a letter from the restaurant owner. MS. ARNOLD: The county would just object to the whether or not -- the damages of the building has nothing to do with the violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: His exhibit -- MS. ARNOLD: I know, I'm just stating for the record. MR. BOWIE: We'll just take it for what it's worth. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're ready to see the next one. MS. ARNOLD: You want to explain to the board what this is? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, that's a current photo, yesterday I took, yesterday afternoon. MS. SEGURA: And that was just of the very top of the tree. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the bottom of the trunk never changed. That's before we trimmed them, showing them hanging over the gutters. And I read somewhere in the code where if it's doing damage to Page 93 March 30, 2005 your building, you're allowed to trim them back away from the building, because it's sitting on top of the building there, just seeing there's a gutter, that brown area there at the top of the building is a gutter, and that tree caused it to fill up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, Mr. Arnold, let me ask you a question. Your photo's great. You've got a branch laying on top of your building. Why didn't you cut that branch off rather than top the whole tree? MR. ARNOLD: That's not a very good photo, but there's more than one branch hanging over the building, there are several -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, I'm looking at the way this tree is positioned right here in the front, okay? And if I follow up, I mean, even this branch on the right that's coming off and then goes into a Y, if I just cut that off, the rest of it's not hanging over your building. That's what I'm saying. You cut off one branch but you decided to top the whole tree, and -- sorry, it isn't getting it for me. MR. ARNOLD: Correct, I understand that, but when the wind blows, the leaves from this side of the tree can end up there as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: It doesn't have to be on top of the building. The wind during the storm blew several-- I mean, I had bushels and bushels of leaves on these two, three buildings here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I have a question for the county. If Mr. Arnold wanted to remove all of the trees, does he have to replace them? MS. SEGURA: Yes, ma'am. They're required trees, they're required landscape trees and they're there to provide shade and they're there for several other reasons. And they need to be there on the property. So if they were removed, they need to be replaced with a native mitigation-size tree. MR. BOWIE: But he could replace them with something other than black olives? Page 94 March 30, 2005 MS. SEGURA: Yes, he could. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know what this is. Mr. Arnold, would you -- MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, this is just some of the building damage. There's other trees there. There's also mahoganies and black olives, there's kind of a mix. We're not wanting to eliminate all the trees, because the trees add beauty to the area there. Even though we are an Industrial Park, and if you look at the neighbors, we have one of the nicer looking projects in that industrial park there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: Some of the trees you see in the background there are the ones that haven't been trimmed. There's one here in the fore picture. It has been trimmed. And the ones in back away from the buildings, we left alone, because they weren't really causing any problems. We have more trees than are required, too, on that property, by code from the '80s when we built that building. That tree is way out front and it was broke up from the storm. And we haven't -- since we had the issue, I was going to come back and finish trimming all of it so they match. All these problems propped (sic) up. We just left it be. MS. ARNOLD: That's it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that it, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's all he gave me. MS. SEGURA: I would like to add one more aerial photograph of what the trees looked like before they were pruned? Is that okay? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be Exhibit C? Is that the one that's in there? MS. SEGURA: Yeah-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's already in there. MS. SEGURA: -- and the trees that are in the center are not even close to the buildings. I just wanted to note that, and all of those trees Page 95 March 30, 2005 all the way down. This is a -- the one that you have in the packet, are they all labeled A? That was included in the certified arborist report labeling which ones? Okay. And the -- not only do the branches that grow back on the trees, not only are they weakly attached, but it also opens the tree up to decay and insect infestation because it doesn't allow the branches to heal because the cuts weren't made in the correct place. I just wanted to add that. Not only -- well, the branches may -- or regrowth may occur, but actually what's happening inside the tree is also a hazard-- creates -- or makes the trees more of a hazard. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for anybody? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, actually, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Were there any trees -- you said in 1992 you trimmed -- you pruned some of the trees back, similar to what you did last year? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, after Hurricane Andrew, one of them laid over in the median there. And we trimmed them -- everything the same way, and as you see there -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You trimmed every single tree on your property? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And then they all done fine. That was -- what was that, 13 years ago? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what we're getting at is that trimming or that pruning done in '92 might have caused during this storm a lot of the leaves to come off, debris to be -- you know, it wasn't firmly attached. I think that's what -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't believe -- I see what you're getting at, but I have trees at my home, and they lost a lot of leaves. I had all the pine needles out at my other residence -- lost most of my pine needles on there, and I don't think they've ever been trimmed. So I Page 96 March 30, 2005 think a windstorm knocks the leaves off a tree no matter how they're trimmed. Do you agree with that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Your trees at home with all these leaves that got blown off, did your house flood? MR. ARNOLD: My house did not flood, but FP&L sent a crew down by my house downtown by the Beach Club, and they cut off similar trees, and I got four-foot stumps. And I complained to FP&L about it and they're bringing me new trees out, because they just left me a four-foot stump on three trees downtown. Also, I had to trim some county trees on some right-of-ways, because the branches were hanging down for about a month. And finally we had to trim those ourself because the county didn't send anybody by. So I had quite a bit of tree damage on several different properties. MS. BARNETT: I do know going back to Hurricane Andrew and over on the east coast, a lot of the foliage was just completely gone from the trees. Whether those -- all of those trees were trimmed or not, I can't tell you. But I can say like at the zoo and the parks, there was no foliage left. It was unrecognizable as to what type of tree was there. So storms can cause that. But I'm not saying, because I'm not a tree expert, whether or not these trees are going to be safe after having been trimmed like this. I don't know. MR. BOWIE: Well, I don't know if that's the debate here. I think the debate here is whether what happened or what was done is in violation of the county ordinance that's cited here. And it surely seems to me what that the way this is written, it does. Trees shall not be severely pruned in order to permanently maintain growth at a reduced height, and severely pruned trees shall be replaced by the owner. MS. BARNETT: The question is whether it's severely pruned, Page 97 ..- March 30, 2005 right, you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have a-- MS. BARNETT: Looks like it -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the county arborist says no, we have a letter from a Mr. Mark Chin to John Arnold that says yes. We have Lee Arnold here saying that he talked to an arborist that says no. MS. BARNETT: That's what I'm saying, it's the question of the term severe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And yet when you read the ordinance, it says you shouldn't do that. And Mr. Arnold's explanation of the reason he's doing this is because they're above the section of the building. I would assume the State of Florida, if they knew that's the problem, they would only tell us to plant trees that don't grow higher than about 10 feet at all. Seems to be a little ludicrous, but that seems to be the argument. Just ain't working for me. And I don't like hat racking. I think it did does destroy a tree, based on the landscapers that I know, and I've worked with probably two dozen in 17 years. MS. SEGURA: Excuse me, Mr. Flegal, what did you say about the arborists that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I said the arborists say that they should be replaced, this is the wrong thing to do. MS. SEGURA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, that's what is says. MS. SEGURA: Yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what you said. MS. SEGURA: Yes, I agree. MR. BOWIE: I too have had that opinion offered to condominium and community associations that this is not the way to prune the trees. MS. DUSEK: I think you might have said in your statement that the county said no. But that should be the county said yes, that it was Page 98 March 30, 2005 hat racking and abuse of the trees. MS. SEGURA: Yes, three certified arborists, four, including myself, have looked at the trees and are all in agreement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I said. Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. You may sit down, please. Okay, order of business for the board is to finding of fact is there a violation of the code. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that in the case of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus John Lee Arnold, Second, Trust and Dean A. Arnold, Trust, respondents, in the case CEB Case No. 2005-14, that there is a violation. The violation is of Sections 4.06.05.J and L of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, as amended. The description of the violation: Excessive pruning of 11 required landscaped trees. Eleven mature black olive trees were completely defoliated and hat racked, or topped. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. I just want a clerical correction, Bobbie, I think it should be J. sub one, rather than J L as the ordinance referenced. MS. DUSEK: Is it one? MR. BOWIE: Yes. MS. DUSEK: Okay. It's hard to tell whether it's a one or small L. MR. BOWIE: With that clerical, I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second that in fact the violation does exist. Any further discussion among ourselves? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifnone, all those in favor, signify by Page 99 March 30, 2005 saYIng aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by removing and replacing all severely pruned trees with 11 native mitigation-size trees, 14 feet at time of planting, graded Florida number one or better and diameter at breast height of three inches within 30 days or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day of the violation. And repair irrigation system or provide a water source to ensure survival of replaced tree within 60 days or a fine of $50 per day each day the violation continues. MS. SEGURA: Ms. Dusek, excuse me. We would like to withdraw the recommendation for number two, for the irrigation. However, because the notice of violation wasn't specifically for -- MS. DUSEK: I thought when I was reading that that that might be the case. Okay, we're just going to eliminate that part of it. And the last part, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for the respondent to follow the recommendation of the county. I think Page 100 March 30, 2005 everybody -- anybody that doesn't understand it? Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Arnold, do you understand our order, sir? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're ordering you to do is remove and replace trees with 11 trees under these conditions. Okay, sir? MR. ARNOLD: So I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've got to remove them, the trees that we consider damaged and replace them. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all our orders. So we can close the public hearing section. Item six, new business, we have a request for imposition of fines on Petruzzi. MR. BONANNO: CEB Case No. 2004-46, the Board of County Commissioners versus William Petruzzi came before this board on November 29th, 2004, for violations of Ordinances 91-102,89-106 and 99-51. The violation was unpermitted and unmaintained residential structures and additions, unpermitted sewer tap installation and litter. In accordance with the order that was issued by this board, which Page 101 March 30, 2005 you should all have in your packets, the Code Enforcement Department is asking that an order imposing lien be issued in the amount of$33,140 -- excuse me -- 152.77. You should have a breakdown of those numbers there. F or the record, the investigator in the case, Eddie Ybaceta is here to answer any questions. Mr. Petruzzi is also here. And I prepared the numbers myself, so I'm happy to answer any questions about them. Just a heads up to you, the order got very involved as far as fines and steps and things, so if anybody finds any discrepancies in my math, I'm open to them. But I feel pretty comfortable with this number, I did it twice, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're really only concerned with the numbers. Any questions from any board members? MS. ARNOLD: I believe Mr. Petruzzi does want to speak. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PETRUZZI: Okay, first off, I don't really know where to start. I'm going to go way back to the last time I tried to appear before this board, which was in January. I came before, Michelle read me in. I was denied the right to speak at that time. Now then, I was supposedly noticed by posting, certified mail and regular mail, which did not happen. The posting for the violation was done at my personal residence at 882nd Street Northeast. That was the violation. F or a hearing, it was posted down on Bayshore at the place of violations. It is said that certified mail was sent. I never received it. And just for a shot at the post office, I do deal with a lot of certified mail because I am in business. My insurance company sent me a certified letter. Now, then, when you get a certified letter and they don't deliver it, they give you this little pink slip to go pick it up. On the back of the envelope is what you signed. I had both of these on the same date Page 102 March 30, 2005 in my mailbox. So I think basing things that the post office did it right is wrong, because that shows they did wrong. Now then-- MR. BOWIE: How about the process server, sir? MR. PETRUZZI: The process server? MR. BOWIE: Yes, that served you December 24th. MR. PETRUZZI: All right. Your hearing was on the 29th of November. You signed the paperwork on the 6th of December, which was a week after you had had your hearing that I didn't know anything about. The process server came out Christmas Eve and presented me with the paperwork, which is now five days beyond the 20 days that you stated. Also in the paperwork that he brought out, I'm getting fined $250 a day for noncompliance. I have not heard one person being fined $250 a day for anything. Why do I have such a large fine, which is well beyond anything that has been issued? You know, I'm just asking questions. I did obtain a demolition permit on January the 7th for it. And we had a few things going on and we ended up with Bradanna going in and taking it down. So -- the structure was demolished. But I'm just trying to figure out why do I get nailed $250 a day, I didn't get a proper notification, I got the short end of the rift all the way through on this. And really, something wasn't right. And when I did try to speak prior, I got shut out. So yeah, I feel that the fine is a little bit on the exorbitant side, you know. Who else have you fined $250 a day? Nobody today. And the last time I was in here, nobody exceeded $100 a day fine. Why do I have 250? MR. BOWIE: So your complaint is about the severity of the -- MR. PETRUZZI: Yes, for one. And when I came in -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The severity of the problem is why you got the fine. MR. PETRUZZI: Pardon? Page 103 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The severity of the problem. MR. PETRUZZI: The severity of the problem. When I came in to speak to you about it in January, you just ushered me out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You asked me a question. MR. PETRUZZI: You said you did not want to set a precedent in how things were operated here. But if I get a violation posted at my home residence, how come I can't get a notice of hearing posted in the same place? Now, for this hearing, I have the home posting, Mr. Letourneau brought it out, I got the certified mail and I got regular mail. All three of them I got for this one. But the most important one I was left in the cold. And I don't think it's -- my problems are any more severe than some of these other ones. This was a building that I acquired by attrition. I did not really buy it, it was given to me by my cousin. I did not check anything. But I do know that Collier County had problems with inspections back in the '80 time period because I worked for the county. I had gone out on jobs that had not been finaled because nobody bothered, and it was done. We were called in to go out and make final inspections to clear up so they could be on the tax rolls. This property has been on the tax rolls since 1977. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Petruzzi, are you requesting that the board consider reducing your fine? MR. PETRUZZI: Yes, I am. MS. ARNOLD: And what would that amount be -- what portion of it would you recommend? MR. PETRUZZI: I think bring it back into line with fines that were given today of $100 a day would be more sensible, you know -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That ain't going to happen. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Petruzzi, why do you want us to reduce your fines? MR. PETRUZZI: I think they're fairly out of line. What did I do Page 104 March 30, 2005 to deserve a $250 fine that other people do the same thing and only get a $100 fine? MS. DUSEK: This was a very severe case, and I'm sure that you had visited that property on numerous occasions, you knew what condition it was in. It was deplorable. MR. BOWIE: As I remember, it was being occupied by vagrants, it was a source of -- MR. PETRUZZI: It was closed up. We talked about that with the Sheriffs Department, I can't remember Mike's last name. We had discussions. I went through with them. We closed that building up to where it was not accessible. And we proceeded to go on with this. But I did not say oh, I don't care, I'm walking away from it. I have tried to comply and do things. I'm a poor guy. I'm not rich. You feel I am, okay. I have nothing to do with it. I own a business, yes. I have one person that helps me. I have a helper. I'm not making fantastic money in this county, I'm losing money in this county. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Petruzzi, we don't base our order on your income or your background, it's on the severity of the problem. MR. PETRUZZI: Severity of the problem. MS. DUSEK: Yes. And we have given $250 fines to other respondents who have a severe case. So you're not the first one. It just didn't happen today. I think I can remember, Michelle, you all tried on several instances to contact the owner. Seems to me there was a problem in ownership at the time? I'm not sure, I'm just trying to recall some things. MS. ARNOLD: The investigator is here, so you could probably inquire with him of the details. He would know. MS. BARNETT: I have one question before we get into that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, before we do all this, we need to understand one thing. We don't want to rehear this case, all we want to do is decide is there a reason to reduce it or not, period. Page 105 March 30, 2005 MS. BARNETT: That is what my question is in regards to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all we want to do. I don't want to hear this case, it's done, over. MS. BARNETT: I understand. My question is, the person that served him the documents on -- he's saying December 24, that was actually after our date. So I believe on those grounds he has an issue with us. MR. BONANNO: Ms. Barnett, just so you're clear -- so you're all clear, the numbers do reflect that. When I prepared the totals in accordance with the orders, I pushed back the deadlines to accommodate for the delay that the process server caused Mr. Petruzzi. He's not being penalized for the days that he did not have the order, so -- MS. BARNETT: But, did you give him 20 days from that day to get it -- MR. BONANNO: Yes, that would be January 15th, if you look where the per day fines start, that's what -- MS. BARNETT: So he did pull a permit, though, he said, a demolition permit on the 7th. MR. BONANNO: I work off of the affidavit of compliance that you should all have, that's what my numbers are based on, so, yeah, that would be a question for the investigator. But I just want to make sure you're all clear that he's not being penalized because of the process server's failure to follow directions. That -- we would never penalize a respondent for that. MS. BARNETT: I just wanted to clarify that, because I think that was one of the things he was here trying to talk to us about last time. MR. PETRUZZI: You're going with compliance. The first thing on this thing was get a permit within the 20 -- in that time period to get started. If the 7th of January, which was the date that I got it, that falls well within the compliance date. Page 106 March 30, 2005 MR. BONANNO: Again, like Mr. Flegal said, you're probably going into rehearing the case, and I'm going to justify my numbers as far as the paperwork that was given to me. If you all have questions about compliance dates and things, they should really be directed to the investigator. MS. BARNETT: Can you shed some light into this, please? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. YBACETA: For the record, my name is Eddie or Everildo Ybaceta. You can call me either one, it doesn't matter. As far as the demolition, he did pull the demolition permit on the 7th, I believe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: January 7th? MR. BOWIE: That's what the affidavit says, yes. MR. YBACET A: But we actually had to transfer that demolition past that date because he did go past the dates that were given. So when we did the demolition, we couldn't actually do the demolition on the date that Bradanna had specified because there was already a previous demolition on that property, and you can't have two demolitions on the same properties. So he had to work with Mr. Bradanna to get the property demolished. So it actually took a little longer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What day did he get served on? MR. BONANNO: The 24th. I believe it was Christmas Eve, December 24th, 2004. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What was the date of the -- you say Bradanna had a permit? MR. YBACETA: Bradanna had to work with Mr. Petruzzi in order to get the demolition permit transferred. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: From him to them? MR. YBACET A: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But his permit was January 7th. MR. YBACET A: Right. Page 107 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. December 24th is the day he got served. He pulled a permit January 7th. Ifwe do the math, that's like 14 days? MS. DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The order says obtain a demolition permit within five days. Okay, there's nine days for 250 bucks. Am I missing the math here? Now, let's go to the next one. What did he have to do next? If we move the December 19th date because he didn't get served until the 24th, that's five days. We move that to, you know, what, December 23rd? MS. BARNETT: He didn't get served until the 24th, why would we move it to the 23rd? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we'll move it to the 24th and then we give him 20 days from there. That makes it January 16th? When was all the litter removed, sir? MR. PETRUZZI: I'm really not sure when Bradanna got in there. I got a letter from Linda Latago (phonetic) at Bradanna where we were transferring the permit, and she said as soon as we got everything squared away, they would in and take care of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can the investigator tell me when all the litter was removed? MR. YBACETA: We're looking for it. MR. PETRUZZI: I probably still have a dumpster sitting there with some stuff to go. MR. YBACETA: February -- I'm sorry, excuse me. MR. PETRUZZI: Go ahead. MR. YBACETA: February 18th it was done. MS. DUSEK: February 18th. MR. BOWIE: Everything was done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So from January 16th to February 18th. Page 108 March 30, 2005 MR. BOWIE: The way the recommendation is calculated is from the 15th to the 18th of February, so that's pretty close on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I'm saying, it says remove all litter and abandon within 20 days. So if he didn't get served till the 24th, we give him 20 days, that makes it January 16th. He has 20 days. That makes it January -- 36, then we take -- what is that in January, 31 -- so that's five days in -- so that makes it February -- close of business February 5th. So that's 13 days he didn't comply? Is that where we're at? Another 13 at 250. The next thing he was supposed to do -- that -- he didn't do that. So there we're looking at 22 days at 250 -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, the actual demo occurred, according to the investigator, in talking with him, prior to the 18th. The 18th is when he actually went out and confirmed that it was completed. He's indicating to me that he was ill for three days prior to, so, I mean, it kind of pushed the date for inspection, reinspection off. Maybe he should note for the report when he believes that the actual demo was done and maybe that would help in your calculations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm looking at is our order that just says get this permit. Then it says remove all the litter and the discarded items. Now -- and we've calculated February 18th. As he's saying, it's like maybe February 15th or -- is that what you're trying to tell us, it's really not the 18th but it's something different. MR. YBACETA: I would think it was probably around the 12th or the 15th, somewhere around there. MR. BOWIE: We don't have anything of record from the contractor, Bradanna -- MR. PETRUZZI: That's what I was going to suggest, getting a hold of Bradanna and asking Linda there what their completion date of demolition was. MS. ARNOLD: You have their invoice, but it doesn't say the Page 109 March 30, 2005 date that they -- it's just an invoice date. MR. BOWIE: It doesn't tell us that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I took three days out and moved it to the 15th. That's still 4750. And you have $5,000, which is a given. You have the invoice for 9980 -- (unintelligible) -- instead of 33 -- MR. BOWIE: You have the operational costs, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then the operational costs. 672 -- 77 -- MS. DUSEK: Since the chairman -- not the chairman, you're the chairman -- MR. BOWIE: Get us a pocket calculator here. MS. DUSEK: I have one. Since the investigator has indicated it could have been the 12th or the 15th, somewhere in that time frame, I'd rather not take the 15th. I'd rather take either 13th or 14th, give him the benefit of the doubt. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll take two more days out. MR. YBACETA: We're calling Bradanna right now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Another 500 off. So we get 19,902-- MS. BARNETT: How much do you have? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 19,902.77. MS. BARNETT: 19,902.77? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. BARNETT: I'm more comfortable with the recalculation, giving him the fairness of, you know, he didn't receive -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's moving it down to the 13th. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you please speak into the microphone? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I'm sorry. We're trying to do this calculation and get everybody happy with the days. And we backed off until the -- to the 13th rather than the 18th. I had said the 15th and _ then we backed two more days to the 13th. I don't know if anybody else is trying to do some math, maybe I Page 110 March 30, 2005 did it wrong -- but it's at least -- should be relatively real close. And I came up with 19,902.77 instead of33,152.77. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yup. Sounds right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that in the realm of possibility for everybody? MR. BOWIE: In the light of fairness, I would suggest we would prefer to go with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What it basically does is just remove the one $17,500 worth of fines down to 4,750. All the other numbers are fixed, they're not going to change. MS. DUSEK: Now, the 4,750, is that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the actual fines. MS. DUSEK: I understand. And that is to February 13th? MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, you have two sections. You have Item 2A and then Item 2B. And that's how I made those up. MR. BOWIE: Is a motion in order at this point then? MS. DUSEK: Did you find out anything, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: We're getting there. MR. BOWIE: Are you all still trying to reach Bradanna? You're probably getting some very nice voice mail, I'm sure but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've got to move on. MR. BOWIE: -- we have to move on. MR. PETRUZZI: You get about three different secretaries before you get anywhere. MR. BOWIE: You have to hop through 15 minutes of voice mail CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're done. All right. Let's just take a management decision and move on. MS. ARNOLD: He actually has her on the phone. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't want to stay here till midnight waiting to get a secretary. Page 111 March 30, 2005 MR. BOWIE: It's a busy day and a busy time of the month, so-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, we made a decision and that's the way it will be. Okay, anybody got any recommendations? MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're doing -- and let me just throw it out so everybody understands. Ifwe look at the staffs recommendation, the $5,000 is a fixed number. The 9980 is a fixed number. The 17,500, I recommend we reduce that to 4,750. And then the operational is a fixed number. When I add all those up, hopefully I come to 19,902.77. If somebody's got a calculator, they can run it just to make sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: It matches up with the numbers I come up with. MS. BARNETT: I would like to make a motion that we amend our initial -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we're now going to impose fines, so it's just impose fines. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we impose the fine of $19,902.77. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Questions? MR. BOWIE: Now, again, we can just specify this includes per diem fines, operational costs, as well as the contractor's cost. MS. BARNETT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to us break it out, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I got it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, anymore discussion? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. Page 112 March 30, 2005 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, your fine is $19,902.77. MR. PETRUZZI: I'm sure I'll get a letter in the mail. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, you will, you'll get an order from us. MR. PETRUZZI: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have no old business, but we have a report that was submitted from Mr. France's attorneys. He's supposed to submit as a condition of our extension. MR. BOWIE: We need a motion on that just to accept the report as satisfactory? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, do we do that? Or just -- MS. RAWSON: You don't need to vote on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everybody have a copy of the report? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Under comments, it's not listed. When we had our -- I'm sorry, did I -- do we need to do the -- I think we need to do the Rand R before we do the elections, because otherwise we're going to be in trouble, because there's part of the rules and regulations that people wanted to talk about before we did that. So let's -- we've been given a copy of our rules and regs, and they've been changed by various inputs from our own counsel, some of our members, from the County Attorney, and I think probably Michelle, too. I can't remember. I think that's the four inputs we had. What you find is items -- I think they're either crossed out and the new part put in. If they're crossed out and nothing, then that's what Page 113 March 30, 2005 people would like to do. There are a couple of places where items are -- or an item is changed, and they're all in light print. It may have been dark print in the original copy, but they come out light. And if we could, let's just kind of go through page by page, that's probably easier, and discuss them among ourselves. And then as we normally do, if you're comfortable enough to change that item, you can do it. If you're not comfortable with it, then make a recommendation what you'd like us to do. That's kind of the way we've done it in the past. There's nothing on the first page. The second page up at the top, one of our members has at yesterday's meeting discussed what they'd like to do and the result is they'd like this one sentence removed from section two. Any comments from anybody? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I'd just like to support this suggestion that I put forward yesterday in that it just seems to me that we are closing an option to this board when we put a term limit on up to two years or one year or three years. But in this case where we have a two-year term for chair, if we have that limitation and don't have the option to extend it to a qualified person who's acting as that chair, I think we penalize ourselves, because we restrict our option to continue with something that's working very well. So that's the reason I've suggested that the term limit be removed. MR. BOWIE: Good idea. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments? MS. DUSEK: Yes, I'll make one last comment. I understand your point. Point well taken. I think that this whole section there has been based on personality and the existence of our chairman right now who has shown to be a superb chairman. And I feel that that is why you feel somewhat threatened about having a term limit on here. I think when we make decisions, just as we do when we make Page 114 March 30, 2005 decisions for any case, that we have to take out personal and emotional parts of this and just do what is for the benefit of the board. I also feel that anybody coming onto this board is of the intellect to act in any position. There are some who are -- have a better background, who have more of a desire, but I think that anyone person on this board could act as chairman or vice chairman. And I'm not saying that to promote myself, I'm saying it for benefit of the board. And I think it just strengthens. Because if you think about it, if you take the chairman that we have now and he's still on the board, he's still going to be a strong force. And that's why I think anybody coming into the chairmanship will be guided by those on the board as well as our legal representative and the county. That will be the last time I speak to this issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can speak any time on it. MS. BARNETT: Well, in regards to this issue, it brought up another issue that I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, yeah. MS. BARNETT: Because I don't see it anywhere. MR. BOWIE: About the removal of the chairman and vice-chairman. MS. BARNETT: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's an item that didn't get in here because you were there yesterday. Sheri was on the agenda yesterday and unfortunately she couldn't attend so we really didn't hear what she wanted to do. I gave a real short synopsis and probably not-- MS. BARNETT: Oh, I think you did a good job, from what you told me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- as great as she wanted, but while we're on this one sentence, let's do two things. Jean, is it more -- since we're dealing with this sentence first to delete it or leave it before we add which would be maybe another section, which is probably where Page 115 March 30, 2005 it should be -- MS. RAWSON: I think let's do one thing at a time, because I understand that Sheri's going to talk about removal. And I don't know if it goes in this section or not. But let's decide about term limits first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so-- MR. BOWIE: Are we going to vote on these one revision at a time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was what I think, if everybody's comfortable, we need to do this one at a time rather than the document, because we may take some things out, leave some things in, change some things. And I think if you do them -- MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move to amend section two of article four to delete that last sentence as shown in the proposal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion to delete this sentence as recommended. Is there a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? MS. DUSEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Five to one. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to note, I just noticed that Mr. Kraenbring is no longer here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sorry, we got busy. He did waive at me. He had an appointment he couldn't miss, and so I told him he could leave. I can't remember exactly where that was, because we Page 116 March 30, 2005 were in the middle of a case -- MS. BARNETT: It just was prior to this other gentleman coming up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you get it? Okay, thank you, Cherie. MR. BOWIE: Perhaps we could then add as section four to this another provision dealing with your issue. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let Sheri tell us what she -- her concern and then see if everybody understands it, is interested in it. And probably since this is also the article where we elect officers, it probably should be in that section that if you elect them there's a section where you could remove them. Sheri, go ahead. MS. BARNETT: In reviewing this, I kind of noticed that we didn't have anything that per chance we were to get a candidate or an officer that was not doing a stellar job down the road -- this board I think is exceptional -- but future, I don't know. I can't see in a crystal ball. And most other boards that I have ever been on, there's always been some mechanism in order to remove somebody from a position. And I just noticed that that was lacking in this. And so I wanted to bring it up as a question, if anybody else -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to understand now, this is only the positions of chair and vice chair. We can't remove anybody from the board, because the commissioners appoint us, they're the only ones that can remove us. So this only deals with chair and vice chair positions, that Sheri is looking for a way or thinks we should have a way that under some conditions we could at least say, you know, gee, this isn't working for us, and remove them. That does happen in most corporations, and where they're -- and most boards, you just don't live with somebody forever if they turn out to be a bad choice. Maybe a poor choice of words, but it's all I can think of. Page 11 7 March 30, 2005 But I think that's what she's trying to do. But we do need to remember, that's just with the chair and vice chair, because that's something we do, and we should have the right to do something different. It's not taking anybody off the board. Very specifically. That's not our task. MS. DUSEK: Let me ask you a question. How would you determine whether that person was doing a -- what would be your criteria for saying "X" is not doing a good job or it's not the job that we expect or -- MR. BOWIE: It's usually at the pleasure of the board. MS. BARNETT: I didn't want to specify anything in particular. I just said in case there was an instance that the board was very dissatisfied with their leadership. They should have some mechanism, especially because we have just removed any term limits. MR. BOWIE: Just like corporate officers. They serve at the discretion of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And it's always without cause, if you look at the statutes for corporations, officers can be removed without cause. In the board's case, I would think if we had a problem, we would probably be talking among ourselves, what can we do to change it. And maybe even talking with that person, saying we're having a little problem with your methods or whatever. I have no idea. I'm not trying to outthink Sheri, I'm just trying to throw things out so we can all get a handle on this. So I do understand that we don't have a mechanism and maybe we should. Again, we all seem to be doing very good jobs over all these years, but we do have to think of when we're not here, what are we leaving the next group? They have the right to change all these rules. MR. PONTE: I was just going to say that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They can do anything you want. As we Page 118 March 30, 2005 change from year to year, we make little improvements or, you know, whatever. They could throw the whole thing out and start all over agaIn. But I think it would be nice for us to show that we had the forethought to at least think about that. Whether we put it in there or not is immaterial. MS. BARNETT: And like I said, it's not going to hurt my feelings if you guys don't agree with it, it was just something that I noticed was missing. And because I am in more the corporate world and I have seen it in most things that I deal with, I just brought it up. MR. PONTE: No, I think it should be there. And I think in order to make it effective, it should be as wide as possible. Except there should -- so it doesn't get into a personality situation contest like that. It ought to be a vote of a super majority of the board. Not a majority but larger than a majority. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask Jean. Jean, just for my own edification, since we -- in electing these positions, we -- everybody gets to vote, alternates and everybody. So if we had a super majority, a normal majority would be four out of seven. Now that we have nine, a majority would be five out of nine. Is a super majority, is that seven? MS. RAWSON: It would be one more. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, six? MS. RAWSON: There's nothing in here that says that the alternates get to vote, actually. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we changed that at one point. MS. RAWSON: It just says a candidate receiving majority vote. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No -- this may not be the current one. But we changed that -- MS. BARNETT: A full board and alternates may participate in the election process and vote. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Yeah, we changed that -- Page 119 March 30, 2005 MS. BARNETT: Section five, Article three. MS. RAWSON: Section five. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I remember at one time we said they're here, yes, they can't have a position but they should at least have a say in what goes on. MS. DUSEK: I have another comment to this. I think we have to keep in mind that we're all volunteers. And when you're comparing this to the corporate world, those are people who live that business every single day and are experienced and educated to that business. So when you compare a voluntary board to a corporate board, I think that's incorrect. I think that doing something like this would be very subjective, and I don't think it would be to the best interest of the board. MS. BARNETT: Are condo boards -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was going to say, I'll make a note that e_ the -- all condominiums are either corporations or corporations not for profit and they are all volunteer, trust me. And they can be -- all officers can be removed without cause by a vote of the directors who elect them. MR. BOWIE: Unless their articles or bylaws say something to the contrary -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, unless something specific. But the statute gives them that right, but, you know, most -- and I've read a lot of documents -- they have that sentence in there that officers can be removed without cause. MS. BARNETT: I personally feel that in the current board that this would probably never, ever be executed, but I don't know what the future boards are going to be like. And just like I said, I just felt like there should be something in there that states a policy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's do it this way-- MR. BOWIE: Why don't we just take a vote as to how many think there should be a removal provision. Page 120 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, why don't we do it this way. You've explained what you would like to have for the board. Why don't you make the motion, see if it gets seconded, see if anybody's going to approve it. If we don't get enough, then we just move on to the next one, because it's getting late. MS. BARNETT: Okay. I would like to make a motion that the board of directors have a mechanism in which to remove an officer from that position by a super majority, with our without cause. MR. BOWIE: You'd have to define what that is. MS. BARNETT: And the super majority ti being a vote of six. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean said one more than a majority. A majority of nine is five, so six would be super. MR. PONTE: If you get specific on that, you might find that you tie yourself up, because someone might be absent, so it should be, I think, determined -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, rather than -- if we say a super majority -- MS. RAWSON: A super majority at the board meeting. MR. PONTE: That's correct, yeah. Rather than a number. MS. BARNETT: Okay, super majority at the board meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good point. Okay. Sheri's made her motion. With or without cause, was that the way you worded it? MS. BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: You're just talking about the chair and vice chair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, the two officer positions. MS. BARNETT: Correct. I said the two officer's positions and not from the board, but just from those positions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we can't remove anybody from the board. Only those we elect we can remove. Okay, is there a second? Page 121 March 30, 2005 MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There is a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of adding that section four, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? MS. DUSEK: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, five to one. Nothing else on that page. The next page three we have in our order of business an item called public comment. In our workshop yesterday, Ms. Belpedio is the one that spoke to this and told us why she would like to see it there. We had some lengthy discussions. MR. BOWIE: There's further definition of it on pages seven and eight as to what it constitutes. And I think the question arose yesterday, too, as to whether -- I believe Jennifer was of the impression that we were being directed to do this by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I haven't seen a letter, nor have I got a phone call from the commissioners telling me they wanted this board to do this. MR. BOWIE: Maybe Jennifer could speak to this. MS. BELPEDIO: I was present at the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, their first meeting in January where Mr. Petruzzi filed -- had filed a public petition, and that was heard. I sought yesterday to obtain a copy of the transcript of that meeting and was unable to do so because it's not yet available. Page 122 March 30, 2005 But my understanding of what had occurred before the Board of County Commissioners was that Mr. Petruzzi was concerned that he was not given the opportunity to speak before this board, and the direction to my office and staff was to work with the Code Enforcement Board to ensure that there was an opportunity for persons to speak, of course a lawful opportunity and a proper procedure. Based on that direction, I met with Jean Rawson, your attorney, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director, and David Weigel, the County Attorney. I believe that the text in -- the amended text in article six and also in article nine accomplishes that the goal of having a person have the opportunity to speak without suscepting (sic) the county to any exposure as far as a person taking a challenge to any decision, you'll see that the text in the amendment specifically states that the board will not take any action on what was discussed. So because of that, I don't believe that there's an opportunity, I know that there's not an opportunity to challenge, because there's no decision. Now, you may not agree with the language, you may want the language cleaned up. You may want less time that a person would be allowed to speak or more, certainly any revisions that are at the pleasure of this board. But it's certainly more than just my desire to have this provision changed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yesterday, my comments were the statute and the ordinance that established this board require that we hold public hearings on items presented to us by the Code Enforcement Department, and that the respondents can have all the witnesses they want. We can call witnesses and so forth. There's no requirement that we just be a public sounding board. What I got out of -- what Jennifer said yesterday and again today and what's written here is we now have a section where people can get up and talk to us about anything that's not on the agenda and we just sit Page 123 March 30, 2005 here and listen. I don't think the Code Enforcement Board is a public forum. I'm sorry, that's just my feeling of what we're structured to do. If there's a case, terrific. You have two methods: You can appeal it where you think we didn't hear the information within 30 days, and ask for a rehearing. Or you can appeal it to the court within 30 days and say you didn't like what went on and you want it overturned. I have a real problem with us just opening up this board to listen to the general public get their three minutes in the spotlight. MR. BOWIE: I'll concur with the chairman on that, as I did yesterday as well. Weare strictly by statute and by ordinance an adjudicatory body for the case referred to us. We're not a policy making body. And I too feel that having an open forum would just lend itself to abuse and accomplish little else. So for that reason, unless and until we get a directive addressed to us explicitly from the Board of County Commissioners to do this, I'd be against going there. MR. PONTE: I agree with you both, with one exception. I think we can't run the risk or shouldn't run the risk of turning this into a town meeting and letting anyone with any thought just come in and vent for three minutes. But on the other hand, if this was reworded to be a little bit more descriptive, and that the public hearing was on matters that would be entertained by the Code Enforcement Board, then I think that's something we should consider. It has to be carefully written so that we aren't just opening up three minutes at the end of every session for someone to come in and originate a complaint. I want you to know that my neighbor across the street at so-and-so doesn't paint his shutters or whatever. MS. BARNETT: Well, I was going to ask if there was any way we could put a time limit, such as that the comment had to be in relationship to a prior meeting within the last two months or that Page 124 March 30, 2005 current meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I guess my thought process is, if you did that, remember, we sat here today in our public hearing and heard both sides of some cases, and we made a decision and issued an order. Now what you're saying is oh, well, let's put a public comment section where down the road somebody can come in and say, you know, I didn't like what you did or you didn't do -- we heard the evidence and we made a decision and we're done, we move on. MR. PONTE: Yeah, but it says no action. You can come in and make the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But why do we want to hear it? I mean, we made a decision. Why do you want to hear somebody say I don't think you did the right thing. I really don't care. MS. BARNETT: I think in the case of Mr. Petruzzi, who was - here prior, that we just reduced his fines, I think what happened there is he did -- he said he did not receive his notifications properly, he said that he didn't get his certified mail on his first case. He then came to us and asked us to listen to him and we didn't. So he then went to the Board of County Commissioners. And it came back to us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that. Did he -- MS. BARNETT: I just think if we had given him a few minutes, I don't know if we would have taken -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We already issued an order. So you want to rehear the case? MS. BARNETT: I didn't want to rehear the case, but I think if we had let him vent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, what would that have changed? MS. BARNETT: He would have felt better and he might not have gone to the County Commissioners and come back. MR. LEFEBVRE: He had to come to us anyway for the imposition of fines. Page 125 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He had to come to get this fine reduced and we reduced it. But I'm saying, he didn't ask for a rehearing, he had that option within 30 days. He also had the 30 days to appeal to the court. He didn't choose any of those, he wanted to come in here and just vent. Then he went to the county commissioners, which they can't change our order anyway, so -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman. MR. PONTE: I think Ray made a good point yesterday that -- MS. ARNOLD: I think I may be able to cut this whole discussion. We found the minutes on the computer and there isn't any clear direction that the board said for us to add anything to our rules and regulations, so I'm willing to withdraw it and not make an issue of it. MR. PONTE: Okay. I just think that Ray said something yesterday that was right on the mark, too, for not going forward with that idea. And that is if you had a group that was organized, you could be here with 20 people all coming in to have their own say about a particular subj ect. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion is withdrawn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county is asking -- saying pull it out -- MR. PONTE: I know but I'm just putting a nail in it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take that out of page three and over on page seven and eight, Item T that's all new, and it's underlined, let's take that item out. And we'll go back to the next page is four. And I think most of these are -- Jean, are these yours? MS. RAWSON: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our attorney has made some changes for probably, whether it's semantics or a better quote, unquote, definition. MS. RAWSON: I changed the evidentiary packet to the charging Page 126 March 30, 2005 documents and the answer responses, because we don't really get evidence until it's introduced at the hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So I don't have a problem with four. Anybody would like to make a motion we accept what our attorney has recommended? MR. BOWIE: So moved that the revisions to article seven, section four shown in this draft be accepted. MR. PONTE: Just slow down a sec here. In this section four, what we're talking about code enforcement shall submit a packet of information detailing the alleged violations to the secretary of the board for distribution of the board members at least five business days prior to the board hearing. Is that what we really discussed yesterday? Something someone said to me today was that we be given the packet of information -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, you won't get any evidence. You would maybe get their cover letter and that will be about it. Just like we will get the -- we're not going to get the board's packet -- the code enforcement department's packet of evidence, we're going to get their letter, which is probably the statement of hearing, Jean, is that the charging document? MS. RAWSON: Well, yes, it's the notice of violation and affidavit of violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all we would get from the county . MR. PONTE: Then I'd like to suggest that be changed, then, rather than packet of information detailing, I think it's going to be a little looser than that, because if someone says, I'm going to give you packet of information detailing, I'm expecting something more than three pages. MS. RAWSON: It will be more than three pages. It's the NOV, it till be the affidavit. It will be the law, all the ordinances and statutes. Page 127 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you won't get picture, you won't get -- MS. RAWSON: Everything but evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You won't get the -- we won't get the deed. We won't get the -- MS. RAWSON: It will tell you who, what, when, where, why and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because that's evidence. And we shouldn't have evidence in advance. MR. PONTE: Okay, that's a packet. MS. RAWSON: It will be a packet. Look how long your ordinances are. It'll be a packet. MR. PONTE: It's a packet. MS. BARNETT: Because I missed the meeting yesterday, so then we will receive the evidence -- MS. RAWSON: As it's presented. MS. BARNETT: As it's presented. Is that going to be like they're going to hand us at the beginning a documentation that -- MS. RAWSON: I can't tell you that. Basically I can only just surmise that Leo will try to introduce his packet. And if they don't object, you'll get the whole packet, which would be all of the usual -- MS. BARNETT: I don't want to sit here trying to watch it be flipped on the screen. I was getting seasick. MR. BOWIE: Hopefully, it will be assembled and copies would be given to us. MS. RAWSON: Well, if the respondent has no objection, he'll hand you the whole packet. But as always, we're going to put the pictures on the screen. But the respondent has the right to object to the introduction, which your rules say, of anything into evidence, as does the county have the right to object to the introduction of anything the respondent wants to bring into evidence. Page 128 March 30, 2005 But you won't have that until the day of the hearing. MR. PONTE: So what you're saying then, we will get distributions during the course of the session, in other words. As each case comes before us, the question is asked, does the respondent have any objection to our introduction of this packet. If the answer is no objection, then we will get the packets? MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Even if there is objection, we can take the packet. We have that right. MR. BOWIE: To determine whether the objection is founded. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we just make note that they objected. MS. RAWSON: Well, you have to decide whether -- you get a rule on the obj ection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Because if we just said okay, we rule you can't submit anything, then there's no evidence, and we'd just all be sitting there scratching our head. MR. PONTE: All right. As an operational question, when am I supposed to be able to review the packet that's been given me. MS. RAWSON: Well, you have to understand what's probably going to be in the packet are a number of pictures which are going to be put on the screen. MR. PONTE: No, I mean -- that packet -- right, that's different from the other packet. MS. RAWSON: You're already going to have the charging documents and you're already going to have the statutes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They may show you the deed when -- that will be evidence, so you'll get to see the deed, you'll get to see the pictures, and I can't think of what else. MS. BARNETT: Recommendation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The recommendation will come -- MR. PONTE: Verbally. Page 129 March 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- then that morning. MS. RAWSON: Verbally, yes. MS. BARNETT: That is something that I was going to ask, if we could have the recommendation in written form. Only because in the past when we were looking at the written form, we've all been able to pick it apart and say, ah, we missed this, we missed that, we need to add that in and -- MS. RAWSON: You can't have it in advance, okay. MS. BARNETT: Not in advance, but if they could have it-- MS. RAWSON: Well, you'll have to ask them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, maybe -- Leo, maybe what you could do is on the recommendations, you could put the recommendations on the screen so we could all sit here and look at it. MR. BONANNO: Sure-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As minimum, so that we're -- MR. BOWIE: After all, the respondent is going to be receiving this as part of his packet, correct? MR. BONANNO: Right. Right now they get everything you get. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand right now. MR. BONANNO: Right. And that's how it will continue for the most part. I don't see why that would change. But I mentioned it to those of you were present yesterday, the special master currently does her procedures that way. She doesn't see any photos or anything in advance, all she gets is the charging document, which in our case is the notice of violation. She sees that because it's alleged, it's not so much evidence, like Jean was seeing. But the investigators come up to the podium. They request permission to show her a photo on the overhead. If there's no objection from the other side, it goes up and stays up while they testify. She can ask questions about it while it's up there. Just as an FYI, the special master already uses this format that Page 130 March 30, 2005 you're thinking about and it's been working very well. I think that Mr. Ponte had some concerns yesterday I think as far as time and objections and things might come, but it's really not -- it's not -- it's actually much more efficient than the huge packets in advance. It just seems to be that way to have a photo up on the overhead, comments are being made. You're still welcome to ask questions like you always have, it's just you don't have it in front of you, it's on the overhead. MS. BARNETT: I don't have a problem with that. My problem is with the recommendations, they've always been printed out for us, and we can revise them while we're thinking about it through it because we have something in written form. When someone's speaking orally, there's a lot of chance that you can miss things. MR. BONANNO: Sure, right. That's understandable. And, to be honest, we addressed that with the special master, too. I have the recommendations beforehand in writing, I just don't give them to her until he's said it out loud up here. And then when she goes to issue an order, she'll ask questions, why $50 a day, why $75 a day, and so on. That's when I slide it in front of her, because by then, she's already heard it verbally. Yes, so that issue did come up, too, because I wouldn't expect -- some of these orders get so elaborate, I couldn't expect you all to remember everything that gets said up here. But that's how we handle that issue. The only difference is when I'm here, I'm dealing with about nine of you, whereas special master I'm dealing with one, so Mr. Flegal's suggestion to throw it up on the overhead so that you can all read off of it, it could work very well. Like we were talking about last -- yesterday, you know, it might take a session or two to nail down these things before you're all comfortable, so, you know, it's not like you have to get it set in stone the first time. MR. BOWIE: I think the concern is having it verbally presented Page 131 March 30, 2005 around on the overhead is disadvantageous in one sense, and that is we can't physically edit it as we're sitting here. MR. BONANNO: And if that's something that you'd like-- MR. BOWIE: It would be helpful to take pen to paper-- MR. BONANNO: I don't see why we can't -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll pause on this one and take ten minutes. How's that. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we're back. And we're on to section four, which is basically changes that Jean had made and recommended to be made. So is there -- and Ray made a motion to accept as it was written. Is there a second to that? MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a second by Sheri. Any further discussions? This is just on this section four. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Page five, there again, there's one change, top center. And I'm sure it was made by Jean. Ifwe just got rid of the word evidentiary. MR. BOWIE: Move that that be done. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We got a motion and a second to do that. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 132 March 30, 2005 MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Page six, we have a new Item E -- I believe that's new -- where again yesterday it was talked that we should have something, and we had a sample and it's not attached here, but like today where the young lady came to represent her father, she said she had permission, but maybe we need a piece of paper, and if we put it in here and it's attached, when our rules get mailed out, that will be attached as an exhibit and the people can use it, so when they come forth, we can ask them do you have this piece of paper? And if they don't, then Jean can advise us whether we -- MS. RAWSON: Well, it says should, not shall. Because if they don't, I don't think we're probably going to -- we'll let them -- MR. PONTE: Weare to make sure that Leo has one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're back to one at a time, please, before Cherie starts throwing her tomatoes at us. MS. RAWSON: If they have it because we sent it to them with the rules, it's wonderful and it will be part of the record. If they don't have it because they didn't see it or they didn't remember to bring it, we'll probably still let them. So I said should, not shall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But at least we have the option and it is in writing, so it's a little more protection, so to speak, just in case. MR. BOWIE: And we're going to get a draft of that, too, to review and approve, then, that form? MS. RAWSON: It's your form-- MR. BOWIE: Oh, that's our form. Okay. Then I already know Page 133 March 30, 2005 of it and approve of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So on this particular item, I know there's another item on the page, but it -- do we need to do each one, Jean, or do you want to do it page by page? MS. RAWSON: Well, you can do the whole page, because the next one really is just the change in the way we wrote the words, the sentence. MR. BOWIE: I move that the revisions shown on page six of the draft be accepted. MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the revisions on page six as presented. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Page seven, we already took the bottom out because it was withdrawn. Page eight, there is nothing. Page nine, there is nothing. Page ten, there is nothing. Page 11, there is nothing. So these will be redone, and hopefully at our next meeting they'll be available for us to sign. And I know George will be out of town, but we'll catch him as quick as we can. N ow I'm getting lost. All right, now we're down to we moved the election of officers down to eight, nine, whatever number it was Page 134 March 30, 2005 supposed to be. So this is our annual meeting. We elect the new chair and vice chair. Nominations are open for the chair position. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to nominate Cliff Flegal for another term as chairman. MR. PONTE: I would second that nomination. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have Mr. Flegal's name in. Any others? Nominations are then closed. All those in favor of Mr. Flegal as chair, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Nominations for vice chair. MS. BARNETT: I'd like to nominate Bobbie Dusek. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I want to find out if she wants to -- MS. DUSEK: I appreciate the nomination, but I decline. I have served two years and I feel that it's now someone else's time. MR. BOWIE: Decline? MS. DUSEK: I will make a nomination, and I nominate Ray Bowie. MR. PONTE: I second that nomination. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a nomination of Mr. Bowie. Any other nominations? MR. BOWIE: Is it a tough job, Bobbie? MS. DUSEK: Only working with him. MR. BOWIE: I'll accept that then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Nominations are closed. Mr. Bowie is Page 135 March 30, 2005 the only nominee. All those in favor of Mr. Bowie as vice chair, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Congratulations, Mr. Bowie. Under comments, anybody got any comments for us? MR. BOWIE: Where's that slip that George had? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He took it back and got rid of it. Well, Bobbie kept it. MR. PONTE: I have not a comment, I have a question. When are the new procedures going to go into effect? Are they going to go into effect at the April meeting or are we going to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we'll sign the new rules at our April meeting and it will probably take us till the May meeting to try them out because we've got a -- they'll have to notify a bunch of people with signed new rules. So they won't be signed until April, so that means they can't mail them out until May. MR. PONTE: So evidentiary process will be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Really won't start probably until maybe the May meeting, is that -- MS. RAWSON: Well, all of you have to sign them. And did you tell me somebody's going to be absent next month? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He'll be absent next month so he won't sign until May. MS. RAWSON: We have to get your signature on -- everybody's Page 136 March 30, 2005 signature on the rules and regulations. Then we usually give a copy to the Board of County Commissioners. And then we have to send them out along with the notice of hearing to all the respondents. MR. PONTE: June. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Maybe June. MS. RAWSON: So it will be Mayor June. MS. BARNETT: I have a question, just something that -- because I had missed the majority of the meeting, in fact all the meeting, I met with Michelle afterwards. She brought up something that I did not hear discussed today. And I tried it at one of the motions that I made, and nobody said anything. When we were putting in that we're stating that someone has made a violation, I made the -- instead of reading each little section and having everybody correct each other on the little sections, I just referenced that it was contained within the charging document. I was wondering if that is going to be an accepted practice or -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's not in our rules, that's something that we should work out for ourselves, that's why it was brought up, and that's a good point because we did -- I did forget it and nobody brought it up. So thank you. What was brought up yesterday is as we have done in the past and bless your heart, Bobbie does most of them, she's the work horse. When we do our finding of fact, she reads from the charging document, which is a statement of violation, everything. And it was recommended that rather than do all that and possibly make a mistake, plus it just takes a lot of time, that we say per the charging document. And then Jean already has it so she can just copy it. MS. RAWSON: Well, not only do I have it at the very beginning of each hearing, Leo reads it to you. So it's in -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, so -- MS. RAWSON: Oops, there we go again. Page 137 March 30, 2005 MR. PONTE: It's in the record. MS. RAWSON: It's in the record. And the court reporter has taken it down. It's also in evidence, because it's in the packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When it's submitted, it's already evidence. So it's a way of kind of shortening and we don't have to read all that, so that's -- MR. BOWIE: Would it be best to refer to a particular document, say the notice of violation, that the violation and the facts set forth in the notice of violation are adopted by the board? MS. RAWSON: I think you just need to say as testified to in evidence today, presented in evidence today. Because what he says at the very beginning when he's giving you the outline of the case is exactly what the charge is. And actually, it's really in the affidavit, not the notice. So I think he always reads it right in the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the document he reads is a statement of violation. And note and request for hearing. That's the document he reads, which is notarized. That's what he's reading in. MS. BARNETT: I just use charging document. Isn't that kind of what we've termed that? MS. RAWSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that sufficient, those words? MS. RAWSON: That's fine. That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's part of housekeeping, we can start that any time. It's just something we'll have to think of. And maybe what we'll do as we're trying it, if one of us starts to read it all, we can recommend to each other that it would be easier to say charging document then you wouldn't have to read it, till we get used to just using that terminology. It will take us all time to remember all that, because there's so much we've got to remember. Good point, Sheri. Anything else? Page 138 March 30, 2005 MS. BARNETT: Move that we adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our next meeting is April 28th here, 9:30. MR. BOWIE: Nobody seconded the motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. BOWIE: I don't know if I'm in favor of the motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor. We're adjourned, thank you. ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:07 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 139