Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/26/2005 R May 26, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida May 26, 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 Raymond Bowie Justin DeWitte Richard Kraenbring Gerald Lefebvre Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: May 26, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. Location: 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center Administrative Bldg "F", 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROV AL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion for Continuance APRIL 28, 2005 1. BCC vs. Eberhard Thiermann CEB NO. 2005-20 2. Motion for Re-Hearing 1. BCC vs. James and Sherry Marshall CEB NO. 2004-72 3. Motion for Extension of Time and Waiver of Fines CEB NO. 2004-01 1. BCC vs. Robert France B. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TIONS: 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA nONS: 2005-20 117 CHANNEL DRIVE, NAPLES EBERHARD THIERMANN DENNIS MAZZONE Ordinance 91-102 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, sees. 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.8.9 and 1.8.10 Ordinance 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, sees. 1.04.00, 2.03.00,4.02.03,9.03.00 and 9.04.04 Pool screen enclosure encroaching into setback 2005-22 3056 ARECA AVENUE, NAPLES DAVID WOODWORTH DENNIS MAZZONE Ordinance 2004-58, sees. 6, 15 and 17 Dilapidated residential structure 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Diana Hall 2. BCC vs. Martin & Holly Walsh CEB NO. 2003-36 CEB NO. 2004-33 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. 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. B. Year-to-Date Affidavits 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE June 23, 2005 10. ADJOURN May 26, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I apologize for the delay. Please make note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. I said at our last meeting, to make sure we can get as clear a verbatim record as possible, that the board, the county, the respondents and any speakers will need to be recognized by the Chair before they can speak. That will hopefully ensure that two or three people aren't speaking at once and we can get a verbatim record. May we have our roll call, please. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. ARNOLD: Raymond Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Present. MS. ARNOLD: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. ARNOLD: And I'd like to welcome our new board member, Jerry Morgan. And Justin DeWitte? MR. DeWITTE: Here. Page 2 May 26, 2005 MS. ARNOLD: And our new alternate, Justin DeWitte. And Sheri Barnett is absent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And she told us last time she was I think camping. Having had the roll call, Michelle, if possible, could you see that a current list of our members gets e-mailed to everybody -- MS. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- so we can have it updated? Thank you. Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes, additions, deletions and such to the agenda as presented? MS. ARNOLD: No, there are not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In that case, I would entertain a motion to accept the agenda as presented. MR. BOWIE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as presented. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our minutes from April 28th. Are there any changes or corrections to those? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For our new members, those come to us electronically, rather than getting something in writing to save money, Page 3 May 26, 2005 so -- hearing none, I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as presented. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the minutes. MR. BOWIE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll now open our public hearings. First item is a motion for a continuance. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I presented you all with a copy of a fax that my office received yesterday. Mr. Thiermann's attorney, Richard Y ovanovich, previously provided you all a request for a continuance. He's unable to be here. And there is a representative from his office here, I believe, the office manager. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. COPELAND: I'm Susan Copeland. I work for Rich Y ovanovich. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. COPELAND: We're just requesting a continuance, hopefully until late October or early November. Our client just received word that his mother is ill in Germany, and they need to fly Page 4 May 26, 2005 to Germany to take care of her. We originally requested until June, but then he received word of the illness. MR. BOWIE: Is it really believed that six months of a continuance is necessary? MS. COPELAND: That's what -- MR. BOWIE: Six months? MS. COPELAND: To get her through her illness and get her-- apparently she has no family there, and they need to fly back. If not, whatever the board will grant us. We would have to then get affidavits from our clients in Germany and so that would take some time also. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, what's the county's position? MS. ARNOLD: We had no objection to the first continuance. Really didn't have an opportunity to talk about the second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that the case hasn't been presented to us yet, so I'll try to ask as broad a question as I can. Concerning the matter, would it be the county's position to have it sooner or later? I guess that's about as broad a question as I can put it. I don't know what the infraction is, so what I'm trying to get at as a scope for the board is do we really want to consider the six months, or is it such a nature that we need to consider something less so we can get on with this? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, you haven't heard the case. And it's -- I don't know whether or not Mr. Y ovanovich feels that he needs his client here to testify on his own behalf. The information that, you know, we plan on presenting speaks for itself. So the one-month continuance to have Mr. Y ovanovich prepared I think would be fair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any questions from any of the board members? (No response.) Page 5 May 26, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. MS. COPELAND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, the first matter before us is we have a request for a continuance, and it is rather than today, Mr. Yovanovich is asking for something in October or November. Any comments from the board? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think six months is excessive. And I think that the respondent is represented by an attorney we know is very qualified, and I think one month is correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments? MR. BOWIE: I would concur with Mr. LaPonte (sic). I don't see why we couldn't continue this for one month till next month, and that point if there's good cause to be shown for a further continuance, we can address it perhaps at that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, if somebody would make a motion, the board would consider it. MR. PONTE: I will make a motion that we approve Mr. Y ovanovich's first request for a continuance of one month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's a continuance until our June 23rd meeting. MR. PONTE: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue this matter to our June 23rd meeting. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 6 May 26, 2005 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's unanimous. Okay? MS. RAWSON: Could we ask the representative of Mr. Y ovanovich's office if she would waive service? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. COPELAND: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you waive service for our next meeting? MS. COPELAND: We will. MS. RAWSON: Just tell Rich it will be June 23rd. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. Next item is a motion for a rehearing. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, this one I'm going to have to go over to the other side and try to get the respondent on the telephone. If you recall, this was a teleconference hearing that we had previously. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Can I just ask a question? It seems to me that -- is there another way we can do this other than by phone? It's just -- one of the reasons we're where we are today and we're about to do it again by phone, and it's not clear. It's difficult for everybody to understand. And I mean, if we have to do it that way, fine, I guess, but it's a very unclear way to do business, I think, repeatedly. MS. RAWSON: Well, I can only tell you that when respondents are out of town, if they are willing to appear by phone, it's something that the court system allows. It's not an uncommon thing. Generally the court will require that they have a notary to swear them in, or someone -- and I believe last time it was Leo, who said he recognized Page 7 May 26, 2005 his voice, and we had our court reporter swear him in. I mean, you have to be sure that you are talking to the person that says his name, that that's the right person and that he's sworn to tell the truth. So that being said, I know how inconvenient it is. It's probably permissible, with all the safeguards in place, for people to appear by phone. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. RAWSON: And before you make the decision on this rehearing, we should probably at least listen to hear what he has to say, and then I'll be happy to explain the law to you, as well as Ms. Belpedio. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I tried the number that I had, and that was contained on the motion, and it's been temporarily disconnected. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: So perhaps the record should reflect that, that an attempt has been made to contact Mr. and Mrs. Marshall, the respondents, at the phone number provided in the motion for rehearing, which seems to be area code 615-230-9065, and all we receive is a recorded announcement that this line has been disconnected. MS. ARNOLD: Temporarily disconnected. MR. BOWIE: Temporarily disconnected. MS. RAWSON: It's basically a failure to appear. You can consider his written motion, however. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. PONTE: May I just ask Michelle a question, please? Did you dial the number more than once? MS. ARNOLD: No, I didn't. But the recording message did repeat the message that I dialed, and it was consistent with my dialing. MR. PONTE: Sometimes I misdial. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You did send notice by mail, did you Page 8 '."~"-"."' May 26, 2005 not, Michelle, of today's meeting? MS. ARNOLD: We sent notice of the mail regular mail. And I believe I got an e-mail from Leo indicating that he spoke to Mr. Marshall and told him that it was going to be scheduled on this day and we would be doing this teleconference. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. Okay, we have his written request for rehearing. The first question I have is for the board's sake, I'll ask our attorney. Jean, any comments on this motion? MS. RAWSON: I just want to explain to the board, and then I'd ask you to hear from the county's attorney as well, that when people request a motion for rehearing, remember that your rules and regulations, as well as Chapter 162, indicate that you must show -- the respondent must show that the decision of this board was contrary to the evidence presented to you that day, or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the decision of the board. If you read the face of the motion for rehearing, it appears to be a due process allegation rather than involving an error on the ruling of law, or that your evidence was -- that your decision was contrary to the evidence. And the other thing is, does he still have the right to appeal? Well, he filed the motion for rehearing within the time limit that he could have appealed. Your rules and regulations are silent as to whether or not that tolls the time. I don't think administrative code really has anything on point. But I can tell you, the civil rules of procedure say that when you file a motion for rehearing, that tolls the time for you to file an appeal. So in an abundance of caution, I would say his motion for rehearing would toll the time for him to file an appeal. So if he wanted to file an appeal, he probably still could with the circuit court. But you must consider the criteria that I've just explained to you in Page 9 May 26, 2005 determining whether or not you want to rehear the case. And Ms. Belpedio probably has something to add to what I just said. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, before we ask Ms. Belpedio, basically what you're saying is the written request that he has submitted to us, and I've read it a couple times, fails to meet the criteria of -- required by the statute and the ordinance for a rehearing? MS. RAWSON : Well, you need to re-- because I can't tell you what -- you know, you can read it. On the face of it, because he's not here to testify, it must show that the decision that you made was contrary to the evidence that you heard that day, or that you made an error in the ruling of your order that was fundamental. And that needs to be shown on the motion, on the face of the motion, since we have no testimony. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ms. Belpedio? MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney. I agree with Jean's analysis as far as the face of the motion not supporting the criteria that's set forth in your rules and regulations for a rehearing to be granted. And I also agree that the issues that are stated are issues that are more appropriate for an appeal. One issue that the county would be looking into on the appeal is whether or not the disconnection of the phone line somehow has precluded the time from tolling. So it may be that at a later point in time the county argues that the time has not tolled. But nonetheless, Mr. Marshall has the opportunity to file a challenge in the circuit court of the Code Enforcement Board's order finding the violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Therefore, the board has before it the motion for rehearing. MR. BOWIE: I've certainly read the motion at length, in fact, reread it several times, trying to figure out exactly what it was saying Page 10 -"'~"--~."- May 26, 2005 or alleging. Still, I don't think I've been able to draw a conclusion as to what it's saying or a alleging. But I think even casting it in its best light that is most favorable to the respondent, I don't honestly see where, as written, this motion for a rehearing raises any new legal issues or factual issues are being raised here that did not exist or were not raised at the time we heard this case and determined it. And because of that, I think we're compelled to deny the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other comments from board members? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think the respondent makes some compelling arguments, but we have heard the case, and if the respondent wants to appeal, I think he should go to a higher authority, to the circuit court. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My comments go along with Jean and Ms. Belpedio and Ray and George. I've read it several times and I see no basis under our rules and such to rehear this case. Therefore, if a board member would like to make a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we deny the case for rehearing. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request for a rehearing. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 11 May 26, 2005 MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It is unanimous. As a side note, I apologize for not saying this earlier, but our alternate, Mr. DeWitte, ince we only have six regular board members here, you participate fully today. You're allowed to ask questions and you may vote. How the system works is when the seven members are here, the alternates can participate but they can't vote. But when one is absent, we put you in their stead. So today you can do that. I'm sorry I didn't say that before. Next item is a motion for extension of time and waiver of fines. MS. ARNOLD: The board has a request -- should have a request from Mr. Zampogna for an extension of time. This is the Board of County Commissioners versus Robert France case that you all have considered in the past and made a recommendation to, for the counsel for the respondent to provide you monthly reports. He's done such and he's done that again. This month also on your agenda. And -- but I guess considering the circumstances, he's also requesting an additional extension, because the matter has not been able to be resolved at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have you made a request for imposition of fines? MS. ARNOLD: No, we haven't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't remember the county doing that. MS. ARNOLD: I don't think he's requesting a waiver of fines. He's just requesting an extension. I think under the heading, it groups it together. But let me check my -- MS. BELPEDIO: May 26th is the last one. MR. BOWIE: I think the motion is strictly for an extension of Page 12 May 26, 2005 time, as it has been in the past. The portion regarding waiver of fees, fines, impositions, I think it's moot here. Nothing's ever been imposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that's -- since we don't have a copy of the order, Michelle, when was the date that he was to comply? MS. ARNOLD: I believe the comply by date is today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Or tomorrow. Is it the -- the 26th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says May 26th. MS. RAWSON: 26th. MS. ARNOLD: Today is the 26th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, from the county's standpoint, we keep getting these reports that everybody's trying to work everything out. Is everything satisfactory, or -- MS. ARNOLD: Jennifer can answer that. MS. BELPEDIO: I have not heard anything from any of the staff persons involved. Again, there are numerous departments that are involved in this property acquisition. As you may remember, the county has been working with Mr. France not only to abate the violation, but also to obtain some property from him to install a well site, which are very important and necessary. Therefore, that's why there's so many staff persons involved. So in any event, there are no outstanding issues. The lot line adjustment application has been reviewed by our office. Very minor tweaking that is necessary. The next step is to advertise the property exchange, which is required under Florida Statute, have it heard by the Board of County Commissioners, and the date that is proj ected for that consideration is June 28th. A relatively short period of time. But I have no reason to believe that Mr. France or his attorneys are not acting in good faith. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Having heard that and having read our reports that we've been getting monthly, from my standpoint, Page 13 .._."-'--~'--- May 26, 2005 I'm not a big fan of amending orders. I think we would accomplish the same thing if we let the order stand, and if and when -- I mean, I know fines are going to start occurring, but the county must come before us to ask us to impose them. And when this thing is over, the respondent himself or through his attorney can come before the board and ask us to abate any fines based on they and the county trying to work this out and it just took longer. I kind of think that's the easiest thing to do, rather than amend the order. What's the pleasure of other board members? MR. PONTE: I think that the goodwill and the progress that has been shown here should be recognized, and that we should grant the motion for extension, just because things are moving along as quickly as they possibly can, given the red tape and the number of parties and government offices involved. MR. KRAENBRING: I agree, I think the parties are quite diligent in trying to resolve this case. MR. BOWIE: And I'd concur with that. I'd like to make that into a motion, then, that we grant this motion for an extension of time for 60 days from today's date for further hearing on this matter. MR. PONTE: I'd definitely go along with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to amend our order to -- for an additional 60 days. Let's take it to our-- to our July meeting, which would be the 28th, I believe? MR. LEFEBVRE: It should be a little more than 60 days. Take it to our next -- two -- MS. RAWSON: 30th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take it to the July meeting. MS. RAWSON: July -- oh, no, I'm sorry, that's June. Page 14 _"._.,___.w_. May 26, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: July 28th will be our next meeting, I believe? MS. RAWSON: July 28th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have a motion to amend our order until our July 28th meeting. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The public hearings on our first case. No. 2005-20. MR. BOWIE: Twenty-two, would it not be? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the one we gave a -- MS. ARNOLD: Continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, continuance. So now it's 2005-22. BCC versus David Woodworth. MS. ARNOLD: One minute. I'd like to just go through the information on statement of violation and ask that the board after that accept the composite exhibit for the county. And this case is Board of County Commissioners versus David Woodworth, Code Enforcement Board Case 2005-22. The violations are of Sections 6, Paragraph 12(B), 12(C), 12(M), 12(Q), 19(B) and 19(C) of Section 15 and Section 17, Paragraphs One Page 15 ---...- .-------- May 26, 2005 through Six of Ordinance No. 2004-58, the Property Maintenance Ordinance. The violation is: Dilapidated residential structure consisting of damaged exterior surfaces. The location of the violation is at 3056 Areca Avenue, in Naples, Florida. The name of the property owner is David Woodworth, and his address is 2735 Lakeview Drive, in Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on October 18th, 2004, and the violation was served to Mr. Woodworth on October 19th, 2004. And the correction date originally given was November 20th, 2004. The last inspection performed on this property was April 29th, 2005. And at that time the violation remained. The investigator for this case is Dennis Mazzone, and at this time I would request that the board accept the county's exhibit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request to accept the County's Exhibit A. MR. BOWIE: Move that the County's Exhibit A be accepted. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone; Page 16 May 26, 2005 I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. And as a point of clarification, I'd like to state that I am not the assigned investigator for this area. I'm -- my cases are assigned at the pleasure of the director. On October 18th of 2004, our office received a citizen's complaint concerning housing code and property maintenance violations at a vacant wood frame residence at 3056 Areca Avenue, Naples, Florida. And I made a site visit and confirmed violations consisting of the rear wooden exterior surface being found in a state of deterioration, rotted through to the subsurface. This area was also infested with a large county of bees. The carport was rotted through and in a state of collapse. An exterior wood frame -- I'm sorry, it's a wooden -- all exterior wood frame surfaces to include support systems were without protective covering and paint and left exposed to the elements in a state of advanced deterioration. I took photographs of the property and researched the property records and found that the owner was a Mr. David Woodworth. On the following day, October 19th, I made phone contact with Mr. Woodworth and requested that we meet at the property so we could discuss this matter. I waited at the property for a while, and Mr. Woodworth didn't appear at that time, so I went to his residence, which was just about -- just across the street, which is at 2735 Lakeview Drive, Naples, Florida, across the highway. And I met Lucy Woodworth there, who is Mr. Woodworth's wife. I explained the violations in detail and provided Mrs. Woodworth with copies of all the appropriate housing code and maintenance regulations, and obtained Mrs. Woodworth's signature on a previously prepared Notice of Violation and Order to Correct form. I requested phone contact by Mr. Woodworth when he arrived. On October 22nd, 2004, I again attempted phone contact with Mr. Woodworth at his residence and at his place of business, but with Page 1 7 ... ...--..." May 26, 2005 no success. On October 27th, I made phone contact with Mr. Woodworth and arranged for an in-house meeting at our 2800 North Horseshoe Drive office, where Mr. Woodworth agreed to come into our office, and we sat down and discussed the matter in detail. I explained the situation and the time frames in which we were expecting compliance, and Mr. Woodworth agreed for our -- to our terms for compliance. On November 8th, 2004, I made another site visit and confirmed that there was partial removal of the carport roof. I continued to monitor this progress between November 8th and November 22nd. And through that time period, I found very little progress in Mr. Woodworth's efforts to correct the violation. So I contacted Mr. Woodworth that day and asked him ifhe would fax me a time frame by which we could work, and he agreed to do that. And he faxed me that and -- which I received the next day. On November 23rd, 2004, I received a fax note from Mr. Woodworth, explaining his reasons for his delays and stating his intentions to comply. His reasons were such that he had some medical problems and that he said he wanted to assist in this cleanup effort, if not do it himself, and that he needed some time to mend. And I granted him that time. I also advised Mr. Woodworth the fact that he was not -- the property was not owner occupied, he would have to have a licensed contractor repair -- make any repairs that would require permitting or that sort of thing. And he was aware of that. On December 16th of 2004, I made another site visit and confirmed that the entire carport roof had been removed and that the rear exterior surface of the house was in the beginning stages of repair. There were some clapboards taken off the rear portion of the home and the beehives were removed. I think this is quite the difficult process for Mr. Woodworth, to give him the benefit of the doubt there. But he had done that. And it was now being prepared for continued Page 18 May 26, 2005 work. MS. ARNOLD: Dennis, do you have any photos that you would MR. MAZZONE: I do. This first photo would be of the carport roof area, which I took from the ground looking up through to the sky. It was in a collapsed state, in very bad need of repair. MS. BELPEDIO: The County would like to move these photographs into evidence as Composite Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL : We have a request to enter these as County's Exhibit B. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we enter these photographs as Exhibit B. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MAZZONE: This is the roof that was -- I found completely removed on the December 16th visit. And the debris was taken away by Mr. Woodworth. This next photograph shows the rear of the wood frame residence in the areas that were infested with the beehives. The holes in the walls are full of honey combs and bees. I don't have actual photos of the bees, but here's a photo. From what I was told by Mr. Woodworth, there was several steps Page 19 May 26, 2005 to the process of the removal of these bees, which I can well imagine. He did that, but it took some time after that for us to get Mr. Woodworth to move forward with the progress of the maintenance of the house. Between January 11th, 2005 and May 12th of 2005, I continued to find minor progress, so we prepared this case for the board. And on May 25th, which was just yesterday, I confirmed that most of the exterior has been patched and painted. The rear porch area, which I'm going to show you a photo of, remained in a neglected state. Parts of the exterior surface remained unpainted, and a subsurface protective paper is visible through two small areas on the rear surface. I'll show you -- I'll give you photos of that now. This is a photograph of the rear porch area, which has not undergone any rehabilitation. It's not -- the support systems remain rotted and decayed. There has been no paint applied to it. And the flooring is rotted. It's at a point where it would be unsafe, really, to enter the home through the rear porch. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Dennis, this picture here where it shows the hot water heater, is this -- MR. MAZZONE: The hot water heater -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the same area as the picture you just took away, had a hot water heater in it? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, that's the same hot water heater, but this is a closeup photo -- this photo that's in front of you is the -- from a distance where you could see the porch and the condition of the porch. I'm going to put a photo now that will show the porch flooring and how it's separated from the residence. This is still an area of concern to us, that the porch be repaired and painted so that it's made safe for proper access into the residence. And the next photo I'm going to put on the screen will show that there's two small areas where we're missing the actual clapboard and Page 20 May 26, 2005 subsurface paper is exposed. We're just asking that that now be repaired. I'd like to mention that this residence is not occupied; it's a vacant residence. But nevertheless, our requirements are that it be maintained in a state where it's safe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Dennis, do you know if there are active utilities at this home? MR. MAZZONE: I don't know if they're active, sir. MR. BOWIE: Had you opportunity to go inside? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: These photos are from yesterday? MR. MAZZONE: I was there yesterday, yes. This photo was from yesterday. The colored photos were taken yesterday. MR. PONTE: Is it all boarded up, Dennis? The window there looks boarded up. Is it completely secure? MR. MAZZONE: It's not all boarded up. It's secured, yes. It's the only window that has a board on it at present. That's why we cited for the boarding section also, that it must have a pane of glass in it eventually. MR. PONTE: So homeless or kids couldn't have access to this -- MR. MAZZONE: No, sir, I don't believe so. The building is secure. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you. MR. MAZZONE: You're welcome. Based on the fact that there are these areas of concern left unaddressed by the respondent, that being the patching of the -- the completion of the replacement of the clapboards and the finishing of the paint work and the replacement of any rotted lumber on the porch and the paint applied to the porch, the off -- the staffs recommendations would be that the respondent pay all operational costs that are incurred for the prosecution of this case and that he abate the violations by engaging the services of a general contractor, Page 21 -, J V ,~-"..- >- May 26, 2005 licensed in Collier County. And that the respondent must engage the services -- must comply with all Collier County Housing Code and property maintenance requirements by completing all remedial work as described in Collier County notice of violation, order to correct dated October 19th, 2004, and -- by restoring all premises to a state of intended residential dwelling use within 60 days from this hearing, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Respondent must obtain a Collier County building permit, related inspections and final certificate of completion for all remedial work that would require same. If the respondent elects not to complete rehabilitation work, as described in Collier County Notice of Violation, order to correct dated October 19th, 2004, the respondent must then obtain a Collier County demolition permit and all required inspections through to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the removal of the wood frame structure and resulting debris, restoring all same premises so as to comply with all provisions of Collier County RMF-6 BMUDR-l zoning district; regulations in Collier County property maintenance requirements within 60 days from this hearing, or a fine of $100 a day per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Just to clarify also, I'm going to state that that acronym, that RMF-6, stands for residential multi-family six, Bayshore Drive mixed use overlay residential subdistrict one. It's a zoning designation for that property. Are there any other questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Dennis, the roof of the structure, can you tell from the ground whether it's water tight? MR. MAZZONE: I can't tell, sir. It didn't appear as though there was water entering. When I see that kind of situation, normally we see the walls caving in or buckling. I didn't see such signs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: There's no way in which the county can compel Page 22 May 26, 2005 access to the inside to be inspected? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir, not without the -- not without the permission of the owner, or without a warrant. MR. BOWIE: So if the inside is anything like the outside, my concern is that the remedies proposed here are kind of like painting a pig, you know, you paint it but it's still a pig. Gosh only knows what it's like inside and what kind of hazards there might be there. MR. MAZZONE: Well, not knowing that, I had suggested to the owner that if there are such severe problems to the inside, we had given him the option of demolition, which might be of interest to him. MR. MORGAN: It appears to me that the building is not structurally sound. MR. MAZZONE: I can't make that judgment. But the owner did state to me he wants to move his mother in the building. So-- MR. MORGAN: So just seeing the outside of it -- MR. MAZZONE: -- he must think it is. THE COURT REPORTER: Please restate your last sentence, please. MR. MORGAN: It appears to me that the building itself is not structurally sound. It's sagging. We haven't seen the inside, the floor joists, the rafters, we haven't seen the plumbing, interior or the wiring or the flooring. To me it's not cost effective in trying to remodel this structure. To me, if I owned it personally, I'd tear it down. I don't know why someone would want to throw their money away trying to remodeling and bring it up to standard. To me it's just a worthless structure. MR. MAZZONE: Well, if I may, we had discussed that with the owner. Those are his options. We -- not getting inside to the structure, I could only base my conversation on what I found on the outside. And I suggested that if he wished to make the remedial change to the outside, he get a contractor to do so, to make sure that it's done to our code so it's a safe structure. And if there was any other Page 23 May 26, 2005 work to be done to the inside, if he thought it was so severe that it wouldn't warrant the work being done, well, then he has the option of getting a demolition permit in removing the structure. We have a fire department that might even have a control burn on it, I don't know. MR. MORGAN: As far as I'm concerned, it's in a dangerous condition at the present time. MR. MAZZONE: I'm not qualified to speak to that. MR. KRAENBRING: If I might, I think one thing here is that we probably should be addressing the violations that are brought before us today and not make assumptions as to what the interior conditions might be like. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board has to remember, certain items have been presented to us, certain sections of the code and the ordinance. And that's what we're required to look at. The pictures give us some visual information, but the investigator has admitted that he hasn't been able to see structures, the interior at all, even though the respondent has been cited for Section 15, which says they have to follow all the ordinances. We don't have any evidence before us to show us that the structure is failing or that the inside is failing. Therefore, the board can't consider that. We can only consider what is being presented to us about the items that have been cited. And on that basis, we need to make our decision, okay? Not that I'm against what members are saying, it's just we have to remember we're limited to the evidence presented. And so far, we have had no evidence that the building is about to collapse or that the inside is deteriorated. So let's try to adjust our thinking to exactly what has been presented. MR. BOWIE: And I concur with the Chairman's interpretation of our function and the charging document. In light of that, I'd like to make a motion that in -- MS. ARNOLD: We haven't had the opportunity for the respondent to -- Page 24 May 26, 2005 MR. BOWIE: Is the respondent here? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, the respondent is here. MR. BOWIE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's see. Anybody have any other questions for Dennis or the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Dennis. MR. MAZZONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Woodworth? Over here, sir, please. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, he's got to use this side. I believe Mr. Woodworth has some photos that are on the computer. So Mr . Woodworth, you can use this dais, or this podium, over here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, the reason I asked him to go over here, the security guard asked that all the respondents speak from this side of the room, please. MS. ARNOLD: But unfortunately -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what the security guard asked me to have done, so -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but I guess we'll have to make an exception, because I can't do it for him. He's going to have to do his -- MS. RAWSON: I feel secure. (Witness was duly sworn.) MS. RAWSON: Would you go over there to that podium? MR. WOODWORTH: One thing I want to clarify is that this Exhibit A, I don't know if it's the same one that you have, but it says Board of County Commissioners versus David and Lucy Woodworth. Is that what yours says? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. WOODWORTH: Or maybe it has been -- okay, I want to clarify that my wife has no interest in this property, okay? She's not Page 25 May 26, 2005 my agent. She did tell me about this serving of the papers at the time, okay? But I didn't receive them on that day, okay? The other thing is that this property was in -- you know, the state that you see it was much worse when I acquired the property. And I didn't know at that particular time -- I'm new. I'm in the real estate business. I didn't know at that time whether it could be rehab'd or not. But believe it or not, the -- some parts of this house are in better shape than my house. And it's only -- my house is 20 years old. For whatever reason, that southern pine siding, the original siding, is in really unbelievably good shape, okay? I mean, I wish I had it on my house. I have cedar siding on my house. But from the picture that you saw on that porch, you notice what was on the floor of that porch? And that was built according to Collier County code. What did they put on that floor? The same thing they put on my porch. You know what it was? I don't know if anybody understands, but it's plywood. Unbelievable. And they allow it. Okay, this is -- we get a contractor in, you expect something better than Joe Blow down the street would do, okay? But you don't get it here. I just returned from a visit to my mother, and it's almost as bad up in Osceola County. I mean, it's pathetic. You have licensed contractors that either are inept or they lie, okay? You know, and I'm not lying. I'm telling the truth. This property -- you know, I'm here because I want to solve the problem, okay? I want to make it look nice, I want it to be nice. The problem that the previous owner had was he had break-ins. He wasn't -- that's why he ended up boarding up that back window. He didn't break that window, he had people coming in and stealing his stuff. Can I show some pictures of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Page 26 May 26, 2005 MR. WOODWORTH: I went out and just -- okay. Okay, this picture shows that the electrical has been updated, okay? It's -- the service has been updated. The electrical is up to -- originally I think it only had like a 50-amp circuit, but now it has like 100, 150, I don't remember which, but it's-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Woodworth? MR. WOODWORTH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's been brought before the board is not an electrical problem. MR. WOODWORTH: Well, I know, but I -- you know, I heard some of the board members wanting to tear it down. One of the people from your community development wants to tear it down too and buy it from me, okay? You know, I don't know if he's the one that reported this problem or not, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we haven't made any kind of decision. But what we want to hear is what was presented to us and your side of those items. And electrical wasn't one of them. MR. WOODWORTH: Okay. All right. The porch has been removed, okay? That was a problem, okay? The carport roof. Okay? That's been corrected. Now, the windows haven't been painted. The reason was some of the windows have broken glass and they have to be repaired, okay? And I just -- that wasn't -- I wasn't able to have it -- get it done in the time frame. I mean, I've been working -- believe it or not, let me see if I can pull up some of the -- okay. All right, this is my -- well, let's see if I -- okay, this is the mailbox. I replaced the mailbox twice since I've owned the property. I've lost the number off my what do you call it. I'm trying to secure it as best I can. In fact, I've been trying to get the -- a fence, you know, to restrict. I have people coming onto the property that are -- I keep asking them to, you know, stay away. And I will-- you know, that will help me in my process of -- okay, let's see. Page 27 May 26, 2005 Okay, this is how the house looks from the neighbor's house, okay, at the street level. You know, it -- to me it looks -- doesn't look bad. And I wouldn't minØ living in this house. It's a two-bedroom, one-bath house with a little porch on the front. I'm thinking that maybe I could extend the deck. I was thinking -- I have an 89-year-old mother, that that's where I was earlier this week, and having it about two blocks away from my house, it would be an ideal place for her to be. She's still living alone. She has some memory problems but, you know, if she was two blocks away from me, I think I -- you know, she could be able to live on her own for the most part. Okay, this is another side of the carport. Okay, this is the honeycomb that got -- I mean, the honey colony has been there for probably 10 years. I haven't owned this property for 10 years. This was a garbage can full. A big sack. I mean, it was an unbelievable mess. And I -- the first thing was I tried to get somebody to come in and get the bees. You can't find anybody to come in and get a honeybee colony. You know, there's ways of doing it. And then the next thing was to try to get an exterminator. I got prices anywhere from 500 to $1,000 to remove the bees. It's -- okay. All right. Mr. Mazzone, you know, was concerned about this Brazilian pepper, okay? After you get a CO, you can grow all the Brazilian peppers you want. But I removed this tree, okay, and I poisoned it, okay? I did it, you know, just to try to get along. I tried to get along, that's what I tried to do. But, I mean, there's no end to requests, it seems. Okay, I already showed that one. Honeybees, mailbox. Okay, that one I showed. Okay, this is the front of the house. You know, the -- you know, I am in the process -- I mean, I think it doesn't look bad. Okay, this is the back side, the west side of the house. You know, the window hasn't been painted. That's the biggest complaint I Page 28 May 26, 2005 can see right here, just looking at it. Okay, this is -- I couldn't match the original beveled siding, or it's -- actually, they call it novelty siding. But this was the best I could do, or find, anyway. And it doesn't look too bad. Since it's on the back side of the house, it provides, you know, a good exterior, I think. It probably won't last as well as the original southern pine siding there, but, you know, the house has probably, you know, not a whole lot of years left. I mean, eventually, you know, with the code, the present code allows for two townhouses on this property, so I can see in the future that it will be replaced, okay? It isn't -- at the present time I'm just thinking of the short term. I have an 89-year-old mother, I'm thinking that this might be the -- a good solution. Okay. East side, north wall. MR. PONTE: I think we've seen these pictures before. MR. WOODWORTH: I think that's probably it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Woodworth, I have a question. The county showed us a picture of the porch which you say had plywood on it. Do you have a picture of that porch? MR. WOODWORTH: He has it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you have a lot of pictures. Do you have the -- MR. WOODWORTH: No, I didn't take the plywood, because the plywood is an embarrassment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That was my question. MR. WOODWORTH: I would never put plywood on an exterior porch. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. I asked -- MR. WOODWORTH: I don't know how it was allowed in the first place, okay? I had it on my house. MR. BOWIE: There's obviously a substantial difference here in the photos you've shown us of the property vis-a-vis the photos shown Page 29 May 26, 2005 us by the county. Let me just go through a little checklist here of the things that they showed us that you say has been done. The bees have been removed, exterminated; is that correct? MR. WOODWORTH: Yes. MR. BOWIE: The rotted wood siding, has it now all been replaced? MR. WOODWORTH: No, there's still that -- MR. BOWIE: Some portions have not. MR. WOODWORTH: There's still some -- MR. BOWIE: Okay. How about the roof over the carport, that's been removed -- MR. WOODWORTH: Has been removed. MR. BOWIE: -- you indicated. Okay. The wood siding you've replaced has been painted now, correct? MR. WOODWORTH: Yes. MR. BOWIE: The windows that were broken out, have they all been replaced, or not? MR. WOODWORTH: No. MR. BOWIE: No, okay. MR. WOODWORTH: That's why you still see that piece of plywood on the back window. MR. BOWIE: And the porch is still in the state it was in as shown -- MR. WOODWORTH: That's that back porch. MR. BOWIE: -- on the county photos. Yes. MR. WOODWORTH: That's with the plywood. Yes, it's going to be replaced with pressure treated lumber. I mean, that's the way it should have been done whenever -- 50 years ago they had pressure treated lumber, but they didn't use it. You know, it would be in better shape if -- Page 30 May 26, 2005 MR. BOWIE: In order for you to take care of all the other items that the county has mentioned, shown us, what kind of time frame do you think you'll need to comply with all of these things to do all of these things? MR. WOODWORTH: The porch and the replacing -- MR. BOWIE: All -- the windows. MR. WOODWORTH: -- getting rid of all the boarding -- MR. BOWIE: The debris, yeah. MR. WOODWORTH: Sixty days? I mean, I -- two months? And by that time I'll probably be able to get a fence around it which will secure it a little bit so I can maybe do some more things. You know 1-- , MR. LEFEBVRE: When did you acquire this property? MR. WOODWORTH: It's been several years. I mean, I -- what has happened is that I'm self-employed, and that means that you don't have a job, which means that whenever somebody needs something, I'm the gofer. I'm the gofer for my mom, I'm the gofer for -- I have two sons, when they need something, my wife, anybody -- it seems like I'm, you know -- I'm -- that's the problem with being -- where you don't have a -- when you're not employed like eight to five, you know, you're at the mercy of anyone. Because they say, well, please do this. You know, do this, you know. And I get diverted. And I try to make enough money in real estate to pay my bills, too. You know, it's just -- that's the problem. I get diverted. And I admit, I -- sometimes I -- you know, I chase the dollar, you know, rather than, you know, do something else, you know, or -- you know, and it's very difficult to get things done in this town. And I guess everywhere. I mean, I was up at Osceola County and the person that came that does my mother's air conditioner, that does the service calls, said that the heat strip and the coils were leaking-- MR. BOWIE: That's not our issue. Page 31 May 26, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have anything else to tell us on this piece of property, sir? MR. WOODWORTH: I want to solve the problems, okay? I truly do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you very much. We'll close the public hearing. First order of business is finding of fact by the board. Do in fact violations exist on the property as presented. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move in Case No. 2005-22, Board of County Commissioners versus, I believe it would be just David Woodworth, as the property owner. He's testified that he only is entitled to this property, not he and his wife. In that case, a violation be determined to exist and that violation is as has been set forth in the notice of violation presented to us in this case. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The only comment I have is the county and the defendant have said that the roof over the carport has been removed, so that section would not apply anymore. Subsection 12(C), roof over carport rotted through and in a state of collapse. If it's been removed, he's answered that one, so we really can't cite him for that. MR. BOWIE: But as of November 20th, 2004, presumably none of this had been done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So we need to understand that he has made some corrections when we get to that. Okay, we have a motion and a second that violations do exist. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of the motion that violations do exist, say aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. Page 32 May 26, 2005 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next item of business is order of the board, what we require the respondent to do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can I ask one question? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Of Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any way -- I know that we're not looking at the interior of the unit at all, but is there any way we can put an order in our order that we ask that the respondent let an investigator inside the unit? MS. RAWSON: I don't -- at this point I don't think so. I think Mr. Mazzone, in his recommendations, is asking that you have him restore it to the intended use, residential use, so that would include the interior. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, fair enough. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyone have any recommendations for the order of the board? MR. PONTE: I would just recommend that we adopt the county's suggestions, with the exception of the items that have already been repaired, i.e., the carport roof and any other items. But basically it be as suggested by the county. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, what is that? MS. ARNOLD: The recommendation from staff was -- MR. PONTE: Sixty days and $100. Page 33 May 26, 2005 MS. ARNOLD: -- sixty days or $100. And there would be a 60-day time period given for both the obtaining of permit for any restoration that was going to be completed, as well as any demolition that would be completed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Could you put it up on the monitor? MR. BOWIE: We're usually given these proposed recommendations in writing. For some reason we're not given them. MR. KRAENBRING: So is it our understanding that the 60-day recommendation is basically in line with the respondent's request for 60 days? MR. BOWIE: That's what he said he would do. MR. PONTE: It wasn't really a request. I think he said he could accomplish it in 60 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Good. MR. BOWIE: I honestly don't know what needs to be done with it. This property requires a licensed contractor, given what we've seen here. I don't know if that ought to be part of our order. That's one of the things recited here. MR. PONTE: But that -- MS. ARNOLD: I think that's been provided for the board and to the respondent as information in the event that there is something that requires a permit. Mr. Woodworth-- MR. BOWIE: In the event, yeah. MS. ARNOLD: -- because he does not reside there, needs to hire a licensed contractor. MR. PONTE: Mr. Woodworth's also a professional and in the business, so he must know that. MR. BOWIE: I could see us restating this somewhat and saying employ an appropriately licensed contractor where required by codes. Certainly to replace wood siding and painting doesn't require a licensed contractor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Isn't the -- doesn't the code say that if Page 34 May 26, 2005 it's your property, as long as the work is under some dollar amount, other than plumbing and electrical or something of that nature, possibly, I can't remember how it's worded. But if I own a property and I want to replace the front porch, I can do it myself, period, is the way I understand how the code works. I don't need to hire somebody to redo my front porch. Am I wrong? MS. ARNOLD: If there's anything structural, there may be that requirement for a separate contractor. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Replacing the flooring on a front porch isn't structural to me. Sorry. MS. ARNOLD: I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're laying boards across boards. MS. ARNOLD: I can't answer that because the photos -- MR. BOWIE: Perhaps we should just let it remain-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We normally don't say that in our order, so I don't know why we're getting into that. It's just we want him to fix the problems, and whatever the ordinance says he has to do. If it says he has to get a permit, then the permits normally say something about contractors, as I remember. I don't think the board should get into saying from now on persons must go hire this type of -- I don't think that's wrong. We're getting too specific and we can -- I can see a problem down the road. MR. PONTE: So why don't we take it from 2(B). CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess what I would say is someone should think along the lines, as we always do, the first item would be that the respondent has to pay any of the operational costs in the prosecution of this case. The second item would be that he would have to abate all the -- MR. BOWIE: What I would like, what I would suggest is that other than 2(A), we adopt 2(B), 2(C) and 2(D). MR. PONTE: I think that's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, I have a question. Page 35 May 26, 2005 MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2(B) says he must comply with all Collier County housing code. MS. RAWSON: Well, it needs to be specific as to what we've alleged that he's in violation of. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's been cited for certain items. MR. BOWIE: Well, it says -- it goes on, as described in the notice of violation, order to correct dated October 19th, 2004. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says complete any remedial work. But when we say all housing code, does that give us a problem that we're telling him to do something that he hasn't been cited for? MS. RAWSON: I think it has to be just the above described violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I don't like broad statements. And they weren't cited for that. Okay, if someone would like to make a motion, the board will consider it. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make a motion that in Case 2005-22, the Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. Also, to abate all violations by completing all remedial work as described in the notice of violation dated October 19th, 2004 in this case, and restore the premises to a state of intended residential dwelling use within 60 days from this date, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Further, that the respondent must obtain building permits, related inspections and final certificate or certificates of completion for all remedial work that require the same. If the respondent elects not to complete the rehabilitation work, as described to remedy the items in the notice of violation, the respondent must then obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections through the issuance of a certificate of completion for the Page 36 May 26, 2005 removal of the wood frame structure and the resulting debris, and restoring all the premises so to comply with the provisions of Collier County's zoning district RMF-6/BMUD/R-l, and Collier County property maintenance requirements within 60 days from this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jean, we have the operational costs in there, don't we? MS. RAWSON: Yes. That was the first thing, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MR. MORGAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second, sir. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carries. Mr . Woodworth, are you still -- yeah, I see him. Do you understand, sir? You have 60 days to get everything fixed or $100 a day. That concludes the public hearings. We go from item three, four -- item five, new business. Request for imposition of fines. First one is Diana Hall. Page 37 May 26, 2005 MS. ARNOLD: Ms. Hall is here to speak to the board, and I do have some information to provide to you. Because I believe she's wanting some additional time. Give me one second. This matter was brought to the board back on September 25th, 2003, and for those board members that aren't -- that weren't here at that time, this is a structure that construction started but had not commenced and the property owner now is in the process of trying to get the construction completed. The board has granted an extension. They previously granted an extension back in October of 2004, and the extension was given through February 25th, 2005, I believe. But as I said, Mrs. Hall is here, if you want an opportunity to read what she's provided to you and give her an opportunity to speak. And the investigator is also here to answer any questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, Ms. Hall. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am, what would you like to tell us? MS. HALL: Given the recognition to the court that I know it's been a long time that the property had been no work done on it. But since the 25th of September, 2003, when I came down to get the wheels in motion to get this started, I've been working continuously to get it done. And I contacted several agencies for assistance, and, you know, in lieu of that, I thought they was going to help me. But because they didn't, you know, I continued to work on it. And I just signed the mortgage on Thursday, the 19th, and the money is available for my own, because I'm the owner/builder, you know, that I can continue on. And as we speak, you know, they're finishing up the interior drywalling. And I have no problem with any of the board members going inside, or Mr. Letourneau, you know, giving his statement as to what state the property is in from since it Page 38 ,-'-' -"~._.__._''>.'''' May 26, 2005 was first cited in September. And I'm just asking the court if you all would grant me whatever time maximum that -- you know, just so we have enough time that I could continue on, and that the fees be waived. According to the last hearing, we was to -- took under consideration that you said that after they granted the time that the fines would go away. But when I got this notice, I saw that it was still up and active. So-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we gave you an extension until February 25th. And from that time forward the fines started accruing because you didn't comply. So that was -- there's 90 days in there. But how much time are you asking us to give you additional? You've had six months so far. Now how much longer should it be? MS. HALL: I understand. Within the six months, as they have stated in the notice that you all have there, that, you know, I was under the assumption that I was going to have assistance from an outside agency. So it was like that six months was just there with me just doing what I could do on my own. So if I could have the six months, you know, to do whatever have to be done. Not that I need it, but if I could have the six months granted, that I can assure you that things will be taken care of within that time. Because as I stated earlier, now the funds are available in hand, not, you know, chasing around an agency as to what someone can assist me in. MR. BOWIE: When you say the funds are available, you've gotten a mortgage? MS. HALL: Yes, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Mrs. Hall provided us a copy of the mortgage. MR. BOWIE: Okay. Who's going to do the work with these monies now? MS. HALL: I have contractors lined up. Subcontractors lined up. And they're working on it right now while we're in court. And Page 39 May 26, 2005 has been from since I started, which was last March. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you had inspections? MS. HALL: I've had continuance inspections. My permit is active, and everything is up to code. And the site is, you know, is appealing, and there's no unsightly violations that, you know, could be brought to the court at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell us what's going on. MR. LETOURNEAU: The site looks pretty good. She's done a pretty good job so far. I realize she's had some monetary problems, and considering the circumstances, she's done a pretty good job in moving along. She hasn't had an inspection since, looks like, January 28th, but she's made some good progress. And the site is in good shape. It's not like a normal, you know, dumpy construction site. She's kept it pretty well clean and it's not a blite on the neighborhood or anything like that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any idea how much longer this is going to go on? MR. LETOURNEAU: With the available funds she has now, it shouldn't be more than she's requesting, you know, I don't think. I mean, I wish I had a picture of the house. I haven't been out there in about a month. So it's come quite a ways since she's been back in Naples. MR. BOWIE: Are you residing in this property now? MS. HALL: No, I'm living in a rental property now. But I lived out of town when I first started this. I had a subcontractor that was over the whole job and I had a lot of vandalism and theft and all the windows was broke out, which is what brought this proj ect to the attention of the board, that all the windows was broken. You know, after gathering up the funds to restart -- you know, I Page 40 -"-- May 26, 2005 had to start from top to bottom to get it to the state that it's in, because everything had to be done over except for the outer structure that you saw, which was the wall standing and the roof overhead. I had to do everything, you know, according to the chief inspector to reinspect everything all over. That was from the rough plumbing to the electrical, AC, installation, everything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ma'am, is the electrical and the plumbing, is that all in the house now? MS. HALL: It's roughed in. Everything is roughed in. Drywall is being put up now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Drywall is up. MS. HALL: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the outside of the house is-- MS. HALL: Stuccoed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Stucco, okay. MR. PONTE: Jeff, in your professional opinion, what would you think is a realistic time to complete this? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, she's got -- let me see. She's got about 16 inspections to do. I would say anywhere between three and six months. I'm not a contractor or a, you know, engineer. MR. PONTE: Well, knowing the pace of work this time of year, would you think that 90 days would do it? MR. LETOURNEAU: Ninety days might be stretching it. She's got still, you know, the right-of-way, the landscaping, the -- all the finals on the plumbing and the electric and everything like that. So I would say she needs probably more than 90 days. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOWIE: I'll be honest with you, given the history of this, a further extension troubles me somewhat, even though I was not on the board at this time this was heard and the order made. This order was rendered September 25th, 2003. This property apparently was never CO'd. Page 41 May 26, 2005 It was -- as I understand the history just reading this, there was a permit that was reapplied for twice, it was never CO'd, it was never completed. And the most recent permit expired May 17th -- March 17th, 1999? MS. HALL: The most recent permit is 2003. And it's still an active permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She got another permit. MR. BOWIE: I'm talking about the history of this case at the time this was heard. MS. HALL: And everything you said is true, sir. It's just that since I moved here to Collier County in March of '04, I've been continually working and the permit has been reapped (phonetic) since November, '03, and it's been continuous work going on. I'm not denying the history of it. I'm talking about what's present and what's ongoing, if you all would consider togrant the extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it correct if we grant an extension, that would negate the fines that are currently accruing? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, what we'd be doing is we'd be taking our order which -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Amending our order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. The date was February 25th. So whatever we do now, we would go from that date forward. So we automatically have to give her -- we'll clear out the 90 days, which she's being -- the county's asking us for. So those 90 days are already gone. Now she's asking for an additional six months. So we'd be giving her basically a nine-month extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, I understand. I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ifwe gave her her six months. MR. BOWIE: Just to clarify, ma'am, how long has it been that you owned the property? When did you purchase this property? MS. HALL: I originally purchased the property in, I think it was, '93 or '94. Page 42 -."-..". .'-"'-~'-"'--'--''''~'''-''''-'---'"--- May 26, 2005 MR. BOWIE: And you were aware at that time that it had never been completed, there was no certificate -- MS. HALL: It was not started at the time that I purchased the property. As I stated, sir, I had a subcontract -- I know it's my responsibility to make sure things are done right when a permit is permitted under my name. But I was trusting other people to do stuff. But now that I'm doing it myself, I just hope that you all will take under consideration that I'm the one bouncing the ball now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a request from Ms. Hall to give her an extension, rather than impose the fines as requested by the county. If I understand correctly, she would like six months. From the county's side 90 days isn't enough, based on what Jeff has said. So some period between three months and six months that the board can consider. Or the full six months. Understanding we also have to extend the time, the three months that have already passed. So is there some number somebody is interested in? MR. PONTE: Well, I think we have to take Jeffs opinion into consideration here. So somewhere between -- if it's not 90 days, how about 120 days? That's four months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, based on what she says is already done -- I've built quite a few houses. From the position she's in now, in four months she should be able to complete this house, I would think. MR. PONTE: Particularly with all the financing in place. MR. KRAENBRING: How do you feel about that, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: I feel four months, with the right financial back, she should have this project completed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What the board needs to understand, four months plus the three that have passed, so it's really a seven-month extension. MR. BOWIE: Let me just ask the county a question. In the Page 43 May 26, 2005 order of October 1st, dated October 1st, 2003, one of the items was that if the respondent had not complied by December 24th, 2003, this is item number six, the county was directed to secure the structure by boarding it up and assessing the cost to the respondent. Was that done and are there any costs incurred? No. MS. ARNOLD: No, the county didn't board it up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we extended the order. George, do you want to make a motion to give her what would basically be a seven-month extension? Three months have already passed and there'd be four new months starting from today. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I'll make a motion that the -- an extension of four months be granted -- MR. KRAENBRING: Seven. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it has to be seven because three of them -- MR. PONTE: Well, from today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Really, we have to go back to February 25th, because that was the date of the order. So we've got to change from there forward. So it's really seven months. MR. PONTE: All right, I'll make a motion that the extension be made for seven months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So the new date would be -- MR. PONTE: 120 days from now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is May, June, July, August. Our meeting in September, which would be the 22nd? Let's make this a seven-month period on a date where she can come before us and say it's done or it's not. Make it September 22nd. That's four months basically from today plus the three months that have already passed. How's that, George? MR. PONTE: Sounds fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Page 44 May 26, 2005 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, is there another recommendation? MR. BOWIE: Again, I'm very concerned over the time that has elapsed on this since September, 2003. I'm concerned that extensions have been given in the past which would have allotted more than ample time and nothing has been done. And I'm afraid if we grant another extension, the type of precedent that might set for others in a similar predicament, where construction was commenced and permits never closed out, certificate of occupancy never granted years ago, property has remained in an unfinished condition for years. I think just too much has transpired to allow further extension. MR. PONTE: But I think the respondent's point there, that that's the ancient history and what is happening right now is that the job is approaching completion. And our primary responsibility here is to achieve compliance, and she's well on the way to complying. MR. KRAENBRING: I have to agree. I think that, you know, all construction is leveraged. The money is available now. I think the testimony from Jeff has been positive. The site does not seem to be a hazard. And I think she's articulately presented her case. I am concerned that four months is -- I'm more inclined to go six months, quite frankly, being in the construction business. But in the spirit of compromise, I would second that, your motion, for the four months. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want to put your motion back on the floor? MR. PONTE: Why was -- how did it get knocked off the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, nobody wanted to second it. So now would you like to reissue it? MR. PONTE: I will restate my motion, yes. MR. KRAENBRING: I will second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now we have a motion for seven Page 45 May 26, 2005 months and a second. And the seven months goes back to February 25th and takes us to September 22nd. Any further discussion about that time period? MR. DeWITTE: With that, removing the order item five, penalties, what about the operational costs? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't do any of that. All we're doing now is we're going back to day one where we said it had to be done by February 25th and the penalties start from there on. We're now going to change that February 25th to September 22nd. So there will be no penalties. Nothing. There's nothing applies. Everything would start now at September 22nd, if that's what the board decides. So if she get it all done by September 22nd, then there -- MR. KRAENBRING: Could I make a further comment? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The operational costs, you know, she would, if she comes into compliance. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I make a -- I don't think it was beyond my second. But as far as setting a precedent, I think that's one of the things that we're here as a board is to decide these on a case-by-case basis, based on the evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everything is case by case. And in this case she has presented a lot of information, and the county has tried to work with her and direct her to get help. And it sounds like from what she has told us previously, she's been just about everywhere in the state trying to get help, and she's finally got the financing, has given that to the county, so the county knows she in fact does have a mortgage and can proceed. At this point I'm comfortable. Come September if she shows up with another problem, I'm less likely to help her. Okay, so we have a motion and a second to amend our order to a new date of September 22nd. Any further discussion? MR. BOWIE: Well, again, just for the record, I have to oppose it for the reasons I stated. I think too much has transpired. There hasn't Page 46 May 26, 2005 been enough action to address this problem literally for years. And I don't think in this particular situation the respondent should be awarded for circumstances of her own if not creation at least tolerance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? MR. BOWIE: Nay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Two. So we have 5-2. You've got till September 22nd, ma'am. MS. HALL: Thank you. And if I'm done before then, I'll be in to motion the court before then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. If you get done before then, just let the county know and they will tell us. MS. HALL: Thank you, Michelle. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Imposition of fines. BCC versus Martin and Holly Walsh, 2004-33. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on July 22nd,2004. It is now in compliance and Mr. Walsh is here and he would like to speak to the board. As well, the supervisor for the original investigator that handled this case is also here to answer any questions of the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, Mr. Walsh, what would you like to ask the board to do? MR. WALSH: When I was here last time, you guys gave me 60 days to get either the problem permitted -- the structure was built Page 47 <-,,_._,...._._._--.._--~._---_.._".- May 26, 2005 without a permit by a licensed contractor. Either permitted or just taken back down, which I would need a permit for destruction. In that 60 days I tried to get a permit for taking the structure down. First because I wasn't having any luck getting a permit or anybody to repermit or get a permit that was a licensed contractor or different contractor. And I was unable to get a permit to take it down or get a -- somebody to apply and get a permit to keep it up. So after that period of 60 days passed, the fines started coming along, and I was working with the county to try to find out, you know, what we could do. Then finally we decide -- the county told me to go ahead and just put the structure back to its original condition, and that's what I did. I had a licensed contractor put it up to its original condition. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that all got accomplished by when? MR. WALSH: It was accomplished, I guess it was about -- it was just before the last meeting, so the beginning of last month. It was too late to get on the board for last month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Somewhere in April of'05. MR. WALSH: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: April 22nd. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: For the record, my name is Patti Petrulli, Supervisor, Supervisor, Code Enforcement. I'd like to concur with what Mr. Walsh said. Through no fault of his own, Mr. Walsh did try to comply with the board's issue, the orders issued, but through some misunderstanding and misinformation in the departments, he was delayed from getting a permit to take down his -- the roof that he had put up. Being personally involved in the case and seeing what he did to try and achieve compliance, we'd like to ask that Mr. Walsh just be charged operational charges and any fines either be dismissed or Page 48 May 26, 2005 reduced. Because he honestly tried. And it was through the county, no fault of hisown, that he did not come into compliance when he was due. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So the county is asking the board to only institute the operational costs, and the county is removing the fine portion of the -- MS. PETRULLI: Yes, sir. That's what we would like, in all fairness to him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with that. The board has no authority to delete the operational costs, so if the county wants that imposed, the board has no problem doing that. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Board members understand, the county is only asking us to impose operational costs. They are agreeing to waive the fine amount. Everyone understand? And the board has no power to waive operational, only the county can do that. At this point what we would need is a motion to impose the operational costs of $666. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that in the case of County Board of County Commissioners versus Martin and Holly Walsh, No. 2004-33, that we impose the operational costs and we negate the fines that have been levied. MR. KRAENBRING: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the operational costs, as requested by the county. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 49 ~_w_____'"___" May 26, 2005 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sir, do you understand? You will have to pay the operational costs. MR. WALSH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's new business. No old business. Reports. We had a report from for Mr. France. MR. BOWIE: I think we already dealt with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, his request was -- his report was attached, so -- stating that they're moving along. We have a report from the county on the year-to-date affidavits. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Rather than go through -- do you have that copy? MR. BOWIE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Just -- we are just providing you a report identifying all the affidavits that have been filed and for which cases those affidavits have been filed. And it's indicating whether or not they are in appliance or not in compliance. Some of the cases we actually handled today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other reports? I don't see any. Any comments from any board members, and/or county staff? MS. ARNOLD: I do just want to mention that we are in the process of signing you all up for a workshop that's going to be taking place in June. It's June 18th. It's a Saturday. It's going to be on Sanibel. We -- we'll get you the information with regards to the location and times and everything else. If anyone is unable to make that workshop, just please e-mail me and let me know. F or the new board members, this workshop is being sponsored by Page 50 ..,- May 26, 2005 the Florida Association of Code Enforcement, and it's tailored specifically for board members, special masters, attorneys representing code enforcement boards and the like. And it's very informative, and the instructor, he's excellent, because I've taken him before. So I would encourage everybody to participate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'll see about getting us a new updated list, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Sure, absolutely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think e-mail is the best way to just get it out because you can get it out quick. Our next meeting is mere, June 23rd, same time, same place. Any other items for us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. BOWIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Surely, anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're adjourned. Page 51 May 26, 2005 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:22 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 52