Loading...
CEB Minutes 11/18/2005 R November 18, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NAPLES, FLORIDA, NOVEMBER 18,2005 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 at the Martin Luther King Administration Building, Collier County School Board Chambers, 5775 Osceola Avenue, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Richard Kraenbring Raymond Bowie Sheri Barnett Gerald J. LeFebvre Jerry Morgan ABSENT: George P. Ponte Larry Dean Justine DeWitte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board Michelle Arnold, Director of Code Enforcement Patti Petrulli, Supervisor Code Enforcement Board Dennis Mazzone, Enforcement Investigator John Olney, Enforcement Investigator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: November 18, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. Location: Martin Luther King Administration Center, 5775 Osceola Trail, Naples, Florida 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 22, 2005 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion to Continue - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) B. STIPULA TIONS CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2005-035 511 NEW MARKET RD.EAST, IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 63867400000) CHRIS D. & BRENDA BLOCKER DENNIS MAZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO. 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 1.04.00, SUB. SEe. 1.04.01, PARA A,B, AND C, 2.02.03 AND 2.03.07-A, PARA G, NO.4 & 6-A, 6-B AND 6-C, 9.03.00, SUB. SEe. 9.03.01-A, B, AND D, 10.02.00, SUB. SEC'S. 10.02.05-F, PARA'S. 1 THRU 4 AND 10.02.06 PARA'S A, B, AND e. DESCRIPTION: MOBILE HOMES HAVING BEEN PLACED ON "C-5-AOSD" ZONED PROPERTY KNOWN AS TWN. 47, SEe. 3, RNG. 29, BLK. 56, LOTS 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11, NEW MARKET SUBD. INCREASING THE DENSITY W/OUT PRIOR COLLIER CO. ZONING AND PLANNING REVIEW, W/OUT COLLIER CO. BLDG. PERMITS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: 2005-039 CASE ADDR: 2900 BRADLEY DR.. IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 00072320006) A.K.A. DEBBIES TRAILER PARK OWNER: CHRIS D. & BRENDA BLOCKER INSPECTOR: DENNIS MAZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO. 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 1.04.00, SUB. SEe. 1.04.01, PARA A, B, AND C, 2.02.00 SUB. SEe. 2.02.03, 2.03.01-H, 9.03.00, SUB. SEC. 9.03.01-A, B, AND D, 10.02.00, SUB. SEC'S. 1O.02.0S-F, PARA'S. 1 THRU 4 AND 10.02.06 PARA'S A, B, AND e. DESCRIPTION: MOBILE HOMES, SHEDS, AND CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE HAVING BEEN PLACED ON "VR" ZONED PROPERTY KNOWN AS TWN. 46, SEe. 31, RNG. 29, PARCEL # 007.00, OF COLLIER COUNTY RECORD, INCREASING THE DENSITY W/OUT PRIOR COLLIER CO. ZONING AND PLANNING REVIEW, W/OUT COLLIER CO. BLDG. PERMITS 2. CASE NO: 2004-043 CASE ADDR: 100 IMMOKALEE DR. IMMOKALEE, FL AKA. STAR MOBILE HOME PARK (FOLIO # 00127680002) OWNER: IGNACIO SOTO FOR STAR MOBILE HOME PARK LLC INSPECTOR: DENNIS MAZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 1.04.00, SUB. SEe. 1.04.01, PARA A, B, AND C, 2.02.00 SUB SEe. 2.02.03, 2.03.00, SUB SEC'S. 2.03.01-1, 9.03.00, SUB. SEe. 9.03.01-A THRU H, 10.02.00 SUB. SEe. 10.02.0S-A THRU F, PARA'S 1 THRU 4, AND 10.02.06 PARA'S A&B DESCRIPTION: INCREASED DEVELOPED DENSITY AND USE OF "MH" ZONED PROPERTY CONSISTING OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, UNAUTHORIZED PLACEMENT OF 4 MOBILE HOME TYPE STRUCTURES W/OUT PRIOR COLLIER CO. ZONING AND PLANNING REVIEW, W/OUT COLLIER CO. BLDG. PERMITS 3. CASE NO: 2004-044 CASE ADDR: 417 ISTH ST. NORTH, IMMOKALEE, FL AKA. STAR MOBILE HOME PARK (FOLIO # 00127640000) OWNER: IGNACIO SOTO FOR STAR MOBILE HOME PARK LLC INSPECTOR: DENNIS MAZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 1.04.00, SUB. SEe. 1.04.01, PARA A, B, AND C, 2.02.00, SUB. SEe. 2.02.03 2.03.00, SUB SEC'S. 2.03.01-1, 9.03.00, SUB. SEe. 9.03.01 PARA'S. A THRU H, 10.02.00 SUB. SEe. 1O.02.0S-A THRU F, PARA'S 1 THRU 4, AND 10.02.06 PARA'S A & B DESCRIPTION: INCREASED DEVELOPED DENSITY AND USE OF "MH" ZONED PROPERTY CONSISTING OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, UNAUTHORIZED PLACEMENT OF 33 MOBILE HOME TYPE STRUCTURES, 3 SHED TYPE STRUCTURES AND 1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE W/OUT PRIOR COLLIER CO. ZONING AND PLANNING REVIEW, W/OUT COLLIER CO. BLDG. PERMITS. 4. CASE NO: 2004-04S CASE ADDR: 100 IMMOKALEE DR. IMMOKALEE, FL A.K.A. STAR MOBILE HOME PARK (FOLIO # 00127760003) OWNER: IGNACIO SOTO FOR STAR MOBILE HOME PARK LLC RICHARD SHAW, REGISTERED AGENT INSPECTOR: DENNIS MAZONE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 1.04.00, SUB. SEe. 1.04.01, PARA A ,B, AND C, 2.02.00, SUB. SEe. 2.02.03 2.03.00, SUB SEC'S. 2.03.01-1, 9.03.00, SUB. SEe. 9.03.01 PARA'S. A THRU H, 10.02.00 SUB. SEC. 1O.02.0S-A THRU F, PARA'S 1 THRU 4, AND 10.02.06 PARA'S A & B DESCRIPTION: INCREASED DEVELOPED DENSITY AND USE OF "MH" & "SR29COSD" ZONED PROPERTY CONSISTING OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, UNAUTHORIZED PLACEMENT OF S MOBILE HOME TYPE STRUCTURES, 1 SHED TYPE STRUCTURES W/OUT PRIOR COLLIER CO. ZONING AND PLANNING REVIEW, W/OUT COLLIER CO. BLDG. PERMITS. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of FinesILiens 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE NOVEMBER 18, 2005 10. ADJOURN November 18, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the Code Enforcement Board to order, please. Please make note, any person who decides to appeal the 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. The record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. N either Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Also, as usual, to make sure that we can get the best verbatim record possible, no one shall talk without being recognized by the chair. THE COURT REPORTER: Can we turn the volume up? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pardon me? THE COURT REPORTER: Can we turn it up? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know how that's done. We have no controls here. MR. BOWIE: Maybe you need to speak into the microphone. Maybe move the mics over a little closer to us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that help? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As I said, you must be recognized by the chair. That's for the respondents, their attorneys, the county, board members. We want to get the truest record we can. So please abide by that. The first item of business is our roll call, please. MS. PETRULLI: Good morning. For the record, Supervisor Patti Petrulli with Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Sheri Barnett. MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Gerald Morgan. Page 2 November 18, 2005 (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: Jerry Morgan. MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Raymond Bowie. MR. BOWIE: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Richard Kraenbring. Mr. Kraenbring is not present today. Justin DeWitte is absent also today. George Ponte has an excused absence today. Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. PETRULLI: And Larry Dean has an excused absence -- absence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Bear with me just a second. Okay. Next approval of our agenda. Are there any changes or -- MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move to amend or call for direction to revise the case numbers as they appear on the second page of the agenda. Instead of being designated the 2004 year, they should all be 2005-year numbers. The cases we have all are properly designated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none. I'll entertain a motion to accept the agenda as changed. MR. BOWIE: So moved. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I hear a motion and a second to accept the agenda as changed. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 3 November 18, 2005 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The next item, approval of our minutes from our September 22nd meeting. Are there any corrections? changes? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. MS. BARNETT: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as submitted from September 22nd meeting. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Make a note that Richard has joined us. All right. We'll open our public hearings. There are no motions. We have a stipulation on Case 2005-035? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We do have a stipulation on that case and the investigator is Dennis Mazzone. And we will approach the podium. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Chris D. and Brenda Blocker. MR. MAZZONE: Did you want to swear me in? (The oath was administered.) MR. MAZZONE: For the record, I am Code Enforcement Investigator Dennis Mazzone, Collier County. On September 1 st, 2005, Code -- Collier County's Code Page 4 November 18, 2005 Enforcement Director Michelle Arnold and myself met with Curtis Blocker, Sr., at his 301 North 15th Street, Immokalee, Florida place of business. And we discussed the need for Code Enforcement Board direction to acquire site improvement plan review and approval for increased development of Lots 4 through 11, Block 56, Township 47, Section 3, Range 29 of Collier County record which is also known as one -- I'm sorry -- it's also known as 511 New Market Road East, Immokalee, Florida. Lots 4 through 11 currently have 24 mobile homes, one concrete block structure and one aluminum structure placed on them. We had obtained a signed stipulation agreement which I would like to enter into the record. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a motion to -- well, let's wait. Dennis, why don't you read us the stipulation agreement before we accept it so we can see if there's anything we would like to change. MR. MAZZONE: Certainly. The Blockers had stipulated to pay operational costs in the amount of $310.53 incurred in the prosecution of this case. Respondent, the Blockers, shall obey all violations by contacting Collier County Code -- Collier County Department of Zoning and Land Development Review and schedule a preapplication meeting for -- with the planning review within ten days after this proceeding. The respondent shall also submit a complete and sufficient site improvement plan application within 90 days after the preapplication meeting or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent shall act with due diligence and pursuit of an approved site improvement plan and obtain complete, sufficient Collier County building permits for all approved additions and improvements in use within 60 days after the site improvement plan approval or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. And the respondent shall receive all required inspections and Page 5 November 18, 2005 certificate of completion within 120 days after the issuance of the permit or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Also, the respondent shall obtain a complete and sufficient Collier County demolition permit within ten days after the CE Board hearing or a -- or within -- or ten days after abandonment of pursuit of a site improvement plan, whichever is applicable, or a fine of $250 days -- I'm sorry -- $250 a day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Or upon obtaining Collier County demolition permit, respondent shall then execute same or remove all nonapproved, nonpermitted additions, improvements in use and resulting debris within 90 days after this hearing or 90 days after site improvement plan abandonment or fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. And this respondent must also provide Collier County Code Enforcement with written notification that the violations have been abated and request an on-site inspection. The latter part of the stipulation are the alternatives to not -- not going ahead with the site improvement plan. Are there any questions on the stipulation? The Blockers are here at this hearing. And I have to say that they've already scheduled a preapplication meeting for January 4th, 2006. So they're ahead of the game here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is it Ms. Blocker here? Yes, ma'am. Would you come up, please. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I need you to step closer, Ms. Blocker. We can't hear you. MS. BLOCKER: Do you hear me? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. This stipulation agreement, what looks to be -- I assume, it's your husband's signature on the bottom? Page 6 ----- November 18, 2005 MS. BLOCKER: It's my father-in-law, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Father-in-law, okay. Is this agreeable? MS. BLOCKER: Yes. We've already started on it. We've had a meeting prior and have already started plans on another so... CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BLOCKER: A few. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just wanted to make sure that we had it on the record it was agreeable. MS. BLOCKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We had something signed. I always like to ask just in case. MS. BLOCKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from board members? The county has asked us to accept this. Any questions of Dennis or Ms. Blocker? (No response.) MR. MAZZONE: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to accept the stipulated agreement as submitted to the board unless the board has some changes. MS. BARNETT: I have a question of the board because I think $250 a day usually is imposed on somebody that either has some sort of health issue or something -- that kind of thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess we could change it if we like, but the county and the Blockers have agreed to it so... MS. BARNETT: I'm pulling a George and asking. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I guess if we were going to pick a number, it might not be that high, but since those two already worked it out in advance -- MR. BOWIE: I was going to say it's already been stipulated and agreed upon. MS. BARNETT: I just brought it up as a question. It's a little bit Page 7 November 18, 2005 out of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Maybe it was both -- both of you agreed it was an incentive to get it done quickly and want to get it out of the way. MS. BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a motion to accept the agreement as submitted to the board? MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that Case No. 2005-35 by the stipulation agreement presented to us be accepted by the board. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation agreement submitted in Case No. 2005-035. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying" aye. " MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Ms. Blocker. MS. BLOCKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The next Case 2005-039. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, we do have a stipulation for this case as well and it's involving the same respondents, Chris D. and Brenda Blocker -- Curtis D. and Brenda Blocker. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't see a copy of it. MR. BOWIE: We don't appear to have a copy of it. Page 8 November 18, 2005 MS. BARNETT: We have a copy of the case but not the stipulation. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Can you put it on our screens? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our screens aren't on so... MS. ARNOLD: Right. I asked -- I called up to the audio place to see whether or not they would be able to help us turn the screens on so you-all can read that, but I didn't get a reply. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Let's -- let's proceed with the case and if you have a copy of it, at least one copy, you could pass it down and we could read it as you're doing it. Dennis, do you need that or is that an extra copy? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Here's another copy. MR. BOWIE: It might simplify things. Is this the same form as the previous stipulation? MR. MAZZONE: It is, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It looks pretty much the same. MR. MAZZONE: Yeah. You're going -- you're going to see initials on these stipulations. That's -- that's because we had to reschedule these meetings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. This is Case 2005-39 and, Dennis, this is your case? MR. MAZZONE: This is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Ma'am, would you swear him in, please. (The oath was administered.) MR. MAZZONE: On September 1st, 2005, Michelle Arnold, the director of code enforcement and myself met again at the same location on North 15th Street, Immokalee, Florida, with Mr. Curtis Blocker, Sr., and we discussed the need for this CEB hearing so that we could acquire a site improvement plan review and approval for the Page 9 November 18, 2005 increased development of Parcel No. 7 of Township 46, Section 31, Range 29 which is also known as Debbie's Trailer Park at 2900 Bradley Drive in Immokalee, Florida. This parcel is located in a village residential zoning district and currently has fourteen mobile home type structures, two shed type structures, and one concrete block type structure placed on it without prior Collier -- Collier County Zoning and Planning review and without permits. At this meeting that took place on September 1 st we obtained a signed notice of violation. And on October 17, 2005, I obtained a signed stipulation agreement which I will read to you and introduce as -- as part of this case and turn it over to our clerk. The stipulation that the Blockers agreed to was to pay operational costs in the amount of $326.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case. To -- they also agreed to abate all violations by contacting Collier County Department of Zoning and Land Development Review, to schedule a preapplication meeting with Collier County planning staff within ten days of this Code Enforcement Board hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Respondent shall submit a complete and sufficient site improvement plan application within 90 days after the preapplication meeting or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. And the respondent shall act with due diligence in pursuit of an improved site improvement plan and obtain complete and sufficient Collier County building permits for all approved additions, improvements in use within 60 days after site improvement plan approval or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent shall receive all required inspections and a certificate of completion with -- within 120 days after issuance of the permit or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Or as an alternative the respondent shall obtainh Page 10 November 18, 2005 and complete a complete and sufficient Collier County demolition permit within -- within ten days after this hearing or within ten days after abandoned pursuit of the site improvement plan, whichever is applicable, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Upon obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, respondent shall then execute same by removing all nonapproved, nonpermitted additions, improvements in use and resulting debris within 90 days after this CEB hearing or 90 days after the site improvement plan abandonment or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent shall provide Collier County Code Enforcement with written notification that the violations have been abated and request an on-site inspection. And, again, the Blockers agreed to meet on January -- have already scheduled a preapplication meeting for -- to discuss this on January 4th, 2006. And I will turn this stipulation over to the clerk. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, Ms. Blocker -- (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Blocker, on this agreement, 2005-39, I see, again, your father-in-law has signed this. Is this acceptable? MS. BLOCKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And I assume you're moving forward just like the other one? MS. BLOCKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ma'am. You may sit down. Does anybody have any questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to accept the agreement as submitted to the board. MS. BARNETT: I make a motion that we accept the agreement Page 11 November 18, 2005 ofCEB Case No. 2005 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Three-nine. MS. BARNETT: -- three-nine to the stipulation that the county has presented. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the agreement as submitted to the board. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying "aye." MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next Case 2005-043. And there's an agreement on this one also which Michelle gave me a copy of. It's the same format as the other two. But, Dennis, is this your case? MS. ARNOLD: And it's the Dennis board meeting today. MR. MAZZONE: Yes, this is my case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. When you're ready. MR. MAZZONE: I'm ready. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When you're ready. MR. MAZZONE: I have the stipulation on the screen. I don't know if you can really read that. Again, we had to cross the dates out and they have been initialed by Carmen Soto who's representing her father today and myself just as a measure of caution. MS. ARNOLD: And, Dennis, just to note that you're still sworn Page 12 November 18, 2005 so we don't have to swear you in again. MR. MAZZONE: Oh, I am still sworn. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Just note it for the record. And I did check and they're -- they're going to have somebody come down and turn on the monitors for you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. MR. BOWIE: It might not be before the meeting ends, but-- MS. ARNOLD: That's true. MR. MAZZONE: If I may, Michelle Arnold and myself have discussed the fact that we have three cases and three stipulated agreements because there are three different parcels involved here. We were wondering if we could ask your indulgence as to the costs involved. Each stipulation reflects the same costs, but we would believe it to be proper perhaps if there was only one cost incurred as this will once -- once resolved, it will -- all three parcels are involved in the resolution of this total matter. The property in question is comprised of five parcels. Only three are in violation and the costs really should be a one-time event. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The costs of -- MR. MAZZONE: The costs of the operational costs that are reflected on the stipulation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The operational costs are something that the county sets, so that's up to you. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you say it's X and we agree with it, X is what it will be. If you want to -- if you put X on each of them -- MR. MAZZONE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- then our order will be they're going to have to pay X on each of them. So the county needs to decide if they want to charge them one time on one and zero on the others, that's up to the county. Whatever you submit to us, we'll take under advisement. Page 13 November 18,2005 MR. MAZZONE: I see. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's going to be your decision to present to us. Okay? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We'll -- we'll split it up amongst the different orders. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, if the 246 is the only cost and you want to divide that by three, that's up to the county. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or if it's seven something and you've already done that -- MR. MAZZONE: I just thought I would mention that upfront because I'll be reading it three times and it might sound a bit -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but you have-- MR. MAZZONE: -- excessive. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you have to remember you started with three violations. Even though they're -- there's three parcels. So you have three separate violations. So when the board makes a decision, a decision will be on each parcel because they're individual cases. MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you brought them as one case, then it could have been one number. But since you have three cases, there will be three orders. And you have to present your numbers accordingly and we'll take that under advisement. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. Thank you. On September 8th, 2005, I met with Ignacio Soto, the owner of Star Mobile Home Park and his daughter, Carmen Soto, who's present today, and a Mr. Richard Shaw, who's a registered agent for the Star Mobile Home Park, at Mr. Soto's 417 15th Street North, Immokalee, Florida, office. I explained that Code Enforcement's reason for addressing Star Mobile Home Park development problems in three separate case Page 14 November 18, 2005 scenarios is due to the park being comprised of more than one parcel, each having independent Folio ID numbers. And we further discussed the need for Code Enforcement direction to acquire site improvement review and approval for increased development for all parcels in question. Case No. 2005-43 is concerning parcel -- Parcel 3. And Parcel 3 __ bear with me one moment -- currently has four mobile home type structures on it. I have a chart that I could -- I could share with you. I could show you the parcels if you'd like to take a look at that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know if it's necessary. Dennis, why don't you just go ahead with your agreement? Since you have an agreement, I don't think it's necessary to see where the parcels are. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. Very good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You and the respondent have agreed to something. Let's just present it and see how we go. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. The respondents agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of 400 -- I'm sorry -- $246.37 incurred in the preparation of this case. They further agree to abate all violations by contacting the Collier County Department of Zoning and Land Development and Review, to schedule a preapplication meeting with Collier County Planning staff within ten days of this Code Enforcement Board hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Also, the respondent shall submit a complete and sufficient site improvement plan application within 90 days after the preapplication meeting or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. This respondent shall act with due diligence in pursuit of an approved site improvement plan and obtain complete and sufficient Collier -- Collier County building permits for all approved additions, improvements in use within 60 days after the site improvement plan Page 15 November 18, 2005 approval or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. And the respondent shall receive all required inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days after issuance of the building permit or a fine of 250 days ( sic) will be imposed each day the violation continues. Or as an alternative the respondent shall obtain a complete and sufficient Collier County demolition permit within ten days after this Code Enforcement Board hearing or a fine of -- or within ten days after abandoned pursuit of a site improvement plan, whichever is applicable, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Upon having obtained a Collier County demolition permit, respondent shall then execute same by removing all nonapproved, nonpermitted additions, improvements in use and resulting debris within 90 days after this Code Enforcement Board hearing or 90 days after site improvement plan abandonment or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent shall provide Collier County Code Enforcement with written notification that the violations have been abated and request an on-site inspection. The Sotos have already met with -- with a preapplication meeting. So they've already met the requests of -- of scheduling one. That meeting took place on November -- November 16th, I believe, was it not? MS. SOTO: Yes. MR. MAZZONE: Yes. And Ms. Soto is present and they're well on their way to complying. I will turn a copy of this over to the clerk for her records. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the board have any questions? MR. BOWIE: Just as a matter of clarification now, the operational costs assigned to this particular agreement and this particular parcel are as shown on this Agreement 246-37? Page 16 November 18, 2005 MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir, it is. Yes, it's written in. MR. BOWIE: Another question. The stipulation agreement is drawn between Collier County Commissioners and Ignacio Soto on behalf of himself. The owner of the parcel, however, is a Florida limited liability company. Should that entity be shown as the respondent as well as a party to the stipulation? MR. MAZZONE: I have a -- I have a -- the notice was signed by Mr. Shaw. And I believe I have a stipulation signed by Mr. Shaw also. MR. BOWIE: Well, I guess what we need to determine -- MR. MAZZONE: As agent. MR. BOWIE: -- is a registered agent for a corporation or a limited liability company is not necessarily the party empowered to execute agreements on behalf of that entity. A registered agent by statute is simply the party who receives official notices directed to that entity -- MR. MAZZONE: Okay. MR. BOWIE: -- but may not be empowered to execute agreements on behalf of the entity. What we need to determine, then, is who is the manager or managing member of this limited liability company with the power to execute an agreement on its behalf. Is that Mr. Soto? MR. MAZZONE: Well, Mr. Soto signed the stipulation and Carmen Soto, his daughter, is in attendance in his behalf. MS. ARNOLD: Jean, is it -- is it something that you can answer? MS. RAWSON: If she's got his authority to sign, even if the registered agent has the authority to sign, then they can sign. So as long as the person who signed has the authority of the owner of the property to sign, it's -- it's a valid agreement. And I guess if the daughter's here and wants to testify that the person who signed had the authority to sign, we can do that. Page 1 7 November 18, 2005 MS. ARNOLD: The owner is who signed the agreement. MS. RAWSON: Okay. That's the right party. MR. BOWIE: So Mr. Soto is -- is the manager empowered to sign for the limited liability company, Star Mobile Home Park, LLC? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's ask the daughter. Ms. Soto, would you come forward, please? (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Soto, this is your father, Ignacio Soto? MS. SOTO: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And in this -- this limited liability corporation, Star Mobile Home Park, is he the president? chairman? manager? MS. SOTO: Manager. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's the manager. Okay. And as manager do you know if he has the power to sign for things for this corporation? MS. SOTO: Yes, he does. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: Just a clarification on the costs, these costs are to be divided by three? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now the county hasn't presented that. So as far as we're concerned, it's 246 for this particular agreement unless they change on the other cases. But right now this is for this one. Any other questions by board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to accept the stipulated agreement that has been presented on Case 2005-43. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion we accept the stipulation agreement for Case No. CEB 2005-43. Page 18 November 18, 2005 MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any -- MR. BOWIE: I would just like to propose an amendment to that. That is with the understanding that Ignacio Soto is, in fact, the manager of Star Mobile Home Park, LLC, with power to bind the limited liability company by his signature by stipulation. MS. BARNETT: I will amend my motion to that. MR. BOWIE: I will second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Richard? MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying "aye." MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Soto, thank you. We'll probably ask you to do this for each case. Rather than have you stand there, you can sit down. MS. SOTO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next Case 2005-44. Again, involving Star Mobile Home and there is an agreement? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And looking at it, Michelle has given me a copy. It looks pretty much identical other than the case number and -- Page 19 November 18, 2005 MR. MAZZONE: Again, on September 8th at the same -- at the same meeting we met with Ignacio Soto and his daughter, Carmen Soto, and the registered agent, Mr. Richard Shaw at his Immokalee office. And I explained the reasons for the Star Mobile Home Park development problems having been broken down into three cases as I had stated earlier. And we -- we discussed the need for this meeting due to the fact that we wanted to initiate the -- the site improvement plan process for these parcels. The parcel in question is Parcel No.2. And Parcel No. 2 currently has thirty-three mobile home type structures and three shed type structures and one single-family residence on that parcel. The Sotos stipulated to -- their -- their -- to pay operational costs, but they were reflected on the first case. There will be no operational costs on this case. They will all be documented under the case we just heard prior to this. They agree to abate all violations by contacting Collier County's Department of Zoning and Land Development Review, to schedule a preapplication meeting for Collier County -- with the planning staff within ten days after this hearing or a fine of $250 per day would be imposed each day the violation continues. Also, they shall submit a complete and sufficient site improvement plan application within 90 days after the preapplication meeting or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Also, they shall act with due diligence and pursue an approved site improvement plan and obtain complete and sufficient Collier County building permits for all approved additions, improvements in use within 60 days after site improvement plan approval or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violations continue. Also, the respondent shall receive all required inspections and a certificate of completion within 120 days after issuance of the building permit or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the Page 20 November 18, 2005 violations continue. Or as an alternative the respondent shall obtain a complete and sufficient Collier County demolition permit within ten days after this hearing or within ten days after abandoned pursuit of a site improvement plan, whichever is applicable, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Upon having obtained the Collier County demolition permit, respondent shall then execute same by removing all nonapproved, nonpermitted additions and improvements in uses and resulting debris within 90 days after this Code Enforcement Board hearing or 90 days after site improvement plan abandonment or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent further agrees to provide Collier County Code Enforcement with written notification that the violations have been abated and request an on-site inspection. Again, the Sotos preapplication that took place two days ago included this parcel along with the parcel we just discussed. I'll turn this over to the clerk. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And on this particular agreement, just so the board understands, the county is removing the 246 -- MR. MAZZONE: Correct. We're going to show a zero. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- down to zero? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. Jean, one question for you. Since Ms. Soto told us on the last order that her father was authorized to sign all these, I don't think we need to ask her on each order, do we? MS. RAWSON: You don't. Because I believe her -- her remark had to do with all three of them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Good. We'll save you a trip. Okay. We have a stipulated agreement. Again, the one change is that Page 21 November 18, 2005 Item 1, the operational cost, is being reduced to zero for this particular case, 2005-44. Other than that, the agreement as presented is unchanged. MS. BARNETT: I'll make the motion that we accept the CEB case stipulation of CEB Case No. 2005-44 with the one change to amend one to zero operational cost. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement as submitted with the change of reducing the operational cost to zero. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying" aye. " MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRlNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Case 2005-45, again, Star Mobile Homes and Mr. Soto. And there is an agreement? MR. MAZZONE: This case concerns Parcel No. 4.01 of the Star Mobile Home Park in Immokalee, Florida. I met on September 8th, 2005 with Ignacio Soto and his daughter, Carmen Soto, and Mr. Richard Shaw, the registered agent for Star Mobile Home Park, at Mr. Soto's 417 15th Street North, Immokalee, Florida, office. And as with the previous cases, explained our reasons for having to come before the board with this matter and obtained a signed notice of violation. And I obtained a stipulation agreement that day signed by Mr. Soto. Page 22 November 18, 2005 The stipulation agreement is as follows: First, I'd like to -- I'd like to let you know that Parcel 401.01 currently has five mobile home type structures and one shed type structure on it. The agreement states that there are zero operational costs as we had just discussed. And that the -- that the defendant will abate all violations by contacting Collier County Zoning and Land Development Review to schedule a preapplication meeting with Collier County planning staff within ten days of this Code Enforcement Board hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Respondent shall submit a complete and sufficient site improvement plan application within 90 days after the preapplication meeting or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Also, the respondent shall act with due diligence and pursue an approved site improvement plan and obtain complete and sufficient Collier County building permits for all approved additions, improvements in use within 60 days after site improvement plan approval or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent shall receive all required inspections and a certificate of completion within 120 days after issuance of the building permit or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Or as an alternative the respondent shall obtain and complete a Collier County demolition permit within ten days after the Code Enforcement Board hearing or within ten days after abandoned pursuit of a site improvement plan, whichever is applicable, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Upon having obtained a Collier County demolition permit, respondent shall then execute same by removing all nonapproved, nonpermitted additions, improvements in use and resulting debris within 90 days after this Code Enforcement Board hearing or 90 days Page 23 November 18, 2005 after site improvement plan abandonment or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent shall provide Collier County Code Enforcement with written notification that the violations have been abated and request an on-site inspection. Again, the Sotos have met the first request of a preapplication meeting two days ago. Any further questions on this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Dennis? Again, the agreement that he submitted, the change is the operational costs have been reduced to zero. Other than that, the agreement stands as submitted. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none I entertain a motion to accept the agreement as changed. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move on Case No. 2005-45, that the stipulation agreement as amended to reduce the cost to zero be accepted by the board. MS. BARNETT: That was operational costs. MR. BOWIE: Operational costs to zero. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I'm sorry. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Hearing none, all those in favor of the agreement submitted as changed say" aye. " MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 24 November 18, 2005 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That was our last case. We will close the public hearings on cases. The next item is new business. I see none listed. Old business, I see none. Reports, we have none. Before we proceed to comments, let's take five minutes. It's 20 after. We'll reconvene at 25 after. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a request from a member of the general public to make a comment to the board. I also understand there's some -- at least one or possibly more people that would like to make some comments to the board on a matter. Since our bylaws don't currently include this situation, it would be my recommendation to my fellow board members that what we do is permit these folks to make their comments. As with other people during cases, we'll give them three minutes and we will make no response. We'll take their -- whatever they have to say under consideration and advisement and where needed pass it on to the proper people, whether it be county staff or somewhere else. With that said with the board members since this is new territory for us, does that work? Do you have any change in any -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since I don't have a -- we don't have a registered list, what I'll do at this time is -- I guess you have to use this microphone. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, Mr. Chairman, the court reporter would like them to use this one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Up here? Okay. That's fine. I have a letter from Ms. Vokac. Page 25 November 18,2005 MS. VOKAC: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you'd like to speak, ma'am, or if you have somebody else from -- I don't know whether you're a homeowner, I assume? Do you have someone -- MS. VOKAC: I'm a homeowner and this is a board member. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A board member, okay. MS. ARNOLD: We would just ask when you do come up, please state your name for the record and if you do need to spell it, the court reporter will let you know. MR. FARNSWORTH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Duncan Farnsworth. I'm both a homeowner and a board member of the Kings Lake Homeowners Association. On September 22nd the CEB ruled on Case 2000-34 concerning Kings Lake Square, a violation that -- that Kings Lake had put up a wood fence which was in violation of the LDC. And the LDC stated that all fences between commercial and residential either be masonry or concrete precast construction. The developer had put up a wood fence without a permit. It was reported to Code Enforcement back in December of 2004. Previous to that Kings Lake Square and the residents have been trying to work the -- with the developer and the owner of Kings Lake Square to at least repair what was there or to replace the fence. It's a wooden fence. It's been in existence for more than 20 years. It was in a dilapidated, rotted state. The testimony I read of the -- of your board meeting, Mr. David Lee, which was representing Kite, Kings Lake, LLC, was trying to persuade the board just to have them go in to replace the wood fence or repair what was there. The fence was in such a dilapidated state that during the hurricane it just blew down like a match of sticks. Since then -- since your ruling the tables have actually changed. Now we have no buffer between the residents and the commercial area which is Kings Lake Square. Page 26 November 18, 2005 I'm here to appeal to the board to try to force the developer into putting some sort of temporary buffer, screen, fence in there to protect the homeowners from the traffic, the light pollution, the -- the people that are trespassing from the commercial area onto their residences. They have no privacy. The -- the board had given the developer one year from September 22nd to erect and abate the violations that he had -- that he had committed on this piece of property. We understand that. And we understand that the order's in and we're not trying to change that order. We're trying to get something up there temporarily to -- to protect the homeowners and hold the integrity of the LDC, which includes buffers between commercial and residential areas. I do have some pictures here that I could show as some exhibits. Do you have a -- is there a screen here that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now, unfortunately, sir, they end up up there. MR. FARNSWORTH: Do they? And you can't really see them? Would you like me to pass this around and you guys can look at them? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Arnold is behind you. If you give them to Ms. Arnold, she'll bring them to us, sir. Thank you. MR. FARNSWORTH: So that's our main objective here is to appeal to the board to find out if you can force the developer to at least abide by the LDC which requires buffers between commercial and residential. We know that the order stands, but -- but from now until September 22nd when he's mandated to put this up is quite a long time. And, truthfully, we do not trust this gentleman. He gave you false testimony during the -- during the -- during the hearing. He had made several statements that the fence was in repairable condition. This thing was so dilapidated, it was just -- it was -- it was not worth repaInng. Some of the monetary figures that he gave you which was Page 27 November 18, 2005 300,000 that he put into the Kings Lake Square, which is why you gave him the one year time frame, I could only pull up $200,000 worth of permits. So that testimony was -- was overexaggerated on what he told you he was spending. And we just -- you know, also as a board, Kings Lake Homeowners Association has tried -- has tried to call this gentleman which is representing Kite, Kings Lake, LLC, numerous occasions. He has not returned our phone calls. And we've also written him correspondence. He has not had the courtesy to at least respond to our letters. So, in fact, truthfully, we do not trust this gentleman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Farnsworth. MR. FARNSWORTH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there someone else from the association or homeowner individually? MR. VOKAC: Good morning. My name is Edwin Vokac, V, like in "Victor," o-k-a-c. I have a construction firm here in Naples, Vokac Construction. We live in Kings Lake. My wife had put some little notes together here as our house sits directly east of the shopping center here. The board is aware that Kings Lake Shopping Center we -- that we have attended, these people are very hard to reach and would not return our phone calls. This fence has been a long time in disarray since Hurricane Charlie it was. And the damages that have occurred there, approximately 16 to 24 feet of the fence has been deteriorated and falling down from our neighbor right adjacent to us. Being from the construction industry we are always aware of hurricanes and what has to be secured before hurricanes so other people won't incur -- incur property damage from our debris from job sites and so forth. This was not done at all. Because of deterioration of the fence nothing was done there to secure this fence before the hurricane. After the hurricane, which I met with some of the board members Page 28 November 18, 2005 here from the Code Enforcement, that they were unaware of -- that some of the -- I said about putting up a construction fence there. And they said, There is no construction. But of all this being done without permitting in the back which was done of all this fencing, they had started construction there. I said, It is because of the fact they did not even get a demolition permit when removing the rest of this fence and debris which they removed which was still partially standing. And they removed this without any permits again in violation as I feel that there was construction being done there. And that there should be a barrier put up. I hope with -- with this here, we've incurred damages there from deductibles and so forth of over five or six thousand dollars which we're going to have to payout. I hope that there -- there would not be any liability problems here because of the flying debris that hit our building. And probably I don't know if it did any damage to any other buildings or property. Luckily there was no loss in life or damage to -- to personals. Our neighbor, he spent over $1,000 on -- on repairs and trying to keep his property secured. This was where -- that was talking about the fencing that was removed there of over 24 feet. And that was from the last storm. That was 15 months ago. And nothing was done to either maintain it, repair it, or even put screening over it so that he would have privacy or secure the other sections there. We feel that -- from my wife and I and other homeowners this is almost unacceptable. And within this time frame that they will not -- I know they have an amount due for penalties, but will they be extended at that time as they say, well, doing circumstances of hurricane that they would not be able to get supplies. I don't think this would be acceptable. And I think that -- which we propose and I gave them a proposal to the development, Kite Development or property owners there, of the same type of fencing which we have in the front of Kings Lake which is very suitable. It withstood the hurricane wind loads. Page 29 November 18, 2005 And I think this should continue on around the property around Kings Lake in my opinion. I appreciate your time very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Anyone else from -- yes, sir. Come forward, sir. MR. MONNOT: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Code Enforcement Board. My name is Ray Monnot, M-o-n-n-o-t. I'm a 20 year -- 21-year resident of Kings Lake. What I want to reiterate, obviously, we're talking about a case that's in front of the board that the board has acted on already. In my opinion we have a health and welfare issue at stake there now. The-- with the fence down and, again, the fence is down. We have a situation where we have a tavern on those -- in Kings Lake Square. You have late-night operation. Obviously you have people drinking, coming in and out of there. There's a liquor store there. Some of ,- these folks have had strangers in their backyard. What we're trying to convey to you folks is that there is no more buffer between that commercial property and these folks's backyard. Those pictures that you have really don't do it justice. I will get you a videotape as soon as possible of before and after. But I want to encourage the board, please drive by there and I want you to see this for yourself. You just can't believe it. You just can't believe it. We would like two things from the board. Number one, we would like an immediate temporary remedy to that situation where we get up a privacy barrier until a Kite, Kings Lake, LLC, is forced to put up the permanent solution which you've given them until September of 2006 to do. The Kings Lake Board of Directors from which I'm empowered to speak will be working closely every month with you folks to ensure -- we want you to -- to enforce the law in the strictest sense. We do not want to see a landscape buffer there. We want a permanent wall buffer. And we would work with you to that end. Page 30 November 18, 2005 Again, please, please drive by there to see this for yourself. We need an immediate temporary remedy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Any other members of the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. The next item is our next meeting date. Next month is December. Michelle and I had a couple conversations about this. I kind of agreed with Michelle and I'll throw it on the table for the other board members. There's nothing drastic in the pipeline and since our meeting is kind of in the middle between, as I remember, Christmas and New Year's -- wasn't it the 29th, something like that, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle and I were kind of talking about we won't have a meeting in December if the board will agree and just pick up again at our normal meeting in January, the fourth Thursday, whatever that date is. I don't have a calendar. MS. ARNOLD: It would be January 26th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I throw that on the table for the members to consider. There is -- you know, Michelle's working hard. She's had some staff problems so she needs a little relief and we talked about how I would say nothing drastic in the pipeline. MR. BOWIE: Is that like a motion, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since it's a regularly scheduled meeting, I think we should make a motion that we -- MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- a motion to put the meeting until our January. MS. BARNETT: I'll make the motion that we move our next meeting to January 26th of 19 -- or 2006. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was going to say, that's the first Page 31 November 18, 2005 motion to have it in 19 something. MS. BARNETT: We're in trouble. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're way behind. MS. BARNETT: I was thinking of something else. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Sheri's got a motion on the floor that we dispense with our next month's meeting and it will be continued to our January meeting. MR. BOWIE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything else the board members would like to bring forward? Oh, I'm sorry. All those in favor of doing that, signify by saying" aye. " MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was so excited. Geez. Okay. Anything else anybody wants to bring forward? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any comments from the staff? Michelle? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, folks. Have a good holiday. I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have a good Thanksgiving and Christmas and New Year's. Page 32 November 18, 2005 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Page 33 ·'__._n'.'_.'_""._~"_""_'~___"'_"._'~"~~__~,..'~.~"'_'_'__"""""'''~w'.'_'''~~''''_'_'''_''''",''''~'"_''''"._'._,".~~ "....'.H..,......___.._,~._