Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/26/2006 R January 26, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, January 26, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County 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: Raymond Bowie Richard Kraenbring Jerry Morgan Sheri Barnett George Ponte Larry Dean Justin DeWitte Gerald Lefebvre (absent) Also Present Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Steven Griffin, Assistant County Attorney Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Patti Petrulli, Code Enforcement Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 26, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami 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 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. ELECTION OF OFFIClERS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 18, 2005 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion to Continue - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) B. STIPULATIONS - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2005-32 5400 TREETOPS DRIVE, NAPLES FL. (FOLIO # 00440000000) MARGARITA MUNOZ TRAVIS SNODERL Y ORD NO. 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 5.06.06(B) DESCRIPTION: ABANDONED POLE SIGN 2. CASE NO: 2005-36 CASE ADDR: PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR INTERSECTION OF SANTA BARBARA AND DAVIS BLVD. (FOLIO'S #00407360000, #00408400008, #00407320008) OWNER: HIGHLAND PROPERTIES OF LEE & COLLIER LIMITED (REGISTERED AGENT (JAMES SIESKY, 1000 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., NAPLES, FL.) INSPECTOR: JOHN OLNEY VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION(S) 2.02.03 & SECT10N(S) SIX (6) & SEVEN (7) OF ORDINANCE 99-51. DESCRIPTION: PROHIBITED LAND USE, IE; STORAGE OF HEAVY MACHINERY, TIRES, TRACTORS, SCRAP METAL, BATTERIES, TRUCK FRAMES, ETC. ON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY. ALSO THE PROHIBITED DEPOSITING AND ACCUMULATION OF LITTER, TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO VEGETATIVE DEBRIS. 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2005-047 758 PAN AM AVE., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 48075360009) RUSSELL & KAJA RISTEEN RON MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION(S) 2.01.00-3 DESCRIPTION: PARKING OF A COMMERCIAL TRAILER IN A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA. 4. CASE NO: 2004-048 CASE ADDR: 5088 AIRPORT ROAD N., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 25500000909) OWNER: DDR MDT CARILLION PLACE LLC REGISTERED AGENT- CT CORPORATION SYSTEM INSPECTOR: TRAVIS SNODERL Y VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41, AS AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION(S)10.02.06(B) DESCRIPTION: POLE SIGN WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC ys. Emestina Sacca 2. BCC ys. Rolando & maria I. Salazar 3. BCC ys. Ronald & Patricia Freeman 4. BCC ys. Patrice E. Savignano 5. BCC ys. Amerada Hess, Corp. 6. BCC Ys. Guadalupe Campbell 7. BCC ys. Robert G. F ranee 8. BCC ys. Larry & Corena Me V ey OLD BUSINESS CEB No. 2005-13 CEB No. 2005-25 CEB No. 2005-26 CEB No. 2005-28 CEB No. 2005-38 CEB No. 2005-42 CEB No. 2004-001 CEB No. 2004-039 7. 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS Notice of Elections in March 10. NEXT MEETING DATE February 23, 2006 11. ADJOURN January 26,2006 CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board of January 26, 2006. Let all please take note of the following: 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. Further, 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. And that will hopefully insure that two or three people are not speaking at once, and we can get a clear and verbatim record. Thank you. Before our roll call of the membership, let the record also reflect that Mr. Clifford Flegal has resigned as a member of the Board due to his relocation from Collier County. As Mr. Flegal had served as Chairman of the Board, as vice Chairman, I will now be serving as acting chairman. Certainly on behalf of the Board we wish to, for the record, also commend Mr. Flegal for his many years of service to Collier County, to this Board and as our Chairman, and we wish him well for the future. May we have our roll call, please? MS. PETRULLI: Good morning. For the record, Patti Petrulli, supervisor, Collier County Code In Enforcement. Sheri Barnett? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Richard Kraenbring? COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Gerald Lefebvre. I don't show an excused absence for Mr. Lefebvre. Raymond Bowie? Page 2 January 26, 2006 CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Justin Dewitte. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Larry Dean. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Here. MS. PETRULLI: George Ponte. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Jerry Morgan. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: So in the absence ofMr. Flegal and the absence of one of our regulars, both of our alternates will be empowered to vote at this meeting. Welcome. Thank you for being here. We have a quorum. Approval of our agenda for this meeting. Any changes or corrections, please? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. We have a motion that has been submitted to the department, a motion to set aside for the Savignano case. And that needs to be added to item number SA. And we have a stipulation, which is the case number 2 on your public hearings. Case number 2005-36, so that would be heard after that motion. And there has been a request to move item 6B -- excuse me, 6A6, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Guadalupe Campbell after your stipulations. So, whatever the pleasure of the Board is on that particular item. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. To do that would require us to, as a Board, vote to amend the agenda as well as waive the rules, which sets forth the order of agenda items. Is there a motion to do as has been requested? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll make a motion to approve the changes. Page 3 January 26, 2006 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: All in favor of the motion? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? Motion passes. So, my understanding then is that the request for imposition fines and liens in the case of Guadalupe Campbell is going to be heard by us immediately after the first stipulated case. MS. ARNOLD: Correct CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Very good. Thank you. Another item on our agenda, just for informational purposes at this point -- you'll see it on your agenda -- Election of officers. This is just for information at this point. As you know, members of the Board elect from among our members the Chairman and Vice chairman. This is done at our March meeting. And this is just a heads up for that. We're not going to proceed further with it of course today. Next agenda item, approval of our Minutes from the last meeting, which was back on November 18,2005. They have been electronically distributed to us. Any changes to the minutes of that meeting? Hearing none, is there a motion to adopt the minutes of the November 18,2005 meeting? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: So moved CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is there a second? CHAIRMAN BOWIE:: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion? Page 4 January 26, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: All in favor of adopting the minutes? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Minutes of the November 18th meeting are adopted. We'll now open our public hearing. The first of these is contested cases on the agenda to which there's been a stipulated agreement. Michelle, would you call the first of those? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, the first item actually is a motion to set aside, which you should all have a copy of. It's on case number 2005-28, Board of County Commissioners versus Patricia E. Savignano. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion to set aside fines and imposition? I thought we moved Guadalupe Campbell up. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: No, this one was first. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We haven't made any motion. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: We did this motion and then you go to your stipulation. Guadalupe is after the first stipulation. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: No, The first motion is motion to continue. This is not a motion to continue. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: They had it moved up. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I asked to amend -- there weren't any motions to continue. There was a motion, however, to set aside and ask that we hear that particular item first. The board would consider whatever the counsel representing the Savignanos would have to Page 5 January 26, 2006 request. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Let's put that -- I don't believe that was encompassed in the previous motion. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It was. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I have Campbell. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: No. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Was it the understanding that we're going to hear this now? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER DEAN: I thought it was Campbell too, so -- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Well, there was some misunderstanding. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Well, I did indicate that Savignano was the motion that was going to be added, as well as there was a stipulation for the 2005-36, and then Savignano would be heard after that. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Does the board have any objection to hearing what is a motion to vacate a previous order of the board in the case of Patrice Savignano at this point? Any objection on that? Hearing none, we'll hear it. Is there a representative of the respondent here present, would you come forward, identify yourself, your capacity in which you represent them, and your address, please. MR. BRANDENBURG: Good morning. My name is Gary Brandenburg. Thank you very much for amending your agenda today to hear our matter. I'm an attorney and I represent the Savignanos. Actually Pat Savignano, who owns the property. I am from North Palm Beach, Florida. My address is 660 US Highway One, North Palm Beach. And it's a pleasure to be here in Collier County this morning. And I have filed a motion to respectfully request your consideration to set aside a previous order of this Board. And the grounds for that motion are set forth in it. And let me go over it briefly with you. The Savignanos were charged with violations of Page 6 January 26, 2006 your codes with respect to the alleged improper clearing of some slash pines on their single family residence. The evidence will show if you grant our case, our request, that the Savignanos did everything they knew of to try to comply with your codes, in that they obtained the appropriate building permits to construct their home, obtained the appropriate building permits to construct the large shed on their site, obtained a letter of exemption with respect to the lake that was excavated on their site, and also obtained an exotic vegetation removal of permit for the site. And this particular area when they, in fact, removed the exotic, there wasn't a heck of a lot left. And consequently, your staff questioned the building permit, questioned the excavation permit, and questioned whether or not they had the appropriate permits to take down what were mostly dead slash pines. And, in fact, the evidence will show the very first entry by your staff in their log establishes that of the pines that were taken down, at least 50 percent of them were already dead and the others were in the process of dying. So, based on all that and coupled with the fact that Mr. Savignano at the time had just gone through a quadruple bypass surgery for his heart and was very ill. They had, not knowing your process, come before the Code Enforcement Board, and you have to acknowledge that it's not always an easy process for people that are not learned in it. They came before you and they were told that the quickest and easiest -- actually, Mr. Savignanos was told that the quickest and easiest way for him to get rid of all this problem was to sign a stipulation. And the stipulation called for him coming up with a plan and doing some mitigation. He was under the mistaken, all be it we agree mistaken on his part, understanding that that would require him to come up with this plan and maybe replant 50 or 60 small pine trees. So he signed the stipulation. The owner of the property, Mrs. Savignanos, was not present. She did not sign the stipulation, nor did she consent to it, but the stipulation was entered that day and all, low and behold afterwards when they went out and hired a professional to Page 7 January 26, 2006 come in with a mitigation plan, they went through with what they thought they were required to do. And it now appears that the mitigation plan required by staff may require as much as $100,000 or more of plantings of very large extensive areas. We believe the facts will show that the mitigation, if any, that would actually have been required if this matter went to hearing, and we were to survey the actual areas and the actual trees that were taken down in light of the exotic vegetation removal permits that were in fact granted, that the real mitigation that would be required, it would be much, much, much less than that. So, in light of all those facts, and understanding that Mr. Savignano was one, ill, perhaps a person representing him at that time may not have understood or explained to him whether he was, in fact, guilty of these charges or not, is misunderstanding of the stipulation. And in my view, anyways, what I would think would be really an equitable situation here, that to promote equity and really justice in your Code Enforcement matter, that you should allow him the opportunity to have a hearing and to present this evidence to you. We would respectfully request that you allow that. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Savignanos, as well as their hired professional, Mr. Clentz, are here today, and would be pleased to testify now with respect to what their understanding was at the time this stipulation was enter into on their part, if you desire to have that testimony. If you would -- the way I see it, nothing is lost here by giving them the opportunity to present their case to you as to the true facts in the matter. And, if anything, you know, the purposes of Code Enforcement, of getting to the true facts, making sure the codes are enforced properly, and imposing appropriate fines would be better served under this situation, if you were, in fact, to allow them to have a hearing on the matter. Nothing is lost by doing so. The trees that are allegedly the subject of this, of course, are already gone. If after the hearing you determined that they're in violation, you certainly still Page 8 January 26, 2006 have all the rights to impose whatever penalties, and that you might find to be appropriate. So, my request really does not put Collier County in jeopardy at all and only would further promote the real finding of the truth, and an appropriate penalty or mitigation plan. So, we would respectfully request you do that. If you want actual testimony to back up what I've told you today, we certainly can put the Savignanos under oath and ask them to say that. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Are there any questions of the respondents counsel? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I don't have a question, I just have one comment. And it's, generally just as you are representing them, they had an attorney, and Mr. Savignanos was here. So he was representing them so when they signed the stipulations, he was representing his wife. And we always ask the person when they sign the stipulation, if they have permission to represent. So with the attorney and Mr. Savignano here, she was being represented. That's my only comment. MR. BRANDENBURG: And I'm not questioning any of your motives or the fact that you go to great lengths to insure that everything is done fairly for all the residents of Collier County. I'm just suggesting that under this particular circumstance and the attorney, in fact, as you see in the Affidavit may have had some other things on their mind at the time. That you might find it in your best discretion to allow this case to be presented to you. As I said before, you really have nothing to lose by doing that. The only thing that you can gain is furtherance of the truth of what actually happened. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any other questions of respondent's counsel? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, this case was heard in July-- July 28,2005, and you all entered into an order at that particular time, and according to rules and regulations, the respondent would have 30 days on the issuance of that Order to request a rehearing. We do have Page 9 January 26,2006 Steven Griffin here from the County Attorney's Office. I don't know if Steven wants to add any other items regarding what's legal. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Yes, sir. Would you please identify yourself and your office? MR. GRIFFIN: Mr Chairman, my name is Steve Griffin. I'm with the Collier County Attorney's Office. I have reviewed the matter that we're discussing, and I would concur with Michelle Arnold on that point. It is in fact a matter of state law that the party has 30 days in which to appeal. And there's pretty clearly, what they have to do to appeal is not come back before you all. It's to go to the Circuit Court and ask that that Order be reviewed. It's pretty clearly been way longer than 30 days. It's been more like seven or eight months now. And there is case law from Florida that basically says late is late. So you have 30 days to do something. I also see in the materials here that there's no suggestion that the attorney was somehow precluded from being able to adequately represent his client. Although he may have had some problems. Doesn't necessarily tie it to this particular matter so, I would suggest that unfortunately, we may be talking about a situation where the appeal, or the request to revisit this case, is a little too late. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any questions of the county representative? Any discussion on the request to vacate the previous order and stipulation and to rehear this case de novo, I would assume. Any discussion from the board? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: We've never done it in the past when it's past the time. I hate to set a new precedent. I understand their concerns, but they have a channel to go through. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I guess I need some clarification as to what that channel is. Is it circuit court? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We have in our own rules, as well you should be aware, Article Nine -- I believe it's paragraph P, and it does, Page 10 January 26, 2006 in addition to the 30 day period for appeal to the Circuit Court, also allows a party to request a rehearing of an order. It says a party may request a rehearing of the Board's order based on the grounds the decision was contrary to evidence, or the hearing involved an erroneous ruling of law, within 20 days from the date of mailing of the order to the respondent. No request was made within that time frame either. So we need to be, I think, mindful of that. Is there any motion? COMMISSIONER PONTE: My feeling is that the estimate and the cost of it to come into compliance is not -- was not what I intended or envisioned in this case. Ifthere's a way to continue -- after all, the stipulation has been made. There was no request for review. If there's a way to maintain that and then to address the remedy, I'd like to do that. If not, I think there's no other option, but the respondent would have to take it to Circuit Court. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Yes, sir. Do you wish to respond? Please just identify yourself again for the record. MR. BRANDENBURG: Yes, this is Gary Brandenburg again. And as your Assistant County Attorney has indicated, that 30 day period, I believe would prohibit us now to go to Circuit Court. And the County Attorney's Office would probably argue that that was too late as well. I don't want you to think that there is a remedy to go to Circuit Court here when there isn't a remedy for these folks. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: May I ask a question as to why they didn't come back sooner? MR. BRANDENBURG: Health issues, and just not realizing that the problem was as significant as it was. It took them some time to bring on their expert, and it took their expert time to come up with the plan and submit it to the county before they recognized that the amount that they had inadvertently agreed to was so out of line with their anticipations. By that time, you know, both your rehearing period was long since past, and 30 day period was past. And then, Page 11 January 26, 2006 frankly, it took him some time to find a replacement attorney. They came all the way over to North Palm Beach to find someone that had some additional experience in Code Enforcement matters to assist them. And, you know, these are good residents of Collier County. It's not as though they had flagrantly tried to violate your rules, which is evident by their efforts to maintain the building permit, the excavation exemption, and the exotic removal. You know, they had dead trees. Dead pine trees, which is not something that is unique to their property, throughout all Florida now because of the, you know, variety of hurricanes that have damaged them, as well as the beetles and other things. They're dying all over the place. They just didn't realize it. And $100,000 plus all attorney fees and expert witness fees as a result. You know, this property could have been divided into four single family lots. All four of them could have gotten the building permits to basically allow them to clear cut the whole property. And, you know, it's just as a result of them wanting to have a larger piece. And in their attempts to follow the rules, they sort of got snagged up here on this. And, you know, they came into Code Enforcement trying to resolve the matter and unbeknownst to them, they signed off on something that was just way, way out of line with anything that they had imagined. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: This is probably off, but when did they hire their expert? MR. BRANDENBURG: I don't know. Let me ask them. (Unknown speaker) About a week after the stipulation was signed. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any other questions -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: -- directed to the county or to the respondent? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know, I mean, really this counsel was providing some testimony on what happened. You didn't have an Page 12 January 26, 2006 opportunity to hear from the investigator to show what efforts she took at the time to try to get them to come into compliance. This issue started a year prior to it actually coming to this Board. So, there's a lot of argument, he's absolutely correct that you did not hear. And you're hearing his side right now. Whether or not we're going to go through a whole evidentiary hearing, is a decision that you all have to make. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We need to make that decision now. In order to hear any more facts, evidence, testimony in this, we would need to grant this motion to set aside our order back on July 28th, vacate it and hear this De Nova from scratch. Is there any motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'm concerned about the precedent we're setting. With all the -- late is late. That's a state law. And we're -- just to override that, I just think we're on thin ice. MS. RAWSON: Thirty days is the deadline to appeal any order. He does have other remedies, you know, like a motion for reduction in fines or abatement of fines. But this is not a remedy that I think legally you can give him to set aside the order because it's untimely. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: There's a comment that if there isn't a remedy in Circuit Court because of the time has elapsed to file that appeal, would that be correct, or is that just an assumption? MS. RAWSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: That is correct. There is no remedy in Circuit Court? MS. RAWSON: There is not. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Well, at this time, only because I don't want to set a precedent and because it is state law, I'm going to make a motion that we decline this request. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: There is a motion on our part to deny respondent's motion to set aside the order in the Savignano case. Is Page 13 January 26,2006 there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Before we take that vote, what is -- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Well, I need to know if there's going to be a second, and then we can have discussion. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Now we can have discussion. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I think we have to explore the remedy here. What can be done? If we take this vote and we, and it passes, then what happens? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Jean says they have the right to come back and ask for abatement of fines. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Of fines. But it's not really. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: The fine is not of concern. COMMISSIONER PONTE: It's not the fines. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: It's the cost of what they agreed to do. COMMISSIONER PONTE: It's not the $100,000 plus to come into compliance. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I think our hands are tied because of the state law. They are late. That's not our fault. MS. ARNOLD: Well, their landscape architect, I believe, has an opportunity to meet with our environmental staff and discuss what mitigation is being proposed. I don't think that that meeting has ever happened. I don't know what is being proposed for revegetation on that property, you know, so-- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We don't want to get into that. We're not going to hear anything about the facts of that matter or mitigation that might be available. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Mr. Chairman, if that being the case, could we then continue this to another date, giving the parties time to talk with an expert and see what another mitigation cost might be? MS. RAWSON: If! might, if you look at the motion that's Page 14 January 26, 2006 before you, it is entitled motion to set aside order and to set matter for hearing or in the alternative, an order granting the postponement of the January 26th hearing for imposition of fines. So he's got really two motions here. And you can vote on them separately because you've only got a motion on the floor -- you've only got a motion on the floor to vote on his motion to set aside or vacate the order. But he does have two motions, and the second one is for a continuance of the hearing on the imposition of fines. So you should also vote on that one after you vote on this one. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Let's proceed to vote on the motion to set aside the order. All in favor, please say aye. This is to deny the -- to setting aside the order and rehear it. All in favor of denying that, please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Those in favor of granting the respondent's motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: The motion is denied. There is in conjunction with this a second motion conjoined with this that we issue an order to postpone the hearing which is scheduled today to impose fines and/or liens in this particular matter. Did you want to address that, sir? MR. BRANDENBURG: Yes. I think that in line with some of the Board members' thinking, if you were to grant our motion to postpone the imposition of fines and liens, our expert could meet with your staff and try to sort through what is maybe more appropriate in Page 15 January 26, 2006 the way of mitigation and hopefully reach an agreement on that. Prior to your imposition of the fine. And if that were the case, then perhaps I could then file another motion for reduction of fine, assuming that we're able to reach an agreement and my client progresses expeditiously to do the mitigation. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: My impression is that we could proceed with the hearing and imposition of fines and liens, and the respondent could still come back subsequently for abatement. Is that not correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: So they still retain that right even if we proceed with the scheduled imposition of fines. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I would rather give them a chance to meet with county before we actually go through that process so I would rather continue it. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: I agree. I think we're not here -- we're here to get the work done. And so considering there maybe some extenuating circumstances, I think that it's the best interest of both parties to allow them to meet with the experts and see what they can do. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Does the county have a position on the postponement of our hearing today for fines or liens? MS. ARNOLD: We wouldn't have any objections to postponing this another month. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any other comment? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll make a motion that a continuation be granted for 60 days. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: There's a motion and a second that the hearing for imposition of fines and liens in the case Board of County commissioners versus Patrice Savignano be postponed and held 60 days hence -- let's say 60 days at our meeting two months hence of Page 16 January 26,2006 today's date. MS. RAWSON: What's the March date, Michelle? Do you know? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: This would be at our March meeting. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I'll tell you in a minute. COMMISSIONER DEAN: The 23rd? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the 23rd. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Which would be at our meeting scheduled March 23rd. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion to postpone hearing of the imposition of fines and liens in this case until our March 23rd meeting, please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: That motion passes. Thank you very much. MR. BRANDENBURG: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I'm hoping we'll be able to resolve of all our issues. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Up next item in our agenda is the stipulated matter. Is there someone here from the county that would present that stipulation, please? MS. ARNOLD: That would be John Olney. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Would you identify yourself, sir, please, and your office. MR. OLNEY: Good morning. John Olney, Code Investigator, Collier County. Page 17 January 26, 2006 CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Would you please swear in, Mr. Olney. (Sworn.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Proceed, sir. MR. OLNEY: This matter involves a pretty large tract ofland roughly sitting just west of the Boys & Girls Club on Davis Boulevard. If you're coming down Santa Barbara and didn't stop, cross Davis you'd run into this tract of land. Began in April of last year. It involved the storage of large machinery, body parts, tires. Just lots of items that should not be stored on undeveloped land. Entered into a stipulation with Mr. Robert Cadan representing Highland Properties of Lee and Collier County and the stipulation is as follows: Shall remove non-operational equipment, specifically a Hundai loader, by February 28, 2006 to include debris currently in dumpsters on site, or a fine of $50 a day until compliance is reached. Permit, Collier County Building permit number 2005-110712 covers remaining equipment on site needed for the job and removal of vegetative debris. Period. Folio numbers 0040800008 and 000407320008 are clear of liter and debris. This case involved three folios. The violation remains on one of the initial three. There was one change this morning that Mr. Cardenhedt had made on the stipulation that I just read to you. The first line states, shall remove all non-operational equipment. He objected to the word all. As I read it initially to you it says, shall remove non-operational equipment. He states that all equipment is -- or question, will be operational February 28th. And at this point there is only one that is not -- is in need of an engine. A back track hoe of some type. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Excuse me, Mr. Bowie. I need to recuse myself, as I am related to the gentleman. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. Let the record show that Sheri is recusing herself due to previous relationship with the respondent. Thank you, Sheri. Any question of the county regarding this stipulation? Page 18 January 26, 2006 MR. OLNEY: Sir, Pardon me. I might add that he also agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $436.08 he incurred in the prosecution of this case. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I see that here. Is there a representative of the respondent present? Would you identify yourself, sir, and your capacity representing the respondent, which is Highland Properties of Lee and Collier County as well as your address? MR. CADENHEAD: Robert Cadenhead, agent for Highland Property of Lee and Colllier, address is 3145 Cherokee Street Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, sir. Now when you say you're -- their agent, agent in what capacity? MR. CADENHEAD: Of the land as far as permitting, taking care of the land. We're certified to be the agent for the property. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Do you have -- have you -- have they executed to you a power of attorney? MR. CADENHEAD: That's correct. I settled the other matter with the county as the agent, so -- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I'm asking -- our rules require that unless you're an attorney, or in fact the respondent, or in this case one of the partners, which would be deemed representing the respondent, do you have some documentation of your agency to enter into this agreement? MR. CADENHEAD: We can supply that to the court. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Cadenhead has been before the board, in fact, and represented the Highland Property of Lee and Collier County. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I don't want to get a situation where someone comes here and on his say so he says I have authority to sign this thing, and then an attorney shows up later and says he did not have such authority. He misrepresented himself. He says he was an agent, but he was not an agent. Or his scope of agency did not encompass a power to enter into this kind of agreement. Page 19 January 26, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Right. And Mr. Cadenhead, indicated that you'll provide us that -- MR. CADENHEAD: Yeah, I'll provide you that. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Please. MR. CADENHEAD: Okay. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, sir. Did you have any comment to make on the stipulation agreement? MR. CADENHEAD: No comment. We have a permit to be on the property and I agreed with the county of what we would do. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Would we ask the secretary to retroactively to please swear in Mr. Cadenhead who will also be asked then to affirm the testimony he has rendered here today. (Sworn.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And Mr. Cadenhead, for the record __ you've been sworn in, you reaffirm everything you presented here today; is that correct? MR. CADENHEAD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Including the scope of your agency? MR. CADENHEAD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, sir. Any questions, comments from the Board as to the stipulation agreement? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yeah, just a clarification. Are we talking about if this doesn't come into compliance, a fine of$50 a day, is that correct? Is that what you -- MR. OLNEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I felt that was a little low for the amount of violations that actually exist here. And I'd like to suggest that the fine be $100 a day rather than $50 as stipulated. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any other comment regarding the stipulations agreement? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Very well. Let me ask the respondent __ Page 20 January 26, 2006 MR. CADENHEAD: I object to the $100 a day. I have a permit to be on the property from the county issued from the county. I agreed with the county to settle this at $50, and the stipulation is where we're at. In other words, this is what I agreed to. If I didn't have a permit to be on the property, then I would be at your mercy. COMMISSIONER PONTE: If you're going to clear it up and that's your intention, then what's the objection? MR. CADENHEAD: The objection is, I already entered into an agreement with the county. In other words, we worked it out. The $50 is -- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Sir, we've got to point something out to you. That agreement is only a proposed stipulation. Until we accept it, you have nothing. And maybe you should understand that, sir. MR. CADENHEAD: Okay. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Don't come in here and tell me you have a cut and dry agreement. You have nothing. MR. CADENHEAD: Okay. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: All right. Does the county have any concern, question, objection to increase of the fines? MR. OLNEY: No objection, sir. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: No objection. Is there any discussion, further discussion of this Board, either as to the amount of the fine or any other issue raised by this stipulation? George, are you putting that in the form of a motion, that the stipulation agreement be denied? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Well, the stipulation agreement be amended so that the fine is $100. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I don't believe we can amend it in the absence of the agreement of the respondent. We would have to hear the case. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Then I -- we should hear the case. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. So then what you're proposing, what you're moving is that the stipulation agreement as presented to us Page 21 January 26, 2006 be denied, and the case be heard? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is there a second to that motion? MR. CADENHEAD: Excuse me for a minute. To get this thing moving, I will accept with the county to initial the $100 because everything is going to be cleaned up within the period of time. So all it is is delay. I'll go over and sign the stipulation for the hundred dollars, and that's what you'll have. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We have heard testimony from the respondent that he will, before he leaves today, initial a revision in the stipulation agreement for the fine to be raised to $100 a day in lieu of 50. With that being deemed part of the stipulation, is there a further motion to accept the stipulation as amended? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll move to accept the stipulation as amended. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is there a second to that? COMMISSIONER DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion on the motion to accept the stipulation agreement as amended? Hearing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of the motion to accept the stipulation agreement as amended, please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Against? (No response.) COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: No. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Abstain. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: One against, and Sheri has recused herself. The motion passes, and the stipulation agreement as amended Page 22 January 26, 2006 with $100 a day fine is accepted. Thank you. MR. OLNEY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: The next case we will call in the order of hearings would be -- are there any other cases of which there is a respondent present? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We'll then move to the Guadalupe matter. The Board of County Commissioners versus Guadalupe Campbell imposition of fines and liens. Do we have a representative of the County? Please identify yourself, sir, and your office. MR. MAZZONE: For the record, I am Dennis MAZZONE, Code Enforcement Investigator for Collier County Government. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And we have a representative here present for the respondent. Would you identify yourself, your capacity and your address, please, sir? MR. FERGUSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is attorney Tim Ferguson. I represent Guadalupe Campbell. My address is 4265 Bonita Beach Road, Bonita Springs, 34134. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, sir. This is a hearing to impose fines and liens in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Guadalupe Campbell. Case number 2005-42. Let's find that case before us. Mr. Mazola, we'll swear you in now to testify, please, SIr. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, in this particular matte, it's more me reading into the record information, and I don't know whether or not Mr. -- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: He'll then be afforded the opportunity to respond and sworn in at that time. MS. ARNOLD: Right. Whether he's requesting anything on that. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Right. MS. ARNOLD: This item, as you indicated, is code enforcement board case number 2005-042. And it's Board of County Page 23 January 26, 2006 Commissioners versus Guadalupe Campbell. The matter was heard before the Board on September 22, 2005, at which the Board found in violation and the order imposed by the Board is attached for your information. Weare here today to request imposition of fines in the amount of $2831.22 for operational cost, which is in that amount of $331.22. And then fines that had be accruing at the amount of $250 per day for the period between January 1, 2006 and January 20, 2006 for a total of $2,500. There are other fines that are continuing to accrue because this matter is not in compliance. And Mr. Fergeson is here to represent his client. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. Will -- Representing the respondent, will the secretary please swear in the attorney, legal counsel for the respondent? (Sworn.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Sir, you want to make a case as to why we should not impose these fines and liens in this matter? MR. FERGUSON: Sure, but I'll go ahead and defer to Mr. MAZZONE, and let you fill the Board in on our discussions, and then I'll -- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Mr. MAZZONE -- secretary, please swear in Mr. MAZZONE as well. (Sworn.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Very well, sir. Would you proceed for the record. MR. MAZZONE: Yes. This court has heard the Campbell case, and we arrived at the fines that were to be stated for the time frame set in this case. Mrs. Campbell and her family of met with Collier County to discuss their options of either going with a subdivision change for the property in question or going for site a improvement plan to accommodate the county's needs and requirements. The Campbell's had a very difficult time arriving at an answer to the question and hired someone to assist them, and the time and efforts spent in this Page 24 January 26, 2006 matter have brought us to this date. The Campbell's were of the impression that it would be a lot less money to go with the subdivided arrangement for this property, and to their benefit in the future, and it seems as though they might have changed their minds now because of the increased prices, and want to go the site improvement plan route. This is something they've been discussing with their attorney, and we've been in communication with Mr. Ferguson and we're willing to work with them keeping them aware of the fact that indeed the fines are still accumulating in this case. MR. FERGUSON: If it pleases the Board, the Campbell's are not wealthy people. They have four not so new trailers on a lot. The value of the property is probably $150,000. When they looked at what it was going to cost them to subdivide it, it was going to be in the neighborhood of excess of$50,000. A third of the value of their property. I don't know that the trailers have any value. They might have some value, but I don't know if they have much. Mrs. Campbell herself, 70 years old, heart condition. Her daughter that lives in another trailer, has cancer, and is a widow. These people are challenged with this. When they found out how much money it was going to be, they hired me. And we've looked at a number of different options at trying to solve the problem without it costing a whole lot of money. Ifwe have to do a site improvement plan, it will cost them in the neighborhood of$25,000 -- $23,000, $25,000. We could go before the Board of Commissioners and ask for a variance. That would cost in the neighborhood of $5,000, and that would be the cheapest way to go. And I suppose -- I've asked the Campbell's to sit down with me on Monday and make the decision of, you know, how they want to proceed. If we go before the Board of Commissioners and they turn us down, we're right back in the position we would be anyway so they're gambling 5,000 on that. I think it's pretty compelling circumstances. You know, it's not Port Royal down there. Page 25 January 26,2006 And so we're just requesting the sympathy of the Board and, you know, we'll of course come back and, you know, if you choose to impose the fines to push them along, I can assure you that I'm moving it along as fast as I can. I'd rather not be fined, but I can always come back and ask you to abate the fines when the situation is handled. But I assure you that I'll be working diligently on it with staff. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any questions either for the county or for the respondent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And this then, sir, is a request, I take it, on your part to postpone the imposition of fines and liens until such time as you can further explore what avenues you wish to pursue? MR. FERGUSON: That would be my position. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Michelle, does the county have a position? MS. ARNOLD: I didn't really think about this, but I guess one month would not be anything to, you know, object to. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: The county is fine with the postponement to our next month's meeting. Would you address that? Is that satisfactory for your purposes? MR. FERGUSON: Well, I appreciate the gesture, but I think it's possibly going to be better to just, instead of dragging me back in here and having her to have to pay me, you know, if I have to come back next month, it's probably not going to be done next month. I mean, if we have to do a site improvement plan, I don't see it getting done in 30 days, and we certainly won't be able to get before the Board of Commissioners that quickly. Instead I probably would just ask that if you're going to -- I'll revisit it when it gets done, and then you can decide if you want to abate the fines or not, instead of having me __ we're trying to make it as cheap on these people as I possibly can. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Can I ask you, sir, how long ago were you retained by them to pursue the site improvement plan? Page 26 January 26, 2006 MR. FERGUSON: December, mid December. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And this was a stipulation they signed September 22nd. MR. FERGUSON: I understand that. Then they went out and hired a survey company, who went out and started surveys to do this plat, and then they gave them a bill for $57,000. When they gave them the bill for $57,000 saying this is what we need to complete the process, they went, Oh, my God, $57,000, we don't have $57,000, and then they hired me. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: The other alternative, of course, in the stipulation was that they would secure a demolition permit, or remove the trailer. MR. FERGUSON: Then they have no place to live. They're homeless. MS. ARNOLD: I think Sal's recommendation, because of the amount of time that it's probably going to take them to come into compliance is to go ahead and impose fines and then they can come back because, there is no -- I can't say how long it's going to take Mr. Ferguson to submit something and then there's the review time and those types of things. MR. FERGUSON: All I can suggest to the Board is I'm going to work diligently with staff, and I'm going to provide them updates so when I come back to ask you to abate everything, you'll know that I was diligent at what I was attempting to do. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I appreciate that, sir. So far as the request for the respondent to postpone the imposition of fines and liens which was scheduled on our agenda today. Is there motion on the Board to grant the respondent's motion to extend for as the county had exceeded until our next monthly meeting? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: At this point, I think they both kind of agree that that's not going to serve a purpose. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: So there's no such motion, in which case Page 27 January 26, 2006 we will proceed with the hearing on the imposition of fines and liens on this case. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Well, I would make a motion, but I would extend the period of time. It's just that 30 days just isn't enough time to get -- to accomplish what has to be accomplished. So if we do a motion to extend it and revisit this in -- MR. FERGUSON: 90 days? CHAIRMAN BOWIE:: -- 60 days. MR. FERGUSON: I mean, it's probably going to take 90 days, I would think. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I think that's reasonable. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Again, we can impose fines and liens and revisit this with a motion for abatement subsequently. That would be the other alternative. MR. FERGUSON: And I have to come back before you anyway, I just don't want to have to keep on coming back -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: -- every 30 days. MR. FERGESON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: So, is it the pleasure of the Board, George has made a motion that the hearing on fines and liens be postponed for 90 days? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: So this is a motion now to postpone our hearing on fines and liens until our meeting three months hence of today's date. Michelle, what date is that, three months hence? MS. ARNOLD: That would be April 27th. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: All right. At our April 27th meeting, we will hear fines and liens in this case. Any discussion of that motion for postponement? Page 28 January 26, 2006 COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: I think we should maintain the fines and liens, you know, as of today because that is what compels people to maybe comply with the orders of the Board. Come back, revisit it, and if everything is done, you know, we have sympathy to people in hardship cases, then we can act on, you know, abating those fines. But, not to impose the fines at this time. It takes away some of the power, too, of the Board CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any other discussion on the motion to postpone? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'm just wondering if90 days is going to be enough to get a stipulation agreement done and everything past. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: You mean a site improvement? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Or a site improvement plan. As Michelle said, you can't really tell how long that's going to take, you know, which means that technically ifhe didn't get it accomplished in 90 days, he would be back here which would cost the people more money for him to show up to ask for another extension. So we'll get back in the cycle of extending and extending and extending. COMMISSIONER PONTE: But it keeps it alive. If it goes to the next logical extension, 90 days and a half year, that's a lot of time to go to sleep. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: That's why I'm kind of -- I like the idea of trying to give them an extension, but I think it would be maybe better served to go ahead and follow through with what we have on the docket and go ahead and impose the fines and then let him come back when it's done and ask for the abatement. Because at that time we can really address the issue. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: In the long run that might save them money because they won't have to hire him to come back. MR. FERGUSON: If I could add something. I believe in the compassion of the Board, so I don't think that, you know -- if I'm Page 29 January 26, 2006 reading this correctly, I think that's probably the best thing to do in the long run for them. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, sir. In my own opinion, I think the opportunity for remedy available to the respondents would be the same. Whether we postpone this for 90 days and impose fines and liens at that time, whether we do it now and allow them the opportunity they always have to come back for an abatement. The opportunity for remedy is the same. And hence, I would be in favor of proceeding with the hearing on fines and liens today. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Okay. I'm convinced. I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion is withdrawn. Is there a motion then that we proceed with the hearing on fines and liens today? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we proceed with the fines in hearing today. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll vote. In favor -- those in favor of having our hearing on fines and liens in this case today, please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion carries, so we will hear fines and liens. Since we're on that agenda item, we'll proceed with that agenda item at this point. Page 30 January 26, 2006 MR. FERGUSON: I have no opposition. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, sir. Any discussion on the motion to impose fines and liens as recommended in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Guadalupe Campbell, case number 2005-042? Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: So moved. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion to impose the recommended fines and liens as set forth here. A second to that? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor of imposing the recommended fines and liens as set forth herein, please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Sir. MR. FERGUSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And again, you can come back at any appropriate time in the future for the motion for reduction or abatement. MR. FERGUSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We'll return now to the regular order of our agenda. Case hearing, this would be case 2005-32, Board of County Commissioners versus Margarita Munoz. Is the representative for the county present? Is there a representative for the respondent present? Thank you. Okay. Sir, on behalf of the county, would you identify yourself and your office. Page 31 January 26, 2006 MR. SNODERL Y: Good morning. For the record, Travis SNODERL Y, Investigative Supervisor of Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. And for the respondent, sir, identify yourself. MR. FERGUSON: Tim Ferguson, I'm the attorney for the respondent, 4265 Bonita Beach Road, Bonita Springs, 34134. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We would like to swear in the county's representative, please. (Sworn. ) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And the county's respondent is previously sworn. Proceed, sir with the county's case. MR. SNODERL Y: Good morning. MS. ARNOLD: First -- I'm sorry to interupt you, Travis, we just need to enter the information into the record for the case and ask that you will accept our exhibit. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: It's been requested that the charging packet that's been provided to us be entered into evidence. Is there a motion to accept the information? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion? Call the question, we'll proceed on a motion has been made to accept the county's charging packet as evidence in this case. Those in favor? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? It's accepted. Proceed, sir. Page 32 January 26, 2006 MR. SNODERL Y: Thank you. MS. PETRULLI: For -- I'm sorry. I will go ahead and read you the violation. For the record, Patti Petrulli. This is a violation of Sections 5.06.06B of Collier County ordinance 04-41 as amended. A description of the violation is an abandoned pole sign. The location where the violation exists is 5400 Treetop Drive. And that is folio number 00440000000. The name and address of the person in charge of the violation is Margarita Munoz. The violation was first observed on April 19, 2004. The owner was given a Notice of Violation on August 16th of2005. The violation was to be corrected by August 30 -- excuse me, August 30th of2005, and the date of reinspect ion was December 13th of2005. The last reinspection. The results of that reinspection showed that the violation remained. At this time, I'd like to turn the case over to investigator SNODERL Y. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Go ahead, sir, you've been sworn in. MR. SNODERL Y: I'll try this again. Just for the Board's pleasure, I would like to advise you that the violation has been abated. The county's position at this point would be that we just ask for operational cost. In this particular case, that is an amount of $276.39. I have spoken to the respondent and their representative, and they are in agreement to do so. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Would you like to affirm that, please. MR. FERGUSON: Yes, we are in agreement. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. There's been apparent agreement and -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: That's the nature of the stipulation. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: But a motion still needs to be made. And the motion is that operational costs -- MS. ARNOLD: We need a finding of fact. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. We need to have a finding of fact first. Is there going to be a motion as has been stipulated that it exists Page 33 January 26, 2006 -- a finding of fact that the violation as charged in the county's charging document does exist? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'll make a motion that in the case of Collier County Board of Commissioners versus Margarita Munoz, CEB case number 2005-32 that there was a violation. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER DEAN: Second to that motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, the finding that a violation that does exist as charged, please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: That motion carries. We now need a motion for determination of the order of the Board. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'll make a motion that in the case CEB number 2005-32 saying that it has been abated. That we go ahead with the county's request for operational cost of $250 . MR. SNODERL Y: $276. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Or $276. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: $276 and there was some pennies. MR. SNODERL Y 39. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. Motion is made that operational cost be imposed. Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion? Those in favor of Page 34 January 26, 2006 imposing operational costs in this matter please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: That motion carries. Thank you very much. MR. SNODERL Y: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Let me call the next case, which is number three under C of your agenda. Case number 2005-47. Let me ask the court reporter, is this a time you want to break, or do you want to continue? (Thank you, please continue.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. Case number 2005-47. Board of County Commissioners versus Russell and Kaja Risteen. Okay. We have representatives here from the county as well as the respondent. Is that correct? MS. RAWSON: For the record, Mr. Chairman, this is a violation of Section 04-41, Section 2.01.00-3. The description of the violation is parking of a commercial trailer in a residentially zoned area. The location and address where the violation exists is 758 Pan Am Avenue, Naples, Florida. The name of the owner or person in charge of the location where the violation exists is Russell and Kaja Risteen, 758 Pan Am Avenue, Naples, Florida. The date the violation was first observed was July 27th of2005. The Notice of Violation was given on July 27th of2005. The violation was to have been corrected by September the 12th of2005. A reinspection was done on December Page 35 January 26, 2006 8th of 2005, and at that time it was found that it was still in violation. The respondents have been given a packet, and I'd like to -- of the information -- and I'd like to enter that in as Exhibit A at this time. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: County has requested that the charging documents as presented to the respondent in our packet be accepted into evidence. Those in favor? MS. ARNOLD: Can I just make a correction for the record? Instead of -- Ms. Petrulli said in Section 0441, it's actually Ordinance 0441. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Ordinance. Okay. Right. 0441. Fine. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the packet. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion made and seconded that the charging packet be accepted. Those in favor. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Against? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: The packet is accepted. Thank you. I'd like to call the representative of the county. Sir, would you identify yourself, and your office. MR. MARTINDALE: Robert Martindale. Investigator of Collier Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. And the representative here for the respondent. Would you please identify yourself, sir? MR. RISTEEN: Russell Risteen. Page 36 January 26, 2006 CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And you are the respondent? MR. RISTEEN: Right. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Would the secretary please swear in both parties? (Sworn.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Very well, sir on the behalf of the county, would you make your presentation? MR. MARTINDALE: I think Ms. Petrullijust about stole my thunder there. On the date specified I went to Mr. Risteen's address from an anonymous complaint of a commercial trailer being parked in the side yard. I met with Mr. Risteen there that date. It was, in fact, an approximately 30-foot by 13 inch tall standard Freihoff semitrailer, eight wheels and a connector on the front of it. I advised Mr. Risteen of the complaint and the county ordinance prohibiting same. I served him with a notice of violation, which he signed in my presence and view, and I left him a copy of the Notice of Violation along with the attached violation of County Codes and Ordinances. I responded the following week to see if he complied with the order. He had not and was affixing some lattice work to the side of the trailer. He had interpreted the ruling different than myself. Part of it, of section three of 200 1, states that a vehicle parked in an area of a main structure. either has to be enclosed or enclosed in a vegetative screening. Mr. Risteen thought that he could place the lattice work on the trailer. He already painted the entire trailer green, he affixed the lattice work there where he advised me he intended to attach vines and other vegetation to help secrete the trailer from the neighbors' views. I've never come across anything like this before, so I allowed Russell some additional time to check into it, and I also did with planning. We subsequently had a ruling. My Senior Planner, Ross Gochenaur -- basically Michelle has it there. It's a memorandum stating that it's the opinion of Zoning staff and the intent of the code that the required vegetative screening, in question is freestanding planted in the ground, Page 37 January 26, 2006 and not physically attached to the commercial equipment being screened. Placing vegetation living or dead on the intended transportation of goods materials in support of a business and not for permanent storage of goods, materials. Attaching the vegetation to the trailer does not support the owner's contention that the trailer is a road-worthy commercial equipment able to be hitched and towed immediately. And not being used in place of an accessory structure, which would require a building permit. And that Mr. Risteen ifhe wished to contest this opinion, could seek the proper procedure and he would submit for an official interpretation from the the LDC from Susan Murray, the Zoning Director, along with the required $1,500 fee. I'd like to also bring to your attention, I have some photographs here. The first one indicates coming down Pam Am Avenue westbound. As you can see behind the six-foot privacy fence, the 13 foot trailer with the attached lattice work. Second photograph indicates a closer view of it, still on the public street. The third one is a head-on from the public street ofMr. Risteen's driveway. You will note that the neighboring structure at the rear has a very disconcerting view of the top of the trailer when they look out the side of their second story bedroom window there. Also part of the code ordinance states that it shall be screened, either vegetatively, completely enclosed and not visible from the street or adjacent properties. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any questions of the county's representative? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Very well. We'll hear on behalf of the respondent. Sir. MR. RISTEEN: First of all, thank you for hearing me. When I was cited on this container business, I contacted as many people as I could at the county not knowing anything about this. I did find a Dave Hendrix who told me that as long as I tagged it, had wheels on it and Page 38 January 26, 2006 vegetatively screened it, I would be okay. Also I went down with Ron and went to planning and they said basically the same thing. That's when I painted it. That's when I put up the lattice. And that I thought -- we weren't sure -- I thought we could put plants on the thing since I told him I'm not going to move it. It's basically -- I built the house myself. That has my storage, my wood, floor and my trim, my doors, a bunch of other stuff for the house in that and that's where I kept it. As I get to the house, that section -- I take stuff out of it and go put it on the house. That's what that has been doing there since we broke ground. That's the job of that container. The container is really 20 feet long, it's 11 feet high. Same height as a Ted Shed, by the way, because I had to look into trying to get it as a storage unit, and they said that I had to get some kind of building permit for 150 mile an hour wind gusts. And then I called my engineer who did the stuff on my house, and he said, well, this is something new. You know, so I don't know where to go with that. So I went to the county and said what else can we do? So then I said, okay, they're saying no, the plants won't work. Because I got a message on my machine that said no, it's still not going to go work. Commercial in residential. I said, well, we've got to do something because I'm using this thing. So I said how about if we do -- see the back of that picture? I have those eureka palms back there. Those eureka palms grow 25 feet high. They'll completely cover that whole back of that house, which if you went like three feet over, you'd see where the older ones that are a couple years older have covered that whole area. You can't see anything. No other neighbor. I have pictures, but I have one picture that I can show you, if you want to look. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Please. We'd be happy to accept that as respondent's Exhibit A. Show it to the County, please. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: So moved. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: A motion is made to accept that on Page 39 January 26, 2006 behalf of the respondent, as respondent's Exhibit A. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion moved and accepted that we accept the respondent's photo being displayed to us. All in favor. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. MR. RISTEEN: Okay. That's the house. The container is that little baby little square on the left there where you can't hardly see it. I'm standing on the street. Okay. That's from the street. I'm on the street. That's what it looks like when you're standing on the street. Ron's got some good pictures, too. COMMISSIONER DEAN: I have a question. This is your house? MR. RISTEEN: This is my house. MR. DEAN: How many garages are there? MR. RISTEEN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER DEAN: Garage doors there I see. MR. RISTEEN: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER DEAN: How many are there? MR. RISTEEN: There's three. COMMISSIONER DEAN: And one over there. Okay. You have a double driveway? MR. RISTEEN: I have two driveways. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Thank you. MR. RISTEEN: That's another view to show you the house, how it relates to it. I want -- keep going. That's another one from the Page 40 January 26, 2006 neighbor who called this one. His yard. There's the container. There's the backyard. That's what a Eureka Palms look like. That's what I proposed to the county to plant along the side of the fence to just alleviate all this putting confederate Jasmine on the thing which I thought I could do but I found out you can't do that. This thing you can hook up and drive right now. It's legal. It's totally ready to go. It just is not going anywhere because I don't plan on doing that. I don't use it for business. I bought it to put the materials in to build my house because I knew it was going to take me a long time. And then I just found out that my orthopedic surgeon told me I've got 90-year-old knees and I've got arthritis and I can't work as much as I could so I'm even longer getting this thing going. But I'm getting it going and I've got the materials, it's a matter of getting to it. So I said, okay, I'll plant Eurekas all the way along, put some palm trees in the front across the fence and everything, and I could not get anybody from the county to tell my anything about anything except commercial and residential. So I said, what am I supposed to do, come and talk to you. Because you're the ones that make the decision. And I'm willing to do everything to comply. I have been doing this since I first got cited, trying to ask. And Ron's been a big help trying to help me out and understand, but, you know, where is he going to go with it. He's never had the same situation either. And all I really want to do is plant the plants and have them grow up and cover the whole thing and nobody would see it. And nobody is even -- nobody even knew I had the thing. I asked around just for, you know, hey did you ever -- oh, you got that back there. But that's not point. The point is it's a designated commercial in a residential and I understand that. And I'm trying to cover the whole thing. And given a little time, these things all get that tall. You can't see. Those are my neighbors in the back. I can't even see their house. And I'm willing to do that. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to point out that the Board has the ability to determine whether or not a violation exist. You don't have Page 41 January 26, 2006 the ability to change or amend or modify what the code is. If there's a disagreement with what the planning department or zoning department has interpreted then, as indicated in that memo, they would have to go that route for the interpretation of the code. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Noted. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Michelle, doesn't the code say it can be screened from view by vegetation. So couldn't he technically plant plants to screen it? The fact that there's a two story building behind him, I don't think was the intention of the code. It was from the street. MS. ARNOLD: Well it does say vegetatively screened. According to the zoning department that we conferred with, they've indicated it has to be completely screened or enclosed. And because we're in the situation where more and more people are building second story, you have that situation now. I don't know. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Because I know, I kind of helped draft that original ordinance with Mr. Will when we were going through all those problems out in Golden Gate and trying to force that issue. And I was trying to remember the purpose was so that we couldn't -- the neighbors didn't have the ability to see it. So I guess if you could screen it with like a car port covering or something like that too, couldn't he, to enclose it. MR. RUSSELL: It says enclosed building or vegetatively screened. But it also states in verbatim here, cannot be seen from adjacent property and must be enclosed in -- enclosed in vegetative screening. We already have the ruling of planting, but any time you think of the word enclosed, I would think that would be completely, not just walls. MS. ARNOLD: There may be a possibility for him to get roof structure. There is the possibility to get a shed. He indicated a Ted Shed. That's an option. That's permissible in that zoning district to hold what he's using it for as storage, it sounds like. These are some Page 42 January 26, 2006 options that he has. But both those things are things that need, require a permit. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay. MR. RISTEEN: If! may, putting a box in a box is not -- isn't a financial -- MS. ARNOLD: I didn't ask you -- I said a shed to hold the things that you're holding in the box. I didn't indicate putting a box in that box. MR. RISTEEN: But it's the same difference basically, except this one exists and it's already been there and it has no -- it's a strong thing and it's not a -- I am going to plant stuff around it. It won't be there very long. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Let me just ask, is it the county's position that ifhe installed some kind of a roofing structure over this trailer as well as screening for vegetation, that that would be acceptable? MS. ARNOLD: My indication is he would have to explore that. I don't think that question was ever asked. It would then -- a car port would then be considered a structure, set backs and permits would be required. That's something he needs to ask the zoning department about. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: I'd like to ask a question of the respondent. Is this trailer going to be remaining on the property after you complete your construction? MR. RISTEEN: Chances are not. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Chances are, or it's not? MR. RISTEEN: Well, I don't know. It's taking me forever to get this stuff done. But, yeah, I had envisioned doing other things than that particular thing there, so -- COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: So in affect it's going to remain there and be a permanent fixture on your property? Maybe not affixed to the ground, but -- COMMISSIONER BARNETT: That being the problem. Page 43 January 26, 2006 MR. RISTEEN: Well, the options are, no, I could in the future get rid of it, and rather put my boat there. You know what I mean? Something like that. That would be more advantageous to residential. It is quite handy. If! had a Ted Shed there, all that's going to do is cost me a lot more money. I've already bought and paid for this container. The container is the same size as a Ted Shed. The difference is, if I put a car port over this, it would be just as ugly and bigger than the foot print of the top of that container. And I have another thing I could -- I don't know if this aerial, but, you know, the thought occurred to me, if somebody came over in a helicopter, you know, yeah they'll see the top of it. And yeah, that guy in the backyard can see it too. The Eurekas will definitely cover them because you can see the picture there, it's 25 feet tall. And if this helps you. It's the top -- it's an overview. It's my survey with it drawn in where it exists on my property to show you how it is from the air. I mean, would that help you? And where it's located. I'm almost in the setback. It's in there. It's right where seven-and-a-half and ten up and all that, so. And it's in my backyard and it's all-- it was mapped out and designed in the floor plan. I was going to put a boat there and this ended up being there because it's taken me a while to finish the house. So, putting a box on top of it, would be -- or a car port, I'm sorry, would be a larger footprint. And I'm going to put plants around it. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Could you build an arbor over the top of it and camouflage it? MR. RISTEEN: That's exactly what I wanted to do. You're exactly right. That's exactly what I wanted to do. That's what the lattice was about. That's what planting the confederate Jasmine was because it grows over everything. It's aluminum. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: I mean, you build something attractive. MR. RISTEEN: Oh, yeah. Well, the picture of it it doesn't look too bad. You can't even notice it from the street anymore. It used to Page 44 January 26, 2006 be silver and now you don't even see it. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Would that be objectionable to your neighbors? MR. RISTEEN: Nobody even cares. And the guy who complained on it is moving. And he did it because he thought I ratted on him for making a mess in the street or something . CHAIRMAN BOWIE: That's here nor there. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The problem is, an arbor is a fixed structure to the ground. It's not attached to the trailer. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I think we're off the mark here. We're talking remedies, and it's the responsibility of this Board to make decisions based on facts and violations. MR. MARTINDALE: If! may, that's exactly what I was going to say, sir. Russell has a very unusual circumstance. He's a real nice guy too. And he's easy to deal with. I wish all my clients were. But the reason that I was there was because a citizen's complaint was made. I went by the letter of the law which says, and Russell even said, it can be pulled out of there right now. It's a commercial vehicle. The area is zoned residential. That's the facts. That's why I submitted this. It wasn't because of unusual circumstances, asthetic reasons. It's just because that's what the statutes say. And I guess in the distant past we did allow things like this 15 or 20 years ago when they took the wheels, and so forth off of them. But now we do have standards. We have wind load ratings. That's why we have to have permits for Ted Sheds. MR. RISTEEN: If! may. This has been through three hurricanes sitting right where it is. And if I can direct you to this zoning district and uses, it's 2.01.00. Under generally it says, the vehicle and/or equipment is engaged in a construction or service operation on the site where it is parked. That's where I'm using it for right now. That would be the one I'm saying I'm doing. And then must be removed as soon as the construction activities have been Page 45 January 26,2006 completed. Okay. That's the one. The other one is, that I saw on my regular siding that I got at first. Number three is the vehicle is parked in the rear of the main structure, and is enclosed within a vegetative screening. And that's what Ron is saying is enclosed, which conceals vegetation from the view of neighbors. And this will, you know, I can't buy a tree that tall, but -- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: When you say you're still engaged in construction at this property. Do you have open permits now that have not been closed out? MR. RISTEEN: Well, no. This would be under my finishing of doing -- I already got my CO. So I got in, but I didn't do the floors, didn't do the doors, didn't do the trim. I didn't finish all the painting. Anything I could get away with to get the thing slid in. So all that stuff I'm now doing by myself with occasional help __ CHAIRMAN BOWIE: How long has this trailer been there now? MR. RISTEEN: A few years. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: A few years? When do you think you're going to be finished with this construction? MR. RISTEEN: Well, I would hope by the end ofthe year. I still have a lot of stuff to do. I have to hand finish all my stuff and put it up myself. Also I have to try to make some money, you know, somewhere along the line. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Sheri is going to make a motion. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'd like to make a motion in the case of Collier county Board of Commissioners versus Russell and Kaja Risteen, case number 2005-47, that in actuality there is a violation. The violation consisting of a commercial truck in view of the neighbors. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: A motion has been made and seconded Page 46 January 26, 2006 that a violation be found as set forth in the county's charging documents, finding that a commercial vehicle has been parked in a residentially zoned area in view of neighboring properties. Any discussion of the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed to vote. All in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? The motion passes unanimously. We will next entertain a motion on determination of the order of the board. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I don't know if I had -- I don't know how many vehicles he had but if I had four garage spaces, or three garage spaces and had an issue with the commercial vehicle, I think I would empty out one of the garage spaces and store the stuff in there until I could get it finished. The C.O. is there so, therefore, it's technically a completed project. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Ifwe can be assured that once this project is completed that that vehicle was going to be removed. But by the testimony of the respondent, he doesn't really feel that that might happen. So I don't think there's really a choice. MR. RISTEEN: If! may, if that's the option I have -- because it's going to cost me a lot to move this thing and put it in -- pay somebody storage when I can for free on my own driveway and, you know, part of my tax money maybe, but I would move it or whatever if that's what it takes. Let me get my project finished at least so at least I don't have the burden and expense of having to move the thing and then reload it, or have to load two times go with my truck, pick up stuff, to Page 47 January 26, 2006 go my house. When it's there I can go and do it. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: That's why I asked that question. If it's going to be moved, that might be -- MR. RISTEEN: Eventually I would do that. That would clear it up. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We need to know some kind of time specific. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Not eventually. It's already been there two years and it's not finished. MR. RISTEEN: You know, if! -- ifit ends up having to be, you know, if I am working at a job, I can't work on the house so I've been both. I never knew when I built the house there would ever be a stipulation as to when I had to finish it, but now there is, so -- COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Do you have any place in one of the garages where you could move out a vehicle and store this in the garage so you wouldn't have to be removing it back and forth? MR. RISTEEN: No, no. There is one bay I leave open and that's where -- and I have -- I have trucks in there that are project trucks. So these are 1967 stuff. Okay. They're in various states of disrepair hiding in there. The other one is my wife's car. That's in the other garage. That's the clean garage. The shop garage are those three. That's where I do the work. And I only have one bay to do it, but I'm not -- you know, I'm doing it myself. So, it's not a big deal. That was the one bay I need to work to put the stuff in to prep it -- to build it up and put it on the house. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: If you can give us a time frame as to when you can complete this work and get rid of the vehicle, then the Board could take that under consideration. What would you -- COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: You have to let us know. How long do you think it would take? MR. RISTEEN: How about this time next year. Page 48 January 26, 2006 COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Well-- MR. RISTEEN: That's too long. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: We're probably looking at a 30 to 90 day time frame, just to be honest. MR. RISTEEN: Well, there's no way. It would take me 30 days just to sell it and now it's got lattice all over it. Who wants to buy it now? And I was informed by this Dave Hendrix that that was okay. That's where I got that from. So now I've got these crossed wires and I'm stuck in this catch 22 where I'm losing money in both directions. That's the only reason I came and bothered you with my problem. If I have some time so I can -- if I had -- I mean, if I had six months, I could at least get me something. I got to move everything. There's a lot of stuff around there. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I built a house in 120 days. It doesn't take six months to put in a floor. MR. RISTEEN: I have crown molding, base molding, door molding, doors, a floor. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I built a whole house. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Let's proceed with this on the merits of it. Is there a motion from the Board as to fines for a period related thereto? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Does the county have any recommendation? MR. MARTINDALE: Initial recommendation of the county is to remove the commercial vehicle from the residentially zoned area within 10 days of the initial hearing or pay $150 per day until the violation is abated. And also requesting the respondent notify the Code Enforcement Investigation when the violation has been abated in or other to conduct the final inspection. And there's also a total of $307.89 in operational costs. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: You've heard the recommendation of the Page 49 January 26, 2006 county. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Just a comment. You know, considering that material that is in there and then the gentleman's willingness to continue with the work, I would think that allowing him, you know, you said 30 to 90 days would be adequate. He's obviously trying to take care of it. Can't let it go a year, but ten days is pretty quick to get his material out and get it cleaned up. And I think -- MR. MARTINDALE: Well, I think the reason it's more or less a standard request, but also this has been going on since September of last year. In any case, there's always a chance you can lose and you should plan ahead. Just my opinions. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER DEAN: I'd like to make a motion for 90 days to remove the trailer and pay the cost of administrative cost to the county. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Or $150 a day fine? COMMISSIONER DEAN: No, just administrative cost to the county and 90 days to get the trailer removed. CHAIRMAN BOWIE:: There has to be a fine attached. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Or he won't do it. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Suffer the consequences. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I would suggest we entertain a lesser fine than the county recommended, say perhaps $50 a day rather than $100 plus. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is that the George of friendly amendment otherwise. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I would go along with what has been suggested by my colleague, just reduce the amount to $50, or in his case add a fine of $50 rather than eliminating one altogether. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: I'm sorry. You Page 50 January 26,2006 recommended 90 days? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Okay. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: So let's rephrase the motion. My understanding is the motion has been made, seconded by George, that the vehicle be removed within 90 days of this date or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed until there is compliance. That operational cost be imposed, and when the respondent has removed the vehicle, that the code enforcement department be so informed. Is that the motion? COMMISSIONER DEAN: That's the motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion of that motion? All those in favor of the motion please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, SIr. You've got 90 days before fines kick in. Thank you. I'd like to call the next case in our agenda. Okay. Time for a break. We'll do a ten minute break and then reconvene. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We'll call to order the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board. We're going to continue with our case hearing. I'd like to call case number 2004 -- excuse me. 2005-48, Board of County Commissioners versus DDR MDT Carillion Place, LLC. Would you like to present the county's charging? MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. For the record, Patty Petrulli. The respondent has been presented with and received a packet with the Page 51 January 26, 2006 information that is included for the case. I'd like to ask if there is anyone present to represent the DDR MDT Carillion Place, LLC. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I believe we do have a respondent's representative. We're not going to swear you in right now, but thank you for being here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. Let the record show they are present. This is a violation of section 1O.02.06B of Collier County ordinance 04-41 as amended. A description of the violation is a pole sign without required permits. The location of the violation exists at 5088 Airport Road north, folio number 25500000909. The name and address of the owner or person in charge of the violation location is DDR MDT Carillion Place, LLC. The registered agent for the company is CT Corporation System. The date the violation was first observed was November 10th of2004. The notice of violation was given on February 14th of2005. The violation was to have been corrected by March the 7th, 2005. A reinspection was done on December 13,2005, and at that time, the property was still in violation. At this time I would like to turn the case over to supervisor investigator Travis Snoderly to handle the case. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: First let's make a motion to enter into the record the county's charging documents as have been delivered to the respondent and delivered to this board. Is there such a motion? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: So moved. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And seconded. All in favor. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. Page 52 January 26,2006 CHAIRMAN BOWIE: County's packet is accepted into the record. Sir, would you identify yourself, please. MR. SNODERL Y: Good morning, Travis Snoderly, investigative supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. We do have a representative here on behalf of the respondent. Would you identify yourself and your capacity for representing the respondent and your address, sir. MR. GRAFF A: I am Paul Graffa. I'm the regional property manager with Developers Diversified Realty, which is the managing agent of the Carillion Place. My address is 41268 US Highway 19 North, Tarpon Springs, Florida. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. I'd like to ask our secretary to swear both parties. (Sworn.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: On behalf of the county, would you proceed, please? MR. SNODERL Y: Thank you. Good morning. For the pleasure of the board, before you on your screens you should be able to view a stipulation agreement that I have been able to enter into this morning with Mr. Paul Graffa as representative for DDR MDT. Part of that stipulation is that Mr. Graffa, on behalf of his corporation, as a representative for, does agree that the notice of violation and those violations referenced within that he does stipulate to their existence. That they are section 1O.02.06B of the Collier County Land Development Code, and described as a pole sign without the required permit. The stipulation agrees that Mr. Graffa will pay all operational cost incurred with the prosecution of the case in amount of$305.13, and he will abade all violations by meeting the following conditions: He will obtain all required building permits if obtainable and required inspections including Certificate of Occupancy for the sign within 60 Page 53 January 26, 2006 days of today's hearing or a fine $150 per day would be imposed each day the violation continues. Secondly, ifhe does not wish to permit the sign, the respondent will remove the abandoned sign including supporting structure withing 60 days of today's hearing, or a fine of $150 per day would be imposed for each day the violation continues. Lastly, Mr. Graffa or a representative ofDDR MDT will notify the department once the violation has been abated to confirm that the abatement has occurred. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: On behalf of the respondent, sir, do you confirm that this stipulation agreement has been voluntarily entered into? MR. MIDNEY: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, sir. Now you identified yourself again as a property manager on behalf of the entity that owns the property. You can verify that authority, property management? MR. GRAFF A: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I assume you don't have a power of attorney here with you today. MR. MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Could you please provide that for the record as well, so we know you have the authority to enter into this agreement on their behalf. MR. GRAFF A: I will. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. Any questions regarding the agreement? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I just have one comment because generally we don't -- we put in the amount of the operational cost, but specify it to continue to be incurred because other costs do come up, and he's just required for all operational cost. MR. SNODERL Y: I would amend that stipulation to include that amount and ask Mr. Graffa to accept that change. Page 54 January 26, 2006 MR. GRAFF A: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: So it is deemed that the parties will initial a correction here that operational cost may continue to accrue will be added to this agreement? MR. SNODERL Y: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any other questions from members of the Board? Just one clerical item, since you're initialing corrections. I think there was a reference in there that the parties -- one of the options would be for the respondent to obtain a certificate of occupancy for a sign. It's tough to move into one. Maybe it should say certificate of completion. Just to initial that. MR. SNODERL Y: We would love to dictate language by which the building department and permitting uses, but unfortunately, the way that our computer system is, it's still a CO. But I do agree that it is just -- CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We're not going to require him to move into a sign. MR. GRAFF A: Well, we might have the furniture picked out. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any other questions for members of the Board? Is there a motion then to accept the stipulation agreement as the parties have amended it? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I will make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as has been amended. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Second to that? COMMISSIONER DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion of the motion? All in favor of -- accepting the stipulation agreement as amended, please say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. Page 55 January 26, 2006 COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? None. It's unanimously adopted. Thank you. MR. GRAFF A: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Next on our agenda, we have concluded our case hearings. And on our agenda we move into the next subject area. New business. Request for imposition of fines and liens in a series of cases. First of these is Board of County Commissioners versus Ernestina Sacca, case number 2005-13. Is there anyone here on behalf of the respondent? MS. ARNOLD: No, I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is there a motion to impose fines and liens in this case? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: So moved. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any second to that? COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Discussion? Motion moved and seconded that the fines and liens be imposed in the case BCC versus Ernestina Sacca. Those in favor? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. MS. RAWSON: I think for the record, you should probably have Michelle tell you what they are. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: But haven't we already determined those, though? Page 56 January 26, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: No, no. This is a different case. This is -- the fines that are being requested at this hearing today are for in the amount of$10,909.58, which includes operational cost of$559.58. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Those have been moved, seconded, and adopted. Next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Rolando and Maria Salazar, case number 2005-25. Would you read us what is being proposed? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The fine total that's being proposed today, which will -- in this particular case it's been completed in full, is $18,694.34 with operational cost of$694.36. And I believe that this particular case is now in compliance, therefore, those fines will not continue to incur. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Okay. Is there a representative here in this case for the respondents Mr. and Mrs. Salazar? Seeing none, is there a motion from the Board? COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: So moved. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Second. MS. ARNOLD: I misspoke. The fines will continue to accrue. There's be no compliance on this case. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: There's been no compliance. So with the understanding that these fines will continue to accrue at the daily amount set forth in the original order. Is there a motion that these fines be adopted with that understanding? COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: So moved. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: So moved and seconded. any discussion of the motion? Those in favor? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. Page 57 January 26, 2006 COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? Passes. Next case, Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald and Patricia Freeman. Case number 2005-26. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The fine amount in this particular case being requested is for $12,284.06, which includes operational cost of $396.26. Fines will continue to accrue, as compliance has not been met. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is anyone present on behalf of the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Freeman? Seeing no one, is there a motion from the Board? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: So moved. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: A motion has been made to accept the fines as set forth here with the daily rate to continue to accrue. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? Passes. Next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Amerada Hess Corporation, case number 2005-38. There is a representative here for the respondent and for the county. Would you please tell us the recommended fine in this matter, please? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, $5,226.80 which includes operational cost Page 58 January 26, 2006 of$576.80. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Has there been compliance with the order of the Board? MR. SNODERL Y: I was actually just advised this morning that, I believe it was yesterday, that the sign was removed. So I will be making a site inspection to confirm the abatement, if that in fact has occurred, I will plead and file an Affidavit of Compliance; however we would still ask for the existing fines that have occurred to be imposed. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Sir, you're here on behalf of the respondent. Would you identify yourself and your capacity in which you represent them, please. MR. DODGE: Yes, sir. My name is Perry Dodge. I work for Amerada Hess as a construction manager in the west coast of Florida. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We're going to swear you in now, if you don't mind. MR. DODGE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Please swear in the respondent representative. (Sworn.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Go ahead. MR. DODGE: My only comment here today is I don't typically attend these type of meetings, so I really wasn't exactly sure what today would bring. What I can tell you is that I know I was made aware of a violation that existed on September 13th for an ID sign which, to the best of my knowledge, had never -- well, not to the best of my knowledge. Since I had lived in the State of Florida, I hadn't had any work done to it. So, I did a little bit of investigation through the sign company that we use here in Florida and they submitted for a permit to change the sign on the 20th of October. They received a permit on the 30th of November to go ahead and change that sign. However, they ran into some difficulties with what happened during Page 59 January 26, 2006 Wilma at the beginning of November and were delayed in getting that new sign erected. So, they started this week to do that work, unfortunately, we couldn't get a structural inspection yesterday on the new footings for the new sign, and I made the decision to just go ahead and take the sign down. The inspection did happen yesterday afternoon late, and we hope to pour concrete today and be able to erect the new sign to comply with the current code. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And do you have a permit for the new sign? MR. DODGE: Yes, sir, we do. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any further discussion from the board? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I just had a question maybe for the inspector. If that's the case and Wilma did affect it -- or no. I'm CurIOUS. MR. SNODERL Y: What I would like to say in response to that is, this case was generated as a result of Hurricane Charley the year prior. And they have been on notice since that time that there were several violations. This was one of several on the property. One of which was that the canape at the fuel station came completely off, or became structurally unsound in such a fashion that it was placed into the parking lot and then replaced, mounted back up on the post without the appropriate permits. So, we went through the process with variance pre-application meetings with Amerada Hess and their representatives and probably approximately three months after hurricane season last year. Or, excuse me, the year prior. Subsequent to Hurricane Charley, and nothing came of that pre-application meeting. So there was a period of approximately six months where there was no communication from a corporation, which brought us to a point where we brought it before you folks last year, the Board, and that's when we asked that the violation be found and fines be associated with the request for either variance or removal. MR. DODGE: Again, I don't mean to mislead anybody here. I Page 60 January 26, 2006 can only comment to what I know. And my inference of Hurricane Wilma was really what happened to us. After that storm with our sign company, you know, the work they have to do for us. Not anything that actually impacted this particular site. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: And I would think that the delay would be to erect a new sign not in removing the old one. Which I'm sure you wanted to do before you removed the old one. MR. DODGE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any other questions, discussion from the Board? Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I make a motion that the fines be imposed. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: As recommended by the County. Is there a second for that motion? COMMISSIONER DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor of the motion to accept the recommendation of the county as defined say aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Next case, Board of County Commissioners versus Robert G. France, case number 200400 1. We appear to have a representative here for the respondent. MR. ZAMPOGNA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Would you identify yourself for the record. Page 61 January 26, 2006 MR. ZAMPOGNA: My name is Carlo Zampogna. I'm an attorney with Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, sir. And the recommendation of the county, please. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, in your packet we have noted that the fines that have accrued to date are $9,337.31 with operational cost included totaling 700 -- excuse me -- $577.31. There is compliance with this particular property. Many of you may recall the situation. I believe counsel here is asking for reduction in -- or an abatement of the fines, and the county has no objection to that. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. Proceed, sir. Oh, would you swear in the respondent's representative, please? (Sworn.) CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Proceed with your case. This is for an abatement or reduction in these fines as set forth here? MR. ZAMPOGNA: May it please the board, my name is Carlo Zampogna. I do represent the respondent, Mr. Robert France. This is a very unique situation where this Code Enforcement case was initially done by a neighbor that called -- he called in a violation for Mr. Robert France. And it actually stems from a garage that was encroaching onto the county's property. Now the County didn't even know that this property was their property. And I'm sorry if I am repeating myself. I have come before you before. And in order to achieve compliance, we need to -- we went before the Board of County Commissioners and explained to them the situation, and let them know that in order to bring our property into compliance, we would have to be a little creative and exchange a piece of property that we owned for a piece of property that they owned. In fact, that was the Board of County Commissioners allowed us to work with county staff to achieve something that would bring our property into compliance. We did establish an agreement between the respondent and the county and have -- and if you recall the beginning of last year, Page 62 January 26, 2006 we were working with the county and all county staff to achieve compliance. You did impose a final date of July 28th in order for us to comply with the code. And it can been argued that when the Board of County Commissioners did sign the ordinance agreeing to -- signing the agreement that allowed us to exchange the two pieces of property, but technically our property was deemed in compliance at that time. The only things that had to happen was in order to convey clear title to the county for the northwest portion to be conveyed to the county and for the county to convey it to us. We did just go through a real estate transaction basically, and have a title search done on both properties. The respondent went through the refinancing process as well in order to clear title. There have been numerous surveys done due to legal description. They weren't simple legal descriptions, they were metes and bounds, because we had to alter the property in which it was originally conveyed to Mr. France. After the refinance process, the county drafted the documents that needed -- that were necessary for the conveyance. County Attorney's office drafted those. And we've been working diligently with them. One of the documents actually that has held us up was a subordination that we needed -- a subordination of easement for the county to access their property. This was the document that actually took so long to get because after the refinance was done, as what happens many times, is a mortgage is sold. So, we had to track down who the mortgage was sold to and the proper party to sign the subordination. And we did receive the subordination. The documents have been signed, and our property has been brought into compliance. Mr. France and our office has done nothing to delay the process to get his property into compliance. We work with county staff. At this time I do want to thank county staff, especially code enforcement for granting so many extensions and allowing us to work with county staff. Real estate services for having done a phenomenal job in working with us and establishing an agreement, and also the county attorney's office. At this time I do Page 63 January 26, 2006 respectfully request that the fines that have been incurred from July 28th until January 23rd of this year be abated. We have no objection to paying the operational cost of $577.31, and I will make sure those are paid by weekend. But I do respectfully request a reduction of those other fines. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: The county's position on the request? MS. ARNOLD: We have no objection. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion or questions from members of the board? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'd just like to say that we kind of followed this case because they had to come in front of us each month with either a letter or something stating what they were doing or how they progressed and they had progressed as quickly as they can. I think this is not your a typcial case. COMMISSIONER DEAN: I'd be surprised ifthe title company insured over this property, not knowing all along it was sold and build a garage. Yes he had a permit, but still there's a survey where the property is supposed to be. The title company -- that's why you get title insurance. So, obviously they're insuring over that. So if they recognize a problem of an easement, they insure over it with additional cost. MR. ZAMPOGNA: Actually, we did receive title insurance for this, and the survey that was provided was actually a faulty survey. So after this has all been said and done, we will be going after the surveyor. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. Is there a motion from the Board? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we let the fines be abated. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: And all the operational costs? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The operational cost we can not do. Page 64 January 26, 2006 CHAIRMAN BOWIE: We can't waive those? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: We can't. MR. ZAMPOGNA: And I have no objection to that. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: SO the motion is in the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Robert France 2004-001, that operational cost only be charged and that all fines be abated. Is there a second for that? COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Opposed. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: One opposed. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Passed. Thank you. MR. ZAMPOGNA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: That concludes our hearing on imposition of fines. Oh, excuse me. There's one more. There is a case Board of County Commissioners versus Larry and Corena McVey, number 2004-039. Is anybody present representing the respondent? Not present. Could the county make its recommendations as to fines, please. MS ARNOLD: Yes. The fines to date have accrued to $71,476.75, which includes our operational cost of$826.75. And fines do continue to accrue because the fines have not -- fines have not met. Page 65 January 26, 2006 CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any discussion of the county's recommendation from members of the board? Hearing none, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'd like to explore a couple of things with Jean and the county. There's a $71,000 fine here that's growing. We had a stipulation agreement that was involved here. Someone has agreed and just ignored us. What they're doing is thumbing their nose at us. And what's our recourse here, and/or in other cases that we might find? MS. RAWSON: Well, to turn it over to the county attorney for foreclosure, because after a while the fines will be worth more than the property. CHAIRMAN BOWIE:: It might be in this case at $71,000. MS. RAWSON: It could be. MS. ARNOLD: Not in Collier County. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Close just not yet. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Is there a motion on behalf of the board? COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: I make a motion that in the case of Larry and Corena Me V ey that we impose the fines. CHAIRMAN BOWIE:: And at the same time can we then include in your motion that we turn this over to the county because we are being ignored. They don't care that it cost them $71,000. They're just walking away from us. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Is that something that gets triggered by recommendation from the county, or is that something that we -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think you need to put it in your order, but I think that you basically tell the county attorney who's here to mention it to the county attorney who does this that we want you to proceed with foreclosure. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Unless the property is homesteaded, of course, which is always a problem. We should realize that. Page 66 January 26, 2006 But anyhow, what we need to deal with is the imposition of the fines. There was a motion -- COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE -- that the county presented fines be adopted and a second. All those in favor? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Opposed? Passes. Thank you. That concludes the hearings on imposition of fines and liens. We move onto our next agenda item, Old Business. It does not appear to be any on the agenda. Reports. Any reports to be made to us by the county? Don't appear to be any. Comments? Notice of election in March, already made earlier. March is our election meeting. I believe we have been presented with a copy of the County Ordinance regulating the Code Enforcement Board. The purpose of delivering this to us is to show this ordinance has been revised, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: I saw one of the ways it's been revised is we've been given the enhanced binding powers permitted by Florida Statutes. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Were there any other revisions, Michelle, that you'd like to call to our attention? MS. ARNOLD: What was modified in this particular ordinance was just kind of cleaning up and making it up to date as far as the statutes is concerned. And we repealed all the other ordinances that were on the books, so this particular one is the only one that's in effect Page 67 January 26, 2006 right now. So we incorporated all the modifications that have occurred over the years since the inception of the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Any questions of Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: If! may, Mr. Chairman, I do want to note that I did send you all an email regarding the Sunshine Law workshop that's commg up. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Yes, I've distributed copies of that as well to all members. And certainly the newer members who might not have had the opportunity to attend a session like this, this is really something you should attend. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Is this similar to the one we attended at Sanibel Harbor? Is it the same topics? CHAIRMAN BOWIE: No. MS. RAWSON: This is probably presented by the county attorneys. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: It is. MS. RAWSON: It's about the Sunshine law exclusively. And the one that we went to in Sanibel was much more all encompassing. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This is the County Attorney's Office putting that on. It has information on Sunshine law, ex parte communication and all the information that you all need to know as quasi judicial board. I did get a response from Mr. Ponte as well as Mr. Dean, so, I've added you all to the list if anybody else is interested. I think Sheri, you have actually -- COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I've been to it. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And I don't know ifMr. Morgan, you've attended it before in other boards, so if you've served on other boards, it's very possible that you've already attended it, so -- MS. RAWSON: But I would make a suggestion since I've obviously been to several of these. But I don't have the up dated materials. Those of you who go, why don't you bring in your updated Page 68 January 26, 2006 materials and we'll share them with your co-board members. So that everybody at least has an opportunity to read it if you can't go. Because it's a good thing to remind ourselves every now and then about what the Sunshine Law says and about conflicts of interest and so forth. And generally speaking, it's just been a really great seminar about everything that has to do with your ethical obligations on this beard. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you, Jean. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Speaking of that, Jean, do you happen to have a form I need fill out. MS. RAWSON: I do. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Next meeting date is February 23rd. Put that on your calendars. Finally, hearing no other matter of business, appropriate for a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Second for that, please. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Oh, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of opposition for this. Those in favor. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEWITTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOWIE: Thank you. Page 69 January 26, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 noon. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD RAYMOND BOWIE, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY DANIELLE AHREN. Page 70