Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/23/2006 R February 23,2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, February 23, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 a.m. in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Sheri Barnett Richard Kraenbring Jerry Morgan George Ponte Justin Dewitte Larry Dean Gerald Lefebvre (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Assistant County Attorney Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Shirley Garcia, Secretary to the CEB Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 23, 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. ELECTION OF OFFICIERS - 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 26, 2006 February 15, 2006, Special Meeting to nominate officers. 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: 2006-03 CASE ADDR: 701 CRICKET LAKE DR. NAPLES, FL (FOLIO: 61841280002) OWNER: CRICKET LAKE APARTMENTS, LLC, ROBERT E. DOYLE, REG. AGENT INSPECTOR: SUSAN O'FARRELL VIOLATIONS: SEC 4.06.05(1)(1)(2), ORD. 82-2 SEC. 8.30 DESCRIPTION: REQUIRED LANDSCAPE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINDED & PRESENTS A SAFETY HAZARD. 2, CASE NO: 2006-06 CASE ADDR: 39 CLARY STREET, NAPLES, FL (FOLIO: 01211720000) OWNER: ROBERT CHIPMAN INSPECTOR: LARRY SCHWARTZ VIOLATIONS: SEe. 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5, & 2.7.6.5A OF 91-102 OF THE LDC COLLIER COUNTY DESCRIPTION: NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOR A STRUCTURE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME WHICH IS ON STILTS 3. CASE NO: 2006-11 CASE ADDR: (FOLIO: 00190560007) LOT 25, RANGE 48, TOWNSHIP 26 OWNER: WESLEY CEELEY, REG. AGENT, CAROLE CONSTUCTION CO. INSPECTOR: KEVIN HALESWORTH VIOLATIONS: ORD 04-41, 3.05.01(B) DESCRIPTION: REMOVAL OF CANOPY TREES, MID STORY AND UNDER STORY VEGETATION. NO COUNTY PERMITS WERE OBTAINED. GROUND HAS ALSO BEEN ALTERED BY MACHINERY USED TO REMOVE VEGETATION. 4. CASE NO: 2006-01 CASE ADDR: 104 20TH ST. N.E. NAPLES, FL (FOLIO: 39327600002) OWNER: SAMUEL MENA INSPECTOR: KEVIN HALESWORTH VIOLATIONS: ORD 04-41, 3.05.01(B) DESCRIPTION: REMOVAL OF CANOPY TREES, MID STORY & UNDER STORY VEGETATION. NO COUNTY PERMITS WERE OBTAINED. GROUND HAS ALSO BEEN ALTERED BY MACHINERY USED TO REMOVE VEGETATION. S. CASE NO: 2006-04 CASE ADDR: 2118 44TH STREET S.W. NAPLES, FL (FOLIO: 35751800003) OWNER: RUSSELL & KA YDEE TUFF INSPECTOR: SHAWN LUEDTKE VIOLATIONS: SEe. 10.02.06(B)(I)(A)(D)(I) ORD. 04-41 DESCRIPTION: THE PROHIBITED CONVERSION OF A GARAGE INTO A LIVING SPACE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. 6. CASE NO: 2006-05 CASE ADDR: 31 MENTOR DR. NAPLES, FL (FOLIO: 82602500502) OWNER: OSMAN & LUIZA BALA INSPECTOR: CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: ORD. 2004-58 SEC 6(15) DESCRIPTION: A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED POOL NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD & HARBORING INSECT INFESTATION. THE WATER CONTAINED IN THE POOL IS STAGNANT, UNSIGHTLY & FILLED WITH MOLD AND DEBRIS. 7. CASE NO: 2006-02 CASE ADDR: 81 RIVER DR. NAPLES, FL (FOLIO: 61841680000) OWNER: PERRINE ENTERPRISES, GARY AND RAYMOND PERRINE INSPECTOR: HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: ORD 04-41 1O.02.06(B)(I),(D), ORD 2002-01 106.1.2 DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF WOODEN ADDITION TO A MOBILE HOME WITHOUT OBTAINING A PERMIT & INSPECTIONS. OCCUPANCY OF AN ADDITION BEFORE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS OBTAINED. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC YS. Diana Hall 2. BCC YS. Leobardo & Manta Gutierrez CEB No. 2003-36 CEB No. 2004-48 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE March 23, 2006 11. ADJOURN February 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time I'd like to call to order -- MS. RAWSON: I don't think it's on. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time I would like to call to order this meeting of the Collier Code Enforcement Board for February 23rd, 2006. 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 being 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, the board, the county, the respondents, and any speakers will need to be recognized by the chair before they can speak. And hopefully that will keep us from having to have two or three people speaking at once, allowing the court reporter the ability to keep a clear and verbatim record. Before we take the roll call of our membership, I would like to extend a thank you to Mr. Bowie whose term has expired. We will wish him well. We want to thank him for the time that he spent on our board. Also, because we did not have a chair or a vice chair, we had an emergency meeting and I was elected interim chair and Richard, who is not here, was the interim vice chair. I also am going to apologize ahead of time for my voice and if I have to cough. Because I have a virus that I've been trying to tend to for the last two weeks. So occasionally you might have to put up with me, and I apologize ahead of time. Will the secretary please identify herself for the record and call the roll? MS. GARCIA: For the record, my name is Shirley Garcia. I'm the secretary to the Code Enforcement Board. At this time I would Page 2 February 23, 2006 like to call roll call. Sheri Barnett? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Present. MS. GARCIA: Richard Kraenbring? I guess he's absent. Gerald Lefebvre has an excused absence. Jean Rawson, Board Attorney. MS. RAWSON: I'm here. MS. GARCIA: Justin Dewitte? MR. DEWITTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. GARCIA: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. GARCIA: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. We have approval of the agenda. Any changes? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. Yes. On the agenda we have election of officers, and we're going to remove that off the agenda. We also have two stipulations that need to be moved up under stipulations under public hearings. So that would be case number 2006-03 and -- that's one on your agenda, and then also the second stipulation is 2006-05. And then case number 2006-02, which is number seven on your agenda, we're requesting a continuance of that to next month's meeting because the investigator for that particular case had a death in the family. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: I make a motion to approve that. MR. DEWITTE: I second it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. Page 3 February 23,2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Agenda is changed. Approval of the minutes from the January 26th, 2006 meeting. MR. DEAN: Make a motion to approve the January 26, 2006. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm going to interrupt just for a second because Gerald had asked me because he was not present last month, it was recorded that he had an absence. MR. DEWITTE: Unexcused. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Unexcused. And he had called in, so he did have an excused absence and he would like that changed for the record. MR. DEWITTE: Make a motion to approve that change. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Motion is approved. Okay. I guess we can move onto public hearings. And I guess we have to look at -- the first motion, is that the one she wanted -- 03, the stipulation? MR. DEWITTE: The motion to continue. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we do that before the motions to continue, Michelle? I'm forgetting. MS. RAWSON: I think we usually do the motions to continue first. MS. ARNOLD: We have no motions, so you can just skip over that one. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, okay. So then the first stipulation we will hear is CEB number 2006-03, Board of County Commissioners and Collier County versus Cricket Lake Apartments. Page 4 February 23, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: This particular case is being heard by Investigator Susan O'Farrell. There is a stipulation on that, and she'll present that stipulation to you. And the respondent is represented by counsel today. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. The respondent's counsel want to come up, too? Would you like to go ahead and swear them both in, please? (The speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, I'm Susan O'Farrell, Environmental Investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. I took over this case from Crystal Sigura who originally did an inspection on the property 7/18/2005. She found that there were a buffer of Java Plums that had been originally planted as a hedge and been allowed to grow into trees. I have photos of those. A NOV was served on the 21st of July with a deadline of August 31 st. After repeated attempts by myself and by Crystal to get the deadline achieved with removing the buffer -- MS. ARNOLD: May Ijust interrupt for a second? MS. O'FARRELL: Oh. So, consequently, I'm happy to report that we have a stipulation signed. Did you want to put it up on the -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Clay Brooker is here as the attorney representing Bayshore Properties, LLC. What has happened is the property has been sold to Bayshore. It was originally Cricket Lakes. We have a deed showing the sale took place on the 27th of January and was recorded on the 30th of January. He is here to testify that he is representing the current property owner and that they have agreed to the stipulation. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And the stipulation is? Could you please read it? MS. O'FARRELL: The stipulation reads they will pay the operational costs in the amount of $539.44 incurred in the prosecution Page 5 February 23, 2006 of this case. They will remove the buffer consisting of Java Plum trees along the southern border of the apartment complex. They will install a new buffer consisting of one canopy tree every 30 feet and hedges of native plant material in at least three feet in height at parking areas adjacent to the property line. The trees. 50 percent of the trees will be 14 feet in height with a three-inch caliber. This is our mitigation size. And 50 percent of the trees will be ten feet in height with a one and a half inch caliber. They will install irrigation to ensure the survival of plant material, and the installation must be complete by May 7th, 2006. If the installation of irrigation and new buffer is not completed by May 7th, 2006 -- we need to change that on the stipulation because that date wasn't corrected -- a daily fine of $100 will be imposed as long as the violation continues. They also agree to notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and request a final inspection. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. You are here representing the MR. BROOKER: Yes, ma'am. My name is Clay Brooker, for the record. I'm with the law firm of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson. I want the record to be clear that I represent Bayshore Properties, LLC and not Cricket Lake Apartments, LLC. Cricket Lake was the former owner of the property, as you just heard. Bayshore Properties is the relatively new owner of the property. We had nothing to do with Cricket Lake, and we hope that we're looked upon -- there was some time delay in getting this done. I understand that. Weare the new property owner, and I can represent to you that the first -- or I guess it's the paragraph two A of the stipulation has already been met. The Java Plum Trees, which numbered 480 trees, have already been removed, even though we just literally gained title to the property. Page 6 February 23,2006 So we are here in good faith to tell you we are moving forward to abate all of the violations which we inherited from the prior property owner. We have met with Miss O'Farrell in terms of a landscape buffer plan which has been discussed. I should also point out that the -- the agreement here, the stipulation, in terms of the amount of trees, the size of trees, is more than what is required by the code. We did that for our own purposes, just to beautify the property and make it more attractive. But we are here to stipulate and agree that this agreement is binding upon the new property owner, Bayshore Properties, LLC. And I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: Madam Chairman, I have one question. Is -- the CE, that's safety hazard is -- you're happy with that? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. DEAN: It was done? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. DEAN: No problem there? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. DEAN: That was my main concern when it said safety hazard. MS. O'FARRELL: For some reason they had allowed the Java Plum Trees to grow up to about 30 feet tall. And then they had only trimmed one side, so they were leaning over the fences to the adjoining properties. And when we had Hurricane Wilma, a lot of those branches came down onto their properties. And the Java Plums have been removed as of this point. We're really just waiting for the buffer to be put in. MR. DEAN: Good. Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? Okay. Page 7 February 23, 2006 MR. DEWITTE: Make a motion to accept the stipulation. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. Stipulation is-- MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: For the record, please note that Richard has come in. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The next stipulation that we will hear is CEB number 2006-05, Board of County Commissioners of Collier County versus Osman and Luiza Bala. Michelle, do we have a representative? MS. ARNOLD: The Balas -- this case is being presented by Christopher Ambach, and the Balas are here representing themselves. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: For the record, Investigator Christopher Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm happy to announce the violation has been abated on this property. Violation in question is from Ordinance 2004-58, section 6, subsection 15. The swimming pool on the property was filled with muddy stagnant insect infested water. That violation has been abated as of last evening on my last recheck. I've entered into a stipulated agreement with the owners of the property. The owners at this time agree to -- first of all, they agree that the violation did exist. They agree to pay operational costs totaling $292.08. They also agree that the violation -- I'm sorry. The pool will be maintained from here on out in the future as to not go back to its original condition. Page 8 February 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes? Do you guys agree to this stipulation? MS. BALA: Yes, we agree. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions from the board? Okay. I'll entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulation agreement. MR. DEWITTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Anyopposed? Okay. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now we will move to our hearings. The first case will be 2006-06, Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Chipman. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MITCHELL: Madam Chairman, board members, good morning. Thank you. My name is Dennis Mitchell, supervisor for Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. ARNOLD: Dennis, before you start, we need to go through our side of entering into evidence and submitting the exhibits. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Board secretary. I'd like to enter into the -- Exhibit A, Robert Chipman -- Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Chipman. Violation of sections 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5, and 2.7.6.5a of91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. Page 9 February 23, 2006 The description of violations. No Collier County building permits for a structure addition to existing mobile home which is on stilts. The location is 39 Clary Street. The owner on record is Robert Chipman. The date of violation first observed was on January 15th of2004. The owner received -- given notice of violation was on January 27th of 2004. Date on which the violation was to be corrected was on February 26th of '04, and the date of reinspect ion was on February 26th of 2004 and the results of the reinspection was, violations still remam. At this time I'd like to introduce Dennis Mitchell, supervisor of the code enforcement investigator. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. I will entertain a motion to enter into evidence in the Collier -- the County's evidence Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. DEWITTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. MR. MITCHELL: Again, thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MR. MITCHELL: Dennis Mitchell, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm here to tell you that the investigator that would normally be prosecuting this case is unable to attend this morning. However, we do have a replacement en route, probably just moments away at this time. I just spoke with her. The reason being with -- the reason we called her in is because she has firsthand knowledge of this case Page 10 February 23, 2006 extensively and would be well suited to prosecute. I respectfully request that consideration be given to postponing this item until she comes in. Perhaps you could hear another case and then we could bring her forward and revisit this issue. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Jean, can we -- can they table this, instead of closing the public hearing? MS. RAWSON: Correct. Just -- just table it to bring it back before the board under the public hearings after you hear another case or two. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Shall we do that through a motion, though? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I will entertain a motion to table this, please. MR. DEWITTE: So motioned. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. We'll bring it back up later. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. I guess we'll move to case number 2006-11. That will be code enforcement -- Collier County versus Wesley Ceeley, registered agent, Carole Construction Company. And at this time would the county like to enter into evidence? MS. GARCIA: Yes. For the record, again, Shirley Garcia, Code Page 11 February 23,2006 Enforcement Board secretary. I would like to enter into exhibit -- County's Exhibit A on Board of County Commissioners versus Carole Construction, Wesley Ceeley, registered agent, CEB number 2006-11. The violation of ordinance was 04-41, section 3.05.01, section B. Description of the violation is vegetation removal of canopy trees, mid story and under story; no county permits were obtained. Ground has also been altered from machinery that was used to remove vegetation. The location of the address of violation is section 25, township 48, range 26. And the book is 1970, page 1191. The address and owner of the violation location is Mr. Wesley Ceeley, 1100 Cypress Woods Drive. The date of violation first observed was February 16th of2005. The notice of violation was given on June 29th of2005. Violation to be corrected by April 11th, 2005. Date of reinspect ion was done on the 26th of September 2005. The results of the reinspection was violations still remain. And -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Hear a motion to enter the facts for evidence? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. Would you like to swear in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. HALESWORTH: Good morning. Kevin Halesworth, Environmental Specialist, Code Enforcement. Page 12 February 23,2006 I have a couple of notes of the violation I would like to show first of all this morning. This violation was originally observed by Investigator Kirstin Szuch of code enforcement on the 16th of February 2005, which she observed vegetation had been cleared from the right-of-way area of Richard Street that Mr. Wesley Ceeley owns. When she contacted Mr. Seely regarding his property, he did not know or authorize of any clearing to be done on that property. A meeting was conducted on site to discuss the violation with the owner who was informed of potential wetland issues, also. And consequently the Department of Environmental Protection was contacted regarding this case. Since then we have had a hearing on the 2nd -- on the 4th -- 15th of June, 2005 we had a hearing where Mr. Ceeley was able to present his case to the board to state that he did not do the clearing and that he did not know who did the clearing, but he thought it may have possibly been Collier County subcontractors. And that's pretty much where we're up to today. We've brought the case before you so you can make a recommendation as to action required after Mr. Ceeley has presented his case to you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Ceeley? MR. CEELEY: For the record, Wesley Ceeley. I live at 1100 Cypress Woods Drive, representing Carole Construction. I'm here today to ask that this violation be dismissed. As was heard in the Board of Collier County Commission, they also asked for it to be dismissed. As Norm Feder, head of transportation services, said, they -- the county was not responsible for this clearing, but again dismiss. And I'd like to show you why. I've got two large photographs and three smaller photographs, plus a list of dates, if I could. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. If you want to give them to Michelle Arnold, she can probably put them on the overhead for you. MR. CEELEY: Okay. MR. HALESWORTH: For the record, the hearing was not in Page 13 February 23, 2006 front of this board. It was in front of the Board of County Commissioners. MR. CEELEY: This is from Johnson Engineering. This is a list of dates. While Collier County was clearing to widen Immokalee Road on one side of our property, on the other side of our property, where the violation exists on our property that is the exact dates where they started building a retention pond. The retention pond started on -- well, you can't read that top date. And that's when I believe the violation happened. I believe Collier County accidentally started clearing on our side. And I have a large photograph here that will make that very, very clear. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. CEELEY: If! can -- if you want to -- MS. ARNOLD: This one? MR. CEELEY: Yeah, you can start with those. Those -- on the right-hand side, that is our property which has been -- had a bulldozer basically push a bunch of the underbrush and some large trees, ripped them out of the ground and piled them up there. And it goes for the exact length of the retention pond. And when I show you one of these large pictures, like I said, it's pretty clear. This is what -- looking at it from Richards Road. This is bulldozer pushes. You can't see the tire tracks in the dirt anymore, but I do have it again in the large photo. There are some of the roots that have been ripped out, along with more of the piles. It's simply pushed from Richards Road 90 degrees into the property. And it's the same way in which they cleared for the retention pond. Bulldozers go 90 degrees to Richards Road. And same style, tire tracks are same width apart, not that that really can say that those are the tire tracks of Collier County's machines. But between Norm Feder and Steve Ritter have met on site with many of these people and I'm convinced -- and they really couldn't come up with any reason that they didn't do it, however they're not admitting to it. Page 14 February 23, 2006 Again, if I could show this large -- couple of these large pictures, I think it will be clearer. MS. ARNOLD: We won't be able to put that here. MR. CEELEY: Can I put it up there? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. MR. CEELEY: Because of the canopy of the trees -- because of the -- testing? Because of the canopy of the trees, you cannot see the exact damage on the property, but its right along here (indicating). I have another photograph. But this is the exact date ten days after they started working on the retention pond here. So you can see they're just -- have gotten going and they've cleared down. They're going 90 degrees. Just like over here you can see the tire tracks from where they pushed into there. And, you know, this is two sides of our property and 44 years that we've owned it as a family, we've never had any damage whatsoever. This again is just another -- a view of it, just showing the width of the retention pond, and you can see the top of the property's cleared off. This is going to be the edge of the retention pond right here, and that's where the damage starts on our property. It ends at the end of where the retention pond is, and that will be very clear in this next photo. Okay. This one you can see -- this is the edge of the retention pond. Here is the beginning of the damage, pushed in here, comes all the way down to the bottom of where Collier County's property-- where the retention pond was built. And it -- to me, it's the first date where they started clearing for this pond, somebody got this far -- maybe it was a day's worth of work, I don't know -- said, oops, and then they went back over here. And you can see the tire tracks all over the place and all these __ like I showed you the ground pictures of the piles, obviously heavy machinery. We've had nobody -- I do have another photo, but all it shows is the property beforehand where there's no damage to either Page 15 February 23, 2006 side before Collier County went in there. And so that's why I'm here today requesting that the charges be dropped, basically. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have any board members that have any questions for either of these parties? MR. PONTE: Yes. I have one point of clarification for Mr. Ceeley. What was the conclusion of the county commissioners when you presented this information to them? MR. CEELEY: I do have the record with me. Their conclusion was to refer it to you guys, first of all, with a recommendation of dismissal, and that they again stated we don't think Collier County did it -- and the reasons they gave I don't think were very strong -- however, we don't think Mr. Ceeley did it. So this is where I'm at. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. HALESWORTH: I have something to add, if! may. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. HALESWORTH: I do not recall us -- I don't have in my case notes about anything regarding a dismissal. But what I would like to add is as an investigator, neither the previous investigator on this case or myself know who did this clearing. And as Mr. Ceeley is the property owner, that's why we've brought this case before you today so you can make a judgment on the outcome. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Miss Arnold? MS. ARNOLD: I did want to note -- and I don't know if I need to be sworn in because I was at the board meeting when that -- the item was discussed, so -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean, should she? MS. RAWSON: She should because she's going to give testimony. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. (Ms. Arnold was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: I -- as I mentioned, I was at the board meeting. Page 16 February 23,2006 The matter was originally discussed and staff was directed to go back and look into whether or not they can make an official determination if the county's contractors were responsible for the clearing. The position that the county took is that they were not responsible for the clearing, and it was brought back to the board to indicate such. And the board, rather than make a decision, because this is a code violation issue, referred it to this board. I don't recall them saying with a recommendation of dismissal, but I do recall them saying that, you know, it's difficult to determine whether or not it was the county or whether or not it was Mr. Ceeley who cleared it. MR. CEELEY: If! might add, this is from September 13th, '05, item lor, Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mr. Ceeley, would you like to enter that into evidence? MR. CEELEY: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion? MR. PONTE: I make a motion that it be accepted into evidence. MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. MR. CEELEY: Okay. Because I'm in front of you guys right now, I just want to clear this up as a fact. Near the end of the Board of County Commissioner meeting, Chairman Coyle says, okay, so we have a motion to refer this to code enforcement with a recommendation of dismissal? Aye, aye, aye, five, zero. And also, like I said before, Norm Feder also says we have Page 17 February 23, 2006 presented to you in this -- in this executive summary is a recommendation for dismissal of the code violations. And I have a copy of both the first meeting and the second meeting. But, again, I'm in front of this board not the county commissioners. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Those probably need to be turned over to the court reporter, please. MR. KRAENBRING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MR. KRAENBRING: There is a submission of a quitclaim deed. What is that in reference to? MR. CEELEY: I don't know why they included that. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. I didn't know whether there was -- MR. CEELEY: I don't think it has any bearing on the -- MR. KRAENBRING: It's from 2000. MR. HALESWORTH: It should be proof of ownership. MR. CEELEY: Oh. MR. KRAENBRING: Just proof of ownership -- MR. HALESWORTH: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: -- of the parcel of land that was actually cleared? MR. HALESWORTH: Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have any -- MR. KRAENBRING: The property that -- that you own, the retention pond is something that you -- is that on your property? MR. CEELEY: No. The retention pond is across the street from our property. As you saw in the picture, that's Collier County's retention pond. It has to do with the widening of Immokalee Road. So all that happened within about that same period of time, within that date I showed for the creation of the pond. MR. KRAENBRING: So your property's across the street from Richards? Page 18 February 23, 2006 MR. CEELEY: Well, it's across the street -- yeah, Richards Road. MR. KRAENBRING: Uh-huh. MR. CEELEY: It -- it also borders Immokalee Road. They took 60 feet to widen Immokalee Road off the top of the property, and then they -- across Richards Road. The other direction's where the retention pond is. MR. MORGAN: Has the contractor finally decided he was on the wrong tract? MR. CEELEY: No. I met with many of the contractors involved. Johnson Engineering, APAC, some of the people involved in clearing. And as you can imagine, I didn't get one of them to say, yep, we did. MR. MORGAN: You're not going to get the guy to admit it. MR. CEELEY: No, no. Nobody-- MR. MORGAN: A lot of times these guys get off on the wrong track. You know, they can't identify a property and a lot of times they'll clear a space for turning around or they'll clear a space for material storage, regardless of who owns the property. They -- a lot of times they really don't care. MR. CEELEY: I think that's what happened here. MR. MORGAN: The guy made a mistake, he said, oops, I'm on the wrong track, so he goes across the road. MR. CEELEY: Yeah. As a matter of fact, just because it is part of this whole case, Mark Beaverson of Johnson Engineering did get up at the Board of County Commissioners meeting and wasn't able to defend his -- what they have in place for supervisors and how to make sure that something like this doesn't happen, didn't happen, and couldn't happen. And he was not able to defend that position. MR. MORGAN: You always have a supervisor on the job. You know, you have ten people operate equipment; you have a foreman, supervisors. And also the county more than likely had some Page 19 February 23, 2006 engineering firm overseeing it. MR. CEELEY: Uh-huh. MR. MORGAN: Somebody saw something. MR. CEELEY: That's -- I'm afraid so. I mean -- Steve Ritter was the supervisor that was an on-site supervisor. When I first met with him on the property, he told me that -- well, they were aware that there was some damage across the street, but it happened after the retention pond was in place. And as you see from the photo, that's as it's being created. MR. MORGAN: That didn't happen. MR. CEELEY: Yeah. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, I think that's really beyond the scope for the board to be supposing as to what mayor may not have happened on site. I guess my concern would be what is the remedy from here? Is it the county's position that this vegetation needs to be restored regardless of who's at fault? MR. HALESWORTH: Yes, that is our stand. We would usually have mitigation plans submitted by the property owner to state what it was they were going to restore from what was removed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Can you give us any guidance in this? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that basically what's before you right now is a motion to dismiss presented by the respondent. So, before -- I mean I think there's an -- everybody agrees that there is a violation that occurred on the land. He's asking you to dismiss the case because his contention is that the respondent is not responsible for the violation and should not be made to mitigate because his contention is that the county did it. So I think before you -- you can decide -- I mean I think there's a stipulation that this is a violation, but I think you need to vote on his Page 20 February 23,2006 motion to dismiss the whole case, which means that I don't know how it's going to get fixed but he shouldn't have to fix it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Okay. At this time I would like to close the public hearing. And any discussion from the board? MR. KRAENBRING: Well, because the violation exists, you know, if we do award this for dismissal, what happens with the damaged property? Who is going to ultimately be responsible? Is that going to be a case that has to come between him and the contractors or the county? MR. MORGAN: It's between the county and their contractor. MR. KRAENBRING: So there has to be some sort of legal action beyond this if the county's going to again pursue the remediation of this area. MR. PONTE: Yeah. I think the only question before this board is whether or not to dismiss the case against the respondent. MR. MORGAN: Correct. MR. PONTE: Beyond that, there are other issues, but that's not the issue we're being asked to decide on. MR. KRAENBRING: That's going to have to be taken up at another -- another jurisdiction. MR. PONTE: Sure, sure. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I would like to entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to dismiss. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 21 February 23,2006 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. CEELEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is the county ready now? Is the investigator here for Mr. Chipman's case? Okay. Would you like to bring that back forward, please? As we've already entered into evidence the package and everybody has already been sworn in, I will remind you -- the investigator hasn't been sworn in, so we'll have to swear in the investigator. (The speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. SYKORA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator in Immokalee at the present time. I was the original investigator on this case. I began January 15th, 2004. I received a complaint from an area resident that the above property located at 39 Clary Court had an illegal addition. Upon investigation, he gave me pictures at that time of when it was being built several years ago. The addition would be on the right-hand side, the upper portion. The current pictures, it's unable to tell because it's all sided over so it looks like a double wide, but that was the original construction of it. At that time on January 15th, 2004 I prepared a notice of violation, and on the 27th of January 2004 I met with Mr. Chipman and personally served the notice of violation. On February 26th, 2004 I spoke with occupant of the home, a girlfriend of Mr. Chipman, and she stated that JC Kosinski Engineering was doing drawings necessary for the permit. On April 2nd, 2004 I spoke with permit technician Wanda Warren. Mr. Chipman, the owner of the property, had come in for the permit with an engineer's letter but was advised a meeting was Page 22 February 23, 2006 necessary. A meeting was held. At that time the case was turned over to another investigator, John Santafemia, due to my change in territory. However, I did attend the permit meeting. It was held on April 30th, 2004 with Mr. Chipman. At that time he was told exactly what he needed to do to obtain a permit with the engineering and submitting the plans. The other investigator checked through the process of the permit. It was still in review status, and at that time it still lingered on and it was turned over to another investigator because of the change in territories, Mr. Larry Schwartz. And when he was off on workman's comp., I handled the case for him. And I met with Mr. Chipman and we walked over to the permit department and spoke with the director, Bill Hammond. And he advised him that he could not override certain things on the permit to help him out. So I went over -- one of the things I checked was the health department was rejecting it. So I went over with him and spoke to Mr. Ed Gillman, and we extensively checked through to find out what was required. At that time it was determined that he had to upgrade his septic system in order to have the permit okayed by the health department. Mr. Chipman decided not to. He didn't want to upgrade it, so he decided to obtain a demo permit. Also, the property's been for sale for quite some time, and I believe that Mr. Chipman is waiting to sell the property. And that's why we really want to get this done and over with before it's sold to an unknown buyer. There were also other rejections in environmental and so forth, too. So the permit was having difficulty being processed. At this time another permit is -- has been applied for on February 9th, 2006. However, I believe he's going to have the same problems. I believe this is just a tactic to extend more time, although nothing's been changed. He's not -- he expressed a desire that he did not want to upgrade his septic system due to the fact that eventually Page 23 February 23,2006 the City of Everglades was going to put a sewer system up in that area and it would be an unnecessary expense. And he figured ifhe sold it, the person that was buying it was going to demolish the home anyway. So he's pretty much stalling along. On January 19th, 2006, I met with the present investigator on the case, Larry Schwartz, out at the site. We spoke to the agent who has it for sale and advised her while she called Mr. Chipman on the phone of what needed to be done or it would be taken to Code Enforcement Board. Any questions? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does the board have any questions for Carol? MR. PONTE: Yes, one. This case started in 2004. MS. SYKORA: Correct. MR. PONTE: Is it -- has it taken this long to get to where we are today because of Mr. Chipman or because of reassignments within the -- within the code enforcement operation? Has Mr. Chipman been cooperative is what my real question is. MS. SYKORA: At first Mr. Chipman was cooperative, but it's not due to the change in investigators. I all along would assist the other investigators in telling them the history of it and helping them out. I even met Mr. Chipman when I did not have the case to try to help him out, and he emphatically did not want to upgrade that septic system. And I believe that that -- I know that that would be an additional requirement with this new permit. And the property is for sale, and I think it's just another -- pretty much a stall tactic until he can sell the property. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. SYKORA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. And apparently Mr. Chipman's not here, and he doesn't have anybody representing himself. So if there are no more questions for Carol, I'll close the Page 24 February 23,2006 public hearing. Discussion? MR. PONTE: Yes. The violation regards building permits, but we're hearing that the reason he can't get the permit is because of a septic tank. Is it a different -- different question? Is it a different area of concern? MS. ARNOLD: It's -- it's the same violation because in order to get a permit, he needs to have also a septic tank. It's a part of the building permit process. MR. PONTE: Gotcha. MR. KRAENBRING: The issue may be when you increase the size of the building, you're increasing the occupancy load, you probably have to increase the size of the septic system to handle that new occupancy, potential occupancy. Even though you may not be adding people personally -- MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: -- there's always that potential. It also looks like this is possibly lake front property? MS. SYKORA: It's on a canal, gulf access at Plantation Island. MR. KRAENBRING: That certainly may have something to do with it, also. I guess my concern is just the amount of time that's elapsed. You know, we're two years into this. MR. PONTE: Yeah. MR. KRAENBRING: And I think it's a pretty simple request. You know, comply and -- you know, it's a health and safety issue when you start talking about septic issues, especially on waterfront properties. MR. PONTE: Is the property occupied? MS. SYKORA: Actually, the investigator said that it is being rented. An investigator went out there to post the property, and he told me that the gentleman in there said he was renting it for a thousand dollars a month. MR. MORGAN: Bottom line, Mr. Chipman is stalling, right? Page 25 February 23, 2006 MS. SYKORA: I believe so. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. SYKORA: With the demo permit, he didn't do anything, that was six months, he let that expire. And now they've reapp'd the permit that they know is not going to pass review. MR. KRAENBRING: May I make a comment? I think we really shouldn't suppose as to what's in the mind of Mr. Chipman. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Right. Also I thought I closed the hearing. I don't know, how do I -- do I reopen that if they have further questions or what? MS. RAWSON: You reopen the public hearing if you have further questions of the investigator because technically after you close the public hearing, the discussion is only between you guys. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So I'll go ahead and reopen the hearing then. MR. PONTE: There's no more questions. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All right. Now that we have no more questions, okay, then I will close the public hearing. Okay. Is there anymore discussion amongst the board, please? MR. DEWITTE: Is there -- do we have a recommendation from the county? MS. SYKORA: Yes. The county recommends that the respondent be ordered to obtain all required inspections on the current permit and certificate of occupancy, completion within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day be imposed for each day the violation remains or obtain a demo permit and all associated inspections and certificate of completion and remove all debris to a site intended for such use within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day for each day the violation remains. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Carol, can you put that on the screen for us to view, please? MS. SYKORA: Sorry. I'm not too prepared. I was kind of Page 26 February 23, 2006 called at the last minute from Immokalee so -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. We can read it. Okay. If we have no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion to decide whether or not there is a violation. MR. PONTE: I make a motion the violation does exist in the case of -- as described in the charging documents in the case 2006-06, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Chipman. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I have a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Motion is passed. Now that we have agreed that there is a violation, I would entertain a motion for how to correct this. MR. PONTE: Before we go with that -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MR. PONTE: -- Carol's recommendation, the county's recommendation is fine as far as I'm concerned, but for the penalty. I think $250 a day is excessive in this instance. MR. DEWITTE: I agree. Ten days is $2500. What's the value of this property? I mean it's -- MS. SYKORA: It's selling for a million and a half. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's the asking price. MR. PONTE: Right. I just think that's a bit high. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Would you like to entertain a motion or attempt to make one, George? Page 27 February 23, 2006 MR. PONTE: Well, I -- not the motion, it's the amount of money. I guess the -- as it stands -- I'd like to have a little discussion. Do we think a hundred dollars a day is too high? I mean the property's just sitting out there doing nothing. My concern is if there's a safety issue involved or a health issue involved because it is being rented, that's another consideration and we might -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I don't know if there's a safety issue, but I do see a longevity issue. MR. PONTE: Yes. Okay. Let's -- can we just say this, that we would -- rather than go through it all, I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation as stated by the investigator and that the fine be $100 a day. MR. DEWITTE: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. All of those in favor MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KRAENBRING: No. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Jean, do you have that pretty much? MS. RAWSON: I got it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. And that case is closed and we'll move onto the -- MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- next case. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, there has been a request made by one of the respondents that's present if they could move their item up. It's imposition of fines. And that is Board of County Commissioners versus Diana Hall CEB 2003-036. She's making this request because she has to return back to work. Page 28 February 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DEWITTE: Make a motion to accept that. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. PONTE: (Indicating). CHAIRMAN BARNETT: One. Okay. Guess we'll go ahead and move her forward then. We're going to stop our hearings and we're going go ahead and out of order move to an imposition of fines. Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Diana Hall, CEB number 2004-36. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This case was heard by you-all in -- on October 1st, 2003. And the violation was an abandoned permit, more or less. Mrs. Hall has been working to get her construction of her home completed, and it thankfully is completed. And I -- I think most of the board members -- maybe a couple of you recall the case. Because it's taken beyond the time that was requested by the board, fines have accrued in the amount of$1O,191.86. The operational costs for the violation is $1,341.84 and the fines are a total of $8,850. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Michelle, just a question then. Because you're saying that imposition -- or the fines were $10,191.86. Is it 84 cents? MS. ARNOLD: Eighty-four. I'm sorry. I added two cents. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And Miss Hall is here I believe to request for either a reduction or abatement. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. (Ms. Hall was duly sworn.) Page 29 February 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes, Mrs. Hall? MS. HALL: Yes. I'm here before the court today to ask that the fines be abated. When we was in court in May that -- it was requested that the property come to completion by September the 22nd, and it was done by July the 18th and I would like for fines to go away. I remember back in February that the -- the county motion that the -- the extension would be granted and that the fine would go away even at that time. And I continued to work until everything was completed, even before the date that the last date that was set forth, which was September 22nd, by it being completed July the 18th. I would like for that, you know, position for the fines to be dismissed as staying as a zero balance owed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Miss Hall, because some of the board members probably were not present in the original cases, could you explain to us what took so long in getting this completed? MS. HALL: Yes, no problem. It's property that I had, and I had persons that were working on the property that were not so credible. And it cost me all the money that I had already set aside to complete the dwelling, which is a single-family home for me and my family, working as a single parent, to complete. And when the money was gone, I continued to work and work and save money. And I went to different agencies for assistance and when it seemed like they were going to help me, they didn't. And I continued to work and work and work and save and continue to work towards completion from 2003, September I think it was, until July the 18th of 2005 and -- to get this completed so I could satisfy the board. And I would appreciate it if you-all would consider the hard working effort that I put into the property to work hard to build it out of pocket to bring it upon the county code and have it livable, as I live there now. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Michelle, does the county have any position? Page 30 February 23, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: The investigator's here. He could speak to, you know, all of the challenges Mrs. Hall had to go through. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. (The investigator was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This case started out a long time ago, early 2003. I do believe that Miss Hall did work diligently to get the permit taken care of. It's just she had a lot of stumbling blocks, financial difficulties. At no time do I think she was, you know, trying to not do it. The permit wasn't CO'd until January 18th of2006. So I think that was part of the record that the permit be obtained, inspections done, and the CO done. So I'm not really sure what time the permit was issued, but the CO didn't occur until January 18th of this year. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. HALL: The fine was paid from January, but it was CO'd right here July the 18th of last year. MR. LETOURNEAU: Not according to my records. When I -- I was checking on it, you know, on a monthly basis and-- MS. HALL: I have it right here. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, do you? Okay. Let me check it out. It says the CO -- final CO was issued January 18th 2006. MS. HALL: That's when the fines were paid. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's when -- well, that's when the CO was issued. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. In order -- when they issue -- when you pay all your impact fees and whatever fees toward the permit is -- and everything has been complied with for the permit process is when they give you the CO. Certificate of completion. Even though your house may have been completed prior to then, they don't -- they don't consider it completed until all of the fees have been paid. MS. HALL: Well, I was unaware of that. And according to the Page 3 1 February 23, 2006 sheet, it says here that the -- it was completed July the 18th. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does the board have any questions? MR. KRAENBRING: We're happy with the final product, the remedies and such? I remember -- okay. MS. ARNOLD: The county has no objection to abating the fines, but the operational costs would -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would stand. Okay. Do we have any discussion amongst the board? MR. KRAENBRING: Just that I think this is a perfect case of someone who's been trying to comply and, you know, you impose these fines to make sure they do comply and they work with the county and -- you know, I will make a motion toward dismissal of the fines. MR. PONTE: I agree with you. I'll make a second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DEWITTE: For clarification, dismissing the fines but imposing operational costs? MR. KRAENBRING: Yes. Unfortunately we can't eliminate the operational. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We can't eliminate the operational costs because it's not in our power. But -- okay? MS. HALL: What is the amount of the operational costs? MS. ARNOLD: $1,341.84. MS. HALL: Well, will there be an installment? I'm-- MS. ARNOLD: Y es. You can work with Shirley on setting up a payment plan. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time I have a motion on the floor and a second to go ahead and eliminate all of the fines, except for the operational costs. All of those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 32 February 23, 2006 MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. Do you understand? You'll still have to pay the operational costs, and like Michelle said if you get with Shirley she'll set up an installment plan that you can afford and she'll work with you on that. You'll have to take care of the operational costs, but the fines have been removed. MS. HALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you for working with us. MS. HALL: Thank you for working with me. MR. KRAENBRING: Good luck. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Good luck. MS. HALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'm going to ask -- do you need a break? Okay. We'll take a five minute recess. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time I would like to go ahead and reconvene this meeting of the Code Enforcement Board, February 23rd, 2006. The next case is case number 2006 -01, Board of Collier County Commissioners against Samuel Mena. And at this time would the county like to enter evidence package? MS. GARCIA: Sure. CEB case number 2006-01, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Samuel Mena. Violation of ordinance 04-41, section 3.05.01(b). Description of the violation's vegetation removal of canopy trees, mid story, and under story. No county permits were obtained. Ground has also been altered from machinery that was used to remove vegetation. The location of the violation, the address of the violation is at 104 20th Street Northeast. The owner of the violation location is Mr. Page 33 February 23,2006 Samuel Mena. The violation was first observed 11 th of July of 2005. The owner -- date of the owner that was given the notice of violation was the 18th of July 2005. The date on which the violation was to be corrected was 18th of August 2005; date of the reinspection was 30th of August -- October 2005. The result of the reinspection was the violation still remains, and we'd like to enter this into Exhibit A as evidence. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have a motion to accept Exhibit A? MR. DEWITTE: So motioned. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. Do we have any -- the respondent have any representation? MS. GARCIA: No. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Would you please? (Kevin Halesworth was duly sworn.) MR. HALESWORTH: Good morning again. On the 11th of July I visited the property of Mr. Samuel Mena. This is 104 20th Street Northeast. On that site visit I observed a vast area that was cleared of all vegetation and posted a stop work order. I would like to present some pictures, first of all, to show you what I saw on that day. As you can see from the picture, the top layer was completely removed. We still have vegetal debris laying around showing that it was done fairly recently. This shows where fill was actually laid without permits, also. That particular picture does show some fell trees, but due to the quality and the conditions on the date it's not very Page 34 February 23, 2006 visible. This is the stop work order posted on the property. And, finally, I think this picture shows very clearly exactly how much soil was removed from this site. It was not just vegetation. Approximately three feet down there. Following this I approached the owner and spoke to them to advise them that they had done something against Collier County Land Development Code and advised that they would need to go through the correct procedures either to obtain permits or to restore the area. I left my business card and left the scene. On the 15th of that month, I went back to site to measure just to clarify that they had cleared over the allowable one acre, which in fact they had. They had cleared 1.6 acres, meaning 0.6 acres had to be restored according to our codes. It was at this point that I prepared a notice of violation and sent it to the respondent's address. After not hearing anything from the owner with various attempts to call them, I actually did a site visit again on the 30th of August. I did manage to meet with the owner, and I explained that it was in their best interest to do what was necessary to replace the missing vegetation, submit a mitigation plan, at which point the owners said they would fight all the way to the end. It is with this intention that we bring it today before the board once again to make a judgment on this. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does the board have any questions? MR. PONTE: We're talking about an acre and a half, Kevin, is that correct? MR. HALESWORTH: 1.6 acres was cleared in total, correct. MR. PONTE: Have we heard anything from the respondent at all, other than -- I think you said I'll fight this to the end, but he's not here. MR. HALESWORTH: No, sir, he's not. MR. MORGAN: What was the reason for clearing this land? Page 35 February 23, 2006 MR. HALESWORTH: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? MR. MORGAN: What was the reason for clearing this land? Was there a specific reason? MR. HALESWORTH: He did not have a reason for clearing the land. He did speak little English, he claimed, but I did have a full English conversation with him at another stage. But a neighbor protested that he was hauling the fill off site to sell it. There was no evidence of the remainder of the fill on site. MR. MORGAN: In other words, he had -- he was starting a borrow pit. MR. HALESWORTH: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MORGAN: That's illegal itself. MR. HALESWORTH: Correct. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: He wasn't cited for that, though. So -- okay. MR. DEWITTE: Does the county have a position as to -- MR. HALESWORTH: Yes, We have recommendations for the board. Go ahead and read that to you. Pay operational costs in the amount of $421.82 incurred in the prosecution of this case. Secondly -- let me put a copy of this up here so you guys can see. That was number one, this is number two. Abate all violations by submitting a mitigation plan pursuant to Ordinance 04-41 as amended, section 1O.02.06(a) 3 by April 7th, 2006. Replacement vegetation shall meet standards restoration in accordance with code section 3.05.07 II. Plants shall be installed 15 days after approval of mitigation plan, on or before April 7th, 2006. A fine of $100 per day be imposed for each day the violation remains. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Before we move with penalties, I need to find out if we feel that there was a violation. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that in this case a violation does exist. Page 36 February 23,2006 MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. Now if we'd like to go to the imposition. MR. PONTE: I just have a question. The mitigation that's suggested here would involve what, exactly? MR. HALESWORTH: Usually what we have the property owners do is hire an environmental consultant. We feel this is the best way to get the natural vegetation back up to standard so they can assess the site, see what was there before, and restore it to its natural state. In this case .6 acres of vegetation consisting of things such as pine trees, sabal palms, cypress, and under story of grasses and things like this. MR. DEWITTE: That plan is then brought to the county for approval -- MR. HALESWORTH: Correct. MR. DEWITTE: -- and then move forward on it? MR. HALESWORTH: This would be submitted to myself by the environmental consultant, once hired, and I would approve or disapprove of the mitigation plan according to county codes. MR. DEWITTE: Is 15 days long enough to get a landscape contractor in to get those trees -- theoretically, you can't give them the go ahead until it's done, the approval is set. Can they really turn around in two weeks and populate this size of an area? MR. HALESWORTH: May I -- I have something to add about that. There is the -- Mr. Mena has until April 7th to hire somebody. When they usually contact the person they're going to hire, the Page 37 February 23,2006 environmental consultant, the environmental consultant asks for the deadline immediately. So that deadline Mr. Mena would be giving them would be 15 days after April 7th. So he in effect has nearly two months to do the whole thing. It doesn't take long to draw mitigation plan for .6 acres. MR. DEWITTE: No. My question was you've got to turn the switch and say to a company, okay, go ahead and get me the trees, it's been approved. Can they really turn around in two weeks, produce those trees, and get them planted? If it doesn't get approved, those guys are going to be doing other work. So I don't know if there's enough lead time there with the landscape contractors to do that in that 15 days. MR. HALESWORTH: We've very, very lenient. If they do submit a mitigation plan then 15 days is very flexible. Especially on how available the trees are. Fifteen days is not -- MR. MORGAN: Does Mr. Mena have to bring in some fill to bring it back up to grade again? MR. HALESWORTH: That would be the decision of the Department of Environmental Protection if they feel -- MR. MORGAN: In other words, ifhe's been excavating out, you know, some areas is low, and he'd have to bring it back up to grade again before he could do his restoration of the foliage. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We don't really have to deal with that because he wasn't cited for that today, so that's going to be up to them. MR. MORGAN: Okay. MR. DEWITTE: Okay. Is a hundred dollars a day acceptable to the board here? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm going to go back to the 15 days. Because according to -- how I am reading this is if he doesn't get the plants installed within 15 days, then the fines are going to start to incur. So I think in his question he was saying, you know, maybe we meet -- need to change the 15 day time frame just a little bit. Page 38 February 23, 2006 MR. HALESWORTH: That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. PONTE: The other factor is we start planting trees in this time of year, that's too dry. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: They're going die. MR. PONTE: And you -- at least give them a chance to survive in getting to the beginning of the rainy season, the end of April, 1st of May. MR. HALESWORTH: Well, this would be-- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: This would be in the middle of May -- or April. MR. DEWITTE: This would be April, mid April. But that is a good point to consider. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I think maybe 25 days might be a better suggestion is just my own thought. MR. DEWITTE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If we're making -- MR. DEWITTE: How do we feel about the fines? Is a hundred dollars a day enough? MR. HALESWORTH: Is the 25 days business days or 25 actual days, calendar days? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Calendar days. MR. PONTE: I'm comfortable with a hundred dollars a day. MR. DEWITTE: Okay. Can we have a motion to accept the county's proposal for remedy here with the modification instead of 15 days, 25 days? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. DEWITTE: So motioned. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 39 February 23,2006 MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. Jean, do you understand what I did? MS. RAWSON: I'm going to ask you if! can have a copy of his written recommendations. MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to give it to you. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All we did was change from 15 to-- MS. RAWSON: I got that part. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. HALESWORTH: Michelle's handwriting is better than mme. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, The next case is case number 2006-04, Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Russell and Kaydee Tuff. Respondents are not present, I can tell. Would the county like to go ahead and submit the packet? MS. GARCIA: Sure. CEB case number 2006-04, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Russell and Kaydee Tuff. Violation of section 1O.02.06(b) (1) and (a), 10.02.06(b)(I) and (d), 10.02.06(b)(1)(d) and (i)ofCounty Ordinance 2004-41. Description of the violation is the prohibited conversion of a garage into a living space without the required Collier County building permit. The location address of the violation is 2118 44th Street Southwest. The owner or person in charge of that violation is Russell and Kaydee Tuff. The date the violation first was observed was September 19th, 2005. The notice of violation was given on October 17th of2005. The date on which the violation was to be corrected was November 20th, 2005, date of reinspect ion, November 29th of'05. And the results of the reinspection, violation still remains. There were also, for Page 40 February 23, 2006 the record, certified mail receipt went to -- was delivered at their house on February 9th. We'd like to enter into Exhibit A into the evidence. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. DEWITTE: Second. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKE: For the record, Shawn Luedtke, Collier County Code Enforcement. On September 19th, 2005 I responded to 2118 44th Street Southwest in reference to an illegal garage conversion. Upon my arrival, I observed a garage had been enclosed. The garage door had been removed and replaced with glass sliders. On the 27th of September I researched the property found the owners to be Russell and Kaydee Tuff. I was not able to find any building permits for the conversion, and I assessed at that time that the conversion took place around 1979. On the 4th of October I attempted to serve a notice of violation at the Tuffs residence, which is also in Golden Gate City, but no one was home. Posted my business card. On the 17th of October I made contact with Miss Tuff on the phone who said I could come by her place of employment. I went by at that time and issued the notice of violation, giving 30 days to come into compliance. I rechecked the site on the 29th of November and the violation Page 41 February 23, 2006 remained. No permits had been obtained or applied for. I called and left a message for Kaydee to call me back with an update. On the 8th of December I granted an extension. Mr. Tuff left me a couple messages, and when I spoke with Miss Tuff she requested an extension because they were going to try to hire a contractor or try to research the property see if they could find some old permits because this took place prior to their ownership. So I granted an extension at that time. On the 10th of January I spoke with Miss Tuff again at a Golden Gate civic association here in -- well, in Golden Gate. And we discussed the case. She had a couple concerns I thought she was going to come and bring up to the board, but I told her we would go ahead and present it to the board for a hearing and so they could make a decision. At that time I prepared the case for a hearing. To this date no permits have been applied for. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. You researched it and did not find any permits? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any other questions? MR. PONTE: Yes. Just -- you mentioned 1979? MR. LUEDTKE: That's correct. MR. PONTE: What's that date? What happened in 1979? I'm not clear. MR. LUEDTKE: Well, research on the property, the ownership, the deeds, the whole nine yards, on the property card the property appraiser noted that in 1979 a conversion of 70 percent was done to the front of the house. I can show that to you. At that time, that's when the property appraiser noted that the conversion had took place. MR. DEAN: And how long have the current owners lived there? MR. LUEDTKE: Miss Tuff bought the property in June of'89. MR. DEAN: Thank you. Page 42 February 23,2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? Are we sure we don't have any other questions? Okay. At this time I'll close the public hearing. Discussion amongst the board? MR. PONTE: Well, I mean it's been there for 37 years. MR. MORGAN: But is there a grandfather clause to take care of something like that? MR. PONTE: I would think so. MR. MORGAN: I would think so. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: I don't think there is such a thing as a grandfather clause. You can ask the county attorney, but I doubt it. MR. DEWITTE: There are -- basically, there are permitted and non permitted garage conversions is the way to do it properly, I think, to make sure that adequate ventilation and other stuff is in there. And if that's not done properly, whether it's old or new, it may not be safe without being permitted. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does the county attorney have a position here? MR. GRIFFIN: Steve Griffin with the County Attorney's Office. I think it would be the County Attorney Office's position that your attorney is correct, there is no grandfathering provision. So essentially it is up to the owner of the property at the time of the violation to take care of whatever noncompliance exists. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. GRIFFIN: This -- I will also mention this has been a topic of discussion with our commission, as I'm sure you're aware. Some problems with contractors in the past on certain properties. MR. DEWITTE: Just as a point of clarification, what have been some of the things that have been done in the past? Do people go after the original homeowner that did the conversion on these, or how have some of these issues been worked out? Page 43 February 23, 2006 MR. GRIFFIN: My understanding is that there is certainly a private right of action that can be taken to try to get either some compensation for monies that have to be paid and fines or costs to the county or other remedies that have to be pursued by the current owner of the property that they might be able to go to try to recover some of that money. Lot of that depends on certain other kinds of agreements at the time that the property was transferred and other laws that might apply. There might be -- there might be a private right of action. Your attorney probably is aware of those, too. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean, doesn't the violation follow the property? MS. RAWSON: It does. MR. DEWITTE: Sure. MS. RAWSON: The violation runs with the land, so the new owners buy subject of the violations of the code. MR. DEAN: So it's still buyer beware. MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah. There are, of course, provisions too on due diligence of buyers and disclosure requirements for sellers. So assuming that those things take place, then there -- everyone should be on an equal footing or understanding when they take the property. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion to find out whether or not a violation actually exists. MR. DEWITTE: Motion that a violation exists on the property. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Second? MR. MORGAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. Page 44 February 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KRAENBRING: No. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Two. Okay. We'll go to figure out what types of remedy to fix the situation. Michelle, did you have a -- MR. LUEDTKE: I did type up a recommendation. Obtain all required Collier County building permits for the conversion and certificate of occupancy or return the area back to its legal conforming state, which was a garage, within 60 days or a fine of $100 per day. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Put that on the screen, please. MR. PONTE: Just as an observation, I certainly can't go along with that. This violation's been there since 1979. The home has had a couple of owners. Let's say, we -- it's had an owner other than the Tuffs. And I think we have to approach this carefully and not just rubber stamp, you know, okay, go get the permits, do the thing, you have 15 days to do that or a hundred dollars a day. That's not justice. People have lived there for all this while, I can't believe there are any safety hazards. People aren't suffocating or, you know -- 1979 puts a flag on this. MR. DEWITTE: Sure. I would agree with your statement that we approach this leniently, but I cannot agree that there's no safety hazards or nobody's suffocating. There might be, and I don't want to be -- would not want to be party to -- we have the code for a reason and we uphold it, so I don't want to be party to leaving it un -- without remedy. I also don't want to do something, you know, abrasive to these seemingly innocent people who inherited this problem, either. But I would -- I would maybe suggest that we give them a longer period of time and a lower fine. MR. PONTE: Another 39 years. MR. DEWITTE: Well-- but I do think that this needs to be Page 45 February 23, 2006 brought into conformance. You know, we have these -- this code for a reason and it -- we don't know whether it's a safety issue or not a safety issue or what. And without it being permitted and checked out MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. I don't know what their resistance would be to just going through the process of getting the permits and just taking care of this. And I think, yeah, a general statement here to encourage them to do that would be the best remedy. I agree with you. MR. DEWITTE: And so -- I mean it might be simply adding an air-conditioning duct into the garage if one doesn't exist. Or maybe it does and there won't be a problem with the permit. But I -- MR. KRAENBRING: Well, we don't know until they actually-- MR. DEWITTE: That's right. MR. KRAENBRING: -- do the permit process. And it does follow -- you know, the violation does follow the property, the land. MR. DEWITTE: I think it's important that we make a lenient judgment, but one also that brings the problem to remedy. MR. KRAENBRING: And then if -- further down the line, if they're still nonconforming, then we can revisit it. I'm sure at that point it will be imposition of fines. I agree. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Michelle, can I ask you to obtain a building permit now, what's the general length of time, average? MS. ARNOLD: It will probably take longer than 60 days. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's what I thought. MS. ARNOLD: It's taking -- just depending on the submittals of course, if someone submits something and it meets all the criteria, then the review will probably take a couple weeks. But I think what we're finding is that the submittals are not always in -- complete so -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Plus it's so old. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think it has anything to do with the age of the structure or anything like that. It's more or less have they Page 46 February 23, 2006 provided all what was required for the building permit application. MR. PONTE: Will this -- this would then have to be up to current county codes, storm codes. MS. ARNOLD: Right. With-- MR. PONTE: 1979-- MS. ARNOLD: With situations like this, the building department will accept a permit through affidavit from an engineer or someone certifying that it -- you know, it's structurally sound. And then that way they wouldn't have to go back in and assume what was underneath the walls. So it's more of, you know, of a formal process. There is something on file that says that it needs some structural code and -- and some of the safety codes, and then they would just have to obtain that permit and request an inspection and get a certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So it could go anywhere from three weeks to -- depending on how long it's going to take them to get an engineer willing to satisfy that. MS. ARNOLD: 120 days would probably be reasonable. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. That was what I -- thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And as you-all mentioned, ifthere's some problem in the process, the respondent can always come back and request additional time. MR. DEWITTE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes? MR. DEWITTE: As a point of logistics as we go through this, is it okay with you that we say that we're accepting the county's recommendation with these modification? Is that a fair way to do business, or would it be preferred that we repeat it in its entirety? MS. RAWSON: As long as he's read it into the record-- MR. DEWITTE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: -- and as long as we have it on the record, if you vote to accept the recommendations -- unless you make some Page 47 February 23, 2006 changes and spell those out -- that is fine. MR. DEWITTE: So it's fine to do it -- accept it with modification? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. DEWITTE: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: If I could make one -- are we going to leave the fines where they are, the hundred dollars per day fine? MR. DEWITTE: I was thinking we'd change both. But if somebody wants to put forward a motion -- I was thinking the idea of maybe 120 or 180 days and maybe like a 25-dollar a day. And as it's on the record as we've discussed, you know, with the idea of being lenient. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is that a motion? MR. DEWITTE: And I'd be happy to make it one. I'll make a motion to accept the county's recommendation with the following changes. That it be brought back into its legal conforming state within 180 days or a fine of $25 per day be imposed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I have a second? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MS. ARNOLD: Can I have -- sorry -- a clarification whether or not operational costs are going to be imposed? And can you tell me again the per day and the number of days? Because I missed it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The operational costs were included MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Page 48 February 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- per Shawn's first order. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I believe it was a hundred and -- MR. DEWITTE: Eighty days. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- eighty days. MR. DEWITTE: 180. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Twenty-five per day. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: This is one of my coughing spells I was hoping not to have. Okay. That then concludes our public hearings, and we'll move to new business and the impositions of fines, which is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Lebardo and Maritza Guiterrez. Excuse me if I mess that up. Give me one second. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This is CEB case number 2004-048. This case was heard before the board on September 23rd, 2004, at which time a violation was found. The violation was the -- an unsecured partially constructed single-family structure. And the permit was abandoned. The county is at this time requesting that we impose fines in the amount of$9,649.61 for -- which includes operational costs of $649.61 and fines running from November 19th, 2005 to February 17th, 2006 for a total of $9,000. Violation still exists so the fines will CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Fines are still accruing? MS. ARNOLD: -- will accrue. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation to impose the fines and operational costs. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 49 February 23, 2006 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion to call an ambulance. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: No, it's not necessary. But that's why I said it ahead of time at the beginning of the meeting because I've been having these. Okay. Have any old business? The only thing is -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I just wanted to mention that we are going to put on the agenda for the next meeting election of officers. So you-all continue to think about who you want to have as a chairperson or at -- or vice chairperson. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We will take the nominations and vote next month. Don't have any reports that I know of. MS. ARNOLD: No. I think that we probably are due for closure report for you, so we'll have that at the next meeting, as well. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any comment besides I apologize for my coughing fit? The next meeting is March 23rd, 2006. Entertain a motion for adjournment. MR. KRAENBRING: Just a note. That's going to be here? Didn't we have some discussion as to whether it's going to be here or MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That's the June meeting. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, sorry. MS. ARNOLD: That will be somewhere else. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. MR. MORGAN: Motion to adjourn. Page 50 February 23,2006 MR. DEWITTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:12 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Sheri Barnett, CHAIRMAN Page 51