Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/23/2006 R March 23, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida March 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 REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean Justin DeWitt (absent) Richard Kraenbring Gerald Lefebvre Jerry Morgan George Ponte David Cook Kenneth Kelly ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Dennis Mitchell, Supervisor Steven Griffin, Assistant County Attorney Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: March 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. ELECTION OF OFFICIERS - Elections for Chairman and Vice-Chairman 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 23, 2006 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion to Continue - BCC vs. Patrice Savignano 2. Motion for Re-Hearing - BCC vs. Russell & Kaydee Tuff CEB 2005-28 CEB 2006-04 B. STIPULATIONS - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: 2006-02(CONT. FROM FEBRUARY 23, HEARING AND WITHDRAWN BY COUNTY) CASE ADDR: 81 RIVER DR.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. 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TlONS: 2006-07 2631 SHOREVIEW DR., NAPLES, FL 34112 (FOLIO: 48170920001) EILEEN EVANS NEWMARK & BRAD EVANS EVERILDO YBACET A ORD NO 04-41, 1O.02.06(B)(I)(A) ZONING ACTION ON BUILDING PERMIT, 1O.02.06(B)(I)(D) IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY PROHIBITED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT, 1O.02.06(B)(I)(D)(I) INSPECTIONS, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2001 EDITION, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2002-01 SECTIONS 104.1 PERMIT APPLICATION, 104.1.3.5 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO PERMITS ISSUANCE. DESCRIPTION: A STORAGE TYPE STRUCTURE ERECTED IN THE REAR NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-08 3675 THOMASSON DR., NAPLES FL. (FOLIO # 22670760004) JEAN J. LORMIL EVERILDO YBACETA ORD NO. 04-41, 1.04.01(A) GENERALLY, 1O.02.06(B)(I)(A) ZONING ACTION ON BUILDING OR LAND ALTERATION PERMITS, 10.02.06 (B)(D)(I) INSPECTIONS: ORD. 1998-76 SECTION 106.31 CONNECTION TO SERVICE UTILITIES. DESCRIPTION: A PERMITTED SCREEN PORCH ALTERED INTO A SIDE UNIT APT. WITH ELECTRICAL AND WATER SERVICES. 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-09 1920 BETHANY PLACE, NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 74510520006) KRISTOPHER & CHRISTINE GOMERY HEATHER GRIMSHAW ORD NO 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(A), 1O.02.06(I)(D)(I), 1O.02.06(B)(I)(D), 104.1.1 AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITION, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 02-01, SECTION 104.1.3.5 DESCRIPTION: AN ILLEGAL ADDITION TO HOUSE WITHOUT HAVING FIRST OBTAINED ALL REQUIRED PERMIT(S). 5. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TlONS: 2006-10 652 SOLIEL DR., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 25700000408) STEVE LOVELESS RON MARTINDALE ORD NO 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 1O.02.06(B)(I)(A), 10.02.06(I)(D)(I), AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITION, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 02- 01, SECTION 106.3.1 AND 106.1.2 DESCRIPTION: OCCUPYING A NEW DWELLING WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ISSUED FOR THE STRUCTURE OF SWIMMING POOL 6. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TlONS: 2006-12 2415 AVONDALE STREET" NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 22720960000) STEVEN PROFACA/FIRST CLASS AUTO WHOLESALE, INC. TOM CAMPBELL ORD NO 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 1O.02.03(B)(5), COLLIER COUNTY SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SIP) 00-01 DESCRIPTION: STORING OF NUMEROUS VEHICLES THAN THE SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ALLOWS 7. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TlONS: 2006-14 1022 PINE ISLE LANE, NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 24320880009) JANET BURKET JOHN OLNEY ORD NO 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 1O.02.06(B)(I)(A), 1O.02.06(B)(I)(D), 1O.02.06(I)(D)(I), AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITION, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 02-01, SECTION 104.1.1 AND 106.1.2 DESCRIPTION: GLASS DOOR REPLACEMENT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING BUILDING PERMIT. 8. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TlONS: 2006-15 4915 CORTEZ CIRCLE., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 63103080003) DAISY ARRAZCAET A JOHN OLNEY ORD NO 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 1O.02.06(B)(I)(A), 1O.02.06(B)(I)(D), 10.02.06 (B)(I)(D)(I), AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITIONS, AS AMENDED BY ORD. 02-01, SECTION 104.1.1 AND 106.1.2 DESCRIPTION: CONVERSION OF GARAGE INTO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS AND ADDED A WINDOW IN A GARAGE WALL. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC YS. Patrice E. Savignano (Continued from January 26, 2006 Hearing) 2. BCC YS. Miguel & Daima Fernandez CEB No. 2005-28 CEB No. 2005-11 9. COMMENTS 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion of Rules and Rel!ulations 10. NEXT MEETING DATE April 27, 2006 11. ADJOURN March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Good morning. Seeing that it's 9:30, I'd like to go ahead and call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Please 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 being based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And because of this, I would like to have everyone note that you need to be called on by the Chair before you speak so that our reporter can get the most verbatim record as possible. I would like to also state that we have a full quorum with two new alternates that I would like to introduce, Kenneth Kelly and David Cook. At this time, may I have roll call. MS. GARCIA: For the record, my name is Shirley Garcia and I'll begin with roll call. Sheri Barnett? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Here. MS. GARCIA: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. MS. GARCIA: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Justin DeWitt has an excused absence. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. GARCIA: David Cook? MR. COOK: Here. MS. GARCIA: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. Page 2 March 23, 2006 MS. GARCIA: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. GARCIA: And Jean Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Here. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Approval of the agenda. MR. DEAN: Motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have any changes or corrections first? MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, Madam Chairman, board members. Dennis Mitchell, supervisor of Collier County Code Enforcement. A few changes, please. Under hearings, Items seven and eight, we'll be stipulating this mornIng. And as you can see, Item 1, the county is withdrawing; does not wish to hear that matter today, as a result. And in an effort to expedite Item 6, we wish to place that in place of Item 1. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: With those changes, may I have a motion to accept the agenda? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? Page 3 March 23, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. The next item is election of officers. And I hate to take care of this business during this time, but it's that time of year. We have to nominate and elect our officers for the following year. I'll start with the election for the chairman. Do we have any nominations? MR. DEAN: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DEAN: I'd like to nominate Sheri Barnett as our chairman and Richard Kraenbring as our vice-chairman. MR. PONTE: I would second both of those nominations. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have any -- all those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any other people that would like to put in any motions for other officers? MR. DEAN: Madam president, I'd like to move the nominations closed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Am I being railroaded here? Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 4 March 23, 2006 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DEAN: That's it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Seeing that there's only two, one for each position, I guess we're done. Okay, I guess we'll go to the approval of minutes for the February 23rd, 2006 meeting. Do we have any amendments or corrections? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we approve the minutes for February 23,2006. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, minutes have been approved. Let's go to public hearings. First one being a motion to continue. Does the county have a position? MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Environmental Investigator, and horrible with the microphone. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, I believe that Patrice Savignano Page 5 March 23, 2006 is present. Okay. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Patrice, would you like to come up here, please. Swear her in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: The County's position on the continuance is that it be denied. We respectfully ask for that in terms of the fact that the basis of the continuance was a mitigation plan that would be submitted to the county by today. We had a basic preliminary draft submitted on the 21 st, which I'm not going to be able to approve. It's unintelligible and does not address all of the matters at hand. MS. SA VIGNANO: Actually, I was hoping not to ask for a continuance. I hoped we would have this all wrapped up today. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We can't hear you. MS. SA VIGNANO: I'm ready as I'm going to be at this point if we cannot continue. MR. KRAENBRING: Is this -- is this the actual hearing today, or is this an imposition of fines? MS. GARCIA: Imposition of fines. MR. MITCHELL: She's also on the agenda for that as well. MS. GARCIA: They're asking for a continuance. MR. MITCHELL: I believe that's what she's trying to continue. MS. GARCIA: Right. MR. MITCHELL: The department's position on that is that we've already granted an extension on that imposition of fines in February. We have a letter from her attorney that states that he'll be out of town now, as part of the request. However -- and it's been planned since June of last year, as the letter indicates. However, he failed to mention that last month. We don't see any justification for it right now. Page 6 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sounds better. Okay. George? MR. PONTE: Yes. I guess what I was saying was, shouldn't this be heard under Section 8? MS. BARNETT: That's if we don't request -- he's asking whether or not this should be heard under Section 8. And I said if we don't grant the continuance, then yes, it would be heard under Section 8. MR. KRAENBRING: It's my understanding, though, that Ms. Savignano is not asking for a continuance, she's looking to take care of this now. MS. SA VIGNANO: I was under the impression we were just going to talk about fines today, hoping that the plan was going to be in and be approved. So I know the attorney isn't here. I know you want to talk about the fines. If we need to do it today, I'll have to go ahead. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I think we'll just go ahead -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion? I make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, we'll go ahead and hear you later on. Thank you. The next is a motion for rehearing. Board of County Page 7 March 23, 2006 Commissioners versus Russell and Kaydee Tuff. I know that the Tuffs are here. County? MR. MITCHELL: At this time, the county has no objection for a request for rehearing. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would you like to swear them both in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MITCHELL: They're doing a request, so I think they get to go first, right? MS. RAWSON: Did I hear you say the county has no objection? MR. MITCHELL: We have no objection to the request for a rehearing. MS. RAWSON: She probably doesn't even need to make an argument. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: She doesn't really need to say anything then. MR. GRIFFIN: Madam, Chair, could I be recognized, please? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. GRIFFIN: For the record, Steve Griffin with the County Attorney's Office. We have in the past been of the opinion that when someone doesn't necessarily have an opportunity or hasn't appeared in the case in chief, if they request a rehearing within a reasonable amount of time, that they -- normally we would concur that they be given that opportunity. For what that's worth. The board can certainly do whatever it chooses to do in the situation, but we certainly don't have any objections to a rehearing. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does the board have any opinions? MR. KRAENBRING: Are we going to be rehearing this case today, or is this going to be set for another time? MR. MITCHELL: The County would object to hearing it today. Page 8 March 23, 2006 We would need an opportunity to prepare. MR. KRAENBRING: And what is the time frame that we're looking at for rehearing this? MR. MITCHELL: It would go on next month's agenda. MR. KRAENBRING: Next month's agenda. MS. RAWSON: April 27th. MS. TUFF: I have prepared -- MR. KRAENBRING: Seeing that the county has no opposition, I make a motion that we rehear the case for next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. I guess I need to go to stipulations? MR. LEFEBVRE: One more request for extension, Steve Loveless. MR. KRAENBRING: We have these other ones. MS. BARNETT: We have several, actually, motions to continue. I'm sorry. Although you had a case here that there was a request for a motion to continue on 2006-07, but you also have a stipulation agreement on that? MR. MITCHELL: No. MR. KRAENBRING: That's just a rehearing. MS. GARCIA: Just a motion for continuance. Page 9 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Because I thought he said 07 and 08 he had stipulations for. MS. GARCIA: They have stipulations on 2006-15 and 2006-14. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I had the wrong numbers. Oh, case seven and eight. MS. GARCIA: Items eight and seven. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, gotcha. MR. KRAENBRING: Madam Chairman, after we hear the motion for continuance, are we going to hear the stipulated cases? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So then the first case that has asked for a motion to continue is 2006-07, Eileen Evans Newmark and Brad Evans. Are they present? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. County's position? MR. MITCHELL: We're prepared to prosecute this case now. We request that it be heard in their absence. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. YBACET A: For the record, my name is Eddie Ybaceta, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. So we are hearing this case right now? MR. KRAENBRING: Actually, we have to make -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We have to make a decision. We've heard that the county's stance is that they would like to go ahead and hear the case. MR. YBACET A: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does the board have any questions, comments? MR. PONTE: I have one. Even though the respondent is not here, this is a case that has two respondents. So I guess my question is, where is the other respondent? What would be the reason for the Page 10 March 23, 2006 other respondent not appearing today? If there is no reason, then we should hear the case. MS. GARCIA: I'm sorry. For the record, they had faxed exhibits and their excuses for the continuance are addressed in those letters. MR. PONTE: But that was for -- MS. GARCIA: Mr. and Mrs. Newmark, or Brad Evans. MR. PONTE: She is the one who is ill and in New York. Where is he? MS. GARCIA: Apparently he's with her. When I read the letter and she had called me on the phone yesterday and advised that her husband will stay with her and not be here for the hearing, and that's why they are requesting the continuance. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. GARCIA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any comments from the board? Discussion? MR. KRAENBRING: Based on the letter that we received from Mrs. Newmark and the fact that she's going through treatment in New York, I make a motion that we continue this. She's asking for a continuance, I believe, until June; is that correct? MR. PONTE: At the earliest. MR. KRAENBRING: At the earliest. I don't know that -- the exact facts of the case, but if it doesn't present any sort of health or life safety issues, I'd give her the consideration and extend it, continue it until that time. And I make a motion to do so. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 11 March 23, 2006 MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Looks like we'll be hearing this in June. The next case that has requested a continuance is 2006-09. And that is Kristopher and Christine Gomery. Does the county have a position? MR. MITCHELL: The only justification they provided to us is that he needed to leave town unexpectedly. I don't find that to be satisfactory. We wish to go forward in this case. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have any -- Cherie', would you like to go ahead. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. GRIMSHAW: Heather Grimshaw. Last name is spelled G-R-I-M-S-H-A- W. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. We have got a document in front of us that states they had to leave out of town unexpectedly also. Does the board have any questions of the officer or any comments in regards to this? MR. PONTE: Well, I have one, and that is this is described as an unexpected business trip. And all of us who have been in business have certainly had an occasion to have been called out of town unexpectedly on business. It's not a holiday or vacation here. I think we ought to grant the extension for one month and note the fact that he has requested it before and the reason that he -- the reason he wanted the extension or continuance was because of a business trip. We don't want to let him repeat the same thing, but seeing this is the first time, I'd say go along with it. Page 12 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? MR. KELLY: Madam Chair, from what it states in the letter, it seems as though they are making progress with the permits and trying to get things taken care of. And I think giving them an opportunity to present to us the case, which they have done in an efficient manner, would be beneficial for everybody. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to continue. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you want to say just for the record it will be on the next month's agenda; is that correct? MR. MITCHELL: I would like to mention for the record that their request for a continuance was not received by our department within the allotted amount of time. We just received this request a couple of days ago. They are to provide us an adequate period of time to prepare for this, and they did not. MR. PONTE: But that might be due to the nature of the fact that the trip was unexpected. MR. MITCHELL: And as a result of your motion and approval, then next month's agenda would be appropriate. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have to provide them with notification of that need for a continuance, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, we do, because they're not here. If they were here and would waive it, it wouldn't be necessary. But they're Page 13 March 23, 2006 not here, so we have to provide them notification. MR. KRAENBRING: As long as that's not going to delay next month's hearing. MS. RAWSON: It shouldn't. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And I believe the last one that we have a continuance request for is Case No. 2006-10, and that is the Collier County Code Enforcement Board versus Steve Loveless. MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair, I'd like to recuse myself due to a business relationship with the party. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do I need to step down? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Just step back. Does the county have a position? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am. Again, for the record, we object because we were not provided timely notice to the request for continuance. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So this one again was not timely? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Cherie', would you like to-- (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Please state your name and spell it for the record. MR. MARTINDALE: Ronald Martindale, M-A-R- T -I-N-D-A-L-E. Board, Madam Chair. This case has been ongoing since November -- actually, September of last year. The respondent's been notified on at least three occasions. The letter requesting continuance is only dated the 20th of this month. I assume that you have copies. If not, I'll be glad to provide them. But if you will note, while I feel unfortunate for the reported medical problems in the family, he could have planned ahead on this. Page 14 March 23, 2006 He's also listed and bragged that he's been a contractor for a number of years in the last sentence of the document, so he knows better, is the only thing I can tell you. This is not a health and safety issue, per se, but the structure had been resided in by this licensed, bonded contractor for several years' without a certificate of occupation -- or I'm sorry, occupancy. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have one question for the county. It states in his letter that he did not receive the notice of the meeting until March 17th. Do we know when it was mailed out? MS. GARCIA: Yes, I do. And it was mailed to his -- according to the United States Post Office, it was mailed and delivered on March 7th. And whether he picked it up or not at the post office, the county has done the service. MR. MARTINDALE: Plus I also posted the property itself on the 16th of November and have the photos of that, and the courthouse. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does the board have any questions or comments? MR. DEAN: Madam Chair, I have one comment. It's a swimming pool we're talking about. It's electrical. That's not a health issue? MR. MARTINDALE: It could quite be -- MR. DEAN: And also, as stated by Steve Loveless, that it would be completed by November 11th, '05. MR. MARTINDALE: Correct. MR. DEAN: So the man's in violation. If you say you're going to do something by a date, why don't you have it done. So I'm totally against any extension. I think we should hear it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion? MR. PONTE: I'll move that we hear this case. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Second? Page 15 March 23, 2006 MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, we will hear this one. MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I believe that now is all the continuances. Now we'll go to the stipulations. And that would be -- the first stipulation would be Case No. 2006-14, with Janet Burket. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. OLNEY: Good morning. For the record, John Olney, Collier County Code Investigator. I believe you have a copy of a stipulation entered in this -- between Collier County and Mrs. Burket. I won't read it word for word. The highlights. This is a matter involving a permitting of a sliding glass door that was installed several years ago and never permitted. Mrs. Burket agrees -- pursuant to this stipulation, she agrees to the violation. She will pay operational costs in the amount of $313.34. She shall obtain a building permit and a certificate of occupancy by May 12th, 2006, or be fined $50 a day until the violation is abated. And she will notify Collier County Code Enforcement when the violation is abated. MR. KRAENBRING: Could we have a copy of that stipulation that can be posted on the screen? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mrs. Burket? Page 16 March 23, 2006 MS. BURKET: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do you agree to the stipulation? MS. BURKET: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does the board have any questions, comments? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as proposed by the county. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, the stipulation will stand. MS. BURKET: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, the second stipulation that we have is for Case No. 2006-15, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Daisy Arrazcaeta. Did I say that close? (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. OLNEY: Again, for the record, John Olney, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have a stipulation agreement between Collier County and Mrs. Arrazcaeta. This case involves a garage that was converted into living space without obtaining Collier County permits. Without reading every word -- the highlights of this stipulation agreement are that the respondents agree to the existence of the Page 1 7 March 23, 2006 violation; that they agree to pay operational costs in the amount of $272.96; that they will obtain building permits and a certificate of occupancy by May 31 st, 2006, or be fined $100 a day for the violation. And they will notify Collier County Code Enforcement upon abatement of the violation. That's it, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mrs. Arrazcaeta? Is that right? MS. ARRAZCAETA: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do you agree to the stipulation? MS. ARRAZCAET A: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any questions or comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Ifwe have no questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that in the CEB case 2006-15, that we accept the stipulated agreement as presented by the county and agreed on by the respondent. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. DEAN: I'll second, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Second, okay. All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRlNG: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, the stipulation stands. MS. ARRAZCAET A: Thank you.f Page 18 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And if I understand, the county would like to move Case No.6 up, hearings. And that would be Case 2006-12 would be our first case. MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia. CEB Case No. 2006-12, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus First Class Auto Wholesale, Mr. Steven Profaca, as owner. The violation of Ordinance 04-41, Section 10.02.03.B.5 and number two of the Collier County site improvement plan, SIP 00-01. The description of the violation is the defendant continues to pose for sale, display for sale and store a greater number of vehicles than allowed by the site improvement plan. The location and address where the violation exists is at 2415 Avondale Street. The name and address of owner is Mr. Steven Profaca, 557 North Barfield Drive, Marco Island. Date of violation first observed was February 5th of 2003. The owner or person in charge given notice of violation and the date was December 27th of2005. Date on which the violation was to be corrected was January 15th, 2006. The date of the reinspection, January 17th of 2006. Results of the reinspection is the violation remains. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Cherie', would you like to swear them in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tom Campbell. I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. I've worked for the county approximately seven years, and the last three years or so I've been assigned to handle the issues and complaints involving our commercial and industrial community. MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, Madam Chair, we ask that the Page 19 March 23, 2006 board accept County's Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. We have the County's Exhibit A. I'd like to have a motion to accept Exhibit A, please. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Go ahead and introduce Exhibit A. All right, I'm sorry, Tom, go ahead. MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. The case I'm bringing to you today involves Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus First Class Auto Wholesale, Incorporated. The property in question is located at 2415 Avondale Street and the property and business are owned by Mr. Steven Profaca, who is here today. The property is zoned C- 5, and this is an appropriate use -- an automobile sales operation is an appropriate use per the Land Development Code. The case is relatively uncomplicated and straightforward. And simply put, or simply stated, Mr. Profaca is illegally storing and displaying for sale more vehicles than is allowed by the site development plan which he authored and presented to the county in, I believe it was, 1998. And further, they have violated the county right-of-way in Page 20 March 23, 2006 obstructing the county roadway in the past. The violation -- the ordinance violated is Ordinance 04-41, Section 10.02.03.B.5, and the site improvement plan is OO-Ol. Personal service on the NOV of December 17th, 2005 was refused by the manager of the site at the time, and I subsequently posted the front door -- the violation at the front door and at the county courthouse. I have an affidavit of the posting. This violation precedes 1998 and 1999. And this particular case, it was initiated by an anonymous phone complaint coming in to the code enforcement desk. My initial visit investigation showed the violation existed. I counted 36 vehicles, in excess of the three allowed by the site improvement plan. And let me -- I believe you have a copy of the site improvement plan in your packet. And two issues on that. Okay, the required parking spaces, one handicapped with an aisle and two employee parking and two customer parking. There's a total of eight parking spaces provided. So that leaves a balance of three to be used as vehicle displays for sales. Now, the building -- inside of the building is also used for display of vehicles for sale. I spoke with Mr. Profaca on the phone and at the time advised him of the problem, and he asked to set up a meeting. On February 13th, 2003, a meeting was called with Mr. Profaca, Supervisor Petrulli, Supervisor Marsh and myself. It came to a deadlock. And Mr. Profaca said he was not going to comply with this SIP, nor the notice of violation. On February 18th, 2003, the NOVs were mailed to Mr. Profaca-- additional NOVs were mailed to Mr. Profaca and to the owners of record. On 6/6/2003, the number of vehicles had been reduced, but they were still not in compliance. A phone call was made, advising Mr. Profaca that he has to meet Page 21 March 23, 2006 the compliance, and he informed me that he would be -- in the process was trying to move his business to a more suitable site, which we felt was a good idea, would give him more places to display for his business purposes. He asked for more time and asked for me to hold up the CEB hearing proceedings, which we agreed to. July 14th, the vehicles were down to two rows instead of the three rows which he had previously shown. I had mentioned earlier that this is an ongoing case. And these are the overhead overlays from our GIS system at the county. This is 2003, and it shows 23 vehicles. Okay? Now, I'm not counting the shadows, that's the conservative number. This is 2004, and that shows 33 vehicles. MR. PONTE: Excuse me, Tom, with a pencil or something, would you indicate where the vehicles are, please? MR. CAMPBELL: Sure. Right along here. And this is the -- this aisle here are the eight spaces that are allowed in the site development plan, right in front of the building. The L-shaped building and the eight spaces. These are actually in the right-of-way, okay? MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. CAMPBELL: And this is 2003. As you can see, we have three rows of vehicles with vehicles actually parked in the roadway, obstructing traffic. Did I move that too fast? As you can see, the overlay of the property lines does not match exactly the photograph. It's shifted slightly. Okay? MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. CAMPBELL: August 8th, 2003, the violation continues from my site visit. Mr. Profaca stated that he purchased the adjoining building behind him and that he -- that's actually on Kirkwood Street, and he was going to combine the two properties, demolish it and present a new site development plan to the county to improve his car Page 22 March 23, 2006 lot. In the meantime, from August, 2003 to April, 2005, Shore Engineering was involved. They came up with site development plans. It was in turn rej ected by zoning review. Mr. Profaca, I believe also tried to modify his occupational license to allow more cars. That was rejected. His site development plan for the properties was rej ected. And April 23rd, Mr. Profaca -- a phone call with Mr. Profaca, he was waiting for engineers to finish developing the plans, to resubmit and also attempting to purchase a new property over on Davis Boulevard at 2488 Davis. 5/26/06 -- 5/26/05, I received a phone call from Mr. DeRuntz, who is a planner at Collier County Development. He said the proj ect had been turned down and rejected. Mr. Profaca pursued with Shore Engineering to prepare a proposal to develop the property at 2488 on Davis Boulevard. That was turned down for some reason at the occupational licensing -- or at the zoning review level. On November 7th, 2005, I stopped in and I talked with the manager. Mr. Profaca wasn't in. And I said, you know, we've gone along for almost three full years and have allowed them to pursue every possible angle to come into compliance with the occupational license and the site development plan, and it really reached a stalemate, and that the clock was running out on this effort. And they had no comments to make at that time. And on -- in mid-December of that year, 2005, I reviewed the case and I saw that the original notices of violation were written against our old ordinance, 91, 92 -- 91-102, and specified the section of that ordinance. So I rewrote the notice of violation against the -_ with the -- specifying the 04-41 ordinance and served that on December 27th. Service was refused, so I posted it on the front door and at the Page 23 March 23, 2006 courthouse. The violation remained at 2/21, which is the due date. Thirty-three vehicles were on-site and now I've found three vehicles across the street on adjoining property without license plates. And the property was not owned by Mr. Profaca. The case at that time was forwarded to the CEB and I made an investigation yesterday and found that they were not in compliance. That's a view of the property. The two black cars and the white Mercedes roadster are three vehicles that are not per the site improvement plan. There are three vehicles in front of the building that comply. This is a view with vehicles in front of the adjacent building that they own. And those are in the right-of-way. This was disappointing in that this car was parked illegally in a handicapped parking spot. I did not issue a citation. I've issued citations in the past. Mr. Profaca did see that I was there and came out and removed it immediately. And there's four additional cars with dealer license plates parked across the street on adjacent property. We submit this case to you for your determination and we strongly recommend that it be noted that a maximum of eight vehicles are allowed by the site improvement plan at this time, with one vehicle for handicapped parking, two vehicles for customer parking, two vehicles for employee parking and the three remaining vehicles for display of automobiles. The inside vehicles are not involved in this case. And the respondent should be informed that at no time vehicles are to be stored, displayed or parked in the roadway, county right-of-way, alleyways or adjacent properties. We ask that he pay operational costs of $321.27 that have incurred in the prosecution of this case over this period of time. We also request that he come into compliance by the 27th of this Page 24 March 23, 2006 month, that's three days. And if -- it's not in compliance, that a fine of $500 a day per vehicle per day be imposed. Y .? es, sIr. MR. DEAN: Let me ask one question. This last photo you show here, whose property is that? MR. CAMPBELL: Dr. David Goodlette. I have a notice of violation out to Dr. Goodlette telling that it's an illegal land use. It's a different issue. It's not really this case. MR. DEAN: But that's where he puts the extra cars. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. MR. WOOD: Hi, my name is Doug Wood. I'm an attorney with Siesky, Pilon & Wood. I'm here on behalf of the respondent, Steven Profaca. I haven't been in front of the Code Enforcement Board before. You want me to ask him questions or just let him basically make his statement? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'll just ask him if he is accepting you as his representation. MR. PROFACA: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. WOOD: Thank you. Mr. Profaca, who owns the property that we're here about today? MR. PROF ACA: First Class Auto Wholesale. MR. WOOD: What type of entity is that? MR. PROFACA: Automobiles. MR. DEAN: I can't hear. MR. PONTE: We can't hear the respondent. MR. WOOD: What type of entity is that? MR. PROF ACA: Automobiles. MR. WOOD: Is it a corporation? MR. PROF ACA: Yes. MR. WOOD: How long has that corporation been in existence? Page 25 March 23, 2006 MR. PROFACA: Since 1997. MR. WOOD: And is that the corporation that's been operating the business on the site since that time? MR. PROF ACA: Yes. MR. WOOD: And when did the corporation acquire the property? MR. PROFACA: 2003. MR. WOOD: Mr. Profaca, you saw a couple of pictures that were presented here of the site. I believe one of them was in 2003 and one of them was in 2004. And according to Mr. Campbell, the vehicles were reduced in the picture in 2004. The picture in 2003 had three rows of vehicles, they had two rows of vehicles in 2004. In between the time frames of those two pictures, did you ever meet with Mr. Campbell or anyone else from code enforcement? MR. PROF ACA: Yes, I have. MR. WOOD: And when was that? MR. PROFACA: In 2003. MR. WOOD: And who did you meet with? MR. PROF ACA: Ed Morad, the head of code enforcement then, and John Marsh. MR. WOOD: And what was the purpose of that meeting? MR. PROFACA: To reduce the number of vehicles I had -- I had on this site and I had two other lots on the same block. MR. WOOD: And what discussion did you have about reducing the vehicles? MR. PROFACA: We made an agreement that if I got rid of the other two lots on Kirkwood and the corner of Kirkwood and Commercial, that I was allowed to keep this lot, keep the alleyway clean, take out the third row and don't park cars in the handicap, and I would be okay. MR. WOOD: Did you do that? MR. PROFACA: Yes, I did. Page 26 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Counselor, was that put in writing? MR. WOOD: Was it put in writing? MR. PROFACA: No. MR. WOOD: Mr. Profaca doesn't have anything further. We would like to make a closing statement. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. WOOD: I'm sorry, can I ask one more thing? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. WOOD: Is the property in compliance today? MR. PROF ACA: Yes, it is. MR. WOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All right, at this time, if there's no other information coming from the respondent and the county, we close the -- MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am, thank you. For the record, Mr. Ed Morad was never head of code enforcement. Perhaps at the time he was a supervisor, but I am wondering about that. He has stepped down for the last couple of years. So I'm just not clear. But the point is, he was never head of code enforcement. MR. KRAENBRING: John Marsh? MR. MITCHELL: John Marsh was I believe at the time a field supervIsor. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Okay. If there's no other information, then I'm going to close the public -- MR. PONTE: Just one clarification for the investigator. When did you last visit the site, sir? MR. CAMPBELL: Yesterday at 12:15. MR. PONTE: And it was in violation? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. Six cars out front, one in the handicapped. MR. KELLY: I have a quick question. The vehicles that are parked across the street that were shown in Mr. Campbell's photos, are Page 27 March 23, 2006 those in fact your vehicles on somebody else's property? MR. PROFACA: Yes, I have permission from the landlord to keep them there. Tom went in and confirmed that. And they're employees' cars and they have dealer plates on them. MR. DEAN: I just have one question, Steve. Have you ever had a parking ticket on any of those vehicles in your area? MR. PROF ACA: No. MR. DEAN: Never? MR. PROFACA: Never. MR. CAMPBELL: Excuse me -- the handicapped parking, a couple of citations have been issued. MR. DEAN: Well, he also stated that he never parked in a handicapped space and you showed a picture that a car was in there, so -- MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. And the overhead views of2003, '04 and '05 show that also. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time, I'll close the public hearing and go to discussion for the board. MR. WOOD: I'd like to make just a brief closing statement, if I may. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. Let me reopen it and go ahead and make a statement. I'm going to back up, too, because I think I should have accepted the County's Packet A. We need to move that into evidence. And probably also -- MS. RAWSON: The respondent has a packet, too. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept County Exhibit A and the respondent's evidence package. MR. PONTE: I'll second both motions. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 28 March 23, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All right, now, the evidence has been accepted. I'm sorry, go ahead with your closing statement. MR. WOOD: Thank you. I'd like to first start off that First Class Auto desires to get into compliance. MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, please, if you don't mind. County hasn't had an opportunity to view that evidence or the packet that you're accepting. We'd like to have an opportunity to see that, please. MR. PONTE: I agree. Having been handed a packet of this weight, I think we have to have time or recess or whatever you want to do so we can look at it. MR. WOOD: Actually, it's a portion of the '04 ordinance that Mr. Campbell referenced that he's citing it to. And I'm only going to reference one provision in the ordinance. I just took out the whole section. I'm only referencing one clause. There's nothing else that's part of that packet. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Because the county would like to review it and Cherie' probably could use a break, I'll go ahead and recess for five minutes. MR. WOOD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That means that we will be back at 10:25. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'd like to recall this meeting back to Page 29 March 23, 2006 order, please. Before we proceed, I've got a question for Steve, our attorney. Please -- the county's attorney. When I was reviewing this, this is a document that's stated for special master, and it's dated for adoption of June 22nd, 2004. Can you explain to me if that's pertinent to us. MR. GRIFFIN : Well, I think counsel for the respondent is about to explain how that might be pertinent, and then we'd be happy to try to chime in afterwards in regard to that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. And does the county have any objections to this packet? MR. MITCHELL: No, ma'am, thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Go ahead, please. MR. WOOD: Thank you. First of all, I want to start off, First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc. wants to get in compliance. Actually, they are in compliance as of today. The picture you saw that was allegedly taken yesterday showed two cars that were in the right-of-way still. But you did notice the difference between that picture and the 2004 picture where there were two rows of cars. He cleaned them out. The thing he's going to have to do a little bit better job is policing. He is a business. He has people show up. And unfortunately they may show up and park for 10,15 minutes to come in and pay a check and park where they're not supposed to. So he's going to have to figure out a way to police that. But he did remove all those cars from the site. And I know now there is an issue as far as his neighbor giving him the authorization to park some of them on his lot. Maybe he didn't have the authority to do so, but that obviously doesn't have to do with what we're here today. And we did meet with some of the code enforcement officers prior to today to let them know we want to get in compliance. One of the things, I think, based upon those pictures that you saw Page 30 March 23, 2006 is in 2003, this 2003 picture, there were three rows of cars. Mr. Profaca says that when he met with the different people from code enforcement, he was told you've got to get rid of that third row and keep the handicap spot open. Well, certainly the 2004 picture which they showed you supports that. Because the difference between the two pictures is that third row of cars. And that, again, was sometime in 2004. So we're a year and a half to two years out from that time in even conducting business that way. I'm not saying that one person is making a misstatement or not. Maybe there was a miscommunication. But I think because of that, you know, we're showing that First Class Auto certainly wasn't intentionally trying to violate its site plan. I think, though we would -- what we are requesting is that the board reverse the finding by the code enforcement official pursuant to their Packet A. The respondent -- the notice of violation was issued to Steven Profaca. He's named on the notice of violation. Also included in their Packet A, though, is a warranty deed for the property, which clearly shows that the owner of the property is First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc., a corporation. Mr. Profaca testified and it was undisputed that First Class Wholesale, Inc. has been the business that's been running on the property since 1997 and that is the owner of the property. What I have provided you -- I realize obviously that I'm not here in front of the special master today, I'm here in front of the Code Enforcement Board. But the fact-finding determination is the same for both. And what I provide you is an ordinance that was adopted by Collier County in 2004 regarding allowing the special master to hear some of these code enforcement cases. In that, in Section 2-1140.B.6, I'd like to read it to you. It says the fact-finding determination of the special master shall be limited to whether the violation alleged did occur, and if so, whether the person Page 3 1 March 23, 2006 named in the notice of violation and/or citation can be held responsible for that violation. Based upon this fact-finding determination, the special master shall either affirm or reverse the decision of the issuing officer as to the responsibility of the named violator of the code violation. If the special master reverses the decision of the issuing officer and finds that the named violator not responsible for the violation alleged in the citation, the named violator shall not be liable for payment of any civil penalty or prosecution cost. In this case, we have a separate legal entity which owns the property, has owned the property since 2003, and runs the business on the property. That legal entity is not named on the notice of violation. They named essentially the wrong person. Because of that, I believe it is inherent on this board to reverse the decision of the code enforcement officer. The code enforcement and the county won't be prejudiced. If First Class Auto continues to operate the business not in compliance, they certainly have the ability to issue a new notice of violation and bring it back before you, and obviously you'll have memories enough to know that hey, this is -- he's been given warning. But First Class Auto wants to get in compliance, is in compliance as of today. They've got to work on that policing as far as people pulling in. He's not parking cars overnight. He'll work on the policing. Weare going to try to go back in to amend his current site plan. If we're successful, then he'll comply -- First Class will comply with that. But because of the fact that the named violator is Steven Profaca, who doesn't own the property or is not the operator of the business, we'd request that you reverse the code enforcement officer's decision. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: The statement of violation and request for Page 32 March 23, 2006 hearing -- the statement of violation is actually your charging document. The notice of violation to the respondent is something that comes earlier. But when they bring the case to you on your, quote, charging document, it's the statement of violation. And if you look at the statement of violation, Mr. Wood is correct. But it does list First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc. as the respondent, and only lists Mr. Steven Profaca as the owner. So you do have on your statement of violation First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc. And any order that you enter today of course would be against First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc. But I think Mr. Griffin probably wants to weigh in. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. GRIFFIN: For the record, Steve Griffin, Assistant County Attorney with Collier County Attorney's Office. We'd make a couple of comments so we would maybe sort of take them in reverse order. Ms. Rawson just made a reference with regard to how the violation was cited. We think it's probably reasonable for this board to find that Mr. Profaca is in fact a principal. He's made statements already here on the record, or his attorney has, and we certainly have brought forth evidence for the county's side to show that he has essentially ownership and control of the property. And there has been some admission that they would go ahead and take care of these Issues. Obviously if there's somebody else here who was going to argue on behalf of the company, then that person should have come forward. But they didn't, so it's Mr. Profaca. He's also in the charging documents as well. The other issue which confounds me a little bit is bringing forth a special master ordinance to you. Obviously you're fully aware of what your authority is and Counsel can inform you what that authority IS. Page 33 March 23, 2006 You essentially have sort of a concurrent jurisdiction with the special master. And you can find many of the same things that the special master can do. I'm not sure exactly where that argument leads in terms of sharing that information with you. But I do think it's reasonable for you to find that Mr. Profaca is a responsible party here and that he can take care of these violations, either in his own name or on behalf of the corporation. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean, just to clarify something, I see that our documents do state First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc. Ifwe hadn't have stated First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc., and we had just named Mr. Profaca. This is-- MS. RAWSON: Hypothetically. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- hypothetical. And Mr. Profaca happens to be the president of the corporation -- MS. RAWSON: He'd have to be the only shareholder to have any responsibility. Usually we just name the resident agent. I mean, I don't really know what his authority is for the corporation, whether he's the resident agent, whether he's the president or what. But the person in title or the entity in title to the land where the alleged violation occurred is First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc. And Mr. Profaca is here, I assume, on behalf of the corporation. So my guess is he's probably the principal. MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, again, Steve Griffin, County Attorney's Office. We have a document on the visualizer now that shows he's a registered agent, and if I'm not misreading this, would be the principal for this corporation. MR. WOOD: May I respond? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. WOOD: Thank you. I certainly don't dispute that Mr. Profaca could be served. He can be served on behalf of the corporation. No question about that. Page 34 March 23, 2006 I respectfully disagree with your counsel when she says you can rely upon the notice of hearing as the charging document. This code section, which has been adopted by Collier County, and again, it lays out what the special master must determine, but you need to make those same factual determinations. And it doesn't say any of the charging documents, it doesn't say the notice of hearing, it says the notice of violation. And a corporation and an individual are two separate legal entities. That's why we set up corporations. That's why -- if it wasn't that case, everybody would be doing business in their own name. We set up corporations because it's a different legal entity. It's just like a different legal person. And in this case, in this case the notice of violation was issued to Mr. Profaca, who clearly undisputed doesn't own the property, he doesn't operate the business on the property. Doesn't matter whether he's the owner. He can certainly accept service. But he was noticed. The wrong person was noticed. Under Collier County's own code, Mr. Profaca isn't a responsible party. And the law is pretty clear on that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: He's noticed in the statement of violation. The statement of violation is the charging document that brings the case to you, not the NOV. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time, unless there's some questions, we're going to close the public hearing and open it to discussion for the board. MR. KRAENBRING: I've got a couple of thoughts about this case. One is that it's fairly apparent that the respondent and the corporation are one in the same in that -- is there any other stockholder? Are you the principal and only owner of the corporation? MR. WOOD: Is it open where we can respond? Page 35 March 23, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: Yes. MR. WOOD: Yes, he is. MR. KRAENBRING: So you're in fact the person owning this property or the corporation in this property and the operator in the business are one in the same and of the same mind. I think the thing here is what I have some trouble with is how does he remain in compliance? It isn't a sort of thing where we're fixing a defect to a building, this is something that we can say is in compliance today, it wasn't yesterday. And we say he's to be in compliance by the 27th, I believe, or whatever date. What's going to keep it in compliance on the 28th? In fact, you know, we have an approved or a recommended fine, but are we going to have to keep policing this property and imposing that fine for every day that it's not in compliance? MR. PONTE: Well, then it becomes a repeat violation and the fine goes up. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: It's kind of difficult, because his current site plan is I think what the problem is. And I think that's going to be the thing that he's going to need to get amended, or changed. But at this time we're here, we have to make a determination whether or not there was a violation, and we need to move forward with that. And then we can look at how are we going to proceed. MR. KRAENBRING: Also, if it becomes an issue of naming both entities, you know, Mr. Profaca and the corporation, there's documents, I don't know if the county is able to amend that, for later dates for this violation just to be reoccurring. But I would think that just based on the evidence presented by the county that he has been in violation. He was in violation as of yesterday. We need him to be in compliance. It seems like a very straightforward thing. Here is your site plan, you're in violation of that and come into compliance with it. Page 36 March 23, 2006 I don't think anyone's trying to be heavy-handed here, it's just a matter of getting it done. MR. PONTE: I think you're right. And I think what we would have to do, if you turn that into a motion, then we can get into a little further discussion of what next. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you want to put up the -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: This is just whether or not there was a violation. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, I make a motion that we find that there's a violation in this existing case. That would be Case No. 2006-12. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now that there is a violation, how would we like to remedy it? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question for Investigator Campbell. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this a repeat offense? MR. CAMPBELL: It's a recurring offense. MR. LEFEBVRE: Recurring, but not a repeat. We have not-- MR. CAMPBELL: We haven't prosecuted this far until today. And I believe there were several previous cases. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess my question is why would the county __ a $500 fine, that does seem a little bit excessive. It has not come Page 37 March 23, 2006 before us prior. Can you just maybe give a little -- MR. CAMPBELL: Well, it's to prevent further violations, quite simply. MR. PONTE: Clarification on that, Mr. Campbell. It's -- did you say $500 per day, per vehicle? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. Usually each vehicle is a separate violation. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does anybody else have any other thoughts? MR. KRAENBRING: No, I think that actually what we're hearing is that the county and the respondent are of similar mind, they want to get it resolved. So I think I -- I make a motion that we accept the county's proposal for imposing a $500 per vehicle per day fine. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And the operational costs? MR. KRAENBRING: And the operational costs of$321.55. MR. CAMPBELL: No, $821.25. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, eight -- MR. PONTE: In all respect, I think that that is a grossly excessive fine. I'm not sure what I will come up with as a suggestion, I'm just talking at the minute. But I think $500 a day per vehicle is excessive. There isn't anything there that's hurting anybody. There isn't a safety issue. I don't see the reason for a fine of that magnitude. It would certainly be the heaviest fine issued by this board in the years that I've been on it. I just think it's an excessive fine and would have to reconsider that part. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Anyone else? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd have to concur with Mr. Ponte. I've been on this board for several years, and I feel the same way, that this would be excessive, considering the violation. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you have a recommendation for it? Because I'm open for that, too, if there's an adjustment to it. Page 38 March 23, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: I think I would make a recommendation that it would be somewhere in the range of $100 a day per vehicle. And considering that according to the respondent today that it is not in violation, I don't think the three days would be excessive to be in compliance. MR. PONTE: An alternative might be to have a $500 a day fine, but not have it linked to a vehicle. It's either a violation or it isn't. There could be a violation with one vehicle. So a $500 per day fine for the violation, rather than linking it to the number of vehicles on the lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: But according to the investigator, each vehicle is a separate violation, and we have fined people based on multiple violations. MR. PONTE: Yes, we have. MR. CAMPBELL: May I add something? It is a safety violation. The vehicles have been out up in the roadway. And the right-of-way is protected by the county as our right for emergency vehicles and anything like that, so you're talking -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Because we're discussing now. But I appreciate your input. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd be amenable to $100 a day -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: -- per vehicle. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll withdraw my motion, let -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You can actually amend it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Just amend it. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Well, is there any further discussion about the -- how does everybody feel about that? Everybody works with that? MR. PONTE: What are we going to direct the respondent to do, actually? What are we going to tell him to do other than come into compliance within when? Removing vehicles doesn't take very long. Page 39 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Right. My opinion is if they've got a three-day notice, that he has to come into compliance. He's said that he's currently in compliance. It would behoove him to stay in compliance. I don't want to suggest it to him, but he might want to look at it, be looking at his site plan and redevelop it. MR. PONTE: He says he's in compliance, but the county says he is not. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Well, the county needs to go out and verify that. And he would need to call the county and say that, you know, he would like an inspection. That's part of the normal procedure. And I would prefer that to be put into the motion, you know, along with the fines in that situation. MR. PONTE: Should the number of vehicles allowed be mentioned; that is, to remove the vehicles or limit the number of vehicles to, I think Tom said eight. MS. BARNETT: It's per the site plan. MR. KRAENBRING: It's per the site plan, so I don't think we want to override that. Okay, I'll make a motion or amend my motion or-- MR. WOOD: Madam Chair? I know it's been closed and I don't want to interrupt you, but I want to clear up a misstatement, not intentional on the record, so we won't have to come back for rehearing. When he -- and we can read the record back. When he said the cost that he wanted for prosecuting this, it was 370 some dollars. Had he said the $800 figure, we would have responded. We don't think the $800 figure is reasonable. We would have responded to it. But he said 370 something, that's why we didn't respond. Now he's saying something different. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: As far as the operational cost goes, that is up to the county. This board does not have the right to change Page 40 March 23, 2006 their operational costs. MR. WOOD: Even though some of those operational costs are based upon hours that they're claiming they spent on the -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's not up to our jurisdiction. MR. GRIFFIN: Madam Chair, we're going to have to object. The hearing's been closed. So if you want to reopen it, that's fine. But we're clearly outside of that. We're arguing how much we're going to have to pay and Counsel here is getting involved in that. So if you want to reopen the hearing, that's fine but I think you've closed it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. It was closed. MR. DEAN: What's the motion on the floor? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: What was the motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Well, we were just going to just amend the motion. In the CEB Case 2006-12, the Board of County Commissioners versus Steven Profaca, I make a motion that the -- accept the county's operational costs be imposed of $821.25. That the -- Mr. Profaca come into compliance with our findings within three days, or pay a fine of $100 per vehicle per day. And should be amended to also state that First Class Auto Wholesale -- MS. RAWSON: You don't have to amend it, because it's First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc. and Mr. Steven Profaca, owner. MR. KRAENBRING: And again, just in finding that it's First Class Auto Wholesale, Inc., and it's for Steven Profaca, owner. MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, please. Did I hear the operational costs of 821? It's Actually, it's 801.27. MR. DEAN: 801.27, so be it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we ready for a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. MR. PONTE: I just -- I heard it, it's complicated. Do we have a date there? MR. KRAENBRING: Three days. Page 41 March 23, 2006 MR. PONTE: Do we say three days? MR. CAMPBELL: The 27th. MR. PONTE: From the close of this hearing. Three days from the close of this hearing? MR. KRAENBRING: If you want, we can put a date on it and say 27th, March 27th, 2006. MR. PONTE: Okay. And what about the respondent being compelled to get back to code enforcement so we can have an inspection. MR. KRAENBRING: And that the respondent contact the county code enforcement to assess whether the violation has been abated. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So just to recap, the motion is that the respondent will have to pay the operational cost, which has been amended to 801.27, that they would pay $100 per day per vehicle. MR. KRAENBRING: Per vehicle. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That they have three days, till March 27th of'06, to come into compliance. And that they must notify the code enforcement officer to come out and reinspect. Is there a second to that? MR. DEAN: I second the motion. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. WOOD: Thank you. Page 42 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The next item on our agenda, if I can find my agenda now, is Case No. 2006-08, Jean J. Lormil versus Collier County Code Enforcement Board. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. GARCIA: We are doing Jean Lormil, Case 2006-08; is that correct? At this time, I'd like to enter into exhibit the County's Exhibit A into evidence. CEB Case 2006-08, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Jean Lormil, also known as Martin Fleur. The violation of Ordinance 2004-41, Section 1.04.01.A, generally; 1 0.02.06.B.l.A, zoning action on building or land alteration permits; 10.02.06.B and C, construction and use to be as provided in application, status of permit issued in error, 10.02.06.B.D.I, inspections Ordinance 1998-76, Section 106.3.1, connection to service utilities. The description of the violation is observed a permitted screen porch altered into a side unit apartment with electrical and water servIces. The location of the violation exists at 3675 Thomasson Drive, Naples, 34112. The name and owner of the person in violation of the location at the time the violation was served was Lormil Jean, also known as Martin Fleur. F or the record, I'd like to also introduce that there was a new buyer on the property as of -- MR. YBACETA: February. MS. GARCIA: February, 2006. And the respondent is acting as the new owner and -- in this case. They were given -- Mr. Lormil, also known as Martin Fleur, he changed his name in the Clerk of Courts, so that's why I'm referencing that -- he was first given the notice of violation on 11/10 of'04, and by certified mail received it on 3/5 of '05. Page 43 March 23, 2006 The date on which the violation to be corrected was March 15 of '05. The date of the reinspection was January 30th of '06. And the results of the reinspection was the violations still remain. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Could I have the motion to move the package into evidence, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I said could I have a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, I'd like to make a motion to accept the evidence package. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Then the packet has been introduced into evidence. I have a question for Jean before we get started -- I'm sorry, all those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Because the respondent isn't listed and named on the document -- MS. RAWSON: What we need to do is to have -- ask this respondent if she's the new owner and, you know, get her permission to add her, because as a respondent, since the violation, you know, runs with the land, and she's here to explain to you her side of the story, I would ask her if it's okay with her and let's amend her as the new owner. So that all the future notices will go to her. Page 44 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. All right, are you aware, or were you aware of this incident? MS. ROBINSON: Very recently, like maybe a week ago. From Eddie Ybaceta. We had no clue about any violations being happening or against the code or anything like that when we bought the property. It was not disclosed to us. So this is all new. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would you mind if we added your name, because it does flow with the land, to the document? Do we have your permission, as you're here to defend yourself anyway. MS. ROBINSON: Do I have a choice? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Not really, because it goes with the land. It just means you -- MS. RAWSON: She really doesn't have a choice. It would mean that we would have to make you come back another day when we've amended the documents and renoticed the hearing. MS. ROBINSON: Okay. I will be responsible, since I bought the house, me and my husband. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Let's go ahead then and proceed. MR. YBACETA: On the 11th of -- sorry. On the 10th of November of 2004, I received a complaint on this property on 3675 Thomasson Drive of an illegal addition to this property. When I went to the property, I noticed that there was an addition done and that it did have some electrical work that did not look up to code. I called up the owner of the property at that time, which was Lormil Jean, and I met him on property . We did an inspection of the property and the surrounding, and I explained to him that there was a violation here, that this was originally a carport, and it was changed into an apartment sometime between when the house was built and when he bought the property. I explained to him that since it was an illegal addition, that he Page 45 March 23, 2006 needed to get permits for it or get it removed. I would like to show some pictures of the property, if I may. MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, if you will, please, I may have missed it, so I apologize, but I don't believe that we have sworn the participants in. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: They were sworn in when they walked up. MR. MITCHELL: Okay, thank you. MR. YBACETA: This is a picture of the addition which was originally a carport. The next picture that I'm going to show you is of the electrical wirings, outlets, and so on and so forth, going into the apartment. I'm not sure you can see it very well there. But basically it runs along the soffit by romax, and it runs into the apartment itself. That's the rear of the property. And it also runs from the main box, and it runs in. I let Mr. Lormil Jean, also known as Martin Fleur, know that this was all a violation, and that first of all, he needed to cease and desist the rental of this apartment because it could be a health hazard, somebody could get shocked and a fire could start. He let me know that he was actually thinking about tearing down the property and was going to build a bigger duplex there. From then on I never heard anything else from this gentleman. I did get ahold of him once after that, and he said that he was working on the plans, so I gave him an extension of time, even though I was still thinking about bringing him to the code board. After that he disappeared and never spoke to me again, and I never got ahold of him again. The property -- I have the permit, it's right here in front of me. The property was originally a CBS residence with utility for 1,524 square feet, which means that he couldn't have an apartment there anyway for rent, because it doesn't meet the minimum standards of Page 46 March 23, 2006 2,500 square feet. It was also CO'd as such. This is the permit. And that is the certificate of occupancy card. From that point on, I started the CEB case preparation, and when it was finalized, I found that he had sold the property to Alphonse Obrito and Shukri Robinson. I'm sorry, I killed that name. I got ahold of their number and gave them a call and met them on property. And I explained to them the situation that was going on there and advised them of all the violations. They stated to me that they had no knowledge of any of these violations, and they would -- they would work with me to take care of the violations. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mrs. Robinson? Mrs. Robinson, would you like to explain your side, please? MS. ROBINSON: Yes. This first thing about the name, at the closing, we're sitting there, we're waiting for Jean Lormil to show up. So Martin Fleur shows up, and he told us Jean Lormil is the seller, and he never showed up. So now I just two days ago find out it's the same person. So it's one thing after the other, we're just finding out. I had no idea this case was going on for two years. And if I knew all this, I would not have signed closing or brought the price down or whatever had to be done. But this time I'm willing to go with the -- what Eddie's proposing, and take care of the problem. I don't know what we're going to do right now. I'm investigating all the options. But first of all, bring it up to code, and then go from there, without paying all the fines or anything like that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do you have questions? MR. KELLY: I actually have a question for both. I'm sorry. Ma'am, is there anybody renting that apartment right now, or anyone living in there? MS. ROBINSON: The main part, which is okay to rent, which there's rented, yes. Page 47 March 23, 2006 MR. KELLY: What about the room -- MS. ROBINSON: The other side, there were people in there, they have been given a notice to get out on the 30th. And no one's going to live in there, because it doesn't look -- doesn't look good at all for living. MR. PONTE: Excuse me, I didn't hear the vacate date, ma'am. What was the date that you gave the current tenants of the additional space? When are they supposed to vacate? MS. ROBINSON: 30th of March, 2006. MR. KELLY: And then Eddie, the lines that were running along the wall in the soffit going into the addition, were those electrical lines without conduit covers? MR. YBACET A: Yes. MR. KELLY: It's certainly a health issue. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. DEAN: Just one quick question. Do you have a lease on that apartment? MS. ROBINSON: Yes, we do. MR. DEAN: And when's that lease expire? MS. ROBINSON: The 30th of March it happens to be-- MR. DEAN: '06. MS. ROBINSON: Yes. Before I even knew anything about this going on, we had given them a notice to get out so we could see what's going on and fix it. MR. DEAN: So it expires the end of March, '06. MS. ROBINSON: Right. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Is it your plans to bring this particular unit up to code, or is it your plans to take and dismantle it and turn it back into a carport? MS. ROBINSON: For now we have no money. So the cheapest Page 48 "-'" ,"",.- ~ --,^. March 23,2006 way would be probably to make it back to where it was. Or I was also thinking about asking the government or county or somewhere some kind of money or grants or anything like that to do something with it. I don't know. I really don't know much. I'm trying to talk to Maria Cruz who can answer some of the questions, but I haven't gotten in touch with her yet. I don't know if you guys know her. MR. YBACETA: Maria Cruz is a permitting specialist. She doesn't work for Collier County, she is a private entity. She has worked with the investigators on other projects, and she has gotten them fixed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does anybody else have any other questions? MR. PONTE: Just -- is it the same Maria Cruz who was chairperson of this board? MR. YBACET A: I believe not. MS. RAWSON: She wasn't the chairperson actually, she was the board's secretary. MR. YBACET A: Then that was her. Yes, that was her, I'm sorry . CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time I'd like to close the public hearing -- oh, sorry, yes? MR. YBACET A: Before you close the hearing, I would like to make a recommendation. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. YBACETA: I would recommend that the owner of this property now be given at least two months to pursue all her options before -- basically just to pursue the options. And after that, if she wants to permit, we should give her until at least September to get all the permits done and get it properly CO'd, or again two months to pursue the demolition and then back to September to remove it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any fines or -- Page 49 March 23, 2006 MR. YBACET A: If none of it does get done, in either case, it would be $100 fine per day. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Operational costs? MR. YBACET A: I would basically defer that to my supervisor. MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am, we would request operational. The amount at this time again would be unknown. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. And would she have to notify MR. YBACETA: Yes, definitely. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now I'll close the public hearing and open it up to discussion for the board. MR. KELLY: Madam Chair, if I may, it's an absolute shame that she walked into this situation, and I'm sure there's some kind of legal ramification for her. But as for now, I would also put in a stipulation that she would not rent that out. That that be part of it. Because that is obviously a situation, a health violation. And as we see the breaker in front of us, I'm sure there's a way she could shut the breakers off to that room so none of those lines would be charged. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Good point. MR. MORGAN : You could disconnect those lugs over there. It's not a breaker, it's a panel board. But you could -- if there's a disconnect for that section, you could turn off the disconnect and lock it down or you could disconnect all those lugs on there and that would kill all the electrical service. One question I had to ask: Was there an electrical inspection made at any time? This is a do-it-yourself job, I know that. This is a violation of the NEC and it's a violation of any code the way this is wired up. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I believe the county's position on this is this is a non-permitted addition. Okay? Page 50 March 23, 2006 MR. KELLY: Additionally, one last thing. If she decided to go and get permitting right now, it would take as much as three months just to get plans drawn up on an existing structure, and then another three months for permitting approval. I'm not so sure the two-month time frame is going to be sufficient. And after that, I don't even know that September would be sufficient to even get the work completed. So I think we should be lenient, given the circumstances. MR. DEAN: Madam Chairman, I'm concerned about one thing. Somebody lives there now. As we leave this room, if there was a fire tomorrow, I'd feel funny being on the Code Enforcement Board, somebody's living in there now. They should be out now. That electric and everything should be turned off of that place right now. If there's a fire on the 26th or 27th, how are you going to feel? And so if it's unsafe, they should not be in there as of right now. That's how I feel. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean, don't we have some issues with that in regards to legality? I mean, we can't force somebody out. MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think we can, you know, do anything to the tenant. We can't issue an eviction. But I think you can certainly order the respondent not to rent out that apartment and to have the person who is now in there immediately vacate the premises. I think she said March 30th. Today's the 23rd. If you tell them immediately, I don't know if they could get out much faster than that anyway. But I understand the concern. MR. DEAN: But they do have a lease and they know they're moving at the end of the month anyway. And what makes assurances that they will be moving out? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Could we -- MS. RAWSON: You can't do anything to the tenant. You can only tell her not to lease the structure. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Could we have her turn off the electricity, though? Page 51 March 23, 2006 MS. RAWSON: Sure, that would do it. Especially in view of the fact that those wires don't look like they're safe. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Correct. That's the point of contention is that's the safety issue that we're really concerned about. So if we direct her to immediately turn off the electricity __ MR. KRAENBRlNG: I don't know if we can really be doing that to a tenant who's there, right? I think that really oversteps -- that may create more of a safety hazard. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If it was a position -- MR. MORGAN: If you got a disconnect, maybe oscillate just that section of it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: But that's the problem is there's one tenant living in that section of it. My concern, though, is if there's a fire tomorrow, how are we all going to feel? MR. PONTE: I think we have to look at it as a reasonable situation. There hasn't been a fire. The probability of a fire tomorrow or over the next week has to be slim. I mean, yes, it exists, but it's not reasonable to think that in the next few days we would go through the hardship of A, attempting to force the tenant to leave before the end of the month or to turn off the lights and have them stumbling around in the dark. MS. ROBINSON: We could turn off the AC and it's very hot. MS. BARNETT: It won't be tomorrow, though. Okay. I look for notice that we have to determine whether or not there's been a violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there is a violation in CEB Case No. 2006-08. And in the motion, I don't know if this is the proper time, but I'd like to make a motion that we add the respondents. And the respondent has agreed to be added to this case. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I have a second? Page 52 March 23, 2006 MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, now for the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation. In Case CEB 2006-08, first of all, again, I'd like to add the respondents that are __ the respondent that is here and her husband. Also, the property has to be vacated by March -- no later than March 30th, which the respondent has stated that the lease will expire at that point. And shall not be occupied until it is brought up to code. The unit -- the power to the unit after March 30th shall be disconnected; not turned off, but disconnected to that particular unit. I understand that -- am I correct that it could be disconnected? MS. ROBINSON: I don't know. MR. LEFEBVRE: And if there's any water or so forth in that unit, if it could be isolated and also disconnected. We didn't talk about that, but that must be disconnected. I would like to give a recommendation that you would come into compliance or dismantle the unit within six months. So it doesn't matter when you get the permits, when you get engineering done, but a straight six months. And there will be a fine of $100 per day. You are responsible for operational costs, which will be determined, because we still have to have site visits and so forth. And you will notify the Code Enforcement Board at the time that you have come into compliance. Page 53 March 23, 2006 I don't know if there's any other points that __ CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any second? MS. RAWSON: The code enforcement officials, actually, the investigators, not the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sorry, correct, correct. MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do you understand? MS. ROBINSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next case is going to be Case No. 2006-10. I believe we have one of our board members that is recusing himself in this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. Do I need to step down? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I went down and sat down there. This case is Collier County Code Enforcement Board versus Steve Loveless. (Mr. Lefebvre has recused himself.) MS. GARCIA: At this time, I'd like to enter the County's Exhibit A into evidence on CEB Case No. 2006-10, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Steve Loveless. The violation of Ordinance 04-41 as amended, Section 1 0.02.06.B.1.A, Section 1 0.02.06.B.1.D and I, and the Florida Building Code Ordinance No. 2002-01, as amended, Sections 106.12, and Sections 106.3.1. Page 54 March 23, 2006 The description of violation is occupying a new dwelling without a certificate of occupancy issued for the structure or swimming pool. The location of the violation is 652 Soliel Drive, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner or person in charge of violation is Steve Loveless, 652 Soliel Drive. The date the violation was first observed, September 23, 2005. The date the owner or person in charge given notice of violation was September 26th of 2005. Date on which the violation was to be corrected was November 11 th, 2005. And date of the reinspection was January 31st, 2006. Results of the reinspection was violation remains. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Can I have a motion to move the packet of evidence? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, my name is Ronald Martindale. I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. We're on the case 2006-10 today, reference the illegal occupancy, failure to provide inspections and obtain required permits and extensions on said permits. As Ms. Garcia has already stated, my initial site visit, I found the Page 55 March 23, 2006 structure, a completed structure, very neat and nice condition. Appeared to be occupied. Nobody was at home at that time. I done some research and verified that it in fact had been issued a permit on 8/13 of '01 to construct, but said permit expired 2/13/02. The permit was later renewed on 4/15/02 which expired 10/15/02. There was also a pool permit that was issued 7/18/02. None of the above permits were ever CO'd, they never received the certificate of occupancy. From everything I could ascertain, including later speaking with the respondent, there was no denial that he had been in residence at the place. The amount of time, I don't know, but it was several years. I attempted other contact with the individual. The initial mailing -- at the initial mailing, just to be sure, I updated the notice of violation and re-served the violation on the 16th of November, 2005 by posting his residence at the courthouse and taking pictures of same for the record. At that time I noticed a silver 2003 Dodge pickup bearing Florida tags. I ran the tags, they did in fact return to Steven H. Loveless. On 2/5/05, the respondent came to office to meet with me and to advise of a scheduled meeting he had had with the head supervisor of permitting, Ms. Alamar Smiley at the time. Her name is Kenny at this time, she's just remarried. And they assured me -- or he assured me that they were going to review the permits for inspection. He was going to attempt to get a certificate of occupation (sic) immediately. I contacted Ms. Smiley a short while later, and she stated that she had only given him -- she had in fact given him an additional, this would be the third, permit to have the dwelling and the swimming pool brought to compliance by having all said inspections performed and the certificate of occupancy obtained. And he was specifically not to reside at the residence, since it's in violation of local code and Florida Building Code. The permit she issued at that date expired 12/30 of '05 -- I'm Page 56 March 23, 2006 sorry 1/30 of '06. As of 1/31/06, the violations remain, and to date nothing has been done. He was served with the hearing notice. Claims he received it late, and asked for a continuency extension from the board. And as noted earlier, we only received that two days prior to the meeting. He's mentioned a great deal of medical difficulties and so forth. And while, like I said earlier, I feel sorry for that, it's not just that he has to obtain the permits -- I mean his state certification and so forth, which he is a licensed bonded contractor and is licensed in this county -- he can always hire another individual to obtain the permit, another builder, and schedule the said required inspections. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does the board have any questions? MR. PONTE: I have a couple of questions. Just to make sure I'm clear on this, he is a licensed contractor? MR. MARTINDALE: Correct, sir. MR. PONTE: I got that right. Is the home currently occupied? I know he's away, but is that where he's living as his primary residence? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir, it is. As far as I can ascertain. I could never catch him at home. But just by going by the site, seeing the vehicle there different times, and just a simple walking up to the door to knock even though nobody's home, just in plain view you could -- the place is occupied, and I'm assuming it's him. MR. PONTE: Are there safety issues involved with the home and/or the swimming pool? MR. MARTINDALE: It looks all right. But as this gentleman brought to my attention, there should be electrical involved because of the recirculation pump, and this has not been checked. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli, supervisor with Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Loveless did tell me that he is living there, that is his primary residence. Page 57 March 23, 2006 MR. PONTE: Is it your recommendation then that he would have to vacate the property? MR. MARTINDALE: It is, sir. It's one of my recommendations. MR. PONTE: How long would it take him -- given the condition of the house, how long would it take him, in your estimate, to get a CO? MR. MARTINDALE: That is not my bailiwick, sir. I have no idea. I have never been inside the structure. It's a very nice -- I have some exterior photographs of it. MR. PONTE: That's okay. I'm sure it's in pretty good nick (sic). So I just wondered how long it would take him to get the right CO. MR. MARTINDALE: That, as I say, I don't know how long it takes an inspector, but it could take some amount of time, simply because the amount of the inspections. As far as I know, none have been done. And if they have, there's still quite a few to remain. And being that he's -- obviously, ifhe's living there he's probably covered up all the plumbing and other electrical wiring and so forth with drywall, and that will probably have to be opened up, at least in some instances, to discover the -- he is a contractor, and it's a spec house to him, but he's never had it checked out. MR. KRAENBRING: So we're not finding fact as to violations. The violation is that he just hasn't had the inspections done __ MR. MARTINDALE: He hasn't had a completely -- correct, sir. He has not received a certificate of occupancy. MR. KRAENBRING: So we're just going to be compelling him, in your recommendations, to get the inspections? MR. MARTINDALE: Basically, sir. MR. MORGAN: Are all the inspection up to date except the final inspection? MR. MARTINGALE: That, sir, I not know. I do not know what -- as I said, we're just the investigating officers. We do not go to the Page 58 March 23, 2006 actual -- I have no knowledge of any structural plumbing or electrical. I'm just an old cop. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Dennis? MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, thank you. Dennis Mitchell. I did research the inspection report history on that property. I cannot verbatim tell you what was done or not done. But I don't believe -- I do recall that no inspections whatsoever were performed on the pool. And those inspections that were performed on the structure itself, most of them were rejected, and that a majority of the inspections do still remain. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. MARTINDALE: Thanks, Dennis. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I was going to ask a question, because we talked around recommendations, but you never really had stated your recommendation. Would you do that, please? MR. MARTINGALE: I'd be glad to. I'm sorry. First of all -- he needs to vacate a -- this is the county's recommendation, to vacate all occupancy of the dwelling within 24 hours of the hearing, which would be the 24th -- I'm sorry, not the 24th, the 29th. He shall obtain complete and sufficient Collier County building permits within five days of the hearing or have imposed $100 per day fine for each day the violation continues. Now, this is just obtaining the permit, it's not correcting it. Also, that he should do -- by obtaining all the permits, the said certificate of occupancy, within 60 days should have it done or $100 per day will be imposed. As I said, it's nothing -- it's not like different levels of inspection, because it's essentially complete. So they can -- there's no reason to stretch it out for six months while they're adding things, because the site's completely built and obviously being able to reside in. Or for the respondent to obtain a Collier County demolition Page 59 March 23, 2006 permit within five days of the hearing or a $100 per day fine will be imposed, and execution of said permit within 60 days after the issuance of the permit. I doubt very much it would have to be that drastic to remove his house and pool. But unfortunately that's the only way we can correct this, is we have to fix it through our code or remove it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: For the board's consideration, I would like to point out that it would be an option that Mr. Loveless obtain a professional engineer to come in and inspect the property, and perhaps he could obtain another permit by affidavit, which would expedite the process considerably. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Great, thank you. If there's no further questions, then I'm going to close the public hearing and open it to discussion to the board. MR. KELLY: I understand his letter just recently for the continuance that he's stated that he's a contractor and he's switching from residential to a building contractor. It's my understanding that you can still build a house as an owner. Although there are certain subs that you have to hire that are licenced, you can still do it as an owner so I don't think that should have any bearing to the delays. MR. PONTE: As the owner/contractor, does he still have to then get a CO? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KELLY: Absolutely. MR. PONTE: Yes. It seems that we've got a technical violation, and technical violations are difficult to handle, because he's a contractor. I'm sure the place is in good nick. I mean, you know, it's not a -- probably not a safety issue anywhere in sight. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I don't know, I've got a few concerns, Page 60 March 23, 2006 because the county said they checked to see if any of his inspections had passed and they hadn't. The ones that he had called had been denied, which means there had been a problem. MR. PONTE: Yes, that's true. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: But that's just -- MR. PONTE: Well, that's a good point. It's a valid point. MR. MORGAN: Well, I was wondering why he proceeded if the inspections didn't pass. The guy is a contractor, why did he proceed? You know, you correct something immediately. Then you ask for a reinspection. Then you go on to the next stage. This guy knows what he's doing. He's been a contractor for a long time. He knows the rules and regulations. He just didn't follow them, he just bypassed them. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. That brings me to we need to find a finding of fact as to whether or not there is a violation and does it exist. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation does exist in Case 2006-10, Board of County Commissioners versus Steve Loveless. MR. DEAN: I'll second. MR. PONTE: Well, but if we went with no violations, so if you just add, violations as described in the charging documents. MR. KRAENBRING: As described in the charging documents. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 61 March 23, 2006 Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: How are we going to remedy this? MR. PONTE: Good question. MR. KRAENBRING: If you wanted to address the recommendations one by one so you can draft a motion, because they seem to be a little time sensitive. First recommendation was that he vacate within 24 hours. Just comment from the board, does that seem reasonable? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: No. MR. PONTE: No, it doesn't seem reasonable. MS. RAWSON: I might add that we won't have this order to him within 24 hours. If he were here, you could do that. But since he's not here and since there's a five-day turnaround between the time the orders are prepared and your Chair comes and signs them and we get them back to the county and we get them out to the respondents, he won't know about this within 24 hours. MR. KRAENBRING: Then I agree. That was my quip for bringing that up. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have to say, I have been helping my mother pack up some of her things. We just put her house on the market. And we got through a portion of her house in eight hours. So I might like the board to consider maybe a 10-day? MR. DEAN: That's fine by me. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: George has a problem. MR. PONTE: I do. I have a comfort problem. It's just not comfortable, 10 days, to ask somebody to vacate a house which is probably in good condition and the only thing we're addressing here is a technical violation. I don't even know that Mr. Loveless is in town and/or when he's going to return to town or how we're to communicate this to him and say you've got 10 days. I think 30 days from the date of this hearing is Page 62 March 23, 2006 tight enough. MR. DEAN: George, would you feel better like ifhe picked up a permit within 10 days? MR. PONTE: Well, ifhe's not in town he won't know what we've done. MR. KRAENBRING: I think we do want to -- MR. DEAN: Well, it's like saying-- MR. KRAENBRING: -- compel him to comply. MR. DEAN: -- ifhe's not going to be here in six months, you're going to wait six months. MR. PONTE: Well, if he's not here, then really the place isn't occupied, so what do you have? That almost negates the violation. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: He can come in -- MR. PONTE: As long as he's not here -- MR. DEAN: But the point is that the man's supposed to pick up a permit. He doesn't have a CO. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: He hasn't passed inspection. MR. DEAN: So he's probably living there. Who owns the house, his mom and dad? Does he own the house? MR. PONTE: I don't know. MR. DEAN: That's what I'm saying. So I think we just should put him on notice, because the mail gets forwarded somewhere. That's up to him to respond. And to ask somebody to get a permit within 10 days is not way out of line. By the time he gets it, he can run over here to get the permit. MR. PONTE: Or he can get the engineering permit that the county is suggesting. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I still think we're talking about getting a permit versus vacating. It's not CO'd. He's not supposed to be living there. That is an infraction. MR. PONTE: Right. Ifhe's not there, he's not living there, he's only technically there -- Page 63 March 23,2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Why give him 30 days to get out? MR. PONTE: Well, he's out, but he hasn't moved his things. So there's no violation. If he's not there, he's not occupying it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: He technically is occupying it. MR. PONTE: That's what I said, it's a technical violation. MR. MORGAN: If the house is in his name and he hasn't complied with all the rules and regulations, he's the owner. MR. PONTE: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I believe that the county is on to something. The 60 days to obtain a CO seems adequate, especially since the work is completed. This is just going in and making sure that it's okay, whether it's through the county inspectors or through an engineering department, outside private firm. I think give the gentleman 60 days to get everything done. You know, let him save whatever moving expenses and temporary housing that he would spend to put that towards getting this taken care of after four years of battling us. Let's just get it taken care of for once and for all, 60 days, period. MR. PONTE: I think that would be a very good motion, as even one of our board members has stepped down -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We still have one -- MR. PONTE: -- and we have an alternate? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We still have five. MR. PONTE: All right, we still have five. All right. If we could turn that into a motion, that would be a great idea. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. PONTE: I actually didn't make notes while we were doing that. Richard, did you make some notes on that? MR. KRAENBRING: Yes, because the thing is what we were looking at from the recommendations from the county were several time-sensitive things: Vacating the property, obtaining permits, Page 64 March 23, 2006 obtaining the CO and/or demolition. So that seemed that we're going to have different times when we have to enact that and different penalties for not following those rules. So if we did find a time, like a 60-day period, you tie all those together, possibly, if that's what the board wants. So just to go ahead -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I thinking Mr. Kelly was trying to just say rather than breaking it down in two steps, just give it a 60-day. MR. KRAENBRING: And that would make it probably easier for everyone to follow this case as it moves along. So those recommendation would be it be within 60 days. Again, I make the motion, this -- within 60 days of this hearing that the respondent shall either obtain permits and COs, or the other option was to obtain a demolition permit. MR. PONTE: Can I just ask you to insert something there? COs for the structure and the swimming pool. MR. KRAENBRING: That's correct. Okay. Or a $100 per day fine. MR. PONTE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean, I've only got one problem with the whole motion. I'm going to ask you, because if in that 60 days he resides at that residence, he's technically violating the fact that he's never been CO'd and given the right to live in that. How do we handle that, or is that something we're just forgetting -- MS. RAWSON: If I understand Richard's motion, it didn't include vacating. MR. KRAENBRING: That's right, we're saying that we're going to let this man live there for 60 days. Is that the mind of the board at this point? I'm sorry, I need a consensus before I make the motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I personally have a problem with that. Because that would mean that anybody can build a home, not get permits, not get CO'd and live in it until it comes before us, and then Page 65 March 23, 2006 we're going to give them an additional 60 days to get everything done. MR. PONTE: But there are other circumstances here. If the premises was one where there were safety issues involved, if the place was in some disrepair -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: How do we know there aren't? MR. DEAN: That's why you have a CO. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Because there have not been any permits or inspections done. MR. PONTE: There have not, that is correct. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And the ones that have been done haven't passed. MR. PONTE: Have expired. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Have not passed. MR. PONTE: Right. And some have expired. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The permit expired, but the inspections that were done did not pass. So how do we know there are not any safety violations? MR. PONTE: We don't know that there aren't any -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Because it's not been CO'd. MR. PONTE: That's right. But in answer to your questions about setting a precedent for other situations, this is very unlike other situations. This is a home being occupied without a CO by a licensed contractor who's clearly in violation of not getting a CO, that's true. However -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Why are we being lenient to somebody that knows better? MR. PONTE: Because we're not being honest with ourselves. Because not all such situations are equal. There is a difference. The fellow is a professional. He is living there. He doesn't have a CO. He's not here. We're going to give him 60 days to vacate, do the whole thing, get out. If there was -- if the place was in disrepair, if there -- if the place Page 66 March 23, 2006 didn't even look habitable, then of course we'd want, for the safety of the person, first of all, would want to move that along very quickly. But I don't sense that is the real situation here, do you? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I don't know. MR. DEAN: I think the person is a professional, and he's a builder. He'd certainly be the first one to have a CO. I think you'd put him a little bit higher than the guy who just walks in and doesn't get a certificate of occupancy. He doesn't take the time. But the guy who really knows better, you're letting him off the hook. That's not right. MR. MORGAN: Well, that's the point I was making. The guy, he knows what he's doing. He's been through these procedures. He's been a contractor for all these years. MR. DEAN: I agree. MR. KRAENBRING: So do we want to consider then going back to a time line for vacating the property? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I would like to see a time line placed in there for vacating the property. Because I think that would put a little bit more expediency in him to make sure he gets this done. Because if he can't live there, then he's going to move along and get it taken care of. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you have a recommendation for that? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'd like to say 15 days. MR. DEAN: I'm sorry, you said, Madam Chairman, you said 15 days? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DEAN: That's fine with me, I like that. MR. MORGAN: How many days? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Fifteen. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Fifteen. MR. MORGAN: Good enough for me. MR. PONTE: Thirty. Thirty days. I think it's more realistic. He's not in town.G Page 67 March 23, 2006 MR. DEAN: We don't know. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I still say 15 days. He's a professional, he should have known better. MR. KRAENBRING: And that will give time for -- MR. PONTE: That will just let enough time for the paperwork to squeak through. MS. RAWSON: We're faster than that. MR. KRAENBRING: I do have to say, George, that this seems like it's really been an ongoing case, and permits have been issued and abandoned and so maybe -- MR. PONTE: Okay, well, let's take a vote. MR. KRAENBRING: So should we -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Make a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, I'll make a motion in the CEB Case No. 2006-10, Collier County Board of Commissioners versus Steve Loveless, that we -- that he should vacate the property within 15 days -- we have to apply a fine to that, right -- or pay a fine of $100 per day. That within 60 days of this hearing, that he obtain all permits and COs to the structure and swimming pool, or obtain a demolition permit, or pay an additional fine of $100 per day. Anything else? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Operational costs. MR. KRAENBRING: We don't have any operational costs at this time, right? Is that correct? And pay all operational costs as to be determined at a later date by the county code enforcement. MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me, I think we do have an amount on that. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, we do? Okay. There would be some accruing ones, I'd imagine, on that. MR. MITCHELL: To date the amount is $252.77. MR. KRAENBRING: Two-fifty-two and? MR. MITCHELL: Seventy-seven cents. Page 68 March 23, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. And pay operational costs in the amount of 252.77 and any additional operational costs that may accrue between now and the end of the case. And that he notify the code enforcement as to when inspections are to be made. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have a second to that? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I believe that's all of the cases that we had. Gerald, you can come back and join us now. And we'll move to new business. The first imposition of fines and liens is the Board of County Commissioners versus Patricia Savignano. And she is here. They were sworn in earlier. Do we need to reswear them in? MS. RAWSON: It's really a different case. That was the motion to continue. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Cherie', would you please swear them in? (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: Once again, for the record, I'm Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement environmental investigator. We're here today to discuss the imposition of fines. The county's position is we do not recommend any deduction in the fines. We'd like them to remain the same and accruing until the violation is abated. Page 69 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And the fines are at this time? MS. GARCIA: 33,815, including operational costs. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Ms. Savignano? MS. SA VIGNANO: After hearing that, I might need a minute here. May I speak? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. SA VIGNANO: First of all, thank you for seeing me today. This is a single-family home. It is not in a development. It is our homestead property. We have never had another violation. The original cost of the lot, which is approximately seven and a half acres, was $150,000. In 1999 we spent over $30,000 to clear it to the specifications and the approval of the county inspectors. This required essentially stripping the property of all of the shrubs, the exotics and the removal of hundreds of trees. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm going to have to object to this. I'm not sure where she's going with this. We're not hearing the case, the case has already been heard. She's been found in violation and the fines have been assessed. And what we're here today is to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mrs. Savignano, I basically need -- we can't rehear the case, because we have heard it. I need to know the reasons why you would like us to reduce the fines or what the reasons that you have -- MS. SA VIGNANO: Could I say the prices of things so far? Would that be -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You can go ahead and go through the listing, if you'd like. MS. SA VIGNANO: At the time we spent $150,000, another 30,000 to clear. We at that time, to the best of my knowledge, were in agreement that we were up to code. In fact, until 2004, at that time we were still not in violation. We were served with a violation notice in the summer of 2004. It Page 70 March 23, 2006 was changed, reduced. We proved that we did have permits. So this is only a violation for removing too many trees. Dead trees. And in my defense, I'd have to say this is a constant source of stress for both me and my husband. He has multiple health conditions. I have MS. This is very stressful on us. We have made every effort right along to work with the code enforcement personnel. They've changed a few times. Our newest code enforcement person saw us recently. With the latest person we have hired, we've hired two attorneys, thousands of dollars. We hired a landscape engineer, at their recommendation, thousands of dollars. They found his plan unacceptable. We went from a list they were kind enough to give us. I contacted every person on the list. No one would make a plan for us. Two people called me back, had no interest in the plan. Out of the whole list. The one man than that called me back, I immediately hired him. We had a meeting. I gave him a deposit. They tell me that he has taken his time getting what they find is not an acceptable plan. And I fully understand that. He is not here today. At this point, moneywise, I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on dead trees. So I understand that they have put some cost into this. I'm fully willing to go along with the plan if we can get one done, if we can get one approved. We've right along said we would happy to plant something. I'm living with some remaining dead trees and a few groups of living trees. We're trying to maintain our property as best we can. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm still a little confused on why this is even brought forward. You're not in compliance, and I would have a hard time to try to amend it without coming into compliance. I feel that the fines should keep on accruing until this is taken care of. And then at that point she can come in front of us. Page 71 March 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm in agreement. Until you come into compliance, however we can get that done, and maybe this code enforcement officer can assist you even further than what has been done so far, we can't really reduce or abate fines. You have to come into compliance first and then come back and see us. MS. SA VIGNANO: I do have a question then. When I had spoken to this code enforcement person back about maybe three or four weeks ago, and I had told her I called and I personally notified everyone on the list that we were trying to get a plan done, I had at that time asked her what would happen if no one would do a plan for us, and she said that occasionally code enforcement will take a plan just drawn up by a person. I said do you mean I could just draw a plan myself? And she said we don't like you to do that but you could. So at this point can I draw a plan myself? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, she's well on her way to getting her plan. We had a meeting on March 9th. I can put this up if you'd like to see it. I understand that this is causing her a lot of stress and the case has gone on for so long. We're close to getting a plan. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's all I need to know. Because if you start, we're going to be rehearing. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. I don't want to rehear the case, but I feel like I've been working with her as much as possible trying to negotiate this plan and trying to make it possible for her to have an amicable relationship with the county, in spite of the fact that it's been going on so long. I've given her -- I've shown her copies of plans that we have accepted in the past. And yes, it is true that in certain cases we'll take a sketch from a homeowner to do their plan from that. However, in her case, she's working with three acres, she needs to restore three strata of vegetation, and this case has been going on for a really long time. People have been giving them continuances, giving them deadlines, and it hasn't been an easy case, but I feel optimistic that Page 72 March 23, 2006 we're close to coming up to some kind of resolution. MS. SA VIGNANO: May I say one other thing? In my defense, the first violation was four separate items, two of which were asking us to obtain permits. One was a permit for vegetation removal, and one was a permit for excavation. MS. BARNETT: You've already stated that you had gotten those permits. MS. SA VIGNANO: At that point -- so it's only the one issue from actually last fall. MR. LEFEBVRE: May I just speak here? Would it be possible maybe to amend our agreement to state that maybe once a month -- I know we've done this before -- once a month maybe there's a letter written by the respondent stating what -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Actually, that would -- going back to the case -- but that would be something that they would have in the case. All we're hearing today is to decide whether or not to impose this fine. We have to move forward. If we go ahead and impose this fine, fine. Once she comes into compliance, she can then come back and ask us to reduce the fine at that time. All we're doing right now is trying to decide whether or not we want to impose this fine. So at this time I think I'm going to close the hearing to the public and just go to the board and ask whether or not we want to impose this fine. MR. KRAENBRlNG: So we can in fact reduce the $33,000 fine CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At a later date, once she comes into compliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: We can reduce anything -- the fines, but not the operational costs. MR. KRAENBRlNG: Exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose the fines on CEB Page 73 March 23, 2006 Case No. 2005-28. And do I need to state the amount? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. Just as they are currently runnIng. MR. LEFEBVRE: As they are currently running. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And just so you understand, once you get into compliance, come back to us and we will at that time hear your reasons why we should reduce or abate the fines. MS. SA VIGNANO: Abate meaning -- MR. PONTE: That was a motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry, we need a second to the motion. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRlNG: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time because it's passed. I'm sorry, once it's all done, and you're in compliance, then come back to us in the reasonable time frame and ask for us to hear your side as to why we should either reduce or abate the fines. Okay? MS. SA VIGNANO: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me. Thank you. And just for the benefit of Ms. Savignano, she can always communicate with Shirley, the operations coordinator, for further instruction on how to get on that agenda and the time frame and what format you're to request that reduction of fines. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, the next request for Page 74 March 23, 2006 impositions of fines is BCC versus Miguel and Daima Fernandez. Mr. Fernandez is here. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LUEDTKE: This is for the imposition of fines for the location of 228 42nd Street Southwest. Shawn Luedtke, for the record. The case was originally heard on March 30th of '05 for this board and ordered to come into compliance in 90 days. They just came into compliance on the 7th of this month by obtaining the CO. From what I understand, Mr. Fernandez had some medical issues. He wants to, you know, try to get a reduction or what have you. But our recommendation is to keep the fines as they are. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Shawn, do you happen to know what those are, separated out? MS. GARCIA: I have them. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We had them separated out for the operational costs. MS. GARCIA: They paid the operational costs of378.77 ahead of time and the imposition of fines on the $7,450 because they were not in compliance on time. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Unbelievable. According to the law, right in front of the eyes of the law, I was not in compliance, but I was. It was a matter of different things that I don't want to look back right in front of you giving your reasons to reduce the fines, but there are very true facts that happened. It's unbelievable, I know. We have the best of relations. I'm very grateful. I want to thank you, Shirley Garcia, Douglas Mitchell and Shawn. They have been very helpful. I have been in the Collier County office, and they have been always trying to help. And the same has been my position, to get to compliance. They know that. Page 75 March 23, 2006 I think this is good. It keeps the value of the property high. I know you're doing a great job, I recognize all that. I'm sorry this happened to me. I was in compliance, and I could prove that, because in less than 24 hours, I got my CO. I have already taken care of everything. I want to justify myself to a hundred percent. I am the owner of the property, I'm responsible for that. And in my mind I thought everything had been taken care of. But in fact, there were two important things to take care of: Final inspection and CO. That I had not done. That I could do in less than 24 hours, because everything was done in the house. So I'm telling you the truth. They know I had a stroke, I have been having health problems and all that. And my mind is now going back to normal, I think. But I had a time before, like six, seven months ago that I was not myself. And there were things that I thought had been taken care of, and they had not. So not knowing the law or anything like that doesn't give you the opportunity to break it, I know that. But please, take all this into consideration and try to give me a break and reduce my fine, as you could, please. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Am I understanding you to say that during this time frame you had a stroke? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I had it before. I had it before this time. But that was a consequence of my illness that I was trying to recover from. MR. LEFEBVRE: What type of reduction are you looking for in the fines? MR. FERNANDEZ: Should I tell you the truth? I have already paid the operational costs. My property was in compliance. I can prove it to -- she can say that. I took care of this in less than 24 hours. No, she cannot say that it was in compliance, I'm sorry. She can say that I took care of this in less than 24 hours. MS. GARCIA: No, sir, I can't say that you took care of it. I Page 76 March 23, 2006 walked your son-in-law through the permitting process, and I made all the inspections on the appointment for you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, true. MS. GARCIA: So that I arranged everything within a week's time. It took me a week to arrange all of your inspections. I did all the phone calls, and I put them all in for your son-in-law. Yes, it did take a week, and I did it. I don't know if you were ready for it before this time before your son-in-law came to the office. So I couldn't testify to that, okay? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, what I mean is, as at the beginning I say thank you very much for your help, you've been very helpful. You helped a lot. I know that. But everything was done, that's why we could do it so fast. And I had to call my son-in-law because I was not in town. So I was out of town. I sent him, he took care of that with the help of Shirley. She was very, very, very helpful. And I appreciate that. Thank you very much. MS. GARCIA: And also, for the record, I'm sorry to interrupt, his son-in-law didn't show up until a week before March 7th to ask me to assist on this. So just to keep that -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time, I think I'm going to close it to that and just open it up to our board's discussion. MR. MORGAN: Madam Chair, was this property zoned for multiple dwellings -- multiple apartments in a single-family home? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I don't think that's -- I don't know what the facts are at this point. I think it was a matter of whether or not they had the CO; is that correct? MR. LUEDTKE: It was an illegal conversion of a -- from what I understand, a garage into a living area. MR. KRAENBRlNG: Apartment or multi unit? MR. LUEDTKE: Apartment, actually. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Again, we're here to decide whether Page 77 March 23, 2006 or not we're going to impose the fines. The case has already been heard. So the fact that they didn't come into compliance until March 7th and they didn't start officially working on it, from what I'm hearing, real hard until a week before, there may have been some issues that there were some health issues that have come out to play. But I'm inclined to leave it as it is. MR. PONTE: Well, my feeling is that whatever the mitigating circumstances are, what our real goal is on this board is to get respondents into compliance, not to be a mechanism for collecting money for the county. That's not what we're here to do. The respondent is now in compliance. And I think we should take a very close look at that and a very close look at whether or not a fine in the amount of, $7,450 or more should be imposed at this point for somebody in compliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you also have to look, George, at the time of compliance. It was not timely whatsoever. And part of not being timely is imposing a fine. MR. PONTE: What would you suggest then? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's the quandary I have, because I've asked the respondent and he didn't give me a number. MR. PONTE: He wants zero. MR. LEFEBVRE: Obviously. But I have not come up with a number. I can see a little reduction in fine, but I'm not sure what the amount may be. Maybe $6,000. I don't know if that's an equitable amount, if the board will be agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Reduce it 6,000 or to make the fine 6,000? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, to make the fine $6,000. That's an arbitrary number. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm going to ask the question out to the board. Did anybody hear a specific reason as to why this did not come into compliance until the 7th? Page 78 March 23, 2006 MR. PONTE: No. MR. DEAN: No specific reason. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So why are we reducing it? MR. PONTE: It now? MR. KRAENBRlNG: Just for the timeline, what was the date of the hearing when we imposed these fines? MR. LUEDTKE: The 30th of March last year. MR. KRAENBRlNG: The 30th of March. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So it's taken almost a year. MR. PONTE: Yeah, it's almost a year, and the fine was $50 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: From June 27th. MR. PONTE: Right, from June 27th. And the $50 a day does reflect the feeling of the board as to the seriousness of that violation. And he is now in compliance. Late, but in compliance. And I think the fine should be reduced. MR. KRAENBRlNG: Do you want to throw a number out there? MR. PONTE: I'd say go to 50 percent of7,450. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I can't abide by that one, only because when we gave him direction, we gave him "X" amount of time to do things. MR. PONTE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And ifhe did not come into compliance within those times, the fines started running. And so he had the time to correct it. And if it was easy as he said, why didn't he do it then? Why did he wait until March 7th? MR. PONTE: He said he thought it had all been done except for two things. That's what he said. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Again, why did he wait until March 1 st? Because you said he came in a week prior to the 7th to start fixing the problems. Page 79 March 23, 2006 MR. PONTE: I can't testify for the respondent, but I think what he said is that he thought it had all been taken care of and that his concern for his physical condition at the time, it didn't come to his attention that the two items remaining had not been attended to. And when he discovered that, then he moved forward to get it corrected as soon as possible, get the permits and the paperwork done as soon as possible. I think that's what he said. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I can't go by half, George. MR. PONTE: I can't go for seven. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion then that we impose the fine of $6,000 in CEB case 2005-11. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I have a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, there's no second. That doesn't fly, so we're back to the drawing board. MR. KELLY: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KELLY: Might I add that I believe I heard Shirley say when she walked the premises, there was more than a final and a CO. I believe there were a number of inspections that needed to be processed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: This isn't a hard decision. We need to know whether or not this person came into compliance per our order or not. If they didn't come into compliance and there is no specific reason as to why they did not come into compliance, why are we looking to reduce the fine? Why not just impose the fine that exists? MR. PONTE: Well, for all the reasons I've already said, so I don't want to repeat them again. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Because you don't feel that he should because he came into compliance, even though he came into compliance late. Page 80 March 23, 2006 MR. PONTE: What I said was he is in compliance and that he thought -- he thought he was in compliance and had gone through and done all of the things he thought he should complete and then discovered at a recent date that there were two items that had not been done. And when he discovered that, he then moved to correct the situation. MR. KRAENBRlNG: I think George may have -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me, can I say something? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: No, sir, it's closed. MR. KRAENBRlNG: I think George may have a point, we do impose fines on people that are not in compliance, and we make sure we have those fines still accruing so that we get them to that point. So for someone who is in compliance, and we have done it in the past, we reduce fines. I think you might find a price tag that we want to put on this. So MR. PONTE: I said 50 percent. MR. KRAENBRlNG: If you want to put that into a motion or something to that nature so that we can air it out and see where we're going to be. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The first one did not fly. MR. KRAENBRlNG: The $6,000 didn't fly. MR. LEFEBVRE: Half would be, if I'm not mistaken, $3,725. MR. KRAENBRlNG: 3,725, correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would you like to make a motion? MR. PONTE: All right, I will make a motion that a fine be imposed in the amount of 50 percent of the current amount. And of course that all operational costs would also be paid. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRlNG: Aye. Page 81 March 23,2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. We're now to comments section. MR. DEAN: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. DEAN: How did that vote go? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I believe it passed. There were only two that declined. MR. DEAN: I just heard a loud aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: There was two. MR. DEAN: So it was three to two, four to two? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Three to two. That would close all the new business. We're going into comments. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the respondent has a question. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. MR. FERNANDEZ: How do I pay for that? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You can get with Shirley -- I'm sorry. MS. GARCIA: That's okay. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You can get with her and you can set up a plan. All right, so we're moving to the comment section? Yes. MR. GRIFFIN: If I could be recognized? Steve Griffin, county attorney's office. You should have in your board packets a status report dated March 23rd, which is today, 2006, which shows the total fines and costs collected in 2005 and where we are so far. Page 82 March 23, 2006 I might say in partial defense to the dollar number that you see, that there has been a sort of a transition in our legal office, and we do have new secretarial and clerical help getting the letters and the notices out to the various respondents to collect higher sums of money, hopefully, in the following quarters of the year. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer those. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was that in our package that was sent to us, or was that just -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We don't have it. MR. GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, I can put it up on -- and I will make sure that the court reporter gets a copy, so that we're fully in compliance with the Sunshine Law. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. GRIFFIN: This is a duty that was Jeff Klatzkow's, and I think he's spoken to the board before. And I've been asked to try to assist in this effort now. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Anybody have any questions? MR. PONTE: No questions. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The next thing we need to look at is under new business, the discussions of the rules and regulation. It's something that we normally amend when we have our election of officers. Jean, was there a reason we put this -- because we need to do it in a workshop? MS. RAWSON: I think that it's on here because it's usually done at the March meeting but maybe it's just sort of a reminder to everybody, hopefully the new members have copies, that you go through the rules and regulations and see if you have any changes, additions, corrections. And when Michelle gets back, I think we probably are going to set up a workshop and then we can talk about it. Page 83 March 23, 2006 And then we'll bring it back to a regular board meeting if anybody has any proposed changes. But it takes a little time to go through all that. So I think it's on the agenda today. Maybe Dennis can correct me if I'm mistaken, for that reason. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: It's -- generally we discuss it at this meeting, but because we have so many new members, I don't know if everybody's really familiar with it. Maybe it would be a good idea to table this until after the workshop. MR. PONTE: I probably should just ask because I'm getting a little confused with my book of regulations. I need an editor. It gets thicker and thicker. What is our current date? I have something dated March 30th, '05, but that was the proposal. I perhaps was away. I was away in April, so maybe I didn't get the final. And then there was a code enforcement ordinance amendment that Michelle sent out in September, and was that incorporated into the rules and regs? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: It changed the findings. MR. PONTE: Okay. So I guess I'd like to ask someone to get me a copy. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Maybe we could all get a brand new set. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. You may notice that the last time the rules and regs were amended was April, 28, '05. I believe that Michelle Arnold's intention was for you all to have the opportunity to toss around some ideas, some suggestions perhaps that might make the workshop go a little bit smoother. MR. PONTE: What I would like to have is a copy of that, along with the amendment that Michelle put out on September 15th so that we work that in. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Ifwe could give that to every member so that then we can all look through it. And then at the Page 84 March 23, 2006 workshop we can discuss it and then just table this at this time to bring it up at a later date. MS. RAWSON: Or maybe you could e-mail us the April 2005 rules and regulations. MS. GARCIA: Sure. MS. RAWSON: Because they're not -- it's that thick. And we can print it and look over the last one that we approved. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. GARCIA: I can scan it in. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If that's okay with everybody else, that's what I would like to suggest that we go ahead and table this until after the workshop. MR. PONTE: Good idea. MS. BARNETT: The next meeting date is going to be April 27th, 2006. And with that, I'd like to have a motion to adjourn. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRlNG: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. Adjourned. Page 85 March 23,2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:14 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 86 1ST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME / ~ A~b FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAt.1E OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE (:).6'..8 THE BOARD, COUNCil. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: o CITY ~UNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: '-~ C'O?-<r'I/' MY POSITION IS: ~~ o1,lLlNG ADDRESS 5"3'8' CO V& TY /V/fPLE J' ), TE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED {" H' d3 C~<.' 'L COUNTY Co C. ?.;::;. .;)GO o ELECTIVE ;cr.::APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 fhis form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, :ommission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting :onflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending In whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before :ompleting the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143; FLORIDA STATUTES \ person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which nures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local oHicer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- ;ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the Jarent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or o the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that :apacity. =or purposes of this law, a "relative' includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, nother-in-Iaw, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate' means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business mterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation He not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). , . ELECTED OFFICERS: n addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. ~PPOINTED OFFICERS: L\lthough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you nust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made JY you or at your direction. F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A lTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE r AKEN: , You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) J ;'1= FORM 88 . REV. 1/98 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~ W.A'/I'- J) .T. ~eA e./Sy.r::...6, hereby disclose that on /Z'l ~c r~ c-) 3 ::>u Cb , ...:I::iIW : (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , by , which s ..-n:- /.e:; ,?,,J va ? ~ S.s c#",_'> ,,,,,"- # doOb - /0 e c;.. a ~€ rvi ~ Y' VVvl1 v( ~6 ..,11./ a:::: T1-/ /M ,{' . L- c,y,e' 4..~ f ) ':;::yV j4 P~.A'" fi. s /~ ~4"'-1...r i-+-r---r=...". /V , 3 /2 J/dh Date Filed ,~ I ~/ 4 hr, ~~A7(I: /~- SIgnature .' --- NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT;- REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2