Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/25/2006 R May 25, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida May 25, 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 Justin DeWitte Gerald Lefebvre Kenneth Kelly Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: May 25, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 27, 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion for Re-Hearing- Jerry & Kimberlea Blocker 2006-16,2006-17 & 2006-18 B. STIPULATIONS - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) C. HEARINGS 2006-19 829 9lST AVE. N., NAPLES, FL (FOLIO: 62711640001) MARVIN & LORIE SIPNICK CHRIS AMBACH ORD 04-411O.02.06(B)(1)(A), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(D), 10.02.06(B)(I)(D)(I), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 02-01 SEe. 104.1.1,104.1.3.5,106.1.2 & 106.3.1 DESCRIPTION: PROHIBITED CONVERSION OF A GARAGE INTO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS & CO'S. 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-21 6134 EVERETT ST, NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 00421560006) VICTOR GEORGE EVERILDO YBACET A ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 2.02.03 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.03(B)(I)(A),10.02.06(B)(I)(D), AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITION, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 02-01, SECTION 104.1.1 DESCRIPTION: SHED ON PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. NON PERMITTED LAND USES, I.E. STORAGE OF MOTOR HOME, USE OF SAID MOTOR HOME AS LIVING SPACE, STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL TRAILERS, STORAGE OF CANNOPIES, STORAGE OF BOAT & TRAILER NOT CURRENTLY REGISTERED TO PROPERTY OWNER, ALL OF WHICH ARE NOT USES PERMITTED ON AGRICULTURE ZONED LAND. 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: 2006-22 513 STOKES AVE., IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 00135560004) OCCEUS SAINTILIEN & MAL VEILLEAS ESTIVERNE INSPECTOR: CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO. 04-41,1.04.01, 2.01.00(A). ORD. 81-42 SEC. 1, ORD. 2005-44 SEe. 6, 7 & 8 DESCRIPTION: OPERATION OF A VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP, EXTENSIIVE AMOUNT OF UNLICENSED/INOPERABLE VEHICLES ON PROPERTY, LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO VEHICLE PARTS, TIRES, METAL, WOOD, JUNK VEHICLES. REPEAT VIOLATIONS OF CEB 2001-081. 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-26 602 E. DELAWARE AVE., IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 00119640005) JOSE & GUADALUPE SANCHEZ CAROL SYKORA VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE(S) 04-41, AS AMENDED, SEC. 2.01.00(A), 5.02.00, 5.02.02,5.02.03,2.02.03 AND ORD. 2005-44 SEe. 6, 7 & 8 DESCRIPTION: RECURRING VIOLATIONS OF OPERATION OF VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS WITH EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF UNLICENSED/INOPERABLE VEHICLES BEING TOWED TO PROPERTY. LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO VEHICLE PARTS, TIRES, METAL, PLASTIC, GENERAL TRASH 5. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: DESCRIPTION: 5. NEW BUSINESS 2006-25 7260 40TH ST., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 38912960006) JOSE & LESTER AGUILAR THOMAS KEEGAN VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE(S) 04-41, AS AMENDED, SEe. 1.04.01 ILLEGAL LAND USE ON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY IN ESTATES ZONING CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO SHEDS, TRUCK BOXES AND OTHER MATERIALS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens BCC vs. Gary D. Wilson 6. OLD BUSINESS - 7. REPORTS - NO REPORTS 8. COMMENTS CEB No. 2004-28 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - June 22, 2006 *Hearing Location Change* 10. ADJOURN May 25, 2006 CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: It's 9:30. I'd like to call this meeting of the Code Enforcement Board for Collier County on May 25th, 2006 to order. May I have the roll call, please. MS. GARCIA: Shirley Garcia for Collier County Code Enforcement for the record. Sheri Barnett? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Present. MS. GARCIA: Larry Dean? (No response.) MS. GARCIA: Mr. Dean has no excused absence. MS. ARNOLD: I think he told us at the last meeting that he wasn't going to be here. MS. GARCIA: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. GARCIA: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. Before we go any further, I can hardly hear. Are these mics on, or what? (Microphone feedback.) MR. PONTE: Now we can't hear at all. MS. ARNOLD: I think they're on. MS. GARCIA: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. GARCIA: Richard Kraenbring has an excused absence. Justin De Witte? MR. DeWITTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Make note that our alternates will be acting as board members today with full rights. Okay, approval of the agenda. Page 2 May 25, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. There is no significant changes. There is a stipulation that has been entered into for the first case on your agenda, 2006-19, so that will be heard first before the others. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. I'll entertain approval of the minutes. MR. DeWITTE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor-- MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ARNOLD: Did you mean the agenda? MR. PONTE: I didn't get notes, so I can't vote. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Oh, I skipped over the agenda approval, I'm sorry. Back up. Let's go to the approval of the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Now we'll move to the minutes. George, you didn't get -- MR. PONTE: I didn't receive the minutes. Page 3 May 25, 2006 CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: They came very shortly after the last meeting bye-mail. MR. PONTE: Okay. I missed it, so I'll just abstain. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. I'll entertain another motion, seeing that I was out of order. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do you want to second it? MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: One abstained. Okay. So we'll move to then the stipulation agreement. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, Madam Chairman, there's a motion for rehearing, Jerry and -- CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. We want to do that one first? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the motions are first and then the stipulations. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. I'm sorry. All right, I'll go ahead and then move to the motion for rehearing for Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, Mr. Patrick White is here representing Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker. MR. WHITE: Morning, Madam Chairman. Patrick White with the law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur, representing Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker. Page 4 May 25, 2006 I'm going to have to move this away because I'm apparently a little louder. My understanding is that this is just a request for you to consider the actual rehearing motion that I've filed, not an actual determination on the merits of the points in that motion. And I'm here more so to answer any questions you may have about the motion that I did file, the request that I did file. And we would ask your favorable consideration to have the matter reset for rehearing at your earliest possible convenience. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay, before I jump into that, because we have a lot of new members, Jean -- MS. RAWSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: -- do you want to go ahead and read the rules in regards to rehearings? MS. RAWSON: A party may request a rehearing of the board's order based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on the ruling of law which was fundamental to the decision of the board. And he's got a pretty long motion here, which hopefully most of you have read. I think Mr. White said he would be happy to answer any of your questions in that regard. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I actually had one question, only because I'm not an attorney and I didn't understand attorney -ese, or the legal jargon. Laches. What are they? MR. WHITE: Laches is an affirmative defense essentially that means that a respondent in this case would be entitled to make to explain why they should not be found to have violated the rules that are being charged against them. It essentially is an equitable type of a defense looking to the facts that are presented to determine whether it would be appropriate under the circumstances after a, you know, delayed period of time to look to enforce a set of rules against that Page 5 May 25, 2006 respondent. And I believe that that was something that as a matter of law did not receive a degree of consideration. Although it was, perhaps less artfully than attorney-ese, stated by my client when I reviewed the board's actual -- I had a DVD of it and reviewed the actual proceedings. So that is why it's one of the things that we have put into the motion, along with some other affirmative defenses and other things that I believe meet the task that is stated in the applicable rule. So-- MS. RAWSON: Laches basically comes from an axiom that says he who sleeps on his rights may lose them, which is another way of saying too much time has passed. You might ask him about his second affirmative defense, equitable estoppel, unless all of you understand what that is. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: That was my next one. MR. WHITE: Essentially equitable estoppel argues that it would be inequitable or unfair to apply or attempt to apply the rules at this point in time. Again, it's a kind of a fundamental fairness doctrine that can be asserted. It has, as does laches and all other types of legal matters, a series of elements that need to be demonstrated. I believe that we can demonstrate those elements to the degree of satisfaction required to first off at least consider those types of defenses, and more so I think to be able to grant the type of relief we're asking for. One of the third ones, if I might anticipate it, is vested rights. It's very much akin to equitable estoppel. I've often said that they're opposite faces of the same coin. And one of them arises from constitutional principles, that being the vested rights, and the equitable estoppel arises from the equitable powers of courts over the history of their existence, all the way back into English law. So they're long-standing principles that essentially say that if there are facts that demonstrate your respondent, my client, has taken Page 6 May 25, 2006 a course of action where at this point in time it would be unfair to try to apply those laws to him for a variety of anyone of these three offenses, then they ought be allowed to continue to do what it was that they were doing before. And in fact I think that there are other issues that are stated beyond these affirmative defenses that are in my motion and are other what I consider the fundamental aspects of how you reached your decision at the last hearing that I believe may have been erroneous. It's a difficult position to be here to tell you that we think you might not have gotten it right, but my job's to help you to understand that, and I appreciate your questions in an effort to try to do so. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? MR. KELLY: I have one question. In your motion, there was a few citations to previous cases throughout the State of Florida. And I assume you're trying to set precedence. Have you found anything that's happened here in Collier County or that this board has ruled on in the past that might support any of these findings? MR. WHITE: Other than the Tuffs case that you heard and reconsidered last meeting, not that I can immediately point you to. But I believe that one of the fundamental aspects of the Tuffs case was whether or not facts existed that made it inequitable to try to apply a set of rules later in time. Now, I'm not familiar with all the facts and don't want to misrepresent them to you, but I think that case at least stands for the proposition in terms of granting what we're asking you for today, a request for rehearing, that there's an opportunity to bring forward those types of evidence and to make those kinds of arguments. I'm not trying to argue the substance of the actual rehearing today. I think that's something that, you know, if you were able to give us that consideration we could adequately demonstrate, not only Page 7 May 25, 2006 from the record but from what the rules allow us to essentially kind of introduce as new evidence within the scope of what you allow us to bring to you as a rehearing. The code enforcement cases aren't reported in the same way that a lot of the court cases are. But I think it's fair to say that there's an evolving understanding on the part of circuit courts. They are the courts that act in an appellate capacity to hear matters decided by code enforcement boards and special masters that recognizes some of these affirmative defenses, such as laches, equitable estoppel. And those are the cases that I have cited to you. There are others that are more detailed, but I thought that the point of just illuminating them in the request today was so that you could see that I wasn't just arguing something that had no prior consideration by the judiciary in the State of Florida, but rather it's something that the courts have looked at and said boards such as this need to be deliberative about. And I know that my review of the DVD of the hearing, that this was a difficult case for you all to decide. I don't again want to tell you, but I have to, that I believe that it wasn't rightly decided. And I think we can help you to see why you struggled with it, if we're given the opportunity to have it reheard. MR. MORGAN: I have several issues. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. MR. MORGAN: Did your client know that this property -- the zoning of this property when he purchased it? MR. WHITE: I believe he may very well have known what the zoning was. But again, I'm not looking to argue the rehearing today, rather just the notion of whether we should have the chance to do so. MR. MORGAN: As far as I'm concerned, his past building permits really doesn't hold any substance. Some of them was issued before the zoning ordinance took effect. And most of them are just line drawings. They really -- there's to me they may have issued them at that time, I don't know, but a lot of these clerks, they don't look at a Page 8 May 25, 2006 zoning plat book to see what the zoning is. I've had permits issued to me and then recalled because the person that issued the permit, didn't have the authority. I've had people issue permits and I had -- they rejected the permit later on after I got it because fire regulations. I've had permits where I filled out the permit application, and also I filled out the permit itself, because the guy said you know what you're doing, I don't know what I'm doing. So to me these are old, they hold no substance. The second thing is that -- MR. WHITE: Could I respond to that point, Mr. Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Sir? MR. WHITE: Could I respond to that, Mr. Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Yeah, go ahead. MR. WHITE: I think the very precise point that I'm not looking to make today but would look to argue, if we're given the opportunity to be reheard, is exactly the fact that you raised about those permits predating regulations. That is vested rights. That is in my opinion equitable estoppel. That is being lawful and then legally nonconforming. And those are the things that I think may as matters of law not been properly ruled on, because the weight given to those facts wasn't appropriate. And I understand your circumstances, and certainly having worked for local government myself for many years, I understand the notion of why it is that local governments aren't held to their mistakes. MR. MORGAN: Well, I still disagree with you. MR. WHITE: I understand, sir. MR. MORGAN: All right. E, some regulations were no longer legally effective. What are we talking about? I don't remember. MR. WHITE: Again, not looking to reargue the rehearing, but rather to say specifically I was talking about the citation to the 1970's version of regulations that obviously have been repealed, or are no Page 9 May 25, 2006 longer in effect. MS. ARNOLD: Can I say something? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Let's move forward rather than going back to specific entities of the case. Let's just kind of decide whether or not we want to rehear the case. But I believe -- MS. RAWSON: We need to hear from the county attorney. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I was going to say, I believe the county attorney's been waiting patiently to speak. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney, Collier County. This is a very simple case. And you guys decided right the first time. And this motion, there's not anything there that would weigh a rehearing, merit a rehearing, require a rehearing. These people bought this property in 2002. As a matter of public record, and I ask you to take judicial notice of this, they bought this property subject to all county zoning regulations. This isn't 1960 we're talking about, this isn't 1965 we're talking about. 2002 they knew they had a problem. And in their deed, okay, the problem was put right up there in saying we're selling you this property. Understand, there are zoning issues here. They bought it anyway, knowing about the zoning issues. It's industrial zoning. It's been industrial zoning for years and years and years. There was no evidence before you that it was anything else. All right? This argument that maybe some industry grew into the area so that maybe years and years ago a mobile park may not have been that much of a concern in the area at that time, but 40 years later it's a concern. We've got cars stacked up right by the trailers, we've got tires all over the place, and Collier County is within its police powers to enforce this ordinance and enforce it now. And to say that a permit was issued in 1962 and we can't do anything? If you're going to take that to heart and weigh that, we can't Page 10 May 25, 2006 clean up Immokalee. Immokalee's always going to be blighted. Because people will say, well, you let the Blockers keep this thing because in 1962 somebody issued a permit. Well, I got my permit issued in 1963 and yeah, it's in squalid condition, but heck, I'm vested, I'm okay. So be very careful with his arguments here on vested rights because one, it's not legally sufficient and two, it's dangerous. If you're ever going to clean up an area, if you're ever going to redevelop an area, you have to use the police powers of the county. That's Michelle. Michelle is absolutely correct in enforcing the code, and your decision was 100 percent correct. You told the Blockers, you've got a problem with the zoning, go get a variance, go get the zoning changed. They still can do that. They can always do that. It's part of your order. All right? They don't want to do that because they know what the Board of County Commissioners is going to tell them in their hats as board of zoning appeals. They're going to tell them no way, we're trying to clean up Immokalee, you can't have it. And so they're trying this tact. And it's wrong. You were right the first time. There's no evidence presented by Mr. White here that anything's contrary to the evidence. He's going to throw out arguments, well, it's laches or it's estoppel, when these people didn't mentally rely on anything. Didn't cost them anything out of their pocket, because they knew the problem when they bought into it. Now, if this was the original owner, I might take a step back and think about it, all right? But it's not. Somebody bought into a problem knowing they bought into the problem. Presumably the property was discounted because of the problem. And now he's telling you hey, I can do it because my predecessor's predecessor's predecessor got a permit back in 1962. And that's just silly and it's Page 11 May 25, 2006 wrong and it's dangerous. And I ask-- MR. WHITE: Madam Chairman, I must object. MR. KLATZKOW: Would you please, you had your turn and I was quiet, sir. MR. WHITE: I'm objecting to the fact that-- MR. KLATZKOW: And at this point-- MR. WHITE: -- that the assistant attorney -- MR. MORGAN: Sir. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Excuse me. MR. WHITE: Madam Chairman, I'm objecting to the-- MR. KLATZKOW: May I finish? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I would like to let him finish and then if you'd like to object afterwards, that's fine. MR. WHITE: Thank you, ma'am. MR. KLATZKOW: I ask this board to deny this motion outright. Thank you. MR. WHITE: My point simply was, I respectfully attempted to not engage in a reweighing and a rehearing today. I tried to respect the rules that you've asked us to follow. But if the assistant county attorney is going to step onto that ground, I at least have to make sure that my client's interests are respected. And I respectfully ask you to just simply consider this: If he's right, that they're wrong, then you should allow what are the lawful aspects of the county's rules pertaining to legal nonconformities and the then existing rules to be meaningfully brought into the discussion. Because they were not part of what you considered the last time. And I think that that is what is fundamentally unfair, and I believe it's unreasonable. This is not a case about cleaning up Immokalee. These particular units are among some of the most well maintained in the community and, in fact, are sought after by the folks in the Department of Health as a place for migrants to stay. They are approved. Those are all Page 12 May 25, 2006 matters of record. So I don't want to see my clients steam-rolled simply because of the good efforts of the county, which my clients are willing to work with and I have sought to work with the county about. But I can't do that if their rights are going to be trampled. MR. KLATZKOW: If I may, in conclusion-- MS. ARNOLD: Can I just say -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- a request for a rehearing shall be based-- CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Excuse me, I didn't call on you. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I just wanted to make a couple of comments about what Mr. White indicated. Obviously this -- he's absolutely right, this is not a case about cleaning up Immokalee, nor is it a case about permits. All of his arguments -- or most of his arguments evolve around permits being issued previously. This case is about use. Land use. The fact that it's being used as a residential use and the zoning, and as we presented to you, the zoning has always been nonresidential, commercial, industrial. In those uses, residential would not be permitted in that zoning district. And that's what the case was about. MR. WHITE: Madam Chair, I don't mean to interrupt, but it is patently untrue that these uses were not permitted at the point in time that the regulations that were put into evidence -- it is a permittable use. And I can prove that to you, if I get the chance. MR. KLATZKOW: And lastly, they had the chance at the last hearing to put in whatever evidence they wanted. All the evidence is in, all right? We're only talking about reweighing the evidence that is In. And if Mr. White wishes to in essence a hearing de novo -- and you can check with your attorney on this -- I think it's absolutely Page 13 May 25, 2006 improper that they start taking evidence that was before you previously. It's a rehearing. What was before you -- it is not a new case. He's got his ability to start a new case later, but not before you. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: At this time, I'm going to -- unless one of the boards has a specific question, I'm going to close it to the open public and have discussion amongst the board. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: And Jean. Yes? MR. KELLY: I believe that Mr. Blocker himself presented a wonderful case to us. The amount of information, time, the presentation, everything, was very clear. And I think as a lay person, as an individual, I think he did a terrific job. I don't know that anything is going to be re-brought up that's going to change my mind. I believe that the charter of this board is to vote on a matter of code on whether there's a violation of code at this time, not what happened in the past. And I believe that's what we voted on. I'm not so sure that rehearing those facts again would change my position. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I'm tending to agree with you. I don't believe anything was presented to us this morning. They brought up the fact about the permits. I'm still holding in front of me 1965 regulations that were presented in the packet. I believe that the permits were thoroughly discussed. I believe myself personally, I asked three different times of the county attorney if we were allowed to forego those permits and have them rescinded because of the fact that we were dealing with something from way back when, and apparently they were done in error. And I was told that -- three different times that yes, we were allowed to do that because it was not in compliance with the zoning of the property from as far back as they can record. Page 14 May 25, 2006 That's just my general consensus. I don't know how anybody else feels. MR. DeWITTE: I would just agree with what Ken had to say. The charter of our board is not to make decisions about whether zoning was done properly or improperly or what and when, but just to recognize there is an issue and to turn it over to the proper boards to handle that issue. So from a code enforcement perspective, so everybody's clear, zoning problems, we can't look at it. Maybe the zoning board or maybe one of the other entities can, and they can resolve it, but I believe that's beyond our power. MR. PONTE: I agree with you. I think we gave it full, long and careful consideration during the last session. And we were addressing those questions that we are asked to address, rather than going afield as we're being asked to do now. I agree with my colleagues, I think the request for rehearing should be denied, that the respondent was given direction as to possible actions that he could take to remedy the situation, and those are still my feelings. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Would you like to put that in the form of a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion to deny the rehearing. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 15 May 25, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Move forward to the stipulation. MS. GARCIA: CEB Case 2006-19. MS. ARNOLD: We have Investigator -- excuse me, Chris Ambach here to present the stipulation to the board. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: For the record, Investigator Christopher Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm happy to announce I have a stipulation agreement. I met with the respondent, Marvin Sipnick. Mr. Sipnick agrees the violation exists. The respondent has obtained a demolition permit for the violation. Respondent will get all required inspections in a certificate of occupancy within 60 days of this hearing. If the certificate of occupancy is not issued within the 60 days, a fine of $100 per day will commence. The respondent agrees to pay all operational costs incurred totaling $310.86. Respondent will contact me when the certificate of occupancy is issued. That certificate of occupancy was issued as of yesterday. And he has contacted me and dropped a copy of that off to the office. That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: He's not here, but I'm assuming he's the person that signed this. MR. AMBACH: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: Motion to accept. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 16 May 25, 2006 CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: If I can ask the board, when we're be making a motion if we can kind of signify by a finger so that Cherie' can determine who's making the motion and then who's seconding, it might help her. Okay, go down to Case No. 2006-21. MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement Board Secretary. CEB Case No. 2006-21. Violation of ordinances 04-41, Section 10.02.03(B)(1)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(D), and Florida Building Code 2002-01, Section 104.1.1, and Ordinance 04-41,2.02.03, and 2.03.01. The description of violations are: Nonpermitted land uses, i.e. storage of a motor home, use of a said motor home as a living space, storage of commercial trailer, storage of canopies, storage of boat and trailer, not currently registered to property owner, all of which are not uses permitted on agricultural zoned land. Description of violations: Shed on the property without first obtaining required Collier County building permit. The locations of where the violations exist: Is 6134 Everett Street, Naples. The name and the owner of the person in charge: Victor George. The date of the violation first observed: December 28, 2005, and also January 5th of 2006. The owner in charge was given Notice of Violation on December Page 1 7 May 25, 2006 28th of2005, and also a Notice of Violation on January 5th of2006. The violation to be corrected by: January 27th of 2006. And on the other violation, Notice of Violation, the order to correct was January 19th, 2006. The date of the reinspection for both: March 23,2006. The results of the reinspection: The violation still remains. MR. PONTE: I have a question of the county before we start to roll here. I notice that we've got two department case numbers, and we received two different statements of violations. So do we have two cases? And if not, why are we getting this in a little different format than we normally do? MS. ARNOLD: There was an error in the submittal. There should have been just one statement of violation. We have presented in the past multiple code cases, if it's on the same property. It's just different violations. The investigator has the option of creating separate cases or just doing it all under one case. MR. PONTE: Thank you, Michelle. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: May I entertain a motion that we accept the packet for evidence for the county? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we accept. MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All these in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Mr. George, can you reach that mic, or can it be brought down? Page 18 May 25, 2006 MR. YBACETA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Eddie Ybaceta -- I'll spell that for you: Y -B-A-C-E- T -A -- Code Enforcement Investigator for Collier County. This case was started by another investigator who is no longer -- he's moved on to another department. His name is John Olney. Mr. Olney received a complaint from an anonymous source concerning additions to the property in question. Once Mr. Olney got to the property, he noticed that there was a shed that was erected on the property without permits. Mr. Olney put together an NOV and had Mr. George sign for the appropriate NOV. While there, Mr. Olney also found other violations to include illegal land use. Mr. Olney went back to the office, researched the property and started a second case for the use of the land. He put together an NOV and went back and met with Mr. George and presented the NOV to Mr. George and had Mr. George sign it. The shed was -- the permit for the shed has been applied for and, according to Mr. George, there is a CO for it now. I will check on that once I get back into the office. The other violations of land use is -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I interrupt for a second? May I ask him a question? Mr. Ybaceta, did you actually witness that violation? MR. YBACET A: Yes, I did. I made a recheck before I came in, and I did see the storage of trailers and RVs on this property. It's ago zoned. I will -- I will show you pictures as I go along with this. Bear with me for a second. Before I continue, I would like to read what the zoning is and what it states. Ag. zone districts is for -- the purpose and intent of the rural agricultural district A is to provide land for agricultural pastural and rural uses by accommodating traditional and agricultural related Page 19 May 25, 2006 activities and facilities, support facilities related to agricultural needs and conservation uses. The vehicles involved here are commercial vehicles, not involved with agricultural uses. What you see here is two covered trailers. And there's actually two RVs there, but they're side-by-side and they kind of merge into one. There's also canopies on the ground there. In the back of the property there's a pontoon boat that is unlicensed. I will show you the back end of that and some of the other pictures. This is a pontoon boat that at the time of my inspection it was unlicensed. There's also a boat on the property. This one is licensed. It is licensed to a Mr. Buzzard. MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. YBACET A: Does he live -- I believe it states on the registration that he lives on the property. There's also use of a commercial dumpster that is brought in. There's more pictures to that, I believe. And it looks -- it may look like the -- some of the debris that the dumpsters bring in are dumped on the property itself. At the time of my inspection there, I did see some debris. It was actually fill. I did not see this one. This one was from a previous shot. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: So there is actually someone living on this property? MR. YBACETA: Yes, there is a structure on this property. I do not know how long it's been there. It's an older house. That is some of the debris that I did see. The -- that is a picture of the shed that has been permitted. This is -- the next one. This picture is the red trailer, covered trailer. It is unlicensed. At Page 20 May 25, 2006 the time of my inspection I did not see a license. You can also see that there is another R V in the background. Next one over. This picture has two items in there which I would like for you to pay attention to. The first a boat, which is in front. That boat is unlicensed at the time of my inspection. And the dump truck, or -- I guess you would call that, that brings in the dumpsters and pull it out at the proper time. The next picture, please. This is some of the fill that is also brought in. I don't know if Mr. George is spreading this on the property or not. That's the same trailer. Next one over. This trailer right here is also for commercial use. It is licensed. It's for another business other than ago More debris. This is the R V at the time that I -- I believe was used as living, living space. You can see the water and also electrical going into it. The sewage from it, the raw sewage, is going into the ground. I did not take a good picture of that, I'm sorry. I don't know if that has been taken care of or not. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Was it just going into a hole in the ground or -- MR. YBACET A: It looked like, yeah, it was a hole in the ground. It was covered. I don't know where it might lead to. You can see that the lines from the house, these are the ones that are going into the R V to supply water and electricity. This would be the last picture. Again, the dumpster. I believe that was either being dropped off or picked up. That's my case. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Mr. George? It's your turn. MR. GEORGE: Okay. I tried to have a pre-hearing, and I Page 21 May 25, 2006 couldn't get it because I was not really prepared to do this case. But I will mention a couple of things, and then if I have to bring an attorney, I would like to. First of all, I'm not living in there anymore, as he told me I could not, so I live in my house. I did get the permit. I did get a final inspection on the shed. It was damaged through the Hurricane Wilma. Through Hurricane Wilma, I had a lot of debris, everything. And meanwhile, I started a roll-off construction business, clean-up business, which that is my truck. There was pictures of block and concrete because when I took all the pepper hedge out, I had big holes, everything, and I was going to crush it up, fill it in and put the other fill over it and level off my land. John Olney said I wasn't allowed to use that construction crushed block on the property, so meanwhile, I did reload it and take it to another site that they recycle the concrete block. I do now and then bring dirt to my property to fill in my low parts of the land. There was a fifth wheel there that was a friend of mines that he was able to park there. It has gone now. I bought that land as agricultural. I knew it was agricultural. I lived here over 30 some years in Collier County. I have my own businesses, always had my own businesses. I have a concession business which you all probably very well know of. And I put my property -- I put my vehicles there, because I do sometimes in the summer travel. Eddie -- is it Eddie, right? MR. YBACET A: Yes. MR. GEORGE: He was saying, and we met outside, that I'm not allowed to have no commercial vehicles on my property that is not in essence with agricultural. I'm unaware of it. You go down my street to get to my house, you will pass four or Page 22 May 25,2006 five other homes that have commercial vehicles on the property. You'll have painting contractors, you'll have landscaping, you'll even have roofers, you'll have taxi cab drivers. So I was unaware of this. I'm not prepared to give my case on this. I know that he said I couldn't live in a motor home, I understood that. I live in my house now. And that's it. Another question I've asked is did you have to have a search warrant to come on your property? I notice he was on my property without permission and walking in onto the property. But like I said, I'm unaware of all of this stuff, how he presented it. I would like to have an attorney present to represent me and to go forward. But like I said, the violation of the shed, which I was unaware of, because I had a shed that was destroyed through the hurricane when I bought the property. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Excuse me, Mr. George, did you receive notice of this hearing? MR. GEORGE: Yes, I did. I contacted them. They had a pre-hearing on it to discuss this matter. I called -- Eddie just got me yesterday and said hey, there's no pre -- I said can I come into this matter and discuss this? What I have to do? He says, it's kind of -- I just took this case over, so forth, he says, I'll meet you here at 8:30. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do we have any questions from any of the board? MR. KELLY: I would really like to hear more about the use or in your defense. You're doing a great job explaining exactly what you're trying to do to clean things up for us. I think that if you continue to talk and tell us what your plans are for the property and how you're going to help abate some of these issues, we probably would look favorable toward what you're trying to do. MR. GEORGE: Okay. Like I said, the shed, we have that. I have the c.o. on it, if you need to see the copy of the shed. Page 23 May 25, 2006 Like he said, I'm not allowed to keep my commercial vehicle on my property and use it for my business. My motor home, like now in a couple of weeks I'll be leaving, I'll be taking my concession trailer. I'll be traveling around doing other events and so forth. I will come back. I will park it then. I keep water hooked up to it. I've got a refrigerator in it. I keep electric on it to keep the mold out of it. Yeah, then I'll pull out. It's only 110. What can you run on a motor home on only 110 volts? Hardly nothing. I just keep the batteries charged. It has a trickle charger. I like vehicles. I've got a lot of cars. I own like five or six cars and trucks. So I'm a registered -- most of them are registered in my company's name. I use them for tax purposes. But if they're registered in my company's name, then as he's saying I'm not allowed to keep it on my property, because it's commercial. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Can we do something? He's wanting to discuss this a little bit more another time and possibly have an attorney, which is fine. There is a question about what he's discussing now, the commercial vehicles, and I think that I would want to -- CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Would you like to table this? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, on hold till the next meeting and then we can clarify the question about the commercial vehicles. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we table this, I have one question for Mr. George. If we table this until next month, will you be here? You said you were going to be traveling shortly. We want to make sure that you're going to be here. MR. GEORGE: June the 12th I know I'll be in Indiana for about four days. MR. LEFEBVRE: When is our next meeting? Page 24 May 25, 2006 MS. RAWSON: 22nd. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: It won't be here, it's going to be at MR. GEORGE: I'll be back on the 19th. MR. LEFEBVRE: You'll-- MR. GEORGE: I will be here on the 19th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, so for the record, you will be here on the -- MR. GEORGE: 22nd. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- 22nd of June if we do table it until then. MR. GEORGE: Yeah, unless some emergency did come up, at which I would notify you. MR. LEFEBVRE: At that time you would have counsel -- MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- ifnecessary. MR. GEORGE: Yes. MS. RAWSON: I think the meeting is going to be held at the library, because the commissioners are going to use this room. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: So it will not be at this physical address, it will be at the county library. MR. GEORGE: Which one? MR. LEFEBVRE: On Orange Blossom. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: On Orange Blossom. MR. GEORGE: Oh, okay, Orange Blossom and Airport. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, that's right. MR. KELLY: Now, excuse me, Shirley, do we have a full agenda on the 22nd? Would we be able to rehear it then or would it go till July? MS. GARCIA: We can rehear it. Also, we would send a certified mail for the notice of hearing with the address stating that, okay? Page 25 May 25, 2006 MR. GEORGE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay, I would like to entertain that we table this. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we continue this. I guess that would be the proper -- continue it. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: It's table, I think. MR. LEFEBVRE: Table? MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make note that because you're saying that you will be here, if you're not here, the board can hear this without you. MR. GEORGE: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I just want to make sure you're aware of that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to table this matter till the next meeting. And it is understood that the respondent was notified that it is going to be at Orange Blossom on June 22nd, and that he has stated that he will be here. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay, we'll see you next month. MR. GEORGE: Okay. Have a good one. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Move to Case No. 2006-22. MS. GARCIA: CEB Case No. 2006-22, Occeus Saintilien and Malveilleas Estiverne. Board of County Commissioners versus Page 26 May 25, 2006 Occeus Saintilien and Malveilleas Estiverne. I'd like to enter this into County's Exhibit A, if I may. The violation Ordinance 2004-41, Section 1.04.01, and 2.01.00(A), Ordinances 81-42, Section one, Ordinance 2005-44, sections six, seven and eight. Description of violation is: The repeat violation of case number -- CEB Case No. 2001-081, the operation of a vehicle repair shop, extensive amount of unlicensed, inoperable vehicles on the property, litter consisting of but not limited to vehicle parts, tires, metal, wood and junk vehicles. The location of the address where the violation exists: Is 513 Stokes Avenue, Immokalee. The name and the address of the person in charge of the violation: Is Saintilien Occeus and Malveilleas Estiverne. The date of the violation first observed: March 31 st, 2006. The person in charge given Notice of Violation was on April 5th of 2006. The date on which the violation was to be corrected was April 14th of2006. Date of reinspection: April 14th, 2006. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion to accept Exhibit A for the county. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 27 May 25,2006 CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. Carol? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, that's S-Y-K-O-R-A, Collier County Code Enforcement, Immokalee Investigator. This is violations of Sections 1.04.01, 2.01.00(A) of Collier County Ordinance 2004-41, and sections one of ordinance 81-42, and sections six, seven, eight of Ordinance 2005-44. Combined three cases is 2006031153, 2006031154 and 2006031190. This is a repeat violation of Case 2001070347 and CEB Case 2001-081. Operation of a vehicle repair shop, extensive amount of unlicensed, inoperable vehicles on the property, litter consisting of but not limited to vehicle parts, tires, metal, wood and junk vehicles on property zoned village residential. Located at 513 Stokes Avenue, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. There has also been 11 prior cases on this property with the same violation. This case began on March 31st, 2006. I observed all the violations. Upon research, I determined that there was a repeat violation that had been brought to the Code Enforcement Board prior. On April 5th -- I had left a card at that time and the owner did call me. On April 5th, I met the owner on the property and I obtained signed notices of violation, and I also issued citations for each violation. The comply date was April 14th. Upon checking on that date, extensive amount of vehicles still remained on the property. I also observed in -- in March I observed them working on the vehicles. I do have some photos of that. Page 28 May 25, 2006 Since I still observed no change in the condition of the property -- vehicles remained and the litter remained scattered throughout the property, junk vehicles are in the woods behind these vehicles. It virtually looks like a junk yard. So I prepared the case for the Code Enforcement Board at that time. Do you have any questions? MR. PONTE: Yes. Carol, have -- these are historic questions, but let me ask: Have the respondents ever come into compliance? What's the difference between repeat and recurring violations? And what were the fines that were levied? MS. SYKORA: The repeat violation means that it's been brought to the Code Enforcement Board before. MR. PONTE: And recurring? MS. SYKORA: A recurring means that there has been prior notices of violations on the property. At the time when I first observed the violations I could not determine what the Notice of Violation was written for, because I did not have a copy of it. And through requesting the copies from storage and finally determining that there had been brought to the Code Enforcement Board apparently the same violations, and that's when I said it was a repeat violation for -- and plus there has been 11 prior cases on this property in the past. MR. PONTE: Have they ever come before the board? MS. SYKORA: One time it came before the board, and that was 2001. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Ponte, I believe the case, the finding of facts, the order that was issued by the board at that time was in your packet. So it does describe the violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: What page is that? MS. ARNOLD: Sixteen and 17. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 29 May 25, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: And according to the secretary for the board, that particular case did come into compliance, but they failed to pay the fines that are accruing. MR. PONTE: So is there a lien on the property, or what? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: So apparently we didn't get their attention the first time. MR. PONTE: No. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Does anybody have any questions for Carol? (N 0 response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: If not, then I'll close the public hearing, entertain a finding of fact. MR. PONTE: Well, I'll make a motion that a violation exists as described in the charging documents of CEB Case No. 2006-22, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Occeus Saintilien and Malveilleas Estiverne. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do I have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. Discussion as to how to make them remedy this problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have a county's recommendation? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I'd like to hear that, too. Page 30 May 25, 2006 CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Excuse me, we're looking for maybe a county recommendation. MS. ARNOLD: We have one here. I'm trying to see what the fines were in the prior case. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Does the board have any ideas? MR. PONTE: Well, if I knew what the fine was the last time we didn't get anybody's attention, then we'd know where to start this time if we find in fact there was a violation. MR. DeWITTE: They did abate last time, right, they just didn't pay? MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Seems like they clean it up just in time to get it abated and then they go back to doing it. So that is something that we ought to keep in mind with our -- MR. DeWITTE: Was it the same issue last time? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: The maximum per violation is 500? MR. PONTE: No, it's been increased. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: No, it's increased. The repeat violation can go up to $5,000 per day. I believe. Isn't that correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do we have -- MS. SYKORA: Against my will, but -- the county recommends that operational costs be paid in the amount of $349 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate the violations by obtaining and affixing a current and valid license plate to each vehicle and repair defects so vehicles are immediately operable, or store in a completely enclosed structure, or remove from the property within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Removing all litter to a site intended for final disposal or proper Page 3 1 May 25, 2006 inside storage within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until a violation is abated. Cease operation of a vehicle repair shop immediately or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Can you put that on the screen for us, please? MS. SYKORA: Well, it's different figures. MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybe I can suggest a couple of changes to that? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Um-hum. MR. LEFEBVRE: The first part is -- I think maybe the fine may be too low. I think we should increase the fine to $500 per day. And also, where it says to cease the operation immediately, maybe to clean it up, put it to seven days so everything is at seven days. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I disagree with that, because I don't think they need to clean up a vehicle repair shop. They can cease and desist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. DeWITTE: Yeah, I mean, it's hard to say. They could have somebody's engine halfway in, you know, and they're going to want to bolt it down before they get out of there. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: They could do it in a day. MR. DeWITTE: Yeah, but it would be hard. Do we know what the total accruing of the fines were before? What's the lien amount that the county has on the property? MS. ARNOLD: Actually, it's a set amount, because they complied with it prior to the hearing. So I think it's like $500. And then just -- I think the point about immediately, we should probably put a time period in there, 24 hours or something measurable, because immediately is not -- MR. DeWITTE: Some people could mean a month. Page 32 May 25, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right, how about 48 hours from -- it will be 48 hours from notice when they were -- when they're notified. MR. PONTE: Forty-eight hours from the close of this hearing. MR. KELLY: I don't think that gives enough time to be served. It would have to be from notice. And seven days to clean everything up, get license plates and tags, it's reasonable, but it might be a little too soon. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Would that be from the notice rather than from this hearing? MR. KELLY: It would be from the notice either way. But seven days, that's pretty quick. I'm thinking more like two weeks to get -- it was a number of vehicles. MR. PONTE: In theory they've had five years. MR. KELLY: True. MR. LEFEBVRE: They're aware of this. They're aware from prior cases, so I don't think it's going to come as a surprise from them. So I think I could live with seven to 10 days. I mean, I haven't put a motion forward. MR. MORGAN: I think seven days is sufficient. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: My only concern on seven days is what if we have one vehicle that you don't have clean title to go get the tag? MR. LEFEBVRE: Then remove it. MR. MORGAN: Move it someplace else. MS. SYKORA: May I say something, please? The point of this matter is I don't believe the person that owns the property owns all these vehicles. They were getting them there, storing them there from people that had violations on other properties. I learned this out by speaking to the owner. A majority of the vehicles, some of them I considered litter because they're trash pushed in the woods. He had them on other Page 33 May 25, 2006 people's property over there. And there were some removed, but since then I believe -- I don't believe they all belong to him. And most of them are not operable. And it's a little different than I believe someone that just has a couple of vehicles on his property unlicensed. This is a different situation. MR. PONTE: Would someone just remind me what the situation is when we have vehicles on property not owned by the property owner? Who can remove, how do we remove them if they're not his property to remove? MS. ARNOLD: If it's known who placed them there, then that individual is responsible for removing it. If the individual fails to remove it, then we would have to go after the property owner. MR. PONTE: So in that case, is seven days realistic? MS. ARNOLD: Is seven days realistic for the individual-- MR. PONTE: Well, to find out who owns a given vehicle. MS. ARNOLD: I think you're hearing testimony that the owner is admitting to placing those vehicles there. MS. SYKORA: And he'd actually had since March to clean it up better than what -- MR. KELLY: I'm sorry for making the 14-day statement. Now that I hear this, the seven days should be very reasonable. MR. LEFEBVRE: And how about the fine of$500? MR. KELLY: Fair. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I think that's -- maybe that will get their attention. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion in Case Nos. 206031153 in cases 2006031154, case -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I interrupt? You just need to state your case, the Code Enforcement Board case. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: 2006-22. MR. LEFEBVRE: In Case 2006-22, I'd like to make a motion to approve the Collier County recommendation with a couple of Page 34 May 25, 2006 modifications. And the first modification I guess would be the dollar amount of $500 per violation. And also to cease operation within 48 hours of being noticed. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Jean, do you understand? MS. RAWSON: (Shakes head positively.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. Move on to Case No. 2006- 26. MS. GARCIA: I'm sorry. For the record, Shirley Garcia. CEB Case No. 2006-26, Juan and Guadalupe Sanchez. Board of County Commissioners versus Juan and Guadalupe Sanchez. The description of violation: The violation of Ordinances 2004-41, Section 2.01.AA -- or OO(A), 5.02.00, 5.02.02, 5.02.03, 2.02.03, and Ordinances 2005-44, Sections six, seven and eight. The description of the violations: Recurring violation of operation of vehicle repair business with extensive -- limited to vehicle parts, tires, metal, plastic and general trash. The location of the address: Is 602 East Delaware Avenue, in Immokalee. The name and the address of the owner or person in charge: Is Juan and Guadalupe Sanchez. Page 35 May 25, 2006 The date of the violation first observed: February 9th, 2006. Date of (sic) the Notice of Violation was given was March 27th, 2006. Date on which the violation was to be corrected was April 10th of 2006. Date of reinspection: April 11th, 2006. And results of the reinspection was the violations still remain. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion to accept Exhibit A for the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we accept. MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: The respondent, would you like to come up, please. (Speakers and interpreter were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Go ahead, Carol. MS. SYKORA: For the record again, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement, Immokalee Investigator. This is violations of Sections 2.01.00(A), 5.02.00, 5.02.02, 5.02.03, 2.02.03 of Collier County Ordinance 2004-41 and Sections six, seven and eight of Ordinance 2005-44. This is again combined three cases, 2006020353, 2006020354, and 2006020371. A recurring violation of operation of vehicle repair business with Page 36 May 25, 2006 extensive amount of unlicensed, inoperable vehicles being towed to property; litter consisting of but not limited to vehicle parts, tires, metal, plastic, general trash on property zoned mobile home, located at 602 East Delaware Avenue, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. Also note, there has been seven prior cases on this property with the same violation in the past. This case began on February 9th, 2006. I observed several unlicensed, inoperable vehicles on the property and in the right-of-way and in the street. At that time I took pictures and went back and researched the property and noticed there had been several prior cases of the same violation. At that time I sent a Notice of Violation to the owner. I also observed all the litter and also that they -- he has a tow truck that tows vehicles to this property, so the vehicles on the property pretty much come and go. He tows them there, works on them and then removes them, brings more in. So the violation, at times there were some removed, but upon checking on March 27th, I observed more unlicensed, inoperable vehicles. And at that time I spoke to the respondent and advised him of the violations, and also obtained a signed Notice of Violation. On April 11 th of 2006, there were more unlicensed, inoperable vehicles, and the litter on the property also remained. I took additional pictures on April 26th. Still vehicles being moved around on the property, in the street. I do have some photos of them. I also visited the property yesterday. Some of the litter at the rear of the property had been removed; however, extensive amounts remain on the property, and also vehicles remain on the property. I did speak to the respondent and advised him what needs to be done to comply. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. MR. PONTE: Did the fact that the respondent has started to Page 37 May 25, 2006 clear things away give you any encouragement that perhaps he was going to rectify the problem? MS. SYKORA: Not really right now, because he's claiming that he's moving. But this has been going on for years on this property. He does tow vehicles from around the -- from around Immokalee area and brings them to this property. As you can see how they're lined up in the streets, it's a safety hazard for children in that area. It's constant. If sometimes they'll be removed, there's more the next time I come back. So it has been a problem, especially since there's been actually seven prior cases. Not that I have had, because I just joined the Immokalee area, but seven prior cases of the same violation. If it's cleared up, it starts right back in. MR. PONTE: On that photo with the stop sign at the intersection, there are houses across the way. So you say there are children in the area? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. PONTE: Are those vehicles moveable? I mean, are they operable? Can they just be moved from there? Looks like you could get in and just drive it. MS. SYKORA: Well, some of them are -- I've seen there, I do have some photos of just trashed vehicles there that aren't moveable. Or if they're there one day, they'll be gone the next and there will be a different one there. It's just constant. Constantly trafficking of vehicles there. It's actually like it was becoming like a junk yard. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Mr. Sanchez? Would Mr. Sanchez like to say anything? (Speaking through the interpreter, Alfonso Travino.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Could you speak up a little closer to the mic? MR. TRA VINO: He's working on it. He's going to clean up everything. And he's moving and doing this -- he's going to move out Page 38 May 25, 2006 of there completely. So he's just going to clean it up and move out of there, move to a different location. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: A commercial location, I hope. MR. DeWITTE: How long does he think it might take to clean everything up? MS. SYKORA: Excuse me, may I ask when he intends to move from the property? MR. TRA VINO: About a week. MS. SYKORA: Because he has been telling me for months that he's moving and that he'll clean it up, but -- MR. TRA VINO: He said he'll do it in five days. MR. SANCHEZ: Five days. MR. DeWITTE: Excuse me, but I'm looking at the pictures. Five days doesn't seem reasonable. It's seems too short. MR. TRA VINO: Well, you see the pictures you see in there, it's gone. It ain't there no more. MR. SANCHEZ: It's gone complete. MR. TRA VINO: That trailer's gone. And the one that you see with the trailer is also gone, the cab is gone, the one you were looking at. Mostly all them pictures you looked at a while ago, they're gone. Probably some new one might be there, but everything is -- we move off already. We move out of the property already. MS. SYKORA: Pardon me. MR. TRA VINO: The picture you see of the truck-- MS. SYKORA: Well, the point of the matter is, they are removed and there's different ones back. It's constant, since they're being towed there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Inspector, when was your last visit? MS. SYKORA: Yesterday. MR. PONTE: And did it look like this? MR. DeWITTE: Just ballpark. Page 39 May 25, 2006 MS. SYKORA: It was cleaned up at the rear of the property more than what it was, but the front of the property still had vehicle parts and equipment for repairing vehicles. And there was a large camper, RV in the front and some unlicensed vehicles still remained on the property. MR. DeWITTE: How many vehicles do you think were there? Just ballpark. Ten or 50? MS. SYKORA: No, less than --less than 10 yesterday. MR. PONTE: Carol, in your opinion, could you clean this up in five days? MS. SYKORA: I was -- county was going to recommend seven. MR. MORGAN: Ms. Sykora, the standard answer is that I'm cleaning it up, and you go back, different set of vehicles? MS. SYKORA: Right. That's correct. I've been told that he's going -- he keeps telling me he's going to move, he's going to have it cleaned up. The next time I come it's just as bad, only different vehicles. MR. MORGAN: It's going to take more than five days to move that. He couldn't do it by himself in five days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question for the respondent. Mr. Sanchez, do you currently have a signed lease for a commercial property? MR. SANCHEZ: No. MR. TRA VINO: No, sir. He don't have a sign for it. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: So where is he planning on moving to? MR. LEFEBVRE: So if you do not have a signed lease, what kind of assurances are we going to have that you are going to be moving this to, first of all, another location, and second of all, a location that is actually a use that's permitted for this permitted use? MR. TRA VINO: He got commercial. He got commercial insurance vehicle. Page 40 May 25, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct. But my question is, we do not want this to end up at another site that is not a permitted use or this is not permitted. We want some assurances from Mr. Sanchez that this is going to be moved and moved to a site that could be used as a commercial site where this site will be allowed. That's what we're trying to get at. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: And his response? MR. TRA VINO: He's going to try to move somewhere commercial, but he don't know yet where to. MR. LEFEBVRE: He doesn't have the location. Okay. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: If he doesn't have the location, this is going to be my question then: How can he guarantee that he's going to have this cleaned up and moved in five days? MR. TRA VINO: Because he don't keep vehicles that long. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: The problem is, we need it cleaned up and it needs to stay cleaned up. He can't clean it up and then have it come back. MR. TRA VINO: He probably moving to La Belle. La Belle. That's the other on -- that's where he's moving a lot of his junk, to La Belle. And-- CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Does he understand that he has to find a site that this type of operation is allowed? He can't just move to another trailer in La Belle because the county is a different county and bring that same type of problem to that county. He needs to make sure he is within their guidelines when he moves to a site. MR. TRA VINO: The trailer, the mobile home you see, he also tagged. He's got a tag for it and everything. I believe you seen it on one of the pictures. It's got a tag on it. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Does he understand, though, that he can't just move this to a site that may be not warranted there either? MR. TRA VINO: That one's removed. That one you're looking at, it's a different one. He know that, is aware of that. Page 41 May 25, 2006 And it was a commercial place before. That trailer, you see right there, it's licensed and everything, that one in the back. It has a license. MS. SYKORA: The van is the tow truck. MR. TRA VINO: I bought that trailer in Baum (phonetic), Florida. I bought that one, sold it to him. I bought that trailer myself. I bought it in Baum, Florida to live in it myself when I was working up there. And then I didn't need it no more, because I didn't live up in Baum no more, and so I went up, so I didn't need that. I got title for that trailer and everything, so that's a legal trailer. MR. LEFEBVRE: Does he understand that we're also talking about more than just the vehicles? There's a lot of other items that we've seen in the pictures that need to be removed. MR. TRA VINO: Like them tires, all that, that's on the outside of his property line. Maybe on the other one, but it's still some construction. And all that going to be cleaned up. Complete. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Can I ask the name -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask a couple questions? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Could you ask Mr. Sanchez if he put the tire there? MR. TRA VINO: He said the county put -- MR. SANCHEZ: The machine is broken. MR. TRA VINO: He said the county clean up the trees, they were working on, and something happened, they never did pick up that. MS. ARNOLD: But I asked about the tires. I didn't say anything about the trees. MR. TRA VINO: Well, you know, people just throw trash as they're going along, you know. MS. ARNOLD: Is that in front of the property where he's living? MR. TRA VINO: No, it's on the other property. Page 42 May 25, 2006 MR. SANCHEZ: It's on the corner. MR. TRA VINO: You see that where the -- right here is the fence. All that travels -- all this was on the outside, it's different lot. It's in a different lot. MS. SYKORA: I did not take that picture for the litter. I took the picture to show the tow truck that he was using. MR. TRA VINO: You see, that's -- the borderline is right behind the -- you see the borderline is right behind the -- all that's on the other lot. It's not on his lot. If you take a picture directly in front instead of an angle, you can see it. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Michelle, do you have another question? MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make sure he understands that these -- the litter is also a problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's the point I was trying to make. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Can you explain to him that he's going to have to clean up of all the litter, that it's going to have to be all the tires, all the car parts, all of it is going to have to be cleaned up. Can you please tell him that. MR. TRA VINO: Yes, he understand what you're saying. You see all that you see right there, that's where he knocked the fence down. On the back side of the yard, that's the one you -- that's the back side of the yard. All that's already gone. And some on the front, just a little bit, I think. But all that, right in there, that area straight across, that's the backyard, I think, if I'm looking at it right. MS. SYKORA: That's the side yard. Behind the mobile home was cleaned up pretty good, but -- MR. TRA VINO: That's from the stop sign -- MS. SYKORA: -- all around in the front are still vehicle parts, car seats, tools to repair vehicles laying all out. They are not where you consider them litter that needs to have proper inside storage. Page 43 May 25, 2006 MR. TRA VINO: Like all that you see right there, all that's already cleaned out, hauled away. Also, that's the old trailer you were looking at earlier. So all that been cleaned out and the trailer been moved. And it's just maybe a little bit -- not that much. It -- no more what he got it could be moved in five days. All that been hauled, so he ain't got that much to be moved. Probably what, a couple of seats in front of yard and -- MS. SYKORA: It's more than that in the front and side of the yard. There's quite a bit. MR. KELLY: Well, I'd like to make a point. I believe Mr. Sanchez is admitting to the litter of the vehicles and the operation of the business. And from what I'm understanding, he's agreeing to clean it up. What I'd like to make perfectly clear, Senor, so you can tell Mr. Sanchez is, if you commit to five days, we're going to put that in writing. If it's not clean in five days, he's going to get a fine placed against the property. If he's planning to move, he will not be able to sell this property until that fine is paid. So if you need seven days or 10 days, tell us now and we'll put this in writing. MR. TRA VINO: Just go ahead and give him the 10 days. I mean, he say he don't need it, but I say, go ahead and take it. MR. KELLY: You tell us something reasonable. We don't want to cause more problems for you. We appreciate you cleaning up, but, you know, seriously, tell us how much it's really going to take. MR. TRA VINO: He claim he want it just in five, but go ahead and give him the 10. I mean, make it safe for his self. He claiming five, but go for 10. Right now he got some boys that gonna clean it up. MR. SANCHEZ: We got two peoples clean. MR. DeWITTE: Just in an effort to be exhaustively clear, if they come back and find a spare tire rim on the ground or something like Page 44 May 25, 2006 that, they're going to try to impose the fine. So that's what they're going to do. So just make sure that we really have given you enough time for -- MR. KELLY: It needs to be, you know, clean, total. MR. TRA VINO: Clean up, yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: At this time I think I'll close the public hearing and move to a finding of fact. MR. PONTE: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists, and the -- as described in the charging documents of CEB Case No. 2006-26. Juan Sanchez and Guadalupe, respondents. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do we have the county's recommendation? MS. SYKORA: That the respondent pay operational costs of $297.96 incurred in the prosecution of this case. Abate all violations by obtaining and affixing a current and valid license plate to each vehicle and repair defects so vehicles are immediately operable or stored in a completely enclosed structure, or remove from property within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $500 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Removing all litter to a site intended for final disposal or proper inside storage within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $500 per day will be imposed until a Page 45 May 25, 2006 violation is abated. Cease towing of vehicles to the property and operation of vehicle repair business immediately or a fine of $500 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Would you put that on the screen, please. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do we have anybody else who wants to make a stab at it or discuss it? MR. DeWITTE: I would just like to see a reduction in the fine. $500 per day, 10 days is 5,000 bucks. That's a lot of money, if you run into some kind of an issue. We can be more than serious I think with $250 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: I feel that there's been past violations and he's well aware of correcting it. He has said that he can do it in five days, so we're giving him potentially, if we say 10 days, which we've discussed. Giving it 10 days, I think the $500 would be an adequate amount. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I don't know, Gerald, I know we take this on a case-by-case basis. This is the first time that he's actually been brought up to the Code Enforcement -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: -- Board, so it's not a repeat violation -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: -- it is just a reoccurring (sic) violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Also, with children potentially in the neighborhood, I think that should be taken into consideration. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think so, too. I think there should be something in the county's recommendation that orders him to clear that intersection today of those vehicles that are near the stop sign that are parked on the public street. That ought to be done not seven days from now but immediately. Page 46 May 25, 2006 And I'm very concerned about the safety hazard, as has been pointed out here, with the kids playing in those very vehicles that are parked at the intersection. Blocking the stop sign and everything else. Those ought to be just moved this afternoon. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Well, do you want to come up with a stab at making a motion here, George? MR. PONTE: Well, before I insert it here, let's see if anybody thinks as I do, first. MR. DeWITTE: Can I speak to the investigating officer? Is there an abundance of issue here that is not on the property that is on county property that is in intersections that is not related to the property? MS. SYKORA: Well, again, they constantly are moved. Those that -- the pictures, they might be gone. There might be nothing there. Upon another check there might be something there upon another reinspection. It's like a constant movement because of the towing of the inoperable vehicles there. He really needs to cease the operation immediately of towing vehicles to this property, and remove what's there and cease operation of it. MR. PONTE: So maybe in that clause three we should say immediately cease towing of vehicles to the property. MS. SYKORA: Yes, that -- pretty much I believe that's what I did -- the county did request is cease immediately. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's put a time frame on that. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Because immediate again can be interpreted -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. SYKORA: Right. MR. PONTE: I'll go back to saying within 48 hours of this hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: That sounds -- Page 47 May 25, 2006 MR. PONTE: To cease the operation of the vehicle repair business. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: And towing. MS. SYKORA: And towing of the vehicles. MR. PONTE: And towing of the vehicles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have anymore discussion? MR. TRA VINO: The corner is clean. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: We've closed the public hearing, unless you're asked a question. MR. KELLY: I still believe the fine might be a little excessive. I think 250 seems more reasonable. MR. DeWITTE: Also, with your -- if -- with the oper -- you wanted five days to clean up the property. We're probably not going to allow you to continue to have operation of a mechanic facility in there. It was -- do you see any issue with us having you cease any maintenance work to vehicles immediately? Is there any problem with that? MR. TRA VINO: The way we're looking at it, the property, the corner you were looking at is clean. Probably got maybe one vehicle inside the property. And only thing he's got to do is no mechanic there, no more equipment. Just pull them out of there and get rid of them. That's sort of like his job there, picking up cars around the county and disposing them the correct way. He's taken them to Fort Myers recycling, that's what he does. Collect vehicles from out of town and take them to recycles. MR. DeWITTE: Thank you. Okay, George, I'm game. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: We're still waiting to hear a motion. MR. PONTE: Well, I'm not ready yet. Anyone else can take a stab at it, too. Page 48 May 25, 2006 MR. DeWITTE: Okay, I'll take a stab at it. I'd like to accept the county's proposal as written, with the following modifications: That all the fine amounts be $250 per day; that in items one and two, they have 14 days from this day; and in item three three, they have 48 hours to cease the towing of vehicles and for the repair business. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Cease the towing of vehicles to the property. MR. DeWITTE: To the property. And the operation of vehicle repair business on the property. MR. KELLY: I will second the motion. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay, 5-1. Thank you. Does he understand everything? MR. TRA VINO: Yeah, he understand everything. He understood good English. MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybe we should repeat it. MR. TRA VINO: Only thing, he can't speak too good. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Just so that he understands for sure, he is to obtain and affix current and valid licenses and place them on each vehicle and repair any defects within 14 days or he's going to have a fine of $500 per day. MR. DeWITTE: 250. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Rather 250, I'm sorry. Page 49 May 25, 2006 And then he's to remove all litter -- Michelle? Okay, he's to remove all the litter on the site until final disposal, or store inside proper storage within 14 days, or he will have a fine of $250 per day. He is to stop towing vehicles to the property and the operation of the vehicle repair business within 48 hours from today, or he will have a fine of $250 per day. He needs to let the code enforcement officer know when everything's cleaned up. He has to call her, let her come in and inspect it. MR. TRA VINO: All right. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay? MR. TRA VINO: I believe we got your number, right? MS. ARNOLD: Could we have the respondent say on the record he understands? MR. SANCHEZ: Yes, I understand. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. Carol, if you make sure he has your phone number. Thank you. MR. TRA VINO: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: We'll break for 10 minutes. (Recess. ) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: I'd like to call this meeting back to order. I believe we're up to Case No. 2006-25. MS. GARCIA: CEB Case No. 2006-25, Board of County Commissioners versus Jose and Lester Aguilar. I'd like to enter the County Exhibit A into evidence. The violation of ordinance is 1.04.01 of Collier County Ordinance 04-41. The description of the violation is illegal land use on unimproved property in the Estates zoning, consisting of but not limited to sheds, truck boxes and other materials. The location and address where the violation exists is 7260 40th Page 50 May 25, 2006 Street N ortheast, Naples. The name of the owner of the person in charge is Jose and Lester Aguilar. The date of the violation first observed: September 30th, 2005. The date and owner of the person given Notice of Violation was on September 30th, 2005. The date on which the violation was to be corrected: October 19th of2005. Date of the reinspection: October 20th, 2005. Results of the reinspection: The violation still remain. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case was opened on September 30th, 2005 by my supervisor, John Marsh. He observed three or four sheds/truck boxes to the rear of unimproved property. He sent the photos and the NOV by certified mail. On November 1st, 2005, the green card was returned. Numerous times, in his notes, he has spoken to the owner of the property, and he just kept saying that he's going to abate it, he's going to clean off the property, which never was done. I received the case on January 13th, 2006 in which I went to the property. Some progress was done. It still wasn't totally abated. I attempted owner contact numerous times. I actually spoke to him once and he said he was going to abate the violation. I received a call from the owner on Monday, the 22nd, from Lester Aguilar, stating that he paid his neighbors money to clean the lot, that he was not coming here because the violation was abated, so he said, and he was busy. Yesterday I did my recheck, the 24th. The violations remain. I have pictures for evidence. Page 51 May 25, 2006 This was -- that's the rear of the property in the beginning when my supervisor had the case. The rear and the side. See the shed box and just numerous materials. That's from the front of the property. It's totally gated. You can't get onto the property. And still violations remain. That's a makeshift shed, I guess you could call it. Regular materials scattered around the property. And that's from the rear of the property. Like I said, yesterday I -- Monday I did talk to him. He said it was clean, nothing was on it. He paid his neighbors to do it. And I was there yesterday, I have the photos, nothing has been done. MR. PONTE: I have a question for you. Where is the owner? MR. KEEGAN: Miami. MR. PONTE: I see. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Anybody else have any questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay, if not, I'll close the public hearing then and entertain finding of fact. MR. PONTE: Well, I'll make a motion that a violation exists, as described in the charging documents, of CEB Case 2006-25, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Jose Aguilar and Lester Aguilar. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 52 May 25, 2006 CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Do we have a county recommendation? MR. KEEGAN: County recommends that the respondent to pay all operational costs of $260.03 incurred in this case, and abate all the violations by removing all items from unimproved property within 20 days of this hearing or $100 per day fine will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Could you put that on the screen for us, please. Discussion? MR. DeWITTE: I like the county's recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation that we accept the county's recommendation. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: That closes our general meeting and we move to new business. MS. ARNOLD: We have an imposition of fine that we would like the board to consider. This was Board of County Commissioners versus Gary D. Wilson. Page 53 May 25, 2006 This case was heard by the board on June 24th of 2004, at which time the violation was found, and the board entered into the attached order. We are at this time, because compliance is achieved, requesting that we impose fines in the amount of$1,090.75. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: A second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. Any old business? (N 0 response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Reports? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any comments? The only comment I know is that we need to make note for next month that the meeting is going to be at a different location. It is at the library on Orange Blossom. MR. PONTE: Same times? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Same times. From what I understand, plan for a long one. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: We talked about having lunch. MS. ARNOLD: You may have to break for lunch. You want to Page 54 May 25, 2006 do that? CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Yeah, I think we -- might be a good idea. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Sounds good. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Especially if we're planning on having a long one and we've already -- we added to it today. We'll break formalities and we're going to actually have a lunch. Okay, I'll entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BARNETT: Okay. ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :28 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRPERSON Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 55