Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/22/2006 R June 22, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida June 22,2006 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 at the Collier County Main Library, Sugden Theatre, 2385 Orange Blossom Dr. Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean Justin DeWitte Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring (Absent) Gerald Lefebvre Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Steven Griffin, Assistant County Attorney Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. Location: Collier County Main Library, Sugden Theatre, 2385 Orange Blossom Dr. 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 - May 25, 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS- C. HEARINGS B. STIPULATIONS - (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-07 2631 SHOREVIEW DR., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 48170920001) EILEEN EVANS NEWMARK & BRAD EVANS EVERILDO YBACET A ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), 1O.02.06(B)(I)(D), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(D(I) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITION, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 02- 01, SECTION 104.1,104.1.3.5 DESCRIPTION: OBSERVED A STORAGE TYPE STRUCTURE ERECTED IN THE REAR N. SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. 2006-21 6134 EVERETT ST, NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 00421560006) VICTOR GEORGE EVERILDO YBACETA ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 2.02.03 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.03(B)(1)(A),10.02.06(B)(1)(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: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-13 109 INAGUA LN., BONITA SPRINGS, FL. (FOLIO # 5475412004) PHILIP & SUSAN LOYD KEVIN HALESWORTH ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 3.04.01, 3.04.02(B), 9.04.06(A-H) 10.02.03(A-B), 1O.02.06(B)(H)(I) DESCRIPTION: VARIOUS STRUCTURES, FIXTURES AND UNNATURALLY OCCURRING VEGETATION WEST OF THE CCSL & WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS. 4. CASE NO: 2006-34 CASE ADDR: 3570 64TH AVE N.E., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 38788120009) OWNER: BRUCE ASSAM INSPECTOR: KEVIN HALESWORTH VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 3.05.01(B) DESCRIPTION: VEGETATION REMOVAL OF ALL THREE STRATA OVER ALLOWABLE 1 ACRE WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS. 5. CASE NO: 2006-24 CASE ADDR: 311 S. 2ND ST., IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 24371080007) OWNER: CASA BONITA HOMEBUlLDERS, INe., JESUS MONTELOUGO, PRESIDENT INSPECTOR: CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A),1O.02.06(B)(1)(D), 10.02.06(B)(I)(D)(I) DESCRIPTION: NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CEMENT BLOCKS AROUND A MOBILE HOME. 6. CASE NO: 2006-30 CASE ADDR: 791 11 OTH AVE., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 62427920002) OWNER: PABLO RAMOS INSPECTOR: JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SEe. 6 SUB-SECTION(S) 11, 12B, 12D, 121, 12K, 12P, 17, 19A, 20 DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIALLY ZONED RENTAL PROPERTY WITH NUMEROUS MINIMUM HOUSING VIOLATIONS. 7. CASE NO: 2006-31 CASE ADDR: 787 110TH AVE N., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 62427920002) OWNER: PABLO RAMOS INSPECTOR: JOHN SANT AFEMIA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SEe. 6 SUB-SECTION(S)4, 9,11, 12(B,I,K) 17, 19(A,C,D) & 20 DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIALLY ZONED RENTAL PROPERTY WITH NUMEROUS MINIMUM HOUSING VIOLATIONS. 8. CASE NO: 2006-32 CASE ADDR: 771 AIRPORT RD., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 00270560008) OWNER: L YJAC PROPERTIES, RICHARD L YDLE, REG. AGENT INSPECTOR: SUSAN O'FARRELL VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 4.06.05(J)(2) DESCRIPTION: THE BUFFER IS SEVERELY DEFICIENT IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE TREES. 9. CASE NO: 2006-33 CASE ADDR: 12825 COLLIER BLVD, NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 37931040005) OWNER: FLORIDA HOMES OF COLLIER, REG. AGENT GEORGE SCHMAELING INSPECTOR: SUSAN O'FARRELL VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SEC. 3.05.01(B), 5.04.04(B)(2) DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY HAS BEEN CLEARED WITHOUT A PERMIT, ALSO IS MODEL HOME AND BEING USED FOR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS - 7. REPORTS - NO REPORTS 8. COMMENTS - *Discussion regarding The Special Master Review Board 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - July 27, 2006 10. ADJOURN June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. I guess we'll call this meeting of June 22nd of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order. 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. And in order for the court reporter to get an accurate record, please wait to be acknowledged by the Chair prior to speaking. May I have roll call. MS. GARCIA: Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Here. MS. GARCIA: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Justin DeWitte? MR. DeWITTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. GARCIA: Gerald Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. . MS. GARCIA: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Board Secretary. I'm sorry, Richard Kraenbring has an excused absence, and also David Cook has an excused absence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Approval of minutes of May 25th, 2006 -- before we actually go to that approval -- I skip the Page 2 June 22, 2006 agenda every time; I'm sorry -- let me go to approval of the agenda, please. Are there any changes? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. We have a motion that has been entered in by the counsel for Philip and Susan Lloyd, so we would hear that first. We'll probably have to get legal counsel in the room, because they're working on a situation. And then we have a stipulation that has been submitted or entered between the county and Victor George, so we would put that on as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. May I have a motion for approval of the agenda, please? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Approval of the minutes of May 25th, 2006. But before we go to that approval, I'd like to note that in it it states that Larry Dean did not have an excused absence, and he did, and I'd like to make that reflected. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. Page 3 June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Open to public hearings. First request for continuance to -- we won't have counsel. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, let me get the-- MR. PIRES: Good morning. Anthony Pires, Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, for the record, representing Philip and Susan Lloyd. Based on the fact that we were having some good dialogue with staff about the resolution of this matter by stipulation -- and I apologize, I was typing away in there -- we withdraw our motion for continuance. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then we'll move to stipulations. That would be Case 2006-22, Collier County versus Victor George. MR. YBACET A: Good morning. MS. ARNOLD: Cherie', would you swear in the witnesses, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. YBACET A: This case was continued from the previous meeting. Since then, Victor George and I came into stipulation. A brief background on the case. It was started by a previous investigator, Mr. John Olney, and they were concerned the use of a mobile home as a dwelling space, and also the storage of unlicensed trailers and boat trailers on -- commercial trailers and boat trailers on Page 4 June 22, 2006 the property. There was also a companion case to this which was the erection of a shed, a shed on property without permits. Victor George has since gotten the permit and they have gotten that C.O.'d. In my testimony -- previous testimony, I made reference to the ago land being used for illegal storage of his commercial trailers. I was incorrect in that. He can store his commercial trailers on his property, but they have to be his. We met yesterday and we came to an agreement, and the stipulation is: Mr. George is to pay operational costs of $300.02 incurred in the prosecution of the case. He must cease and desist all dwelling use of the motor home and disconnect the water system and stop the sewage disposal on the ground immediately, or $50 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Must stop storage of all vehicles and trailers not currently owned by property owner and remove same vehicles from property within three days of this hearing, or $50 a day will be imposed until violation is abated. He must register an affixed corresponding license plate to all vehicles currently in violation within 20 days of this hearing or fines of $50 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And I also put a note here that the shed that was erected is properly permitted and C.O.'d. That's it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Must he notify code enforcement? MR. YBACET A: Yes, I'm sorry. Respondent is to contact code enforcement 24 hours of the abatement and request code enforcement officer to confirm compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. George, do you agree with Page 5 June 22, 2006 the stipulation? MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. KELL Y: Madam Chair, I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. We'll open up to the hearings. Case No. 2006-07, Eileen Evans Newmark and Brad Evans. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. GARCIA: The Board of County Commissioners -- Shirley Garcia, for the record, Secretary to the Board. This is Case 2006-07, Board of County Commissioners versus Eileen Evans and Brad Evans Newmark. The violation is of ordinance 04-41, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). Zoning action on building permit. 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(D), improvement of property prohibited prior to issuance of permit. 10.02.06(B)(1)(D)(I), inspections, Florida Building Code 2001 addition as amended by Ordinance 02-01. Sections 104.1, permit application, 104.1.3.5, prohibited activities prior to permits issuing. The description of violation is: A storage type structure erected in the rear north side of the property without first obtaining Collier County permits. Page 6 June 22, 2006 The location where the violation exists: Is 2631 Shore Drive, Naples -- Shoreview, I'm sorry, Shoreview Drive. The owner of the violation location is: Eileen Evans and Brad Evans. The date of the violation first observed is: January 21st, 2005. And the date of the Notice of Violation was given was on May 25th, 2005. The date on which the violation to was to be corrected was June 30th of 2005. Date of the re-inspection was January 30th, 2006. And the results of the re- inspection: Was the violation still remaIns. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion to accept the packet? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. YBACETA: For the record, again, Eddie Ybaceta, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case started as a -- there was a complaint on property 2631 Shoreview Drive about litter and unlicensed vehicles on the property. When I went and made the site inspection, I found that a violation existed. And also found that there was also improvements Page 7 June 22, 2006 done to the property by way of a shed which appeared to be constructed. I spoke to Mr. and Mrs -- is it Evans or is it Newmark? MS. NEWMARK: My name is Newmark, my son's name is Brad Evans. MR. YBACET A: I spoke to the respondents and I let them know that there was a violation on-site concerning about the vehicles and the trash. And I gave them a Notice of Violation for that. I also informed them that I believed the construction of the shed was in violation, and also did not appear to meet the setbacks. They did let me know that the shed had been there for a long time and they were doing improvements to it. I would like to show you a picture of the shed, if I may, and enter it into evidence. MS. ARNOLD: Eddie, they go to the respondents first. MS. NEWMARK: I didn't hear very clearly what you had said about that you found the on -- I think you said that we were making improvements, was that what was said? MR. YBACETA: Yes, it appeared that you were making improvements. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Eddie, we have one question from a board member for you. MR. DEAN: On this Page 14 of our packet, is that the same shed? MR. YBACETA: No. MR. DEAN: There's two different sheds, right? MR. YBACET A: Those are from -- MS. GARCIA: The respondents. MR. YBACET A: Those are from other properties. If I may continue? I told -- basically I told the respondents that I would be doing some research on the property to see if there was a permit from the past to see if the shed was legally permitted. Page 8 June 22, 2006 In the process, I found no permits, but I did find the permit for everything else on the property. I let them -- I advised them of the -- of what I found, and at the time I gave them time to find other courses to legally permit it or remove. One of them was also I let them know about the variances that they could get, since it did not meet the setback. I lost contact with them a few months later. I'm sorry, this started in January. A few months later, I lost contact with them, and I wrote a Notice of Violation and I posted it on the property. I also had the notice sent registered mail to the address of the owners, which was in New York. I have a green card signed and returned to me on that date. Subsequently, after that they sent me a letter basically stating that they weren't going to be back until Christmastime, and that we had agreed upon that. I did not agree to that. I said I'd give them time, but I would not give them a year. So after a while I basically submitted this case for CEB hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does anyone have any questions? MR. KELLY: I have one quick question. How did you know that the shed was in violation of setback? MR. YBACET A: On the -- there is a mark, a surveyor's mark on the property line on either end of the property, and at the time when I met Mr. and Mrs. Evans -- the respondents there, and I told them that I believed it did not meet the setbacks, I measured on-site with the help of Mr. Evans (sic), and the setbacks there are supposed to be 10 feet from the side yard because it is a second-story building. And it's supposed to be 20 feet from the rear. It does meet the 20 feet rear setback, but it only has seven and a half on the sides. There is -- on the original building permit, it also states that the setbacks are 10 feet from the side and 20 feet from the rear. And back then when the property was built, the zoning ordinance said that the accessory structures are supposed to have the same setbacks as the Page 9 June 22, 2006 principal structure. And I also have a copy of that, if you would like to see that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Mrs. Newmark, do you have a packet of information that you would like to submit as evidence? MS. NEWMARK: Well, I would first like to examine Mr. Ybaceta. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. NEWMARK: Is it all right if I call you Eddie, for the record? MR. YBACETA: Yes, please. MS. NEWMARK: Since it's easier. When you first came on the property and there was a violation of trash and vehicles, wasn't that very quickly taken care of? MR. YBACET A: Yes, it was. You guys were very helpful with that. MS. NEWMARK: And so that when you were on the property, we were just talking in general and isn't that -- we just walked over to the shed. MR. YBACETA: No. I was -- when I walked over to the shed, I was actually basically -- we had already spoken about the setbacks, and I asked if I could measure it and -- with the help of Mr. Evans. And that's the way we got it measured. MS. NEWMARK: Did you write down the measurements that you took at the time, or were you reciting from memory? MR. YBACETA: No, I did not write down the measurements. I did go back and measure a couple of more times afterwards, but -- I do remember that. MS. NEWMARK: Without my being on the property or with permission? MR. YBACET A: I had permission from your tenant. I did knock on the door and I advised the tenant while I was there and asked Page 10 June 22, 2006 if I could measure the shed and he said it was okay. MS. NEWMARK: What day was this and what time of day? MR. YBACETA: I cannot remember, ma'am. MS. NEWMARK: And would it surprise you if I told you that during the day -- there were no tenants during the day because they leave at 6:30 in the morning and don't come home until 5:30 or 6:30 at night? MR. YBACET A: At the time there was a tenant there. MS. NEWMARK: What was his name? MR. YBACET A: I did not get his name. MS. NEWMARK: And did you make any notes about the date you were there and who you spoke to? MR. YBACETA: Let me see. No, ma'am, I did not. MS. NEWMARK: Can you describe the person that you claimed that you spoke to? MR. YBACETA: He was a -- about five foot tall -- actually, about five-six, a little tall, dark hair, light complexion. Possibly Mexican. MS. NEWMARK: But you have no idea when this was or who this was? MR. YBACET A: This was about six months ago. MS. NEWMARK: What language did you converse in? MR. YBACET A: English. MS. NEWMARK: And would it surprise you to know that there are no tenants in tl)e house that are that conversant in English? MR. YBACETA: This gentleman opened the front door and we spoke in English. It was broken English, but it was English. MS. NEWMARK: You say that improvements were being made. Wouldn't it be a fairer designation that there were repairs being made? MR. YBACET A: At the time it looked like there were improvements. Page 11 June 22, 2006 MS. NEWMARK: And reflecting back on it now, would you change and say that they were repairs? MR. YBACET A: I would say that they were repairs. MS. NEWMARK: And what research did you do to find out whether or not there was a permit? MR. YBACETA: I searched the county records and I found the permits -- all permits available to that property to include the pool, and there were some other items there. The dock. I have copies of them. And also for the main structure. MS. NEWMARK: May I see them, please? MR. YBACET A: Yes. This is for the residence. MS. NEWMARK: It's a different. MR. YBACET A: That's the permit number right there. MS. NEWMARK: Just give me a minute to look at it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'd like to enter these as Exhibit B for the county so that we can also see them. MR. YBACETA: That's the C.O., Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just a second. We'll take care of it. MS. NEWMARK: And to-- MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to enter this as Exhibit B. MR. DeWITTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MS. ARNOLD: Would that be including the photo? Page 12 June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Um-hum. MS. NEWMARK: Now, you -- how long have you worked for the code department? MR. YBACETA: I started September 15th, 2003; it's almost three years. MS. NEWMARK: And even the short time you've been there, would you state that building permits and COs are not granted if there's anything illegal on the property? MR. YBACET A: I cannot state that, and I cannot say that, because I do not work for that department. And I don't know how they do their business. MS. NEWMARK: Now, did you see us on March 18th, 2005? MR. YBACETA: I don't remember. In my records it says that I did. MS. NEWMARK: And isn't it true that on March 18th, there was on the property a car with a trailer behind it and you were told that by 5:30 in the morning we would be on our way to California? MS. ARNOLD: Objection, relevance to the violation. I don't know what -- MS. NEWMARK: No, it goes to veracity. Because he states that he told us we just sort of like disappeared and that he wasn't going to give us a year. Do you recall the conversation that we had on March 18th? MR. YBACETA: No, sorry. MS. NEWMARK: Do you recall being asked could we put a tarp on top of the shed? MR. YBACETA: There was a tarp already on top of the shed. MS. NEWMARK: When? MR. YBACET A: When I first took those photos. You can see it on the exhibit. There was already a tarp on the shed. MR. DeWITTE: I'm having a hard time identifying the tarp on the exhibit. Page 13 June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Unless this is it here. MR. LEFEBVRE: What color was the tarp? MR. YBACET A: Blue. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, I don't see a blue one. MR. YBACETA: I'm sorry, then I'm mistaken. There wasn't. MS. NEWMARK: And in fact in your report, your case detailed report, isn't it true that you stated that the first time you saw a tarp was in July? MR. YBACETA: Yes, you're right. MS. NEWMARK: But isn't it a fact that that's not an accurate date, because you were asked that we place the tarp before we left, and that was March 18th and we left March 19th? MR. YBACET A: Ma'am, I cannot -- MS. NEWMARK: And isn't it true that we told you we had moved to California, we were on our way back to California and we would not be back until Christmas, because we don't stay until the summertime? MR. YBACETA: I do not remember that conversation, ma'am, I'm sorry. MS. NEWMARK: And you say you have a signed certified receipt. It's not signed by myself or Mr. Newmark or Brad Evans or any name that you're familiar with, is it? MR. YBACET A: I can -- I don't know whose signature that is. I cannot verify the signature. The Notice of Violation was posted opposite the property also and it was posted on the courthouse. MS. NEWMARK: When was it posted on the property? MR. YBACETA: 5-25-05. MS. NEWMARK: And would you agree that if we were in California or even in possibly N ew York at that time, we would not have known about this posting? MR. YBACET A: Your tenants would, I would hope, send you some mail or something advising you of the posting. Page 14 June 22, 2006 MS. NEWMARK: I hope they send me the rent, little loan send me the mail. Should I wait till I'm testifying, or -- I guess I'll testify. Just one moment. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask the respondent a question? Mr. Ybaceta, did the Newmarks provide you a forwarding address or change their address in the public records to state they were in California? MR. YBACETA: No. MS. NEWMARK: Well, you sent it to, according to the records, 15 Alma Lane. That's our New York address. MR. YBACET A: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: And that's a correct address. But that's not anybody's signature who we know. MR. YBACET A: I would like to note that the -- that is also the address that is also on the property appraiser's, that they do reside on 15 Alma Lane. Would you like to see that? MS. NEWMARK: I'll testify to it. I was just there to make sure it was changed, and they told us they had our San Diego address, so -- this date is back in January of '06, so -- MR. YBACET A: Yes, ma'am. MS. NEWMARK: All right. And-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So Ms. Newmark, when did you make the change of address request? MS. NEWMARK: I don't know the exact date, but they have the new date. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently when he checked the records back in January -- MS. NEWMARK: But notice wasn't sent to us, he said, in May of 2006. And I just went there, and they have our San Diego address. I wanted to be sure they had it. I walked in and they said no, it's 133 Eighth Avenue. Page 15 June 22, 2006 MR. YBACET A: During the initial investigation for everything else, I pulled information from the property appraiser's to make sure I had the correct address and everything, and I went by the information I had. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So you didn't verify that a change of address at that -- MR. YBACET A: At the time, no. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That clears up that. MS. NEWMARK: And when you researched the records for the building permits and things, do you know under what number you looked? Does 2950 sound familiar to you? MR. YBACETA: The building records for the property? MS. NEWMARK: Right. MR. YBACETA: No. There -- all the -- the ones pertaining to when the property was built are up there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Here's one more. I'm sorry. MR. YBACET A: 250, yes, ma'am. MS. NEWMARK: Did you research 792568, which is another number that appears on their records? MR. YBACETA: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: And what did you find? MR. YBACETA: CBS residence. That's 792568. MS. NEWMARK: Yes. MR. YBACETA: That is a CBS residence, or the permit for the main structure. It was C.O.'d 1981? MS. NEWMARK: That's the pool, if I'm not mistaken. MR. YBACETA: You're right. MS. NEWMARK: That's on 2950. I'm asking you about another number. MR. YBACET A: You're right. 10-18-79. MS. NEWMARK: And that's for the house. MR. YBACETA: Yes. That's the permit for the house. Page 16 June 22, 2006 Certificate of -- to occupy. MS. NEWMARK: These are the ones that were in before. Okay, that's all I wanted to ask him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. It is your turn to speak now. Would you like to present your packet as evidence? MS. NEWMARK: Yes, I would. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion to accept the packet? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to accept the package as -- MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. NEWMARK: I hadn't planned on going into some things, but based on the testimony that was given I'd like to straighten the record. Mr. -- Eddie came on the property because of some trash and things. And as I said, yes, we've always been very cooperative. I think you should know something of our background. I've been an attorney for 50 years, my husband's a retired judge. We consider ourselves very law-abiding citizens. In fact, he came on the property the other day and in fact we bought the wrong kind of fence to put around the pool. Because Wilma, without a building permit, tore down the whole structure. And we were faced with this. We didn't even know about this. The tenants never even told us Page 1 7 June 22, 2006 that there was damage from Wilma, let alone that somebody was coming and posting a sign that there was going to be a meeting. I didn't even know about Wilma. I came and found our property practically destroyed. So we've been working in the hot sun, we've cleared the property. And when Mr. Ybaceta came on the property the other day, he said that we couldn't use the kind of fence my husband bought, which was chicken wire. And so he immediately unrolled it again, went, and within an hour he was back with this orange plastic or something that you're supposed to use. Okay, so we did that. And when he said that there was a vehicle that didn't have a license or whatever that belonged to the tenant, that night it was removed. It's not there. So I say, we're very law-abiding citizens. As far as this goes, we feel we're absolutely justified in that the shed was always there properly, has in a sense been grandfathered in under the nonconforming use. You have to forgive me, I'm on medication, I've just had a recurrence of breast cancer and apparently it's doing something. And -- I lost my train of thought. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Take a deep breath, relax. MS. NEWMARK: Could I have that read back, please? (The reporter read back the previous testimony.) MS. NEWMARK: A nonconforming use under 74-42. We also feel that there's reason for it being there under several other sections, which I won't go into. I just want to straighten out some of the testimony that was given. He did come on the property and for some reason after talking to us and he suddenly walked over to the shed and he wanted to measure. And my recollection at that time, he measured eight-and-a-half feet to the fence. I'd like you to know that the fence is on the outer -- or the inner edge of a concrete footing, which is over eight inches wide. So we have another eight inches there. Page 18 June 22, 2006 I spoke with Mr. Storter -- who, by the way isn't here today because he's in the hospital; he had a perforated colon. There is an affidavit in my packet from him -- and who said he didn't put his footing on the property line. And he stayed in a little from it because he didn't want to ever have any problems in the future and he knew he was well in from it. And that will show that -- and in the picture that he puts in my -- or in my packet there is a picture that shows the shed next door to it. It's on Page 13. And if you look in both of those pictures, you're going to see stakes that are down at the water front. That is the property line. And if you'll notice in the picture below on 13, they have a stone wall, and you'll see that that stone wall lines up with what is stakes in the back. And the space between their wall, we say is our property. They have a wall on the other side of their property exactly the same design which goes right to the property line. But not on this side. Well, we say it does on -- but there's this space. And it would look like the fence of the property line, but it isn't. Now, Ms. -- as I say, we're law-abiding. We told Mr. Ybaceta that we were leaving. In fact, our vehicle was already attached to the trailer we were pulling, so we were leaving the next morning. We don't stay in the summer, we've never stayed in the summer. We go back to N ew York. N ow we were first going to California. And we asked him, we don't want to leave this. We were trying to make repairs to the roof. And we repaired the front door because it was getting sort of eaten away a lot. And we were replacing it. And I said we didn't want to leave it, all of our possessions were in there. Because we had, you know, sold a house, we had no place to put our things, and a lot of our very good things were in the shed. And he said yes, put a tarp on it. So that night that tarp went on before we left in the morning. So when he said he first saw it in July, that's not so. Maybe he didn't come back till July, but we put it on that night. And we discussed it Page 19 June 22, 2006 with him, and he said look, no one's going to push you. We said we would be back sometime right after Christmas. And we would have been except the reason for the adjournment for the last one is that unfortunately around Christmastime I was kind of taken by surprise and I never left New York for the next seven months. We have come back at the first opportunity, even though it's as hot as it can be out there, and it has been very difficult for me. And we're here. We don't want to adjourn this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I ask you one question? What's the size of the shed? MS. NEWMARK: It's probably around ten-by-ten or something like that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, just for clarification for myself, when you're making repairs to an existing structure, do you require a permit? MS. ARNOLD: It would depend on what the repairs are. So I can't necessarily answer that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently from the picture it looks like they were doing roof repair and then the door. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I would have to consult with the building department. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. NEWMARK: So one of our contentions is that the shed is 10 feet on the side line. Our concern is if it turns out that it's nine-and-a-half feet, it would be a hardship to go and get at survey and pay all the excessive fees for a variance and all the rest of it. But we don't feel that we have to for several reasons. Number one, this shed was built on -- Mr. Storter says he thinks it even goes back when it was zoned agricultural. There's no question, and we have a witness here and he's already given an affidavit, that he came upon the property and he knows because of the condition of the shed it had to be there a good 10 years before he first saw it. Page 20 June 22, 2006 And he will testify also that not only did he see it, he saw it several times, and someone had made minor repairs to that. Someone was keeping the shed. At that time there was no building on the property . We also argue it's not an accessory building at that time, because it can't be accessory to something that's no building on the property. And we spoke to the people at I guess planning, and they said that you can have a building on your -- like a shed on your property, even though you don't have a house. I mean, if you're a fisherman, you keep your fishing supplies or you have a boat and you want to be able to keep gear in it. They have a strange requirement that when you build your house you have to take down the shed. Now, Mr. Storter apparently fought long and hard with the building department saying I didn't put that shed there. That shed has been there for years. That shed is far enough from where I'm building the house to meet requirements and all the rest of it. Well, in the end, the building department gave him his building permit and his C.O. for the house and said he could keep the shed there, which he did do. Now, that's the point I made before. The building department gave tacit approval to the shed. And now for many years, some 30, 35 years later, we're still acting on that and would be hurt if it had to be taken down. We say that the building department gave approval or they would not have allowed him to build his house. There's no question the shed was there before. The shed was there when he built the house, the shed was there when we bought it in 1985, the shed is there in the same place, and it's getting to be in the same condition, because it needs repairs here and there, and it has always been used for storage. Now, under 74.42, that's the section that deals with nonconforming use, it says that anything prior to 1974 is allowed, even if it doesn't meet the current code. Under that, if it should turn Page 21 June 22, 2006 out that the shed is nine foot, six inches, we still come under the nonconforming use. I'd like you to know that this is apparently a very well built shed. It has withstood Andrew, and this shed even withstood Wilma. So we're dealing with something that is very safe, it's certainly not an eyesore, and in all of those years no neighbor or anyone has ever made a complaint about this shed. First of all, it can't even be seen from the street because it is a cul-de-sac in a pie-shaped property, and as you come to the property, it is all the way in the right-hand side in the back. So nobody sees it, it doesn't offend anybody, it doesn't harm anybody . We say we come under that section, very clearly. We have another interesting thing that our research turned up, in that there is under section 04-41, I think it is, it's a section that talks of Goodland -- in the Goodland overlay. And we questioned this, because the section we refer to clearly says that sheds off Bayshore Drive will be considered legal as long as they were built -- and the only change in the section, and the whole purpose of that amendment was to correct scriveners errors, so that apparently originally they were going to allow it to the date that the ordinance became law, which would have made it June of 2005, I think it is. Instead they moved it -- 2004. And instead they moved it to October 17th of 2003 -- excuse me, it would have become law June of 2004 and they said anything built between the change they made in it and the only change they made in it was to make it by October 15th of 2003. Now, it clearly talks of Bayshore Drive. We couldn't understand why it was in this section. We have come to the conclusion, it is in the wrong section. If any error was ever made, that's where it was made. It doesn't belong in the Goodland overlay because, number one, there is no Bayshore Drive in Goodland. There is a Bayshore Way. It is about two blocks long. There are no streets off of Bayshore Way, and there are only two sheds. Now, it would be a far stretch of the imagination that people who Page 22 June 22, 2006 legislate the law went to the time and the trouble to exclude up to 2003 sheds off Bayshore Drive, and meaning Bayshore Way. We're talking about two sheds. And in fact, I have pictures of them, if you'd like to see. They're the only two sheds. In fact, they're only nine streets in Goodland. That's all there is in Goodland is nine streets. And there's a Bayshore Way. You take Bayshore Drive, which is in East Naples, there are 26 streets, and they're all off Bayshore because they're all deadend streets. And there are 205 sheds that can be seen. I went up and down every street and we looked at 205 sheds. Now, the purpose of this -- of this law to extend and the things -- even though they may not meet the current code -- can stay is for the common good of an area. And that absolutely meets the qualifications of the streets off Bayshore Drive. I know they've been trying to upgrade it. It used to be Kelly Road and people still call it Kelly Road. But we found that there were lots of homes that the sheds and homes are on the same part. We're dealing with people who are of very modest means where if they had to take their sheds down, they certainly could not afford to go for building permits and for everything else that might be required. So we're talking about what would be a very big hardship to a lot of people, which is exactly what nonconforming use is all about, it's to prevent that. So I say that we would come under -- if we don't come under 74-42, we certainly come under this, which talks of Bayshore Drive. And we are off Bayshore Drive. We're on Shoreview Drive, which is one of the 26 streets that is off Bayshore Drive. They're all only streets of one block, except for Lakeview, which curves around. That's the area -- that's the type of area that it is. And I say we come under that. Because you have to assume that the statute says what it says and it means what it says. And we've Page 23 June 22, 2006 come 3,000 miles and at great expense to -- and the whole purpose of saying that amendment was to correct scriveners errors. There were changes made to that section, you'll notice, and at the bottom of the page it says the changes, what is crossed out, they're deleting, what is underlined, they're putting in. Nobody changed Bayshore Drive. That statute's been in existence for a long time and nobody's changed that it says Bayshore Drive. I assume that people know the area who legislate the laws. Now-- MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask the question? MS. NEWMARK: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Ms. Newmark, in that section that you're making reference to, it does say J, Goodland Zoning District; is that correct? MS. NEWMARK: Yes, it does. That's why we went to the area, to see -- MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MS. NEWMARK: -- Goodland overlay. That's why we went to the area, to see. And as I say, there may very well be an error. And the error is that that particular number four doesn't belong there, it belongs someplace else. And it's very interesting to note that number five -- MS. ARNOLD: May I ask you -- you answered my question, that's great. Could you also -- do you have that in front of you? MS. NEWMARK: Yes, I do. MS. ARNOLD: If it's your contention that this applies to the Bayshore area rather than the Goodland area -- MS. NEWMARK: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- can you read for me the last -- the sentence where it says storage sheds for fishing and boat equipment. Can you read that sentence? MS. NEWMARK: I haven't got that. Page 24 June 22, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: All right. It says, storage sheds for fishing and boat equipment on the boat dock parcels off Bayshore Drive constructed after October 17th, 2003 are permissible if they comply with the following requirements: A, the appropriate -- MS. NEWMARK: If they're constructed after 2003. MS. ARNOLD: If they comply with the following requirements: A: The appropriate building permit must be obtained. MS. NEWMARK: Right. If they're built after 2003. There's no question -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There's a section above it, Michelle, if you read it. Because I caught myself doing that. MS. NEWMARK: I have that portion in front of me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It says parcels located off of Bayshore Drive are allowed to retain any sheds that were constructed prior to October-- MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. NEWMARK: And one further thing that we say. If anything, that was just put in the wrong place. Because when they -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask -- I thought I was asking questions. MS. NEWMARK: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Are you familiar with the Goodland zoning overlay? MS. NEWMARK: The whole zoning overlay, no. MS. ARNOLD: Are you familiar with the -- that process, the Goodland overlay process? MS. NEWMARK: No. MS. ARNOLD: Were you a party to the discussions that were going on when they were doing that Goodland overlay -- MS. NEWMARK: No, I tried to find them. I tried to find the minutes. Nobody seems to know where you can find anything. MS. ARNOLD: So how are you sure that this was not another scriveners error that should have said Bayshore Way which applies to Page 25 June 22, 2006 Goodland as opposed to Bayshore Drive? MS. NEWMARK: I'd have to accept that you have the most inept people in the world. This is an amendment amending -- going to the trouble to amend. They specifically amend some things, and something as blatant as Bayshore Drive which is mentioned twice in that paragraph and nothing is done. MS. ARNOLD: But are you sure that that is the wrong section and it's not a scrivener's error? MS. NEWMARK: I would have to say that common sense would have to say so. And there's one further thing I wanted to mention. If you look at number five, it talks of all signs existing. And they also make it October 17th, 2003. And it's very interesting, there they say all signs in Goodland. They go to the trouble to say in Goodland. They don't say Bayshore Drive in Goodland, they just say Bayshore Drive. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Steve? MR. GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, Steve Griffin with the County Attorney's Office. I don't want to cut -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, I've just called on him, he had a question, a comment. MR. GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, Ms. Newmark, I didn't want to cut you off, but I did want to ask you a couple of questions too just for clarification purposes. I think it's your testimony that you do own the property-- MS. NEWMARK: Yes. MR. GRIFFIN: -- at 2631 Shoreview Drive, in Naples? MS. NEWMARK: Yes, I've owned it since 1985. MR. GRIFFIN: And I think it's also your testimony you're not refuting the fact that you don't have a permit for the shed, right? You don't currently hold a permit for the shed? MS. NEWMARK: No, I do not concede that. MR. GRIFFIN: You do have a permit for it? Page 26 June 22, 2006 MS. NEWMARK: I never had to go get one. I didn't build it. It was there when I bought it, it was there when Mr. Storter built his house. MR. GRIFFIN: Your answer is what it is, I understand. MS. NEWMARK: And because you have to assume legality, why should I go get a permit? It's been there, they allowed him to build his house knowing that the shed was there. Because there was apparently some discussions about connecting the electric at the time. And they went back and forth, apparently, and in the end they said it's only a shed, go ahead, build your house, and it's been left there. And people have relied on that. So I physically in my possession don't have a building permit. I don't need one. That's why we're here. MR. GRIFFIN: Here's my next question: Do you have any determination, any letter, any testimony, anything that you could provide from the county that says that you have a legal nonconformity on your property? MS. NEWMARK: Apparently the man who dealt with Mr. Storter just recently, he said he either left the county or he died. Because I've been talking to -- MR. GRIFFIN: So your answer is no, you have nothing-- MS. NEWMARK: Well, the obligation isn't on us. The obligation is -- MR. GRIFFIN: Well, ma'am, you're making the argument that you have a legal nonconforming. I'm just asking if you have any proof of that in terms of any county determination. That's all I'm asking. MS. NEWMARK: You don't need a county determination. You don't need a county determination, because if you have a nonconforming use, you don't have to go and say well, I want this put in writing I have a nonconforming use. We have a nonconforming use that existed before 1974. And by 74-42, anything that was a Page 27 June 22, 2006 nonconforming use at that time is -- MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, here's my next question. Can you prove exactly when it was constructed? Do you have any proof? MS. NEWMARK: Yes, I have-- MR. NEWMARK: Not exactly. MS. NEWMARK: Not exactly when, but I can certainly show that its age is prior to 1974. Yes, I do, I have a witness here. MR. GRIFFIN: And who is your witness on that? MS. NEWMARK: Mr. Roberts. And I'd like the record to show that while I was testifying, you were -- one of the attorneys was consulting with the code enforcer, and I think -- I'm not sure that that's proper. I would like the record to reflect that. MR. GRIFFIN: I don't have anymore questions right now. I might have some of your witness, though. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mrs. Newmark? Mrs. Newmark, do you have any more to say? MS. NEWMARK: Yes, I just wanted to confer with my husband. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because we do have a time limit of 20 minutes for testimony. MS. NEWMARK: Well, I won't go into the time of talking about the hardship that it would cause, because I do have it in my papers. And since the common law does have to assume legality and that the building department did what it thought was right when it granted the building permit and certificate of occupancy with the shed on the property, that we're to assume and go along with what they did and not some 30 years later or from 1978 to now suddenly wrench everything out from under us. And I think that I've covered what I want you to -- I'd just like to state for the record, this gentleman sitting here is my husband, Mr. Newmark. Page 28 June 22, 2006 And also, Mr. Ybaceta says that -- he constantly refers to speaking to Mr. Evans. My son doesn't even know he owns the property. That was only when I thought I was going to pass away with the first cancer. He's got it in his name and he doesn't even know it. So I just wanted to clear the record. I'd like to then call Mr. Roberts. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Roberts, would you please stand to be sworn, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. ROBERTS: Hello. MS. NEWMARK: All right. Mr. Roberts, you know me. MR. ROBERTS: I do. MS. NEWMARK: And you've known me since 1985 when I purchased the house? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: And is it true that over the years you've done work for me? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: You're a licensed electrician; is that so? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: Would you tell the board here how you first came to be acquainted with the property that's in question? MR. ROBERTS: In early '75 I was looking for property in the neighborhood and I had noticed that there was a property there on the corner, a nice waterfront property, and I had thought of purchasing. So I was working in the neighborhood and every time I'd work in the neighborhood, I'd look to see the property in question. MS. NEWMARK: And did you go upon the property? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I walked along the bank of the property, yes. MS. NEWMARK: And was there anything located on that property? Page 29 June 22, 2006 MR. ROBERTS: There was the shed in question located on the property . MS. NEWMARK: Okay. And at that time was the shed approximately ten-by-ten? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: Would you tell us what the condition was of the shed when you first saw it? MR. ROBERTS: It was in a used condition at that point. It's been there a while, evidently. MS. NEWMARK: And you've been involved in some construction and building and handyman type things and building for yourself; is that true? MR. ROBERTS: That's true. MS. NEWMARK: And to your best, could you give an approximation of how old the building appeared to be when you first saw it? MR. ROBERTS: I'll put it -- it was there a while before, because it needed repairs at that point. MS. NEWMARK: And would you say that it was a well constructed building? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: And was it weathered -- would you say that it was more than two years old -- MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: -- at the time you saw it? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: Would you say it was probably more than five? MR. ROBERTS: Probably more than five. MS. NEWMARK: And is there a good possibility that it may have been 10 years or older when you first saw it? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Because it was used as a fisherman's Page 30 June 22, 2006 storage. He stored his things in there. MS. NEWMARK: And how were you able to tell what was in there? MR. ROBERTS: There's no locks. It was open then. We didn't need locks. MS. NEWMARK: Those were the better times, weren't they? And then how many times would you say that you -- did you go back several times before this property was finally sold to Mr. Storter in '78? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, because we were buying property in the area, we were relocating here, and I wanted something waterfront. My wife, because we had little children, didn't want anything near the water, so we didn't buy it. But yes, every time I was in the neighborhood, I would stop to see this -- MS. NEWMARK: And did there come a time when you were surprised when you saw construction going on? MR. ROBERTS: Years later, yeah, I was surprised to see a nice house there, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. NEWMARK: And have you been on the property since that time? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: And isn't it true you've done work for me since 1985? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: You'll have to forgive me. I was much better when I was trying cases. And is the shed in the same place? MR. ROBERTS: I believe so. MS. NEWMARK: And approximately the same size? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: And at this point were the repairs In Page 31 June 22, 2006 approximately the same condition? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MS. NEWMARK: I have no further questions. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does anybody have any questions? MR. KELLY: I have one question. Is it a concrete foundation? MR. ROBERTS: I believe it is, yes. MR. KELLY: So not easily moved. MR. ROBERTS: Not easily moved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Griffin, did you have any questions, or Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I had a question. Are you knowledgeable about a building permit for -- MR. ROBERTS: Would you speak up, please? MS. ARNOLD: Have you knowledge of a building permit of that shed? MR. ROBERTS: I have no knowledge of that. MR. GRIFFIN: I have one question, sir. For the record, Steve Griffin with the County Attorney's Office. Was there a principal structure on the property when you first noticed a shed on it? Was there any other structure on the property other than the shed? MR. ROBERTS: No, there wasn't. In the mid Seventies there wasn't anything there. It was vegetation and the fisherman's shed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I have one of the -- Eddie. When you were searching for the permits, I know now we have to have a site plan. Was that required back then? MR. YBACETA: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you find one, by any chance? Page 32 June 22, 2006 MR. YBACET A: No, I did find the permit. I believe permits were issued -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They're up here, but I was just wondering if there was a site plan attached to it. MR. YBACET A: I don't have any knowledge of the way they used to do things. It know that the permits were issued that very same day. I wish it would be the same now, because I have my own permits that I'm trying to get through. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, do you know if they had site plans back then? MS. ARNOLD: I have no idea. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The reason I was asking is because now we'd be able to go look at the site plan to see if the shed was on the drawing or not. MS. ARNOLD: Perhaps when they purchased the property there was a survey, but -- I do have a question for -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, go ahead. MS. NEWMARK: Can I ask him a question? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, right now I believe they have the floor and then I'll let you. MS. ARNOLD: Are you familiar with what the zoning district requires -- or the zoning code requires for construction of accessory structures? MR. YBACETA: Even back then in '74 for the '74 ordinance it states that you need a principal structure before you can have an accessory structure. The shed is an accessory structure. So it would be illegal to have a shed on a vacant lot before you have a house. MS. NEWMARK: May I ask what section that is? MR. YBACET A: Section 8, second paragraph. MS. NEWMARK: Excuse me, I couldn't hear you. MR. YBACET A: Section 8, second paragraph of Ordinance 74-42 that is the zoning ordinance in effect at that time. Page 33 June 22, 2006 MS. NEWMARK: That was -- well, what about before 1974? If the shed is there 10 years prior to that, what was the requirements then? MR. YBACET A: I cannot answer that. I don't have that in front of me. I would like to also present one more thing. I do have aerial maps. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to make those Exhibit C? MR. YBACET A: I would show -- they're pretty hard to see. If you have a magnifying glass you could probably see them better. Do you have aerial -- MS. ARNOLD: What's the purpose of -- MS. NEWMARK: I have the same ones, and in fact, the man at the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I ask what the purpose of this is first? MR. YBACET A: Well, the testimony is that this shed was there from before '74. MS. NEWMARK: Oh, yeah, many years. MR. YBACET A: Many years. I did take the time to go look at aerial maps from before then, and it does not show that there is one prior to '75. MS. NEWMARK: I disagree. May I say something? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Um-hum. MS. NEWMARK: I have the same maps. I have it from '75 and one from '81, I think it is. '81 you can see, it was clear. What they took in '75, not only would you need a magnifying glass -- what did I do with it? I think in the end I left it home. I did leave it home, because I didn't think I would use it. It's very hard to see because at the time in '75 the lot had all -- a lot of vegetation. So what you're seeing from the air is tops of trees and bushes. And fuzzy, Page 34 June 22, 2006 you would not believe. In fact, do you have your copy of 1975? MR. GRIFFIN: Ma'am, I'm sorry, I don't really want to put myself in the position of interrupting the proceedings here, but I think we've had testimony on both sides. We're talking about maps that don't really show anything, so I think that maybe the answer to the board's question is -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I asked if they wanted to present it and I haven't got an answer on it. MS. NEWMARK: It's so difficult. The man from the planning, he was using a pretty good magnifying glass, and he circled. But, you know, I have to admit -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to go ahead and just say let's forego that at this point, because I think it's going to be inconclusive. MS. NEWMARK: It's very difficult. MR. YBACETA: That would be fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you have anything else to say? MR. YBACET A: I would like to summarize. Basically I don't know when the shed was built. When I first got onto the property, I believed it was in the construction stages. And after the research and everything, after speaking to them, it was made clear that it was there from before. Again, this is not a nonconforming shed, because in order to be nonconforming, it would have had to have had a previous permit. It is an illegal structure because it never -- it would have never passed the ordinances. And that's what the ordinance says, it has to have a principal structure before it has an accessory structure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. At this time, I think I'm going to close the -- MR. GRIFFIN: Closing comments? Page 35 June 22, 2006 MS. NEWMARK: May I make some closing comments? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MS. NEWMARK: When the shed was there, it wasn't an accessory, it was their main thing, only they called it a shed. It's -- the use of accessory is something that's accessory to a property that's there. And as I stated, the requirement of the planning and the building department that we went to that it was perfectly okay to have a shed on the property. You're not talking about an accessory building. An accessory building, if you had something there that this was accessory to it, you couldn't have it if the other building wasn't a main building. They said all that would be required is you take down this when you go in your main building. But the building department themselves let it stand. And that's I think a rather very important feature. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. At this time I'm going to close the public hearing and just have discussion amongst board. MR. MORGAN: Madam Chair, the setback is irrelevant. Only a survey is going to tell. One. Two, if you have a plot plan or a site plan, it has to show the lot block number for -- in order to issue a permit. The survey should show the lot block number. The survey should show an existing structure and the dimensions from the property line side and year and front. I'm sure the lending agency would require a survey showing the improvements. MS. NEWMARK: If I may say something. MR. MORGAN: Hold it, I'm not through yet. So as I said, whether it's nine foot, six inches, ten foot, six inches, that's irrelevant. The only thing that's going to show me is a survey made by a registered surveyor. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other discussion? Mr. Kelly? Page 36 June 22, 2006 MR. KELLY: Thank you. I'm really not convinced, based upon county's presentation. I understand that Eddie does a terrific job, but in this case, you know, exact measurements from a property line that's not a square piece of property, it's on a cul-de-sac, it has a smaller frontal footage than it does a rear footage, and it's on a water line. Previous markers could be for the execution of building a dwelling for another piece of property or for water setback. You know, without Eddie having that kind of knowledge and being a surveyor by trade, he wouldn't exactly know, I don't believe, where to start measuring from, you know, without the right equipment. And I understand he uses the equipment that he has, and I appreciate that. But I'm not 100 percent convinced that it is in violation in the first place. And without the ability to not prove that there was a permit or that it was not included in the allotment when they first built the home, I'm just not 100 percent convinced that this structure should be either removed or if it's in violation at all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody else? George? MR. PONTE: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Eddie, in the ordinance that you were quoting that you had to have a main structure before you had any auxiliary structures, was back to '74, and we don't know exactly when this was built. So do we know if there was any time by the county's records that there was an ordinance change from like '71 to '74? MR. GRIFFIN: Possibly that occurred in '77. I mean, I can't -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm sure the ordinance has been amended. I don't know whether or not that particular section. The language today is very similar to the '74 ordinance so, I mean, the ordinance has been CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just don't know when it was adopted, so it makes it very difficult, without knowing the actual time Page 37 June 22, 2006 frame of when the structure was physically built versus when the ordinance actually came into playas to whether or not this falls underneath -- that's where my thinking's going. I'm not sure. MS. ARNOLD: The testimony that you've heard is that construction was at least there in '77, I believe was -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: '75 and prior is what the gentleman stated. MR. YBACET A: It's what he stated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that's where I'm having a hard time. MR. GRIFFIN: Well, Madam Chair, I think it might be -- if I'm not mistaking the county's position, I think it's that you have to -- the building permit requirement goes back way before '75, or any time period in the Seventies, I would suggest. So that if there's a structure on the property, that there needs to be a permit for it. And there always needed to be a permit to do that type of construction under the Florida Building Code and probably under our code as well. I mean, we can't -- it's very difficult to sit here and tell you when ordinances changed and when they've been amended and revised. And you've had cases before you before where we've had to look at situations and there were certain equities involved where someone has come onto the property, they've bought the property where there's a nonconformity, be it legal or illegal. And you have to make a determination whether or not you're going to put their feet to the fire and require them to get a permit after the fact. Because they own the property. They otherwise would have had to have a permit in order to erect the structure. They don't have evidence of the permit and unfortunately we don't have evidence in the negative. So, I mean, that's kind of the equitable sort of balancing act that you all have to do when you look at this, I think. MS. NEWMARK: Can I say -- Page 38 June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This is closed to you. Any other comments? Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: On that note, I do know that Collier County initially was founded as a fishing village before tourism and before all of us arrived. I know, Sheri, your family goes back a long way, and my in-laws go back quite a way, too. And they were fishermen. And back at that time they built entire homes, sheds, structures, docks, without any type of permits because there was no municipality to enforce permits. And, you know, the original seat was in Everglades City, and at that time they didn't even have a permitting department. So without knowing exactly when it was built, I think it's going to be difficult to make that determination for sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll entertain motions. I need to know whether or not we feel that there is a violation. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion. I make a motion in Case No. 2006-07, Board of County Commissioners versus Newmark (sic) and Brad Evans, that no violation exists in this case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second that. There are too many questions, too many vague situations here. I certainly have to -- we're operating on a situation where you vote and are convinced at which way you are voting and can do it clearly, but this is just a lot of questions. I'm not convinced. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 39 June 22, 2006 MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: One opposed. MS. NEWMARK: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's go ahead and take a five-minute break. (Recess. ) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're going to move ahead. We're going to skip the Lloyd case and move ahead to the next one, just for time constraints. Okay, at this time I'd like to call this meeting back to order, and for time constraints, because the Loyd case is out in the hall and they're trying to come to a stipulation agreement, we're going to skip Case No.3, 2006-13, and move to Case No.4. MS. ARNOLD: I have an interruption. I do have another stipulation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And that is your CEB 2006-33, Florida Homes of Collier, Incorporated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, that's Case No.9? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. So they are also having-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Well, why don't we move to that then. MS. ARNOLD: Let me call the people in. And my understanding is the Loyd case, they've completed it, they're just making copies for the record. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I finally see the attorney's back in the room. So okay, do we want to I guess go back to stipulations then? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. If-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'll start with Case No. Page 40 June 22, 2006 2006- 33, if they're ready. MS. ARNOLD: Investigator Susan O'Farrell is the one handling that case. 2006-33 is Florida Homes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And George Schmaeling? MR. SCHMAELING: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you both be sworn In, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, I'm Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Environmental Investigator for Code Enforcement. Mr. Schmaeling and I have entered into -- or Mr. Schmaeling and Collier County have entered into a stipulation today to resolve this case. Would you like me to read the stipulation? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Please. MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Schmaeling has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $260 that were incurred in the prosecution of the case. He will abate all violations to Section 3.05.01(B) by: Applying for and obtaining an after-the- fact vegetation removal permit within 14 -- I'm sorry, applying for and obtaining an after-the-fact vegetation removal permit within 14 days. That would be on August (sic) 7th, 2006 -- MR. KELLY: Correction. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: August 7th? MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be July? MS. O'FARRELL: July 7th, yes. -- and submitting a mitigation plan within 30 days of this hearing, which would be by July 24th, 2006. That will restore the removed understory with 15 native plants which may include cocoa plumb, wax myrtle, wild coffee, American beauty berry, three-gallon slash pines and three-gallon sable palms -- that would be a mix of those plants Page 41 June 22, 2006 that he can choose from -- or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. And he will plant the vegetation within 15 days of the mitigation plan approval or a fine of $100 a day until the violation is abated, or as long as the violation continues. And he will encourage the natural recruitment of native species by maintaining the area exotic free in perpetuity. He will abate violations to Sections 5.04.04(B)(2). He will cease and desist all business-related activities, including removing all construction building materials from inside and outside of the model home, except as related to the marketing of the model home by July 30th, 2006, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site visit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Schmaeling, are you in agreement with this stipulation? MR. SCHMAELING: Yes. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I have one question. How about if any of the plants do not survive, is there anything in there that they have to be replanted? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, we do have -- the LDC does require an 80 percent survival rate. If you'd like me to, I can put that into the stipulation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to see that, yes. MS. O'FARRELL: Would that be okay with you, Mr. Schmaeling? MR. SCHMAELING: That's fine. MR. DeWITTE: Is there any benefit instead of saying In perpetuity to saying as long as he owns the property? Page 42 June 22, 2006 MR. SCHMAELING: I think that would be appropriate. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the property needs to be maintained. MR. DeWITTE: But not for him. His ownership of the property. You know, the else would apply to new owner. I'd like not to get into any wording issues, if that makes sense. MR. LEFEBVRE: If I'm not mistaken, usually our orders run with the property, not with the owners. Not ownership of the property. So -- MR. DeWITTE: But this is a stipulated agreement with him. Anybody else who buys the property will be held bound by code enforcement laws, you know, in effect. They're not going to have some variance given because we didn't say perpetuity, but his responsibility shall only be while he owns the property, my way of seeing it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other discussion? MS. O'FARRELL: So I have added on with an 80 percent of survival of plantings, and I have removed in perpetuity for as long as he owns the property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are you still in agreement with that? MR. SCHMAELING: Fine. MR. DeWITTE: And for summary review, we also have a change from August to July. That should be the total changes to the document. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye.a Page 43 June 22, 2006 MR: DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. And at this time we'll go to the next stipulated agreement, which is the Loyd case. Case No. 2006-13. MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair, can we just have two minutes to read it over? We may make some changes prior to them, if we have any questions. MR. PIRES: For the record, Tony Pires. I don't know if any commissioner saw any of the advertising. It's just how we wrote it out. I couldn't open up the attachment. The library -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You mean you're not going to give us a 75 percent discount on a cruise? MR. PIRES: I'll need about four cruises after this. So let me make that disclaimer. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, is everybody ready? Mr. Pires, I guess would you like to -- MR. HALESWORTH: Good morning. For the record, Kevin Halesworth, Environmental Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. Would you like me to read the stipulation agreement to you this morning? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Please. MR. HALESWORTH: Not in its entirely. Starting from the relevant material. The stipulation agreement between Collier County, petitioner and Page 44 June 22, 2006 Philip and Susan K. Loyd of 109 Inagua Lane. Comes now the undersigned, Philip and Susan Loyd on behalf of themselves as representatives for respondent and enter into this stipulation and agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of notice of violation in reference Case No. 2004031470, dated the 19th of September, 2005. In consideration of the disposition of resolution of the matters outlined in said notices of violation for which a hearing is currently scheduled for June 22nd, 2006; to promote efficiency in the administration of the code enforcement process; and to obtain a quick and expeditious resolution of the matters outlined therein, the parties hereby agree as follows: The property described in the NOV has a valid, existing CCCL variance, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners in Resolution No. 88-180. Number two: The following violations cited in the NOV are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. The violations are that of Section 3.04.02(B), 9.04.06(A-H), 10.02.06(B), 10.02.06(H), 10.02.06(1) of the Collier County Land Development Code and are described as the construction and/or existence of various structures without first obtaining a building permit and the removal of native vegetation without obtaining required Collier County authorization. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondents shall: Pay the operational costs in the amount of $643.75 incurred in the prosecution of this case. Abate all violations by: Obtaining permits for all unpermitted structures and fixtures in accordance with the variance approved under Resolution No. 88-180 by September 7th, 2006, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the permit is obtained. Any structures or fixtures that have been installed which are not authorized by said variance or approved by subsequent Collier County staff approvals must be removed, unless permits or approvals are obtained therefore Page 45 June 22, 2006 by September 7th, 2006. Complete all construction authorized by obtained permits by November 30 of 2006. Removal of unpermitted structures and fixtures shall be completed between November 1st, 2006 and November 30, 2006, after the sea turtle nesting season. If this item is not completed as ordered, then a fine of $250 per day we will be imposed until completed. Submit a vegetation mitigation plan pursuant to Section 10.02.06(E)(3) of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, by July 24th, 2006, for areas seaward of the coastal development limit line for revegetation in areas where vegetation was damaged or removed by other than natural forces, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until submitted. Replacement vegetation shall meet standards for restoration in accordance with Section 3.05.07(ii) of Ordinance 04-41. Complete installation of vegetation 15 days after sea turtle nesting season, November 15th, 2006, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until completed. Depending upon changes in condition or difficulties in permitting occasioned by natural events during the hurricane season, or if Collier County will not issue a building permits, or development order, or orders, as requested by respondents, respondents may request extensions of the time frames stated above during the pendency of any proceedings or applications filed by respondents to obtain and/or appeal any building permit, development order or variance decision or formal interpretation relating to the ability to obtain requested building permit, permits, or development order, orders. Respondents must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just have one question for you. Where you were stating -- looks like about three paragraphs under therefore, it says complete all construction authorized by obtained Page 46 June 22, 2006 permits by November 30th, 2006; removal of unpermitted structures and fixtures. Would they need to have a demolition permit in order to do that removal? MR. SCHMAELING: Permits will be needed. I'm not sure if it will be a demolition permit or a CCSL permit. I'm not sure which one will apply there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It seems vague there. I don't know how you guys want to restructure that, but I think that might need to be spelled out. Because it says permits to -- and the way I'm reading it anyway, obtain permits for construction authorized, but it doesn't say anything about demolition permits. MR. PIRES: I think we can add in there -- for the record, Tony Pires. I hope you don't me jumping up and doing that. And I think you recognize also, we'll do a cleaner version without the Alaskan cruise on there, if the board is so inclined to accept it. But I think it would be appropriate, Madam Chairman, to have language in there that removal of unpermitted structures shall be completed in accordance with permitting criteria of Collier County between November 1 st and -- I think that's a very fine point. MR. LEFEBVRE: Couple questions. Do you think you're going to need any kind of engineering to go ahead and apply for permits? MR. PIRES: Well, there's a set of detailed plans that was already issued back in 1989, and the state's already permitted this back in '89 and '91, so we have a detailed set of plans and we believe we can utilize those. And I think you're probably heading towards the time frame until September 7 to apply for the permits? And we think that will be sufficient and knock on wood sort of thing. That's why we have the -- I recognize staffs constraints, they can't automatically grant extensions and the board doesn't like to automatically have extensions built in. So we would come back to you if there are any difficulties. Page 47 June 22, 2006 And we appreciate your good graces in the past if there's legitimate good faith efforts to pursue. But I think we have the plans right now, knock on wood. MR. DeWITTE: The same point. To that same point you were just speaking of, it doesn't actually say September 7th to apply, it says September 7th to obtain. MR. PIRES: That's correct. MR. DeWITTE: Should we put and apply -- have they already been applied for? MR. PIRES: No, they have not. MR. DeWITTE: So should we put a time frame to apply and then -- as one thing, and then also is this a reasonable the amount of time to obtain -- from what I know of the permitting process, it seems a little short. MR. PIRES: We'll take more time. And I recognize you're working with staff, they want to see this resolved as soon as possible. I can appreciate Mr. Halesworth and Ms. Arnold. We'd like to obviously have a longer time frame. I'd like to work on -- if we had additional time, we'd be willing to take that but still work towards that. Our clients recognize the need to fix this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a suggestion as to maybe how to -- a time frame to apply by and then -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, they've agreed to what is being presented before you. And if we're adding in another step, that's just adding in another key and another thing for us to monitor. The bottom line, they need to obtain it by the 7th and if they don't, it has language in there for granting extensions. I think they've agreed to it, we've agreed to it, we should go forward. MR. LEFEBVRE: Couple other things. Where it says complete installation of vegetation 15 days after turtle nesting season, I'd like to see where it says no later than November 15th. So we know that it's definitively the turtle nesting season ends I guess the end of October, Page 48 June 22, 2006 but I think just clarifying November 15th is a day that the vegetation has to be installed by. MR. PIRES: That's acceptable. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. The next thing is typically this board doesn't like to issue extensions. Typically that's not how it's done. Typically after you complete your -- everything's completed. If you don't complete it on time, the fines start accruing. I don't like the idea that you can come back to us. We typically don't do that. I'd rather see that you get everything done. If you don't, then you come back to us and say well, we didn't get it done and the fine is "X" amount and we'll reduce the fine or look at the reasons why it wasn't done on time. MR. HALESWORTH: Can I comment on that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. HALESWORTH: The reason we left that open is because of seasonality. We're well aware of the hurricane season, any problems that might ensue over this particular time period, and we felt that that language should be included in there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. That was just my comments. I don't know, someone else -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does anybody else have a comment? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Only because I've had two permits in the past, and I think they're acting in good faith, I don't have a problem with leaving that in there. Normally we don't, but -- MR. DeWITTE: I would just still like to see even if we -- I'd still like to see us put a time frame on them applying for their permits. I think that's important to do, just to follow up on the process. We typically do it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have any objections to that, Tony? Page 49 June 22, 2006 MR. PIRES: No, I'm just trying to think of a reasonable time frame to apply. Once again, there were a set of plans from '89 and then also subsequently in '91. We submit those plans. I think six weeks to apply I think would be a reasonable time. I think six weeks, which would be August 10th, I believe. MR. HALESWORTH: We originally had August 24th. MR. PIRES: So I think August 10th. And get everything by September 7th. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear motions? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. DEAN: I'll second. MR. PONTE: As amended, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: As amended. MR. DeWITTE: Can we recap those amendments? MR. LEFEBVRE: Would that be me? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Apply for permits by August 10th, if I'm not mistaken. Correct date? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. HALESWORTH: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Where it says complete installation vegetation 15 days after sea turtle nesting season or no later than November 15th, 2006. And also, right after where it says complete all construction authorized by obtaining permits by November 30th, or demolition permit -- or obtain a demolition permit. MR. HALESWORTH: Or a required permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Is that all the corrections that you-- MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, that's my recollection. Page 50 June 22, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: And those are agreed to also? MR. PIRES: That is correct, they are agreed to. MR. DeWITTE: I second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. PIRES: I want to say, I appreciate the good faith efforts working with Kevin and Michelle, especially the last week or so. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. With that, we'll move back to the cases. And Case No. 2006-34, Bruce Assam versus Collier County. Kevin Halesworth is the Code Enforcement Officer. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement. CEB Case 2006-34, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Bruce Assam. The violation is of Ordinance 04-41, 3.0.5.01(B). Description of violation: Is vegetation removal of all three strata over allowable one acre without required permits. The location where the violation exists: 3570 64th Avenue Northeast. Name and address of the owner of violation location: Is Mr. Bruce Assam. Page 51 June 22, 2006 The date the violation was first observed was December 8th, 2005. And date owner/person was given Notice of Violation: Was March 17th, 2006. Date on which the violation was to be corrected was March 31 st, 2006. Date of reinspection: April 12th. Result of reinspection: Was the violations still remain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is Mr. Assam here? (No response.) MR. HALESWORTH: Good morning. For the record, Kevin Halesworth, Environmental Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. I made my first visit on the 8th of December, 2005. I observed over one acre of vegetation had been removed. I looked for work permit boards. I couldn't find anyon-site. I couldn't contact anybody. So I took some pictures and proceeded to try and contact the owner, without any luck. I do have an exhibit I'd like to pass around. Would you like to see this? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to enter. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We would like to enter that exhibit? MS. GARCIA: Yes, thank you. I'm sorry. I'd like to enter the exhibit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. MR. DeWITTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 52 June 22, 2006 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. HALESWORTH: Exhibit A shows that vegetation was removed with heavy machinery, and no permits were gained at all for that. And as a result, I wrote a Notice of Violation requesting the owner to either replant or come in and get the required permits. I've never had any contact at all from the property owner, including when I posted the property. And they're also not here today. I have a recommendation following that. Would you like to hear it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, please. MR. HALESWORTH: Recommendation is that the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: Number one, submitting a mitigation plan pursuant to 04-41 as amended. Section 10.02.06(A)(3), by July 26th, 2006 for replacement vegetation shall meet standards for restoration in accordance with Code Section 3.05.07(ii). Plants shall be installed 15 days after approval of mitigation plan or a fine of $150 a day for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to concur abatement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Operational costs? Did you mention how much operational costs there are? MR. HALESWORTH: No, I did not. I missed that. We do have those, though, if you would like to recover those operational costs. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do you know what the costs are? Page 53 June 22, 2006 MR. HALESWORTH: Just a second. The operational costs are 236 -- $236.57. Sorry, I take that -- $406.05. MR. KELLY: I have a question. Is there any permit pulled now at all? Any type? MR. HALESWORTH: None, no. MR. KELLY: One more follow-up. There is a required permit for any type of vegetation removal, correct? MR. HALESWORTH: No, that's actually incorrect. You're allowed to remove an acre of vegetation with your building permit. MR. KELLY: Do they have a building permit? MR. HALESWORTH: Yes, they do. But this property is 1.14 acres. MR. KELLY: And they've cleared all of it? MR. HALESWORTH: Yes. And the neighboring property also. They've gone over their property line on all three sides, north, east and west. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion that there is a violation? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that a violation exists as described in the charging documents of CEB Case No. 2006-34, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Bruce Assam. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. Page 54 June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to accept the stipulated -- or sorry, not the stipulated, the recommendation from the county . MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Call the next case. Case No. 2006-24, Casa Bonita Homebuilders, Inc., Jesus Montelougo. And Carol Sykora? MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Board Secretary. I'd like to enter the County's Exhibit A. Statement of violation: CEB Case No. 2006-24, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Casa Bonita Homebuilders, Spiegel and Utrera, P .A., respondents. Violation of Ordinance 2004-41, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d). 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i). Description of violation is: No Collier County permits for construction of cement block around a mobile home without a permit. The violation that exists is 311 South Second Street, in Immokalee. Page 55 June 22, 2006 The address and owner of person in charge of violation is Casa Bonita Homebuilders in 1840 Southwest 22nd Street, Miami. The violation first observed: January 24th, 2006. The violation -- Notice of Violation was given on January 24th, 2006. The date in which the violation was to be corrected was February 13th, 2006. The date of the re-inspection: April 17th, 2006. And the results of the re-inspection: Violations still remain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I have a motion to accept Exhibit A? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement, Immokalee investigator. This is Case No. 2006010839. No Collier County permits for construction of cement block around a mobile home in village residential zoning located at 311 South Second Street, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. This case began on January 24th, 2006 when I observed the cement blocks being constructed around the mobile home. I checked Page 56 June 22, 2006 and no permits were on file, so I posted a stop work order on the property . Pictures were taken at that time, and I sent a Notice of Violation to the owner of record, Casa Bonita Homebuilders, registered agency, Spiegel and Utrera P.A., and also I mailed a copy of Notice of Violation to the owners -- the president of the company and owner, Jesus Montelougo, who resides in Immokalee. On February 21 st, 2006, I spoke to Reliable Permitting, who stated an engineer was working on plans for the permit for the construction of the block around the mobile home. On March 13th, 2006, I received another call from Reliable Permitting, requesting that the after-the-fact fees be dropped. I advised him I was unable to do so. On March 23rd, 2006, I spoke to the president/owner of Casa Bonita, Jesus Montelougo, and he said that the plans were ready, but he tried to submit them and he needed a contractor to submit them, because he does not live in this mobile home. At the time of when this case started the mobile home appeared vacant, but recently I have seen people living in it. I would like to submit photographs for the record, if you would like to see what it actually looks like. MR. PONTE: I would. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to make that Exhibit B? MS. SYKORA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I have a motion to accept Exhibit B? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept Exhibit B. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 57 June 22, 2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SYKORA: That conversation that I had with the owner, I went over a few contractors names that were in Immokalee, because it is difficult to have certain contractors come out that far. But everyone that we spoke about he did not want to utilize for some reason or another. And he said he was going to get back in contact with me, but I had no contact with him since that conversation on March 23rd, 2006. Consequently, May 16th, 2006, I prepared the case for the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Carol, do you have any recommendations? MS. SYKORA: The county recommends that all operational costs of $272.44 be paid. And also, submit and obtain a Collier County permit within 30 days or a demolition permit within 14 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And obtain a certificate of completion within 60 days of issuance of the permit or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must also notify me when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Do I hear a motion as to whether or not the violation exists? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have -- MR. PONTE: I have a question I'd just like to ask. Investigator, I've never seen this sort of construction before. Is it Page 58 June 22, 2006 common? MS. SYKORA: I thought you'd get a kick out of it. His comment when I spoke to him was he did it to protect the mobile home from the hurricanes. However, I think he intended to pretty much construct a home around the mobile home. It appears he wants to put a roof over this and the mobile home be inside the cement block. But I advised him if he could get permits, more power to it him. But-- MR. PONTE: Thank you. I've just never seen anything like that. MR. MORGAN: If he's constructing this and then tries to get a permit, how does that work? MS. SYKORA: Well, I stopped work on it, which he did. And he has to pay after-the- fact fees when he does pay obtain the permit. That's what he requested be dropped. MR. MORGAN: So they'll make an inspection before they issue the permit for whatever construction? MS. SYKORA: Well, actually, he would have to submit engineering as to how it's going to be constructed, even though it's been started. And then once he submits the engineered drawings to the permit department, they review them. And then if he does get issued the permit, they will do inspections on the work as it progresses. MR. MORGAN: I can see a couple of deficiencies already. MS. SYKORA: I know. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you said that your last inspection work has been suspended, or has not? MS. SYKORA: It has. I have been keeping contact with it. But now it looks like it has people living in it. That's a little dangerous situation. Before it was vacant, but -- MR. PONTE: You said that it's a dangerous situation because there are people living in it. What are some of the dangers and hazards? Page 59 June 22, 2006 MS. SYKORA: Well, to me, it didn't -- I'm not a construction engineer, but it didn't look like there was any rebar in the cement block. And to me if a hurricane did come through and crushed that cement block into the mobile home, if someone was inside, it would more dangerous than if they were in a vacant mobile home, I believe. MR. PONTE: But there aren't any immediate dangers, I mean, from electricity or from -- MS. SYKORA: I don't believe so. MR. PONTE: Okay, thanks. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time we would like to have a motion entertained whether or not there is a violation. MR. DEAN: I'd like to make the motion that there is a violation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Move towards -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Couple questions. Was there a dollar amount attached to -- if they do not obtain the building permit? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: $200 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: $200 a day, okay. MS. SYKORA: Yes, $200 per day. They must submit and obtain it within 30 days, I kind of combined it, or $200 per day. And Page 60 June 22, 2006 14 days for demo or $200 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Fourteen days after this meeting? MS. SYKORA: Thirty days to submit and obtain. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. And-- MS. SYKORA: Thirty days after this meeting or a fine of $200 per day. Fourteen days after this hearing to obtain a demolition permit to remove the cement block, or $200 per day. And then I put 60 days after issuance of the permit to obtain a certificate of completion or C.O. after the issuance of the permit, or $200 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: It seems like the natural order of this would be for them to try to obtain a permit first. And then if they could not obtain a permit, to then go for a permit to finish the structure. If they couldn't get that permit, then they would go for a demo permit. So it seems like the order should be 30 days to get a building permit, and then if they can't get the building permit they have 14 days to get the demo permit, and then a certain time to be complete with the demo. MS. SYKORA: Right. I believe the reason I did that was the option of if they did not want to pursue a permit, because they did have the engineered drawings ready to submit it. The only thing is he needed a contractor to submit it instead of him. So that's why I put the 14 days for a demo permit, to give them the option of if they want to demo it or do they want to -- MR. DeWITTE: Maybe we could just add on that if the permit cannot be obtained, if the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. DeWITTE: Then 14 days after that. So now they have 14 days immediately to get a demo permit. If they choose not to pursue a permit for the structure, or if they fail to get a permit structure, then they have 14 days to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Because if it takes two weeks for them to get Page 61 June 22, 2006 a contractor and they go ahead and submit the building permit, you're -- the fine's still being kicked in on the 15th day for a demo permit that they have not obtained. So you have to give them the opportunity to get the building permit first, and once it's found that they cannot get that permit, then the demo permit on would be -- MS. SYKORA: Right, I understand. MR. PONTE: So if it's tight, what would you suggest would be a better time table? MS. SYKORA: Pardon me? MR. PONTE: If it's tight. And the schedule you have suggested feels sort of tight. What would you suggest would be a better schedule? MS. SYKORA: Well, I believe since they have the engineering, and he's had since March to obtain a contractor, that's why I put the 30 days to apply and obtain, so if he gets someone to apply for it immediately -- which they did not appear, so I'm assuming this will not even happen. But if they did have -- they already have the necessary drawings. That's what Reliable Permitting stated. So they don't have to go through the engineering end of it, they just have to take them in and submit for a permit, which could be done today. MS. ARNOLD: Could I make a suggestion? To answer Mr. Lefebvre's concern, perhaps what we could put is obtain -- if the permit is not obtainable, then obtain the demo permit within 45 days. That gives the 30-day period and the 14 days plus one day. MR. LEFEBVRE: That would be sufficient. How about regarding the tenancy of the building? Now it is occupied, the mobile home is occupied. MS. SYKORA: I believe so. I did witness some people there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you feel that it is currently a danger, considering the season that we're in now? Do you feel that -- would it be proper for me to put in there something about vacating the -- or no? Page 62 June 22, 2006 Can't do that? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I don't know if we can direct them to unoccupy it. Because we haven't made a determination in that. There hasn't been a formal determination that the structure is unsafe. MS. SYKORA: I would like to set a time limit, if they do obtain a demo permit. Because they are good for six months and can be renewed. So it wouldn't be stretched out for the total six months, maybe put a time limit on there for like half of that time, maybe three months to have it completely demoed-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Ninety days to remove. MS. SYKORA: Right. Instead of stretching it to the last day of the six months and then applying for another one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald, looks like you've written everything down. Would you like to -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I make another suggestion? There is a 60-day time period for the completion of the structure. I think that might be stretching it, considering the structure is not finished. We do have in the Land Development Code that language for structures that have been constructed prior to obtaining building permits and they're finished. So in those cases if you obtain a permit after the fact, there's a courtesy inspection. In this particular case there's a lot to do on there, so we may be kind of pushing it a little bit with the 60 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How about 120 days? MS. SYKORA: 120 days would be fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald's going to attempt to recap. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to try. MS. SYKORA: Good luck. MR. LEFEBVRE: Operational costs of $272.41, okay? Obtain a building permit within 30 days of this hearing or a $200 fine. Once obtaining the permit, building permit, that is, will have 120 days to Page 63 June 22, 2006 complete and get -- receive a C.O. Forty-five days after this hearing, if you're not able -- if the respondent is not able to receive the permit, a demo permit must be received or obtained. And 90 days after the demo permit has been granted, will have to remove the structure by then. And also notify code enforcement department to come out for reinspection. Did I miss anything? MR. DeWITTE: Fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: Fines, sorry, correct. Fines of $200 a day-- MR. GRIFFIN: For the record, Steve Griffin with the County Attorney's Office. Madam Chair, you might want to amend that just slightly to make the second part of that in the alternative if they can't get a construction permit make it clear -- we're not requiring the construction permit and a demo. It's one or the other. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MS. SYKORA: The demo permit, you said 45 days from this hearing -- MR. LEFEBVRE: From this hearing. MS. SYKORA: -- or if they could not obtain? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If they could not obtain. Forty-five days from this hearing if they could not obtain a building permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because they would have obtained it within 30 days of this hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I have a second to that motion? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye.S Page 64 June 22, 2006 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. When I was looking at the -- MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted clarification. So it's obtain a permit within 30 days or $200, or alternatively obtain a demo permit within 45 days or $200? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The demo permit has to be completed within the 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ninety days. MS. ARNOLD: My question is, there's no fine applicable if the structure's not complete within 120 days or the demo is not completed within 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to amend that. The fines would remain the same, $200 a day. And I think we would need the amendment by the second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you amend your second? MR. DeWITTE: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll amend. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Revote for the amended amendment. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 65 June 22, 2006 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Michelle. I was noticing, and I'm just going to ask this and throw it out, 2006-30 and 2006-31 are the same respondent. Could we combine those cases but act out their issuances separately? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. So at this time I'd like to move forward on Case No. 2006-30 and 2006-31. Case is Collier County versus Pablo Ramos. And John Santafemia is the Code Enforcement Officer. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to go ahead and put something on -- MS. GARCIA: Thank you. This is Case No. CEB Case 2006-31, Board of County Commissioners versus Pablo Ramos. The violation of Ordinance 2004-58, subsections four, nine, 11, 12b, 12i, 12k, 17, 19a, 19c, 19d and 20. The description of the violation: Several electrical outlets missing covers, electrical supply wires for water heaters not up to code, peeling paint on the walls of dwelling, broken and inoperable windows, parking area is in disrepair, litter and debris scattered about property, hot water on/off valve missing in shower, no smoke detectors, exterior door missing proper hardware, rotting wood fascia and soffits. The location of the address where violation exists: Is 787 110th Avenue North. Page 66 June 22, 2006 The owner of the person in charge of the violation: Is Pablo A. Ramos. The date the violation first observed: April 4th, 2006. Date the person was given the Notice of Violation: April 6th, 2006. Date on which the violation was to be corrected: May 2nd, 2006. Date of the reinspection: May 15th, 2006. Results of the reinspection: The violation still remain. Do you want me to go on to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, please. MS. GARCIA: CEB Case No. 2006-30, Board of County Commissioners versus Pablo Ramos. I'd like to enter both exhibits, both case numbers as Exhibit A. The violation of Ordinance 2004-58, subsection 11, 12b, 12d, 12i, 12k, 12p, 17, 19a, and 20. The description of the violation: Residentially zoned rental property with numerous minimum housing violations, consisting of a defective exterior lighting fixture, rotting wood fascia and soffits, exposed electrical wires, broken and boarded windows, obstructed second means of ingress/egress, interior doors with missing hardware, interior in need of painting, shower wall in disrepair, parking area in need of repair, litter and debris scattered about property, non-permitted outside storage, and no smoke detectors. Location and address where this violation exists: 791 110th Avenue North. Name and address of the owner or person in charge of the violation: Is Pablo A. Ramos. The date the violation first observed: April 4th, 2006. The date the person in charge was given the Notice of Violation: April 6th, 2006. The date on which the violation was to be corrected: May 2nd, 2006. Page 67 June 22, 2006 The date of the reinspection: May 15th, 2006. The result of the reinspection: Was violations remained. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'd like to accept the motion to accept packets for 2006-30 and 2006-31 as evidence -- MR. PONTE: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. For the record, John Santafemia, Parking Maintenance Specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. If it pleases the board, I would prefer to start with 791, the second case that Ms. Garcia read off. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's actually the first case in our packet. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. Just it would make the time table much easier. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. SANTAFEMIA: On March 14th, 2006 I received a complaint regarding someone living in the storage room in the rear of that location. I made an on-site inspection of the property and I did find a Hispanic male sleeping in a utility room off the back of the building. Page 68 June 22, 2006 The only door to this utility room was a screened door that had no screen in it at the time. I did attempt to wake the gentleman; however, I was not successful. Noone who was living in the residence at the time was home. However, while I was there, I did note numerous violations of our minimum housing ordinance. I also noticed at that time that the property directly to the west of that location, which is the other property, 787, also had numerous violations of the housing code that were visible on the exterior. At that time, I noted the violations that I saw and I contacted the property owner, Mr. Ramos, and advised him that due to the violations that I had seen on the outside, I would like to do an inspection of the inside of the properties, both properties. He agreed. And on April 4th, 2006, we met at the property. The first one was 791. I did obtain a signed entry consent to enter the dwellings, and I did complete a minimum housing inspection report for both properties, but I'll refer to 791 first. I do have photographs of the property that I'd like to submit. Mr. Ramos has not seen these yet. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like that to be your Exhibit B? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to accept Exhibit B. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All nose in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 69 June 22, 2006 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SANT AFEMIA: During my inspection, the violations that I noted, which were read, did consist of exterior light fixtures that were either missing or hanging from electrical wires. The wood fascia and soffit board were rotting, numerous locations on the dwelling. There were several windows on the property that were boarded up, which blocks a save and unobstructed egress from the dwelling in the event that there's a fire or some other reason why the tenants would have to leave the property, could not get to the front door. Windows that were not boarded. There were several that were also broken, inoperable. The interior -- there was an interior door that had no hardware, the handles were missing. Basically the walls needed to be painted. In that first one, 791, the shower basically was falling apart, coming -- tiles were coming off the walls. Exterior: There was litter and debris around pretty much the whole property. The parking area for this dwelling was just dirt, it was an unstabilized surface, and there were no smoke detectors in the property. Both properties are rental properties. I did the inspection with Mr. Ramos, explained the violations to him that I noted. On April 6th of 2006 I met with him again and served him with a Notice of Violation for the violations that I had explained to him previously. I did give him a copy of the inspection reports so that he knew exactly what needed to be repaired at that time. On May 1 st, 2006, I did an on-site inspection and noted that some repairs had begun to the exterior of the dwelling, mainly the soffit; however, the repairs were not consistent with code. Where the Page 70 June 22, 2006 soffit was rotting out, he had just taken some plywood and nailed it over the holes and the rotted wood, which would of course not eliminate the fact that the wood is still rotting beneath it. On May 15th, I did another site inspection, noted that most of the violations that I had seen on the first visits remained. I did speak with one of the tenants, who is here to offer testimony in this case, and she advised me that the violations that were on the interior in her unit, which was 787, the next case, none of them had been repaired at that time and that subsequent conversations she had with the property owner, he indicated to her that he wasn't going to make any repairs. So at that point in time I submitted the case, prepared it for Code Enforcement Board. I did revisit the property on June 13th and noted that there were no changes to the property. And again I visited the property yesterday on June 21 st. Yesterday I did notice that some of the violations were abated; specifically the litter and debris has been cleaned up off the property, and several windows have been replaced. The ones on -- they're very old windows, they're the jalousie windows. Some of the ones that were not working during my initial inspections was due to the fact that the handles were missing. The crank handles were missing. I don't know if those have been repaired or not. As I said, on June 13th they were not. And the electrical supply wires for the water heaters was corrected, so that violation also has been abated. N ow I have photographs of the dwelling to the west, which is 787. I'll let you look at those. As I stated before, on -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to put that in as your Exhibit B for that -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yes, ma'am. Page 71 June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- particular case? MR. DeWITTE: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MR. SANT AFEMIA: As I stated earlier, that while I was inspecting 791, I noticed that 787 also had violations. It was the same property owner. We did the inspections on the same day, March -- I'm sorry, April 4th. I also inspected that property. On -- upon completing that inspection, the violation that I noted for that property were -- consisted of several electrical outlet plates missing, missing their covers. Again, there was water heater, electrical wire issues. They were basically using interior electrical wire on the exterior of the house to supply the water heaters. This one had -- it was paint that was peeling on the west side of the dwelling that needed to be repainted. There were several windows broken, not operable. The -- they share the parking area. Even though they're two separate properties, it's the same owner and the parking area is a shared area between the buildings. So again, I noted that the stabilized surface was not there. This property also had litter and debris scattered about it. On the interior, the shower hot water on/off valve was missing its Page 72 June 22, 2006 handle, and there were also no smoke detectors in this unit. Again, all these violations were noted and pointed out to the property owner during the inspection. He was also provided a copy of this inspection report, along with a separate Notice of Violation for that address. And that's about it. I do have a tenant of 787 here who would like to speak. I don't know at what point in time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She has not been sworn in. Mr. Ramos, would you like to-- MR. RAMOS: I do accept that all these violations are true, and I worked with Mr. Santafemia. I have about 80 percent of them corrected so far. I know he hasn't had a chance to go inside to view this, but I would like a request from the board is maybe 30 days more just to get all these completed, and I promise I'll have them all completed. I had a little bit of problems trying to get access to some units because door locks were changed and I didn't have a copy of the keys. I didn't know about these violations prior to this because they're rental units. So the tenants don't call me and say that something is wrong, then I don't have any way of knowing. But I did walk the place with him, I understand what is to be corrected. And all I request from the board is more time and I promise I'll have them all corrected. MR. KELLY: I have a quick question. Was there any type of stipulation that was talked about or discussed prior to this? Because it sounds like -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. And I understand what you're saying. During the time that I was working this case, I don't know if he was out of town or what, but he was not returning my phone calls. He was unreachable. And like I said, on subsequent inspections to the initial one, I noticed that nothing was being done. And due to the fact that some of Page 73 June 22, 2006 these violations are health and safety violations and could be hazardous to the tenants, I felt that it needed to go to the board and get it taken care of as soon as possible. MR. RAMOS: I did contact Mr. Santafemia requesting more time. He said -- well, he said my boss, he told me to just send it to the board. He said I recommend you try to get as much done by that date of the meeting so that the board can, you know, say okay, you're trying to correct this. You have good faith to get this done. And just more time is what I need and I'll get it done. But I did contact him. I'm not too familiar with the stipulations and all those things, but he did say it's too late, I already submit it. I can't grant more time. It has to be up to the board how much they want to treat this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have Florida licensed contractors doing the repairs? MR. RAMOS: In this case I don't. Some of the repairs do not require a contract -- a licensed contractor to do it because they're minor, just minor paint, debris scattered around. Some -- if the windows -- I just noticed, because John told me, if the windows were to be replaced, I would have to get a permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: So is 30 days reasonable if the windows do have to be replaced? MR. SANT AFEMIA: They already have. MR. RAMOS: It will be reasonable. MR. SANTAFEMIA: On my visit yesterday, the violations that I noted were corrected. And just to clarify your question real quick, the contact that I did not have with him was prior to submitting it to CEB. He did contact me about a week ago, probably when he got the notice of hearing, and at that point in time I really had no other option. It was already submitted on the agenda. As far as the windows, the windows -- he's already replaced Page 74 June 22, 2006 several windows that I noticed yesterday. That's why I informed him today that -- to repair them he didn't need a permit, but to replace them, he did. So he's aware of it now. He has to go get an after - the- fact. MR. LEFEBVRE: After-the-fact permit and then inspections. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Yes. MR. PONTE: I'm concerned with some of the electrical wiring and water hearing and that sort of thing. Are there children present? MR. SANT AFEMIA: There are children I believe in the front unit of 787. MS. FISHER: My children visit. MR. SANT AFEMIA: This is the tenant from the rear unit. She has children that visit with her. I didn't see any children in 791 when I did that inspection. It was with the property owner's permission. And the only people that I saw there were adults. So on 787, I believe there are kids, but 791, I'm not -- I don't know. MR. PONTE: And a matter of the electrical work. According to Mr. Ramos, he has not had any contractors out there, so that the electrical work in its faulty condition still exists; is that correct? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Well, the thing about the electrical that concerned me the most was that he was -- they were using exterior cable for -- I'm sorry, interior electrical wire on the outside of the house. I required -- I asked him to put that in conduit to keep it from the weather, basically. So I didn't know -- I just noticed that yesterday. And this is the first conversation I've had with him. I did not know whether he had gotten a contractor to do that work or not. Apparently not. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Question for the tenant. If you could step up to the microphone. And also, if you could identify yourself for the record. Page 75 June 22, 2006 MS. FISHER: My name's Belinda Fisher. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. I'm wondering if in fact some of the work that he's stated has been fixed. MS. FISHER: Yes, sir, it has. I had a few things I wanted to say about it. I vacated June 12th. And because I was in fear of my safety, pretty much. I had a light receptacle outside of my door that sparked. I've got pictures that he doesn't have. Also, it took -- I called Mr. Ramos many, many times about repairs and he ignored my calls. My final straw was -- I think it was first on May 3rd, a man drove through my front yard and got stuck in the sand next to my house. And he knocked on my door, he was very drunk, and he said he was there to measure for the windows. And he was stuck. His car was there all night. I did take pictures of it. And when I called Mr. Ramos, he said he didn't send him over there, he was friends with the people up front and I should call the police, which I didn't. The guy left his car there, he got it out the next day. He tore up my phone, my Internet, my cable wires. And then Mr. Ramos returned with the same worker on the 26th at 8:30 in the morning when I was leaving for work, and he stated that they would be replacing the windows. And I have animals and furniture and computers and things inside of my house that would have to be moved. And I said, you're not giving me notice. He said, I can come in your house anytime I want. So I was shaking like I am now. I'm nervous. And I was very upset. I called Mr. Santafemia and he said I needed to call the police. So I told the worker -- Mr. Ramos had left and I told the worker that if you start work on this house, I'm calling the police. He said -- he said something in Spanish to me. When I went inside, I was being cussed out in Spanish from the workers Page 76 June 22, 2006 outside. They just went and got some used windows, brought them back, proceeded to sit and drink with one of the neighbors in the yard for the rest of the afternoon. I called Mr. Ramos at that time and told him if he would give me advanced notice, I'd be grateful to have my windows fixed, grateful for it. And I never heard back from him. The next day they returned, they started sawing into the cement. I was -- I've been a mess over it. And I was worried about my animals. I couldn't leave my house. The guys out there yelling at me, telling me I'm next. I called the police, they shut down the job, no work permit, no licensed contractor. And I can tell you that I have communicated with this man a lot, and he's made up a lot of excuses. He said that no one can get in because of my dog, which is untrue. She's got a kennel. Mr. Santafemia's been in my home. One of the plumbers -- it took three plumbers to fix a faulty drain. And it just goes on and on. The roaches. And there are people living next door in just horrible conditions and they're afraid to complain because of retaliation of losing their home. And I told them that they needed to call Mr. Santafemia, and they won't. They won't do it. The people up front -- and this is the last thing I'll say. The people up front were broken into last week and lost a lot of money. That door, the front door, you can just pull it right open. There's no lock on it. There's also four or five people living in take place, which is no bigger than mine. And I had a two-person limit tenancy on my lease, and there's four or five people in that place. I shared a water heater with them when my water heater broke. And it was four months -- he just replaced the water heater just a week or so ago. I shared a water heater with four or five other people. It was one of the little jobs. And before that, I went six weeks. I had to Page 77 June 22, 2006 push the reset button to get hot water for about five minutes. I started looking for a place my second month there. And it's taken me this long, but I'm there. I've actually rented from one of the neighbors in one of the nicer homes across the street. They found a home for me. So they watched what was going on and I think the whole neighborhood's kind of fed up. That's all I've got, thanks. MR. KELLY: I've got a question for you. Without leading, in the past this board has ruled in situations such as these where safety violations exist to deny occupancy immediately until the safety violation are corrected. Given your relationship with the people and how well you know the situation, would you feel that that would be excessive or would that definitely be necessary in this case? MS. FISHER: The unit in the back next door, the water just pours through the roof when it rains. And there are wires. They're afraid for retaliation. They don't have the information that I have. I have a lot now since I met -- I was so grateful to see him on the property. I've been accused of calling code enforcement. I've been harassed. I've been threatened by the neighbors. There's drug traffic. They drink all night long and then they sleep in the lawn chairs outside. So within a month of living there, I was trying to move. And it takes a while when you have animals and you can't afford very much. I'd say the unit in the back -- and I really can't speak for the one in the front, I've never been in it. There are some nice people that live there, I will say that. There was only one person that I really didn't get along with, and that's where I felt that the drug traffic is. And that is also the unit that has -- it's two rooms. It's very, very tiny, about as big as a closet. And there's no cooking. There's nothing in there. But they're -- and I was told by them that when they said something about the roof, that the mother of the landlord said that we are not putting any money into this place, we're not fixing it. That was some time Page 78 June 22, 2006 ago, and I was not present for that. That's only what I was told, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time, I'll go ahead and close the hearing, unless there's any other questions. MR. RAMOS: Can I say something? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. RAMOS: All I request from the board is to give me that time and then Mr. Santafemia can go back with me and re-inspect everything else again. I can't really say if there is any kind of drug abuse or dealing or anything like that. When the tenants usually call me about these kind of issues I just say call the police, file a report and find out, you know, what's going on. Like I said, you know, living conditions on the property are based upon the tenants and how they want to live. I mean, I have tried to keep a good standard of living on these properties, but, you know, if the tenant themselves, you know, they damage the property and things like that, I have to go back and repair all these things. And as you see on the pictures, I mean, debris and things like that, they -- I tried to enforce this and tell the tenants, listen, clean up after yourself, make this look good, like a nice place to live, something like that. Some of them cooperate, some of them don't. Sometimes I have to get people evicted and things like that. But like I said, you know, at this point what we can do is if you guys are willing to grant me more time, I'll get all these things repaired within 30 days and we'll do a final walk through with the code enforcement. But I am confident that in two weeks at the most I can get -- because I'm almost there. I'm 80 percent done with all the things you see in the picture. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. At this time I would go ahead and close the public hearing. Discussion amongst board? MR. DEAN: Madam Chairman? Page 79 June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DEAN: I guess my main concern is like when you're a landlord and you provide rental units to people, your property should be up to date. And if you say that you haven't gone in to see it but can't get in for some reason, that's baloney. And I'm concerned about who's going to be doing repairs. Ifhe's 80 percent done, he's going to do the remaining 20. We're talking about rotting soffits and electrical. And how qualified is the landlord to do this, or is he calling out to have it done? And that would be my main concern. Because a lot of places, if anyone wants to be a landlord and collect rent, that's all well and good, but you have to provide a decent living quarter. And in a lot of these pictures it shows that this is not a decent place to live. Thank you. MR. RAMOS: I do -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're not allowed to speak. The hearing is closed. Sorry. MR. KELLY: Looking through the pictures, I recognize the property. Back in 2000, my firm was asked to give estimates to repair the roof at the time, which I believe was a previous owner, and it was deemed that this was not repairable in any way. So I think from here on, he probably would have to get a roofer to replace that. And knowing a little bit about roofing right now, it's going to be difficult to find someone in 30 days. We probably should take that under consideration when we continue. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? MR. PONTE: I'm just really concerned about the safety issues and the other tenants. How many units are involved? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Four. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We only have two cited. MR. PONTE: We only have two cited, that's right. But there are similar units in the area. Page 80 June 22, 2006 MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. MR. PONTE: I don't know what we can do. But I think it's extremely serious. And 30 days doesn't do it for me. I don't think you can do it in 30 days. What's our alternative? What do we do about the tenants that are there? MR. DeWITTE: I think we have to make a differentiation between permitted and nonpermitted work first on. Try to get the permitted work done in a suitable time frame as possible. Thirty dates is fine. MR. PONTE: But it's the permitted work that needs to be done that's the hazard. MR. DeWITTE: Understood. But you said 30 days probably wouldn't do it, so we need to address that separately. We need to ensure that licensed contractors are doing the work as part of the stipulation, and then we just need to put a time limit on the fines to get it repaired. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have to have a motion first. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: First we have to have a motion on the cases, taking them one at a time, as to whether or not violations do exist. So I will entertain motions for Case No. 2006-30. Do we have a violation? MR. PONTE: I will make a motion that a violation exists in that case as described in the charging documents. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. Page 81 June 22, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'll go ahead and move, because we're working on cases simultaneously, to 2006-31. Do we have a violation? MR. DeWITTE: I make a motion that we have a violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now we'll get -- performing necessary requirements to come into compliance to fixing these cases. MR. DeWITTE: As we start to form this, what are operational costs in the two cases? MR. SANT AFEMIA: In the first case, which is 30 on your agenda is $313.60. And in the second case is $285.16. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time, I'll ask you if you have any recommendations? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Yes, I do. In both cases, actually, Collier County's recommendations: Due to the fact that there are health and safety issues that I felt were serious, I am requesting that the property owner be fined $500 for each property and pay the operational costs that were stated for each property . That he repair and correct all minimum housing violations that Page 82 June 22, 2006 were listed in the inspection report within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed for each day any violation continues. That would be for each property. And that the respondent notify code enforcement or myself within 24 hours of abatement for final inspection on the properties. Now, just -- I wasn't aware, he just told me a short time ago that he had somebody look at the roof. Very difficult to see those roofs. If you're familiar with the property, they're hard to see from the ground, so I wasn't real sure if there was a roof issue or not. But he did tell me that that's why the soffits are rotting is because it's leaking through the roof. And he just found that out, too. So when I made the recommendations, I was not aware of that and that's why I went with the 30 days because of all the health and safety type violations there. MR. KELLY: If I could, I know it's closed. Can I ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KELLY: Sir, were you able to find a roofer that could do it in 30 days? MR. RAMOS: Actually, I got an adjustor from the insurance company that's coming over today to look at what's wrong with the roof. And then after that I have a licensed roofing company who were going to give me an estimate. They are saying within 30 days they could have it done, but, you know, that's just a verbal estimation they gave me. So I don't know, they might say well, we got delayed. You know, things might happen, and I don't have a solid contractor that said they would do it, but I got a verbal. I don't know if that counts. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does anybody want to try to grapple with it? MR. DeWITTE: I'll start with Case 2006-30. That the respondent pay operational costs of $313.60. That all -- that the Page 83 June 22, 2006 respondent repair and correct all minimum housing violations that have been cited. And that he will be given 30 days to get all nonpermitted work corrected, or a fine of $200 per day would ensue. And that he be given 60 days to get all work requiring a permit corrected. And that this work be performed by licensed contractors, or a fine of $200 per day would ensue. And then he give 24 hours notice to the Code Enforcement Board ( sic) for reinspection. Give notice within 24 hours of all repairs being done to the Code Enforcement Board for reinspection. MR. KELLY: I'd like to second the motion. MR. PONTE: Before we do that, just so there's no confusion, were you moved to making one 60 days? Or an additional 30 days, if that's what you mean. Rather than thinking in terms of 30 days and 60 days is 90 days. MR. DeWITTE: For clarification, the non-permitted work is to be done within 30 days of today and the permitted work must be completed within 60 days of today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we have two reinspections, one after the nonpermitted work? MR. DeWITTE: Yes, let's do that. So the nonpermitted work, again, within 24 hours of being completed, to notify code enforcement for inspection, and the permitted work also to be inspected within 24 hours of completion to notify Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 84 June 22, 2006 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. DeWITTE: And to expedite, if we could use the same verbiage in Case 2006-31, with the one change that operational costs are $285.16. Everything else verbatim. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. GRIFFIN: Madam Chair, just as a point of clarification, was there a fine included in the first motion you made with regard to that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, it was $200 a day on each item. MR. GRIFFIN: But no automatic fine, no automatic penalty. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No automatic fine. We did not do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's understood, respondent understands that after 30 days for nonpermitted work, you're going to have to notify within 24 hours for him to come out and reinspect it. And then after 60 days for the permitted work, another reinspection. So there's two inspections. MR. DeWITTE: And if either of those are failed, $200 a day Page 85 June 22, 2006 will accrue on either item. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You might get together with him to know which ones are permitted -- MR. RAMOS: Permitted and which ones I can do myself. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. MR. PONTE: Mr. Ramos, let me make a recommendation to you. When you go out to get the contractors or the licensed people who are going to have to work, such as roofers, be sure to tell them that you're under a possible fining situation, so that will add a little fire into their trying to help you out quickly. MR. RAMOS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Go to Case No. -- MS. GARCIA: Did you want to take a lunch break? We still have one case left and then we have old business and we have discussion for a special master, which we need to discuss. And actually, one of the board members would like to bring up something under new business, and I've been told that -- MS. ARNOLD: The respondent is not present for the next hearing. We could go through and do our business and then have lunch. Unless-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's fine with me. If Cherie's okay. All right, move on to Case No. 2006-32. That's Collier County versus Lyjac Properties, Richard Lydie, registered agent. And Susan O'Farrell is representing the county. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to go ahead and MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Board Secretary. I'd like to enter County's Exhibit A into evidence. Board of County Commissioners versus Lyjac Properties, Page 86 June 22, 2006 Richard Lydie, registered agent. CEB Case No 2006-32. The violation of Section 4.06.05(J)(2). The description of the violation: The buffer that shields Airport Road from the commercial parking of the property is severely deficient in required landscape trees. The location where the violation exists: 771 Airport Road North. The person in charge of the violation: Is Lyjac Properties, LLC. The date of the violation was first observed: Is August 26th of 2005. The date the owner was given notice of the violation: Was on November 4th of 2005 -- there's a correction on here. And the date on which the violation was to be corrected: Is December 9th, of'05, also a correction. The date of reinspection, 3-31 of '06. Results of reinspection: Is the violation still remain. MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, environmental investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. I have a photo that I'd like to enter in as Exhibit B. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. O'FARRELL: This is on Airport Road, almost directly Page 87 June 22, 2006 across from the airport. There's an Orion Bank on the corner there, and then this part of the shopping center is a little bit farther south. Also for the record, Christal Segura, who was a previous Investigator on Code Enforcement, handled this case up until October 21 st. So the date line that I would give you would be partly her notes. On August 23rd, Christal Segura, who was investigator number 44, I believe was her number, opened the case and ordered a site development plan from our records department. On August 26th, I was on-site with Christal to inspect the number of missing trees. Only the trees that are along Airport Road are mIssIng. On August 30th, Christal wrote a Notice of Violation and gave Mr. Lydie, who's the registered agent for Lyjac, a deadline of November 11th of'05. She attempted to personally serve this Notice of Violation. No one was at the property and so she called and left a message. She got the phone number from one of the tenants that's also in the building. On September 1st, Mr. Lydie called. He spoke to Christal and told her that he had lost trees in the '04 hurricanes. He is applying for an unsubstantial change to the site development plan. Because he wants to replace the live oaks with palms, his NOV was revised to give time for that site development process, the insubstantial change. She still was not able to personally serve the NOV, and so she called Mr. Lydie. He asked that the Notice of Violation be sent to his address in Ohio, certified mail. On 10-21, he contacted Christal saying he was having problems getting a contractor or a landscape architect to submit the plans for the insubstantial plans to his site development plan. On November 4th, I met with Mr. Lydie on his property. I served him with a revised NOV. It had a deadline of 12-9. He told me that he had three bids for a palm installation but still had not done Page 88 June 22, 2006 anything about his site development changes. He said that Wilma was causing him a lot of contracting problems. On 12-12, which would have been three days after the deadline, I left a message and received no response. On 12-21, I called Mr. Lydie who told me that I should call his office assistant Susan at the office. She told me that Landscape Florida had visited and given a proposal and he will review and approve. On January 12th, I called Susan at the office. She said she would send me a faxed copy from Florida Landscape. No fax arrived from the office. And I observed that the hedge that you can see in the photo is now also failing. On the 8th of February, I called Mr . Lydie, who has the proposal and will fax it to me. He will call me when it's been approved. I received no fax. On the 28th of February, I called Mr. Lydie, he will fax me the signed contract. This time I received a fax of an unsigned contract. L ydle states he say waiting for Florida Landscape to install the palms and shrubs and to replace any other dying plants. On March 6th, I called Eric Evans of Landscape Florida who stated he had not received any authorization from Mr. Lydie regarding any installation at all. I called Mr. Lydie who stated he had a problem with a tenant and has no money. And I stated that I wished that he had been a little more honest about the situation and that the only process I could follow now was to go ahead start preparation for CEB. On March 6th to the present I have received no calls from Mr. Lydie. The 31st I did a site visit. The violation remains. During my preparation of the Code Enforcement Board paperwork, supervisor Patti Petrulli spoke with Mr. Lydie on the phone who again explained his financial problems. She asked me what my interpretation of this was and what my recommendation was, and I did not recommend more time, because of the extensions already Page 89 June 22, 2006 given. And due to Lydie's lack of effort in communicating with me or abating the violation. That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: Was there any change to the -- was there -- I'm sorry, let me rephrase it. Have there been any stipulations granted county-wide due to storm damage that allows for variances such as this or extended time frames or anything along those lines? MS. O'FARRELL: Those resolutions were passed after Wilma. These trees were lost after the hurricanes in '04. So there were no resolutions in 2004. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MR. PONTE: Investigator, I have a -- I need some help here. I've read 40605J2. And I'm trying to link it to the order to correct and order to correct the violations. Which the order to correct is very, very specific. How is that related to the very general terminology and phraseology used in the actual ordinance? MS. O'FARRELL: In 4.06.05(J)(2), in the middle of the paragraph, any plant materials of whatsoever type or kind required by these regulations shall be replaced within 30 days of their demise and/or removal. MR. PONTE: And so what's missing? MS. O'FARRELL: What's missing is the trees in front of his property . MR. PONTE: How many trees? MS. O'FARRELL: Two. MR. PONTE: Two trees. MS. O'FARRELL: They should have a buffer that he's maintaining. Under this ordinance or code here they would have native canopy trees every 30 feet and a double row hedge of three-gallon shrubs. MR. PONTE: And they at one time existed and were there and they had to be removed, or storm damage? Page 90 June 22, 2006 MS. O'FARRELL: No, he's saying that he lost some due to the storm, two trees. But they were there at one time. MR. KELL Y: In a previous case today, we heard that there was an allowance in those -- in that code or that Land Development Code that allowed for 20 percent of the vegetation to die, for lack of a better word, without having to be replaced. Does it fall within that 20 percent? MS. O'FARRELL: I don't think it would fall within that 20 percent, because this is a right-of-way buffer. It's shielding the parking area from Airport Road vehicular track. I have the site development plan here. And actually the trees that have been replaced with non-native trees, trees that have died and not been replaced, has already exceeded that 20 percent. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just clarify that what we were talking about earlier was a mitigation section, and then this is required landscaping. So the 20 percent rule would be -- MS. O'FARRELL: There's a lot of confusion on mitigation plans and landscape plans. MR. PONTE: Just one other question. Why is the hedge not a buffer? MS. O'FARRELL: According to our buffer matrix, which I just so happen to have right here, this property needs to have a type D buffer, which is a vehicular traffic adjacent to parking areas. And it calls for trees planted 30 foot on center in the landscape buffer, and it calls for a continuous three-gallon double row hedge spaced three feet on center, at least 24 in height at time of planting, and maintaining three feet of height within one year. And I can enter this into an exhibit, if you'd like. MR. PONTE: That's not necessary for me. MS. ARNOLD: I think what she's saying is that it requires a hedge and the trees. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Page 91 June 22, 2006 MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, then I will close this hearing and move to the board. Any discussion, finding of fact? MR. DeWITTE: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MR. DeWITTE: Does the county have a recommendation? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I have a recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to enlighten us with that, please? MS. O'FARRELL: I would recommend that the respondent pay operational costs in the amount of $498.08 incurred in the prosecution of the case. As the landscape buffer is continuing to deteriorate, I would recommend that the buffer be restored with the required trees and shrubs. Those trees would be native canopy trees with a mitigation height of 14 feet at time of planting, rated Florida #1, and three-inch caliber at breast height planted 30 feet on center. The shrubs would be a three-gallon double row placed three feet on center at time of planting and maintaining a three-foot minimum Page 92 June 22, 2006 height within one year. I would recommend that the respondent complete all agreed upon items on or before Monday, July 24th, 2006 or pay a daily fine of $1,50 to be imposed as long as the violation continues. I would recommend that the respondent must notify code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site visit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does anyone want to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I'd like a little discussion first. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, discussion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I feel that the $150 a day may be excessive. I think somewhere probably along the lines of 75 to maybe $100 a day may be more appropriate. MR. PONTE: I agree. MR. DEAN: I wouldn't agree with that. Only the fact that -- the reason I disagree, and I like the 150 is the fact that the runaround that they gave code enforcement, not telling the truth, sending a contract that's not signed and all the things they did, they deserve 150. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Someone want to attempt a motion? MR. DeWITTE: I'll make a motion to accept the county's proposal. MR. DEAN: I second. MR. PONTE: At $1 OO? MR. DEAN: At 150. MR. PONTE: At 150. I think that's-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Page 93 June 22, 2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That was a 4-3, I believe; 4-3 for the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe that concludes the hearings. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Ready to move to old business? Michelle, I don't know if this falls under old business or new business, but we were supposed to have had a meeting to go over our rules and regulation back in March, and we have not had that yet. And I actually had a board member ask me if we could have kind of a meeting to get together so that we could discuss how we want to handle things. Because they keep coming up with the nonpermitted things that we can't find out whether there was ever a permit. And how the board -- because it seems to perplex us when we're sitting up here how do we handle it. And so they want to have some open discussion on that and some guidance from the county as well. So I don't know how we need to go about getting that. MR. PONTE: I would also suggest that to also suggest that we, you know, discuss at that time some kind of timed controlled mechanism for testimony. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, it got out of hand today because I didn't know how to stop the lady trying to present her case, other than reminding her that we had a 20-minute time frame. Page 94 June 22, 2006 MR. DeWITTE: Also, if it would be possible, I don't know if it is, but it might be useful to have somebody from the permitting department, a representative from there, to come speak to us? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, what I think we can do is schedule a workshop. I'll do that through Shirley, try to coordinate with you all for availability. And the items that we will discuss -- we of course can discuss other item -- would be time controls for testimony, building permit -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And anybody have any ideas for changes to our current rules and regs, if there are any suggestions. MS. ARNOLD: There's nothing that I'm aware of. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't know if some of the new members might have some ideas or suggestions. I don't know. MS. ARNOLD: Well, you're not a policy-making board. You're quasi judicial, but you don't make policy in terms of building permits or anything. MR. PONTE: No, no, no. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, our own regulations. MR. PONTE: Our own board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have not done that this year. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, for the rules and regs you're talking about. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: For our rules and regs is what I'm saYIng. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, I thought you were talking about building permits. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, no, no, no, our rules and regs. MR. PONTE: No, on the building permits, really, it's the old building permits that are giving us the problem. So the representative from the permitting department were to focus on permits today, that's not what our problem is. Our problem is from 1974, the tough case Page 95 June 22, 2006 from the last session, that sort of old stuff where there doesn't seem to be any records. MS. ARNOLD: Well, it all depends on how we prove our case. MR. PONTE: That's right. MS. ARNOLD: I mean, it's -- you can't prove that there's records that never existed. So I mean, I think that's part of -- some of the problems that is happening. Because the other side may be saying that well, they're -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They can't prove that they didn't exist either. MS. ARNOLD: Right. They're not providing any evidence that it was and it's lost. We're providing evidence that there wasn't ever any permit. And it's difficult, I know, for you all to -- MS. BARNETT: Well, times have changed, too. And I know Mr. Kelly and I are sitting here on a hard situation, because we've lived here -- I've lived here since 1956, and I know that things have changed as far as how permits were handled back then. MR. KELLY: Michelle, if I could, a recommendation. A general time line as to when permits were required, what type, land development codes and amendments in which each building code was adopted so we know kind of how to gauge and decide when these cases are presented. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But that's stuff that we need to hash out at the workshop? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, sure. And I think in part of our case presentation, if that information be presented as well, I think Investigator Ybaceta tried to, because he was going by a '74 time period and got thrown for a loop today about existing prior to that. So he didn't have the '68 records with him, so -- MR. PONTE: It throws us for as loop, too, it really does. Because we don't know where we are. And then we're left with a very Page 96 June 22, 2006 vague feeling, how can I find that there is a violation when I'm not convinced of it. MS. ARNOLD: Well, then you make the very best decision that you can. That's what you're there for. MR. PONTE: I know, that's what we did. MS. RAWSON: Well, you can only consider the evidence as presented to you here today in front of you, not any independent study of your own or driving by the property or doing your own research. You have to only make your decision based on the evidence in the record. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. And on -- MS. RAWSON: So if the county doesn't give you everything you think you need, then you just have to listen to what the county gave you and make a decision. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: One of the things that we have been talking to the building department about is having a representative at our meetings. It's not always possible because of course they've got their heavy work loads as well. But, you know, whenever we can and they have information that is relevant to the case that's being presented, we try to have them here. MR. DeWITTE: But I think if we could get them at a workshop, some open discussion with them would be real valuable to us. MR. PONTE: I agree. MS. ARNOLD: And as you all think of other things, I've got three things here: Building permits, and Shirley invite the building department, rules and regs, and time frames -- time controls on testimony. If you have other things that you think of inbetween us now trying to schedule the meeting, please feel free to e-mail myself or Shirley on that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Question. Do all the new Page 97 June 22, 2006 members have copies of the rules and regs? MR. KELLY: Yes, I do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So you might want to go through those and see if you see anything that needs to be changed. And we used to go through word changes such as shall and may and -- MR. PONTE: Not again. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I mean, just to give you a they've been kind of gone through, but if you guys see anything or you notice anything, bring it forward. Do we have any reports? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I know you brought up to me that we need to have a discussion regarding the special master review board. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The ordinance for the special master requires a review committee or board to meet annually and evaluate her performance. There was a committee that was established as part of our PE process to make that selection. I don't have the ordinance in front of me unfortunately. I can't remember if there's two board members that are required or three. So I'm asking for at least three names of -- two names and then -- I already see Mr. Kelly's hand up. And a third as an alternate so that we could -- I think what we probably will have to do is just determine how you all would evaluate that performance, and then have, you know, an annual meeting. And part of the review board also consists of staff and a representative I think from purchasing. I'll have to look at that. So if I can have volunteers? MR. PONTE: What kind of qualifications or requirements are you looking for from the volunteers? In other words, if you were to put together a blue ribbon panel of evaluators, what kind of background do you want? Page 98 June 22, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Anyone sitting on the Code Enforcement Board. MR. DEAN: I'd be happy to do it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DeWITTE: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would like to ask you to. MR. DeWITTE: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So there's your three. MS. ARNOLD: And who will be the first two? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess the first two that volunteered. MS. ARNOLD: And I have some bad news, sad news. Steven Griffin is going to be leaving us and will no longer be representing us. So I'm sad to hear that he's resigned from the county and will be going back up north. MR. PONTE: Thank you for your service and time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I'm going to miss you. You better tell them that they need to put somebody in place that will interrupt me and tell me I need to do something. MR. GRIFFIN: It's been a pleasure to assist in any way that I actually have assisted. No, I'm going back to Indiana, I'm going to work for the state environmental agency to work for their legal counsel. MS. RAWSON: I'd like to know why our lawyers never stay. MR. GRIFFIN: Has something to do with housing costs. MS. RAWSON: There you go. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sorry to see you go. MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If that's it, the next meeting is going to be July 27th, I believe at the courthouse. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. Page 99 June 22, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :00 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRPERSON Page 100