Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/27/2006 R July 27, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida July 27, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett (Absent) Larry Dean Justin DeWitte (Absent) Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring Gerald Lefebvre Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 27, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 22, 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS- A. STIPULA TIONS - 1. Lyjac Properties B. HEARINGS CEB 2006-32 1. 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. 2006-35 2432 LAKE AVE NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 75760960004) CLOE WATERFIELD EVERILDO YBACET A ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A),10.02.06(B)(1)(D), AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITION, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 02-01, SECTION 104.1.3.5 DESCRIPTION: MULTIPLE UN-PERMITTED STORAGE STRUCTURES IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND A LARGE STRUCTURE UNDER RENOVATION. 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-28 109 INAGUA LN. BONITA SPRINGS, FL. (FOLIO # 5475412004) MARCOS & LAURA SOTO THOMAS KEEGAN ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 3.04.01, 3.04.02(B), 9.04.06(A-H) 10.02.03(A-B), 10.02.06(B)(H)(I) DESCRIPTION: VARIOUS STRUCTURES, FIXTURES AND UNNATURALLY OCCURRING VEGETATION WEST OF THE CCSL & WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS. 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 4. CASE NO: 2006-37 CASE ADDR: 320 W. MAIN ST. IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 60183800109) OWNER: DALILA GRIMALDO INSPECTOR: THOMAS KEEGAN VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(D), AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2001 EDITION, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 02-01, SECTION 104.1.1 DESCRIPTION: IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY WITHOUT NECESSARY PERMITS. 5. CASE NO: 2006-41 CASE ADDR: 2181 PLATT RD. NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 00104440003) OWNER: LISA MARIE HODGE INSPECTOR: THOMAS KEEGAN VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 05-44 SEe.6, 7 & 8 DESCRIPTION: ACCUMULATION OF LITTER 6. CASE NO: 2006-38 CASE ADDR: 316 SCHOOL DR. NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 00119120004) OWNER: INOCENTE PANTOJA & ABELARDO MARTINEZ, SR. INSPECTOR: CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SEe. 6 SUB-SECT10N(S) 12B, 12C, 121, 17 DESCRIPTION: STRUCTURES WITH ROOF DAMAGE, UNSECURED OPEN DOORS AND WINDOWS REQUIRING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 7. CASE NO: 2006-39 CASE ADDR: 190 S. 3RD ST. NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 25581120002) OWNER: CALEXICO, INC. OSORNIO SANTOS REG. AGENT INSPECTOR: CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 81-52 SEe. 1 DESCRIPTION: NO COLLIER COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR BUSINESS OPERATION OF A ROOMING HOUSEIDORMITORY 8. CASE NO: 2006-40 CASE ADDR: 205 S. 1 ST ST IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 25630400000) OWNER: ADAN HERNANDEZ INSPECTOR: CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SEe.16 SUB-SECTION(S) 1 A,D,J,K, 2A,B, D, G, H,K,L, SEe. 17 DESCRIPTION: A VACANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING REQUIRING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. DAMAGED ROOF, UNSECURED OPEN WINDOW. 5. OLD BUSINESS - Request for Reduction of Fines 1. BCC vs. James & Sherry Marshall CEB 2004-72 6. NEW BUSINESS - 7. REPORTS - NO REPORTS 8. COMMENTS- 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 24,2006 10. ADJOURN July 27, 2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, why don't we call the board to order. Good morning. Thank you everyone for attending. This is the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County, Florida, July 27th, 2006. Please note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Also, please, in order for the court reporter to get an accurate record, please wait to be acknowledged by the Chair prior to speaking. Today we have I believe two excused absences, Sheri Barnett and Justin DeWitte. Ms. Garcia, may we have the roll call, please? MS. GARCIA: Yes. For the record, Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Board Secretary. Roll call. We'll start with George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. GARCIA: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. GARCIA: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. MS. GARCIA: Justin DeWitte has got an excused absence. And Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. GARCIA: Thank you. Page 2 July 27, 2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. We have a revised agenda which I believe we all have. Can I get a motion to approve the revised agenda? MR. PONTE: I make a motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, motion carries. Also, we have approval of the minutes from June 22nd, 2006. Any commentary? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do I have a motion to approve? MR. DEAN: I make a motion to approve the June 22nd minutes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, motion carries to approve. We'll now move to the public hearing section of the agenda. And Page 3 July 27, 2006 do we have any motions from the county? MS. GARCIA: Yes. We have one request for a public comment on Case No. 2006-28. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, that would be Lyjac Properties? MS. GARCIA: No, I'm sorry, 2006-28, Marcos Soto. Board of County Commissioners versus -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. MS. GARCIA: -- Marcos Soto. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That's where the comment is, okay. All right, do we have a motion to accept public comment on this case? MR. DEAN: I'll make the motion to accept public comments. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So moved. So we will accept that. I believe those folks are here today. And if you'd like to hear that first, we'll just move that out of order. Should we be swearing in the comment? MS. RAWSON: Is this a comment on this case that you have a stipulation on? MS. GARCIA: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That's correct. MS. RAWSON: So do you want to do them all at the same time? In other words, don't you want to do the stipulation and the comment Page 4 July 27, 2006 together? MR. SCRIBNER: I think that would be in the best interest of expediting the whole process, so the board hears the comment. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, why don't we hear the comment first and then proceed with the stipulation. MR. SCRIBNER: I think it might be better if we just do the stipulation, because I think that might give you the background for the comments. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Very good. Okay, why don't we move to that. MR. SCRIBNER: And for the record, David Scribner, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We'll call you up in just a second, folks, okay? All right, so we are going to accept that public comment when the time comes due for that. Move to the stipulation sections, we have two stipulated agreements, from what we understand. The first, Lyjac Properties. Do you need to read anything into the record? MR. SCRIBNER: I think at this point we're going to -- there are some minor details being worked out on that. So I think we'll call the second stipulation. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We call Marcos and Laura Soto. Are the respondents here? MR. SCRIBNER: This is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Marcos and Laura Soto, CEB Case No. 2006-28. Department Case No. 2006-01-0199. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case is on 4310 East Street Northeast. It's a -- the violation is for 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) of Ordinance 04-41. 10.02.06(B)(1)(D) of Page 5 July 27, 2006 Ordinance 04-41. 10.02.06(B)(1)(D)(I) of Ordinance 04-41, and 104.1.1 of Ordinance 2002-01. 104.1.3.5 of Ordinance 2002-01 for unpermitted animal structures on property zoned in the Estates. The owner of the property and myself have reached an agreement for them to pay operational costs of $349.29. The structures were removed as of my last recheck on 7-3-06. And he has agreed to pay operational costs, like I said, of $349.29. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. Is the respondent here today? MR. KEEGAN: No, he actually has an operation today in Miami. I met with him on the 24th and he signed the agreement. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. So we have record of that? MS. GARCIA: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have any comments from the board? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Ifwe don't have any comment, I'll make -- do we have a motion to accept the stipulations as approved? Would you do the honor? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right then, the board and the Page 6 July 27, 2006 county are accepting the stipulated agreement as printed here. I don't believe we need to read this into the record. Now, we do want to hear public comment on this from those folks. Why don't you come on up. Folks, this is not typical, but we are going to allow you three minutes to express your comments. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you want them sworn in? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yeah, why don't we swear you In. MR. SOTO: Do we each get three minutes? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: No, I think it's a total of three minutes to hear what your comments are. But we're going to have you sworn In. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: May I ask your name for the record, please. MS. RIMONDI: My name is Kathleen Rimondi. (Phonetic.) MR. RIMONDI: Guy Rimondi. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. MS. RIMONDI: We're neighbors of Mr. and Mrs. Soto, and we are here because we feel it's critical that you don't approve the stipulation, and we'd like to ask your consideration to reconsider that. We do not feel that they are in compliance. The original Notice of Violation 0101099 ending letters, all three unpermitted structures were awarded in that Notice of Violation. It's been confused into being singled down into one animal shed. We have aerial pictures and we have photos to show you all three un- permitted structures. There's a reference in the Notice of Violation to the Notice of Violation that was written prior to that. These three unpermitted animal structures -- not one. One is fully still on the property and two of them are partially still on the Page 7 July 27, 2006 property. I guess they're considering it litter now, but they are not gone. Our neighbor never takes permits out for anything and is very slow to become compliant unless he's really pushed. There are no permits for any of the structures. We have proof and documentation. We've been through the records department. You can prove it by the aerial view, you can prove it by the description on the permits and wording that they're for wire fencing, they are not for wooden animal structures. We can prove it through the e-mail. And if they were permitted, if someone tells you that, there was no after-the- fact fees collected for that, because they do not meet the 100 minimum setback for our -- near our home. We've been harassed repeatedly. We moved there in June, 2005 and our life has been very bad. We -- our neighbor continually puts the animals back in this enclosure very, very close to our house the minute things are abated or resolved. We would like to submit a few photos for you to review, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have any motion to accept this information? MR. PONTE: I'm confused as to where we are. We've just agreed to the stipulation. And what are we doing now? MS. RAWSON: We're just allowing public comment. You've already agreed to the stipulation, and I note that the stipulation only refers to one structure, which the evidence from the county says has been removed. So you have the right to listen to public comment. You can look at the pictures or not look at the pictures, you know, that's up to you. It could be another case later. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That's my sense of it is that, you know, if -- the county has agreed, you know, with the owner of the property to some remediation of the problem. If there's a problem in the future or he still has additional problems, the county would have to Page 8 July 27, 2006 address that as a separate matter. We'll be happy to look at your pictures, since you're here, and we'll listen to your comment, but I would imagine that this would be a separate action that you would have to take up with the county. MS. RIMONDI: Would you like to review the notice of violations that mentions all three unpermitted animal structures? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You can send them up and we'll review them for you, but again, I think you are looking at a separate case here. So we'll let them handle this one stipulation and hopefully things have been abated and then you'll have to get back in touch with the county to see if they can help you further. We can only hear one case and really what is brought forth in that case. MR. SCRIBNER: Just for the board's information, we do have another case on this property, a litter case that's proceeding through the process. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, good. So hopefully that's helpful to you. MR. RIMONDI: One of those structures is not in the litter case. That structure still exists. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, again -- MS. RIMONDI: And it's in that case. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: -- if they're separate cases, then you'll need to take that up with the county. MS. RIMONDI: But they're not. They're all in this case, which shouldn't be abated and it shouldn't have a stipulation to resolve it, because there's no compliance. MR. RIMONDI: Unfortunately it's been abated before in the past, and it's just a continual problem, because it's never been addressed properly. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, again, I think you're going to be looking at this as being a separate case. You'll have to take that Page 9 July 27, 2006 up with the county, and they'll go out and send an investigator again and get these folks into compliance, if that is the case. MS. RIMONDI: But isn't it a done deal once you accept it with your board, and we won't have any recourse after this? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Just for this particular section of what you think are several complaints. So -- MS. RIMONDI: But see, that's it, we won't have any recourse after this, because they're saying that he's in compliance. And he keeps hogs and he keeps chickens and roosters and goats and horses and geese, and they're only about 30 feet from our house. And it's been over 400 days with no peace and quiet. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, again, I think we-- MS. RIMONDI: So we're begging you for some sort of help to review it. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Again, we're not the enforcement arm of code enforcement. That is the county that does the prosecutions. We rule on the cases that are brought before us. So please get with the county and hopefully you'll be able to get some resolution to it. We thank you for your comment. MS. RIMONDI: Thank you for hearing us. MR. RIMONDI: Thank you for hearing. MS. RIMONDI: We appreciate your help. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you very much. Okay. MR. KEEGAN: I'd just like to state, as of the last couple of weeks, there are no animals on the property. He has two dogs. The permitted structure they're talking about is a fence that has a legit permit. That's the structure that is remaining. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, thank you for reading that into the record. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Have we had any movement on Page 10 July 27, 2006 the Lyjac stipulation? MS. GARCIA: Yes, we have. They made a couple of amendments, and at this time Dave Scribner, the supervisor, Code Enforcement Supervisor, will-- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Code Enforcement Board Environmental Investigator. Mr. Lyjac, if you could step over here -- Lydie. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Why don't we swear him in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, please proceed. MS. O'FARRELL: First of all, I'd like to apologize for the confusion on this case, that this is the second time it's come before you. I did meet with Mr. Lydie on the 30th of June and he was agreeable to signing a stipulation that will abate all the violations. He has agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount of $498.08, and he's prepared to do that today. He will abate all violations by replacing all missing landscape buffer trees and shrubs with five royal palms with 10 foot of clear wood and spaced 30 feet on center, and a double row three-gallon cocoa palm hedge spaced three foot on center and attaining 36 inches in height within one year. He has agreed to complete all plantings on or before Wednesday, August 30th, 2006 or pay a daily fine of $150 per day, as long as the violation continues. The respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspection. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir, you are Richard LydIe? MR. LYDLE: I am. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. And you're the registered Page 11 July 27,2006 agent of LLC? MR. L YDLE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And you have read and agreed to the stipulation? MR. L YDLE: I have. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do you have any comment or -- MR. L YDLE: None whatsoever. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, things seem good. I'd like to have comment from the board, if any. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: No comment. Do we have a motion to accept the stipulation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Second? MR. PONTE: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, then the stipulated agreement carries. Thank you very much for showing up and taking care of it. MR. L YDLE: All right, thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, that moves us into the hearings today. Page 12 July 27, 2006 Case No.1 was stipulated. Case No.2, we have a motion -- do we have a motion for continuance on this? MS. GARCIA: Yes, please, the county would like a motion for continuance on case No. CEB 2006-35, Board of County Commissioners versus Cloe Waterfield. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So it's the county's position that the continuance is proper and we're looking to continue this to the August meeting? MS. GARCIA: August. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. Can we have a motion to accept the continuance? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, we will be continuing this to the August 24th meeting. And it will be on the agenda. Case No.3 was stipulated. Case No.4 is Case 2006-37. Shirley, do you need to read this into the record? MS. GARCIA: Yes. F or the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement Board Secretary. I'd like to enter the County's Exhibit A into evidence regarding Page 13 July 27, 2006 CEB No. 2006-37, Board of County Commissioners versus Dalila Grimaldo. The violation of Ordinances 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(D). The Florida Building Code 2001 addition, as amended by Ordinance 2001-01, Section 104.1.1. The description of the violation is: Improvement of the property without necessary permits. The address where the violation exists: Is 1193 Miller's Park subdivision. It's a/kla 320 West Main Street, Immokalee. The name and address of the owner of person in charge: Is Dalila Grimaldo. And the date the violation was first observed: November 15th of 2005. The person given Notice of Violation was on November 15th of 2005. The date which the violation was to be corrected: Was November 23rd, 2005. The date of the reinspection: May 23rd of 2006. Results of the reinspection: Violations still remain. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. Do we have a motion to accept the packet as submitted by the county? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) Page 14 July 27, 2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, the packet is accepted. And can we -- you've already been sworn in? MR. KEEGAN: Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: I need to swear you in again. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Once again, good morning. This -- as Shirley said, this case opened -- 11/15/05 I received a call from a deputy out in Immokalee stating that roofing work was being done. Myself and co-worker Carol Sykora went to the site. We did observe roofing work being done. I issued a stop work order and also a Notice of Violation at that time. I've dealt with them numerous times. They did hire an architect. I dealt with the architect. He pulled out, he said that he doesn't want to get involved, that he doesn't think the county will issue them a permit to redo their roof plus the other issues on the property as parking spaces, setbacks, whatnot. So he pulled out and I prepared the case for CEB soon after that. I have pictures. As you can see, it's a big job that was going on. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: They were actually building the frame -- MR. KEEGAN: What happened, after the hurricane, they had roof damage, so I guess they decided to take down the whole roof and redo it themselves without obtaining valid permits. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And as of this date, they have not -- MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: -- obtained permits? Is the respondent here today in this case? Anyone representing the owner? (N 0 response.) MR. KEEGAN: Some days the business is open, some days it's not. Page 15 July 27, 2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I'd like to open up for discussion by the board. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the investigator. MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: In your dealing with the respondents, is there a reason that they've given you or has given you for not doing something as simple as going for the permit? MR. KEEGAN: That the owner's husband, you know, he's sick. They go to the doctors a lot. The county -- the main thing is the architect pulled out from them. He said he doesn't want to get involved with it because he doesn't want to put his name on the line for when it gets rejected, were his words. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any other comment? MR. KELLY: I can tell by looking at the pictures that it's going to take a huge engineering feat to get that to pass current codes. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yeah, it does look a bit like a wait. Well, if there's no other comment, do we have any motions? MR. PONTE: Well, I'll make a motion that a violation exists as described in the charging documents ofCEB Case No. 2006-37, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Dalila Grimaldo. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? Page 16 July 27, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Having no opposition, the motion carries. And I suppose the county will follow through with-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Recommendations. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: -- recommendations. Do we have recommendations? MR. KEEGAN: Yes. The county recommends obtaining, if obtainable, all valid permits within 14 days and have a c.o. in 60 days of this hearing, or remove structure, improvements, including materials from property, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Again, any motions toward acceptance? MR. LEFEBVRE: Would you put that up on the screen, please? MR. KEEGAN: Sure. MR. PONTE: We're open for discussion? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Open for discussion. MR. PONTE: My feeling is that $200 a day is a bit steep for that violation. At this point it's not threatening anybody. We've got to get the permit. $200 a day seems steep. MR. KEEGAN: It is a safety issue, because their people are in and out of the building. It has not been inspected or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Is 14 days reasonable? MR. KEEGAN : Well, I believe one day is not -- you could give them 100 days, they're not going to get the permit, as per the architect. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you have to give them -- reasonably. There's no architectural work done on this, correct? MR. KEEGAN: He looked at it and backed out. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So reasonably 14 days would typically be a time frame we'd give for someone that is ready to get a permit. In this particular case the architectural work hasn't even been Page 1 7 July 27, 2006 done. I don't want to give him too much time, but I think 14 days to ask for architectural work to be done, as you said in your comments earlier, that 14 -- that you would need to have architectural work done, and 60 days to basically build this. MR. KEEGAN: Or remove it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or remove it. I like usually seeing that the removal is a separate number. MR. KEEGAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: If the permits are not obtainable within "X" amount of time, then demolition -- or the structure is not completed, demolition. And that's usually the term we use, demolition. Permits will be obtained and the work will be completed in a certain time. MR. KEEGAN: Okay. MR. DEAN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yes. MR. DEAN: My comment would be, you know, it's like he was notified on November 15th, 2005. And so here it is eight months later. And I'm not worried about giving him an extra lot of time. I mean, that doesn't make any sense. He's already had eight months. He was notified. Did they wait -- I think that they wait for the hearing to hear us to get an additional six months or something. And that's what I don't like when I see November 15th, 2005 notified and here we are eight months later worrying about giving them more time. I mean -- and I brought this up almost at every meeting. It's a safety issue. Code enforcement officer said it's a safety issue. People go in and out of there. Some day, somehow, somebody's going to be hurt. And that is shoddy construction, as you state. You can see that. You need a big engineer to approve something like that. So that's my only comment about -- you know, we give them all kinds of notice and then they wait eight months and then they start filing? I mean, something could happen in almost a year's time. So Page 18 July 27, 2006 that's my draw on that. Thank you. MR. KELLY: Realistically it doesn't look like it's going to be able to -- just by looking at it, it doesn't look like it's going to be able to pass. So the normal due process in a situation like this is to have an architect either try to work with what's there or redesign the building. You need an engineer to approve it. You need to have plans drawn up. Those have to be submitted to the county, approved, then a permit's issued. Then you put it out to bid to have a contractor, you know, actually to do the work. And then the time frame to do the work and eventually get your permits and inspections passed and then the C.O. Realistically something like that would normally take six months to a year. But in this case I think what the investigator is saying is most likely this is going to probably going to need to be demolished and start over from scratch. And I believe that's why he picked the time frame of 14 days and then 60 to complete. Because realistically that's probably what's going to happen. And I agree with the safety issue, if there are people working in there. It is unrealistic if you're asking for them to get a permit, but then again it's probably unrealistic that they would even get one. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any other comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we need to look at changing the time frame in light of the comments, or does somebody want to make a motion towards that? MR. LEFEBVRE: All I'd like to see is that the demolition -- it would be better spelled out regarding demolition in a separate -- as a separate number. If a permit cannot be obtained within 14 days and work cannot be completed within 60 days, a demolition permit will be pulled within a certain time frame, maybe seven days, and demolition must be Page 19 July 27, 2006 completed within 30 days, if that's acceptable to the board. MR. PONTE: I just have a question for Ms. Rawson. MS. RAWSON: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: What's our position, if we issue an order we know is not doable? It-- MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm not sure that you can make a decision as the Code Enforcement Board whether or not permits are obtainable. And I think that what he's recommending is give him a chance to obtain permits, if obtainable, within so many days. And if they're not obtainable and he can't get a C.O., then get a demolition permit, which you know he can get, and demolish it within so much time. I think you have to give him that alternative. MR. PONTE: Mr. Kelly's professional observation would indicate that this is just not doable in 14 days. And if we say you have to do it in 14 days or you're -- there's a fine, and the board has generally agreed that it is not -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you can change the days. I mean, that's up to this board. I wouldn't suggest or recommend to you that you don't give him an opportunity to get permits, if they're obtainable. But in terms of how long you want him to take to get the permits and the C.O., that's up to you. MR. PONTE: I guess really what I was asking is my discomfort factor is everyone has made comments that are very logical and they reach me. My problem is that if we know that the logic is there and the logic says this is not a -- this is not an obtainable situation, we can't make all these corrections and get it all done in 14 days, then legally where are we? MS. RAWSON: No, you can change the time. I mean, the time that you give him to do this is up to this board. MR. PONTE: But if we do something that is too short and just doesn't -- MS. RAWSON: He can come back and request an extension. Page 20 July 27, 2006 And when he comes -- because this happens sometimes, people come before this board and say I've done everything you've asked me to do and I need two more weeks because, you know, I've not been able to but I've done all of this, then you have that right, too. So he can always come back before this board. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. RAWSON: But I think it's good that you listen to the comments of your board members. That's why we pick somebody from different disciplines on this board and that's why we have all this expertise sitting up there. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any further comment, or does anyone want to take a stab at bringing forth a different time frame? MR. DEAN: I'd like to make one comment. I think that code enforcement -- I like the 14 days, because it gets them going. And like the attorney said, if it's not enough time, well, he can certainly come back and ask for an extension. So that does get them going. So 14 days doesn't bother me. That means tomorrow or the next day he better go out and apply for permits. And if they can show they're doing it, that's shows good faith, and things are moving along. So I have no problem with 14 days. MR. SCRIBNER: I might offer a suggestion that you could put in your order, that he obtain the services of an architect within 14 days and provide us with some notice of that, a contract, so that we know that he's actually working on a resolution? MR. KELLY: We've done that in the past where we've stepped through the process. MR. SCRIBNER: And if he doesn't in the 14 days, then he's to obtain a demolition permit within that 14 days. I mean, the county's concern is, as has been pointed out by the board, the unsafe structure situation. We're in that season when we never know when we're going to be hit by a storm. We have potential proj ectiles sitting on the top of Page 21 July 27, 2006 a roof. And I can tell you that it's the department's position that we don't want to be party to anybody being injured and that's why we want these time frames to be shorter rather than longer, for the protection of the public. MR. DEAN: You're saying for us to tell him to hire an engineer, architect? MR. SCRIBNER: Engineer and architect and provide a contract to code enforcement within 14 days. MR. DEAN: Is that a good thing for our board to recommend things like that? Or is it better for him to decide what he should be doing rather than us telling him? MR. SCRIBNER: Or obtain a demolition permit. The engineer or architect is going to have to be his first step along that route. MR. KEEGAN: He already tried that route, as I stated, and the architect didn't want no part of it. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: What architect did you speak with? MR. KEEGAN: I spoke with Ted Hoffman, is the architect he hired. And he drew up -- they didn't even submit the plans to the county. Just by him looking at the property and seeing what's needed, setbacks for parking spots, everything else, he said there's no way the county will give him a permit to rebuild the roof. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Even the sides of the structure is going to be in violation if it's going to encroach on these -- MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: -- parking lots and such. My sense of it is -- my comment is that I think we should just leave it as it stands. He has had since November. I think it's a very valid point about projectiles and the hurricane season coming into full swing soon. And I have no problem myself recommending that we leave it the same. If he's had an architect out there already. Anybody want to make a motion? Page 22 July 27, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll try to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. Make a motion to obtain all valid permits in 14 days and have a C.O. within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. If a permit is not obtained within 14 days, a demolition permit must be applied for within seven days, and removal of all structures within 30 days of the demolition permit, or a fine of $200 a day will apply. And then the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when a violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. PONTE: Just one little clarification there for you to consider, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. PONTE: We were talking about the removal of all structures and resulting debris. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Make a motion to add debris, removal of all debris. MR. SCRIBNER: And operational costs on that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, correct. Yes, sir. MR. DEAN: And I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So be it. Motion carries. And Page 23 July 27, 2006 you'll prepare the order. Thank you. That moves us on to Case No.5, 2006-41. Shirley? MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement Board Secretary. I'd like to enter the County's Exhibit A into evidence. The Board of County Commissioners versus Lisa Marie Hodge, CEB No. 2006-41. The violation of Ordinance 05-44, Sections six, seven and eight. The description of the violation: Litter consisting of but not limited to wood, inoperable boats, doors, vehicle parts, et cetera. The location where the violation exists: Is 2181 Platt Road. The name and address of the person in charge of the violation: Lisa Marie Hodge. The date the violation first observed: Was April 10th, 2006. The date the owner person got the Notice of Violation: Was April 10th, 2006. Date on which the violation was to be corrected: April 26th, 2006. Date of the reinspection: May 3rd, 2006. Results of the reinspection: Is the violations still remained, and the owner expressed an unwillingness to comply. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. Do we have a motion to accept the packet as prepared by the county? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. KELLY: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Approved (sic)? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 24 July 27, 2006 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, why don't we hear from the investigator. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, we'll hear from the county. MR. KEEGAN: Okay. As Shirley said, this case started for litter consisting of but not limited to wood, inoperable boats, vehicle, vehicle parts and other debris. I made one site visit, which was May 3rd, '06. She -- I had to issue a new Notice of Violation due to ownership. She would not sign it so I sent her certified mail. She stated that she was sick, tired and broke and that she needed to take a break from working on the harassment of code enforcement for the violations. She also stated that she wanted everything in writing, so that's what the Notice of Violation was for. She then started crying and cursing and I left the property. And as I said, I mailed the NOV's certified mail. On 6/8/06 I returned to the property with Carol Sykora to meet with Mrs. Hodge. Some litter was -- much litter was removed. Wood, inoperable boats and vehicles remained. I have pictures for that. Owner stated she is done and not doing anymore. Notice was delivered by certified mail on 5/11/06. And I was told not to come back to the property. And I prepared the case for CEB. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You want to put up the photos? MR. KEEGAN: Sure. Those are from the first site visit. I have other ones from 6/8/06. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Hurricane Page 25 July 27,2006 damage. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir. MR. KEEGAN: An inoperable vehicle. Wood in the front of the house, on the side of the house. Inoperable boat. That's a vehicle in the back. An inoperable vehicle in the back with litter stored in it. Another boat. That's the same vehicle. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Ma'am, you have your chance to describe your side of the case. State your name for the record. MS. HODGE: My name is Lisa Hodge. I live at 2181 Black Road. There's a few discrepancies here. This case actually started in January when my dad owned the property. They sent the information to Kentucky. My brother called me on -- around the 14th of February, told me about this problem. In February, while the property was in my dad's name, I worked with my dad to dispose of the blue Volkswagen van. We sold the white LeBaron for $500 at a loss. Disposed of the light blue Ford pickup truck. We disposed of the black Chevy truck. We sold the red truck. And the blue boat in the front yard was taken to the dump and the white boat haul was taken to the dump. That was in February. You'll have to excuse me, I've had a problem with my throat the last month or so. In March we started running ads to get rid of the other things. We bought three trailer tags for the trailers that were on the property so that they were current. I sent the appliances to the garbage and called the Immokalee disposal people to pick them up. It consists of three refrigerators, two Page 26 July 27, 2006 stoves and three air conditioners. Those things were damaged when Wilma came through and we lost three rooms of our house, our trailer house, whatever you want to call it. I disposed of 10 tires at $4.00 apiece. I removed and cleaned the brush up, the tree limbs. I bought a new sticker to put on the motor home, because my dad's birthday is in February and it was now not up-to-date. I gathered the barbed wire with a friend, my friend Kevin Carter who came down from Kentucky to help, because I am in ill health. And we planted some landscape in the front to make it look more presentable from the road. In April we tore down and disposed of an old mobile home that was on the back side of the mobile home that we actually live in. We ran ads in the Bargain Trader for the tree truck and the storage bins that they did not want me to have to store my belongings that I tried to salvage from the storm. They're storage bins or storage pods, whatever you want to call them. We filled a dumpster and removed the debris. I stored two canoes and a day sailor boat. We repaired the fence that was torn down by the storm that came through, Hurricane Wilma. We cabled the fallen tree to try to save it in the front yard. I threw away litter, which was miscellaneous construction items that I could have actually used. All along through this process we had filled out our FEMA papers and did not hear from them. The first check that was sent to us was stolen out of our mailbox but not cashed, thank goodness. We threw away six bicycles. We threw away eight bags of my dad's clothes. I worked on the construction of the porch for storage. I removed one of the storage bins because at that time I had to fill out some type of letter requesting permission for the storage bins, which at first was denied and then later was okayed, I guess you call it, a permit or -- what did they call it, contingency of use or something like that. I ordered dumpsters to come through Alvion (phonetic). I have Page 27 July 27, 2006 their phone number. They're called Alvion Roll-Off. Each time that I worked with them it was two to three to $400, depending on which time they came out. I don't have their receipts in front of me, but I can obtain them, if necessary, or you can call them yourself, if you'd like. I spent over $1,000 with that company. In May I started getting a lot more sick and things started slowing down a little bit. I also started getting these un-notice of coming out. I don't know how you want to document it, but they would just show up when they want to. At that time I consulted a lawyer, Mr. Pulliard (phonetic), who as of the 14th of April, a meeting that I had with Mrs. Arnold and I think his name's Mr. Scribner, decided to attend. I stated to them my health, I stated to them that I would consult a lawyer. I stated to them all the things I've done. I brought my own pictures, which I have multiple pictures, if you'd like to see mine. There's been all kinds of things done in the last few months. What Mr. Keegan is referring to is when they last came out with his person in training, I did say that I could not do anymore at this time. I have a list of all my appointments, and I have a doctor's note stating my life-threatening medical condition and that right now is not the time for me to do property or home improvements. I continued to have my friend Kevin do things, and was submitted in the hospital on the 20th of June. I've obtained permits, I've paid for all kinds of different little papers along the way to accommodate everything. And at this point, I've decided to just go ahead and sell the property, because I don't really think that I'm ever going to be able to accommodate what the county or code enforcement wants. And at the same time, because my doctor's on the other coast, it's extremely difficult to be over here cleaning up litter in the yard and be over there trying to go through treatments and things that are actually experimental treatments. As far as the litter in the yard, the wood, that's our construction Page 28 July 27,2006 wood that we were using to construct the porch or storage buildings. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Let's go back to the pictures. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir, you have to be called on by the Chair in order to speak. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I want to talk to you after that, all right? I want to make a statement, a closing statement. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We'll decide on that. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: She's not able. I'm ready. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir? UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Right, Sherry . MS. HODGE: You can see that the pictures that I have here show the damage. You can see everything that's there and you can see what's there today. I don't have any recent pictures of the last few days to make a thing with my camera. This ain't what you saw, Michelle. It shows what I had to deal with. In the very beginning, I told the gentleman, Mr. Keegan, that this is going to take some time to get done. I even said to the point where it might be, you know, closer to a year to do all this stuff. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a motion to accept the photographic evidence? MR. KELLY: If we'd just let the investigator look at it first and make sure it's the same property. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That would be a good idea. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: That's another property. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir, please. MS. HODGE: They've seen all these pictures. MR. KEEGAN: They did remove much litter. As I stated, my Page 29 July 27, 2006 last visit was done the 29th. Litter remained. I was pretty much told not to come back on the property. That's when I prepared the case for you. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one quick question? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. DEAN: All these pictures that you presented to us, were they taken after April 29th? MR. KEEGAN: The last ones-- MS. HODGE: No, they were not. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: That's all legal stuff. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir, you have to be recognized by the Chair in order to speak. MS. HODGE: Dad, please. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Go ahead. MR. KEEGAN: Those are all on the 8th of the 6th (sic). CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: The what now? MR. KEEGAN: June 6th -- June 8th. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: June 8th, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: We need to make a motion. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I don't know if she's entering it into evidence. I may, she may want to just -- you need to -- you have to understand that she's not going to get these back. MS. HODGE: Okay, I don't have any copies. I haven't made any copies. Originally I asked Mrs. Garcia for a continuance. I called her a couple of times on Friday. My lawyer sent a fax. She lost everything. I called her again yesterday when I got back from the doctor, she said it was irrelevant, everything I was saying. And she wasn't -- she was actually very rude. So that's why I've decided to come here this morning, to speak on my own behalf. I've done a lot of work on the place, in addition to being a sick person. MR. KEEGAN: Like I stated, they have removed a lot of debris. Page 30 July 27, 2006 MS. HODGE: A lot. But this is a big job. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Michelle, I don't think we need to enter those into evidence. If you want to put those up so we can see them? MS. HODGE: Here's some more, Michelle, if you'd like to take a look. These are all pictures showing you what I had to start working on. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So you're saying this is debris that has been removed? MS. HODGE: Yes, sir. When I first come down the week of Christmas -- this is what I come down to the week of Christmas. This picture here that I have in front of me here gives you a real good idea how it was tore apart, if you'd like to see them. I have all kinds of pictures. If you want to see a current picture, I can provide that as well. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: At this point I think we've heard both sides pretty well. Do you want to open it up for comment? MR. KELLY: Well, I'd love to see the current photos. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Current photos, good. MS. HODGE: It's on the one that I gave you, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Do you have a current photo? MS. HODGE: You have a picture that has like three or four pictures on one page. That one picture is very current. It's not the most current, because I haven't taken any pictures since I got out of the hospital. MS. ARNOLD: This one? MS. HODGE: No, not that one. MS. ARNOLD: That's the only one with multiple -- MS. HODGE: Okay. Well, it must be in my pile here. Excuse me, I need to go through here and find it. I'm just not prepared right now. I know it's here, hold on. I know it's here. It's probably in this Page 3 1 July 27, 2006 pack. Well, that shows the yard, so that's a decent picture. It shows the work we've done. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Show them that. MS. HODGE: I will. Hold on. Here's another picture here that shows the front yard and the whole house. I want to see if I can't find mine. This is another reason why somebody needs to -- no, that's the truck that I got rid of. There's another one. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, do we really-- MS. HODGE: Sorry this is taking so long. MR. PONTE: Is this photo really necessary, or have we seen enough? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I was going to actually present that, is this photo really necessary? Because we do have recent photos from the county. MR. KELLY: And when was the last time the investigator -- if I could ask a question? What time was the investigator at the property? MR. KEEGAN: The last time was -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Is that the 6/8 day? MR. KEEGAN: Six-eight. MR. DEAN: Right, June 8th. MS. HODGE: I'm trying to get to it, David. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So at this point, ma'am, has there been any real substantial change since the -- MS. HODGE: Yes, sir, there has been. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: -- 8th? Okay. MS. HODGE: That's why I'm trying to find it, if you just give me a chance. MR. PONTE: Can you tell us what those changes are that have occurred since June 8th? MS. HODGE: Since June 8th, I worked on the front yard Page 32 July 27, 2006 cleaning up more litter. We used the wood for the building. The building is about three-quarters of the way done at this point so there's no wood or any construction litter, as they refer to it. I went to the doctor on the 14th, so you're talking about the 6th through -- no, I'm sorry, the 8th through the 14th. So those few days. MS. ARNOLD: Is that what you're referring to? MS. HODGE: There was a couple more days, and then I went in the hospital on the 20th. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Ma'am, I have a question for you. How much longer do you think it would take for you to clean up what the county wants you to clean up and then come into compliance? MS. HODGE: Well, basically, sir, as I spoke to the county, I said I will continue to work on this. I said, in addition to that, you have to remember that I have to go to the other coast for treatment, and that I'm a very significantly terminally person, so I'm trying to do my best. I truly don't feel whatever I do is going to accommodate whoever is this -- the anonymous complaint. And see, I have a problem with the anonymous complaint also, because here I am with a Bible telling you everything about my life, and all I know is that there's an anonymous complaint. I live at the end of Platt Road. I have pictures of the whole road and all of the damage that every neighbor has incurred. Nobody else seems to have all these problems. They have to drive past all these places before they get to me. As far as time, it would really depend on my health as far as how long it's going to take. But I would say three-quarters of this stuff is already done. But right now going in and out of the hospital and taking experimental medicine, I don't know what's going to happen to me. Even speaking with Mrs. Garcia, I can't explain why my throat, I can't talk. I have documentation from my doctor, because I've told Page 33 July 27, 2006 Mr. Keegan, I've told Mrs. Arnold, I've told Mr. Scribner and I've told Mrs. Garcia. I have documentation from my doctor, because I've told Mr. Keegan, I've told Mrs. Arnold, I've told Mr. Scribner and I've told Mrs. Garcia everything going on, all along the way. Now they're -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And the board does have sympathy for your health issues. MS. HODGE: Well, I appreciate that. I'm not really here for sympathy. The issue right now is everybody knows I'm here, everybody knows my address. Whatever they sent, this last packet, or whatever it was to get here today, they sent it to my brother . My brother calls me up yelling, and I said, well send me down whatever it is. I didn't even know what time, date or where to go until about 10 minutes before this case. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So today you're looking for -- MS. HODGE: A continuance. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: A continuance of the order of the board, or just additional time to finish? MS. HODGE: I need additional time. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Additional time. MS. HODGE: And I would prefer to have my lawyer represent me than sitting here trying to strain my voice to try to talk to you. MR. KELLY: I have a quick question. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. KELLY: Ma'am, in the past the board has tried to resolve issues when it's presented to the board. And we really like to set a time period to have everything cleaned up. The other thing that we heard you say was that you're thinking about selling the property. And in the past we tried not to let a problem be passed on to a potential new owner that would create a case against that new owner. And if we could resolve it here, we Page 34 July 27, 2006 would like to. I think what we're really asking is, legitimately how long would it take you to clean everything up? MS. HODGE: The property went in my name in April. Since April that's all I've been doing. I haven't been going to the beach, I've been going to the doctor and cleaning the place up. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: But again, ma'am, we're just asking you, can you give us a time frame that you would like to say so we can discuss that? MS. HODGE: I think it would be at least several months. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Several months. MS. HODGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you very much. At this time, I'm going to just open it up for discussion with the board. I think we've heard quite a bit from both sides of the case. Gentlemen? MR. KELLY: First, I'd like to point out that the original Notice of Violation called for I believe 16 days. And I understand the county wanting to have this, you know, cleaned up and straightened out, but that's a very short period of time. So I believe initially probably some -- it's been closed to the public, ma'am. I believe that initially there's probably some aggression simply because it was probably unrealistic to clean all that up in 16 days. So I sympathize for that. And, you know, if we were to grant a few months, they've obviously been showing the willingness to comply, we give a few months and it will all be done. MR. LEFEBVRE: We should actually make a motion to find if there is actually a violation, and then we should discuss -- if there is a violation, we should discuss in our order -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, that's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the time frame. Page 35 July 27, 2006 MR. KELLY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, do we have a motion to find if a violation does exist in the case 2006-41 ? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that a violation does exist in case CEB Case 2006-41, as described in the charging documents. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. MS. HODGE: Sir, I have one additional comment and then I will sit down. They started my fine out at $1,000 a day. I've never had a problem in front of this board before. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. MS. HODGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have any comment again from the board? Or do we have any recommendations from the county as far as -- MR. PONTE: I have one observation. There isn't very much litter left, what I can see from the photographs. It shouldn't take very long to get rid of it. Most of it's on wheels. It's just a matter of moving it out of there to an acceptable place. Now, if the respondent is not well enough to do it herself, the vehicles are inoperable, you certainly can't push them. So nobody's strong enough to do that. Somebody's going to have to come in professionally and haul them out of there. That means hiring Page 36 July 27,2006 somebody. So that's what has to be done. I think the order of the board is that she has to hire somebody to remove it and to get it done within a reasonable amount of time. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a recommendation from the county? And can you put that up on the screen? MR. KEEGAN: The county recommends that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $349.29 and abate all violations by removing all litter, accumulation of litter from the location to an appropriate waste disposal facility within two months of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have any comments from the board? MR. KELLY: May I recommend three months? Just because that's what they had requested. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Personally I agree, I think three months would be -- considering that they have been showing some good faith effort in getting things cleaned up and considering some health issues here, I think three months would be more appropriate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can I make another comment? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the fine of $100 a day, considering the . __ there isn't a health and well-being issue here. I think $100 a day is probably a little bit excessive. I'd be more agreeable to $50 a day. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any comment on that from the board? MR. DEAN: I'd like to say that I reiterate that. I mean, I felt like three months is fine with $50 a day, so -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Agree. MR. DEAN: -- I'm comfortable there. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I think I would -- I think we need a motion to look at the county's recommendation, go ahead and Page 37 July 27, 2006 change that. MR. LEFEBVRE: And one other motion, too, is being that the investigator has stated that he has difficulty going on the property, I'd like a motion that he be allowed to go on the property. MR. KEEGAN: To do a recheck. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I don't know if we necessarily have to codify that. I think that is probably something that's allowed by statute, wouldn't you say? MR. KELLY: And part two says that, you know, the respondent must notify us -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Must notify them anyway. MR. LEFEBVRE: And if we can just have it must notify and allow investigator -- MR. KELLY: To conduct the final inspection. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, does somebody want to take a stab at going ahead and making a motion towards this? MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion in the Case 2006-41 that the stipulation be that removing all litter -- accumulating of litter from location to a proper waste disposal facility within three months of this hearing or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Part two? MR. DEAN: What's part two? The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also, if you could just include the operational costs? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I believe you wanted to -- MR. DEAN: You can amend to allow the final inspection. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do you want to read that through again, the number two? MR. DEAN: You want me to add -- who wanted to amend that? Page 38 July 27, 2006 Who was amending that? MR. LEFEBVRE: What I would like to see added is that the final inspection, the inspector is allowed to come onto the property. MR. DEAN: That's fine, you amended my motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that. MR. PONTE: One other little amendment. What was suggested is that the fine of $100 per day will be imposed. Are we willing to say that $100 will be imposed until the violation is abated. MR. KELLY: Correct. And it's 50. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Fifty dollars. MR. PONTE: I'm sorry, $50, correct. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right. So just to clarify, we have a motion that we're going to be doing the three months at $50 per day, and that they do be allowed to come onto the property. Do we have a second to that motion? MR. PONTE: I'll second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Ma'am, what you have is three months to come into compliance with the county. You need to notify the county when you have come into compliance and allow them on the property for the proper inspection. So we've given you that extra time and we hope that is going to be sufficient for you. Page 39 July 27, 2006 MS. RAWSON: I think her father wanted to say something. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: How about me making a shot at this -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Would that be -- MS. RAWSON: I think he has to be sworn in. MR. KELLY: I think we're finished. MS. RAWSON: But I remember that he said earlier he wanted to make the closing statement. MS. HODGE: I never not allowed Mr. Keegan or Mr. Marsh or anybody else that came out to not be allowed on the property. In fact, we've had long conversations sitting at the property. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, ma'am. MS. HODGE: In addition to that, I would just like specifically to be told exactly what you're considering is litter that needs to be removed, and I will be sure that it is removed within the three months. At that time I guess if it's not done, then you're going to charge me $50 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You'll have to get together with the county on that end just to -- MS. HODGE: Call Mr. Keegan. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That's what I would do, yes. MS. HODGE: Okay, I'll call Mr. Keegan. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Jerry Davidson. I'm her father. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DAVIDSON: Gerald K. Davidson. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Mr. Davidson, okay, we already have made a ruling, so we're going to allow you to make a closing statement and keep that under three minutes, please? MR. DAVIDSON: Oh, I'd love to do that. You know what? First thing I'd like to say is we need to take this to Saturday Night Live. I'll tell you what, it's great tribunal. I think Page 40 July 27, 2006 really it's an example of how far we can go in government. In closing I'd like to say this: First of all, I think it's generous, 90 days. The other point I'd like to make is if you were to visit this location, it is so isolated at the end of this road, Platt Road, nobody ever drives by there. You need a road map to find this place. So to go out of your way to make an example out of my daughter in this faraway place is so ridiculous, I mean, it's almost comical. Now, if we went back through these pictures, I can explain every one of them to you. That tree truck, we're trying to sell that. That's $175,000 tree truck with no title, but it's worth about 15 or $20,000. We want to try to get some money for it. She needs the money for her care and so on. That boat you saw on there is being restored. That's a Cobia. That's a classic Cobia. We have a right to own these things. Everything on there, we have a right to own. You can own boats that are inoperable in Collier County if they're regular boats -- you say inoperable. If they don't have motors on them, you can legally hold them and you don't have to do anything with them. So you need to get your facts together on this. Everything we've got out there is legal. The litter, nonexistent. That's building materials. What else do I want to say? But the thing about the isolation of this area is such that it's such a joke when we have so many gross violations in the area that make this look like nothing. You know, we're not turning those people in. So other than that, I'd like to say, you know, this is a model. We're going to use this model around the world -- around the country to show people how extreme you can go with government. And I don't know how much longer you're going to be in existence, but the county said that 90 days is good. Weare leaving the area. We're leaving Collier County forever. Page 41 July 27, 2006 We can't live under a Gestapo type regimentation of secret police, backyard police beating up neighbors and people that live here and own property and that and you're taking advantage of them. But anyhow, other than that, thank you. And what else can I say? We need the time. We've got two terminally ill people there. I'm trying to relocate them. We're getting out of Collier County. Maybe 30 days. We'll get everything right because we can't sell the property until we get rid of it. Thank you for your time, and I'll see you next time. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you, sir. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That concludes that case. Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You're good? All right, that moves us to Case No.6. And that would be 2006-38. Shirley do we have a packet? MS. GARCIA: Yes. At this time, I'd like to enter the County's Exhibit A into evidence. It's Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, versus Inocente Pantoja and Abelardo Martinez. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He's not here. They had to take him to the hospital last night. MS. ARNOLD: That's okay. We just need to read who the owners are into evidence, okay? MS. GARCIA: It's CEB No. 2006-38. The violation of Ordinances 2004-58, Sections six, 12(B), 12(C), 12(1) and 17. The description of the violation: Is structures with roof damage, unsecured open doors and windows requiring maintenance and repair. The location of the address where the violation exists: 316 School Drive, Immokalee. The name and the address of the person in charge: Is Inocente Page 42 July 27, 2006 Pantoja and Abelardo Martinez. The date of the violations first observed: March 6th, 2006. The owner and person in charge given Notice of Violation: Was on March 6th, 2006. The date on which of the violation was to be corrected: April 4th, 2006. The date of the reinspection: May 31 st, 2006. And the results of the reinspection: Was the violations still remaIn. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. Do we have a motion to accept the packet as presented by the county? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. We have the investigator. And we also have the respondent here today. Can we swear in both parties, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Just before we get started, I hear that you are not the property owner? MR. PANTOJA: Yeah, I'm half owner, yes. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Oh, you're half owner. Okay, very good. So we'll here from the county please, and then we'll get to you, SIr. Page 43 July 27, 2006 MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, Irnrnokalee. The violation is vacant structures requiring repair and maintenance with roof damage and unsecured doors and windows allowing access to the interior in RMF -6 residential zoning, located at 316 School Drive, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. This case began March 6th, 2006. I observed block buildings with damaged roofs and several open doors and window areas. I sent a copy of the NOV and the ordinance to the owner. On March 13th, 2006 I received a call from the owner, the respondent, who said that he really wanted to demo the structures, but he needed to check in on it because he was worried about impact fees in the future. On March 20th, 2006, I received another call from the owner requesting additional time to check further about these fees, ifhe demoed the structures. However, that's the last I heard from the respondent. So consequently, I prepared this case to be before you. On May 31 st I -- the violations remained, so I prepared the case for the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do you have any photographic evidence or anything to be presented? I'd like to ask a question. Are these -- is this one structure or -- MS. SYKORA: No, there's three structures on the property. We've had prior cases on the boarding of them. They were boarded, the board's were removed and consequently it's constantly seems to be open. And now there's roof damage, so it's unsafe if someone goes in there, apparently, with the roof damage. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: When was the first Notice of Violation? MS. SYKORA: I observed the buildings on March 6th, 2006. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: March 6th. Page 44 July 27, 2006 MR. PONTE: Ms. Sykora, you mentioned this was in a residential area, or zoned residential. Are there other residences nearby, or are there children in the area? MS. SYKORA: Yes, there are other residences nearby across the street -- surrounding this property. And yes, children are in the area. MR. PONTE: And the building we're looking at, this one, seems boarded up except the roof part. Are the other buildings that you've shown us, because I don't recall them, are the windows and doors open? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I have additional-- MR. PONTE: Yes, I see that there. MS. SYKORA: There's an open one on the end. On the far other end there's openings there. There's actually openings on all three of the structures. MR. PONTE: Is there any evidence that anybody, any homeless people are living in it or using it for shelter? MS. SYKORA: There's a possibility that that occurs, because in Immokalee every vacant structure seems to have the homeless. And I've never seen any, but there's some litter and debris on the interior of the structures. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do you have any other questions for the county from the board at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Ifnot, we'll turn to the respondent. Sir, please state your name for the record. MR. PANTOJA: Inocente Pantoja. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And what would you like to say about this matter? MR. PANTOJA: Well, everything she said is right. I've been boarding this building for years and taking care and everything was Page 45 July 27, 2006 thrown around. Somebody steal the -- they steal the plywood. And what she send me the notice, I spoke with her twice, and I was ready to do something. And later on I started investigating something else. Half of the buildings are on somebody else property or driveway. And I was concerned legally. I went to the lawyer and he didn't do anything for me, nobody respond to him. And then I went to -- across the street here and the taxpayers find out, see if they can do something for me and nothing happened. It's a driveway that I don't know who it belongs to. I don't think they never be able to get information on that either. Because we talk a lot at one time. And the time pass by and it was my fault. You know, I was real involved, I was working on a project near here building 70 something homes. And I got constant problems there with code enforcement too with the neighbors. Then I have to spend there almost 60, 70 hours a week there and overlook my personal things and take care of some other problems. When I got this yesterday, when I picked this yesterday, first thing I did, I went to the building department. I came to see -- I forgot his name here, the taxpayer, to see if they can able (sic) to help me out on the other part. And I went to pull the permit, I got everything on it. I got the permit number with me, a copy and everything, and -- but I was ready to pay and take it with me. They took it away from me. The fire department didn't give it to me because they said I had to go through fire department now. And that's where I am. The only thing I want is give me a little time to get a permit and I don't want to tear the buildings. MR. PONTE: But I'm a little confused. Is it your contention, sir, that some of these buildings are not on your property? MR. PANTOJA: Yeah. It's a right-of-way involved. But it Page 46 July 27, 2006 would never be able -- I don't think even the county would be able to contact those people or return things. I don't know for sure. MS. SYKORA: I think a small portion of the building may be either -- I believe may be in the right-of-way or he's saying on someone else's property. But a majority of these three buildings are on his property. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So it's your contention that you're willing to pull permits and comply with -- MR. PANTOJA: I got the -- I already have it. I already got the -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You just need some more time for the fire permits and to secure -- MR. PANTOJA: Right, yeah. When I was ready to pay yesterday, I got the permit number and everything. But when I was ready to get it, the lady came back there and said -- now I have to go through fire department. MR. PONTE: The investigator testified that you were considering demolishing the buildings. MR. PANTOJA: Yes. MR. PONTE: Is that -- MR. PANTOJA: I want to get it over with. Because every time I go over there and put plywood, somebody take it. I can't -- now I know it, they're going to taking my roof. MS. SYKORA: I believe now you can't get a demolition -- MR. PANTOJA: I don't want to build it. MS. SYKORA: The building department has to go through a small review. MR. PANTOJA: The building has been condemned by the county. I found out Harrison, the chief inspector told me that he did it personal. And there's nothing inside, just a shell. But at one time or another, they told me to keep it to impact fees purpose. At this point, I don't care impact fees, I'm going to tear it down, I'll put a sign for sale and that's it. That's what I would do now. Page 47 July 27, 2006 MR. PONTE: How long would it take you to tear the buildings down and to remove the debris that would result from your -- a demolition of those buildings? MR. PANTOJA: Whatever you can give me. A permit, I can't tell now. I thought I would get it yesterday. Might take five days, might take a week; I don't know. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: How much time would you like in order to get the buildings torn down? MR. PANTOJA: If you can, give me 30 days for the demolition and maybe 10 days for the permit. If I get the permit first, I'll call Carol and I'll tell her I got the permit. And that would bring the time down. We can do that. I don't care. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any other questions of the respondent? MR. PANTOJA: If you want to see my thing here, I don't know CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sure. MR. PANTOJA: But it's a right-of-way, through a right-of-way. A legal thing. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I think what we need first thing to do is I'm just going to close the public hearing portion of this. And I think what we need to do is get a motion to find if in fact a violation does exist. MR. DEAN: I make a motion that the violation does exist. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 48 July 27, 2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, I'd like to open -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, he's just asking you to see that there's the permit application that he submitted as well. MR. DEAN: This permit was for demolition? MR. KELLY: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: He submitted he has -- MR. DEAN: I don't know why they would turn it down. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: He said it has to be for the fire department or something. MR. DEAN: They want to burn it, maybe. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: For a little practice or something? MS. SYKORA: Excuse me, permits on demos now are not handed right over the counter like they used to. They go through a small review now. And then they'll be issued. It used to be where they would just issue them right over the counter. Now they go through the little review. That's what's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So this one -- in the review process, probably? MS. SYKORA: Yes. Apparently he just submitted it yesterday. Because I didn't even know about it till this morning. So he did it late yesterday. And they do a little review now on them. I don't know why, but they changed their rules. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have a recornrnendation? MS. SYKORA: Yes. That the respondent pay all operational costs of $376.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by applying and obtaining the required Collier County permits for the repair and replacement of the roofs, doors and windows within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will Page 49 July 27, 2006 be imposed until the violation has been abated. Obtaining a certificate of completion within 60 days of the issuance of the permits, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Or obtaining a demolition permit within 30 days of this hearing to remove structures, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed. If a demolition permit is obtained, a certificate of completion must be obtained within 90 days of the issuance of the permit, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And the respondent must notify me when the violation is abated in order to conduct a final inspection. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Could you just put that up on the screen for us so we could see it? Can I open the board up for discussion on this? MR. KELLY: Are we closed to the public? Just a quick question. Basically, sir, what it's saying is we see that you're applying for a demolition permit and that's your intent. It's basically saying that you're to hire somebody or do it yourself and have it completely removed from the property in about 90 days. Is that sufficient for you? MR. PANTOJA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: He was asking for shorter time. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: This would be a perfect example of a stipulated agreement. MR. KELLY: Very well written. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That was exactly my thought. MS. SYKORA: I had my five-year award this morning, so I've got an excuse. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Congratulations. MR. LEFEBVRE: Congratulations.. Page 50 July 27, 2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yeah, that was exactly what I was thinking, too, is that this could have been a stipulation. Both parties are of the same mind. Does anybody have any problem with time dates or fines? MS. ARNOLD: Can I just note for clarification? It's actually saying to obtain -- giving him 30 days to obtain the demo permit and then 90 days to demo it. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Even though he said he could get the permit in a shorter period and tear it down in 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, you all can modify that time period, if you want. MR. KELLY: I think it's well written. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yeah, I think it's generous. And obviously he wants to comply. MR. KELLY: It's consistent. I mean, there is a safety violation here, and the $200 fine seems consistent with where we've ruled before. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we accept the county's recornrnendation in Case 2006-38. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Page 51 July 27, 2006 Sir, you have 30 days to get your permits and 60 days to take down the buildings after that. So I'm glad to hear that you're thinking about doing it quicker, especially considering hurricane season coming along and flying debris, and hopefully you don't want to spend anymore money on plywood. MR. PANTOJA: No, no. MS. RAWSON: Just a point of clarification for me. We actually are not accepting her recommendation as written -- MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MS. RAWSON: -- only three and four, correct? I mean, I think the stipulation is the demolition -- MS. SYKORA: Right. Since he decided to demo it. I just did the options here if he wanted -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Correct. MS. SYKORA: -- to go with the other. MS. RAWSON: Okay. So when I write the order, since it's really agreed to, it's three and four, is it not? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That would be -- yes. You can eliminate one and two then. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my motion to only include three and four. And we need a second. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) Page 52 July 27, 2006 MS. SYKORA: He would have 90 days from the issuance of the permit, as I suggested? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yes. That's what it says, three and four. MS. SYKORA: Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because I thought I heard you say 60. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Ninety days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ninety days, yes. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, sir, thank you very much. MR. PANTOJA: Thank you. Sorry. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, that brings us up to case seven, 2006-39. Shirley, what do we have? MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, item number seven, it should have been noted for you at the beginning of the meeting that we're requesting a continuance of that item. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Oh, number seven? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PONTE: To when? MR. DEAN: To when? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: To when? Yes. MS. GARCIA: August 24th. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right. So in case 2006-39, we are hearing from the county that they would like to have a continuance to August 24th. Do we have amotion? MR. DEAN: I'll make the motion that we continue to August 24th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 53 July 27, 2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, so we're going to continue that to the next calendar. And then that brings us up to Case No.8, 2006-40. And Shirley, do we have a packet with that? MS. GARCIA: I'd like to into enter into County's Exhibit A into evidence, Board of County Commissioners versus Ivan Hernandez, CEB No. 2006-40. The violation of ordinances 04-58, Section 15, subsection 1 (A), l(D), l(J), l(K). Section 16, subsection 2(A), 2(B), 2(D), and 2(G), 2(H), 2(K) and 2(L). And section 17. The description of the violation is: A vacant cornrnercial building requiring maintenance and repair, damaged roof, exterior service requiring painting, unsecured open window. The location of the address where the violation exists: 205 South First Street, in Irnrnokalee. The name and address of the person in charge: Is Ivan Hernandez. The date the violation was first observed: March 9, 2006. The date and person in charge -- the owner of the person in charge given a Notice of Violation: March 9th, 2006. The date on which the violation was to be corrected: April 10th, 2006. Date of the reinspection: June 5th, 2006. Results of the reinspection: The violations still remain. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do I have a motion to accept the Page 54 July 27, 2006 packet as presented by the county? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Okay, could we please swear in both the county and the respondent? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You are? MR. HERNANDEZ: Ivan Hernandez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We'll hear from the county first, sIr. MS. SYKORA: For the record, again, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement, Immokalee investigator. The violation is a vacant cornrnercial building requiring maintenance and repair, damaged roof, exterior surface requiring painting, and unsecured open window in C-4 zoning located at 205 South First Street, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. This case began on March 9th, 2006. I observed the building requiring maintenance and repair. The damaged roof, the exterior surface. And I consequently sent a Notice of Violation and a copy of the ordinance to the owner. And pictures were taken at that time. On March 31 st, 2006, I spoke to Maria Diaz, permit technician that was out in Irnrnokalee that day, and she advised me that the owner Page 55 July 27, 2006 did come in for permits but was told he needed to obtain a contractor because it was a cornrnercial building. On April 28th, 2006, I contacted the owner and he advised that a contractor, Jackie Williams, will be obtaining the permits, and consequently I called Jackie Williams and left him a message to call me. On May 12th, I did have a return call finally from Jackie Williams, and he stated he will be handling the permit for the roof repaIrs. On June 5th nothing had been applied for, so consequently I prepared it for the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And that was your last visit? MS. SYKORA: Yes -- well, I've seen the building yesterday, and it was in the same condition. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. Sir, could I have your name for the record, please? MR. HERNANDEZ: Ivan Hernandez. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. I'd like to hear what you have to say. MR. HERNANDEZ: Well, I have -- I received the letter about the needs of the repair of the building. And I don't know much about that, so I called Jackie. And he will try to get permits. And I have speak -- I spoke with Jackie about a month ago, and he said he was working on it. And right now I have received this letter while I was in Mexico. I was out of the country. I had to come in for today. I just got in last night at 11 :07. And because I wasn't sure Jackie will attend this court for me. And what happened, he didn't show up to pick up the letter. I have a paper right here that my wife had left Jackie on -- my wife leave this letter to Jackie, supposed to pick it up last Monday at my store, and my wife leave the note, you know, in case he needs to talk to my wife to call her. Page 56 July 27, 2006 But I made it in time, so I'm here. And we're willing to get a permit or -- and see if I can repair it. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So you are willing to repair the building and have a contractor perform the work? MR. HERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Because it is cornrnercial property . MR. HERNANDEZ: And I tried to get Mr. Williams -- tried to get him to start working on it. Because I don't know nothing about it. This is my first time on this kind of -- in court. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have any questions of the respondent from the board? MR. DEAN: Can I ask one thing? What's the use of that building? MR. HERNANDEZ: I bought the building in 1976. And that's all I've been doing, paying taxes on it and repairing it. I repaired it a couple of times. And some people promised rent it. They went in there and they never -- they never paid the rent. I always -- if I'm not out, I'm not -- I not pay too much attention on it. I'm not too good a landlord. So I don't -- I don't -- I always want to make a store out of it because I've had -- I got a jewelry store. And I tried to do something in that area, but I didn't see that it was fit enough yet for my -- the kind of business I want to put. But the last couple years I've been trying to see if I can remodel it and see if we can make a pawn shop. And -- but some -- like Jackie give me advice, he said probably we can make a building with three stores there, probably, a lawyer's office or something like that. Because it's on First Street, not too far away from court. I mean, we don't know exactly what we're going to do. But I told Jackie to try to repair the building or to get the permit for the building. Page 57 July 27, 2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You are in fact the owner and the sole owner of the property? MR. HERNANDEZ: I'm solid owner, and family, my wife. MR. DEAN: Thank you. MR. KELLY: I have one question and one thing to point out. There's actually three things listed in here as violations. One is a window, which you can fix; one is painting, which you yourself can do without a contractor, even if it is a commercial building; and then the third is the roof. And I would just let you know that Mr. Williams would have to be a roofing contractor, not just a general contractor, because it is a flat roof. And general contractors are not allowed to pull roofing permits under flat roofing conditions. So if you're willing to -- my question is if you're willing to move forward and have those things fixed, how long do you think you'll need until it's complete? MR. HERNANDEZ: Like I said, I don't know much about that, but I always -- not always, I've been trying to go by what Mr. Jackie advised me to do on that. And I don't know why he didn't respond at this time. But he always get me out of a jam. And could be, I don't know, three months. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you, sir. At this point we'll close the public hearings. And do we have any discussion amongst the board members? MR. KELLY: Do we have a recornrnendation? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I'm going to call for that. Does the county have a recommendation in this case? Actually-- I know, I know, we have to find out if there is in fact a violation existing at this time. So do we have a motion in case of 2006-40? MR. DEAN: I make a motion that we have a violation on 2006-40. Page 58 July 27, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. N ow we'll ask the county if they have a recommendation. MS. SYKORA: The respondent to pay all operational costs of $338.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by applying and obtaining the required Collier County permits for repairs and replacement of roof and window within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Obtaining a certificate of completion within 60 days of the issuance of permits or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Painting or other protective covering of the exterior surface to be completed within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And the respondent must notify me when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Can you please put that up on the screen so we can see it as we discuss it? Now, the -- just the thing I was noticing. It looks as if she was asking for approximately three months; is that accurate? MR. KELLY: Correct. I have a point of clarification, Carol. On both one -- on all three, Page 59 July 27, 2006 one, two and three, if -- for instance, if Mr. Hernandez had started working, for instance, on the permits and fixing the roof but went over on painting, that would be $200 a day. And then if the roof ran over, that would be an additional $200 a day. I mean, it seems like it's instead of 200, it would possibly be 600 a day if you take each of these individually. MS. SYKORA: Well, a possibility. But the painting shouldn't really take 30 days to paint the building. But I did allow him that much to give him sufficient time. If he hires a roofing company to reroof that roof, it shouldn't take that long to submit for the permits and get them issued. I really don't know if Jackie Williams can apply for that or not. That's up to the respondent to verify that. But it shouldn't take that long to get the permit for the roof and have the repairs done. MR. KELLY: I was just asking. If Mr. Hernandez had an issue where he wasn't able to come into compliance, would that then total 600 a day? Ifhe did absolutely nothing, let's just say. MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. KELLY: And the statute of limitations on the fines -- MS. SYKORA: If he didn't do all three. MR. KELLY: -- is it $1,000 a day now? MS. SYKORA: Yes. If he didn't do all three, yes, it would. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. MR. HERNANDEZ: Do I need a permit for -- MS. ARNOLD: And it's $1,000 per day per violation. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you, Michelle. MR. HERNANDEZ: Do I need a permit for painting? MR. KELLY: No. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: No. MR. HERNANDEZ: For replacing a window? MR. KELLY: To replace it, I believe yes. To repair it, no. Page 60 July 27,2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And they are calling for replacement of the roof and window. So we're looking for a replacement of the window. So that has to be permitted. So we're allowing 30 days for the permit, you know, obtaining it, and then completion within 60 days. As far as the time is concerned on the roofing, I think the respondent was asking for 90 days. Does anybody have a comment as to that? MR. PONTE: I just have a -- I am not a do-it-yourselfer, but it just seems to me that painting and completing that job within 30 days prior to having the roof put on and other work done is just a little counter-productive. And that really, the roof ought to be on and the repairs made before you paint it. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I have to agree with that. MR. PONTE: So the days have got to be flipped around somehow or other. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I have to agree with that theory. If I was going to be working on this, I would put the roof on first and then go ahead with the window and then paint the building. So do we want to combine these items? MR. PONTE: Yeah, change the painting to 60 days or 90 days, whatever it is, so it conforms to the other pattern. MR. KELLY: In terms of simplicity, perhaps just combining all of the violations. You know, the $200 a day can remain and he has 90 days to complete everything. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I have to agree. MR. PONTE: I agree. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I think that would be much simpler. Does anybody want to take a stab at that motion then? MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that in CEB Case No. 2006-40, that the respondent abate all of the violations within 90 days, or a fine Page 61 July 27, 2006 of $200 per day will be assessed for each day not abated. The respondent will pay operational costs of $338.43. And that the respondent also must notify code enforcement at the time of completion so that a final inspection can confirm that the allegations were abated. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I'm going to just maybe make a comment. I think we have to include that the amount of time necessary to pick up the permit, to get the permit. MR. KELLY: Sure. Ifin the motion the respondent will have 30 days to secure the permits and then an additional 60 days on top of that or a total of 90 days total from today to have all the violations abated. And do you want me to list violations? MR. PONTE: Just the violations as listed in the charging documents. MR. KELLY: As listed. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, motion carries. All right, sir, what we've determined is that you have 30 days to get the permits for, you know, the roof and the window. You don't need a permit for painting. And that from that time you have 60 days to complete the roofing work, the window and the painting. Page 62 July 27, 2006 MR. HERNANDEZ: Okay, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You can get together with the county and again, a general-- not a general contractor, a roofing contractor, since it's a flat roof. And we wish you well. MR. HERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. Okay, that closes the hearing section of today's meeting. And that brings us into old business. Okay, at this point why don't we just take a five-minute recess and we'll meet back here at approximately 11 :20. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. The time is 11 :22. Weare dealing with old business, which is a request for reduction of fines. And that would be BCC versus James and Sherry Marshall. And that's CEB No. 2004-72. And we have the respondent, I believe -- Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: -- on the telephone. So he is not present. Does the county need to read anything into the record at this time? MS. GARCIA: No. Just a request for a reduction of fines from the respondent, James Marshall. CEB Case No. 2004-72. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. So there is no packet to accept or anything like that, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right. MS. RAWSON: And before he testifies, we probably need Ms. Arnold to swear that she recognizes his voice and she knows that he is who he says he is. MS. ARNOLD: I do recognize his voice, because I've spoken to Page 63 July 27, 2006 him several times on the phone. MS. RAWSON: And perhaps the court reporter could then swear in him. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, Michelle, do we have anything that the county needs to add or are we just going to talk to Mr. Marshall and talk about his case? MS. ARNOLD: This is his request, so he has an opportunity to speak first. MR. PONTE: I have a question for Ms. Rawson. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: I think this board could have identified the voice. We have heard this several times. And is there not a limit as to how many times we have to hear this? MS. RAWSON: As I recall, the last time we heard this case it was for an extension of time. And -- was it? MS. GARCIA: It was for the imposition of fines, April 27th. MS. RAWSON: Right, it was an imposition of fine, and I believe he requested an extension. This is, I think, and you can correct me if I'm mistaken, his first request for a reduction/abatement of fines. MS. GARCIA: Yes. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. Mr. Marshall, this is Co-Chairman Richard Kraenbring. Would you like to talk about your case and why you've come in front of the board for a reduction of fines. MR. MARSHALL: Is there any way the volume can be turned up? I can't hear you folks very well at all. MR. DEAN: We can hear him real well. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, let me just get a little bit closer to the mic for you. Is that better? Page 64 July 27, 2006 MR. MARSHALL: It's a little better, yes. Who's speaking? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: This is Richard Kraenbring, I'm the current co-chairman presiding today. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And I'm just asking you why you feel you should get a reduction of fines. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. First I'd like to begin my proof of my burden here by asking, has there been any ex parte discussion of this case by the board today before I was contacted by the telephone? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Not amongst the board members, no. MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me? MR. DEAN: No. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: No. MR. MARSHALL: Was that a no, sir? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That's a no, yes. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. Could you tell me which version of the Code Enforcement Board rules are governing this hearing, whether it's the 2004 or the 2005 version? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Michelle, are we here to rehear the case? I don't think that is what we're here for today, sir. We're here to get your opinion as to why you feel that the fines should be reduced. MR. MARSHALL: I'm getting there. I'm just trying to ascertain which set of rules are we using, the 2004 or the 2005? If you don't know that, you can just state you don't know. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I would just have to defer to -- MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Give me one second, sir. I'djust have to refer to -- MS. ARNOLD: Is the question what rules and regulations are Page 65 July 27, 2006 we following? MR. MARSHALL: Yes, which version of the rules govern this hearing today, the 2004 rules or the 2005 rules? MS. RAWSON: 2005. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Would be the correct answer. Okay, there's your answer, sir. MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: 2005 is your answer. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. Well, let me bring this to your attention then. The 2005 rules were adopted on April the 28th of 2005, okay? Do you have a copy of the rules there? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I do not, sir. MR. MARSHALL: Does anybody? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Hold on. MS. ARNOLD: We have a copy. MS. RAWSON: I have a copy. MR. MARSHALL: Ifwe would turn -- you have a copy of the 2005 rules? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We've been advised that we do have a copy, yes. MR. MARSHALL: And they're dated April the 27th, 2005; is that correct? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You'll have to give us a second, SIr. We're having our board counsel and the county reference that. MR. KLATZKOW: Rules are dated April 28th, 2005. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. I have a copy of those as well. Would someone please read right above where it says these rules and regulations, as amended? Would you read section seven there, please, into the record? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: One second, sir. Currently Ms. Arnold and the county -- MS. ARNOLD: The board's decision to grant or deny Page 66 July 27, 2006 mitigations of an order imposing fines, liens, shall be reduced to writing and a certified copy of an order imposing a fine shall be recorded in the public record and thereafter shall constitute a lien against the land on which the violation exists, and upon any other real property or personal property owned by the violator. Any aggrieved party -- MR. MARSHALL: Ms. Arnold, I don't mean to interrupt you, but that's not what I asked you to read. MS. ARNOLD: You asked me to read section seven. MR. MARSHALL: Section seven, which is right above -- it's on the signature page. So actually, that would be Article 13, section 7. I apologize if I misled you there. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I'll read Article -- MR. MARSHALL: Seven on the signature page. Section seven, which would be Article -- MS. ARNOLD: Thirteen? MR. MARSHALL: -- 13, Section 7. MS. ARNOLD: Any case in which there has been a hearing by the board prior to the adoption of the rules shall be governed by the previous adopted rules and regulations in effect at the time of the hearing. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. So my case was first heard on March 30th, 2005. So that would mean these rules don't apply; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Well, the rules that applied in '04 and the rules that we are reading today with respect to the imposition of fines have not changed. So, I mean, if you have questions about whether or not different rules apply to the fine portion, you need to state that to the board. MR. MARSHALL: I am. I'm getting there. I'm just trying to make a point. And the point is that the rules from 2005 don't apply, it would be the rules from 2004. Page 67 July 27, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Which are the same rules. MR. MARSHALL: So then if we could go to Article 11, Section three. I'm not trying to be difficult. Article 11, Section 3, Item I. MS. ARNOLD: And since you have the rules, why don't you read them. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. This is under Section 3. I'll read the first sentence and then I'll drop down to Section I. Upon the proper filing of a request to impose a reduced abated fine, the board may consider the following factors. It lists several. And then I would be any other equitable factor which would make the requested mitigation appropriate. And that is where I am going now. I'm going to try to explain what I believe the equitable factors are which make the requested mitigation appropriate. Does the board agree that a $200 per day fine has been imposed for an expired permit issued previous to the adoption of the code cited in the Notice of Violation and findings of fact and conclusions of law? MR. PONTE: Why do I have the feeling that the board is on trial and Mr. Marshall is not making his point? What's your point, Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: Pardon me? MR. PONTE: What is your point? MR. MARSHALL: What is the point? MR. PONTE: Your point. MR. MARSHALL: The point is I'm trying to get the fines that are related to the primary structure abated. And the fine is broken down into several sections. So I want to make sure we're on the same page here. I mean, someone may need to go to the findings of fact and conclusions of law to verify that, that's my point. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir, may I just ask you this: If you're looking for a reduction of fines, just state what the fines are and Page 68 July 27, 2006 ask us what your reduction request is, please. MR. MARSHALL: Say that again, please? MR. PONTE: Let's get on with it, that's what we're saying. Make your point. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Tell us what your fines are and what you want them reduced to and give us the reason for it, rather than just going through the code. MR. MARSHALL: I'm getting there. I mean, I'm just asking -- I have the burden to prove this, and you're trying to cut me off. MR. PONTE: I'm going to ask the Chairman to please try to do everything to hurry this along. It's not as if we are not giving you time, but it's becoming tedious. MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me? MR. PONTE: It's becoming tedious. MR. MARSHALL: I apologize for the tedium, but -- and I don't mean to be arrogant, but I believe it's your civic duty to bear with me here. MR. DEAN: May I ask one question? MR. MARSHALL: Yes. MR. DEAN: Are you in compliance? MR. MARSHALL: I believe I'm not in violation. MR. DEAN: Are you in compliance? MR. MARSHALL: If I'm not in violation, I'm in compliance, yes. MR. DEAN: Well, I'm just asking for a yes or no. Are you in compliance? . MR. MARSHALL: I believe I'm not in violation, so I guess, you know -- MR. PONTE: Answer the question. MR. MARSHALL: I'm answering your question, you know -- I'm not in violation. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Can we get to what the fines are, Page 69 July 27, 2006 so we can address each fine individually and -- MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me? MS. ARNOLD: Could you tell Mr. Marshall I'm giving you the findings of fact? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, we have the findings of facts in front of us. Michelle Arnold just handed it to us. Okay, so you say you're in compliance so you have taken care of all the problems that the county has requested that you take care of. You didn't take care of them apparently in a quick enough fashion and then some fines were imposed; is that correct? MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me? MR. PONTE: Can you not hear us? MR. MARSHALL: No, I can't. MR. PONTE: Well, if you can't hear us, then I'd suggest we adjourn this, because otherwise it's a one-sided conversation. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, I don't know if we can do that, per se. But again, you were in violation, you came into compliance. The order of the board was that violations were found to exist for nonpermitted sheds and the like. You took care of those. The primary structure you say you took care of. But apparently you did not take care of these in a quick enough fashion to comply. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, the order of the board was to obtain permits for all the unpermitted structures, and there was time provided for that. There's been no permits applied for by Mr. Marshall as of today. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So he's not in compliance. MS. ARNOLD: He is not in compliance. Mr. Marshall believes he's not in violation, and therefore he can't be out of compliance ifhe doesn't believe he's not in violation. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And he did -- we cannot change that order. He is in violation because he did not comply with picking Page 70 July 27, 2006 up the permits, pulling the permits. So that's what we're here for. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. Do we have the total of the fines somewhere listed? MS. ARNOLD: It's actually on that piece of paper. But the fines have accrued to about $43,000. MS. GARCIA: Plus 10,000, plus 5,000. MS. ARNOLD: Fifteen thousand. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So it's 43,000 plus 10,000 and 10,000? MS. GARCIA: Or five. Five. It's actually on the front of -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I'm sorry. Okay, I see it now. MS. GARCIA: It's on that little -- yeah. 43,000 plus 10,000, plus the 5,000. MS. ARNOLD: Fifty a day and 100 a day. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Oh, okay. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yes. MR. KELLY: Ifhe's not in compliance, would we be in a position to abate or rescind or to diminish any of the fines? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Jean, do you have an opinion on that? MS. RAWSON: Not without changing your original order. Usually we reduce or abate fines after you -- well, you've imposed them, and they're continuing to run. So yes, you could reduce or abate them. MS. ARNOLD: I believe the rules indicate that they need to be in compliance, but I'm looking for it. MS. RAWSON: Basically it's Section 3 that Mr. Marshall was reading to us. He only read the last part. What Section 3 from the 2004 rules says, upon the proper filing of a request to impose a reduced abated fine, the board may consider the following factors: A, Page 71 July 27, 2006 the gravity of the violation; B, actions taken by the respondent to correct the violation; C, whether there were previous violations cornrnitted by the violator; D, the cost upon the violator to correct the violation; E, the reasonable time necessary to correct the violation; F, the value of the real estate compared to the amount of the fine lien; G, any hardship the fine lien would cause on the respondent; H, the time and cost incurred by the code enforcement to have the violation corrected; and I, any other equitable factors which would make the requested mitigation appropriate. So you are not only by our rules, but by actually the Florida Statute to consider all of those things in making your decision to reduce or abate the fines. MR. KELLY: And Ms. Rawson, there continues to be fines assessed on a daily basis now. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. KELLY: So we have the order not only to maybe reduce some of the fines that have totaled, but everything from here forth as well. MS. RAWSON: You could. Yes, you do have that power. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Discussion by the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we closing -- MR. PONTE: I haven't heard very much at all except questions from the other side. What's his point? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any response to that, Mr. Marshall ? MR. MARSHALL: Yes. What I'm guessing at is that we are in agreement there's at least a $200 per day fine imposed for the expired permit. I won't belabor that point. My next question for the board is, and hopefully this will help you start to understand where I'm coming from: Have any of the members of the board ever seen the sections of code in my notice of Page 72 July 27, 2006 filing citations before you received it? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I don't understand where you're going with that question. MR. MARSHALL: I filed a notice of filing on the 25th of July with Ms. Garcia. And in that, there were two exhibits, two sections of codes: Section 1.04 and Section 8.08. What I'm asking is, before I filed this, has any of the board members ever seen these codes? MR. PONTE: I'm going to make a motion that the board entertain closing this. We've asked Mr. Marshall several times to make his point. I guess he's made his point and we should then just open it for discussion. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I would have to agree. I just don't know where this is going. We're asking Mr. Marshall several times -- MR. MARSHALL: Okay, let me ask-- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: -- as far as imposition of fines. MR. MARSHALL: -- this: Does the board have -- CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We're not going to reargue the case. MR. PONTE: Mr. Marshall? MR. MARSHALL: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: I think what we're trying to do is to close this. You've been asked several times to make your point and you insist on continuing to ask questions of this board. I object to that. MR. MARSHALL: Well, I apologize, and I note your objection, but what I'm -- I'm just trying to find out. I mean, I served a notice of filing of particular sections of the code that I wanted you folks to have in front of you when we're conducting this hearing. I'm just asking if you've received them. And prior to receiving them, have you ever seen these codes? And it's a very simple question. MR. PONTE: I am again going to ask the Chair to consider the fact that we have asked you to make your point. I guess you've made Page 73 July 27, 2006 your point, we've heard it and I'd like to make a motion that we close this review. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any other comment from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess I have one more question, Mr. Marshal. MR. MARSHALL: Yes. Could you speak up, please? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. We're going to ask you -- I'm going to ask you one more time: Why do you feel that your fines should be abated? MR. MARSHALL: Well, I'm getting there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, sir, let's make it short and to the point. MR. MARSHALL: Because there was no violation. Now, if you folks do have the notice of filing that I gave to Ms. Garcia on July the 25th, if you have it in front of you -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Sorry to cut you off, Mr. Marshall, but I make a motion that we I guess close this is hearing and the board makes a decision. MS. ARNOLD: Can I, before -- MR. MARSHALL: Who was that speaking? MR. LEFEBVRE: Gerald Lefebvre. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: One second, please. Yes, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to also point out in Section 1 of that Article 6, it does say a request for a reduction of fine may be made after a violation has been abated or in the event a violation cannot be abated. So those conditions have to exist prior to a request being made to the board for abatement of fine. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So at this point he really needs to come into compliance in order to request reduction of fines. Page 74 July 27, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: (Shakes head affirmatively.) MS. RAWSON: That's Section 1 of the 2004 rules and regulations, Article 11. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. PONTE: Well, then it's moot. The fact of the matter is by his own testimony he hasn't done anything because he doesn't have a violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: There is a motion on the table. MR. PONTE: We stand where we are. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. MR. MARSHALL: What is the motion, please? CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Restate it. MR. LEFEBVRE: The motion -- this is Gerald Lefebvre. The motion is to close this hearing. MR. MARSHALL: Without allowing me to finish? MR. LEFEBVRE: Sir, we've given you plenty of opportunity to finish and get to the point. MR. MARSHALL: Well, I'm just making the point for the record that I'm not finished, okay? So, I mean, you can make your motion, I just want that in the record, that's all. MR. DEAN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? MR. KELLY: Nay. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, could the county attorney speak? MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for the record. MR. DEAN: Sure. Page 75 July 27, 2006 MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Marshall was here Tuesday, he was before the board and he presented his arguments before the board, and the board was unswayed by the arguments. So he was in Collier County as of a couple of days ago. And I understand part of the problem we're having at this hearing is that Mr. Marshall is not present and so there's some difficult in his communication. That's Mr. Marshall's decision not to be present today, for whatever reason. Secondly, my understanding is that no request for rehearing was ever made in this matter. Ifhe was going to argue that the initial order was improper, since there was no violation, I think that was the proper procedure for him to be doing. And at that point in time he could have raised issues as to law and fact, and that was not done. I think the procedure he's using is quite frankly defective in that he's asking for a reduction of fine after an order has been recorded without really the ability to get into the merits here. He's just doing the wrong procedure here. MR. MARSHALL: Who's speaking, please? MR. KLATZKOW: JeffKlatzkow, assistant county-- MR. MARSHALL: Excuse me? MR. KLATZKOW: JeffKlatzkow, assistant county attorney, sir. And as an aside, he does have a case pending in the circuit court where some of these issues presumably can be raised. MR. MARSHALL: Would you repeat that, please? MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, you currently have a case before the circuit court where many of these very issues can be raised. MR. MARSHALL: I still don't think I'm precluded from bringing it before the board. I mean, the issue to abate the fine and the issue to quash the initial order are two separate issues. And as an attorney, you should know that. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, I think we've closed the public cornrnent section of this. And again, I'm going to open it up to Page 76 July 27, 2006 the board for comment. Does anybody have any sense of whether they want to reduce fines today? MR. LEFEBVRE: This is Gerald Lefebvre, and I make a motion that we keep the fines and our original order as it stands. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, sir. This is Richard Kraenbring, Co-Chair, and it's unanimous that the fines be imposed and stand as they are, and that I believe we have fines still accruing. I'm sure that you'll be back in contact with the county to further determine what your procedures are going to be. But I thank you for your time and -- MR. MARSHALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. We're going to take a -- we have a couple of things -- I think we just have a few pieces of housekeeping to take care of. Nobody needs a break, or we'll just get through it. MR. DEAN: Let's go. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And again, we don't mean to light of anyone's ability to come before the board. New business. Number six, anybody have any new business to take care of? (No response.) Page 77 July 27, 2006 CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Nothing? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: No reports today? Hopefully we'll take care of it next time. Any comments from the board? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: The next meeting date is August 24th, 2006. Until then, we are adjourned. I'll make a motion to adjourn? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you very much. ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :48 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD RICHARD KRAENBRING, CO-CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 78