Loading...
CEB Minutes 08/24/2006 R August 24, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida August 24, 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 Larry Dean Justin DeWitte Kenneth Kelly (Absent) 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: August 24, 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 VERBA TIM 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 - July 27, 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS- B. STIPULATIONS - C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-35 2432 LAKE AVE NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 75760960004) CLOE WATERFIELD EVERILDO YBACET A ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 1O.02.06(B)(I)(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: 2006-42 CASE ADDR: 4266 JEFFERSON LANE (FOLIO # 35830040001) OWNER: WORTHWHILE DEVELOPMENT, III LTD INSPECTOR: SUSAN O'FARRELL VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 4.06.05(1)(1)(2) DESCRIPTION: REQUIRED LANDSCAPE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED BELOW SDP STANDARDS. 3. CASE NO: 2006-43 CASE ADDR: 758 PAN AM AVE. (FOLIO # 60183800109) OWNER: RUSSELL & KATJA RlSTEEN INSPECTOR: RON MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 5.03.02(B)(3), DESCRIPTION: FENCE EXCEEDING MAXIMUM HEIGHT(6FT.) 4. CASE NO: 2006-39 CASE ADDR: 190 S. 3RD ST. IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 25581120002) OWNER: CALEXICO, INC. OSORNIO SANTOS REG. AGENT INSPECTOR: CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 81-52 SEe. I DESCRIPTION: NO COLLIER COUNTY OCCUPA TIONAL LICENSE FOR BUSINESS OPERATION OF A ROOMING HOUSEIDORMITORY 5. CASE NO: 2006-47 CASE ADDR: 528 NEWMARKET RD. E. IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 001 16160009) OWNER: CALEXICO, INe. OSORNIO SANTOS REG. AGENT INSPECTOR: THOMAS KEEGAN VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SEe. 16 IA,B & E DESCRIPTION: EXTERIOR WALLS IN NEED OF REPAIR, UNSECURED WINDOW OPENINGS AND NON WEATHER TIGHT ROOF. 6. CASE NO: 2006-48 CASE ADDR: 3 I 7 PRICE AVE. IMMOKALEE, FL (FOLIO # 56400280005) OWNER: VICTOR & VERONICA LEDESMA INSPECTOR: CRISTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(A),(D)(I), DESCRIPTION: BUILD AN OPEN CARPORT WITH ELECTRIC, WITHOUT A BLDG PERMIT, INSPECTIONS AND CO 7. CASE NO: 2006-27 CASE ADDR: 248 BENSON ST., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 77310440008) OWNER: WILLIAM & CHRISTOPHER BELCHER INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTION(S) 10.02.06(B)(I)(A),(D)(I) DESCRIPTION: ILLEGAL RENOVATION INTO LIVING AREA WITH POSSIBLE ELECTRIC, KITCHEN, & SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITH NO BLDG PERMITS. 8. CASE NO: 2006-46 CASE ADDR: 509 DOAK AVE. IMMOKALEE, FL. (FOLIO # 00 I 16 I 60009) OWNER: EJ PROPERTIES, LLC INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SEe. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1 I, 12A,B,C,D,E,I,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R, 19A,B,C,D & 20 DESCRIPTION: NUMEROUS MINIMUM HOUSING VIOLATIONS 9. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2006-53 186 3RD ST., NAPLES, FL. (FOLIO # 77212240005) ELlNORD PIERRE JEFF LETOURNEAU ORD NO 04-41 SECTION(S) 1O.02.06(B)(I)(D)(I) & 1.04.01(A) & 04-58 SEe. 6 SUB SEC 13 DESCRIPTION: ILLEGAL RENOVATION INTO LIVING AREA, NO BLDG PERMITS AN OVERCROWDING OF PEOPLE ALLOWED LIVING IN THE PROPERTY(MORE THAN 5). 5. OLD BUSINESS- 6. NEW BUSINESS- 7. REPORTS- 8. COMMENTS- 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - September 28, 2006 10. ADJOURN August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'd like to call this meeting of the Collier County Code Enforcement board to order. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. N either Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And so that a concise record can be recorded, please wait to be acknowledged by the Chair. Can I have roll call, please. MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement Board secretary. I'd like to begin with: Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Present. MS. GARCIA: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. GARCIA: Justin DeWitte? MR. DeWITTE: Present. MS. GARCIA: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Present. MS. GARCIA: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Present. MS. GARCIA: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Present. MS. GARCIA: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Kenneth Kelly called and he will be a few minutes behind, but he will be here. And David Cook is the alternate that's excused absence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looks like we have a full Page 2 August 24, 2006 quorum, so I guess the alternate, which is Mr. Kelly, will be here when he gets here, but he will not have voting privileges. May I have approval of the agenda, please. Are there any changes? MS. GARCIA: No. MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the minutes. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Even though I wasn't here for the last meeting, may I have a motion for approval of the minutes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Abstained. Page 3 August 24, 2006 Move on to public hearings. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, there is modification to the agenda. There are two stipulations that should have been moved up. First one is Case No. 2006-35. That will be the first stipulation. That's Item 1 under your public hearings. And then the other item is Case No. 2006-47, and we also have a stipulation on that. That will be your second item. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Then can I have a motion to approve the agenda as changed. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Can we have the first stipulation, Case 2006-35. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's Collier County versus Cloe Waterfield. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. YBACETA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Brief background on this case. This case started as a permitting -- as a patrol for two unpermitted structures in the rear of the property. And I will show you some brief pictures here. This structure is a shed that was built without permits, and it's Page 4 August 24, 2006 about two feet from either structure. The next shed, yeah, is also unpermitted, but it was also being converted into a guesthouse. The next picture will show you some of the conversions done on the site. I met with Ms. Cloe Waterfield, and she stipulated to an agreement. The agreement is as follows: She is to pay operational costs of $470.45 incurred in the prosecution of this case. She must prepare and submit architectural plans for review so as -- properly permit all wood type structures in the rear of the property within 60 days, that's October 23rd, 2006, of this hearing, or fines of $200 a day will be imposed until violation is abated. Once the permit is issued for all wood type structures, all work-- and all work, owner must receive all necessary inspections to the issuance of the certificate of completion within 180 days. And that's February the 20th, 2007, or fines of $200 a day will be imposed until violation is abated. Owner may elect to apply for a demolition permit and remove all unpermitted wood type structures, including all resulting debris, within 60 days of this hearing, October 23rd, 2006, or fines of $200 per day will be imposed. The respondent is to notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement so that we can make an inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cloe's not here, but she apparently signed the -- MR. YBACET A: Yes, she did. She is with child and she's about due. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, then I'll close the -- any comments from the board? Page 5 August 24, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation agreement as submitted. MR. DeWITTE: I'll second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. YBACET A: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. N ow move to the stipulated agreement in Case No. 2006-47. Calexico, Inc. versus Collier County. MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Morning. MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: This case opened up as a patrol on May 4th, 2006 for the violation maintenance of building and structures of. Mr. Santos and I reached a stipulation agreement yesterday in which he agreed to pay the operational costs of $316.27 and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit within 30 days, and 60 days after permit is issued to get a C.O. or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And he must contact me that the violation has been abated and request that I come Page 6 August 24, 2006 out and perform a site inspection. I have pictures of the violation, if you would like to see. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, please. MR. KEEGAN: That's the rear of the building. It's actually a muffler shop on New Market Road in Immokalee. That's the front of the shop. As you can see, it's an eyesore. You can see the roof and the walls, there's a large gap between them. More exterior structure damage. And the business is operating. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions for the code enforcement officer? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, ifnot, then-- MR. KEEGAN: I would like to admit these into evidence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. May I have a motion to accept that as evidence. MR. KRAENBRING: Is the respondent here today? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is the respondent here? MR. KEEGAN: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we accept the exhibit. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 7 August 24, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Discussion amongst board? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation as prepared by the county and agreed by the respondent. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, we do have two late submittals as well for stipulations. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: We're working as we were going through the other one. The first one is Case No.2 on your agenda, 2006-42. And then the other would be No.9 on your agenda, Case No. 2006-53. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll go ahead and move those on up then, if that's okay with the rest of the board. MR. DEAN: Absolutely. MS. ARNOLD: We may hear the second one first. It looks like they're still working on the other one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So that would be 2006-53. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 8 August 24, 2006 MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement supervisor. I met with Mr. Pierre this morning and we agreed to enter into a stipulated agreement in the CEB Case No. 2006-53. He agreed that there was a violation, being the illegal renovation of a non-living space of the ground floor of this two-story structures into living area with plumbing, electric and sewer improvements without obtaining proper Collier County building permits for such use, and also utilizing this illegal living space, leading to an overcrowding of this property above the allowed five people. He has agreed to pay the operational costs of $370.39 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and by abating all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy for all described non-permitted improvements, or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, all required inspections, certificate of completion, removing all related debris and restoring the structure to its originally permitted condition. This condition must be completed within two months of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. In addition, he must reduce the number of people living here to five or below within one month of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day this violation continues. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the respondent need to notify? MR. LETOURNEAU: Pardon? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the respondent -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, yeah, and also needs to notify me-- must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? MR. KRAENBRING: Is the respondent here? Page 9 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is the respondent here? MR. LETOURNEAU: He left. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Ifno questions of the code enforcement officer, then I'll close that part of the stipulation agreement and ask for comments from the board. MR. DeWITTE: Make a motion that we accept the stipulation agreement as submitted. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Are we ready for the 2006-42? MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: My respondent is here. Should we call them up and have them sworn in? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, please. Would you like to come up and be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, environmental investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. This would be CEB Case No. 2006-42, department No. 2005081247. The case involves a site development plan and the Page 10 August 24, 2006 required landscape that's been allowed to deteriorate below that standard. Connie Sanchez is appearing here today as a representative of Worthwhile Development, III. And she has signed a stipulation. She has agreed to abate all violations by paying the operational costs in the amount of$535.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case. That would be $535.35 (sic). CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thirty-five or 85? MS. O'FARRELL: 85 cents, thank you. She will also abate all violations by replacing all missing required landscape on the property in accordance with the county approved landscape plan dated October 14th, 2002 from SDP No. 98-22, to include all plantings around apartment building foundations, parking areas, common areas and buffers, according to mitigation code. Buffer D shall be native canopy trees 14 foot at time of planting, three-inch diameter abreast height planted 30 feet on center, and native shrubs planted in double row, minimum of three-gallon planted three feet on center and two feet in height at time of planting. The hedge shall be planted and maintained so as to form a continuous unbroken solid visual screen with a minimum of one year -- within a minimum of one year free of debris and exotics. The buffer B shall be native canopy trees 14 feet at the time of planting. Three-foot diameter abreast -- three inches diameter abreast height, planted 25 feet on center. And native shrubs shall be planted in a single row, a minimum of 10 gallon planted four feet on center, five feet in height and with a three-foot spread at time of planting. The hedge shall be planted and maintained so as to form a continuous unbroken solid visual screen within a minimum of one year and free of debris and exotics. She will ensure that all required landscaping has fully functioning irrigation system. Page 11 August 24, 2006 The installation of the required landscape to be completed by September 28th, 2006. If the installation of the required landscape is not completed by September 28th, 2006, a daily fine of $200 will be imposed as long as the violation continues to exist. The respondent must notify code enforcement the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you agree to those stipulations? MS. SANCHEZ: Yes, I do, I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: One quick question, technical question. Your relationship to Worthwhile Development? MS. SANCHEZ: Property manager of Heritage Apartments at the property Worthwhile Development. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnone, then I will close this part of it and move to the board for comment. MR. DeWITTE: She's got enough time. Can she get a contractor and landscaper and get all those trees planted in a month? MS. O'FARRELL: If that's a question for me, her landscaper, Gustavo, is here. MR. De WITTE: I was just asking if that was enough time to get the trees and get them in. MR. RIVEROT: Of course there's enough time. The real -- my most important concern is the responsibility of the owner that give a proper payment. That's the only problem. MS. SANCHEZ: Well, we've fixed a lot of things already, so -- MS. O'FARRELL: Should Mr. -- I'm sorry, Gustavo, I don't remember. Should he be sworn in? Page 12 August 24, 2006 (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have one question for Jean. If she's the property manager, does she still have the legal right? MS. RAWSON: You can ask her if you have the legal authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of Worthwhile. If she answers yes, then we're safe. MS. SANCHEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as present by the county and accepted by the property manager of this concern. Assume that she has the authority to agree to such a stipulated agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. Have a good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You too. How are you doing, Cherie'? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's going to move us to -- MR. KRAENBRING: Lunch. Page 13 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- the hearings. And that will be -- the first case we'll hear will be Case No. 2006-43, Russell and Katja Risteen. I hope I said that close. Could we have both parties sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, Shirley, would you like to MS. GARCIA: Sure. For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement Board secretary. CEB Case No. 2006-43, Board of County Commissioners versus Russell and Katj a Risteen. Violation of the ordinances is 04-41, Section 5.03.02(B)(3). The description of the violation: Is a fence exceeding a maximum height of six feet. The location where the address of the violation exists: Is 758 Pan Am Avenue, Naples. The owner of the person in charge of the violation: Is Russell and Katj a Risteen. The date the violation was first observed: Was February 16th 2006. The person in charge given the notice of violation: Was February 16th of 2006. The date on which the violation was to be corrected: March 16th of2006. Date of the reinspection: June 9th of 2006. Results of the reinspection: Was a violation still existed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MARTINDALE: Good morning. For the record, my name's Ron Martindale. I'm an investigator for Collier Code Enforcement. This case was brought to my attention due to a letter from Mr. Bill Hammond, director of building review and permitting, reference Page 14 August 24, 2006 Mr. Risteen failing to comply with having the fence erected to the correct height. Initially it was granted a C.O., but upon investigation they found that it didn't pass the requirements per Mr. Hammond. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me one second. I forgot to enter your packet into evidence. So before you get much further, I would like to hear a motion to accept the packet as evidence. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Sorry for the interruption. MR. MARTINDALE: I made a site visit on the 16th of February. Met with Mr. Risteen, advised him of the letter that he had mailed. Also presented him with one -- that I had a photocopy of the same letter, and issued a Notice of Violation because of the letter, to have the fence altered to correct specs or removed entirely as repermitting it will not be permitted as per Mr. Hammond's failure of the -- and cancellation of the prior approved, which was done -- it was revoked. Subsequently made several rechecks. We had a -- on the fourth month, 12th day, had a meeting with Mr. Hammond and he confirmed the installation was in violation. I contacted Mr. Risteen and advised him of the above, and I did continue the rechecks. We had another meeting on the 20th of April with Patti Petrulli, Page 15 August 24, 2006 my supervisor, Mr. Bill Hammond and Mr. Risteen, and the letter was again stating it was disapproved. To date, we have no compliance in the case. As per yesterday, rather. To give you an idea of what the violation looks like. This is viewed from the neighboring property. Mr. Risteen's property is to the left of this fence. What Mr. Hammond advised the problem here was is the maximum allowable height is six feet. When Mr. Risteen built the new structure of his home, he's the owner/builder, he not only elevated the home as per required by FEMA specs and county ordinances, he also raised the elevation of the entire property. Then placed a retention wall, as you see at the bottom of the vertical standards there, to retain his property. Then on the other side is where he built the six-foot fence. Obviously, if viewed from his rear yard, it's six feet tall. Viewed from the neighbor's yard, it's -- the tower's quite a bit higher than that. And here's a closer shot. I would like to have these entered as evidence too, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept this as evidence? MR. KRAENBRING: So moved. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 16 August 24, 2006 (N 0 response.) MR. MARTINDALE: That's all I have, Your Honor -- or I'm sorry, folks. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to speak now? MR. RISTEEN: I just had a couple questions. I did go to Bill Hammond and asked him what do we do about the situation that was mandated to me to raise my land to shed 100 percent of my runoff to the street. Now, the only way I can do that is to elevate it. Howard McFee, who was the landscape engineer at the time, gave me the game plan on how to do it. So I followed his letter to the law. I had the engineering department back out right after the meeting that we had with them. And he wouldn't tell me how to do it. So I called up the engineering department and had them come out. They were nice enough to bring a surveyor out. He said this is exactly what we wanted. So I did the land according to what the county told me to do. I wanted it to go down to the neighbor's yard, because that's less dirt for me. And at the end of the project they said no, you've got to pick it up. I said okay, how do you do it? Okay, this is how you do it. So I followed what they said, built it like this. Had to put a retaining wall, because that represents how much higher my lot is than his 50-year-old house. Now, we've got -- the house over here has to -- you know, it's been grandfathered in. So I can't get the water off my property without having the land higher than the street. And his is lower, and it goes to the back. All the houses drain to the back. They changed the law and they want me to follow the new law. I said that's fine, it's great. Because otherwise it has a flood issue. So when I asked Mr. Hammond how to correct that he said, I'm not going to tell you. So I don't know what to do. So Ron, you know, he just tells me what the deal is. So all I'm asking you all is if you measure it from the new code Page 1 7 August 24, 2006 height, which is where I am, or the old code, old house height, which is down, like at the maximum it's 22 inches in the very far back, because his property goes back down. Then it goes all the way till it's about like this in the front. It's not in the picture. The fence is longer. That was the one thing I just wanted an answer to. Because I'm not here to buck you all. I'm just -- you know, I'm going to have a funny-looking fence now. Because the front is correct, the side has to be dropped down funny. And I asked every neighbor around there if they had an issue with it and nobody cares. They thought, well, that looks fine. And it's just this one guy. So in order to -- so what I was looking at is there's a stipulation here in the codes that says that there's -- you can do an amendment to this code and maybe in my case because there's a new and an old conflicting law. Because I can't get my water off the property, I don't know any other way. So I mean, I just don't know how, except for that. And I thought I did right and then I was confirmed that I did do right. And they were out and there's a -- they took pictures and everything. So I just need your help to what to do. I mean, if I lower it -- now, I don't have the right to have a six-foot fence. And I have two German Shepherds and I'd rather they not jump over the fence. So I've got another issue, keep the dogs from hopping over the fence now. And there -- the guy didn't even live there. But, you know, that's not the point. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We can't give you the right to get the amendment. That you have to go through a different channel. But maybe we can -- do you have any suggestions as to -- MR. MARTINDALE: Well, the criteria set forth in the code states because this is a bordering property that it has to be six foot distance on each side of the fence from the lowest space. Page 18 August 24, 2006 The only -- there are only two options that I can see: One would be complete removal of the fence. The other would be obtain a permit to go in, and I don't even know if it's required to obtain a permit, but to reduce the overall height of the fence till it falls within county code. Or take the fence, set it back on his property a few feet, a few inches, and that way it would be six -- it would be on his property and not as a boundary. So that way it would be six feet on either side of the fence. However, he would lose some of his property line then. MR. KRAENBRING: I have a question for the inspector. Isn't the fence on his property already? MR. MARTINDALE: It's on the property line. And as per code, quote -- it's not a quote, this is from Hammond, so it's not from the code. But the home exceeds the minimum flood base elevation by 4.5 feet. And the desire to have the side entrance to the garage required the home to be moved closer to the west setbacks as opposed to be more centered on the lot. And that Section 503.02(B)(3) states specifically the fence exceeds the allowable height when measured from the lowest elevation from the side of the fence that is at the lowest elevation. Which means it needs to be six feet from either side when it's on a property line. In effect you've got a six-foot fence on Mr. Risteen's side and an eight or 10-foot fence on the other side. MR. RISTEEN: It's not even eight feet. MR. MARTINDALE: I never measured it, sir. MR. RISTEEN: I did, because I built it. MR. MARTINDALE: I believe you did. MR. RISTEEN: And I have been asking everybody about that. And I'm not allowed to have a six-foot fence. So that's not fair to me. Why didn't he elevate his property to new code and pick his house up? His floor is at the same height as my garage. His floor height on his house, which is up on -- same thing but up on piles is the same height as my garage floor. MR. KRAENBRING: So if we did -- if there was a survey of Page 19 August 24, 2006 this property, the property line would show that the fence is directly on the property line? MR. MARTINDALE: I assume. MR. RISTEEN: It's mostly on my property. It might even go -- it might be an inch back or it might be right on the property line. Because I, you know, shot the thing off of both the bench marks. So, I mean, it's right up to the line. Because that's what the code books say you could do, so that's what I did. So I didn't, you know, try to get any -- encroach anything. And I pulled my stuff -- so that fence right there where the post and all are, that's on my property. The actual fence sections might be right on the line with the -- the wood part is on his side and the cross rails are on my side, that kind of thing. So, you know, and it's just -- MR. MARTINDALE: The fence would have to be in its entirety on your property. MR. RISTEEN : Well, can I put the fence on this side and have the post show on the outside of the fence? Because that's what I didn't know. MR. MARTINDALE: The finished side must always be out. MR. RISTEEN: Yeah. So if I put the good side facing this way but it happened to have the post on the outside of the fence like that? MR. MARTINDALE: Only thing I can tell you, Mr. Risteen, is what the code says, and -- MR. RISTEEN: That's the scary part for me, because I have conflicting laws, and I don't know where to go. And I asked -- MR. MARTINDALE: I'm going by the one that's stated here. And, you know, I have copies of it. I thought I provided you with one, but if not, I'd be glad to do so. MR. RISTEEN: No, I know. I know the lowest elevation. But new or old code? And then he found the old code. Unless I back up seven and a half feet and give him seven and a half feet on my Page 20 August 24, 2006 property just so I could have a six-foot fence. Something sounds amISS. MR. KRAENBRING: At the front of the property where the yard, the grade meets the sidewalk or the street, is that at equal height to the adjoining neighbor? So that would then be considered to be the lowest elevation, and from that point up to only be six feet? MR. MARTINDALE: It would have to be in the rear plane of the property where the fence is. MR. KRAENBRING: In the rear plane. MR. MARTINDALE: Wherever the fence is, that is where we go from, from either side of the fence. MR. RISTEEN: And his property is eroded. He's got a driveway right where he's -- Ron's standing right where the carport is, and it drops down like that right off the back of the slab, because it's eroded. Nobody's taken care of the things. MR. MARTINDALE: What we have here also -- MR. RISTEEN: I've got erosion on top of it. MR. MARTINDALE: The house next to Mr. Risteen is rather old. Built in '57, I believe. At the time we didn't have any standards requiring elevation, at least at that point. Mr. Risteen built his new home; we required him to raise the home due to elevations by FEMA and local code. However, he wasn't required to raise the rear yard. MR. RISTEEN: I was, too. Howard McFee directed me, specifically saying that I will never get a C.O. if I don't have that backyard up where 100 percent of my runoff goes to the street. MR. MARTINDALE: Well, I also have another letter here-- MR. RISTEEN: Or I wouldn't have built it like that. I don't want to have a, you know, problem with building a house. MR. DeWITTE: I have a question. MR. DEAN: Mr. Martindale? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. Page 21 August 24, 2006 MR. DeWITTE: I'm sorry, I don't have a Page 8 in my package. And neither does Mr -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't either. MR. DeWITTE: Page 8 is the continuation of the ordinance that starts to talk about the height of the fence, and I'd like to read it for myself. MR. DEAN: Mr. Martindale? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. DEAN: Is the fence like supposed to be six feet from the grade? MR. MARTINDALE: It's from six feet of -- MR. DEAN: From the grade of the property? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. MARTINDALE: The ground elevation on the side of the fence location that is lowest shall be used as a point from which the fence height is measured. MR. DeWITTE: And that was somebody's statement. Who was it that said that? MR. MARTINDALE: No, that is actual 04-41, Section 503.02(B)(3). MR. DeWITTE: Could you read that again? MR. MARTINDALE: I have it right here. Yes, under B-3, this is directly from the Land Development Code: The ground elevation on both sides of the fence in measuring the fence height, the ground elevation on the side of the fence location that is at the lowest elevation shall be used as a point from which the fence height is measured. MR. KRAENBRING: And that ground elevation can be either the neighbor's yard or his yard? MR. MARTINDALE: Whichever is on either side of the fence. MR. KRAENBRING: So what would resolve the issue as far as keeping his six foot would be if the fence got pushed over so that there Page 22 August 24, 2006 was your property on both sides of that fence? MR. MARTINDALE: Correct, sir. MR. RISTEEN: But I would be giving the man seven and a half feet of my property. MR. KRAENBRING: You'd have to move it over six feet in order for that? MR. MARTINDALE: That, sir, I don't know. We'd have to go with somebody at planning to give us a specific criteria. But you do need -- yes, that's one way of doing it, modification or moving it. MR. KRAENBRING: You'd have to move it six feet off of the property line before you -- MR. MARTINDALE: I'm not saying six feet. I'm just saying it needs to be moved over so it's equal. As far as I know, ifhe moved it over this far it would be legal. MR. MORGAN: One thing I'd like to -- I think in most states it's against the law to run surface water over on your neighbor. I understand the problem that he has, he has to raise up the elevation. That puts him at an unfair advantage. Because this guy will never raise the elevation of -- MR. RISTEEN: Exactly. MR. MORGAN: -- his backyard and it puts him at a disadvantage, because he had to raise his elevation of his backyard to conform with FEMA or Collier County. The neighbor next door will never do that. It puts him at a disadvantage, because you have to measure from the lowest point, as I understand. And that would be -- his neighbor's yard would never be raised. And the only way that he could overcome that would be to slope his yard back to the corner and put a sump pump in there that would -- if they had a drain, they could pump the water back out into a storm sewer. MR. MARTINDALE: I understand what you're -- MR. MORGAN: You can do that. But that's very, very, very Page 23 August 24, 2006 expensive. I've done it one time before. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, we really can't discuss the merits of the grading issues of either properties, but -- MR. DeWITTE: Yeah, could I speak to this code for a second? What we're citing here, B-3, is not a rule. What this says is that okay, when you've got altered ground heights or you've got different things, the county manager gets to determine what the ground height is for measurement. And it doesn't tell him how he has to do it, it just says he gets to do it. And he says here are four different guidelines he can use in help determining what that level should be. He can take the general ground elevation the entire lot; that's one way he can go. He can take, you know, all these different things. It doesn't say he has to use B-3 and that's how ground height is measured. He said there are ways for him to determine what he wants ground height to be. In my opinion, there's no reason that the ground elevation can't be the elevation of his lot and his fence can be okay. It does not say you have to use the lowest point off one side of the fence, the way I read the code. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Are there any other questions to either the code enforcement officer or to the property owner? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, at this time I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. MR. PONTE: I do have one question, but I'm not quite sure who to direct it to. Taken that point that was just made, if the general ground elevation for the entire lot was used, what would be the height of the fence? MR. MARTINDALE: Sir, again, I don't know. I'm not an engineer, I didn't okay the plans for the development of the house or Page 24 August 24, 2006 the required elevation. I'm only stating from a letter from Mr. Bill Hammond who's in charge of building review and permitting that the permit was revoked because it was in error of stated code. MR. PONTE: Well, let me ask the same question of Mr. Risteen. U sing the ground elevation of the entire lot, what then would be the height of that fence, sir? MR. RISTEEN : Well, considering the slope in the back going down to the grade of the street and the median -- MR. PONTE: And I think what this is is an average. What's the average elevation of the entire lot? MR. KRAENBRING: It would be lowest point. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Lowest. MR. KRAENBRING: We're looking at the back of your property, right? MR. RISTEEN: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: Facing backwards. So what I understand, it's sloping toward the front. MR. RISTEEN: Yeah, the highest point is that back corner. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. MR. RISTEEN: And his lowest point is his back corner. So they're double out, you know? MR. KRAENBRING: So when your property slopes towards the front and meets the street, your property's heights are equal to your neighbors, in effect. MR. RISTEEN: Yeah, kind of. His is down low because he's got a gravel driveway and all this other rot. But mine's up to code so it's technically a little higher, because it's planed and graded. MR. KRAENBRING: It's about a 24-inch difference, you're saying, from rear to front? MR. RIS TEEN: The very farthest -- or widest differential is 22 inches in the very back, and that's because his property goes like this. And he also shifts this way, so -- Page 25 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, you had a comment or question? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I did. The section of the code reads that the county manager or his designee shall determine the ground level for the purposes of measuring the fence and the height. The designee in this particular case is the permitting department, because they are the ones that make the determination what the height and what the ground level should be. There's been a determination made by Mr. Hammond, who's the building official and the director of the building department, that the subject fence exceeds the permittable height. And that's why we have brought this case before you. The language that reads after that says, in determining whether or not the ground level has been altered for the purposes of increasing the height, those are four things that should be considered. I'm making the assumption that because they sent us a letter from the building department that this is in violation, that they did that evaluation and came to the conclusion it's in violation, and that's why they forwarded the case to us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you for that clarification. Okay, are there any more questions to either-- MR. RISTEEN: Yeah, I have one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- party? MR. RISTEEN: How come I -- then how can I have a six-foot fence around my property? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're going to try to get to that, okay? MR. RISTEEN: I mean, that right there is not what they told me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other questions? MR. DeWITTE: Yeah, one last question. Am I understanding this fence doesn't have a valid permit right now then? They rejected it? Page 26 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's right. MR. MARTINDALE: It was rejected. And it's also expired, even if it wasn't. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'm going to close the public hearing and go to board discussion for finding of fact. Anybody have any comments, thoughts? Mr. Kelly (sic)? MR. DEAN: There is a violation, or there isn't? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You looked like you were going to say something. MR. DeWITTE: I thought you called me Mr. Kelly. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I did. MR. DeWITTE: I was just going to say I think we have no choice but to find the fact that there is an unpermitted fence. So I would make a motion that we do have a violation as we have an unpermitted structure on the property. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. KRAENBRING: One opposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now to remedy corrections. MR. PONTE: Well, you know, that's a good question in itself. Are we supposed to come up with a remedy on how to correct it, or simply now that we've found that there is a violation, continue with the violation? I don't know how you're going to correct this fence. Page 27 August 24, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's a good point, George. That's why I was not finding a violation, because I just don't feel I have enough information to determine where this elevation is taken from and how they're coming up with that. My other concern is that, you know, this fence probably just should be on the other side of that retaining wall. And if it were on the other side of the retaining wall, it may be a non issue. Because then you have six feet from the grade of the soil. Now, if they're saying that it's not measured from the grade at the top of that retaining wall, that it's measured from some other part of the yard, I have a concern that I don't have enough information to make a great ruling on this. I would have liked to have heard probably from the person who determined where this measurement is to be taken from. And I think maybe that's what the respondent's looking for, too. I don't think it would be -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that was kind of brought out that he was saying that was from the lowest point of either side of the fence, which goes to the -- not his property but the other individual's property. MR. KRAENBRING: So if this fence were moved over so that his property was on either side of that fence -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then it wouldn't be a problem. MR. KRAENBRING: -- then it wouldn't be a problem. But we just want to make sure that we don't -- that someone doesn't give this gentleman information that once he moves it over five inches, let's say, that they say no, now it needs to be moved over three feet or six feet, that there may be some sort of county code that would effect him moving the fence. We don't want him to have to move it twice. And certainly if it can't be moved for whatever reason, then yeah, the fence would probably need to be lowered to that point where we know that the Page 28 August 24, 2006 measurement's being taken from. MR. DEAN: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DEAN: I guess my only concern would be if it's supposed to be six feet from grade level, then that's it. Either (sic) you cut it off so it's six feet from grade level. And you just picture a yard, if it slopes way down, you're not going to build a fence out in the air. It doesn't follow the air, it follows the lay of the land. So wherever that fence lies, it should be six feet from grade no matter where it is. That's what I see. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think the problem is in this particular case, the grade is two different levels on either side of the fence. And so one side it is at six foot, the other side it is not. And they're taking the measurement from the lowest side of the fence, which is according to what he has read in the code. So that's where the problem is. You know, which side of the fence do you take the grade from? MR. DEAN: Well, to me the problem is that, you know, after 50 years there's a lot of redevelopment. And they all have to raise up their grade. And you can't say a person's never going to do it, because it's happened in Naples over and over and over, you have to raise the grade. So grandfather, whatever, but some day when that's developed, he has to raise the grade. So to me it pertains to this person's property that wherever his grade level is, six feet from grade is how high his fence should be. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, it seems to me that we're sort of assuming that the grade level is being taken from the neighbor's property in a way. You know, that's where -- MR. DEAN: You can get a shovel and make a grade level up or down wherever you want to do it. I mean, you can play with those numbers. Page 29 August 24, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: But in this particular case he would not be able to adjust his neighbor's grade. MR. DEAN: Pardon? MR. KRAENBRING: In this particular case he would not be able to adjust the grade level of his neighbor's yard. So moving the fence over so that there's -- his property on both sides of the fence, then you're measuring from -- MR. DEAN: I guess what I'm addressing is I don't see what his neighbor's yard has to do with this property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, if I can go back to the code enforcement officer. Could you please explain how you obtained the fact that the fence was not at six feet? MR. MARTINDALE: From the letter from Mr. Hammond. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could you put that letter back on? MR. MARTINDALE: Certainly. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If everybody would take a minute and go ahead and read that, please. Has everybody finished? Does that help? MR. KRAENBRING: It appears that they're saying it's -- in measuring the fence height, the ground elevation on the side of the fence location that is lowest shall be used as the point from which the fence height is to be measured. So they're measuring this from his neighbor's -- MR. DeWITTE: Neighbor's yard. MR. KRAENBRING: -- neighbor's yard. MR. DeWITTE: After they made him build up his yard. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. So the only two answers I can see would be take the fence and move it over so that your yard is on both sides and you're measuring off of your grade, or cut the fence down, make it so it's six feet from your neighbor's grade. Page 30 August 24,2006 MR. DeWITTE: Unfortunately we can't do that. We can tell him he needs to work out with the permit -- you know, with the department on how to get a properly permitted fence. And we don't know-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, we can't give him direction MR. DeWITTE: Whether he can move the fence over or not or what, we don't know. Whether Mr. Hammond would make an exception on how he's determining ground elevation, we don't know. He doesn't have to do it that way. MR. KRAENBRING: And again, I'm not telling him what to do, I'm just -- MR. MORGAN: By the way I look at it, he can move the fence anywhere he wants to, as long as it's on his property. It's not his -- it wasn't his fault that his neighbor's land is low. He had to raise his land to comply in order to get a building permit. That's not his problem. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, we have actually found-- this board said that he was not in compliance and that there was a problem here. And we had voted on that. We now need to move to what does he need to do, how many days does he need to do, the type of fines that we want to impose if he doesn't do. MR. KRAENBRING: Does the county have a recommendation? MR. MARTINDALE: The county recommends that the fence either be he moved or altered to meet current county code, which would be cutting the height of the fence or, like you said, moving it over. I would highly suggest that he would contact somebody before moving the fence, because we want specific criteria how far he would have to move it if in fact he wants to. We would ask for 14 days for -- at least to take some type of action, try to obtain a permit or alter the fence to have it -- I don't expect it to be completely done by that time, but to make an effort of some sort to do something about it. And requesting a $200 per day Page 3 1 August 24, 2006 fine after this 14-day period if no action's been taken. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put that on the screen, by the way? MR. MARTINDALE: I'm sorry, I don't have a copy with me. MR. PONTE: I'd just like to make a suggestion. I think that we should word the order in the widest -- couch it in the widest possible terms, because we don't have specific answers. There are a lot more questions. So the solution to the problem really will fall to the respondent to solve, however he solves it. So that the order from this board should be wide, I believe, and it should be very considerate of the amount of time it's really going to take to get the answers before the remedy is even attempted. MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a couple points. I think the 14 days might be a little bit of short time frame to get a -- I guess a permit for the fence to do -- MS. ARNOLD: It's a one-day permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand, but to get the answers necessary to get in touch with the people to make sure that the fence could be moved or whatever needs to be done with it. I think there's a lot of questions that need to be answered first. So I think 14 days might be a little too quick. I think a $200 a day fine is a little bit heavy also. So just a couple of things to consider. I would be more in line with probably about $50, around $50 a day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me see how I'm going to draft this. MR. DeWITTE: Before he we just come up with that, how much time do you think he should give him? I would give him 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: From start to finish? MR. DeWITTE: Ninety days to obtain a permit; to do whatever Page 32 August 24, 2006 is necessary to obtain a permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: And complete it at that point? MR. DeWITTE: Yeah, I think whatever. Just to have a permit in hand. I think that that would mean -- I don't know that they give them an SDP, site development plan for his fence or anything like that -- MR. MARTINDALE: No, no, no. MR. DeWITTE: He gets a permit or he doesn't, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you want this a two-stage process where it's 90 days, or 90 days to complete? MR. DeWITTE: Ninety days to have a permit in his hands for the fence, or have it removed. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that maybe getting a permit would be a little speedier than that. Then the completion of everything within 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 90 days. MR. DeWITTE: Wait a minute, I don't know that you could say, oh, okay, the solution is to move my fence six feet and they're going hand him a permit. They're not going to do that. If the solution is to move his fence six feet, he's going to have to move the fence six feet. So he's got to find out what the answer is, figure out how to do it, then he's got to do it. Then he's going to get the permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think he has to get the permit before he actually does anything else. Am I correct, Michelle? Would he have to obtain a permit before he does anything? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he would have to, because -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because otherwise he would be out of compliance of doing something without a permit, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So otherwise, he would be out of compliance because he'd be doing something without a permit, Page 33 August 24, 2006 correct? MS. ARNOLD: Well, according to what the investigator testified is that the permit's expired, so yes, he would have to get a permit to relocate it. Whether or not he needs a permit to reduce the height, I don't know, I'm not sure. MR. PONTE: But ifhe were to decide that he wanted to move the fence, I think the difficulty's going to be finding out how far he has to move it. We've heard testimony that it could be feet, inches. And unless we can make a phone call from here and just ask the responsible authority how far do you have to move a fence. MS. ARNOLD: We could get that information and provide that to Mr. Risteen. As a part of the order, if you want to even put that in there. I mean, it's not difficult getting ahold of the building official. He did write a response. I know that they've met before. So I'm not really -- we could surely provide that information to Mr. Risteen, if that's what he needs. MR. RISTEEN: Can I speak? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, we've closed the hearing. MR. RISTEEN: Because I see an answer. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, that will be up to you to handle. Right now we're not actually going to open it back up for public comment, sorry. MR. DEAN: Madam Chairman, I just have a question that's bothering me here. What -- maybe it's a silly question, but what is the lowest side? MS. BARNETT: The lowest side is his neighbor's property. MR. DEAN: Okay. So in other words, if I'm building a fence or building my home, I have to worry about my neighbor's depth and height and all that stuff. So if his fence decides to plow under maybe six feet, his fence would look kind of funny if he had to go to the lowest side. Page 34 August 24, 2006 To me this lowest side is -- in the ordinance something didn't get changed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, that's something that needs to be addressed through the ordinance, it's not what we can do here. MR. DEAN: Right. But maybe that's where the problem lies, the lowest side. Because the guy next door is not in compliance with modern day -- okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody going to take a stab at the motion? MR. PONTE: I think Gerald is. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thanks, guys. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ready, Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll try. Make a motion that the respondent pay all operational costs. Will have 30 days to receive the permit to remove fence or move fence -- take corrective action, or a $50 fine per day. Will have 90 days to -- I should say 60 days after receiving the permit to correct the fence. And must notify code enforcement after abatement. MR. DeWITTE: Just a question about that. I don't know enough about the permitting process, whether it has its own time lines in it or, you know, when he gets a new permit to move the fence or, you know, whether it's a 30-day permit or it's a 120-day permit or what -- MS. ARNOLD: It's a one-day permit. A fence is a one-day permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: About how long is the duration of that permit for, six months? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, for six months. All permits are six months. MR. DeWITTE: Do we want to give him 60 days or the full six months to get the permit? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Once he gets the permit, do you Page 35 August 24, 2006 want to give him a time frame that he has to get it completed by, or by the end of -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Sixty days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Rather than the six months of the permit that he's allowed? MS. ARNOLD: You do that all the time. MR. KRAENBRING: And are you going to impose a fine if the work's not completed after the permit? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, $50 fine. MR. KRAENBRING: An additional $50 to get -- he's got a $50 fine ifhe doesn't obtain the permit within 30 days, and ifhe doesn't complete the work after 60 days, an additional $50 per day? MR. DeWITTE: You're saying at 90 days ifhe's done nothing, would he be at $100 per day. I think that's what you're saying. MR. KRAENBRING: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: Do we add that he has to contact code enforcement? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He did it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we want to add in there about demolition? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: You did, didn't you? Demolition permit, you said at 30 days will -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, within 90 days, if the fence cannot be corrected or cannot obtain permit the fence -- you must receive a demolition permit and remove fence. Say within 90 days the fence must be removed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Or a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Or a $50 fine. MS. ARNOLD: Can I get clarification on that last part? Is it 90 days for a demolition permit or for demolition? MR. LEFEBVRE: Ninety days -- after 90 days if he's not able to Page 36 August 24, 2006 get a permit to move the fence, he will have a $50 fine, and it's 60 days remove the fence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That didn't make sense. He has 90 days -- MR. DeWITTE: I think originally we said 30 days either to get the demolition permit or the permit to change the fence. That's what I had heard. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, go with that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, would you like to read back what you have? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think what you said was that he needs to obtain a valid Collier County permit within 30 days to move the fence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MS. RAWSON: In the alternative, he needs to obtain a demolition permit to remove the fence within 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I think that's what you said. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. RAWSON: And ifhe doesn't do one, it's $50. And ifhe doesn't do two, it's $50. So he's got 30 days to do something. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: Thirty days to obtain either an alteration or demolition permit. After he obtains either one of those, then he has 60 days to complete the work or another $50 fine. So we have 30 and then 60 days, total of 90. $50 and $50 more ifhe doesn't comply. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second that -- MS. RAWSON: I need to know about the 90. I only have 30 and 30. MR. KRAENBRING: No, it was just the total, 90. Page 37 August 24, 2006 MR. DeWITTE: There's another 60 days to complete the work after the permit is issued. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. MR. DeWITTE: Whether that be the demolition work or the change. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And then if it's not completed, there's an additional $50 a day. And he must notify the county upon either -- okay. MR. DeWITTE: And he was issued to pay operational costs, which do we know what those are? MR. MARTINDALE: I don't, sir. They're in here. MR. KRAENBRING: Looks like you have operational costs of $261.83? MR. LEFEBVRE: But won't that increase? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It may change. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, it may change. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then just say operational costs at this time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion on the floor and it has been seconded. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: One opposed. Do you understand, sir? MR. RISTEEN: I'm sorry, what? Page 38 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you understand? MS. RAWSON: His question was, did you have the power to amend the code? And I'm trying to explain to him that your power is only to determine whether or not a violation has occurred to the existing code, and if so, what to do about it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe you'd have to go in front of the county commission in order to request a variance, which is what that is. MS. ARNOLD: No, he is -- if you're talking about amending the code, you have the ability to submit an amendment as a public citizen to the zoning department to amend the code. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But isn't that a long process? MS. ARNOLD: It's a very long process. MR. RISTEEN: Yeah, who's in charge of making some kind of allowance between 50 years of code? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wouldn't that be a variance? MR. RISTEEN: And I'm paying the fine for this? Why am I paying a fine for this? There's two different laws. I'm abiding by both of them. MS. ARNOLD: There's not two different laws, there's one law. You are required to improve your elevation on your property. And the code is recognizing that there's improvements being made and that you have to also recognize that there's properties that have existed and you don't want to impact those properties that are existing for 30 years or more. MR. RISTEEN: And where's my law that I have a six-foot fence right, just like my neighbor does? It's not that I'm cutting into his property. He's getting more privacy. I was told to raise my elevation. I did what I was told. I was told to put my fence on my elevation and I did that. Just because this guy is built on stilts over there, and his ground floor is the same height as my garage floor. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, could he not go for an Page 39 August 24, 2006 attempt to get a variance on his fence? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, for the height of the fence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And that would be -- MR. RISTEEN: Yeah, but they charge you two grand for that. Me, I have to pay $2,000 for-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That is your other alternative. MR. RISTEEN : Yeah, but that's not cost effective for me. The fence didn't cost that much. You know what I'm saying? It's a question of rights. I have a right to a six-foot fence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand. But the neighbor also has a right to looking at a six-foot fence, not a seven and a half foot fence. And that's the problem with the law and -- MR. RISTEEN: That was 50 years ago, though. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: His property still existed at that point -- MR. RISTEEN: So the law's favoring the 50-year-old property, and the new guy -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It was there first technically. MR. RISTEEN: -- has to pay the difference. Hey, but I was told what to do. So that means -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I cannot -- MR. RISTEEN: -- I don't have a right to a fence, that's it. That's what the county says. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sir, it's what the county says. We have made our ruling. MR. RISTEEN: Again. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again. I'm sorry. You'll have to move forward with that. And if you would like to go for a variance, that is your choice. Those are the options that I am allowed to give you at this time. That's the only jurisdiction that I have. MR. RIS TEEN: Well, I like your idea, trying to find something -- you know, some common sense in all this, and maybe put my Page 40 August 24,2006 sections on the other side of the post, then the whole thing would be on my property. MR. KRAENBRING: I think -- MR. RISTEEN: That would be easy. I'd do that this weekend. MR. KRAENBRING: -- that's what we're giving you the opportunity to do, you see -- MR. RISTEEN: I get 90 days -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go get the permit and see if that would work. MR. RISTEEN: Go get the permit? I already bought a permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But your permit has expired. MR. RISTEEN: It didn't expire, they ripped it out from me. I did what they told me to do and they said no, sorry, we changed our mind. And now you want me to pay again for another permit to do something that's really kind of ludicrous. And I can move the fence on this side and then ta-dah. And I'll do that to appease you, but I'm not going to pay for another permit -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not appeasing us, it's -- MR. RISTEEN: -- and then fines and stuff. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- going by the base of the code, and they said that you did not meet the code so therefore they pulled the permit. MR. RISTEEN: Does that depend on what day it is? Because they already told me I did it right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sir, I'm sorry. MR. RISTEEN: I know. But let's get a remedy. I wanted to fix it, that's what I went to Bill Hammond for. MR. DeWITTE: This board can't remedy you, just tell you to work it out with the permit department. That's all we can do. MR. RISTEEN: Okay, I'll work it out with them. But I want you know that I really -- Page 41 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think maybe -- MR. RISTEEN: -- protest about this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- you might try to take that suggestion to Mr. Hammond and see if that would work. MR. RISTEEN: I tried that. You were there right when I was leaving. And he didn't want nothing to do with it. He said, I'm not going to tell you how to do that. I said, well, hey, tax dollars at work. And Ijust wanted to comply. And now all it's doing is costing me money. And that's not fair. And the only -- nobody has a problem with it except this one guy with the 50-year-old house. So, you know, what do we do with it? You can make amendments. You said you can do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We cannot make amendments to the code. MR. RISTEEN : Well, I just -- just for curiosity sake, what about this amendment to the code? That has to go before the code board and variance and two grand out of my pocket for a lousy fence section. Okay, then there's other ones you said you can consider but not limited to the following facts. Not limited. So you guys can come up with ideas that makes it perfectly okay and the other guy has a little bit too high of a fence but now my fence is six feet. Wow. He could put bushes up like he said he was going to do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair, the hearing is closed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Closed. MR. RISTEEN: Yeah, I know, I know. MR. LEFEBVRE: And unfortunately -- MR. RISTEEN: I'm done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Cherie', would you like a break, or are you ready to move on? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine, thank you. Page 42 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Move to the next case, which will be 2006-39. Calexico, Inc., Collier County. MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, code enforcement board secretary. I'd like to enter in the County's Exhibit A into evidence. CEB Case No. 2006-39, Board of County Commissioners versus Calexico, Inc., registered agent, Osornio Santos. The violation of Ordinance 81-42, Sections 1. The description of the violation: Is no Collier County occupational license for a business operation of a rooming house/dormitory. The location of where the address of the violation exists: Is 190 South Third Street, in Immokalee. The name of the person in charge of the violation location: Is Osornio Santos, 190 South Third Street, Immokalee. Date of (sic) the violation was first observed: Was January 24th, 2006. Date the owner or person in charge given notice of violation: Was January 24th, 2006. Date on which the violation was to be corrected: February 14th, 2006. Date of the reinspection: May 31 st, 2006. Results of the reinspection: Was the violations still remain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept the packet into evidence. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the packet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 43 August 24, 2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Will you please swear in both parties. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, S-Y-K-O-R-A, Collier County Code Enforcement, Immokalee investigator and temporary supervisor. This case began on January 24th, 2006 when I received a complaint that Santos Corner, the respondent's business, did not have an occupational license. After research, I determined that there was none for this location. Consequently, I sent a Notice of Violation and copy of the ordinance to the owner, who happens to be the registered agent also for the company. On March 8th, 2006, I had received back the Notice of Violation that -- they did not receive it, so I went to the location and obtained -- and served the Notice of Violation and obtained the signature. I also advised the owner of the violation and tried helping him to go about submitting information to obtain one. I also spoke to David Hedrich, a planner, who stated that he had spoke to the owner and advised him that he must submit a site improvement plan for the occupational license, as this business had been operating for years without one. I was advised that the owner did apply for one, but he mailed everything in. And I spoke to the respondent who stated the application and check was returned, so I advised him to personally go to planning to determine what is required to obtain the occupational Page 44 August 24, 2006 license. I also spoke to the fire inspector out in Immokalee who was supposed to go in and inspect the location. However, I do not believe that he has done that since that was May 8th, 2006. Consequently, nothing has been done, so I prepared the case for the Code Enforcement Board. I do have photos of the location I'd like to submit for evidence. This is the exterior of the building. It's pretty much a -- run as a rooming house/dormitory. It's located at 190 South Third Street, Immokalee and it's in C-4 zoning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Carol, I have one question for you. When you're going to apply for an occupational license, before you can obtain that license, don't you have to have that fire inspection? MS. SYKORA: Yes, it has to go through the zoning department so they can determine if the area is zoned for this business. And according to the planner, he said that he would require a site plan, because he never really had one for that area to obtain the license. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the fire inspection. MS. SYKORA: Yes, the fire inspection goes along with it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So could this have been returned possibly because he had not had the fire inspection? MS. SYKORA: There was more to it, I believe, than that. They wanted him to get a site improvement plan for the area. But he was unsure he had mailed all the information in. And I suggested that he must go down there to speak to them in person to exactly find out what he needed to obtain the license, if it was attainable. This is the interior of the rooming house dormitory. Basically it's beds lined up and/or mattresses on the floor. Where people are charged, I believe, $8.00 per day to stay there. And there is one area there -- that's why I pretty much call it a Page 45 August 24, 2006 dormitory, because there's one area for the restrooms and showers. No individual showers or restrooms. That was a ceiling. There was some damage to the ceiling in the interior. And I believe they did have the buckets there to catch the water that was coming through. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are these pictures part of your package? MS. SYKORA: Yes. I'd like to have them submitted for evidence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'd like to have a motion to accept MR. PONTE: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, sir, your turn. MR. SANTOS: Well, I have Mr. Coleman to talk for me. That's because Mr. Coleman, he's my CPA. Every time I get a letter -- I'm not an educated man -- I bring it to him. And I have my migrant camp license, and I had it for -- since 1987. And that's all I have been required to have. And now a new license came in for an occupational license, which just came in, asking me to have it. And I will comply. But I would like to have Mr. Coleman to talk for me. Page 46 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Coleman, would you please stand up and be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. COLEMAN: My name's Robert Coleman. I'm a CPA and I live and operate a county practice in Immokalee. I've been there for 29 years. And this is a lot of extenuating circumstances behind the action taken here today. And you've got to understand some of those circumstances to see why Mr. Osornio, he's clearly in violation of not having a license. But the sequence of events that led up to that has a great -- has a common sense kind of bearing on where he stands right now. He was unaware he needed an occupational license. He's already started that. Once he was made aware he had to have that he took the action. He didn't wait, didn't dig his heels in, try to defy the government authorities. He tried to get that. He couldn't understand the forms to even apply so he brought them to the office and we went through those. One of the flaws in the process there is the forms did not really apply to allow the way he operates. Very confusing set of forms, as are lots of forms everywhere you go with permits and things like that. I deal with that with the internal revenue all the time. He filled those out and he mailed those in with a payment in good faith, and they were rejected on the standpoint that he didn't have a site plan. Noone explained to him in detail really what he had to do to repair that. Mrs. Sykora has been very cooperative in trying to educate him on how this process works. It's complicated. It's complicated for me. It's complicated for a lot of people to know this process unless you work in it every day. And most people don't. When you start to go over to get a permit, it presupposes you're going to be treated in a professional manner, if you don't have the Page 47 August 24, 2006 required documents, they can explain to you in detail what you need to do step by step by step. People like myself and Mr. Osornio when you go up there, and anagrams and cliche terms and things or legalistic terms are used to describe part of the processes. It's no wonder you can't understand what you have to do. And he certainly did not. The process of getting a permit is not as easy and a done deal as most people think. Mr. Lefebvre was very astute in noticing this case before. Fourteen days to get a permit for anybody is next to impossible. But in a surrounding like this of Mr. Osornio's, he's told what to do to get a permit or get an operational license, go through the steps, which he did. So when he was rejected, I said Santos, let's just go over there and find out from the county exactly what we need to do to cure this thing. This is an occupational license. You know, 25, $35 and, you know, you pay it every year, pay your fine. Because he was truly not aware he needed to get one of those. He had a health permit, he pays -- all the other taxes, tangible, intangible, sales taxes, all those taxes he's in compliance. So when I went over there with him, we went up to the front desk and -- for instance, in the zoning department, went to the desk for the occupational license, and we were deferred to this other gentleman to the right who had to look at the paperwork and site plans. So he looks at his monitor and he says, well, you're going to need a site plan, this is not a site plan here. Well, Mr. Osornio thought it was a site plan, within the original package of the site plan. But it wasn't the right kind of site plan. You've got to have one that's engineering generated and approved with the proper licenses and submitted to really ensure that you can get the site plan through. Well, Santos says, well, I have another site plan in the car which shows the parking, which that's what the gentleman behind the counter was asking for, where's the parking here. So he went and got that. Page 48 August 24, 2006 Then he says, I can't deal with this, I need to talk to Mr. Hedrich, Don Hedrich, and let him decide what he wants to do to get this thing moving forward. He comes back after four, five minutes and says, Mr. Hedrich's not anywhere to be found. So we said okay, what do we do next? Well, we go to the switchboard and try to leave notice for him so we can make connection later on. On the way to the switchboard this gentleman's walking down the hall and I stopped him, I said, do you know Don Hedrich? He said, sure I do. I says, have you seen him around? He said, he's probably around here somewhere. The gal at the switchboard says, let me page him. She paged him. He was sitting right at his desk. The guy at the front desk said he wasn't there, I don't know where he is, a meeting or whatever. That's the practical kind of thing that people go in -- and I've heard this for 29 years of the practical things that happen when they go -- to get these kinds of things done. And that needs to change. Now, we would like to know what he needs to get a site plan. Mr. Hedrich sat us down and he says, well, I notice in 1991 you submitted a site plan but it was for a retail business. Mr. Osornio can't even remember ever submitting any site plan in 1991. He bought the business in 1986. But clearly it says it right there that was a site plan. He says, you've got to get a new one for a dormitory or residential housing or flophouse. Whatever this happens to be, you have to get a new site plan developed, but you've got to get an engineer to do it. So that's -- you know it's going to go that direction because the engineer's going to get it done precisely by the book. Maybe it'll cost you four or $5,000. You submit the site plan. I says, okay, hypothetically if he does that, what's the process -- or probability he'll get an approved occupational license? He said, probably none. So you keep asking questions after you're told what to do, and if you can kind of think ahead down the road you think well, I can work Page 49 August 24, 2006 this out. Well, it gets to the point that you either quit or you get down the road, you find out I'm not going to let you go any further, I'm not going to give you an occupational license for this business. So we went back home. I went and talked to Mrs. Sykora again and said, what do we need to do? In the meantime, she had the impression that the business was going to be shut down in 25 days, or shorter period, right away. Shut down. I mean, we couldn't understand what that was about. In the meantime Mr. Osornio thought, you know, I'm too old for this. I've got to retire, I've got to sell my business. I just can't do this anymore. So he goes to a buyer that had expressed interest. He bought some big properties adjacent to his property and asked him is he still interested in buying that. And that potential buyer said, Santos, I know your building's going to get torn down. The county's going to take it and tear it down. Now, how did he find out something like that? It really suggests something very sinister is going on behind the scenes while he's being jerked around in the process. He's trying to do what he's supposed to do as a business owner. Something's wrong here. He wants to sell his property now because he can't keep up with this whole process anymore. And I really don't blame him for that. Now, we were looking at those plans in Mr. Hedrich's office, and he says, well, you were served a notice here to come to a hearing July the 17th. And it says the reason here is you weren't served because you weren't home. What really happened -- that's what was written, right on the reasons on his computer. I said, could you read that back to me again? He says, you weren't home so we couldn't serve you for that hearing. He got the notice the day before the hearing. I called to the office and said, what's going on here? How can you give somebody a certified letter and the hearing's the next day? Well, they found out it was Page 50 August 24, 2006 supposed to be sent out 10 days before to give him good notice. That's standard. But it's just an error to happen. It was an excusable error. It can happen to anybody. The zoning department makes errors, everybody makes errors. But you have remedies for them. Practical commonsense remedies. The hearing was rescheduled to August 24th, and that gave us some time to start the ball rolling, find out what was going on. Because Mr. Osornio, he's like in a daze, I don't know what's happening to me, I don't know what these people are trying to do to shut me down. And the bottom line is he's getting shut down. He's got 40 people that he houses in there. Nobody in this room would ever consider living in there, but there's some people who have no other choice but to do that. And he's been do this for 19 years. Now, if he needs the kind of permits and occupational license, he needs a little bit of help from all of you and others to help him get in the right direction. If he can't, he just needs to sell and take his licks. But he's not getting a fair shake. He's trying to get these permits. It was suggested by one of the code enforcement officers he has another case in here today that he didn't even know he was even called into a hearing for. And that's for another property he owns on New Market Road. And the hurricane damage to that, he hasn't been able to fix all of it. He's fixed most of it. It was sited to him. He's got another little piece that has to get done. He was told to get a permit in 14 days, as the stipulation. And the -- Ms. Sykora says, you know, I don't think 14 days will do it. And he says, yeah, you're right, we've got to give him a reasonable amount of time. That's exactly right. You cannot get a permit in 14 days. It sounds theoretically feasible, but it's not. So that's another issue that's coming up here with this building. And that can be cured. But this property here has been seriously damaged by the hurricane. Hurricane damage caused all these Page 51 August 24, 2006 agencies in the entire State of Florida to relax some of their requirements to give people an ample opportunity to repair these things. And here's a perfect example. If he's given an ample opportunity to make the repairs -- he had the roof that was leaking with the buckets. It didn't stop there because he had the roof repaired. He hired a character, he did that. Mr. Osornio has been a mechanic, he's an air conditioning specialist, he's skilled in a lot of things that he can do for himself. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand what you're saying, but the violation isn't for the lack of repairs, it's for the lack of an occupational license. MR. COLEMAN: Right. We're trying to get that. And it sounds like the circumstances are so stacked against him he will never get an occupational license approved in this process. Never. And we'll probably be back about that issue sometime in the future. But he understands he's in violation. He asks that you give him some consideration in these severe penalties involved, give him ample time. And ample time to operate his business. He lives there, too. He's going to be put out. Forty people are going to be put out on the street before Christmas. Now what do you do with these people? They have no other place to live. One lady, 80 years old, was placed there by the county asking him to take her in. And she pays no rent. She stays there for free. He needs some consideration with some resources from -- recommendation from this board to some other agencies in this county to step in and say hey, what do we need to do to try to help you possibly or relax the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand what you're trying -- MR. COLEMAN: -- penalizing hammer on this process. And he wants to operate for another year. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand what you're trying to Page 52 August 24, 2006 ask of this board, but this board has limited legal-- MR. COLEMAN: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- direction. MR. COLEMAN: It's beyond the scope of your authority to do that. I understand that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's kind of like the gentleman prior to us, there's only certain things that this board has been given the task to do. And that's -- based on the codes of the county we have to find whether or not a person is in violation. If they are or not. And if they are found that they are in violation, we have the right to give them time frames and guidelines to get it repaired, based on the county's rules and regulations. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all he's asking for. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That is the parameter of what this board can do. As far as going to other agencies and asking them for leniency or going to other agencies and telling them that they need to do something other than that is beyond the scope of this board. I just wanted you to understand that. MR. COLEMAN: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand your cause and what you're trying to say, but this is a wrong venue for that. MR. CO LEMAN: But the circumstances that are relevant here -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We do under-- MR. COLEMAN: -- has been established. Mr. Osornio wants to know if you have the authority, or the county does, to shut him down -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't -- MR. COLEMAN: -- and put these people out on the street before Christmas. MS. SYKORA: Health and safety issues. The health department advised me that they are not going to renew his health certificate to operate a migrant camp because of the conditions. Page 53 August 24, 2006 It's not only -- it hasn't only been a migrant camp, as I just found out that there are some permanent residents in there. And also, other people that are in the area do stay there. So it's not only a migrant camp right now, but -- he did have a health certificate, but that will not be renewed as of the first of the year. MR. COLEMAN: Unless he takes corrective action. They won't even suggest the corrective action. The letter that he received from Mrs. Frees and her department says, we will not accept patches anymore. Okay, tell us what you want. Spell it out. We'll take correction action to do that. We've got lives involved here. We need some direction from the people who are punishing him to give him some kind of remedy, what direction to go. MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- I have a question. What's the zoning currently? MS. SYKORA: It's C-4 zoning. MR. LEFEBVRE: And can you go into a little explanation of what C-4 zoning is? MS. SYKORA: Well, he would actually be allowed to operate in the C-4 zoning area, but he has to meet the criteria as far as the fire inspections, the -- he has to meet like the parking, he has to do a site improvement -- site development plan to show how he intends to run his business. MR. LEFEBVRE: Does he have an SDP on the property currently? MS. SYKORA: No, he doesn't. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's no SDP. So he'd have to go through that process to get an SDP -- MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- which takes about a year. Page 54 August 24, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Well, he's not having to do an SDP. MS. SYKORA: No, I'm not asking him to do an SDP, just a site improvement plan, which is not as extensive as an SDP. MR. LEFEBVRE: And how long does that usually take? MS. SYKORA: I can't answer that, because I don't do that. I'm not in that department. That should not take that long. And this case has been going on since January, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: If I'm not mistaken, we have asked other respondents to have a site improvement plan done on their property. I don't know how long it took. I don't remember how long we gave other respondents. But I know in previous cases we've done that. Now, what is the likelihood that this would be approved? I mean, that's the thing. MS. SYKORA: Again, I'm not in that department. I don't do planning and zoning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle? MS. SYKORA: The only thing, my concern is, is the safety of the people who are staying inside. MR. PONTE: While you're on that point, you said that this was -- or you asked to see a permit from the fire department in May and nothing has happened? An inspection hasn't been made by the fire department? MS. SYKORA: Apparently the respondent contacted the fire department investigator in Immokalee to come over. But that wasn't part of his process for the occupational license, because he just went to him to get him to okay it and he never did. I took pictures and showed it to him. He was kind of undecided what to call it. And I don't believe he ever went in there. However, that wasn't actually requested by the county, it was Mr. Osornio who requested him come in there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, if I'm not mistaken, because I'm in the process of filling out my own occupational license, Page 55 August 24, 2006 because my place of business has moved, it is part of the process to get that license that I have to ask for the inspection from the fire department and they have to come and inspect and give me a sheet that I turn in with my occupational license saying that I've had it done. MS. SYKORA: Right. That is part of the process. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So if Mr. Ortunos (sic) did go to the fire department and asked for the inspection and the inspector hasn't come, you know, maybe he needs to go back to the fire department and get that again. MS. SYKORA: I'm not quite sure what transpired out of that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, he won't go back to the fire inspector, because I'll go myself. I know it's unorthodox, but everyplace we go that we're recommended to go, every step and every question is going to be documented of what was said, what was done so it can be compiled. And somebody somewhere is going to read it and out of this process maybe could prove some of these -- inform some of these people that are supposed to be public servants carrying out their job. The fire chief needs to come over and -- when it's convenient for him, and give us a written report what needs to be done without any kind of retaliatory reaction from these individuals in the county. And I'll do a full report and get it back to the board. It will be very interesting. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, did you have any comments or something to say? Because it looked like you did for a minute. MS. ARNOLD: I was just going to respond to the question about, you know, in the past what we have done with site improvement plans. We have broken down the process and identified that there's so much time for the respondent to submit. And upon receiving approval, then the next step would take place. Page 56 August 24, 2006 So, you know, we've kind of given them time to make their submittal. And then the review process would go -- take place. And then once they received a response from the county, then they would have additional time to take whatever action was needed. MR. LEFEBVRE: I won't want to draft that. MR. KRAENBRING: But just as a practical matter, obtaining the site improvement plan what are we talking about three, six months? MS. ARNOLD: Probably. MR. KRAENBRING: So six months would be -- okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. If there are any further questions from the respondent or -- yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: The site improvement plan would be the first step. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then occupational license would come -- MS. SYKORA: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- thereafter. MS. SYKORA: Apparently it's required for him in order to obtain the occupational license. MR. KRAENBRING: And again, obtaining the occupational license after the site improvement plan and all that pertinent paperwork is submitted, how long are we looking at for him to obtain that realistically? MS. ARNOLD: For an occupational license? MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, once he gets the site improvement plan. MS. ARNOLD: I believe if all that information is put together, it's presented with his occupational license or a zoning certificate and they -- it's reviewed and I don't think it -- it's a matter of days when -- it's kind of a part of the review process. That's not another six months. MR. KRAENBRING: Like another 30 days by the time Page 57 August 24, 2006 somebody leaves it on their desk and heads down to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I have another question for the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: You did make mention in your testimony that you were thinking about selling the place. At the minimum, selling the place, at the maximum, having the place for one year. Now, if you were to sell the place, would this use be the ultimate use or would there be a different use in this property? MR. SANTOS: I don't know. Because the buyer will have to, you know, decide whatever they want to do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I guess what I'm asking-- MR. COLEMAN: Let me -- based on what I know, being a resident of Immokalee for 29 years, it will probably be used for another use. The buyers have been buying up all the properties trying to block his property all up. This is the missing piece that he needs. And he'll probably build a strip mall somewhere. Ave Maria very close in the vicinity, that's probably what's going to happen. He just wants a year to try to comply with all this effort here, which he will move forward and do. But he's got to have a way to displace these people, put them on notice they're going to have to move somewhere. MR. PONTE: Excuse me, sir. Did I understand you originally to say that they are per diem people, that they pay $8.00 a day? MR. COLEMAN: Some of them. Some of them are permanent. They pay per month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Then it's not a migrant -- MR. PONTE: Of the 40 people, how many would be per diem? MR. SANTOS: I have steady people. About 20 or 30 of them. And they pay by the month. It's 175 -- it's 175 for the month. And it's $45 for the week. And if somebody comes in for one night, it's $8.00. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. SANTOS: I'd like for the lady to show the picture about the Page 58 August 24, 2006 ceiling. I paid a contractor to repair -- MR. PONTE: Would you just get to the microphone a little bit? MR. LEFEBVRE: Actually pull it down a little bit. MR. SANTOS: I paid the contractor to, you know, fix my roof. It cost me more than $23,000. The ceiling has already been -- the whole ceiling has been already repaired 100 percent. That picture is old. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. COLEMAN: While we're talking about occupational licenses, this is for Calexico, Inc. On the record, this is listed under property owned by Calexico, Inc. Trust Estate, which is a corporation that no longer exists since 1994. So we need to make sure that the correct name is under Calexico, Inc. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. COLEMAN: And also, we'd like to get an occupational license approved for the corporation, for the other two properties that he does own. The next case to come up involving occupational license. He wants a clean bill of health to get an occupational license to operate those two other properties without any kind of problem. This is completely separate from operating a dormitory property. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the investigator. In your professional opinion, what is the condition? We've seen a couple of photographs here, but what is your professional opinion about the condition of this place in terms of health and safety and 40 people in residence and an 80-year-old lady who's living here by herself or with others in these conditions? All I've seen are three photos. You've seen the entire plant. MS. SYKORA: In my opinion, it is an unsafe condition. A lot of times the doors are all locked on the one street side. There's too many spaces in there. If there was ever a fire, they wouldn't be able to exit properly. I believe it is unsafe as it stands. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 59 August 24, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the definition of migrant housing? MS. SYKORA: Well, the migrant housing is the farm workers that come down for season. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a limit on how long they can live in one particular area, or one housing in this particular situation? MS. SYKORA: Well, they have to have a certificate from the health department in order to conduct any migrant housing. They go in and inspect, but their standards do not -- are not the same as the county standards. So they can put more people in than what we actually allow. But it is just a -- to claim it's just migrant housing is not a true fact, because most of the migrant workers are gone now, and there's other people in the area that are staying in here. So it's not totally just migrant. Plus they're going to pull his health certificate so he won't even be allowed to do any migrant housing there. MS. ARNOLD: I believe the -- I'm not sure what the number is, but I think it's based on -- the state based it on how many individuals that reside in a particular location for -- that work in the farms. I don't know what that number is. I think it might be five or more, something like that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Michelle. Any other questions? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: The gentleman I think has a comment. MR. SANTOS: The people that live in my place, sometimes they work on construction, labor and out in the fields. It's a mix thing. But my license says migrant camp. But it's a mix thing. And the people will work wherever there's someplace to go to work. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. If there are no other questions, comments, then -- MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a recommendation from the Page 60 August 24, 2006 county? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have to find a finding of fact first. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'd like to close the public hearing and open it up to discussion amongst the board. MR. PONTE: Well, observation. I just -- what I've seen here is shockingly deplorable. And I think e have to find a way to safeguard the 40 people who are currently in resident. And if that means that they have to get out of harm's way, and that's what I feel they're living in, then so be it. But this is a disaster waiting to happen. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I remind you that this is basically a violation of not having an occupational license. MR. PONTE: That is the violation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that is the only thing we can rule and discuss on. MR. PONTE: That is the violation. And I think we have to keep the other things in mind so that rather than think in terms of following the trail that has been suggested of giving extensive amount of time to enable the owners to obtain the license, we ought to do it very realistically and tell them to get that license from the proper authorities in the next 10 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't think that can be done, because he has to have the development plan before he can get the occupational license. It's a twofold thing, George. MR. LEFEBVRE: The site improvement plan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right, the site improvement plan. MR. PONTE: He hasn't had one for how many years? Ever. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. But he didn't know he was required to have one. MR. PONTE: Are we going to give him another year? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have to be reasonable with-- Page 61 August 24, 2006 the county's process -- MR. PONTE: That's a little longer than -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- doesn't fit within 10 days. MR. PONTE: That's a little longer -- well, I think a year is a bit CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't say a year. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. MR. PONTE: Still have to talk slowly. MR. COLEMAN: Is there such a thing as a temporary permit until we can get all those things done? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MR. COLEMAN: Temporary occupational license? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. Sorry. MR. KRAENBRING: George, I think that -- I can sympathize with, you know, the pictures that we've seen and the conditions. And I think we've heard some testimony from the investigator that -- or maybe hearsay evidence that the board of health from the state or county may take care of that for us in 25 days. Because if they pull their permit then -- MS. SYKORA: I believe they're not going to renew it, so December 31st would be the deadline. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, December 31st. Okay, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: The issue here is obviously not having an occupational permit. Yes, the conditions look deplorable, but we're not here to look at those. So we have to strictly look at it as the permit. MR. DeWITTE: And I think we've heard testimony that there is no permit. So we should be able to move on a motion that we find that there is no permit on this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would like to entertain a motion Page 62 August 24, 2006 MR. DeWITTE: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- whether or not the person is -- MR. KRAENBRING: Second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So therefore, we're all in agreement that there is no occupational license. Even the respondent is claiming to agree to that. Now we'll move to the next part. And because part of the occupational license is a requirement, they have to have the SIP, site improvement plan. And Michelle, can you give me an estimate as to a length of time for that? As you've said, we've always broken it down in the past into two parts. So say 120 days to get it submitted? Because they have to get engineers and et cetera hired and lined up, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Just going back to the fact that we -- this is an occupational licensing issue, perhaps we would just give them a bulk time to obtain the occupational license as opposed to breaking it down. Because in addition to the site improvement plan, he has to get a zoning certificate, he has to get an inspection from the -- you know, there's so many different steps that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you give me a ballpark number then to work with? MS. ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Kraenbring suggested the six months, so -- Page 63 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. And you think that that could all possibly be done with in that time frame? MS. ARNOLD: I would think, if somebody worked diligently in getting things submitted. Because this is a building that is in place and he needs to show some parking and stuff like that. I'm not sure it should be something that's difficult. But he does need to get an engineer to submit that. MR. PONTE: I don't understand why we're being so lenient here and so accommodating. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because of the charge. MR. PONTE: I understand that. But I'm also a human being, and I think this is just outlandish in this county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They were not brought up on anything else other than the occupational license. MR. PONTE: That's a good question, too. I'd like to know why not. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, that's not our-- MR. MORGAN: He has until the first of the year. You know, the health department's going to close him down, so automatically that only gives him September, October, November and December to get all of this done. Because the health department is not going to reissue his health certificate. So he's got a lengthy time that he can get all this in place. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would say it's hearsay as to whether or not he's going to get the health certificate. MR. MORGAN: Okay, I'm taking the word of the inspector. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. But we don't know for a fact that the health certificate's going to be pulled. MR. KRAENBRING: And similarly -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we make a change? MR. KRAENBRING: -- the two issues are somewhat separate because he -- maybe the people do have to leave property, but if he Page 64 August 24, 2006 attains an occupational license, he can have people back in there if he meets all the standards. So I think the six months is -- you know, give him an opportunity to get some action and then possibly to, you know, get these people moved if needed. MS. SYKORA: May I say something -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MS. SYKORA: -- or interject? I'm sorry for interrupting. But the owner has stated that he intends to sell this building, so why in fact would he even bother to go get the occupational license if he intends to sell it? MR. PONTE: Excellent point. MS. SYKORA: And also, that's the reason why an occupational license is obtained is basically for the safety of these people. My suggestion was going to be to cease business operations until the license is obtained. And then once it's obtained, he can start back in business, if he so chooses. In the meantime, these people are living here and it could be dangerous for them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you have a recommendation? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a couple more points after. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me go ahead and -- did you have a recommendation? MS. SYKORA: Oh, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And if so, can you put it on the viewer? MS. SYKORA: That the respondent pay operational costs of $402.42 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And abate all violations by ceasing operation of the business within 45 days of this hearing or obtaining a Collier County occupational license or a fine of $500 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And the respondent must notify code enforcement when the Page 65 August 24, 2006 violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. May I add that I was going to put 48 hours, but because I found out he does have some permanent people in there, we decided to do 45 days so he would have -- the possibility that they could find a place to live. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: My only comment on it, Carol, is you have 45 days of this hearing or obtain a Collier County occupational license. We've already figured out that it's going to take him longer than 45 days to get a site development plan -- or a site improvement plan submitted and approved. So I -- MS. SYKORA: Well, that time period on the occupational license could be extended. But I'm suggesting that he cease operation of the business and try to remove who's in there until he does obtain one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In the past, have I -- Lee (sic), tell me if I'm wrong, do we have the right to tell them that they have to remove people? MS. RAWSON: Not remove people, but I think you have the right to tell businesses to cease operation. We've done that before. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But because this is a business that is housing people, does that give us a problem? MS. RAWSON: Well, you don't have the right to evict people. You know, we've had that discussion before. But you have in the past ordered people to cease operation of the business. So you're going to have to make that call. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. PONTE: And let me -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right, let me go to Gerald, because he had a question. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think with the testimony put forward that he wants to -- the respondent wants to run his business for the next year Page 66 August 24, 2006 or so, and also he's interested in selling it, I think a shorter time period is better than a longer. Because obviously if we extend it out to six months or longer, he's going to continue operation as is and then deal with it at that point. I think he's had enough time to make a decision on what to do or to start the process. I think there are the people out there. I don't think he needs us to tell him what to do. I think once the fine starts ticking, that's when he's going to come to reason and figure out what he wants to do. But I think a shorter period is better than a longer period. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: George? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think that this recommendation from the county is very spot on. I would like to just suggest one other -- or one correction to it or alteration to it and that's rather than within 45 days, I would have gone with your original move, let's say 30 days. And the reason for my suggesting 30 days is that the number of people who are there are per diems. And 30 days seems quite a reasonable time to effect that change. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I am going to insert my opinion here, which I don't usually do, but I like the 45 days to cease business. But then I would like to see a length of time up to six months to obtain the occupational license. And the fine of $500 a day I think is a bit excessive. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have to interrupt here. He's making $320 a day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's if it's fully occupied. MR. PONTE: Well-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But it's going to be closed. MR. PONTE: Well, 40 people times $8.00 -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's going to be closed. It's going to be closed, remember? After 45 days. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So there's no longer an income in Page 67 August 24, 2006 there. MR. PONTE: We fine lots of people who don't have incomes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm just, you know, making my opinion stated. MR. DeWITTE: Well, ifhe just -- ifhe chooses to cease operation of the business, he doesn't need a license, to obtain an occupational license. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Unless he wants to continue the business -- MR. DeWITTE: Again. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- again. MR. DeWITTE: But, you know, the other question is a matter of enforcement. You guys are going to shut down his business operation in 45 dates. Everybody is still going to be living there, you know. The inspector is going to drive by. The question is are they taking money in. But the people will still be living there. I've heard testimony from, you know, Ken before and -- who sits on the migrant housing issue board. And there's a big problem with available housing in the area. As to where these people will go, there's probably not another place for them. They'll be there still. As to whether or not we stop his revenue regeneration, I'm open to that either way, you know, for his business. But understand that they're probably still going to be there. And -- but I was thinking, you know, on the order of for the occupational license, ifhe chooses to go forward with it, you know, you're already shutting down his operation of his business. He can't -- I don't think there's anything to say about the operational license, if that's what he decides to do. He just can't reopen it without an occupational license. If it takes him five months, takes him a year to get it, it doesn't matter. He can't reopen his business without the license. What only matters is the time frame on the license if you're going to let him operate -- Page 68 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sir, I can't allow you to speak, sorry . MR. DeWITTE: The time frame on the license only matters if you're going to continue to allow him to operate until that point. Otherwise, we don't care if it takes him two years to get his license. As long as he's not operating in the meantime, that's all we can say. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But I don't think we should limit it to 45 days either. MR. DeWITTE: Well, no, if you're going to tie -- if you're going to continue to allow him to operate and tie into the license, we have to give him in my opinion at least five months, maybe six, because that's how long it's going to take to get a site improvement plan and go through the process. MR. KRAENBRING: I have to agree with that. The charging document, it may be a little bit imperfect in that he has to obtain this permit in order to keep people there. It's not really -- we're not -- how can we put this? We're asking him to cease operations based on the fact that he doesn't have the proper permit, okay? We're not asking him to cease operations based on the condition of the property. MR. PONTE: That's correct. MR. KRAENBRING: So if the county had put in there because of the condition of the property and health hazards that mayor may not exist, we're asking him to cease operation. We know he can't get an occupational permit within 45 days, so it's somewhat imperfect. The way that this motion would have to be written, I think the occupational license has to be tied into ceasing operations, and we know he can't do it before six months. So I don't know what authority we would have to make that recommendation unless we can tie the two together. Does that make sense, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes, it does. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. Page 69 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that's a good point. MR. DeWITTE: So in all -- and I understand, George, your -- same feelings you do. I just think the reality of the situation is it's not going to help anything. We either it's tell him to cease operations until he gets a permit, which -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And also -- MR. De WITTE: -- I think maybe one option that satisfies what you say, give him another time, but cease and desist until he gets a permit, or we give him so much time to get a permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I also have to state that we're not allowed to -- MR. COLEMAN: Can I offer an outline of thought to her that might help you in this decision? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're not allowed to open it back up because I've closed the floor. If you want to have discussions with her later, that's fine. But at this point it's not open to the public. It's just amongst the board. I was going to say, I believe also that it has been brought to our attention that some of these pictures were old and that the roof condition has already been improved. He paid $23,000, I believe, was testified to improve the roof. And so that hole is no longer there. So the conditions have improved a little bit from what the pictures are indicating. MR. KRAENBRING: And I think also, if you look at the time frame of six months, it comes very close to, you know, the hearsay evidence about the board of health coming in and closing them down. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. Well, I'll entertain a motion, if anybody's ready to make a stab at it. MR. DeWITTE: What was everybody's feelings? Does everybody want to shut him down, or do we just want to give him five months to get his license. Page 70 August 24, 2006 MR. PONTE: Shut it down. Cease operation. MR. MORGAN: I agree with George. I don't see any fire extinguishers -- MR. PONTE: Nothing. MR. MORGAN: -- one of the doors is locked on the-- MR. LEFEBVRE: That's irrelevant. MR. KRAENBRING: That's not what he -- MR. MORGAN: I realize that. I know. MR. PONTE: Well, in answer to the question, cease operation of business as soon as possible. MR. DEAN: Yeah, I concur. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would have to agree. MR. DeWITTE: Larry? MR. DEAN: I concur. MR. LEFEBVRE: He's operating without a permit, an occupational permit. Until he gets that -- MR. PONTE: Cease operation. MR. DeWITTE: If I may ask Jean a question? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. DeWITTE: Jean, do you think we're okay in giving him a certain amount of time to cease operation and then continue to have it ceased until he gets the proper permits? MS. RAWSON: You can tie them in. Remember that the violation that's alleged is not having an occupational license, okay? So that's the only thing that you're looking at. And all of the other testimony that you've heard, you know, really while it's relevant in making your decision, you have to tie it into when does he get his occupational license. So if you wanted to make a motion that said that he cease the operation of the business until he gets an occupational license, and tie it in some way, that would be fine. I don't know what good 45 days is. Because I think you're right, he just won't get income. And if he has Page 71 August 24, 2006 to cease the operation of his business until he gets a permit -- I mean, a license, occupational license, well, that's today, isn't it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm still waiting for a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the county recommendation with one modification: Changing the 45 days to 30 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald, are you stating that he has to receive an occupational license within 45 days, as well as close the business? MR. LEFEBVRE: He has to cease operation within 30 days of this hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It says or obtain. And you cannot obtain -- MR. LEFEBVRE: And how about let's modify it to this: And cannot reopen for business or start operation of business until obtaining Collier County occupational license. MR. PONTE: Yeah, 30 days of this hearing or until such time as a Collier County occupational license has been obtained. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's sounds -- MR. KRAENBRING: Can I make a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You can -- suggestion. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. It's tough to move, even if you have resources, in 30 days. I think 45 days. If you're going to -- the county's recommendation is-- MR. PONTE: But Richard, if it's tough to do it within 30 days, it's tough to do it within 45 days. I say 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not talking about a whole-- MR. PONTE: Just my opinion. MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not talking about a whole house. Each individual doesn't have a whole house of furniture to move. I think the 30 days would be sufficient. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, just making my comment. Page 72 August 24, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, so we have a motion that states that the business is to cease operation within 30 days of this hearing and to stay closed until an occupational license has been obtained, or a fine of $500 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. PONTE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm the abatement. MR. LEFEBVRE: One other question. The operational costs, obviously there'll be more costs incurred, correct? MS. SYKORA: Yes, I will have to do a site inspection. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So maybe we should leave the operational costs instead of -- MR. PONTE: Just say the operational costs incurred in the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. Instead of putting down a dollar amount -- MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- we'll cap it, because there are going to be more costs incurred. Let's take that out. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. DeWITTE: Aye. Page 73 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Opposed. MR. KRAENBRING: Opposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's raise hands. All those in favor? MR. PONTE: (Indicating.) MR. LEFEBVRE: (Indicating.) MR. DEAN: (Indicating.) MR. MORGAN: (Indicating.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those opposed? MR. DeWITTE: (Indicating.) MR. KRAENBRING: (Indicating.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: (Indicating.) Motion has passed. Do you understand? MR. COLEMAN: I understand, except for the penalty. How do you interpret the penalty, the amount -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifhe does not cease operations within 30 days. MR. COLEMAN: Ifhe does not, he'll be penalized $500 a day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. And then he needs to -- if he wants to continue business at a later time -- MR. COLEMAN: To go through all the steps. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- to go through the steps. MR. COLEMAN: We understand that perfectly. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay? Thank you. Cherie', would you like a break now? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right, I will take a 10-minute recess. We'll be back at 11 :46. (Brief recess.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to resume the hearing. I'd like to bring the board back to order. Sorry, we're about three Page 74 August 24, 2006 minutes later that than I stated. Next case I believe is 2006-48, Victor and Veronica Ledesma. MS. GARCIA: Shirley Garcia for the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Board secretary. I'd like to enter the County's Exhibit A into evidence. Board of County Commissioners versus Victor and Veronica Ledesma. CEB No. 2006-48. The violation of Ordinances 04-41, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(D), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(D)(I). The description of the violation is: Built-in open carport without electricity without first obtaining the required Collier County permits and/or inspections and C.O. Location where the violation exists: Is 317 Price Avenue, Immokalee. The name of the person in charge of the violation location: Is Victor H. and Veronica Ledesma. The date the violation was first observed: September 2nd, 2005. The owner or person in charge given the Notice of Violation: Was on February 16th, 2006. Date on which the violation was to be corrected: Was March 12th, 2006. Date of the reinspection: July 10th, 2006. Results of the reinspection: Was the violations still remain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would like to entertain a motion to accept the package as evidence. MR. KRAENBRING: So moved. MR. PONTE: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. Page 75 August 24, 2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cherie', could you swear in the witness, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the respondent apparently is not here. MS. PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Immokalee investigator. This is CEB Case No. 2006-48. It was initiated as a patrol for the construction of the open carport without electricity without first obtaining the required Collier County building permits on September 2nd of2005. An NOV was issued by certified mail through the course of the time. Contact was made with the property owner, Mr. Ledesma, who advised me that he did go to the building department and was told that he would not meet site setbacks. So at this time I'd like to put up a picture to show you the carport that we are talking about. This is a front view when you first drive in the driveway of the carport that was constructed right next to the house. And the second one you can see the wooden fence. It's approximately two feet away from the poles that hold up the carport. So after numerous site visits and owner's attempt to find other ways to permit the carport as it is, the structure remained. As of yesterday I was advised that the property owner came into the office and left me a message that he would not be able to attend today's hearing but was willing to comply by demolishing the Page 76 August 24, 2006 unpermitted structure. After receiving that message, I did conduct a site visit and determined that demolition of the structure had begun to process, which I also have a picture of yesterday's visit that shows that the -- he is starting to remove the unpermitted structure. Because he couldn't find a way to be able to permit it because of the setback reasons. That was mostly what was holding him back, that he did not meet setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you know ifhe obtained a demolition permit? MS. PEREZ: No, that's in the recommendations, that he does obtain that demolition permit. Because I did not see one in there yesterday. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Finding of fact? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there such a thing as after-the- fact demolition permit? Because this thing is about 90 percent taken down. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We still-- I don't think there is, but we need to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to find the finding of fact that there is a violation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I have a motion that there is a violation. MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And I have a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 77 August 24, 2006 MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MR. DeWITTE: So ifhe finishes taking it down and we say he has to get either a demolition or a building permit, does he have to build it again to get the demolition permit? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a county recommendation? MS. PEREZ: Yes, there is a county recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. When was this recommendation made? MS. PEREZ: Well, it was -- I ended up putting it in there-- MR. LEFEBVRE: It was made two days ago, probably. MS. PEREZ: Yeah. And I ended up putting in there that that-- you know, to obtain the demolition permit, seeing that he had started demolishing it. So I wrote that in this morning. But the recommendation I had submitted would be to -- that the county recommends, would be to apply for a Collier County building permit within seven days of today's hearing and obtaining the certificate of completion within 30 days of the permit issuance, or removing the unpermitted structure by obtaining a demolition permit and certificate of completion within 14 days of today's hearing or a fine of $250 imposed each day until (sic) the violation remains. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up, please. MS. PEREZ: Sure. I wrote in the first recommendation on the bottom, since I was trying to fill it in there. So I just redid it on the bottom so I could read it clearly. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, how long does it take Page 78 August 24, 2006 to get a demolition permit? Because I know it's a little bit different than it used to be. MS. PEREZ: From other cases I've had with demolition permits, they tend to give them over the counter if it's property -- that the property is owner occupied. If it were a rental property, it does take longer because they would need a contractor. But from my understanding, they would be able to get it over the counter. MR. KRAENBRING: Considering the amount of demolition that's taken place, I would think that the time frames seem pretty good here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was thinking it might be a little bit long to get the -- 14 days to get the demolition permit? I think maybe he can get it within seven days, seeing that he's already demolishing it. MR. LEFEBVRE: In the handwritten section where it says number one, applying for a Collier County permit. What kind of permit? MS. PEREZ: The permit -- ifhe chose to keep the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The building permit? MS. PEREZ: Yeah, the building permit. I'm sorry, yeah, it would be the building permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which is pretty much irrelevant. This is like Catch-22, because pretty much 90 percent of it's been removed. MR. KRAENBRING: I think the time frames are fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we could probably take out the section where it states that there's going to be a building permit, because there's not actually a building permit. MR. KRAENBRING: You might still have to give him the opportunity. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Give him the opportunity. MR. DEAN: He might decide to build. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cover your bases. Page 79 August 24,2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PONTE: The only thing I'd suggest is that the -- I don't think it's ever going to get to have a fine involved here. Looks well underway. But just for the logic of what we do, I just think the 250 is a bit high for this violation. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you have a suggestion? MR. PONTE: Sure. I think $100. MR. DeWITTE: Can I make a motion? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: I make a motion that the defendant pay the operational costs involved in prosecuting this case; that he either obtain a demolition or a building permit within 14 days, or a fine of $100 per day be imposed; and that he notify code enforcement once the permit has been obtained. MR. LEFEBVRE: Once the violation has been abated? MR. DeWITTE: Once the permit has -- ifhe gets a permit to build a shed and they say, hey, you get six months to build a shed, I'm not going to say you've got to build your shed in a month. He just has to go get a permit. Either to take it down or to build it within 14 days. And then we'll worry about what he does with that permit after -- MR. LEFEBVRE: How about after it being abated? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He has to notify code enforcement. MR. DeWITTE: I did say notify code enforcement once he's obtained a permit. Once the permit's been obtained. Because I think that's all we're going to make him do is go get a permit. Whether he chooses to build one or take it down or whatever. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what Gerald was saying is once he's obtained a permit, ifhe's deciding to build it, ifhe just notifies code enforcement investigator that he's going to build, then he's going to have to go through all the inspection processes and then Page 80 August 24, 2006 notify him when it's completed so that they can close out the case, rather than just get a permit. MR. DeWITTE: Well, if he gets a permit he'll have to go through the normal permitting process and inspection and everything. It won't have anything to do with the code enforcement, right? MS. BARNETT: Uh-huh. But some people let permits lapse. So this is to follow through to make sure that we complete this case, we need to have it at the end. MR. DeWITTE: So you want to-- MR. LEFEBVRE: And also, if it's being abated and everything's removed from the site, we want to know that that's done also, which will close the case. MR. DeWITTE: So how about he notifies code enforcement that, one, he has obtained a permit and then two, that that work has been completed? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's fine. MR. DeWITTE: So so moved? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Move to the next case, which is Page 81 August 24, 2006 2006-27, William and Christopher Belcher. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia. I'd like to enter in County's Exhibit A, and as well as County's Exhibit B that was submitted yesterday by the code enforcement investigator, Jeff Letourneau, which is a facsimile transmittal sheet I had presented on your desks this morning. It's from Heritage House Realty facsimile sheet. And it's floor plans. MR. LETOURNEAU: It also contains a portion of the property card and a zoning map. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did Mr. Belcher get a copy of this as well? MR. LETOURNEAU: I've got a copy of this right here. I just submitted that because I'm going to be using that during my testimony, you know, different stages. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'll entertain a motion to accept packets A and B into evidence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. LETOURNEAU: This case started out in a rather unusual way. I've got an action order, which is a complaint from the wife of one of the owners of this property, a Cody L. Belcher. And I'm going Page 82 August 24, 2006 to quote from it. MS. ARNOLD: Jeff, can we interrupt for a second? Shirley's got to read the information, the pertinent information into evidence. MR. LETOURNEAU: Sorry. MS. GARCIA: We went so quickly with the exhibits that I didn't have a chance to read it. Thank you. The violation of ordinance Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(D), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(D)(I) of Ordinance 04-41. The description of the violation is: Illegal renovation of the ground floor of this two-story structure into living area with possible plumbing, electric, kitchen and sewer improvements. No Collier County building permits were obtained for such use. The location where the violation exists is: 248 Benson Street, Naples. The name of the person in charge of the violation is: William Belcher. The date the violation was observed was: March 22nd, 2006. The date the owner or the person in charge given notice of violation was: June 20th of 2006. The date on which the violation was to be corrected: July 11 th, 2006. Date of the reinspection was: July 12th, 2006. Results of the reinspection: It was violations still remain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now Jeff, I'm sorry. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Like I said, I got a complaint from a wife of the other owner of this property. Cody L. Belcher I believe is the wife of Christopher Belcher. And the complaint states: I am contacting you regarding a property co-owned between my husband and his brother William. William has been renting our property illegally now for quite some time. I do not even feel it is suitable for renting and that it poses great liability. Page 83 August 24, 2006 MR. BELCHER: Can I saying something? He used to live down there -- MR. LETOURNEAU: After I'm done, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, sir, you'll have your opportunity in just a moment. He has to present his case first and then we'll give you time -- MR. BELCHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- to proceed, okay? MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, so on March 22nd I called up the complainant and she stated that her husband and brother owned the property, the brother was living in the top floor of the stilt house and was renting the two apartments. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you slow down, please? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm sorry. At the above location, nobody was home. I observed a stilt house with two garage doors on the bottom floors. Appears the bottom floor renovated into living area. Then I did some research. I went and got the property card which shows basically a stilt house with I think -- what does that say? 1,196 square foot living area in the top. There's a notation on the right side, I believe in 1984 that there was some kind of conversion from looks like a carport plus one, I think, or something like that on there. But if you notice over in the -- right there in that column right there, that's where they always mark the permits. The only permit ever pulled was the original house permit. I'd like to show this other piece of paper now. That's the official county zoning map showing RSF -4, which basically means it's residential single-family, four units per acre. So this house was originally permitted as a single-family unit. And subsequently without permits was turned into a triplex, basically, with a living area on the top and two apartments on the bottom. Page 84 August 24, 2006 I've got -- I asked Ms. Belcher for any evidence that she had, you know, because I had tried to contact the owner numerous times. I left a note with what I believe was his daughter. And I did get numerous phone calls from a Christine stating that she was representing Mr. Belcher. And I asked her if I could come in and take an inspection of the bottom floor and they declined that. So basically I just started prepping it. I prepped it for OMS at first, which is special master. And then my boss, Mr. Scribner, decided due to the, you know, permitting part of this case we'd bring it before the Code Enforcement Board. So then I called up the complainant and asked her if she had any other kind of evidence that I could use to prosecute this case, and she sent me down a little packet with what I believe is the property appraisal of the property when they both went in and bought it. And the first page I'm going to show is actually showing how the bottom was renovated into two apartments. As you can see on the left side, it shows the first floor where they've got the garages in front and what looks like to be two separate apartments with kitchenettes, bathrooms and living area. In order for -- now, being a single-family residence, what that means is there has to be access from all parts of the house. So if this was ever permitted as a single-family unit, there would have to be like a staircase or something in between the two top and the bottom units, which I don't believe there is, even though I've never been in there, but it doesn't show that on this picture right here. Also, any structure single-family, they're allowed their first kitchen, but unless they're over 2,500 square feet, you can't -- you're not allowed to build a second kitchen. Which this would not be over 2,500 square feet. I believe the bottom total is probably about 800 foot. So the total living area is going to be about 1,900 feet, which would not allot at any time for any other kitchen to be built in this area. Page 85 August 24, 2006 Also, the reason they built stilt houses in these areas is because at the time it was built, it's a flood zone area, so they're not really allowed to have any kind of living area down there in the first place. That's why the stilt house was built. I've got two more pieces that came with the appraisal. One is -- I don't know if you can read the yellow part of it, but it basically says the lower level has two grandmother suites below. And then the other -- I've got one more here that when they did the appraisal -- in the yellow it's stating they have over 1,900 square feet of living area, but they're only permitted for a little bit over 1,100. Now, when I -- Michelle just pointed out to me when I submitted my code enforcement packet, I forgot to -- I left off one of the ordinances. I should have checked it, which is down at the bottom of the Notice of Violation about building occupancy, which states a new building shall not be occupied or a change made in the occupancy, nature or use of a building or part of a building until after the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy. So basically what I'm saying is it shouldn't even be occupied until they get a certificate of occupancy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Was this part of the original charging documents -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, it is. MS. GARCIA: It's in the Notice of Violation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: And let me see here. My recommendation to the board would be the respondent pay operational costs in the amount of $370.39 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy for all described nonpermitted improvements, or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, all required inspections, certificate of completion, removing all related debris, and restoring the structure to August 24, 2006 its originally permitted condition. Failure to complete either of these options within two months of this hearing shall result in $100 a day fine until compliance is met. MR. BELCHER: As a said, I bought the house this way two years ago. I didn't build none of that down there. I didn't do none of that. It was this way when I bought it two years ago. Me and my brother bought it together because his credit wasn't good enough for him to get his own house. So we got together. Him and his wife were staying downstairs. We were paying half the mortgage together. He paid one half of the month the first month we stayed there. He paid half the mortgage one time. And his wife went to Michigan. She's been there the whole time. I've been there. I only have one side rented out to kind of help me pay the mortgage. I've got an $1,800 mortgage payment I pay. I rented out one side to my cousin. The other side stayed empty. I didn't build none of that down there, so I didn't think -- I've been dealing with the inspector, he said I inherited all this problem the day I bought the house. He told me if I took out the appliances and capped the plumbing, everything would be okay. And I just use it as storage area instead of living area. Because I don't have a staircase, like he said, going down into there. But I don't know why I have to pay all these fines and do this when I didn't build it. I bought the house two years ago like the way it IS now. And the reason why they called him is because my brother wants me to refinance the house so he could take his name off the deed and give him what he brought to closing. He wants 25,000. He didn't bring that to closing. He only brought 3,000 to closing. I brought 15,000 to closing. I'm not going to pay him 25,000 for something he didn't bring. So therefore, his wife got mad, called code enforcement on me Page 87 August 24, 2006 and said that I've been renting it out and all this, when they used to live down there themselves. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just so that you understand how part of this works, because we've had some cases similar to this in the past, whenever there is a violation, it runs with the property. The fact that you bought it there -- MR. BELCHER: That's what this county inspector said, I inherited the problem when I bought it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You did. And there are ramifications -- MR. BELCHER: But it's unfair to me, you know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There are ramifications for you, but not through here. Attorney comes to mind, but that's something that I can't suggest that you do. I just can't. MR. KRAENBRING: Jeff, can you put the -- your recommendations up on the screen? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. MR. BELCHER: And they told me I can keep it as like a storage agency if I took the appliances out. All that is in there is just like a refrigerator and a unit that has two burners and a sink -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You would still have to get certain things inspected and approved, such as the plumbing and the electricity, those types of -- MR. BELCHER: All that was done the day the house was built. And I couldn't find nothing. You can't find any records on anything past '85. And the house was built in '81. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, I think what we're asking you to do is to go ahead and pull the proper permits, let the inspectors in, and if they make the recommendations that, you know, if you take out the appliances they're not apartments and they're willing to approve the permits -- Page 88 August 24, 2006 MR. BELCHER: Well, what do I have to do to keep them as apartments to rent them out illegally (sic)? I mean where I could be legal. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you heard, the zoning is residential single-family, four units per acre. And I'm not sure the size of your property, but it was originally built as a single-family home. That is the zoning there, it's not -- MR. BELCHER: It was there since day one, since '81. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand, but the zoning is not a multi-family use. So in that area that you're in, you're not allowed to have more than one one-family living -- MR. BELCHER: He mentioned something about flood level. I'm at eight-foot elevation, which is good. MR. KRAENBRING: And these are all good arguments that you might want to bring up, you know, when you obtain your permits and if you have to go for, you know, variances, but it's really not something, you know, where we can give you a remedy today. We can only make a recommendation that you just -- first I want to say, you know, try to cooperate. MR. BELCHER: Yeah, I'm trying to, but I just don't think it's fair to me, you know, when I bought the house this way and now I'm getting -- MR. KRAENBRING: There's a little bit of a history documented where you weren't even allowing access to the property. MR. BELCHER: No one showed me history of anything. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, at any rate -- MR. BELCHER: Because the reason why we -- because my brother couldn't get -- he was only 18 at the time, he didn't have his credit established enough to get his own place. So we got the house together so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looks like you have an internal issue within your family that you're going to have to resolve outside of Page 89 August 24, 2006 this. But for this hearing, unless you have any other evidence that would be pertinent to us, we're going to have to stick to the case. MR. BELCHER: Yeah. I don't know, it seems like I'm getting blamed for building the apartments down there, and I didn't build them. You know, that's what it seems like to me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Understood. Do we have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'm going to close the public hearing and -- MR. BELCHER: What do I have to do -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We haven't made a ruling yet. W e'lllet you know will at the end, okay? MR. KRAENBRING: Are we open up for comment? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Open it up for comment. MR. KRAENBRING: I think we've seen cases like this before, and I'm sure we're going to see more again where people have inherited problems. MR. BELCHER: I wouldn't have known about -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sir, when I close the public hearing that means there can be no more input from you unless we specially ask you questions. MR. KRAENBRING: So again, I think we're not being heavy-handed here, we're just asking that you go and deal with the county, get permits. I think it's fairly apparent that unless there's some variance, that it's going to be reverted back to a single-family house. And, you know, it becomes a health and safety issue making sure that things have been installed properly, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I need to go back to whether or not we have -- actually have a violation and finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation does exist. Page 90 August 24, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now for the remedies. I think it's agreed that it is a single-family residence zoning, so therefore it should be a single-family residence. But there are variances that have been granted periodically throughout the county, so keep those items in mind. MR. KRAENBRING: Well-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Somebody want to attempt a motion or playoff of the one that the county has suggested? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that in the Case 2006-27 that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount $370.39 incurred in the prosecution of the case, and that he abate all violations by obtaining all required county -- Collier building permits, inspection and certificate of occupancy for all described non-permitted improvements or obtain a Collier County demolition permit, all required inspections, certificate of completion, removing all related debris and restoring the structure to its original permitted construction. Failure to complete either of these options within two months of this hearing shall result in $100 a day fine until compliance is met. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. Page 91 August 24, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: One modification. In previous orders, to have the operational cost an open-ended amount so we can still incur costs. MR. KRAENBRING: That's fine. MR. DeWITTE: Would anybody be open to extending the time frame beyond two months? MR. BELCHER: Yes, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't see a problem with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: What time frame would you be looking? MR. DeWITTE: I just thought two seemed a little bit short. Maybe bump it up to three. Eight weeks is a short amount of time to get anything done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Especially with tenants. MR. MORGAN: I'll agree with 90 days. MR. DeWITTE: Ninety days, is that okay? MR. KRAENBRING: So we're going to change the sentence, failure to complete either of these options within two months, we're going to say within 90 days of this hearing shall result in $100 a day fine until compliance is met. MR. DeWITTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 92 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Belcher? MR. BELCHER: So after 90 days, if I don't have anything completed I have to pay $100 a day? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. But if you have extenuating circumstances such as the fact that you -- permit was delayed or something like that -- MR. BELCHER: Which permits do I have to get really? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You would have to get the building permit to allow you to put those units below, and -- MR. BELCHER: And what if I don't want to rent it out, just use them as -- I don't want to use them as living area either. I just -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You'll need to get a demolition permit. MR. BELCHER: -- was going to take one side out where I could put my boat in there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You'll need to get a demolition permit in order to demolish the portions that you need to take out. MR. BELCHER: Now, the plumbing and all that, that's all ran in the slab. I don't know how you want me to take all that out. Just cap it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't know how to tell you to do that. That's just something that we're -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, you could just get that capped. We don't want him to rip out the slab or anything like that. As long as there's, you know, good faith of taking care of the living quarters. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What I was trying to tell you is you need to get those, but if you have extenuating circumstances that are beyond your control, you have the right to come back to this board at a later date and ask us to reduce the fines, if you happen to get into that position. MR. BELCHER: So as of now I have to pay 370 and then get permi ts? Page 93 August 24, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: Madam Chair? MR. BELCHER: And I have 90 days to pay the 370, or how long do I have -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That you have to work out with the county. MR. DeWITTE: If I may, just for your knowledge, the board has looked favorably on people who have been able to prove to us that they've shown due diligence in trying to go get permits right away and stuff like that. So it might behoove you just to take some notes that you were there, you got your permit in two weeks and just what happened. People that just come back in 90 days and say, well, I didn't get it done hasn't gone favorably with us. I don't want you to have the wrong impression. MR. BELCHER: I understand. The sooner the better. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. That brings up the next case, which is 2006-46 which is E.J. Properties LLC. MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Code Enforcement Board secretary. I'd like to enter into (sic) the County's Exhibit A into evidence. Board of County Commissioners versus E.J. Properties, CEB No. 2006-46. The violation of Ordinances 04-58, Section 6, subsections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12(A), 12(B), 12(C), 12(D), 12(E), (I), (J), (K), (L), (M), (N), (0), (P), (Q), (R), 19(A), (B), (C), (D); and Section 20 -- subsection 20. The description of the violation is: A triplex severely damaged by fire, leading to numerous minimum housing violations. The fire damage to roof, attic, ceilings, walls, floors, structural supports, kitchens, windows, doors, appliances, plumbing and electric. Also exposure to the elements leading to water damage and pest infestation. Page 94 August 24, 2006 The location of where the fire exists: 509 Doak Avenue, Immokalee. The name or person in charge of the violation location: Is E.J. Properties LLC, c/o Leonardo Stark, Esquire, 798 Northwest 55th Street, Miami. The date the violation first observed: November 4th, 2005. The date or owner/person in charge given a Notice of Violation: June 13th, 2006. Date on which the violation was to be corrected: June 19th, 2006. The date of the reinspection: July 3rd, 2006. Results of the reinspection: All the violations remain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept packet? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement supervisor. This case started back in November, a couple of weeks after the Hurricane Wilma came through. We were directed to go out to Immokalee and, you know, check on any substandard structures that Page 95 August 24, 2006 got damaged by the hurricane. And while I was out doing that, I came across this structure that had been damaged in a fire. This is a triplex. It's a single-story triplex. And it looks like the fire started out in the left side apartment. And it totally gutted this part of the building, and then the fire went through the roof up through the attic and through the other two apartments. As you can see, that's the right side there. You can see -- as you can see, the fire came through all the way through the roof in the attic over there. And actually, there's still two people renting out the middle and right side apartments as of this day right now. During this time we sent out notices of violations for dangerous buildings, and I sent it to Mr. Stark, who was representative of E.J. Properties over in Miami. We got the green card back from that. I had some e-mail correspondence with him. I never spoke to him on the phone. He never seemed to return my calls or anything. It came where I was going to try to bring this before the board, and I went to my supervisor, and he stated that due to the fact that we don't have anybody in place as of this time to make the determination of a dangerous building, and I was having some trouble getting the fire department to notify it as such, I did a Notice of Violation under the minimum housing ordinance, and I wrote up all the minimum housing violations that I could find and sent that to Mr. Stark, and got the green card on that. So that's why I'm taking it as a minimum housing and not as a dangerous building. Basically as you can see, there's -- they haven't really done too much to the structure since I started out. I went there about a month ago, and as you can see on that picture right there, they put new windows and a door in there without even doing anything on the inside. No permit pulled for that. So I shot off a kind of a nasty e-mail to Mr. Stark stating, you know, that's not going to fix the problem by, you know, trying to fool Page 96 August 24, 2006 me into thinking you're working out here by not pulling any permits and putting a door and windows up. About a week later I got a call from Jeff James, who is the brother of the owner of the E.J. Properties, asking me what he needed to do to take care of the situation. I told him exactly what he needed. He needed to either get -- you know, fix up the minimum housing violations or tear the building down, basically is what I told him. I didn't hear back from him so I submitted for CEB. We posted the property in the courthouse. And the day after the posting I get another call from Mr. James, wanting to know what he could do. I told him the exact same thing, start pulling some permits and getting this structure fixed up or remove it. And that's where we stand today. I haven't heard anything from Mr. Stark or Mr. James in, you know, at least two or three weeks now. And that's where we're sitting. And my recommendation is to have the respondent pay the operational costs of $378.63, and abate all violations by repairing all minimum housing violations within two months of the hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you put that on the screen? And also, Jeff, do you have a picture that indicates the side of the property that's being occupied? MR. LETOURNEAU: I guess that middle picture right there is the right one. I don't really have a picture of the whole complex. That's -- I think that's the rear. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So is it like the middle part of that building that's being occupied then, and the other end? MR. LETOURNEAU: The left part got burnt and the middle's being occupied, and the right side's being occupied basically is what's gOIng on. And I've talked to the residents there and, you know, I think they're scared of the landlord, they don't want to let me in the Page 97 August 24, 2006 apartment. So they always refuse my entry in there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Could you tell if there's any utilities on currently? MR. LETOURNEAU: There are utilities on currently. At least electric. I don't know about the plumbing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And could you also put your suggestion -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, sorry. It's pretty simple, I just told them to abate the minimum housing violations. How they want to go about doing it, it's up to them. They could either get it fixed or they could just tear the building down. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aren't they going to have to pull some sort of permits in order to do some of this work? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, ma'am. But, you know, like every other case that we bring here, they've known about it. I mean, they've had -- you know, since I contacted the agent, they've had since late November to pull permits. I mean, that's why I don't like to put too much more time on it, because they've already had the opportunity to try to take care of -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was really worried about the time. It just says to repair all minimum housing violations and it doesn't specify that they need to have the proper permits in order to do that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, I should have put that in there. Okay, how about repairing all minimum housing violations by pulling all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificates of completion within two months of the hearing, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Do we have any other questions of Mr. Letourneau? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll close the public -- Page 98 August 24, 2006 MR. MORGAN: I have one question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, okay. MR. MORGAN: Does the minimum housing, when they upgrade this, does that require firewalls inbetween those three units? Obviously they don't have them. MR. LETOURNEAU: Not the minimum housing ordinance. But possibly when they go to get new permits, they're going to make them upgrade it to whatever today's codes are, and that possibly could mean firewalls. MR. MORGAN: I was curious why the fire inspector wouldn't make an inspection, though. MR. LETOURNEAU: Because, I don't -- he told me that he was only allowed to do reports on a commercial structure. He wasn't signed off on doing residential structures. MR. MORGAN: Do they have common electrical, or do they have three separate meters? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe there's three separate meters on this property. MR. MORGAN: So one of them was destroyed and the other two are operational? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe that's correct, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, at this time I'm going to close the public hearing and open it up to discussion for the board first for finding of fact. MR. DeWITTE: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. Page 99 August 24, 2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Anyone want to try to entertain a motion? MR. DeWITTE: I would just say, we should probably give them the option of the demolition permit as well, as far as that goes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also, regarding operational costs again, leaving it open-ended. MR. DeWITTE: Any other issues anybody has with it? Anybody feel like giving them more time or anything like that? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, I think two months is more than adequate. And I think also put in there receiving all -- obtaining all permits before any work is -- MR. DeWITTE: As amended, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right. MR. DeWITTE: Give it to shot. MR. LEFEBVRE: So make a motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. DeWITTE: Okay. As suggested here, we make a motion that the defendant pay all operational costs occurred (sic) in the prosecution of this case. That he abate all violations either by obtaining all required permits, inspections and certificates to repair all minimum housing violations within two months of this hearing, or by obtaining a demolition permit and completing the work within two months of this hearing, or a fine of $250 a day would be imposed on any violation that remains. Page 100 August 24, 2006 And thirdly, the respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation's been abated and request the investigator come out and perform a site inspection. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have one question to Jean before I -- because we're state stating kind of open-ended any violation that remains, Jean, are we going to get into trouble there? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think what he said is you can either repair all minimum housing violations, you know, by obtaining the permits, the inspections, certificate of completion, or by obtaining a demolition permit and tearing it down, and the related debris, within 60 days. So I think that's good enough. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. KRAENBRING: And just add that we have that continuing operational cost clause that we had. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. He had that in the beginning, where he just said to payoff operational costs. So we have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I believe that closes the public hearing. Any old business? Page 101 August 24, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would setting a workshop be under old business, seeing that it's overdue? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we need to do that. And we also need to actually discuss hearing dates for Thanksgiving -- or November and December. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a question? MR. KRAENBRING: Not related to that. I'll hold it until after we go through those items. Just a suggestion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, do you have any ideas as to when we ought to hold a workshop? MS. ARNOLD: What we could do is see when rooms are available and then e-mail you all to see what your availabilities are on those dates. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And how about require a response back from everybody, and if we don't get a response, if we could make a phone call until we get in touch with the person? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. PONTE: Michelle, would you be thinking in terms of September or October? MS. ARNOLD: I think probably we're going to have to just coordinate and everything September for our workshop. And then any ideas that you all have as well as to what we want to do in addition to our annual information. MR. PONTE: Okay, the reason I asked is that I will asked to be excused for October, but not until the middle of the month, for planning purposes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looks like Thanksgiving's on the 23rd, which is our fourth Thursday, so we'll need to address that date. Because I happen to have fortunately a calendar. And then in December, Christmas is not until the fifth week. MR. PONTE: It's on the 25th. Page 102 August 24, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: But people, and our attorney always goes away. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When do you leave, Jean? MS. ARNOLD: And, you know, I think last year we actually took a break. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think we did. We did-- MS. ARNOLD: So we have that as an option as well. MS. RAWSON: I suggest that we load up November. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And just take off December. MS. RAWSON: Isn't that a good idea? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that's a good idea. MS. ARNOLD: We could do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that fits most people's schedule better, because you have schools out, family vacations, holidays kind of tie into a lot of things. So I would like to see us forego December, maybe. MS. ARNOLD: And rather than setting a date for the November hearing right now, we'll do checking of availability for this room because, you know, it gets tough around that time as well. So we'll check the availability and we'll e-mail you that information and just let us know when -- MR. KRAENBRING: For November? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. DEAN: I'm thinking the 16th, a week before. MS. ARNOLD: That Thursday? MS. GARCIA: Unless the board room -- MS. ARNOLD: Right, we have to check. MR. KRAENBRING: Could I make one comment, just sort of a housekeeping item? You know how we always have the operational costs and then we have always to amend it to say, you know, the ones that accrue. Is there any way that maybe that can always just be standard fair? So that when we read it off we don't have to say, well, let's amend that Page 103 August 24, 2006 motion. MS. RAWSON: When the stipulations are entered into, those operational costs are pretty well set. Because that's what they stipulate to pay. And in all the rest of them, I always just leave it open. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. So if they want to write that in the beginning, it will stop us from going back and forth. MS. RAWSON: When you make your motions just -- and it's not a stipulation, just don't put the amount in there, so that my order will comply with what you said. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So with that, do we have any new business? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any reports? Comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You just did. Next meeting date, September 28th. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Done. Thank you everyone. Page 104 August 24, 2006 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:41 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRPERSON Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 105