Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/28/2006 R September 28,2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida September 28, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett (Absent) Larry Dean (Absent) Justin DeWitte, Acting Chair Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring (Absent) 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: September 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 24, 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS- 1. Motion to Continue - BCC vs. Toll RattIesnake.LLC CEB 2006-61 B. STIPULATIONS- C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: 2006-44 CASE ADDR: 1419 PEAR ST. (FOLIO # 306845610003) OWNER: ROBERT ESCARENO & MARlA RESENDIZ LOPEZ INSPECTOR: CRISTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 1O.02.06(B)(1)(D)(I),1O.02.06(B)(1)(D) DESCRIPTION: A SHED/STORAGE TYPE STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. 2. CASE NO: 2006-45 CASE ADDR: 2942 IMMOKALEE DR (FOLIO # 00075200000) OWNER: JESUS & LAURA PEREZ INSPECTOR: CRlSTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SEC 1O.02.06(B)(1)(A),1O.02.06(B)(1)(D)(I),1O.02.06(B)(1)(D) DESCRIPTION: WINDOWS REMOVED/REPLACED AND ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT A PERMIT. 3. CASE NO: 2006-49 CASE ADDR: 1880 24TH AVE NE (FOLIO # 37864960003) OWNER: LUIS ANGEL DONES INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A),1O.02.06(B)(1)(D)(I),10.02.06(B)(1)(D) DESCRIPTION: 3 NON PERMITTED STRUCTURES WITH UTILITIES IN REAR YARD. 4. CASE NO: 2006-36 CASE ADDR: 2748 HOLL Y AVE (FOLIO # 50891360006) OWNER: GARY & DONNA STUMBO INSPECTOR: EVERlLDO YBACET A VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 99-51 SEe. 7 DESCRIPTION: PROHIBITED ACCUMULATION OF LITTER 5. CASE NO: 2006-50 CASE ADDR: 2724 HOLLY AVE (FOLIO # 50891320004) OWNER: GARY & DONNA STUMBO INSPECTOR: EVERlLDO YBACET A VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 99-51 SEC. 7 DESCRIPTION: PROHIBITED ACCUMULATION OF LITTER 6. CASE NO: 2006-29 CASE ADDR: 5421 WHITTEN DR. (FOLIO # 81820002388) OWNER: RONNIE MONTGOMERY INSPECTOR: SUSAN O'FARRELL VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 4.06.05(A-C) DESCRIPTION: DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY THE LDC 7. CASE NO: 2006-60 CASE ADDR: 240 EVERGLADES BLVD (FOLIO # 40931240009) OWNER: SANDRA CHACON INSPECTOR: SUSAN O'FARRELL VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTION(S)3.05.01(B) DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY CLEARED IN EXCESS OF 1 ACRE WITHOUT A PERMIT 8. CASE NO: 2006-51 CASE ADDR: 1875 IVISA AVE (FOLIO # 00336920003) OWNER: ABELARDO & DELIA THORNE INSPECTOR: JEN WALDRON VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 3.05.01(B) DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY CLEARED IN EXCESS OF 1 ACRE WITHOUT A PERMIT 9. CASE NO: 2006-58 CASE ADDR: 4310 8TH AVE (FOLIO # 03959520001) OWNER: MARCUS & LAURA SOTO INSPECTOR: THOMAS KEEGAN VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SECTION(S) 6, 7 & 8 DESCRIPTION: RECURRING VIOLATION OF LITTER 10. CASE NO: 2006-59 CASE ADDR: 5331 GEORGIA AVE (FOLIO # 62251200008) OWNER: AUGUSTIN & BERTHA CISNEROS INSPECTOR: JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTION(S) 1.04.0, 2.02.03 DESCRIPTION: REPEAT VIOLATION TO CEASE OPERATING AN AUTO PAINT SHOP BUSINESS FROM A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 11. CASE NO: 2006-61 CASE ADDR: NO SITE ADDRESS (FOLIO # 00433360003) OWNER: TOLL RATTLESNAKE, LLC INSPECTOR: AZURE SORRELS VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SEC 1O.02.06(B)(2)(A),1O.02.06(B)(2)(D)(IX) DESCRIPTION: SIGN WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PERMIT 5. OLD BUSINESS - a. Request for Reduction of Fines/Liens BCC VS. SAINTILIEN OCCEUS & MAL VEILLEAS ESTIVERNE CEB 2006-22 6. NEW BUSINESS - 7. REPORTS - 8. COMMENTS- 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - October' 2006 10. ADJOURN September 28, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'd like to call the meeting to order of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County, September 28th, 2006. A note here that 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. With that, we'll have a roll call. MS. GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement Board Secretary. I'd like to call first George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Sheri Barnett has an excused absence. Larry Dean has an excused absence. Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. GARCIA: Richard Kraenbring has an excused absence. Justin DeWitte? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. GARCIA: Ken Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. GARCIA: All members are present. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'd like to move on to approval of the agenda. I believe we have some changes. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. We have a few stipulations that have been entered into. And I Page 2 September 28, 2006 also believe that the request for a continuance, a motion for continuance has also been stipulated. So you may -- I don't know if they want to withdraw that or you'll hear it and they'll withdraw it. W e'llleave it on the agenda for now. But under hearings, C-2 has been stipulated, so we'll hear that stipulation first. C-4 has been stipulated. C-5. C-6. Item number seven is being continued at staffs request, so we'll put that on a future agenda. C-9 has been stipulated. And C-ll has been stipulated. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With those changes, can I get an approval of the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Passes. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, we also have another stipulation that's in the works, C-I0. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we can replace the motion for the stipulation, so they're on the agenda first. It's the Board of County Commissioners versus Toll Rattlesnake LLC. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. So they'll be the first of the stipulations, and we'll also expect to see Case 10 as well show up -- Page 3 September 28, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Right. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: -- on the stipulation agreement. If we could have re-approval of those minutes? MR. LEFEBVRE: Of what? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'm sorry, re-approval of the changes to the agenda with those two modifications. MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my motion. MR. PONTE: Second the motion as stands. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'd like to approve the minutes of August 24th, 2006. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. PONTE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. With that, let's move on to the public hearings. I believe we don't have any motions, so we'll go right into the first stipulation. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: Good morning. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you state your name, please? MS. SORRELS: Sure. My name is Azure Sorrels. A-Z-U-R-E. Page 4 September 28, 2006 s-o- R - R - E- L-S, Investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. This case number was opened on 4-14-04. It was -- the location of the violation is the corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard. It is the Swamp Buggy pole sign. The sign is unpermitted and it is an off-premise sign. The NOV was served to the first property owner on 5-21-04. On 9-19-05, Toll Rattlesnake had bought the property. On 10-17-05, they were informed of the violation. On 4-18, Toll Rattlesnake had submitted for a fast-track variance to see if they could keep the pole sign at its current location. On the 12th of July, there was a letter sent to Toll Rattlesnake regarding some issues about the variance, and they did not respond, so the variance was sent back to them. I have made contact with Toll Rattlesnake. David Torez is an employee with them, and we had agreed to enter into a stipulation. The stipulation is as follows: They are to pay operational costs of $529.56. They are to abate the violation by resubmitting variance application with all current identified issues being addressed by November 11 th, 2006 or a $150 fine a day will be imposed for every day the variance is not submitted. After the variance is determined, either granted or denied, they must obtain all required permits and inspections and certification of occupancy upon variance approval or, remove sign, all supporting structures, all electrical components should the variance be denied or the applicant abandons the variance. The aforementioned requirements must be met in either case no later than April 27th, 2007 or a $150 a day fine will be imposed for every day the violation remains. Also, would like to have: The applicant must stay in constant communication with code enforcement investigator to report the progress of the variance, and then also to inform me when the violation has been abated, whether the sign has been removed due to Page 5 September 28, 2006 denial of the variance or it's been permitted because the variance has been granted. And that's the stipulation. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. Is the respondent here? MS. SORRELS: Yes, they are. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Do you guys understand and agree with this stipulation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. MR. TOREZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess I just have a question. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: What kind of -- if a permit or a variance is not granted, what kind of -- when will the sign have to be removed? MS. SORRELS: No later than April 27th of '07. I had talked with Michael DeRuntz, he's the person that was looking over the variance, and I had asked him what it would take -- how long it would take for the variance to be either approved or denied after they resubmitted. He said three to four months. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, if there's no discussion among the board, we'll move for an approval. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to approve the stipulation as read. MR. KELLY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 6 September 28, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Passes. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Michelle, we're going to move on to 2006-45; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: For the record, Immokalee Code Enforcement Investigator Cristina Perez. This is a reference to Case No. -- CEB Case No. 2006-45. The location of the violation is 2942 Immokalee Drive. The violation is described as windows removed, replaced and alterations conducted to house structure without first obtaining required Collier County permits and inspections. I met with the respondent yesterday, Jesus Perez, and we went-- agreed into the stipulation to pay the operational costs in the amount of $349.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit within 21 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the building permit is issued. Also, obtaining a certificate of completion within 30 days of the day of the permit is issued (sic), or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the certificate of completion is obtained. The respondent must also notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm the abatement. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. Item three? MS. PEREZ: Yeah, that was Item three, that they should -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: No, to notify -- MS. PEREZ: Yeah, to notify the investigator. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is the respondent here? MS. PEREZ: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there any discussiono Page 7 September 28, 2006 amongst the board? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, I'll entertain a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: I will make a motion to approve the stipulation agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Motion passes. With that, we'll move on to Case 2006-36. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. YBACETA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Eddie Ybaceta, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. and Mrs. Gary Stumbo stipulated to the agreement as follows: Owner must remove all litter and debris -- all litter, debris, derelict vehicles and clean property within 90 days, or December 28th, 2006, of this hearing, or fines of $150 a day will be imposed until violation is abated. Number two, owners -- if owners fail to remove the litter, debris and derelict vehicles as referenced within 120 days or January 20th of 2007, Collier County Code Enforcement will obtain compliance by contractor bid-out and obtain the services of Collier County Sheriffs Office, if necessary, to enforce the order of the board. The costs for the county to abate the violation will be assessed to the property owner. Page 8 September 28, 2006 And number two is respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of violation and request an investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also pay operational costs of $262.36. MR. YBACET A: Yes, I'm sorry; I forgot to put that in there. MR. PONTE: Investigator, I have a question. We haven't seen any photos of this site, and I wonder why we're giving the respondent such a generous amount of time to clear this up. MR. YBACETA: I do have photos, if you would like to see them. I could present them. MR. PONTE: Well, my question is, it must be very severe. MR. YBACET A: It is very severe. Plus there are two properties. This is also joined with a second case. So he has 90 days for both of them. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is the respondent here? MR. YBACET A: They were here, they just left. Mrs. Stumbo is not feeling well. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to see the photos. Ijust think the time involved here is quite lengthy. Ninety days. That's three months. And four months to finally get it cleared up just seems a lot of time. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'd entertain seeing the photos, although I have no problems with the county's position and the agreement. MR. YBACETA: Okay, I will-- would you like to see them up front? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: You can put them up. MR. YBACETA: These photos are for the first property, 2748 Holly. This was a mobile home that apparently deteriorated in the course of time. This is still some of it right there. And Mr. Stumbo has inside the property within the garage area Page 9 September 28, 2006 an assorted amount of metal parts, batteries, a lot of batteries, vehicle parts. There's also wood debris that's on the side. It might be in the other photo. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I make a motion that we -- I would entertain a motion that we enter this as County's Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: If anyone wants to make a motion. MR. PONTE: I make a motion we accept this. MR. KELLY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With the evidence presented, George, is this -- MR. PONTE: I have another question. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Does this make the 90 days seem reasonable? MR. PONTE: Not in my mind, Mr. Chairman. No, not in my mind at all. My next question is whether or not there -- I don't know where this is located exactly. Are there children in the area? Is this fenced off? Can kids get into that car? MR. YBACETA: No, it is fenced off. There are children in the area, but this is all behind a fenced area. MR. PONTE: I just feel that 90 days -- 120 days is much too generous. It looks from the photographs to be pretty well corralled Page 10 September 28, 2006 and piled up. I would think those 30 days and 60 days, perhaps, but not 90 and 120. MR. KELLY: Eddie, are they elderly folks? MR. YBACET A: Yes, they're older. MR. KELLY: And they plan on doing the work themselves? MR. YBACETA: Yes. MR. PONTE: But then you come to the question, did they put it there? MR. KELLY: I'm sure it took longer than 120 days to accumulate it. I make a motion that we accept staff s position and the stipulated agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. But just want to have a clarification, make sure that they do understand that the date's -- it's 90 days, and it is December. MR. YBACETA: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Opposed. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Vote passes. And we'll dovetail that right into 2006-50 as well. MR. YBACET A: This is for the property next to it. Same owners, Mr. and Mrs. Gary Stumbo. It's basically the same stipulation: They agree to pay the operational costs of $273.66. The owners must remove litter, debris, derelict vehicles and clean property within 90 days, and that's December 28th, 2006, or fines of $150 a day will be imposed until violation is abated. The owner -- if the owner fails to remove the litter, debris and Page 11 September 28, 2006 derelict vehicles, which in this photo right here the R V -- the travel trailer right next to the R V was damaged by the hurricane and is not livable. It's basically garbage. So this is where the vehicles come into play. Where was I? Okay, derelict vehicles. After 120 days, which is January 20th, code enforcement will obtain compliance by contractor bid-out and obtain the services of Collier County Sheriffs Office, if necessary, to enforce the order of the board. The cost of the county to abate the violation will be assessed to the property owner. And the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation to request the investigator to perform a site inspection. Let me change that photo. That's a closer look. This photo was taken before that travel trailer was damaged, but it's basically caved in on itself now. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have one question. Have they made any effort, up until this point, to clean up any of the property? MR. YBACET A: Previously when this case first started, the gentleman was cleaning up the property. Basically he cracked a couple of ribs and could not continue. And this is why we're here now, because he stopped after that. MR. KELLY: Mr. Ybaceta, is this property any better or worse condition-wise, or is they about the same? MR. YBACET A: They're about the same. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there any other discussion amongst the board? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Otherwise, entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I just make one comment, that my position on this case is the same as the other. I think the time given to clean up Page 12 September 28, 2006 these two properties is excessively lenient. MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Vote passes 4-1. MR. YBACET A: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you. With that, we'd like to move on to stipulate agreement for Case 2006-29. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, environmental investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. CEB Case No. 2006-29 is Case No. 2006-020620. This is a case of deficient landscape, according to our Land Development Code 4.06.05, A through C. A property has to have a certain number of native canopy trees per square footage. It's one native canopy tree per 3,000 square feet. Mr. Montgomery has entered into a stipulation with Collier County, agreeing to put one native canopy tree on his property, as at this point he has none. He has also agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $460.72. He will abate the violation by removing the damaged live oak tree at the southeast corner of property and replace with a mitigation-sized live oak 14 feet in height with a three-inch caliper diameter at breast height. Page 13 September 28, 2006 He will complete replacement of tree as agreed above on -- excuse me, on or before Thursday, October 26th, 2006, or pay a fine of $50 per day as long as the violation continues. The respondent must notify Investigator 0 'Farrell, which I would be, that the violation has been abated and request a final inspection for compliance. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Respondent, do you understand this and agree? MR. MONTGOMERY: Correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Discussion amongst board? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as read. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you very much. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, we'll move on to our final stipulation, which is 2006-58, and I believe we may have had some public responses. MS. ARNOLD: We do have one other stipulation that's being copied for you. And once we give it to you, we'll just add it as Case No. 10. Page 14 September 28, 2006 And yes, there is public comment on this. Why don't we have, however, the investigator just present the stipulation first. And the respondent is present. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Mr. Soto and myself have reached a stipulation agreement. He agrees to pay all operational costs in the amount of $305.77. The violation has been abated as my last recheck on September 26th, '06. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And just for the record, what was the violation? MR. KEEGAN: Litter. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And you signed here and agree with this? MR. SOTO: Yes, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Should we entertain the comments first? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: If somebody from the public would like to speak, just -- (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. RAIMONDI: My name is Guy Raimondi. And my wife, Kathleen. THE COURT REPORTER: How do you spell your name? MR. RAIMONDI: R-A-I-M-O-N-D-I. I would like to address the board. Since we were here last July, Mr. and Mrs. Soto have threatened us. They have threatened my wife, my daughters and myself. And the reason is because we have called code enforcement because he's a constant violator of almost every code that could possibly be violated. The roof from the previous animal pen is still there, which was never permitted to begin with, that he was asked to remove back in -- Page 15 September 28, 2006 which he installed in 2005 without a permit. There are still sheets of plywood, plastic. There's a pig pen that's never been permitted. We have hate signs facing our house, within 15 feet of our home. We ask this board to please make a stand, because the conditions are deliberate and to cause us harm and to intimidate and to force us to move. And we feel the fines aren't great enough or serious enough to make these people do what's right and to become good neighbors like we all want to be. And it's a shame that it's come to this. The only thing we've asked these people to do is to obey the codes that this board and this county has come to find to make living possible. And that's all we ask is that they abide by these codes. That's all we've ever asked. MRS. RAIMONDI: My name is Kathleen. Thank you, gentlemen, for letting us come forth with our comments before you take your vote. We moved to Naples in June of2005, not knowing what we were moving next door to. We obviously did not realize that our neighbors hated us because of who we are. We spent our whole life trying to be culturally diversified in the area where we came from, from Chicago. But we were called Waps, we were called bitches. Excuse me for saying this on the record, but we were. We were threatened. I was sexually threatened, so were my daughters. My husband was threatened to beat the shit out of. And we've lived in fear while the people have harassed us and intimidated us. And all we have done is plant a garden and plant flowers and tried to live as role models. And we would just like them to live -- do unto others as they would have us do unto them. To the best my knowledge, we have done nothing to these people, and they don't like us. We ask you, please, have them remove this wooden animal pen next door which they built in February, 2005 when our house was almost completed. We did put a pool in the back, and maybe this was Page 16 September 28, 2006 something that they felt unhappy with, but they put the pig pen right next to our pool. We can't have visitors come over, we can't have family come over or the Mrs. will come out and shout things at my daughters and our friends. We are living in a literal hell in Naples. We moved after 31 years. We're two older people now. Unfortunately we didn't know we would age that quickly and we're trying to have a small quality of life. We have lived in fear. Mr. Soto has told Tom Keegan that he is deliberately doing things to drive us crazy. He has threatened us in front of Mr. Keegan. Please, gentlemen, ask him to remove the animal pen. It does not meet the zoning requirements. And ifhe has moved from the property, which he has, I would only ask you before you make your final decision to ask him why he would intend to keep -- why is he fighting so hard to get an animal pen enclosure permitted that's against the zoning requirements when he doesn't even live there? Why is he fighting to keep this animal pen that he built in 2005 -- and I'd be happy to show you our aerial view how close it is of proximity to my home -- if he doesn't even live there. Michelle Arnold's been on the site. She's looked at it. She has asked -- she has at one time said that he would be asked to remove it, whether the animals are in it or not, because she had visibly seen the animals. And whenever these cases are abated, he puts them back in agaIn. Please, gentlemen, help us find some peace and quiet in our life. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you, guys, for being concerned and good citizens and taking the time to come and address the board and work through proper channels. I think we need to at least enter this as evidence, because we've all seen it, as public's Exhibit A. Hear a motion? MR. PONTE: So moved. Page 1 7 September 28, 2006 MR. KELLY: I have one question. Do you disagree with any of the photos? MR. SOTO: Yes. Those photos are old. I have taken care of all those problems that they're talking about. There isn't -- I moved out of there -- I mean, they make it believe like I'm the bad guy. I have police officers, I have witnesses. Even Mr. Keegan there knows these people really call to them for any reason that they could, anything that they -- they don't have a job, they're just -- they're there all the time. I own two businesses, I'm never in the house -- or I was never in the house -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: If I may interrupt for a second, and you will have a chance to speak. Those photos were of the property, they were just old? MR. SOTO: Everything there has been removed. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: But you do agree that they were of the property, they're just -- but it's all been taken care of, but they were of the property? MR. SOTO: Right. Because I had animals. I have taken all the animals out. Everything that bothered them I have taken. The only thing I have -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Ifwe can address that point real quick first, then we'll move on to your comment. MRS. RAIMONDI: These are not -- these are present. The only thing removed is the truck. It's still there. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Understanding that these are of the property and he agrees -- MR. KELLY: Second it. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: You second the motion. All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 18 September 28, 2006 MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SOTO: Mr. Keegan, the code enforcement was there a few days ago. And he knows that the only thing I have kept there is that sign, that the sign says, Get A Life, Mind Your Own Business, Try to Go to Heaven or Go to Hell. The reason I put that sign there is because every time that I would go out on my patio those people would come out, okay, and start taking pictures of my kids, calling my kids and telling them things, okay, because kids don't lie, okay. They were trying to -- I have some animals there, the animals started dying, my goats started dying, okay. I took care of all the animals and we took them out. Even the horses that I was allowed to have three, I sold two and kept one. And they were still complaining about the horse, which I finally sold. Those people are the ones that are very prejudiced, not myself. Since they moved in there, they have problems with all the neighbors. I even have a police officer that said if you need me as a witness I will go there and testify, okay? And that's all the cause -- they say that I have killed some of their plants. I never did. They're the one that must have done something to the plants and try to blame it on me. Because all I sprayed was bugs killer around the fence. r have put a six-foot fence around, try to keep these people away from me. That didn't help. They still came and were arguing and would come in here. Mr. Keegan could, you know, tell you things that they would call that -- for no reason. r mean, a piece of wood, something -- you know, it's not like all the previous houses you have there. So all they had to do was just come over, would you take care of this? So we Page 19 September 28, 2006 take it out, you know. But no, they keep bothering. I moved out of there because of these people here. I had to go and spend all kinds of money buying another house, okay, and moved out of there in about a month. They still try to take pictures, they still try to, you know, cause problems. You know, I don't even go there, you know. I got a life. I got a life. I have a job. I have a business to run. And these people still, you know -- like right now I should be at the business. No, I got to be here, because they keep coming for, you know, stuff. I already took care of everything. Mr. Keegan could let you know and show you pictures. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Mr. Keegan, if you could take the stand again, I just have a quick question for you. You concurred through the stipulation that the violations referenced in this case number have been addressed. MR. KEEGAN: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Are there any further cases open against this property? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. The one permit case that the Raimondi's were talking about, it does have a permit. It is Permit No. 2006-081291. I also have the drawings, everything. MRS. RAIMONDI: It's against the zoning regulations. It's not C.O.'d. He's trying to get a permit after the fact for the pig pen that was built in February 2005. And gentlemen-- THE COURT REPORTER: You know what, I can't take anything you're saying because you need to be on the microphone, please. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, we're going to close the public comments. Is there any discussion amongst the board before we entertain a motion? MR. PONTE: Well, what we were looking at was whether or not to accept the stipulation. And what has happened is we sort of Page 20 September 28, 2006 heard a case. I think we ought to hear the case. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, I believe, if I'm understanding this correctly, and I think I understand both sides of the story. Here in America we own a piece of property, we want to be able to do what we want with our property, it's ours. It's one of the things that separates us from the rest of the world. And, you know, folks moved down from Chicago, they moved to Naples because this is paradise, and they want it beautiful. And I appreciate both sides. And I believe the stipulated agreement, the efforts Mr. Soto has put into the property, I believe this is all maybe a way to resolve this. The gentleman doesn't even live there anymore. So I feel comfortable accepting the stipulated agreement and-- MRS. RAIMONDI: He's renting it. MR. KELLY: -- I know that, you know, the petitioners maybe feel a little bit better that they've had the chance to say their peace and -- here in front of us. But the truth is, we have nothing more in front of us to vote on than the stipulated agreement. We can't go and open up a case and seek further penalties like we're being asked to. This is what we have to decide on. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Any other discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I would agree that we have testimony from the code enforcement officer that the violations cited in this case, which is all that we can rule on here, have been abated, and I would entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the code enforcement officer. Have you any photos to show us that would indicate that all of these violations have been abated? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. Page 21 September 28, 2006 MR. PONTE: And Investigator, when were they taken? MR. KEEGAN: They were taken -- some were taken on July 10th, 8/1, 8/1, and on the 25th. MR. PONTE: And your last site investigation was? MR. KEEGAN: The 26th. MR. PONTE: Of this month? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: At the board's request, I would like this to be entered into -- I'd hear a motion that this be entered in as County's Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: So moved. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Do I have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Passes. MR. KEEGAN: That's the loose fence and wood on the side of the property. Piece of wood. More wood. MR. PONTE: Would you, as you go through the sites, if you see something then say this was where the pig pen was, that would be helpful. MR. KEEGAN: That's removed. This is not about the pig pen, this is for the litter. That's a section of fence that has been removed. Page 22 September 28,2006 That's the loose wood. Has been removed. I did a thorough walk-through through the property. All that has been removed. Canopy tent, which has been removed. MR. PONTE: Have the signs been removed? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. Another canopy tent, loose fencing, has been removed. Loose bottles have been removed. That's a bench. I do not consider that litter. It's standing upright. Children's toys. I do not consider that litter. That's what remained. MRS. RAIMONDI: No, that's not true. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And just for reclarification, the violations of sections six and seven of the county ordinance that we're hearing in this case were for litter; is that correct? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there any further discussion or comments from the board? MR. PONTE: Well, the only I guess existing violation then is the sign. MRS. RAIMONDI: What about the pen? He didn't take a picture of the pen. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Which we don't have a case in front of us. If we could be quiet in the courtroom, please, our court reporter's hearing is sensitive to her recording an accurate record of our proceedings. MR. PONTE: So what do we do? The case we've just heard, a historic sign was cited for not being permitted. Well, clearly these signs are not permitted either. MR. SOTO: May I say something, please? MR. KELLY: It is closed. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: We have closed the public Page 23 September 28, 2006 hearing. Before we put it to a vote, though, if you have a comment, I will consider opening it back up for that. We'll finish our discussion. MR. KELLY: Mr. Keegan said there wasn't anything open at this time. If there's a violation for the signs, then maybe another case will open. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Would be open. But we can only address the issue of this case, which is the litter which we have testimony and evidence from county that it has been abated. MR. KEEGAN: Excuse me, I did talk to a sign investigator. Well, actually, my supervisor talked to a sign investigator about the signs, and there is no violation on the signs. MR. SOTO: Correct. I tried to pull a permit for that, and they said it's inside my property, it's 35 feet from their property. And I have the right. Like he said, this is a free country and it's not a hate sign. It's just to let them know to mind your own business and leave my life alone. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Well, regardless of our board's opinions about that we are, you know, bound to follow the code of the county. We do not have anything addressing this in front of us right now so it won't be considered in our decision. Once again, I'd entertain a motion, if anybody would like to make one. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. KELLY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, we'll have a vote. All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 24 September 28, 2006 MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Vote passes. Thank you all very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: One statement to the respondent. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just to let you know that if there are any other litter issues, you will be -- you could be brought back in front of the Code Enforcement Board, and there are penalties that could be much greater than penalties that you might have had. MR. SOTO: I understand. But like I said, I purchased another home. I moved out of there. I rent the house. I have a certificate on the rental. I'm going by the law. And really, there's nothing I can do but tell those people to keep the property clean. That's all I can do. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you. MR. SOTO: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, we'll move on to our final stipulated agreement. Case 2006-59. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, you should have received another stipulation after the fact as well. And we'll hear that last. And that would be -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: 44? Case No. one, 2006-44 ? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay, thank you. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MUCHA: My name is Joseph Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is CEB Case No. 2006-59, department Case No. 2006-070943. Page 25 September 28, 2006 I have reached a stipulation agreement with Mr. Cisneros this morning. He agrees that he is in violation of Collier County Ordinance 2004-41, Section 1.04.01, and Section 2.02.03 described as illegal land use and prohibited use. The basic story behind this is this is a repeat violation. I originally appeared before the board in April of this year. I believe it was Case No. -- CEB Case No. 2006-23. And Mr. Cisneros has been at the time stipulated to an agreement then about painting cars in a residential area. And at that time he had agreed to cease painting automobiles immediately. And on July 19th of this year I observed him continuing to paint automobiles. But at this point, we've reached an agreement. He's agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $223.83 incurred in the prosecution of this case, to abate all violations by -- he's to pay a civil penalty of $500 for a repeat violation and cease the painting of automobiles in an area zoned residentially immediately, or a fine of $250 a day until violation is abated. Respondent must also remove all paint and materials associated with the painting of automobiles from his residence to an area zoned for this permitted use. If the respondent resumes the prohibited activity within the same calendar year, a fine of $250 a day shall apply until the violation is abated. And I'm going to go over there and inspect either today or tomorrow to make sure that all the paint and materials have been removed. I believe they have been, he showed me a picture of his garage. I'm just going to go over to his residence to verify. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: If you would read item three into the record, I've got a question for you. Item three that requires the code-- MR. MUCHA: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Yes, sir. Respondent must Page 26 September 28,2006 notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With your -- in item two, the last sentence there, am I to understand that if he's in compliance and 30 days from now he begins painting a vehicle, and it takes him five days from day 30 to day 35 to discontinue again, he's going to be assessed $250 a day for those five days; is that correct? One also might interpret it that he would be assessed $250 a day for the 30 days prior, as well as the five days. I believe the way this is written, it means just those five days where he's resuming the-- MR. MUCHA: Yes, until I actually seen it resume until it stops. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Point of clarification for the respondent. Was he sworn in? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Do you understand? MR. CISNEROS: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And you agree with -- MR. CISNEROS: Yes, I agree with this. And I can say something? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Yes, please. MR. CISNEROS : You see, I'm been disabled for the last 12 years of my life. And my doctor say there's not a cure for paralysis. And you have to do something to keep your body in shape in case I cure up here. And in those 12 years, I can -- I later on learn to paint and fix cars. In the last year I have this problem, and I say I'm sorry, I tried to learn something that is becoming a problem for me now. And I-- everybody looking for a hobby or something to do. And, you know, r have paralysis, and I have no much to do. So I tried to fix the car, scratch, polish my car, clean my car, and appear -- is wrong. To apologize to Mr. Mucha, I'm sorry about that. And I come up with Page 27 September 28, 2006 this second agreement. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: We appreciate your entering into an agreement with the county and your cooperation. As a board we don't like to see repeat violations, though. We take it very seriously our orders to desist certain activities, and we don't like to see people then ignoring those again when we know they've had clear issue about it. So we just thank you for this, and we just hope that in the future that this activity is ceased. MR. CISNEROS: Yeah. But I'm ashamed. So I cannot have a hobby. I mean, I learned to -- I brush painting. Few things. So I had to forget about those. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Well, there would be, I'm sure, avenues for you to do that. But unfortunately not at your house under these circumstances, because that is a prohibited activity on your property the way it's structured by the county. So thank you again for your agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a couple of questions. First of all for Jean. The stipulated agreement that he signed back in April, I think it was, it states that he -- within the first year, if he does start painting again at his residence, he will be issued a fine of $100 a day. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: And obviously it's within the first year that he has restarted painting at his house. Can we negate that stipulated agreement and supersede it with this stipulated agreement? MS. RAWSON: Well, the answer simply is yes, you can. But I think that in the stipulation, he has agreed to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: $250 a day. MS. RAWSON: -- $250 because it's a repeat violation. So you can say that's part of the 100 or you can say that this supersedes that Page 28 September 28, 2006 last stipulation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess what I'm saying is are we going to hold him still to the stipulated agreement originally plus this one? MS. RAWSON: No, because that's 350. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we're going to supersede the other one. We're going to -- MS. RAWSON: Well, it's up to the board to make that decision. But I believe that -- and you can ask the county for their position. I believe that they intend for this to supersede that last stipulation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I guess a comment to the respondent. It's short of six months that you're back here, and painting has resumed. I hope that his stipulated agreement, that you abide by it this time. MR. CISNEROS: Yes. Well, like I say, I'm here because he says that I'm running a business out of a garage. And I not consider a business fixing a small part of my car. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you do understand -- MR. CISNEROS: Yeah, I understand that. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- that there could be no painting activity within where you live. If you want to do that, you have to go to where it's properly zoned. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there any other discussion amongst the board? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Ifnot, I'd entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: Well, we have the respondent promising to do something. We have on the record the fact that he promised to do something in the past and didn't. I think we have to look at this with caution and not just take it as its face value that he says he's going to do this when in fact in the past his record is he doesn't do what he says he's going to do. Page 29 September 28,2006 I think the stipulation agreement isn't heavy enough for a repeat offense. This is not a repeat violation something that happened a long while ago, it happened very soon after the respondent left this room. Additionally, the respondent seems to be weaving a -- to me at any rate, a possibility of returning to some sort of an activity and regarding it as a hobby. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about something in the stipulation that states that the investigator could make unannounced visits for a period of time. Would that be possible? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: If the investigator would answer that, I believe one, that's already the case, and two, that you mentioned that you will be back to check up periodically on the property . MR. MUCHA: Yes, I can keep the case open and make periodic visits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybe we can enter that into the order, as long as the respondent agrees that -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'm not sure that we need the respondent's consent for him to do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, just so we acknowledge that he will be allowed -- you'll be allowed to be on his property and that's -- I think if it's part of an agreement, it might be a little bit stronger. MR. PONTE: The only thing with this stipulation agreement, it says that if the respondent resumes the prohibited activity within the calendar year. Does that mean a calendar year, the calendar year, this calendar year? MR. LEFEBVRE: How about within one year from this hearing? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: One year from this hearing would be more appropriate verbiage, I believe. Mr. Kelly? Page 30 September 28, 2006 MR. KELLY: Well, if it's a violation, why are we keeping it to just a year period? MR. PONTE: Well, that's true too. MR. KELLY: I mean, it's a violation against county ordinance. It's a violation. The question I have is, Investigator, did you see activity to where it looked like it was an actual business? Was he charging other people to fix their vehicles or was it on his own vehicle? MR. MUCHA: I've seen a couple other vehicles that weren't his vehicle specifically. MR. PONTE: Are there any signs to indicate he's running a paint shop? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. MR. KELLY: The way I see it is there's a definite need for talent like that in this town. As long as there is transportation, I know of a person who would hire him right now if he was good. Then he could continue his hobby or his -- what he enjoys, what he's capable of doing and be paid for it legally. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: So is it the, I should say, pleasure of the board that we would like to see an adjustment to the stipulated agreement? MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: The adjustment being-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's instead of -- well, instead of within a calendar year, just put in there if the respondent resumes prohibited activity, period. The same -- the $250 fine shall apply until the violation's abated. And I'd like to see something where the respondent agrees to allow the inspector to enter the premises. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Maybe we could say the respondent understands that county will be out to -- Page 31 September 28, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Periodically. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: -- periodically check on his compliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about for the next year? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: For whenever the county wants to do it. So see if I have this correct. We're going to strike -- our proposal is to strike within the calendar year from item two, and to add that the respondent would understand that the county will be visiting to check on his compliance. With those two additions, would that be acceptable to the county as a stipulated agreement? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And sir, would that also be acceptable to you as a stipulated agreement? MR. CISNEROS: Yes, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With their two testimonies and that as a stipulated agreement, could I entertain a motion from the board to accept that. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you guys. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Michelle, you're welcome Page 32 September 28,2006 to correct me again, but I think we're moving to our last stipulated agreement, 2006-44. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: This is in reference to CEB No. 2006-44. The address of violation is 1419 Pear Street. I met with the respondent, Maria Resendiz Lopez this morning here in the courtroom. She chose not to stay. But we did enter into a stipulation agreement for the violations described as a shed, storage type structure constructed alongside of the mobile home without first obtaining, if obtainable, the required Collier County permits and inspections. And we came into the agreement to pay the operational costs in the amount of$327.66 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit within 21 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day would be imposed until permit is obtained. Also obtaining a certificate of completion within 30 days of the day the permit is issued, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the certificate of completion is obtained. Also, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm the abatement. The respondent must notify code enforcement if the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And is the respondent here? MS. PEREZ: She was here. She chose not to stay. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there any discussion amongst the board? And if not, I'd entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: So moved that we accept the stipulation agreement as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 33 September 28, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PEREZ: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you. That would close the stipulation portion of our public hearing and we would move on to the hearings with Case 2006-49. MS. GARCIA: I'd like to enter into the County's Exhibit A -- Shirley Garcia, for the record, Code Enforcement Board Secretary. I'd like to enter into Exhibit A, Board of County Commissioners versus Louise Angel Dones, CEB No. 2006-49. Violation of ordinance is 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: Three nonpermitted structures built in the rear yard. The location of the violation is 1880 24th Avenue Northeast, Naples. The name of the person, owner of the violation location is Louise Angel Dones. The date the violation was first observed: April 26, 2005. The date the owner, person was given a Notice of Violation was June 14th, 2006. The date on which the violation was to be corrected: July 17th of2006. Date of the reinspection: July 14th, 2006. The results of the reinspection: It was not in compliance. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 34 September 28, 2006 MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement supervisor. MS. ARNOLD: Jeff, hold up for one second. We just need a motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Can I have a motion to accept the county's packet as presented. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MR. LETOURNEAU: This case first started back on April 26th of 2005. I was the Golden Gate Estates investigator at that time. And I got a complaint, an anonymous complaint about renting a couple guesthouses in the back of a property and possible permit violations. On the 26th of April, 2005, I went out to this property and nobody was there at the time. I went around to the neighbor's property and I observed four structures in the rear of the property. There were two guesthouse-type structures, a pole barn and a shed. There was also some work being done on the back of the primary structure, looked like a shower was being built. I left my card, I went back to the office and did some research. I pulled the property card. And it showed that the original house was built in 1992. Between then and that time, there had been no other permits ever pulled for this property, so right then I knew that the two guesthouse, the pole barn, the shed and the work being done on the Page 35 September 28,2006 primary structure were being done without permits. I wrote a Notice of Violation and mailed it to the property owner at that time who was Maria De La Vega. After that, I got put in a different position and the case was taken over by another investigator. And in the time between probably May of 2005 and early 2006, the case had gotten shuffled between three investigators. And what had happened is the original owner had pulled a demolition permit, but only to remove the small shed in the rear of the property. Nothing else was done on the two guesthouses and the pole barn. I got a call early in 2006 by the original complainant asking what was going on with the case. So I went on the computer, looked it up, and I at that time took back over the case again. Unfortunately the property had been sold during this time and a new owner was now in charge of the property. So I went back out there. I knocked on the front door of the primary structure and a renter came up and told me she was renting. I asked if I could look in the back, I went back there and I discovered that the two guesthouses and the pole barn were still there. The shed had been removed and the work in the back of the primary structure had been removed. So the remaining violations were the two guesthouses and the pole barn. I went and did another NOV, came back to the property, because it shows that the new owner was living at this property at the time, Mr. Dones. I went to serve the NOV to the renter and she refused to sign the NOV and also didn't have any information about Mr. Dones. She wouldn't give me a phone number or where I could contact him at. So I posted a courtesy Notice of Violation and we mailed out a Notice of Violation certified mail, which we got a green card back from somebody from that residence. Then the case kind of went on and nothing was done. I never got any -- I couldn't find a phone number for Mr. Dones, nobody Page 36 September 28, 2006 could give me information. So I eventually submitted it for the Code Enforcement Board. I want to show you a few pictures now, if I could. As you can see, I got the two guesthouse structures circled on the left-hand side, and the pole barn is right behind the house, as they remain today. I got a couple of pictures of the pole barn and of the guesthouse. Let me see here. The top one is showing the south side guesthouse, the middle is the north side guesthouse, and the bottom picture would be the pole barn. I believe at this time there are renters in both the guesthouse and the primary structure. And I don't believe they're all from the same family, I think they're individual renters. So here we are at this time. I've not contacted the owner. I don't know, you know, why he hasn't gotten ahold of me. I've left numerous notes and red tags, and I left -- you know, posted the Notice of Hearing on the property. And as of this date, the violations remain and Mr. Dones hasn't contact me. So my -- I'll go through my recommendation. Would be -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Real quick, can I hear a motion to entertain -- to enter the county's pictures as Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: So moved. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: A second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. With that, what would be your recommendation? MR. LETOURNEAU: My recommendation would be for the Page 37 September 28, 2006 respondent to pay all operational costs of $395.11 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificates of completion for all described nonpermitted structures within three months of this hearing, or obtain all required Collier County demolition permits, inspections, certificates of completion and remove all the related debris to an area intended for final disposal within three months of this hearing. Failure to complete either of these options will result in a $250 a day fine to be imposed for each day any violation remains. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Can you put that up on the overhead for us. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I have one issue before we decide if the violation is there. It doesn't seem like we have any contact with the owner, and I'm concerned that obviously there's nobody here, and we're about to possibly find a violation and then pass recommendation by county on something that he might not be aware of. And when you sell a property with two existing structures on it and it's sold as something you can rent out and generate revenue, that's going to obviously increase the value of that property. And I'm just a little concerned going into this, because without permits and inspections, we don't know if those were built right, if they're safe. There's, you know, possible electrical violations. I'm uncomfortable with people living in there. It looks pretty open and shut. We're not going to have anything from the other side. But without having him served, how is he going to know that he has three months? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Yeah, I agree with your concerns. And I'm sure the county's making every effort they can to contact him and work with him. Before we move on, though, I think we have some evidence, Page 38 September 28, 2006 though, we should -- I would like to hear a motion as to whether or not a violation exists and to address the county's -- MR. PONTE: I have just a question before we do that. And Jeff, is the -- are the number of renters there legal? You mentioned that they were not related. Is it overpopulated? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, what we have here is it's the Estates property, which is a single-family property. And you would be allowed to build one guesthouse legally out there. But you're only allowed to rent to one family. So one family would have to have the whole property, that would be the primary structure and the guesthouse. So as it stands right now, it's also illegal land use with the way he's renting it, because he's renting it to different people in a single- family residence. MS. ARNOLD: But that's not the violation. MR. MORGAN: Is the septic tank connected, one septic tank for all three structures? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure about that. There's a lot of nonpermitted plumbing running all over the place out there. I've got more pictures of -- now, that top picture I believe was the originally permitted well structure for the primary house. And they built the north side guesthouse kind of around that. But if you go down to the bottom pictures, I believe that those are nonpermitted right there. And I mean, I couldn't tell you which way the water system's running or how many septics they have out there. MR. MORGAN: What's the distance between the septic tank and the water well? MR. LETOURNEAU: I couldn't tell you that either, sir. I believe the septic probably is in the front yard. They normally build them out there in the front and they put the well in the backyard. MR. KELLY: I have two quick questions. On the initial permit card, did it show one single residence? Didn't show any guesthouse. Page 39 September 28, 2006 And how wide is the property? MR. LETOURNEAU: The property I believe is --let me see here. Let me see how wide the property is. The property is 75- foot wide. The property card shows -- it's not a very good picture, but it shows the original house here in the middle and then it shows a couple more structures built, you know, subsequently on the property card. They come up periodically and they'll do drawings, even without permits. So it does show three structures. I'm not sure what the other two structures are, either the shed and one guesthouse. And I'm not sure when the guesthouses were built. They might have been built separately, different times or at the same time. MR. KELLY: And this property card was done at the time of construction or final inspection, CO, or what? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't know. It was done -- I don't know when the last entry into the property card was. Can you read anything on there, Michelle? It looks like the last entry was '96. The original house permit was pulled in '92. MR. KELLY: I know that the county's permitting system is accurate since '92, so if there was any permits we'd know about it. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I believe that he's going to have some setback issues with the guesthouse, because they're not that far enough apart. MR. KELLY: And you're only allowed to have one on a 75-foot property. So there are some issues. I make a motion that a violation does exist. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? Page 40 September 28, 2006 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (N 0 response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there any discussion amongst the board about -- could we see the stipulated agreement up again -- about the property or about resolution? MR. PONTE: Well, I just have one for the county. Seeing that the respondent has not replied to anything, what's our next step following up on the questions from the board to go ahead with this and find the violation exists? What does the county do next? Where is this fellow? MR. LETOURNEAU: What I'll do -- I mean, Shirley sends out the note to the address of record, which is this property. I'll go out there and try to stress this as much as I can to the renters that it's very important that -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, where are they paying the rent? Where does the check go? MR. LETOURNEAU: Obviously I'm putting two and two together. Maybe he's just saying -- telling them don't work with the county. I don't know, you know, I'm just assuming. They seem kind of scared when I pull up there and they don't really want to deal with me. But I'll try to stress and I'll leave notes and do the best I can. MR. KELLY: Does the property appraiser's -- even by looking at the web site, does it have a different mailing address for the owner, or is the owner listed on the property? MR. LETOURNEAU: He's listed on the property appraiser's and on the tax card as his property right there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that property homesteaded? Page 41 September 28, 2006 MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure about that. I don't have it with me. MR. KELLY: We're getting pretty specific. We're just trying to help find the guy. Or woman, maybe, whoever owns it. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And so just for the board's understanding, as this motion is carried out, if he doesn't, you know, receive the letter sent to the property -- if the renters don't pass it on to him and he doesn't read any public notices or courtesy postings, he will find out -- the next time he would probably be likely to find out is when? MR. LETOURNEAU: Imposition of fines, probably. MR. KELLY: Right. And he may have been sold it by then. He or she. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, if they're going to go-- once we have a record here, though, the title search will -- they won't be able to sell it. MS. ARNOLD: It's not homesteaded. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's not homesteaded. MR. KELLY : Well, couple more issues, if I can raise them. While we're sure that at least one of those additional structures in the back were built after the fact without a permit and inspections, so how safe are they? And then if we go and pass some kind of agreement, even if we take county's recommendation, it could go on deaf ears and nothing could happen for another three months. During that time if something was to happen to those renters because of, let's say, a code violation or a safety hazard, how guilty would we feel? Is there anything that we can put in there to allow somebody from -- the code department inspector or something to go in there and do just a visual site inspection? Is there any way that we can put in the agreement -- or not the agreement, our order some kind of severe penalty after the time frame Page 42 September 28, 2006 is up as in county would be allowed to contract services to have the buildings demolished? Because they're not going to be able to stay anyways. They're allowed one structure, that's it. And it's up to a certain percentage of the size of the main. So there's definitely going to be some demolition occurring. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, board, if you all would like us to look into this more quickly and have the county attorneys bring suit to this case more quickly than we normally would, you know, we could do that. You would just have to kind of give us that direction. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And again, the violations cited in the case are for the existence of nonpermitted structures. They do not address the number of tenants or anything like that; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: That is correct. I feel with taking care of the permitting issues, the tenant issue will go away with it, I imagine. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: As a point of discussion amongst the board, I hate to -- you know, on one side you hate to fine a guy $250 a day that's never going to see it coming, more than likely. And Ken, to your point, maybe we should see something addressed sooner. If you have a recommendation? MR. KELLY: Agreed. Michelle or Jeff, what would the county attorney's office do to assist in this? What ideas would you have? MR. KLATZKOW: There's more violations on this property than you can shake a stick at, from what I'm hearing today. If directed by my client, we'd be happy to look into taking a judicial action against the owner. And we will find the owner rather quickly, I think. But that doesn't stop you from doing whatever you want to do. The two things can move on separate tracks at the same time. So if it's your inclination to impose a fine, that's fine. There's nothing to stop me from doing what I would be asked to do by my client. Page 43 September 28, 2006 MR. KELLY: Thank you. What resources do we have at our disposal in order to go out and see if there really is any type of safety violations there on a more expeditious method? MR. KLATZKOW: You need a court order. I mean, the property is leased, there are people living there. We wouldn't want to conduct any illegal search at this point in time. But you could get a court order for that. But, you know, that could all be addressed, you know, on the other track, the non-Code Enforcement Board track. MR. KELLY: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And a question for Michelle Arnold or you. Through what process do we request that you do further investigation on this and possibly pursue a -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, I guess what I'm hearing Jeff say is that you can take your normal action and we -- he could do additional things at my request. So I'm hearing that that's a possible desire -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Do we request that of you just as a board -- MR. KLATZKOW: You would make a recommendation. MS. ARNOLD: A recommendation, yes. MR. KELLY: Do we have general consent to have Michelle look further into this? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I think we do. I would like to make a recommendation to Michelle that she does, and would entertain a motion to do that. MR. PONTE: I agree we should do that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: So second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we make a motion and maybe stipulate within 30 days, if that's possible? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Well, it's a recommendation MS. RAWSON: It's not an order. We don't really have the power to order Michelle to do things. Page 44 September 28, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: But if we do have consensus among the board to make that reservation (sic), we will put that to a vote. All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. So we do, Michelle, recommend that you pursue whatever action necessary to make sure there are no other safety issues or other issues on the property. MR. KLATZKOW: That will be done. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you. MR. KELLY: As far as the county's recommendation, you know, 90 days seems like it would be very lenient, but under the circumstances, not being able to find the owner, I'm comfortable with it. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I would agree. We have some other discussion amongst board as well. Anybody want to address the fine as well, or are we comfortable with that? MR. PONTE: Comfortable. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 90 days is somewhat sufficient, because of the engineering work that has to be done and so forth if they do ultimately plan on applying for a permit. And then by the time they find the respondent I think 90 days will be ample time. MR. PONTE: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 45 September 28, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. With that, we'll move on to Case 2006-60. MS. GARCIA: I'd like to enter in the County's Exhibit A into evidence, Board of County Commissioners versus Abelardo and Delia Thorne, 2006-51. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Are we going to 2006-51? I'm sorry, 2006-60 was continued. 2006-51. Thank you. MS. GARCIA: Sure. The violation of Ordinance 04-41, Sections 3.05.01(B). The description of the violation is vegetation removed over allowable one acre without obtaining the proper permits. The location where the violation exists is one 1875 Ivisa Avenue, Naples. Name and address of the person in charge of the violation is Abelardo and Delia Thorne. The date the violation was first observed was 3-8 of '06. The date the person in charge was given the Notice of Violation was on 3-21 of '06. Date on which the violation was to be corrected was 4-14 of '06. Date of the reinspection: July 14th of '06. Results of the reinspection was violations still remain. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Hear a motion to enter County's Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: So moved. MR. PONTE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? Page 46 September 28, 2006 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Specialist. On 3-9, I observed the violation of over one acre of vegetation removed without permits. I researched for any possible permits for this property for vegetation removal and found none. On 3-13-06, I issued the NOV and sent certified mail. On 3-21, I received the signed green card back, signed by Mr. Thorn. On 4-5-06, I spoke with Izar Thorne, who is Abelardo's son, who inquired what was to be done at this point. I required him to submit a mitigation plan according to Collier County Land Development Code for approval. The compliance date was April 14th, 2006. On May 3rd, 2006, I called Izar Thorne and left a message for him to get back with me on an update of the mitigation plan. I received no phone call back from him. On June 27th, 2006, I again called Izar Thorne and left another message with no call back from him. And on July 27th, 2006, I prepared this case for CEB. On September 27th, 2006, I performed another site visit and witnessed that the violation still remains. And I also have -- I got two photographs to look at that you can clearly see the violation. Page 47 September 28, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'd like to hear a motion to enter their photographs as County's Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the photos. MR. PONTE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. WALDRON: This photograph shows it's a 2006 aerial of the property. The property is five acres. I would estimate that about two and a half acres of this property has been cleared and only one acre is allowed to be cleared without any further permits. This is a 2005 aerial, just to show you a comparison of what the property did look like a year before. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I just had a question. Has it just been cleared, or does it look like they're also removing soil, dirt from the property? MS. WALDRON: There were -- I did notice that there was a lot of mulch on the property. I don't think that they're removing any soil. I think they're bringing in mulch more than anything else. MR. PONTE: Thank you, that was my question. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'd entertain a motion that there is -- that a violation does exist on this property. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that a violation exists as described in the charging documents ofCEB Case 2006-57 (sic), Abelardo and Delia Thorne, respondents. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I believe that's 51. MR. PONTE: I'm sorry. Page 48 September 28, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there a second to that motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, is there a recommendation from the county? MS. WALDRON: Yes, there is. My recommendation is that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $433.40 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by submitting a mitigation plan by a qualified person as stated in 10.02.02(A)(3), in accordance with 10.02.06(E)(3), and submit to code enforcement for approval by October 30th, 2006 with plant materials meeting Collier County Land Development Code mitigation standards with trees being 14 feet tall with three-inch diameter breast height and graded Florida No.1 or better, and shrubs being a minimum of three-gallon size and shall be installed with adequate irrigation provided to ensure that 80 percent survival required for a five-year period, or a fine of $150 per day will accrue until the violation is abated. They also need to install all replacement vegetation according to the Collier County approved mitigation plan by November 14th, 2006, or a fine of $150 a day will accrue until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Page 49 September 28, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Can you put that up on the screen. Can you also speak to your interaction with the respondent? And have you had any personal interaction with them? Did they agree to comply to the old agreements or-- MS. WALDRON: I did speak to the son, Izar, and he, at the time of the violation, observed, was very -- seemed like he was going to do what he needed to do. I explained that he's going to need to hire a qualified person to come up with a mitigation plan. And then I never heard from him again after that point. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And as a point of clarification to the board, just I had a question. There's a five-year time frame in which these, you know, must -- these plants must survive. What happens if they sell the property in the meantime? Will they be able to sell the property in the meantime? MS. WALDRON: They'll be able to sell the property in the meantime, but the new owner needs to be notified that the code violation is on this property. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is it their responsibility-- MS. WALDRON: It is their responsibility to-- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: -- to notify them? MS. WALDRON: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there any way for your office to -- have you made them aware that that would be their responsibility or is there any way for you to make them aware or for us to make them aware that that is their responsibility? Because I would hate for them not to know that or the new owner not to know that. MS. WALDRON: Right. And I did notice that the property is up for sale also. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Can we put in -- does it make sense to put in the agreement -- maybe Michelle or Jean, you Page 50 September 28, 2006 can answer this -- that they have to notify any potential buyer? I'd like to see that added to our order. MR. KELLY: That's a good add, Mr. Chair. And that will hold them liable if anything was missed. I have one question, though. If they decided not to go through the expense of revegetating their own property, should we add to the order that maybe they can purchase ROMA land or some other land and donate that? MS. WALDRON: I wouldn't recommend this for this property, because this is in the sending lands and they have very strict vegetation requirements. They are required that they can only remove 20 percent of their property at any time; 80 percent has to remain. And that's including all structures, anything that may be built. Twenty percent is the maximum allowed. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And just thinking about dates here and rainfall, how long have we given them to get their plants in? MR. KELLY: Two weeks. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: They'll get some rain, and they will have to provide irrigation to ensure survival. With that, I'd entertain a motion. And if somebody wants to include in that motion some verbiage that they have to notify -- MR. PONTE: I just have a question about the October 30th date. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Yes. MR. PONTE: Is that in itself grievous? Can a mitigation plan be crafted, put together by the proper people within four weeks time? MS. WALDRON: Absolutely. I've gotten them in as short as two weeks time. MR. KELL Y: And then from that date they have a mere two weeks to actually install all of those. That might be unrealistic, more Page 51 September 28, 2006 so. MR. PONTE: That's true. But there is the rainy season consideration. If it goes beyond that, then you're -- then you really have to require irrigation. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Which they will probably anyway. MR. PONTE: Which is another consideration. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Does the county have an opinion as to whether or not they will be able to get somebody to install plants in that amount of time? MS. WALDRON: They should be able to get somebody. If -- I don't have a problem with giving them more time to install the plants. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I know we asked -- in a previous case we asked the landscaper whether we had enough time. I was thinking it was a short window, and he was of the opinion that he had plenty of time. I don't know if that would be the same in this case with this vegetation, but -- MR. PONTE: Well, it comes down to one of those questions of -- is the respondent doing all this work himself or is he -- is there a commercial company involved? MS. WALDRON: I'm not sure. I was unable yesterday to get on the property because it was very wet. There are a lot of vehicles on the property. I don't think there's a business running out of there or anything. MR. PONTE: No, I didn't mean that, I meant did he have somebody coming in with earth moving equipment or, you know -- MS. WALDRON: I think they're doing it themselves, because they have a piece of machinery on their property also that's been there. MR. KELLY: Two and a half acres is a lot of land to revegetate. You could possibly be looking at at least 50 trees, maybe 100 trees. Page 52 September 28, 2006 MS. WALDRON: Well, they would have to -- my approximation was two and a half acres have been cleared total. They're allowed an acre, so that would leave them an acre and a half to revegetate. MR. KELLY: I'm just thinking logistically. It's going to take maybe more than one employee or person to revegetate that. And two weeks just seems like it's a little short. MR. PONTE: On the other hand, we haven't had any real response. If we let it stand as is, it will get somebody's attention. MR. KELLY: True. I'm willing to bet they probably did not know that they were only allowed to clear one acre. And there's been -- whether they're doing it by themselves or not, there's still an expense to do what they've done. And these trees, at 14 feet tall, three-inch in diameter are a couple hundred bucks a piece. I just feel that if we make a stand now and give them only two weeks, it might be to the point where it's unattainable in their mind, and they might not be willing to work with us, you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, they have a total of six weeks, if I'm not mistaken. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: That's true. But the landscapers may not really be able to get going until the approval of plans. MR. KELLY: True. And they wouldn't know what they were going to be bidding on or have to order before the mitigation plan is approved. And it could take a minimum of two weeks to four to get that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I'd entertain a motion along the lines of -- if you have something to suggest? Do you want to try to craft it? Or if somebody does? MR. KELLY: Gerald does a better job than I do at crafting them, but if I could just maybe suggest 30 days or 45 days instead of Page 53 September 28, 2006 two weeks after the mitigation plan is approved. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: What does the board think, 30 or 45? MR. PONTE: Forty-five. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. So with one change to the recommendation, as stated here, with 45 days being given to them after the approval of the mitigation plan, and then with another change, that we order in here that the respondent must notify any potential buyer of the property of this, that any potential buyer be made aware of this order. Is there any consequence or fine if that's not done that we need to put on this? Can the title be held, or any note on the title be made that a title company would find that note? Is that possible? MR. KELLY: I believe what would happen is they would be open to litigation. But I see what you're saying, you'd want something to stop it right there before a new owner would be potentially held with that, because they would have to prosecute it themselves. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the title company, because your order is filed in the public record, and, you know, any subsequent imposition of fine will also be fined, so the title company should find that when they're going through any kind of search for future purchases. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Then maybe just the verbiage then that this order be disclosed in advance to any potential buyer -- or any prospective buyer of the property. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's really necessary to give them the explanation, it's going to automatically flag the -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I would agree, but I would still like them to be given that in our order. I don't want any harm to follow a potential buyer. MR. KELLY: Right. And Mr. Chair, as you were saying, if the title company did not get it, that verbiage would be clear for recourse and make it a little bit easier for the purchaser to be able to come back Page 54 September 28, 2006 on -- back on the seller. MR. PONTE: Don't you have to put some kind of fining mechanism on that? Otherwise it's just a statement. MR. LEFEBVRE: It might be a statement of protection for the buyer versus against enforcement. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And maybe just to make sure we've done all we could to see that the new buyer gets informed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybe we should put down disclosure in writing. Because you can just disclose verbally and the buyers could say they never told us. But in writing, it would be different. I make a motion to -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: George, did you have a comment? MR. PONTE: I was going to ask Jean, are we getting a little far afield of what we ought to be doing here? MS. RAWSON: Well, probably. But there's nothing wrong with your putting in there a requirement that they notify any potential buyer of the violation in writing, even though it's going to show up at the time that you have a closing. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: A lot of work gets done before closing, in my opinion, you know, money and plans are spent. I'd like to try to catch it sooner in the process. MR. KELLY: I agree. But we've had cases before where there've come back to us and said they didn't know that there was a violation on the property. It didn't get to the point where there was an order, but I'd just feel more comfortable with that. And if I'm not harming anyone, it's just looking out for maybe somebody else in the public. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: So if I've got this right, the board's got two basic changes to the county's recommendation that instead of 14 days after the mitigation plan has been approved to get the plans in we have 45 days. And the second change being that we Page 55 September 28, 2006 tell the respondent, we order the respondent that he is to notify in writing any potential buyer of this property of this violation and order. With those two changes to the county's recommendation, do we have a motion to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the county recommendation. MR. PONTE: I'll second. MR. LEFEBVRE: With a few mod -- with the modifications stated by the chair. MR. PONTE: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: And for the record, I will be leaving the meeting. MS. ARNOLD: We just have one request for a reduction, and that's it. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Do we not have 2006-59? MS. ARNOLD: You've already done that one. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Gotcha. So that concludes our hearings. Where would the request for continuance go, Michelle? MS. GARCIA: On the old business. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. Going into old business. We have a -- do you want to do the request for continuance Page 56 September 28, 2006 before we do the reduction of fines? Or is it the same case? MS. ARNOLD: The request for continuance was withdrawn. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: But is that the Toll Brothers one? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: The reduction of fines. MS. ARNOLD: The reduction of fines is the -- I can't even say that name. MR. PONTE: Yes, that's the one. MS. GARCIA: Saintilien. MS. RAWSON: Was there a request for continuance on 60 or did you just remove it from the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: They removed it themselves and entered into a stipulation instead. That was Mr. Y ovanovich and the two gentlemen that were sitting in the front. MS. RAWSON: Sixty. Sandra Chacon. MS. GARCIA: Oh, Chacon, we already -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Yeah, 2006-60. I could be wrong, I don't think we addressed it, though. MS. ARNOLD: That one was the request for a continuance on behalf of staff. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Right. Do we need to address that or is that -- MS. ARNOLD: No, they continued it. We're withdrawing it from this agenda, we'll put it on a future agenda. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. So with that, we're at 2006-22? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Under old business. MS. ARNOLD: If I can find it here again. This is not really an imposition of fine or anything, this is at the property owner's request. And is she here? MS. GARCIA: Yes, they're here. Page 57 September 28, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: So they would be the ones to speak first. If you could go to the mic, please. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: If you want to come to this podium here and both be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: If you'd like to go ahead and -- MS. ESTIVERNE: My husband was going to be here today, but he's not here today, but I'm here. My name is Malveilleas Estiverne and I used to have the property 620 -- 530 Stork Avenue. Me and my husband, we been separated for a long time. We're divorced. But he's the only one take care of the property. But I think he is going to take care of everything very clear. So when I spoke to him, so he say he was going to sell the property to the gentleman. And I don't know, he sell the property for $30,000. So the gentleman give him $10,000. So I thought it was $80,000, but it was $30,000. So he gave my ex-husband $10,000. So when we find out he have lot of stuff in there, the car, the vehicle is not -- they don't have the tag. The trash. He don't take care of anything. But that guy, he don't know when he buy the property. When we find out he got lot of problem on there. Said he take off, he went to Haiti. But I'm only one will take care of it, because I don't want him have a problem. So I'm here. Whatever they want this court to pay, we're going to pay every month for we make everything simple. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Can you add a little background and the application as well? MS. SYKORA: This particular was three cases that came before you as repeat violations. It was operation of a vehicle repair shop, extensive amount of unlicensed, inoperable vehicles, and accumulation of litter. I might add that there had been, including these three cases, 13 Page 58 September 28, 2006 prior cases similar on this same property. On other property owned by the same individuals there was five similar violations for unlicensed vehicles; one of them which went to a special master hearing. Consequently, it accrued fines because the violations were not abated. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Have the violations been abated at this time? MS. SYKORA: Yes, they have. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And has the property been sold or do they still own it? MS. SYKORA: It's in someone else's name now. I believe this gentleman over here owns it now. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And the county's fines of course stay with the owner; is that correct? Yes. MS. SYKORA: Well, technically the owners should be responsible for the fines, but there should have been a title search to determine. So I don't know how they transpired with this transaction. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And you mentioned that there were several cases against this owner, but this $25,000 in fines applies towards this one piece of property that has now been sold. MS. SYKORA: It's $50,000 now. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: It's fifty, I'm sorry. MS. SYKORA: It's 50,000 plus operational costs. $50,349 for fines. That's the only amount that can be reduced. They do owe other -- more amount, but that has to be paid. The county recommendation is that these fines not be reduced, due to the past history of this property and this being a repeat violation. It was heard before the Code Enforcement Board by a prior investigator. And then I brought it for repeat violation. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: When was that violation first issued? How long ago was the first violation brought against this Page 59 September 28, 2006 property? MS. SYKORA: Well, as I said, the property had 13 prior violations. This started in 1997. Consequently my violations against the property were March, 2006. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: That would be -- March, 2006 would be the first violation that applies to this fine that we're -- MS. SYKORA: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And-- MS. SYKORA: Well, not -- that was when I began my case was March, 2006. MS. ARNOLD: But is the question whether or not -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: The question is, these fines accrued -- MS. ARNOLD: As a result of -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: -- in this particular case. There may be other cases, I think, outstanding. So just for clarity, for these fines, when were these fines, I guess, assessed? How long ago was this order that generated these fines assessed? MR. KELLY: 2006, May 26th, this year. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: So we've accrued -- MS. SYKORA: I believe May 26th the fines started. It went to the Code Enforcement Board on May -- let's see. May 25th, it went to the Code Enforcement Board and they were found in violation. And they had seven days or a fine of $500 per day because of the repeat violation. And I did an affidavit on the one case on June 5th, 2006 of noncompliance. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And so from approximately June 1 st up until the violations were abated, which was MS. ARNOLD: July 21st. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: -- July 21st, we've accrued $50,000 in fines; is that correct? Page 60 September 28, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. There are two -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: We have two different subsets of $500 fines. And -- but it has been taken care of. And do we have a record that this property was sold and now it's in somebody else's hands, the sales price of that property, can you verify that that was -- MS. SYKORA: I cannot. I don't know. I cannot. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Do we have a-- MS. SYKORA: My cases were closed. I did an affidavit of compliance after it was complied with. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Do we have a property appraiser's record of that sale that we could find, or do we have a current appraisal value of that property that they could find? I'd like to -- one of the things the board may consider is the total value of the property. I would like to know what that is. MR. KELLY: Also, if we do have the new owner with us, he might be able to testify to that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Sir, are you the new owner of the property? MR. THERMIDOR: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Can you tell us how much money you paid for the property in total? MR. THERMIDOR: 30,000. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: 30,000 total for the property? MR. THERMIDOR: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Michelle, is it possible for somebody to have Internet access here, or -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I'm going to get on it right now. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: -- get on the appraiser's site and tell us. While you're looking that up, is there discussion amongst the Page 61 September 28, 2006 board? MR. KELLY: The only question I have, is there any relation between the past owner and the new owner? MS. ESTIVERNE: Just a friend. MR. PONTE: Just friends? MS. RAWSON: If I might, while she's looking that up, remind the board that you are to consider the following factors: The gravity of the violation, actions taken by the respondent to correct the violation, whether there were previous violations committed by the violator, the cost upon the violator to correct the violation, the reasonable time necessary to correct the violation, the value of the real estate compared to the amount of the fine, any hardship the lien would cause on the respondent, the time and cost incurred by the code enforcement to have the violation corrected, and any other equitable factors which would make the requested mitigation appropriate. Those are the factors you have to consider in determining whether to reduce or abate the fine. MR. KELLY: Can I make one comment off what Jean has just said? Originally we ordered that all of it would be abated in seven days. They would cease business after 48 hours but then remove all the litter in seven days. They worked diligently and were able to complete abatement by July 21 st, which was 21 days after what we had asked for the original seven, so technically 30 days. I mean, it was less than a month they had it completely cleaned up. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I think it was 45 days. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, 45 days. But you know what I'm saying? This is very quick in comparison to what we would normally see. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I would agree. And as a comment to the board, I'm not comfortable with $50,000 in fines accruing in such a short period of time on something that was abated. Page 62 September 28, 2006 MR. PONTE: Neither am 1. MR. KELLY: And also, I mean, if we're talking about this much money, $1,000 a day, how do we know that the 21 st was the day that it was actually abated? Could it have been abated a week prior and this was the date that it was finally notified or verified? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's the responsibility with every order that you all pass of the property owner to notify the county. And when they notify us, then we go out. If it's done prior to, it's their responsibility to tell us. I did pull up the information, the sale amount that's noted on the last deed, which was dated August, 2006, was $30,000. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And what is the property appraiser's assessed -- they have a value that they put on the property. MS. ARNOLD: Assessed value is 29,683. MR. KELLY: I appreciate, Michelle, what you're saying, but the amount of fine is worth more than the property. And even if -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, I'm just kind of throwing that out. It's-- what is before you, you had an order, you told the property owner what to do. Based on what they did, these are the fines that are accrued. You have the ability to modify that. I just want to ask, if you do modify that amount, they need to have some assurance or give you some assurance that they're going to pay that amount, whatever that amount is. Because we may be right back through a legal process where we're, you know, going after this process -- after the property because they failed to pay whatever that reduced amount is. MR. KELLY: Has any lien been placed now? MS. ARNOLD: Well, your order is a lien. There wasn't an imposition of fines. It should have -- oh, okay. Well, I guess what Shirley Garcia's trying to tell me is that there is a prior lien that was imposed, and it has not been paid either. With the case that we're dealing with now, there has not been an imposition Page 63 September 28, 2006 of fine. So that's why I kind of caution you, you need to have some assurance that whatever you do or whatever agreement you come up with, that they're going to pay that amount, because that hasn't been done before. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Another question for you. The prior lien on the property, I know it isn't part of this case, but how much was that for? MS. ARNOLD: In that particular case, there were no accruing fines, but there was an amount of $493.30 for costs. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And another question, procedural question: Would the county attempt to file a lien against this piece of property to collect on the fines, now that it's under new ownership? Or would you go after a different piece of property that is in the original violator, owners' name? MS. ARNOLD: We could go after the original property owner. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And does that also mean that you would not file a new lien against the new property owner? Or might you? MS. ARNOLD: This property owner has purchased the lien that I noted to you before. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: You do have the right to do that. MR. KELLY: And Mrs. Sykora, is there any other properties owned by the previous owner of this property that are under violation right now or being brought up in front of us? MS. SYKORA: No, not under prior violation. They had prior violations. MR. KELLY: And they've also been abated? MS. SYKORA: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: So she is in good standing with the county from a violation abatement point of view. Page 64 September 28, 2006 MS. SYKORA: Right. And I also wanted to add, I did receive a call on July 21 st that the violations wereabated. So they were not abated prior to that day. And I just want to remind you of the 13 prior cases on this property. Came to the Code Enforcement Board two times. That's our reasons for not wanting to reduce the fines. MR. KELLY: Shirley, you had something to say? MS. GARCIA: No, I was just going to mention that there was another property owned by the defendant -- or respondent. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And if I may address the respondent, how much money could you pay today? Is one question. Ma'am, how much money could you pay today is one question. And how much, if they -- if you were to work out some kind of payment schedule with the county to make monthly payments, how much money can you afford monthly to the county? MS. ESTIVERNE: Well, actually, what we tried to do, if they gave me the regimen how much we can pay. But the money the gentleman supposed to pay my ex-husband, he not going to pay him no more. He's going to make sure, he made a money order what he was supposed to pay every month and we can pay on it and take care of that situation. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: To be clear, he gave you $10,000 and owes you payments on 20,000; is that right? MS. ESTIVERNE: Absolutely. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, we'll close the public hearing and talk amongst the board. MR. KELLY: I'd love to see, you know, $800 to pay for operational costs in this case and take care of the operational costs on the other case where the lien is. And then let's talk about how much the fine should be. I appreciate the effort. They did go over the seven days that we asked for, but I don't think that it was that -- 45 days versus seven Page 65 September 28, 2006 seems like a long time when you look in comparison, but 45 days period is not that long when we looked at previous cases. MR. PONTE: We just gave somebody 90 days and 120 days to complete the same sort of job. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: We also have to consider the sale price of the property is 30,000 and that the county's assessed taxable value also reflects a similar nature. But I think we have to consider the value of the property. And we have, I think, substantial evidence from the property appraiser that it did transact for that amount of money, that the taxable value is that amount of money. So I feel comfortable that we can assume the value of the property is around $30,000. MR. KELLY: Well, I've seen good faith up to the point where we are today. But to really seal it for me and to do a substantial reduction in fines, I'd love to see at least the cost, the operational costs on this case and the prior case paid today. If we could get a commitment, I'd be willing to -- MR. PONTE: Well, I have another concern. What -- and this came up from someone, I'm not sure. How do we find out that whatever arrangement is made we're going to collect the fine? How do we know it's going to be paid? That they have the ability to do that. And the only reason that question's asked is because the fine suggested here is so substantial. And I don't know how to do that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I think-- MR. PONTE: And I don't know who to ask. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Jean, correct me, I think the process, though, would be once the fine's levied, the county can go after assets they have, which could then be foreclosed on and sold to pay -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: -- and then remaining Page 66 September 28, 2006 outstanding balances would be, you know, still assessed against their credit. It's possible for wages to be garnished, and it's possible -- and it makes life difficult when you have that against your credit. But I think there's no assurance it will all get paid, but property can be taken and life becomes difficult. MR. PONTE: Then the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It really doesn't. It's excessive. So we certainly don't want to do that. MS. ARNOLD: You can give them so many days, like in the case of the special master, she says so many days to pay operational costs, 30 days. And then if you give that 30-day time period, we will have known by your next meeting whether or not that has been complied with. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Can we make an order of reduction of fines dependent upon that, or must we just want to order it, wait and see if it happens and then decide on our reduction? MS. RAWSON: This is their motion for a reduction of fines. You're going to have to deal with that. The operational costs are going to be collected one way or the other. You could give them time to pay, like Michelle said, but you're going to have to deal with whether or not you're going to reduce the fines. MR. KELLY: Can I throw another angle in to this? If there's $20,000 still owed on the property and any fine placed against the property is on the property, not the previous owner, the new owner, and he still owes for it, if we could cut out -- if the county was willing to, and if we could elaborate to the buyer, maybe the payments could come directly to the county, and that's a way to make sure it's collected, because it's in his best interest. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Although I agree with that, I foresee problems with a change of mortgage holder and a potential impact that would have on new buyer. MR. KELLY: I'm sure there is. I'm sure there's a lot of legal Page 67 September 28, 2006 garbage that goes along with that. It was just an idea. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I was thinking the same thing. MS. ARNOLD: I think that there is no -- there's no mortgage. Is there a mortgage on the property? MS. ESTIVERNE: Yeah, we got it. He pay mortgage. MS. ARNOLD: He's paying her. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: There may be no recorded note. MR. KELLY: I would agree. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, is there any other discussion amongst the board on what we want to do? It sounds to me like we'd like to reduce fines. To what level? And possibly there's a potential that we could ask them to pay operational costs within 30 days and wait on the reduction until we see whether that happens. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I guess you could continue that-- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: We could continue the reduction and we could also ask them to pay operational costs in the next 30 days and decide on the reduction once we have some good faith that that happens. I think that is an option to the board. Jean, do you agree? MS. RAWSON: That is an option. What are the operational costs to date? MR. KELLY: $349. MS. RAWSON: Okay, that is an option. You could do that. MS. ARNOLD: It's 349 for this case and I think I heard Mr. Kelly said the other one as well -- MR. PONTE: I thought the total was 800 and something. MS. ARNOLD: Right. It's 493.30. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: So Jean, can we do this? I know this involves another case that's not in front of us, but can we Page 68 September 28, 2006 say that in good faith we'd like to see them pay the operational costs that have been levied against them outstanding? And if they do that within -- I'd like to see them do that within the next 30 days, and then we'd like to revisit this reduction at that time. Is that -- MS. RAWSON: You could place that part on the next agenda. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And when is our next meeting? I know we have a very -- MS. GARCIA: It's October 26th. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is it 30 days? It's not 30 days, so -- MS. ARNOLD: Or you can say by October 25th. That way we'll know. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Agreed. MR. PONTE: Although that solves the problem today, it doesn't solve the problem tomorrow. I mean, we're faced with the fact that they've asked for a reduction. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: But we can postpone the reduction until then. MR. PONTE: Well, yes, I understand. But we will then be faced with the same high fine and the same questions. So I mean, I think we just ought to do the business today. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: The only effort I think that -- or the only benefit I think in continuing to next month was -- if we chose to go that route -- was to address Mr. Kelly's concern that he would like to see some good faith that payments are going to be made. And that would give us an opportunity to have an observance of that before -- and maybe that will give us an indication of where we think fines shall be brought to, based on their willingness to -- MR. PONTE: But if you really go through that and they don't pay, then you say, well, they couldn't pay that, then they can't pay the high fine. Then you start the whole thing in reverse. MR. KELLY: Well, let me clarify my position, if I may. Right Page 69 September 28, 2006 now my mind is like a $20,000 number is what I'm thinking about. If we show good faith and both the previous operational costs and these operational costs are paid by the next meeting, I'm thinking even more than that. I mean, it's a lot of money. MR. PONTE: It is a lot. MR. KELLY: It is a ton of money. And I'd hate to see them have to -- MR. PONTE: In addition to it being a lot of money, they are in compliance. And the purpose of this entire code enforcement operation is to get compliance, not to collect taxes. So yeah, $20,000 or less I think is reasonable. So if we're on that track right now, why don't we just go ahead and do it. MR. KELLY: I agree. But 20,000 is where I stand today, not seeing any willingness to continue to payor to make a movement to pay the other operational costs and today's operational costs. A month from now after those are paid, it could be half that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Jerry, any thoughts? Would you like to see us hold this over and see if they'll pay some money, or would you like to see us decide today? MR. MORGAN: Well, I'd like to see the operational costs paid within 30 days and then go back and review it again. I think $20,000 is way too high. I think about half of that would be fair. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: And I'm in that same camp. If you'd like to make a motion, Ken, to that effect? MR. KELLY: The only other thing I can think of is if we -- this would be probably a pretty tricky order, but -- no, never mind, you really couldn't do that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I was thinking about a logical if-then kind of a thing, but I think Jean told us we either need to reduce them or let it go. MS. RAWSON: You can basically reserve ruling on the motion Page 70 September 28, 2006 for reduction until October 26th. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Ma'am? MS. ESTIVERNE: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Within the next 30 days, are you capable of paying the $800 in operational costs that you owe to the county on this case and on -- that you have a lien against the property on as well? I'm not sure the exact number, but it's around that. MS. ARNOLD: It's 842.30. $842.30. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Can you pay that money in the next 30 days to the county as a gesture of good faith? MS. ESTIVERNE: So this is going to be every month? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: No. What we're asking is this, what the board is considering is this: The board would like to see that you are cooperating with the county in paying these fines. So what we're thinking about doing is not making a decision on the reduction of fines. I know you'd like the fines to be reduced and the board would like to reduce them to some extent, but we'd like to hold that decision until next month, wait 30 days to make the decision on the $50,000. MS. ESTIVERNE: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: During that next month, though, we would ask that you at a minimum pay the operational costs of this case and of the other case, which comes to $842.30; is that correct, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: It's 842.30. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: 842.30. So we'd like to see you pay that at a minimum in the next 30 days. Can you do that? MS. ESTIVERNE: This is for 631 Hope Circle? MS. GARCIA: No. MS. ESTIVERNE: Stork Avenue? Page 71 September 28, 2006 MS. GARCIA: Yes. MS. ESTIVERNE: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: But the board would like to see both those fines -- both those operational costs are against you. We'd just like to see the gesture of good faith that those get paid during the next 30 days so that we can take that into consideration when we make the reduction of fines decision next month. Can you make that payment in the next 30 days? MS. ESTIVERNE: So how much it is together? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: It's $842.30 in operational costs. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, I think there's a dynamic here that we should probably spend a couple of minutes and make sure she understands. The language barrier is rough. But this is a massive amount of savings, if she understood what we're trying to do to help. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Agreed. Will you be able to pay the $842.30 in the next 30 days? MS. ESTIVERNE: It's going to be too much for us. Probably like $480 after 30 days. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: What would the board like to do with this? MR. KELLY: Well, there you go. We might be able to continue on with deciding today, then. MR. PONTE: Yeah, if that's the situation, it also indicates an inability to pay a large fine. MR. MORGAN: The balance of it, they can't do that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Ma'am, I want you to have an understanding, the board wants to be sympathetic to your case and to reduce the fines. It's been suggested by the board that we reduce your $50,000 fine to $20,000. It's also been suggested that maybe we consider going below that. So that would be a big help to you in trying to help you. Page 72 September 28, 2006 The board would like to see, though, before we make that decision, a gesture of good faith on your part that you're going to cooperate, that you're going to try to pay whatever fines are assessed against you. And so as part of that gesture, we'd like to see you pay that $842.30 within the next 30 days before our next meeting. Are you sure there's no way you can do that? If you can't do that -- that would be in your best interest to do that right now with the opinion of the board just to prove that you can, that you want to cooperate. Are you sure there's no way that you can do that in the next 30 days? MS. ESTIVERNE: I can do that. MR. KELLY: Thank you for taking the extra time. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that opinion, is there a -- somebody that can speak to them after this just to make sure they clearly understand? MS. SYKORA: We have an investigator on staff that could do that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Make sure they clearly understand the board's trying to help them and make sure they understand -- I know they'll get it in writing and it will be legal, but that it's in their best interest to try to cooperate during the next 30 days so that the board will look favorably upon them for this reduction. With that, I guess I'd entertain a motion to stay this decision for 30 days and a motion to require them to -- or to request that they pay operational costs of $842.30 that's owed to them before October 25th, which would be the day before our next meeting. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, you could make the motion yourself. And why don't we consider that as the motion and I'll second that. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Okay. All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 73 September 28, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: So, ma'am, if you understand, before October 25th, which is the day before our next meeting, we'd just like to see that at a minimum you pay the operational costs in this case and in the other case that's been levied against you of $842.30. When we meet in a month on the 26th, we'd like to invite you back. We're going to make a decision about the $50,000. Seeing that -- and if you come to that meeting having paid those operational costs, the board -- that would be in your best interest, the board would look favorably upon that, I believe, towards the reduction of your fines, just in the spirit of cooperation. And we'll make a decision on the reduction then. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman? ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Might I ask, is there anyone living on the property now? MS. ESTIVERNE: The 530 Stork Avenue, there's nobody live there. MR. KLATZKOW: Nobody lives there? MS. ESTIVERNE: No. And 631 Hope Circle, this is my house. The case on 631 Hope Circle, I don't know why they put it on me, because the guy put the vehicle on my land. Every time when I tell him move it, he never move it. I don't know why I have to pay for it, he have to pay for it, not me. MR. KLATZKOW: The house is not used for -- the property is not used for residential purposes, nobody lives there? MS. ESTIVERNE: No. Page 74 September 28, 2006 MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Are we all set? MR. KELLY: I just have a quick question. When we revisit this next month and we decide, let's say, for instance we did decide to levy -- reduce the fines but the fines still remain. Can we put a time table on those fines? Okay, good. And that will help the attorney's office with collection. MR. PONTE: One of the things we're going to have to do next month is -- and I don't know how we would do this exactly or who will do it, but the other members of the board who are not here have to be brought up to speed to know what the feeling of this board is and why we've done it. MR. MORGAN: That's correct. MR. PONTE: So we just can't go launching into it like it's a whole new situation, because the board's composition is going to be different. I've already requested an excused absence for October, and so as the person who seconded the motion, I will not be here, so how do we -- you know, while staying within the parameters of the Sunshine Law? MS. RAWSON: We can ask Shirley to put in their packets a copy of the order that will be written. And in addition to which to -- not that I don't believe that everybody reads every word of all the minutes, but to be especially cognizant of reading the minutes for this case. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: In fact, could we actually include the minutes as part of the case packet? MS. ARNOLD: We'll print out this part -- ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Include the minutes for this section. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. KELLY: And since they brought the case to us and we've Page 75 September 28, 2006 now tabled it, do they have to bring anything again, or is going to automatically carry -- MS. ARNOLD: Automatically. MR. KELLY: Please come back next month. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I believe that concludes old business. Michelle, does that conclude our old business? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Is there any new business? MS. ARNOLD: No, there is not. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, are there any-- MR. KELLY: Oh, I have one question. On our workshop, is there an ordinance that we need to talk about and maybe vote on, recommendation for the attorney? MS. ARNOLD: We'll bring it back to you so that you'll have something to actually review. MR. KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And I just wanted to correct the date on the agenda for the next meeting is actually incorrect, it's the 26th, rather than the 28th. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: I believe that's what was said. MS. ARNOLD: Right, you did. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, are there any reports? MS. ARNOLD: (Shakes head, no.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Moving on to comments. Under comments real quick, Ken and I attended the meeting last Monday with the special master review board. One comment we had for the board is we would love for the board either as a group or as individually, I know it's been offered to us before, but we would love to see the board go and visit the special master during some of their Page 76 September 28, 2006 hearings. We'd also like to invite the special master to come to one of our meetings. And that board also requested then that maybe we have a workshop with us and the special master together. I just wanted to make the board aware of that. And maybe Shirley, if you can send out what the opportunities would be for us to visit the special master, we can find ourselves chances to get in on the schedule. MS. GARCIA: All right. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: With that, the next meeting is October 26th, 2006, and I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. KELLY: Motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: All in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN DeWITTE: Thank you everyone. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:47 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD mSTIN DeWITTE, Acting Chairman Page 77