Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/26/2006 R October 26, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida October 26, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Sheri Barnett Gerald Lefebvre Justin DeWitte ( absent) George Ponte (absent) Richard Kraenbring Jerry Morgan Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Charles Martin ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Patti Petrulli, Code Enforcement Code Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 26, 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 - September 28, 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS- B. STIPULA TIONS - C. HEARINGS I. CASE NO: 2006-52 CASE ADDR: 125 BOSTON AVE (FOLIO # 25580320007) OWNER: JOSEPH FERIO FRANCOIS INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SECTIONS 11 DESCRIPTION: A STRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN SEVERELY DAMAGED BY FIRE & DESIGNATED A HAZARDOUS BLDG BY THE FIRE INSPECTOR. 2. CASE NO: 2006-66 CASE ADDR: 270047 TERR SW (FOLIO # 35988400001) OWNER: TERRY HERNANDEZ & BRIAN FULTS INSPECTOR: JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-58 SEC 6 SUB SEC 1,2,3,5,9,11,12A,B,C,E,I,J,K,L,M,O,P,Q,15,19A, & C DESCRIPTION: NUMEROUS MINUMUM HOUSING VIOLATIONS AND SAFETY ISSUES 3. 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 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLA TIONS: 2006-62 5705 TAYLOR RD (FOLIO # 00241840003) THOMAS & MARIAN BAKER SUSAN 0 'FARRELL ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 1.04.01(A-B), 8.08.00(B), 10.02.03(A)(l)(4), 10.02.06(B)(I)(D&E) 10.02.12(A)(1 & 5) DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY CLEARED OF VEGETATION AND BEING USED FOR PARKING/STORING OF COMMERCIAL TOWING & TRANSPORT VEHICLES 5. CASE NO: 2006-63 CASE ADDR: 3010 TAMIAMI TRAIL (FOLIO # 61841800000) OWNER: SUBA HOLDINGS INSPECTOR: AZURE SORRELS VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SEe. 10.02.06(B)(2)(A) & 10.02.06(B)(2)(IX) DESCRIPTION: ROOF SIGN WITHOUT A VALID PERMIT 6. CASE NO: 2006-64 CASE ADDR: 2600 TAMIAMI TRAIL E. (FOLIO # 61835000007) OWNER: BA YVIEW FOUR LAND #0743. MICHAEL VOLPE TRUSTEE INSPECTOR: AZURE SORRELS VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 04-41 SECTIONS 5.06.06(H), 9.03.02(F)(3) & 9.03.03(D)(3)(C) DESCRIPTION: 3 BILLBOARDS THAT WAS DAMAMGED MORE THAN 50% WERE REP AIRED 5. OLD BUSINESS - A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC VS. JOSE & LESTER AGUILAR CEB 2006-25 B. Request for Reduction of Fines/Liens 1. BCC VS. SAINTILIEN OCCEUS & MALVEILLEAS ESTIVERNE 2. BCC VS SAMUEL MENA CEB 2006-22 CEB 2006-01 6. NEW BUSINESS - 7. REPORTS- 8. COMMENTS - 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - November 15, 2006 10. ADJOURN October 26, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. Now that we've got some of the technical difficulties out of the way, I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County meeting of October 26th, 2006 to order. 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. And so that we can try to maintain that record, if everyone will wait to be acknowledged by myself or the acting board member before they speak, it would be appreciated. May I have roll call, please. MS. PETRULLI: Good morning. For the record, Patti Petrulli, Supervisor, Code Enforcement. Justin DeWitte and George Ponte have an excused absence today. Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Jean Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. PETRULLI: George Ponte -- I'm sorry. Page 2 October 26, 2006 And Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any changes, or can I have an approval of the agenda. MS. PETRULLI: No changes -- we have two stipulations on the first two cases. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, so we'll move those -- MR. KRAENBRING: One of the new members. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, we have a new member, too. I'm sorry. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, we have a new member, Mr. Charles Martin, who's joining us today. MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Martin, I didn't mean to -- MR. MARTIN: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And I believe you will be acting as a regular member today. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now I'll go to the agenda. And we have two stipulations, you said, that need to be moved? MS. PETRULLI: Yes, ma'am. The first case has been stipulated to and also the second case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, so the first two cases will be moved up into the stipulations. Any other changes? MS. PETRULLI: Not at this time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have approval of the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the agenda. Page 3 October 26, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The approval of the minutes for September 28th cannot be done due to the fact that Mr. Justin DeWitte is not here. But we do have the August minutes. May I have a motion to approve the August minutes. MR. DEAN: Motion to approve. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Done. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: My comment was going to be, I think that we can get it approved, because the attending members -- most of the attending members are here, but it won't be signed until he signs off Page 4 October 26, 2006 on it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. All right, then I'll ask for a motion to approve the September minutes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the September minutes. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: Abstain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Abstain. Okay, we'll move on then to the public hearings and the stipulations. MS. PETRULLI: Our first case is Case No. 2006-52, Joseph Francois. The investigator for the case is Jeff Letourneau. And I'd like to turn the case over to him at this time. I'd also like to ask if the parties are still present? Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do they want to come forward also? Mr. Francois, do you want to step over to this side, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. I met with Mr. Francois and his representative, Ms. Hart this morning, and they've agreed to a stipulated agreement which states that they agree to the violation and that they'll pay the operational costs in the amount of $319.79 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit, Page 5 October 26, 2006 all required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy, and restoring the structure to a safe and permitted condition within one year of this hearing, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you agree with this, Mr. Francois? MR. FRANCOIS: Yes, I do. MR. DEAN: I have a question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Please. MR. DEAN: Just one question, Jeff. Is the year due to the fact that insurance takes so long, is that why you changed three months to a year? MR. LETOURNEAU: The year is because it's a commercial structure and it takes a long time for the actual site development plan to come to fruition. They've got to do a lot of, you know, meetings. And the time, you know, it's going to take to build and to get the CO. I figure a year. It's not really -- it's not in a bad shape right now, because they've got a boarding certificate. It's all boarded up. So it's not really in any danger right now. They have had the preap. Meeting and they are moving forward trying to get the permit going, so I felt that a year was sufficient to get the whole thing done. MR. DEAN: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this property commercial prior? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So why didn't they have a site development plan prior? MR. LETOURNEAU: Prior to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Prior to the fire. MR. LETOURNEAU: I guess because the building got more than 80 percent or something damaged that they had to go through the whole process again. Page 6 October 26, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: It's a nonconforming property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So it didn't have a site development plan on it prior to the fire. MR. LETOURNEAU: It was commercial, though. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it's all secured? MR. LETOURNEAU: It is all secured, yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time we'll let you guys sit down. Thank you. Entertain a motion. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All in those favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Go to the next stipulated case, please. MS. PETRULLI: Our next case is 2006-66, Board of County Commissioners versus Terry Hernandez and Brian Fults. The investigator for this case is also Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. I'd like to turn the case over to him now and ask if the respondents are present. And they are shown present. Thank you. Page 7 October 26, 2006 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: These folks I met with this morning, and they've agreed to sign into a stipulated agreement, agreeing that there is a violation there. And they've agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount $344.51 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all the violations by obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, all required inspections, certificate of completion, and remove the structure and all related debris to an area intended for final disposal within one month of this hearing or fine of $250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains. The reason that it's only a month long here is because I went by last night and they've already obtained the demo permit. Most of the structure is gone, as you see. The only thing they have to deal with is the pool in the back, which I believe is part of the demolition permit. And once they get the certificate of completion on that, they'll be all set. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are you in agreement with this? MS. HERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just one comment. I'd like to see a time period, as instead of one month, just 30 days. I think it might be a little clearer. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that all right with you? MS. HERNANDEZ: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, ifnot, I'll let you sit down. Thank you. Entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve with the change of 30 days, 30 days. Page 8 October 26, 2006 MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That will bring us up to our hearings. The first case will be 2006-60, Board of County Commissioners versus Sandra Chacon. I hope I said that correctly. MS. PETRULLI: Chacon. The violation is of Sections 3.05 -- I think we may have a stipulation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have a stipulation on this then? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, we have a stipulation. I'm sorry, I didn't get you the copies of it first. For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Investigator. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Susan, do you have copies at this time? MS. O'FARRELL: I have a copy here that I'll put up on the overhead. Page 9 October 26, 2006 Senor Chacon speaks only Spanish so we have Dutton (phonetic) here to translate for him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cherie', would you like to go ahead and swear everybody in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MS. O'FARRELL: Do you want me to read the stipulation first and then put it on the overhead? MR. KRAENBRING: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. MS. O'FARRELL: This is Case No. 2006-030856. Sandra Chacon is the property owner at 240 Everglades Boulevard. The violation is of Section 3.05.01.B, and is described as property has been mechanically cleared in excess of one acre without the required permits. Mrs. Chacon has agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount of 481.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case. She will abate all violations by the installation of 20 native canopy trees, a minimum of 25 gallon size, 10 to 14 feet in height and three- inch diameter at breast height and an installation of 20 native shrubs, minimum of seven-gallon size. The installation is to take place by April 1 st, 2007, which would be the beginning of our rainy season, as we're mitigating a property that doesn't have irrigation. If installation of plant material agreed to above does not take place by April 1 st of 2007, a daily penalty of $100 will be assessed for as long as violation persists. She will ensure the 80 percent survival of mitigation vegetation for a period of five years. She will also notify the code enforcement investigator, Susan O'Farrell, when the violation has been abated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you put that on the -- MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. Page 10 October 26, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did they understand the stipulation? MR. ROMEU: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did we swear in the translator? (Translator was duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. and Mrs. Chacon were given a copy of the stipulation after it was signed, so they read it and had it explained to them also. I speak Spanish, but I can't translate for the person that's at the other podium, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? MR. KELLY: I have a quick question. You said April was the beginning of our rainy season, yet May is the driest month of the year typically. I'm a little uncomfortable with it starting in April. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, we can move it to May, if you'd like to. I was trying not to make it too far out. You know, I thought six months was kind of appropriate. But I'd be more than happy to change it to May 1 st or to June 1 st to accommodate that. MR. KELLY: Also, the types of vegetation that was removed, were they natives? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. I did a study of the adjacent properties, and they included Sabal palms, slash pines, cypress trees, live oaks, and there were some wax myrtle in there as well. MR. LEFEBVRE: The operational costs are going to be obviously more than 481.21, so I'd like to see that they would have to pay any other operational costs above that. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. That the operational costs continue to accrue as long as the case is open. MR. LEFEBVRE: As long as they understand that. MS. O'FARRELL: Can you explain that to them, please. MR. ROMEU: While I was translating I didn't catch the last Page 11 October 26, 2006 part. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The operational costs will continue to accrue as long as the case is open. And they will be responsible for any additional operational costs. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: So should we change the stipulation for a later date? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll do that on our own. MR. ROMEU: What date is it going -- is it going to be changed to a different date? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe it's going to be changed. MR. DEAN: We haven't done it yet. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement with one change, allowing it to extend till June for planting, which skips May, the dry month. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we make that two changes, and that the operational costs will incur. MR. KELLY: And that the operational costs will continue to incur as long as the case is open. MR. LEFEBVRE: And that will be June 1st, correct? MR. KELLY: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So it's up to June 1st. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 12 October 26, 2006 MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They're done, thank you. We'll be moving to the next case, which is 2006-62, Collier County versus Thomas and Marian Baker. And due to the fact that my husband works for the Collier County Sheriffs Office and he uses Baker's Towing and some of his services, I'm going to have to recuse myself. So I'm going to turn it over to my vice chair. MR. KRAENBRING: Richard Kraenbring, co-chair. This is case 2006-62. Do we have the prosecuting and the respondent? Okay, you want to swear in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: This is a violation of Sections 1.04.01.A through B, 8.08.00.B, 10.02.03.A.1.4, 10.02.06.B.1.D and E, 10.02.12.A, and one and five. The description of the violation is the property cleared of vegetation, filled, graded and being used for the off-street parking, storage of commercial towing and transport vehicles placed on improved industrial property known as Folio No. 00241840003. Also, the property is being used as a makeshift salvage storage yard facility of towed vehicles on same parcel known as Folio No. 002184003. All same use not having obtained prior Collier County permits. The location of the violation is: 5705 Taylor Road, Naples, Florida. The name and address of the owner is: Thomas and Marian Baker, 5643 Taylor Road, Naples, Florida. Page 13 October 26, 2006 The date the violation was first observed was: 8/17 of 2004. The owner was given a Notice of Violation on: 7/21 of2006. The violation was to be corrected by: 8/15 of 2006. A re-inspection was done on: 8/18 of 2006. And the results of the inspection were that the violations still remaIns. The respondents were sent a package of information, which I would like to enter as Exhibit A. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have the packet available? MS. ARNOLD: That's your exhibit. MR. KRAENBRING: Just the exhibit here? No other photographs or -- okay. Anybody want to make a motion to accept the packet? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept with one minor change. In the Folio No. on Page 2 of our package, it is incorrect. There is a -- number four is missing. It says 002, it should be 41840003. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. And I actually would like to have another change to the statement of violation, where we need to state the ordinance number, which is Ordinance No. 04-41. It's all included in the Notice of Violation, but not on that statement of violation. MR. KLATZKOW: Before we proceed further, I believe that Mr. Baker would like to make a motion. MR. BAKER: I'd like to get a continuance on this, due to the fact that I've got Keene Engineering working on the SDP, which is done. And there's just a couple of little things that they've got to straighten out with the planning division. And according to him it should be straightened out within the next 30 to 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're looking for continuance to when? MR. BAKER: He told me when I talked to him yesterday, 30 to 60 days, providing they don't throw anything back at us. There was Page 14 October 26, 2006 something to do with sidewalks and some vegetation they needed to put in. And that was it. Everything else had been approved on the site development plan so that we could get all this straightened out. MR. KRAENBRING: Does the county have a position on this? MR. KLATZKOW: County doesn't object to the request. County would just ask that this matter be set for the next board hearing, that notice be waived, and that Mr. Baker understand that should he or his attorney not appear here, the county will continue with this matter at that time. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as a note, the next board meeting is a short time away, it's the 15th of November, and that we do not have one on December scheduled. So this would push it back possibly till January? MS. ARNOLD: No, we'll continue it to November. That's why we're asking for a waiver of the notification requirements. MR. KRAENBRING: Very well. MR. LEFEBVRE: The 15th of November, do you feel that you will have this -- all the issues taken care of at that point? That's a very short period. MR. BAKER: Yeah, he told me 30 to 60 days. This is right from the engineer. And I can't rush -- you can't rush an engineer in Collier County. MS. ARNOLD: Our objection -- our statement of no objection is to continue it to next month and not any further. The facts that he's stating today have nothing to do with whether or not he's in violation. It's more whether or not his engineer has submitted the required plans. So my position is that we continue it to November and we would object to any further continuance. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you understand, sir, that next month's meeting is the 15th? MR. BAKER: Yeah. There's no way he's going to have it done. I'm working with Commissioner Henning on this and trying to get Page 15 October 26, 2006 this whole thing resolved. And Keene Engineering, just -- they sent back the packet that they were supposed to send back in 30 days, they sent it back in 35 days. So he didn't get his stuff back to fix the problem. Now he's got it back. He got it back last week or the week before to fix the problem with the sidewalks or the vegetation, whatever it was. And I talked to him yesterday and he said he's going to resubmit. He's doing it now, and he's going to resubmit but there's no way he can have it done faster than 30 to 60 days. MR. KRAENBRING: We're in a bit ofa quandary here. MS. ARNOLD: Again, Mr. Chairman, the facts that he's stating have nothing to do with whether or not he's in compliance. And that's why we're bringing the matter to you. If there's an issue with the amount of time it's going to take for him to comply if he's found in violation, you all can consider that at the time that you're making an order. MR. KRAENBRING: Discussion from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Carter's (sic) been in front of us regarding other issues on properties -- adjoining property; is that correct? MR. BAKER: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I feel that he's well aware of the issues and what needs to be done. And this case has been going on since 2004. I feel that we should actually move forward today, because I don't think we're going to be any closer to resolution coming the 15th of November, our next meeting. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Kelly, did you have a-- MR. KELLY : Well, I believe the charter of this board is to, you know, fix any issues of code enforcement. And I appreciate the willingness to have this rectified. If the gentleman is asking for a little bit more time, it's my opinion that we give him a little more time, Page 16 October 26, 2006 seeing as how this seems to be out of his hands. But I understand the county's position as well. If we could all have a general consensus that if this is brought to us on the 15th of November and we're willing to grant an extension again to the next meeting in January, I don't see a problem with, you know, going ahead and approving the motion. But I'm in favor of giving him more time. MR. KRAENBRING: Any other comment from the board? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: I would have to agree, I think the county has been willing to move it to the next board meeting. Unfortunately it is a little bit of a short period of time, only by about a week or so. I would just think that you would have to press the engineer to do his best to serve you as a client. Whatever he can do. If not, we're going to hear this case the next time and we can take it from there. Do we have any more comment from the county or from the respondent? MR. BAKER: We're just going as fast as we can with this. I mean, we've been working on this for a long time, so -- MR. KRAENBRING: I appreciate that. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we stay this until the next meeting. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: As the Chairman, can I second it? I second it. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. Page 1 7 October 26, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MR. KRAENBRING: We have people abstaining or-- MR. DEAN: I said aye. THE COURT REPORTER: On which one? MR. DEAN: I'm sorry, the motion, yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Let's just show again by hands. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: (Raises hand.) MR. KELLY: (Raises hand.) MR. DEAN: (Raises hand.) MR. KRAENBRING: (Raises hand.) MR. MARTIN: (Raises hand.) MR. KRAENBRING: So we have one, two, three, four, five. Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. So it's 5-1. The motion does carry . We will continue this to the next meeting. And I would just encourage you to encourage your engineer to do the best that he can, and just don't count on the board extending this any further than next month. MR. BAKER: Okay, thank you very much. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. I'd like to return to our chairman. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. All right, the next case is Case No. 2006-63. And Michelle, I was noting that also 2006-64 is the same respondent. Can we combine the hearing of both cases? Are they different -- MS. ARNOLD: They're different respondents. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It says Azure Sorrels on both of Page 18 October 26,2006 them. MS. ARNOLD: That's the investigator. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry, I missed it. Reading the wrong thing. I'm sorry. All right, the next case is 2006-63, Collier County versus Suba Holdings. Is the respondent present? Would you like to please come forward. I'm sorry, Azure, I was putting you as the respondent. MS. SORRELS: That's all right. MS. PETRULLI: The respondent has received a packet of information that you have in front of you. I'd like to enter that as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I have them sworn in first and then we'll go to that. Thank you. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MS. PETRULLI: The respondent has been given -- sent a packet of information that you have before you. The violation on this property is a violation of the Ordinance 04-41, Section 10.02.06(B)(2)(A) and 10.02.06.(B)(2)(D)(IX) of the Collier County Ordinance of 04-41 as amended. The description of the violation is: Pizza Hut roof sign without a valid permit. The location is: 3010 Tamiami Trail East, in Naples, Florida. The address and name of the person in charge of the violation is: Suba Holdings, Inc., Post Office Box 443, Terre Haute, Indiana. The date that the violation was first observed: On June 24th of 2005. The owner was given Notice of Violation on: August 30th of 2005, and also on August 29th of 2006. The violation was to be corrected originally September 23rd, Page 19 October 26,2006 2005, and on the second notice, September 29th of 2006. A re-inspection was done on October 2nd of2006, and this re- inspection showed that the violation still does remain. At this time I'd like to turn the case over to Investigator Azure Sorrels. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Prior to that, could I have a motion to move the packet into evidence, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. Azure? MS. SORRELS: For the record, my name is Azure, A-Z-U-R-E, Sorrels, S-O-R-R-E-L-S. I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. This case was first opened on June 24th, 2005. It was opened by Investigator Travis Snoderly, who has been promoted within the department, so the case was transferred to me. He opened the case due to a roof sign that did not have a permit at the time he opened the case. He prepared a Notice of Violation on 8/30/05 for the sign without a permit. It came to our attention, and I'm not sure how it was brought to our attention -- it was at the time that Travis had the case -- that there Page 20 October 26, 2006 was a permit -- the sign permit was included into the actual building permit that was issued in 1976. At that time, I'm not sure how Travis went with the case as to enforcing it. I had explained to him when I served the -- I served another Notice of Violation on the 29th of August, 2006. And at that time I explained to the respondent that I understand that you have a valid -- or you have a permit from 1976; however, in 2001 the sign code been amended and we were requiring any signs that were permitted before 1991 be re-permitted and brought into the current sign code -- made compliant with the current sign code. The compliance date on the Notice of Violation that I had served was the 29th of September, 2006. I made several site visits after that. The last site visit was actually yesterday and the sign remains with no new permit issued. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sir? MR.ORESTE: My name is Phil Oreste, and I represent Pizza Hut. I am not the landlord. I have been aware of this issue. I'm not sure about the 2005, but the 2006. This restaurant has been part of the landscape of Collier County for 30 years. It is identified by the fact and we do business by the fact that that sign and that building, which is unique to the Collier County, but is part of the history of Pizza Hut. And the fact that we have a letter actually from a Dennis Mazzone, who was the zoning enforcement investigator in 1988 stating that we had a valid permit for this sign. So I'm asking that we be able to continue. We have, by the way, worked with Sign Craft, who has on our behalf gone to the county and attempted to work out and determine if we could get a valid permit for what is supposedly an incorrect sign. We do have a signed letter saying that we have a permit. And again, I would ask that -- after 30 years that the landscape of the county has not changed. That's changed but our building has not Page 21 October 26, 2006 changed. And it is definitely identified by how the sign and the building looks at this date. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any questions from the board? MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, maybe I'm just having a hard time with this here. What's incorrect about the sign? What's not coming into compliance with the county code? MS. SORRELS: It is considered a roof sign, and roof signs are prohibited in Collier County. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. So this was permitted in 1978 and then in 19 -- anything prior to 1991 had to be re-permitted? MS. SORRELS: Correct, sir. It was permitted in 1976, and anything before 1991 needs to be re-permitted and brought into current code compliance. MR. ORESTE: I'm sure that there's technical issues of what the roof is. Actually, the roof is not where the sign is, it's part of a cupola, which is an additional piece on top of the roof that is a separate structure. I'm not sure how that weighs into the decision on your part. But again, it is not really part of the roof. And I'm not a technical expert when it comes to roofs. MR. KRAENBRING: Is there a determination from the county? If it's above the building, is it considered to be a roof? MS. SORRELS: Yeah. Real quick, I wanted to mention that the county did give all businesses an opportunity at the time that they had amended the sign code in 2001, they gave them until 2003, February 1 st, 2003 to bring all signs into current compliance with new permits. So that opportunity was given to all businesses. Your question for a decision from the county on the roof. I have an e-mail from a Gary Harrison who is the chief structural inspector. And the e-mail reads as follows: It is my opinion that the roof on the Pizza Hut Restaurant does not meet the true definition of a mansard roof. A mansard roof generally has two slopes on all four sides. The roof in question only Page 22 October 26, 2006 shows two slopes on two sides. This definition is for architectural purposes only. So that's what came from Gary Harrison, was that is not a mansard roof. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did the LDC allow roof signs in 1976 when this was permitted? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There was no permitting in 1976. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, you can't speak unless you've been sworn. MS. SORRELS: The sign was included into the building permit. And as for the question, I cannot answer that. I'm not sure. MR. ORESTE: I have a copy of the letter. I'm not sure if I can enter this. But it's from Collier County stating that there was a question about this in 1987, and after research said that it was permitted under the original-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You may enter that into evidence, if you would like. MR. ORESTE: Please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If I may have a motion to accept his packet A. MR. KRAENBRING: I make the motion, but I'd like to see it. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 23 October 26, 2006 MR. ORESTE: Do I have enough copies? MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, if we could see the exhibit as well? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think he's handing it to you right now. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask a couple of questions and just -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, you may, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Azure, is the question -- is the case before us regarding whether or not the sign has ever or does have a permit? MS. SORRELS: I'm not sure -- you are wanting to know if we're questioning it has a permit? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. SORRELS: We're not questioning that it has a permit. We know it has a permit with the building code in 197 -- or the building permit for 1976. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Is your case before us today whether or not it's in violation with the Land Development Code -- regarding just the sign code? MS. SORRELS: Yes, it is. MS. ARNOLD: And are we asking the board to find that the current sign does not conform to our current sign code? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: And are we asking the board whether or not the sign needs to be removed based on the requirements of the Land Development Code? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. KELLY: I have one comment. I believe the sign ordinance was a result of our findings after Hurricane Andrew in '92. And typically what was found was signs that were not secured properly ended up doing more damage to adjacent buildings. So the sign ordinance went into effect, and it encompassed all Page 24 October 26, 2006 eXIstIng signs. All existing signs had to be re-permitted, which means a new permit, a site inspection. If the sign was secure and up to current standings, then it would have remained. If it was not of current standings, they would have had to replace it under the new permit. I believe that is what the violation is here, that they never did get the new permit. And subsequently I don't believe it passes current inspections as per the investigator. What we as the board are going to have to figure out is, if we go and we find that there is a violation as to whether or not that is a mansard roof or a parapet or if there is or is not allowed to be a sign there in the first place. MS. ARNOLD: Can I object a little bit to the comment that was made by the board? Because the sign code actually encompassed a little bit more. There was a -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was going to ask -- MS. ARNOLD: -- there was an overall study, and the county commission at that time wanted to change the appearances of some of the signs. So there was more than just whether or not there were nonconforming or un-permitted signs. There were changes to the size and scale of a lot of the signs and prohibition for some signs that were previously permitted and no longer permitted today. MR. KRAENBRING: I'd like to ask the county, what's going to be the crux of this? Are we going to see these signs just be eliminated from the roof? Are they going to be permitted? I mean, I think that's probably what the respondent wants to know is what's going to be happening to his signs. MS. ARNOLD: Well, this particular sign, they have various options within the code to get a replacement type sign that complies with the code. MR. KRAENBRING: But not on the roof. MS. ARNOLD: Correct, not on this type of roof. Page 25 October 26, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: So these signs will have to be removed and then they'll have to be looking at a sign on a pole or-- MS. ARNOLD: Which has been done in many other locations in the county. MR. KRAENBRING: I have one other question, too. You are a representative of Pizza Hut? Are you representing -- MR.ORESTE: I represent -- we are the franchisee, Tomarrie Company, so it's our responsibility under our lease to make sure that we handle all issues with the building or with the grounds. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a technical question for Jean. Because this case originally started in 2005 and at that time our code enforcement fining issues were different than they are currently, now it's being brought up again in 2006 because we've increased the amount of our fines. The original packet shows 250 and 500. We're now 500, up tol,OOO. Which one do we abide by? MS. ARNOLD: Can I just interject before you do that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: There's two notices of violation in there. There's a 2006 notice on Page 4 and a 2005 -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm just trying to ask her which one I should look at for our purposes here. MS. RAWSON: Well, you can look at the 2006. But obviously you -- because that's the top limit. If you find there's a violation, the board decides what fine should be levied. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I just had to clear that in my head, because it originated originally underneath the old rules and then came back again under new rules, so I was just wondering -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that what I consider to be the charging document is the 2006. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. Page 26 October 26, 2006 MR. KELLY: The next question is whether or not that is a mansard roof. And under county ordinance, if it is a mansard roof, they're allowed to have a sign? MS. SORRELS: Correct, there is a sign that is permitted to be on a mansard roof. Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: To be on the mansard roof? MS. SORRELS: To be on one. MR. KRAENBRING: On one, so applied to the surface of it, okay. MR. KELLY: And do you know if this particular sign that exists is within -- if it was a mansard, would this sign fit the criteria to be allowed? MS. SORRELS: No, it would be -- is it correct, 18 inches? To give you a correct answer, I'd actually have to look that up to see what exactly qualifies to be on a mansard roof. I know a sign is allowed to be on there, but I couldn't give you exact details. MR. KELLY: But this one, you do know that this one would not as it exists now? MS. SORRELS: I don't believe so, but I am not sure of that. I don't believe so. MR. KELLY: I'm not convinced that a violation exists. I'd like to see more proof. MR. KRAENBRING: That was actually one of my questions. Do we have any photographs? MS. SORRELS: Excuse me, yeah, I do have photographs. I also pulled the blueprints from the permit of 1976, and it shows that the roof is a hip roof, that the addition on top is not -- it's just an addition onto the top that is basically a sign structure to hold the sign. MR. KRAENBRING: Can we see the photographs? Do you have them with you? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. ORESTE: May I comment? Page 27 October 26, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'd like to introduce that into evidence, please. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, please go ahead. MS. SORRELS: Real quick, I'll try to maybe answer the question that you had asked earlier. A sign roof -- any sign erected -- this is the definitions of the LDC. A sign roof is any sign erected, constructed or maintained either on the roof or more than 18 inches above the roofline of any building. The definition of a mansard sign: Any sign which is attached to a mansard-style of roof with the face parallel to the structure to which it is attached and which does not proj ect more than 18 inches from such structure or above the roofline. Mansard signs shall be considered wall signs. Does that answer your -- MR. KELLY: Yes, it does. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we see the pictures, please? MS. SORRELS: Yes. This is just a picture showing you what we're looking at. The roof and the addition on top with the Pizza Hut sign on the addition. Here is the blueprint. On the blueprint right here it shows the Page 28 October 26,2006 different trusses and rafters and stuff for the roof. And right here on two it says master -- hip master truss. And then underneath it says hip rafter truss. I went to Lynn, who is a plans reviewer for -- engineering plans reviewer, and she did indicate that the word hip master and hip rafter is indicating that it is a hip roof. And I did bring some pictures and definitions of the difference between a mansard and a hip. This was provided to me by Gary Harrison. It comes out of the dictionary of construction terms. I'll read it to you and then I'll put it up there. A mansard roof, again, has two slopes on all four sides of the structure, with the lower slope being the steeper of the two. The hip roof has all four sides sloping from a center ridge with hip rafters that extend from the ridge to the outside corners of the structure, creating sloped triangular ends. And on this picture -- well, right here is a mansard. There's a picture of a mansard. And then on this side is the picture of the hip roof. And if you go back to the blueprint, and if you just cut off the addition there, that is a hip roof. MR. KRAENBRING: Could you slide that down a little bit so we can -- thank you very much. MS. SORRELS: If you cut off the addition there, that is a hip roof. So basically this is an extension. And in the blueprint they call it a sign section, which would be the sign structure. Right here, No. 18, says sign section. And on the other part of the blueprint, No. 18, and it shows the addition to the roofbeing a sign section, sign structure. MS. ARNOLD: This was what was shown, she was pointing to before. Page 29 October 26,2006 MR. ORESTE: May I ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, you may. MR. ORESTE: That cupola, as we call it on Pizza Hut, has been a part of the original design since 1958, okay? And I'm assuming that in this design, that's where the sign is put. But that is not designed to be for just a sign. That is the actual archeo -- the archivist's way of Pizza Hut looking since day one when they first came out with this concept. So all the Pizza Huts throughout the country of this age and even newer, that is part of the normal roof construction. Just so happens in this case that's where the sign goes. But it was not designed just to be for a sign. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other questions from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'd like to close the public hearing and open it up to discussion with the board, please. MR. KELLY: I see both. I see a hip roof and a mansard. I see a hip roof with a mansard on top of it. MR. KRAENBRING: I have to agree. I think that this is more than just a sign sitting up on some double poles or some bracketing. This is actually part of the structure. I don't think it's obtrusive. I have no allegiance to Pizza Hut. I don't eat their food. But I just don't see this as -- I don't see a violation. MR. DEAN: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DEAN: I feel the same way. Because I know that's a trademark of Pizza Hut for everyone. All the states I've been in, they all look the same like that. So they do construct it that way and that's where the sign goes. So I really don't see a violation myself. Thank you. Page 30 October 26, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other input? MR. MARTIN: I don't see a flaw in it. It survived Hurricane Wilma and it is a part of the historic structure of Pizza Hut, so I'm in favor of leaving it as is, giving him a variance of some type. Since it is hard to determine the mansard and the structure the way it is, just as a definition of it. MR. KRAENBRING: Just so you know, it won't be a variance, it will just be a finding that there is no violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that there is no violation in this case. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. ORESTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next case is 2006-64. It is Bayview Four Land -- MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, could we have a break? I've got to do some discussions with our next respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. How -- 10, 15 minutes? All right, we'll come back at, let's say, 10:30. (Recess. ) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just so everybody knows what's going on, we're going to extend the break for another 10 minutes, because the county is trying to hammer out a stipulation, so at this Page 31 October 26,2006 time we will resume at 10:40. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chair, either way. I was going to suggest that we keep hearing the other items -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All we have is old business next, so -- MR. DEAN: What about the stips, fines? MS. ARNOLD: Imposition of fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just told them we'd give them 10 minutes. (Recess. ) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'd like to reconvene the public hearings. And we're dealing with Case No. 2006-64. If I'm not mistaken, I believe a stipulation has come about? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a little lengthy and a little complicated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then go slow. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll try to go slow. I've been called slow, so it shouldn't be too hard. The -- we've entered into a stipulation agreement. The terms are as follows: One-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Should we have them sworn in? MR. LIVINGSTON: My name is Gerald S. Livingston, attorney at law, Tallahassee, Florida, representing the Bayview Four Land Trust and Lamar Outdoor Advertising. You don't need to swear attorneys, but we promise to tell the truth. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't realize he was an attorney, that's why-- MR. KLATZKOW: The respondents will pay operational costs in the amount of $409.13 incurred in the prosecution of this case. Two. And let me get this on the -- you'll notice we have two sign faces up there. The respondents will remove the sign and Page 32 October 26, 2006 supporting structure and post identified here as Exhibit A-I. But it's -- it's this unit up here. So that the sign, supporting structure and post will be removed within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Now we're going to the $10,000 give-away sign. The respondents will remove that sign but not the supporting structure identified in Exhibit A-2, which again is the $10,000 give-away sign, within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Now, on the other side of the $10,000 give-away sign is this Fiddler's Creek sign, okay? With respect to this sign, the sign and supporting structure identified in Exhibit B may remain. The county is not waiving any right it may have to bring a later Notice of Violation should conditions change, such as a future storm event. So in other words, at the end of the day, instead of having three billboards here and two support structures, there's only going to be one support structure and one billboard. And that billboard will be either the Fiddler's Creek sign or whatever replacement sign they may lawfully put up. MS. ARNOLD: Replacement copy is the technical term. MR. KLATZKOW: The last stipulation is that the respondents will notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator come out and perform the site inspection. And I believe that's your understanding, sir? MR. LIVINGSTON: Yes, sir, that's what we've agreed to. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? MR. DEAN: Did I miss a time frame? MR. KLATZKOW: The time frame is-- MR. LIVINGSTON: Sixty days. MR. KLATZKOW: -- 60 days, sir. Page 33 October 26, 2006 MS. RAWSON: What were the operational costs? MR. KLATZKOW: Operational costs were $409.13. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just have a question that's kind of plaguing me in the back. Wasn't this a violation because billboards weren't allowed in Collier County? MR. KLATZKOW: It's a violation because billboards are non-conforming structures in Collier County. There was a storm event that knocked this down. There's a legal issue as to whether or not they had the right under state law to put it back up. To avoid the legal issue, which the county acknowledges it might have some risk on, we've agreed to this particular settlement. The county feeling two out of three isn't bad. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I had to clarify that in my head, because I was like, if billboards weren't allowed, why was there even one up? So okay. MR. KLATZKOW: There's a state statute that protects billboards along federally funded roads. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, then I'll close that part of the hearing. You do understand and agree to all this? MR. LIVINGSTON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 34 October 26, 2006 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll move forward to old business and request of impositions of fines. The first case is Case No. 2006-25, that's Board of County Commissioners versus Jose and Lester Aguilar. Are the respondents here? MR. KEEGAN: No, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: All right, I'll go through this. This was a case that was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on May 25th, 2006, at which time a violation was found, and a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order was entered into, and was -- is attached to your executive summary for your review. Weare at this time asking fines be imposed in the amount of $11,807.13, part of which is operational costs in the amount of $507.13 in fines for the violation accruing at $100 per day from the period of June 14th, 2006 through October 5th, 2006. I will have to ask the investigator whether or not this is now in compliance. MR. KEEGAN: It is not. I was at the site yesterday. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I was at the site yesterday. The violations do remain. I have pictures to show. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we need to introduce that as Page 35 October 26, 2006 evidence? MS. ARNOLD: Sure, we could. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept this as Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: I was also at the property on the 16th of October to post a notice. And on my revisit yesterday, the notice was still posted in the same spot. That's the front gate. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Has anything been done to this? MR. KEEGAN: No, ma'am. I've left messages for the property owner and he's never called me back. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any questions? MR. KELLY: I have one question. The original order said the operational costs were going to be 260.03, and now they're asking for 507.13. Is that just for additional operating costs? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: And under the original order, are we allowed to charge additional operating costs? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Are you allowed to change the operational costs? Only the county can do that. You can't do that. Page 36 October 26, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Well, the original order did say what it's saying, and we're asking you to charge additional operational costs. It's up to you whether or not you're wanting to impose the amount of fines that we're asking at this point. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that's why we started going back to asking that -- operational costs as they occur. Any other questions? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the imposition of fines. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next case is the request for reduction of fines, the first one being Board of County Commissioners versus Saintilien Occeus. I probably am making a mess out of that name and I apologize ahead of time. And I'm not even going to attempt the second one. It's M-A-L-V-E-I-L-L-E-A-S E-S-T-I-V-E-R-N-E. Apparently the respondent is -- how do you say your name? MR. OCCEUS: Saintilien Occeus. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. I got as close as I Page 37 October 26, 2006 could. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, this issue was heard before the board at the last hearing. I know that you weren't present. And at that last hearing, we continued the item to this meeting. We asked the respondents -- or the board asked the respondents to pay outstanding fines, and they would reconsider this item at this particular meeting. The respondent, I believe, was asking to be -- to abate all the fines. As of today, the fines that you all asked to be paid to show good faith effort have not been paid. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Carol, would you guys like to be sworn in, please? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County field supervisor, based in Immokalee. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just go through where we are in terms of fine first? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: And I believe the lady that's sitting down is the one that -- was that who was here last time? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: You don't want to be sworn? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, that's okay. MS. ARNOLD: This case was originally heard by the Code Enforcement Board on February 23rd, 2006, and an order was entered into, and it's been attached to your executive summary. We're asking to impose the fines in the amount of$14,700, and that is for fines from April -- am I reading the right one? No, I'm not. That doesn't sound right. MR. DEAN: You're reading 01. This is 22. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 2006-22, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: I don't have it in my book. Page 38 October 26, 2006 Okay, here we go. That case, and I correct the record, was actually heard on May 26th (sic), 2006, and an order was entered into. We're asking to impose the fines in the amount of 50,349. Operational costs are $349. There's an additional $25,000 for the time period from June 1 st, 2006 through July 21 st, 2006 because the fines were imposed at $500 per day. There's an additional fine that accrued during the same period of $25,000 for violations that were specified in paragraph six of your order. So the total fine is $50,349. MS. SYKORA: At the time when there was three cases brought before the board, it was actually on May 25th, 2006. At the CEB hearing they were found in violation. The violations at that time were running a vehicle repair business, several -- many, many unlicensed, inoperable vehicles on the property and also litter. So all three cases were heard at one time. The violation was finally abated on July 21 st, 2006. However, at the last Code Enforcement Board hearing, I did bring up the fact that there had been 13 prior similar, same incidences on this property, one of which -- this is a repeat violation on this also that had been brought before the board prior to. As of this morning, the operational costs were not paid. And that was what you had asked in good faith that they pay them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sir? MR. OCCEUS: What kind of violation you are talking about? I own this land. Is that violation you was giving me a ticket last three, four months you're talking about? MS. SYKORA: I gave you three citations also, which I believe were not paid. The violations were the extensive amount of unlicensed, inoperable vehicles which were scattered on other people's property, in the woods, all around this particular property. Litter, too. And operating a vehicle repair business at the same time. Page 39 October 26, 2006 MR.OCCEUS: Okay. You call me out of my house and you say to meet you on -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sir, excuse me, we're not here to rehear a case. We're here to determine whether or not the fines are going to be imposed. You have requested that we abate the fines, and we would like to know your reasoning. MR. OCCEUS: I wasn't there when that happened, ma'am, I was in Haiti. That's why I come in here. I will explain about all this. If you give me a chance, I will explain that's what happened. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So your reasoning for the request for the reduction is because you were unavailable and detained in Haiti, correct? MR.OCCEUS: Say that again, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The reasoning that you are asking for the reduction is because you were detained in Haiti and unable to attend. But you did have a representative here, did you not? MR.OCCEUS: Well, my ex-wife, all them was on the property, she was there at the time. But I'm the one she was spoke to and give me a ticket at that time. I will have a chance to explain it, please. MS. SYKORA: He was present. He knew of the violations. He signed the notice of violation. I issued citations on all three violations because of the prior violations. He claimed he would abate this before going to Haiti, which it was not. MR.OCCEUS: Please, could you all hear me? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll give you three minutes. MR. OCCEUS: Please. She called me out of my house and say I need to meet you, I just need to talk to you. And I went the next day and I meet with her. She give me three tickets, one for automobile repair, one for trash, one for vehicle without a license. Page 40 October 26, 2006 And I told her I don't have no control on that land, I sold the land to this man. And I wasn't doing mechanic work at that time. And I told you I was on my way to going to Haiti, I have no control about that land no more, and I sell it to this man. And you wasn't believe me. MS. SYKORA: At that time the property was in this gentleman's name. It hadn't been sold at that time. He knew of the violations also and claimed he would abate them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. OCCEUS: I sold it legally to him before he had the paper on it. I prove that I sold it to him before you give me that violation. And I told you I already sold it, and you know it, too. MS. SYKORA: The property just changed ownership recently. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, do we have any questions from the board? MR. MORGAN: What's the condition of the property today? MS. SYKORA: As of my check in July, when I received the call from the gentleman that purchased the property, it was cleaned up and the vehicles were removed. Now it's -- it remains the same. MR. MORGAN: But you're 100 percent satisfied that it's cleared? MS. SYKORA: Yes. Yes, in hopes that it won't occur again. But it is cleared now of the unlicensed vehicles and litter. MR. MORGAN: All the trash? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. MORGAN: All the debris? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. MORGAN: Vehicles, everything? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Another question. Have you done a search recently to see who is the owner of the property? MS. SYKORA: The owner is the gentleman to the right, I Page 41 October 26, 2006 believe. I can't recall his name but -- it's not in the original owner, but this case did begin with the original owner. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions of the respondents or the investigator? MR. KRAENBRING: I just have one question. We're looking at a situation where we had agreed to not impose the fines but just to impose the operational costs, and he has not paid those operational costs? MS. SYKORA: No, the agreement was if they in good faith would pay the operational costs, you would consider reducing some of the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have another question. This question is for Jean. Jean, since the case was originally brought against the original owner and now there's been a change in ownership, the - who would be responsible if we were to find that there is actual -- a violation -- there is a violation, but find that there is 50,000 plus in fines? MS. RAWSON: Well, it would be the new owner, because the liens run with the land, the violations run with the land. Now, whether or not the new owner would have an action against the old owner is beyond your purview, but it would be the new owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would we have to add his name to this? MS. RAWSON: We did last time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right. At this time if there are no other questions of the respondent or the investigator, I'm going to close the public input. Yes, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: If it pleases the board, just to recap from my perception of what happened at the last meeting -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That would be good, because Page 42 October 26, 2006 you were here. MR. KELLY: I think I'm the only here that was at the last one. Oh, were you still here? If I remember correctly, we were a little disheartened to see the amount of fines being worth more than what the property sold for, or its value. And so we assumed that if they were to be imposed, that the new property owner would have to pay those fines and basically have no property left. I mean, I just assumed that -- I believe we assumed that he wouldn't be able to afford the fines and the property would then be a wash. And so we had a hard time passing $50,000. And we had asked in good faith if somebody would come up with at least the operational costs on this, and I believe even a portion of a prior case. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I found some paperwork from the last meeting, and there was costs for $349 and an additional cost for $493.30. I can't recall which one applied to which case, but there was a total of $842.30 that we -- you asked the respondent to pay by October 25th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KELLY: We just felt that it was a ittle -- it was hard to pass, you know, the imposition of fines, given the fact that the violation was on the original owner and now the new owner was going to have to pay for it. MR. MORGAN: Well, the bottom line was that if they -- in good faith if they paid the operational costs, that we would consider reducing the other fine. Only consider. And that it was brought back to this meeting today. MR. KELLY: That's correct. That's how I remember it as well. And the only other thing that we were a little unsure of, if I remember correctly, is on July 31 st was the day that the investigator from the county verified it, and that the call was placed to say hey, all violations were abated. Page 43 October 26, 2006 We don't know how many days prior to that the abatement . occurred. And there may have been a delay in the time in which items were cleaned up and when the call was placed or the inspection took place. MS. SYKORA: Excuse me. That was July 21st. And I did receive a phone call that it was abated then. But on my own I do check my properties, and it was not abated up until that date. And I did receive a phone call. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time I'm going to close it to the input and just for the board's discussion as to what we would like to do with this imposition of fines. I'm disheartened (sic) that the gentleman didn't step forward and try to pay the operational costs. Because we cannot remove those, the operational costs that the county levied. This board does not have the right to remove. Does anybody have any -- MS. ARNOLD: I do have a point of clarification. The 349 is related to the case that is before you right now. Because I'm looking at the executive summary. And so really, that's the only operation cost that you can impose for this action right now. MR. KRAENBRING: So the 493 is not part of it. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I believe it's already been levied. But they haven't paid it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Michelle. I'm open for some discussion as to what the board would like to see done with this. We do have our recommendation from the past, and this fine has occurred. It has now been abated as of July 21 st. We do have a request for the reduction. The property has changed hands, and as Jean has pointed out, it flows with the land. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think due to the fact that there hasn't been Page 44 October 26, 2006 any good faith effort to pay the operational costs, that we should impose the fine as it stands. MR. MORGAN: I agree. MR. KELLY: I can tell you, it was my understanding that it was very clearly stated by the board in the last meeting that we would be willing to entertain the reduction of fines if there was good faith put forward. We even threw out half or more. I mean, it was a sincere part of the board to try to help the situation. And I agree, I am disheartened as well. MR. MORGAN: If the operational cost was paid in good faith, then we would consider reducing the fine. It has not been. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Please. MR. LEFEBVRE: That we impose a fine of $50,349. MR. MORGAN: I second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It passed. So the fines will be imposed. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. MS. RAWSON: Does that number include the costs? It does, doesn't it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, it does. MS. RAWSON: That's the total. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's the total. Page 45 October 26, 2006 MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next request for reduction of fines -- sir. MR. OCCEUS: So what we have to do now? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The gentleman that has purchased the property has to get with the county and they'll set up a payment plan, and he needs to pay the fine. MR.OCCEUS: Where can he go to do that, and when? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, you want to help him? He wants to know where we can go to set up doing like an installment plan with the county and making that agreement. MS. ARNOLD: I'll give him one of my cards so he can contact me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You can contact Michelle, okay? The next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Samuel Mena. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. One second here. Okay, this was the case that was heard on February 23rd, 2006. The order has been attached to your executive summary. This is a case actually presented to you by an investigator who is no longer with the department, Kevin Halesworth. And it was vegetation removal of canopy, mid-story and under-story without obtaining a vegetation removal permit. We are here today to ask for imposition of fines. But I believe there's a -- the Menas are here. They have requested a reduction. I'll just state for the record what the fines are. They're totaling 14,000 -- actually, there's been a modification, because the amount stated here was more than it should have been. Am I correct? Okay, the actual total that we're requesting imposition for is $8,000, rather than the 14,700. And the first part, the first item was to submit a mitigation plan by a certain date. It was not submitted within the stated date of the Page 46 October 26, 2006 order, so the fines accrued between April 7th, 2006 through May 31 st, 2006 at a rate of$100 per day, which equals $5,400. And additional fines accrued for the planting of all the vegetation stated in the mitigation plan. The fine amount was altered because the investigator monitored the property, and rather than requiring under-story, the lower grass and that type of thing, we waived that requirement of the mitigation plan, because some of that under-story came back on its own. So we altered the date to the date that the actual other vegetation was planted. And so that fine amount is for $2,600, rather than the $9,300 that's stated in your executive summary. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, were there operational costs? Looks like on the last page it says operational costs of 421.82. Looks like they were paid; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Apparently they paid them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? MR. MENA: Yes. MR. KELLY: I have a question for Michelle. Do you have a copy of the original order that showed how much time -- MS. ARNOLD: I thought it was included in there. I just looked through mine and it wasn't either. Do you have the order? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ken, while you're looking at that and passing it down, is there something you want to bring up from it? MR. KELLY: Well, I just wanted to see how long they had to get a mitigation plan in the first place and how much time they had to work on vegetation. It seemed to be -- in my opinion it seemed to be a little short time to begin with, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Mena, would you like to explain to us why you would like a reduction in fines? Page 47 October 26, 2006 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MENA: I'll try to explain. My English not very good. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's okay. MR. MENA: I work with Mr. Kevin, everything what he told me to doing, planting this. The first time he told me 690 plants to do. So I do an appointment with him. And I see him in the office three or four times. And one day he's come to my house and said okay, we're going to reduce to the 390. Okay? So I tried looking for the plant, because there's so many different plants. The nursery around here don't have it, everyone. So I looking for 300, I plant 300. He coming to my house and see the 300. He asked me how about the other 90. I say give me one week. Because I'm truck driver, I work around the country so my time is very difficult. When I coming back, and before the one week, I plant the 90 more plant. So I call him, leave him a message on the phone. And he called my daughter and told her everything is okay, I check it already. So I believe everything is finished. So now on July, July, August -- in August I going to do, I going to refinance my house. And when I do it, they told me we have a lease (sic). I say why? So they told me why. And I called the office and asked him about that, have an appointment. My wife go in there and they told her okay, we're going to send someone to check it out again, because he don't put it in the computer. She come and see what, everything is okay. And she comment, okay, let me talk to the supervisor about that. And the supervisor call me back, say she want an appointment. She's going there. She thought we not -- he no put it in the computer, so we owe -- we have to pay $14,000, close to $14,000. Page 48 October 26, 2006 So that's what I'm saying, you know, he not doing his job, why I have to pay that? If I not doing the grass, you know, three year or four year later, how much I have to, you know, pay all my house? That's what I'm asking. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you remember when you put in the last 90 plants? MR. MENA: The last? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When you planted the last 90 plants, do you know around what date that was? MS. WALDRON: It was inspected on the 26th of June. The plants were in the ground. MS. ARNOLD: That's why the fine amount has been altered. It's been altered to that date. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. That's when the other inspector -- okay. MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Specialist. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have any -- MS. WALDRON: I'd like to make one statement, that the board did hear this on February 23rd of 2006 and we did give them till April 7th to get that mitigation plan in. That is generally a longer amount of time than normal. Usually we give 30 days on a standard Notice of Violation. So I believe that they had enough time to get that mitigation plan In. MR. KRAENBRING: So the mitigation plan was submitted when? I'm just asking so I can read through it. MS. WALDRON: The second version of the mitigation plan that was accepted was on the 18th of May. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But there was one apparently prior to that that was submitted? MS. WALDRON: The 16th of May. Page 49 October 26, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: And the work's all been done, everything . IS -- MS. ARNOLD: So actually, the fines could be modified back to the 16th of May, because the board doesn't -- your order doesn't really specify sufficiency of submittal -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just says supply mitigation plans. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because it looks like here, the first one says from April 7th through May 31 st. So we could go back to the 16th. MR. KRAENBRING: So they were given until April 7th, and then May 16th is the date that they complied? And the mitigation has been performed, the county's happy with everything that's going on there? MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: And they paid the operational costs in good faith. And they paid those in time? MS. ARNOLD: There's no time specified in your order for payment. MR. KRAENBRING: Just checking. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, is my math correct, that that would mean the fine would reduce from 5,400 to 3,700? MS. ARNOLD: I am going to do it on a calculator in a minute. MR. DEAN: I've got 39. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I had 17 days difference, from the 16th through the 31 st. However, 15 days is right. I'm wrong. I'm a math person and I messed up. So that's another 200, so it would be 3,900. If there isn't any other questions of either the respondent or the investigator, I'll-- MR. KRAENBRING: I just have one question of the Page 50 October 26, 2006 respondent. What was the delay in getting the plan to the county? Did I miss that? MR. MENA: I'm sorry, you say what I do? MR. KRAENBRING: You had to submit a plan for fixing the problem. Why was there the delay? Why didn't you meet the April 7th deadline? MR. MENA: She gave me one day to finish to put on all the plan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. You speak Spanish. Could you do me a favor and come up here and be sworn in and then I'll let you interpret for us. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: So Inspector Halesworth gave them the list of environmental consultants that we have accumulated that do these mitigation plans, and it took them a while to get a call back from one of these environmental consultants. Fortunately I know that they've been overwhelmed by cases to do these mitigation plans, so it does take a while for them to call back. That's what he's telling me, that that's why it took so long. MR. KELLY: Thank you. Susan -- sir, how much -- do you know how much it cost to do? All of the re-vegetation total, how much have you paid to re-vegetate? MS. O'FARRELL: It's about $3,100. They spent $2,500 for the plants and $600 for the plans. Did I enunciate that clearly enough? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, you did. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Page 51 October 26, 2006 I'll ask you to stay up here so that when we decide what we're going to do, you can tell them. We have to open this to discussions for the board. Currently it looks like we're sitting at 5,500 in fines. They've already paid the operational cost of 849. MR. KRAENBRING: And so it's -- MR. KELLY: Sixty-five. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 6,500, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Can I correct once again? Because I actually went through and read the order myself and put in the dates. The actual date that they needed to submit the mitigation plan was April 7th, by April 7th. But they submitted it by May 16th. That would be a total of $3,900. And then for the planting, the order says 25 days from the time of approval. So if we were to take the 18th, which was when it was approved, on May 18th, as the start date and add 25 days on top of that, that would go to June 3rd. And so the second portion is actually from June 3rd to June 26th for a total of $2,300, rather than $2,600. MR. DEAN: Did you add 25 days to May 18th? Is that what you said? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. DEAN: That would come out to June -- MS. ARNOLD: 3rd? No? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So now we're at 6,200 is the correct -- that's not right. MR. DEAN: Twelve days to June, it would be 13, probably. MR. KRAENBRING: So reduce the fine further. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, probably. MR. DEAN: June 13th, maybe? MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the 12th. MR. DEAN: June 12th? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And that total is 1,400. So it's 3,900 and Page 52 October 26, 2006 1,400, which is -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 5,300. MS. ARNOLD: -- 5,300. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Okay, so the current fine now is resting at 5,300. Do we have any discussion? MR. KELLY: I have a comment. In the original order they were given, you know, five weeks or so to get the mitigation plan. However, Susan just admitted that at that time they knew that the environmental service companies that are able to provide this mitigation plan were quite backed up and she understands -- MS. O'FARRELL: They didn't know that, I know that. I was speaking for myself personally. MR. KELLY: When they called to get a mitigation plan and then it took a while to get a response, I personally believe that they acted in good faith by trying to get the mitigation plan. Maybe we didn't give them enough time to begin with. And once the plan was passed, they worked feverishly with the heavy work schedule to get the job done. They've already come out of pocket $3,100 plus operational costs of 400 or so. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 421.82. MR. KRAENBRING: My sense of the testimony today is that these folks have been earnestly trying to get this problem resolved. I'm not quite certain what the delay was on actually executing, getting the plants in the ground. If I might move toward a recommendation, it might be to go ahead and just impose the $1,400 and not the $3,900. But that's up for discussion of the board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was kind of leaning that direction myself. But I don't know how everybody else feels. And I'd like input from Michelle, from the county's position. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I was actually going to recommend that. That made sense. Because, you know, if -- they did seem like they Page 53 October 26, 2006 proceeded in good faith to try to get things submitted, and if we're relying on somebody else, sometimes that's kind of hard but -- I guess to dictate how quickly we're going to get it when we're relying on someone else. But yeah, the plans were approved by a given date, and 25 days after that time period I think is sufficient to get them planted. MR. KELLY: We also heard testimony from Mr. Mena that he did have trouble getting all of the plants. Local nurseries did not have them in stock. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose the fine, if I'm not mistaken, of $1 ,400 in Case 2006-01. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. KELLY: Opposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. If you'd like to explain to them that the fine has been reduced. MS. O'FARRELL: Does that include the operational costs? They've already paid their operational costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They'd already paid the operations costs, and that's the whole fine. MS. O'FARRELL: So I should tell him to talk to Michelle about when to pay it and how to pay it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. Thank you. Thank you for your assistance and thank you for coming. Page 54 October 26, 2006 That looks like, unless there's something that's not on the agenda, all of the old business. And there isn't any new business, unless somebody has something to bring up. I would like to remind everybody that the next meeting is November 15th and to remind you also that it is not here, it's going to be at the Collier County School Board's office. I entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Okay. ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :26 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRMAN Page 55