Loading...
CEB Minutes 11/15/2006 R November 15, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida November 15, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County District School Board Headquarters, Martin Luther King, Jr. Building, First Floor, 5775 Osceola Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean Justin De Witte Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring Gerald Lefebvre Charles Martin Jerry Morgan George Ponte (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Patti Petrolli, Code Enforcement Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: November 15, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. Location: Collier County District Scbool Board Headquarters, Martin Lutber King Building, First Floor, 5775 OsceolaTrail, 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 - October 26, 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS- B. STIPULATIONS- C. HEARINGS 5. OLD BUSINESS- A. Request for Reduction of Fines/Liens I . BCC VS. Doris Blackmon B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCe YS. Doris Blackmon 2. Kite Kings Lake 3. Russell & Kaja Risteen 4. DDR MDT Carrillion 5. Robert & Dcbra Forbis 6. Cricket Lake Apartments 7. Robert Chipman 8. Kristopher A. & Christine Gomory 9. Augustin & Bertha Cisneros 10. Casa Bonita Homebuilders Company Inc. 6. NEW BUSINESS - 7. REPORTS- 8. COMMENTS- 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - January 18, 2007 10, ADJOURN CEB 2005-24 CEB 2005-24 CEB 2005-34 CEB 2005-47 CEB 2005-48 CEB 2005-53 CEB 2006-03 CEB 2006-06 CEB 2006-09 CEB 2006-23 CEB 2006-24 November 15,2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So at this time I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County, November 15th meeting 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 the roll call -- providing this record. And if we could try to limit everyone's speaking to be acknowledged by the board first so that the record can be kept accurate, it would be appreciated. May I have roll call, please. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrolli, supervisor, code enforcement. Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Justin DeWitte? MR. DeWITTE: 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 has an excused absence. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Charles Martin? Page 2 November 15,2006 MR. MARTIN: Here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I will ask for an approval of the agenda, but before I do that, I would like to make one change to the agenda. Under old business, I would like to add a second point. And I would like to request the board to reconsider a decision that we made last month in the case with Mr. Saintilien and Thermidor. Also, we need to correct the meeting date at the bottom to January 25th. With those changes, I'd like an approval of the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. DEAN: Second. MS. ARNOLD: Can I make another change before-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: -- we approve the agenda? We did add the workshop minutes for September 25th, '06 for needing approval as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And we are removing Item No. 5(B)(5), which is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert and Debra Forbis, because they paid their fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, with those other changes, may I have a -- MS. ARNOLD: One more change. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh. MS. ARNOLD: We're also making a correction to the agenda. The next meeting date is actually January 25th -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I did that. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, sorry, I didn't hear that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, is that it then, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the amended minutes -- or agenda. Page 3 November 15, 2006 MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Approval of the minutes for the October 26th meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the minutes. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: On the workshop minutes, Michelle, I don't believe we were sent those. I just signed them -- or had them signed this morning, so I don't know how we can approve them. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I thought they were sent out to you. Page 4 November 15, 2006 Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, so I will table that until the following meeting. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time I guess we will move to public hearings. And do we have any motions? MS. ARNOLD: No, we don't. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No other changes then. Okay, then the first hearing case will be Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Thomas and Marian Baker. And at this time I'll remind the board that I recused myself at the last meeting. They had held this case over. So again, I am stepping back and turning over the chair to my co-chair. MR. KRAENBRING: For the record, Richard Kraenbring, co-chair. We have Case 2006-62, Board of County Commissioners versus Thomas and Marian Baker. Do we have someone from the county here and also respondents? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. And right now we will enter the statement of violation into the record. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. MS. PETRULLI: This is a violation of Section 1.04.01 (A) through (B); 8.08.00(D); 10.02.03(A)(I) (4); 10.02.06(B)(I)(D) and (E); 10.02.12(A)(1-5). The description of the violation is property cleared of vegetation, filled, graded and being used for the off-street parking and storage of commercial towing and transport vehicles placed on approved industrial property known as Folio No. 00241840003. The property is also being used as a makeshift salvage storage yard facility of towed vehicles on same parcel known as Folio No. 0021840003. All same use not having obtained prior Collier County permits. Page 5 November 15, 2006 The location of the address: Is 5705 Taylor Road, Naples, Florida. The name of the -- and address of the person, the owner in charge: Is Thomas and Marian Baker, 5643 Taylor Road, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on August 17th of 2004. The owners were given Notice of Violation on July 21st of2006. The violation was to be corrected by August 15th of 2006. A reinspection was done on August 18th of 2006. The results of the reinspection were that the violation still remains. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. Do we have a motion to accept the packet that Patti is presenting? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. MR. KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Can we have the respondent and the representative from the county sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I believe you all need to accept the exhibit as the county's exhibit and have a motion for that. MR. KRAENBRING: We just did. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Page 6 November 15, 2006 MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, code enforcement environmental investigator. We're here today to accept a stipulation that Mr. Baker has agreed to. He has agreed that he is in violation of the sections of the ordinance. I'm going to go ahead and read the recommendation and the stipulation that he's agreed to. The respondent will pay all operational costs in the amount of $1,116.40 incurred in the prosecution of this case. MR. KRAENBRING: Excuse me, so this is a stipulated agreement at this point? MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Baker has agreed to stipulate to the-- MR. KRAENBRING: Could we have a copy that we could see while you're reading off? MS. O'FARRELL: What we have is the recommendation that's in your packet with some changes that have been made to it. MS. ARNOLD: The recommendation's not in their packet, Susan. MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, it's not? No, I'm sorry, I don't have anything for you to read while I'm going along with it. But I'll -- MR. KRAENBRING: Could you put it on the screen? MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. But I do need to read it first before I put it on the screen. Is that okay? MR. KRAENBRING: That's fine. MS. O'FARRELL: All operational costs in the amount of $1,116.40 incurred in the prosecution of this case. He will resubmit a complete and sufficient site development plan amendment application -- MS. ARNOLD: Susan, just read slower. MR. KRAENBRING: We're out of our environment today. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm out of my environment. Application request number 7281 by March 15th, that would be Page 7 November 15,2006 2007, or a fine of$150 per day will be assessed until SDPA-AR-721 is submitted. Upon approval of the SDP amendment, obtain all necessary after-the-fact permits for vegetation removal within 15 days of SDPA-AR-7281 approval, or a fine of$150 per day will be assessed until all required permits are obtained. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator Susan O'Farrell when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KRAENBRING: Again, if that's something that we could review as we talk to the respondent. MS. O'FARRELL: We'll just pass it to you individually to read. None of us can read it up on the screen. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, as we pass that down, does that conclude your testimony for the county? MS. O'FARRELL: That concludes my testimony for the county. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. We'll hear from the respondent S. ? now. lr. MR. BAKER: Yeah, I guess I have to accept it. We're now just to get this thing underway and so I can get this down. I'm working with the county as diligently as I can. You know, you can't fight City Hall down there with the planning stuff. So I've been -- we've sent it in and sent it in. And it's all about trees. Again, about trees. So I'm doing the best I can. Keene Engineering said they'll have it done here shortly and resubmit it again. MR. KRAENBRING: So you understand the stipulation fully, the -- MS. O'FARRELL: I need to actually change something on that stipulation. What it says is that he needs to resubmit. It actually should be that he needs to obtain the approved SDP A within the 60 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Page 8 November 15,2006 MS. O'FARRELL: So we're talking about his whole approval from the county of his site development plan amendment within 60 days, which would be March 15th, give or take a couple of days. MR. KRAENBRING: All right then. So you agree with all the terms of the stipulated agreement? MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry, it's not 60 days, it's March 15th. That's the dead lane. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which is more than 60 days. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: All right, if we don't have any other comment from the county or the respondent, we'll close the public hearings portion and open it up to discussion for the board. MR. KELLY: I actually do have a question for county. Does that seem like he'll be able to get a site plan approved in that amount of time? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I believe if Mr. Baker is diligent in his efforts, he'll be able to get that approval within 60 days. MR. KELLY: Ifhe's not able to get it-- MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry, by March 15th. MR. KELLY: By March 15th. MS. O'FARRELL: I've got 60 days on my mind. MR. KELLY: Ifhe's not able to get it because of staff issue, is he given more time? MS. O'FARRELL: I believe that there are not going to be staff issues with this site development plan amendment. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Ifhe's not able to do it because of staff reviews, then this issue can be brought back to the board and the fines could be modified, because he would not be imposing per day fines, because it's something that the county -- it's out of his control. MR. KRAENBRING: Does the county attorney have a point that he wanted to make? Page 9 November 15, 2006 MR. KLATZKOW: No, I was going to say, it's the county's fault. Save more time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess I have a question. This SDP has been submitted and been rejected, is that what I'm understanding? MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Baker has received his third rejection letter, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. But it's not going to be a new site plan. I mean, it's not -- it's been submitted, it just needs to be resubmi tted. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. He's not starting from scratch. He already has most of his approvals. He needs two more departments to approve it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, very well. MR. KRAENBRING: Anymore comments or questions from the board? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: All right. That being the case, do we have a motion to accept the stipulated agreement as presented? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) Page 10 November 15, 2006 MR. KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Sir, I hope you work well with the county and that it all comes to a nice close for you. We're all happy with the stipulations, sir? MR. BAKER: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you very much. I will now turn it back over to our chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: And speak close to the microphone. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: My voice is a little deep today, so it seems to be carrying a little bit better. Thank you for taking over that case for me. We'll now move to old business. And the first case is a request for the reduction of fines with the Board of Collier County versus Doris Blackmon. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we need to read anything in? MS. ARNOLD: No, it's his request for reduction, so -- MR. MAZZONE: For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone, Collier County code enforcement investigator. MS. ARNOLD: Dennis, it's the petitioner's request, so they need to just state for the record what they would like the board to consider. MR. D'ONOFRIO: For the record, Michael Robert D'Onofrio from the firm of Quarles & Brady. I'm here with my client and respondent, Doris Blockman Cruz. Weare requesting today that the board abate in its entirety fines and costs imposed against Ms. Blockman for violations of -- code violations which are the subject of improvements to her home. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just so that you understand, we could look at abating the fines, but as far as the operational cost, that is up to the county. We do not have the authority to waive that. MR. D'ONOFRIO: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to tell us the Page 11 November 15,2006 reasons that you would like us to -- MR. D'ONOFRIO: Certainly. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- take that under consideration? MR. D'ONOFRIO: First I would like to point out that my firm and myself do have the privilege today to appear before this board to represent an individual who has been the subj ect of violations for which she has not caused. See, Ms. Doris Blackmon purchased her first home in March of 2004 from the Rogers. Unbeknownst to Ms. Blackmon, prior to her purchase of the home, improvements were made to the garage where the garage was improved into living space. For some reason, the Rogers' son had called in to code enforcement and reported this violation. As you can imagine, as first-time home buyer, Ms. Blackmon did not search the public records to determine whether the improvements made to the home were properly permitted. That is not an uncommon problem, that my law firm receives multiple phone calls to help those buyers who are completely unaware of improperly permitted improvements to their homes. As a result of that, I think that the Floribar Real Estate contract has been changed to include new language to allow buyers to understand that there may be improvements to property that have not been properly permitted. Of course this just means more protracted and costly litigation. But what we have today is a plea for Ms. Blackmon, that she can end the undaunted experience of having to be the subject of code enforcement and potential fines imposed against her as a result of buying a home that she was completely unaware was altered without proper permits. As a result, we also had filed a lawsuit against the Rogers to seek reimbursement for costs and damages that Ms. Blackmon had sustained as a result of abating the violations. Page 12 November 15,2006 I am pleased to report that Ms. Blackmon has received the permit and a certificate of occupancy. Unfortunately the time within which she did receive it was 60 days past the deadline that this board had granted her nearly a year ago. And it was this board, at my request, had provided us a one-year or 360-day period to try and resolve the litigation and get the Rogers to reimburse Ms. Blackmon or, at a minimum, bear the cost to correct these violations. As you can imagine, litigation is not only timely and costly, but we have gotten nowhere to get the Rogers to recognize that they were actually the culprits, they were the ones who made the improvements, and Ms. Blackmon is nothing more than a victim in that regard. That lawsuit is nearly resolved, with little benefit to Ms. Blackmon. At the end of the day, even if we successfully prevail, we would receive nothing more than a paper judgment, as it has been represented to me through counsel of Rogers that the Rogers do not have funds sufficient to pay the demand that I made upon the Rogers to resolve this case. If this board decides to abate the fine in its entirety, this matter will be completely resolved for Ms. Blackmon. The undaunting experience will be over for her and she can go on with her life and enjoy her first home. I have submitted, in response, a preparation for today, a letter dated October 18th, 2006, addressed to the board. It is a three-page letter that attaches the stipulation agreement that this board graciously granted to Ms. Blackmon to abate the violations. I have in addition attached a copy of a complaint that I filed in the Collier County circuit court showing the action that Ms. Blackmon took against the Rogers to resolve an issue that she did not create. It is our request today that the fine be abated in its entirety, as my client simply doesn't have the financial wherewithal to pay such a large sum. It's important today that I also thank the personnel at code Page 13 November 15,2006 enforcement. They have graciously fielded many phone calls from me and Ms. Blackmon regarding the circumstances that gave rise to the violations. Mr. Dennis Mazzone has always been there to field my phone calls. Shirley Garcia has been someone who has always been there to assist in any questions that I had. And certainly Ms. Michelle Arnold today and through this lengthy process also has made time available to speak to me regarding these matters. I applaud them and I appreciate the time that they have taken to assist me and my client. With that said, I respectfully request that this board take into consideration that Ms. Blackmon is not the culprit making the improvements to the home that were not properly permitted. She was an unsuspecting purchaser who was not given the opportunity to make a determination whether she would continue to purchase this home with improvements that were not properly permitted. Had she known that, she would not have purchased the home. Finally, we would like to point out that our client, Ms. Blackmon, simply doesn't have the financial wherewithal to pay these fines. We respectfully request that the board take this into consideration and to abate the fine in its entirety. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Do we have any questions from the board or any comment from the county? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. For the record, Dennis Mazzone, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Weare in agreement with the good attorney's proposal to reduce the fines down to zero. And we want to acknowledge the fact that indeed Ms. Blackmon has been working in cooperation with Collier County all through this process, to great cost to her, emotional and financial, and that she should be commended for her good citizenship. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I have any comments from Page 14 November 15, 2006 the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Is there going to be any operational -- are there any operational costs at this point -- MR. MAZZONE: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- that I do not see here in this order? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir, not to my knowledge. MS. ARNOLD: There aren't any operational costs. They weren't included in the order to begin with. So we waived that initially. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Michelle. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time then I'll close it to the floor and open it to the board for a motion or discussion. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that the board abate all fines against Mrs. Blackmon. MR. DeWITTE: I second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Last month, for those of us that were here, we heard a case, and it was actually our last case. Mr. Saintilien and the new owner, Mr. Thermidor. In that case we made a decision based on the fact that we had given them a month to come up with the operational cost. And it looked like they completely ignored Page 15 November 15, 2006 us. And I think the board made their decision to go ahead and fine them the full amount, based on that disregard. However, after the meeting I found out it was not brought to our attention, and I think it might be because of either a misunderstanding procedure or a misunderstanding due to language that they actually had the check there for operational costs, I'm understanding. And that has been paid. They met with Michelle. And I'd like Michelle to go ahead and intervene here if I'm saying something incorrectly. And so I would like to ask the board to reconsider our vote on that, due to the fact that I don't think they were disregarding us. I think that they did not understand. And if it were behoove the board, we would then have to renotify them and rehear the case. MR. DEAN: What's the dollar amount you're talking about? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's the case that we fined them 54,000, I think it was. MS. ARNOLD: The board at the prior meeting asked them, the Saintiliens, or Mrs. Saintilien, to pay the operational costs for the case that was before them, plus a past due operational cost for a prior case. And that was in the amount of $842.30. And they did not pay it within the time frame that the board requested. And I think that you all were hoping had they paid it, it would show good faith effort to comply. Mrs. Saintilien approached me after the meeting and said that she had the check. They've since come into my office. Mr. Thermidor has come in and paid that amount. And they are willing to pay some. But they've indicated to me they can't afford to pay the 50,000, which was imposed by the board at the last meeting. MR. DeWITTE: And just another point, to enlighten the case, the property that was in violation, although they've had several violations in the past, but that particular property we have a fair estimate that the market value of that is only 30,000. Which was Page 16 November 15, 2006 something we were going to consider in the reduction in the first case. MR. KRAENBRING: I think there's one other thing to consider too is that I believe that the property retransferred to a new owner. And at the time, the person offering testimony was the previous owner. And the new owner that was standing next to them, I'm not sure he was given proper time to respond. I would make a motion that we rehear the case. Does the Chair have a time they would like to set this for? A month? MS. ARNOLD: What you be doing is not be rehearing the case, you would be reconsidering the imposition of fines. MR. KRAENBRING: Imposition of fines, exactly, that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're not having a meeting next month, so it would go to the January meeting. MR. KRAENBRING: All right. I make a motion that we rehear the reduction of fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. DeWITTE: Before we call for the second, can we have a-- I wasn't here at the last meeting. Can we have some discussion amongst the board of their -- open discussion before we call the vote? MR. DEAN: Just food for thought, I was at the meeting and I felt uncomfortable with the two gentleman, because it didn't seem like one understood what the other one was saying. And I felt that the man sold the property to somebody unbeknownst to what was involved. And so I really felt bad at the end of the meeting, and I mentioned that to a board member. So I thought maybe it would be nice to hear a little bit more. But we didn't get to. And then we heard later the lady had the check. And I guess that was what -- the reason we backed off. So I would like to hear that again. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other opinions or comments? Page 1 7 November 15,2006 MR. KELLY: My vote last month, even with the -- with us not knowing the check was there was against the imposition of fines, so it's clear where I stand. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I have a motion on the floor. May I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, Michelle, we would like to reconsider the imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: We'll put it on. And that was for the January meeting? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: I think just to help the court reporter, if you can say who made the motion and who seconded it. And before you do the voting, it probably would help. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. Richard Kraenbring made the motion and then -- MR. DEAN: Larry Dean seconded it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- Larry Dean seconded it. Okay, that concludes the request for impositions, now we are __ or reductions. Now we will go to requests for impositions of fines. We can dismiss the first case because we've already concluded that one. So we would go to the Board of County Commissioners Page 18 November 15, 2006 versus Kites King's Lake. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. This case was heard by the board on September 22nd, 2005. A violation was found, and the property owners were asked to come into compliance. They have complied with the board's order. However, operational costs are outstanding in the amount of $700.39. So staff is at this time requesting that the board impose fines for that amount of money. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next case is Board of Collier County versus Russell and Kaja Risteen. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on January 26th, 2006. It was for parking of commercial vehicles in a residentially zoned area. Mr. Risteen is present. Weare asking at this time to impose fines in the amount of $478.49. And that is for operational costs only. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: As we cannot waive operational costs, that's not part of our purview as far as what we're allowed to do, we can only reduce or waive the fines, the operational cost is on the county's jurisdiction. But if you have something you would like to Page 19 November 15,2006 say, Mr. Risteen, I would be glad to listen. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. RISTEEN : Well, all I can say in my behalf is that of course I wish to abate all the costs or anything associated, because I did follow through, I did get rid of the container. I also was not ever told that I could extend my permit to keep the container on-site, as I was still working as owner/builder to finish my house on my own time and had my materials for trim and, you know, hadn't finished on the house. And I was doing it on like on the weekends and stuff. So you all gave me 90 days to sell it and I needed a year or more. And it's like it was just sitting there. I'd gone through, I don't know if you remember all the -- was told, directed by the county to -- you know, I was told I could camouflage it. That didn't work. Vegetate it. Screen it. I have put plants. You know, then I was told I could do a carport, but that's too expensive. You know, I was looking at a lot of money. So I said well, okay, if I'm up against the wall, I'm going to have to get rid of it. So I had to sell it. And I really could use it, because all the materials blocked up the garage and used my needed spaces. So meanwhile, you know, it's gone. The thing is over with. And if I had been told earlier that I could have got an extended permit, I'd keep doing a permit. If that's what I needed. I was still building the house, you know. I'm still building the house, you know. it's going to take me a while to build it. But the point is you all would -- you all don't have any jurisdiction, so if the code board would be, you know, so kind as to pass these on, because I did what you said, I got rid of the commercial vehicle and, you know, it's done. So I would appreciate it, because I had to -- you know, I had to get rid of it, so I didn't get top dollar for it. You know, I got -- and I've been encumbered now because all my stuff is piled in the garage and I Page 20 November 15, 2006 can't get to it as easy, so it's not as -- not convenient, not helpful. But expensive. And I spent thousands on painting it and decorating it and all this other stuff. So, you know, if this could be over, I would be very happy. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. DeWITTE: May I make a comment? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: I just wanted to thank you, sir, for addressing and taking care of the issue. I know it was a hardship to you from your perspective and we appreciate your citizenship. MS. ARNOLD: The county's position is that we've incurred those costs and we request that the board impose the fine today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Michelle. Do I hear amotion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: What's the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to -- MR. KRAENBRING: I just want to make sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the operational costs as 478.49. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 21 November 15,2006 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Passes. The next case is the Board of County Commissioners versus DDR MDT Carrillion. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This case was heard by the board on January 26th, 2006. It was an unpermitted pole sign. The respondent did comply with the board's order and we are at this time requesting that the fines -- operational costs be imposed in the amount of 708 -- $708.17. The respondent or representative for that corporation was here today. We gave him the information and the fine amount. They had indicated they were going to pay it. But, you know, we have no assurances at this time. But they have the information that they need. Staff is requesting that we impose fines. The document won't be recorded if we receive the fines timely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, just a clarification. Is this fines or is this is operational costs? MS. ARNOLD: Operational costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. If that's the case, we can't reduce operational costs, so I'm looking for a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we impose operational costs as proposed by the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. Page 22 November 15,2006 MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case will be Board of County Commissioners, Cricket Lake Apartments. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on September 22nd, 2005. Violation was found for wooden pilings in dune area and -- I'm reading a case that actually I removed it from the agenda. Excuse me. This case against Cricket Lake Apartments was heard on July 28th, 2005, and a violation was found for required landscaping not being maintained. And compliance was achieved with the board's order. However, operational costs in the amount of$767.51 are outstanding, and the county is requesting at this time that you impose those costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, seeing that we cannot waive operational costs, I'm looking for a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we accept the operational costs of767.51. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kraenbring seconded. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 23 November 15,2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. The next case will be Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Robert Chipman. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on February 23rd, 2006. At which time a violation was found for no building permits or structure addition, and the existence of a mobile home which sat on stilts. The county is at this time requesting that fines be imposed for $6,600 from the period of April 24th, 2006 through June 28th, 2006. Compliance is now achieved. Then there's an additional $671.31 for operational costs. So the total amount being imposed today would be $7,271.31. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I will entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to -- operational costs for 671.31 and the fine of $6,600 for a total of $7,271.31. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus C. Christopher and Christine Gomory. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. This case was heard by the board on July 28th, 2005, and a violation for interior renovations without building permit and a shed construction with no inspections or Page 24 November 15,2006 C.O. was found. At this time, we would request that costs in the -- excuse me -- I keep messing up here. Excuse me. The case was heard on April 27th, 2006. A violation was found for illegal addition to the house without proper permits. Weare requesting fines in the amount of $4,400 be imposed for the period between September 11 th, 2006 through October 24th, 2006. Compliance has not been met, so the fines will continue to accrue. There was an additional $680.96 that was outstanding for operational costs. However, they've paid $458.90, leaving operational costs in the amount of$222.06. So today staff is requesting that fines be imposed in the amount of $4,622.06, and the fines will continue to accrue until compliance is achieved at a rate of $100 per day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the recommendation as read. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Dean made -- MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kraenbring seconded. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next one is Board of County Commissioners versus Augustin and Bertha Cisneros? I hope I didn't Page 25 November 15, 2006 tear that up too terribly bad. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on April 27th, 2006, and a violation for illegal land use was found within a single- family residential area, because they were running a business, a commercial business in a residential area. The respondents have complied. However, operational costs in the amount of $520.30 are outstanding, and the county is requesting that those be imposed today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. And again, because we cannot waive operational costs, only the county can do that, I will entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kraenbring made the motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Casa Bonita Homebuilders Company, Inc. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard on June 22nd, 2006, and a violation of construction without permits was found. We have operational costs in the amount of$474.33. Page 26 November 15, 2006 Additionally, fines accrued between the period of August 6th, 2006 through September 30th, 2006 at a rate of $200 per day, totaling $11,000. An additional fine is accrued between September 30th, 2006 through October 19th, 2006 at a rate of $200 a day which equated to $3,800, for a total of $14,800 in fines. So the fines that we're requesting be imposed and the costs would total $15,274.33. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the county and impost the fines and operational costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kraenbring made the motion. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Dean seconded the motion. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, do we have any new business? MS. ARNOLD: No, we do not. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any reports? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Comments? MR. KRAENBRING: Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas. Page 27 November 15, 2006 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We will not have a December meeting, so everybody enjoy your holidays. Remember, the next meeting is January 25th. And with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to mention, the location of that meeting is not going to be in the board room. It's not going to be here either. We're going to have it at 2800 Horseshoe Drive in conference room 609, 610. The notice or your agenda will indicate that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, everybody. Page 28 November 15, 2006 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by orderofthe Chair at 10:20 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRPERSON Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 29