Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/25/2007 R January 25,2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, January 25, 2007 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Community Development and Environmental Services Bldg, Room 609/610, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean Justin DeWitte Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring Gerald Lefebvre Charles Martin Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Patti Petrulli, Code Enforcement Supervisor Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 25,2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Community Development and Environmental Services Building, Room 609/610, 2800 North Horseshoe drive, Naples, Fl. 34104 NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. September 25, 2006 Workshop b. November 15, 2006 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS B. STIPULA TIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Ann & Jerome Guidish 2. BCC vs. Cederiere Titus & Jeanne Bonnett 3. BCC vs. Olde Cypress Development 4. BCC vs. Mark Brecher 5. BCC vs. Mark Brecher 6. BCC VS. Mark Brecher 7. BCC VS. Robert & Cristina Ferris 8. BCC VS. Germain Properties of Columbus Inc. 9. BCC VS. Bill Gray's Inc. CEB 2007-01 CEB 2007-02 CEB 2007-03 CEB 2007-04 CEB 2007-05 CEB 2007-06 CEB 2007-07 CEB 2007-08 CEB 2007-09 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Reduction of Fines/Liens 1. BCC VS. Robert Chipman 2. BCC VS. Kristopher & Cristina Gomory CEB 2006-06 CEB 2006-09 B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC VS. Glen McGee (pulled) 2. BCC VS. Douglas White 3. BCC VS. David & Lucy Woodworth 4. BCC VS. Daisy Arrazcaeta 5. BCC vs. Victor George 6. BCC vs. Bruce Assam 7. BCC vs. Cloe Waterfield 8. BCC vs. Dalila Grimaldo 9. BCC VS. Inocente Pantoja & Abelardo Martinez, Sr. CEB 2004-47 CEB 2004-81 CEB 2005-22 CEB 2006-15 CEB 2006-21 CEB 2006-34 CEB 2006-35 CEB 2006-37 CEB 2006-38 10. BCC vs. Calexico 11. BCC vs. Calexico 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Rules and Regulations review and approval 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS A. Scheduling a joint meeting with the Special Master 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 23, 2007 10. ADJOURN CEB 2006-39 CEB 2006-47 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Good morning. At this time, even though it's a few minutes late, I think everybody's here now, so we will go ahead and call this meeting of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order. May I have roll call, please. MS. PETRULLI: George Ponte. MR. PONTE: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Larry Dean. (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: Sheri Barnett. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Jerry Morgan. MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Richard Kraenbring. MR. KRAENBRING: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Justin DeWitte. MR. DeWITTE: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Charles Martin. MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Kenneth Kelly. MR. KELLY: Here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 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 any verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. N either Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Please note, in order to get a verbatim record, we need to be Page 2 January 25, 2007 called on upon the chair before we speak so that the court reporter can record that. May I have the agenda approval? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. I do have some changes to the agenda. Item 4.C.1 we're continuing to the February agenda. As well as items 4.C.3, four, five and six. All of those are being continued to the February agenda. And also, we have taken off the agenda item 5.B.1, as well as 5.B.9. Both those fines have been paid, so we don't need to impose fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I do have one other thing to add to the agenda. You probably want to add under old business discussion of our rules and regs so that we can have that approved, or you may want to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, I have it under new business. MS. ARNOLD: We can put it under new business. We can do it that way, because it actually will follow better on the agenda. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't think it has it on the printed one that we have here, but the one that was on the -- MS. ARNOLD: Hard one? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- computer, was on comments. We were going to look at scheduling a joint meeting with the special master. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, that's correct. We would want to do that as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: With those changes, may I move to have a motion to accept the agenda. MR. PONTE: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Second? MR. DeWITTE: Second. Page 3 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to move to the approval of the minutes for the September 25th workshop. It's been a long time ago and I wasn't present, so I'm relying on you guys. Is everything there? MR. PONTE: I wasn't present, either. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looking for a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) (Mr. Dean enters the room.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. MR. DEAN: Morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct the attendance record to Page 4 January 25, 2007 show Mr. Dean is here. Okay. And you said we do not have the November minutes, so therefore we can't really approve them. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Move to public hearings. Do I have any motions or stipulations? MS. ARNOLD: We have none that has been provided to us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Then I'll move to the first hearing, which is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus -- excuse me if I mess this up -- Cederiere Titus and Jeanne Bonnett. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli supervisor with Collier County code enforcement. I'd like to ask if the respondents are present. (N 0 response.) MS. PETRULLI: I show that they are not present. We did send the respondent a packet of evidence, and I'd like to enter that packet as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you read the motion, please -- we need to accept the motion to accept the packet into evidence, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 5 January 25, 2007 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: This is case 2007-02. The violation is of Sections 2004-41 -- ordinance, I'm sorry -- 2004-41, Sections 10.01.06.B.1.A, 1 0.02.06.B.1.D, and 10.02.06.B.1.D.I. And Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Section 105.1. The description of the violation is remodeling and enclosing a home without valid Collier County building permits. The location where the violation exists was 91874, Section 15, Township 48, Subdivision 728, Unit 36, Lot 24, otherwise known as 33rd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. The name and address of the owner or person in charge of the violation was Titus -- and I apologize if I ruin this, too -- Cederiere and Jeanne Bonnett of33rd Avenue, Naples, Florida. The date the violation was first observed was June 23rd of 2006. The owner was given the Notice of Violation at the property, and the courthouse was posted on August 29th of2006. And a Notice of Violation was issued to Ms. Bonnett, Jeanne Bonnett on September 6th, 2006. The violation was to have been corrected by September 30th, of 2006. On the reinspection on September 31 st, it was still in violation. At this time I'd like to have the investigator for the case, Mr. Thomas Keegan, take over. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If I can stop you for one second, because I forgot to mention, we do have a full quorum, so the alternates will not be voting today, although they may participate in discussions. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This case started as a complaint. I went out to the property on June 23rd. I did observe the work done on the house. I couldn't access the property. I could see it from the outside. Page 6 January 25, 2007 On September 6th, 2006, I went back to the site. I met with the owner. I served the NOV. She brought me into the house. I have pictures. She did state that they did hire a contractor to do the work. I made numerous site visits back to the property. No answer on the door. Nothing was listed as a phone number. I posted the property, sent it regular mail, certified mail also. No response. No permits applied for. Then I proceeded to prepare this for the Code Enforcement Board. I do have pictures of the work done. MS. ARNOLD: You want to just hand them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have to hand them. We have no overhead today. MR. KRAENBRING: I was going to say, we're short on audio-video today. MS. ARNOLD: Thomas, are we entering those as evidence? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: So we have to have a motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept this as evidence, I guess, packet B. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) Page 7 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The motion did pass, by the way. And the violation still remains? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. As of yesterday I was there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess because we don't have any other public input, I'll close it to the public meeting. And board comments, discussion? MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a recommendation as far as what the county would like to -- MR. KEEGAN: The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs of 261.62 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit within 14 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the permit is obtained, or remove improvements including materials from property and restore to the permitted state. Also obtaining a certificate of completion within 60 days of the date that the permit is issued, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the certificate of completion is obtained. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. MR. PONTE: I just have one question. The very first part where you gave the respondent 14 days. That was to do what? MR. KEEGAN: Pretty much to contact the permit department and get the ball rolling. MR. KRAENBRING: So there's been no contact at this point? MR. KEEGAN: With the permit department, no, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: First I need to find out if we want to say that there is a violation and if it exists. MR. KELLY: I have a question. There's an existing home now and they're building an addition? MR. KEEGAN: They're remodeling. MR. KRAENBRING: It looks to me like it's what, a stilt home Page 8 January 25,2007 that they're enclosing the downstairs area -- MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: -- the first level? MR. KELLY: As far as I know, that does need a permit, so I see a violation. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We move to the findings. Do we agree with the recommendation of the county? MR. KELLY: I'd like to comment. You know, Investigator Keegan, I love the way that you worded this to where you were giving them 14 days to apply for the permit and then 60 days after the permit was issued. In the past we've had time constraints placed, and a lot of it was left upon the permitting department. And we wanted to give the respondents more time because we didn't know the delays. By wording it the time the permit was issued and extending the deadline from there, it doesn't put any burden on the respondents until after they do receive their permit, which gives them ample time. I think 60 days is a little bit too short, but I like the way this is worded. Page 9 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, do you have a comment on that? MS. ARNOLD: I think the reason why we've applied the 60-day time period is because the work has already been started. And in fact there is a provision in the code when something's done after the fact, the 60 days is the time period that we would give somebody to go in and try to get their inspections and CO. MR. KELLY: Fair enough. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looking for a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to adopt the county's recommendation, as submitted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Call the next case, which will be Board of County Commissioners versus 0 Ide Cypress development. And that's Case No. CEB 2007-03. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli. I would like to ask if the respondents are present for the case? (N 0 response.) Page 10 January 25, 2007 MS. PETRULLI: I show that they are not present. Case No. 2007-03 is a violation of Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.2.A and 10.02.06.B.2.D.9, and 2004-58, 16.2.J. Description of the violation is the erection of a sign without proper county permits. The location of the address is 7165 Immokalee Road. The person or owner in charge of violation is Olde Cypress Development, Ltd., 7165 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. The date of the violation was first observed on August 8th, 2006. The person or owner in charge was given the Notice of Violation on September the 12th of2006. The violation was to have been corrected by October 13th of 2006. A reinspection was done on December 1 st, 2006. And the reinspection showed that the violation remained. At this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Kitchell Snow. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Patti, would you like to put that into evidence, first. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, I would like to enter this as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could I have a motion to accept the packet, Exhibit A into evidence, please. MR. DeWITTE: So moved. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 11 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Good morning. My name is Investigator Kitchell Snow. I'm a code enforcement investigator. This case started in August. It originally started as just a routine patrol. I investigated this pretty thoroughly, because it was such a large structure. I've got some photos that I would like to put in the board's list for you to look at. It's a very large structure. And from my investigations, we never discovered there were any permits for this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to enter those as Exhibit B? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept the packet B. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SNOW: There's one in there we had where there was a original permit issued for the structure, but it was not CO'd. That has recently been CO'd. You can notice that it was permitted in 2005. In Page 12 January 25, 2007 2006 is was CO'd. So we got that done. But the signs were not permitted. Never have been. The problem with the signs is there've only allowed 64 square feet on the ground sign. And as you can see, that's a very, very large structure. The picture doesn't do it justice. I would say they're at least 120 square feet. We're working with sign review currently to try and resolve this situation. And again, this has been such a long case, drawn-out case that they really haven't -- we will talk to them, they will come in. They've applied for some permits. They've been rejected again for that particular problem of the large signage. And we won't hear from them for 30 days. I'll call them again, then they'll come back in and they'll do the -- it's the same process going through. It just is ongoing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have a recommendation from the county? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, we do. MR. DeWITTE: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: What part of the structure actually qualifies as a sign, just the part that says Olde Cypress or is it the whole structure? MR. SNOW: No, sir. It's just the -- if you look at the photo you'll see a large logo on one of the towers. MR. DeWITTE: Yes, the-- MR. SNOW: Yes. And the sign at the bottom that says Olde Cypress. MR. DeWITTE: So it's the logo and the-- MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. The problem is, is what we're currently going through, is that one structure? Is it one structure? Because there is some separation involved with the towers. And I feel that that is one structure. And so they're only going to be allowed -- and they Page 13 January 25, 2007 have talked about removing the logo, but they just haven't done that yet. I just don't feel that they feel a need to do this immediately. I think they've been dragging their feet on it. And again, the case has been going on since August, and they haven't -- they will -- you get the feeling they want to comply, but then it switches people and goes from one individual to another and just -- I don't see any progress at all. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's our concern is that it's not the entire structure that is potentially in violation, it's the application of the cypress tree and the wording, the Olde Cypress name. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, you are correct. MR. KRAENBRING: That exceeds the 68 square feet? MR. SNOW: Sixty-four, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Sixty-four. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. And besides that, sir, it's never been permitted. And that's the main issue here. MR. KRAENBRING: So the structure is not in violation, we're just looking at an alteration of the sign. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think maybe before we -- do you have any -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, I just have one. Investigator, just to -- give me your thinking on this. Olde Cypress Development is a professional development company. Why would they be ignoring such a simple correction? MR. SNOW: You know, sir, from talking to them, I know that it was bought and sold at one time. MR. PONTE: The company? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. And I think, from dealing with them -- you deal with more than Page 14 January 25, 2007 one person. And it goes from one person to another person to another person. You get e-mails and phone calls. And it just hasn't -- I don't feel that they -- I can't tell you what they're thinking, but my impression is that they will get to it when they get to it. MR. PONTE: So you feel you're getting a runaround? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, I do. I do. And if one person was handling it and they assign that person -- and again, this has been an ongoing case. I talk to sign review almost daily, and she gets the same opinion that -- I ask her daily, have you heard from Olde Cypress? As always, all we want is voluntary compliance. All I want is just get the sign permitted. That's all. We got the structure permitted, all I want is the sign permitted. And I don't feel that they feel any need to do that with any immediacy. I really don't. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Before we ask for the recommendation, should we find a finding of fact as to whether or not a violation does exist? MR. KELLY: I have another question. In the original permit for the structure, was there a sign permit with it, or did the structure plan show the sign on the structure? MR. SNOW: As far as -- a sign permit is separate from the structure. A sign permit is -- what they did as far as structurally was concerned, I wasn't really concerned about that. I was concerned more with the signage on there. I knew that the permit had expired when I first started investigating. I went to the property. I'm sorry, I went to records and addressing, and I had to pull the property cards and investigated every permit that was ever pulled on that property to try to find out was it permitted. Because it wasn't -- the issue wasn't -- it was trying to find the permit to that structure. And we eventually -- or I eventually found that and knew that the permit had expired, and that wasn't issued from the beginning. Page 15 January 25, 2007 Because they won't permit any sign on the structure if the structure's not permitted. You can't do it. So that was the first issue that we had to overcome. That was finally done, I think it was 2006. I can't remember the exact date on that. And then from then on it's just been a kind of a song and dance to try to get them to do what we want them to do. And again, all we want is voluntary compliance. We just want to get the sign permitted. And it's a pretty simple matter to do that. If you -- the county will work with you, and I don't think they really feel any immediacy again to get that taken care of. MR. KRAENBRING: Did you express a concern that the cypress tree was not part of the signage? Was there some sort of interpretation you were looking for from the county? MR. SNOW: No, sir. I think that the whole structure is -- and those two, the Olde Cypress and the logo, are part of that. And they're only allowed 64 square feet on that ground sign. And it is joined. It's -- that's a huge structure. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but it's very, very large. And I just couldn't believe it wasn't -- it hadn't been CO'd and everything wasn't right. I just happened to be up there one day and looked at it. MR. KRAENBRING: I just want to make sure there's no ambivalence on the part of county going into this -- MR. SNOW: No, sir. We're talking -- I'm dealing with sign review constantly, and that's going to be their decision when they do that, to figure out exactly what they need to do to permit that sign. I just want a permit submitted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Still looking for a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that this violation does exist. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 16 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to read your recommendation, please. MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, I would. But can I have five minutes, please, for my recommendations? I don't have it with my case. MS. ARNOLD: We have a copy. MR. SNOW: Oh, do you? Thanks. To obtain a sign permit for unpermitted sign or remove. If respondent chooses to obtain a sign permit, they must submit a complete and sufficient variance application within 14 days of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed each day until the application is submitted. Upon final disposition of a sign variance, obtain a permit and all subsequent inspections, the certificate of completion or move said sign within 14 days or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed each day until the sign is permitted or removed. Was that better? The respondent will notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KRAENBRING: So we're looking at 14 days and $150. MR. SNOW: Basically. Yes, sir, 14 days. MR. KRAENBRING: And operational costs. Page 1 7 January 25, 2007 MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have an operational cost figure now? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, we do, 381.30. MR. KRAENBRING: 381.30? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But that can change as it proceeds. Okay, any discussion from the board? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think that the recommendation is good. I certainly go along with it. But I would like to see the fine increased. We're getting the runaround here, and they've had more than sufficient time to correct the violation. And I don't think we're going to get the attention of a large development company with $150 a day fine. So I'd like to see the board consider increasing that fine to a level where it will get their attention. MR. DeWITTE: Can I have some clarity on the order as well. It was 14 days for them to apply? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Submit a permit, an application. MR. SNOW: Or a variance application, sir. Either one. A variance application will be used if it's not permittable. If it's a nonconforming structure, which it is. That's when a variance application will be submitted. It goes through the principal planners in the back. MR. DeWITTE: Do we have any desire to add a time frame for them to come into compliance? Do we have a desire to add for there to be a time frame for them to come into compliance? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, normally ifit goes into a variance, that could be a long process. If they decide to remove part of that sign, let's say for instance the logo, which has been discussed, it's normally 30 days to get the permit and 60 days to get that CO 'd. That's what we Page 18 January 25, 2007 normally give. And we give them sufficient time. I believe, and the county believes in making sure that they have every opportunity to get anything permitted that should be permitted. MR. DeWITTE: Yes, I just -- all we're saying is they've got to put in a permit in 14 days. And we're not saying what they have they have to do if that permit's rejected. You know, we're going to have another case if that permit is rejected and that sign still sits there. We haven't done anything to say they've got to tear it down if they don't get it. If they do get it, they have so long to come into compliance. MR. KRAENBRING: I don't know if we can take step B before step A, though, in this particular case. Maybe we can only address what is before us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, do you have a -- MS. ARNOLD: I was going to suggest -- because Kitchell's speed reads I didn't catch it either. I didn't know whether or not he had a similar recommendation to the first that you heard, that upon, you know, a determination of the variance or building permit, whether CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sixty days. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, then so many days after that. Because then we wouldn't, you know, put the onus on the respondent to get something where they have no control of getting it. MS. RAWSON: I have it. Do you want me to read it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, please. MS. RAWSON: Obtain sign permit for unpermitted sign or remove. If respondent chooses to obtain a sign permit, they must submit a complete and sufficient variance application within 14 days of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed each day until application is submitted. Upon final disposition of the sign variance, obtain a permit and all subsequent inspections through certificate of completion or remove Page 19 January 25, 2007 the sign within 14 days or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed for each day until the sign is either permitted or removed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So basically after they've gone through the variance application they have 14 days in order to get the permit is how I read that. MS. RAWSON: It looks like they have to submit a sufficient application within 14 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. But there's no ending on it, correct? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. SNOW: Well, ma'am, it would be very hard to put a time frame on that, because that's the county's onus to do the application -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How about after completion of the permit process? MR. SNOW: 14 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They have 14 days in order to get in touch with the inspector to make sure that everything is completed. MR. SNOW: Or remove it. MS. ARNOLD: I would recommend upon obtaining a permit, then they have so many days to get their certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Give me a number. MS. ARNOLD: Since it's there, they don't really need any time to do anything, so I would recommend a short time period, and 14 days seems to be the amount of time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does that work with everybody on the board? MR. KRAENBRING: So we're going to have 14 and 14? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: Without having to reread it into the record, I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation. MR. PONTE: I do want to just repeat my thoughts on this, and I Page 20 January 25, 2007 don't think that the fine of $150 a day is of sufficient weight to get the attention of this respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: George, I somewhat agree with you, but the only problem I have is it does not create a danger. MR. PONTE: No, it doesn't create a danger. But let me -- remember, we have authority to increase the fines, and we're fining it a preVIOUS range. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Not yet. MR. PONTE: Not yet? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We haven't voted as of yet. MR. PONTE: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair, I have to agree with you. We have to look at the severity of the case. And also ultimately we want to get compliance. But in this case there's no endangerment of any people or anything. So I think $150 a day would be appropriate. MR. PONTE: There's no endangerment. But the severity of the case is that authority has been ignored, and we're getting a runaround. That's the severity of this case. Not that the sign is going to fall on anybody. MR. KELLY: If I may comment. George, I understand what you're saying, and we are only hearing one side from an investigator who has worked very hard on this case and obviously wants to see it resolved. In addition, there has been a sale of the property. And it seems to me like nobody really knows who should take the lead from the developer's side to rectify this. I agree that the 150 should be sufficient. The short time frame would probably get their attention. MR. PONTE: I don't know when the property was sold. Investigator, can you tell me when -- MR. SNOW: 2005, sir. MR. PONTE: I'm sorry? Page 21 January 25, 2007 MR. SNOW: 2005. MR. PONTE: 2005. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So they inherited this problem. MR. PONTE: This is 2007. MR. KELLY: Right. And they're also in the process of turning the development -- MR. PONTE: It's not all new management. MR. KELLY: No, but they are in the process of turning development back over to the homeowners association, which means the developer is probably stepping out. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which means that if they do that, then it's going to fall on the onus of the homeowners association and -- because it will run with the land. And we've had this before. So I agree with the short time frame, because maybe that will get it done before the homeowners have to accept it. But at least it should be known for record that this is out there. MR. PONTE: Okay. I don't have anything else to add. MR. DEAN: I'd like to second the motion on the floor. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Just so -- a matter of clarification, we're going to do the same fine amount, 150 for each time period. Page 22 January 25,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is going to be -- I'm sorry, we have one gentleman that has to leave for a doctor's appointment, so we will be excusing him. (Mr. Martin leaves the room.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The Board of County Commissioners versus Robert and Cristina Ferris. That is CEB Case No. 2007-07. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli. I'd like to ask if the respondent is present? MR. FERRIS: Present. MS. PETRULLI: Note that the respondent is present. The respondent was sent a packet of evidence, and at this time I'd like to enter that into Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do I hear a motion to accept packet A? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: This case is a violation of Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06.B.1.A and Section 106.1.2,105.1, 105.7, and Section 111.1. Page 23 January 25, 2007 The description of the violation is the conversion of an existing garage to office space without first obtaining Collier County permits. The location is 7804 Stratford Drive, Naples, Florida. The name and address of the person in charge of the violation location is Robert and Cristina Ferris. The date the violation was first observed was June the 4th of 2006. The owner was given a Notice of Violation dated May 1st, 2006. And the violation was to have been corrected by June 18th of 2006. The reinspection of the property was done on July 25th of 2006, and at that time the violation remained. At this time, I'd like to turn the case over to the investigator, Carmelo Gomez. MR. KELLY: I have a question real quick. Is it a typographical error that the date of violation was served before the violation was first observed? Maybe those dates should be switched. MR. KRAENBRING: We all had that question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Carmelo. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: Would you check on the violation date on there, on this statement? MR. GOMEZ: Actually, the violation, first day I appeared for the action order was April 6th. MR. KRAENBRING: So are you saying that the violation was first observed April 6th? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: And then the violation notice was given May 1st? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. Let me quickly explain what happened there. This was when I first started as a code enforcement investigator. Page 24 January 25, 2007 And this was one of my first assignments. When I went there I wasn't quite sure of the procedure and the protocols. I took all the pictures, I did all the investigating, I reported back to my office. At which time I found out that we would have to have a code meeting with Mr. Ferris, myself and the members of permitting to see exactly what permits Mr. Ferris would need and if there was any after-the-fact fees. At the day that we had the meeting, I had prepared a Notice of Violation to keep everything formal. And that is why the change in dates. MR. KRAENBRING: Does the June 4th date have any significance? I'm just looking at, you know, any kind of due process here. MS. ARNOLD: I think that's probably just a typo. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as typo. So that's not going to affect the date by which this needs to be corrected -- MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, with that, would you like to go ahead and go forward. MR. GOMEZ: For the record, my name is Carmelo Gomez with Collier Code Enforcement investigator. As I said, I observed a violation at Mr. Ferris' home. Basically, he put up a wall to divide the garage into two spots, one for his home office and the other one as the garage. At that time we realized he did not have any permits. And he installed some lights and a few electrical outlets. Basically that's about it. After which he did go attend the code meeting and we decided that he needed a couple of permits and some plans and drawings. Now, Mr. Ferris is in the business, so he drew up his own plans, submitted them. They were accepted by Collier County. Page 25 January 25, 2007 The reason we're here is because the permits have not been picked up. The permits have been prepared since August 23rd of '06. And as of, I believe, December 23rd he still has not picked up his permits. So that's why we decided to step up the case to the CEB. In the meantime, he did pick up his permits and he's going through the process now of having them inspected and accomplishing a certificate of completion. I do have pictures to show what type of work he actually did, if you care to see them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to submit those as packet B? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, ma'am, I would. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion to accept packet B for the county? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's start at that end. Thank you. MR. GOMEZ: You're welcome. MR. KELLY: Investigator Gomez? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: When was the permits packets picked up? MR. GOMEZ: Ah-- Page 26 January 25, 2007 MR. KELLY: You said August 23rd, I believe, of '06? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: I was just wondering when Mr. Ferris picked them up. MR. GOMEZ: Mr. Ferris is available. He's here in the room. Mr. Ferris, if you would like to step up to the podium, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Hi, Mr. Ferris. MR. FERRIS: Hello. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have anything that you would like to add? MR. FERRIS: Just the case, the question. It was picked up December 8,2006. Very briefly, I was unaware that the $500 threshold of work that does not require a permit applied in our case because it was work that was done by my two sons, myself. The electrical portion by a friend of my youngest son. All the work was done without paying anybody, it was just friends working together. Materials were left over from previous projects. I apologize for the misunderstanding and will admit to the law applying in this case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Have you called in the inspections required? MR. FERRIS: I called one inspection, Mr. Mitchell, for framing. He requested that I add a rough electrical fiber one prior to signing off on the framing. I had it scheduled for today, if time allows. If not, we've have the rough electrical tomorrow, I hope. MR. KRAENBRING: Let's get you out of here so you get your inspection. MR. FERRIS: That's a good suggestion, thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that there is a violation existing. Page 27 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, do you have a recommendation? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, ma'am. Of course it's a little different. It's changed. But the recommendations were that: To pick up the building permits that have of course been ready since October 23rd within 14 days of today's hearing. And obtain a certificate of completion within 60 days of today's hearing or impose a fine of $200 per day until abated. The second is pay operational costs incurred in handling of this case, which is the amount of $416.16. And the last, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator, myself, when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection and confirm the abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any discussion amongst board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. I'd like to see something in there just in case they can't get all the permits and it can't be CO'd to remove the structure. MS. ARNOLD: Well, they have the permit. They've already picked up a permit. So I was going to recommend that we delete that Page 28 January 25, 2007 portion of the recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: But how about if something fails? MS. ARNOLD: The only thing that's applicable is his obtaining his inspections and then CO. If it fails, there's corrective action that they can do to correct the failed inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So you would like to see us delete the portion that he has to pick up the permits, because that's already been done. MS. ARNOLD: He's already done that. MR. KELLY: Madam Chair, if you simply state that he has to get a certificate of occupancy within 60 days, that will encompass all inspections and any improvements or repairs necessary to receive the certificate of occupancy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that would make it a lot simpler. Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Just a reiteration. He's picked up his permits, he's getting his inspections within -- scheduled within 14 days? MS. ARNOLD: The recommendation is obtain certificate of completion within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendations. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: How about if I go to the other side and say, okay, a fine of $200 a day when the respondent is doing everything and moving ahead and has an inspection this afternoon. That seems high to me. And that should be reduced. The respondent is attempting to come into compliance. So I say a fine of $50 a day is more realistic. MR. KELLY: I would agree with Mr. Ponte. MR. DeWITTE: Do you see any issue with 60 days, a time frame? Page 29 January 25, 2007 MR. FERRIS: No, I don't. MR. DeWITTE: So I would feel comfortable with the 60 days, and a $50 fine as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, I'm going to agree with George on this one. I'm not going to disagree with him. I think the respondent is trying to do the best that he can do at this time frame, so MR. KRAENBRING: I'll amend my motion and agree to the $50 a day. I think that's fine. I think 60 days he's going to get it done anyway. But I think that's fair. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. FERRIS: Am I allowed to ask a question, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, you may. MR. FERRIS: Is there any way that I might be able to request some type of reduction of the costs? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That has to be done through the county. This board is not allowed to change operational costs. That is the county. You'd have to talk with Michelle. MR. FERRIS: I'd be glad to do that. Thank you all. I appreciate it. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. Good luck. Page 30 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good luck. MR. GOMEZ: Thank you, board members. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cherie', how are you doing? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm doing good, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In that case, we'll move to the next case, which is the Board of County Commissioners versus Germain Properties of Columbus, Inc. That is case CEB-2007-08. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli. I'd like to ask if the respondents are present? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If they are, if you'd like to please step forward to the podium -- MS. PETRULLI: Please show that the respondents are present -- representative of the respondent. This case 2007-08 is a violation of Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.2.A, 10.02.06.B.2.D.I.X and 2004-5816.2.J. The description of the violation is an erection of a sign without proper county permits. The location where the violation exists is 13499 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. The name and address of the owner or person in charge of the violation location is Germain Properties of Columbus, Inc., 13499 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00155360006. The date of the violation was first observed on July 27th of 2006. The owner or person in charge was given the Notice of Violation on September 12th of 2006. The violation was to have been corrected by October 13th of 2006. The reinspection was done on November 1 st (sic) of 2006 and at that time the violation remains. At this time I'd like to offer this packet into evidence as Exhibit Page 3 1 January 25, 2007 A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correction, Patti, it's November 21 st. MS. PETRULLI: November 21st, yes, I'm sorry. I'd like to offer the packet into evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion to accept the county's packet A? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept county's packet A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: And at this time I'd like for the investigator, Kitchell Snow to take over. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Let me start by saying that today we're here, I checked the violation on Monday, the violation is abated. The sign has been removed. There were a few extenuating circumstances involved with this case. There were variance applications submitted, withdrawn, submitted, withdrawn. The reason we're here today is because it wasn't moving along the way we wanted it to. And I think there was some confusion on the owners of the property, exactly how they wanted to progress, what they wanted. So that's the reason that we Page 32 January 25, 2007 were brought forth today. But the violation is abated. The county requests operational costs of $388.72. And again, the violation is abated. It doesn't exist anymore. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Your name, please? MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon. I'm Chris Thornton with the law firm Treiser, Collins & Vernon, attorney for Germain Properties of Columbus, Inc. This matter has to do with -- there's a portion of the Land Development Code that imposes the requirement to have a corner feature at the corner of arterial and collector roads. Well, there was this large wall that was included as part of the site development plans for the Germain's Lexus facility at Wiggins and 41. The SDP plans, I believe, included that architectural embellishment that was required at the corner. And those plans did include lettering on the wall. The site development plan was approved that way but a sign permit apparently was never obtained. Because it's an architectural feature, it has a different setback than a sign. So the Germains needed to decide what they wanted to do. They would like to have either lettering on the wall or to not have the wall there, because the wall blocks the view of the merchandise. So rather than fight it or dispute it, the lettering has been removed. The Germains will basically regroup and either leave it as it is, if it's permitted that way on their site development plan. They may eventually ask for a variance to put the lettering back up, or they may apply for a site improvement plan to change the architectural feature at that corner so that there's not a wall blocking the merchandise that doesn't have any lettering on it. But they chose to come into compliance, and we ask for your consideration of that fact. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you know when they came into compliance? Page 33 January 25, 2007 MR. THORNTON: I don't know the exact date. MR. SNOW: 19th, ma'am. The 19th was the first when it was witnessed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The 19th. MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. That was after a variance meeting that we did have, that we did attend. And again, there was some confusion on their part about how they wanted to progress, whether they wanted a variance or they wanted to have another type of architectural structure built. And I think that's where we are, and I think that's why they abated the violation, because they weren't sure about what they wanted to do. MR. KELLY: Investigator Snow, was the wall painted and all the shadowing put on the letters? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. It was -- I investigated actually twice. I went out again this morning to take a look. All the shadowing, everything's gone. It's been painted. It looks pretty good. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, then I'll close the public hearing. Hear a finding of fact? MR. DEAN: I make a motion that a violation did exist. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. Page 34 January 25, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looking for a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Just a point of discussion. Looks like we're just here to impose the operational costs at this point? Because we don't have any -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to put that into a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we impose the operational costs as reported by the county. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, gentlemen. That brings up the next case, which is the Board of County Commissioners versus Bill Gray's, Inc. That case is Case No. CEB 2007-09. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli. I'd like to ask if the respondent or representative is present? MS. CORBETT: Yes. MS. PETRULLI: Show that they are present. At this time I'd like to ask that the packet that the Collier County Page 35 January 25, 2007 sent out to the respondent be entered in as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PETRULLI: This is a violation of Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.2.A, 10.02.06.B.2.D.I.X. The description of the violation is a change of the existing sign without the proper county permits. The location where the violation exists is 3906 North Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The name and address of the owner or person in charge of the violation location is Bill Gray's, Inc., 3906 Tamiami Trail, North. Folio No. 22770040006. The date the violation was first observed was August 31 st, of 2006. The date the person or owner in charge was given a Notice of Violation was September 25th of 2006. The violation was to have been corrected by October 27th of 2006. A reinspection was done on the property November 17th of 2006. And at that time the sign still remains, no change or permits issued. At this time I would like to ask that the investigator take over the Page 36 January 25, 2007 case, Mr. Kitchell Snow. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Prior to that, Cherie', could you please swear in both. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Good morning. This is a case involving Kentucky Fried Kitchen downtown. There is a stipulation right now being prepared. I believe we're still going to do that. MS. ARNOLD: Since there is a stipulation, what we're just going to have Kitchell do is note for the record what the agreement is between the two parties. And as soon as we get a copy back, we'll provide it to the board. But I think they're wanting to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to take a recess to get that done? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's being typed up right now. We figure that it's going to be brought in. It's up to the respondent if they want to wait until it's written and brought in. MS. CORBETT: I've seen the handwritten version. MR. SNOW: It will be the same thing, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: But it actually needs to be signed. MR. SNOW: It will be-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's about time for Cherie' to take a break, too. THE COURT REPORTER: That's fine. May I have your name, please? MS. CORBETT: Yes, I'll just spell it for you. K-A-M-I, Corbett, c-o- R - B- E- T - T. And I'm with the law firm of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes and Holt. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll go ahead and take a 10-minute break and be back at ten after. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'd like to go ahead and call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Page 37 January 25, 2007 Okay, is everybody ready? Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW: We do have a signed stipulation agreement here. Let me read it for you. And I will read it slowly. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $372.64 incurred in the prosecution of this case; abate the violation by: Submitting an application sign permit within 30 days of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day we will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Obtain all inspections and final certificates of completion within 60 days of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Respondent must notify code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site visit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. And that is agreed upon? MS. CORBETT: I guess just one point of clarification. Is it 60 days from the date of the hearing or 60 days from the date of the permit application? MR. SNOW: Sixty days from the date of the permit application. MS. CORBETT: Okay. Because you said the hearing date. MR. SNOW: I'm sorry. Let's re-read that again. Obtain inspections of final certificate of completion within 60 days of the sign application. It does say hearing, but we will amend that. Of the hearing date, once the application is submitted. MS. CORBETT: Okay, thank you. MR. KELLY: If I may, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KELLY: If it takes longer than 60 days for the permit to be approved, you've then gone past your deadline. Would you rather restate that to the sign permit approval? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, I think that's probably a good recommendation. And that is some concern, since we're dealing with Page 38 January 25, 2007 a corporate entity. This is not normally the time that we give for -- this is -- normally when you make initial contact you have 30 to get a permit and 60 days to get a certificate of completion. This is a corporate entity and I feel maybe a little bit more time was granted or due on this one. And again, we would not normally do that. So I think probably once the application is submitted, I've already discussed with them, if it runs over a little bit and they have delays beyond their control, I think leniency is fine with the county, as far as our position is concerned. I don't see any reason to change that. I wouldn't recommend it. And I think we can probably -- the county can take that on a case-by-case basis on exactly what happens. MS. CORBETT: Yes, we appreciate the thought. But we were, you know, going forth with good faith that if there's something on the county end, that they are not able to approve the application in a timely matter, that they'd be willing to extend the time frame. This assumes that -- this is based on the assumption that when the application is made that it will be turned around fairly quickly. It's my understanding in Collier County that they are turned around pretty quickly, and that's our experience. We had actually submitted for a permit, but were told that day that what we had submitted was not acceptable. So we feel confident we'll know that pretty quickly and we're comfortable with the time frames. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to ask Michelle, because I'm uncomfortable. Because if we put into our order that it's going to happen 60 days, you're going to start getting fined after that date. The county can't change that order without us having to have you come back for reduction of fines, et cetera. So if we were to put in there that the certificate of completion within 60 days after the permit approval, then we don't have that Page 39 January 25, 2007 problem. MS. CORBETT: That was actually a question I had asked at the break as to whether or not the county had the authority to grant us the additional time when this board entered an order, and I was told they did. So if they don't, and I'm hearing that they don't, then -- MR. KELLY: It might have been a misunderstanding. But once the order is in, then you're going to get fined. You can come back in front of the board and ask us to abate those fines and further extend it. But that would be more time on your part and another case in front of the board. And it might be best just to put it in the stipulation now. MS. CORBETT: That would be perfectly fine with us. It was my understanding from staff that before any fines would be levied, there'd have to be an order from this board imposing fines. So that if we -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But that would be directed by what we do today. MR. SNOW: Ma'am, why don't we just extend that to 90 days and see if there's any problem. I don't really have a problem with that. I think they're going to be compliant. Thirty days to obtain the permit and 90 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, you won't need an extension of 90 days if you say after the permit has been approved. Then they have 60 days. MR. SNOW: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because the problem is getting the permit approved might be where you have your delay. MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, could be. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Once they have the permit is hand, then they have 60 days to get it -- MR. SNOW: Okay, that's agreeable. MS. CORBETT: Yes, that's acceptable. Page 40 January 25, 2007 MS. RAWSON: On the stip, you should probably scratch out this hearing and put permit and initial it on the original. MS. CORBETT: Yes. Who has the original? There are several originals floating around. MR. SNOW: There's three. We'll take care of that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I did it on this one. MS. CORBETT: We need to initial that, though. MR. SNOW: Sure. MS. CORBETT: Good, thanks. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, this one's not even signed. MS. ARNOLD: Here, I have a signed one. I'll have you initial it. I'll change it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In that case then, do I hear a motion from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. CORBETT: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's going to conclude our hearings. We're going to move into old business, and that is a reduction of fines. And the first case is Board of Collier County Commissioners Page 41 January 25, 2007 versus Robert Chipman. And that's CEB 2006-06. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this particular case was heard by the board on February 23rd, 2006 at which time the board did enter into a finding of facts and conclusion of law. And that is provided to you as a part of your packet. The respondent was ordered to come into compliance by April 24th. Actually, you've already imposed fines, and the fines are accruing on this particular one. The respondent is here to request a reduction of the fines that were previously imposed and are accruing. Compliance was obtained by the respondent on June 28th of 2006. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Cherie', would you like to swear them in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ms. Sykora, I guess we'll go with you, first. MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement field supervisor. This case actually began with me, but it ended up going to I believe two other investigators after I left that territory. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We don't need to be-- MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to interrupt. Yeah, what we actually need to do is hear from the respondent, because the respondent's the one requesting a reduction of fines, not staff. And then we'll -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was just going to say, if she had any comments, but I'm sorry. MS. SYKORA: May I comment after the respondents? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, sure. Yes, Mr. Chipman? MR. CHIPMAN: Several things. The meeting that you had that Page 42 January 25, 2007 imposed the stipulations of the time frame and the fine, I never did receive a notice. My past history, I'm down on Plantation Island in Everglades City. I don't know whether you've dealt with people down on Plantation, but as you know, a majority of the things, the history down there is that we're not permitted. And I had a vengeful neighbor that started on me back in early 2000. And I have been before the board several times. I've always done and completed any violations that I had, took care of them in a timely manner and was never fined. And so when this meeting came about, as I say, I wasn't notified, I was in Alabama. The code enforcement knew I was in Alabama, but for some reason I didn't get notified. And then I was supposed to have had a representative here when you imposed the $6,000 fine. And I got a call from the party that was supposed to be here and said, well, I'm sorry, I didn't make it. And I emphasized that somebody had to be here to represent me and go over the time frames and the permit applications. So these things happened, but it was so important that I have come down from Alabama to try to take care of this. In my packet, if you will-- I guess you have it, hopefully, because I put it all together yesterday. Start on the first -- or the first four pages are not important, but if you'll start on the fifth page, you can sort of -- now, I would like you to realize that we're dealing with my home that I live in at the time, my only home down in Everglades City. So this is what we're dealing with. The first permit and the first thing I was turned in for was an apartment that was built under this home. This home was on stilts, it was the home of the original developer down there in 1959. So it was built and established in '59. And the septic system was put in in 1959. So I had put a wall around the lower part of the home to make it look nicer, and I did build a little one-bedroom apartment under it so if Page 43 January 25, 2007 I had company, they could stay in it. Because this was a small one-bedroom mobile home up on stilts. Anyway, I was turned in for the apartment, as you see. I got a demolition permit. And within a matter of just four months the apartment was gone and it was inspected. The next page shows that it was completed. The following one is a permit to have the existing walls that I built downstairs approved. So I got a permit for that. I had an engineer come out, draw up the plans. They were submitted to the county. The county came out. If you will turn to the next one. The -- well, there's another one applied for in between. But that one is approved. I think it's the next one up. But anyway, then I was turned in for a room that was added on to the side of this little one-bedroom mobile home. Originally when I bought it, it had a deck all the way along there. And I enclosed it back in 1989, I think. Anyway, it was not permitted. So I applied for an application to get this room permitted. And I had to get an engineer to draw up the plans, which he did. Submitted the plans and -- anyway, I was not getting anywhere with the county over this, and we had a meeting. Mrs. Sykora and Wanda from the permitting department and a gentleman from the building department. I met with these three individuals here at the county. We probably met for about an hour. And they finally came up with -- the gentleman from planning said, have you had an engineer out there? I said, oh, yeah, I've had one out there a couple of times. And he told me that I could apply for a permit by affidavit. And if the engineer filled that out, submitted it, they would give me the permit for the room and not even go inspect it, that it would fall back on the engineer. Anything that might happen or was wrong, the county would not even be responsible. They wouldn't even come out Page 44 January 25, 2007 and inspect it. So I said, wonderful. Got the papers. My engineer filled them all out -- I had gone back to Alabama -- and submitted them to the county. And I thought we would bring those papers over, give them to the county like they told me. They said, we will give you the permit if the engineer does this. And my not being here, the application, the papers did not get to the right person. And they started passing this application around to all the different agencies in the county, and it got to the health department and they weren't going to approve my septic system that was put in there, the original home, the original development. Oh, you're not allowed to have a septic tank there. And so I was very, very frustrated. In fact, Carol went with me to meet the gentleman in the health department. And it wasn't a very good meeting. And anyway, when I left, I thought, you know, I will never get anyplace with the health department. I'm just dead in the water. And they were insisting that I do something, the county. So I went and bought a demolition permit. You have one year to demolition. We're dealing with my house now. And after a couple of months I kept thinking, you know, this is just terrible, a man having to tear his house down over a permit. And so I came back, went and sat down with the gentleman in the health department again. This time it was an altogether different situation. He forgot our first meeting. And he said, well, you could apply for a variance. On this septic tank, now. See, my lot is narrow and on the water on one side and a neighbor here. And the little mobile home is in the middle. So you couldn't put the septic tank beside the water and you can't put it against your neighbor. So the only place to put it when this development was made was under the mobile home. All of them -- not all of them, but a lot of them are like that. Page 45 January 25, 2007 And I would have thought it would just be grandfathered in. He said, there's no way I can help you. I said yes, there is. Sign this little thing, my permit will go through, I'll get my permit and it will be all over. But oh, no, he would not do that. And so I started the process of trying to apply for a variance on a 50-year-old septic tank. And the first thing I did was -- and you can see, I included it toward the back -- was get a septic tank company from Naples. And this took a while. Nobody likes to go down to Everglades City. I mean, it's 30 miles down there and a lot of mosquitoes. But I finally got one down there, and for $475 he pumped this tank out and said it was usable again. See, I thought I -- I had to find out. Because if I went for this variance and then they pumped it out and it wasn't usable, then I was dead in the water there. So I wanted to go ahead and make sure the septic tank was usable, or up to code, I should say. And it was. And so I'm in the process of trying to get this variance. So I had applied for the demolition, I went and applied for another building permit. Because I could get the building permit approved if I got the variance. So I'm in the process of trying to get the variance when code enforcement brought me before this board. I still had an active building permit. I was told yesterday I had six months to get the permit from the time I applied for it. And I'm still within the six months period when I was brought before this board. In my mind, I don't even see how that's legal. I still have an active building permit, I'm trying to get a variance, and I was brought before you people. And so basically that's why I'm here today, because you've imposed these rulings on me. And finally basically I was told by my realtor -- I'm trying to sell out now; there's no way I can live down there anymore -- that the county people told her that there's no way they're going to give me a permit. So they're wanting me to tear it Page 46 January 25,2007 down. And so I had to apply for another demolition permit. This is my second one now. And so the county tells me, well, we're not going to give you that demolition permit until you close out your active building permit application. So right there they're saying that you still had an active application, because we can't give you a demolition permit until you close it out. They faxed it up to me. I had to sign papers closing out my active building permit application. And then they gave me -- well, you had imposed a time limit on me and the fines. So I don't know how all that fell in. But anyway, it took us a while. They insisted that I have a licensed contractor tear it down. I had done some other demolition, and they let me do it myself. But they said it had to be done by a contractor. So finding a contractor to come down there to Everglades City to demolition your home is a little difficult. But anyway, one did it. And the papers are in the back here, including -- it cost me $10,000 to get it torn down. And then I get notified that I'm being fined $6,000 for tearing it down. So that's why I'm here. I need help. It's a little late now. I mean, my home is gone. And -- but I feel I was forced to buy this demolition permit when I still had time to legally get the variance. And I feel they ignored that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. CHIPMAN: I lost three other rental structures on this property prior to this. Basically that's why I finally left. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I actually remember you coming in front of us. MR. CHIPMAN: Were you there? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was still here. MR. CHIPMAN: I didn't realize you'd still be on the board, you know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I wasn't the chair at the time, but Page 47 January 25,2007 I do remember. MR. CHIPMAN : Yeah, I lost a mobile home. I gave these away, because they were old. I had a beautiful houseboat set up on my property that I made a rental out of. County Commissioner came to my property, we had a fish fry, and commented on the houseboat. He did ask somebody if somebody was living in it. But, you know, the county commissioner didn't even say anything about it. But anyway, it turned into a disaster out there. I had no idea or no plans of selling out. I just retired, sold my home in central Florida, moved down there. Thought I had four rentals to supplement my retirement income and I lost all four of them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I wanted to ask Carol if she had any comment. MS. SYKORA: Most of what the respondent said is basically true as far as all of the problems that he was having. I went with him to the health department. They wanted him to upgrade the septic system to be larger to accommodate the square footage. At that period in time, the Plantation Island was considering trying to get city sewer from Everglades City. So that's I believe why he was hesitant to put that much money into a septic system and then not be able to use it because of the city sewer system coming in. There was some delays. Like I said, I had this case initially. It went to two other investigators after me, so I really can't speak for that time period of why it was brought to CEB if he had an active permit. But county has no problem with a reduction of fines at all. Maybe just operational costs be paid and fines be totally reduced. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Do we have any comments or questions from from the board? MR. DeWITTE: I would make a motion that we do in fact remove the fines of $6,500 and just impose the operational costs of $671.31. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? Page 48 January 25, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which one of you? All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you understand, Mr. Chipman, the only thing you have to -- MR. CHIPMAN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- cover is the operational costs? MR. CHIPMAN: And I thank the board. I appreciate it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you for your due diligence. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Move to the next request for reduction of fines, and that's the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Christopher and Cristina Gomory. Is that close? If you're present, if you'd like to come forward, please. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on April 27th, and you've all imposed fines I believe on May 9th of 2006. The total fine amount is $4,622.06. They have paid $458.90, leaving an outstanding balance of $222.06 for operational costs. MR. DeWITTE: May I ask a question? Was that a partial payment, or was that a previous operational cost that more is incurred? MR. GOMORY: It was previous. It was the previous at the Page 49 January 25, 2007 stipulation date. MR. DeWITTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Cherie', would you like to swear him in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, is there an investigator from the county here? MS. ARNOLD: The investigator is no longer with the department at this time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So we're going to have to rely on you if we have any questions. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Gomory? MR. GOMORY: As I set forth in the package before you, mine is a little simpler, and I'm not going to go back and go through all the dates and permits and so forth. But I did, on April 27th, 2006 sign a stipulation agreement before the board hearing with Ms. Petrulli and Heather Grimshaw. At that time they had had the six months time in there and I thought it would be fine. Probably three or four months into it, because of some financial situations, I knew I wasn't going to have enough funds, and I tried to get enough money together to try to see if I could C.O. it. Wasn't able to do it. Contacted Ms. Petrulli, said, what can I do, what can I do? And she said, basically there's nothing you can do. It has to go through the process and then you have to go back to where I'm at today for abatement before the board. She did say to try to C.O. it. If you could try to C.O. it before the hearing date of imposition of fines. I borrowed some money from a relative, tried to get it C.O.'d by that time, or that date. Was unable to do that because of the second Page 50 January 25, 2007 part that I put in my letter here that the county said because I had another permit outstanding on the property for something on the other side of the house, that they wouldn't -- they couldn't C.O. it until that permit was closed up because it was something related to the exterior of the property. And so at that time I just talked to Patti and she said just wait and come to this hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: This particular case was related to building permits not applied for or doing work without the appropriate permit. Mr. Gomory is a builder, and I think at the time of the hearing the board felt that he should have known a little bit better than to have done things without getting the appropriate permits. MR. GOMORY: Well, in response to that, you know, again, I didn't want to bring up every detail of this, because I had already forwarded this to the board and they had all the packages and so forth. But this is -- the issue here originally was I rough framed in a large shed on the side of my house, which means rough frame. Two-by-fours, plywood on the outside and some Peel-N-Stick roof underlayment. Then proceeded with the drawings and so forth, because I had equipment that I had to store that was being vacated out of another facility. So I had no time to store it anywhere else. So that's what I did. And ran into a hurricane, trying to get the drawings from an architect. Permitting was also really bad at this time because of the hurricane and so forth. And so that's where we came to the board hearing where they agreed on the stipulation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just have a question, though. But as a builder, don't you know before you rough something in you have to have a permit before you start? MR. GOMORY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Yes? MR. KLATZKOW: Only because the investigator is not here. Page 51 January 25, 2007 Sir, has the violation been abated? MR. GOMORY: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. GOMORY: Yes, it has. I think it was October 14th that they finally gave me the C.O., after the -- it was right after -- I think it was October 14th. But right after the -- the engineering department here realized that there was a glitch in the system with that exterior, exterior inspection that they wouldn't sign off. And so they just -- they took those inspections and applied them to the other permit, and then they closed out the permit and C.O.'d it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We do have in our packet that it has been complied with as of October 25th. MS. PETRULLI: If I may address the board. I think where the confusion came in is Mr. Gomory's permit that he did have, that was for a Ted's Shed type shed installation of a shed. And when the investigator went out to the address, she was perplexed because she was looking for a Ted's Shed and what she saw was a major addition onto the home. So that's where I think the confusion came in, where you had to change -- the building department had to issue a permit to Mr. Gomory to show that it was an addition, not a Ted's Shed. MR. GOMORY: Well, when I -- the building department had the addition plans showing exactly what I built. There wasn't any like have a Ted's Shed and then bait and switch and build something. I submitted the plans, they called it -- basically that's what it is, it's a shed. That's all that's storage in there, there are old doors, old windows, so forth. So it is larger than the, quote, shed I guess square footage that the county terms. So there was never any confusion as to what was being built. It was what was permitted. And then there was always a confusion by the inspectors and everybody from the county would come out and say, well, this isn't a shed. And I said, I didn't do that. The county put what it is. When Page 52 January 25,2007 they logged in the system, they said what it is. It is what the plans say it is that we're building. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board members? MR. KELLY: You said that it has been complied with? MR. GOMORY: Yes. MR. KELLY: Where in the paperwork is the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There's a tab sheet. On the very front under recommendations. MR. KELLY: And now we're asking -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's asking to reduce the fine of 4,400. MR. KELLY: Because you said it was finalized on the 14th, yet the fines run to the 24th. MR. GOMORY: Well, correct. That's what -- there was no way they were going to C.O. the property because of that other permit I had on the sign. I said, well, that doesn't make sense. How can I -- they say the clock's ticking, they're adding fines, so what am I supposed to do? And that's when the head of the engineering department finally said, well, I'll look into it and see. Then he finally decided, okay, I'll just move those to the other permit so that we can C.O. it. Because the property, I had all the final inspections so we could get C.O.'d October 13th. October 12th was the date. MR. KELLY: That's $1,000 less just in those few days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That would be 11 days at $100, so that would be $1,100. So that would be 3,300. MR. GOMORY: Well, what I also would like to add is that when I signed the stipulation agreement, I had a permit. You know, at the time of the hearing I had a permit. And I had had the permit from March, like one month before the hearing. And I didn't do anything, because I didn't know what was going to happen at the hearing. So Page 53 January 25,2007 when we came to the hearing -- again, as you were talking to in a few earlier cases about make sure you know what's in the stipulation. It says this. That's what's in there. And don't assume that you're going to be able to extend it easily. That's what I did. I assumed that it wasn't a necessary issue if I was diligently working on it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think we're realizing that in our past orders we were making a few things too tight. Sometimes people ran into problems. And now we're looking at how we're wording our agreements so that we give them time to get the permits all in order, and then "X" amount of days to complete it after they've received the permits. And I think we've done that in this particular case. So I'm looking for some direction from the board. MR. PONTE: My feeling is that the respondent is in compliance. It's the responsibility -- we're challenging this board to bring violations into compliance. He was very willing, signed the stipulation agreement. He's done a lot to come into compliance and now he is. I don't think we should penalize him any further. Seems to me in this case the imposition of operational costs should be it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other feelings, comments? Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: The delays remain a confusion, and that could have easily taken the 30 days that he went over. I don't see why we should impose the fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would someone like to make that in the form of amotion? MR. PONTE: I'll make that motion, that the fining mechanism, or the penalty, rather, be limited to the payment of the operational costs. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 54 January 25, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MR. GOMORY: I agree to pay the operational costs. MS. RAWSON: Just one question. That's only the 222.06 that's remaining? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's the remaining balance. MR. GOMORY: And will I get a letter to that effect so that I can remit a check for that? MS. RAWSON: You'll get an order. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You'll get an order. MR. GOMORY: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're welcome. With that -- are you okay, Cherie'? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll move to request for imposition of fines and liens. Looks like we'll start with Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Douglas White. Michelle, you want to take over? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Actually, is it Douglas White or is it Glen McGee? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You said we were throwing that one out. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, that's right. Okay, this particular case was heard by the board on January 27th, 2005. The order that was entered in by the board is attached to Page 55 January 25, 2007 your executive summary. A violation was found at that particular time and the respondent was ordered to come into compliance by December 4th -- actually, by May 27th, 2005. So at this time we're requesting fines in the amount of 55,500 be imposed for the period between May 27th, 2005 and December 4th, 2006, which is a total of 537 days, at a rate of $100 per day. Additionally, there are operational costs in the amount of $1,986.31. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And it's still accruing? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. Because it's in noncompliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: 537 times $100 doesn't equal 55,000. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know what -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Maybe operational cost's added to it? MS. ARNOLD: It should be 53,700. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: So the total is $54,986.31. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next one, Board of Collier Page 56 January 25, 2007 County Commissioners versus David and Lucy Woodworth. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on May 26th, 2005. A violation was found. And your order is attached to the executive summary. This case -- or the violation was complied with on July 24th, 2005. Actually, seeing that it was complied with, I don't know why we're having fines accrued between July 24th. Let me look at the order here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: July 24th is when it needed to be complied with. MR. KLATZKOW: July 28th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, the reinspection was performed on the 28th instead of the 24th. So the complied by date was the 28th instead of the 24th. And so there is four days of fines for a total of $400, and operational costs of $988.05. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I ask a question? Do we know when the inspection was called for? Because it's such a small time frame. MS. ARNOLD: Well, quite -- I don't know whether or not the inspector got called or he just went out to do inspections. Most of the times the respondents don't call us, even though we ask them to call us to let us know that something is in compliance. So the only time that we are aware that it was actually in compliance and there's no dispute is -- otherwise was the date that the inspector went out. I'm being told that the investigator got a call on the 28th, and so he went out on the 28th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. Page 57 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next one would be Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Daisy Arrazcaeta. MS. ARNOLD: On March 23rd, 2006 the board heard this case and found a violation. The order is attached for your review. Compliance was obtained on November 20th. And they had until May 31 st to comply. So there are fines in the amount of $1 7,300 being requested for imposition in addition to $272.96 for operational costs. MR. KLATZKOW: I'd just like to note that compliance should have commenced June 1 st. Just reading the order. Paragraph two, Page 2 of the order states $100 per day -- MS. ARNOLD: So then we would strike $100 off of that. So it would be 1 7,200. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And operational costs have been paid, correct? MS. ARNOLD: The operational costs have been paid. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So the imposition that we would be imposing is for $1 7,200 for the amount of the fine. MR. KELLY: Do we know if the respondent had demolished the addition, or did they get the permits and complete it? MS. ARNOLD: There is a permit attached. I don't know. Page 58 January 25, 2007 MR. KELLY: Just says corrective action. The reason I'm asking is because in the order we had set a time frame which extended until May 31 st, but it included obtaining building permits, if obtainable, and all required inspections, including the certificate of occupancy. I'm wondering if there was any delays in receiving the permit, which caused this to go over the time frame allotted. We've learned since, and you can tell in today's orders, that we're trying to extend that time to where it starts after obtaining the actual permit. I was wondering if that was the case here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Couldn't they come back and ask for a reduction once they get this notice? MR. KELLY: Okay, very good. MS. ARNOLD: The investigator for that particular case is here, so if you want to ask him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. BONO: Good morning. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BONO: Mario Bono. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, sir, I think Mr. Kelly had a question as to -- MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. I was just curious to know if it was demolished or if they did obtain the building permits and finish the addition. MR. BONO: According to my notes here, they obtained the building permits. There were plans submitted and the plans were accepted by the county. MR. KELLY: Sheri, I agree with you. If they wanted a reduction, they'd either be here or they could come to us later. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. DEAN: I second. Page 59 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Victor George. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this particular case was heard on June 22nd,2006. I believe the respondent is present. And at that time a violation was found. And the respondent is in compliance as of July 20th, 2006. Operation costs are $302 (sic) and the fine is a total of $400 from the period of July 12th, 2006 through July 20th. We could probably knock one day off of that because of the day that we actually went out there, assuming that they were in compliance the day before. So it could be 350. MR. KLA TZKOW: And Michelle, just for the record, what date did they call in? MS. ARNOLD: The investigator is here, and you can ask him that question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could we have them both sworn in, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. YBACETA: For the record, my name is Eddie Ybaceta. Y-B-A-C-E-T-A. What was the question? MR. KLATZKOW: The question was when did the violator Page 60 January 25, 2007 gave you a call asking for the reinspection? MR. YBACET A: I spoke to him on the 20th. And I did the inspection on the 20th. I would like to point out that on the date prior to the hearing I had' met with Mr. George, and he did sign the stipulation agreement. He had also showed me the registration for the trailers that were in violation. The date for -- on the stipulation for me to go check was on the 12th, but I could not gain access on the 12th because the property was posted no trespassing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If I'm remembering this case right, he had the motor home that he was occupying, and he also had some other vehicles that he was storing on the property that did not necessarily belong to him? MR. YBACET A: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. George? MR. GEORGE: Yeah, as they were saying, when I did meet with Eddie, I showed him the registrations. Because if you recall, I was going to be going out of town on an event. I postponed it to come to the hearing. We came to an agreement. I paid 300 and some do lIars. And Eddie -- I called Eddie, I said I'm leaving the next day. I says, do you want to meet up with me? I says, I'll show you the vehicle registrations that I have current tags. We met, I think at the corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara. Probably around 5:30, 6:00 that evening. Showed him the registration. He said, you're fine, go enjoy your event. I came back. He called me. He said, I just need to just walk on your property to make sure you are in violation. I said, no problem, just give me the date and time. I met with him. We talked, discussed. He said, thank you, have a nice day, you're in compliance. Page 61 January 25, 2007 Back in December I got a notification that I was in violation for fines. Never was notified that I was being fined. And this is where I'm at. I'd like to have the fines abated because I was in violation (sic). CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have one question. You said you paid the $300 of operational costs? MR. GEORGE: Yes, I did. MS. ARNOLD: Staff has no record of that. We've asked him to provide us a copy of the canceled check. MR. GEORGE: Oh, I'll be glad to get you a copy of the canceled check. That's no problem. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that would mean, if that is the case, we would be looking at $350.02, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Well-- MR. GEORGE: No, I paid the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: $350.00, right? MR. GEORGE: Right, I'd like to have the fines dropped. MS. ARNOLD: The fines would be 350. MR. GEORGE: But like I said, I was in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you notice what date the vehicle was actually registered? Do you remember that date? MR. YBACET A: The-- MR. GEORGE: It was in the business name, and it's in December. MR. YBACET A: I do remember that it was registered. MR. GEORGE: It was before that date and -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. George, you have to have him speak and then wait your turn. MR. GEORGE: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. YBACET A: I had the registrations in hand and I did check that date, yes. For the life of me, I can't -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The question I have, was it prior to our order Page 62 January 25, 2007 or after the order? MR. YBACET A: It was a couple of days prior. I think it was the day prior, if I remember right. Because he did have it in his hand already, and they did not -- they don't issue that until you go do get it right there. Do they not? MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm saying, that would be a definitive date of when he actually came into compliance. That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. KELLY: Investigator, there's a few items on our original order. Which one is he actually being fined for? MR. YBACET A: The unlicensed vehicles. MR. KELLY: And you admitted that he was in compliance, so -- MR. YBACET A: It appeared to me that he did have the registration, which means that he did have a tag for it. I just couldn't prove it on the 12th because I couldn't get access. MS. ARNOLD: Were they affixed to the vehicle when you saw them? MR. YBACET A: On the 25th, yes. I also took pictures. They are in the case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. George, you said you had those registrations by December 12th. MR. GEORGE: On some of -- the commercial stuff is done on your -- on commercial is done in December, and some is done in June. It just depends how it falls. But I know, I pointed out the date to him and said here's the date. So I didn't just do it after the fact when I was gone before I was gone. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we abate the $350 fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, are we -- we just don't make a motion to oppose it, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, you make a motion to impose whatever the amount is that you want to impose. Page 63 January 25, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Zero. And provide proof that you did pay the operational costs in the amount of $300.02. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I'd request that the board impose the operational costs, because we invested that a few weeks ago. We have hadn't received it. If it's paid then we don't record it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What if we looked at making this that we impose the operational costs, and if he can prove that he has paid it, then that should settle it. MR. LEFEBVRE: That sounds sufficient. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to amend your motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. GEORGE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next case would be case Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Bruce Assam. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on June 22nd, 2006. A violation was found, and the respondent had until July 26th, 2006 to comply with the board's order. A reinspection was performed on December 4th, and at that time Page 64 January 25, 2007 -- actually, December 5th is what the affidavit indicates. And at that time violation was still in place. Our operational costs are in the amount of $406.05. And fines are accruing at a rate of $150 per day for the period between July 26th through December 5th. And I'm assuming the calculation's correct, a total amount is $19,650. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Am I correct the date should be the 27th of July? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, 27th of December -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So that totals -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm assuming they calculate it to the 4th, which should have been the 5th. MR. KLATZKOW: Is it still not in compliance? MS. ARNOLD: It's still not. MR. KLATZKOW: Then it doesn't really matter. It's still $150 a day starting with 7/27. So whenever they come into compliance, that will be fine. You don't need to find a fine certain at this time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion to impose this fine? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to impose the fine as submitted here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 65 January 25, 2007 (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next case will be the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Cloe Waterfield. MS. ARNOLD: This particular case was heard by the board August 24th, 2006, and an order was entered into and is attached for your reVIew. This case is in compliance and they complied with the board's order, so we're only requesting operational costs in the amount of $478.45 be imposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion. 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. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next case will be Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Dalila Grimaldo. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on July 27th, 2006. A violation was found and an order was entered into. The respondent was given until September 25th to obtain a permit. And there was also an option of removing the building by August 3rd. But the fines started accruing from the September 25th date and continue to accrue because a violation has yet to be complied with. Operational costs are $633.22. And the fines that we're asking to Page 66 January 25, 2007 impose today are from September 26th, 2006 through December 5th, 2006 for a total of$14,833.22. MR. KLATZKOW: Again, are we in compliance at this point? MS. ARNOLD: Not in compliance. MR. KEEGAN: They are in compliance. As of January 12th, 2007. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the investigator is telling us now that they are in compliance. MR. KEEGAN: I have it that the affidavit was done and-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: As of January 12th. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: January. So it's another -- MR. KLA TZKOW: So it starts -- actually the fines started accruing September 26th. MS. ARNOLD: Right. That's what I said. MR. KLATZKOW: Do we have a number of days here? MS. ARNOLD: We'd have to add on from the 5th through January 12th. MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. MR. DeWITTE: I was just doing the math. I came up with 108. MR. KRAENBRING: I come up with the same. MR. LEFEBVRE: I come up with 107. And the reason being, it starts on the 26th of September, not the 25th. MR. DeWITTE: I had 70 days through the 5th. I had another 26 days in September, the 6th through the 31 st. And then I had 12 days In -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, 108. MR. DEAN: 108. MS. ARNOLD: That's-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Eight times 200. MR. KRAENBRING: That's a lot. MR. KRAENBRING: 23,6. Page 67 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 23,6. MR. KRAENBRING: $23,600. And the operational costs of $633.22. MR. DeWITTE: I don't get 23,000. MR. DEAN: I get 216,000. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sixteen, that's -- MS. ARNOLD: That's what I got, too. MR. KRAENBRING: 21,600. MS. ARNOLD: It's 21,600. We'll check our math with a calculator as soon as -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's 216 plus $633.22. MR. KRAENBRING: I didn't add the 14, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Is it 216 or 21 -- MR. KELLY: 21,600. MS. ARNOLD: So for the record, we're requesting the fines in the amount of21,600 be imposed in addition to the $633.22 for costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear-- MR. KELLY: If I may, Madam Chair, that 21,600, I appreciate the gravity of the situation, but our idea is to try to get the respondent into compliance, and they are. $21,000 for any home in Immokalee is probably a lot of money. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They still have the right once they receive this to come back in front of us and ask for a reduction. MS. ARNOLD: Ijust want to let the board know that we give notice to this meeting, so they have an opportunity. And you see there's other respondents that show up as part of the imposition of fine portion. So they have the opportunity to also attend these meetings to actually tell you all why the fines should be other than it is. MR. KEEGAN: I also advised the owner of that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And let me ask Jean this: When we send out this lien to them, isn't it noted on there that they have "X" amount of days to ask for a reduction of fines? Page 68 January 25, 2007 MS. RAWSON: It says they have 30 days to appeal. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: I think the due process that we've been following is that they come back and ask for reduction of fines and present their case at that time. MR. DeWITTE: They have that opportunity, correct. So I would make a motion that we impose the operational costs and fines as stated. MR. KRAENBRING: I second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is the Board of Collier County Commissioners verse Calexico, Inc. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on July 27th, 2006. An order was entered into and the respondent has complied. The affidavit of compliance submitted by the investigator noted that a reinspection was performed on September 25th. The investigator is in the room, so if you have any questions. Fines accrued between the time period of September 24th through September 25th. Which is $500. And operational costs in the amount of $782.78 also outstanding. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So the amount that's on the paper is incorrect? MS. ARNOLD: Right. It should be 500 for fines and $782.78 Page 69 January 25, 2007 for costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 1,282 total. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Carol, I have a question. May I have you sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record again, my name is Carol Sykora. S-Y-K-O-R-A. Code enforcement field supervisor. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: My question for you is were you called in regards to this reinspection? MS. SYKORA: Yes. The point that I believe that there shouldn't be any fines due, because the date for reinspection was set for Saturday, so therefore I did it on Monday, not thinking I put down Monday's date. Because that's the date I checked it. But it was in compliance. I've been working -- I was working also with the deputies on this particular location, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This was that -- MS. SYKORA: It was the boarding house. They did come in compliance on time, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The only thing would be the operational costs. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we impose the operational costs and not impose the fines. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 70 January 25,2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, Carol, I'm not sure, but I believe this next case is also in regards to the same items. Is it a different officer? Okay. It's still Calexico. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard also on August 24th, 2006, and an order was entered into. And also a stipulation was signed between the respondents and the county. And they agreed to obtain building permits within 60 days, which equated to -- by September 23rd, 2006 or a fine of $200 per day would be imposed. Costs are being requested at this time -- well, costs have been paid in the amount of $316.27. And fines from the period of 9/24/06 through December 4th, '06 are being requested for imposition for a total of 14,000. Is that correct? 14,200. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a couple of questions. And I don't know if you can answer them. Because we did again put in our limits of time on the permitting process. Do you know if they had any difficulty in obtaining the permit? MR. KEEGAN: From what Mr. Santos did say, they did have problems submitting it and having everything done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Santos I know in the past has seemed to try to comply with absolutely everything we've asked of him. That's what our order says. MR. KELLY: I don't see how this one is any different. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then he still has to come back and ask us for a reduction of fines. MR. KELLY: But you do make a point. In the order, under number one it says that he has 60 days after obtaining the permit or, it says, 60 days after the permit is issued. That's the actual language. So Page 71 January 25, 2007 what day was it actually issued? MR. KEEGAN: I don't have the case in front of me. MR. KELLY: I think that's what we need to determine the fines. And if the permit was issued 60 days -- within 60 days of compliance, then there are no fines. MR. KEEGAN: It was applied for on November 15th. I don't have the date when it was issued. MR. DeWITTE: If we could have a moment of discussion while he's looking. I very much agree with Ken in his earlier comments a couple of cases back, that it's just a lot of money. I don't like as a policy of the board to reduce fines when the defendant doesn't show up. I'd certainly like to take into consideration the earlier case as well as this one, to at least tell us the problem. But when they're not even here, I don't like reducing fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agree with you, but I -- MR. DeWITTE: Unless of course the investigator can testify that oh, yeah, he had this problem. But we'd like to have them at least show and tell us their story. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agree with you, he's going to have to come back. MR. KEEGAN: I just have the apply date. MR. KELLY: In this particular case, the order is based on -- I'm just saying -- MR. DeWITTE: Agreed, this is a point of contention on the fine. Agreed. I just wanted to have that other discussion earlier and see how the rest of the board felt just in general about that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I do think that's maybe going to be food or thought in the future when we're looking at how to word the things. Today was a good step. MR. KELLY: It would be terrific if the orders had some kind of further clarification. Not only could you appeal but you could request Page 72 January 25,2007 an abatement of fines. And I know that staff gives technical assistance when folks call in. And you do offer that, am I right, Michelle, when these kinds of fines are imposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess what would probably be a clarification on his building permit is if they know they're going to -- if the county is in front of us. If they have documentation when a permit was granted or picked up or whatever, so we could look at the 60 days from that. MR. KELLY: In this particular case, it's barely more than 60 days since it was even applied for. If anything, we're only a week out at this time. MS. SYKORA: Excuse me, may I -- MR. KRAENBRING: Actually, it's 30 days. MS. SYKORA: For the record again, Carol Sykora -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're forgetting that we're supposed to be called on. That's my fault. I'm sorry. MS. SYKORA: For the record again, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement field supervisor. I can swear to the fact that the owner, Santos Osornio, was having problems with the permit issue. I did attend one of his permit meetings and at that time the permit tech, the supervisor, Alamar, was unsure ifhe needed engineering or not to repair this. And it took quite a while for them to decide that. And then finally he was told he needed engineering. So he had to go to the -- to an engineer to do the drawings for him, which took more time. So I can swear to the fact that he was having some problems to get the permit even in apply status. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But we still don't know when his actual certificate of completion was obtained, do we? The actual date? Can we table this one till next month? MS. ARNOLD: We can table it for five minutes? Because we Page 73 January 25, 2007 can go check the computer. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Why don't we do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we table this until county staff, next 10 minutes or so. MS. ARNOLD: We'll bring it back as the next item. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll finish up with discussion at that time. MR. DeWITTE: I would second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At that time -- Cherie', do you want to take a break? Because the next thing we're going to go through is rules and regs. THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. MS. RAWSON: Can I ask the board and Michelle something before we go off the record? Because I heard an informal request. I don't think you have to vote on this, but give me your input. On the orders that impose fines and liens, do you want me to add to the order not only that you have 30 days to appeal, but something in there that you also have the right to come and request an abatement of your fine? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that that would make sense. Maybe not an abatement, reduction. MS. RAWSON: Reduction/abatement. MR. De WITTE: I would not like any language about that in the initial order. When the fine goes out, I would love there to be Page 74 January 25, 2007 language in there. But I just wanted clarity. I need clarity. That when we're telling somebody to do something, I don't want to let them know at that point that, hey, by the way, if you don't do it you can come back and pay for reduction -- MS. RAWSON: This would only be on the order imposing fines. And if it's the consensus of the group, including the county that I add that, I'll add it. MR. DeWITTE: I would concur under those conditions. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that that's a good idea. MS. ARNOLD: I have no objection to it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: For one, it might help staffnot having to explain it all the time. MS. ARNOLD: I doubt it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It might. Okay. With that then we'll stop for a few minutes. (Recess.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're actually five minutes early. But we can, if everybody is here present, go ahead and resume. MR. KEEGAN: I would just like to remind the board that the reason we asked for 60 days from the hearing, because the work was already done prior to applying for a permit. So everything was already done. All he had to do was apply and have it C.O.'d. It was applied for on 11/15/06 and C.O.'d 11/21/06. MS. ARNOLD: So we should change our fine amount till the 16th. MR. KEEGAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Uh-hum. MR. KELLY: If I read the order correctly, he was given 30 days to obtain the permit and then 60 days after that. Well, the 60 days is not the problem, it was the 30, which leaves 21 days. But the investigator I believe testified to being there in meetings Page 75 January 25, 2007 with Alamar where there were problems on the county's end determining whether or not there should even be a permit, or an engineering portion of the permit. Is that something -- I know that's outside of the order. The order is very black and white that calls for specific dates. But is that something that the board should take into consideration here? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that's what we would utilize if the gentleman came back to us. That would be his defense for the reduction. As it stands right now, we have to do what the order states, I believe. Am I incorrect, Jean? MS. RAWSON: No, you're correct. But you have to read the order to figure out what the fines should be. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, he is not in compliance in the first 30 days. That's where he did make the mistake. He was a bit late on that first part of it. MS. ARNOLD: When did he obtain the permit, 11 -- MR. KEEGAN: 15/06. MR. DeWITTE: But he applied for the permit. MR. KEEGAN: He applied for the permit 11/15/06. MS. ARNOLD: When was it issued? MR. KEEGAN: 11/22/06. MS. ARNOLD: That doesn't make sense. MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: How does he get a C.O. before they issue it? MR. KEEGAN: I'm going to have to go back and check. I'm sorry . CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, do we want to set this one aside till next month to get everything -- MR. DEAN: Yes, I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- in order? MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. Page 76 January 25, 2007 MR. KEEGAN: Sorry about that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have make a motion that we continue this case until next meeting. MR. KRAENBRING: Second the motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll see you next month. With that, that adjourns all of the old business. And we're going to move on to new business, which is going to include what we discussed I guess at the workshop in regards to the rules and regulations, and anything that we want to come up with today for changes on our rules and regs. One of the first things that comes to mind was the 9:00 start time. Because we hadn't voted on it until today, but we went ahead and enacted it prior to voting on it and accepting it. And I remember the reason why we went to 9:30, but because I wasn't at the workshop I didn't get to put that input in. But it was because we were still supposed to be here at 9: 00 as board members -- MR. DEAN: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- but it was because of the stipulation so that they could be done prior to the meeting so that we could then put them into the stipulation category. Page 77 January 25, 2007 And we ran into it today I noticed at the meeting where we had a stipulation that came up and we had to pause to get it completed. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think that was not because the time period, it was because I think sometimes this happens, they do it, you know, after kind of observing what's going on. And-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They decided they weren't going to get a break and -- MS. ARNOLD: I don't know. You know, for whatever reason, maybe it's taking longer than they think it's going to take or whatever, and they decide they want to enter into a stipulation. So sometimes it's not necessarily that we didn't have enough time to do it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So we currently have it as -- because we just voted in from the workshop those minutes, that the minute meeting is going to start at 9:00. I heard a couple people grumble that 9:00 was awful early. But if that's not a problem, there was something that Mr. Ponte -- MR. PONTE: Yes, he did. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- spotted in the verbiage. MR. PONTE: We've been through this before. Section two on Page 2. Article five says the board may begin the public portion of the meeting at 9:00. Mayor may not. It's the old may/shall thing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Shall we say shall begin, rather than may? Or do we want to leave it as may? MR. PONTE: Everything else is shall. And shall begin the public portion at 9:00. MS. ARNOLD: Shall is -- MR. MORGAN: Well, maybe is an iffy. Shall is -- MR. PONTE: Now, wait, if you take that path, you're going to have to go through this document and change one huge portion of it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The only problem I have with saying shall is like today we actually postponed it for 10 minutes because it was not only a time change for us, it was also a location Page 78 January 25, 2007 change, and there were some people that were tardy because of that. And if we had had shall, we were sunk in the water. MR. KRAENBRING: I agree. I think we're the wandering board this past year, and I think some of us have -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This may be the one exception. MR. KRAENBRING: -- been late because of change of venue. MR. PONTE: We have been through this so many times of changing may to shall and shall to may that I would just suggest that we be consistent. And if the document says shall, shall should carry the day. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think the document says may because if you're busy and your stipulations with the respondents out there and they're not quite ready to go at 9:00, I think that's why it was the may. It wasn't may so that we could be tardy. It was may so that if you needed a few more minutes to get those stipulations done, you guys are going to end up saving some time in the long run. You put shall in there, well by God Sheri's going to wrap that gavel at 9:00. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think that's true. But it's titled with understanding. The reason that shall is that that's the time the meeting is to start. And if there's a circumstance certainly within the control of the chairman to say, well, we'll just start this meeting in five minutes. We'll wait for Jean to arrive, we'll wait for George to arrive, whatever. MS. RAWSON: I'm usually early. I apologize. MR. PONTE: I know you are. MS. RAWSON: My doctor's fault, not mine. MR. PONTE: But, you know, it's at the discretion of the Chair to just say we're going to delay it 10 minutes, five minutes, whatever. MR. KRAENBRING: That's why I think it should just stay as may. And it can't start before 9:00. MR. PONTE: Well, it mayor may not. MS. ARNOLD: I think it's -- we don't have to have may all Page 79 January 25, 2007 through the rules and regs, nor do we have to have shall through the document. And I think the language may is in there so that it's not a mandate, but the time of the meeting is -- it's in there for notification. And whatever we send out on our notice of hearings is when you all will try to start your meeting. MR. PONTE: Is it for us or is it for the respondents? MS. ARNOLD: It's for the public. MR. PONTE: Well, if it's for the respondents, it should be shall start at 9:00. MS. ARNOLD: What the respondent sees is although we send them the rule, what really is applicable is the notice that is provided to them for that given hearing that they're required to attend. MR. PONTE: Well, I think it's much clearer to the respondent if it says shall start at 9:00. MS. ARNOLD: I think what they're paying attention to is what is on the notice is what I'm saying. MR. PONTE: Why is it changing back? MS. ARNOLD: It's -- well, actually, that's not a change that's been requested. That has been in your rules. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The change was from 9:30 to 9:00. But it always said may. MR. PONTE: It didn't always say may. But be that as it may, that's my point, that the shall is specific and is going out to the respondents as a guide to them, the meeting shall start at 9:00, or whenever. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe Michelle's point was, George, they aren't going to read these, they read the notice that they receive, if they read anything. MR. PONTE: And the notice says? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 9:00. MR. PONTE: Shall start at 9:00? Page 80 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It just says at the top-- MR. PONTE: Just says the date -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- 9:00. MS. ARNOLD: -- the time and date. MR. PONTE: Well, put may on it. May start at 9:00. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, because then they would come in May. I don't know. There were a couple of other changes that were made. Michelle, would you like to go over those? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. On your agenda, in article six we just clarified the order of your agenda by specifying that motions are first, stipulations are second and then public hearings are last. Although we don't break up the agenda by, you know, who's present and who's not, you have that option to order your agenda that way if you so choose. So you can ask who's present in the room and choose to hear those items first so you have that flexibility. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Patti, excuse me, but you had e-mailed me a question in regards to the agenda. MS. PETRULLI: Yes. Exactly what information that you wanted on there. Did you need just the case with the case number, did you want the violation listed, did you -- what all information are you required to have on there? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: On the agenda, if I'm not mistaken, we've only had the case number. We've never had the actual violation. You read that when we put it into -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, at one point in time you were having on the agenda the location. And I think that was altered -- no, I don't remember if it was at the request of the board or if it was the Board of County Commissioners at one given time, because they wanted the public to be aware of, you know, where these violations were occurring or what the types of violations were. So we did have some agendas in the past that actually had the -- Page 81 January 25, 2007 not only who the case was being heard against but the location of the violation and the type of violation that it was. It's something that is currently being done at the special master meeting, but I don't think it's something that you need to really put in your rules and regs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I have a question in regards to that. Because just today's days and age, if you put a location down beside a person's name -- and I'm sorry, I'm married to a cop, my mind thinks that way -- you have someone that decides they don't like that particular ethnic group or that particular type of violation, you're subjecting that individual technically. MS. ARNOLD: It's all public record. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I know it's public record. But if we're putting out another document with it spelled out. It's just a question. MS. RAWSON: Well, you know, if you pass through the doors of the courthouse on a regular basis like I do, you will see that all of those notices of violation and the people's names in there, addresses are all posted on that one wall at the courthouse every day. So if anybody really wanted to look, you know, it is public record. And if you're in a long line in the courthouse and you've got nothing else better to do, you can flip through them and read them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, is it something that the Board of County Commissioners prefers? MS. ARNOLD: As I said, I think this was a while ago. It's been a few years ago that the request came up. I mean, it's really at the -- at your -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll ask the board members then what is their opinion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think it's fine the way it is. MR. PONTE: I do, too. It doesn't make any difference. If anything, I really would love to see -- just my Libran personality, if Page 82 January 25, 2007 the numbers were just in order rather than scrambled eggs, that would be handy. That really would. When we're putting the books together, or when I'm putting my book together, it's much easier if the case numbers are in order. It's just easier to handle. MS. ARNOLD: The hearings were in order. MR. PONTE: Well, today was perfect. MS. ARNOLD: The imposition of fines weren't, but the actual hearings were -- MR. PONTE: Today, sure, they're all 2007-01 or three or four. MS. PETRULLI: That won't be happening. MR. PONTE: I know that. MS. PETRULLI: That's why we're running them in sequence. MR. KRAENBRING: In the minutes of the meeting, Michelle agreed to be committed to improving the situation. I think today was the result of that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They were very good today. MS. ARNOLD: I didn't hear. I'm sorry. MR. KRAENBRING: No, on Page 3 of the minutes, we had made a condition about the condition of the packets. And you made a commitment to improve it and I think it's shown. I think they were improved today. MS. ARNOLD: Patti did that. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you, Patti. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They were very nicely done. I had no complaints. It was easy to do. I went through, tabbed them all. MS. RAWSON: They were done well in advance. MS. ARNOLD: We've got to work on our executive summaries for the imposition of fines. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There was one thing that came up today, and the attorney and I discussed it on one of the breaks. Page 83 January 25, 2007 Especially when we have this type of situation, and I know we used to get them in our packets. We no longer get them, and that's the county recommendations. I know why we quit doing it, but when we don't have the overhead and we have nothing to look at, we're going to miss things. And I would like to see those recommendations put back in the packet. MS. ARNOLD: I wouldn't recommend towards that. I think we could provide you copies at the meeting at the time that the investigator is going through it so that you all have a copy, but I just -- I don't think that it's right that we give you our recommendations before you decide on your case. MR. DeWITTE: I would agree. And I like the idea of a copy being handed out in lieu of A V when we don't have it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If they would have that, fine. Because as now, like today we were running blind. The reason I brought it up is because the attorney and I were talking and he said he didn't see any problem with us having it ahead of time, because we don't have to take that. It's just a suggestion. MR. PONTE: As a personal observation, I think if you distribute it during the course of the hearing while the investigator is testifying it's distracting. And I'm not a multi-tasker. There's enough to do without trying to add another thing to do while you're trying to listen to testimony. MS. ARNOLD: Well, and my suggestion wasn't during the testimony. It would be at the time that the chairman would ask what is the county's recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Either that or if we could have them in front of us and we can just at the beginning of the meeting we could just refer to them at the time of the hearing. MR. PONTE: You mean if we started the meetings at 8:30, then we could get the recommendations. MR. LEFEBVRE: We could review them as the case comes in Page 84 January 25, 2007 front of us. MR. DeWITTE: My preference again would be that we do not see them until we ask for them. The only time that we're going to have the issue with the paper is when we don't have audio visual. MS. RAWSON: I think that the reason that we did this is because the judge doesn't usually give you his sentence prior to your hearing the testimony. And we wanted to be so careful that the record is clean and that we don't have a problem on appeal. What I think would work better so that you're not predisposed to already think how you're going to rule is you listen to the evidence and testimony presented, and then if you're closing the meeting, then you say, do you have a recommendation for us and they say, well, yes, we do. And then they pass them out, especially to me since I have to write the orders, and everybody has a chance to look at it and then comment on it and you don't have to follow it. But now you've already heard the testimony. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agree, that would work for me. I just need to have something in front of me because like today we did not have the audio video components that we usually have. And I know that there were several cases that we probably missed operational costs or something on because we didn't have it in front of us. MS. RAWSON: Well, I agree with you. And even when it's on the video, I can't write that fast. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's very hard to follow. MR. KRAENBRING: You know, we used to read that full order back into the record. Now we just sort of agree with what's been presented. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So if we can then have multiple copies so that we can have them in front of us, and we'll ask for them, that would work for me. And I hope everybody else. MR. DeWITTE: Just for a point of clarity, are we looking for Page 85 January 25, 2007 copies when there is audio visual, or only when there's none? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, because some people have a hard time following it, and that way we can make our corrections on it. And that keeps it from -- you know, we've been flopping from this location to that location. If we do it as standard policy, it doesn't matter where we're at. MR. KRAENBRING: I agree. MR. KELLY: Michelle, are the recommendations prepared by staff far in advance of the meeting or are they sometimes up to the last minute where you won't be able to make duplicate copies? MS. ARNOLD: No, they're prepared in advance. There should be time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is there some other changes, I believe? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. On Page 6, there was some language change. Mostly clarification for preregistering for the members of anybody wanting to provide testimony on a particular case. On Page 7 -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I had a question, because we did not do that preregistering today. Is that going to include, say, the -- MS. ARNOLD: Not the respondents, only witnesses. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Is that specified in there? MS. ARNOLD: Members of the public may -- actually what we're -- and he left. But we do have on the agenda to meet with the special master, and I think we're -- actually there's language, or there's discussion with the Board of County Commission about doing a consolidated rules and consolidated ordinance and all the like. So we may actually be revisiting some of this language again later on. Because we have sat down with Jeff Wright and the special master and they're tweaking it so that it -- you know, it's legal. It kind of meets the legal language and that type of thing. And I think that's something that we can go over when we have our j oint meeting with Page 86 January 25, 2007 the special master. And maybe not even adopt this or portions of them until we do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is the special master overseeing us now? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no. The issue is this, you guys have rules and we're all fine with them. I think they're great. Special master really doesn't have rules. We've been sort of going through your rules through her. And it doesn't quite fit right. It's sort of like a square peg, round hole type of thing. And so the idea was to get rules for the special master. And then the idea was well, the special master's rules should really be as closely parallel to your rules as possible, just for the sake of clarity for the public. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: And so at the end of the day what we'd like to see is this board and special master get together and come up with rules that this board's comfortable with, she's comfortable with, and so that the procedures are more or less the same between the two of you. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And also, actually, and Jeff could speak to this, there is a request to look at a consolidated ordinance. Right now you all have your ordinance that, you know, governs your operations and your powers, and the special master has a separate ordinance. And I think the request has been made by one of the board members to -- or actually the board to look at consolidation of both. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I have on J, because it says members of the public may testify and provide relevant evidence to support that a violation has or has not occurred. Members of the public must preregister. It does not not not include the respondent. So maybe members of the public other than the respondent to clarify it? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure why we'd want them to preregister. I mean, this is people's court. If somebody wants to say Page 87 January 25, 2007 something, I'm always amenable to hear them. But again, we'll be -- MS. ARNOLD: These are your rules. This is not something that I came up with, these are stuff that you guys came up with. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I wasn't at the workshop, so I'm kind of having to back pedal here. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the preregistration language-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We've never done it before. That's why I -- MS. RAWSON : Well, I think that the respondent is not a member of the public, the respondent is a party. MS. ARNOLD: Right, is a party. MS. RAWSON: And the reason that this rule, as I recall, was put in here, actually several years back, is it's because the county commission does that. And there have been occasions, not lately, where you might have an entire condominium association present in your chambers, and we might have 200 people sitting out there. And they all want to say something. And in that case -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have sat through those. MS. RAWSON: Yes. In that case, you know, they need to preregister. And they need to be limited in time. And they've all got something to say. It's nice when they have a spokesperson, but sometimes that's not enough. They want to have their say. But that's the reason the rule is in there, because the county commission has that problem a lot more than we do. And it's their rule. MS. ARNOLD: Well, and the preregistration language was already in there. This is just -- I think what we did was just reorder where it said it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did we change the time limit from three minutes to five minutes? MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe so. I think it always said five Page 88 January 25, 2007 minutes. It always said five minutes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. For some reason, it just never has jumped out at me before until it was pointed out. MR. PONTE: Should there be anything, and maybe there is something, that tells people who want to speak how they preregister? I mean when, where, how? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And do we even have those forms available anywhere? MR. KELLY: And when is preregistration over? I would love to hear testimony from any relevant party, and if they're not here prior to the 9:00 start -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And these are excellent points that actually when we were going through the rules with the special master, she brought up the same things and we incorporated it into her draft. And so that's why I kind of threw that out there right now, because maybe we want to kind of wait to adopt these until we have that joint meeting. Because she is bringing up the very same things that you guys are bringing up. And it would be wonderful if you all sat at the same table and try to do it together. MR. KELLY: Madam Chair, on the next page it talks about fine limitations and such. And one of our points in the workshop was to try to parallel the two boards, the special master's and of course the code enforcement, to a similar fine structure based on severity and the type of a violation and such. And I think that Michelle's, you know, comment to maybe table this until we've had our chance to confer with her might be a better option. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If that's the flavor of the board, I'll take that as -- MR. DeWITTE: Yeah. And our thought again was -- from that meeting was just to develop some consistency. I thought our board would benefit from a larger discussion about fines, as well as to have that incorporated with the special master and having the same rules Page 89 January 25, 2007 and regs, like you mentioned, just to give some consistency and methodology of operation. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the $1,000 per day fine is being placed in there because your ordinance now provides for that. That's just setting the limit to the maximum. It doesn't really go into the details in how you all determine what is appropriate. It just says that you need to take certain factors into consideration when you're coming up with that per day fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We used to have a different limit. And that was changed, but the Board of County Commissioners had to accept it and adopt it before we could put it into our rules. And it's been an over a year process, because we lost Robbie Dusek over adopting this. Because she was against it, because she felt people would be abusive to the public by the large amounts of fines. So just to give you some history on the background of that. I have no problems if you would like to table this until we have a joint meeting with the master. I just thought maybe we were supposed to have had it done months ago. MS. RAWSON: Actually, by March. March meeting. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we table. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask you all to also review the language too that's being presented? Because one of the recommendation at the workshop was to put some language on our agenda that gives people some of that guidance that you were asking for about the preregistration. So we have some -- did they not get this? MS. PETRULLI: No. MS. ARNOLD: I'll give it to you. MR. KELLY: One point of clarification. Do we continue doing 9:00, even though it's not been formally approved? Can we vote on that portion of it? Page 90 January 25, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think we can do that. It's actually just going back to what it was previously. So I think we don't have a problem with that, do we? MR. PONTE: I have just one question about going to 9:00. When is the stipulation process supposed to take place -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 8:30. MR. PONTE: -- or is that suddenly now just not? MS. ARNOLD: 8:30. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's a motion on the table, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, there is a motion and I believe there was -- MR. DEAN: Nobody seconded it. MR. DeWITTE: I'll second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we will table this until we meet with the special master, other than to -- we'll look at the one reading of verbiage for our agenda. MS. ARNOLD: Well, and then the 9:00 start time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we need to take a vote? MR. DEAN: No, you don't vote on that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a vote for all those in favor to table -- MR. DEAN: Oh, he made the motion to table -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And there was a second. MR. DEAN: There's no discussion, though. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, we have a motion to table the approval of our regs that was made. MR. KELLY: I'm not able to make a motion because I'm an alternate. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It was already seconded by Justin. Page 91 January 25, 2007 And the only thing is we were pulling out of the table the 9:00 meeting time and going over some verbiage that we wanted to add to the agenda. Those would be the only other things to discuss. Everything else we will table until we meet with the special master. MR. LEFEBVRE: My motion was to table the rules and regulations, any changes to them. MR. DeWITTE: So can we vote? MS. ARNOLD: So can I have a -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But would you like to amend that so we can discuss the 9:00 and the verbiage that she would like to discuss for the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll pull my motion off the table. How's that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Those are just the two things. Everything else we'll table. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, I'll amend my motion that we can discuss those two items. MR. DeWITTE: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. DeWITTE: Do we want to vote on the 9:00 start time? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. Is everybody in favor of 9:00? MR. De WITTE: I'll make a motion that we start the meeting at 9:00. Page 92 January 25, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, 9:00. MR. DeWITTE: Michelle has given me a copy of the verbiage. I'll share it with you. This was my request, I thought. And it's missing one part and we can discuss it. But-- MS. ARNOLD: Read it slow. MR. DeWITTE: -- we picked out some general guidelines that public would speak for about five minutes when they want to give testimony and also that witnesses would speak for 20 minutes. And my only thought was instead of hammering the one guy up here that's going on too long and pointing out to him that he has to speak 20 minutes, just to say it at the beginning of the meeting so that it doesn't feel rude to the person that's there that it's been announced. Just to them as a reminder. We did not mention the 20 minutes here in this verbiage. MS. ARNOLD: I forgot that. So we would allow -- MR. DeWITTE: I think that we -- in general, I could be wrong in our rules and regs, but don't we say five minutes for the public, and respondents, that if they want to -- aren't they basically allowed 20 minutes to present their -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay, I see what you're saying. MR. DeWITTE: And that was just it-- Page 93 January 25, 2007 MR. DEAN: Collectively. MR. De WITTE: So just a brief reminder of that was just to be said up front. Not that we want to enforce it or -- we do need to bring it in, it's been said at the beginning of the meeting and everybody's kind of aware of it. MR. PONTE: Isn't it just not a danger, though, there when you say, all right you're the respondent but you may only testify for 20 minutes. MR. DeWITTE: But it's in our rules and regs. MR. PONTE: Ah, yeah. MR. DeWITTE: And my point was not to try to -- again, not to try to enforce this more. Just when we did need to bring it to somebody's attention that it has been said earlier in the meeting so that he was aware beforehand. MR. PONTE: Then do you give them a warning and say you have five more minutes? MR. DeWITTE: I think normally by the time they've talked a half hour, we tell them at that point we'd like them to wrap it up. That's how we've done it in the past. MR. PONTE: No, but I mean if we make this change, that we formalize it, and what does it do if you're saying to a respondent who's testifying and attempting to defend himself that you have 20 minutes to do it, otherwise -- MR. DeWITTE: My purpose was not looking to change. The rules and regs are as they are. My purpose was only to make just an awareness to the public -- MR. PONTE: I understand that. MR. DeWITTE: -- in preparation for the meeting. MR. PONTE: I just -- that's not my question. I understand that. But is it good to be there at all? MS. RAWSON : Well, I think that this is not a change. I think what Justin is saying is that we need to put something on the agenda Page 94 January 25, 2007 so that they know that upfront, or Sheri needs to say it at the beginning of the meeting. It's been in there for a long time. And basically what it says is they have 20 minutes to present their whole case. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And if additional time is needed, they need to request it in advance. And we could put some language in there to that effect. MR. PONTE: Then that gets around my question, my problem. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Justin, why don't you go ahead and read and -- MR. DeWITTE: I'll read what's here and I'll make my suggestion and we can talk. What's here, it says notice. And I believe this would be read by you, Sheri. And I'm hoping maybe to shorten it some. But is says, notice: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register prior to speaking. Speakers must register with the Code Enforcement Board secretary prior to presentation of the agenda items to be addressed. All registered public speakers will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts rules of order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. And my suggestion would be that the first part of that just simply say members of the public, we'd like your testimony to be limited to five minutes and respondents have been allocated 20 minutes to prepare for their response. And if additional time is necessary, the board will take that into consideration by a vote, or something very simple to kind of frame that. MR. PONTE: I think that's very good. And that really covers it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And that tacks on to any person who decides to appeal a decision. And basically that would just be at the very beginning. Because that's all I as the chair person does is read Page 95 January 25, 2007 this, when I remember to do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think maybe the verbiage should be respondents have 20 minutes. I mean, just to keep it uniform so they know it distinguishes who has 20 minutes and who has -- members of the public have five minutes. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the thing is, the respondents -- it says the presentation will take 20 minutes. Because the respondent may have witnesses. His or her testimony may include witnesses. If they feel that they need additional time, they need to request it in advance. That's the distinction. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what Gerald is trying to say, though, if you are the general public and you don't know anything about law and you read that, you're going to think you have five minutes to speak. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just trying to distinguish between members of the public who have five minutes and respondents. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think the request is to add language with respect to the amount of time that the respondents have. MR. DeWITTE: May I ask the court reporter to read back what I said about the five minutes and the 20 minutes. (The reporter read back the previous testimony.) MR. DeWITTE: Is that verbiage out of your document? I'll go from my own memory. I thought that I had said or the intent was to say that people from the public would have five minutes to present their testimony and that respondents would have 20 minutes for their case. And just something brief. I'm sure Michelle will word it a lot better than that, but that just is simple, it doesn't need to be legal. It just frames the proceedings. MR. KELLY: Chair? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KELLY: If I could add, the one problem that I have is the preregistration. I keep getting hung up on the idea that by the time Page 96 January 25, 2007 you're reading this, it's already too late to register. Could we possibly give them up until the time the case is actually heard? MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's something that we're going to get together with the special master about. MR. KELLY: Okay. MR. DeWITTE: But I would hope the preregistration language would just be removed from the -- from what would be read verbally at the beginning. Again, just verbally at the beginning, the only change just saying five minutes for members of the public, and 20 minutes for respondents. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, I think in the past we've always given everybody their opportunity to speak, whether it was a large group or not. I know you added the verbiage in there about the preregistration, but -- MS. ARNOLD: We didn't add the language, it in was your rules. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I know it's in the orders. It's in the orders. And if we had to we could fall back on it. If we know that we're having a large group come in, we could then ask them to preregister, but I would rather not put it in every meeting on the forefront that everybody that walks in that door has to preregister. MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I do know that of previous meetings where we had public speaking (sic) come up to speak that they've come up and we've -- you've said you have five minutes to speak in front of us. So I think we give them ample notification of their time limits. At least the public. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I can't always say that I follow through every time the same way, though. And so if we put it out there in front, whomever is up here will make it easier for them. MR. PONTE: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And I agree that there needs to be Page 97 January 25, 2007 some sort of verbiage to allow the people to be reminded that there is a time limit. But I don't think it's necessary to put in the preregistration for every time. I think we can do that on a case-by-case. If we see 50 people out there and we know that we have a condominium sitting on the docket, at that time when I am addressing the public, or whomever is sitting here we can say, by the way, those of you that want to speak need to preregister, and we would open up the registration until they had the meeting item come up in front of them, I think. MR. PONTE: We'd have to say, we have to preregister by giving your name to whomever and they know what to do and we know what to do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that would probably work out. MR. DeWITTE: Michelle, would you like a motion on this? MS. ARNOLD: No, I understand. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because we're not really voting. MS. RAWSON: If you give it to the board's secretary, that's what Patti would like, she has nothing else to do during the meeting except write down all those people's names. MS. ARNOLD: Well, let me make an introduction, since we're talking about this. Because Patti has been so kind, every time we have a transition in our office, to fill in and reorganize us. Bendisa Marku is our new operations coordinator, and she's going to be doing all the hearing prep and case prep for us, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Patti, teach her well. And welcome. MS. PETRULLI: She's ready to run already. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And how do you say your name again? MS. ARNOLD: Bendisa. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Bendisa. Can we call you Ben? Page 98 January 25, 2007 No, I'm just teasing. Welcome. MS. ARNOLD: Do we want to move on to the next item? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Which is -- if you all-- and I guess we don't have to do it now. If you all could e-mail me some dates in February that you are available to do a joint meeting with the special master, maybe I can get something scheduled. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because we're going to have to have this done before March. MS. RAWSON: Why don't you e-mail us some dates, you know, three or four dates, and see what the majority of the people can do. That's probably easier. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And it's based on room availability, too. MR. DeWITTE: I have a comment as well-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: -- if we're at the comment section. I like the kind of new direction of assigning a date from the issuance of a permit. Because that does -- the only downside I see to it, and I like the new direction well enough probably to live with the downside if there's no way around it. But the only downside I see is it doesn't necessarily encourage the person to exercise with due diligence on their portion during the process of getting the permit. All we're saying is you must apply, and then whenever you get it you have 60 days. But after they apply, there may be a number of things that they might need to do to follow up on in the process. And that's the only downside I see. I just wanted to bring it to the board's discussion. I certainly -- I like the new direction. I don't know if there's any way to address the other. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But if we say if we apply and get completed the permit -- oh, you can't, though, because you have the Page 99 January 25, 2007 completed, then we're back to that -- MR. DeWITTE: Agreed. I don't know if there is a way to encourage people to, you know, work with due diligence during the permit process between application and completion. Maybe Ken, you had a thought. MR. KELLY : Well, I know the investigators follow these cases. They do a terrific job. If we added language after the part where we ask them to apply for a permit within a certain number of days to then follow up and continue the permit process through any objections or obstacles or something along those lines, we can leave it up to the investigators to bring the case back to us and say listen, this particular respondent ran into an obstacle that was three months ago, they are simply dragging their feet. Then we can reevaluate the case. Or we can come up with a common language that everyone agrees upon for each one of those situations that has a certain English word that would mean due diligence without, you know, holding their feet to the fire. MS. ARNOLD: I think that it is a concern. And I think that we have come up with language in prior orders that you all have entered into. And I think we ask them to submit a complete and sufficient permit application. And then if you wanted to add language to that effect that pursue it with due diligence through issuance, then it would probably at least give them notice and then leave it to the investigators to report back to at imposition of fines whether or not, you know, something sat for months with a rejection letter and they didn't do anything to respond to that rejection letter. MR. PONTE: Michelle, if we did that, wouldn't -- it just seems to me that it would take the investigators off the street again. MS. ARNOLD: It does. MR. PONTE: That means they're here and not there. MS. ARNOLD: It does. It is -- it's more for them to do -- Page 100 January 25,2007 MR. PONTE: That's what I mean. MS. ARNOLD: -- to follow along, you know, the permit process. MR. PONTE: They're doing a paper trail. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. DeWITTE: It's also a very subjective measure. I'm not sure there's a good way to remedy it. Either we go back to giving a time line to get a permit issued and putting a hard date on it and then if they don't make it, we understand that there were problems and they operated with due diligence and we grant them an extension, or we do it in this new route and just encourage them. I mean, we might put some language in there that they operate with due diligence. I don't know that we'll ever be able to enforce something as subjective as that. MR. KELLY: The variable here is the amount of time it takes county to approve permits. If we all felt comfortable with a certain guideline of time, maybe we could put that back into the order and have another line after that that states normal permitting process, which should take 60 days. If stuff runs into issues and goes past that time, the respondent is not, you know, held responsible for those additional days, or something along those lines. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think you're right. I think it has to be something woolly, because just what I've read in the press about all of the -- some of the horror stories that contractors have had about getting permits and that sort of thing. And they know what they're doing. MS. ARNOLD: Shame on you, reading in the press and believing it. MR. PONTE: Reading in the press. Next we'll talk about code enforcement becoming part of the Sheriffs Department. That's just a thought. You know, it should be I think strongly worded but woolly enough so that you can find your way through it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have any suggestions? Page 101 January 25, 2007 MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't have any problem with the pursue with diligence until issuance language. And we do have some language about a sufficient and complete application so that they just don't write a piece of paper. You know, they're held to that standard. And then we can put a little standard in the middle about pursue with diligence. And it is subjective. And what does that mean. But we kind of know what that means, that they did nothing. And after that, you know, I think they're going to either not have pursued with due diligence or they're going to get issuance. And then the next time limit is going to start running from the date of the issuance. I mean, I think we're okay. MR. DeWITTE: If the board maybe has consensus on that, maybe we could actually make a motion that one, we like that and that we could also maybe direct county staff by motion to just use that kind of a template as how they would frame things. Of course if staff recommendation falls the way we're most comfortable with there, that will move the proceedings forward and -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was going to say, I don't think we can order the county to do that. MR. DeWITTE: No, but we can have consensus among the board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A request. I think everybody -- MR. DeWITTE: By a show of hands, we could have consensus among the board that one, we support that, that we like this direction. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think we oftentimes stated that. MR. DeWITTE: Just so that we could tell kind of moving forward how we'd like to frame it. MR. KELLY: Can I ask, Michelle, just a quick question about staff. Because you had mentioned the investigators and taking them off the road. If we leave these orders open-ended, bear with me, how do your investigators know when to come back and re-look at the case to see if Page 102 January 25, 2007 they had ever come into compliance? I mean, we've seen permits go a year with one obstacle after the other. Don't you have a computer system that tells the investigator, listen, this is when you need to go back? And if we have open-ended dates, are there going to be cases that are going to go three years without anyone remembering them and -- MS. ARNOLD: What do you mean by open-ended? Because if you give them a date when they have to submit a building permit, then we would be checking after that date, and we should be checking after that date, whether or not a permit has been applied for. MR. KELLY: I'm just talking logistically. Does your computer system remind the investigator every 30 days or 60 days, hey, this case is still open? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we have -- well, the investigator needs to put on their case when the next, you know, reinspection needs to occur. MR. KELLY: Okay. So there is a follow through. MS. ARNOLD: And then they get alerted. Right, right. MR. DeWITTE: But exactly, if we say from the time the permit is issued, if they just check every 60 days, is there a way for them to get notification when that permit is issued? MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. DeWITTE: Because before we'd always say within 90 days, and I'm sure they'd just go back in 90 days and say, yeah, he got his permit done. MS. ARNOLD: Well, they could do a check in 90 days, but once the permit process is in place, we have the ability to check, you know, when the permit was applied for, when it was issued, when it was inspected and that type of thing. But they don't get alerted when that happens. They have to actually go and look into it. MR. DeWITTE: Are you -- how does staff feel about -- do you Page 103 January 25, 2007 feel like you guys can diligently follow up with the open permits to know at least on a monthly basis whether they were approved or not? MS. ARNOLD: Well, they're doing that now, aren't they? MR. DeWITTE: Okay. And again, I wasn't trying to direct the staff. I just want a consensus of recommendation among the board members. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You said you were going to make a motion, and that's where I was -- MR. DeWITTE: Well, I mean, whether we call a motion for it or whether we just do it by a show of hands, just a consensus. Does everybody like this idea or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I like the idea, but I don't want to-- MR. DeWITTE: That's fine, we don't have to do a motion. But I'd like to just know if -- if there are any objections, I'd like to hear them from anybody that -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time. MR. DeWITTE: If there are any objections or any other recommendations by board members. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agreed with the way it was going today because I think when we were looking at imposing fines, we saw that we were running into some issues. And this might be a way of alleviating some of those, with the fact that people were having multiple problems with getting their permits within the time frame that we gave them. And this kind of gives it they're doing their part in trying to get it done. And then they have a certain time frame to get it done once they receive the permit. And I think that might be a better way to go. As long as we can put in -- and I think this would be a trial, because I don't know without having a drop-dead date as to when they need to get their permit issued by -- leaving the open-ended permit, whether or not we're going to have some permits sitting out there for a year and then expire and not having any hammer to go back on. Page 104 January 25, 2007 Because hey, I applied for the permit, but I never got it so therefore I didn't have to complete the second half. And that's my only concern. MR. LEFEBVRE: This might be -- this is an administrative thing, but it seems like there's a disconnect between the code enforcement and building department whereas there's no communication once there is an order made that they have to get a permit. If there's some way to notify the building department and flag that particular property that someone should be coming in for a permit, so once there's a flag put in place, they come in for a permit, then the code enforcement investigator's notified, that would take that they would come in and check their e-mails and oh, boom, the permit was pulled. Then they would know that a permit -- if there's some way -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, the building department knows -- I mean, as Carol Sykora testified today on a couple of occasions, we are a part of the actual meetings, so the building department's aware that there's a code case. But, you know, we've got staff that's doing what they're supposed to be doing. To ask them to send an e-mail and then they forget, it's the investigator's responsibility to check. They set a time frame for when they will do their reinspections. And the reinspection may include a field inspection, but it may also may include a computer check. I don't know if -- I mean, we could ask, but whether or not it will get done. And I don't want to rely on someone in the building department to notify us when, you know, something is issued. MR. LEFEBVRE: But I know there's a process where if there's an after-the-fact permit, you're flagged and you have to pay, if I'm not mistaken, three times the amount. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And we'll put that on there, but-- MR. LEFEBVRE: It's just an administrative thing. Page 105 January 25, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: And that's on there all the time. But it doesn't alert somebody to send us an e-mail to let us know when they're proceeding through that process. MR. KELLY: Just one other idea. If that was the case -- and I'm usually the one sitting here saying listen, that's not enough time to get this work done, it's not enough time to get a permit. And I really do like the new language. But at the same time I'm nervous that someone might take advantage of that, and here we are two years later and getting the case again. What if we put a be-all end-all date. You know, all work will be completed 60 days after obtaining the permit and a certificate of occupancy is secured. All actions are to be finished and a C.O., in either way, where they demolish or they're approved no later than a year or 18 months or some very long out there, gives them plenty of time, but at the same time there is a definitive date. MR. PONTE: Well, don't we do that? I mean, we do put a definitive date on. We say to be, you know, in compliance within 60 days from the close of this hearing. I mean, that's pretty definitive. MR. DeWITTE: But we're talking about not doing that anymore. We're talking about 30 days to get a permit and 60 days after the permit's issued, whether it took 10 days from the time they applied for the permit till it was issued or three years. We have no -- MS. ARNOLD: Why don't -- MR. PONTE: You know, really, if you think of it, no matter what we say, it's not going to change anything. I think it's going to work the way it works, because that's how people work. And the only way to make it work is with the language saying okay, if it's not done in 60 days, you're in violation, come back up, tell us you can't get it done for whatever reason. Otherwise we're trying to solve all of the problems of the world using a little verbiage. And we'll be here forever. And I don't mean in this room forever, we'll be working on it forever, and it still won't Page 106 January 25,2007 make any real difference. MR. KRAENBRING: I mean, really, there are three important dates. You know, one is when you apply, one is when you get it and one is when you complete the work by. MR. PONTE: That's right. MR. KRAENBRING: So I think that sometimes it's going to be different for different cases. MR. PONTE: I think we're trying to fix something that's not broken. MR. KRAENBRING: I have to agree to a certain extent, George. Maybe we're splitting hairs here. MR. PONTE: I think we are. MR. KELLY: If I may, I believe we're being proactive. We've already proven that we've learned from previous mistakes by guaranteeing or requiring specific deadlines when in fact these homeowners, the respondents, aren't able to comply because of something outside of their hands, county not being able to secure the permits in time. MR. KRAENBRING: So the issue becomes if you want them to be diligent, okay, then that diligence can be expressed by them going in and trying to obtain the permit. That's one date. Next would be not really up to them, it would be when they can get that permit. And that would then start the clock for the action to get the work done. So as long as we make sure that we include all three of those things in the order, then we're doing our job. MR. KELLY: Right. And we've evolved to this point, and I believe what we're trying to do is look even one step further so that we're not having this discussion this time next year and realizing oh, we left a loophole. If we don't set a date, the scenario would be -- if we don't set some kind of be-all end-all date or a due diligence clause, the situation Page 107 January 25, 2007 would be a homeowner submits a permit, the permit comes back saying I'm sorry, you need an engineering's approval on this particular part of the permit application. If they then simply don't follow through, then here we are a year later in this same situation, say oh, well, I never got my permit, therefore the 60 days to complete a permit doesn't apply to me. So I agree with Justin, I think we should have something else in there. But we are on the right track, I believe. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just say that you all entered into a couple of orders today where we included the language that you all like. Let's kind of let it -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: See how it works. MS. ARNOLD: -- go through the process and see whether or not there's a problem and then we can adjust it as we need to. MR. De WITTE: Well, I do have -- I think this is an important enough loophole. I submit a permit and it's rejected. I don't know in all the orders we said if it's rejected you have so many days to get a demolition permit and be done. All they have to do is submit the permit and then wait for it to be approved. You know, your order -- you already decided your case, my permit was never approved and I'm never changing my structure. MS. ARNOLD: He's right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, that's what I was trying to say. Once they've submitted the permit, they've done what they had to do. Whether it's rejected, ignored, followed through, we don't have another hammer on them because the next part of it is once they've obtained the permit they have "X" amount of days to complete it. Well, if they never obtain the permit, we don't have anything. MR. PONTE: Just put a completion date on the order that, you know, the property is to be in compliance 120 days from the close of this hearing. And that's holding them to the fire. They go and get the permit or they don't go and get the permit. It doesn't make any Page 108 January 25, 2007 difference. 120 days later if they're not in compliance, they're not in compliance for whatever reason. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agree with you on one point, but on the other half, and this is what we were trying to get away from, is sometimes it takes the county 180 days to get the permit. MR. PONTE: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And then we have just started fining that person 40 days ago when it was out of their control. MS. ARNOLD: But they have the ability to come back to you and say, just as many people did today, this is the loophole -- or these are the problems that we incurred and -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We had just as many today, though, that didn't come. MR. DeWITTE: If I can make a suggestion-- MR. PONTE: No one can foresee all the problems. But it is routine. This board routinely asks the county, is that sufficient time to get that permit? And we are guided by them regularly. They say yeah, 60 days is enough time or whatever. MR. DeWITTE: I like kind of a combination of the two. And as a thought -- and again, I picture this as a template. I'd like to see our orders follow a consistent basic format. And I'd love for the county to be amiable to our template and kind of structure them this way, but a certain amount of time to get a permit -- to get your permit application in, which has a fine associated with it. The next is a window of time to get that completed, which has a fine associated with it. That fine might be $50 a day. That fine, or whatever that is. And we would then go back and, you know, if they had a problem with that part of the process, we could go back and amend oh, our six months we gave you window there was not enough. Then there's enough thing: Now once you've got your permit, this much time to get that action carried out. What that does is we might fine somebody 1,000 bucks a day once you get your answer Page 109 January 25, 2007 done. You got 30 days and that's it. You know, we might fine them $100 a day on -- with the county. But it also let's us take the piece. Oh, your piece was that you didn't get the county done in time, that took a lot longer, that took four months extra, okay, we understand that. But you took eight months extra. Your four months, we alleviate that part of the fine, that's gone. Your eight months, though, you still had another -- you still went four months over the last part of the order. I think a basic structure like that will help address some of these concerns. Again, it's not perfect. We'll still have to go back and make a decision about well, they had a hard time with the county, if we gave them enough time or not. But I think a basic structure also will help us just get some consistency in, in place of we're going to give you this much time to get your permit, we're going to give you this much time to get it done and we're going to give you this much time to get the work complete. Again, I think that will help the matter. MR. KRAENBRING: That was the point I was making. It's a three-part order. MR. DeWITTE: Exactly. I agree. MR. KRAENBRING: And so I think that once they know that county has to have their permit or their answer back to them, then that is the date that you can either alleviate or impose fines from. MR. DeWITTE: And we could even order that if they can't make the permit process, that they need to request an extension on that second period of time for us by notice, to let us know. MR. KRAENBRING: That might come back, though, just in the normal course of hearing the cases. MR. DeWITTE: I mean, that will come after the fact. It always comes after the fact right now to say, hey, if you're four months into the -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, could you slow down? Page 110 January 25, 2007 MR. DeWITTE: You know, if you're five months into the process, send a note. MR. DEAN: He's excited. MR. KELLY: If I may, then, is there some kind of consensus -- because we are this close -- is there some kind of consensus as to how long it takes county usually to approve permits? And take into consideration the severity of the situations. I mean, can we say six months, can we say one year from the time applied -- MS. ARNOLD: There isn't. Because the review process also is reliant on the person responding -- to -- the respondent submitting. If something's rejected, it could sit there for months and they don't -- we have issues right now that are that very same thing. Something's been submitted, it wasn't sufficient, the county sent a letter and they did nothing. MR. KELLY: Well, we can always fall back on the due diligence clause. Because that does -- legally doesn't that -- that carries weight. MS. RAWSON: But somebody's going to have to bring that to your attention. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think maybe a mix of the two. And I agree with Michelle that right now we have a couple of open-ended cases, is what I'm going to call them, out there that we formatted today. Because I don't think we thought of this loophole at that time. We thought yeah, that resolves this issue. I think we do need some sort of three-prong approach, which means we are going to have to put a deadline in there. But I like Justin's suggestion that we stipulate that if they foresee that they're going to need an extension on that time frame, they need to notify us of that at that time. MR. PONTE: Notify us? Notify the board -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Notify the county -- Page 111 January 25, 2007 MR. PONTE: -- notify the county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- at that time. MR. PONTE: We've just created another department. And it's called -- you know, we've created another county department. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: George, we used to have some of the cases that we knew were going to draw out come forward each month and give us a report on how they were going. It's no different. If they're having problems getting a permit, I think they need to notify the county so that they can come to this board and give us notice of that. And then we can adjust it. MR. PONTE: You know, we're talking about things here that in my mind have a -- are very complex. And we're doing it just verbally, and we're talking about words and they come and they go. What we have here is -- I think you're looking at a paperwork expansion here. If we are really expecting the respondents to get back to code enforcement and say guess what, we're having trouble with getting a permit, who do they tell that to? What does code enforcement do? And as far as the board goes and the order that's already out there, what are we creating here? It's not -- you can't just say it, something has to then happen. And all I see is paper in another department. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the way I see it is what we are at risk of is just not having a fine to impose against someone that sits on a particular situation. But they are still in violation, and if it gets to the point where they're just doing nothing because they're really not affected monetarily, then I don't think there's anything that prohibits us from coming back to the board and saying, board, this is a repeat or a recurring violation that -- because it's still not in compliance. Even though they've submitted, they've complied with your prior order, they still may have sat for a year without responding to the county's request for, you know-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Don't permits have an expiration? Page 112 January 25, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: But they don't obtain the permit. They're in the process of application. They don't obtain the permit until they, you know, go through that review process. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that leaves us too vulnerable. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, it comes back to the issue of when they're going to be able to obtain a permit. You know, we need a date when they need to apply by, either 12 days or whatever. Then you have to say is it going to be 60, 90 days that -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, I have a suggestion. MR. KRAENBRING: -- you're going to be able to obtain that permit. MS. ARNOLD: I have a suggestion. Because there is a review process, there is, you know, a letter that is sent out to the applicant when they are insufficient or there's been a rejection. There is a time period I believe. It just depends on what that particular application is, whether it's a building permit or a site plan or whatever, that the county expects some response. We could do some research on our part to determine what that time period is and suggest to the board if the applicant is not responding by that time period, then a fine would apply. Then that way they're not just kind of sitting on something. MR. KELLY: That's very good. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that works. MS. ARNOLD: All right. So we'll have to do some homework and we'll -- MS. RAWSON: A drop dead date. MR. DEAN: Can I make one comment? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DEAN: Are you done? Let me jump in once. You know, when a code inspector goes out and he finds a violation and he writes it up, that person has a long time to go get a Page 113 January 25, 2007 permit. But it seems to me they all drag it out until they get here, and then we worry about giving them 60 days and more time. They already had a month. Every one I read here, they've had a month's notice and time to go get a permit after they were notified. So they are getting a big leeway. And my understanding is that we only deal with about three percent of all the people that are in code violations. Is that right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, very small percentages. MR. DEAN: Very small amount of cases. So it just seems to me it's only the people maybe a -- not deadbeats, but a few of the people want to drag it out and that's why they come to the board, because they know they can get a lot more time. And I think that's why they come here. MR. KELLY: I don't know -- MR. DEAN: And that's why-- MR. KELLY: I'm sorry. MR. DEAN: And let me just finish. I think Code Enforcement Board, their job is to do just what we read here on our bylaws and stuff. If the county and the permits -- I don't care how long they take. That's not my job as a Code Enforcement Board member. We give them a certain amount of time. They have to comply. If they don't, then they have to come back and tell us why. And if you keep going after people like that, they'll get tired of coming here and explaining why. Because they're not doing what they really should be doing. Because we do help the public pretty good. So that's just how I feel about the whole thing. They do have plenty of time. When a code enforcement first states the violation, he can walk in in one day and get a permit and it's solved. Thank you. MR. KELLY: I see it as if you were paying your taxes. I don't know many people that pay on January 1 st. Everybody waits till Page 114 January 25, 2007 somewhere around the beginning of April, knowing that the deadline is coming. But I do agree with you -- MR. DEAN: They don't want to save the four percent. MR. KELLY: That's just how we are. And it's a call to action. And eventually they come in front of the board and there's severity and we impose our fines. And there's, you know, a good percent percentage of work that is completed. I like the three-step process. You have "X" number of days to apply for your permit. And then if county already has in their permitting process a certain number of days to amend or repair or fix that permit application before it's dropped out of the system and there's a notification date at the end when this particular permit application was dropped due to, you know, the person applying for it not following through, well, then we do have a date. And then of course once the permit is secured, then you have "X" number of days until the work is C.O.'d. MR. PONTE: If you had some verbiage that said you have 15 days to apply for your permit, what's the penalty if I don't? MR. KELLY: Well, like we've done in today's, we've actually assessed penalties. You have $50 per day for not applying. MR. PONTE: For not complying. MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. PONTE: But now you've got several parts there. You're just making it more complex. MR. KELLY: I think this is actually simpler. It's an A,B,C, 1,2,3. MR. PONTE: I couldn't disagree with you more. I think it makes the entire process much more complicated. And the position of the board is yes, we find you in violation and you have so many days to come into compliance. It's not the position of this board to tell them how to come into compliance, it's not -- we're not supposed to make suggestions to them Page 115 January 25, 2007 to say you can try and do this. It's really simple. We're trying to take on too much in terms of helping the respondent or egging him along. Whether we're making it a three-part or a four-part and different reports. Here it is. You're in violation, you have 120 days to come into compliance, period. That's the end of this board, or you'll be fined "X". That's the responsibility of this board. MR. KELLY: It's either complicated when we look at it the first time or it's complicated when they come back to us and they ask for a reduction of imposition of fines. MR. PONTE: This coming back and asking for a reduction of fines is something that is growing. And someone mentioned earlier on here, gosh, let's not put that in writing or way up front that you can come on back. Come on in, I'll go on back. You know, it becomes a second calling for them. I think you just have to do it straight. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to clarify that my suggestion at looking at the time periods, I would rather bring something like that back to you to -- well, I don't know how we would do this, because we do want to remember that these folks are here because they did something that they shouldn't have done. And in some cases, they knew they shouldn't have done it but they did it anyway. And the time periods that are put in place are really there for the people that are going through the process the correct way. They know -- they want to add on something to their home, they go to the county and they put an application in, and they have that time period to think about it, whatever -- you know, for whatever the reason it is. But, you know, if the county gives them six months to resubmit, is that really fair to the general public that's doing it the right way, to give them that same time period to sit on something when they're already done it? MR. KELLY: No, but earlier when you had described county's process, I don't think you said six months. I think you said either 30 Page 116 January 25, 2007 or 60 days. MS. ARNOLD: But I'm just throwing -- I have no idea what the time period is. MR. KELLY: If there was something in place it was, you know, something that we thought was appropriate, then maybe we could use county's existing time plan. If not, then I'm all for setting a date that you have to have your permit by. And if not, just notify staff, staff will bring it in front of us the next month. We meet monthly. So it's not like there's a huge delay. As long as they get it in before their deadline, and staff agrees, yes, they did have a problem, but they are working on getting an engineering approval, we'll have no problem extending the time line, and then we have another date to look forward to. MR. PONTE: And another thing to do. MR. DeWITTE: Comment. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DeWITTE: I want to let the reporter catch up for a second. One thing I like about the short window of time to get their permit in, what I would love to see happen, they get 15 days to get their permit in. If they don't, 20 days out or our next meeting we do an imposition of fines. And the reason is, you give somebody -- somebody's got a big problem, a year problem, we give them a year before we ever -- imposition of fines, they sell their property. They got a year. There's no record, there's nothing stopping them. Some unsuspecting person buys it. I want some short period of time frame for them to address it and then for us to be able to get a fine if they're not moving forward. I like that feature of the multi-step process. MR. KELLY: I agree 100 percent, but I don't know that having an open permit stops someone from selling their home. MR. DeWITTE: I don't either. Page 11 7 January 25, 2007 MR. KELLY: I know an NOC would. If it's over $2,500 in improvements, you have to file a notice of commencement. That is recorded publicly, and there has to be a termination of notice of commencement prior to the sale, which would alert them to these particular issues. MS. ARNOLD: And the board's order is recorded publicly as well. MS. RAWSON: Right. We record these orders like immediately. MR. DeWITTE: Do title company searches catch that? MS. RAWSON: Oh, yeah, they show up. MR. KELLY: They do, okay. MS. RAWSON: Because they're always calling and wanting to know how to get it off. MR. KELLY: I still think we're so close. MR. DeWITTE: Another just thought. Whatever way we decide, I would love to move towards a standard format of -- it's so much easier for us to process if we see it the same way every time. If it is going to be multi-step permit, this amount of time, this fine. To get it complied with this amount of time, this fine. If it's rejected, this amount of time to obtain a demolition permit and fine. If it's accepted, this amount of time to complete the work -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In all honesty, I think we have somewhat worked to that direction. Because we now look to make sure that we have -- operational costs are always included. We try to look for that. And we even remind the staff on occasion that did you put in operational costs. We try to look at okay, we have this fine here that's going to kick in if you don't do this. We then look at a lot of other times there's another backup, if you want to do that, if you don't do this, this is going to happen. Or you have the alternative of demolition. Page 118 January 25, 2007 So we sort of have that in place. So I'm not sure -- I understand where we're trying to go with this, but I'm not sure we're not kind of just reinventing the wheel a little bit. MR. DeWITTE: That may be true. I've noticed that I've had personally a hard time processing some of the orders sometimes as I've tried to match them up with past orders in my head. I think today maybe we did not do some demolition option that we should have done, for example. So-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think in all honesty, that's because we don't have them in front of us to keep it concise and current. MS. RAWSON: Well, if I can say something, because it certainly would make my life easier if you had a format. You're not always consistent, which concerns me sometimes. That's one way you're going to stay consistent. Now, I know that you have to change your orders based on the facts and based on the situations, but you do need to have some consistency. If the recommendations that come from the staff are consistent, you know, my orders, you follow that, we'll be consistent, too. MS. ARNOLD: The thing is, every case is not the same. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: Every building permit is not the same. A sign permit is totally different from an addition to a house to, you know, a shed or whatever. So we do try to look at the case in our recommendations to bring to you. And the fine amount, too. We try to be -- you know, look at the person, how they cooperated through the case and all that stuff. And, you know, instead of it being contentious, sometimes the investigators don't tell you everything that goes on through the process. And all of that stuff is -- the severity of the violation and those types of things are all considered when we give you our recommendation.o Page 119 January 25, 2007 MR. DeWITTE: My intent would not be to create a stamp that every permit case gets, but allow full flexibility in fines, in time. But in every case with an unpermitted structure, you need to go get a permit. You're going to have an amount of time for that permit. You're going to fix it or tear it down, and you're going to have an amount to time to do that. So we certainly want full flexibility in how we approach it and to be able to address individual needs that every case has. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, that's why we hear these cases. As long as it's consistent in its form: Apply for the permit, get the permit, get the work done. And then we have to take the guidelines from the county as to how long it's going to take to get that permit, and then we have to look at the severity of the work that needs to be done. MS. ARNOLD: We'll take into consideration the potential ofa loophole in some of our recommendations to the board and try to do the best we can, you know, in orchestrating our recommendations for your consideration. You know, I think -- I mean, I understand it's going to be a lot easier for you all to follow along if there is consistency with similar types of cases. And we try to do that. And if there's a variation I guess from what the norm, whatever that will become, I just -- I'm going to just ask my staff to specify why we may be verifying -- varying from that norm. MR. DeWITTE: My thought that would be any variation that you would need would be warranted. Just if there was not a need, to have consistency. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to say today's meeting and how we were given the recommendations was a new orchestration for us, in all honesty. And I think that's what brought this discussion to the front. That is a little bit different than how we have done it in the past. And I think a lot of us picked it up and thought it's really good, but we sat here and dissected it and found a loophole. Page 120 January 25, 2007 So if you can close that loophole with utilizing this format that you've started, I think that would become a consistent pattern then. MR. KELLY: I agree. And if we do not come up with any type of resolution to that before our next meeting, maybe the words due diligence would help. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is there anymore discussion? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next meeting is February 23rd, and that is at the courthouse. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And it's a Friday. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And it is a Friday. MS. ARNOLD: And we've already been notified that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And it is at 9:00. MS. ARNOLD: -- Mr. Kelly is not going to be here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Who? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Kelly is not going to be here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're not going to be here? MR. KELLY: I'll be in Belize on my anniversary trip. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Happy anniversary. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. KLATZKOW: Not the courthouse, but the BCC room. MS. RAWSON: County commission. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. The complex. The normal place. I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DeWITTE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 121 January 25, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:55 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 122