Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/22/2007 R March 22, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida March 22, 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 in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAN: Sheri Barnett Jerry Morgan Richard Kraenbring George Ponte Gerald L. Lefebvre Kenneth Kelly ALTERNATES: Lionel L'Esperance Charles Martin ALSO PRESENT: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Jeff Wright, County Attorney's Office Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: March 22, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier Connty Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida Horseshoe drive, Naples, FI. 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS-Elect Chair and Vice-Chair 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Jannary 25, 2007; Fehrnary 23, 2007 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continne B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC YS. Golf Venture II, Inc 2. BCC YS. Frank and Marie Lazzaro 3. BCC YS. GE Management Group, Inc 4. BCC vs. Cesario and Yonacia Nunez 5. BCC YS. Robert J. Dixon 6. BCC YS. Frank Fernandez 7. BCC YS. Rodolfo Estrella and Maria G. Estrella 8. BCC YS. GMAC Model Home Finance CEB 2007-17 CEB 2007-18 CEB 2007-19 CEB 2007-20 CEB 2007-21 CEB 2007-22 CEB 2007-23 CEB 2007-24 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Reqnest for Rednction of Fines/Liens B. Reqnest for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC YS. Elinord Pierre 2. BCC YS. Curlis and Brenda Blocker 3. BCC YS. Curlis and Brenda Blocker 4. BCC YS. Ignacio Solo and Carmen Solo 5. BCC YS. Ignacio Solo and Carmen Solo 6. BCC YS. Ignacio Solo and Carmen Solo 7. BCC YS. Viclor H. and Veronica Ledesma 8. BCC YS. Luis Angel Dones 7. NEW BUSINESS- Approval of Rnles and Regulations 8. REPORTS- 9. COMMENTS - June Hearing Date-June 22, 2007 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - April 26, 2007 11. ADJOURN CEB 2006-53 CEB 2005-35 CEB 2005-39 CEB 2005-43 CEB 2005-44 CBB 2005-45 CEB 2006-48 CEB 2006-49 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning, everybody. Give Jean a minute or two to get organized, then we'll get started. MS. RAWSON: Ready. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item 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 Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and, therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll call please. MS. MARKU: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Dean has an excused absence. Sheri Barnett. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Present. MS. MARKU: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Present. MS. MARKU: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. Page 2 March 22, 2007 MS. MARKU: Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. MARKU: Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just a note. We have a quorum, so our alternates can participate but not vote. Approval of the agenda. Any changes? MS. ARNOLD: There are no changes to agenda, but I do want to note that the Giedish (phonetic) case which was continued from last hearing has been resolved, so we are withdrawing that completely from your proceedings. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I think Jean told us we had a couple stipulations. MS. ARNOLD: That's true, we do have a couple stipulations. There is a stipulation for item number C, 5C 1, as well as item number 5C4, and item number 5C3 is requesting a continuance. So we would hear the request for the continuance first and then the other two stipulations after. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the agenda. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next item is the election of Page 3 March 22, 2007 officers. This is our March meeting, which is our business meeting for the year. I need to ask for nominations. MR. KELLY: I nominate Sheri Barnett as chair. MR. PONTE: I'll second that as a nominate if the chair is in interested in continuing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If that's what you guys want, I will be glad to do that. Any other nomination? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I guess we need to take a vote then. MS. ARNOLD: I think because there are no other nominations -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's automatic, okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- you're automatically it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right. I'll take nominations then for the vice-chair. MR. KELL Y: I nominate my good friend here -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. KELL Y: -- Gerald Lefebvre, for vice-chair. MR. PONTE: I will second that nomination. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any others? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess then, again, that would follow. So those I guess we'll be your new officers for next year. That makes it easy, I guess. MS. ARNOLD: Congratulations. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if you want to -- ordinarily the vice sits on the other side of -- MR. PONTE: Let's just make that move. Page 4 March 22, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next item is approval of minutes. I need to approve the minutes for the January 25th meeting. Do we have any amendments or corrections? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion to approve those at any time. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now, we need to also do the February 23rd minutes. Are there any corrections? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, may I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 5 March 22, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll move then to the first motion to continue which would be Board of Collier County Commissioners versus GE Management Group. MS. CORNWELL: That would be me. MS. ARNOLD: I believe who we have here is a representative for GE management group. MS. CORNWELL: Yes, good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I have you both sworn in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: For the record, your name. MS. CORNWELL: My name is Sunny Cornwell. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sunny, are you responsible and have permission to represent the company? MS. CORNWELL: All that I was asked to do was to come and request a continuance due to Mr. Brandt's and Mr. Levine's absence because they're out of the state, and that's all that I know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right. Thank you. MS. CORNWELL: You're welcome. MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. At this point we oppose any continuance. We believe there was sufficient time given of notice of hearing over -- the registered mail was delivered 1/25, just regular mail. Also affidavit of mailing was on -- in February, February 13th. So that's more than enough time for them to make arrangements to be here. We would oppose any continuance. MS. CORNWELL: Ma'am, may I say something else? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. CORNWELL: I was told that it was yesterday that we could come down, and I didn't know it was 10 -- well, he didn't know it was 10 days prior to the meeting that we had to request a continuance, so I actually sent my secretary yesterday and there was no meeting. He Page 6 March 22, 2007 thought it was yesterday. So I do understand that they say it was signed for and they received whatever it was that he was sent, but he told me yesterday that he did not get that until yester -- or the night before there -- that. That's why he sent Shirley down here yesterday. So all he wants to do, is he wants to appear himself but he cannot do that until another hearing. He just can't be here today, so -- he did receive it, I guess, but it wasn't passed to him in time. And knowing corporate the way I do, they lose my faxes on a daily basis, so it makes sense to me that that could be true. So he just wanted you to know that he didn't feel that he had 10 days notice to come in here, so just to tell you that. I'm very nervous. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: It's basically up to you guys. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I think what she said is that the notice was timely sent by the county, but because of the way corporations work, he just didn't actually see it till later. MS. CORNWELL: Exactly. MS. RAWSON: And she's asking that he be physically present. So it's opposed by the county. It's up to you guys. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. SNOW: If I may add. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. SNOW: This has been a long running case, and we've had several complaints from citizens concerning this. And he being here or not being here is not going to change any of the facts of the case at all. It's not going to change any of the county recommendations. We don't feel that it would benefit at all by postponing this. This could be construed as a health and safety issue, and we would prefer to press on with the case if possible. MS. CORNWELL: I think it would do good for him to be here Page 7 March 22, 2007 because I'm not signing anything and don't know anything about this, and I think it would be better even if it's just that he stands here and listens and is told what he needs to be told. It shouldn't be coming through me and I can't sign anything today for any reason. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You wouldn't be signing anything. MS. CORNWELL: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It would be sent certified mail. MS. CORNWELL: I have no authority in that area, so-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. CORNWELL: -- you know, I just -- I would feel better for my end if he could be here too, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I clarified what your position when was I asked you the question. MS. CORNWELL: Okay, okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'll close the public comment and go to the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to deny. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: My original thought was to not hear the case because I really am not comfortable hearing cases when there's not an attorney or representative of the respondent here; however, the fact that the investigator has mentioned the possibility of health and safety issues moves it forward in my mind, and so I would have to say that I would vote to hear the case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to second his motion then? MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 8 March 22, 2007 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. We will be hearing the case today. MS. CORNWELL: Okay. Does that mean I have to stay-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MS. CORNWELL: -- because I have nothing to say really. Okay. And anything that transpires will be sent to my office so that I know what to tell him? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: (Nods head.) MS. CORNWELL: Okay. And according to what we spoke about this morning, so okay. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Mrs. Cornwell. MS. CORNWELL: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to stay for the proceedings itself because the board is going to hear it or you don't -- MS. CORNWELL: Well, not really because-- MS. ARNOLD: Okay, all right. MS. CORNWELL: -- I discussed with the investigator what needs to be done, so I think we're cool, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time we'll move to the stipulated cases. The first case being 2007-17, which is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Gulf Venture II, Inc. MS. SORRELS: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. Is the respondent present? MS. SORRELS: No, ma'am. Page 9 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to swear her in, please, Terri? (The speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: This is case number 2005080848. The violation is located at 2262 Tamiami Trail East. The violation is a pull sign that was without a valid permit. The violation has been abated and we entered into a stipulation agreement. The respondent agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $457.41 which was incurred in prosecution of the case. And as I mentioned, the violation was abated. The respondent removed the old pull sign and has an issued permit for the future new sign, and that was abated on March 15,2007. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you state your name. MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry. It's Azure, A-Z-U-R-E, Sorrels, S-O-R-R-E-L-S; Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have one question on that. Even though they pulled a permit, in the permit itself, does it require them to notify for inspections and things like that? MS. ARNOLD: Inspection from the building department? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually from code enforcement for the new sign, because they don't have anything there. They just say that the sign was taken down and that they have a permit. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the violation was the prior sign. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So they're in compliance, so they don't have to notify us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Just wanted a clarification. Thank you. If there is no other comment from the county -- MS. SORRELS: No, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- then I will close the public (sic) and go to the board. Page 10 March 22, 2007 MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the stipulation agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case will be case number 2007-20, which is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Cesario and Y onacia Nunez. I hope I didn't do that too poorly. If the respondent's here, if they'd like to step forward, please. MR. WARDEN: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. Terri, would you like to swear everybody in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. We're here for a violation of section 6, subsections 11, 12B, 12C, 12K, 19C of Collier County, 2004-58, exterior walls in need of repair, electrical system not maintained, roof with holes and rotten materials, doors without proper hardware and area infested with ants at property located at 204 Madison Avenue, West Immokalee. We have entered into a stipulation agreement. The respondents have agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of343.19, and by submitting a complete application for all Collier County permits for Page 11 March 22, 2007 roof and electrical work within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the application is submitted. Upon receipt of permits, they must obtain a Certificate of Completion within 60 days of the day the permit was issued or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the Certificate of Completion is issued. They must also repair all exterior walls so that they are free of holes and rotting material -- materials within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of $1 00 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. They must also attach proper hardware to all doors within three days of this hearing or a fine of $25 a day will be imposed until violation is abated. They must also treat insect and pet infestation within three days of this hearing or a fine of $25 will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, do they need to notify you upon all these completions? MR. KEEGAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that stipulated in there? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. KEEGAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Nunez, I'm assuming? MS. WARDEN: Warden. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Warden, oh, okay. I'm sorry. Do you agree and understand all these stipulated agreements? MR. WARDEN: Yes. MS. WARDEN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you feel that you can accomplish these things in the manner and the times that you have been provided? MR. WARDEN: Should, yeah. Page 12 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Can they state their names, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you go ahead and state your names just for -- MR. WARDEN: Gerald Warden. MS. WARDEN: Alvira Warden. MR. KEEGAN: Excuse me. They're here as representatives for the above. They are deceased. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And we believe the property has now been transferred into their names. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Spell their names. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you spell it for the record. MR. WARDEN: Mine is G-E-R-A-L-D, Warden, W-A-R-D-E-N. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll close the public hearing and go to the board for direction. MR. PONTE: Just one question for the investigator. Is the property occupied with renters? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. It's vacant. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Madam Chairman, I have another question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It appears that you're representing the party who used to own the property, who is now deceased; is that correct? MR. WARDEN: Yeah, it was her parents. Page 13 March 22, 2007 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Was there a problem with notification to you; is that why there might be these fines imposed, or were you not notified? Were they notified or-- MS. WARDEN: My son was going to -- was working on it, but he got hurt on the job, so he stopped, but we had already started working on it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And the same question to you. MR. KEEGAN: There were other violations that have been taken care of, such as the litter that was on the property which has been removed. MS. ARNOLD: I think the question is, were you in contact with someone else? Were you in contact with these individuals or someone else to get those corrected. MR. KEEGAN: I received a call probably when this case first opened and that was it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Did you contact -- MR. KEEGAN: I did speak, and that was the last -- she said she was going to take care of the issues. The litter was removed, and that was the last contact. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, entertain a motion to accept or deny the stipulation. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to accept. MR. KELL Y: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 14 March 22, 2007 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. MS. WARDEN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That closes the stipulations. We'll move to the hearings. The first case being heard is the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Frank and Maria Lazzaro. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operation's Coordinator for Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to ask if the respondent is present. MR. LAZZARO: I am. I'm Frank Lazzaro, Jr. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter that package as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I hear a motion to accept the packet from the county for Exhibit A? MR. PONTE: Move to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have them sworn in, Page 15 March 22, 2007 please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. ARNOLD: Azure, we need to read in the statement of violation. MS. SORRELS: Sorry. MS. ARNOLD: That's okay. MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinance is 04-41, as amended, sections 1O.02.06(B) (l)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(l)(d)(i)and 106.1.2. Description of violation: Pool does not have a valid permit. It has expired. No Certificate of Occupancy. Location/address where violation exists: 430 Panay Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34113. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Lazzaro, Frank and Maria, 430 Panay Avenue, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: March 22, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 24, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 24,2006. Date ofre-inspection: October 19,2006. Results of re-inspection: Violations remain. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Investigator Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: This case was opened on the 22nd of March 2006. Investigator Joe Mucha is the investigator that made the initial contact and worked the majority of the case. There -- Joe had spoke with the property owner, had informed him of the violations that were on his property. All of the violations that were served in the Notice of Violation have been abated excepted Page 16 March 22, 2007 for one, and that was the permit for the pool. The pool permit is a 2003. It has expired, however, we -- in a meeting that Frank and I had with permitting, Carol was informed that the permit would be valid. They would continue to use that permit as long as it was just paperwork that was needed for the CO. There's been several contacts with Frank from Joe concerning the violations and helping him address them. Joe -- sorry. Joe had walked Frank through the violations and what needed to be done. The CO was -- the permit has not been CO'ed due to the fact that he issued or submitted a spot survey which is required by the permit as part of the inspection process. The survey did not show setbacks or a barrier around the pool, so the survey was denied being -- causing the permit not to be CO'ed. So pretty much that's where we sit right now is that the survey needs to be resubmitted. We have explained that to Frank several times. We had a meeting on March 8th. I explained that to him again, went down to permitting, we got all the questions answered, went over to planning and spoke with the individuals over there about what needed to be done to get this -- or to -- because right now there's no fence around the pool, so that would have to be done first before the spot survey could be submitted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does this pool have any enclosures at all? MS. SORRELS: Pardon? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is the pool enclosed at all? MS. SORRELS: No, ma'am, it's not. It's completely open. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Azure, when was the rejection of the spot survey issued? MS. SORRELS: That I cannot answer. I don't know when it was rejected. It doesn't show in the computer when it was rejected. Page 17 March 22, 2007 If I go by the narrative -- on the 26th of September 2006 in the narrative that Joe had written, it says, survey is -- it says Wanda had rejected -- Wanda being someone that works in permitting -- had rejected the survey because it was not showing setbacks and not showing a protective barrier around the pool. And that was September 26th. MR. MUCHA: The original problem was that the spot survey wasn't submitted, and when he resubmitted it, it didn't show the setbacks or the barrier around the pool. So it wasn't a -- it wasn't necessarily rejected back in 2003 or 2004 when the inspections were going on. It just was never submitted. And then when it was resubmitted, it didn't show the setbacks or the barrier. MR. LAZZARO: On February 18th, '04, a final inspection was made of my pool. And I have a general contractor and a pool contractor and an electrical contractor all licensed. I put quite a bit of faith and -- in their contract and assumed that they did what was appropriate. Clarity of this whole situation was not made until March 8th of '07 as Ms. Sorrels indicated, however, I think certain things are important here. The pool is not completely unprotected -- or now there is no barrier around the pool, but on February 18th, '04, when the final pool inspection was made and passed, there was a chain link fence surrounding the pool. On October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma took it down along with significant landscaping around the pool. It was always my intention to put another fence around the pool, and I am in the process of doing that now, especially after our March 8th, '07, meeting with a Carol Stachura, who is in permitting, who explained why a revised spot survey could not be used. I had -- it was my intention that if a revised spot survey could be used, it was an omission on the part of the surveyor because the fence was there at the times of the final inspection in February '04, that a Page 18 March 22, 2007 permit could be issued but it still did not relieve me of my responsibility of reinstalling the fence around the pool, which I had intended to do all along. I made that -- I made those issues to Joe Mucha and to Ms. Sorrels. So I think we're close in resolving this matter. I was called yesterday by Ms. Sorrels and told about this stipulation that was handed to me in writing today, and I am in agreement with portions of the stipulation, and if the stipulation arrangements can be worked out, I think we can save ourselves a lot of time and try to resolve this matter and put it away. I really don't understand why from February 18th, '04, when the final inspection was done, an inspector told me a CO would be issued, until March of '06, that it wasn't made aware to me that there was no CO. In fact, when Joe Mucha first came out and indicated to me that there were some issues, they involved my pool contractor who had not paid some fees. I immediately went down, had the fees paid myself, electrical contractor had an open permit that he had to take care of; I made sure that he went down there. In fact, I have made four trips down to the building department to help take care of these other issues, and at the same time, thought that a revised survey, a corrected survey, showing the pool fence that was there at the time would be sufficient to get the CO, and then I would take step two and rebuild, have the fence rebuilt. It was always my intention. If our property were situated a little bit differently, I would have felt more that there was an imperative upon me to get a barrier around the fence, but we have a retaining wall around the entire property, and three sides of the property is -- we're on a bay. Three sides of the property have a riprap seawall which is 10 to 12 feet at low tide. So two sides of the property, no one can get up and around the pool, and only the entranceway between the two Page 19 March 22, 2007 retaining walls is open. If it were another situation, I can assure you that I would have done whatever I had to to protect unwanted people from getting into the pool. There was never any intent on my part -- or any intention on my part to avoid reinstalling the fence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a question. MR. LAZZARO: What I'd like to say is, as far as the stipulation, if these violations are indicated by what I have received as far as Notice of Violation, they specifically related to buildings or structures. If we're only talking about the pool, fine, because I had other work being done by my general contractor that had to do with an extension of a deck. So these are really not on point as far as reading them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Lazzaro, if -- MR. LAZZARO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- I can interrupt you for a minute. I was going to ask if we would like to table this and let them go work on the stipulated agreement. MR. LAZZARO: I've already indicated to them a little bit earlier that I'd be happy to work this out if we can. MR. MUCHA: I just want to say one thing. The issue about the pool needing a fence, that's not a problem. It's that he's concerned about the operational costs, which I told him that we have no control over. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, we can't -- we can't do anything with the operational costs. Those are required. The only one that can waive that is the county. But if you guys would like to table this and go into discussion to come back with a stipulated agreement, if that's okay with everybody, I don't have a problem with that, if that's so moved with the board. MS. ARNOLD: I think that -- Mr. Lazzaro, my understanding is that you're in agreement with what's on it, all of the terms, but you are opposed to paying the operational costs; is that what it is? Page 20 March 22, 2007 MR. LAZZARO: Two issues, ma'am. Number one, if all these citations that have to do with buildings, et cetera, if that's really not on point -- we're just talking about a pool right now and a pool fence. If that's the case, yes. Number two, and -- MS. ARNOLD: The only case before this board today is your enclosure, is that correct, or is there still -- well, the Certificate of Completion, because without your enclosure, you can't obtain that Certificate of Completion. MR. LAZZARO: Without the barrier around the pool? MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. MR. LAZZARO: Yes that I understand. The Notice of Violations, though, as it's indicated in -- do you all have a copy of that? Number one and number two, the violations that I'm reading, you know, the ordinances show, you know, property improvements that have to do with buildings, et cetera. There's no building in question here as far as I understand. If it's -- we're just talking about a pool fence and that is stipulated, then that's not a problem. I can agree to that and we'll sign a stipulation. I would also sign a stipulation if it were -- if the 60 days from obtaining a Certificate of Completion was changed to 120 days. The only reason I say that is, it is very difficult to get contractors to come down and not only provide an estimate -- because based upon my experience having this remodeling done at the house as well as my work in property management, and 60 days, I think, is unrealistic. On March 8th I told -- I've mentioned that clarity was brought to this situation. On March 9th I began calling contractors. I have called seven different contractors. Two have shown up and have yet to give me a proposal. They have promised to do so. And I don't know if I'll be able to get on their schedule. I'm willing to sign a contract -- and I don't know if I'm able to get on their schedule within 60 days. And then if I don't have the Certificate of Page 21 March 22, 2007 Completion within 60 days due to no fault of mine own but my contractor not being able to perform, then I'm, again, facing a $200 per day fine, which I think is more realistic if I had more time to get a contractor. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's why I said, do they want to go ahead and see if they can iron out differences and then come back to us? MS. ARNOLD: Or we've already gone through the hearing process. You all can make a determination whether or not the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- you know, the time period is sufficient. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Kind of asked what you wanted. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I just wanted to make a clarification for Mr. Lazzaro's information. The -- although the Notice of Violation indicates building permits, it's -- it would also apply to your pool because your pool required a building permit. And although it's not a vertical construction, the structure itself, the pool, is requiring to get a permit. So that's what it -- it's being referred to in your Notice of Violation. And also, the permit numbers are specified, and we would go by what was approved under that permit, whatever structures are approved under that permit. So we're not -- if the concern is that we're affecting your home or any other structure on there, it's not applicable to that. MR. LAZZARO: Thank you. That was my concern. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Well, ifthere's no more discussion then. MR. KELLY: I actually-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, okay. MR. KELLY: -- have a question for staff. What is the amount of the operational costs? MS. SORRELS: It's 416 dollars and-- Page 22 March 22, 2007 MR. LAZZARO: Thirty cents. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we see the stipulated agreement on the overhead, or the proposed stipulated agreement, I guess? MS. SORRELS: Give me one second. I misplaced it. MR. KELLY: Mr. Lazzaro, I have a quick question for you. MR. LAZZARO: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: When you contracted with the pool company, the general contractor and the electrician, did you pull the permits in your name or did you let them do it? MR. LAZZARO: No, they did it. MR. KELLY: Okay. There might be a small course of action for you against your contractors for not continuing it all the way to Certificate of Occupancy. MR. LAZZARO: Yes. Carter Fence erected the pool, the chain link fence, the pool barrier. It's on record. A pool inspector inspected it on February 18th, as I mentioned, you know. And the question was if a corrected survey could be used, which was not -- which was finally clarified on March 8th of '07, three years after this whole thing went about, that we had to start from scratch. I understand the reasons why, based upon talking to permitting. Code enforcement, if they would have told me that on March of '06 when I first started talking about other things, we could have -- this could have been done over a year ago. MR. KELLY: I'd also like to clarify one other point. The reason why 60 days is being used is because there is a rule that says that anything that was built or not permitted has 60 days to rectify. That's why that number keeps being thrown around. MR. LAZZARO: As you probably know though, it's very difficult to have work done in our communities and have it done within 60 days, especially in light of how busy everyone seems to be. Page 23 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: As recourse for you, if that were to take place, if you couldn't get it done, at the time that we would impose the fines you would be able to come forward and bring us that information, and we would take a look at it. MR. LAZZARO: If that were available to me, I could show you a signed contract and show you that the contractor had a problem getting materials or whatever, and that he was delayed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That would be what we would look at. MR. LAZZARO: That would be fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LAZZARO: I could do that. I intend to sign the contract as soon as I get a third proposal. As I said, two contractors have already come out. So hopefully that will be in within the next week, and the permit would be pulled. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We afford that opportunity for everybody. MR. LAZZARO: Thank you. If that's -- if that opportunity is there, then I don't have a problem with it. MS. SORRELS: Can I just mention one thing? I just wanted to make known that -- I mean, the case has been open for a year. Investigator Mucha has gone above and beyond making sure clarification was given to the property owner. I also had a conversation with Jeff from Classical Pools, who is the contractor that did his pool, and I had that conversation on the 12th of December of '06. And at that time Jeff had told me and clarified to me that he has also explained to the property owner what needed to be done to get this Certificate of Completion for the permit for this pool. So he's -- I'm under the understanding and have the impression that he's had plenty of clarification of what needed to be done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We understand. MR. KELLY: Mr. Lazzaro? Page 24 March 22, 2007 MR. LAZZARO: Yes. MR. KELLY: You had said in your original testimony that you really just became aware of the severity of the situation on March 8th of'07. MR. LAZZARO: Not the severity, the resolution-- MR. KELLY: The resolution. MR. LAZZARO: -- how to resolve it. MR. KELLY: If there's anytime you feel that there's too much hearsay being entered into testimony by staff, you can object. MR. LAZZARO: Thank you. Okay. Ms. Sorrels and I on March 8th, '07, were both enlightened as far as why we could not use what we thought a revised corrected survey that was done at the time in '04 when there was a fence around the pool. And as I say, Carol Stachura, who's lead permitting technician, made it real clear to both of us, and at that time I said, then we have to -- we have to go to another course of action. JeffMustari, who was also -- the pool contractor, was also there on March 8th, '07, to meet with Ms. Sorrels and myself, and he was enlightened as well. In contrast to what Ms. Sorrels just indicated, he's the one that indicated to me, you should not have to do anything because I was told that a CO had been issued. Do not have to do anything except get a revised or corrected survey showing the fence at the time, and that's why we were there on March 8th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time I'm going to close the public meeting and go to the discussion amongst the board. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. Page 25 March 22, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ramifications, I guess? Is that the right word? Looking for remedies. MR. PONTE: Resolution? MR. KRAENBRING: I suppose the only real issue is the amount of time allotted, whether we're going to leave it at 60 days or go to the 120 that the gentleman is requesting. MR. KELL Y: I have a step-by-step that might help to extend the time frame -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELLY: -- but does bring resolution. First pay operational costs $416.30. Next, 14 days to apply for a fence and barrier permit; 60 days from the time of permit approval to receive -- to install and have an inspection performed by county for the fence installed; 90 days from the date of permit approval for a spot survey to be resubmitted or submitted as new, whatever is required, and a CO 120 days from the date of permit approval on the fence to have a CO issued. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Or? MR. PONTE: Or a fine of-- MR. KELL Y: Or a fine of $100 per day for each day after. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the respondent need to notify code enforcement? MR. KELLY: Absolutely, notify enforcement at the time everything has been resolved so that they can verify. Page 26 March 22, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Can I have a clarification? So it's 40 (sic) days to obtain the permit. MR. KELLY: Fourteen. MS. ARNOLD: Fourteen, I'm sorry. Fourteen days to obtain the permit, 60 days to do the actual installation of the barrier? MR. KELLY: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: And then 90 days from permit approval to obtain a spot survey? MR. KELL Y: Right. It would be 60 days from approval to actually complete the work; 90 days from approval to have the spot survey submitted; 120 days from approval to actually receive the CO. MS. ARNOLD: That's fine, but I think what -- the time sensitive date that you're concerned about is the spot -- deals with the spot survey. MR. LAZZARO: No. I'm more concerned with -- MS. ARNOLD: Because once the spot surveys approved, the CO gets approved in a couple days if an inspection is requested. MR. LAZZARO: I don't have a problem with the time frame except the first 14 days. It's taken me 14 days to get two of seven contractors just to come out to the property, and I still don't have their proposal even though I've been calling them. I would want to get at least one more contractor so I can compare three proposals because I'm putting a six-foot gate in a closed position to close the barrier between the two retaining walls. And it's not realistic to sign a contractor within 14 days, however, if like -- if it was possible I -- or if it is probable that I can do that, yes, I will do it. But I think 14 days may be a little unrealistic. MR. PONTE: It's 14 days from the close of this hearing. MR. LAZZARO: Yes. MR. PONTE: And you've already had 14 days and you've talked to two other contractors, so another 14 days would be 20 -- you know, it would seem sufficient time to me. Page 27 March 22, 2007 MR. LAZZARO: Well, I don't have the proposals yet from people that I called on March 9th so -- and the other four, if they respond, I'm not sure that they can get me the proposals in time. I'd be happy if they would and to go forward with it. Fourteen days, though, may be a little bit difficult. MR. KELLY: I would be interested to hear what the rest of the board thought. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm saying that basically we're not supposed to be discussing with the public anyway. MR. KELL Y: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's supposed to be with the board. Any other comments from the board? MS. ARNOLD: Can I have another point of clarification with regards to the order? There -- is there a fine amount associated with any of these time frames? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Hundred dollars a day if it's not -- MS. ARNOLD: Just for the last one or -- MR. KELLY: It would be of each of these. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody else have an opinion? I'm looking. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just have one point of clarification just to address the 14 days as well? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's actually not even been seconded. MS. ARNOLD: Right, can I -- that's why I wanted-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: A fence permit, if that's what his intent is, can be obtained in a matter of days, if not the same day, because there's the ability to get an express permit, and he can, as the property owner, Page 28 March 22, 2007 obtain that permit himself. He doesn't have to wait for the contractor. MR. KRAENBRING: That was actually just my thought that, you know, ifhe doesn't need a contractor to obtain this permit for him, then he can go ahead and get that done. In the meantime, he's already got two estimates that are supposed to be coming. It looks like this case has been hanging around for a while. And while I do appreciate the note of hearsay, they are testifying, you know, under oath, so I don't think that's quite hearsay. I think that the timeline that Mr. Kelly has proposed is measured and is fair, and I would second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I now have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot I'll call for a vote. All those in favor. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Lazzaro, do you understand what we have directed you to do? MR. LAZZARO: I have 14 days to obtain a permit or a contractor to obtain a permit. MR. KELLY: Submit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Submit. MR. KELL Y: You have 14 days to just submit for the permit. MR. LAZZARO: The application. MR. KELL Y: Correct. Page 29 March 22, 2007 MR. LAZZARO: Fine. I believe I understand it. MR. RAWSON: Why don't you read it all to him again, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: Fourteen days to submit for a permit; 60 days from approval of that permit to actually install the fence and have it inspected by Collier County; 90 days from the acceptance of permit to submit a spot survey; and 120 days from the acceptance ofthe permit to receive a CO. There is also a requirement to notify code enforcement when it is completed so they may verify, and operational costs of$416.13-- MS. ARNOLD: Thirty cents. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, 30 cents. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And if you don't do anyone of those items, there could be a hundred dollar a day charge attached to each one of those, okay? MR. LAZZARO: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Terri, how are you doing? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case then would be the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus GE Management Group. MS. MARKU: The respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept the evidence. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make -- MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 30 March 22, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinance is 04-41 as amended, 5.06.06[G], 5.06.06[L], 5.06.06[N]. Description of violation: Portable sign, also known as "snipe signs," placed in road throughout unincorporated Collier County. Location/address where violation exists: itinerant or transient in nature countywide. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Michael Levine, 4800 North Federal Highway, Suite 100B, Boca Raton, Florida, 34 -- 33431. Date violation first observed: July 20, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October 18, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 30, 2006. Date ofre-inspection: January 16,2007. Results of re-inspection: A violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Kitchell Snow. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Terri, could you please swear in the investigator. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This case has gone on quite some time, and I would like to thank the board for hearing it today. These have to do with portable signs, snipe signs, being placed in Page 31 March 22, 2007 the right-of-way throughout Collier County. I do have evidence to submit for the board. This started in July of last year. I personally have picked up in between 3- and 400 of these that have been placed in right-of-way. Staff has picked up in excess of 1,500 to 2,000 that have been placed in right-of-way. As you notice, these are in high traffic areas. That's on Orange Blossom and Livingston. The health and safety is, these have the propensity to fly in the road, get caught under traffic, they can be a distraction to drivers on the road, and it's just something we don't need in the county. That's on Pine Ridge Road. If you notice the dates, these are progressive. This is not something that has happened arbitrarily. These are systematically placed. My contact has been based for the past, I would say, year contacting the president of the company, advising against placing them in the right-of-way. He assures me he won't -- they won't do it again, no problem. They clear up for a couple weeks, they're back again. Issued a citation to him. This will never happen again. Don't worry about it. We've taken care of it. They're back again. And here we have today. These are certainly a nightmare for drivers, and they aren't pleasant to the community to look at, and we would like to stop these. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? MR. MORGAN: Mr. Kitchell, is GE Management part of General Electric? MR. SNOW: No, sir, they're not. This is an interesting story, and I'll tell you how this came about. The website is not interactive. The only thing you can do on the website is register and leave your phone number. There's no phone numbers listed. There's nothing you can call, so you just have to register. Then you have to wait for them Page 32 March 22, 2007 to call you. So it was a very long process to try to find out who was responsible for placing these in the right-of-way. Staff even went as far as to try to fingerprint some of the signs that were being placed because this was becoming such an issue. I don't know where -- to answer your question, I don't know where they got the name from, but we did register on the site, they did call me, and that's how this process started over a year ago. MR. MORGAN: Yeah. Just some management company that calls themselves George Edward or GE or -- MR. SNOW: I don't know, sir. It's just listed as GE Management. That's all I know. And from what I understand, from talking to their director, who was here this morning, she said they're quite a large conglomerate, but I don't have any verification of that. I can't testify to that. MR. MORGAN: The question is, why -- if they were warned once before, why do they continue. MR. SNOW: Sir, they've been warned at least 15 times, at least. They've been cited, sir. They paid the citation, and they still continue to do it. He was -- they were paying an advertising firm to, I guess, advertise their product, which is singles, a singles site. And every time I talked to him, it will never happen again. We always got the same story. And he was very nice. He seemed like -- they were compliant for a week or two, and I guess when their registers on their singles site went down again, they called them up and said, stick them out again. I don't think they took us seriously, which I find hard to believe. MR. MORGAN: The culprit is their advertising company, right? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, if you're paying someone to do something, which they were paying to have this advertised -- and I explained it to him -- he is responsible. Page 33 March 22, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Right. The management people, they're responsible. MR. SNOW: GE Management, yes, sir. MR. MORGAN: That's correct. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. MORGAN: That's all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. If not, then I'll close the public hearing and move to a finding of fact. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that a violation exists in this case, CEB case number 2007-19, Board of Collier County Commissioners versus GE Management Group, Incorporated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: Anybody single on the board? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May we move to a resolution? MR. KELLY: What were the operational costs? MR. SNOW: Can I read the recommendations? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. Page 34 March 22, 2007 MR. KELL Y: Sure. MR. SNOW: Operation costs, to answer your question, are 344.86. My recommendations are a little stiff on this. This is a recurring violation and, again, it's not that this has been brought before you. This is -- we consider it light and we consider it -- that this has been a long-running process and haven't gained compliance, and we just want to make sure they understand the severity of the situation and this will not be tolerated in Collier County. Cease all placement and remove said signs within seven days of the hearing or a fine of $250 per sign per day will be imposed until said signs are removed. Any future placement of said signs will result in a fine of $250 per sign per day until said signs are removed. So basically we'll give them seven days to clean up the county. Any day after that time is $250 per sign per day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And operational costs? MR. SNOW: Operational costs are $344.86. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to put that on the overhead for us, please. MR. PONTE: I'd just like to say that I agree with that. I have a question, however. There are untold number of signs throughout the county. Do you charge -- you fine them for $250 per sign. We don't even know where they are. They're everywhere. So how do you kind of do that? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, that's the reason we're charging them for seven days to clean up the county. We'll give them an opportunity to get them all out. Staff informed me there was one picked up yesterday. We give them seven days to clean up the county. And there's two sign investigators, and there's in excess of 30 investigators, and everybody looks out for those every day. MR. PONTE: How many have you picked up? MR. SNOW: Myself? Page 35 March 22, 2007 MR. PONTE: No. I mean, how many has the department picked up over the course of -- MR. SNOW: I would say probably 2,000. I -- personally I've picked up -- I've picked up at least 500, at least 500, and that's the reason we're asking for $250 a day. And I know there's a lot of signs out there, and we address them individually, but this case has just been such a -- and they just ignore and do whatever they want, and that's not what the code's for and that's not what we're here for. We believe this is a serious issue, and they just need to take this seriously, and they haven't done that yet. MR. KELL Y: May I make a comment real quick. The sign seems so small and portable. The only question I have is about the $250 per day part. The per sign part is acceptable. But if they're so small and so easy to pick up, if -- let's say, for instance, they did not comply and you ran around the county and counted, let's say, 10 of them. Well, you cite those, we go to a legal motion, and it's going to be hard to prove where the 10 were and ifthere was 10. If you just simply picked up the signs, numbered the back of them, threw them in the back of the truck and started stockpiling them, $250 per sign, I think, would be easier. I mean, if you've got to run around and clean up the county. MR. SNOW: Well, sir, I understand your question, what you're asking. And we would photograph. I photograph quite a few. I didn't bring any today. I was actually going to bring -- I have one in my office, one of the signs, to bring today. They're a little bit larger than they actually look in the pictures. And, again, I think 250 per day per sign -- because we actually shouldn't be charged to pick them up. They should come and get them. That's the point. But they need to understand that you can't place them in the right-of-way. As long as the board -- whatever the board is comfortable with, if you say $250 per sign, I don't think we'd be opposed to that. Page 36 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I want to get a clarification from Jean. Ifwe were to do $250 per day per sign, are we going to be exceeding our threshold? MS. RAWSON: Well, the $250 is our threshold. That could be a lot of money, because let's assume there's 100 signs out there and they pick up 99 one day, so that's $250 times 99 plus that day. The next day there's still one, so that's another 250 and 250, which is 500. MS. ARNOLD: Can I make a modification to his recommendation? Because what we are really charged with is compliance, and my staff has the ability to remove those signs, my recommendation would be to just say, 250 per sign, so when my staff does see a sign out there after the seven-day period, we would photograph it, number it as suggested and remove it, but we would note that -- the location of that particular sign and the date that we saw it, and that would accrue a $250 fine. I'd rather not -- than go back the next day to see if it's still there and that type of thing. Let's just get rid of the sign and fine them for ignoring our request. MR. KELLY: Investigator Snow, I agree with you. It's not the county's responsibility to do the cleanup. MR. SNOW: Sure. MR. KELL Y: It's just logistically down the road. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, I agree, I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I had a question only because of the seven days because we've already -- went ahead -- they asked for a continuance. We didn't give them the continuance, and we know that we have to notify them and they're in Miami -- the Boca Raton area. Is seven days going to be sufficient to give them time to be notified and get here? MS. ARNOLD: I believe the correspondence -- or there's been information relayed with the manager, and she's in Fort Myers, but -- MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. I talked to her, and she's going to Page 37 March 22, 2007 relay the information to him. And what was -- what was -- I find a little perturbing this morning is when I explained to her what the fines were going to be, and I said they were rather extensive, and she kind of brushed that off as, you know, we're a multi-million dollar company. That's not going to do anything to us. So -- and again, I feel that what the board has recommended is, the 250 per sign, I think is probably the best approach. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other comments or thoughts from the board? MR. PONTE: I don't know. I'm thinking. Is it, perhaps, easier to just -- because the number of signs are so many and the $250 multiplies up but hard to keep track of, if we were to fine them a flat $1,000 a day after 14 days or seven days, whatever the figure would be, I would think that would get somebody's attention would be much easier to police, rather than keep track of signs and photographing signs and numbering them and seeing how much we collected today. It's cumbersome. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. My sense of it is though, because these are spread all over and portable, it's not something that can be easily monitored. So you're probably going to be finding these things for months on end, you know. Somebody's going to miss one or -- I mean, I don't know at what point we say that this has come into compliance. MR. PONTE: That's a good question, too. MR. KRAENBRING: I mean, a year from now if we find one, do we say, oh, you owe us 200 and -- it's almost like a bounty. MR. SNOW: Well, sir, and the reason we're recommending this, again, is because of the -- this has gone on since July in the large amount. And do we put a time limit on this? I mean, if -- I don't think we do. I don't think we do put a time limit. I think maybe we go for a year or put a year's time limit on it and see how we go from there. The county's pretty well cleaned up as Page 38 March 22, 2007 far as these are concerned. Again, we haven't seen that many. The last I saw was -- the big influx was in -- January 25th. MR. KRAENBRING: One thing is, just -- we're going to be coming back for imposition of fines on this more than once, possibly, just as a logistics? MS. ARNOLD: No, I don't think so. I think we can do it at one point and -- as long as your order indicates that it will accrue for additional signs. I don't know if -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What if -- just as a question. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What if after the seven or 14 days that we give them to clean up, they have to notify you that they have cleaned them all up, and from there -- MS. ARNOLD: You know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- you know. MR. KRAENBRING: I would bet that they don't know where they put these things. Guy gets out of a car, throws them down, off they go. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They're supposed to have a permit. MR. PONTE: I don't think so. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not going to happen. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I know. But they are supposed to have a permit, and in that permit process, they're supposed to state where they place these signs. MR. KRAENBRING: They are, yes, ma'am MR. KELLY: And Richard, I think, you know, somebody threw out the 14 days. I think seven might be unrealistic by the time the order gets to them. It leaves only a few days left. MR. KRAENBRING: Sure. MR. KELLY: So maybe 14 days is a little more realistic. MR. PONTE: I think using our normal pattern of saying 14 days Page 39 March 22, 2007 and a $1,000 a day is easy to do. Richard's point about it being almost like a bounty and collecting bounty bothers me a little bit. MR. KRAENBRING: I was going to say, I'll do it for 150. No, I think it's important though, because these are a nuisance, and they're really an eyesore, and that's really not what we're about here in Collier County. I think we've been stringent on a lot of our codes because it improves the community. I mean, people like living here because of what we do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I do want to say, I like the aspect of, it will be $250 per sign per day if it comes back -- MR. LEFEBVRE: How do we -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- after they've said that they've cleaned it up. Say in three months all of a sudden we see them again. I think that's something that does need to be in there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Once the case is heard and then if we rehear the same violation, the fines then can be increased. With an open-ended situation here, we wouldn't be able to increase the fines at that point, if it's open ended, if we want to rehear them. MR. WRIGHT: I have a suggestion. Jeff Wright for the County Attorney's Office. MS. ARNOLD: You've got to go to the mike, Jeff. MR. WRIGHT: If they are required to notify code enforcement of compliance and Kitchell goes out with them and is able to confirm -- I realize it's very vague, but in the end, you -- Kitchell would prepare an affidavit of compliance or noncompliance. And if he was able and comfortable to issue an affidavit of compliance, then that case would be done, and then any further violations from that point forward would be repeat violations and would be under a different case. MR. KRAENBRING: I think there could be a degree of reasonableness, too. If everybody thought that they cleaned them up and you found one that just got missed, throw it in the back of a truck. Page 40 March 22, 2007 You know, it just gets thrown in the back of the truck and be done with it, as long as we're all happy that it was substantially cleaned up and it was not reoccurring. I don't know how you would write that into an order, but -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, we have staff, as Kitchell noted, that have, you know, the geographic area of the entire county that they would cover, that if they see it, they would be able to note it. So within that time period we could make a concerted effort to look for those to make sure that they're gone and help Kitchell in his notice or -- or his Affidavit of Compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: And one other thought. If this violator, alleged violator, really does want to come into compliance and wants to work with the county, then they will make a good faith effort to clean everything up and call Kitchell and make sure that it meets his satisfaction. And at that point, the case could theoretically be closed. So there is a way to end it, and that would be by -- in their control to end the case by cooperating with Kitchell. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now, does somebody want to tackle crafting all this information? Because I think we're all pretty much in agreement it's going to be 14 days. MR. PONTE: Are we in agreement of$l,OOO? MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we fine a $1,000? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, we can. We can go up to a $1,000 a day. This is -- and Kitchell-- in Mr. Kitchell's (sic) words, this is a repeat offense, but this is the first time we've heard it, so we can -- MR. SNOW: Recurring. I'm sorry, it's recurring. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Or recurring. MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: And that's correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we can't go up to the $5,000 a Page 41 March 22, 2007 day, but we can do that $1,000 a day. MR. KRAENBRING: They're going to have 14 days to-- MR. MORGAN: To notice. MR. KRAENBRING: They're going to have 14 days to clean it up and then $1,000 a day fine after that? So we're not going to do the per sign? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MR. PONTE: All right. I'll make a motion that a violation exists in CEB case number 2007-19, Collier County Board of Commissioners versus GE Management Corporation, Inc., and Michael Levine, registered agent, and order the respondents to pay all operational costs in the case. The respondents are also ordered to remove all their portable snipe signs that are located at various sites within the unincorporated area of Collier County and to do so within 14 days of the close of this hearing or a fine of $1 ,000 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent is also ordered to notify code enforcement once all the snipe signs have been removed so site inspections can be conducted by a code enforcement investigator. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. RAWSON: Point of clarification. So that does not include the future placement of signs? Page 42 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, because that way we can end it and they could come back as a repeat offender. MS. RAWSON: And it's per day, not per sign? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. MR. PONTE: Per day. MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to go ahead and say, let's take a 10-minute break. It will be 10: 18 when we come back. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'd like to reconvene this meeting, hearing. Michelle, you had some information you wanted to impart? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. There is another stipulation that was entered into after you heard your others. It's case number 5C7 on your agenda, 2007-23, so if we can hear that before the next public hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Party present? Please come forward and please be sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County code enforcement investigator. This is for violation of sections 1O.02.06(B) (1) (a), 1O.02.06(B) (1) (d), and 1O.02.06(B) (1) (d) (i) of Collier County Ordinance 2004-41. It is for an un-permitted addition built to rear of home located at 667 Clifton Road, Immokalee. The property owner and myself have reached a stipulation agreement, and he agrees -- well, first off, he did get a permit on February 9, 2007; he applied for the permit. We agreed that he would pay operational costs in the amount of$358.40 and obtain a Certificate of Completion within 60 days of this hearing for permit number 2007-021014 or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the Certificate of Completion is obtained. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Is it Mr. Estralla? Page 43 March 22,2007 MR. ESTRALLA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that close? MR. ESTRALLA: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you understand the stipulated agreement? MR. ESTRALLA: Yeah, I understand. I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll close the public hearing portion of this, and move to either accept or deny the stipulated agreement. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. ESTRALLA: Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. MR. KELLY: There's -- on that there's, obtain Certificate of Completion, it should be within 60 days. MR. KEEGAN: Oh, sorry, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. And we'll move back to the hearings. The next case is the Board of Collier County Page 44 March 22, 2007 Commissioners versus Robert 1. Dixon, and that is case number 2007-21. MS. MARKU: For the record, I would like to ask if the respondent is present (No response.) MS. MARKU: The respondent is present. MR. DIXON: Yes. MS. MARKU: The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinance 2004-41 as amended, section 1.04.01, A and B, and 2.02.03 and 10.02.03 B5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: Violation of Site Development Plan and prohibited use. Location/address where violation exists: 3968 20th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert J. Dixon, 6370 Daniels Road, Naples, Florida, 34109. Page 45 March 22, 2007 Date violation first observed: October 21st, 2003, and again on December 12, 2006. It is a repeat violation. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 18, 2003. Posted on property, refused to sign. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 1,2003. Date ofre-inspection: December 5th, 2003. Results of re- inspection: Property is still in violation. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Investigator Ed Morad. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have everyone sworn in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. MR. MORAD: For the record, my name is Ed Morad, M-O-R-A-D, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Even though I've been an investigator for 20 years, it's been almost five years before I presented a case before the board. So if I appear to be a little rusty in my proceedings here, I just wish you have understanding and patience. Today I'm going to prove that the respondent, Mr. Robert Dixon, knowingly and probably for monetary gains, has violated the same violation he stipulated to before the board in 2004, which is use an improved commercial property for other than what is allowed in his Site Development Plan by storing and parking vehicles in an area designated for a truck driving school. IfI may, I have an aerial 2006, I'd like to -- MR. DIXON: Objection. MR. MORAD: I would like to put up on the overhead here just to show where the location of the violation is. MR. DIXON: I object. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What is your objection? Page 46 March 22, 2007 MR. DIXON: When I was given this packet that I sent in the defense for, there were no photographs in there. I have no -- never seen them before. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to take a minute and look at that, see if that is your location? MR. DIXON: As far as the location goes, if that's all that's on there, I couldn't tell by the picture, no, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: You can't tell that it's 41st Street Southwest? MR. DIXON: I couldn't agree to that. I'd have to object to that picture. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: He objects to the showing of the photograph to the board. It's basically up to the board whether or not you want to sustain his objection and not show the photograph or note his objection and allow it in. MR. KELLY: I have a question, Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KELL Y: Since we already accepted the packet and this is part of the packet -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, it's not. MS. RAWSON: It's not a part of the packet. I think that's his objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It would be a secondary. MR. KRAENBRING: My sense of it is that this is not something that we've heard before, an objection. We're here just to hear the evidence, so let them present their side, he can present his side. We'll determine what's relevant or not relevant. Let's hear the case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So you would like to see the evidence? MR. KRAENBRING: Sure. I'd like to see this gentleman's evidence, I'd like to see this gentleman's evidence and -- yeah, that's why we're here.u Page 47 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In that case I'll go ahead and note your objection. I'm going to go ahead and allow him to present it, and we will accept that as secondary evidence that you would like to add as an additional packet? MR. MORAD: Yes, ma'am. We'll call it Exhibit D. MR. KRAENBRING: Let me just -- one other comment, just so we can sort of clean this up right now. We were given a packet. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We haven't introduced that into evidence. MR. KRAENBRING: I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't something that we needed to do at a certain point -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We will. MR. KRAENBRING: --later on. Okay, very good. Thank you. MR. DIXON: Madam Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. DIXON: Before you get back to that. I don't know how this works either, and I'm probably as nervous as he is. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's okay. MR. DIXON: Okay? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll work you through it. MR. DIXON: But as far as this repeat violation notice that I was given, basically I'd like to object to that given, too, for the simple fact that they get all the way down here, results of re-inspection, property still in violation, and all of this is coming back to 2003, okay. Now, that's going to make all of you think that since 2003 I've been doing anything I want to do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Dixon, let me help you here. You will be able to present your side in just a few minutes, as soon as he's done, and you can bring that up at that time and we will listen. Page 48 March 22, 2007 MR. DIXON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time we're going to say he's got the floor, okay, and we'll listen to what he wants to present. You are allowed to raise an objection, just like you just have, and then we'll decide whether we want to hear it or not. If we decide we want to hear it, then you just have to sit there and let us watch it. And then when it comes to your turn, you can then note your objections to it again and explain why you object to it and give us your side of the story, okay? MR. DIXON: Okay. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And he also has the ability to ask Mr. Morad questions, or any other witness. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At the time, okay, when you're doing your part of the presentation. MR. DIXON: At each stage or at-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At their presentation, so you can make notes. MR. DIXON: At their presentation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have a motion to accept this as packet B, please? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 49 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MORAD: Thank you. Under sworn testimony, this is Mr. Dixon's property. That area that I just pointed to abuts Mr. Dixon's property, which is a residential area. On December 13,2006, our department received a complaint, quote-unquote, all kinds of stuff in the require of a towing business located at 3968 20th Place. On December 14,2006, I observed at 3968 20th Place all types of vehicles, semi trucks, trailers, motor homes, boats, cars, trucks, crushed vehicles, in the rear of Mr. Dixon's property. I took photos from abutting properties. I'll point those out. Here. Modern technology. I took photos of the property from public property open for business here. There's -- it doesn't show it here, but it's just another shopping center that's open for business to the public. And this is a county alley that I took photographs from. I would like to enter those pictures in evidence as Collier County Exhibit C1 through 5, ifI may. MR. DIXON: Objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Objection noted. May I have a motion to accept packet C? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 50 March 22, 2007 MS. RAWSON: And just be sure that you give them to the court reporter since they've been accepted into evidence. MR. MORAD: Yes, ma'am. These are the type of vehicles that I observed on the 13th of December, 2006, which is in an area that's designated in his Site Development Plan as a truck driving school with no outside storage or parking allowed. That's just -- it appears to be its crushed vehicles that I made mention to. I'll continue my testimony if you can keep showing the pictures, unless anybody wants to question any of the pictures. That day I returned back to the office to research the property history. That's when I discovered there was a previous case for the same violations, which was brought before the Code Enforcement Board in 2004. On December 19,2006, I met with Mr. Dixon at his property. I notified him that he was in violation that he admitted before the board on 2004. He stated he was not, that it was a truck driving school in this portion ofthe property. I asked for permission to go back there, take photographs. He said no. On January 8, 2007, the violation remained. I also have pictures. Ifwe can submit those into evidence as Exhibit 6 through 9. MR. DIXON: Objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Objection noted. May I hear a motion to accept Exhibit D, 6 through 9. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. MORAD: That's C. C's-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We already did C. MR. MORAD: Oh, I'm sorry, D. You're right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a motion. Do I have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 51 March 22, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MORAD: That day I spoke with Mr. Dixon and notified him I was preparing the case to be presented before the Code Enforcement Board as a repeat violation and asked him if he would, again, like to stipulate to the charges like he did in 2004. He stated no. The case was prepared for today's hearing. I made site visits to continue taking pictures of the evidence of the violation continuing. I'd like to enter that as Exhibit E, 10 through 16, ifI may. MR. DIXON: Objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Objection noted. May I have a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PONTE: Investigator, just so I know what I'm looking at here, take that top photo that's up there right now. What is that? What Page 52 March 22, 2007 am I -- no, right there. Let's see what the number -- yeah. Is it the side of the -- I don't know what it is. MR. MORAD: It appears to be crushed -- a form of a crushed vehicle. MR. PONTE: Okay. I see it. MR. MORAD: Once again, I was taking it from abutting properties. MR. PONTE: And behind it? MR. MORAD: I'm sorry. A semi-trailer. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. MORAD: The pictures that Ms. Arnold's going to show you is just consistent with the pictures that I took on prior dates. You'll see motor homes, boats, semi trucks, trailers, vehicles of all kind. As of yesterday, March 21,2007, the violations remained. I'd like to enter those as Exhibit F, 17 through 18. MR. DIXON: Objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Objection noted. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. THE COURT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Morad, just to clarify a point. MR. MORAD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In your first packet you do have an affidavit of compliance. Looks like it's dated April 27, 2004. So at Page 53 March 22, 2007 one point in time Mr. Dixon did come into compliance; is that correct? MR. MORAD: Yes, ma'am, on the previous case that was brought before the Code Enforcement Board, 2004. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. MORAD: Because of the nature of these violations as a repeat violation, I feel it's necessary to revisit the findings of the first case against the respondent for the same violations that I have in my case. With that I would like to call my first witness, Collier County -- MR. DIXON: Objection. I was told of no witnesses this morning in the packet or anything else. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I ask who told you that? MR. DIXON: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I ask who told you that? MR. DIXON: Who told me what? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No witnesses? MR. DIXON: No. I was told of no witnesses. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh. MR. DIXON: And according to the paperwork I was sent, that if there was any witnesses this morning, I would be told of witnesses and we would exchange names of witnesses, and there is nothing in the packet sent for me to defend against there being a witness. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Is the witness a staff member of the Code Enforcement Department? MR. MORAD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then it's still pretty much evidence. MR. MORAD: It was the previous investigator on Mr. Dixon's case that he stipulated to the violations. MS. RAWSON: It's up to you to determine, of course. I can't make a decision for you. I can only tell you that if it's a member of Page 54 March 22, 2007 the Code Enforcement Board staff -- I mean a code enforcement staff including the former investigator, I don't know that he was without notice to be prepared for today's hearing. MR. DIXON: Well, you know, you say you want me to wait till my time, but I'd like to object to this before he even gets in here. You said already that you've seen that case was stipulated. It was all taken care of. It was all cleaned up. If this man has nothing to do with this new part of the case -- you know, bad feelings with him a long time ago really don't need to come into this. MR. MORAD: What I'm trying to do is just prove that Mr. Dixon was aware and is aware of the violations on his property, and by revisiting with investigators to prove that he -- that they told him of the violation and he understood the violation, but he continues to violate the violations. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Madam Chair, I think the fact that the respondent has agreed to and signed the stipulation of the 2004 case is prima facia evidence, that I don't think that it would be necessary to do that is my thought. MS. RAWSON: You have the right to take judicial notice of prior court orders, prior Code Enforcement Board orders. You know, they -- it says what it says. His second objection -- the first objection was lack of notice for preparation. His second objection here has to do with the relevancy of the testimony of the witness. Again, your call. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'd like to have some opinions from the board. I kind of agree that the stipulation proves that he was aware of it, the fact that he came into compliance shows that he knew what the violations were. The officer is stating that the reason he wants him to come forward is to prove that he was aware of it and that he knew. So I'm not sure we really need to hear it on my side, but I want some other Page 55 March 22, 2007 OpInIOns. MR. KRAENBRING: I would agree. I would think that we have it in writing here. He's agreed to the stipulation. It shows he came into compliance at some point, and I think that's notice enough. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you agree, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I do. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just make a note for the board's consideration? The reason why Mr. Scribner is being asked as a witness is to verify if it's the same violation or similar violation as what's being brought today. Mr. Scribner did stand when the court reporter was swearing in all witnesses, and I'm assuming that he saw him standing up there. MR. DIXON: No, ma'am. I did not. This young lady here turned to me, said raise my hand, and I'm looking just like this. Nobody else gave their name out there. I never paid attention to what was going on back there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And they both were standing up here. We did swear him in. Again, I'm looking for the board, do you guys want to hear the -- from the other code enforcement officer? MR. PONTE: Well, Michelle's point is well made, that the reason for hearing this witness is to verify that, in fact, this is a repeat violation. The fact that it was already acknowledged as a violation by the respondent years ago, that's okay. But the question is, is it a repeat violation or not? And only the witness could tell us that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. In this case I'm going to go ahead and let the witness come forward. MS. RAWSON: I would suggest, just to keep the record straight, because there is a difference of opinion on the board, to take a vote. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. All right. We'll go for a vote, probably by show of hands. How many on this board would like to hear from the witness? Page 56 March 22, 2007 MR. MORGAN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: (Raises hand.) MR. PONTE: (Raises hand.) MR. LEFEBVRE: (Raises hand.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Opposed? MR. KRAENBRING: (Raises hand.) MR. KELL Y: (Raises hand.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It carries. So we do hear from the witness. MR. MORAD: In that case I'd like to call investigations manager Mr. Dave Scribner. MR. SCRIBNER: For the record, my name is David Scribner, investigations manager for Collier County code enforcement. MR. MORAD: Mr. Scribner, may I call you Dave? Is it true that you had a case on the same violations on Mr. Dixon's property and issued an official Notice of Violation for such violations in the year 2003? MR. SCRIBNER: That's true, that's correct. MR. MORAD: Was it -- was Mr. Dixon guilty of using the improved commercial property for other than what was allowed under his Site Development Plan? MR. SCRIBNER: Mr. Dixon did admit to the violation, yes. MR. MORAD: Did he understand the violation? MR. SCRIBNER: Yes. I had on-site visits with him and his attorney and went over what the issues were, and he did come into compliance when we actually met on site with the attorney and Mr. Dixon to go over the issues. MR. MORAD: Is it true that Mr. Dixon, after consulting with his attorney, Ray Bass, stipulated to your charges on the day of his first hearing? MR. SCRIBNER: That's correct. MR. DIXON: Objection. The witness knows not of any Page 57 March 22, 2007 conversations I had with my attorney. MR. MORAD: In the Exhibit A, there is a stipulation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So noted. MR. MORAD: Okay. Was the stipulation part ofthe record of the hearing? MR. SCRIBNER: It was put on the record. It was not a written stipulation. It was represented to the board, because at the time, Mr. Bass had to leave, so we put it on the record and it resulted in an order of the board. MR. MORAD: Did Mr. Dixon comply with the order of the Code Enforcement Board? MR. SCRIBNER: Yes, he did. MR. MORAD: Did he pay fines? MR. SCRIBNER: Yes, he did. MR. MORAD: Any questions for the witness? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MR. DIXON: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. MORAD: Thank you. My next witness I would like to call to testify was the coordinator planner for the respondent, Mr. Dixon's Site Development Plan, now Planning Manager, Ross Gauchenaur. MR. DIXON: Objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This gentleman was not sworn in. MR. MORAD: This goes towards -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I was going to suggest that you say what's the nature of the testimony from this witness and who this witness is so they can make an informed determination of whether or not to hear him. MR. MORAD: Correct. When Mr. Dixon and his engineers and professionals submitted a Site Development Plan, they were given a coordinator planner, which was Mr. Gauchenaur who basically told Page 58 March 22, 2007 them what they could and could not do on their property and their Site Development Plan, what uses they could and could not have, that type of issue. So I want to prove that it was very clear to the respondent that in the area where the violations occur of the approved driving -- truck driving school, there is not allowed to be any storage or parking of any vehicles or any materials at all, and that was -- Mr. Gauchenaur can testify that that is, indeed, what the Site Development Plan was. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Dixon, I have a question for you. MR. DIXON: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you work with Mr. Gauchenaur originally with your planners? MR. DIXON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Board? I'll take a vote as to whether or not you would like to hear from this witness by a show of hands, again. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: (Raises hand.) MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KELL Y: (Raises hand.) MR. LEFEBVRE: (Raises hand.) MR. KRAENBRING: (Raises hand.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: One, two, three; one, two, three. We have a tie. Tie goes to? What do we do, Jean? We have a tie. MS. RAWSON: I think the tie is a denial. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. In that case, then we will not be able to hear from your witness. MR. MORAD: Okay. In may, I'd like to submit a document of Page 59 March 22, 2007 Mr. Dixon's Site Development Plan which clearly shows current planning stating that the driving school is exclusively for driving instructions and shall not be used for any other purpose such as, but not limited to, storage of materials, storage of vehicles, operable or inoperable, parking of vehicles, parking or storage of commercial equipment. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that going to be F? MR. MORAD: F, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: For G? I'm not sure. MS. ARNOLD: I think we're at H. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Whatever the alphabetical letter IS. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anyopposed? Keep going. (No response.) MR. MORAD: I lost my assistant. I don't know what I'd do without her. As you can see, the highlighted area is the planner's comments on the driving school, the designated driving school area. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you slide that back so I can see the date on that. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Page 60 March 22, 2007 MR. MORAD: I would like to reserve my closing and our county recommendations until Mr. Dixon has finished with his testimony. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time, Mr. Dixon, it's your turn. MR. DIXON: Oh, boy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a packet of evidence that you would like to submit that you've given to all of us as part of your packet? MR. DIXON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have a motion to accept Mr. Dixon's packet A. MR. KRAENBRING: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MORAD: I have an objection -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MORAD: -- staying in the theme of things here. Under the last part of his evidence packet, he has -- these pictures are other tow trucks in North Naples. I don't think it would have any relevance on this particular case on his property. So if his intentions is to note violations of what other tow truck locations do, that doesn't have any bearing on his case or property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So noted. Go ahead. Page 61 March 22, 2007 MR. DIXON: Well, you already took care of the first part that shows that it wasn't -- you know, that I was not in violation since 2003, that it was taken care of. My biggest thing is, we're a tow truck company, the largest in Collier County. We have the most trucks, and I'm sure we do the most work in Collier County. The back part of the property is used for a tow truck driving school. Nobody here goes there. Nobody from Collier County goes there. People that come that are going to work for me are trained there to do these jobs. We work with tractor trailers, double tractor trailers, motor homes, anything from the biggest thing out there to a Pinto, a Ford from 1972, which probably aren't too much anymore. And I am the only one that I know of in Southwest Florida who is Florida professional wrecker operators, ultra heavy-duty certified, and I teach these people how to go out there and take care of this job so that nobody else gets hurt on the job, so that we get the roads cleared for the county and the police. And we have the fire department come in and use the facility with us so we can cross train. Now, they claim that I'm using this thing out back to store things. And if you look on the pictures, if you're going to allow those pictures in there, we might as well play with it, that the front part where the cars are allowed, he's got some pictures in there. There's plenty of things to put things if I wanted to store things, but that's not what's back there. What's back there is equipment needed for the tow truck driving school. You need to know how to hook up a tractor trailer, you need to know how to hook up different trailers. I think I have three there right now. You have to know how to do the different motor homes. I think I have three of those. I believe there's one boat and trailer there, because that's one of the hardest things you're ever going to tow. All the things that I have Page 62 March 22, 2007 out there are used at different points in time to teach the people that work for me how to do these jobs. Fire department comes in. On the picture that he brought in, you'll see some cars in there. Three hundred days out of the year you'll never see a car in the back part of there because that was their biggest problem, because back when we had that problem, I had about 200 cars back there. They didn't like it, we got rid of it, we paid the fine. The only time you'll see a car back there now is when the fire department comes and we cross train with them so they can cut these things in trying to save people's lives. And we work with them because every time they're out there with these wrecks, we're out there with the wrecks, and it's good to work with them so each one of us know what we're doing. You know, this morning Mr. Morad told me, he says, well, you don't have a license, you don't have this. You don't need a license to teach tow trucks. It's just -- there's nothing in the State of Florida that says you need a license for it. He asked me if I had an occupational certificate. I do for Dixon Towing. It's all part of Dixon Towing. I don't do anything on the outside of it. So I mean -- but if they want another $11, I'll be glad to go down and get that permit. What I think it's all about is having these pieces of equipment back there that -- and one of the reasons why I object to these pictures is because it doesn't show every day, and those things change. They might change every three days, they might change in a week. I guarantee you those cars are not out there. You know, they have places to get these pictures that I don't have. And when the -- you know, I object to the things like because to me, it's illegal search and seizure. I don't know how you believe on it, but it's like the police don't take a picture and then come. They go get a warrant, but even past that -- up here in the front is where cars could Page 63 March 22, 2007 park, we have our tow truck parking over here, and in the back we use it for tow truck driving school. You have the affidavit of compliance. Did everybody see that? I know that the chairman did. And basically, with all the problems that I did have before with Mr. Scribner -- and that was a personality conflict between the two of us -- I ever have to come here again, I'm bringing water. MR. KRAENBRING: Take your time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Take your time. MR. DIXON: I just -- I don't play these games. I have enough room. We used to have two tow truck companies there, mine and my wife's. We had plenty of room for everything. I had no problems for years. After that violation that I did -- I did it. And she's no longer there. The other tow company's there. So I have even more room. I've got approximately four acres there, and this back section is for the tow truck driving school. There is nothing better than having a wrecked tow truck to be able to work with people. I can't say, okay, guys, let's go out back, let's bring the wreckers, now pretend you have a 53-foot tractor trailer out there and it's rolled over on top of a car and there's people inside. Now, how are we going to get this off? You can't do that. You have to have the equipment to show them how it works. You can kill people out there. They need to be shown correctly. In my packet you have my certifications for the professional wrecker operator, and half of my drivers have all gone to the professional wrecker operators, and the other half, I teach them until they're there long enough to pay the money for them to go for more schooling. I don't know how much more I can talk. My mouth is dry. I don't know how he got through so far. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's a water fountain right outside. MR. DIXON: Can I do that? Page 64 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, go ahead. Take a minute and get a drink of water. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right to the left. MR. DIXON: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're welcome. MR. DIXON: I really don't know what else to tell you. I mean, I know tow trucks. I don't think any of you know tow trucks until your car has been towed. I mean, obviously you don't drive tractor trailers. You've seen wrecks out there. This all comes down to a matter of, am I allowed to have my equipment there to teach in this school? If you tell me no, you tell me no. But hopefully -- if you decide I can't have my equipment to do this school, then you tell me and I take care of it and forget this. But other than that, I don't know what to tell you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to close now? MR. MORAD: I'd like to ask Mr. Dixon some questions, if you don't mind. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. MORAD: One, for the record, Mr. Dixon, you can get these aerials at the tax appraiser's, Property Appraiser's Office if you need any pictures of your property; two, that if you allowed me on my first visit to go back there with you to your site and take photographs, I could explain that you probably -- if you're doing a training exercise for your employees, that you probably don't need six or seven trailers or semi trucks or crushed vehicles or boats, you know, motor homes, that type of deal, in that area that was designated for no outside storage. Second of all, we don't have any objections for you doing any training. You can take these vehicles off site, bring them back for the day that you want to train, and then, again, when you're finished with your training, take them back to the site that's approved for this type of activity . Page 65 March 22, 2007 As far as license, if you're going to -- and it was quite clear, but you wouldn't allow me to have my witness, that your driving -- truck driving school would require a license, an occupational license, approval from the zoning department or the planning department to make sure it's certified, that type of a deal. If I may, this little section -- let me grab this baby. This little section here was approved for his Site Development Plan as an impound area, not to have vehicles stored there more than 60 days. And on September -- his hearing was in February of 2004. In September of 2004, he came in for a pre-app. hearing to try to get more parking for the wrecked -- or tow truck vehicles, and I believe that's what -- he's using that portion that was approved for the truck driving school for the vehicles that he's bringing in. That's pretty much it with my rebuttal to his testimony. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Dixon. In the evidentiary package, the first one that we received from the county, it stated that you had some lawn maintenance trucks and other businesses parking in the back. Is that true? MR. DIXON: Okay. See, this is what I objected to in the first place. If you're looking at the paper, back to 2003 -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DIXON: -- when, yeah, we had the lawn business over there. It was a friend of mine, couldn't park it at his place, go ahead and park it out there. I thought it was fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's not happening anymore? MR. DIXON: No, ma'am. That's been all gone, and that was all taken care of in the -- what do they call it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Stipulated agreement in 2004? MR. DIXON: Where I actually fixed it, compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MORAD: Right. But that wasn't any of my violations that I Page 66 March 22, 2007 cited. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What we got in the packet was the old violation cited because it was a repeat. MR. MORAD: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that part of it's not repeated -- MR. MORAD: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- is what I was trying to ask, I guess. MR. MORAD: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I did see on your pictures, though, it looks like a carnival ride? MR. MORAD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that correct? MR. MORAD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that back there? MR. DIXON: Not anymore, no. We used it. We got permission from the owner of it to use it, between Sarasota and Key West. This time a year there are more carnival people here than you can shake a stick at. And the DOT has more of them towed than you know have any idea because their stuff is not any good. And this man here allowed us to use that because it's such a strange thing to be able to teach somebody how to tow something like that, and you need these things to be able to learn. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, where would storage of these types of vehicles be allowed in Collier County? Is that under C-5? MS. ARNOLD: Storage of the towed vehicles? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Not the towed vehicles because he's apparently got a small area that that's allowed, from what I read. But the things like the semis and that that he's using in his training? MR. DIXON: Madam Chairman? MS. ARNOLD: Ordinarily I believe that type of use would be Page 67 March 22, 2007 allowed in more of an industrial zoning district or higher intensity commercial, but I can't, you know, with 100 percent confidence, say it's C-5 industrial. I can ask the expert that's here and then come back and answer that question. MR. MORAD: I can tell you that his legal nonconformity where he's at doesn't allow for that type of operation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I think that came out in actually his packet. MR. MORAD: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: From the information that you provided, what the Board of County Commissioners discussed back in 2001 and the change of the LDC code, it actually states on several different pages -- and I went through and I actually read through this whole packet. MR. DIXON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They actually told the staff to go back and amend the LDC code back in 2001. MR. DIXON: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which would make you in nonconformity with your SDP, which according to what I could piece together, meant that you had one year to act in the business that you were In. Now, what history has transpired since then I'm not aware of, and that wasn't presented today. And I don't know for sure if the LDC code was actually amended. That was a question that I was going to ask the county. And then I was going to ask you if anything has transpired that you can fill in for me from that point. MR. DIXON: Yep. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yep. MR. DIXON: Okay. On that part, the part you're talking about having the one year to work there and then you're out, that was specifically by the then Commissioner Pam Mac'Kai, so -- got this Page 68 March 22, 2007 piece of paper that thought she had everything all set to go that this was the way it was going to be and read into there -- and if you read the part, because she read it out, it says, if it doesn't have anything to do with the building. Because when I first bought the property, I went to the county and says, I have this property, I have towing, can I store my cars there? No, you can't. You have to put up your building first to have your tow office, and then you get the storage as part of the towing, and that was the part that they -- they were slipping over a lot of things in there, and the -- but the main part is, is when Susan Murray's in there telling them all that he's got the permit, he's got the license, he's doing everything he's supposed to do, if you don't like it in C-4 anymore, you can change it after, but basically this one here is here to stay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that was rebuttal back and forth amongst the board and the staff, according to the paperwork that you provided for us. And in the last couple of pages, it actually goes to -- they talked to a Mr. White, Patrick White. I don't know what his position was at the time. MS. RAWSON: Attorney. MR. MORAD: County attorney, yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: County attorney, okay. And there were some specific questions, and it says, Commissioner Mac'Kai states -- and this is on page 190. Assuming that because all of this that we're talking about today is not principal structures, it's principal uses. It's not permitted. It's only accessory use. So if we prohibit an accessory use for open storage, how long can it continue to exist after that amendment? And they were talking to the amendment to provision 1.8.3.5. And Mr. White states, one year. And then Mr. Henning says, okay. They go through -- Mr. White says, unless, of course, that provision itself is amended. They go on and they actually direct to amend the cycle for the Land Development Code through the cycle of7549, which is in the Page 69 March 22, 2007 consent agenda, and they want to remove 7549, and Mr. Henning says, no, not necessarily. We want you to review the codes generally as we are (sic) already asked you to do in the consent agenda, not with particular attention to the problem with the outside storage in these commercial areas. Commissioner Mac'Kai says, accessory uses, outside storage, and give us your recommendations on where we might need to make changes. Ms. Murray says, okay. And then Commissioner Mac'Kai says, is that acceptable? And Ms. Fiala seconds it. Mr. Olliff says it's going to be in the next cycle. They go through further discussion and then they vote on it. So it looks like, to me, that they're stating that they gave staff direction to amend the LDC code to give you one year for open storage. MR. DIXON: No, ma'am, no. It was to change -- anybody else that wanted to do that for that type of company. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Am I incorrect, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Well-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm looking for some guidance here because -- MS. ARNOLD: I got some clarification with regard to where those uses are permitted, and they are not permitted in any particular zoning district as a right. They have to go through the conditional use process currently. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So what he has here is a nonconforming use. And just going by what I heard you say, I thought I heard you read that Mr. White said nonconforming uses would have a year to come into compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: So I -- you know, I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is the county attorney here? Can Page 70 March 22, 2007 he help me? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm not familiar with the prior transcript. It sounds to me like whatever time has gone by, the amendment's in place. And when I look at the prior case and the present case, they do match up as far as the substance of the charges, and I'm not sure if that answers your question. I'm not sure whether this is in the context of a repeat violation analysis or why it -- what the -- MS. ARNOLD: Can you tell me what page you were reading, and then I could give it to the county attorney to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually it was the last couple of pages, starting with page 190, I believe. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I realize Mr. White made a point that nonconforming uses would have a year to come into compliance. I don't know that that comment is necessarily applicable to this situation here. He had a prior case, I think, that predated Mr. White's comments? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, actually Mr. White's comments predate his prior case. The dates on this are of '01. MR. WRIGHT: Well-- and based on Patrick's comment, Mr. White's comments and the facts that we have, it seems to me that he never did bring this thing into compliance within that year period. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Which is why he was brought up the first time, apparently? I'm just trying to get a handle on what the actual violation is because I kind of got confused with reading his evidence because it looks like the county wasn't quite sure that they actually could cite him, say, for nonconformity until after they had changed the LDC rule. MR. WRIGHT: Well-- and that may be. And I honestly haven't prepared -- I don't know the prior transcript of the prior proceedings. I'm not thoroughly familiar with them. But it would seem to me that Page 71 March 22, 2007 regardless of that question of whether or not he brought it into use within -- or into conformity within a year period, he's still in violation of the existing code. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: And when I look at the prior violation and the present violation, which is something I alluded to earlier, it's -- there's an identical match. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I may be off on a tangent then, and I'll pull back. MR. WRIGHT: But it's clear to me that the issue today is whether or not there was illegal storage and whether or not this was permitted, and it doesn't appear to have been. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other questions from anybody else that I haven't taken? Go ahead. MR. KELL Y: I have a couple of questions. What is the current zoning on the property now? MR. DIXON: C-4. MR. KELL Y: And that's for the entire property; it doesn't designate south or north side or anything like that, C-4? MR. DIXON: No. MR. KELLY: What type ofland use is it designated for? MR. MORAD: C-4 is designated for a lot of uses. We have a planner here, staff planner, to answer any of those type questions, if you'd like. MR. PONTE: I'd like to hear what is permitted -- what's not permitted on C-4. That might be easier. MR. MORAD: What's not permitted, and one of the violations is, that he's in violation of a Site Development Plan. In other words, he was told -- he knew what he could and could not have on his property when he submitted his Site Development Plan. And what he's in violation of is the lower part. Let me point it out again. For the outside storage, he was Page 72 March 22, 2007 permitted for a small area up here for the vehicles that were to be towed in, not to exceed to be on that property more than 60 days. What he was permitted for from that point on was for a truck driving school, not to have any outside storage at all on this portion of the property. MR. KELLY: And the Site Development Plan specifically says he cannot have outside storage for the truck driving school? MR. MORAD: That's correct, any storage. MR. PONTE: So if all of the other vehicles or those that were necessary were moved into that quadrant and the rest of the four-acre site was vehicle free, he would be in compliance? MR. MORAD: That's correct. Ifhe had his vehicles here and this is -- this was approved for his tow trucks, his employee parking, and from that point on -- you can see how they kind of come across. From that point on, if it was free of any storage, he would have been in compliance like he was in 2004. MR. PONTE: So that quadrant, if we thought of it as a storage area, a closet, and all the training tools were moved into the closet until there was a class, that would be okay. MR. MORAD: If he put his training tools up in the approved impound area and brought them out to do his training for his safety classes, that wouldn't be a problem, and then put them back again. MR. PONTE: The fact that he moved them out to train, back to store, that would be movement. So how would that 60-day storage part apply here, the restriction -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I -- I just want to guide the board back to why we're here. The portion that is permitted for storage and the time period that they're allowing -- they're allowed to store is not why we're here today. The portion of the property that is designated for the truck driving school is why we're here today. And what we are saying is that he's using that portion of the property for storage, which is not a Page 73 March 22, 2007 permissible use. So, you know, it's really not relevant ifhe takes it off of the 60-day approved portion and moves it to the truck driving school and brings it back and does the 60-day start again. We're not -- we're asking you all to make a determination on that. The only -- the only portion that we're looking at is the truck driving portion, which is at the rear -- at the rear of the property. I did get a response with regard to the portion of the property that is approved for storage of these uses. And although Mr. White was saying that there's a year time period for non-conformities, that do not apply to this particular property. He is vested for that portion that's approved for storage. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KELL Y: Perhaps there's maybe some room for semantics, but I think it does apply here, Michelle, because we need to determine what is considered storage. If you're questioning the vehicles that are on the site that's permitted for a truck driving school and those vehicles are there, what is the requirement to be considered a temporary use for training purposes versus storage? MS. ARNOLD: Well, ifhe is in the process of training and those vehicles are there, that would not be considered a violation. I think Mr. Morad has shown you that those vehicles and other items have been on the property without any other activity for -- I think he gave you four or five different time periods that he went out and saw similar things on the property or different things on the property, and there was no evidence of training activity going on at the time that those things were there. So that's what you all would have to make a determination on. MR. PONTE: The reason I asked the question was to try and clarify this complex situation. It's a school, and these are toys for teaching. If we're -- we can't just come up with a decision here if we Page 74 March 22, 2007 don't have all the facts. And one of the facts is -- involves the storage periods he'd be allowed, and that keeps coming up. You're saying it's not a point, but it is the point. MS. ARNOLD: Well-- okay. I thought you were asking the time period that he's allowed to keep storage on that approved area of his property. MR. PONTE: I am, I am. MS. ARNOLD: And it's -- ifhe were to bring an item on the property, store it there for 50 days and then utilize that item on -- by moving it to the training portion of the property -- MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- and then moving it back, that would not be a violation of the training portion of the property. The time period that we're concerned with is the training portion of the property. If you're leaving it there for any time outside of the time that you are training, it's considered storage. MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And the use of that property for storage is not permitted. MR. PONTE: Put your training tools away. MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And Mr. Dixon wanted to make a comment. MR. DIXON: Because basically -- as Ms. Arnold there is basically trying to do, his testimony there -- but the pictures that he did put in there, if you look at those pictures, things have been moved around from different times when he goes there. There are things that aren't there anymore from picture to picture, which shows that these things have been used for the training and gotten out of there. I had one -- ugliest thing you'd ever want to see -- rolled over tractor trailer. Big hoop. He's got a picture of it. I don't know which picture he's got of it, but it's got the big hoop on the back. Most of the Page 75 March 22, 2007 sides are ripped out. It's bent in the middle, okay. We used that for a little time because you have to learn how to chain it to lift it up to be able to tow it down the road and get it off the road. These are things that -- these things are owned by Dixon Towing or leased by Dixon Towing for a given amount of time to do the truck driving school. Those things are not storage there. They have no intrinsic value other than for the school. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Dixon, I have one question for you. Crushed vehicles. MR. DIXON: Crushed vehicles, none. Guarantee you. Even if he wants to bring back up that picture. This is part of this wrecked tractor trailer that came in. That this is part of the whole job. I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm close enough. But you go out there. Yesterday, tractor trailer hits another tractor trailer. The hood's off, the cab's off of it. All of these things are off on the ground. These are things that they all have to do out there is, they have to move pieces of equipment, parts of these vehicles, be able to hook them up with what's left. At any point in time you can take a picture and it will look trashy out there for -- the fire department gets done today, tomorrow or the next day we get the stuff out of there. But right now the car's cut, glass is on the ground. But we don't dismantle anything, we don't sell any parts, and we don't allow anybody into the property. It's strictly for training and trucking. That's all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions or comments? MR. KELLY: Do you have a copy of the Site Development Plan that shows which areas are for storage and which areas are for the truck school? And does the Site Development Plan specifically say that he's not allowed to store those vehicles in the truck driving school area? MR. MORAD: Right, yes. That one exhibit of the Site Page 76 March 22, 2007 Development Plan, the letter there -- just a second. I'll find it. The highlighted area -- this is part of his Site Development Plan. This is a document in his Site Development Plan. Where it says current planning clearly shows or spells out that we cannot have any storage of any vehicles of any kind on his truck driving -- approved truck driving school portion of the site. MR. WRIGHT: If I may add, it also -- there's no mention of towing in that, which would suggest that driving is the subject of the activity, not towing. MR. MORAD: My witness that was denied clearly would have told you that if he wanted to have a truck driving school -- it's approved for one, but ifhe wanted to go forth with the truck driving school, that he would have to get his occupational license. It would have to be a certified type driving school. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Mr. Morad to read for the record the highlighted area? MR. MORAD: This is current planning. Please add following to the approval letter: Driving school area is to be used exclusively for driving instructions and shall not be used for any other purpose such as, but not limited to, storage of materials, storage of vehicles operable or inoperable, parking of vehicles, and parking or storage of commercial equipment. MS. ARNOLD: Does it -- does the highlighted area or any other portion of that letter indicate that a towing school is approved? MR. MORAD: No. It just says driving school. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: I have one more comment and then I'll get out of the way. I'm looking at the prior stipulated order, and this is entered back in 2004, which I believe is a couple years after that last document you looked at. And in there it specifically refers to the violations as using improved commercial property for other than that Page 77 March 22, 2007 is allowed under SDP 00-103, which is what we just looked at, and also storage of vehicles in area designated for truck driving school as noted in SDP 02-AR-2074, which I'm not familiar with offthe top of my head, and again, SDP 00-103. So this has been before this board before, and Mr. Dixon is familiar with this. He's stipulated to this violation, and the facts are pretty clear, the rules are pretty clear. For him to suggest that he's not aware of what's going on, that this is part of a training operation is a bit disingenuous in light of the prior order. That's all. Thanks. MR. DIXON: I do get to speak again, ma'am? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. DIXON: Okay. First of all, this still comes down to everybody bringing this back to 2003. And I told you, I did it. I had plenty of cars out there. I was doing -- doing all the things I wasn't supposed to do and paid the bill for it. What we have now is a tow truck driving school. And the -- I can't read that far, but the man down at the end said, you know, we're talking about semantics here, and maybe that's what it is all about. To me that is -- that is part of my tow truck driving school to teach these things. They want to call it storage. I'm not storing anything there. I'm using these, like this second gentleman said, the toys that you teach these children with. You know, you go to the public schools, do they throw everything out while they're not teaching that little thing? No. You have to have these things to teach it. That's what it comes down to. If you decide that I can't have these things on there for use in the tow truck driving school -- because that's what it is. I'm not a driving instructor, and you're not going to teach somebody how to drive a tractor trailer in an acre. It doesn't happen. This is for what they knew up front. Everything else is for my tow truck driving school to teach my guys how to do tow trucks. And if you tell me, don't have anything on there, move it from Page 78 March 22, 2007 one place to the other -- this section there where you have parking for the tow trucks, if you want me to move it out to there, I have no problems with that, but don't fine me because I'm using this stuff as equipment in the training thing. This is not a -- this has really gone on too long since this whole thing started when I bought this property. MR. PONTE: Mr. Dixon, just for clarification for me. Are you operating a truck driving school or a tow truck operation school? MR. DIXON: It's tow truck driving school, sir. To drive-- MR. PONTE: So the part about the Pinto and all that, that -- you're really not -- when you began your testimony, you said you train driving for everything including a Pinto, you said, which they probably don't have too many -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: To tow. MR. DIXON: We tow anything from a Pinto. MR. PONTE: So -- but you're -- what you're doing now is simply teaching people how to operate tow trucks and -- MR. DIXON: On that -- on that section, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: First of all, I think the comment about it just being a driving school is irrelevant because leaving it open to just being a driving school would be to drive a moped, a pickup truck, a semi tractor trailer or a tow truck. It doesn't specify what type of driving school he's operating, therefore, a tow truck driving school would be allowed under this use. And that if the Site Development Plan -- does it specify in there, in that letter, exactly what portion of the property is able to be used? Because there are sections that are wide open that maybe he's using for the driving school and the other areas are the storage. And without proof of what areas, I can't -- I can't find a violation. MR. MORAD: This may help you or confuse you, but here it comes. Page 79 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is this a new piece of evidence? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. MORAD: If I may. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May we have a motion to accept this as another piece of evidence for the county? MR. KRAENBRING: Motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DIXON: I have to object. I've never seen it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Understood. MS. ARNOLD: You want me to show you? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. MORAD: Actually he has seen it. It was in his Site Development Plan package when he -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He hasn't seen it for this proceeding -- MR. MORAD: Oh, okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- I think is what he's saying. MR. MORAD: You may have to focus this a little bit, but this is the site plan that was submitted with his Site Development Plan, which clearly shows on the bottom part -- and this is, of course, not to scale like the aerial. But the bottom part there says, truck school site -- I'm sorry, driving school site, thus resurface. That's what he had-- Page 80 March 22, 2007 what he asked for and was approved in his Site Development Plan. This is the part of his packet that he received along with his Site Development Plan, other correspondence and such. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So if I'm looking at this correctly, the front row looks like that's in front of his building, and that would be for parking up at top? Up here. MR. MORAD: That's for like -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Customer parking. MR. MORAD: -- customer parking. There's other businesses -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This is his building? MR. MORAD: This is his building, correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Behind here is where he has his storage area and employee parking? MR. MORAD: Correct, yes. Right behind this building here has his -- it says here, employee vehicle parking, and over here is the impound area, and then down from -- once again, this is not to scale. Down from there is the approved truck driving site. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any footage measurements on the side there, Michelle? I can't read them from here, but it looks like there's something there. MS. ARNOLD: I was trying to read it myself. There is -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At the very bottom corner where they have -- MS. ARNOLD: Right here? It is 240 feet. And I believe that point is from here to here, but I'm not 100 percent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. From the division line where it runs across, looks like a railroad track, up -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, here? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MS. ARNOLD: That's the chain-link fence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Is there a chain-link fence on the property? Page 81 March 22, 2007 MR. MORAD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. From the chain-link fence down to the corner, the number that's -- let me get up and go over there because it's easier. MR. MORAD: My first witness, Mr. Scribner, can explain that document, if you'd like. MR. SCRIBNER: I may be able to show you on the overhead and it will come out a little clearer. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was trying to ask what this was from here to here. MS. ARNOLD: That's not the whole site. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's not the whole site? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, okay. MR. SCRIBNER: When you look at the overhead, this being the front of the property here, this is where the chain-link fence comes along. I've walked this site. And essentially this area right back in here is the area that in that other map that's not to scale. This is designated as truck driving school. The impound area is here, and this is for tow truck driving -- parking. This is the employee parking up in here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, that helps clarify. Thank you. At this point I think we have enough information. If nobody objects, I'm going to close the public hearing and move it to the board. MR. MORAD: Would you like to hear my recommendations? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When we get to that point. We have to have a finding of fact first. MR. MORAD: Okay. MR. KELLY: Madam Chair, I think I tried to bring up everything that I could think of to be fair as possible on both sides, and the last part, where we actually saw the SDP, really clarified the Page 82 March 22, 2007 land use to me, so I would say that there is a violation because of the testimony, that these vehicles should be stored and only brought out during actual training use. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those if favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) Now, Mr. Morad, if you would like to give us your recommendation. MR. MORAD: Yes, ma'am. That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $604.25 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by paying -- one, by paying a $5,000 fine for the repeat violations; Two, abate all violations by being in compliance with the Collier County Codes and Ordinances by using the property for the purpose allowed under the Collier County Land Development Code and C-4 Zoning; Three, that he abate all violations, imposing a $500 per day -- fine per day for each day the violations continue, starting on the date of the repeat violations, which were observed on December 14, 2006 -- and that's per state statute -- until violations are abated; Four, that the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violations have been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm the abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could you place that on the Page 83 March 22, 2007 overhead for us, please. MR. KELL Y: I have a question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KELL Y: Is there a law that says repeat violation is charged a $5,000 fine? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It can be up to 5,000. It does not have to be 5,000. MR. KELL Y: I'm against the fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm kind of going along with you there. I don't see where this is a safety/health hazard. I think it's more of an aesthetic issue. I don't see any time frames where he has to come into compliance by, before we impose fines, and maybe that's because it's a repeat violation and he should know better at this point. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the date's December 14,2006. MS. ARNOLD: The Florida Statute allows, if you find a violate -- a repeat violation, to date back to the date that the violation was found. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And I think what Mr. Morad is saying is that it was December 14th when he first saw that repeat violation. So you all have the ability to charge up $500 per day up to that date. And I guess his recommendation is to do that until the violation is abated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELLY: And I don't think this is a site issue because there is a masonry wall around the property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. From the pictures though, it looks like some of it exceeds the height of the wall, and you can see some of it from the residential standpoint. MR. MORAD: You definitely can see the vehicles from abutting properties. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. And because it's residential-- because somebody apparently complained, so if you Page 84 March 22, 2007 couldn't see anything then -- MR. KRAENBRING: Let me ask Mr. Dixon this. How long would it take you, Mr. Dixon, to clean up the back of that property and put the equipment that you need for training into storage in the front of the property where it would be acceptable? How long would it take you to clean that up? MR. DIXON: Two weeks. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. DIXON: Like I said, these things were for school. I mean, they're movable and things like that. It's just -- MR. KRAENBRING: And you would be able to take these and move them into that front, I suppose, right-hand section where you have tow truck storage and neatly store them there? MR. DIXON: At this point in time if you tell me that I can't have the stuff for my school, I'm just going to get rid of everything. I just -- I mean it -- MR. KRAENBRING: We're trying to accommodate you here. MR. DIXON: No. I'm trying to -- I mean, I can get it out of there. That's not a problem. My problem is thinking that I was trying to do something bad when this stuff was just for the school. I mean -- MR. PONTE: Point of clarification. I think what we're saying is, can you move all the training equipment -- MR. DIXON: Yes. MR. PONTE: -- into an area -- MR. DIXON: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: -- of the property that is designated for storage, I guess the impound area? So the rest of the property is clean, and when you have a training exercise, you'd remove a piece of equipment from the storage area that you want to train on, or the two or three pieces, use it for training. Once the training is complete with the fire department or whomever, you put the wreck back into the storage unit.hMR. DIXON: Okay. Page 85 March 22, 2007 MR. PONTE: Is that what we're saying? MR. KRAENBRING: That's-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's pretty much -- MR. KRAENBRING: -- the guidance I was trying to afford. MR. DIXON: I have no problem with agreeing with what you're saying. But everything has been so semantics, again, with these words that people can make different judgments at how long -- okay, the fire department comes in, we work all day long on these cars. You know, everybody's dead tired, six o'clock at night. And the next couple days, there's nothing but big wrecks out in the road that we've got to go take care of. How much time do I have to move them back and forth? Because they're going to be watching me. MR. PONTE: No time. You have to put -- you have to put the training tools away. MR. DIXON: Okay. The end of the day it's got to be back. MR. KELLY: But he brings up a valid point. If you're using a vehicle for a fire department demonstration and it is steel, steel has the lowest emittent. It's going to retain the heat and you're not going to be able to touch it for a day. MR. KRAENBRING: We're not burning things back there, are we? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. I think the problem is the utilization that you're using of your site is where you're having a problem. You're using the back half, which you're not allowed to store, which means you can't park your training vehicles on overnight, for a couple of days. You're allowed to use it while you're training and while there's actually activity there. The front half, you have actually gotten permission for temporary storage. That was primarily for when you have a wrecked vehicle; you can bring it and leave it up to X amount of days. We're stating, because you're going to be moving this back and forth, you can kind of keep that in compliance because it's moved, as Page 86 March 22, 2007 long as you keep your equipment that you're using for your training school at the front half of your property. MR. DIXON: I have no problem with everything you said. I just want to make clear that you understand what I'm saying, that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Life gets in the way sometimes. MR. DIXON: -- you've got to decide -- if you think I was out there putting things out there that I shouldn't have been, that I was using these, in my mind, as equipment like teaching the children. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What we have stated, that you have put equipment inappropriately stored on the back half of the property because that's not what it was designed for, even though we understand the use of that equipment. You can't store it there. We've already decided that. MR. DIXON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What we're trying to do now is come up with what to tell you, you have to do in order to keep it into compliance and what we're going to charge you for being out of compliance initially, the second time. MR. MORAD: Could I ask Mr. Dixon a question? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. MORAD: These vehicles, the crushed vehicles, the semi trucks, trailers, boats, campers, you're telling the board that they don't stay there? They're not stored there? And they're your vehicles? MR. DIXON: Yeah, I'm telling you they're -- MR. MORAD: Where do you put these vehicles when they're not stored on this location? MR. DIXON: The vehicles that are on that location for the truck driving school are owned by Dixon Towing. Some of them get used for a week, some of them get used for a month, and then they get moved on and sent to the junk yard, they're sent to wherever they go. MR. MORAD: And you get the scrap iron money for that or -- MR. DIXON: When it comes to this big truck stuff, you're lucky Page 87 March 22, 2007 to get rid of them. MR. MORAD: But you do get money for the items that you send off? MR. DIXON: Not for the big trucks, no. MR. MORAD: Okay. So you're saying that some of these items are stored there for a week, a month -- MR. DIXON: No, nothing gets stored there. They're only there as a learning tool for the tow company. I never put this in there for storage. MR. MORAD: Correct. So you're bringing all these vehicles in to train your drivers and then you're taking them off site? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gentlemen, we're kind of beating a dead horse. We understand the issue and we kind of closed the public hearing. MR. MORAD: Okay. I wasn't too clear. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So I'm going to stop you. We still need to come up with a recommendation for remedy. MS. RAWSON: I think the county attorney has a comment. MR. WRIGHT: Madam Chair, I just wanted to point out that, as a board, there are two options in the case of a repeat violation, and if I may read from the ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Please. MR. WRIGHT: I'm paraphrasing, but in the case of a repeat violation, the board may order the repeat violator to pay a fine which shall not exceed $5,000 per day per violation for each day the repeat violation continues past the date set for compliance by the CEB or from the time the violation has been repeated, which is what Mr. Morad is requesting. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we can do either/or. MR. WRIGHT: So there are options for the board. MR. DIXON: Could I get a copy of that, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I still want to go back to Page 88 March 22, 2007 the board and back into our discussion. I think part of the issue we have is the definition of storage, and per the documentation that I was given by Mr. Dixon, it was pretty clear what storage was. So ifhe's got any questions, he can look at it himself. But it's leaving any piece of equipment that's unattended even if it's got a roof over it, if the sides are open, is considered open storage. He just can't have anything on that property that's not actually being used at that time for his school. As far as -- we have to do operational costs. We don't have any choice in that matter. I want to look at, what's the pleasure of the board for the remaining -- we have just been told through staff that we can do a certain time for him to come into compliance again before fining him or we can go back to the December 14th. MR. KELL Y: I'm absolutely against going back to December because along with that would probably constitute additional fines, and I don't agree with any fines, not in this case. MR. KRAENBRING: Give him two weeks and $500 a day from there is my disposition on it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd have to agree with that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you're calling this as a repeat violation, so do you want to put anything in there if he violates it again? Because we saw this in 2004, granted there were some other issues there. So I just want thoughts. MR. KRAENBRING: I guess at that point we would just revisit it and he would be fined again, make the determination at that time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does anybody want to put that into a motion? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Sure. Number one would be pay operational costs of $604.25; number two, abate all violations, come into compliance Page 89 March 22, 2007 within 14 days of the date of this hearing; number three, or a fine of $500 per day for each day that violation remains; and number four would be to notify code enforcement when the violation is abated so that they can verify compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's a motion. Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: Just one moment. I agree with that, however, in other orders we got very specific in telling the respondent what to do to abate the violation. Here we have not mentioned anything, and that's where this entire case becomes very woolly. And I'd like us to work on being specific. I mean, what you've said is absolutely correct, and it's -- there were some generalities in it, and I'd like to get specific so that we know and we can tell the respondent what he is to do rather than just generally. MR. KELLY: Well, I'll amend my motion. Number two then would read, abate all violations and come into compliance within 14 days by removing vehicles on the southern part of the property as specified in the Site Development Plan. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just say, recommend all stored items rather than specifying just vehicles? Because there are other items on there that are not just vehicles or could be considered non-vehicles. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about distinguishing the driving school section? All vehicles or all items, storage items or -- in the driving school section per the Site Development Plan. MR. KELLY: Very good. Number two would be, abate all violations, come into compliance within 14 days by removing all equipment and stored items from the driving school section of the property as described in the Site Development Plan. MR. LEFEBVRE: You have to amend the second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We never got a second, so I look for a second. MR. PONTE: I second that. Page 90 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Dixon, do you understand? We have-- MR. DIXON: For the most part. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have asked you, or ordered you basically -- and you will get this in writing. You're going to have to pay the operational costs of $604.25. You have 14 days to remove all items from your driving school. MR. DIXON: Okay. Can I stop you one second on that? Now is that 14 24-hours days, 14 business days? I mean -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Fourteen 24-hours days from today. MR. DIXON: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And if you don't, you will incur a fine of $500 per day. Okay? MR. DIXON: Okay. Just so that we're all on the same page, please. The equipment that I say is my tow truck driving school equipment -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Must be moved. MR. DIXON: -- must be moved off of the back property and stored where the tow truck driving school equipment is legal to have my truck property stored? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. MR. DIXON: No problem. Thank you very much. Page 91 March 22, 2007 MR. MORAD: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. DIXON: Thank you, appreciate it. I can go now? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll call the next case, which is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Frank Fernandez. MS. MARKU: I would like to ask if the respondent is present. MR. FERNANDEZ: Present. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance is 04-41, as amended, section 1.04.01. Description of violation: The illegal storage of vehicles and materials on unimproved property. Location/address where violation exists: Folio number 39658240005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation Page 92 March 22, 2007 location: Frank Fernandez, 11987 Southwest 6th Street, Miami, Florida, 33184. Date violation: First observation, December 2, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: December 5 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 28, 2006. Date ofre-inspection: Final re-inspection on January 26,2007. Results of re-inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Thomas Keegan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have both of them sworn in please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. FERNANDEZ: I just want to make -- before we start, I was going to bring my lawyer. He's not here. He's in Miami, so what I want is a continuance for a later date when my lawyer is actually here to represent me. Maybe I -- if it's called continuance. I don't know what it's called. Maybe an extension or -- a couple of weeks. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You can ask for a continuance, but we usually do that before we actually start the hearing, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm between Naples and Miami, you see? I just moved from Miami to Naples about a month ago. MS. RAWSON: He just asked for what's called an ore tenus just in front of you now, motion for a continuance. So you probably need to consider that first. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I have lost a lot of mail, so -- I just got this little -- not packet. I didn't get a packet. I got nothing, just a little letter. The 11987, I don't live there no more, but I went to check the mail, and there it was. This is like something new to me. I don't even know what I'm charged or alleged or -- I'm not sure. But if you've got a package accusing me of something, you know, I'll take it to my lawyer, but I don't-- Page 93 March 22, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: How long ago did you move from that address that the package was sent to? MR. FERNANDEZ: About a month ago. I've been traveling because I've got a -- still got stuff. I've got my clothes in Miami and -- you know. I got stuff, so I'm not -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Have you -- do you have an attorney or retainer or -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the county have a position? MS. ARNOLD: Well I just wanted to speak to the notice. Notice was sent in January and one, two -- and the post office made three attempts to deliver it, but it was unclaimed, and then we sent it regular mail as well on February 13th and posted the property on that same time period as well. And I'm going to turn to the investigator with regard to whether or not this is something that needs to be continued. MR. KEEGAN: This is a very simple case. I would like -- the county would like for it to be heard today while we're here. What it is, it's the illegal storage of vehicles and materials on unimproved property. He -- I went through the process, we went through the process, of mailing, posting the property. The neighbor actually told me that Mr. Fernandez did go to the property, grabbed the notice, laughed and threw it. So from what I got from the neighbors, I mean, it is hearsay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's hearsay. MR. KEEGAN: But some vehicles have been removed; some new vehicles have come back. So this is -- I believe it's a major issue, especially out in the Estates, and I would like to get it heard today. MR. PONTE: I don't see how we can possibly deny a respondent's request for an attorney. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MR. FERNANDEZ: I agree with you. Page 94 March 22, 2007 MS. RAWSON: He's requested a continuance so he can have his attorney here. Again, it's your call. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we violate his due process if we -- MS. RAWSON: I'm sure his attorney will say that. MR. KRAENBRING: I'd have to agree. He's asking for an attorney, and give him that. Just leave it open to revisit this case at some point. I mean, I would like to hear it for health and safety issues. I mean, I'd like to hear it, but I just don't know if we're going to be rehearing this case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm afraid that he would possibly try to overturn it if we don't give him a continuance. So at this time I'm going to call for a vote. MR. PONTE: I make a motion that the case be continued until the next session. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MS. ARNOLD: Can we ask that he waive notice? Because he doesn't seem to pick up his notices. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I got a lot of mail that's being lost. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's give him the date of next hearing and note that that will be the date that you and your attorney will be required to be here. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Thank you. MS. RAWSON: April 26th. Page 95 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. MORGAN: Madam Chair, can we take a lO-minute break? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We sure can. Come -- we'll come back -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Will you be mailing me anything or-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, that's what we're saying. We're waiving you notice. MS. RAWSON: I'll be mailing him a copy of the motion and the order on continuance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's your new address? MR. PONTE: Yeah, let me give you my good address. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And how about the attorney's office? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Come back at 12:02. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also your attorney's address and his name so he can be noticed, too. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Fernandez, if you have another location, please change that at the Property Appraiser's Office as well so that we can provide future notices to the appropriate location. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The time is 12:02. At this time I'd like to resume this board. And the next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus GMAC Model Home Finance. Is there a respondent? MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent's not here. The county -- the board and the respondent were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. Page 96 March 22, 2007 MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinance is 04-41, as amended, sections 1O.02.06[B] [2] [ a] and 1O.02.06[B] [2] [d] [ix]. Description of violation: Sign installed without obtaining property permits. Location/address where violation exists: 6528 Montery Point, viewable from I-75 ROW. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation: Corporation Service Company as registered agent for GMAC Home -- Model Home Finance, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Date violation first observed: October 6, 2006. Date owner/person in charge was given notice of violation: January 8, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 31st, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: February 1,2007. Results of re- inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to call Investigator Kitchell Snow. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May we have them sworn in agaIn. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This is a case that's -- is a non-permitted sign. I have two Page 97 March 22, 2007 photographs for evidences. As of yesterday, the violation still exists. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept this as packet B? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SNOW: That's viewable from 1-75. Their planned unit development states that they can have that sign, they're allowed to have that sign, but as all signs, it's got to be permitted. I had some mild unease about their -- we haven't had any response from them at all, but they have been in to permitting to sign review to try to get a permit for this sign. That was probably 60 days ago. It was refused for -- some plans were incorrect on that, so I know that they are aware. I've tried to make contact with them several times. I usually get, we'll call you back and we'll get somebody to call you, and nothing's happened. And, again, this sign needs to be permitted. It is not in compliance. There's too many things wrong with it to list, and it has to be permitted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions for Mr. Snow? MR. KELLY: Mr. Snow, you said when they went in to apply Page 98 March 22, 2007 for a permit, it was rejected? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Because there's violations on the sign itself, they'd have to change it before the permit would be accepted? MR. SNOW: It could be for any number of reasons, sir. I wasn't privy to that meeting. I can just view from what the PUD says and from looking at the sign, the separation between the two halves of the signs doesn't meet current code. What they have on the code as far -- what they have on the sign as far as the PUD is concerned, it doesn't meet that stipulation either, so they just needed to resubmit and they just haven't done that, and I know they received proper notice to take care of it because they did go in and they just, I guess, choose not to do that at this time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll close the public hearing and move to a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I make the motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a recommendation, sir? Page 99 March 22, 2007 MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, the county does. The county requests that operational costs are paid in the amount of $481.27 and that they submit for permits within 14 days of the date of the hearing for described sign, if attainable, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed or remove said sign; obtain required inspections and all Certificates of Completion within 60 days of permit approval or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until date of compliance. Basically we're giving them 14 days to get a permit for the sign or $150 a day will be imposed or they remove the sign after that 14 days. Once they get the permit, they've got 60 days to get all inspections and CO's, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you put that up on the screen for us? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. MR. KRAENBRING: Fourteen days is reasonable? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: To submit. MR. SNOW: For submittal, sir. Yes, sir. It's not a complicated process. Usually they submit it -- as long as it's in the county's hands, then that's what our main goal is, to get this permitted. MR. PONTE: Did you say they've already submitted something? MR. SNOW: Sir, they had one. They did submit a permit, and it was refused because it didn't meet what the county had described. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion as we have a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the recommendations of the county. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 100 March 22, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Opposed? Okay. Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. Have a good day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. If I'm not mistaken, that closes the public hearings. And do we have any requests for reductions of fines? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then we move to imposition of fines. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The first item is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Elinord Pierre, and I believe Mr. Pierre is present. This is one that we continued from your prior hearing, and the board at that time requested that staff make sure that we explain what the requirements were for compliance and make sure that he understands, and I believe Mr. Letourneau is here to tell you what was done in regards to that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May we have them both sworn m. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: I missed the last meeting, but I was informed Mr. Pierre was here and it was continued. What I did was -- I'm not -- for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. I work for the night crew. I had one of my investigators go down -- he's a Haitian gentleman -- and explain the violation to Mr. Pierre. And then I believe that this gentleman is going to help out Mr. Pierre to figure out what's going on today. Page 10 1 March 22, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: May I just ask one question. What is this gentleman's relationship? Is he an employee of the county or friend of this gentleman's or-- MS. ARNOLD: He's not an employee of the county, but you can ask Mr. -- him to state his name and his representation -- how he represents him. MR. ST. JUSTE: My name is Jacques St. Juste. I am the president of the Joseph Haitian Committee Center in Naples. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are you a friend ofMr. Pierre? MR. ST. JUSTE: No. Actually there's a lot of problem in the community, so when they don't know what to do, they come to my office. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So you're used to assisting people in the community then. MR. ST. JUSTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I spoke with Mr. St. Joe (sic)? MR. ST. JUSTE: St. Juste. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, St. Joseph (sic). I spoke with him this morning and I tried to get across that the case has been heard before, it was found in violation, and today was just the imposition of fines. And I told him exactly what needed to be done to take care of the case. The violation is still ongoing. It hasn't been abated yet. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And what staff is requesting is that the board impose the fine in the amount of $13, 170.39, which will continue to accrue until the violation is abated, and the violation was illegal conversion of a first floor carport into living space. And that I believe that that area is still being used for living currently and being rented. MR. LETOURNEAU: I want to clarify that. I don't think -- I think Mr. Pierre is actually living on the bottom floor, and then I think he's renting the second floor. Page 102 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does Mr. Pierre understand what his violation is? MR. ST. JUSTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And he understands that there is a running total currently of $13, 170.39? MR. ST. JUSTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That we're going to impose that fine today? MR. ST. JUSTE: He understands that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And he needs to get this rectified so that that fine will stop accumulating. MR. ST. JUSTE: Right. Actually he told me that the question is, he didn't understand. When he bought the house, he just bought it like that. But he's done the appraisal. In his mind, he thought that the appraisal will tell him if it's a violation, so -- which that is not the case. So, therefore, when he began to understand is when he received the fine. So now he's willing to do everything that the board decides to correct the problem. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, we had already told him what he needed to do, and that was sent to him. And he needed to -- he actually signed a stipulated agreement which means that he agreed to do certain items, and that was to get the building permits and a Certificate of Occupancy for the non-permitted improvement or to get a demolition permit and tear it down. MR. ST. JUSTE: Actually, he told me about that but there was some kind of language barrier, that he couldn't understand very well what to do. So now he's brought it to my office, and we are committed to help him out to get the permit, and then to see if the problem could be resolved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm a little concerned about this one because of the language barrier. MR. PONTE: I am too. Page 103 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, can you give us some direction here? Because I know we have this, but we also have a language barrier apparently. MS. RAWSON: Well-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we go ahead? MS. RAWSON: You're here today to impose the fines. Well, I think what I would do is I would tell him when he comes into compliance to come back. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And we can look at the total fine at that time? MS. RAWSON: Sure, because we're already -- you've already entered an order and -- you know, and the fines are running, and so it's really too late to ask for an extension, and it's too soon probably, till he comes into compliance, to ask you to abate the fines. So if you could explain to him that you have to do it because of the order, but that as soon as he comes into compliance if he immediately let's the county know and he comes back in front of you CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: One, he stops the clock, and two, then he can come back in front of us -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- and ask for a reduction, okay. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: Before you address that, Madam Chairman, please make sure the parties understand that there's a time limit so that he has to come back immediately, not -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, six months from now. MR. PONTE: -- in due course. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does he understand that? MR. ST. JUSTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. If you can explain to him that the clock is still going to run, we're going to go ahead and impose Page 104 March 22, 2007 the fines today probably. As soon as he can, to come into compliance, and as soon as he comes into compliance, he needs to get a hold of the county, or Jeff, so that they can say that he's in compliance, and at that time he can ask to come back in front of the board and we can look at reducing the total amount of fines, but not until that time. MR. ST. JUSTE: Right, okay. I will personally help him out to get the compliance as soon as possible. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. But I would like to make sure he understands that that's the stipulation. MR. ST. JUSTE: Yes. MR. PONTE: And in addition, Mr. St. Joseph (sic) -- in addition, Mr. St. Joseph, please make it very clear that the clock gets stopped when he comes in and says he's in compliance and then can ask for a reduction of fines. MR. ST. JUSTE: Okay. MR. PONTE: But there is a time limit there. MR. ST. JUSTE: What is the time limit? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He has within, I think it's -- is it 30 days, Jean? It's 10 days after he comes into compliance to notify us that he wants to come back, but it's within -- MS. RAWSON: I don't know there is a time limit, actually, by statute, but the minute he comes into compliance, because that's in all of our orders, he is to notify the county that he's in compliance, so I would do it that day if I were him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Just have him do it when he says that he is in compliance. Have him notify them that he would also like to come back for a reduction of fines. MR. ST. JUSTE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time we need to vote on whether or not to impose the fine. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion to impose the fines as recommended by the county. Page 105 March 22, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ST. JUSTE: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Good luck. MR. ST. JUSTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next two cases are actually with the same parties but different case numbers, so we'll hear them separately but at the -- you know, in consecutive order so that we don't have to swear everybody inn both times. MS. ARNOLD: And I'll just read both at the same time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: The first case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Curtis D. and Brenda Blocker, case number 2005-35. This case was heard by the board on November 18,2005, and the order is attached for your review. A finding of violation was made for mobile homes having been placed on property that -- and increasing the intensity without the appropriate zoning. Board has ordered a very detailed order to correct. And the respondents did comply with item number one by doing their pre- application meeting, but all other items, two through six, have not been complied with to date. So at this time we are asking that the board impose fines in the Page 106 March 22, 2007 amount of$81,750 with an additional $564.36 for operational costs for a total of 82,314.36. And I believe the respondent is here. Now we'll read the other case, which is Board of Collier County Commissioners, again, versus Curtis D. and Brenda Blocker. This case was also heard on the same day, a violation was found. It's for a similar violation but the zoning district is VR in this particular case, and the fines are exact. They have complied with the first portion of the order or paragraph one of the order but failed to comply with the others. And, again, we're asking for this particular case, fines for total 82,330.40, which is distinguished on your executive summary what is operational costs of 580.40 and fines in the amount of81,750. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looks like we have the respondent here as well. May we have them both sworn in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess we'll let Mrs. Blocker go first. MS. BLOCKER: Okay. I don't know how much you've read over this but the stipulation is about the Immokalee mobile home overlay project. Weare actually in the middle of one site improvement plan there. They're costly, and a long-term commitment of doing this. I do have -- I mean, she said I wasn't in compliance with number two. We did come in compliance. They're saying that we're not submitting sufficient site improvement plans? They have been rejected twice by the county. I do have my third submittal to do today when we leave here. I will be going to the county office to submit for the third time to see if they approve our site improvement plan this time. The ball really wasn't in our court on this. The engineer -- and as you guys can see, we've really had a building boom, so I can't help that we were placed on the back burner. Page 107 March 22, 2007 There's not very many engineers that even want to take on this kind of project of having to do all the stipulations through the county of what the setbacks are and moving -- you know, showing where the trailers are now and where they need to be moved to become in compliance. But I mean, we're fully cooperative with what's going on. And I understand if you have to impose the fines now and we can come back for a reduction later. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do you have anything? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, for the record, Dennis Mazzone, Collier County code enforcement investigator. I agree that, indeed, our -- the Blockers have been very cooperative through this whole process. And there's been a lot of delay, that a lot of it has not been on their part. Certainly hiring of the engineers and such comes into play here. Their most recent rejection letter went out on 12/29 -- I'm sorry, 12/08/06. And like Ms. Blocker states, she's prepared to resubmit today, in fact. We've made it clear to the -- to this party that there will be an opportunity to address the fines in question in the future when they are in compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: I just have one question. If we impose these fines against the property, that will go into public record. Are the Blockers using financing to help fix the property up and will -- do we not hurt their chances of obtaining financing? MS. BLOCKER: No. MS. RAWSON: We record the orders whenever you issue them immediately thereafter, so that would have shown up anyway. MR. KELLY: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Somebody? Page 108 March 22, 2007 MR. PONTE: Make a motion that the fine be imposed as described. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Do we need two separate motions, Jean, for each case? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That will be for the first case, 2005-35. Again for the next case which would be 2005-39. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose fines in CEB case number 2005-39. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Please, come back and visit us. MS. BLOCKER: Oh, I will. Thank you. Page 109 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, we have three cases in the next one, which is Ignacio Soto and Carmen Soto. MS. ARNOLD: The first case is 2005-43. This case was heard by the board on November 18th, and a finding of fact, conclusion of law was entered into at that time finding a violation on mobile home zoned property with more mobile homes than was permitted. The respondent in this case, similar to the last, has complied with the first portion of the board's order or paragraph one but has failed to comply with paragraphs two through six. The county at this time is asking that operational costs in the amount of $480.78 be imposed along with fines in the amount of $93,500, for a total of $93,980.78 for case number 2005-32. For case number 2005-44, we're -- the same situation applies again. We're asking in this particular case fines -- or operational costs in the amount of$480.78, and fines in the amount of93,500 be imposed, for a total of$93.980.78. And then finally, case number 2005-45, the same conditions apply. They've complied with the first portion but failed to comply with the others of the order. And again, the fine is for 93,500, and the operational cost is $480.78, for a total of$93,980.78. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could we have them both sworn in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ms. Soto. MS. SOTO: When we first started this whole process, we weren't the owner, you know. We contacted Collier County so we could -- we wanted to improve the park itself. And I mean, it's three different cases, but it's all one property, you know. The same property owners and everything. We are working, like Ms. Blocker, you know, to get this done. We've submitted and resubmitted and it's been, you know, given back to us saying we need to do other things to it. Page 110 March 22, 2007 Right now our planner, our engineer, he's working on the plans again. We plan on resubmitting for a third time also. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Yes, sir? MR. MAZZONE: I agree with what Ms. Soto's stating. She's been very cooperative with us and staying in touch with our office. Again, we've informed Ms. Soto of the -- her opportunities in the future, when they do comply, to address these fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you understand that? MS. SOTO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right. At this time I'll entertain a motion to impose the fines for CEB case number 2005-43. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to improve the -- impose the fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, I'll entertain a motion for CEB case 2005-44. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose the fine. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 111 March 22, 2007 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And another motion for case number 2005-45. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Again, come back and see us. MS. SOTO: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next one would be 2006-48, Victor and Veronica Ledesma, maybe? Did I get close? MR. LEDESMA: That's close. MS. ARNOLD: This particular case, 2006-48, was heard by the code board on August 24, 2006, and a violation was found for building of an open carport with electricity without a permit. The respondent, I believe, actually was coming close to compliance at the date of the hearing but failed to obtain a CO within the time period that the board ordered. Page 112 March 22, 2007 And at this time staff is requesting operational costs in the amount of$350.05 be imposed along with fines in the amount of2 -- I mean $2,800. Nope, sorry, MR. LEFEBVRE: Operation costs have been paid. MS. ARNOLD: Operational costs has already been paid. So fines in the amount of, total, 2,800 be imposed at this time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are they in compliance now, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, they are in compliance. They actually came in compliance on October 6th. They obtained the CO. And they had a permit that was issued on September 7th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Ledesma, may I have you sworn in. And do we have an investigator? (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ledesma. MR. LEDESMA: Yes, ma'am. I don't think I'm in violation at all, you know, because the letter that I received, you know, for the recommendations, I mean, they gave me 30 days, according to the investigator. And the carport, you know, was done before the 30 days. The thing is, I -- this is all new to me, you know. Until I got the letter for this court, I was surprised, you know, that's why I went to the office in Immokalee and asked the Investigator Perez, you know, if she knew, you know, what was going on. And that's when she told me that I guess the recommendations -- at first they gave me -- they changed the recommendations, and I was not aware of that. Instead of the 30 days, they said it was 14 days. And like I said, you know, I wasn't aware of that letter until, you know, I went and asked her, and she gave me a copy of it -- of the letter that they -- supposedly they sent to the house, which I never got. And if I did, you know, I don't recall. MS. ARNOLD: I'm looking at the order, and he was not at the Page 113 March 22, 2007 hearing, and Jean Rawson did send a copy ofthe order that the board actually took action on to Mr. -- MR. LEDESMA: Ledesma. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. And we didn't get a return letter, so we assumed that he received it. So I understand that maybe the investigator advised him prior to the hearing that he would have 30 days, but the board's order actually gave him 14 days to comply. MR. LEDESMA: Yeah. What I got here, it's a letter, you know, that she gave me -- or a copy that she gave me that -- because I didn't come to court, you know, the first time, so I went and asked her, you know, what was the recommendations, and she gave me a paper, which I got right now. According to the-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we see that, Michelle? Do we need to enter that as evidence? We're not really hearing it, so -- MR. LEDESMA: This is what you gave me. The last page is the one that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is this the officer's recommendations initially? MS. ARNOLD: No. Actually it's an order. Let me show you what it is. It's a letter to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Operational costs to be paid within 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: The operational costs calculation, and then I believe it's a draft order. This is not a recorded order. The language that he's referring to is this. MR. PONTE: It says 30 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There it is, the 30 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, because in the recorded order it just says 14. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. LEDESMA: Yeah, like I said, I wasn't aware of that until I went and asked her when I received this notice for this court, and then Page 114 March 22, 2007 she gave me a copy of the proposed one, you know. And as I was reading through it, you know, I noticed that it says, you know, that they gave me 14 days to either -- it says right there, by obtaining Collier County building permit, inspections and Certificate of Completion or demolition permit, which I did, I got, you know, in those 14 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: When did you receive this? MR. LEDESMA: This one? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LEDESMA: I never did. She gave it to me. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. When did you receive it? MR. LEDESMA: Probably 10 days, maybe a week. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ten days, a week from when? MR. LEDESMA: Or maybe -- that -- it was when I went and asked her, you know, what was this court for, you know, because I didn't know it was for this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Notification of this hearing. MR. LEDESMA: Yeah, when I received the notice for this -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Today's hearing. MR. LEDESMA: For today's hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you got that letter 10 days ago, is that what you're saying? MR. LEDESMA: No, it's probably a little bit more than that, maybe three weeks or so. And I was surprised because I didn't know what it was for. But I -- to my mind, it was something to do with the carport, you know, because that was the only thing. So I went to the Immokalee department and asked her if she knew what was that about, and that's when she said, it was probably this, you know, because they're saying, you know, you didn't comply because it was 14 days. But I mean, when I was reading this, it says, you know, either that or a demolition permit, and I did got the permit, you know, within Page 115 March 22, 2007 those 14 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I've got a question for Jean. Jean, is that an oversight on my part for not catching that we had said 30 days and 14 for the demolition and we put 14 on both of them? My fault? MS. RAWSON: I'm not -- I'm not really sure. I think what you have to do at this point in time is consider his motion in front of you today as a motion for reduction/abatement of fines, and he's explaining to you why he doesn't think he should have to pay the fines. He's paid the operational costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Technically if we'd given him 30 days, he wouldn't have been in violation then because it says 28 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I read -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Help me, Michelle. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about if we check the minutes of that meeting and see what minutes -- MS. ARNOLD: I read through the minutes-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- because the question was raised prior to us coming here with the investigator and myself, and I read through the minutes, and the minutes -- there was some discussion about 30 days, but it -- clearly your order, your final -- I believe it was the recommendation of the investigator at that time to give him additional 30 days. Where we do we get that? MS. PEREZ: I have the copy of the minutes here. And the original time when I requested the 30 days was if he obtained the building permit to get the 30 days. And then there was, you know, within the discussion -- and on my notation I had put on there that your order was 30 days. When I received the one that Michelle just showed you, I thought that was the one that was in compliance -- you know, the one that was Page 116 March 22, 2007 correct because it was according also to the notes that I had jotted down, but then it was corrected and it was recorded. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because he said he was going to -- if I remember the case, he said he was going to tear it down, so he went to the 14 days. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. PEREZ: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Got it. MS. PEREZ: Fourteen days. MR. KRAENBRING: Is that what happened, he tore it down? MS. PEREZ: Yeah. He did get his demo to tear it down, yeah. MR. KRAENBRING: So he did pull the permit in time -- MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: -- in the 14 days, and completed the work within that intended 30-day period? MS. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But that was a confusion -- MR. KRAENBRING: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- on her side, not from our order, but I still think it does weigh into his issue. I look for direction from the board. MR. PONTE: I think that the respondent is in compliance. I think there's confusion, and I think the fine should be abated. MR. KRAENBRING: I have to agree. I think he really met the spirit of what he needed to do both in obtaining the permit before the 14 days, and then taking it down within 30. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And he has already paid the operational costs, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: And he paid those too. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we do not impose Page 11 7 March 22, 2007 fines in this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEDESMA: Appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the last imposition of fines is Luis Angel Dones. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This is case number 2006-49, and the board heard this case on September 28,2006, and found a violation of three non-permitted structures with the utility pole and pole barn on the property. The fines will continue to accrue because there is noncompliance, and we're asking at this time operational costs in the amount of, actually, $630.13 with $14,750 of fines, for a total of$15,380.13. There has, however, been a demolition -- oh, no, never mind. That was an old demolition permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we swear in Mr. Letourneau, please. (The speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jeff, do you have anything that you'd like to enlighten us with in this case? MR. LETOURNEAU: Noncompliance, I was out there to post the notice of hearing on February, I believe, 28th, and all the violations remain. He hasn't done one thing since this hearing. Page 118 March 22, 2007 MR. KELL Y: Is the building -- or are the buildings occupied? MR. LETOURNEAU: The funny thing is, I believe that the main house, the permitted structure, looks like it's unoccupied at this time, but the other structures, the non-permitted structures appear to be occupied. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Occupied? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. There's like two guesthouses in the back, and they have -- nobody answered the door. It looked like people were in there, but they didn't come to the door when I knocked, so -- but I could see furniture and signs of living in both the non-permitted guesthouses. MR. MORGAN: Is this the case we heard before where you tried to contact the owner and you couldn't contact the owner, someone was living in the guesthouse? MR. LETOURNEAU: I've never been in touch with the owner. The address of record is this -- is this address and -- MR. MORGAN: Okay. That's what I remember. MR. LETOURNEAU: And as many postings and cards as I've left, he's never gotten a hold of me. I've never met him. I don't know -- I don't know what his situation is. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose fines. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 119 March 22, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. We have new business? Approval of our rules and regulations. MS. ARNOLD: We have sent you all a copy of the rules and regulations which we believe you all are in agreement with, but there was one question that I received from one of the board members about the omission of a section, the original section A under hearing. It would be on page 5 of your rules and regs. And the section that is being questioned that was omitted was -- the language that pertained to non-contested cases where we indicated that the only thing that would be heard at that time was just the statement of violation and the agreement between the two parties. I know I checked my notes and I had delete on there. I can't recall why we were deleting it. So we have both versions, a version without that language in there and a version with it in there. Whatever the full board is in agreement to -- whatever the full board is in agreement to approve would be the ones that we would ask you all to sign today, and then we would forward to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does anybody remember why we took it out? MR. KELLY: Yes. MR. PONTE: What it is is it's section 9A, and we just dropped it, but I don't have any recollection when we all met together and the special master was there that we voted to delete that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kelly? MR. PONTE: What we deleted -- I just want to read it, because I think deleting it leaves the barn door open. It says, a contested case, the only evidence heard shall be the statement of a violation and any stipulated agreement. That closes it. If that's not there, I think we leave ourselves open to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Rehearing the case. Page 120 March 22, 2007 MR. KELL Y: If I may, I do remember why we took this out. At times where there's stipulated agreements, the board still may have an opinion one way or another even though the parties have agreed. Well, we can either advise staff or we can advise the respondent as to maybe a different course of action that wasn't brought up during their discussions to formulate the stipulated agreement. We took that out for that reason. MR. PONTE: Should then it be back in but with further explanation, another sentence explaining it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think it needs to be put back in with another explanation saying, you know, that we have the right to review the stipulated agreement maybe. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I don't know that if it's left in there the same way it's written that it would preclude you from doing that. I think all it's saying is that there's no eviden -- we're not going to have a full evidentiary hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, we don't want to have a rehearing, right. MS. ARNOLD: So the only evidence, so to speak, that you would hear would be those two things, the statement of the violation and the stipulation itself. It doesn't, I think, prohibit you from modifying what that stipulation is because you all would still enter into an order, whatever the consensus of the board would agree to. MR. PONTE: So are you more comfortable with section A being restored or -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. When I read it, I couldn't remember why we omitted it, but I don't think that it would hurt putting it back in. Obviously it's been working so far. MR. PONTE: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have a consensus of the board then? This includes you guys down there. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think the inclusion of the provision Page 121 March 22, 2007 should be reinserted with some additional explanation and -- so that there's no question in the future that there's the option still available to us to comment on a stipulation given to the board. MR. KELLY: Jean, if this is interpreted literally, would somebody have the chance to come back on us or throw an order out or appeal it? MS. RAWSON: No, I don't think so. I think it's broad enough. I don't see any problem with putting it back in. I'm not -- I don't remember why it was taken out. MS. ARNOLD: Me either. MS. RAWSON: I mean, you still have the power when they present you a stipulation -- MS. ARNOLD: You can modify it again. MS. RAWSON: Right. You know, for example, today we gave somebody three days, and we won't have their order to them by then. But they were here so they know, and they signed the stipulation, and so it's okay. But if that had been an order -- well, it is an order. MR. KRAENBRING: Did it have anything to do with consistency between the special master's rules and ours? MS. RAWSON: I'm sure it did because that was the whole purpose of our workshop. We were trying to be consistent with what the special master wanted. And I mean, there's no harm in putting it back in, I don't think. We couldn't do everything exactly the same way the special master did it, as you recall. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're actually a board, and she's one person -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- so she makes decisions on her own. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Her law background. Okay. I would like to hear a motion. Page 122 March 22, 2007 MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to insert Section A of Article IX (sic) back in to our rules and regs. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So it's back in. Any other changes? MS. ARNOLD: Not that I was -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Notified of? MS. ARNOLD: -- notified of. I don't know whether anybody read through it and saw any other things that they were concerned about. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I breezed through it, and I actually missed the one that George caught. And if that's the case, then I will entertain a motion to accept our new rules and regs. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Madam Chair, I have one question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I want to be sure that I haven't missed anything here. In Article V, is there an inclusion for the sunshine law provisions? Maybe even secondarily, should there be inclusion for sunshine law provisions under Article V? MS. RAWSON: It's not in there written as such. It's not verbalized. That's probably a very good suggestion. I wish you'd been at our workshop. We do try to keep everybody apprised of the Page 123 March 22, 2007 sunshine law, and we do have workshops sometimes twice a year. We do invite this board to all of the sunshine law presentations that are given by the county attorneys. You know, that's not a bad idea to at least reference it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a piggyback question and suggestion for that then, too. I noticed in the sunshine law handbook it defines that as applying to public officials and employees. Are we a public official? MS. RAWSON: Yes. And the sunshine law definitely applies, as I remind this board often. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think it might be a good idea to entertain something like that for future boards. MS. RAWSON: Just a reference -- just a reference to it, you know, that the board is subject to the sunshine provisions of the statute, whatever. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. Because we all seem to think that we all know it, but somebody new just brought up the question whether he really was. MS. RAWSON: Abundance of caution. Excellent idea. MS. ARNOLD: So what -- we'll come up with some language, we won't sign it today, and we'll bring it back at another meeting. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. Because I think that would be a good thing to put in there. MS. ARNOLD: Speaking of the sunshine law, you all probably noticed that you have updated information in front of you. So again, when I am aware of a training session, I will notify the board, the full board, even those of you that have already attended prior sessions so that you all can attend if you so choose. And I would just urge the newer members to try to schedule it if they can to attend those because they're very informative. MR. PONTE: Couldn't we just work that one sentence we need Page 124 March 22, 2007 to include so that the next time Michelle comes back it's all buttoned up? I mean, it just seems simple enough to say the board will be guided by the rules and regulations set forth in the Florida state sunshine law. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we just go ahead and add that today and -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but I won't have it for you to sign, unfortunately. MR. PONTE: No, I know, but if we agreed that's what-- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. MR. PONTE: -- is to be said, then when you come back -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then we just have to sign it rather than -- we could go ahead and vote on it today so that you can have it -- MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely, sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Is that okay with everybody? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Again, I'll entertain a motion then if there's no other additions or corrections or -- MR. KRAENBRING: George, make the motion since you read that out there. MR. PONTE: Under Section V, whatever you -- Article V, wherever you want to put it, Code Enforcement Board shall be governed by the -- I said rules and regulations, but there must be a better word than that, by the Florida -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Requirements. MR. PONTE: By the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Florida sunshine amendment? MR. PONTE: Sunshine amendment, I guess that's what -- Florida Commission on Ethics Sunshine Amendment. Page 125 March 22, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Or sunshine laws. MR. PONTE: Or sunshine laws. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now, ifthere are no other changes -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I wrote that down, so I'll -- when it's modified, I'll send it to everybody and you'll have it before the meeting. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'd like to entertain a motion for accepting our rules and regs. MR. KRAENBRING: We don't have to wait till next time? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, that's what we just stated, we weren't going to. MR. KRAENBRING: Just wanted to make sure. I make a motion. MR. KELLY: Second. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 126 March 22, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. She'll bring them back with the changes and we can sign it that way. We have comments in regard to the June hearing? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We just wanted to mention to the board that our hearing date has -- is going to be different from normal. It will be June 22nd. Our normal hearing date was -- had to be altered because of the location of this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's going to be a Friday. MS. ARNOLD: It's going to be a Friday. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is it going to be here still? MS. ARNOLD: It's going to here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But on a Friday? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. And the next meeting date's April 26th? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And if we wait and stall six more minutes, we can be out of here by one o'clock. MS. ARNOLD: Do I know you all or what? MR. WRIGHT: I just had a quick comment -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. WRIGHT: -- for your information. We're working on the consolidated code enforcement ordinance, which should hopefully true up some of the inconsistencies between this body and the special master's procedures, and it went before the board as a preliminary draft last -- their last meeting, and we expect that probably in the next month or two it's going to be presented to them as a final draft, and so I just wanted to let you know and encourage any interest that you might have in that. Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Well, I'll entertain a Page 127 March 22, 2007 motion to adjourn, if anybody wants to. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. PONTE: I don't know. We're having so much fun. I might object to that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Great. See you guys next month, April 26th. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:55 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRWOMAN Page 128 March 22, 2007 These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe., BY TERRI L. LEWIS Page 129