Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/24/2007 R May 24, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida May 24, 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 Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly (Excused) Charles Martin Lionel L'Esperance, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Bendisa Marlill, Code Enforcement Operations Coordinator Jean Rawson, Esquire, Attorney for the Code Enforcement Board Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: May 24, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier Connty Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LlMITIED 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. I. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 26, 2007 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue B. STIPULATIONS 1. BCC vs. Connie Munoz 2. BCC vs. Josephina Gomez CEB 2007-39 CEB 2007-44 C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Angel Riquelme and Lissette Riquelme 2. BCC vs. MMB of Southwest Florida LLC and Bonita Media Enterprises LLC 3. BCC vs. TW Management of Naples, Inc AlK/A Naples Investments, INC 4. BCC vs. Jaycess Foundation of Naples, INC 5. BCC vs. Starboard Media Foundation, INC 6. BCC vs. Horse Creek Partners, LTD 7. BCC vs. Angel Riquelme and Lissette Riquelme 8. BCC vs. Kalyvia, LLC CEB 2007-34 CEB 2007-35 CEB 2007-36 CEB 2007-38 CEB 2007-40 CEB 2007-41 CEB 2007-42 CEB 2007-43 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Reduction of Fines/Liens B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. BCC vs. Innovation Construction & Development, LLC 2. BCC vs. Cederiere Titus and Jeanne Bonnett 3. BCC vs. Bill Gray's Inc 4. BCC vs. J. H. Prettyman CEB 2004-75 CEB 2007-02 CEB 2007-09 CEB 2007-11 7. NEW BUSINESS- Approval of Rules and Regulations 8. REPORTS- 9. COMMENTS- 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - June 18, 2007 11. ADJOURN May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. At this time seeing, that it is nine o'clock, I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County's meeting to order. Notice the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Person's wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive 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 to 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. And just as a note, because I know that we have one member that's missing, our first alternate, Charles Martin, will be a voting member today. May I have roll call? MS. MARKU: Mr. Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Here. MS. MARKU: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. Page 2 May 24, 2007 MS. MARKU: Mr. Kenneth Kelly has an excused absence. Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. MARKU: Leon L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Approval of the agenda. I think we have some changes. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. We have several stipulations to be added to our list under 5B -- excuse me -- item number 5C 1 is to be added; 5C4 should be added to the stipulated list; 5C5 is being withdrawn by the county; 5C6 is a stipulated agreement; 5C7 is stipulated; and 5C8 is stipulated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to give everybody a few minutes to get their packets in order. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Everybody set? Then can we have approval of the minutes from the April 26th meeting? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Move to public hearing and motions to continue. Do we have any? MS. ARNOLD: (Shakes head.) Page 3 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: There were no requests for continuance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then we'll go to the stipulated agreement, and we'll call the first case. Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Connie Munoz. (The speakers was duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. MR. MORAD: For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, Ed Morad. The address of the violation is 2685 55th Terrace Southwest, Golden Gate City. The violation is improvement of property without authorization or permits. That's in violation of ordinance 2004-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and the Florida Building edition 2004 section 111.1, and Collier County Code of Laws section 22, article II, section 106.1. The affidavit of service for the notice of hearing was posted on the property, posted at the courthouse, and it was also mailed certified mail. I had a prehearing with the -- prehearing conference with the respondent April 25, 2007. We reviewed and discussed the stipulation agreement. She agreed the violation was accurate and stipulated to the existence and signed the document. The improvement's been demo'ed, so the violation's been abated. The operational cost of $623.19 has been paid. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion to accept the stipulated agreement? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. PONTE: Second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 4 May 24, 2007 MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anyopposed? Thank you, Mr. MORAD. MR. MORAD: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is going to be Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Josephina Gomez. MR. MORAD: I swore in already. For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we need to reswear him in for each case, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: Okay. Again, for the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, Ed Morad. The address of the violation is 1700 55th Terrace Southwest-- 55th Street, I'm sorry, Southwest. That is in Golden Gate City. The violation is improvement of property without active Collier County building permits. Violation of ordinance 2004-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i). The affidavit of service for the notice of hearing was a personal service and it was also mailed certified. I had a prehearing conference with the respondent on April 24, 2007. We reviewed and discussed the stipulation agreement. She agreed the violation was accurate and stipulated to the existence and Page 5 May 24, 2007 signed the document. The respondent agreed to pay an operational cost of $529 incurred in the prosecution of the case. She agreed to either obtain a Collier County building permit for improvements within 60 days of today's hearing, or a $100 a day fine will be imposed until the violation is abated, or she agreed to either obtain a Collier County demo permit, remove the improvements, converting the property back to its original state, pass inspections, and obtain a Certificate of Completion within 60 days of to day's hearing on the demo permit, or a $100 a day fine be imposed until violations are abated. Any questions? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, Ed, I have one. Is she supposed to contact you when all this is done so that you can verify that it's been abated? MR. MORAD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. That being the case, I'm looking for a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulation as presented. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MORAD: Thank you. Page 6 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have one question for the county on the next case, Angel Riquelme and Lissette Riquelme. We also have another one further down, which is number seven. Shall we bring them up at the same time for both cases? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So out of order then, we'll go one and seven. Okay. The next case then I'll call forward is the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Angel -- I hope I'm saying this right -- Riquelme and Lissette Riquelme. Am I close? MR. RIQUELME: Angel. Lissette's not in. It's Angel. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Angel, okay. MR. RIQUELME: My last name's Riquelme. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have them sworn in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is for case number 2006-110568. Mr. Riquelme and the county has reached a stipulation agreement. The violation was an -- is an unpermitted shed built without first obtaining all Collier County building permits. We agreed that Mr. Riquelme will pay operational costs in the amount of$357.80 incurred in the prosecution of this case. He will also submit a complete application for all Collier County building permits within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the application is submitted, and pursue application process with due diligence until the permit is issued. Upon receipt of permits, request inspections and 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 violation is Page 7 May 24, 2007 abated. Or, obtaining a Collier County demolition permit within 14 days of this hearing, or a fine of $l 00 a day will be imposed until the permit is obtained. He will request all required inspections and obtain a Certificate of Completion within seven days of the day the permit is obtained, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the Certificate of Completion is issued. He will notify the code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Angel, do you agree with this stipulated agreement? MR. RIQUELME: Yes, I do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any discussion or questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. RIQUELME: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And then the case -- you might as Page 8 May 24, 2007 well just stay up here because the next case is going to be -- Angel, go ahead and stay up here because we're going to pull you so that you can get out of here. The next case is going to be Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Angel Riquelme again. And may I have them both sworn in again, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: This is for case number 2006-110569. Mr. Riquelme and the county has reached another stipulation agreement. The violation is an unpermitted pool built without first obtaining all Collier County building permits. Mr. Riquelme and the county has agreed that he will submit a complete application. First he will pay operational costs in the amount of357.80 incurred in the prosecution of this case. He will submit a complete application for all Collier County building permits within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $1 00 per day will be imposed until the application is submitted, and pursue application process with due diligence until the permit is issued. Upon receipt of permit, request inspections and 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 violation is abated. Or, obtaining a Collier County demolition permit within 14 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed until the permit is obtained. Request all required inspections and obtain a Certificate of Completion within seven days of the day the permit is obtained, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the Certificate of Completion is issued. He will -- he will notify the code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I have one question for you. Is this pool that has been built secure so that it's not accessible Page 9 May 24, 2007 by outsiders? MR. KEEGAN: It's-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Screened in, okay. Angel, again, are you -- MR. PONTE: I just have a question. Sorry, Sheri. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. MR. PONTE: If the pool permit --let me just put it this way. In your professional opinion, is there any problem in the respondent's obtaining the pool permit? MR. KEEGAN: We did have a meeting with the building department -- well, the permit department, and as long as he has the drawings, they would do an after-the fact permit and they didn't see it was an Issue. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Angel, do you agree with the stipulated agreement? MR. RIQUELME: Yes, I do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as presented. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 10 May 24, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. MR. RIQUELME: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll then move up to Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Jaycees Foundation of Naples. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. BONO: For the record, Investigator Bono, Collier County Code Enforcement, case number 2006-070469, CEB case 2007-38, Jaycees Foundation of Naples, represented by David Moran, identified as the registered agent for this organization, has entered into a stipulation with the county regarding a violation of 2004-41 of the Land Development Code, as amended, 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)( d), and the Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, section 105.1. The respondent has agreed to pay the operational costs of $360.40 and be in compliance with all Collier County codes and ordinances applying for and obtaining all permits, inspections and Certificate of Occupancy required for the improvements of the property within 30 days of today's hearing, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed. Or, demolish the improvements within seven -- excuse me -- 14 days of to day's hearing and get any Collier County demo permit issued to the respondent's contractor, or a $100 a day fine will be imposed until the improvements are removed to an appropriate -- and the improvements moved to an appropriate waste disposal facility. The respondent must notify the code investigator of this notice when the violation has been abated. And that's pretty much it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. David, are you in agreement with this stipulated -- MR. MORAN: Yeah, agreed to it. Page 11 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement as agreed to by the county and the respondent. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. BONO: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Horse Creek Partners. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. This a stipulation, CEB case number 2007-41, department number 2005-090022. The violation of the Land Development Code section 1 0.02.06(B)(2)( a) and 1 0.02.06(B)(2)( d)(i)(x). The stipulation agreement is, pay operational costs in the amount of $536.32 and abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient application for sign variance to maintain an off-premise sign in the subject location within 14 days of the date of hearing, that's June 7th, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until a variance application is submitted. Page 12 May 24, 2007 B, pursue variance process through final determination. If variance is approved, submit a complete and sufficient sign permit within 30 days of variance approval, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until permit is submitted. Pursue all inspections through Certificate of Completion within 60 days of permit approval, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until a permit is CO'ed. C, if variance is denied, remove the sign from the subject location within 30 days of variance disapproval, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until said sign is removed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And three? MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a clarification. On A, I think you said 14 days from the hearing. Is it -- MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. It's supposed to be 14. There was some clarification needed, so we went with the original 14, and the 30 days are for the permit on B. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure because it's crossed out -- MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- and initialed and everything, so-- MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a question. Annette Brennan is not here. Apparently you're not Annette. I happen to know that you're Mr. Tim Hancock. Are you here representing this individual? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. For the record, Tim Hancock, representing Horse Creek Partners, Limited. I've actually applied for the variance already with the county and I'm their agent on the vanance. Page 13 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Kalyvia, LLC. And I hope I got close on that pronunciation, K-A-L-Y-V-I-A. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, again, Investigator Kitchell Snow, Code Enforcement for the County. This is a stipulation that was agreed to this morning, department -- or CEB number 2007-43, department case number 2007-040239. Mr. Vallini was here. He had a witness -- or had an illness in the family this morning. My supervisor, Serono (phonetic), witnessed that he represented the property owner in this matter. If you would like the testimony, we can certainly give that -- call for her to testify that she did hear that. This is section -- or violations of sections 5.04.05[A][1] as described as a banner, without first obtaining a temporary use permit. We agreed that they will pay operational costs in the amount of Page 14 May 24, 2007 $396.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case. They will abate all violations by A, submit for two permits within seven days of the date of hearing for the banner displayed on said property, or a fine of$250 per day will be imposed until said permits are obtained. Start date for permits are from March 23,2007, to March 27, 2007, and from April 9, 2007 until April 12, 2007. After-the-fact permit fees are to apply for permits. Upon expiration of permits, cease displaying any banners or signs that do not comply with proper permits within an unincorporated area of Collier County. And B, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. And this was a reoccurring violation. I had given a Notice of Violation approximately a month before, got an after-the-fact permit for the same thing, go back two weeks later and the violation had been abated, and go back a week later and they had it right back up, so that's the reason we're here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Are the signs currently down? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. Violation has been abated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? MR. KRAENBRING: Just for the record, number three also, respondent must notify. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 15 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe that closes out the stipulated agreements, and so now we'll move into the hearings. And it looks like the first case is going to be the Board of County Commissioners versus MMB of Southwest Florida, LLC, and Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator for Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to ask if the respondent is present. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Yes. Richard Annunziata from the law firm of Brennan, Manna & Diamond on behalf of Bonita Media Enterprises. And just for the record, MMB of Southwest Florida, LLC, is no longer in existence. So we're here just for Bonita Media Enterprises today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. MARKU: The respondent and the board was 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 to accept the county's packet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Accept the county-- MR. DEAN: Second. Page 16 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances, 04-41, Land Development Code as amended, section 5.06.06[U], 5.06.06[W], and 5.06.06[X]. Description of violation: Vehicle with moving/changing sign copy. Location/address where violation exists: Itinerant or transient in nature. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation: MMB of Southwest Florida and Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC. MS. ARNOLD: We'll just correct that, that MMB is not an existing entity anymore. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. ANNUNZIATA: If! may, I haven't received a copy of the packet of evidence given to the board. I don't know if that's something that I would normally be provided with so that I could assess it while the presentation's being made. MS. ARNOLD: It was sent with the Notice of Violation. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Oh, okay. That's it? MS. ARNOLD: That's what they're talking about, yeah. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Okay, very good. MS. MARKU: Co-owner (sic) registered agent/registered agent: Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL, 3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite Page 17 May 24, 2007 203, Bonita Springs, Florida, 33912. Is that correct? MR. ANNUNZIATA: Did you say co-owner? MS. MARKU: C/O registered agent. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Registered agent, that would be correct. MS. MARKU: Date violation first observed: December 14, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 18,2007. Date on which violation to be corrected: February 20, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: March 15,2007. Results ofre-inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to invite Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Before we get really started too far, Mr. Kitchell Snow and -- MR. ANNUNZIATA: Richard Annunziata. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Richard. MR. ANNUNZIATA: I was going to say, please call me Richard. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you think this case is going to take longer than five minutes for either of you to present? MR. ANNUNZIATA: I do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How long do you think you'll need? MR. ANNUNZIATA: I would like at least the 20 minutes to present. I mean, I don't know that I'll go that long. I certainly would like whatever -- you said more than five minutes? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Yeah, I think we'd go more than five minutes. I'd like -- I have a presentation, a couple of questions, and then I think we'll be done, I mean, but -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What is the board's privy on this Page 18 May 24,2007 because we have to give him our authorization because it's over a five-minute limit. MR. ANNUNZIATA: And just for the record, at the last hearing I had requested -- although I don't think it was a ruling -- for some additional time -- I asked for some additional time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's kind of why I brought it up. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, is he actually the representative of the respondent? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MR. KRAENBRING: So he has the 20 minutes. He's not a witness or -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: -- just speaking. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Correct. I'm the attorney for -- MR. KRAENBRING: So he would have 20 minutes. MR. ANNUNZIATA: -- Bonita Media Enterprises. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. All right. MS. ARNOLD: The rules allow for 20 minutes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Fine. I read them over and over and over this weekend, so I'm probably confusing a couple of different issues. I'm sorry. MR. ANNUNZIATA: And maybe I'm confused. My understanding was that he had 20 minutes and I had 20 minutes; is that not -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's correct. MR. ANNUNZIATA: That is correct, okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have them both sworn in then, please. I'm sorry (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead, Mr. Snow. Page 19 May 24, 2007 MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow with code enforcement. Before we start, I have some photographs I'd like to submit as evidence, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May we accept Exhibit B for the county, please, MR. PONTE: I make a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: Me. I'd like to see the photos before we accept them. MS. ARNOLD: We have to decide whether or not we want to -- MR. KRAENBRING: Whether you're going to accept them or not, okay. Before we had a situation where we had seen photos that weren't applicable to the case. MS. ARNOLD: Well, you accept them and you decide which one is relevant. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Then I will change my vote. MR. PONTE: I don't know if you can do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Annunziata, do you have any objections to those photos? MR. ANNUNZIATA: I have no objection to the photos. I had just made a suggestion that I also had a brochure that I wanted to present to you. MR. SNOW: No objection. Page 20 May 24, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. You could do that at your time -- at that time. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Very good. MS. ARNOLD: Was there a decision from the board? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, it was accepted. MR. KRAENBRING: Accepted. MR. SNOW: This has been an ongoing case since last year. It involves a vehicle that has motion or movement of signs. And I want to read you the ordinances which they were cited on so we can be very clear on what they've been cited for. Sections 5.06.06[U] states, any sign which employs motion, has visible moving parts, or gives the illusion of motion, excluding time and temperature signs; any sign which constitutes a traffic hazard or detriment to traffic safety by reason of its size, location, movement, content, coloring, method of illumination or by obstructing or distracting the vision of drivers or pedestrians. X, any sign mounted on the vehicle, be it the roof, hood, truck, bed, and so on where said sign is intended to attract or may distract the attention or motorists for the purpose of advertising a business, a product, a service, or the like, whether or not said vehicle is parked or driven, excluding emergency vehicles, taxicabs, and delivery vehicles where a roof mounted sign does not exceed two square feet. This section shall not apply to magnetic type signs affixed or signs painted on a vehicle provided said vehicle is used in a normal -- I'm sorry -- in the course of operation of a business, which are not otherwise prohibited by this code. It shall be un -- it shall be unlawful -- it shall be considered unlawful to park a vehicle or a trailer with signs painted, mounted, or affixed on a site or sites other than that at which the firm, product, or service advertised of such sign is offered. And this is a case where the vehicle has three sides and it is changeable copy. And as you can see from the photographs -- and this Page 21 May 24, 2007 is in Collier County. This is running down Airport Road right near Exchange. And you notice the time frame of the camera. It changes approximately -- I didn't time it. Again, I was in the vehicle following it. For safety reasons I wasn't -- I was paying more attention to traffic than just trying to photograph. But as you can see, the copy does change. It does flip. There are visible moving parts within this sign, which is expressly prohibited by the code. For the record, these are in time sequence. This is clearly a violation of the code as it stands today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Is that -- Richard, it's your turn. Would you like to enter anything in for evidence, because I believe -- MR. ANNUNZIATA: We have already presented the board with a response memorandum and a whole package, and I would ask that that be made a part of the record. I have an extra copy here which I'd like to submit. I've -- what I'm submitting on the record is exactly what was -- already been presented to Michelle Arnold, the attorneys of your board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Make a motion -- or I will entertain a motion, please, to accept his packet A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept his package A. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 22 May 24, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: This packet was already sent to you with your packet. MR. ANNUNZIATA: I'd like present it to the court reporter to make it part of the record. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's fine. Did you want to enter the brochure? MR. ANNUNZIATA: I do, yes. The second thing I'd like to do is -- and I apologize. I only have two of them. I'd like to present the brochure to the board. I have two of them. If we could pass them through and then make at least one of them part ofthe record. I'd like to do it that way as well. MS. ARNOLD: Can we see the brochure? MR. ANNUNZIATA: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would we like to entertain B for the respondent? Motion to accept? MR. DEAN: I make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. ANNUNZIATA: The whole purpose is just to get a visual picture. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Why don't you go ahead and pass one down so we can be looking at it at the same time. Page 23 May 24, 2007 Go ahead. It's your floor. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Very good. MS. ARNOLD: The county will just let you know whether or not we have any objections. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I'm sorry. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Bonita Media Enterprises is a Florida company. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Let me -- I'm sorry. MR. ANNUNZIATA: I apologize. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm messing up today. MR. ANNUNZIATA: We're still trying to figure out if we're going to accept that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We've accept it, but we need to know whether or not they have any objections to it. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Fair enough. MR. KLATZKOW: None whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. There we go. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Bonita Media Enterprises is a Florida company that's based out of Bonita Springs, which owns and operates a mobile advertising company and operates -- I apologize -- operates a mobile advertising company both in Lee and Collier County and in other counties throughout Florida. Bonita Media Enterprises owns and operates trucks which effectively have four advertising panels with three sides each which rotate at uniformly controlled intervals. Essentially, the purpose of which is to change the copy of the advertising that's on the trucks. This is done effectively while the trucks are traveling along the federal, state, and local roadways of Collier, Lee, and other counties within Florida. One of the points -- my client was cited for three sections of the Land Development Code pertaining to prohibited use of signs in Collier County. I need to bring to the Court -- to the board's attention Page 24 May 24, 2007 that my client owns no land in Collier County and no land infringement is at issue here today. Effectively, the Land Development Code that's at issue here does not -- it is our position, respectfully, that the Land Development Code does not apply and was not intended to apply to a mobile advertising company such as Bonita Media Enterprises. Section 1.04.01 of the Land Development Code specifically states that the provisions of this land development -- of this LDC, the Land Development Code, shall apply to all land, property, and development in the total unincorporated area of Collier County except as expressly and specifically provided otherwise in this Land Development Code. Clearly, I would submit this does not apply to Bonita Media Enterprises, that ordinances that are at issue, the three sections of the signs that deal -- that are listed in the Land Development Code do not apply to Bonita Media Enterprises. No land is at issue -- no land use is at issue here or property issues or development issues are involved. Second -- and I may have some questions for Mr. -- Mr. Snow as we proceed. But this is not the kind of case where we have a business owner making certain use of property and making certain use of signage on his property. And, again, I would submit that the Land Development Code does not apply to moving vehicles and traffic. It is our position -- and we have stated this in our position paper. And to the extent that -- to the fullest extent we adopt all those arguments today in relation to our position against the code enforcement violations. The State of Florida has exclusive authority over traffic enforcement, and it is our position that Florida law effectively states that it is unlawful for any local authority to pass or attempt to enforce any ordinance that's in conflict with the provisions of Florida Statutes, Chapter 316, and that no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance under matter covered by that section unless expressly Page 25 May 24, 2007 authorized. Traffic is defined -- the purpose of the Florida state law -- as pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars or other conveyances either singularly or together while using any street or highway for purposes of travel. Florida law defines a street or highway as part of the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place, or whatever nature, where any party thereof is opened to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. It is our position the state law controls traffic laws. The local body here, it is our position, has no authority to enforce the laws if the state's not granted them the power to do so. The vehicle was moving. The code enforcement officer followed the vehicle, as he testified, and issued a citation. We submit that that's not proper in this case. I have some questions for Mr. Kitchell Snow which I'll get to in a couple of minutes. With regard to the particular sections, it's our position that the Land Development Code sign ordinance, both on its face and as applied to Bonita Media Enterprises, seeks to improperly control the content of the signs of my client's trucks. For instance, and by way of example, section 5.06.06, section U, it says it effectively prohibits any signs that employs motion, has visible moving parts or gives the illusion of motion, excluding time and temperature signs. So they allow for time and temperature signs, but they don't allow for anything -- they seem to make a clear exclusion for some content here but not for others. Now, the moving of the signs -- I would submit that the sign ordinance is vague as to what is allowable. Section 5.06.06, section U, prohibits any sign which employs motion. Again, just the section I read that has visible moving parts or gives the illusion of motion, excluding time and temperature. The signs in question are programmable and effectively don't Page 26 May 24, 2007 have moving parts -- moving -- they are not moving signs. They-- effectively the movement is to change the copy. They do not scroll. It takes less than one -- probably less than one second to flip, and they do not employ motion for the purposes of attracting attention, but rather, again, to change copy. Section 5.06 -- the second section which they were cited under, 5.06.06, section X, excludes signs mounted on a vehicle impermissibly excluding certain vehicles, for example, taxicabs, that are intended to attract or may distract the attention of motorists for the purpose of advertising. I submit to the board that all signs on trucks are intended to attract motorists and to attract attention for advertising purposes. I would also submit that section 5.06.06 is vague and unenforceable under Florida state law. The language reads that any sign which constitutes a traffic hazard or detriment to traffic safety by reason of its size, location, movement, content, coloring, or method of illumination or by obstructing or distracting the vision of drivers or pedestrians. That's what it seeks to prohibit. There's no evidence that our signs caused a traffic safety issue. And further, there was no evidence suggesting that the officer had any training in -- or authority to go ahead and issue a citation for my client moving through the roadways of Collier County on a truck which has advertising which has no connection to the land or has any land use implications that the code in question here is designed to address. I have some questions for Mr. Snow, which I'll get to -- I'd like to just end with my questions for him, if possible. But finally, overall, I would point out that there are recent federal holdings -- and I understand there's some limitations here with what we can address and what we can't address with regard to constitutional issues, but there are recent holdings in federal court clearly which support that each of the sign ordinances at issue improperly regulate the content of my client's advertising -- in violation of my client's Page 27 May 24, 2007 constitutional guaranteed rights relating to commercial speech. We've outlined those arguments in writing for the record. Hopefully the board has taken that into consideration. But, effectively, overall, our argument is that the Land Development Code doesn't apply to moving vehicles. The board -- the county does not have the ability, or I should say, the code enforcement officers do not have the ability to go ahead and to enforce traffic laws. And at this point I'd like to ask a couple of questions ofMr. Kitchell Snow if possible. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Just for the record. Mr. Snow -- there's something else I'd like to bring to the attention of the board, if! may, before I do that. There is a section under 5.06.05 dealing with signs exempt from regulations. It says, in addition to those signs identified elsewhere in this code, the following signs are exempt from the permit requirements of this code and shall be permitted in all districts subject to the limitations set forth below. In subparagraph S it says, copy changes for shopping centers, theaters, billboards or marquees that have routine changes of copy or are specifically designed for changes of copy. I would submit that that is -- we fall within that exemption with regard to -- especially billboard signs with marquees, along those lines. There are exemptions that -- an exception that's in place dealing with copy changes for advertising, so -- Mr. Snow, when did you first see the vehicle which is the subject of the violation, the alleged violation here today? MR. SNOW: According to my Notice of Violation, 12/14/06. MR. ANNUNZIATA: And where did you see the vehicle? MR. SNOW: I don't recall at this time. I -- I don't know where I saw it. It was in Collier County. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Was it moving or was it parked; do you Page 28 . May 24, 2007 recall ? MR. SNOW: It was moving. MR. ANNUNZIATA: You indicated that you followed the vehicle for safety purposes. MR. SNOW: No, sir. That's the second time I viewed it or third time I viewed it. MR. ANNUNZIATA: That's the second or third time that you viewed it? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. Then I -- when I followed it and took the photographs. Various times throughout the case we received reports that it was operating in Collier County, but as you know, I have to witness the violation, so there was nothing I could do till I witnessed the violation. MR. ANNUNZIATA: All right. But you indicated -- but your testimony earlier before the board was that you followed it for -- at one point in time you followed the vehicle for safety purposes; is that correct? MR. SNOW: No, sir. I followed it to take photographs. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Okay. Well, I thought you said specifically that you followed it for safety reasons. That was your -- I thought that's what you said earlier. All right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If you want clarification of that, we can have the court reporter read back what he stated, but I think what he was referring to is he was paying attention to the traffic for safety reasons while he also was taking pictures. MR. ANNUNZIATA: That's fine. His testimony is what it is. How did you determine the amount of time it took for the sign -- oh, you said you didn't really clock how long it took to change the signs? MR. SNOW: That is correct, I did not clock. The photographs have the time and the date on them, so that's how -- the documentation that they were revolving, moving. I had motion of the illusion, motion involved. Page 29 May 24, 2007 MR. ANNUNZIATA: In your Notice of Violation, you state that the sign copy created a traffic hazard through the attraction or distraction of the motorized public. What do you base your conclusion that a traffic hazard occurred as a result of my client's signs? MR. SNOW: That's what the Land Development Code says, section 5.06.06. Shall I read it for you again, sir? MR. ANNUNZIATA: No. I was asking you, what do you base your conclusion that a traffic hazard occurred? MR. SNOW: 5.06.06[W]. MR. ANNUNZIATA: All right. What you do you base your conclusion that the motorized public was attracted (sic) to the sign? MR. SNOW: Again,5.06.06[W]. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Okay. And what do you base your conclusion that the motorized public -- I'm sorry -- was distracted by the sign? MR. SNOW: Personally, sir, I was distracted by it when I was driving behind it trying to photograph what was going on. It was flipping. It was very, very distracting. It had six or eight panels on each side. It was flipping constantly in different ads. MR. ANNUNZIATA: The question that I asked you was, what do you base your conclusion that the motorized public besides -- I'm not talking about you -- was distracted by the sign? MR. SNOW: I am the -- I was motorized at the time that I took the photographs, so I think I'm allowed to have an opinion on, was it distracting or not distracting. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Do you have any special training for the issuance of traffic violations? MR. SNOW: Be more specific, sir. I can issue parking citations, but this is not an issue of traffic. This is an issue of a sign. MR. ANNUNZIATA: I know, but I'm asking you a question specifically. Do you have the -- do you have special training for the Page 30 May 24, 2007 issuance of traffic -- moving traffic violations? That's, I guess, what I'm suggesting. MR. SNOW: No, I can't issue any citations for moving traffic. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Okay. Have you been trained or received any training to -- in connection with the performance of your job -- have you received any training to perform your job according to any training approved by the criminal justice standards and training commission? MR. SNOW: I'm -- I'm Florida Association of Code Enforcement level one certified, which, Statute 162, if I wasn't, the county gives me that authority. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Okay. But -- so that's the extent of your MR. SNOW: Florida Association of Code Enforcement, yes, sir. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Okay, all right. MR. SNOW: And also I'm certified by the county through the code enforcement department. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Do you know whether the form of the notice to appear today is consistent with state traffic court rules and procedures established by the department of transportation? MR. SNOW: I can't comment on that -- I can't comment on that, sir. This has nothing to do with traffic. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Just -- all I'm asking is some questions. I just ask that you answer the questions I ask. I'm just -- do you have any specialized equipment within your vehicle, flashers, sirens, reflective vests, et cetera, that could be used to divert traffic? MR. SNOW: I have flashers and a vest, yes. MR. ANNUNZIATA: All right. Could you issue a speeding ticket or other traffic violation? MR. SNOW: No, I could not. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Okay. If my client had a sign -- just bear Page 3 1 May 24, 2007 with me one sec. If my client's sign switched between time and temperature, would there be a violation of section 5.06.06[U]? MR. SNOW: No, sir. I believe U is excluding time and temperature signs. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Okay. Ifunder -- excuse me. Just bear with me. Just bear with me one moment. At this time I have no further questions but just would reiterate, again, that we just don't believe, and it's our position, that the Land Development Code does not apply in this case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. County Attorney seems to want to say something. MR. KLATZKOW: What we have here is a movable billboard. That's his business, all right. And nobody's disputing that. I've put up on the monitor an excerpt from his packet, from his exhibits, and his business is to get people who are driving to look at his signs. That's the business, all right. And the truck drives around Collier County or elsewhere targeting the audience so that people who are driving look at the signs, not at the road, but at signs. It's a violation of three of our ordinances, and Mr. Snow has outlined that. It is a sign that employs motion and has visible moving parts. That's a violation of subchapter U in front of you. It's a sign that constitutes a traffic hazard. It's geared to get the public to look at it, all right. That's the whole business. This isn't somebody's business on a van, Joe's Plumbing Shop. This is a guy who goes out with a fleet of trucks, movable signs, to get people who are driving to look at his truck, and it's a clear violation ofW. By its terms, it's a clear violation of X on the sign's intending to attract, and may distract the attention of the motorist, the purpose of advertising a business, product, service or the like. Now, the argument's made that for various reasons, whether it be constitutional or an issue that the state preempts it through statutes, Page 32 May 24, 2007 that the ordinance is not valid. That's not before you. We've got other venues for that, all right. And whether the violator decides to take that up to the state court level, the federal court level, it's his prerogative. But this is an ordinance duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners after extensive public hearings, since this went through the land development process, that the people of Collier County want, all right. We don't want to be Las Vegas. We don't want to be South Beach, all right. We have a strong sign code because we have a certain desirability for the aesthetics and the character of the community that we live in. We've proven our case just with the packet he gave you, all right. We don't even have to say anything. He's not denying that he's moving his trucks through Collier County. He's just saying that our ordinances are not valid. That's not for you to decide. You're simply here to find out whether or not, based on the evidence you are presented, he violated our ordinance. And if so, to take whatever action you deem appropriate. MS. ARNOLD: I'd like to just add that the motion of the signs is what we're bringing before you. The fact that he has advertising on his truck is not what the issue is. Motion of those advertisement is the Issue. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do you have any rebuttal? MR. ANNUNZIATA: Again, the -- it's -- the fact that the ordinance is not valid under the Florida -- I'm sorry -- Florida and/or federal constitution, that is one of our arguments. But another argument that we have is that the Land Development Code in and of itself does not apply to moving traffic such as this. Again, there's no land at issue here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Can you address that statement? May 24, 2007 MR. KLATZKOW: The growth management act requires us to put our sign ordinances in the Land Development Code. That's just why it's there. Many signs concern land obviously. If you go into a mall, you see the signs there in front of businesses, and so all counties and local governments in this state put their sign ordinance in the Land Development Code. It's just where it goes. MS. ARNOLD: And the question is whether or not we have an ordinance in place that says, can you have moving signs. The argument as to whether or not it's in -- should be in the Land Development Code is not one that is being brought to you nor is it one that you really have jurisdiction over making a determination. That's something that he needs to argue in the courts if that's -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think he's trying to state that because he's got a vehicle, that it doesn't fall under the Land Development Code. That's my understanding of what he's trying to say. MS. ARNOLD: The Land Development Code addresses vehicles as well as -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The signs on the vehicle -- MS. ARNOLD: -- on land. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- and that's where he was -- I'm questioning -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's any sign. That's just where -- that's just where the sign ordinance goes pursuant to state statute. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DEAN: One quick question. The zoning district, does it not include the roads also? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yes. The zoning district would include the roads. MR. DEAN: I mean, that's how I read it, that zoning district counts all the land around it, in that area, plus the roads. MR. KLATZKOW: Roads fall within the zoning district, but I'm Page 34 May 24, 2007 not sure this -- this is not a zoning issue. MR. DEAN: I understand that. I'm just asking for clarification. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. ANNUNZIATA: I would just -- can I add one more thing? I mean, the argument made, this is not Las Vegas, we don't want to be South Beach and things like that, I mean, aesthetically I think my client's truck is one of the finest out there. It's done tastefully. No one contests the fact that there's, you know, true legal advertising out there on the trucks. Done in a tasteful manner in a way to expose advertising and to do so in a way that is aesthetically pleasing. My client's goal is not to create a Las Vegas type atmosphere, all right, and never was. And the issue of movement is -- I would submit, is minimal at best. You have a situation where, again, copy is changing on a truck that is advertising and changes, I would submit, in a way that is done rather quickly and with the least -- is no traffic hazard -- and there is no evidence before this board today of any kind of traffic hazard caused by my client. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, I've got a couple questions to you, I think, that I posed earlier to you -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- in regards to this. Because having read through this and having some background knowledge in what I'm married to, which is a law enforcement officer, I wanted to get your opinion on, would this be a moving violation for traffic court or does this really fall, in your opinion, under the Land Development Code and sign ordinance? I'm having a little bit of a time wrestling with this one. MS. RAWSON: I don't know whether there is a moving violation because I think a moving violation is, you know, when we Page 35 May 24, 2007 get caught speeding. Is it a traffic offense? It might be. You know, these are very, very interesting legal arguments, both sides. There are a lot of these legal arguments that you don't have the power to make a determination on. I think that you have to look at our county ordinance and decide whether or not there's been a violation of that county ordinance knowing that the sign code is a part of the Land Development Code for whatever reason. There's nothing in there that prohibits you from still looking at the sign code and deciding whether there's been a violation. There's going to be an interesting outcome probably further down the line. There are maybe constitutional issues, which is certainly far beyond your scope. There may be other violations. But your job is only to look at our -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. RAWSON: -- our code and decide whether there's been a violation. That's really all you can do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: With that in mind, because I understand where my thought processes are going there, how -- do we have the jurisdiction to cite someone that does not live in our county, that's property doesn't exist in our county other than moving through? MS. RAWSON: I think we do it all the time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: This is Naples. Nobody lives here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I mean, the actual physical-- the physical sign though does not reside here. It moves through, so it may or may not be here at certain times. MS. RAWSON: That's true. And I might remind you that you have, actually not too long ago, found somebody in violation of an ordinance, and we didn't have any land to attach it to. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. RAWSON: You might recall not too long ago. There was Page 36 May 24, 2007 no land to attach that to, and you found there was -- that a violation of our code existed. So while I think this whole case is extremely legally CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Interesting. MS. RAWSON: -- interesting-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's pretty cut and dry on our end, I think. MS. RAWSON: You just don't have the power to be the Supreme Court here today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. RAWSON: You have to be the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County and just decide whether or not there's been a violation of our code. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to point out to you that in paragraph X, which was cited, it refers to signs mounted on vehicles. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And so the Land Development Code -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does actually cover it. MS. ARNOLD: -- actually covers it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right. Thank you. At this time then ifthere's -- unless anybody has some other questions, somebody took the floor, I'll close the public hearing and go to the board's discussion. Is that in agreement with everyone? Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Public hearing is closed. Discussion amongst the board? MR. DEAN: I'll be happy to be first up. I do feel that there's a violation, and X certainly states that and also U, with moving parts, and so I feel there's a violation there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm in agreement with you. Page 37 May 24, 2007 MR. PONTE: Yeah, totally. It's -- the copy changes, and that's the movement we're talking about, the movement of the copy. MR. MORGAN: I agree there's a violation and a traffic hazard. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody want to put that in the form of a motion for finding of fact? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Remedy? MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a recommendation CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have a recommendation from the county? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. The recommendations are to cease displaying any sign that employs motion, the illusion of motion, or any sign mounted on vehicle, be it roof, bed, hood, truck, and so on, where said sign is made to obstruct or distract the attention of motorists for the purpose of advertising a business, product, service, or the like, whether or not said vehicle is parked or driven, or any sign which constitutes a traffic hazard or detriment to traffic safety by its size, color, movement, content, coloring, or method of illumination. Fines of $1,000 a day will be imposed until such time as both respondents' entities provide through their authorized agents sworn Page 38 May 24, 2007 statements attesting that such signs are no longer being used in Collier County. After such sworn statements are provided to the county, a fine of $5,000 per sighting will be imposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to put that on the screen for us, please. MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any comments? MR. PONTE: Yes, I do. I think that it looks all right, but I think that we ought to just add something to tighten it up, cease displaying any sign that employs motion, yackety-yak, all that sure when their vehicle is in Collier County. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, I don't think we can go beyond our jurisdiction. MR. PONTE: No, we're not. What I'm saying is, if -- when you're in Collier -- if the same vehicle was driving through Collier County and the sign was not in any kind of motion, it wouldn't be in any violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: It still wouldn't be-- MR. PONTE: Not if the copy's not moving. MR. KRAENBRING: Right, exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. According to X-- MR. KRAENBRING: So you're asking, George, to have -- MR. PONTE: To make clear that what we're talking about is, where it says cease displaying any signs, et cetera, that we're talking about cease displaying that in Collier County. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And is it correct that as long as the sign is not moving, if it were on the side of the board (sic) and it did not change copy, it would be okay? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, that is correct. And I need to put the __ pay operational costs in the amount of$433.70 in this case. I need to add that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is everybody comfortable with Page 39 May 24, 2007 the signage fines amount? Because I'm a little concerned that that's excessive in comparison to other signage issues that we've had. Any comments? MR. PONTE: Well, it is -- I agree, it is high. I'm just trying to scan this to see how much time the respondent has to stop, to cease. Immediate? MS. ARNOLD: I would think he could because we've had meetings with the respondent, and he indicated that he can time when the copy changes and those types of things, so he can shut it off as well as time it. MR. PONTE: I agree. So perhaps that should be here as well, cease -- immediately cease displaying. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Since Ms. Arnold has brought up the idea that we had had a meeting and talked about certain options -- I mean, I know you are at a different phase of discussion at this point, but -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right, and technically it's closed, but I did have a question, is, are the signs able to be turned off? MR. ANNUNZIATA: The signs are not only able to be turned off, they're also able to be controlled as to interval of time and changing of copy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So if you were in Collier County, you wouldn't be able to flip them. MR. ANNUNZIATA: If you were in Collier County you could stop them, from what I understand, or you can have the -- have a interspurt (sic) -- you know, you could have the timing of the rotation being done at a time -- at any interval that you can set the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They're not allowed to have any flipping signs or moving signs other than a time and temperature sign in Collier County, so they would not be able to be moved, just to make it clear. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. I think that becomes a slippery slope as to when you could change the sign. Could you pull over to Page 40 May 24,2007 the side of the road in a protected area where you couldn't be seen and flip them? There's no way of enforcing that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: If it is just one sign on the truck that is not having motion, intentionally or unintentionally, distracting the motorist, then fine. But otherwise, I don't see how it could possibly been enforced. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: As far as adding immediately cease or -- that's fine. If that's good for George, I mean, that's good for me. It just sort of tightens it up. As far as it being in Collier County, that is our jurisdiction, so I don't think that language is particularly necessary, although we can put it in there if it works for other people on the board. But otherwise, I would make a motion to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You agree with the fining amounts? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think that we ought to address that. I think $1,000 a day, seeing that there is no hazard, haste, you know-- if it's not happening, it's just not $1,000 a day fine. I think if we did 250 it would be probably more -- MR. KRAENBRING: The issue that I don't have with the fine is that this can be immediately complied with. This is not a matter of going out and getting a permit and then altering the condition of trucks. MR. PONTE: That's true. MR. KRAENBRING: They can just turn the switch off. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: So let them turn the switch off and there won't be any violation and they won't be fined. MR. PONTE: That's true. Turn it back on, just as fast -- MR. KRAENBRING: There's your fine. Page 41 May 24, 2007 MR. PONTE: -- it's going to cost you 1,000. MR. KRAENBRING: Yep. So -- because it's going to be real easy for somebody to turn that switch on by accident. So again, I will make a motion that we accept the recommendations of the county as presented. MR. PONTE: I think that's good logic. I'd agree to that. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do you want to include though the few changes that George -- MR. PONTE: Yeah. I'm just talking about the fine. I think the fine stays at 1,000. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MR. PONTE: But I think immediately cease. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. PONTE: Don't drive the truck out of the lot from here with the signs in rotation. MR. KRAENBRING: Then I will amend my motion, make a motion that we add, before the word cease, immediately cease displaying any signs, so on and so forth. Make a motion to accept that of the county. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The county manager had a -- MR. KLATZKOW: Not county manager yet. MR. KRAENBRING: And operational costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Attorney, I'm sorry. MR. KLATZKOW: And hopefully never to be. He's got a very hard job. Just for purposes of clarity, we're asking for a fine of $5,000 a day if we catch him, and the idea being that we're trying to take the economic incentive out of him going around hoping that he can get away with it, because it's very hard for our code inspectors to be driving along and actually run into him as he's doing business. It's not Page 42 May 24, 2007 like he's got a fixed location that we can go to. And so the question -- the request was $1,000 a day until he gives us an affidavit saying he won't do it anymore, but we can get rid of that if you want to. Simply cease immediately, cease and desist, and that gets rid of that. But if we catch him, we're asking for $5,000 only because they're in the business of driving through different places, and they may feel that if the sign isn't sufficient that, from business standpoint, they'll take the risk, and we're trying to take that equation out of it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and I also have a second. Did we want to amend or change those motions? MR. ANNUNZIATA: For the record, I would object to the request. I mean, I don't know -- I don't know if I'm closed or if I'm out __ able to speak or not, but for the record, I'm -- I have to say that that __ that what they're asking for is the absolute maximum. My guy is -- I don't know that he's reached a level of -- to warrant such a harsh penalty. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Understood and taking it into context is why I'm going back to the board now, and it is closed to public hearing. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: But I know that we're not addressing public, but just don't do it and you won't be fined. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think what the county attorney wanted to point out -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not $1,000 a day-- MS. ARNOLD: -- for clarification -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- it's $5,000. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. I understand that. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And I personally still have a little Page 43 May 24, 2007 bit of an issue with -- I can see the $1,000 going away if they immediately cease and desist. MR. PONTE: Well, now that we've focused on that part, I agree with that. The 5,000 is too high. I mean, it's -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I can go -- MR. PONTE: It's at maximum. And you know, the -- I don't know what the respondent charges his advertisers, but let's suppose he charges them 250 or $500 a day for a display. I doubt it's that much. A fine of $5,000 for sighting is accessive. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But, again, we have a motion and we have a second, unless the gentleman to my right would like to amend his motion, we need to call it. MR. PONTE: I'd like to ask my colleague to reconsider that because I don't think we were looking at the 5,000. MR. DEAN: Well, amend the motion. You can amend the motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, I would amend the motion based on, if we have immediately cease, then we're taking out the sworn statement of -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I just point out, what the county was looking for is some assurance from the respondent that they were going to stop, because we're in communication with them. They can tell us whether or not they are going to stop doing business in Collier County with the motion. And-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: And upon receipt of that is where that $1,000 -- or if you modified to another lower amount. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The county stated that they could withdraw that because we're saying immediately cease. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would like to get this motion either pulled from the floor or amended because otherwise I need to Page 44 May 24,2007 call for a vote. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll just ask one other question of the county. From a point of enforcement, is it better to have that document, that affidavit, from the respondent? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think there's a matter of great concern to me. I mean, I think your approach is fine. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: And just -- ifit was 5,000, we'd have to come back to this board anyway and you could reduce it at that time. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's something that we've done in the past. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't want to -- well. MR. LEFEBVRE: One other question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Could we get a statement here on record from the respondent stating that he would not drive through with the signs in motion; would that be acceptable? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be fine. It's up to-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Versus an affidavit. MR. ANNUNZIATA: I would like the opportunity to talk with my client. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. We still have to keep crafting this, so take your time. Currently I have a motion and I have a second. Would you like me to table it or -- would you like to have a vote or do you want to table? MR. DEAN: Well, I can withdraw my second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Withdrew the second? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. MR. KRAENBRING: For purposes of expediency, I'll withdraw the motion so we can just finish crafting this and then we'll just Page 45 May 24, 2007 resubmit it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: I mean, as I look at this now, maybe I would feel more comfortable with something in writing that says they're going to, you know, cease and desist. I don't know whether-- is it $1,000 from today, they have to have this by the end of the day to you? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're crafting it. Don't ask the county . MR. KRAENBRING: Well, I guess that's an open question to the rest of the board, too. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's see what we hear from the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did the -- do you guys have a decision as to whether or not you would say on record that you would not move the signs? MR. ANNUNZIATA: My understanding is that my client will agree to shut the signs off while he's traveling through the unincorporated areas of Collier County, which I believe is your jurisdiction, and will do so effective tomorrow, from what I understand. MR. McLEOD: I have to get to the vehicle. MR. ANNUNZIATA: We're going to need some time. However, we do have some concerns that, you know, look, in life and in business, accidents happen. Things happen, and sometimes they're not intentionally done. To the extent that -- you know, we don't want to feel like we're being hunted down -- or actually, I should say my client doesn't want to feel like he's being hunted down, and certainly we'll abide by the board's order pending, you know, the appellate process and whatever process we're going to be dealing with from here on out. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. ANNUNZIATA: But I just wanted to put that on the record Page 46 May 24, 2007 as well so that the board is understanding where we're coming from. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We understand. Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: So we're looking at possibly reducing the per sighting fine? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Does anybody on the board have a thought as to where it ought to be? MR. DEAN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. What are you saying? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're looking at changing the per sighting sign from 5,000, because that is our maximum fine, and I don't think this really consti -- there are several board members that have felt that this does not constitute that grave of a mark. MR. PONTE: I'll add another thought to that, too. If the 5,000 were to be there, it's almost like putting a bounty on the respondent as a, okay, we can just wait until somebody does have that little accident. So the 5,000 is excessive. MR. KRAENBRING: Were we comfortable with our first thought of that 1,000? MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would be in agreement with 1,000 also. MR. PONTE: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that maybe is where we thought it was headed until the clarification from the county attorney, so I would agree with that, too. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. You want to form that into a motion then? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we're going to accept the county's recommendation with this alteration, we're going to still say immediately cease displaying any signs, and then we're going to be eliminating the sentence, fines of $1 ,000 per day will be imposed until such time as both respondents' entities provide either authorized Page 47 May 24, 2007 representatives' sworn statements attesting that such signs are no longer used -- being used in Collier County. We'll strike that. And then we're going to change the last sentence from $5,000 per sighting to $1,000 per sighting. And that's my motion, plus operational costs of whatever it was. MR. MORGAN: $433. MR. DEAN: Seventy cents. MR. KRAENBRING: And immediately cease. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's where it stands. So if you understand, we immediately cease the movement -- MR. DEAN: Operational costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- of the signs. And if you are sighted with it moving in Collier County, it will be $1,000 a day fine, plus operational costs. MS. RAWSON: Is it a $1,000 a sighting or -- per sighting? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Per sighting. Okay. That's where we stand, thank you. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you. Page 48 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And how's -- how's our court reporter doing? Does she need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Then we'll have the next case, which is the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus TW Management of Naples, Inc., a/k/a Naples Investments, Inc. MS. MARKU: I would like to ask if the respondent is present. (No response.) MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the board was 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 to accept the county's Exhibit A. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the county's Exhibit A. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinance 04-41, Collier County Land Development Code as amended, section 5.06.06[CC]. Description of violation: This is a recurring violation involving accent lighting on exterior of said such property. Location/address where violation exists: 10975 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. Folio number: 62470120008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation Page 49 May 24, 2007 location: Naples Investments Incorporated, 430 Heron Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: May 15,2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 5, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 21, 2006. Date of reinspect ion: February 28,2007. Results of reinspection: A violation remains. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Good after -- or good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. MR. SNOW: This is a reoccurring violation of accent lighting. They had it on the property. They did it last year. They did it this year. It was reoccurring. I have talked to the property owners. The violation has been abated. I would like a finding of fact that a violation did exist. I would like to submit two photographs into evidence, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May we have a motion to accept Exhibit B? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept Exhibit B. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 50 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. SNOW: Being that the violation has been abated, I have talked to the property owners. They requested a continuance from the last hearing. I haven't been in conversation with them. They are up north. I requested the -- she pay operational costs before we get here today so all we would do is a finding of fact. As of yesterday, they had not sent that in yet, so I'm going to ask for operational costs of$351.67. Since the violation has been abated, there's no other recommendation other than to make sure we get a finding of fact that there was a violation on the property. As you can see, this is a restaurant up in North Naples right on the Trail. It's expressly prohibited by code to have accent lighting around the property. They can have -- it looks to me like it was probably holiday lighting. They have a certain amount of time to remove the lights after the holidays. I believe it's 15 days. It was still up. I called them, asked them to remove them. They didn't do anything. They left it. And that's the side -- that's the north side of the restaurant. The first picture was the east side. Again, the violations -- I talked to the property owners. They did abate the violation after a period of time and that's why we are here today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. PONTE: I just -- point of clarification. Is the violation against the owner of the property or the -- MR. SNOW: The business. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- the tenant who runs the restaurant? MR. SNOW: No, sir, it's always -- for your own information, it's always against the property owner. Page 51 May 24, 2007 MR. PONTE: And if the restaurant owner puts the lights back up again, then we'd have a repeat violation against -- MR. SNOW: The property owner. MR. PONTE: -- the property owner. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But if you recall, there's a letter that the property owner sent up in our packet, and it states that she plans on passing on any of those costs to the restaurant owner. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you for the reminder. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. If there are no other questions, I'll entertain a motion for finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that a violation did exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And your recommendation, would you like to put it up on the board? MR. SNOW: And, again, the violation has been abated, so at this particular time we're just asking for operational costs. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And seeing that we can't null or void that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 52 May 24, 2007 MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Snow. MR. SNOW: Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe that closes the public hearings, and we go to requests for imposition of fines. And the -- Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The first item on your agenda is 2004-75, Board of County Commissioners versus Innovation Construction and Development, LLC. This case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on January 27,2005, and at that hearing a finding of fact was entered into and a violation was found. To date, the respondent has not yet complied with that order. At this time we're asking that the board impose fines at a rate of $50 per day for a period between February 27 through April 27, '05, total of 59 days, for a total of $2,950. Additionally, fines at a rate of $50 per day for the period between May 28, 2005, through -- that doesn't make sense. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What happened to April -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, I'm sorry. May 14,2007 -- ifllooked at the year, it does make sense -- 716 days, for a total of $35,800. And additionally, operational costs in the amount of 6,000 -- I mean, sorry, $624.79, for a total fine of $39,374.79. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Question, Michelle. Have they complied with part of this, like order two, so that it stops at April 27th, Page 53 May 24, 2007 and then just not have complied with order three? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That's exactly correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. MS. ARNOLD: I believe the respondents are here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see them. I'm not awake today or something. I'm off. Excuse me. I apologize. Would you like to swear them in, please. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: I do want to just make a point of clarification also that the original case was brought to the board by -- against a different owner, but the current owner was aware of the violation, and so now they've inherited the problem. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Go ahead. MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, S-Y-K-O-R-A, Collier County Code Enforcement Field Supervisor. As Michelle Arnold stated, this property was owned by Ralph Taylor originally when it went to the Code Enforcement Board by another investigator. It was sold to another owner, and consequently to Innovation Construction Development. They have -- a permit was issued April 27, 2007, for the renovations. I spoke with Jackie Hart, the representative of the registered agent/owner and advised her that once the work is completed, they may come for a reduction of fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. HART: For the record, my name is Jacqueline Hart, a Consultant for Innovation Construction, and this is the owner, Joseph Francios. I just have one objection that the cost -- the owner purchased the property May 2005, and not in January, even though the fines have been imposed as of January 2005. And we have been working closely with the code enforcement department and the planning department trying to get the matter Page 54 May 24, 2007 resolved because the property owner purchased the property under the impression that it was a commercial property when it wasn't. After we later find out from the planning department that it was a grandfathered commercial property and it got reverted back to single family, so we had to go back to the drawing table of getting papers -- plans drawn to comply with the violation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a couple things. First of all, clarification on when the fines start running. The fines run with the property. They don't run with when an owner purchases the property. MS. HART: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you telling me that Innovation Construction purchased the property in May of 2005? MS. HART: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? MS. HART: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: But just to let you know, they're imposed upon the property, not when an owner takes -- so you take over that burden knowing that there's been fines imposed and that they are runnmg. MR. FRANCOIS: We didn't know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, just to let you know now that they run with the property, not when you purchased the property. MS. ARNOLD: I think what they're trying to ask for is the portion that is -- was imposed prior to their purchasing of the property be forgiven. MS. HART: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, or Jean, is this the venue to do that at this time, or do we go ahead and impose the fine, and then once they come into complete compliance, they can come back to us and ask -- MS. RAWSON: You can do it either way. Page 55 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- to reduce it? MS. RAWSON: You can do it now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would be opposed to that. One other question I have for the county. Why did it take so long to impose the fines? Usually-- MS. ARNOLD: I think it was -- it's just -- there's no excuse. It's just more, it was lost in the shuffle of different -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Usually we impose fines a lot sooner than this. MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely, yes, we do. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, okay. MS. ARNOLD: But I mean, I think that we've been working with the respondents and their representative all along, so it wasn't a matter of -- it would have been able to get -- even if we had imposed the fine, that the fine amount would have been less. It would still be what it is today. We just didn't impose it earlier. We should have. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is this case being difficult for them to get to conclusion for any reason? MS. ARNOLD: You'd have to ask them. MS. HART: Well, the plans had taken a long time, and trying to get response from the county attorney at the time, I think it was Jennifer who was the county attorney-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Belpedio. MS. HART: -- assistant, she met with the code enforcement department and also with the permitting department making a determination. And once all of that got resolved and we understood what we had to do -- because nobody was certain as to whether we can go and apply for a renovation permit for a commercial building or if we have to go back to a residential, and that's what we had to go back and get, a residential permit. And once that was understood, we went and got the plans altered Page 56 May 24, 2007 accordingly to fit a residential status, and we also had to pay impact fees for residential, which was almost like $17,000. So he's -- he has taken a great responsibility, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When did he get that notification of -- I guess, clarification, would be -- MS. HART: August of2005, I believe, David Hendricks had sent a letter, but I think for some reason we did not receive it until December of'05. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we should go ahead and impose the fines, and then once everything is complete, they can come back and give us a time frame on why it took so long. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's the way we generally do things. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody else have an opinion? MR. KRAENBRING: Again, I'll just address this to the code investigator. Your sense of it is they're trying to move this along? MS. SYKORA: Hopefully. There was -- prior to these permits being issued, there was a -- the same permits that was in ready status, but they stayed in ready status to be picked up and expired while in ready status. So that's why I contacted Ms. Hart and talked to her about it, and that's when these permits ended up getting issued. So I'm in hopes that this gets resolved. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a sense of when this all might be resolved from both parties? MS. SYKORA: Well, I'm not quite sure how much work has to be done in there. MS. HART: One clarification. We did apply for the permit in 2006, September of2006, and -- however, because of back and forth, trying to make sure we get -- do revisions or corrections to the plans, it took that long. And once we got the plans for the interior renovation, Page 57 May 24, 2007 the demolition permit was there, but he had to contact the asbestos department to get some type of survey done. MR. FRANCOIS: Survey. MS. HART: And the permit expired and it never got done, so now they're in the process of trying to reapply for the permit once again, and hopefully the demolition for the -- because there's two buildings. One is a duplex and the other one is now a single family. So there was a lot of issues, even zoning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If -- let me explain something to you. What we're trying to do is just determine whether or not we're going to go ahead and impose the fines today. MS. HART: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifwe do, that's not the end of all world for him. Once you come into complete compliance and you've got your Certificate of Occupancy and the code enforcement officer has been notified, if you will notify Michelle's office that you would like to come in for a reduction of fines, that is the time that you can bring in all this information to us, and we will listen, and at that time we'll determine -- and then you'll have 30 days to pay whatever it is we've decided at that time, so this is just a step. MS. HART: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: Just a comment. I think from their presentation today that they are trying to make steps to get this concluded. I think we've seen this kind of problem before where previous owners had violations and then they went along to the new owners; however, I do agree with Gerald that this really is a time to impose the fines and let them come back for a reduction, and my temperament right is that we would be really willing to hear about those reductions later on. So I would make a motion to impose the fines as proposed by the county . MR. PONTE: I would just like to make an observation. I think Page 58 May 24, 2007 we should consider fining now so that the fines that are continuing to accrue don't just spiral on and get higher and higher and higher. At some future time when they come back to ask for a reduction, we would be looking at a much higher amount, and the board will think it's being very generous to reduce that amount by, let's say, 50 percent, which will take us right back to, let's say, today's figure. My fear is that this is going to take a while. And I don't -- not for lack of effort on the part of the respondents but because of all of the things that have to be done to satisfy various departments. If we just let it go, it's going to get higher and higher and higher, and when it then comes back to us and the respondent asks for the reduction of fine, we'll agree to reduce it, but we'll be thinking in terms of percentage, and we will -- this will be forgotten. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's a valid thought process. I guess that I would just mitigate that by saying that the fine's only $50 a day, so it's probably the lowest fine that we typically would impose, and that the total cost of the fines, regardless of whether we abate them now or they accrue further, would still be the same to the respondent? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And it's also an incentive for them go ahead -- MR. PONTE: I'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I feel like it also might be an incentive for them to go ahead and complete this and get it finished and get it cleaned up. MS. SYKORA: May I ask a question, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MS. SYKORA: How much remodeling is left to be done in the interior of the home? Because this was an after-the-fact permit that was issued. Is there still more to be remodeled, or is it ready for inspections on the inside now? MS. HART: We started -- we started the project already. We Page 59 May 24, 2007 discovered that the building that was at the back never had a permit, and these buildings were constructed in the '50s; however, we have obtained a proper permit, and the back building will be demolished. So he has contacted the proper department, because DEP is also involved in the permitting. So once they come out and do their inspections, then that phase would be done and the interior has already been started. So it shouldn't take us more than two to three months to get it done. The permit is good for six months once you call in your inspections. So we will get it done within three months hopefully. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I have a motion on the floor. I'm looking for a second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. We just imposed the fine. But like I said, as soon as you get completed and you have had the inspection from the code enforcement officer, please notify Michelle's office if you're interested in getting that on the docket for a reduction of fines hearing, okay? MR. LEFEBVRE: I had one more thing. Just a word of advice. You may want to -- since it's been dragged out for quite a while, have a time frame -- time line of when you come back to us, if you come back to us, to reduce the fines. MS. HART: Right. I just wanted to make one clarification also, Page 60 May 24, 2007 because you also have to go according to the inspections, because inspections, if you fail it, you have to go back, fix it, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: That would all be -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's all taken -- just keep notes, keep time lines, and also mention that you were here at this hearing at this date. Thank you. MS. HART: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. KRAENBRING: Good luck. MR. FRANCOIS: Thank you. MS. HART: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next imposition of fines, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's 2007-02, Board of County Commissioners versus Cedeiere Titus and Bonnett. This case was heard January 5, 2007, and a finding of fact was entered into, a violation was found. To date the respondent has not complied fully with the board's order. We're at this time asking for fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between February 9, 2007, and -- to February 26, 2007,17 days, for a total of $3,400. Additionally, fines at a rate of $200 a day for the period between April 27, 2007, through May 16,2007, for 19 days, for a total of $3,800, and operational costs in the amount of $432.45, for a total of $7,632.45. And the investigator is here if you have any questions of him. I don't believe -- is there -- the respondent here? MR. KEEGAN: No. MS. ARNOLD: Respondent's not here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. PONTE: No questions. Page 61 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to impose the fine as proposed by the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next imposition of fines is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Bill Gray's, Inc. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. You say the easy ones. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not dumb. I'm just sleepy. MS. ARNOLD: All right. This case was heard by the board on January 25, 2007, and a finding of fact was entered into and a violation was found. The respondent has complied with that order. We're here today to ask for fines at the rate of$150 per day between February 25, 2007, through the February 27, 2007, a total of two days, in the amount of $300. And operational costs have already been paid, so the fine that's being requested is $300. The investigator's here and the respondent is also here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Would you like to swear them both in please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record on this, the county believes that they pursued the permit with due diligence. We were dealing with a Page 62 May 24, 2007 corporate entity here. They had to rip the sign down twice and put it back up. They were two days late. We don't -- we would not oppose any reduction in fines that you would want to do with this. We do believe that they worked on getting what they were supposed to get done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do you have comment? MS. MONTGOMERY: We were-- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, please? MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry. Monica Montgomery. We were two days late. The problem is, when we went in for our permit, we actually got rejected twice. The first time we didn't realize we have to do -- redo our entire pole, so we had to have it re-engineered, and that's actually what the delay was. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Position of the board? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we impose the operational costs of -- MS. ARNOLD: They're -- they've been paid. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, they've already been paid. MS. ARNOLD: So there's no fines to impose if you choose to reduce it. MR. KRAENBRING: We recognize that you paid the costs. I make a recommendation that we abate the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 63 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: MS. MONTGOMERY: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thanks for your time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And I guess the last one would be the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus lH. Prettyman. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This case was heard by the board on February 23, 2007. A violation was found. The violation has not been completely abated. Weare at this time asking for fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between April 25, 2007, to May 16,2007, which is actually 21 days, for a total of $4,200. Additionally, operational costs have been paid, so the fines to date, which will continue to accrue, is $4,200 and plus. And the investigator is here. Prettyman is not here? MR. AMBACH: I do not see them, no. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Anybody have any questions for the code enforcement officer? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll entertain the privilege of the board. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we impose the fines as proposed by the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 64 May 24, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are you ready for a break yet? We just have approval or rules and regs., so. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Moving on to new business. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. All the board members were provided a copy of the most recent revision. I did get comments from a couple of the board members regarding the amount of time that we would require someone to request a rehearing -- no, I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, rehearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually when the -- wouldn't -- the imposition of the fines? MR. PONTE: Reduction request. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Reduction. MS. ARNOLD: Reduction, yeah. Reduction request. I'm trying to find it. Do you have the highlighted version? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's like number 11, I think. Michelle, just for the record, I went back through and dug out all my old rules and regs. back to 2001. We never have had a date in it. MS. ARNOLD: I know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what we all were thinking about and referring to and remembering was the 15 copies that were required to be supplied to the board in the request. And like I told you in my email, I was not comfortable with your 10 days. I see you changed it to 30 days. I still -- because we've never had it, I've been wrestling with this back and forth, and I think we do need to put something in there so that we can always clear our records, but I don't know if I'm still in agreement with the 30 days. I Page 65 May 24, 2007 just -- I'm wrestling with that in my own personal mind. I might be more comfortable with, like, 45. MS. ARNOLD: The staffs rationale behind the 14 days is that we ask every respondent to contact us when they are in compliance. Most of our requests for reduction come in the form of a verbal request at the podium or in the form of a letter. There are few people that actually fill out the form. I understand the board's concern that, you know, some people, it may be a little bit difficult for them, but we haven't -- we haven't imposed -- required them to complete that form. We understand that some people have a little bit more difficult time. So what our thought was, if they've indicated to us when they contact us that they're in compliance, that they're going to make that request, we've always honored that request and presented that to you all and didn't impose any time period. Most people do do it that way. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand, but the problem is, it doesn't state that in our rules and regs., and we might not always be the one sitting up here, and you might not always be the one sitting there. It states that it's supposed to be in written form, and that's the way we're supposed to accept it. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm just saying, you know, down the road, things change, and we might not always be the people sitting in the positions that we're in to accept or deny. So when we put something concrete into writing, it makes it concrete. MS. ARNOLD: Whatever the pleasure of the board. I'mjust trying to provide with you our thought process behind why we made the original recommendation. What was sent was 30 days -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, why I'm having trouble wrestling with it. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But I think we need to have some Page 66 May 24, 2007 time frame because we need to be able to conclude a case and say it's done. MR. PONTE: I agree with your sensitivity to the time frame. I sent a memo on the subject of the reduction request to Michelle and to Jean, and in my opinion it should be 45 days. I'd like to just excerpt what I wrote to them on May the 1st. The correct preparation of an application for a reduction of fines is, for most people, not an easy task. It is made more complex by the fact that, in all probability, most respondents have no experience in the matter and are intimidated by the process. Granting respondents only a brief period of time -- and this is not in the memo but in response to the request and suggestion of 10 days __ granting respondents only a brief period in which to request a reduction could also result in a respondent feeling compelled to take action quickly and to do so without considering the merits of the request. The results could be a CEB agenda clogged with requests lacking causation. Allowing respondents additional time for the preparation of a request for fine reduction should also result in a document that is more easily understood by the board. Additionally, respondents will be less likely to claim they were rushed into preparation by the requirements imposed by a very limited time frame. And, of course, in our recent meetings we had agreed to 45 days. So I think there is -- 45 days better serves the respondents and it better serves the county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And I know -- and Jean said usually there's another thing for, in law, it's usually 30 days. MS. RAWSON: For an appeal. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: For an appeal. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So because this is a quasi, legal entity, giving people a little bit longer time, I don't think it is Page 67 May 24, 2007 unjustified. I don't know how everybody else feels, but I wanted to put my opinion on that. MR. KRAENBRING: So right now we're at 14 days? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I thought she put it in 30 days. MR. PONTE: Ten. The memo is 10. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The memo said 10, but I think in the actual document, when it came out, it was 30, correct? MR. KRAENBRING: Thirty is in line with the appeal -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: -- time frame. MS. ARNOLD: Well, okay. Appeals are based on your orders, and your order may come out in January. And so they have 30 days from that date of your order to appeal that decision. What we're talking about is a reduction or abatement of fines, and in some cases it won't -- you wouldn't have entered into an imposition of fine because -- such as today, we had the respondent come before you and say we don't -- we don't want you to impose those fines. So there may not be an order in place for them to appeal. And I don't know if you want to really worry about your order. You want to give them whatever you feel is sufficient for them to present you with a reason why you shouldn't -- you should reduce their fines. And I think the way that it's put in here, it's more related to the date of the violation being abated because you -- your language that you had in your rules have always indicated that you're going to entertain reductions in abatement after the violation's been abated, and that could, again, take place months after you've already imposed an order of imposition of fine, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Except it has to happen prior to the county going ahead and foreclosing. MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. Because you can't-- MS. ARNOLD: Because at that time you have no jurisdiction. Page 68 May 24, 2007 You've already given it to the County Attorney's Office -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MS. ARNOLD: -- to address. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think maybe that's why we never imposed a time frame before is because that was always the end, was when the county took it over and foreclosed on it. MS. ARNOLD: Right. There's some points in time that you probably wouldn't have jurisdiction over it, correct, right. MR. PONTE: Yeah. I suppose really what is better is the way it is, that is, rather than having a 1 a-day or 15-day or 30-day, 40-day -- 45-day period, it's better just to leave it wide open. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's kind of how -- it's up to you guys, but I mean, we have the fact that the county -- if they decide to foreclose on it, that ends it. They can never come in front of us again, so that does close out a case. And I'll entertain the county attorney's opinion on this, too, ifhe has one. MS. ARNOLD: I think that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sitting here looking at him and he's making faces at me. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. MS. ARNOLD: The issue that brought this to light was -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The last case. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. You imposed fines and they asked for a rehearing to reconsider it, and there was a question of whether or not they had passed that time period because it was beyond the 30 days. So it was kind of a little bit different issue there, too. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I'm of the belief that once you impose an order, that ends it. You can't rehear it or reduce it after that. Now, Michelle's of a different opinion. The law on this is somewhat unclear. And so we have a -- we just have a difference of opinion on this. I think you're done once you do your order imposing Page 69 May 24, 2007 fine. And if you're going to reduce it, it has to be done prior to that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, our orders-- MR. KLATZKOW: But I will-- you know, Jean is your attorney, and, you know, Jean is here to offer her advice on this, but-- MS. RAWSON: There's a difference between a rehearing and a request for a reduction, and we definitely don't, you know, want to rehear a case forever. As a matter of fact, once you've done it, you've done it. They can appeal, and that's right in their order that they can appeal to the Circuit Court. In terms of a reduction of fine -- and the statute basically gives you certain things that you have to look at, factors that you have to consider in terms of whether to reduce or abate a fine. So I think it's permissible, but it's going to be up to you whether or not it's been requested in a timely fashion, if it's been requested after the violation has been abated, and then you look at all these other factors, whether or not you're ever going to grant it. I think it's perfectly fair to ask them to submit it to you in writing, even if they don't fill out our form that we have for them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A simple letter would -- MS. RAWSON: They can write a letter, but they need to put it in writing. And in the letter they should tell you why. And I don't think you should hear it if they aren't in compliance, ever. But if they're in compliance and they have a valid reason and you want to hear it and it's timely made, you can certainly hear their request. So do you want to put a time limit in there or not? If you take the position that you're not going to actually entertain any requests for a reduction until after such time as you've imposed the fines, then whatever time limit you're going to have is going to be so many days after you've had the imposition for fines order entered. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just -- because I was looking -- I go back, and every one of them states in the order, when properly Page 70 May 24, 2007 record, shall serve to supersede the prior order imposing fine or lien and shall operate as a lien upon the real property or the residence, the order reducing fine liens which were originally imposed. So basically if we do reduce it, we have a new order and it supersedes the -- according to our rules. MR. KLATZKOW: That's fine. I'm not here to argue. Ijust have a distinct point of opinion on this as does Michelle, and it's fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm kind of sitting here like -- I just don't know if we need to put in a time frame there. It's worked since I've been on the board in 2001. MS . RAWSON: If somebody comes back to you -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And we don't think it's timely or MS. RAWSON: -- and it's years later and you think it's not timely, you can say, I don't think it's timely. It's not a reasonable time. You sat on your rights, therefore, you're going to lose. You've got that right always. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. And they also say, it has to meet certain criteria, you know, as to why they're asking for the request. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And if doesn't meet that, then we also don't hear it. So I'm not sure we need a date, time frame. MR. PONTE: I think we don't need a date. MR. MARTIN: I agree with you. Somebody may be in the hospital or something, you know. Leaving it open ended, that's the better way. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because it eventually does get closed out if the county decides to proceed and foreclose, then we no longer have the ability to do it. So I think that ends it there. MR. MARTIN: I agree with you. MR. DEAN: I agree. Page 71 May 24, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does anybody want to make that -- we need to make that in the form of a motion then, to take that 30 days back out? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Poor Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: You asked for it. I have, about 10 versions of this one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was laughing when I was going through my files. I have like -- we did this in 2004, too. I have like five copies. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to remove the 30 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ARNOLD: Remove the time period altogether. MR. PONTE: Yes MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, correct. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I think we actually have -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That other copy? MS. ARNOLD; A version without it, the one that we had-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Prior? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the last -- MS. RAWSON: I think it's the one that's outside too, because mine -- I picked up one from outside, it didn't have the 30 days in it, I don't think. Page 72 May 24, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Well, it doesn't also have -- the one outside doesn't have the other language that we've also added for -- MS. RAWSON: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- you know, ex parte communication and all that other stuff. But I'll look to see if we have it. Before you leave, maybe you could sign it, then we could have it put on the board's agenda. MR. PONTE: Just give us the last page and we'll all sign the last page. MS. ARNOLD: We could do that. Do you have one that's not stapled? MS. RAWSON: That's a good idea, and then we all just keep the copy of the one that you signed. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we actually have to approve this now or is it -- MS. ARNOLD: I think you need to accept your latest version. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. Anyone? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the latest version as amended. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other business? Page 73 May 24, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: I just want to point out your next meeting is actually on a Monday, June 18th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And it is here? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DEAN: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:10 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected Page 74