The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 06/18/2007 R June 18, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida June 18, 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: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett Kenneth Kelly Gerald Lefebvre Charles Martin Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 18, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida Horseshoe drive, Naples, Fl. 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. l. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 24, 2007 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue B. STIPULATIONS I. BCC vs. Francisca Alas 2. BCC vs. llen Estrada Realty, Ine CEB 2007-49 CEB 2007-53 C. HEARINGS I. BCC vs. James N. Kalvin and Ruth P. Kalvin 2. BCC vs. Mario A. Alvarez 3. BCC vs. Donald and Jo Coleman 4. BCC vs. Carmen Vasallo 5. BCC vs. Alfredo Martinez 6. BCC vs. Alfredo Martinez 7. BCC vs. Jose and Carmen Martinez 8. BCC vs. Rock Oil Company 9. BCC vs. Robert Hoover CEB 2007-25 CEB 2007-29 CEB 2007-30 CEB 2007-46 CEB 2007-47 CEB 2007-48 CEB 2007-50 CEB 2007-51 CEB 2007-56 10. BCC vs. Scott C. and Tammy S. Furst CEB 2007-59 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Reqnest for Reduction of FineslLiens I. BCC vs. Collier County Transportation Department 2. BCC vs. David Woodworth 3. BCC vs. Calexieo, Inc 4. BCC vs. Marlene Santilli CEB 2004-02 CEB 2005-22 CEB 2006-47 CEB 2007-12 B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1 . BCC vs. Thomas and Marian Baker 2. BCC vs. Rodolfo Estrella and Maria Estrella CEB 2006-62 CEB 2007-23 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - July 26, 2007 II. ADJOURN June 18,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. At this time, I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order. Notice, the respondent may be limited to 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 minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts rules of order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call? MS. MARKU: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Larry Dean has an excused absence. Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Here. MS. MARKU: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: (No response.) MS. MARKU: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. MARKU: Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. Page 2 June 18, 2007 MS. MARKU: Lionel L'Esperance? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: With a couple of the members being absent, the alternates will have all voting rights. Okay, we have some changes on the agenda, I believe. MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. Let me be seated here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Give Michelle a few minutes, please. MS. MARKU: Item No. 5-C, number nine, Board -- for the record, Bendisa Marku, operations coordinator, Collier County Code Enforcement. Item No. 5-C, number nine, Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Hoover, will be moved under Item No. 5-B, number three under stipulations. Item No. 5-C, number seven, Board of County Commissioners versus Jose and Carmen Martinez, will be moved under No. 5-B, number four under stipulations. Item No. 5-C, number three, Board of County Commissioners versus Donald and Jo Coleman, county is withdrawing the case. Item No. 5-C, number four, Board of County Commissioners versus Carmen Vasallo, will be moved under Item No. 5-C, number one. And these are the changes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have approval of the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 3 June 18, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Approval of the minutes for the May 24th meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KELL Y: I abstain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I guess we'll move to any motions to continue. No? Okay, stipulations. First stipulation is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Francisca Alas. I hope I said that correctly. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: Good morning. For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. And for the recorder it's spelled M-O-R-A-D. The notice of hearing was served personal service and also mailed certified mail. The address of the violation is 2575 53rd Street Southwest, Golden Gate City. The violation was improvement of property without a valid Collier County building permit. The violation of -- that's in violation of Ordinance 2004, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections Page 4 June 18, 2007 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i). The Section 10.02.06(B)(d)(i) was renumbered on September 13th, 2005 to be 10.02.06 (B)(l)(d)(i). Okay with that? Okay. Kind oflong. I had a pre-hearing conference with the respondent on May 31st, 2007. We reviewed and discussed the stipulation agreement. She agreed the violation was accurate and stipulated to the existence and signed the document, which is on the screen. The respondent agrees to pay the operational cost of $849 incurred in the prosecution of this case. The respondent will abate the violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit for all improvements within 30 days of today's hearing or a $100 a day fine will be imposed until the violation is abated. And within 60 days after the issuance of the permit, all required inspections and certificate of occupancy must be obtained or a $100 a day fine will be imposed until the required inspection/certificate of occupancy is obtained. Or she can abate the violation by obtaining a Collier County demo permit and removing all the improvements, converting the property back to its original state, pass inspections, get a certificate of completion within 60 days of today's hearing, or a $100 a day fine will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement that the violation has been abated, request that the investigator come out and perform the site inspections. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any discussions or questions? MR. KELL Y: I have one question for you, Ed. The deed is in a different name than the respondent. I was just curious if she was able to execute or -- MR. MORAD: Okay, let me check the deed. Page 5 June 18,2007 No, she's on that deed. MR. KELLY: She is? MR. MORAD: Yeah. MR. KELLY: Okay, my bad. MR. MORAD: Put a scare into me there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: I make a motion to accept the stipulation as read. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next stipulated agreement will be the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Hen Estrada Realty, Inc. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: For the record again, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. The affidavit of -- the notice of hearing was served personal service, as well as certified mail. The address of this violation is 5513 26th Avenue Southwest, Golden Gate City. The violation was improvement of property without current Collier County building permits. Violation of Ordinance 2004, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections Page 6 June 18, 2007 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). I had a pre-hearing conference with the respondent on April 25th, 2007. We reviewed and discussed the stipulation agreement. She agreed the violation was accurate, stipulated to the existence, and signed the document. On the screen. The respondent agreed to pay the operational costs of $684.40 incurred in the prosecution of this case. The respondent will abate the violation by obtaining Collier County building permits for all the improvements within 60 days of today's hearing or a $100 a day fine will be imposed until the violation is abated. Or abate the violation by removing the improvements and converting the property back to its original state within 90 days of today's hearing or an additional $100 a day fine will be imposed. She agreed to notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspections. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ed, I have one question for you. Because it says remove the improvements but it does not say get a demolition permit. Does she need a demolition permit in order to get to that? MR. MORAD: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No? MR. MORAD: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 7 June 18, 2007 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MORAD: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next stipulation we have is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Robert Hoover, Case No. 2007-56. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: The Board of Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, versus Robert Hoover. I had a pre -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, could you identify yourself, please? MR. BALDWIN: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, code investigator. I had a pre-hearing meeting with Lisa Hoover on Thursday. I'm sorry, last Thursday. She signed the stipulation agreement for Robert Hoover, the owner of the property. She is his wife. And she stipulated to: The violations noted in the referenced Notice of Violation are accurate, and I stipulate that those violations did exist. The violations are that of Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)( d), 1O.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i) of Ordinance 04-41 as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code, described as an unpermitted additions (sic) were made to the garage. The violation: We agreed that they would pay the operational costs in the amount of$12.87 that accrued in the prosecution of the case. They have removed the structure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. Page 8 June 18, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We now move to the hearings. We will have -- the first case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Carmen Vasallo. MR. KELLY: Madam Chair, we have one more. Mr. Martinez. Mr. and Mrs. Martinez under a stipulation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What case number? Because I didn't get that. Seven? I'm sorry. Somehow I missed that. 2007-50. Sorry. In that case we'll call for a stipulated agreement, Case No. 2007-50, and that is Jose and Carmen Martinez. Are they present? (Speakers and interpreter were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Good morning. Investigator Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to submit as evidence some photographs for the record, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are we hearing the case or just doing a stipulation? MR. SNOW: No, I just want it entered into evidence, please. Page 9 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have a motion to approve the pictures for evidence? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SNOW: And this does have a purpose. This is for Mr. Martinez's property in Immokalee. Violations of Section 10.02.06(B)(2)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(2)(d)(ix). Violations of Ordinance 04-41, signs without a permit. It's also violation of property maintenance code 2004-58 16(2)U), 16(1)(e), and 16(2)(i). It's dealing with graffiti, boarding of windows, and illegal pole and wall signs. The photograph up there right now is how it currently looks. Mr. Martinez has attempted to do some of the things that we have asked him to do. Unfortunately this is not permitted at this time. He did pay a contractor to do it. The contractor didn't -- I assume didn't get a permit -- I know he didn't get one. But he is attempting to do what we have asked him to do. And I have discussed with him this morning some of the other things that he needs to do, and I believe he's going to do what we asked. He needs for pay operational costs in the amount of $296.42. A is to obtain sign permits for wall signs within 14 days within Page 10 June 18, 2007 the date of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until the permits are obtained. All inspections through a certificate of completion, C.O., must be completed within 60 days of permit issuance or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until the permit is C.O.'d. B, remove any unauthorized, obsolete, non-complying or deteriorated signs, posters and graffiti from the building's exterior within 14 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until such signs are removed. C, is remove boarding and obtain permits within 30 days of the date of the hearing to install windows that shall be properly fitted within its frame, shall be watertight, weatherproofed and maintained in a good state of repair or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until permits are obtained. Installation and C.O. by a licensed contractor must be completed within 60 days of permit issuance or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until such installation is completed and C.O.'d. And the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator that the violation's been abated and request the investigator to come and make a -- perform a site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Martinez, do you understand the stipulated agreement? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, I understand it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you agree to all these conditions? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll close the public hearing and move towards a motion. MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept the stipulation as presented. Page 11 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Now, if I'm correct we will move to the hearings. And the first case is going to be the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Carmen Vasallo. I hope I said that correctly. V-A-S-A-L-L-O. (Speakers and the interpreter were duly sworn.) MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept the county's evidence? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. Page 12 June 18,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41 of the Collier County Land Development Code as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(d) and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(d)(i), and the Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Section 111.1. Description of violation: Nonpermitted partition walls, nonpermitted carport, unpermitted extension to shed with electric with possible use as a living quarter. Location/address where violation exists: 1013 New Market Road West, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 63852560007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Carmen Vasallo, 1013 New Market Road West. Date violation first observed: November 16th, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 16th, 2006. Date on by which violation to be corrected: December 17th, 2006. Date of reinspect ion: Last reinspection on February 7th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains/no attempt to correct. At this time I would like to call Investigator Thomas Keegan. MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case started November 16th. I was at the site for other violations on the property, and I observed partition walls in the rear of the property, a permitted garage with an illegal extension built onto that, with electric. An open shed with a washer and dryer under it. The NOV was served to Ms. Vasallo. I made numerous rechecks. I called the number that I have listed. Nothing ever happened. It's also an illegal carport built. The partition walls are actually -- actually surrounded a play Page 13 June 18,2007 area. It's a home day care -- it's a licensed home day care. I have pictures I'd like to enter an evidence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept the county's picture evidence? MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the county's exhibit. MR. KEEGAN: Ms. Vasello did see the pictures outside. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: That's the part of the illegal extension of the shed. As I did say, the shed itself does have a permit, but the extension does not. This is the illegal. These are the partition walls that surround the play area. No permit ever filed because they wouldn't be here if they did. Here's another picture of the walls. This is the shed over the washer and dryer. As you can tell, electric and water hookup. This is the carport built without obtaining a permit, or even applying for a permit. And that's the inside of it. As you can see, it's used as a storage area. So you have an unpermitted carport with children's toys. God forbid there's a hurricane, there's kids in there. I don't know what would happen. But that's all the pictures that the county has. Page 14 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Ms. Alvarez (sic)? MR. KEEGAN: Vasallo. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Vasallo. I'm sorry. Would you like to say something? THE INTERPRETER: She try to get the permits before, but she had to wait until she came to court today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: She has the plans for the addition and the survey for the part where the kids are where she has a day care. And then she thought that she didn't need to apply for another permit because she's already had a permit for another addition -- for two more additions, sorry. For the fence? Oh, because -- she's saying the wall that Mr. Keegan's saying that she doesn't have a permit for to do the -- she did a wall. MR. KEEGAN: Partition wall, I recall. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, she has a fence permit and she thought that was going to be part of it. She thought she didn't have to have an additional permit for it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? MR. PONTE: I do. Investigator, is the washer and dryer machine, are they coin operated? MR. KEEGAN: To be honest, I don't know. MR. PONTE: Is the -- this is a licensed day care facility? MR. KEEGAN: Yes. I researched into that. I even called DCF. It is. It's legit. MR. PONTE: I have to tell you, that really concerns me. Is it in operation at this time? MR. KEEGAN: I believe so. I believe there's a couple of the children are outside in the hallway. That's why I asked to move this Page 15 June 18, 2007 case up. MR. PONTE: It appeared to me, and I'm asking you, is there danger to any of the children with these existing conditions in terms of is the play area near what appeared to be a torn out window in the shed and other deplorable conditions? MR. KEEGAN: That's why I wrote it up, sir. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, we'll close the public hearing and move to a decision by the board for finding of fact. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that violations do exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the county have a recommendation? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. The county recommends that the CEB order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $296.05 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and to abate all violations by submitting a complete application for all Collier County building permits within 14 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 permit is obtained. Upon receipt of permits, request inspections and obtain a Page 16 June 18,2007 certificate of completion within 60 days of the date the permit was issued or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Or obtain a Collier County demolition permit within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day we will be imposed until 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. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could you put that on the overhead for me, please. MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. MR. PONTE: I have a question, Investigator Keegan. It looks fine to me, with the exception of one item, and that's giving the respondent 60 days to complete. That's two months to complete. If this is currently being operated as a licensed child day care facility, I think 60 days is rather extensive, particularly in light ofthe fact that we are approaching a severe storm season. Is there any reason that you have suggested 60 as opposed to 30? MR. KEEGAN: It's standard what I do pretty much on all the cases. The board can reduce it, of course. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: George, I'm just not sure if she can get everything completed. MR. PONTE: I'm concerned for the kids. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I am, too. I don't know ifthere's anything we can say, that she can't utilize the outside area, she can have the day care inside, but until it's completed not utilize the outside Page 17 June 18, 2007 area. I don't know if that's legal or within our grounds. Can we do that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: No. I don't think so. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't think so. Okay. MR. KELLY: Furthermore, I'd be concerned shutting down her Income source. MS. BARNETT: I didn't say shut it down, she can use the interior of her home, but just not use the outside play area. But according to Jean we can't put that stipulation in, so that doesn't go anywhere. MR. PONTE: And what's the reason or what's your thinking of not reducing it to 30 days? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm just afraid that she might not be able to get all the work done within that time frame, and then she'll be back here in front of us saying she couldn't get it completed because of not getting the contractors, et cetera in line to get it done. So I'm -- MR. PONTE: Gee, I think, you know, 60 days from now is, you know, the end of August. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not 60 days from now, it's 60 days from when she gets the permit. MR. PONTE: Worse yet. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You know, so I -- MR. KELL Y: If I may, my only concern was if she decides for a demo permit, only seven days to complete the demolition. I was thinking more like 14 days. But that's the only problem I have with county's recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? I haven't heard from this end of the group. MR. MORGAN: Can the area be fenced off so the children are not exposed to any danger? MR. KEEGAN: Sure. You know, she has the front of the house Page 18 ~_____.__...m".d_'O""'___"____'" ._.__'_ +"..~...,.._,.__._._..._~_o,..",_'_.~' '_'"..__^ June 18, 2007 that has a smaller yard. But if she -- that's up to her not to let the kids in the back where the play area is and under the carport. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We can't put that stipulation on there. That was what I was -- MR. MARTIN: I would leave the agreement as it's written up. She does need at least 30 days. That makes it 74 days. It's hard to get anybody to do those kind of jobs like that. MR. KEEGAN: She does have the option for a demo permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: What are the chances that she will get permits with the current way it's built? MR. KEEGAN: Slim and none, I believe. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So the demo permit's probably the more viable option. And the $100 a day fine, I don't think that's enough, personally, for the -- to get the permits, if she doesn't get the permits. And within 14 days of demolition permit, if she doesn't get that $100 a day, I don't think that's enough, considering the danger that this poses for the children that are there. MR. MORGAN: Is it possible to get a permit without some engineering or architectural drawings? MR. KEEGAN: I do not think so. I don't know. She would have to set up a meeting with the permit department. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She's saying she has drawings. I don't know whether they're engineered or not. MR. MORGAN: In other words, getting a permit may be a lengthy process. MR. KEEGAN: She's had since November to get it. MR. MORGAN: November. The children are exposed to a lot of danger. MS. ARNOLD: I notice that she's speaking with the supervisor over there. I didn't know whether or not she had a question. THE INTERPRETER: Yes, she does. Page 19 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Although we had closed the hearing. THE INTERPRETER: That's why I didn't say anything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll go ahead and let her. THE INTERPRETER: Okay. She's just saying that the state requires her to have that wall. Because it's to protect the kids so they don't go running outside. If not, they don't give her the license. That's why she wasn't able to -- MR. KELL Y: I trust Investigator Keegan's judgment. He's been terrific with us in the past. But this was -- this violation was found in November, and they were given a month. But then it wasn't checked until February. And now here we are all the way into June and finally seeing the case. I think that if it was a more urgent situation, we probably would have seen it sooner. Because I do trust his judgment. With that said, I would like to see something done. And I like the stipulated agreement as written, except for the demo permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not a stipulated agreement. MR. KELL Y: I'm sorry, the recommendation by County. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm looking for a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: What part of the demolition do you have? MR. KELLY: I just think seven days to actually complete the work might be a little unreasonable. Maybe two weeks might be better. MR. LEFEBVRE: 14 days then. MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, make a motion that we modify the agreement with it including 14 days instead of seven days for the demolition. Keep everything else the same. MR. KELL Y: I second that motion. MR. PONTE: I would just like to, before we vote on that, strongly urge us to consider cutting -- that's fine, the demolition part's fine. But if the demolition part is what's likely to carry the day, I don't Page 20 June 18,2007 think we should take our eye off the rest of the situation. And that is the length of time to final completion. I think that really should be reduced to 30 days and not 60, and let the chips fall where they may, but let's keep the thing moving. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 may be too short. How about 45? MR. KELLY: I agree with 45. MR. PONTE: I agree with 45. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend my motion to 45 days from 60. MS. RAWSON: Just to correct the record, it's not an agreement, it's your -- it's your motion based on his recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, correct. MR. KELL Y: And I will second the new motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Motion carries. Does she understand the full motion, that she has -- he's got it there, but she'll have to go for a permit, she'll have to -- if she does get the permit, she has 45 days to complete it. She has a certain time frame. And then if she cannot obtain a permit, she has to go for a demolition permit and take everything down. THE INTERPRETER: Okay, she understands. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. Okay, the next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners Page 21 June 18, 2007 versus Maria (sic) Alvarez. Mario, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: We've actually got a stipulation for that. The Alvarezes got here right when the hearing was starting, or shortly thereafter, and so they have since stipulated. And the Investigator Carmello Gomez is here to state what the stipulation indicates. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOMEZ: For the record, Carmello Gomez, investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Alvarez has agreed to a stipulation. It says -- reads as follows: Number one, he will pay operational costs in the amount of $315.51 incurred in the prosecution of this case. Number two, he will abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building or demolition permit and all required inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within 90 dates, or a fine of $200 shall be imposed for each day the violation remains. Number three and final, respondent will notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to come out to perform a site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Alvarez, do you understand the stipulated agreement? MR. ALVAREZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any questions? MR. KELL Y: Investigator, I believe in our packet you copied what looks to be a page out of the newspaper showing the house for sale. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, that's a different case. MR. KELL Y: I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's a different case. MR. KELLY: Oh, I apologize. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I only have one question. Why did we lump together the obtaining a permit and the demolition permit Page 22 June 18, 2007 together within a 90-day frame? Because generally demolition permit doesn't take that long to obtain. MR. GOMEZ: That's correct, ma'am. Previously we wrote it into two separate orders, but the permit to build is in the ready status. Mr. Alvarez has just not had a chance to pick up the permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So the demolition's actually not going to be an issue. MR. GOMEZ: It most likely will not happen, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That explains it, thank you. MR. GOMEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. Good luck, Mr. Alvarez. MR. ALVAREZ: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Alfredo Martinez. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, the Kalvins, if we could go up to that particular case. Page 23 June 18,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We had moved them to number 11? MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. We actually have a stipulation for them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: For the Kalvins as well? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Well, then in that case we'll move the Kalvins in and we'll do a stipulated agreement again. That would be the Board of County Commissioners versus James N. Kalvin and Ruth Kalvin. 2007-25. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. F AGA: Antonio Faga for the Kalvins. I'm their attorney. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. James M. Kalvin and Ruth P. Kalvin entered into a stipulation agreement this morning. One, pay all operational costs in the amount of$405.97 incurred in the prosecution of this case. Two, abate all violations by A, submitting a complete and sufficient variance application for any applicable setback requirements and the square footage requirements for the primary residence and guest house structures within the Estates zoned area within 30 days of the hearing -- that would be July 19th, 2007 -- or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed until the variance application is submitted. B, pursuing variance process through final determination. If variance is approved, submitting complete and sufficient documentation to the Collier County building official identifying the construction details of the garage/storage structure within 60 days of the variance approval, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed until the documentation is submitted. Pursue the document review process until it has been demonstrated to the building official that the work which was Page 24 June 18, 2007 completed meets all codes and requirements in effect at the time the permit was required. Confirmation that the construction meets codes must be received by the building official within 60 days of the submittal of plans identifying construction details, or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed until the building official confirmation is received. And C, if variance is denied and all appeals are exhausted, remove all improvements made to the garage/storage area structure and convert it back to its original permitted condition within 60 days of the variance disapproval, or a fine of $1 00 a day will be imposed until the said improvements are removed. And three, respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: IfI'm remembering, is this the case that they bought the property from someone and the addition was already in place? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are they going to go by the codes of 1979 or current? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. The reason why in the stipulation the language is as it is where they would be presenting documentation to the building official to determine whether or not the structure, you know, meets the then code is because it would be -- they're required to meet the code at the time the improvements were made, rather than today's code. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So that's where it says the time the permit was required? Because I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't reflecting to the current permit that they're having to get. MS. ARNOLD: No. That's why the stipulation -- rather than referring to a building permit, there's language that has been adopted with a recent consolidated ordinance that, you know, things that Page 25 ,-_."--'--'-~-'-'-"---~~'~"'-"--- June 18, 2007 predate '97 will go through that process instead. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do we have any -- MR. PONTE: Yes, I have one. What was the thinking behind the $50 per day fine? Which to me sounds like a 1979 fine. It's very lenient. MR. BALDWIN: I believe the thinking was the owners bought this problem. They didn't create it, they didn't make any additional improvements to the structure. And they have been working with us to try to get this resolved. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have anything to add? MR. F AGA: Merely to say that the staff has been extremely helpful in trying to work us through this very difficult problem that I'm sure you guys see every day. But it's really a -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, not every day. We don't usually get -- MR. F AGA: No, I appreciate the staffs help and Mr. Klatzkow's help relative to this issue. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: You said that they must notify you about abating when all the -- everything is abated. I guess the only thing I didn't see or hear you say was that an inspection would be allowed at that point. MR. BALDWIN: I believe the building department will make all final inspections of the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. FAGA: That's how this surfaced, by the way. They requested a permit to put in a tank and people came on site, so they in effect trapped themselves; I guess you could say that. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, I don't believe that that is true. Page 26 June 18, 2007 It was an anonymous complaint that was filed. MR. F AGA: Really? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: According to your evidence packet, they said it was there because of a permit request, and during that permit it was discovered. MS. ARNOLD: That's their -- they submitted a separate packet. It's in their packet. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess I'm getting confused. Whatever. Any other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I'll entertain a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. MORGAN: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good luck. MR. F AGA: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now we're back to public hearings. Trying to figure out where I am. Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Alfredo Martinez. And he has two cases. Are they on different properties, Michelle, or can we have them Page 27 June 18, 2007 heard simultaneously? MR. KEEGAN: Same properties. MS. ARNOLD: Same properties. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We can hear them simultaneously, but we'll have to pose two different motions. Is the individual present? MR. KEEGAN: No, ma'am. (Speaker was duly sworn.) 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: May I entertain a motion to accept the county's evidence packet? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41 as amended, Land Development Code Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(d), I 0.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i). Description of violation: Two unpermitted structures on property . Location/address where violation exists: 2595, 31st Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 40234600003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation Page 28 June 18, 2007 location: Alfredo Martinez, 2595 31st Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: November 22nd, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: Notice of Violation served on December 11th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 16th, 2007. Date of reinspection: Last reinspection performed on March 19th, 2007. Result of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Investigator Thomas Keegan. MR. KEEGAN: Good morning again. This case actually opened up by another investigator. While they were patrolling the area a citizen came up and told her about this property, and she turned it over to me. I tried to make a couple of contacts with the gentleman to get on the property. I seen the violations from the street. I checked, there was no permits. I made -- I sent the notice of violation out by certified mail. It came back unclaimed. I did serve Mr. Martinez 12/11/06 the notice of violation for the unpermitted structures. Which I'd like to show you now, pictures for evidence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to move to accept the packet B for the county. MR. KELL Y: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 29 June 18, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, proceed. MR. KEEGAN: This is the first structure in the rear of his property without a permit. This would be the inside of the structure. This is the roof. And here's the cement floor. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Keegan, how large is this property? MR. KEEGAN: The property is very big. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is this considered agricultural property? MR. KEEGAN: No, it's in the Estates. Estates zoned. And the structures are very big. That's the cement floor. Here's another inside picture. And my supervisor, actually Patti Petrulli, did speak to Mr. Martinez on April 10th. She called him and told him that the case will be going forward to the Code Enforcement Board. And he wanted to come in. We set up a date to have a case meeting and he never showed. So here is the side of the structure, one of the sides. And that's all for the first structure. I have the second one now. MR. MORGAN: The first structure, is this a workshop? MR. KEEGAN: Yeah, it seems that way. MR. MORGAN: I don't see any fire extinguishers or anything of that nature. Is there any inflammable material there? MR. KEEGAN: It's more tools and whatnot, but-- MR. MORGAN: He does do a lot of mechanical work, right? MR. KEEGAN: I would say yes. That's why it's there. Page 30 June 18, 2007 MR. MORGAN: In other words, it's kind of a hazardous location. MR. KEEGAN: Sure. This is the front of the second illegal structure. This would be the side. This is on the side of his house, this structure. The other one's in the rear. Then I have a picture of the inside. That's the inside ceiling. I did explain to him, you know, what needed to be done. I gave him the brochure for the permit department, numbers. He was a nice guy, to be honest, but never came through. MR. LEFEBVRE: There is a house on the property you said, right? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Is the house attached to the sheds in any way? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. MR. PONTE: What's the distance from the shed to the house? MR. KEEGAN: I would say the side structure, I would say 15 feet. The first structure in the rear, a good 30 to 40 feet. MR. PONTE: One of my colleagues mentioned fire hazard that close to a residence. MR. KEEGAN : Well, the next case is on the house. It all comes together. MR. MORGAN: The second one you showed has a serious violation. Wiring should be a metallic conduit and it's not. It's just an open ceiling. So I assume that it was constructed, no permits, never inspected. MR. KEEGAN: No permits ever applied for. MR. MORGAN: Never inspected by anyone. MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll close this portion of the Page 31 June 18, 2007 public hearing and move to finding of fact. MR. KELLY: I didn't realize we were going to close so quickly, I'm sorry. I do have one question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead, I'll reopen. MR. KELLY: Mr. Keegan, the second case when it talks about the permit, they're not relating -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He actually didn't get into the second case yet, so -- MR. KELLY: I know, and that's kind of my problem. I was going to hold -- MR. KEEGAN: No, one doesn't go with the other. MR. KELL Y: Completely separate? MR. KEEGAN : Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Very good. Then I'm all right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right, I'll close public hearing and look for a finding of fact. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the county have a recommendation? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$243.66 incurred in the prosecution of this case Page 32 June 18, 2007 and to abate all violations by submitting a complete application for all Collier County building permits within 14 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 obtained. 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 abated. Or obtain 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. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could you put that on the overhead, please. MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The only comment I have on what you've written, Mr. Keegan, is those are two fairly hefty-sized structures, and I'm not sure once he's -- ifhe had to obtain a demolition permit if seven days would be enough time to complete the task of getting rid of all the material. I don't know how my colleagues feel, but that's my -- MR. MORGAN: I agree with you. To haul all this stuff out is going to take three or four weeks at least. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that would be the only thing that I feel might need to be changed. But I'm looking to the board for Page 33 June 18, 2007 their decisions. MR. KELLY: I would agree with that, 30 days. Jerry, seems like a good recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? MR. PONTE: Just one other. I'm looking at this and trying -- is there anything in the -- in this that indicates that the property -- if the buildings are demolished, that the property and all the resulting debris and the material that was in the building be removed and the property restored to an acceptable site? MR. KEEGAN: He would not receive the C.O. if everything -- if he just knocked it down and it remained there, the county would not give him a C.O. MR. PONTE: Okay. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept county's recommendation with the correction of if a demolition permit is obtained, he's allowed 30 days for completion. MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. We'll move to the next case. You might as well stay up here, Mr. Keegan. 2007-48. Again against Alfredo Martinez. 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. Page 34 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I hear a motion to accept the county's evidence packet? MR. PONTE: Move to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41 of the Collier Land Development Code as amended, section 10.02.06(B)(1)(d)(i). Description of violation: Expired permits without the final certificate of completion. Location/address where violation exists: 2595 31 st Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 4023460003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Alfredo Martinez, 2595 31st Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: December 11 th, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: Notice of Violation served to Alfredo Martinez on December 11 th, 2006. Date on/by which the violation to be corrected: February 15th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: February 22nd, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains, no attempt to correct. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 35 June 18, 2007 MR. KEEGAN: As per 7:00 this morning, the permits are still the same as when I first opened up the case. But this -- while I was researching the permits for the other case we just heard, I observed that Mr. Martinez had other permits in his house that have expired that he did the work, they'd never been C.O.'d. Few of them have been inspected a couple of times and that was it and they just expired out. So that's when I went and opened up this case. Served Mr. Martinez the Notice of Violation, explained to him what he had to do, the phone number to the permit department. And same as the other case, we're here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other structures will not be able to be permitted until the house is C.O.'d, correct? MR. KEEGAN: I believe so. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because you cannot have a structure -- accessory structures on a property without having a primary structure, house. MR. KEEGAN: The house itself is permitted. It's for additions he did. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, additions. MR. KEEGAN: Yes, it's a-- MR. LEFEBVRE: I thought the original C.O. Because when he purchased in '98, it was vacant land. MR. KEEGAN: It's for the aluminum enclosure of the pool expired, the pool itself expired, and an addition to the house, which expired. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not the C.O. for the house? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll close the public hearing and move to finding a finding of fact. Page 36 June 18, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that in fact there is a violation. MR. KELLY: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a recommendation? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of235.51 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by reapplying for all expired permits within 14 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 permit is obtained. 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 abated. And the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any -- it's up on the overhead if you guys -- entertain motions or comments. MR. KELL Y: I have a comment. The inspections that are required, I think footings 10 days, spot survey, final plumbing, final Page 37 June 18, 2007 electric and final pool. There are other inspections in between that lead us to believe that at least all or a majority of the rough installations were completed and approved by the inspectors. I believe this is probably something just a little more simple than -- it might be just calling these in and meeting the inspector out there, time sensitive, walking it, getting the approval. Any work that needs to be done is probably minimal. I think 60 days may be a little bit too lenient to complete any remaining work. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about 30 days? MR. KELLY: Thirty days is more appropriate. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept, with the revision suggested by my colleague. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Rock Oil Company. If I'm not mistaken, I think maybe they're outside. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent was sent a package of evidence, and I would like Page 38 June 18, 2007 to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion to accept the county's evidence. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. KELLY: Oh, sorry. So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 5.06.04(C)(8)(C). Description of violation: The prohibited existence of color accent banding on gasoline station canopy structure, as well as a service station structure. Location/address where violation exists: 4648 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Rock Oil Company, 50 South Bemiston Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, 63105-3306. Date violation first observed: September 15th, 2005. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 23rd, 2005, and December 15th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 9th, 2005 and December 31 st, 2006. Date of reinspect ion: October 12th, 2005 and January 12th, Page 39 June 18, 2007 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to call Investigator Azure Sorrels. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cherie', could you please? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: Good morning. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Spelling A-Z-U-R-E, S-O-R-R-E-L-S. This case was opened on 9/1512005 by Travis Snoderly. The case was opened and resolved of a settlement and tolling agreement that was entered into by Rock Oil Company and Collier County. I have a copy of that agreement for everyone. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Should we use this as Exhibit B? I have a motion to accept Exhibit B packet. And has the other party -- I guess they're aware of it. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept County's Exhibit B. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You said you had some pictures as well? I need to have that as Exhibit C. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept as Exhibit C. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 40 June 18, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PONTE: I'd like to make a motion that we be given time to review this five-page document that we've just been handed. MR. KELLY: Is there any more coming our way? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are there any more pieces of information? MS. SORRELS: No, it will just be that packet. MR. PONTE: Just a few minutes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A few minutes pause, please. Say 10:14? MR. PONTE: Fine. (Brief recess.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is everybody ready? We'll resume. MS. SORRELS: If you look at the settlement agreement, if you look at the paragraph that starts with now, therefore, the last sentence of that paragraph reads, in an attempt to resolve all disputes or claims arising from or referring or relating in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the above-referenced case, and in consideration of the promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Number one, Rock Oil shall begin the process of (sic) administratively pursue a variance of the provisions of the Sign Code for its business establishment in Collier County within 30 days of the approval of this agreement by Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Page 41 '~~--~-""-'-'--'-- .."'.--,.,.--.-----..----- June 18, 2007 If you skip down to number four, it says, Collier County agrees not to pursue enforcement activity for a period of no longer than 12 months from January 8th, 2004 to January 8th, 2005, or until Rock Oil abandons its pursuit of a variance or a variance is granted or denied by the county, whichever event occurs first, as to the following alleged violations. If you go to the next page, one of the alleged violations is B, canopy accent striping and the primary yellow color are prohibited by LDC Sections 2.5.5.2.5.5 sub-paragraph two, and 2.6.28.1.(17) that canopy must be of a single soft earth tone or pastel color. Corporate logos of 12 square feet can be permitted for the two faces ofthe canopy with street frontages, if desired. The reason why I point it out that way is that section, that canopy accent striping and primary yellow color follows underneath the sign ordinance. And if you go back to 1, it clearly states that they are to pursue a variance for the provision of the Sign Code. From my understanding, no variance was applied for on the color in the accent banding of the gas canopy. The case again was opened after the allotted time mentioned, on September 15th, 2005. Two notices of violations were served: One was served on the gas canopy, the color and the banding, and the other one was served -- that was served by Travis Snoderly, who originally opened the case. And the second NOV was served by me in December for the principal structure or the main structure having the same violation, the color and the accent banding. When I had addressed this with Clay Brooker -- excuse me, Mr. Brooker, I had spoke with him on the phone and sent him the notice of violation. And I received a response from him, and it clearly states, this firm represents Rock Oil Company with regard to the above referenced case. The yellow color of the building fascia and its red and blue striping have existed since -- sorry. Page 42 June 18, 2007 THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MS. SORRELS: On the above referenced case I had contacted Mr. Brooker, served a Notice of Violation, and his response was a letter that was sent to myself. The letter reads: This firm represents Rock Oil Company with regard to the above-referenced case. The yellow color of the building fascia and its red and blue striping have existed since 1993. There is a permit that was pulled and issued in 1993 for the replacement of the fascia of the gas canopy and the building. However, that permit was never inspected or C.O.'d so the permit's not valid. So in itself, the existing color -- the existing fascia is in violation, because the permit was never C.O.'d and completed. There was an ordinance in 91-102 that reads -- it's the sections of 2.8.3.5.12.3.1, the use of black, gray, fluorescent, primary and/or secondary colors is prohibited in the predominant exterior building of roof colors. Earth tone colors are encouraged. The next section is 2.8.3.5.12.4.1. Building trim and accent areas may feature any colors limited to 10 percent of the affected facade segment with a maximum trim height of 24 inches total for its shortest distance. So in '91 it clearly states that you cannot use anything but earth tones, and that striping may -- this is for '91 -- may occur, as long as it's 10 percent or less, which is obviously it's more than 10 percent. Now, the newest code that is in effect would be the 04-41. And underneath the Sign Code it says 506 -- it's 5.06.04(C)(4)(8)(c), and it's -- the section is for signage of automobile stations. And then paragraph C says, color accent banding on gasoline canopy structures and all other structures is prohibited. Canopies shall be of one color, consisting with the predominant color of the principal structure, if applicable. The color of all structures on site shall be soft earth tones or pastels. So considering that the '93 permit is void, it's been canceled, they Page 43 June 18, 2007 would have to permit it now as of -- in 2007 underneath the 04-41 code. That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. BROOKER: For the record, Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, here in Naples. I do represent Rock Oil Company. They are a Missouri company. And the president of Rock Oil sends his apologies, he was not able to make the flight down here for today's hearing. I was unaware we were going to get into the settlement agreement today. I thought we were talking about the color alone. But I will address the settlement agreement, which has been I guess submitted into evidence as Exhibit B. The paragraph four of that settlement agreement states that, with regard to those alleged violations, Collier County agrees not to pursue enforcement activity for a period of 12 months, or if we abandon the pursuit of a variance or a variance is granted or denied. The way we read that, or the way -- I was in the meeting with Assistant County Attorney Jackie Hubbard. And the way I interpreted that and the way I thought it was stated was that we have the choice. We can either pursue a variance for the various violations, or if we don't, we don't do so at our own peril. And at that point in time, after 12 months, the county can then re -- come back to us and start enforcing again. And that's what I believe the word "or" means in the second sentence, or second line of paragraph four. What's happened is with regard to all of these violations -- and they continue into five, six, and seven, paragraphs five, six and seven __ we've corrected them all, with the exception of the canopy. And through various -- canopy color and the banding. And through various conversations with my client, my client simply believes that it's not legal or proper for the county to make that gas station change those colors, that color scheme, when it's been there Page 44 June 18, 2007 in existence since 1993, pursuant to a validly issued permit. The only reason we're here today is because the county, on its own, changed the rules. And I can go through that history with you. And that's why I would like to use ELMO, ifI could. It's a series of about five or six pertinent portions of ordinances to show you the history of it, if I may be permitted to do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me ask, would that be your Exhibit A, I guess? MR. BROOKER: Actually, Exhibit A would be an affidavit from the -- I'll show you an affidavit from the president, stating that the color scheme has been there since 1993. And Exhibit B will be the ordinances themselves. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would we like to accept Exhibits A and B of defendant? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BROOKER: May I make my way? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Make your way over. MR. BROOKER: And for the record, while I'm gathering my documents, I never did receive a response from the code enforcement to my letter back in November. I think it would have been nice had I known ahead of time that this is where they were leading, and we could have had discussions about that. Page 45 June 18, 2007 The first, Exhibit A, is an affidavit of Christopher W. Kemph. He is the president of Rock Oil Company. And really, the most important paragraph of that affidavit is four. The preceding paragraphs just talked about how he is the president, he's been employed there since 1979. Rock Oil doesn't own the property, that's paragraph three. And in paragraph four, the yellow color and the red/blue striping on the building fascia and the gas pump canopy, which I'm calling the color scheme, have existed at the property since prior to 2001. Further, to the best of my knowledge, meaning Christopher Kemph's knowledge, the color scheme has existed at the property since '93. The reason why the 2001 reference is in there is because in 2001 was the first time we saw a prohibition of accent banding in gas stations. It wasn't prohibited before that time. What I'd like to show you first -- and this will be a composite Exhibit B, which are the ordinances I earlier referenced. Ordinance 91-102. Basically adopted in 1991. Essentially this is a part of the Sign Code that expressly addressed automobile service stations back in 1991. As you see there, it was Section 2.5.8.3.2, gas stations are permitted. All signs otherwise permitted in the code, including a gas price pole sign. And you'll note there in that paragraph, that four-line paragraph, no prohibitions on colors or striping exist. The second ordinance I'd like to show you, we need to fast forward five years to 1996. This is Ordinance 96-21 for the record. Okay, that is the very top there. We are now looking at -- well, let me just explain what happened. Five years later there were numerous problems with the Sign Code and the Board of County Commissioners said just redo the entire thing. And it was. And as you see, we have a new cite number there for the automobile service stations provision. This -- otherwise everything remains the same from what you just saw in 1991. There's Page 46 June 18, 2007 been no changes except for the citation. Now we'll go forward to 1998, Ordinance 98-63. The portion that I just read to you two years later was completely eliminated now. Nothing substituted in its place. Fast forward one year. And what you can hopefully start to appreciate here is the Sign Code has been amended no fewer than 12 times in the last 10 years. It's somewhat difficult to follow when you're trying to track the history of this code. This is 1999, Ordinance 99-46. And there for the first time in 1999 you see what is the -- I call the modern day look of the code provision. It's 255-255 is the citation. This sets forth now, rather than stating that all signs otherwise permitted in the code are allowed in gas stations, it actually sets forth the precise signs that are permitted. And you can read through those four subparagraphs, if you'd like, but trust me, there's nothing about colors or striping. So still in 1999 it is our understanding that there is nothing in the code that would prohibit what was already in existence six years earlier pursuant to a validly issued permit. Then you move two years later, it gets amended again. This is Ordinance 01-60, 2001. And I apologize for being boring, but I have to go through this for the record. There it is again, 255-255, in the year 2001 you see for the first time subparagraph two, the underlined in the second to last line there at the very end, and accent striping prohibited. It's the first time it's appeared in the code. What's to be noted is still in our opinion under the automobile service station section nothing yet prohibiting or limiting your colors. Finally, two years ago, or three years after the one you just saw, in 2004, Ordinance 04-72. Now, in the meantime the LDC, Land Development Code, has completely been recodified so we have yet again another citation to it. But this is still the same kind of look as we've been seeing for the last -- or since 2001. Page 47 June 18, 2007 And you see there in small little C at the very bottom of the page, color accent banding on gasoline canopy structures and all other -- I'll show you this page -- and all other structures is prohibited. Canopies shall be of one color -- I can't read it from here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Consistent with its -- MR. BROOKER: Yeah, consistent with its -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- predominant color. MR. BROOKER: Well, you can read it. I can't read it. But at this point in time for the first time, 2004, we now have for sure accent banding or striping. And not only on canopy structures but also all other structures on gas stations. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And it refers to soft earth tones or pastels. MR. BROOKER: Right. We did hear -- and that's it for the ordinances, thank God. And I believe that's pretty much the status quo right there where we exist today. We did hear of a permit in 1993 from the code enforcement officer, as well I mentioned it, too. It is a permit issued in 1993 -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That was a question that I had for you. Because according to the investigator, she said there was a permit that was pulled. However, it was never C.O.'d. Do you have something contrary to that? MR. BROOKER: I have no evidence whether it was C.O.'d or was not C.O.'d. The only evidence I've seen was a computer page the county's records back in 1993 that shows no dates for an inspection or a C.O. And therefore, my understanding is -- or if you interpret that print-out of that computer page, whoever did that, would mean that they simply expired and canceled the permit because they saw no dates there. Whether that is actually factually true or not, I don't know. I've asked my guys. It's not -- there's no C.O. in the file, but there's no Page 48 June 18, 2007 C.O. for any ofthe permits in this file, and there are numerous permits dating back to 1977. There are no C.O.'s. So it becomes a question of whose obligation is it to maintain a C.O. My guys looked for it, they said they couldn't find it. I went and looked to the general contractor who's on the permit, Orange State Industries, I believe is the name of the contractor. As luck may have it, or as unluck may have it, in 1996 they dissolved. We can't find them. So we can't go there to look for a C.O. We assumed that's what we hired them to do. They're the ones who filed the permit. And that's what I'll ask to show you now as Exhibit C is the actual permit that was pulled. And you'll see the stamp from the county, it is approved. So presumably this, what's there today, met the code in 1993. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me stop you for a minute and I'll ask if you'd like to entertain a motion to accept his Exhibit C. MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept C. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BROOKER: That's the permit. It's about four or five pages long. That's directly out of the county's files. If you see there under project name, about midway down the projection screen, you see where it says, new fascia for canopy remove and replace existing? In the back actually there's a letter from Orange State Industries that the Page 49 .~,<--~,-----,._._^.,._--_._-_._- June 18, 2007 contractor who states that this is to replace not only the canopy over the gas pumps but also the canopy -- or the building fascia on the principal structure to match the fascia with the yellow and then the red and the blue striping. Our basic comment to this is if this was not prohibited in 1993, I couldn't show you any other piece of paper. Ifwe had a C.O. for it, whether that existed or not, I don't know. And I know there are errors in the county's computer system, I've dealt with them. But I don't know. There's no evidence yea or nay for that that's been given that you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you say this was stamped approved? Approval date was 12/3/93; is that it? MR. BROOKER: That is a zoning and building department signing off saying that the permit meets all applicable codes. Presumably I guess including the Sign Code. So number one, our first argument would be we didn't even need a permit for the color and the striping, because it wasn't even part of the regulatory scheme yet. The regulatory scheme introduced this prohibition eight years later. So even ifI could show you a permit or a C.O -- well, I'm showing you the permit that was approved. I don't -- and I could show you a C.O. It really wouldn't prove whether the yellow or the blue and the red were even remotely considered, because it wasn't prohibited. So that's our first argument is just because we don't have a C.O. and neither does the county from 15, 17 years ago, is that going to be held against us when it would be a C.O. to this permit which mentions nothing about the color of the striping. Our second argument would be, a month ago, as it may come, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a new ordinance for the Code Enforcement Board. And it includes, and this is Ordinance 07-44, adopted May 7th -- I'm sorry, May 8th, 2007 by the BCC. It includes an affirmative defense now, and it reads -- maybe I Page 50 June 18, 2007 should just show it to you. Now, I'll have to credit Assistant County Attorney Klatzkow for showing me this ordinance. I didn't even know this existed until about an hour ago. It shall be a complete defense to any enforcement board or special magistrate action founded upon an alleged failure to obtain a permit required by the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, if said permit was required to be obtained prior to April 1 st, 1997. I'll pause there. Remember this permit was pulled in '93. And the person charged with such alleged failure demonstrates to the building official as defined by the Florida Building Code by a preponderance of the evidence that the work which was alleged to have been completed without a permit being duly issued meets all codes and requirements in effect at the time the permit was required. What I can tell you is a permit was duly issued. No one can find a C.O. for it. But we would rely upon that language as a full and complete defense to whether or not this permit was ever issued or an inspection was done or a C.O. was issued. This occurred in 1993, as the documents show. And if you would like me to come in and have someone testify that that canopy that's out there today is perfectly 100 percent consistent with that permit, again, it's completely irrelevant in my opinion because it doesn't even deal with the color and the striping which is why we're here today. But I can do that, to show you that in fact the canopy was in fact constructed in accordance with the duly issued permit in 1993. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You want to step back there now so we can let her come back up. Sorry for you having to juggle. MS. ARNOLD: We actually need copies of all his exhibits. Page 51 June 18, 2007 MR. BROOKER: I've got them. MS. SORRELS: In reference to the comment if it was C.O.'d or not and county's problem with losing records, is what he had said, I do have -- what we use is CD Plus, and I have actually printouts of the screens that we actually use to access that information. And the reason why this permit was canceled, and I can show you on the projector here, that the inspections were never called in. And there's an actual screen. Any inspections that are done on this, it's scheduled through CD Plus, and it shows the inspections when they're scheduled, when they're conducted and what the results are. Give me one second and I'll get that ready. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to submit that as your evidence packet D? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the evidence. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SORRELS: All right, the first one that you're looking at is the actual application information with the permit number up in the top left-hand corner, 93. And directly beside it it says status, it shows canceled. The next one that you're going to be looking at is the screen for inspections. As you can see in the box, it says inspection, code, request date, things like that. It is completely blank because no Page 52 June 18, 2007 schedules were inspected -- or no inspections were scheduled. Hence being the next one that you look at will be showing the status of the permit, and what's circled is shows canceled, 6122/98 by an employee. So from my understanding, what happens is they go through and purge old permits that were never completed and they cancel them out, being that's why that's canceled, because it was never C.O.'d, inspections were never scheduled, and then they canceled out in '98. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Was CD Plus in effect in '93, or was that a program that was entered afterwards and this information was then -- MS. SORRELS: From my understanding, it was in effect in '93, yes. The other thing that he had mentioned was that he had referenced the '93 permit. I had went to records myself, I had pulled up the '93 permit on microfilm. I had also ordered the actual hard copy records. And I do have copies of those with me today. However, there've kind of fuzzy. They're hard to see. But nowhere on that permit, all the pages that were provided for that permit in records, there is nothing on there indicating color. And I think he had some things that he wanted to point out. MR. KLATZKOW: JeffKlatzkow, for the record. I thought we had a settlement agreement that settled those disputes. I guess I was in error. If you could take a look at the settlement agreement real briefly. If you look at Page 1, the third whereas clause, it says, the whole point of the settlement agreement is to settle disputes in Case No. 203, whatever, and all disputes or claims that arise, relate or refer in any manner to this complaint. If you go to Page 3 on the top, one of the disputes the county had was the coloring and the accent. And if you go back, you'll see that they agreed that in paragraph Page 53 June 18, 2007 one that they try to get a variance for this stuff to get rid of this dispute. Well, apparently they got a settlement agreement that's supposed to settle everything. Refers specifically to the coloring and the striping, but now I'm told that that never was a dispute and I'm not sure why it was in here if it wasn't at the time. If you go back to the '91 code, and I'll put this on in a second, you'll see that -- well, what he wants to do is prohibit it. This is the 91 code, 91-102, where it's checkmarked. If you could go up, Michelle. That building was hardly an earth tone, as you could see. So I don't really think it matters. You want to use the '91 code, he's out; you want to use the new code, he's out. Whether the permit was ever C.O.'d I think is irrelevant. Ifhe wants to take the affirmative defense that we use the then current Sign Code, he loses. And quite frankly, that's in the settlement agreement. This was an issue in the settlement agreement that yes, we acknowledge that the county has a claim that we have a striping and color issue. We'll take care of it by variance. They never did. Now they want to say we didn't have to. If they wanted to say that, they should have put it in the settlement agreement and be done with it. They didn't. So we're asking the Code Enforcement Board here to impose the fines that are requested. And if Mr. Brooker wants to take this up to the next level, he can argue to the Circuit Court why the settlement agreement is not valid. I don't know why we get into settlement agreements if they don't settle anything. MR. BROOKER: I'll respond very briefly. Number one, I don't want to repeat what I said about the settlement agreement. I think it's very clear. It gave us the right to pursue a variance, or if we don't, then you come back against us. And we did in fact cure five out of the six or four out of the five, whatever it was, in the number of violations. With regard to what's on the screen now, this is a 2.8 section of Page 54 June 18, 2007 the code. This isn't even in the Sign Code. Never appeared anywhere on the Notice of Violation. It's the first time I've seen it. Notwithstanding that what I think would be a due process issue, let's read what it says. The use of black, gray, fluorescent, primary and/or secondary colors is prohibited as the predominant exterior building or roof colors. If you go to the pictures of the building, the building is brick. It does have the fascia that is yellow with the banding on it, but we relied on the Sign Code -- which this is not, which is shown to you now -- that deals with building fascias. Again, this is the first time I've seen it. I believe a brick building meets the wording of2.8.3.5.12.3.1, which I've seen for the first time today. MS. ARNOLD: And the other thing that we pointed out was 2.8.3.5.12.4.1, which speaks to fascia -- the facade of the building and trimming on the building and those types of things, which this building doesn't meet. MR. BROOKER: Again, that's 2.8, not cited to us. And keep in mind that 1993 we do have a validly issued permit. Whether there's a C.O. is another question. But if this was in the code at that time, you have a building inspector -- or a permit inspector looking at the permit, looking at what the code requires and stamping it. That's what we're relying upon. MS. SORRELS: And if I could just point out on what he's referencing that he never saw, that ordinance, that LDC section is actually from the zoning ordinance. Again, I was not in -- not working in '91, so I can't speak that I truly know, but this would be-- there was no sign -- or nothing was addressed in the sign ordinance about color of service gas station, it just fell underneath the zoning ordinance which, as clearly shows, it shows in '91 that they were prohibited. And also, I'd like to mention that the reason why he did not see Page 55 June 18, 2007 these cited was because when he was cited with notice of violations, we used the current ordinance that's in effect. This is just showing that in '93 this ordinance was in effect, this is 91-102. So this would have been the ordinance that was in effect in '93. When we cited him, we're going to use the ordinances that were at that present point in time. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just add a couple of things? One of the things I wanted to point out is I was a part of that settlement agreement process. And I understand what Clay has said here today regarding what the intent of that was. It was my understanding in signing it that they were going to pursue all the violations that were so noted in that agreement. It wasn't intended, or it was at least not my intent to have him pick and choose which violations they were going to resolve. The paragraph that he referenced did say that -- gave us specific time period. They had an option to pursue a variance. But it also said whichever occurred first. If the variance was abandoned or denied or 12 months, whichever occurred first. So after that 12-month period -- it wasn't a period that went on in infinity. After that 12-month period we had the option to pursue the enforcement of all the violations on the particular property, which is why we're here today. I think he is absolutely right with regards to the permit, the '93 permit. There was no indication on there, one, about color, so he can't argue that that permit, albeit validly issued in '93 for the building code at that particular time, he can't argue that that was also intended, because there was no inspections to verify the color of the sign. He can't argue that that permit was also issued for that yellow sign and the banding that exists around the building, as well as the canopy. So we're bringing before you today a violation of the code as it exists today. There is, in our opinion, no valid permit for that sign or canopy around the building, because as it was shown to you, that Page 56 ~ ..-....,.-...-.- ""'-"--"---'~-- --""-"-"'-'-"~---""-"---"-'-- June 18, 2007 permit was canceled; therefore, it's no longer valid. And to get a permit today, they would have to -- although there's an affirmative defense language, he could come in and his clients could come in and show that the structure itself met the then code, but it does not exempt them from all other requirements such as color as it is required in the Sign Code or the Land Development Code. I think the county has proven the point that it doesn't meet the code today, it didn't meet the code in '91, and there's no evidence that shows otherwise. MR. BROOKER: Madam Chair, one last thing, because now we're starting to repeat ourselves. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, we're getting past our time frame, too. MR. BROOKER: If in fact you're going to rely upon the 1991 code, there's nothing in it about banding or striping. It just talks about a color, or the primary color. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It also goes into fascia. It doesn't say banding, but it goes into fascia should be certain colors. Percentages of the original building. MR. BROOKER: And so the position of the county is that this fascia and the canopy represents more than 10 percent of the building? Is that what I heard? I'd like proof to that point. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It has to be within the same color, I believe. MR. BROOKER: I heard something about 10 percent. MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry, what was the-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What is the '91 --let me see, it's right here. Trim accent areas may feature any colors limited to 10 percent of the affected facade segment, and a maximum trim height of 24 inches total for the shortest distance. MS. ARNOLD: And this goes around the predominant (sic) of the building. Page 57 June 18, 2007 MS. SORRELS: Right. But that's from '91. That wouldn't be current code right now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. But I'm just trying to-- because he keeps referring back to the older code. MS. SORRELS: Right. But the banding goes completely around both structures, definitely more than the 10 percent that would be allotted. Ma'am ma him. MS. CROWLEY: IfI could just be heard just for a few minutes. MR. BROOKER: Why wasn't the building official-- if this was in the code -- again, I wish that I would have gotten a call back to my letter as I requested. If in fact this was all in the code back in '93, why wasn't it caught? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, apparently according to the county's defense, it was never C.O.'d. So that might be the reason why. I don't know. MR. BROOKER: It was issued. The permit was issued. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The permit was issued but not C.O.'d. We've seen a lot of permits that have been issued and things not carried through because of complaints or problems within the permitting process on this board. So I'm having to look at a lot of different things, just to explain our point of view. But she wanted to speak and she has been sworn in, so let me give her the time. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. For the record, my name is Michaelle Crowley. M-I-C-H-A-E-L-L-E. C-R-O-W-L-E-Y. Collier County Code Enforcement. I also was a participate in the depositions leading up to the settlement agreement. Just a little bit of a background that you may not have been aware. Rock Oil, at the Site Gas Station, anticipating the Sign Code revisions that were going to be in effective on February the 1st of 2003 filed suit in our Collier County court prior to that date, Page 58 June 18, 2007 anticipating that they were going to have to change their pole sign. And so they sued the county to try to prevent us from addressing those . . . sIgn reVISIons. After depositions, during which time we discussed at length all the issues involving Rock Oil, including wall signs that have not even been mentioned today, the car wash in the back, occupational licensing, as well as the color banding and striping on the canopy structures and on the building itself. And I just wanted to point out, in the settlement agreement that you've already accepted as an exhibit, the agreement was binding on all parties, their successors, for everybody, and it was also amenable only by a written agreement specifically referring to the settlement agreement in itself. So from the very beginning in 2003 they anticipated our enforcement of the Sign Code for the pole sign, the canopy structures, the banding on the building itself, everything. And under the purposes of the agreement, it was to resolve all issues. We thought that they were going to cover everything, as the director had litigated. They chose, however, only to pursue the variance for the pole sign, ultimately abandoned that and have now changed the sign. It's now a legitimate ground sign, compliance with all codes, remaining __ leaving just the banding issues on the canopy and the building. MR. BROOKER: Madam Chair, ifI -- now we're talking about a lawsuit we filed. I hope that the fact that my client files a lawsuit in the county isn't held against him. He was exercising his rights and still today disputes the constitutionality of that sign code. But after going through the process, we elected not to pursue the lawsuit so that he would save attorneys fees and so would the county. And so we elected at that point in time to possibly seek a variance with regard to the pole sign. And when the time came, he elected to say you know what, I've been beaten into submission. Page 59 June 18, 2007 Forget it. I'm not even going to fight the pole sign, which was his major beef. He tore down the pole sign and what's there today is fully compliant with the code. But what he did otherwise is looked at his rights in each of those cases and corrected the vast majority of them. The canopy striping he still maintains today is legal. And he's -- I hope that this whole talk about a lawsuit doesn't bias the fact-finding mISSIOn. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think in my interpretation, I'm just saying from my point of view I think she was just pointing out the fact that that led to part of the stipulation agreement. I don't think that's going to have a whole lot of bearing on this board. Unless there's some other -- I'm going to close the public hearing, because we've extended beyond our time frame what we normally allow, and just open it up to the board first for a finding of fact. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: With that, does the county have a recommendation? MS. SORRELS: Yes, we do. The county recommends the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. The amount of $438.95. To remove the blue and red accent banding from the gas pump canopy and facade of main structure within 30 days of this hearing or Page 60 .-_._---"..__.__._-'--~----~--,-~_.._._._._.._.~-.."_..,._.~~-,., June 18, 2007 a $200 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Paint -- second part would be -- or third part, excuse me, paint on gas pump canopy and facade of main structure a soft earth tone or pastel color within 30 days of the hearing or a $200 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. And finally, the respondent must notify code enforcement so the investigator can make a final inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you place that on the overhead? MS. SORRELS: Yes, ma'am. MR. BROOKER: Madam, I know the public hearing is closed, but we have to get colors now approved. I believe there's a color wheel or something to that effect. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this point -- MR. BROOKER: And I would just ask a little bit of lenience for 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there also yellow banding? I saw yellow banding in the pictures. MS. SORRELS: If you want -- the way it appears to me is that the yellow is the color of the fascia and then the blue and red's the accent banding. So the accent banding would have to be removed from both structures and then the facade would have to be repainted a soft earth tone color or pastel. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the yellow would stay? MS. SORRELS: No, the yellow would not stay. It would have to be repainted. MR. LEFEBVRE: But in the recommendation I see that it says blue and -- MS. SORRELS: Red banding, correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Doesn't say anything about the yellow. MS. SORRELS: The yellow would be the next part, to repaint the gas pump canopies -- Page 61 _.~m'^"__"__~__~'.'~'_"'_"_'__'_'__"_"_"__'__'d_".._~"'.'~,__,... _ ._,__ June 18, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I just want to make sure that the respondent knows that the yellow -- MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- would also have to be repainted. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. BROOKER: Very clear. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I just want to be very explicit. MR. PONTE: I have a question for Jean, I guess. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PONTE: Jean, the -- why does not article six, the affirmation of defense, make the county's position moot? MS. RAWSON: That is an article that has to do with an affirmative defense, which has been discussed with you by the county attorney. And obviously you've already made your finding that a violation exists, and now you've moved on to trying to decide what to order. So at this point in time it's probably too late to ask that question. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I could clarify. The affirmative defense speaks to building structural type things that the building official would be responsible for, you know, issuing permits for. It does not address all the other requirements within the Land Development Code. If there was a setback requirement and it did meet that requirement, they would still have to go through the process and, you know, obtain whatever variance would be required. In this case we're not talking about building permit for the structure of the canopy, we're talking about paint colors, which is a separate provision within the zoning code that they failed to meet. We're not talking about the permit or the structural components. And that's why this does not -- noting the portion of the Land Development Code or the building code that requires obtaining a building permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does that help you? Page 62 '-~""---___'_'.___'___"_"_"..___m._,...__ __ ,.~ ____'"_.'.',._._._..,______ June 18, 2007 MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looking at the agreement, do we have any comments? MR. MORGAN: I have one. It appears to me that they agreed to change the color. That 91 and 93 ordinance is irrelevant. This is -- B is what I'm basing my opinion on. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm in my own mind wondering __ because we're going to have to get a contractor probably to remove the fascia or to change the coloring. I'm going to assume __ MS. ARNOLD: I don't think so. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't know if you can paint over them. MS. ARNOLD: I think I've seen them painted, yeah. Other gas station that have had to come through and get them painted __ MS. CROWLEY: It's actually like soft vinyl. It's the kind you peel it off and then they apply it right over top of it, usually. Although I have a couple of the older canopies that are more woodish, they do paint. But for the most part, over top of the metal they do a vinyl sheathing that's white or pastel. MR. BROOKER: The sign's are already on it. They have to be moved. MS. CROWLEY: I've actually seen them do it where they kind of go around it. But it is easier for them and faster if they remove the signs, you know, for an hour or two and they usually put the vinyl right on it. And then they put -- as long as they have the bucket truck to get up there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But that's generally done by a contractor, correct? MS. CROWLEY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Maybe 30 days is a little short. I think when we did this for Shell Oil, of course they were doing a number of buildings, we gave them what, almost a year? Page 63 June 18, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: That's way too long. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's way too long, I agree. In this case it's only one building. MR. LEFEBVRE: I could see 60 days. And I think the $200 a day fine may be a little bit excessive also. MR. KELLY: I also based my judgment on this case on the original stipulated agreement, as Jerry had mentioned. And I think that everything else that we've heard on both sides very well presented I think both had good points. But ultimately it falls to an agreement that was already reached, and a lot of time spent reaching that agreement. I don't think we should make further concessions. I think that both parties should just live up to what they originally agreed to years ago. I like the county's recommendation as is. MR. MARTIN: Sixty days is reasonable to get that work done. It is kind of complex. You just can't go in and paint the facade and take on metal or whatever. So I'd say at least 60 days to come into compliance. MR. MORGAN: I think 30 days is enough time. You can get somebody to do that work quickly. MR. KELL Y: Well, I can also tell you from experience that vinyl is the same vinyl they use on vehicles. Like for instance your sheriffs cars. And it's really more like a sticker, it's just made out of vinyl. And they have printers that run and actually etch lines and cut that whatever length, size, shape that they need. It will do lettering, it will do everything, and just rolls right off a printer. It's very simple. I can imagine once you find a contractor that not taking more than two or three days to complete. MR. MORGAN: You can change the whole fascia brand new in three or four days. That's no problem. They come in lengths and they bolt on the inside. You just take them down and put the new ones up. Page 64 June 18, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Are they going to need any permits for this? MS. SORRELS: Yes, they would have to obtain a per -- hold on, let me get that clarified. MS. CROWLEY: You need to remove the color. MS. SORRELS: Just to put the vinyl. MR. BROOKER: For the record, we don't need a permit to repaint? Is that what I'm hearing? I know for a fact we do. And I would be back before you if I do this without a permit. MS. CROWLEY: I know that prior to the adoption of the color wheel that Mr. Brooker referred to, the answer is you would not have needed any permits for painting. I do think that there is a permit requirement, because they want -- the county wants an opportunity to evaluate and make sure that the paint color is consistent with just the code. I believe there is a permit process. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We don't have that in our recommendation, so we would have to put that in. But typically how long does it take to obtain that type of permit? Because I know certain permits are expedient. MS. CROWLEY: About five days? It's very quick. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's a quick permit, okay. MS. ARNOLD: Is this something you're getting from the sign or the -- the color wheel portion of it is a different section. MS. CROWLEY: It's like the architectural design people. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. BROOKER: If! may, I talked to some people in the county, I think Keith Scammerhorn (phonetic). I don't know if he's still with the county. But at that time he said no, you're going to have to come in for a couple of meetings, we're going to have to compare paint chips, we want to make sure this is an earth tone soft pastel color, blah, blah, blah, even before we can submit for a permit. MR. KELL Y: With that being said, ifthere is an architectural review board, we would have to allow time -- Page 65 - -_.'_"'0.,-." "_.._~._..____.,_,____,__. June 18, 2007 MS. CROWLEY: No, it's just a staff person assigned to do the __ look at the color and say does it hit the wheel or is it more a primary color versus a pastel color. It's an issue of degree. MS. ARNOLD: The county wouldn't have any objection to extending the time period, since there's a question about, you know, whether or not a permit is required. MR. LEFEBVRE: We can make that a separate line item and say that the respondent has, number one would be 14 days to receive approval. MS. ARNOLD: Color approval. MR. LEFEBVRE: Color approval, thank you. With number two being remove the blue and red accent banding. And I guess the only question would be the amount of time. And number two on here, which would be number three, 30 days, how about giving instead of 30 days, 45 days? MR. KELLY: I'm okay with 60 days with the new review process. This is not a safety issue. Sixty days is fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to change this recommendation. Number one would be that they would have 14 days to get color approval from the county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And apply for a permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: And apply for a permit, if needed. Then under what would then be number three, it would be instead of 30 days from this hearing, it would be 60 days. MR. BROOKER: To? MR. LEFEBVRE: Sixty days to go ahead and make the changes at that point. MR. KELLY: If! may, on the 14 days, would it be to submit a permit? MR. LEFEBVRE: To get approval and submit a permit, if a Page 66 --""~-""-"._-~,~,,,,,~ June 18, 2007 permit it is needed. MR. KELL Y: Because that's the only gray area that I saw was actually getting the approval part of it. If there was somebody who wasn't, you know, in staff and needed to go to a secondary review, maybe that would take longer. MR. LEFEBVRE: According to the county it's one staff person that just looks at the color and approves a color, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I've got a question for you, because on their original one it has one, which would become two, to remove the blue and red accent banding. Is that 60 days now? Because you have two different ones. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Yes, that would be 60 days also. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So in other words the only thing we're adding is that there would be 14 days to submit for a permit. Once that permit is obtained you have to remove -- you have 60 days to remove the blue and red accent banding or a fine of $200 per day. And you also have 60 days to paint the gas pump canopy and facade to a soft earth tone approved color -- MR. KELL Y: I'll second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And there's a -- the motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. MS. ARNOLD: Can I have a point of clarification? The 14 days for the color approval and permit required, no fine associated with that; is that correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, actually, we'll keep the same fine also. Page 67 June 18, 2007 So I amend my motion that it be $200 a day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have to withdraw the whole vote. MR. LEFEBVRE: I withdraw my motion. MR. KELL Y: I apologize, that's how I understood it. I assumed that when you had made the recommendation that the $200 a day carried onto the 14 days as well. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I make another motion that it would include $200. MR. KELLY: And second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, basically to back up for you, you have 14 days in order to submit. MR. BROOKER: Submit, not obtain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. If you do not do that within that 14-day period, there will be a $200 a day fine attached to it. Once you have received the permit, you have 60 days to comply with the other parts of the -- MR. BROOKER: Sixty days from the time of obtaining the permit. I'm sure Jean will get this letter to me posthaste. MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm not sure I really understand it. You're giving him 14 days to submit for the color approval and to apply for a permit, if necessary. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MS. RAWSON: And then he's got 60 days to remove the blue and red accent from the date that he got the permit? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, because originally you said -- because that's not the county's recommendation. It's from the hearing date. And you were changing it from that hearing date. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. But we can't -- until he gets a permit. That's the way we've always followed it. Page 68 -..----"...-..--..------..-..., June 18, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm glad I have them here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that is the motion and that is the second. We'll again take the vote. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. PONTE: Opposed. MR. BROOKER: And Madam Chair, Michelle had asked for copies of all my exhibits that I mentioned. I have them here for the record. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just give them to Cherie'. MR. BROOKER: Thank you for your time. I know you went well beyond your normal time. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, before you leave, Clay. MR. BROOKER: Oh, no. MS. ARNOLD: Operational cost is included in that motion? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. BROOKER: That was a part of the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: With that, Cherie', would you like a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll take a 15-minute break. Come back 11 :27. (Recess. ) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. Page 69 ---~;.."~....." _._-_.~. June 18, 2007 And our next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Scott C. and Tammy S. Furst. MS. MARKU: For the record, 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 were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion to accept the county's packet as evidence, Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: So moved. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: The violation of Ordinance 2004, Florida Building Code, outdoor swimming pools, Sections 424.2.17.1.1 through and 424.2.17.1.14. Description of violation: No permanent protective barrier erected around perimeter of pool. Location address where violation exists: 111 Pebble Beach Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 54952840005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Furst, Scott C. and Tammy S. Date violation first observed: September 7th, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Good Page 70 .~-.................... ....--------...--. June 18,2007 service obtained March 14th, 2007, via posting. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 26th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: April 11th, 2007. Result of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to call Investigator Mario Bono. MR. BONO: Good morning. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BONO: Investigator Bono, Collier County Code Enforcement. Good morning. I think we've been taxed with those glamorous colors, so I'll try to make this quick and easy. I do want to enter into a -- some photos for Exhibit A regarding the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That would be Exhibit B. MR. BONO: -- the pool without the barrier. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept county's packet. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BONO: Would you like to see them? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, please. MR. BONO: This is the location in question at 111 Pebble Beach Boulevard. We have a pool there without a permanent protective barrier, whether it be a screen enclosure or a fence. There has been several communications with the owners. At this Page 71 June 18, 2007 point in time I do not believe they live there anymore. They have moved. And here we'll show from my communication what they were told to do. And now we have a -- a temporary barrier that was placed around the pool. And 10 and behold, as of this -- well, actually as of Friday they did get an issued permit to construct a fence around the pool. So as part of our recommendation to obtain a permit to a complete process, they actually have submitted and have been issued a Collier County permit to erect a four-foot high fence around the perimeter of the pool. Recommendations. MR. MORGAN: When do they expect this work to be completed? MR. BONO: I'm going to give them 90 days from the date of issue of the permit, which is June 15th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I just want -- it looks to be a very residential area from that photo, so I guess there are kids around. Is there any other barrier beyond the swimming pool that I'm not seeing? I mean, is the property fenced or is it a hazard where we ought to kind of move this along a lot faster than 90 days? MR. BONO: Good question. There is a fence behind that property. I'm not too sure of the ownership of that fence or of that barrier. Best that we could do is have them place a temporary barrier around the pool, which is shown by the orange fencing there. MR. PONTE: I guess, Investigator, what I'm asking you is, is it easy -- does the pool have easy access by children? MR. BONO: Yes and no. I would imagine that any rambunctious child can probably knock that stake over or the fence and get in there. MR. PONTE: Can he get around the house and get into that pool? Page 72 June 18, 2007 MR. BONO: If you are so inclined, yes, you could. MR. PONTE: Then I'd like to suggest that the county tighten up its performance requirements -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You have to find a violation first. MR. PONTE: -- on the part of the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We've got to find a violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: You've got to find a violation first. MR. KELL Y: I have a question. Part of George's question. There is a fence around the house. Does the fence close back into the dwelling? MR. BONO: No, it does not. MR. KELLY: Okay. So anyone walking from the front of the house to the rear could go along the sides -- MR. BONO: That is correct. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has a permit been pulled by a fence company? MR. BONO: No, it has been pulled by the owner themselves. MR. KELLY: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a recommendation? MR. BONO: I do. As part of our recommendation, I'd like to put this on the overhead as well. Page 73 June 18, 2007 You'll see from paragraph one, I would like to -- well, first address the operational charges of $229.17 to be paid by the respondent. Paragraph one would be stricken from that recommendation, as a permit has been issued as of June 15th. And we'll go back down to paragraph two, obtain all inspections through a certificate of completion and/or occupancy to complete the permit process within 90 days of the issued permit or a fine of $200 per day would be imposed. MR. PONTE: That's what I was trying to address there, because you had mentioned the 90 days. Given it's summer vacation time, kids are out, the whole nine yards, I just would like to see that shortened. MR. BONO: And I would agree with you to a point. I think because it's not being done by a contractor, I think that compounds, or can compound the problem of the owner. And I'm not -- again, it's not really our issue here, but 90 days in my estimate was fair. Certainly if the board deems otherwise, then we can speak about that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You want the respondent to notify code enforcement when the violation has been abated, et cetera? MR. BONO: That's correct. MR. KELLY: For the record real quick, did you say that it was the owner of the home that put up the temporary barrier on your recommendation? MR. BONO: That's correct. MR. KELL Y: So they are obviously showing willingness to comply. MR. BONO: Yes, they are. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When did they put up that temporary barrier? MR. BONO: That was done on 11/17 of 2006. Page 74 ._"-""-'--~----_P"~"''''''-'>~-->.,~ June 18, 2007 MR. PONTE: Did you also say, Investigator, that you thought that the owners had moved away? MR. BONO: I did say that. MR. PONTE: So is it vacant? MR. BONO: The house appears to be vacated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, George. MR. PONTE: That's even more reason, I would think, for shortening that period of time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's for us to decide. We can do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about 45 days? MR. MORGAN: How about 30 days? MR. PONTE: I would say 30 days. MR. MORGAN: Thirty days is satisfactory. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion? MR. PONTE: Well, I'll make a motion that the recommendation of the county be amended to read within 30 days of the issued permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which was June 15th. MR. PONTE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Page 75 June 18, 2007 Jean, do you understand what we did? MS. RAWSON: I think I do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Moving on to old business. Request for reduction of fines. Michelle, I'll turn it over to you. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. This first case is FRVG, LLC and Morandi Enterprises, Incorporated. That property was located off Davis Boulevard. And at the time it was for vegetation removal. They stripped the property, pretty much, and a violation was found. This case was heard by the board on February 26th, 2004. And at that time the property was owned by the respondent's name. Now it's since been purchased by Collier County. The fines that accrued for failure to revegetate the property total 164 -- 164,700. Part of the issue with that is they've gotten an approved site improvement plan, and on the site improvement plan it would correct the violation. But because they haven't developed the property yet to meet that site improvement plan, the fines just continue to accrue until that's done. As I noted before, the property has now been purchased by the county. The order didn't say, you know, get your site improvement plan and that's it. It also said vegetate the property to come into compliance. The county's here before you today, and I believe there's representation from the transportation department -- oh, there you are, I was looking in the back -- Diane Flagg. And what they're requesting is that the board consider abatement of the fine and understand that they are going to comply with the, you know, enhanced vegetation requirements once they develop the property. And I'll turn it over to Ms. Flagg. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 76 -'~-~_~__'_'____'_'__~~~h'__".,.,___._,..,,"..._."_,._...__.___._.__ June 18, 2007 MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Madam Chair, board members. Diane Flagg, director of alternative transportation modes for the transportation division. As Michelle indicated, the county purchased the property in December, 2006. The code enforcement staff provided us the amount of the fines that had accrued up to that point, and we've reduced the purchase price of the property Morandi at that point. In addition, as part of the executive summary that went to the Board of County Commissioners, we asked them to waive the continuing accruing of the fines at the point that the county purchased the property, which they agreed to do. What we would respectfully request today is that in the order it stated that Morandi had to replant the property according to the approved SDP site development plan within a certain time frame. Obviously we couldn't meet that time frame because we purchased the property a year or so afterward. But we have -- the county has submitted a site development plan consistent with the landscaping requirements that Morandi put forth, and we are seeking the community development's approval on that site development plan. We anticipate the approval of the site development plan mid or end of July. And we hope to have that property replanted, relandscaped by the end of December of this year. So what we're requesting is the amended time frame from, I think it was, '04 when Morandi had to plant the property. We're requesting that it be December 31 st of '07 that we will have that property replanted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, can we amend our original order in that manner? MS. RAWSON: You can. You can. This is an interesting case, because this is a request for reduction of fines as well. You can abate the fines and then they can do what they have to do whenever they do it. I think that's a lot better than Page 77 --.---+.-----. June 18, 2007 changing your order. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. But if we just abate the fines, then they have an open end, correct? MS. RAWSON: They do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And we wouldn't do that for anybody but the county, I'm sure. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MS. FLAGG: Well, we would ask that you have us have it planted by December of2007. Give us a date to have it replanted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's what I was asking Jean. Because that means that we would have to amend our original order, which is different than abating our fine. MS. ARNOLD: Right. I guess I misspoke, because I'm the one that said that they were requesting an abatement of fines. But Diane is saying that they want you to amend their order to give them a reasonable time to comply with the order. And I guess if you extend that time period and they exceed that time period, then the fines will begin from that date. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that means that we're amending our order then, correct? MS. RAWSON: It does. That's what they're requesting. We don't usually do that. I mean, there's nothing that prohibits you from doing it. We usually don't do that, change our orders from a couple of years ago. MR. PONTE: We don't ever do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Typically we wait until the violation is abated and at that point they come in front of us and ask for -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: An abatement. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- an abatement. MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. PONTE: I think that -- why don't we go that way? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think just to keep us in the same Page 78 June 18, 2007 sequence of what we would handle for everybody else, because I don't want to show -- MS. FLAGG: Agreed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- precedence to the county and preference to the county, we're going to tell you the same thing we tell everybody else. Go ahead, get it abated, come back to us at that time and then ask for us to look at the fine and abate it at that time. MS. FLAGG: Okay. All right, great. MS. RAWSON: Well, let me ask you this, then: Is the county withdrawing any request for imposition? MS. ARNOLD: Right, because that's really why the item was brought before you, to impose fines. So I guess we could withdraw that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just don't want to get into a sticky wicket with changing precedence. MS. ARNOLD: One interesting thing that makes it-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The board has already said we're not accruing fines anymore. MS. ARNOLD: Right, exactly. Because one of the items that was brought before the Board of County Commissioners when they did the purchase of this property is to waive the accrual of fines. So the fines, when they -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Stopped. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the fines stopped. So if you amend your order, which really doesn't affect anything, because the board has stopped the accrual of fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right, so I would rather wait until they finish and then abate the fines at that time, if that makes sense. Am Ion the right path, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You are. The fines have stopped accruing. But there's still some fines out there which the county can ask us to impose or not. Page 79 June 18, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's a unique situation because, as Ms. Flagg indicated, when they purchased the property they reduced the price of the property for the amount that the fines were at that point. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. So the county has already saved that money, technically. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just -- I don't want to treat the county any differently than I would if they were Jane Doe. MR. KLATZKOW: Treat us the same way you treat everybody else. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And in that case, I would rather them come into compliance, fulfill their agreement by December, and at that time, because those fines are still out there, she can come, explain the situation to us and we can decide whether or not to abate it at that time. I feel much more comfortable with that. Because the county has already -- the Board of County Commissioners has already stopped accruing the time. And I'm speaking on behalf of the whole board, but that's I think that's the legal way we would have normally done it. MS. RAWSON: Well, that would require, I think, Michelle, for you to maybe just withdraw the item from the agenda. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Okay. Then you don't have to decide anything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next? MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this next case is Board of County Commissioners versus David Woodworth. I believe Mr. Woodworth is in the audience. This matter was brought before you on May 26th, 2005. A finding of fact was entered into and has been provided to you for your reVIew. Page 80 -----.-.--'--~.-._"___._..m'___._~.___._._ June 18, 2007 The respondent has complied with that order. Staff at this point in asking for fines in the amount of $1 ,388.05, which includes operational costs of$988.05, and an additional penalty at $100 per day between July 24th, 2005 and July 28th, 2005, for $400. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is Mr. Keegan here, too? MS. ARNOLD: This case was Dennis Mazzone's case, I believe. MR. MAZZONE: Good morning. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: Yes, I believe that Mr. Woodworth is here to ask for a reduction or elimination of a certain amount of these fines, and it would be the county's position that we don't grant that request. Mr. Woodworth was given -- he took nine months to resolve this matter. He sent a letter to Collier County, which is critical of our -- of my investigation, versus Mr. Keegan's second investigation of this property, in that he's stating that we should have directed him to demolish the home to begin with. We, Collier County Code Enforcement, cannot give that direction without an inspection by our building department. That wasn't the reason why we were at that property initially. We were there to correct housing violations which Mr. Woodworth did address. But again I have to state, it took him nine months to do so, and he wasn't very cooperative in doing that. We also have a total of some 17 odd cases with Mr. Woodworth, and one of them's already taken 15 months. It's not this case. But I would recommend that we issue these fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Woodworth, if you would step up to the podium. MR. WOODWORTH: You know, I've been in the county since '69. And the problem I keep seeing is that you keep changing the rules every -- you know, whatever the rules are, they keep changing. And the requirements, it's -- the reason that I wrote that letter was that I met with the supervisor, Mr. Mazzone, and Mr. Keegan and with Page 81 June 18, 2007 another gentleman there. And Mr. Keegan was talking about the swaying of the roof. And I appeared before the zoning -- I guess it was you back in 2000. I had pictures of the house with the sagging roof. You know, Mr. Keegan says that sagging roof has to be dealt with, you know. And he talks about the paint again, you know, it needs to be repainted or something. And, you know, I'm at a point where, you know, ifMr. Mazzone had said, well, you know, you have a sagging roof, you need -- this building really probably shouldn't remain, you know, this could have been solved back then, really, you know. The only estimate I've gotten for the demolition is like $3,200. I've been paying taxes forever on the property. Last year they were $1 ,400. You know, I've been -- I pay utilities, I pay garbage. The house is vacant, okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Woodworth, do you have any evidence as to why we should reduce this fine today? MR. WOODWORTH: Well, to me it seems like I'm in a revolving door with you -- with the county. You know, it's -- I try. I do -- you know, Mr. Mazzone talks about all the cases. You know, maybe, you know, I do own -- I own property, okay? I'm in real estate. I'm a real estate agent. I don't know -- when I'm aware of a problem, when I'm told of it, I try to rectify it, okay? And, you know, maybe -- I didn't think it went on for that long, nine months. But I mean, he mentioned about the porch, the sagging with the floor sagging. That was repaired. The house was painted. You know, I mean, it -- now, you know, it's weeds or something. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're dealing with this particular case which was heard before us on May 26th. MR. WOODWORTH: Well, the other thing about --let me say something. This case was 2005. When I got this notice back in January, I didn't change -- I was scheduled to be out of town. I said Page 82 ~._----,..--._.'".__.._---_._._._--~-,,--_._..."'._. June 18, 2007 there's nothing -- I don't know anything about any problem with that house. And I couldn't -- in my mind I couldn't visualize why -- you know, what are they doing? What are you doing, I guess. I couldn't understand two years later coming back and fining me for something I did two years ago. I couldn't understand it. I mean, in my head I didn't understand it until I got a letter from the attorney. I mean, you need to be clearer on how you send out notices. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There's a process. Everybody goes through it that comes before us. You have a time frame that you're given. And there is a letter that is sent to you that tells you what needs to be fixed and the time frames that are involved that you've been given to fix those. Once that has been accomplished, or not, fines start accruing or they don't. Upon that time you had apparently you misjudged your time frame and you overlapped it by four days. And what's what we're doing right now is imposing you for the operational cost of what it costs to bring it before this board and for those four days that you did not come into compliance and you exceeded the time frame that you were given two years ago. That's all we're doing. That's what this is involved on this particular case. MR. WOODWORTH: Well, it seems excessive to me. MR. MAZZONE: May I speak again, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. MAZZONE: Thank you for the promotion to supervisor. Michelle, take that into consideration. MR. WOODWORTH: No, no, I said I met with-- MR. MAZZONE: I'm still speaking. MR. WOODWORTH: -- Mr. Mazzone, the supervisor and Mr. Keegan and another gentleman. MR. MAZZONE: I'm not a supervisor, but that's quite all right. When we started this case, we had at-length discussions with Mr. Woodworth as to what he intended to do with this property. Because Page 83 June 18, 2007 we didn't have an inspection from the building department. And Mr. Woodworth stated that he wanted to put his mother in this home. He therefore wanted to fix the problems. Indeed, there was a delapidated portion of the roof that was then a carport. He removed that. He took a great deal of time in doing it, but he did remove that. He also removed the flooring that was decayed and falling apart. And he patched the house. But it took months to do so. And it took a lot of work on our part to try to keep him going on this project, because he simply stopped. And this is the history of Mr. Woodworth, unfortunately. He does have many properties in this town, or at least a few, and -- but the history is consistent. His other property is taking 15 months now to correct a situation on another property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Dennis, we don't -- MR. MAZZONE: It has knowing to do with this property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm actually think we can move forward. I'm ready to close the public hearing part. MR. MORGAN: I do remember this case. I thought at that time that it should be demolished. That was my feeling. I don't know about the rest of my colleagues. George, I don't whether you remember the case. MR. PONTE: I don't remember it that well. MR. MORGAN: I do. MR. LEFEBVRE: As a board, the operational costs, we cannot reduce those. But in regards to the fines, we do have a choice to reduce those or not. So that's where we're at today, if we're going to reduce those fines or not. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any comments from the board? MR. KELL Y: I have one. On Mr. Woodworth's discussion, being here since 1969, I'm sure he's had firsthand experience seeing how much this county has changed. And seeing as how we continue to evolve, maybe he's being caught up in the middle of it. But the Page 84 June 18, 2007 truth is I think he was given ample time, as the investigator has pointed out. I think the fines should stay. MR. MORGAN: I don't think we're in a revolving door. I think it's cut and dried. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other opinions? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose the fines of $1,388.05. MR. KELL Y: If I may, the fines have been imposed. This is just a request for -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, we're imposing the fines. MR. KELL Y: There's an order that says they were imposed back in January. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, so we'll just -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It's basically a denial then of the request? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to deny the request for reduction of fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next is Board of County Commissioners versus Calexico, Inc. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard before you all on August 24th, 2006. And we also imposed the fines, didn't we? Page 85 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, I think he's coming for a reduction. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, this is for a reduction. Mr. White is here, representing Mr. Santos. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cherie', would you like to swear them both in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. WHITE: Good morning, Madam Chair. Barely under the wire as to the morning, but hopefully we can disclose of this case before your luncheon break. Board members, good morning to you as well. My name is Patrick White. I'm with the law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur. I'm here representing Santos Ossorio today, Calexico, Incorporated. To cut to the chase on the case, you've been provided my packet with a motion and backup materials. We did not specify a dollar amount that we thought may be a reasonable punitive fine, but we've had discussions with the county before the meeting and believe that if this board would consider our respectful request to reduce the fine amount to $2,500, which my client is prepared to pay today, the county is agreeable to that, and hopefully we can conclude the matter. If you'd like to have me give you more information as to how I believe we complied with the factors that would warrant the reduction of the fine in that regard beyond what's in the motion, certainly I have some additional factual information in that respect that I can share with you. But if it's your pleasure to reduce it to the $2,500, the operational costs have already been paid, we would be most appreciative. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thomas? MR. KEEGAN: The county agrees with the amount that we agreed with outside. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. The board have any Page 86 June 18, 2007 questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: When would the respondent be paying that amount? MR. WHITE: Within moments after you hopefully approving it. We have a check today. MR. KELLY: I'd like to know, just out of curiosity, why it went over the time restraints. Was it a fault of the respondent or was it perhaps a fault of the county in the permitting process? MR. WHITE: I'll attempt to answer that. I think that there's been evidence in this case, some communication issues with my client. He's not a native English speaker. But suffice it to say, that the understanding he had originally was that he may be able to have done the work himself, not realizing he'd have to retain a contractor. When he finally found the contractor who was willing and able to do it, and to work with him, which Mr. Williams did do, Mr. Williams went to apply for the permits, he discovered that they had to be engineered drawings, even though the work itself may have substantially already been completed. They then had to retain an engineer to prepare the drawings. And those were the reasons for the delays. I believe that my client made a diligent and persistent effort to the best of his ability, working with the resources he had, so -- MR. KELL Y: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. KELL Y: I remember this case now. Mr. Keegan, you would agree that they did get on the ball once we understood -- MR. KEEGAN: I agree with the price we agreed with outside. MR. KELLY: Okay. Very good. MR. WHITE: It is a totality of the factors that you're entitled to consider. And we've asked that you balance the equities in this case. Page 87 June 18, 2007 MR. PONTE: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the terms of the agreement made between the county and the respondent for the fine to be reduced to $2,500. MR. KELLY: I'd like to point out that we also have the option to receive less, even though that's what's agreed. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Good day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next order for reductions is Marlene Santilli. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This is going to be a teleconference. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is this the lady that you said we'd hear from again? Okay. About the abandoned cars and things on her property. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, boat and cars and that type of thing. And we've already imposed the fines. And at the time that we imposed it, she was asking for a reduction. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ms. Santilli, my name is Sheri Barnett. I'm the Code Enforcement Board Chair. You're asking for a reduction of the fines that have been imposed on you. Could you tell me why you feel we should reduce those fines, please? MS. SANTILLI: Yes. What I'm asking for is that the fines be Page 88 June 18, 2007 reconsidered. MS. ARNOLD: Ms. Santilli, can we ask you to stop for a minute. We need to swear you in. In fact, what's going to happen is -- this is Michelle Arnold talking right now. I'm going to swear that I recognize your voice, because I've spoken to you many times. (Speakers were sworn. Ms. Santilli was sworn telephonically.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MS. SANTILLI: Okay. Well, I don't know how far to back up or -- I've been told that this is not to rehear the whole situation, you know, the whole story, this is just to talk about the fines. I believe that my major reason that I would like the fines reconsidered is because we have, from almost the very beginning, about a month into this entire project, have involved the police. Because the vehicles, the boats and the cars and three-wheelers were all just dumped there. And so it's been kind of coordinating, as best as we understood ourselves, two different offices, your office as well as then the police. And when we started to move the -- the police investigation, as far as what we were told, actually happened when we were not down there. Because we had made several trips down there, a total of five over the course ofthis last year. But for just that, for just this situation. But the police ended up conducting the investigation on their own. Because we had met with them; we flew there twice to meet with them. But for reasons of weather, of flooding, it didn't happen in our presence. So they said that they could then still conduct the investigation and we didn't have to fly down there a third time. So we think it happened sometime around December, which would have been very close to the same time that your office made the decision to move it to a hearing. Page 89 June 18, 2007 So around the end of January, February time frame is when we-- because there were many difficulties, very hard to find people who would do it, ethical people who we felt we could believe really were going to remove the vehicles and not just dump it on some other lot or dump it in the canal. There were just many, many complications. A lot of, too, the ethical companies didn't want to get involved because the vehicles weren't titled in our name. And we were learning as we were going. I think I could be better at it, God forbid it ever happened again. But I'm not saying I didn't make mistakes or couldn't have done a better job, but the bottom line is we had -- without even knowing of fines, we did not receive the notice that said fines began March 25th. Without even knowing that, we did remove all the stuff, all the vehicles, three-wheelers, except for one small boat which was being detained because we had not received any confirmation yet from the police about the investigation. In fact, we didn't receive formal closure until April 30th of this year. But because in an e-mail that I had gotten from Thomas where he had gone out on the 26th, respecting the 25th date, which I did not know about, he had mentioned that since there's one boat sitting there, your fines will accrue. And that's what -- that was my first notice that there were fines and that there was accruing. And with that, I simply made the decision well, I have to move it and it's a trade-off. You know, I very much wanted -- that boat had some I.D., we were hopeful -- it's very confusing now. Along the path -- I think your department can talk to how careful I am about documentation and trying to keep things organized, as best as I understand it. And I would likewise with the police. But I've not received to date anything in writing. They don't operate bye-mail. It's all been by phone. And I'm disappointed I don't have something in hand to even prove there's an investigation that went on. There's a case number and I can give you the officers names and their phone numbers. You know, I would ask that you then confirm with them. Page 90 June 18, 2007 But really, we were really caught between two agencies. And it's my understanding that while in this investigative process the -- I don't believe -- it's not like your office, one person's assigned it and your people keep that job and that assignment. It's easier to maneuver within your structure. The police people come and go, your case is reassigned to different people, their hours change. And at the beginning there was even a little bit of batting back and forth in the police department as to whether or not they thought it was worth their time or even criminal. So it was just a lot of, oh, two steps forward, one step back, one step forward, two steps back, that kind of -- without a learning curve or without any understanding as to how this is handled, wow, should it be handled. I've never had it happen before. We're in compliance. We try to live our lives in compliance. This has been very expensive for us. We have spent thousands on this to try to do it the right way. We paid people that took our money and didn't do anything. People who tried to do it, their equipment broke down, and we're responsible for the repairs of their equipment. So it really became so much more than just get that car or that boat out of there. At least -- like I say, we could have complicated it by our inexperience, and also my insistence that I wanted there to be an investigation. I am concerned that if I don't do my part to try and hold ground with this kind of vandalism, my gosh. You know, we all no doubt own property out there. And just because it's out there, it's kind oflike where there's not a lot of homes, it just shouldn't be okay. But I don't have any -- you know, for all of this, I don't have what I think warrants the time. I do apologize for that. I do think it went way too long. I don't have the results. The police investigation as of the 30th, I was told -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ms. Santilli, I think we understand some of the issues. There are only certain grounds where we can grant -- Page 91 June 18, 2007 MS. SANTILLI: I'm sorry, could you say that again? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There are only certain grounds in which this board can grant reductions. We cannot change operational costs, so those are -- that's only up to the county. But at this time I'm going to stop you, because we can only give 20 minutes for testimony for a regular case, and I've heard pretty much what I need to hear in order to understand that you've had some difficulties. But I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Keegan and let him have his say so that we can make a decision on this. MS. SANTILLI: But did I make the point though that we did not have police permission for that boat? And that boat had the most viable I.D., the one that we were betting on would turn up some sort of accountability . CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, ma'am, you did. MS. SANTILLI: That's why that boat was the most important of all the vehicles. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, ma'am, we understand that. MS. SANTILLI: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: The county would just like to say, you heard this case before, the time lengths, and that's all the county has to say. MR. KELLY: I have a question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. KELLY: Was the boat the only thing that went into violation and caused the excess time over? MR. KEEGAN: It was two boats and two vehicles on the property . MS. SANTILLI: I can't hear what's going on, if it's important for me to hear. We don't hear what's being said, if! need to hear. MS. BARNETT: At this time -- can you hear me? MS. SANTILLI: Yes, I hear you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Keegan was asked by one of the board members if a single boat was the only thing left on the Page 92 June 18, 2007 property that -- when it went into noncompliance. And he was referencing that there was more than just one boat. There was two boats and two vehicles -- MR. KEEGAN: Two boats and one vehicle. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Two boats and one vehicle at the time that it lapsed into noncompliance. And that was the question and that was the answer. MS. SANTILLI: Which noncompliance, though? I think if you mean on March 26th he sent an e-mail, which is when I was informed that there were fines. And in that e-mail he says, I am letting you know that one boat remains so that you are thus not in conformance, or whatever word he used, and that fines will accrue. It was a very short e-mail that he sent on the 26th, one day after that 25th cut-off. So he in his e-mail -- he might be talking about a prior cut-off date of some sort. But for the one that fines were then put into motion, there was the -- only the one boat. Everything else was off the property, and his e-mail confirm it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. KEEGAN: I have March 7th, you guys gave her to the 23rd to abate the violations. 26th I made a site visit, two vehicles and one boat removed. So it was one boat remains. So she is correct on that. Sorry. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So it's just the one boat. MR. KEEGAN: So on the 5th I made the site visit and the boat remained on the property. On the 10th I made a site visit to post the notice of hearing, and that's when I saw that the boat has been removed and I closed the case and turned it over to the coordinator. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: Mrs. Santilli, do you have documentation of when you removed the majority of the vehicles? MS. SANTILLI: It would have been -- Rene, did it happen that Page 93 June 18, 2007 February, March of this year, right? I don't think we touched anything until -- that's Rene Vasquez. He is who has flown to Florida all those visits, and he really handles all that. He's the one that met with the police. I don't know ifhe needs to be sworn in. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have one question for you to answer. Do you know when you took the majority of the automobiles and boats off of the property? MS. SANTILLI: It would have been February of this year. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have documentation? Have you supplied documentation to the county regarding that? That date. If you had a reputable company, they would have sent you an invoice stating it's been removed, which you could have forwarded to the county . Sir, we can't hear you. MS. SANTILLI: He's looking for record of the payment. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We cannot take his testimony because we did not swear him in. MS. SANTILLI: Do I need to answer then? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If you can answer the question, yes, please. MS. SANTILLI: The business was all -- the business of moving -- all that was taken off the property was conducted by March 6th -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: March 6th? MS. SANTILLI: March 5th. Because we paid them on the 6th. The last boat happened in April. April 6th. Good Friday. I remember that because it was Good Friday. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. PONTE: I have a question for clarification from the investigator. Is the property now clear? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? Page 94 June 18, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time I'm going to close the public hearing, Mrs. Santilli. What we're going to do is make a motion as to whether or not to reduce your fines or to stay with the current fines as they are, okay? MS. SANTILLI: You want me to make a motion? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, we're making that decision. We'll let you know what we've decided. Okay? MS. SANTILLI: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: If the final boat was removed on the 6th, do we include that as part of the fines? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's been tabulated. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we did March 26th through April 6th. And I believe we counted March 26th, which is the day after it was required. 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th. Is that only 30 days? 31? MR. KELLY: Thirty-one. MS. ARNOLD: And then five more days, which would be 11 days. MR. PONTE: Given the fact that the property is now in compliance and in light of all what we have heard from the respondent in her working with the police department and trying to do this in absolutely the proper way, I make a motion that the fine be abated. MR. MARTIN: Second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: (Indicating.) MR. KELL Y: Opposed. Page 95 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What do we do, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I think a tie-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A tie goes to the -- MS. RAWSON: I think the tie means it's denied. MS. ARNOLD: The motion's denied. You can make another motion or -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A lesser amount, if you want, or MR. KELLY: I make a motion that the fine portion be $275 plus the operational cost. Basically splitting the difference of the fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MARTIN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MR. MORGAN: (Indicating.) MS. RAWSON: Passes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ms. Santilli? MS. SANTILLI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What we have done is we have reduced the fine to $275, plus the operational cost. MS. SANTILLI: Okay. All right then. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the operational cost it is 269.51. So your total is -- Michelle, have you got it? MS. ARNOLD: $544.51. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: $544.51. MS. SANTILLI: All right, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're welcome. Page 96 June 18, 2007 MS. SANTILLI: Bye-bye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Bye-bye. We'll move to request for impositions of fines and liens. First case is Board of Collier County Commissioners verse Thomas and Marian Baker. And at this time I'm going to have to turn it over to you, because I was reaccused from both of these cases due to the association of my husband with the Sheriffs Office using this. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you swear in the respondent, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on November 15th, 2006. The violation was for vegetation removal and fill and grading of the property without appropriate permits from the county. A violation was found. The order is provided for your review. The violation is still unresolved. I think the only thing that actually is unresolved right now is obtaining an affidavit of vegetation removal permit. I think a site visit has been obtained. And so fines continue to accrue until that vegetation removal permit is attained. Number one and item number three of the order were -- fines were accrued at a rate of $150 per day between the period of March 16th and April 30th, for a total of$6,750. For item number two and four of the order, fines accrued again at the rate of $150 per day between the period of March 16th through June 8th for a total of $3,450. And operational costs for this particular case was $1,116.40. And they have not been paid. MR. BAKER: I wasn't made aware of this. I was told when we did the deal here, when I got my site development plan, which I finally got after two and a half years, and it was an act of God to get this thing just to build the parking lot. When I got my site development plan -- and I've been working with Jeff Cosgrove on it, and he helped me with Jeff Wright to get this thing done. It was a nightmare. I mean, just total -- if somebody says they can do it in 60 days, give them two years, because it can't be Page 97 June 18, 2007 done. I did everything that Jeff and -- both Jeffs. They helped me do everything with this thing to get all the permits, with the sidewalks, every permit. I paid everything. I paid over $90,000 out of my pocket to make this thing work. I got my site development plan. When I signed the paper saying I got my site development plan, I was supposed to get something back from the county from the paper I signed with Susan O'Farrell. I never got anything back from them, until about a week and a half ago, I got something back. Well, my secretary got a phone call from Code saying I had something I had to pay. And I didn't know anything about it. As far as I knew, and as far as I talked to Jeff, I was done with this thing. This thing was all done. I paid all the permits, $7,500 plus in permits for trees, sites, everything there was to pay. I've been paying and it's done. I got my permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: When are you going to be completed with this? There's still one outstanding part to this. MR. BAKER: Which part? I've got a contractor corning in. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Baker, we called your office before the due date for the vegetation removal permit. I had my staff call and they spoke to Boquin (phonetic) and explained to him that a vegetation removal permit needed to be obtained, that it was actually ready to be picked up. And we gave you the cost of that permit, we talked to Mr. Keene, who was the engineer, and it has not been picked up. And so fines for that particular part is continuing today. MR. BAKER: I paid a vegetation fee, $250 fee when I did my permit. I got it. I mean, I paid it. Boquin paid it. I give him 7,500 bucks. I paid the fee for vegetation for everything they got. And I was doing it -- Jeff was helping me do this. I went down, I wrote a check for the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: But currently you're not in compliance. Page 98 June 18, 2007 MR. BAKER: I got my site development permit. That's as far as I can go. I got a contractor corning in to do the digging and piping and whatever they do. MR. LEFEBVRE: In understand correctly, that's the last part. You have to complete that before you corne into compliance. MR. BAKER: No, my deal was I get my site development plan so I can hire a contractor to corne do the job. MR. LEFEBVRE: You need to pick up your permit. MR. BAKER: No, I got the permit. I got everything. I'm done. Jeff said I'm done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Swear in the investigator, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, environmental specialist. I'll just give you a brief rundown. On the 2nd of May, I did call the engineer, which was Boquin, and inform them that they needed to get an after-the-fact vegetation removal permit. Which was in the board's orders stating that they do need to obtain this. It was also in the stipulation that was signed by Mr. Baker at the time of the hearing. On the 14th I did get a phone call from Mr. Baker's office asking what they still need to do, and I informed them that they did need to get the after-the-fact vegetation removal permit, and that was all that was left to be done with this case. MR. BAKER: And when I talked to Boquin he said, you already paid for a permit, why do you have to go buy another one? I paid the 250 bucks for the vegetation -- MS. WALDRON: The clarification on that is that the after-the-fact vegetation removal permit is issued by code enforcement, because the vegetation removed before the site development plan was accepted by the county. So ifthere were any other vegetation removal permits issued, that was for things that could be corning in the future. That doesn't have anything to do with this Page 99 June 18, 2007 case. MR. BAKER: The vegetation that was removed was removed -- was paper trees, pepper trees and dead trees. And when I brought Affordable Tree in and I said okay, what do I need to do to get rid of these trees, code enforcement carne in and said you have bad trees. You have paper trees, you had trees that are dead. You have to remove them. I paid Affordable Tree to corne in, $5,000, to clear the junk trees out. All the exotics and non-native plants. And that's where that carne from. I had about 20 trees get chopped off by the hurricane, too. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the permit there to be picked up, Michelle? MS. WALDRON: I have the permit with me today. MS. ARNOLD: I also spoke with Michelle I guess in your office. MR. BAKER: Yeah, she's on vacation. MS. ARNOLD: And explained to her -- what she told me was that Mr. Baker was under the impression that the amount of the permit, which an after-the-fact is four times the cost of the permit. Original fee is 250. An after-the-fact would be $1,000. She indicated to me that Mr. Baker was under the impression that the $1,000, which is a permit fee, was a fine. And he didn't want to pay that. And after I explained that to her, she said she was going to attempt to explain that to Mr. Baker. I don't know whether or not that conversation was had. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the process here, if I'm not mistaken, the permit needs to be picked up and then a site visit, correct? MS. WALDRON: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or has the site -- MS. WALDRON: No. The vegetation's already been removed, so -- MR. BAKER: Not all of it. MS. WALDRON: -- there's no inspection. Page 100 June 18, 2007 MR. BAKER: There's still quite a few trees there. MS. ARNOLD: Which is probably the 250 fee that he paid for the vegetation that's still on the property. What we're trying to get him to get is an after-the-fact vegetation removal for the vegetation that was already removed. MR. BAKER: The vegetation that's there now are cypress trees, which I cannot remove. And I gave the county an entire easement on the north side of the property, which Jeffs office held me with to get all the -- and that cost me 450 bucks just to get the easement to make that work. So I gave the county all this land. MR. LEFEBVRE: The after-the-fact permit is the permit that he needs to pick up pay for -- MS. WALDRON: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- and then he will be in compliance; is that correct? MS. WALDRON: Right, which was stated in the board's orders. MR. BAKER: I never got the board's orders. They never mailed them to me. Nobody's ever done it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Were you at our hearing? MS. WALDRON: But you signed the stipulation, which -- MR. BAKER: I signed it, but they never sent it to me. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. When you signed it, you agreed to it at that point. MR. BAKER: Yeah, but I didn't see where it said on the bottom. I signed it, they said they were going to mail it to me, so I knew what it said. I didn't know what it said. I mean -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The thing here now, you still are not in compliance. You need to still pick up your permit and pay for it, if I'm correct, which would be $1,000. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Once you pay for the permit and pick it up, you will be in compliance. And at that point the fines will be no Page 101 June 18, 2007 longer accruing. And as you heard before when you were sitting down, I personally would not like to change our order. I'd like to see you corne -- once you get that permit, then corne back to us to ask for this to be abated, or reduced or whatever you want to do. Now, I guess that's where we stand. If someone wants to make a ruling, I'll close the hearing. At this point do you have anything else to say? MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.) MR. LEFEBVRE: I close the hearing. MR. KELL Y: I have a suggestion. If it's just as simple as picking up a permit and at that particular point fines would cease accruing, maybe we should table this to next month, have Mr. Baker back to remind us of the situation and decide then if we're going to impose fines. MR. PONTE: But the permit's here right now. The investigator has the permit here in her possession. Cross the room, hand him his permit. Why can't we -- MR. LEFEBVRE: There's a cost involved, though. MR. PONTE: Yeah, that's okay. MR. BAKER: I've got a check in my pocket. I've got the cash in my pocket. MR. PONTE: And it's done. MR. BAKER: And then we're done with fines, we're done with me and the code board. We're done. I don't want to see you guys agam. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you would see us if you request to have fines reduced. MR. BAKER: Well, let's reduce them now. I request it right now. Let's request -- I request that -- I paid 1,000 bucks, we be done with all this, so I don't have to corne back, waste my time, waste your time. We're done. I think Jeff will agree to it. I don't want to corne Page 102 June 18, 2007 back here. MR. KLATZKOW: This case was a nightmare for Mr. Baker. It really, really was. I mean, Mr. Baker spent an awful lot of money, an awful lot of time and an awful lot of effort to get this thing done. And I would like to see this thing done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I guess the question that I have to Jean, if at this moment he's requesting -- he states that he'll pay the $1,000, he will receive the permit right now, can we have him request the abatement of the fines? MS. RAWSON: He can make an oral motion at any time during the imposition of fines. It would not be the first time this has happened that people make an oral motion that they want a reduction or an abatement of their fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: But could we at that point hear it today? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. BAKER: Okay, let's do it. I'm ready. MS. ARNOLD: I just would say, the $1,000 for the permit would be outstanding, and then operational costs in the amount would also be outstanding. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right, so it would be $1,000 plus the operational costs, which at this point -- MR. PONTE: 1,100 bucks. MR. KELLY: Mr. Baker? So in other words you're prepared to pay the $1,000 to get the permit. And then there is also operational costs of $1,116.40, which we as a board do not have any rights to either abate or reduce. That is county operational costs. We don't have any control over that. MR. BAKER: Okay. MR. KELL Y: Are you willing to pay that today? MR. BAKER: Okay, let's do it. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I just clarify that -- you know, I understand Page 103 June 18, 2007 what Jeff is saying, the case was a nightmare. I want him to clarify, it wasn't our part, it was probably on the other side. We tried to work with Mr. Baker every step of the way. Sometimes it was very difficult to work with him. And, you know, you all have the right to obviously abate the fine. It wouldn't be our position that it should be a full reduction. MR. LEFEBVRE: We're going to take this in two parts. The first part is let's take it in one step, that he agrees to pay the operational costs and $1,000 for a permit. Let's get that to agreement. And then our abatement and fines would be based on that being taken care of. Is that a little -- MS. ARNOLD: Would you put a time period on the payment of that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right now. Today. He has a check. He said he's -- MR. BAKER: I think I've got a check. MS. RAWSON: Well, there are two orders which we can put into one. One is the order on his motion for reduction or abatement of fines, and the other one is an order imposing fines. So you can put it in one motion or you can put it in two motions. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Now-- MR. KELL Y: I'll continue and try to make that motion. I make a motion that the county abate all fines, pay the operational cost of$I,116.40, pay $1,000 to pick up the permit, have that done within 24 hours. MR. MARTIN: I second that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: And let's take a vote. All in favor? Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. Page 104 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Abstain. MR. BAKER: Who gets the check? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right over there. MR. BAKER: So we're done? MR. LEFEBVRE: We're done. MR. BAKER: Cool. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. The next imposition of fines is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Rodolfo Estrella and Maria Estrella. That's spelled E-S-T-R-E-L-L-A. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on March 22nd, 2007. The violation was for unpermitted addition, building to the rear of the home. The order that was entered into is enclosed in your packet for your review. The respondent has complied with that order and that compliance date was May 30th, 2007. The county is at this time asking for fines and operational costs to be imposed -- actually, the operational costs have been paid. Fines would be from the period of May 22nd, 2007 through May 30th, 2007 for a total of$I,600. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: I can honestly say, Mr. Estrella did call me. I think there was -- he didn't understand the whole process, even though it was explained at the hearing. I think he had a hard time going through it. Not with any departments, I think just with himself understanding everything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Estrella, do you have anything to say? MR. ESTRELLA: Yeah. I say my case I think is a little bit like the past man in the case, because what happened to me, to do all the job, so that's why I'm asking for reduction in the fine, you know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you have difficulty in obtaining permits, or did you have to have -- Page 105 June 18, 2007 MR. ESTRELLA: Yes, a lot of problem. I had to go to a different office, go there, go there, go there and papers, papers. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you have anybody help you with the language barrier? MR. ESTRELLA: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think maybe that might have been part of it. MR. KEEGAN: I believe so. MR. KELL Y: Madam Chair, when he carne before us last time, I believe he already had a permit. It was just we gave him 60 days to complete the work. And according to his testimony, it just took him himself longer than 60 days. He didn't realize what he was getting himself into. I don't -- I'd like to reduce the fines in some way, if there's a recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Keegan, do you feel like he tried to resolve this issue to the best of his ability as quickly as he could, under the understanding that he had? MR. KEEGAN: I do. But I still believe he was brought here for a violation, so I'm kind of in the middle. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, you're in the middle. MR. KEEGAN: If you understand what I mean. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You gave us a number. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about a reduction to $1,000? Would that be -- MR. KELL Y: 800 sounded like a good middle line number. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And then we have the operational costs. MR. KELL Y: Which have been paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation that we reduce the fines to $800. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 106 June 18, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, we've reduced the fines to $800. That's what you'll need to pay the county. MR. ESTRELLA: That's nice. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Okay. I have something to bring up in new business that-- MR. PONTE: Before we go to new business, I have just one thing for old business, and this is for Michelle. Just because it slipped off my radar screen. We had a case in May. CEB 2007-32. And there was -- we had requested a clarification of the stipulation agreement. And I've never seen the case since. MS. ARNOLD: If you recall, we carne to a clarification at the meeting. There was a written stipulation or addendum to the stipulation that was entered into at the time. MR. PONTE: The only person who wasn't clarified was me. I guess, so. Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, something that carne up, Cherie' brought to my attention. When we had the attorney here today and he presented the packet that you asked for copies of, technically we had accepted his packet. He should have given copies to all of us prior to the meeting, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So technically -- MS. RAWSON: Fifteen days. Page 107 June 18, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, we should not have even accepted that. Which brings me to a question for Jean. If! had not accepted any of his packet of information because he did not provide us with copies, he would not have had a case. So then would we have not given him due process? MS. RAWSON: Well, as I recall, he didn't win his case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, he didn't. But I just -- in case this comes up again. Because Cherie' brought it up. Now, upstairs might have a real fit. Because if she's passing out the information he's given and she's no longer in control of it, it might take -- MS. RAWSON: Well, what probably should have happened, we have rules of procedure that we're supposed to follow that says he should have given all that to you 15 days. Well, he didn't. It should have been in your packet. Well, it wasn't. So if he had had evidence that he wanted to present to today, the proper thing for him would have been to make copies, give it to you, we'll put his hearing at the end after you've had a break in time to review the materials, then let him present his case. Then his due process rights would not have been violated, but you would not have been scrambling and it would have been a part of the record already. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that was my mistake. MS. RAWSON: No, ma'am, you don't make mistakes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But I do. MS. RAWSON: Rather than just strictly make them adhere to all of our rules -- since half the respondents, or three-fourths don't read them -- because that was a pretty thick packet he had, you know, he would have understood, I think. MS. ARNOLD: We do give the respondents a copy of your rules with a notice and -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And he used them against us a little bit. But, you know, it was just something Cherie' brought up to me Page 108 June 18, 2007 and I just wanted to know how to proceed for future to clarify it. So I'll try to put that in the noggin and see if I can keep it up there. MS. ARNOLD: Speaking of your rules, you do have-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we need to sign? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not going to ask if we had any changes. MR. PONTE: No. MS. ARNOLD: And also, I have e-mail addresses for you all with the little instruction that you would just have to log onto colliergov.net and there's a little tab that says e-mail and you put in your e-mail and your password information and you could access your e-mail that way. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any way you could have it forwarded to our other e-mails, or would that be freedom of information act or whatever it would apply to forwarding? MS. ARNOLD: You mean if you received something via e-mail on this e-mail? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, if it's forwarded to my other e-mail address, would that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Be a violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, exactly. MS. ARNOLD: Well, there's no violation. I think the purpose of you all requesting this was you didn't want to expose all of your other e-mail to public records requests. And, you know, if you forward yourself something to your other e-mail, then -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It opens up -- MS. ARNOLD: -- it is open. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I'll hand out this information to you all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Pass that and sign it before we all leave. Page 109 June 18, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other reports or comments or anything from anyone? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Reminder that the next meeting is July 26th. That's here. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Same time, same channel. And I look for someone to make a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRPERSON Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 11 0