Loading...
CEB Minutes 08/23/2007 R August 23, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida August 23,2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Harmon Turner Building, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean Lionel L'Esperance Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring Gerald Lefebvre Charles Martin Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: August 23, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FI34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 26, 2007 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion for Re-Hearing I. BCC vs. Rock Oil Company CEB 2007-51 B. STIPULATIONS I. BCC vs. Guilliano Dilongo CEB 2007-72 C. HEARINGS I. BCC vs. Steven Profaca 2. BCC vs. Willie L. and Marjorie Davis 3. BCC vs. Rodney M. and Kathleen M. Case 4. BCC vs. Sanctuary of Blue Heron 5. BCC vs. Victor Figueroa 6. BCC vs. Alfredo and Miradis Miralles 7. BCC vs. Eduardo and Maria Rodrigues 8. BCC vs. GE Management Group, Inc CEB 2007-67 CEB 2007-68 CEB 2007-69 CEB 2007-73 CEB 2007-77 CEB 2007-79 CEB 2007-80 CEB 2007-86 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of FinesILiens I. BCC vs. Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker 2. BCC vs. Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker 3. BCC vs. Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker 4. BCC vs. Cesario and Yonacia Nunez and Gerald and Elvira Warden 5. BCC vs. Jaycess Foundation of Nap1es, Inc 6. BCC vs. Carmen Vasallo 7. BCC vs. Scott and Tammy Furst CEB 2006- I 6 CEB 2006-17 CEB 2006-18 CEB 2007-20 CEB 2007-38 CEB 2007-46 CEB 2007-59 B. Request for Foreclosure Authorization I. BCC vs. Jean-Baptist Lamour 2. BCC vs. Raul and Carmen Dimas 3. BCC vs. Worthwhile Development 4. BCC vs. Jesus and Laura Perez 5. BCC vs. Terry Hernandez and Brian Fultz CEB 2005-05 CEB 2005-06 CEB 2006-42 CEB 2006-45 CEB 2006-66 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - September 27, 2007 10. ADJOURN August 23,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. At this time I'd like to call the meeting of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board 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 Chair. 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 persons who decide to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll call? MS. MARKU: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Here. MS. MARKU: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. MS. MARKU: Kenneth Kelly? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Charles Martin? Page 2 August 23,2007 MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. MARKU: Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any changes or approval of the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, for the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. Item No. 4-A-l, which is BCC versus Rock Oil, that's a request for a rehearing. The attorney is ill and would like to request a continuance for that matter. He is present, but just in case that you all didn't vote to continue it. Item No. 4-C-l, we are continuing -- the county is continuing for noticing purposes. 4-C-2, it was a stipulation, so that will become 4-B-2. 4-C-5 is also stipulated, so that would become 4-C-3. 4-C-7-- I'm sorry, that would become 4-B-3. 4-C-7 was stipulated, and that will become 4-B-4. And 4-C-8 was stipulated too, and that will become 4-B-5. Also, under old business, Items 5-A-l, 2 and 3 are going to be continued to October. And I believe that's it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. (At which time, Mr. Kelly enters the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I have a motion to approve the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the agenda. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 3 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Please note for the record that we have a late entrant. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, who are the alternates? MS. ARNOLD: The alternates are L'Esperance and Martin. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And because we have a full board, gentlemen, you can participate, but not vote. Okay, approval of the minutes. As I wasn't here, I'm going to have to turn this over to my vice chair. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to have approval for the minutes. MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the minutes. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: All in favor? Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Abstained. MR. LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. We'll move to the public hearing. First motion for rehearing for Board of Collier County versus Rock Oil Company. I know that the attorney is here. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he's just requesting a continuance from that particular matter, just because he's got laryngitis, so to speak. He can't speak. Page 4 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Does the county have any objection to that? MS. ARNOLD: No objection. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a question. Are we supposed to rehear cases within a 30-day period; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes, but it's -- the time limit has to do with the filing of the motion, not the hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Actually hearing the case, okay. MS. RAWSON: And so as long as his filing of the motion was timely, not a problem. And actually, this is on the agenda because he requested that it be put on there. So I don't know whether you want to consider this a formal motion for a continuance so that I do an order that it's continued, or if you just want to withdraw it, since he's the one that really put it on. MS. ARNOLD: Well, he's wanting to come back at the next meeting, so -- MS. RAWSON: Okay. Well, then let's vote on that motion for continuance. MR. KRAENBRING: Since the county has no objection, I make a motion that we continue this to the next meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 5 August 23, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Hope you feel better. Then we'll move to stipulated agreements. The first one being the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Guilliano Dilongo. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: Good morning. For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad, spelled M -0- R - A - D. I'm here to present CEB stipulation Case 2007-72. An affidavit of service for notice of hearing was served personal service and certified mail. The address of the violation is 5406 27th Place Southwest, Golden Gate City. The violation was improvement of property -- of a residential property without a Collier County building permit. That violates Sections 10.02.06.B(1)(a), and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(d)(i) of Ordinance 2000-41, as amended. It's the Collier County Land Development Code. Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(d)(i) was renumbered in September 13th, 2005 to be 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) (sic). Hope you got that. Also, in violation of Florida Building Code, 2001 Edition Section 111.1. I had a pre-hearing with -- pre-hearing conference with the respondent, his brother and his representative on July 13th, 2007. We reviewed and discussed the stipulation agreement. He agreed the violation was accurate and stipulated to the existence and signed the document. The respondent agreed to pay the operational cost of $417.35 incurred in the prosecution of this case. The respondent will abate the violation by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, certificate of occupancy for all nonpermitted improvements on the residential property within 90 days of to day's hearing or a $200 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation exists. Page 6 August 23,2007 He also has an option to obtain a Collier County demolition permit, all required inspections, certificate of completion, and remove all nonpermitted improvements within 90 days of to day's hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains. The respondent will notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the inspections. Any questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: You stated that this agreement was signed July 13th? MR. MORAD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So that was roughly six weeks ago. Has anything been done as of yet? MR. MORAD: Some of the process of working with the health department, that's a big issue with the septic system. They've been communicating with the health department, but they still realize if that can't get done, they'll definitely do a demolition. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ed, do you think 90 days is an appropriate length of time for the fact that they're having to deal with multiple departments? MR. MORAD: Yes. Since they've had I think six months prior to this hearing, or more like eight months, I think. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELL Y: My point would be I would agree with the inspector, they've had eight-and-a-half months to work on it since the last agreement that they signed. Ninety days might be just the amount of time they need to get things in gear and get it done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as agreed by the county and the respondent, Page 7 August 23, 2007 who's not here, correct? Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MORAD: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case would be Board of County Commissioners versus Willie L. and Marjorie Davis. Case No. 2007-68. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, my name is Tom Campbell, I'm employed by Collier County Code Enforcement Department as an Investigator . This case involves Mr. Willie Davis and his property on Lee Ann Street. And was initiated in 2003, June 6th. Mr. Davis and I have come to an agreement. He signed a stipulation agreement agreeing that the violations are true in fact and agrees to abate them. MR. KRAENBRING: Could we have a copy of that for the screen? Thank you. MR. CAMPBELL: The violation is covered by Ordinance 1991-102, Section 3.3.2,3.3.3,3.3.5.2,3.3.5.3,3.3.11. And is-- which was replaced by Ordinance 2004-01, as amended, Section 10.02.03 in entirety. The violation is: The site was developed without an approved Page 8 August 23, 2007 Collier County site development plan, structures and fences, illegally erected without Collier County building permits and the company, Davis Trucking Company, operating with neither a certificate of occupancy, which is now called a local business tax receipt, nor a county -- Collier County occupational license. Location is on Lee Ann Street. There is no address. The property is zoned industrial, vacant. And as I stated, the -- the violation was first noted June 3rd, 2003. Reinspected, and they have not made progress to date. Mr. Davis has stipulated that he will comply, and the recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs of$578.09 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: Firstly, obtaining an approved site development plan, permits, inspections and a certificate of occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or pay a fine of $200 a day until the -- this requirement is met. Subsequently, obtain a local business tax receipt, which is the old occupational license, within seven days after the C.O., or pay a fine of $250 per day until this requirement is met. Or he may obtain a demolition permit, inspections and C.O. and restore the property to its original permitted condition within 60 days from the date of the hearing or pay a fine of $200 per day until this requirement is met. And lastly, the respondent is to notify code enforcement investigator when the violations have been abated in order to conduct a final inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Tom, I just have one clerical question. Up at the top where it says the violations are in the sections, looks like there might be a typo, and I just want to clarify it. Is it 3.3.5.2 and 3.3.5.3? MR. MORGAN: Yes, 3.3.5.2, 3.3.5.3. MS. BARNETT: Is there a decimal between the five and the two Page 9 August 23, 2007 and the five and the three? Because they're different on the charging documents versus the violation. MR. CAMPBELL: There is a decimal between it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, just for clarification. MR. PONTE: Investigator, I have a question for you. Why did you elect to suggest a period of 120 days? This case has been going on since 2003. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. MR. PONTE: And why are we being so lean and generous with time at this point? MR. CAMPBELL: Well, initially the property was covered with a lot of debris and what I'd call litter, truck parts and so forth. Mr. Davis promptly cleaned it up, removed some ramps. Showed -- indicates that he was -- and he stated that he was really willing to comply. He realized he was in violation and was not contesting it at all. I wrote a Notice of Violation, and I think he promptly got ahold of a company to execute the site development plan that he requires. Unfortunately it took -- this was at the height of the building boom in Naples, and we're having trouble -- not trouble, but it took a while to get things through permitting and approval for a site development plan with all the permits and so forth. After a year and a half or close to two years, nothing had transpired and Mr. Davis decided to go to somebody else, and that's really the reason for the extension. All this time he was making -- he made progress and kept it clean. And finally we decided that it just was not progressing and we had to come to this conclusion. I believe they're very close to getting it done now. MR. PONTE: Do you think perhaps on second thought that the time frame should be somewhat shortened to two months, 60 days? MS. ARNOLD: The engineer and the property owners are here. Page 10 August 23, 2007 I don't know if they want to speak to the timing in terms of getting this resolved. MR. BUTLER: Gary Butler, for the record. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BUTLER: Part of the problem is we have to go through Water Management District, we have to get an SDP approved with the county. The county requires we go to south Florida. THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MR. BUTLER: We went to Collier County for a site development plan approval, submitted that back in January. Got their letter in March. Submitted to South Florida Water Management District to get their approval. They had some questions. It's a very small site, but there's still always two or three pages of questions. We're responding to that now, and once we get that permit issued, which takes at least 30 days, we can go back to the county with our response to that to get the SDP issued. MR. PONTE: So in your professional opinion, this can be completed in 120 days? MR. BUTLER: I would say 90 to 120 days would be the normal estimate for that time. I mean, 60 days would be almost impossible. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Regarding the dates, you're asking for 120 days for a site development plan and then obtaining a demolition permit within -- MR. CAMPBELL: Or obtaining. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or, right. But let's say after 110 days he realizes he cannot get a site development plan and he needs to get a demo permit, he then will be 50 days past. MR. CAMPBELL: Exactly. And the fines would apply from the 60 days from the hearing to the demolition permit. He would have Page 11 August 23,2007 exhausted that time. He-- MS. ARNOLD: I think because-- MR. CAMPBELL: Excuse me. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I thought you were done. MR. CAMPBELL: Ifhe exhausts -- ifhe took 70 days to do it, his fines would accrue for the 10 days in excess. Does that make it clearer? MS. ARNOLD: I think because they're in the process of the site development plan, they would probably know within 30 days or so whether or not they're going to pursue that process. Because they're at the level where they're waiting for a response from the Water Management District. But, I mean -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you respond to that? MS. ARNOLD: -- it's not likely that they're going to change their mind at this point. I don't know. MR. BUTLER: We talked about changing our mind several times. Weare on the path to get everything right. It would make more sense if we had 30 days, if we didn't complete it within 120 days, they have 30 days to demolish it. I mean, I -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, please slow down. MR. BUTLER: I'm looking at the language, and basically if we tried to get it permitted and we couldn't within 120 days, I'm thinking we should revise that to say that within 30 days we'll demolish. That would make more sense. And once we get our permit, it's going to take 30 days to get the landscaping in and get the drainage improvement in and things like that. So there's a little bit of time to get it done once we get the SDP approved. MR. KELLY: Gerald, I think you bring up an excellent point. And if that's agreeable to the board, we should also maybe have Mr. Davis swear in and make sure he accepts the changes as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's been sworn in, he would just Page 12 August 23, 2007 have to accept it. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have to agree to it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have to agree upon it first and make any changes we want to make after we close the public hearing. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Ifnot, I'll close the public format. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I had a question, because Mr. Butler indicated it's going to take time for doing the landscaping and the engineering. The agreement says completion, not just of the site development process, but getting a C.O. and everything within 120 days. Are you aware of that? MR. BUTLER: I guess I didn't read it that way, but I hear what you're saying. I mean, it can be done very quickly. The permit process is what takes all the time. We've got a little bit of drainage improvements to do, we've got some landscape and irrigation to put in, there's a shed that needs a building permit or needs to be removed, and we talked about possibly removing that. It's really just a storage facility for trucks at this point. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this point, Michelle, he was already stating that it could take up to 90 days to 120 just to get through the permitting process. MS. ARNOLD: That's why I wanted to clarify that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we think maybe we could extend the time frame on that a little, or -- I'm trying to reason with the county as well as the respondent here to make sure we can come into compliance. Maybe extend it to 180 days to make sure that they have enough time to complete? Or they could come I guess back to us and explain. Page 13 August 23, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: We could possibly do it where -- I think 180 is a long time. But just put in there that you have let's say 150 days to either get your site development plan, permits, inspections, certificate of occupancy, or have a demolition permit issued along with the inspection and C.O. Just put it all together, 150 days and everything has to be done, or one or the other has to be done. MR. BUTLER: That would work for us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right. I guess I'll close the public portion of this and entertain a motion from the board. MR. KELLY: Gerald, if you're going to make that motion, I like the 180, because even county says, you know, let's give him a little extra time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, you can make the motion. MR. KELL Y: It's your motion, go ahead. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as a matter of comment, I like the fact that we're seeing these longer periods of time, because we constantly rehear cases -- not rehear them, but they get addressed to the board. So I agree, I think the 180 days is going to be appropriate. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And maybe to help, have them inform the county how things are going in say 90 days, 120 days to keep us notified. MR. KRAENBRING: As far as notifying the board? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, notifying the code enforcement officers for the county as to how they're progressing. MR. KRAENBRING: Is that something we've -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We've done it in front of the board before, yes. MR. KRAENBRING: I just don't know if that's adding paperwork to the pile for the county. MR. CAMPBELL: May I add something? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Davis has been very prompt in giving Page 14 August 23,2007 me two-week notices and updates of what's going on. I'm in that territory all the time, and -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right, so that wouldn't be necessary. Thank you, Tom. MR. CAMPBELL: It's important, but it-- MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess I'll take a shot at the motion. Under obtaining an approved site development plan, permit, inspections and certificate of occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or pay a fine of $200 per day until this requirement is met. And subsequently, obtain a local business tax receipt within seven days after receiving the C.O., or pay a fine of $250 per day until this requirement is met. Or receive a demolition permit, inspection and C.O. to restore the property to its original condition within 180 days from the date of this hearing or pay a fine of $200 per day until this requirement is met. And then respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. MR. KELLY: Operational costs as well? MR. LEFEBVRE: Also, pay operational costs in the amount of $578.09 incurred in the prosecution of this case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to withdraw your motion and -- MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: With the amendment? MR. KRAENBRING: Um-hum. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 15 August 23,2007 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Will you agree to that stipulation? MR. BUTLER: Yes. MR. DAVIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next stipulated agreement will be the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Eduardo and Maria Rodriguez. MS. ARNOLD: Figueroa. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry, Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Victor Figueroa. I'm sorry. (Speakers and Interpreter were duly sworn.) MR. MUCHA: Good morning. This is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-77, Department Case No. 2007020049. My name is Investigator Mucha, M-U-C-H-A, Property Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation location is 1207 North 19th Terrace, Immokalee, Florida. I've reached an agreement this morning with Tomasa Figueroa. She's a representative for the respondent. She agrees that they are in violation of Collier County Property Maintenance Ordinance 2004-58, Section 6, subsections 1,9, 10, 11, 12c, 12i, 12k, 12m, 12n, 120, 12p, 19a, 19b, 19c and 20. And are described as multiple minimum housing violations located at this residentially single-family zoned property. She has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of$354.74 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by: Obtaining a Collier County boarding certificate and securing structure in accordance with boarding requirements by September 4th, 2007, or Page 16 August 23,2007 a fine of $50 a day. By contacting a general contractor licensed in Collier County to obtain all required permits, related inspections and final certificates of completion for all repairs that require a permit by December 26th, 2007. All other nonpermitted repairs must be completed by December 26th, 2007. If all repairs are not completed by December 26th, 2007, a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until all violations are abated. And the last part of the stipulation is: Respondents must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. And I just wanted to put on the record that I've already helped her obtain the boarding certificate today, and she's going to be in the process of getting the structure boarded up this weekend. And she's also made great strides as far as getting the grass mowed on the property, getting the litter removed. There's -- she has somebody inside that's doing nonpermitted repairs as far as the interior goes. And she's already also pulled a roof permit. So she's already made great strides, so I just wanted to put that on the record that I appreciate the work that she's already done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have one question for the respondent. What is her relationship to Victor Figueroa? INTERPRETER SERRANO: His wife. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So then she is understanding that she's legally binding him? INTERPRETER SERRANO: Well, he passed away. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, okay. Jean, ifhe's passed away and we have this slated to him, she is his wife, it passes to her normally? MS. RAWSON: Yes, it does. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we don't have to correct the -- Page 17 August 23,2007 MS. RAWSON: I don't know whether she's taken the trouble to transfer the title of the property into her name with a death certificate and all of that, but she would be the heir and she would be the owner of the real estate. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're okay with that? MS. RAWSON: I think so. MR. MUCHA: I just wanted to put on the record that this just recently happened with Mr. Figueroa passing away. So I think she's actually in the process of getting everything transferred over to her. MS. ARNOLD: Could we get verification since she's here? INTERPRETER SERRANO: Yes, she's in the process of doing that. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. DEAN: And the property is unoccupied, right? MR. MUCHA: That's correct, sir. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I had one. By securing the structure, is that going to have anything to where she might not be able to -- I guess she can do that, because you've already gotten her the certificate, so that negates my question in mind. INTERPRETER SERRANO: She has a question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. INTERPRETER SERRANO: She would like to know if the operational costs could be paid in more than 30 days, she can have more than 30 days to pay it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She'll need to talk to the county in regards to that. MS. ARNOLD: Are you all going -- well, I guess you'll have to make a decision, but I know at the last hearing you all specified an amount of time. So I guess that's something that you will have to make a decision on first and then we'll -- Page 18 August 23,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. As for operational costs, though, we can't -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. You weren't here, Sheri. MR. KELLY: Sheri, in the last meeting we just started changing our motions to include 30 days on the operational costs -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, okay. MR. KELL Y: -- to be paid. In this case they were stipulated agreements and they weren't in there. I guess as a board we just didn't touch them. But when it comes to the hearing section, it seemed to become the norm. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. INTERPRETER SERRANO: And if! may, it doesn't really say it in here either. It doesn't say 30 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right. If there's no other questions, I'll close it to the public and look at the board for a decision. MR. MORGAN: The county is comfortable with the amount of time allotted to get these repairs completed? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. MORGAN: There's a lot of work to be done. Can it be done in this time frame? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. Like I say, she's already made great strides. She has somebody in there working on the repairs. She's actually probably completed a lot of them. You know, a lot of it's just aesthetic, but, you know, then some of it will require permits. That will probably be the tougher part of it. That's why I wanted to give her a little bit of extra time to be able to pull the permits and -- MR. MORGAN: What I was getting at, this thing has to be completely rewired, the smoke detectors, the grounding, new roof. Goes on and on and on. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. MORGAN: I'm concerned about the time frame, whether it can be done. Page 19 August 23, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Investigator, can you speak to the roofing permit? Has she obtained that? MR. MUCHA: She's obtained the roofing permit. MS. ARNOLD: And have they began work on that? MR. MUCHA: They haven't began work, no. I talked with her about the time frame. I originally was going to request 90 days and she asked for a little bit more time. I asked her if 120 days was fair. She felt comfortable with that. I mean, if she feels that she can do it, you know, I mean, I'll be willing to work with her. If she's very close when it comes to December 26th I'm not going to hammer her on it. I mean, if she's very close, I mean, dependent on where she's at I could work with her a little -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You wouldn't be the privileged party to not hammer on her, we would be. MR. MUCHA: Right. Well, you know what I mean. I'm just saying if she's very close at that point. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She would have to come back to us and explain the situation, at that point the board would make a decision. But she's bound by what we decide today. That's why she was questioning you about the time frame. MR. MUCHA: Sure. MR. KELLY: Jerry, I can tell you that the roofs not going to take more than a week. And an electrical permit to rewire a box is -- an express permit can be pulled in a day. And maybe a day or two of electrical work and some painting. I think it can be done. MR. KRAENBRING: As I look at the list, it's not extensive work. It's a lot of buttoning up the place. I think that I like the way that the stipulation is crafted, I like the time frame, I think the fines look pretty good to me, so I would make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreements done by the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 20 August 23, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. If you'll explain to her that we have accepted the stipulated agreement as far as the payment for operational cost, she'll have to get with the county in regards to that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time, go ahead and move to the Board of County Commissioners versus Eduardo and Maria Rodriguez. And I apologize for calling you up once and sending you back. (Speakers and the Interpreter were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is code Case 2007050893, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, versus Eduardo and Maria L. Rodriguez. Violation of Sections 10.02.06(B)(l), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and 10.02.06(B)(l)(a) of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended. The violation is: Unpermitted shed and carport erected without first obtaining all necessary Collier County building permits, located at 3600 Poplar Way, Naples, Florida. The county and Mr. Rodriguez have agreed into a stipulation agreement, which states that the respondent will pay operational costs in the amount of243.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case; and to abate all violations by submitting a complete application for all Collier Page 21 August 23, 2007 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 the applicational (sic) 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 date the permit was issued, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the certificate of completion is issued. 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 demolition permit is obtained. The respondent must request all required inspections and obtain a certificate of completion within seven days of the day the permit was issued or a fine of $200 will be imposed until the certificate of completion is issued. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Three. MR. KEEGAN: Three: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does anybody have any question? MR. LEFEBVRE: Will this need any kind of engineering at all? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, it would. Mr. -- when the case first started, I went to the building department with Mr. Rodriguez. We had two meetings with the building department. And both times they advised him what it would need, and nothing was ever on his part moved along. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the short answer is yes. MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Will he be able to get that done and submit for permits within 14 days, being that none of that engineering work Page 22 August 23,2007 has been done? MR. KEEGAN: I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you ask Mr. Rodriguez ifhe thinks he can get engineering drawings within 14 days? INTERPRETER SERRANO: He's saying no, that it's going to take him more than 14 days. He was actually telling me when you were talking that he would like to request at least 30 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Has he hired anyone to help him with the engineering? INTERPRETER SERRANO: He actually requested somebody, and when he told him that it was something with the county, that it needed permits, then the person said that he wouldn't do it. So he doesn't have anybody. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Can the county recommend three engineers, possibly? Is that possible to do? MR. KEEGAN: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: You can't do any recommendation? Because I know the county has helped with landscape people and stuff like that. MS. ARNOLD: We can check with the building department to see whether or not they have -- I believe the building department has a list of people. So we can check with them to give him that list. And it's up to him to follow up with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. That may help him out. But now we're at the quandary with 14 days, and he agreed to it. MS. ARNOLD: Ken, did you have a question? MR. KELLY: I do, for Senor Rodriguez. What is his expectation? Is he going to try to keep the structures or remove them? INTERPRETER SERRANO: He's planning to keep it. MR. PONTE: He's going to what? INTERPRETER SERRANO: Keep it, not to demolish. MR. KELLY: I'm a little worried about the 14-day time frame for engineering and permits. Page 23 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Is this just a standard aluminum carport? MR. KEEGAN: I have a picture. Mr. Rodriguez has seen it. I'll introduce it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, do we need to submit that as evidence? MS. RAWSON: Yes, if you're going to look at it. MR. KEEGAN: County Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept it. MR. PONTE: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: It's the shed and carport that you see. MR. DEAN: What's the shed, behind? MR. KEEGAN: Under the carport. MR. DEAN: Oh, I see. MR. KRAENBRING: It's both the shed and the carport. MR. KEEGAN : Yes, sir. It does meet setbacks. We've had that discussion already with the building permit -- with the building department. INTERPRETER SERRANO: If! may, he said that actually he hired a company to do this 10 years ago when he built his house, but he didn't ask for permits. But the company was -- is a legal company, it's not like -- and the company told him that he didn't need any Page 24 August 23, 2007 permits, additional permits, because the house was brand new. So he was building everything at one time. MR. KELL Y: I have a question. If he remembers, were these -- was the shed and the carport built before the home had received its certificate of occupancy? Before he moved in? INTERPRETER SERRANO: After. MR. KELL Y: And then, Investigator, there's no permits additionally showing? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. I have the plans of the original permit, and it shows the house but it does not show the carport and the shed. MR. KRAENBRING: And this structure's been up for 10 years now? MR. KEEGAN: He advised me, when we had our first meeting with the building department, about eight years ago. MR. KELL Y: Of course my concern is now the codes have changed and it might be difficult to get engineering approved without structurally changing it, due to the new hurricane codes that came out in 2004. It's going to take longer than 14 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. I was going to ask if the county has a suggestion as to a time frame because of the engineered drawings, other than 14 days. MR. KEEGAN: How about 120 days, start to finish, C.O., everything, or remove it within 80 days, so he'd know where he stands? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then we run into the same situation we had in a previous motion that you can be in the process of getting your -- MR. KEEGAN: Okay, we'll do 120. But 120 days, ifhe decides not to, he'll have two weeks to remove it from the property, C.O., with everything. MS. ARNOLD: My recommendation is do what we did similarly, just 120 days for everything. So he has to make a decision Page 25 August 23,2007 what he wants to do within that time period. MR. DEAN: I agree. That makes sense. MR. KELLY: Investigator, is there any other code violations against the property? Any other cases pending? MR. KEEGAN: There is on his property and his rental property right next door to it. MR. KRAENBRING: But I think we can only address what , we re -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: -- charged with today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's only what we have in front of us. Okay, again I'll entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that in this case that the gentleman pay all operational costs of $243.17. Actually, I have a question. Are there going to be additional operating -- operational costs? MS. ARNOLD: There may be after -- MR. KRAENBRING: Could be, okay. MS. ARNOLD: But actually, no, because we've stipulated to that amount, so no. MR. KRAENBRING: So they pay operational costs in the amount of $243.17, and abate all violations by submitting a complete application for all Collier building -- Collier County building permits within a hundred -- well, we're going to submit within 14 days? No, everything. MR. DEAN: Everything, 120 days. MR. KRAENBRING: That he submit -- pardon me. Submitting a complete application for all Collier County building permits. And I guess we need to obtain permits within 120 days then too, right, or obtain the certificate? I'm having trouble crafting this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You just take out-- Page 26 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: What do we want to take out here? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Take out within 14 days of the hearing or a fine of -- start with submitted and pursue. MR. KRAENBRING: Somebody else want to take a stab at this? I'm drawing a blank here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's going to withdraw. MR. KRAENBRING: I withdraw this right now, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Somebody else want to make the motion? MR. KELLY: I'll give it a shot. MR. KRAENBRING: Somebody want to give it a shot? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, go ahead. MR. KELLY: The respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $243.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days. Two, abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit and a certificate of occupancy, or a Collier County demolition permit within certificate of occupancy within 120 days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day incurs for every day thereafter. Respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violations have been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to stop here and if you can explain that to him, because we have to make sure that he will agree with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: One point of clarification. The demolition permit, it would be a certificate of completion, not certificate of occupancy? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's interchangeable. MR. KRAENBRING: And we're going to leave it at the 30 days for obtaining permits? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, it's 120 days for everything. Page 27 August 23,2007 MR. KRAENBRING: I think there was a point of 30 days for submitting for permits. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MR. KELLY: I was just going to leave the whole time frame for any securement and obtaining engineering, everything. MR. KRAENBRING: I just thought I heard when you were reading off the motion that it was 30 days. MR. KELL Y: Oh, there was 30, but that was for the operational costs, to pay the operational costs within 30 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, okay, very good, very good. MR. DEAN: I second the motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we have to make sure -- MR. DEAN: There was a motion on the floor, I seconded it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's fine. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I want to make sure he understands it. MS. ARNOLD: Does he understand, Marlene? INTERPRETER SERRANO: Okay, what I understood is that is obtain the permit, the building permit, inspection and certificate of completion, or demo within 120 days-- MS. ARNOLD: Correct. INTERPRETER SERRANO: -- right? Or $100 fine per day. Page 28 August 23,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. And he also has to pay the operational costs within 30 days. INTERPRETER SERRANO: Within 30 days, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And he understands that? INTERPRETER SERRANO: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because it's a stipulated agreement, I wanted to make sure he understood and he agrees. Could he state for the record that he does agree? I know he'll sign it, but -- INTERPRETER SERRANO: He understood what I explained. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Can we clarify whether or not the motion included notifying the county when the violation's been abated? MR. KELL Y: It did. I think I said that. MR. DEAN: I think it was in the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cherie', was that in the motion? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, so at this time the motion is as said. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next case would be the Board of County Commissioners versus GE Management Group. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. CEB Case No. 2007-86, Department Case No. 2007070656. The violation where the property exists is unincorporated Collier County. This is a violation of Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, specifically 5.06.06(G) and 5.06.06(L), 5.06.06(N), snipe signs/portable signs placed in the right-of-way in unincorporated Collier County.r Page 29 August 23,2007 We have reached a stipulation agreement this morning. I neglected to put the operational costs on there. But the order will read, to pay operational costs in the amount of $283.44 within 30 days of the date of this hearing. We were initially going to impose a $2,500 civil penalty on this. We agreed to lower that to 1,000. I want to make the board aware that they have the power to impose a $5,000 penalty, if you wish to do that. But again, we lowered that today to $1,000. This is a repeat violation. We have been here before over the same thing. Order number two is to cease placement and remove any signs within seven days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $1,000 per day will be imposed until said signs are removed. And they've all been removed by code enforcement. There are no signs currently out there. Any future placement of said signs shall result in a fine of $1,000 per day until said signs are removed. And the respondent must notify code enforcement -- which I have talked to him today -- that the violation has been abated, and request the investigator to come and perform a site inspection, which all code enforcement does. Cease displaying any sign that does not have a proper Collier County permit. For the record also, I brought some of the signs with me so you can get an idea of exactly what they look like. Photographs really don't tell the whole story. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'd like to entertain that this is evidence that we need to submit. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept this as evidence. MR. KELL Y: Second. MR. DEAN: Second. Page 30 August 23, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does anybody have any questions? MR. DEAN: Can I ask one? Where does the word snipe sign come from? Does anybody know? I've read that and I don't-- MR. SNOW: It's just in the sign code, sir. It's just what they refer to. MR. DEAN: Snipe? MR. SNOW: Yes. Definition, it's any sign that can be placed on a stick, post, fence, anything whatsoever on public or private property. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was going to say, we saw this case not too long ago, did we not? MR. KELLY: We did. MR. SNOW: We did. MR. DEAN: I was absent. MR. KELLY: If! remember correctly, in the previous case we were concerned about the amount of time that it took the code enforcement investigators to pick up and dispose of all these signs. I think there was mention of hundreds, maybe even thousands of these placed throughout the county. And we had concerns then about enforcement but more so concerns about the amount of time and labor Page 31 August 23, 2007 that it cost the county to do this. And normally I wouldn't be in support of a fine, a civil penalty, but in this case since we were so stringent the first time and very forthcoming as to the penalties, I think this is warranted maybe even more. MR. KRAENBRING: At the time that we heard this case, the recommendation of the county was almost to have a bounty of I think it was like $250 per sign. Then we thought about reducing it to 150. And then the county came to us and said we can just wrap this up in one fine. I think that this board is very judicious toward homeowners and businesses that are trying to comply. I personally have seen these signs out there I know within 60 days, because I actually saw one before the second to the last board meeting. I'm not amicable to reducing this fine to $1,000. I think we should stay with the penalty that was imposed. This is not a deterrent. MR. MORGAN: I don't agree either. MR. KELL Y: If! could add, I'm all for capitalism and the ability to market and to make money in this country, but there are ways to go about doing it. MR. KRAENBRING: These are a blight. If you go into some communities that don't enforce this type of code, you know, you'll have five and six of these at every off-ramp. So my sense of it is no, leave the fine where it is. I mean, we reduced this fine to this point. I don't see the need to reduce it any further. Unless the county has some sort of different thought. MS. ARNOLD: I would just say that the respondent is here, so you may want to afford him an opportunity to express why this may have happened. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. BRANDT: Thank you. My name is Mitchell Brandt. And Page 32 August 23, 2007 what I was eXplaining earlier to Mr. Kitchell and Ms. Arnold was that we don't put the signs out ourselves. I'm not trying to stand up here and waive responsibility. I'm simply explaining, you know, the course. We hire a company that does marketing for us. And a good deal of the marketing, what they do is Internet marketing. And the last time we were here we said listen, do not, do not put any more signs out. We're getting fined, not you. And they assured us that they would not put the signs out and they would stick just to Internet marketing. And they do a pretty good job of marketing for us. And unfortunately their wires got crossed or something, but they put out signs again. I believe that was two months ago plus. But we're not the company doing that. We're directing them -- and again, I'm not trying to shun my responsibility, but I have two choices. One is to not deal with the company any longer for marketing, but they actually do a pretty good job for us other than the sign point of view, and we work with them pretty closely with other companies. And we thought that they would follow that direction. We have since told them since this happened that the next time we won't do business with them. And we're pretty confident -- we're highly confident that they're going to comply. But I wanted to let you know that I'm not standing up here as the company that put these signs out here. We don't pay to market that way. We simply pay them by the number of perspective names that they give us. And we only get e-mail directions from them with these names, and we don't find out until we get a call from the code enforcement that they took that type of action. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, my personal thoughts on it, and this is standing from my point of view, if! had a business and I was getting fined by the actions of my marketing company, I would have to determine whether my marketing dollars were being spent wisely and if they were that good that I could afford to continue to be fined because of their actions. Page 33 August 23,2007 MR. BRANDT: Well, I can't. I can't. But up until then -- and I've been dealing with them for a couple of years and we haven't had any problems. And they do other markets for us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But that's a decision that you're going to have to make as a businessman. MR. BRANDT: Yes, I realize that. I was simply coming up here saying I'm not the guy that put the signs out. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We understand. I believe that was the argument that we had last time, which is why we were a little bit more lenient than what we started out being with by per sign orders. So we took that into consideration. MR. SNOW: Excuse me, for the record, this case was opened on 7/12 by Investigator Ed Morad, so it hasn't been that long. It hasn't been an extensive period of time that -- this case is relatively new. So this is not something that -- it didn't happen three or four months ago, this happened in the middle of July and continued for about 10 days. And then we managed to remove them all, and there hasn't been any out of there again. But the point is, they keep doing the same thing. MR. KELL Y: Just in response, I appreciate your comments, but if one of my great employees accidentally rips a screen, I've got to pay for that. Ifhe did it again, I'd still have to pay for it, and I would have to make that decision whether to council, coach or to terminate, if it continued. But with that said, I agree, I don't think that it's been going on a whole long time. And the last time we discussed this we were concerned about how you enforce this. You know, have we for sure taken all the signs off the streets? And if it's one sign that shows up that maybe we missed, is it $1,000 a day until somebody comes over from Boca Raton and removes it, or is the investigator going to pull it up and just charge the 1,000? It's a little gray. I don't have a suggestion, I'm sorry. Page 34 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, I think that was the issue before it became a bounty. And my understanding was if it was brought in front of the board again, then we would be charged with imposing the fine. And apparently it has been brought to us. Now, I've been a small businessman, I understand the dynamics of it. If somebody was not following the rules that I had set for them, I would pass along the cost to them. I mean, if a subcontractor in your business doesn't do his job, he's probably going to have to suffer the consequences to correct it. So I'm not at this point looking at accepting the stipulated agreement. I think $2,500 is -- is just, because we actually substantially reduced this fine last time, the potential for this fine. That's my opinion. MR. LEFEBVRE: What was the fine last time? MR. SNOW: It was $1,000 per day. It wasn't on the signs, it was $1,000 per day. The county's fairly certain that those signs -- most signs were removed. And we have given them the benefit of the doubt several times since the last case and this case, because there were some that were placed in areas that we don't normally monitor. In this case they were again throughout the arterial roadways, and it wasn't as accessive (sic) as the first time, because I believe a couple of phone calls negated that. But again, we're talking in excess of 50 to 100 this time, where last time it was in -- I personally picked up 400 last time. So it's still quite a bit of work to be done. The county has to monitor that. But we're certain -- fairly certain that they're all picked up. MR. PONTE: Investigator, why is this case not just a continuation? In other words, was the prior case ever closed? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, it was abated. The violation was abated. MR. PONTE: Totally? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. Page 35 August 23,2007 MR. PONTE: You mean you had thousands of signs around the county. And how do we know that it was totally abated? I mean, we don't know that really, do we? We're just guessing at that. MR. SNOW: No, sir. There are two sign investigators for the county, and there's in excess of 30 investigators for the department. And one of the things that we have to do is we're tasked to every day we're picking up these. So I am very sure that in the time frame from last time we met until the time that the violation was abated, that you specified the certain amount of time, that there weren't any out there. And again, we gave it a little bit of leniency because we did find two or three that were in remote areas that we really didn't -- and we didn't charge them for that. And that's why I'm certain that this is a new rash. And they were different signs, also. They weren't -- there were some of the same signs but there were new signs also. So the violation, I'm very certain the violation was abated and this is a new violation; this is a repeat violation. MR. PONTE: One question for the respondent. Did the sign company at any time indicate to you or anyone of your subordinates that don't worry about it, we'll get those signs back out there or something to that effect that they were going to replant the signs? MR. BRANDT: I actually spoke to them myself and I indicated to them that, you know, the hardship they've caused us for doing that. And they assured me that they would not do any signs any longer, that they would use their alternate marketing sources for generating marketing efforts for us and signs would not be one of them. I was very clear and they were very clear in responding back to me. Now, their response afterwards, it was three different partners and somewhere along the way the ball was not conveyed to the person that actually, you know, executes on marketing. And that's why the signs went out again. Page 36 August 23, 2007 And I believe, and I'm not positive, that once I got the call back in July, they stopped. And they realized that they had, you know, done an error. But that was of course after the fact. MR. PONTE: Realized they were on very thin ice. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ken? MR. KELLY: George, I think you make an excellent point. Procedurally -- I'm just dovetailing off what George said -- why wouldn't this then just be an extension of the last case? If we said cease and desist and if it continues to occur, "X" number of dollars. Why aren't we just fining?MR. SNOW: Sir, we didn't include that in it last time. There was a date where they had to comply within 14 days, and that's why -- what we monitored. And again, we were fairly certain the last time that this occurred that they were picked up. And again, I'm certain this time they are. And again, that's why we're asking for a civil penalty this time. Because again, the county's done all the work to abate this violation to pick up all these signs, and we're just afraid that this is going to happen again in another month and we pick them all up and we're back here again, and we don't want that. MR. KRAENBRING: Just to address -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wait a minute, he had the floor. MR. KRAENBRING: No problem, that's fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: My feeling is that with repeat offenses, we don't usually keep the fines the same. If anything, the fines do increase. And this is absolutely a repeat offense. And again, other board members have stated that they do not feel that $1,000, the same fine as last time, obviously did not work. It did not -- for whatever reason, I think 2,500 would be the appropriate fine, and then he can make his business decision based on that if the signs are out there again. But I do not see that I would be comfortable with keeping it at $1,000. I'd like to give him a little more incentive to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Page 37 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: I think that everybody is reasonable here as far as if they missed a sign, fine, you know, throw it in the back of the truck and take it to the county. No one's being heavy-handed about that. If this is a repeat violation, like the testimony, hundreds of signs, then I would agree -- do we need to make a motion, or -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, ifthere -- any more questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If there are no more questions, I'll close the public portion of this and entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we do not accept this stipulated agreement as proposed by the county, and that we change it back to imposing a civil penalty of $2,500 for a repeat violation. MR. MORGAN: I'll second. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a question before you second it. Are we going to include operational costs? Are we going to include that the respondent notify code enforcement investigator, et cetera? MR. KRAENBRING: Is there an operational cost here? MR. SNOW: And again, I neglected to put that on there, but that needs to be on there. It has to be pay operational costs in the amount of283.44 within 30 days of the date of this hearing. MR. PONTE: I have a question on that point. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But right now until I get somebody to withdraw a motion or to -- we have a motion and a second on the floor. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you put that back up, please? I'm just going to withdraw my motion just for one second. Jeffrey, do you have -- I saw you walking up. Do you have a comment on this? Page 38 August 23,2007 MS. ARNOLD: Well, what Jeffs comment was, and he can obviously speak for himself, is that unless the respondent is agreeing to this change -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're going to have to hear it. MS. ARNOLD: -- that you're making, we're going to have to do this as a hearing. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Because I saw you come up and I thought that there was maybe something procedural with this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, I knew that was coming. MR. KRAENBRING: But I mean, for our part we are just saying that we're not accepting this stipulated agreement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: As it's written. MR. KRAENBRING: To make a motion, you know. So we're not crafting anything right now. MR. KLA TZKOW: You're rejecting the stipulation unless you agree to amend it for -- to comply with it, if you want. You're asking for $2,500 instead of 1,000. Are you willing to amend the stipulation to $2,500? MR. BRANDT: I would need to seek legal counsel at this point. I came in here, I met with them, they agreed to something and now you're throwing something at me that I don't know what my options are. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then I guess -- then the stipulation agreement isn't going to pass and we'll have to hear the case, correct? MS. ARNOLD: We may want to explain that to him. MR. KLA TZKOW: You want to continue this till next time? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you want to table this temporarily? MS. ARNOLD: I don't see why we would have to continue it. I mean, this is the first time I'm hearing about legal counsel. I mean -- MR. KELL Y: Sheri, it was on the docket. It was a stipulation Page 39 August 23, 2007 that happened this morning. It didn't work. We'll hear the case, I guess. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. That's what I was saying. I mean, we can just hear the case. Or if they want to try to stipulate before we hear it, that's fine. MR. KRAENBRING: The other thing is I think in the past when someone has asked for legal counsel that we have given them that due process. So ifthere is a thought toward continuance, you know, the $2,500 and if we need to continue it, then -- ifhe needs legal counsel, I mean, can we really deny him that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You withdrew your motion. We need to have a motion made not to accept the stipulated agreement or change the stipulated agreement, as long as the respondent wants to move forward. Then we can decide what to do after that. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion not to accept the agreement as stipulated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we will be hearing the case, unless you guys can come to an agreement before we do. MR. KRAENBRING: Just from a housekeeping standpoint, is there a way that they're going to be continued to handle it now or (sic) Page 40 August 23,2007 MR. KELL Y: If I can address that. The respondent came here expecting to hear his case. It was a stipulation that was offered by county to avoid going through the hearing process. If it wasn't accepted, then we just go on with the hearing. He was properly notified. And if he wanted counsel, he should have brought it. MR. KRAENBRING: He should have had counsel here at that time. Okay, very good. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So you understand, sir -- MR. BRANDT: No, I'm really not clear. I came in, I sat down at 8:30. Mr. Kitchell Snow came over to me and said, listen, we could work this out. I met with Ms. Arnold, we agreed to something. I didn't think anything past that. I came up here and I'm finding out no, this is not being accepted. And I don't know what your procedures are. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's where I'm -- MR. BRANDT: So I guess I'd like to find out what the procedures are, my options, and make a quick resolution -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll explain to you in just a second. What we did was, the board has a right to accept the stipulated agreement or not, because we have the final say. The fact that both parties agree usually helps us. And if they're amenable to some of the tweaking, which we do on most cases, then it goes through and we pass the stipulated agreement. In your particular case we wanted to stipulate a stiffer fine. You were not willing to agree to that at this point. So because the case was on the docket to be heard as the case in complete, we will then put you back on the docket as a regular case, and we will hear your case today. So you'll come up underneath the hearings. That's how it works. MR. KELLY: Madam Chair, if! may? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KELLY: In the notice of hearing that was accepted, it says Page 41 August 23, 2007 clearly documents will consist of the original and 15 copies. Alleged violators have the right to be represented by an attorney. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. But I'm just trying to explain to him, he came here to -- you know, and he tried to stipulate the agreement. It did not work, so therefore we will hear your case later on. MS. ARNOLD: And we'll-- I'll come out and talk to you after we present this and go over in detail what the procedures are and what your options are, okay? MR. BRANDT: Well, let me -- before we do that, if I'm understanding it correctly, it's going to be heard right now, or the choice is to stipulate to $2,500 -- MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. BRANDT: -- or be heard in front of you guys, which would either give me a chance to change your mind or not. Which to me is not going to be very apparent. So I'm basically forced to accept your $2,500 fine. MR. KLA TZKOW: You could ask for a continuance when your case comes back to the board. You're going back on to the regular docket. There will be another case heard before yours. At that time you can ask the board for a continuance. But we're not there yet. This was only for the stipulation. The board's rejected the stipulation. Go back on the regular docket and at that point in time you can ask for a continuance. Whether the board grants that, I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the continuance could be on the grounds that you would like to obtain legal counsel. MR. BRANDT: You know, given the circumstances on what I've heard so far, I think I'm just going to be forced to accept the stipulated agreement at $2,500. MR. KLATZKOW: You're not forced, sir. MR. BRANDT: I understand I'm not forced. But looking at my options, they appear to be very limited. Page 42 August 23,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We may craft something completely different. MR. PONTE: Given the respondent's last statement is what prevents the stipulated agreement of being renegotiated. And I would think that would be the easiest and fastest thing to do. Just Michelle or Mr. Snow and the respondent step outside and come back with an agreement. MR. BRANDT: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'm going to go ahead and recess for 10 minutes. We'll come back at 10:23. (Recess. ) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Hello? All right, we're now one minute late for getting back started. I'd like to reconvene the Code Enforcement Board. And Mr. Kitchell, I will entertain whether -- ask you if you've renegotiated or you can continue with the stipulated agreement, or do we need to go back to putting it into a hearing? MR. SNOW: No, ma'am, I don't believe we need to continue it in hearing. We've agreed on the amount of$1,500. And the county would like to strongly recommend that the board take this. I feel that he understands the severity of the case. He understands the severity of not doing this again. And we don't want to see him here again and obviously he doesn't want to come here again. We believe $1,500 is a sufficient motivator for him to make sure that the folks he hires do not place these in unincorporated Collier County again. Just for your information, I have contacted Bonita Code Enforcement, City of Naples Code Enforcement and Marco Island Code Enforcement and given them the same information I have had about it, the contact. So this is -- we're helping our constituents to try to prevent this from happening within the county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to put the Page 43 August 23, 2007 stipulated agreement back up then, please? MS. ARNOLD: It is. We've got to get those guys back there to -- there you go. MR. SNOW: It remains the same. The operational costs again are 283.44 within 30 days of the date of the hearing. Imposing a civil penalty of $1 ,500 for a repeat violation is to apply. Cease -- number two remains the same and number three remains the same. And as far as notifying code enforcement, we know that they're not out there anymore. We're aware of that, that they're not out there anymore. So we just want to make sure that he's aware not to place anymore -- have his folks not place anymore within the unincorporated Collier County. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just point of reference. In number two, that would be $1,500 a day? MR. KELLY: No, it was the $1,500 civil penalty. MR. SNOW: It's the civil penalty, sir. It's a thousand -- it will remain $1,000. And the reason I used that figure is that's what we decided upon last time. I try to -- what the board recommends, I try to do the same thing in the next case. Page 44 August 23, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So it's to pay the operational costs, so that you understand, the civil penalty of $1,500, and if you were to place any other signs or any other signs were placed on your behalf, it would be $1,000 per day imposed. And the code enforcement officer says he knows that it's in compliance right now. So you agree to that? MR. BRANDT: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The motion has been made, seconded and voted on. So the stipulated agreement is as stands. MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that was the last stipulated agreement? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we'll move to public hearings. And the first public hearing would be Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Rodney M. and Kathleen M. Case. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards of Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-69. I would like to ask if the respondent is present. For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion to accept evidence packet A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 45 August 23, 2007 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(E) of the Collier County Land Development Code. Description of violation: Building shed/gazebo without county permits. Location/address where violation exists: 301855 Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio No. 36458240004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Rodney and Kathleen Case, at 301855 Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: January 26th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 26th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 25th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: May 8th, 2007. Result of reinspection: Violations remain. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, Cherie', would you like to swear them both in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOMEZ: Carmelo Gomez for Collier Code Enforcement. This case started in January of 2007, where the construction of a gazebo and a shed was purchased -- excuse me, not purchased, erected. I do have pictures, if you would like to see them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to submit those as packet B? Page 46 August 23,2007 MR. GOMEZ: Yes, ma'am. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept packet B. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. GOMEZ: What you're looking at there is the gazebo portion of it. And that's the shed portion. The respondents have applied for a permit with a survey. Unfortunately it's come to my attention yesterday that it was rejected due to they need a contour control elevation line, which is from the water -- most of these homes need this because they live on the canal. So they will be receiving a letter in the mail stating so, at which time they can resubmit the drawings and hopefully it would be accepted. In the meantime our recommendations are that the CEB order the respondents to pay operational costs of $299.32 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all the violations by: One, obtaining a Collier County building or demolition permit, or required inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of today's hearing or a fine of $200 a day until violation is abated. Number two, that the respondent must notify code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of abatement of the violation in order to confirm abatement. Page 47 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Could you put that up on the screen for us, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would the respondent like to make any comments? MS. CASE: No. I think we have everything filed and everything done. I just heard now that it's been rejected, so I'll get a letter and I'll bring it back to the engineer and resubmit it, is what I'm assuming. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I believe so. Do you know whether or not there's an issue with the setbacks, whether these structures are encroaching into the setbacks? MR. CASE: There is not as far as I know. Everything is -- from the survey and from what the architect and the engineer had said, no. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. CASE: But the water line issue is a new code or a new thing they're just starting to enforce, so now it's another -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. GOMEZ: For the record, we did -- I did speak to the respondents about possible setbacks. We're not sure until the survey is completed, or rather resubmitted. But we did speak that if setbacks are not met and a variance is needed, that they would have to put in for a variance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ken? MR. KELL Y: I have a question for the respondent. Could you help us by describing a time line that it's taken you from the moment you received the Notice of Violation to finding an engineer and architect to do the survey, submitting plans and then finally hearing back just now, which I guess you haven't even heard yet, your denial? Because the initial violation was given to you back in the end of January. MS. CASE: Correct. MR. KELLY: So here we are in August. Has it been a non-stop or a diligent process? And the reason why I'm saying this is because Page 48 August 23, 2007 the county is recommending 90 days to get everything taken care of. If you have to resubmit and it takes longer than 90 days, you're going to start incurring fines on the property. If we could use the time line that it's taken you to get to this point as a reference, it might help us to decide. MS. CASE: When I had spoken to the inspector previous, I didn't think it was a big problem. I think 90 days is honestly fair, if the permitting can get done in a timely manner. I think the engineer will move quite quickly. And I think -- I think it will, if we don't get hung up in the permitting end of it. MR. KELLY: Well, that's the part that concerns us, or at least me, I'm sorry. If it does get hung up in permitting or you go through yet another error, it's still going to incur fines against you if you go past the deadline. MS. CASE: Well, at that point do I come and get another hearing and say I'm stuck in the permitting process but I'm trying? MR. KELL Y: Sheri, do you want to address that procedurally how that works? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If you have an issue that comes up and you're starting to be fined, and it's due to the fact that your permitting has not been passed through quick enough, if we go ahead and agree to this today and that's what we've imposed, you will have a right to come back, once you come into compliance. You just need to notify the county that you would like to come back and ask us to look at the fines that you have incurred. And we have the right to reduce those, based on the evidence that you give us at that time. So you do have a right to come back. MS. CASE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to address your question about the dates. August 15th is when the permit was applied for. MR. KELLY: Thank you, Michelle. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions? Page 49 August 23, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If there are no other questions, then I'll close the public hearing and go to the board for questions. MR. KELLY: I don't have a question, I have a comment. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: That was incredibly efficient on our permitting department to be submitted on the 15th and to find out now that there may be an issue and have to resubmit. That's a lot better than what we've seen. So maybe 90 days is acceptable. MR. LEFEBVRE: The only issue is ifthere's a variance that's going to be needed to be submitted, that might take a bit of time also. MR. KRAENBRING: We would look at 120 at that point? MR. KELL Y: Well, not to mention also, once you do get the permit you have to finish the structure or move it or whatever it might be. So maybe 120 is better. MR. LEFEBVRE: We actually have to look and find that there is a violation first before we can go -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: Just one other quick comment, is, you know, this probably could have been wrapped up as a stipulated agreement at some point. But at any rate -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this point we need to decide whether or not there was a violation. MR. KRAENBRING: 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. DEAN: Aye. Page 50 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now we'll go to the remedy. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendations with a change from 90 days to 120 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just one note. I think the $200 might be a little bit excessive. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll withdraw my motion, if you want to-- MR. LEFEBVRE: How about $150 a day. Just amend it. I'll second and -- MR. DEAN: Right, that's the way to do it. MR. KELL Y: And the 30 days for the operational cost? MR. KRAENBRING: Yes, okay. So again, to resubmit the motion, that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs of $299.32 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building or demolition permit, all required inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of today's hearing, or a fine of $150 a day until violation is abated. Number two, the respondent must notify code enforcement investigators within 24 hours of abatement of violation in order to confirm abatement. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 51 August 23,2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, do you understand? MS. CASE: Yeah, I do. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next case will be the Board of County Commissioners versus Sanctuary of Blue Heron. MS. MARKU: I'd like to ask if the respondent is present? For the record, the respondent is present. This is in regard Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-73. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter that package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a moment to accept the county's packet A. MR. KRAENBRING: 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. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation was Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Sections 105.1 and 106.1.2. Description of violation: Installation of spa/hot tub in a common Page 52 August 23,2007 area without county permits. Location/address where violation exists: 8115 Sanctuary Drive, number one, Naples, Florida, 34101. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Sanctuary of Blue Heron Association, Dawn Bricco, president, 3940 Radio Road, No. 111, Naples, Florida, 34101. Date violation first observed: January 24th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 24th, 2007. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: February 15th, 2007. Date of reinspection: April 17th, 2007. At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cherie', would you like to swear (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOMEZ: Again, Carmelo Gomez, Investigator for Collier Code Enforcement. This is basically an issue that a hot tub was put into a lanai without proper Collier County permits. The lanai turns out to be a common ground area, which is purchased and owned by Blue Heron Sanctuary. Mr. Boschelli is the condo owner of the apartment where the hot tub was installed. We're asking -- recommendation is that the CEB order the respondent, which is Blue Heron, to pay all operational costs of$275.29, incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by: One, obtaining a Collier County building or demolition permit and all required inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of today's hearing, or a fine of $200 a day until violation is abated. Number two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a Page 53 August 23,2007 final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you like to place that on the screen for us, please? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And would the respondent like to speak? MS. LEICHTER: Hi. My name is Jana Leichter. I'm here on behalf of the Sanctuary. Our main issue is that currently the association is in litigation with the unit owner regarding the subject hot tub, and the court case is sort of at a crossroads at this point. And a determination is going to be made at some point. I wish I could tell you exactly when the judge will rule. But there is, you know, a motion pending that will really be determinative as to whether or not the association is required to give this unit owner the authority to pull this permit on behalf of the association. All we would ask is that there be additional time to comply with this order, because what I wouldn't want is for the association to be put in a position where they're having to pull a permit. And my understanding is it would need to be almost right away to be in compliance with the 90 days. But they need to pull it now, and then subsequently they get a separate order from that judge telling them they have to do something different. If they pull the order now to get it built properly but then the judge comes down in a different way, then they've got these different rulings and then they're in a whole other mess. So we would just ask for an additional 150 days to be able to get that ruling from the judge and then be able to pull the appropriate permit that they've been ordered by the court to do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, I've got a question for you. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are we going to run into any Page 54 August 23, 2007 issues here? MS. RAWSON: Well, I guess my question for you to ask the respondents is what is the stage of the litigation? And then I can have some idea of how long we can expect to have a ruling from the court. MS. ARNOLD: Can I also ask a question? Over here. What different permit would the judge be ordering to be issued, is the other thing. I'm not really understanding why the judge would ask for something other than a building permit to be pulled. MS. LEICHTER: Well, the issue is really -- and the unit owner's attorney is here. And if I misspeak, he can feel free to correct me. My understanding at this point, the lawsuit is -- was filed by the unit owner to force the association to allow him to pull this permit on the association's behalf, because they are the owner of this property. The association is contesting that. And basically what the other thing that the judge would rule is that the association does not have to give him that permit and then my understanding would be is that if he doesn't have the permit, it would have to be demolished. I wouldn't want them to pull a permit now within 90 days saying it has to be demolished and then the judge rules that they have to give him the authority to pull it for it to be built and then they've pulled the wrong thing and we're back in front of you again. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, my question to you is on behalf our attorney, where is this in the litigation stage? MS. LEICHTER: We're currently in the process of setting this motion that's pending for hearing. I can't tell you when the judge is going to be available to have that hearing. Typically takes about three months, and then the judge could rule from the bench or the judge could take additional time to take it under advisement. If! could tell you what he would do, you know, that would be great, but unfortunately I can't. MR. DEAN: I have one question. I'm just curious, you said that it's on common area. Page 55 August 23, 2007 MS. LEICHTER: It's on a limited common element. MR. DEAN: So it's common area, everybody in the association owns a piece of that, how could you put possibly put something on a common area? MS. LEICHTER: Well, it's on the limited common element. You know, there's also issues involved in the lawsuit as to whether or not the association had notice of it, whether or not that's been waived. And because it is on a limited common element, that is something that the association can give them the authority to pull it without it having to be a unanimous vote by the association. MR. DEAN: Interesting. MR. KRAENBRING: Is it -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I want to go back to asking Jean a question so she can answer my original question. MS. RAWSON: Well, I didn't get my question answered, because you can't file a lawsuit on a motion. So I guess I need to know what the underlying litigation is and what the motion is and if the motion has been set for hearing. And if the attorney who filed the lawsuit is here, you know, maybe he could enlighten you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that attorney -- MR. PONTE: I had one question for the respondent, just for point of clarification. Where is this located? Is it located in the lanai area of the owner of one of the units, or is it located outside and in the common element of the association? MS. LEICHTER: My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's in the lanai that is appertinent to a unit owner's unit. MS. BRICCO: Let me just clarify. To start with, all of the equipment for the lanai was actually out in the common element. And the hot tub is physically in the limited common element. MS. ARNOLD: The equipment for the lanai or the equipment for the hot tub. Page 56 August 23, 2007 MS. BRICCO: For the hot tub. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wait a minute, gentlemen. I'm supposed to -- THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MS. BRICCO: Dawn Bricco. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe you had a question earlier, and I had stopped you. MR. DEAN: Not me. No, I was just asking about the common area. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now you have a question. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. But do you want to get your question answered first? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. I don't think we can at this point. He hasn't got enough information. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this a built-in or is this a portable hot tub? MS. BRICCO: It is built in. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we have any photographs, if I may ask? MS. BRICCO: And one other comment I would like to make. We don't even know if the hot tub can be permitted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to enter into evidence the picture. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we enter this into evidence. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 57 August 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe the county manager (sic) has a statement. MR. KLATZKOW: County attorney. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. I keep trying to elevate you to that. MR. KLATZKOW: No, he can keep that. Mr. Mudd does a great job. From the county's perspective, we don't really care about their dispute. I mean, we've got a spa there that was built without a permit. We want the permit to be pulled. If down the road they get a court order saying that the owner was not entitled to put it in there, then they can demolish it, we don't care. If the owner prevails and he can keep his spa, that's fine, we don't care. We want the permit pulled because it's there. I mean, you know the way these things go, it could take months before a judge rules. And quite frankly, the ruling's immaterial to us. I mean, he put in a spa without a permit. Pull the permit. MR. PONTE: I guess the question is who owns this spa? Does the owner of the unit own the spa or does the association? MS. LEICHTER: The spa or the land? MR. PONTE: That spa that we're seeing on the screen right there. MS. ARNOLD: I think the question is who owns the land. Because the area that we have to notify is the land, not the actual structure. Example, you may have a commercial property that has a leased building. We notify the property owner, okay? MR. PONTE: Michelle, I guess my then question would be does the owner of the unit property stop on what appears to be the top to of Page 58 August 23,2007 the screen, the bottom of the screen, or does it extend out to the foreground of the screen where there seems to being a little lip? Whose property is that? MS. ARNOLD: The lanai is the limited ownership by the association. MR. PONTE: Yes, it would be on the other side of the screen, but not necessarily in front of the screen. MS. ARNOLD: From the doors onto the lanai extending beyond the screen is the ownership of the common area is my understanding. The door of the unit -- MR. PONTE: Beyond the screen is the common area. Now, maybe just because of the perspective that I'm seeing this photograph and I can't tell where I am, but it looks as if to me that I'm outside the unit. MS. ARNOLD: The unit doors I believe is right here. MR. PONTE: Yes, okay. MS. ARNOLD: From that be point forward is common area. MR. LEFEBVRE: Limited common area. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PONTE: That's right. So that doesn't involve the owner at all, it involves the association. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. That's why the association is here. And I can't say it doesn't involve the owner. Obviously he's a part of the association, so -- MR. KRAENBRING: Can you enlighten us, is it the disposition of the condo association that this should be removed or permitted? I see you're shaking your head behind. MS. BRICCO: The board has -- you know, we discussed it and voted with our attorney, we are seeking for it to be removed. I mean, that is our goal. It's on our -- we insure that, it's our property, the association's. It's limited. That means it's only for the use of the owner, but it is the property of the association and we insure it. Page 59 August 23, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess in the document, the condo documents, homeowner's documents, does it specifically state what these limited uses -- or the limited common area, how it could be used by a unit owner? MS. LEICHTER: I'll admit that I don't have them memorized. MR. LEFEBVRE: But also, the spa is within the limited common area, but you said -- you did mention something about the pump and other items that are ancillary to the spa are in the common area, which would be outside that screened area. MS. LEICHTER: Correct. Those have been ordered. And also an arbitration that was going on subsequent to -- or contemporaneously with the litigation. The arbitration is essentially over and as a result of the arbitrator's order, all of the piping, equipment, anything that was in the common elements has been ordered to be removed. MR. LEFEBVRE: That white piping that comes up, the two pieces, is that part of the spa; do you know? MS. BRICCO: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has that been removed since this picture's been taken? MS. LEICHTER: I'm not sure when this picture was taken. I believe it's currently disputed whether or not all of -- I don't know about those particular pipes, but it currently is disputed whether or not everything that was ordered has been removed. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as a note, we may be overstepping our jurisdictions by trying to get into the condo rules. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, exactly. MR. KRAENBRING: I think it's helpful for clarification on our part, but just as a note. Again, referring back to Jeffrey's comment, maybe it's just a matter of a permit. But I guess we have to have a finding of fact before we can discuss that. Page 60 August 23,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I still-- Mr. Jeffries (sic), I had a question. Because if we make a decision and state that the condo association is the one that either has to pull the permit or demolish and in 120 days the judge rules that no -- and they go ahead and do that, they demolish it, and the judge then rules that no, they didn't have to, where do we stand then? I mean, I'm just asking because I don't want to get in the middle of -- MR. KLATZKOW: If! represented the condo association, I'd pull the permit and then when I got my court order saying I could demolish it, then I would demolish it. But at least I would be in compliance with all county ordinances at that point in time. I mean, their interim remedy on this one is simply to have that permit pulled and then they can go fight to kingdom come as to whether or not that thing has to get demolished. We don't care. And if they prevail, they can demolish it. If they don't prevail, well, you've got a properly permitted spa now. MR. KRAENBRING: So really it does become a matter of the time frame. You were comfortable with 150 days? That was your suggestion. MS. LEICHTER: That is my suggestion. I mean, I can't guarantee that it would be ruled on by that point. And if I could just also make an additional comment. It would be really difficult for us to go, you know, pull the permits and allowing it to be built and then go in front of the judge and say well, we've pulled these permits allowing it to be built but we actually don't mean that, we really want it demolished. It sort of puts us in a precarious situation in front of the court. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'll give you an affidavit saying the reason you're doing it is because, you know, you're compelled by a code board order. MS. LEICHTER: Right, right. We're just trying to avoid that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ken, you've been -- Page 61 August 23, 2007 MR. KELL Y: I just -- I think that the bigger issue here is the fact that some contractor installed a pool technically, a small pool, but it's a pool, without a permit. I don't care whose property it's on. I can go, you know, do some work on a condominium. As a contractor I pull the permit. I don't need to get anyone's permission. I'm doing real improvements to real property and I pull the permit. And that's what should have happened here. Regardless of who owns it or what litigation exists, there needs to be a permit on that pool. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. DEAN: Agreed. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as another comment, couldn't they just pull a demolition permit then? They have a choice of either pulling a building permit or a demolition permit. MS. BRICCO: I have something to say about the permit and the contractor. It's possible the contractor was not even licensed. Inspector Marsh that was looking at the case implied to me that the contractor does have a different name, but the last time I spoke with Marsh, that had not been corrected, so he wasn't licensed. So the association really is in a pickle and we would just really like the extra time to try to get something to the courts. MR. KELL Y: Just if! could follow up. If there's an unlicensed activity, I think it's still irrelevant. But the fact is that there is a pool, there was improvements done to real property, there has to be a permit to it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me think. If you get -- let's say they apply for a permit. Does it have to be functional? Because an arbitrator from the statements -- from the respondent, the arbitrator has stated that all the piping and so forth in the common areas have to be removed. So can a permit be obtained for a spa that is not functioning? MR. KRAENBRING: I suppose the permit could be obtained, Page 62 August 23,2007 but it wouldn't pass inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe we have the -- another party to this argument has walked forward, if I'm not mistaken. And Cherie', if you'd like to swear him in so he can speak. MR. UPSON: Keith Upson for Joseph Boschelli. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. UPSON: To the extent that this board finds it useful-- and I don't envy any of you on any hearing day, but particularly on this matter, if I can clear some of the ambiguity up for you. On August 3rd, Judge Cynthia Ellis entered an order that the association was required to give Mr. Boschelli permission to pull the permit. They subsequently filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider that decision, and that's presently pending. She may very well do that. I don't believe that's been set for hearing yet. If it has, I haven't been notified of the hearing date and time. But on August 3rd Judge Ellis said, you've got to give him what he needs to pull the permit, and you have to stop interfering with the stuff he's trying to do with his state certified general contractor to get it brought into code compliance. Because we've written to -- as far back as February 14th to Inspector Marsh, we want what you want, we just want code compliance. Representations as to the licensing. On Monday of this week, we filed in the civil action an affidavit of the contractor. The license holder is Timothy Cooke, C-O-O-K-E. His state certified license is in the affidavit, if you're interested. As to the issue of whether or not they have the authority to make him remove it, Mr. Boschelli, remove the improvement. On June 6th the arbitrator ruled that they had previously consented to its installation, which has been our position all along. He followed the instructions in the condo docs, said I'd like to do this, this is who I want to use, this is where we're going to do it. They didn't respond. And in the condo docs if you don't respond to a written request within Page 63 August 23,2007 30 days, that's the same as consent. The arbitrator ruled that they're without authority to force Mr. Boschelli to remove it, on June 6th. And that's final. Unlike Judge Ellis's August 3rd order, the arbitrator's decision as to whether or not they have the authority to remove it is final. It's no longer subject to appeal. The appeal notice is passed. So I appreciate that they don't like the spa. The board has changed hands since the time Mr. Boschelli obtained consent from the prior board in accordance with the condo docs. And a permit should have been pulled at the time -- at the proper time prior to commencement of construction. We appreciate that even with the permit it may not ultimately pass inspection and we may still be removing the improvement. We want what we wanted from them all along, just give us the permit and let us duke this out over whether or not it stays or goes in the process that's best suited for it. I'd be happy to provide you with the copies of the three documents that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's okay. We appreciate your MR. UPSON: Thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- input. Thank you. Okay, are there any other questions of either the county or the respondent? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I am going to close the public hearing and ask for a finding -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have any more comments? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I asked about the board having questions. If not, then I would like to hear a finding of fact. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion a violation does exist. Page 64 August 23, 2007 MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now, remedy. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I just have one comment? Can you put the county's recommendations up on the screen? Thanks. MR. PONTE: I think that what we have here is really a very simple case, and we're just being confused by a whole lot of detail that's really not relevant or applicable. We have a pool/spa that's unpermitted. I think that's the question, that's the problem, and that fixing it is simple. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we address the time frame? MR. PONTE: How long does it take to fill a hole? MR. KRAENBRING: Again, I'm not certain whether it's that 150-day issue, or is it -- MR. PONTE: No, I think that in answer to your question, I would think 60 days is more than enough time to fix this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, we'll ask you. In order to normally pull a permit for a spa, what's the general time frame? Is it an express permit, or not? MS. ARNOLD: I don't think it's one of those difficult ones to pull. The setbacks are the biggest issue, and we're not dealing with any right here, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So I don't think there's a Page 65 August 23,2007 time issue then with then the 90 days, if we left it there. Okay. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept the recommendation from the county with the addition that all operational costs of275.29 are paid within 30 days. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next is Board of County Commissioners versus Alfredo and Miradas Miralles. I hope I didn't make a mess of that name too badly. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board 2007-79. F or the record, I would like to ask if the respondent is present. (No response.) MS. MARKU: The respondents are 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. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 66 August 23, 2007 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(2)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(d)(ix), 5.06.06(HH), 2004-58. The Property Maintenance Code, Section l6(1)(n)(3), Ordinance 81-42, the Occupational License, Section 1. Description of violation: Erection of signs without county permits, a sign structure in a poor abate (sic) ofrepair and tenants conducting business without occupational licenses. Location/address where violation exists: 105 First Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio 25580400008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Alfredo and Miradas Miralles, 1703 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Date violation first observed: February 25th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 18th, 2007. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: May 22nd, 2007. Date of reinspection: May 29th, 2007. Results of reinspections: All violations remain. At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This case is involving several things. The first photograph -- I'd like to show you some photographs and enter them as evidence, please. This is a sign structure -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, may I have a motion Page 67 August 23, 2007 to accept the evidence? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SNOW: This is a sign structure right on -- going into Immokalee, very close to Main Street. As you can see, it's a derelict structure. It hasn't been maintained, which is against our code. It needs to be removed. The second photograph is -- you're going to see multiple violations on this property. The pennant flags, which are illegal that are flying, they can never be flown in Collier County. The sign that they have attached to the roof is not permittable. It was not permitted. There were two businesses, and one of them was a restaurant that was operating. They had no inspections, they had no occupational licenses or business tax receipt, no state inspections. They had nothing. They were just operating. The other business was an income tax -- I guess they were processing income tax forms. And that was being operated by the son of the owner of the property. I attempted to contact the property owner various times. Made personal service, tried to gain personal service to his home. They Page 68 August 23, 2007 would never come to the door, even though I knew someone was there. I sent registered mail. They didn't pick up the registered mail. I sent it regular mail, and they finally took the mail, received the mail. And I also posted the property to make sure that all our bases were covered, that they knew that they received proper notice. From this photograph the sign has been removed, the pennant flags have been removed and the businesses have vacated the property . One of the things that they have to do is when there's some signs -- and it's hard to see on this picture, but you'll see various signs that say tacos. Right below the big La Sierra sign. And what they have to do is when they remove those small signs, they have to paint the structure so that -- and remove the shadowing so you can't tell the signs were there. I made a site visit yesterday and they have removed the small signs but they haven't painted that appropriately. And I'm kind of worried about this property, because I saw another sign that was out front and I know people are working on that property. And I'm worried, and I'm going to have to monitor this, because I think they're going to open up another restaurant in there. He indicated to me, and I have talked to him, the son of the owner, that they were going to open up a restaurant themselves. So it's my opinion that I believe they're going to try to do that. I have seen a sign out there. The derelict sign structure is still there. It has not been repaired, it has not been tried to paint or permitted or anything, it's still there, and the violations remain. I had talked to Alex Miralles. He called me and requested a phone conversation. I know he knew about the hearing. He didn't understand what he had to do on the property. I attempted to contact him again. He didn't return my call. I'm more than sure that he is aware that there was a court date today, and Page 69 August 23, 2007 I'm not really pleased that he's not here, the county's not pleased that he's not here. We need to resolve these issues and make sure that they understand you can't operate businesses without the appropriate licenses, you can't erect signs without permits and you can't have banners, flags, pennants on your property. Those are not permittable and they're not allowed in the county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does anybody have any questions? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I have a question. The businesses are now closed? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, they are closed. MR. PONTE: And the new business might open? MR. SNOW: Sir, I've seen indications. I've been monitoring this for a while. I've seen indications that they are -- they had a new sign out there that was laying by that door where the restaurant was. And I didn't get a photograph of it. I didn't stop just as I was riding by, because we don't want to seem as we're unjustly after someone. And that's not the point here. I didn't want to do that, I just wanted to make sure that they were in compliance. And so I can't say exactly what they're going to do. I just get the feeling -- I know they were in there working yesterday, because I saw the truck and the door was open. I don't know who was working in there. And again, we don't want to make that point of seeming like we're always after that particular person. MR. PONTE: I guess what I'm trying to figure out is just where we are with this case. The business doesn't exist, some of the signs are down, but the son or whomever is planning to do a new business. You've been in contact with him in the past. Is it possible this time they're trying to do it legally? Have any permits been asked for or requested that would cover the new construction that's going on that you monitored a couple of days ago? MR. SNOW: Well, I didn't -- and again, I just saw the pickup Page 70 August 23,2007 there and the sign, so I'm not sure exactly what's going on in the interior of that. I went up and attempted to open the door and it was locked, so I can't say that. I just know that there has been a -- there was a sign there, a new sign that was on the ground. The reason we're here today again is because of the danger of the occupational license, the health and safety of the citizens. They had no occupational licenses, they have zoning inspections or anything. We don't even know what they were doing in there. MR. PONTE: Now it no longer exists. MR. SNOW: No, those two businesses no longer exist, that's correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, George, that really -- the fact that they don't exist is because he's pretty much told them that they weren't operating properly, so they're complying partially. But that does -- whether they put in another business or not doesn't really affect this case. MR. PONTE: No, it doesn't. But it does make it difficult to say if you don't do this within the 60 days you'll have a fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. Well, the property owner still owns the property. And you had a question. MR. KRAENBRING: It was just a comment that yes, it is -- it goes with the property. This is a violation of the property and not the businesses. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? Ken? MR. KELLY: Can we find that a violation does exist if the businesses are no longer there and not operating? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did exist. MR. PONTE: Did. MR. KELL Y: It would just be past tense. MR. LEFEBVRE: But also the shading where the signs used to be have not been painted over. So there's still a violation. Page 71 August 23,2007 MR. SNOW: There's still two violations on the property. MR. KELL Y: And that was my concern, because if we couldn't rule that a violation did exist on the occupational and these are all lumped under one charging document, maybe it would be difficult. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. SNOW: Just for the record, when we do the recommendations, it will clear some things up. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Would you like to put a recommendation up there for us, please? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And while he's doing that, I'd like to close the public part of the hearing and ask whether or not we want to find a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. PONTE: Or did exist. What are we really saying? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There is still two violations that are in existence. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PONTE: I'm opposed. Did exist. Unless we're a little bit more specific on -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I just clarify? Section 1O.02.06(B)(2)(a), 10.06 -- 10.02.06(B)(2)(d)(ix) were corrected; is that correct? Are those two corrected? Page 72 August 23,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Those were two of them that were corrected, correct? MR. PONTE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But the remaining ones are still there. Thank you, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Case 5.06(HH) was corrected. 16.l(N)(3) from the property maintenance deals with the shadowing, and it's not been corrected. MR. PONTE: That's the -- 16. 1 (N)(3)is -- MS. ARNOLD: The shadowing, and it's not been corrected. The occupational license or local business tax, which is Ordinance 81-42, has been corrected. I misspoke when I said 1O.02.06(B)(2)(a) and (B)(2)(d)(ix), those are dealing with the permits for the sign and they have not been corrected, because we still have a structure out there without a permit. MR. PONTE: Okay, thank you for that. I appreciate it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So there is a motion on the floor that -- MR. PONTE: I'll revise my vote to go along with the majority. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, that a violation does exist, and it has been seconded and voted on. And George is reamending his vote to vote with the board, so that would be a unanimous vote then. Now, ifMr. Kitchell would like to read what the county's proposed remedy would be, that would be appreciated. MR. SNOW: Absolutely. The CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 335.67 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the date of this hearing. One, submit permit for the sign structure within 14 days of from the date of the hearing or $150 a day will be imposed until such time as the structure is permitted or removed. Two is to paint the facade in workmanlike fashion to remove any shadowing created by removal of any sign within 14 days of the date Page 73 August 23, 2007 of the hearing, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed until the facade is painted. And three, the property owner is to monitor and ensure any future tenants have proper occupational licenses, also known as business tax receipts. And four, 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: Thank you. Does the board have any -- MR. PONTE: I have just one question, Investigator. Does-- number one, submit a permit for the sign structure, is that the derelict sign piping that we saw there? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Okay, thanks. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELLY: Is there any way to impose some sort of monetary fine if number three is not complied with? You know, opening a restaurant without having an occupational license is possibly a health hazard as well. I don't know how we could construct that, it was just a thought. MS. ARNOLD: I think we may have to give them the benefit of the doubt. And if they do it in the future, then we can come back and cite them. But since they've corrected that violation, I don't think that we can do that at this point. MR. PONTE: I agree. MR. KRAENBRING: And we're good with the 14 days on getting the permit? MR. SNOW: It should be no issue, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the county. MR. DEAN: Second. Page 74 August 23, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe that closes the public hearings, if I'm not mistaken, and we can move to the request of imposition of fines. And I understand the first three with the Blockers have been continued. So the first one would be BCC versus Cesario and Y onacia Nunez and Gerald and Elvira Warden. I hope I said that correctly. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This is Code Enforcement Board Case 2007-20. If you recall, this matter was before you at the last meeting and we tabled it to bring it back to this meeting. The owners were deceased, and I believe the Wardens are the new owners. And they were going through the process of complying with the building permit but was unaware -- or at least that's what they stated at the last meeting -- that they needed to get the certificate of completion. So they worked through that process. And I believe today they're in compliance. They obtained C.O. on August 1st of'07. The fines, however, that have accrued due to noncompliance are in the amount of$11,000 -- $11,400, and costs in the amount of$343.19. I believe the respondents are here, and probably going to request reduction or abatement of fine, depending -- the staffs position is that, Page 75 August 23,2007 you know, we leave that up to the board but would request that costs be paid within 30 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cherie', do you want to swear both parties in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good afternoon -- morning still. This is code Case 2006070937. We went for a -- we last heard the case on-- MR. DEAN: March 22nd. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: March 22nd. MR. KEEGAN: Was it March 22nd? Oh, yes. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I don't know if we need to go through any testimony. If the board has questions for staff or the respondent, then CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was going to ask him ifhe had an opinion as to, you know, position. MR. KEEGAN: The case is closed. The permit did receive its C.O. on August 1st, 2007. There was other issues with the property when we took the case before the board. Everything is in compliance. Some things took longer than others. Other things were taken care of right away. The respondents did state that they weren't -- they didn't know about the C ofO. If that's what it is, that's what it is. But it is in compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Respondents, would you like to -- MR. WARDEN: Yes, we did everything he asked. I didn't know nothing about a C.O. That's the first I ever heard of that. That's why we didn't get it in time, you know. But we did go and get it after we left here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? MR. PONTE: Other than lack of knowledge about the requirement for a C.O., is there any reason that we should reconsider Page 76 August 23, 2007 the fine? MR. WARDEN: Excuse me? MR. PONTE: I mean, the fine ran and got to this amount because things weren't completed. Now, other than the lack of knowledge of the requirement for a C.O., is there anything else? MR. WARDEN: Everything was done in time except for the C.O. is what I'm -- and I didn't know we had to have a C.O. till they left me another note on the door. I've never pulled a permit, I've never done it before so I didn't know anything about it. All I knew is when the inspector came and signed everything was done, I thought we were done with it, to be honest with you. MR. PONTE: Investigator, in your investigations in monitoring the situation, was in fact everything done prior to the requirement date except for the C. O.? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: My recollection of the last time we heard this was that the county thought that they were diligent and cooperative. It was a communications error. It seems like the work was done; it helped to abate any health or safety issues. I'll just give an opinion. I think that we should look toward an abatement of the fine and the imposition of the operational cost for 30 days, but that's just my opinion. But I'll make it in the motion, if anybody else doesn't have a comment. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ken has a comment. MR. KELL Y: I was just going to support that as a contractor. It's aggravating, you get a final building inspection, you assume you're done, but no, you have to request the certificate of occupancy. They clear them out usually after the end of the year, but a lot of people don't know that, even contractors. So I agree with the abatement. I'll second the motion if -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we abate -- Page 77 August 23, 2007 MR. DEAN: Did you make a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I can put it in the form of a motion -- MR. DEAN: I'm sorry, I thought I made one. My apologies. MR. KRAENBRING: -- if anybody wants to go for it. I make a motion that we abate the fine in the amount of$II,400, and that we do impose the operational costs, as operational costs need to be paid, within 30 days. And they are $343.19. MR. KELLY: And I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's it. The next case is the Jaycee Foundation of Naples. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was 2007-38. The case was heard by the board on May 24th, 2007 for improvements or modifications without permits. The respondents obtained a demolition permit and complied with the board's order on July 16th. The fines accrued at a rate of $100 per day between the period of June 8th, 2007 to July 16th, 2007, which is a total of $3,800. Operational costs are in the amount of $360.40. I believe the respondent is here to probably speak to the time it took for obtaining permits. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name and spelling of your last name, please. Page 78 August 23, 2007 MR. MORAN: It's Dave Moran. It's M-O-R-A-N. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Dave, I'm going to go ahead and just ask of the code enforcement officer first for his opinion and then I'll get back to you and let you speak. MR. BONO: Good morning. Investigator Bono for Collier County Code Enforcement. We have imposition of fines for this case. I'm actually going to recommend for reduction and even a consideration of elimination of these fines. Mr. Moran was diligent in getting a permit applied for. I have a list of events that occurred with the building department with fire, comprehensive planning, structural as well as electrical. And the actual permit was approved on July 5th. The reason why the fines were incurred even after that was that -- and I guess Mr. Moran will give testimony that there may have been some relational problems with the contractor to pick up the permit. But in essence the permit was ready to be obviously issued and go to an issue status on July 5th. And that's what I want you to consider. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Mr. Moran? MR. MORAN: Yes, I'm requesting that the fines be abated. I know their imposition of the administrative costs and stuff like that. The last time I was here before you, you said to get the permit within 14 days. We did that. And the county took 28 days or more to issue that permit. It's $1,000 demolition permit. Mr. Bono and I never expected it to take that long to do, and so that's why we're asking for the abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any comments? MR. DEAN: Just one. Are you a member -- a Jaycee, or do you just represent the Jaycees? MR. MORAN: I'm the president of the Jaycee Foundation of Naples who -- MR. DEAN: Nonprofit organization? Page 79 August 23, 2007 MR. MORAN: I'm sorry? MR. DEAN: They're a nonprofit organization? MR. MORAN: That's correct, we're a nonprofit organization. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any further comments from the board? (No response.) MR. BONO: May I have a comment? I'd like to add that the operational costs were not paid within 30 days, so I'm going to be unyielding in my tactics that he needs to pay that within 48 hours of today. It's the only thing that I'm going to stand firm on. Mr. Moran said we'll -- we had this discussion, I says either -- you know, he didn't understand the 30-day payment of the operational costs, so that is unyielding as far as I'm concerned. So pay that within 48 hours and obviously your consideration for the reduction or elimination of fines is fine with me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: I hope Mr. Moran brought a check, because he's serious. MR. PONTE: I make a motion we go along with the county recommendation. MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, Mr. Moran, as you Page 80 August 23,2007 understand, you have 48 hours in order to pay your operational costs of $360.40. MR. MORAN: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Carmen Vasallo. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this is Case 2007-46. The case was heard on June 18th, 2007, and a violation was found. The order is attached for your review. And the respondent has not complied to date. Fines are accruing at a rate of$100 per day, and have accrued from July 3rd through July 15th for a total of $1,300 for items number one and five. And an additional $100 per day from that same period for item number three -- let's see something. Actually, since they've done nothing, there's a question whether or not we need to just have one fine of $1 ,300 plus the operational cost of$243.66. We don't know which way they're going, if they're demoing it or pulling a permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Was there time frames on either one? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it was a time frame. We gave an alternative for both. MR. DEAN: It's an or? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's an or. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, Code Case 2006110408. On June 18th, 2007, the board heard a finding of fact which stated that nonpermitted partition walls, nonpermitted carport, nonpermitted extension to shed with electric and possible use as a living quarter. You passed an order of the board, which is by submitting a complete application for all Collier County building permits within 14 days. The respondent did apply for a permit, which was issued on Page 81 August 23, 2007 7/6/07. But the permit was only for a washer and dryer shed and the rear partition wall. Those were the only things that were applied for. And that was actually -- it's a demo permit. The other items, no demo permits, no building permit were ever applied, issued, anything for. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. Does she have something that she would like to say on her behalf? INTERPRETER SERRANO: She tried to get the permit for the shed and she hasn't been able to do so. She doesn't understand why. She's saying that she went to the Immokalee office first and then from Immokalee they sent her to the one at Horseshoe, and then they sent her back to Immokalee, so -- because she had several code cases on the property, and that's the reason why they were sending her from one place to another. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I ask a question? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you know if she's actively pursuing? MR. KEEGAN: I do not. Usually what happens when -- I have a case with other investigators. When the respondent goes to the permit department, they usually have a code case, this is what I need to get done. They will e-mail that to us, they will call us. I have never once received an e-mail or phone call stating that she has been in there, so I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does she have a name of someone that she has spoken to in either Immokalee or Horseshoe? INTERPRETER SERRANO: Maria from the Immokalee office. She says that she has the paperwork. She has the plan and the paperwork for the permits. And the appraisals. MR. KRAENBRING: I guess my question is, you know, it probably gets to the heart of whether we're going to impose a fine or not, is this a disregard for the process or lack of understanding of the process? MR. KEEGAN: Well, she does have two options, permit it or Page 82 August 23, 2007 remove it. This case has been open for quite some time. And, you know, she got the permit for two things, so I don't -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not quite sure, though, if she's saying that she's speaking to someone in the Immokalee station by the name of Maria that has her plans and things like that. We have no way of verifying that, do we? MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to look on the computer right now to see whether or not anything's been logged in. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I make a comment? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Um-hum. MR. KRAENBRING: I don't know if -- if we impose the fine and she's diligent about going through the process and gets her permits and such, it's not really something that we can revoke later on; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, he's got a question in regards to if we go ahead and impose the fine today and say she is diligently in the process of on -- MS. RAWSON: She can come back and ask you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She can come back and ask to revoke it? MS. RAWSON: Sure, yes. MS. ARNOLD: As noted by the investigator, there is a demolition permit in issued status for washer and dryer -- MR. KEEGAN: It's all one, washer, dryer-- MS. ARNOLD: -- shed and wall. There is also a permit for CBS addition upgrade, 150 amps. That was very old. So that permit never got, you know, processed. It was pulled back in 1999. So that's the only thing that's in the system. MR. KEEGAN: And for the record, the wall that we are talking about, this property is the day care. I don't know if you guys remember. Page 83 August 23, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I remember it. MR. KEEGAN: So we still have -- she has the permit, the demo permit, but we still have an eight-foot wall surrounding a play area. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Has she picked up the permit or is it just there? MR. KEEGAN: It's issued status. MS. ARNOLD: July 6th, 2007 it was issued. MR. KRAENBRING: This is an active day care? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. DEAN: On the extension to the shed, are you talking about a cord going over to a shed, an electric cord? It says extension to shed with electric. MR. KEEGAN: No, it's a shed that was built out that has air conditioner, it's -- I can't prove it, but being -- I would say it's being used as a living quarter. You know, the shed was, say, 10-by-20, now it's 10-by-40. MR. DEAN: My concern would have been electricity that's not adequately wired. That's what my main concern is. And then you have children involved, that really scares me. MR. PONTE: You know, we went through all of that when we heard this case. I'm saying you're right on the track, because it was a very serious concern then. In a nutshell, I don't think anything's been done and the fines should be imposed. MR. KEEGAN: The county would have to agree with you, sir. MR. KELLY: My point would simply be that they're not in compliance and normally if they're not in compliance we impose the fines. MR. PONTE: That's it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time we're going to stop Page 84 August 23, 2007 the public hearing, and I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose the fines. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Can I just get clarification on the fines? It should be 1,543.66, I believe, instead of, you know, two 1,300. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not sure, Michelle, because I was trying to go back an read it, and it says that in the alternative of obtaining the Collier County demolition permit within 14 days, you have the one fine. And then on number seven it says that if in the alternative the respondent doesn't comply with paragraph three of the order of the board within 14 days, then a hundred dollar per day -- if she doesn't comply with paragraph two of the order of board within 45 days, then we have a fine of $200 per day. She hasn't done anything. MS. RAWSON : Well, I think she could -- she could either demolish it or come into compliance. I mean, I think she has an alternative. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She hasn't done anything. MS. RAWSON: Right. But I think that she can still do either. And so -- I understand that she hasn't done either, but she has an alternative. And so you can fine her for not doing either. But I don't think you can fine her twice. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Page 85 August 23,2007 MS. RAWSON: I think the 1,300 plus the court cost, which I think is 1,543.66, otherwise you're kind of like -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Double jeopardy. MS. RAWSON: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Both will continue to accrue until compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does she understand that she is currently being fined this amount? INTERPRETER SERRANO: Right. But my question is -- the question she has is the portion of the -- that she's getting fined is for the permit for the actual shed? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She has not demolished the shed or -- INTERPRETER SERRANO: She demolished where the washer and dryer was and the part with the air conditioning. That's what she says. MR. KEEGAN: No, the shed -- the structure -- the shed in the rear of the property was -- it was permitted, but she built an extension to it. So that was part of the case also. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And also the wall? MR. KEEGAN: The wall, the carport. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She needs to know that all of that has to be taken care of. MR. KEEGAN: She's been advised that. But I'll let her know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's what she's asking. MR. KEEGAN: It's the carport, the shed, the wall. INTERPRETER SERRANO: Okay, what she's trying to say is that she doesn't understand what else she needs in order to get the permit. Because she's been there and she provided everything. And because there is code cases on the property, she hasn't been able to finish whatever it is that she needs to do to apply. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time, why don't you guys go ahead and step outside and you can discuss that, and maybe Page 86 August 23, 2007 he can help facilitate that, and we'll go ahead and move on to the next case. MR. KEEGAN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the following imposition of fines is the Board of County Commissioners versus Scott and Tammy Furst. Thank you for being so patient. MS. ARNOLD: This is 2007-59. This case was heard by the board on June 18th, 2007. A copy of the order has been provided for your reVIew. The violation was no permanent protective barrier around a pool. The respondents have complied with the board's order; however, it's just a matter of two days that were late. So fines accrued in the amount of $400 for the period between July 16th, 2007 and July 18th, 2007. Additionally, operational costs in the amount of $229.17 have not been paid. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BONO: Good morning again. Pretty much a simple case. And the fact that the permit was not issued in the time frame that we had established. So there were pretty much two days. Whether it be, you know, the county or the respondents, I don't think that's really an issue. It's just one of those things that just took a little bit longer than expected. So I am asking for a reduction, as well as an elimination of the fines. However, once again, I want to stand firm on the operational cost. I think this creates more monitoring on our part. So I want those costs obviously paid within a timely manner. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have anything to add? MS. FURST: I also would ask that the fines be taken away, because it was a matter of the permitting. And I would at least like to make a comment and bring up an issue that we had in permitting. We went down to permitting. Because we moved up to Charlotte County.o Page 87 August 23, 2007 We weren't around this house at all. We went down to permitting with survey in hand, everything he needed that he thought. He stood in line. They sent him out of there saying you needed specs on your fencing. Okay, I go on line, I go to Home Depot, I've got paperwork, I'm writing all this stuff down. Can't find any specs at all. So I'm finally at the end of my rope. I've got to get this permit. I go down there, and all of a sudden I was -- I've got one guy, I was in and out of there with permit in hand in 45 minutes. And he helped me do all the paperwork. So there's as problem in permitting as to who walks in and who talks to whom. Some of them are helpful and some of them aren't. And that was literally -- we would have been in compliance right away. Because we got this fine because we didn't get our permits in time or something. I'm not really sure how the paperwork goes. Because like I say, we didn't live there, we just moved back. But we didn't understand how to get the permits. We did not understand the first notice. We were told about it. We had people renting the house. Every time we went down there, the notices were gone on anything. We were told there was a notice on our water out front and the pool. We sent somebody down there, fenced in the pool with the orange stuff. I didn't know it could only last 30 days. I've seen it all around my town, all around Lely in the community for months and months and months. We tried to comply all along. We had a little pond out front. We thought somebody called, we're not allowed to have it. He immediately sent somebody down there with a shovel and a load of dirt, just poke the hole in it. You know, we've tried to comply all along. So we're just asking that you waive the fines, because we did our best. And we didn't have enough money to hire a contractor, so we had to do it ourselves. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion to abate the fines in the Page 88 August 23, 2007 amount of $400, and to have the respondent pay the operational cost of $229.17 within 30 days. 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. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. FURST: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So you understand, $229.17 within 30 days. I believe that brings us up to Michelle's memorandum. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And I failed to mention when we were going over the agenda that we were removing Worthwhile Development from that request, because they have paid their fine. MR. DEAN: You said that. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, did I? MR. DEAN: Yeah, you did. Goodjob. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And the rest of those are on there that we would request either -- well, that we forward these to the county attorney's office for handling appropriately. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we need to make a motion for that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion that we send the foreclosures to the county. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. Page 89 August 23,2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any new business? MS. ARNOLD: I did want to ask the board about December, whether or not you all wanted to hold a hearing in December or take some time off for the holidays. MR. DEAN: I do. What about Thanksgiving? MS. ARNOLD: We normally hold our hearings in or around Thanksgiving. I think in this case we -- it usually falls on Thanksgiving, so we're doing a week later. I think it's November 29th is our hearing date. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, it looks like the 27th would be the December -- looking at my thing correctly. And I don't know about anybody else, but I have a daughter that's on school vacation then, so that's probably when we would be gone. MR. KRAENBRING: I think last year we didn't have one, right? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We didn't last year. MR. DEAN: Christmas day is fine. I don't care. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think we'll give everybody a holiday break and in the spirit of things we won't have a December meeting. MS. RAWSON: Well, the meeting is on November the 29th and it's so close to December, we can just pile it up, right? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Page 90 August 23, 2007 MR. DEAN: Two for one. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And speaking of piling it up, we may be piling up more hearings on your board agenda. In fact, I think September we've got what, 14 hearings on there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So bring lunch. MS. ARNOLD: But we did well today, I think. And so I think you all can handle it. We may get into a situation where we may be requesting that we hold more than one hearing, just depending on the workload. So I'll keep you all advised. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right, the next meeting date is going to be September 27th, same place, same time, same channel. MR. DEAN: Hopefully. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Page 91 August 23,2007 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRPERSON Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 92