Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/27/2007 R September 27,2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida September 27,2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald L. Lefebvre Sheri Barnett (Excused) Jerry Morgan George Ponte Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Charles Martin Lionel L'Esperance Richard Kraenbring ALSO PRESENT: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Bendisa Marku, Code Enforcement Operations Coordinator Jean Rawson, Esquire, Attorney for the Code Enforcement Board Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: September 27, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FI 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMlTIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENT A TION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. I. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 23, 2007 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion for Rehearing I. BCC vs. Rock Oil Company CEB 2007-51 B. STIPULATIONS I. BCC vs. House of Flats, Inc 2. BCC vs. Madeline Santil/Elie Djoodmy CEB 2007-78 CEB 2007-90 C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Steven Profaca 2. BCC vs. Robert A. Mitchell 3. BCC vs. Mercedes F. L10sa 4. BCC VS. Carlos A. Vallejo 5. BCC vs. Deonarine Enterprise, Inc 6. BCC vs. AM South Bank 7. BCC vs. AM SOllth Bank CEB 2007-67 CEB 2007-74 CEB 2007-75 CEB 2007-81 CEB 2007-83 CEB 2007-84 CEB 2007-85 8. BCC vs. Alan J. Vincent TR 9. BCC vs. Ray Muslimanj 10. BCC vs. Ann Norman 11. BCC vs. Anthony Gualario 12. BCC vs. CS Partnership CEB 2007-91 CEB 2007-92 CEB 2007-93 CEB 2007-94 CEB 2007-95 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Frank Fernandez 2. BCC vs. Roilan Perez 3. BCC vs. Horse Creek Partners, LTD 4. BCC VS. Francisca Alas 5. BCC VS. Jose and Carmen Martinez CEB 2007-22 CEB 2007-37 CEB 2007-41 CEB 2007-49 CEB 2007-50 B. Request for Foreclosure Authorization I. BCC VS. Diana Hall 2. BCC vs. Manuel Pacacios 3. BCC VS. Thelma Novelo 4. BCC vs. Paul and Kelly Byrd 5. BCC vs. Seven Stores LTD 6. BCC vs. Leobardo and Maritza Guitierrez 7. BCC VS. Debbi J. Maschino 8. BCC VS. JlIan and Armandina Flores 9. BCC VS. Wind Dancer Airboat Tours 10. BCC VS. Ralph and Jean Taylor 11. BCC VS. Ernestina Sacea 12. BCC vs. Rolando Salazar J 3. BCC vs. Amerada Hess Corporation 14. BCC VS. Jose and Lester Aguilar 15. BCC VS. Dalila Grimaldo 16. BCC VS. J. H. Prettyman CEB 2003-36 CEB 2003-52 CEB 2004-07 CEB 2004-10 CEB 2004-35 CEB 2004-48 CEB 2004-51 CEB 2004-53 CEB 2004-76 CEB 2004-75 CEB 2005-13 CEB 2005-25 CEB 2005-38 CEB 2006-25 CEB 2006-37 CEB 2007-11 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - October 25, 2007 10. ADJOURN September 27,2007 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I call this meeting to order. Michelle, you all set? Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time be to granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on the agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observed Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceeding pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to assure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And could I have the roll call, please. MS. MARKU: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Ms. Sheri Barnett has an excused absence. Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: (No response.) MS. MARKU: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. MARKU: Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. MARKU: Lionel L'Esperance? Page 2 September 27,2007 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Approval of the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Could you just state that all members are going to be voting today since we have our two regular members absent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All members will be voting, which are the alternates will be voting today since we have two members that are absent. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold Code Enforcement Director. We do have a few changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just if you can go slow. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I will. Okay. We have several stipulations that we're going to be adding, and the first one will be 4C3 will now become 4B3. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that Carlos? MS. ARNOLD: That would be Board of County Commissioners versus Mercedes Llosa. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I hope I said that right. And the other one will be previously 4BC -- 4C4 is now 4B4, and that's Board of County Commissioners versus Carlos Vallejo. 4C5 is now going to be 4B5, and that's Board of County Commissioners versus Deonarine -- I don't know -- Enterprise. 4C8 will now be 4B6, and that's Board of County Commissioners versus Alan J. Vincent Trust. 4C9 will be now 4B7, and that's Board of County Commissioners versus Ray Muslimani. And 4CII will be now 4B8, and that's Board of County Commissioners versus Anthony Gualario. We also will be withdrawing 5A3, Board of County Commissioners versus Horse Creek Partners, Limited. And 4 -- excuse me. 5B2 is being removed from the foreclosure authorization list because we've received payment. That's it. Page 3 September 27,2007 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Approval of the minutes from our last meeting? Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have a motion? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to approve. MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. And we're going to move on to the public hearings. And the -- Page 4 September 27,2007 let me see. We're going to go with the motion for rehearing first. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And that's Board of County Commissioners versus Rockwell Company, and attorney -- MR. BROOKER: Clay. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you -- Clay Brooker is here for that item. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could I have the parties sworn in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BROOKER: For the record, Clay Brooker, with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson. I represent the respondent, Rockwell Company, and moving this agenda matter before you, this motion for rehearing. I believe the motion speaks for itself, and what we are requesting is that the order finding us in violation approximately two months ago be vacated, that this case be dismissed, and an order be entered finding no violation of any Land Development Code provision. And I believe Mr. Klatzkow would like to comment on that. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I reviewed the motion. I've spoken with Clay and staff, and the county would join in that motion. We believe that it should be dismissed with prejudice. MR. BROOKER: For the record, it's not every day that the Code Enforcement Director and County Attorney's Office agrees with you, so I'm still trying to wake up from this dream, but we do appreciate the cooperation of the Code Enforcement Director and Assistant County Attorney. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any-- MR. PONTE: Yeah. I would just like to ask the county, what's the, you know, rationale behind their position. MR. KLATZKOW: There was a recent amendment to the Consolidated Code Enforcement Ordinance which established a Page 5 September 27, 2007 statutory limitations period which allowed for an affirmative defense, and they fall within that now. And we've reviewed the entire file, and we believe because of that defense, this action is now moot. MS. ARNOLD: Well, and I think that we were actually relying on a section of the code that wasn't in place at the time period that this sign was erected, so that was a big part of it as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: I'm not going to disagree. I think that they've agreed, and I would concur, and so you just need to vote whether or not you agree. And if so, you really are actually reversing your order. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. RAWSON: And you're dismissing the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it would be a motion to vacate or dismiss the case? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. PONTE: I have one other question. How -- Jean, how does this affect other cases? Does it set a precedent? In other words, if we go back to the root reason for the case, which was the coloring and the lighting and that sort of thing, if we simply say, okay, well, we're vacating this, what does that do to other cases that might come forward and be charged with the same sort of signage violation? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think we have to take the cases one at a time, and every case is going to stand or fail on its own merits. In this particular case, although people hate to hear this, it's being dismissed because of a technicality. And so you have to follow the sign ordinances in -- as the cases come before you and decide the cases on their own particular facts. I can understand in this case why there's an agreement to vacate that order. And although people don't like to hear it's because of a technicality, in fact, it is. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? Page 6 September 27, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: Yeah, no. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a -- MR. DEAN: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To-- MR. DEAN: To do -- to do what? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To dismiss the case. MS. ARNOLD: To vacate. MR. DEAN: Dismiss the case. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. BROOKER: Thank you. (Mr. Kraenbring entered the hearing room and is now voting in place of Alternate Lionel L'Esperance.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make note on the record that Richard Kraenbring has entered. Thank you. Weare going to move on to stipulations. And the first one is BCC versus House of Flats, Inc., CEB 2007-78. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please swear. Page 7 September 27,2007 (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. It's spelled M-O-R-A-D. I'm here to introduce the stipulation agreement for the Code Enforcement Board case 2007-78, House of Flats, Inc., Pedro Cruz, vice-president. The location of the violation is 12245 Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate City. The violation was improvement of commercial property without the current Collier County building permits. Violations. This is in violation of section 1O.02.06(B)(l)(a), and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e), ordinance 2004, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code. I had a pre-hearing conference with respondent, Mr. Pedro Cruz -- he's the vice-president of the House of Flats -- on August 7, 2007. Mr. Cruz understands and speaks perfect English. No translator was needed. We reviewed, discussed the stipulation agreement. He agreed the violation was accurate. The stipulation to -- and stipulated to the existence and signed the document. The respondent agreed to pay the operational cost of$416.45 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days. He's already paid that amount. The respondent will abate all violations by either obtaining all required Collier County building permits, the inspections, Certificate of Occupancy and/or the Certificate of Completion within 90 days of today's hearing or a $200 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation exists. Or he agrees to obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit and all required inspections, Certificate of Completion, and remove all non-permitted improvements within 90 days of to day's hearing or a $200 a day fine will be imposed until the violations are abated. He also agreed to notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated. Page 8 September 27,2007 Mr. Cruz, you agree to this? MR. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any questions? MR. PONTE: I have a couple of questions for the county because I'm a little confused. The -- page 4 of the information that was submitted to us in our packet, Notice of Violation, supplemental information, it does -- that Mr. Cruz signed, does not make any reference to what would happen if he cannot obtain the permits. That's not in this one paragraph page here, so I wonder if it's not, what is -- what is he really agreeing to. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was back in February. MR. PONTE: This is in February, that's correct. And do we have another piece of paper that replaces this one? MR. MORAD: Just the stipulation that's on the overhead. MR. PONTE: And the other question I had is, we have 90 days mentioned here. Three months to get three permits; is that correct? MR. MORAD: I'm sorry? MR. PONTE: Three months to get -- obtain three permits? MR. MORAD: Obtain the amount of permits needed for the improvements. MR. PONTE: And is that three permits? MR. MORAD: That could be more. That depends on the improvements, if any electric or any plumbing or anything like that was added. MR. PONTE: It just seemed like a rather generous amount of time. MR. MORAD: It's a commercial establishment. Commercial zoned permits usually take a little bit longer on commercial because of hiring the contractors. He can't do it as an owner/builder. He has to hire contractors. Engineering is needed for most of the permits. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything else from the board? Page 9 September 27,2007 MR. KELL Y: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. The warranty deed does mention House of Flats. I was just checking to make sure that Mr. Cruz is capable of signing as this current president even though it's owned by a company out of California. MR. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Under oath, Mr. Cruz, you -- MR. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to have a motion. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nos? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you understand you have 90 days to either get the permits -- MR. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- or have the building removed? MR. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And at that point if you do not have that completed, you will that have a fine -- be faced with a fine of $200 a day? Page 10 September 27,2007 MR. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. Have a good day. MR. CRUZ: Thank you. MR. MORAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next stipulation will be BCC versus Mercedes Llosa. I'm not sure if I'm saying that correctly. MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, I skipped one. I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. It would Madeline. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: BCC versus Madeline Santil. I apologize. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: Renault Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in -- relating to CEB number 2007-90, department number 2006120279. The address is 4142 18th Place Southwest. The violation at hand is of section 1O.02.06(B)(l)( a) of ordinance 2004-41. I have Mr. Eli Djoodmy present at this time who has agreed to stipulate the following violation. Has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of289.90 incurred in the prosecution of this case; will abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County Building Permit or Collier County Demolition Permit; all required inspections and Certificates of Occupancy for all non-permitted improvements within 120 days of this hearing or pay a fine of $200 per day until violation's abated. Owner will contact Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you do agree? MR. DJOODMY: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. PONTE: Yes, I do. I'm following this again. A hundred and twenty days. Again, that seems like a very generous amount of Page 11 September 27, 2007 time. MR. PAUL: Yes, it is. It just happens when this gentleman signed this, it was a placed under 120 days. He will obtain the permit. He will actually obtain the CO before then. He's only got two inspections left on the permit before this is completed. It just happens at this time I can't change this to 60 days. MR. PONTE: We're just drifting off into the future. A hundred and twenty days seems very long to me. We may not be able to change it, but I'd like to make a note that -- MS. ARNOLD: The board has every ability to change the amount. The respondent is here. The investigator did say that he's well in the process now, so the -- he probably will be able to achieve compliance within a short amount of time. MR. PONTE: What would the county then suggest as a reasonable time frame rather than the 120 days? MS. ARNOLD: I think the investigator just indicated 60 days would be doable. MR. DJOODMY: Yes. MR. PONTE: Is that okay? MR. DJOODMY: Yes. MR. PONTE: Good. Then I'll make a motion we accept. MR. DEAN: With the change? MR. PONTE: With the change to 60 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 12 September 27,2007 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're all set. You do understand that you have 60 days to -- MR. DJOODMY: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- get your inspection? MR. DJOODMY: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good, thank you. And now we're going to move on to our next stipulated agreement, BCC versus Mercedes Llosa. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent present? MR. BOX: No, sir. For the record, my name is Investigator Box. I'm with Collier County Code Enforcement. The CEB number in this matter's 200 -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on. Can you please -- we have to swear you in. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BOX: For the record, Investigator Box, Code Enforcement, Collier County. The CEB number in this matter is 2007-75. Our department case number for the record is 2006040950. The location of this incident was 2471 Poinciana Street here in Naples, and the respondent's name is Mercedes Llosa. Her last name is spelled, L-L-O-S-A. Gentlemen, the reason I'm here is because we had a permitting issue regarding a truss lanai that was added to the back of this residence without permits. Subsequent to that, I conducted an investigation, determined the violation was a valid violation, and advised the respondent to obtain permits, which she had not done. She came to court today, or to the CEB today, and agreed to a stipulation for the following violations, and I'll read those off to you numerically. Page 13 September 27,2007 The first one is 10.02.06(B)(l), 10.02.06(B)(l)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(d), 1O.02.06(B)(l)(d)(i) of Collier County ordinance 2004-41 of the Collier Land Development Code, section 22, article II. Along with that, 104.3.5, 106.1.2 of the Collier code, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, and lastly section 105.1, 105.7, and 111.1 of the Florida Building Code edition as described in the zoning section on building permits. Ms. Llosa agreed to pay operational costs in this matter of $338.34 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and she agreed to abate all violations by obtaining Collier County building permits, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy for all non-permitted improvements within 90 days of this hearing or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit with all required inspections and Certificate of Completion within 90 days of this hearing. Failure to comply with either of these options will result in a fine of $200 a day for each day the violation remains. And that was signed by Ms. Llosa. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. MORGAN: What does the improvements consist of? MR. BOX: Sir, it was a truss lanai that was added to the back of that residence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there also an agreement where it states that she has to contact you? MR. BOX: Yes. I'm sorry I didn't read that. She's supposed to contact me when the violation has been abated. MR. MORGAN: Is it possible to get the permit in 60 days? MR. BOX: Yes, sir. MR. MORGAN: I think we should change it to 60 days, because the longer you give people, the more they're going to drag their feet. MR. BOX: Well, sir, the reason that I wrote 90 days down is because what I wanted was, is I wanted the actual permit applied for and a Certificate of Occupancy, everything, done within 90 days. Page 14 September 27,2007 That's what I was asking, not just to obtain a permit, but to obtain everything. MR. MORGAN: But what I'm saying is, she can get the whole thing done, the CO and everything, in 60 days? MR. BOX: I would assume so, yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a question also. Is the respondent present right now? MR. BOX: No, she's not. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Then if the respondent is not present, Mr. Chairman, I submit to you it might be difficult to have an amendment done to this -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. Much easier if the respondent is here to agree to it. I'd like to make a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the stipulation as agreed by the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. MARTIN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next stipulated agreement is BCC versus Carlos A. Vallejo. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GANGULI: Investigator Ganguli, spelled G-A-N-G-U-L-I, Page 15 September 27,2007 Collier County Code Enforcement. This matter involves CEB case number 2007-81. My respondent Carlos Vallejo, obviously, is here. The violation location is 4412 17th Place Southwest in Golden Gate City. And the violation consists of un-permitted enclosure of a screened-in lanai with electrical and plumbing improvements, violation of ordinance 1O.02.06(B)(l)( a), 1O.02.06(B)(l )( e), and 1O.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i) of ordinance 2004-41 as amended, the Land Development Code. We have entered into a stipulation, and the respondent agrees that he should pay operational costs in the amount of $294.73 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County Building Permit, all required inspections, and Certificate of Occupancy/Completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains, or by obtaining a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, Certificate of Occupancy/Completion, and restoring the structure to its originally permitted condition within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains. He's agreed to this and I have a signed stipulation. MR. VALLEJO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. PONTE: Can this be changed? You know, I'm not sure I'm going to live for 120 days. MR. GANGULI: Sir, my respondent had suffered some financial difficulties when I first approached him about abating his violation before we got to this venue. He actually requested two months to finally stabilize himself for his permitting expenditures. I actually ran it by my supervisor, and he granted this time frame in order to try to remedy this before we even got to this stage. Page 16 September 27,2007 Unfortunately, I was unable to do that. So based on, perhaps, some financial difficulties on his behalf, it was actually changed. I originally had it as 90 days, and we all concurred prior to getting here to change it to 120. MR. DEAN: Mr. President? I have a comment. Is this the person's residence? MR. VALLEJO: No. MR. DEAN: So is the property vacant? MR. VALLEJO: The reason for me to buy that property because I start working over here in Florida last year, and I worked with the company. They didn't pay me, and I had to go back, because my family lives Maryland. And I've been having a lot of trouble because of the problems that I have with the people that I work for over here. And the reason for me for having to able to take care of this problem is money. So I have all the proofs of all the bills that I need to pay that I'm late and everything, and that's basically the reason why I haven't been able to fix this problem. MR. DEAN: Well, my main concern, is anybody living in the property? MR. VALLEJO: Yeah. There's two guys staying on the property. MR. DEAN: And this is my problem. It's un-permitted for electrical and plumbing. How do we know that it's safe? And then you get -- excuse me. And then you allow 120 days. What's going to happen in four months? MR. VALLEJO: Nobody's using the place where we had that thing. There is nobody using that part of the house. I've stopped doing the work on that lanai until (sic) the officer came over and told me that I need to have permits for me to be able to keep doing the work, so I stopped doing the work since he saw that problem. MR. DEAN: Thank you. Page 17 September 27,2007 MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. The improvements aren't complete. They're partial. They haven't been completed as of yet. MR. DEAN: All I'm saying is, my concern is that when you do plumbing and electrical work in a home with no permits, then if it's improperly installed or whatever, and there's a fire caused, this board stands at 120 days waiting to make sure this is done properly or nobody lives in there. And he just told me somebody lives in there. I do have a concern for that. I don't like that at all. I don't think anybody should be in the property, and that's how I feel. Thank you. MR. KELLY: My concern would be, originally when you cited the property, you gave him 14 days to complete all improvements, and this is quite a big difference. MR. GANGULI: Sir, it wasn't 14 days to complete all the improvements. It was 14 days in order to schedule and attend a permitting meeting so he'd be made aware of his options, one or the other, either to demo it or what's required in order to permit it, and then proceed from that point. MR. KELL Y: And the respondent has also noted to us that -- and confirmed that nobody lives in the lanai, unfinished portion, so, perhaps, there's less of a health issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I personally have an issue, too, being that in March is when this was first observed and been trying to work with him since then. Another four months would be almost a full year. And, again, I do, I feel that -- feel that that's a little bit excessive also. Do I have motion to -- MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written when the exception of the completion dates of 120 days, and I think we ought to discuss that amongst ourselves and then set it into the motion. My feeling is 60 days is more than adequate. As you've pointed out, this has been going on since March. Let's get it wrapped up. Page 18 September 27,2007 MR. KELL Y: If! could ask the respondent -- did we close the public? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No. MR. KELL Y: Sir, what are your intentions? Do you plan on finishing this enclosure or are you going to demolish it? MR. VALLEJO: Well, I'm going to be trying, talking to the lender to see what the situation is. I'm trying to work out to get the money, because the permits for me to be able to finish that thing it's only -- the county cost me $3,900 on top of the money that I need to come out with the architect to do -- to make this happen. And I have all the proofs. All the problems that I have with money. I mean, my real problem is money. And not only that, I'm not living over here right now, and for me it's more difficult. The less time you guys give me, for me it's going to be more difficult to solve this problem because I'm dealing with so many things in my life right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you had 90 days, would that be sufficient for you to get the permits, get it finished, and get it CO'd? MR. VALLEJO: Well, because I spoke with the Code Enforcement, he told me I having 120 days. I would say it would be much better because, like in December is the time that I can get some free time over there. I live in Maryland, and I do painting for a living. And December is the lower month of the year for me to work, so I'd be able to come over here and try to solve this problem out. So that's -- I mean, having finished this before the time frame that he asked me, 120 days, I mean, absolutely, I will try to finish that before the time he gave me so that way I can call him and tell him everything has been completed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You do understand the board's position where you were made aware of this issue back in March, and now we're end of September. So to give that extra four months would be quite a bit of time, and that's the issue we're having. We have -- Page 19 September 27, 2007 MR. VALLEJO: No, I understand your frustration, and you want to make problems to be solved as soon as possible. But the problem that I have is because -- the reason that I'm not being here and I'm trying to work over there to make my -- pay my expenses and live. I mean, it's been very difficult. I mean, I haven't been able to pay the mortgage on this house. I'm suffering (sic) foreclosure right now. I'm trying to deal with that too. So I mean, the more time you guys give me is better for me because I will able to solve the problem. I mean, like I say, in December is the time that I'm going to have -- be able to come over here, because I just came yesterday from Maryland here. I mean, I need to work. I need to pay all these bills that I have behind for me to live. MR. PONTE: I appreciate the respondent's position, but I think they're irrelevant here. I think that my colleague has put his finger exactly on what the real problem is, and that is the danger of the electricity and plumbing and whatnot, being unlicensed, unchecked, that would be on anything, and it's just a dangerous situation. It's been going on since March. Weare now on the first of October, and it's time to stop. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Richard? MR. KRAENBRING: You know, I think the board takes these cases one at a time, and apparently this gentleman has been consulting with the county. They've evaluated the situation. They were thinking 90 days first. They thought the extra month would be valid because of his financial situation. There's no one living in the lanai. He's apparently been put on notice that this is serious. And I think the board has been in a position recently to grant longer times because of permitting issues. So I would like to see the 120 days stay. I think it -- the gentleman's telling us the realities of it, and rather than just trying to shorten times to, I don't know, convey the seriousness of it, I think he Page 20 September 27, 2007 realizes it. So my position is, the county's in agreement with 120 days, and I think we should stay with that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I would echo his comments. MR. MARTIN: Me, too. MR. KELLY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I may have a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept this stipulation as agreed to by the respondent and the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have a second? MR. KELLY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any that -- any nays? MR. DEAN: Nay. MR. PONTE: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have 120 days -- MR. VALLEJO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to get all the permits, inspections, and a CO. MR. VALLEJO: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next stipulated agreement will Dorreen -- I'm not sure how to say it -- Enterprise. MR. GANGULI: Deonarine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Deonarine? MR. GANGULI: Deonarine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Page 21 September 27,2007 Is the respondent present? (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GANGULI: Again, Investigator Ganguli, spelled G-A-N-G-U-L-I. CEB case number 2007-83, department case 2006120525. This violation consists -- I'm sorry. The address is 1680 40th Terrace Southwest in Golden Gate City. It's a commercial property. And the violation is described as being multiple non-permitted structural and right-of-way improvements in violation of ordinance -- I'm sorry -- section 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(l)(e), and 1 0.02.06(B)(l)( e )(i) of ordinance 2004-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, and 2003-37, the Collier County right-of-way ordinance, section 5. I've entered into a stipulation with the respondent, and he has agreed at this point to pay operational costs in the amount of $346.20 incurred in the -- MR. PONTE: Can we see the new stipulated agreement. MR. DEAN: You have the old one up there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. GANGULI: My respondent has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of$346.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County Building Permit and right-of-way permit, all required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy/Completion within 90 days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains, or by obtaining the Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspection, Certificate of Occupancy/Completion, and restoring the structure and right-of-way to their originally permitted condition within 90 days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. At the time I had the stipulation signed by the respondent, he also Page 22 September 27,2007 presented me with a Certificate of Completion for the demolition of the structures that were un-permitted in the back of his property. MR. PONTE: Investigator, I appreciate the citations, but I'm curious as to what the actual violation was in layman's terms. MR. GANGULI: I can either present them to you photographically or I can described them to you verbally. MR. DEAN: Photograph. MR. PONTE: Photograph is fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Should we accept this as Exhibit A? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KELL Y: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The respondent has been sworn in, correct? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. GANGULI: Sir, this is a concrete structure that was -- intended on being an enclosure for a garbage dumpster on the north side of his property. This is one of them. This is a screen enclosure at the rear of the property. Apparently they receive deliveries that are of -- food stuff, and in order to keep insects from transporting them from the outside to the inside, they ejected this. And adjacent to it is also a concrete structure that was intended to protect a walk-in cooler. Now, the walk-in cooler is permitted, but the Page 23 September 27,2007 concrete protective structure around it was not. And this is the fourth structure, again, the screen enclosure, intended for this same purpose as previously described. MR. MORGAN: All this has been removed? All of these structures have been removed? MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. MR. MORGAN: The land is clear or -- MR. GANGULI: Restored to its originally permitted condition. MR. MORGAN: How about the right-of-way? What's on the right-of-way? MR. GANGULI: I'm sorry. Did you present me with a Certificate of Completion for the right-of-way work as well? MR. DEONARINE: Yeah, everything was there. MR. GANGULI: Sir, I haven't made an inspection of the right-of-way as of yet. The Certificate of Completion is for the demolition of the structures in the back. MR. MORGAN: Okay. So he has one item that he has to fulfill; is that right? MR. GANGULI: One item that I have not confirmed has been fulfilled, and that's the right-of-way one. The Certificate of Completion is for the structures in the back of the -- MR. MORGAN: Okay. MR. PONTE: What was the problem with the right-of-way? MR. GANGULI: The right-of-way had a drainage tube extending from the building into the rain gutter on the street on 40th Terrace. MR. PONTE: So the building is no longer there, right? MR. GANGULI: The original source of the drainage tube is no longer there, sir. MR. MORGAN: So all he has to do is just remove the drain pipe, right? MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. Page 24 September 27,2007 MR. DEONARINE: It has been removed. It has been removed, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have motion? MR. MARTIN: I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. PONTE: I'll second. All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEONARINE: All set? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You do understand that he has to go out and inspect the right-of-way? MR. DEONARINE: Okay, that's fine, yep. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're all set. MR. DEONARINE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, I have a question for you. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Since Richard has entered and he's a regular member -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. Then he should vote, and whatever the second alternate is should not vote. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And which is -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm the second alternate. MS. RAWSON: Although he can certainly participate in the discussion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to the next Page 25 September 27, 2007 stipulated agreement, BCC versus Alan 1. Vincent Trust. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is CEB case number 2007-91, department case number 2007040849. The property address where the violations is 6 -- I'm sorry, 3635 Radio Road. We have entered in a stipulation today. The violations on the property are as follows: Of sections 2004-58 as amended, the property maintenance code, section 3[1], 16[1][k], 16[2][d], and 2005-44 as amended, litter, sections 6, 7 and 8, are described as property not maintained according to code. We have agreed in the stipulation agreement today, pay operational costs in the amount of388.84 within 30 days of the date of this hearing, abate all violations by: The premises must be kept in a clean and sanitary condition, cut any weeds or grasses that may be over 18 inches on the property and maintain said premises in a clean and sanitary condition within seven days of the date of the hearing, or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed and shall -- until said property is maintained according to minimum standards of this code. B, remove any litter or accumulations of litter from the property within seven days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed until said litter is removed from said property. And C, to notify a Code Enforcement investigator when violations have been abated for final inspection to confirm compliance. And for the record, I would like to comment. This property was not in very good shape when we started. I do have photographs. We entered in a stipulation agreement. There's been massive improvement that Mr. Vincent has done on this property. He removed a derelict house, he removed 16 derelict vehicles from the property. I believe that there was dumping being done on the property, and Page 26 September 27,2007 as we know, the property owner's responsible. He took care of that, but we just still have a few things we need to be done. Just clean up the litter a little bit and cut some weeds that are over 18 inches, and he'll be in compliance. I have discussed with him this morning, he told me Friday they are going to return to the property, so I'm very confident that he's going to take care of the violations and make sure they're completed within the dates. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a question. What's the difference between A and B? MR. SNOW: One's talking about -- if you have -- for instance, you could have some construction waste, weeds -- and we're talking about weeds in A, and B we're talking about litter. We could -- litter could be construed as plastic, pipes, things like that. If there were some vegetation that had been pulled up and dropped on the property, that -- and again, that could be construed as A or B. We just want to make sure the property's cleaned up. We're talking about weeds and litter, two different things. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. MORGAN: The rest of the property's been cleared in a timely manner, correct? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, it has. And it's -- it's actually looking very good again. We just have to do -- Mr. Vincent just has to do a couple things to make sure it's in compliance, and it's actually looking pretty good. I made a site visit yesterday. MR. MORGAN: When he's completed, you'll go back to inspect it again? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, I will. MR. MORGAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agreed to the stipulated agreement, sir? MR. VINCENT: Yes, sir. The place, when I bought it, was -- I Page 27 September 27, 2007 don't know if you remember, it was a junkyard and a guy died and it was very difficult to get rid of the cranes and trucks. No one wanted to take them, and it just took some time. I had to get it demolitioned, and -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is this just east of Airport-Pulling? MR. VINCENT: Yes, and there's a -- yeah, and there's a construction site doing commercial buildings next door. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right next door. MR. VINCENT: And they was using that as a staging area to-- you know, to do their work next door when it got -- you know. And a lot of litter was -- a lot of the guys working next door used to come over there and sit down, have their lunch. And you know, I can't police it 24 hours a day. MR. MORGAN: Contractors like to dump their stuff on other people's property, right? MR. VINCENT: On the empty site next door, yeah. And that's what basically caused it, most of it. MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that that was actually what was happening. If you would like to view some photographs. I mean, the violation is in the process of being abated now. It's kind of moot at this point. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept as noted by the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And second? MR. MORGAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 28 September 27, 2007 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. SNOW: All that is -- all that's been cleaned up. I know the case is closed. I just want to clarify. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear -- MR. SNOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELL Y: Yeah, we had one to accept. MR. PONTE: We had one. So accept. MR. DEAN: Next case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Moving on to the next one. MR. KRAENBRING: Which case is this? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This will be BCC versus Ray. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. MR. PONTE: Muslimani? MR. MUSLIMANI: Muslimani. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, Environmental Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation was vegetation removal without any permits from Collier County at 645 Euclid. We have entered into a stipulation. The violation was of section 3.05.01(B) as a violation of ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, specifically vegetation removal on an undeveloped property without obtaining required Collier County permits. The respondent has agreed to pay operation costs in the amount of $407.84 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the date of this hearing and to abate all violations by preparing a mitigation plan which meets the criteria stated in 04-41 as amended, section 10.02.06(E)(3,) the mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in section Page 29 September 27,2007 1O.02.02(A)(3). The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program per section 1 0.02.06(E)(3)( e )(i) that would determine that 80 percent survivability of species of the plants used in the mitigation effort over a five-year period with replacement required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually. A minimum of 5 reports will be submitted by the respondent. The mitigation plan must be submitted within 30 days of the date of this hearing or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until a mitigation plan is submitted. All plant materials must be installed in accordance with the mitigation plan within 15 days of acceptance of the mitigation plan or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until plan material -- plant material is installed. And the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. MR. PONTE: I have a couple of practical questions to ask the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead. MR. PONTE: How much acreage are we talking about here? MS. WALDRON: It was a 1. I-acre lot, and the whole thing wasn't completely -- MR. PONTE: Relatively small. How many plants had to be replaced? MS. WALDRON: Excuse me? MR. PONTE: How many plants are we talking about? MS. WALDRON: We're probably talking minimum landscape requirements, which will be approximately 15 trees. MR. PONTE: How many? MS. WALDRON: About 15 trees. MR. PONTE: Fifteen trees. Any plants or bushes? Page 30 September 27,2007 MS. WALDRON: Excuse me? MR. PONTE: Any plants or bushes? MS. WALDRON: Most likely not. It's mostly going to be just the -- it was mainly weeds and exotics under-story, which we wouldn't request that those be replanted, so it's mostly just canopy trees. MR. PONTE: Given the timetable that she's put here for the planting, it's toward the end of the wet season. Is the respondent going to be required to installed any irrigation? MS. WALDRON: Usually on an undeveloped lot, we would not require irrigation. It's up to him if he would like to do that to ensure the survivability. MR. PONTE: I'm concerned about the date in terms of the viability as we approach the end of the wet season and he's putting in new plantings. MS. WALDRON: Right. MR. PONTE: So how do they survive to January? MS. WALDRON: Do you have any way of irrigation on the property? MR. VINCENT: No, there's -- MS. WALDRON: It's undeveloped property, so -- MR. KELLY: I have an additional question for Jen. The plants that were removed, isn't it -- aren't you allowed to remove up to an acre of land? MS. WALDRON: It's an undeveloped property with no permits on it, so technically you're not allowed to remove anything on the property. MR. KELL Y: And was it just exotics that were removed? MS. WALDRON: No, it was exotics and natives. MR. KELLY: How do you know that there were natives removed? MS. WALDRON: Because judging by the surrounding properties, you can see that there were natives removed. Page 3 1 September 27,2007 MR. KELL Y: But you don't have any photos of the actual property before -- MS. WALDRON: No, because it was completely cleared before, but you can tell from adjacent properties. Ifthere's exotics on adjacent properties, there were probably exotics on that property also. MR. KELL Y: But when you go to write a mitigation plan like this, without knowing exactly what was there, how do you know what to put back? MS. WALDRON: The environmental consultant will do a survey of the adjacent properties, and they go from the adjacent properties and determine what needs to be replanted from what is still on the adjacent properties. MS. ARNOLD: And I want to make a clarification, because the stipulation should have required re-vegetating the entire property, not just the 1 -- the .1 acres, because technically he shouldn't have cleared anything, and this is -- this is -- we're not talking about the Estates. This is partial RSF-3 zoning as well as a PUD, I believe. So it's not similar to the Estate type of requirement that you can clear the whole -- this is something that can come in and get subdivided further to many other lots in addition to, you know, more than just one dwelling unit. So I think there is a confusion with regard to the stipulation. It should have been to re-vegetate the entire thing because we have no idea when the property owner is going to develop it. MR. KELLY: So in other words, the stipulation is fairly lenient on the county's side, only requiring the .1 acre or the 15 or so trees? MS. WALDRON: Well, if you look at -- I mean, I can show you some pictures, too, at some of the adjacent properties. I mean, there are some trees still left on his property. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept Exhibit A. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor. Page 32 September 27,2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. PONTE: Nay. MR. KELLY: It's done, thank you. MR. VINCENT: I only wanted to add that I did not clear that property. The previous owner had cleared that property, and I discussed that with Jen. But it seemed like at this point I'm responsible for someone else's headache. But the project was actually cleared about a month or so before I had purchased it. So it wasn't my doings; it really wasn't. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When did you purchase it? MR. VINCENT: I purchased it back in the beginning of the year. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: January? MR. VINCENT: Yep. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because the violation was first observed February 2, 2006. MR. VINCENT: I did not do any clearing to that property. MS. WALDRON: He has letters stating that the previous owner did do the clearing. MR. VINCENT: And actually I brought my real estate agent here, but she told me that he didn't need to stay. He was a witness actually, and he had some -- the previous owner basically had cleared it, and he had left some debris around in the property there, and he came back and actually cleaned up his own mess. And there was an invoice that attests to that, so it really isn't -- I mean, I know you're looking at me like I'm the one who -- but I did not do it. Page 33 September 27,2007 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I understand. MR. KELL Y: If I could comment, since we're allowing comments on this case, that it would be different if there wasn't a stipulation that was entered into. If it was a normal hearing, we would have gone over all these. MR. VINCENT: Right. MR. KELL Y: I only meant to raise it. MR. VINCENT: I understand. I mean, she made that clear, but I just want to let you guys know at least I wasn't the guy who did it. I'm just basically trying to clean up some mess here that -- MR. KELL Y: Yeah. I noticed that in the deed, the Tripiano's (phonetic) -- MR. VINCENT: Right. MR. KELLY: -- actually had it -- MR. VINCENT: Right. MR. KELL Y: -- and I was wondering if that was the case. MR. VINCENT: That was the case, yeah. That was actually the case. But I didn't realize that you basically -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're here to hear the stipulation, not to hear the case. MR. VINCENT: I understand, I understand. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, if! might say, if we decided not to accept the stipulation, then it would go back into hearings, so -- MR. KELLY: True, but we did. MS. WALDRON: We also want to make the statement that the respondent is planning on a building on this property. It's just we don't know what the time frame is -- that he's not sure when he's going to build. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we see the stipulated agreement agam. And can I have amotion? MR. KELL Y: Well, we kind of did all that in quick fashion. Page 34 September 27,2007 And there's been a lot of testimony entered after the fact as public statement, but it would have been useful in determining our decision probably prior to that. MS. ARNOLD: There's been a motion for acceptability of the stipulation? MR. KRAENBRING: I don't think we've made a motion for accepting -- MR. KELLY: If you'd like we can-- MR. DEAN: We were accepting photos. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the photos. MR. KELLY: Oh, it was just the photos. MR. KRAENBRING: The photos, Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Just one other comment. Is the 30 days enough time to get the mitigation plan? MS. WALDRON: Yeah. It should be a fairly basic mitigation plan for that lot anyway. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think it'd behoove him to get it done as soon as possible with the rainy season coming to an end. MR. KRAENBRING: It's just that sometimes the expert who prepares these plans is not available for that 30-day period, so I'm just checking on that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. Do I have a motion? MR. PONTE: I have a question. Because it's in part of the stipulation, I'm curious as to what procedures are currently in place that will allow for follow-up monitoring over the next several years. You have five years here. Don't know when the respondent is going to build. Could build four years from now or three or six. So what procedures does the county have in place to monitor the situation on a regular basis? MS. WALDRON: He's going to replant, and we do yearly Page 35 September 27, 2007 monitoring every year. He's required to submit a report stating that at least 80 percent of the mitigation plants that he installed are surviving. And we usually do a site visit to make sure that these plants are still survIvmg every year. MR. PONTE: So that you have site visits planned, scheduled somewhere on your calendar for the next -- MS. WALDRON: Right-- MR. PONTE: -- two or three years? MS. WALDRON: -- we keep the case open and it comes up for recheck every year. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. KELLY: I have another question, Jen. Ifhe's planning on building, will the mitigation plan take into effect his future plans to site build? MS. WALDRON: Right. We're going to -- we're going to work with the environmental consultant on that also. MR. KELLY: This way he doesn't have to re-mitigate? MS. WALDRON: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Once again, I'd like to have a motion. MR. DEAN: Motion to close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to close the public hearing. MR. KELLY: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 36 September 27,2007 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Okay. A motion for -- to accept the stipulation. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that we accept it as forwarded by the county. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor -- all those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. VINCENT: okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's it. Thank you. The next stipulated agreement is BCC versus Anthony Gualario. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Inspector, would you raise your right hand, please. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia, S-A-N-T-A-F-E-M-I-A, property maintenance specialist for Collier County. This case is reference Code Enforcement Board Case 2007-94, department case number 2007010973, involves the property located at number 10 7th Street, Naples, Florida, which is the location of the Canterbury House, which is an assisted living facility. In January 22nd of this year, I was requested by the Attorney Page 37 September 27,2007 General's Office to assist with a joint task force type of spot-check of this facility. During my inspection of the property, I noted that the attic area of this facility -- excuse me, on the west -- I'm sorry, on the east wing had been converted from permitted storage space to living space. There was an office for the manager up there, along with a full kitchen and bath facility. Mr. Gualario is here, we did speak, and he did agree to enter into a stipulated agreement with plea, with the county. He stipulates to the existence of the violations, which are that of sections 1O.02.06(B)(l)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(l)(e)(i) of the Collier County Land Development Code, 2004-41 as amended, and sections 106.1.2 of Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, sections 22, article II, and section 105.1 of the Florida Building Code, which, again, are described as conversions of the attic area into living space prior to obtaining a valid Collier County -- excuse me, Collier County permit, inspections, and Certificate of Completion or occupancy. Mr. Gualario -- I'm sorry, I'm chewing that up -- Gualario has agreed to pay the operational costs of$373.54 incurred in the prosecution of this case. He also agrees to abate the violations by applying for all required Collier County building permits within 14 days, 14 business days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. He also must obtain all required Collier County building permits and execute said permits through inspections to Certificate of Occupancy or completion within 60 days of the issuance date of permits or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, the respondent may restore the attic area back to its original permitted use of storage by obtaining a demolition permit within 14 days of this hearing and execute said permit through inspections to Certificate of Completion within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each day the Page 38 September 27,2007 violation continues. The respondent agrees to notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and request a final inspection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, do you agree to this? MR. GUALARIO: I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. DEAN: Just one question, this letter I had on my desk. We're not doing anything with this letter? No, this letter that was -- MR. KELL Y: The continuance request? MR. DEAN: Is this made part of? I have this letter from Anthony Gualario stating you want an extension of 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but then -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: I did speak with Mr. Gualario prior to the hearing. MR. DEAN: Okay. I didn't heard that. Okay. MR. SANT AFEMIA: He wanted to agree to the stipulation and not request the -- MR. DEAN: So it negates this letter? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Correct. MR. KELLY: I have a question for the respondent. Sir, do you plan on getting permits to use this -- to continue to use it as an office, or do you plan on demolishing it, turning it back into a storage area? MR. GUALARIO: We would prefer to continue to use it as an office. MR. KELLY: Might I make a recommendation that in lieu of all of the options here, if for any reason throughout the permitting process the respondent sees potential issues that he's not able to meet the time frame, I'd like for him to be able to fall back on the demolition option. Is there any way that we could just encompass everything into a 90-day time frame to have everything complete and CO'd one way or the other? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's up to you, but he would have to Page 39 September 27,2007 -- the respondent would have to also agree to it. MR. KELLY: Just a suggestion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you agree to 90-days and either -- MR. GUALARIO: I would. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- either get the permits, CO and so forth, or demolition within that 90 days? MR. GUALARIO: Yes. I'm agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to leave it to -- I mean, do you want to draft -- redraft this thing? MR. KELL Y: I'd be happy to in the form of a motion. I think it'd be very simple to draft. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: We could combine A, B, and C together of item two into language similar to, the respondent has 90 days to secure all building permits and certificates of occupancy, has the option to either apply for a demolition or building permit, something similar to that, and then I also add that the operational costs be paid within 30 days. MR. SANTAFEMIA: If I can interject-- MR. KELLY: Yes. MR. SANT AFEMIA: -- just for one second. I don't have a problem with that, just bearing in mind that this is an assisted living facility. There are wheelchair-bound people living at this facility. I was a little hesitant to give them much more time because of the safety issue, the liability factor involved here. The other thing, in his defense, is that I originally gave him 14 days to make application, but knowing that it would take the county some time to review his paperwork, his application, before he actually was issued the permit, I didn't start the 60-day time frame until that date of the issuance of the permit on purpose in case it took them two, three, four weeks to review his permit. MR. KELLY: Well, Inspector, I agree with you that we can't -- Page 40 September 27,2007 we need to get this taken care of soon because of the type of use of the building, but we've seen in the past sometimes where you go in for a permit application, the county sometimes rejects that, and then it falls, therefore, on the respondent to submit another plan or another architect's review or something further, and it kind of gets caught in this space, if you will. And if we left it to a complete 90-day time frame, we know that it would, therefore, pressure the respondent to make sure that any re- submittals or any fixes to his original plan would be taken care of efficiently. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: Can we just look at -- so are we just worried about the time frame, that he may not be able to complete this in 60 days? MR. KELLY: No. It's more so where if you were to give 14 days for submittal, and then the 60 days does not actually start counting until after the building permit's been secured, there's a window in there where it could be bounced back and forth between county and the respondent quite a number of times, and we've seen it sometimes take months and months to finally iron that out to the point where they get the building permit, so it leaves that window open. It's an undisclosed period of time, and I'd rather see it down to a nice narrow time frame for ease for everyone to follow and understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like that as a motion? MR. KELLY: Sure. I make a motion that we change item two to read, the respondent shall secure Collier County Building Permit or Demolition Permit and secure all permit inspections, including a Certificate of Occupancy, within 90 days of the date of this hearing, and I would change number one to read, pay operational costs in the amount of$373.54 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the date of this hearing. Then item three would remain the Page 41 September 27,2007 same. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor, say aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand you have 90 days -- MR. GUALARIO: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to either get a CO or to have it demolished? MR. GUALARIO: I do have a question. If this gets caught up in the permit process and -- which is not under my control, what happens at the end of 90 days? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You could come back in front of us if you do not have it completed within 90 days, and you can ask at the time for a reduction of fines and explain why you would like a reduction in fines. MR. GUALARIO: That's fair. MR. KELL Y: Sir, also if! could add, the county does have a fast track permitting service for code violation cases, and many times you're assigned a specific person down at CDES that will walk you through the steps and help you with it. MR. GUALARIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We'll recess for 10 minutes. Come Page 42 September 27, 2007 back at 23 after. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the CEB back to order, meeting back to order. And we're going to go into hearings. BCC versus Steven Profaca. MS. MARKU: For the record -- (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, my name is Tom Campbell. I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. We have a case which is quite simple. It's a continuing violation, department case number 2003020185, and the violation is of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code as amended, sections 10.02.03(B)(5), and the Collier County Site Improvement Plan S.I.P. 00-01. The violation -- the respondent's company continues to violate the Site Improvement Plan and was previously ordered by the Code Enforcement Board for displaying more vehicles for sale than allowed and specified in the plan. The location of the violation is 2415 Avondale, which is in the corner of Avondale and Kirkwood, and 41/Davis triangle, about a block off of Davis Boulevard. Mr. Steven Profaca is the owner of a First Class Automobile Wholesale, Incorporated, and he's here today. The violation was first observed on February -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt for a second? I believe Mr. Profaca wanted to ask for a continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I apologize. MR. PROF ACA: Yeah. I'd like to ask for a continuance. I had a problem obtaining a lawyer, and I wanted to come back with an attorney. The attorney I hired called me Friday and told me he couldn't make it, and it was five days before my hearing so I couldn't do a written continuance. Page 43 September 27,2007 MS. ARNOLD: We do want to note to the board that this is a repeat violation. This is something that you've heard before, and we believe it continues to be violated without regard to what prior orders have been issued, so we're going to probably ask for -- if this is continued, ask for a pretty stiff fine in the event violation continues. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is the feeling of the county for a continuance? MS. ARNOLD: I think it's been your practice to grant continuances a first time, but not -- and then with the understanding that they waive their notice rights and that the case will be rescheduled at the next hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I feel it's maybe a little bit different because he's been in front of us before, if I remember correctly, so he does know the processes and procedures. So I'm not sure that if! -- I feel comfortable granting a continuance. MR. KLATZKOW: My feeling on this is that this is going to wind up being a very substantial fine at the end of the day, and that at the end of the day we're going to wind up in Circuit Court, and I would prefer not to have any, I'll call them side show issues, and one of these sideshow issues is, I didn't have a chance for a lawyer. So that is why we're saying, ifhe wants to continue, that's fine, but we will be coming back and be seeking substantial fines at the next hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What time frame are you looking for a continuance? MR. PROF ACA: One month, 30 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the next meeting. MR. PROF ACA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELL Y: I do have a question. If this is a repeat violation, then if -- was the original order not abated or was it abated? Were the fines paid? Page 44 September 27, 2007 MR. CAMPBELL: The original order was abated within three days, which was according to the board's order. We viewed violations reoccurring another three days later, so the case was reopened and this is continuing since then. MR. KELL Y: I do have a question. If this was a repeat violation, then was the original order not abated, or was it abated? Were the fines paid? MR. CAMPBELL: The original order was abated in three days, according to the records. We viewed violations reoccurring another three days later where the case reopened, and this has been continuing since then. MR. KELL Y: Because in the original order, on line two, it says that if the respondent does not comply with paragraph one of the order of the board of April 27, 2006, then there will be a fine of $100 a day per vehicle for each day that the violation continues past that date. MR. CAMPBELL: Exactly. MR. KELLY: So this is -- this could -- MS. ARNOLD: He corrected it prior to that date. MR. KELLY: I see. MS. ARNOLD: And it happened again after that date. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chair, I -- I understand due process, and obviously everybody in the United States should have their right to representation, but given the circumstances, I don't know where representation's going to do any good in this one. I mean we've already been through this. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? MR. PONTE: I disagree. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would disagree, and I would suggest we go with the recommendation of the county attorney, assistant attorney, with his recommendation that he does keep the record in a format where the respondent is represented by an attorney. I think if that's his wish, predicting that it's going to go through a legal process, I suggest Page 45 September 27,2007 we follow the suggestion. MR. PONTE: And I don't think we should number any kind of position that denies the respondent legal counsel. MR. KRAENBRING: And I have to echo that sentiment. I think he's entitled to the representation from an attorney with the understanding that there's a risk of a substantial fine if the case doesn't go in his favor. MS. RAWSON: I would advise you to grant him the continuance. And, sir, if you'll give me the name of your attorney, I'll see to it that he gets a copy of the order. MR. PROF ACA: Okay. My first attorney couldn't make it, so he referred me to Mr. Piers. Mr. Pires says he wasn't able to. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Tony Pires? MR. PROF ACA: Yes. He referred me to a Patrick White, who said he'll take the case. Friday he called me and told me he couldn't take the case, and that was five days prior, so I'm kind of like stuck. And I was under the understanding he would be making it here. MS. RAWSON: So you don't have Mr. White or Mr. Piers? MR. PROF ACA: Right. And I just got contacted Friday. You could check on this. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. PROF ACA: And that was -- and I will, you know, hire another attorney. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion for continuance till the next meeting? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to continue until the next meeting. MS. ARNOLD: Can we also include the waiving of notice? MR. PONTE: Waive the notice, yes. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 46 September 27,2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You do understand that this is your notice? MR. PROF ACA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what is the date of the next meeting? MS. RAWSON: October 25th. MR. PONTE: October? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 25th. MS. RAWSON: 25th. MR. PROF ACA: Thank you. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we'll see you here on the 25th with representation. MR. PROF ACA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next hearing is a name that I could actually pronounce, BCC versus Robert A. Mitchell. MR. DEAN: Very good. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator for Collier County Code Enforcement. This case is in reference to Code Enforcement Board case number 2007-74. The respondent is present. The respondent and the board was sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. Page 47 September 27,2007 MR. KELL Y: Make a motion that we accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances 2004-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, section 1O.02.06(B)(l)(a), 1O.02.06,(B)(l)( d) as renumbered, 1O.02.06(B)(l )( e), 1O.02.06(B)(l)( d)(i) as renumbered, 10.02.06 (B)(l)( e )(i), Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, section 22, article 11,104.1.3.5, 106.1.2, Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, sections 105.1, 105.7. Description of violation: Interior non-permitted construction. Location/address where violation exists: 3465 Dorado Way, Naples, Florida, 34105. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert A. Mitchell. Date violation first observed: September 26, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 18,2007. Date ofre-inspection: March 12,2007. Results of re- inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz Box. MR. BOX: Good morning. For the record, my name is Page 48 September 27,2007 Investigator Heinz Box. I'm with Collier County Code Enforcement. The CEB case number in this matter is 2007-74. Our code case, departmental code case, is 2006090818. Before I get started on the testimony regarding this case, what I'd like to do is reflect back to a previous CEB case that occurred in the year 2000. The case number in that matter, departmental case number in that matter, was 2000030309. That case happened with the conversion of a garage into a living area along with the installation of an in-ground spa and installation of windows. The case was brought before the board in 2001 on April 26. The CEB case number in that matter was 2001-021. Pursuant to that order, the respondent was ordered to obtain permits by the board, which he did. The issue that we had here when I was called back out for this case, or out to this residence, six years later after your order, the order from this board, was that there were never any inspections done on this property and that inspector -- and the permit itself was never CO'd. The permit number that I have here, on doing my research, was permit number 2001061691. And as I just stated, there were never any inspections done nor was there a CO done. Now, getting on to my present case that I have here, on September 18 of'06, we received an anonymous call okay, at Code Enforcement, indicating that there were no permits for a converted garage along with an addition at the rear of this residence, which involved the enclosure of a lanai and a propane gas cylinder that was on the side of the house. On the 10th of January of'07, I completed a Notice of Violation that was mailed to Mr. Mitchell with a compliance date that was set for February 24th of'07. On January -- I'm sorry. On January 17th, about a week after I mailed the Notice of Violation out, I received a phone call from Mr. Mitchell advising me that he would attempt to locate his permits, Page 49 September 27, 2007 okay, and bring them to the CDES the following Friday. Nothing ever happened. On June 22nd, I completed a CEB packet, all right, and I noticed, once again, there were no CO permits, all right, that had been -- were on our file, and none had been produced by Mr. Mitchell. On August 2nd, I completed our notice of hearing packet and posted that at his home and courthouse. What I have as evidence here goes back to the year 2001 when an investigator, who's since left Code Enforcement, was able to -- gained access to a -- legal access to Mr. Mitchell's home and photographed the interior, and I'll show you those photographs. MR. DEAN: Motion-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion to accept this as, I think, Exhibit A. MR. KRAENBRING: May I make a comment is, are we hearing an old case or evidence from an old case? Is this a continuation of that old case? Or is this a new case, that they pertain to each other? MS. ARNOLD: It's a new case, and they're related because it's reoccurring -- or it's continuing actually. MR. KRAENBRING: I just want to clarify that we're not being tainted by information from a previous case. MS. ARNOLD: It's still evidence. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 50 September 27,2007 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. BOX: Okay. Once again, I can only tell you what I have for evidence because I wasn't employed as a Code Enforcement officer at the time that those photographs were taken. This is evidence that was -- the photographs were taken back in 2000 -- I believe it was year 2000,2001, I'm sorry -- in March of2001. As you can see, there was -- that there's a door here that's in the garage area. There was also what looks like a window with the blinds drawn, shelving unit inside the garage area, along with the windows on the garage, photograph of Mr. Mitchell doing some type of measurement. Like I said, I wish I could tell you exactly what the circumstances of these photographs were, but I don't know. I do know that they were evidence in that case back then. Side of his property. This is a photograph of the back yard. Apparently an investigator was able to gain access to the back yard where the hot tub was located. Some brick pavers, I'm assuming. It looks like. This is part of the pumping system for the spa. This was, again, some additional photographs here of the side of the house, front. All right. To go a little deeper into my testimony here, what I'd like to also add is that there's been numerous complaints that were anonymously filed with our department about these violations. And throughout the years, I don't -- I have no idea as to whether or not they've been addressed. Apparently they haven't been addressed because I'm here in front of you today. About a month before I received this case to handle, all right, there was another investigator that went on location and tried to talk to Mr. Mitchell, and there was a -- there was a confrontation between the two of them, all right? The police were called out. There was an arrest made. I made the decision not to have any contact with Mr. Mitchell Page 51 September 27,2007 because of his propensity of becoming, let's say -- the best way to describe it would be animated towards us, okay. And that's the reason I don't have any photographs of the inside of that house. The contact that I did have with Mr. Mitchell was by phone, by mail, and now here in front of you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator, do you have any more? MR. BOX: Yes. What I'd like to do is read my recommendations in this matter. MS. ARNOLD: Investigator, could you clarify for the board, please, what the violations are? What improvements have been made? MR. BOX: There was a, an addition that was built in inside the garage. There were windows that were added. There was a shed and the spa. That's what we have permitted here, or on the original permit back in 2001 that was applied for. On my Notice of Violation what I did was I wrote -- let me get that here -- that I observed a converted garage that was converted into a living area with possible plumbing and electrical and air-conditioning improvements with no Collier County permits. I refused to go in the back of this house. I refused to go anywhere on this property to do any further investigation because of Mr. Mitchell's propensity towards animation and confrontation. So all I could say is what I saw from the exterior of the house and the evidence that I have here before you right now from the old case dating back to the year 2000 and 2001. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you all set? MR. BOX: Yes. What I'd like to do, if I could, is just read my recommendations, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we typically have recommendations? MS. RAWSON: Not until you hear the evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. If you can just hold off on the -- Page 52 September 27, 2007 MR. BOX: Certainly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- recommendations. MR. MITCHELL: First off, this started way back in 2000, which started out as an anonymous call, of course, which since 2000 I have close to 100 times Code Enforcement's been coming onto the property which is -- I think is outrageous, because of anonymous calls. I've been in front of the Board of Commissioners, which they also said -- you know, like he said he did not come on because the last time I was here, they also said that you cannot come on without a search warrant because it's just at a point of harassment. I feel that the Code Enforcement's got into being aiding and abetting a stalker, which happens to be a neighbor, that has been doing all these calls continually. And when he said I was arrested, it was true; 7:30 at night, in comes Code Enforcement knocking on my door. I was sleeping. I asked her to leave. I have a no trespassing sign on the thing. We had already gone through this. Next thing I know, they called the cops. I explained to the cops, next thing you know, I'm arrested and put in jail for telling her to leave my property. I mean, this has just gone step after step after step because it started out, I get in front of the Board of County Commissioners. I think sometimes this code is just because we're going in front of the board. Again in March I was in front of the special master going through -- which we thought we had settled. Now this, I knew I had settled, as far as this here. I got my permits. They also -- it cost me, because the county took longer to review my drawings and everything, it cost me, and I paid out, $967 to the county for -- because they said my permits and that were late. Now, I got the permits. This is back in 2000, in 2001. I've got them in my hand, and what I paid for it. Now -- this is my ex-wife. She was an ex-wife at that time, but Page 53 September 27,2007 she worked for me. Well, during this time then, after I got the permits, after going through it all, of course we wanted to get it done and over with. And then -- be over with, so of course we called in for inspections, because this garage itself was all done except for the garage's door before I bought this property. And I've been on this property for 17 years. And that was done, except for the garage door. And like I said, the shed and the hot tub was there, but they said I had to move it, which, okay, fine. We went through all this. And this was over a period of the last 17 years, but I was done with it. So we called in, got the inspections. Now, I don't know about the CO's and that. What he's asking for now is for me to go back and start all over again. Now, doing this, no codes have changed from 2001. As you just heard him say, something about when I'm violating or something of the code, 2004. Now, this was all done in 2001 and over with. I thought it was over with. That's why when I got the letter I called him. I didn't find the permits. I had to dig this up through and I finally found it. Because, I mean, all the other stuff -- and you've got to understand, this is frustrating. I don't think anyone of you want to have somebody at your house 100 times in the last seven years. And it's got to a point -- and you can see how frustrating this has to be. I went and got this -- and she was there with the inspectors. By that point, I called in. I'd have to go out on my service calls. I'm an electrical contractor. I tried to finish this, and I thought I was over and done with it. Then come back six years later, seven years later to start all over again? It's just a round robin. It's just been a circle. It's almost like -- you know, it's gotten to the point of harassment. Because why do they come back on this? I mean, it was done. It was over with, but they don't quit, and it's all because of anonymous. Well, the anonymous stopped when I got arrested because of the one neighbor that also tried to say I threw a rock at his kid. All Page 54 September 27,2007 charges were dropped. It had been nice and peaceful. Then all of a sudden this comes up again. Now, I don't understand if it keeps going. And I don't feel it's right that I have to go out and get new plans. Now I'm going to have to look at new codes and all this when I paid and I had this done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you gotten a CO for these? MR. MITCHELL: I don't know if I had -- I did not -- I don't know if! got a CO. All I got was the permits and I called it in. Now, the CO? I don't know in 2000 if you had one because I was living in the house at the time. I lived there 10 years before. So I never had to leave the house. I was never told to do any of this. The stuff was existing. They said, oh, we see that, the first inspector. He come in and he says, yeah, I see this was all done years ago. Yeah, you just closed in the garage because the garage door had fallen down. So I says, well, the cost of garage -- we'll close it down even though it wasn't used as one. This is back into 2000. I wish -- I gave the tapes to the county commissioners. I wish I could have -- otherwise I could have shown you my first meeting with your board in 2000 -- in April 26 of 200 1. I had these on tape, and I -- and the county commissioners have had this. And that's what I went through. So I thought this was all done with, but it keeps coming back, keeps coming back. Now, I mean, they said it was okay, the commissioners said that, okay? I thought it was all done with last year even, of all this stuff, but it -- you can understand the frustrations. Even when I got served here, like you said, he didn't come on. Well, they mailed me the letter. I'm signing it, and a half hour later in comes the Code Enforcement guy to hand -- going to put it on my window or tape it on my window. Well, if you sent it to me registered letter, why do they keep coming on? Is it that it -- just because they know it gets to me? Michelle knows I get upset. And she can see how many times. I mean, we've Page 55 September 27,2007 had our thing. I called to ask about this even when I got served. They just tell me, tough. I mean, I've been told by the board in 2000 -- April 26, 2001, they told me that they don't have to follow the Constitution or anything else because the board has special privileges. This was on the tape. Also, that -- I'd like to see that. They said, no. We don't have to. We have it. Now, state statutes have things. There should be some kind of a statute of limitation anyhow. I had a CO when I moved into the house. That was there. All I did was close in the garage. I added the shed, yes. The hot tub was there. But I just said, fine. He told me to get this. I had to go out and get drawings made, do all of that, and they come and do this. Now this -- you know, like I say, you can understand the frustration. They call in for it. I didn't know I had to go down to pick up a CO because it wasn't even brought up in 2001. It wasn't even brought up. I wish I had the tapes. It just said to get the permits and get it inspected. I didn't have to have a CO because I was living in the house. That's what a Certificate of Occupancy is. It was just about -- like he showed the picture, it's just that -- that's where the garage door was. That's where I just closed in the window. The other stuff was there. But I just feel like I'm repeating myself seven, eight years later. I mean, you can understand this is almost in a point of harassment, 100 times on your property in seven years. It just doesn't -- somebody just doesn't want to quit. I don't know if it's the board or what, because it's always anonymous, always anonymous. And you can understand how frustrating that is. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: Because they could be the anonymous. MS. CAPASSO: Investigative supervisor, Susanna Capasso. And if I may -- Page 56 September 27, 2007 MR. PONTE: Can't hear you too well. (The speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you bring the mike closer to you. MS. CAPASSO: Yes. And we appreciate your frustrations. Unfortunately what happened is, on the prior case, Mr. Mitchell was ordered to get inspections, and there was a permit. Unfortunately, there was no mention of inspections or CO. And so this is the problem. Weare still dealing with illegal structures without the inspections and without proper COso So we've come full circle and we've tried to explain that to Mr. Mitchell, and we've been having difficulties making him understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What would be the process now to get to CO, I guess you could say, the CO for the living area converted from a garage to living area? It would be a Certificate of Completion for the shed, is that correct, and a Certificate of Completion for the spa? MS. CAPASSO: I believe by now the permit must have expired, so he would have to pull the permit and get the inspection and get the CO. And as an electrical contractor, he might have been aware on some level that he needed this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what codes would he have to follow, the 2001 codes, or would it be the 2000 -- the most recent codes? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think what he may want to do is try to reapply -- re-open his old permit. That permit was issued on July 12th of'OI and expired January 8th of'02 because there was no inspections completed. So he can go into the county and try to re-open that old permit, and they may just issue him that same permit number or they may give him a different permit number and make reference to it. But he needs to call in the inspections. The inspector needs to Page 57 September 27, 2007 come out and do the inspections. You need to allow the building inspectors on the premises to inspect the work that was done, and if successfully -- or done within the code, then they will issue the Certificate of Completion, and you can obtain a copy of that. But the information I believe you have is just simply your permit that it was issued back in July of '01. MR. MITCHELL: July 3rd of'OI is my permit. MS. ARNOLD: It was approved -- MR. MITCHELL: This is the -- when did I pick it up? I picked it up -- I've got the payments right here. Should have a date on it. Oh, no. That was for the application. I paid the $50 at the time, and this is why they were late and that's why I said, they held the permits because I do not have the plans anymore. I don't know where they are. To do this, I'm going to have to restart all the plans. MS. ARNOLD: They probably still -- MR. MITCHELL: I'm going to have to redraw all the plans and do all of this again. They held the plans. It was approved. They held this past my date, and they -- you'll get it when you get it. You'll get it when you get it. That's where the 900 and something dollars that they liened my property for, which I couldn't do a thing about, so my lawyer says, you're going to have to pay it. And I had a letter from the lawyer, and they wouldn't even listen to me. And the lawyer was up in Minnesota. I mean, this is how this has been going since day one, but I thought it was over and done. Going back to get new permits, going back to try and get this re-applied, I do not think -- I've been down here 20 years. Been a contractor for 20 years down here. I've been a contractor for over 40 years from up north. Now, the point is, going to -- go back and try and go back and get this permit, they're going to say no. You're going to have to start all over, which means then I've got to come up with all new permit fees, Page 58 September 27, 2007 plus go out and get the drawings because I can't find the drawings, and now I'm going to go have to go and check and see if it was all brought up to the new hurricane codes because, you know, we've had two hurricanes well after this. And nothing's happened to this property, but they're going to say, now we're going to have to do this. Now you're going to have to tear this out. You're going to have to do this. You're going to have to do that. Well, all this is counting to thousands upon thousands of dollars, and the manpower and the money it's going to cost to do it -- the last time it cost me money to have the drawings put up, I had to go and do all the stuff. I had my plans. I had to have all this done. And I think because of it -- again, as she brought up, it does not request me to have that CO. They told me I was living in it. It did not require -- they told me to get a permit, which I did, which my -- this is Dina Dorsay (phonetic), my ex-wife, was there. The inspectors were there. I don't know what happened. Half the inspectors from seven years ago aren't even around anymore. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Mitchell, let me ask you a question. Being in business that you're an electrical contractor, you naturally have to pull permits, I would assume, to do certain jobs and also make sure that the homeowners get COs, correct? MR. MITCHELL: The electric -- or the general contractor is the one who normally pulls all the permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you should -- MR. MITCHELL: But as far as CO's, I mean, I know -- all I do is -- I don't go down to the county to get the CO papers itself. What we do is we call in for the permit, they say, okay, fine. It's all taken care of. We don't go -- I don't, myself, as a contractor, do not go down to look for CO's. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. But you should be familiar with more -- more familiar with the process than just a regular lay person that's not in the business, in the building industry. Page 59 September 27,2007 MR. MITCHELL: Right. I know what it means to get a permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So when you went in front of the board -- MR. MITCHELL: Yep. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- it should have been realized that you need to get a CO, and that's why basically you're here now. MR. MITCHELL: I did not realize that. I thought that comes on automatically. I didn't think that we had to go down and apply -- to go check the CO. All we do is we get our permit. We call in for an inspection, and that's the end of it. I did not know there was -- I even needed a CO on this because I was living in -- Certificate of Occupancy. I'm occupying it. I occupied this place 10 years before this is all going on. MR. KRAENBRING: Question. Were -- you obtained your permits, that's obvious. Did you have the inspections performed? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, all of them. MR. KRAENBRING: So all the -- and there's a record of that? There is no record of that? MS. ARNOLD: (Shakes head.) MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: That is why I brought her with -- to testify also, if that would do it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? MR. MITCHELL: We were not married at the time she worked for me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? Go ahead, Ken. MR. KELL Y: Let me hold off for discussion. I'll ask my questions on that part. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Mitchell, are you done with your testimony? MR. MITCHELL: Could I have her give you the -- to testify that Page 60 September 27,2007 the inspectors were there and inspected it? I think this should be right. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. You can call a witness. MR. MITCHELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You need to swear her in. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MS. DORSA Y: Good morning. Yes, Mr. Mitchell had -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, please. MS. DORSA Y: My name is Dina Dorsay, I'm sorry. And yes, at the time I worked for Bob. And when this was all going through on 2001, they had told him he needed to get permits for everything, and we went down there and pulled out permits. At that time when they were talking about the hot tub, the hot tub was like about 10 -- nine to 10 feet away from the back patio door. They told him then -- I was there because he was working. They told me that it had to be moved and they wanted it away from -- so we tried to look at codes, but instead of fighting with the Code Enforcement, they pulled it up. He hired the labor, pulled it up, moved it to the side versus away. A year later, or I would say two years later, Michelle, or Code Enforcement, came back and said, well, you didn't have to move that hot tub because it's less -- it's less than 10 feet. It was only nine feet. You could have stood (sic) there. So Mr. Mitchell had to pay more money to have it moved. And as far as the garage, I mean, to me, it's ludicrous because this has been going on since 2001. I was there when Code Enforcement came and inspected, and all he did was take the garage door down because it had fallen, added two windows and closed up right there. There's nothing really there but the two windows. And I was in there when they came to inspect it for the final inspection. Now, where his paperwork is from this many years, I mean, we've -- I haven't been there, but I was there at the time of all Page 61 September 27,2007 this construction or whatnot. And as far as the anonymous calls go, yes, Mr. Mitchell and the neighbor across the street -- which Michelle had showed pictures of the neighbor. I was looking. That wasn't Bob's house. That was the neighbor's house across the street that has numerously -- he -- I don't know what it is, but they don't get along. And it just continues and continues that this man is always harassing Bob. He knows how to get to him. I mean, all of the Code Enforcement know how to get to Bob. I mean, he's got a very -- you know, temper. Not a temper, but -- how can you say? He -- everybody pressures him all the time, and this has been going on for so long with his neighbor constantly calling. And so it's gotten to the point of harassment. For me it is, too, because I hate to see that. I mean, I'm sure you guys wouldn't want this every day. I mean, and they do, they mail it, they certify it, but they also come right after the mail comes. I've been there to see this. And they laugh at him. Code Enforcement laughs at him. They just tease him, and they just make it to where he's so -- you know, and I'm like, calm down, Bob. I mean, it's not worth it. So I have been there and I have witnessed this throughout these seven years. I have been there. And that's why I'm here now because I feel really bad for this man that they're continue -- I understand what you're saying, complying with the code. He did get his permits and, yes, they did come and inspect. It wasn't a very major job like the plumbing and everything. It was all up to code. I mean, everything was fine. It was -- but I mean, I thought it was bad that he had to go have -- dig out the hot tub and move it, then turn around a year later and he never had to move it. I mean, to me that was just more money, thousands of dollars. And I mean, he spent a lot of money already. I think enough's enough. That's why I'm here. MS. CAPASSO: Excuse me. For the record, I just want to say Page 62 September 27, 2007 Code Enforcement does not inspect -- does not do inspections, and I have never witnessed anyone in Code Enforcement acting unprofessionally with the respondent. MR. PONTE: I'm sorry. I could not hear that testimony. What? MS. CAPASSO: I'm sorry. I'll speak louder. I just wanted to -- for the record, I just wanted to state that Code Enforcement does not do the inspections. They kept saying that Code Enforcement had come over and done inspections, and we do not do inspections. And also on behalf of Code Enforcement, I've never seen any of our investigators in an unprofessional manner towards anyone. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Let me just clarify something with regard to the notice. And when we send a certified notice, if we don't receive the confirmation that they've picked up their mail, we are required to post the property. So I think there's confusion that we're kind of being persistent with our notice. This is with the -- within the chapter 162. So you may have picked it up. We haven't received the green card confirming that you've picked it up, and so then we're required to post the property. MS. DORSA Y: I understand that, Michelle. But you know if you look, it's been my signature every time that -- MS. ARNOLD: I understand that. You've made -- MS. DORSA Y: I have been the one signing the certified letters because, like I said, I do his bookwork. So when I'm there doing the bookwork, I'm the one who receives the mail. So it's been my signature on those certified. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not saying that you didn't sign it, ma'am. I'm saying that we may not have received it, because it takes time from the time that you sign it to get back to our office. MS. DORSA Y: I understand that, but -- MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Page 63 September 27,2007 MS. DORSA Y: -- at the same time the mail comes for me to sign, one of our Code Enforcements are right there with the tape and the camera and taping it on his window. I mean, so it's the same day the mail comes, the same day Code Enforcement comes. So it's a little -- I mean, maybe it's just the -- you know, bad timing on both, I would say. I don't know. But I've been the one signing for those certified. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have any questions for the witness? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing and open it to the board. Discussion? MR. KRAENBRING: Could we hear a recommendation from the county? MR. KELLY: If I may, we need to determine whether or not a violation exists -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KELL Y: -- before we listen to the recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: Is that necessarily true? MR. KELL Y: Well, that's what Jean had said, I think, originally when Gerald asked. MR. KRAENBRING: Want to hear it? MS. RAWSON: You need to determine ifthere's a violation. If you determine there's a violation, then you should ask the county if they have a recommendation. MR. KRAENBRING: Very good. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KELL Y: If! could, since it's amongst us, point out a couple things in the testimony that I saw. First I'd like to say that I don't believe a violation exists. I'd like to say that the testimony from the county spoke of an original permit -- original order that required a permit only. Did not specify Page 64 September 27,2007 inspections; it did not specify a CO. There's no current evidence on the property that the violation remains. As far as we know, it could have been demolished. There's no -- there's no current testimony. And I've not seen the original order so, therefore, I can't make a distinction based on something that happened in the past if I haven't even seen it. So I make a motion that a violation does not exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments from the board? MR. PONTE: I have very serious doubts that a violation exists, so I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: At this point there's not a motion. MR. PONTE: Yes, we have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELL Y: I did make a motion at the end, and it's been seconded. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All in favor of the motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All that are not in favor? Nay. There is not a violation. MR. MITCHELL: Well, thank you. Appreciate this. MS. DORSA Y: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, there's been a request to hear one of your items earlier because the respondent is not feeling well. That would be 5C12, Board of County Commissioners versus CS Partnership. And also, staff is withdrawing item 4CI0, Board of County Commissioners versus Ann Norman. Page 65 September 27,2007 MR. KELL Y: I make a motion to allow the movement in the agenda. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. DEAN: Which one are we on? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We are on BCC versus CS Partnership. MR. DEAN: Thank you. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is 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. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have the parties been sworn? (The speakers were duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: You need a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I apologize. Make a motion to accept the package, county package. MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion to accept the county package, Exhibit A. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. Page 66 September 27,2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays. (No response.) MS. MARKU: A violation of ordinance 2004-55, the property maintenance code section 16[2][n]. Description of violation: Utilizing designated parking spaces for storage and parking vehicles in non-designated parking areas. Location/address where violation exists: 4723 Exchange Avenue. Folio number 27155000307. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: CS Partnership, P.O. Box 8490, Longboat Key, Florida, 34228-8490. Date violation first observed: July 3, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July 16, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected, August 3rd, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: August 13,2007. Results of inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. MR. SNOW: Good morning. For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. This case started on July 3rd. It initially was a case where cars were parked in the right-of-way. I mean, I wouldn't say many cars, but probably in excess of 10 at some times. I photographed the evidence. I even issued a citation. Upon further investigation of the property, I discovered there wasn't any occupational license, which we're not here to address that today, but Page 67 September 27, 2007 they have no occupational license to do what they're doing on the property, which is stone fabrication. They do have one for admin., but that's not relevant. As I continued on the investigation, I observed through my photographs -- which I would like to submit as evidence, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Second. MR. PONTE: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. SNOW: I have shown them to Mr. Angell, who is the president of the company. He -- sorry. MR. ANGELL: Yes. I'm the president, for the record, of Natural Stone Concepts. We lease the building from CSS (sic). MR. SNOW: Okay. These are photographs of the cars, the initial investigation. There were cars parked in the right-of-way. As you can see in the background, there's granite that's utilized or being used in storage spaces. I have talked to them and conversed with Mr. Angell pretty much daily to try to resolve this issue. Further investigation revealed that the -- there was no Site Development Plan that was issued for this that would allow them to utilize the storage or parking spaces for storage. According to code -- and I'm sure that it's in my and your cases n Page 68 September 27,2007 that you have to utilize the parking space for parking only. Only a Site Development Plan or a Site Improvement Plan will allow you to deviate to use that, and they didn't have that so they couldn't utilize it. They -- in talking to them and discussing with them, that they have -- are trying to work toward it, but we're kind of at an impasse right at the present time, because again, we're talking July, we're talking no occupational license, we're talking stone fabrication without an occupational license, which requires a -- inspections by the county and is very specific on what is allowed and what is not allowed. And, again, once we -- or once they have a Site Development Plan submitted, it will allow them to do different things to figure out exactly what they can and can't do on that property, because we don't know that at this particular time. So that's where we're at right now. That's all. MR. ANGELL: May I speak? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. ANGELL: Good morning. Just to give you a little history on this. We have -- that's our second facility in that complex and we leased that in September of '03 through CSS. In October we went through the process of getting approval for all of the storage outside. We contacted a Mr. Bob Mulhere -- I have evidence here that I can enter for you -- as a consultant. He then did a preliminary plan review, which I have here. We then contacted 1.1. Bombassiro on their recommendation to meet with the Planning Department. We were working with Mr. Campbell at that time. Their recommendation was to put up a chain-link fence, native vegetation, working gates, and then go through the inspections, which I have all evidence that we did. My partner, Carl Magilewski, who's not feeling well today -- him and I work hand-in-hand. We're 50/50 owners of the company. He was doing -- meeting with Mr. Campbell, and we passed all the inspections, which I have here, too, and we were all set, is what we Page 69 September 27, 2007 were told. A little background. We're five years old, our company. We work throughout the whole State of Florida. We have manufactured and fabricated a million square feet of granite countertops. Due to this violation -- which caught us totally off guard. I mean -- I mean, because we -- we're licensed in 15 counties. Everything we do is, you know, to the T. I brought -- or this is our company brochure, which has all our licenses in it. Obviously we wouldn't be working under those conditions if we had known. We just didn't -- I guess we didn't pay attention to the licensing issue. Why would we lease an industrial building at $13,000 a month for administration only? After that point we had inspections there by the county for installation of saws, water, electrical, la, la, la, going on four years almost of two shifts working, no one -- we kept renewing the license, the girls -- our secretaries did, you know. Send it in, we signed the check. So it caught me total -- I about fell off my seat when he walked in with this. We then shut down that facility at that time. I fired seven people. The damage to our company is immense right now. It's huge. I'm surprised that we're even surviving it, to be honest with you. It costs us about $40,000 a day in gross revenue. Our overhead's huge. We've -- I've talked to Mr. Snow every day. We have our engineer here who communicated with Mr. Conan (sic). You know, our intentions were to do this right. Now he's telling me -- or I've been told that none of this is valid anymore, after we spent all that money, all this inspections and passed everything, had the county in there numerous times for inspections. No one brought anything to our attention till July. From July, we've been trying to move forward with this, but, gentlemen, you have to realize, I have 5,000 slabs outside. We can move seven at a time. Page 70 September 27,2007 I was told I have to remove all the slabs off the property by Mr. Kitchell (sic) in order to, you know, follow procedure here. I mean, that's 900 loads to move, and then go through the whole process again. I'm just -- I've never faced this in my life. I've been in business my whole life. MR. SNOW: Excuse me. For the record, there's no evidence of any Site Development Plan or Site Improvement Plan in the county records. A lot of times when these gentlemen or companies submit them, they may fail an inspection, and it appears at this time this was the case. There's nothing that stipulates or -- there's never any hard evidence that anything was ever issued, a Site Development Plan or Site Improvement Plan. So they basically have to start from scratch or resubmit what they did submit. I talked extensively with front desk planning. They did research. They talked to the engineers. There was nothing ever completed or submitted. And the county doesn't wish to impose undue hardships on any business but, however, the code is the code. It stipulates that you cannot use parking spaces for storage. That's what we're talking about here. MR. ANGELL: We are talking about that. And I have -- all of the inspections were completed. MS. ARNOLD: Can we just see? Because you indicated you have that information here. MR. ANGELL: Sure. I'm going to bring it over right now, okay? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. ANGELL: And we are -- I will take responsibility for not reading the occupational license. That's my fault totally. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Will this be all one exhibit? MR. ANGELL: Well, the first one's going to be, I guess, Notice of Fire Compliance. Page 71 September 27,2007 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're just talking specifically about the -- MR. ANGELL: The parking, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The parking. MR. ANGELL: Okay. Here's the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not dealing with any other Issues -- MR. ANGELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- today. MR. ANGELL: Here is the first-- MR. SNOW: And remember, we're not talking about submission. We're talking about completion. MR. ANGELL: Right. I understand. We want to -- we want to comply. MS. ARNOLD: Do you want me to show this? MR. ANGELL: Sure, sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we want to accept this as one exhibit? MR. PONTE: Yes. I'll make a motion we accept it as one exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) Page 72 September 27, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Can you just describe for the board what I'm showing here. Can you see? MR. ANGELL: Okay. This was what was submitted, preliminary plan, to the planning, and we were working with Tom Campbell at the time, and this is what we complied with. And the -- you know, Mr. Campbell said it was all set. I mean, we don't know. He just said it was all set, so we never -- we have our engineer here to testify. By being told that, he did not go forward and do a site plan. And he gave me -- and by the way, 30 days to move all slabs is impossible. It's -- can't be done. The expense is unbelievable. We're trying to adhere honestly. It's been -- I mean, and I think Mr. Kitchell (sic) can say that I've been extremely cooperative in hiring the engineer again and moving forward, you know, to get this right. But, you know, already the damage is unbelievable to the company. It's just -- it was the same reason, yeah. The first violation was that we couldn't do it outside, so within 30 days we reacted, right away. We don't wait. We just take -- you know, we both come from construction backgrounds, so we know that you can't -- you can't -- you've got to do things right. So we leased it in September. October they told us we couldn't store slabs. That's when we started the process, back in '03. So then-- we don't procrastinate on anything we do. But for us -- you know, the violation was issued in July and we contacted, you know, J.J. Bombassiro, who was the first gentleman, the engineer, the civil engineer, to start this process, but there's no way I can move all those slabs. And I've already closed down already. I've shut down. So I have vehicles stored there for 13,000 plus some a month. Now, all of our operations are in Collier County. I mean, even though we work for the State of Florida, this is where our homes are. Page 73 September 27,2007 This is where everybody -- our employees live. This is where -- so we're not trying to cause ripples here either. That's not what I'm here for. MS. ARNOLD: Let me just turn this page. MR. ANGELL: If you'd like, I can have my engineer speak next, just to testify under oath about what was done next, okay, if you'd like. Thank you, gentlemen. MS. ARNOLD: And then this is just the receipt, I guess. MR. ANGELL: And I brought -- by the way, I brought this just to show you that all of our licenses in every county's always updated. Everything's right. So it's not like we're trying to evade or avoid or break the law. MS. ARNOLD: And this is regarding the other one. MR. SNOW: For the record, Mr. Angell, before you go, who's your engineer? MR. ANGELL: J.J. Bombassiro. MR. SNOW: I'd like to, before we continue, submit an email from Mr. Bombassiro to David Hedrich, who is a front desk planner who was my contact for trying to research and find out whom and if and when this was completed or not completed because, again, the contention was that they had completed everything. He was an engineer who submitted everything. I think this email will clarify a little bit what our position is. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept this as county's Exhibit B. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. MS. ARNOLD: C. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, C. And -- I have a first. Can I have a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 74 September 27, 2007 MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. SNOW: Again, our contention is not that it was never submitted. Our contention, it was not completed and never issued. And just for the record to clarify a point, Tom Campbell did -- had an existing case. He closed the case when he discovered that there was going to be a submittal for the Site Improvement Plan or the Site Development Plan, but it -- and, again, it was never issued. It was submitted but never issued, and I think that email clarifies. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the original SDP from 1993, it looks like, doesn't include any kind of storage in the parking spaces? MR. SNOW: No, sir, it does not. It was for -- it was a shutter company. The original one was for the shutter company. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. SNOW: So no, no outside storage. I have talked to David Hedrich, who's a front desk planner. When they submit or when they resubmit, they're going to be allowed some outside storage, but not on the scope that they have. The majority of their parking spaces now are used for outside storage. It's -- I've tried to get in there with a truck and it's very tight. And one of the issues that I think about is if there were ever an issue on the property where there was some fire or there was -- somebody was injured on the property because they were doing some work in there, that the county facilities or the county folks couldn't get in there because of the blockage of the parking and the blockage of ingress and egress. And it's very -- codes are very specific about that, that ingress Page 75 September 27, 2007 and egress have to be allowed. And, again, we're specifically talking about storage in parking places here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I need to have you sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could state your name. MR. BOMBASSIRO: My name is Joseph Bombassiro. I'm a professional engineer for Edixon Engineering of Southwest Florida. We were originally retained by Natural Stone Concepts in 2003 to provide engineering services for them to obtain an occupational license, which amounted to doing what was then, I think, put through as a Site Improvement Plan to reconfigure the space to allow outside storage, demonstrate they had enough parking for the additional outside storage and the existing building. Part of that stuff, we had a preliminary meeting with the county, what's called a pre-submittal meeting, and at that time it was discussed items that would need to be done to bring that site into compliance, one of which was adding a fence and replacing some landscaping material that was dead and damaged. I instructed Mr. Angell at that time to go ahead and get started on that stuff, since they were separate permits. They put a fence in, replaced the vegetation. And when they did that, the county came out after that and issued them a Certificate of Occupancy. At that point, we didn't do follow-up on the submittals because, in our minds, the issue had been solved. The county had inspected the site as it was at that time with the outside storage that they were conducting at that time. We have -- we're not arguing the case that no violation exists. We know that the violation exists and we're trying to correct that. I've contacted Mr. Snow, as well as David Hedrich, the planner who's going to be handling the case. We have prepared a plan for submittal. We have to get final approval from the owners on it, and we're submitting that designating Page 76 September 27,2007 certain areas for outside storage. They will not be able to get the full amount of storage that they have now, and that is part of the problem, is they want enough time to kind of get this worked through and see what slabs they have to -- they have to remove from the site. They are going to have to remove a significant portion of the slabs from the site. Mr. Angell has already addressed the issue of the time that it's going to take for that. He would prefer not to have to move all of them off and then move a portion of them back on. Mr. Angell has ceased operation at the site and it's not being used. Weare asking for enough time to go ahead and get all this stuff submitted, approved, and enough time to remove the -- the slabs that would need to be removed that don't fit in the designated storage areas. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long do you anticipate -- well, how long before submittal do you anticipate? MR. BOMBASSIRO: The submittal should be ready next week. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next week. And this would be a new Site Development Plan and wouldn't be a Site Improvement Plan; is that correct? MR. SNOW: I believe it's going to be. I talked to Mr. Bombassiro this morning. He's going to do a Site Improvement Plan. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. BOMBASSIRO: What I was -- my conversations with the planner, David Hedrich, he said it could be done as an insubstantial change. The fence is already existing. It's just mainly are-designation of certain areas. We have to outline those areas, verify that we have enough parking for the current use. MR. SNOW: That is correct. He did tell me that this morning. I'm sorry, insubstantial change, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what would be the time frame for that, if approved? Page 77 September 27,2007 MR. SNOW: Would you like my recommendation? If you -- well, we need to find if a violation exists first, and then I'll give my recommendations. The county has specific recommendations, but the county would always agree to whatever the board wants to do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do you have any more? MR. BOMBASSIRO: Just my personal experience, the matter could be resolved rather quickly, or if we have to do re- submittals, then it could go on into a month or two, depending on if we have comments that then have to be addressed from the people who are revIewmg. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a possibility for the storage areas to be used in a two-story, two-high? MR. MAGILEWSKI: They're five feet high. That's all. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Angell, do you have any more? MR. ANGELL: I do. The problem that we have right now really is that we were issued an occupational license at the time for administration only. So all this time I have to stay shut down. That is a -- I don't know what to tell you. But, you know, the faster, I guess, we get it done the better, but I'm still shut down, just as you know, because we assumed that they issued us the proper occupational license. I mean, we're marble and granite fabricators with a half a million dollars worth of machines sitting in there rusting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not looking at the occupational license. MR. ANGELL: I can't work. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. But that's not -- MR. ANGELL: Because of this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- not what we're addressing today. We're not addressing this today. Page 78 September 27,2007 MR. ANGELL: I know that. But take that into consideration too, please, if a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have any questions for respondent? MR. CONA: If I may? Do you have questions for him specifically? I represent the owner of the property. MR. SNOW: He's the property owner's attorney. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MR. CONA: So I wanted to just address the board, if! may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need -- (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CONA: Gentlemen, good morning, or almost good afternoon. My name is Chris Cona, and I represent CS Partners. I am their attorney. And CS Partners is the owner of record of the property in question today. Our interests, obviously, in this case are substantial. CS Partners and Frank Cona are the respondents listed on the petition and the Notice of Hearing. We are -- we are here today to help resolve these Issues. It's obviously in our -- in my client's financial interest, as well as his willingness and interest to make sure that the building's up to code. We are working diligently with the tenant, Natural Stone, as well as the county. I've been -- I've had several, several phone calls and conversations with Mr. Snow regarding how to resolve this problem. The Site Development Plan, as the engineer had indicated, should be submitted within the next week. Obviously we're not sure when that site plan will be approved. It could bounce back and forth for a few weeks, possibly a month or two months. Nobody's really sure. Until the approval's given, nobody's really sure what kind of time frame we'd be looking at there. As Mr. Agnelli (sic) indicated, he's got almost 5,000 slabs at, he indicated, about seven -- he could probably get seven slabs on a Page 79 September 27,2007 flatbed. If you do the math, that's 7-, 800 loads of moving slabs to another location while this process is going on, which would cause substantial financial hardships as well as just efficiency. He's already laid off several of his employees because of this -- because of this Issue. Nobody's disputing the fact that there's a violation. What needs to be considered, though, is the fact that four years ago they attempted, or so they thought, they substantially complied with the zoning and the Code Enforcement through their submittal of site plans and through the receipt of the occupational license. So our request is that they be given up to 180 days after this -- after the approval of the site plan to figure out a strategy for removing this product. In addition, we'd also request that they be allowed to continue operations on the -- in the facility while this process is going on. They've been -- they've shut down, they've complied with Code Enforcement. They're incurring significant financial hard -- damage and hardship as a result of this. They're attempting to work with you diligently, they're attempting to resolve this problem, and all they're asking is that the board be willing to work with the tenants, and as -- us, as the owner, to resolve this issue. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any comments? MR. SNOW: No. Just, for the record, we've never forced -- Code Enforcement can't force anybody to shut down. I believe probably the circumstance that -- and they were worried about their employees, and they were doing the right thing to try to comply with what -- the county, so just for the record. And I made them aware of that, we cannot do that. I believe they've diligently tried to work toward this. But, again, we've reached an impasse and we need to find some resolution to this, Page 80 September 27, 2007 I believe. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Could I just ask that when, whatever the order is of the board, that we just place the business owner's name on the order as well as the property owner, and the business owner is Natural Stone Concepts. MR. MAGILEWSKI: We're responsible one way or another, yes. MS. ARNOLD: Right, right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We are not here to address the occupational -- MR. CONA: I understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- license issues. We're here to address the site plan and it -- regarding the parking spaces for storage and parking vehicles, so that's what we're looking at. MR. CONA: Understand. And I understand that four years ago they submitted those site plans. I know there's some issues as to where those -- if the site plans were approved. And the fact is, is to their knowledge, they had received the occupational license, which we're not going to discuss. But the fact is, they did actually receive an occupational license. They've -- they haven't done this in bad faith. They haven't done anything to the contrary, to their knowledge, and they're just asking that the board just give some consideration to that effect. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? MR. KELLY: I have a question. Investigator Snow, the original SDP on the property back in '93 -- which is the one that is in effect since the second one was never actually approved, correct? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. Well, they're going to have to submit for something new because they're doing something other than what was Page 81 September 27,2007 originally allowed to be done, and that's the issue here. It's not -- if they were doing the same thing, then no, they wouldn't. But since they're doing something doing (sic), they're doing stone fabrication-- they're allowed to do that in industrial. But I think we're getting off track. It's not the occupation. We're not here about that. We don't even want to address that. What (sic) we're here is utilizing parking spaces for storage, and that's -- that is n I feel is a definite health and safety issue. Now, how many they are allowed to do and when they're allowed to do that, that's up to the county. That's what the process is for, to allow that. And their engineer's already testified he knows it's going to be substantial downgrading what they're using right now, so -- MR. KELL Y: Well, that's what my question was going to be. The original SDP specifies how many parking spaces are necessary for the building under the -- whatever the previous use was -- MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: -- it may say five, but they may have marked out 10 spaces, and under that original SDP, they would be allowed to use the other five for storage. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. If -- on their zoning original certificate right here, it talks about -- on the new one they submitted they're allowed to use 10 to 14 spaces. There is in excess of 40 spaces probably on that property, and they are utilizing probably 14 for the vehicles instead of the other way around. It's reversed a little bit. MR. KELLY: Well, if the original SDP's in place, if they were to remove and clear enough spaces to where they've provided the amount of parking that specified in that original SDP, would they then be in compliance and, of course, stop right-of-way parking? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. And that's one of the options that they can have. But the issue is, they still -- and once they rectify that, then they're going to have to submit for that insubstantial change so it's going to allow them to do -- we have a process here, which you all Page 82 September 27,2007 know. First they have to submit for the insubstantial change to rectify the parking. Then after they do that, that is going to open the door for them to attain the occupational license. And I don't want to bring that up because we're getting off track. But the process has to be, we have to start somewhere. We address the parking, we address the site improvement plan, Site Development Plan, or insubstantial change, whichever of the county decides they need to submit. Once that is submitted, then the process can start that will allow them to figure out, can they do what they're doing on the park -- on this parcel. How much parking is going to be allowed -- are they going to be allowed to do? Is it going to be feasible for them to do what they want to do in this parking -- on this parcel. That's what we need to determine, and that's the process we're trying to figure out right now, is, we can't do anything until submittal's done. Then we can figure out where we're going and yes, sir, they can utilize the parking that is on the prior Site Development Plan for storage if it's any designated -- ifthere is any designated. I don't believe there is. MR. KELLY: Do you have a copy of the original SDP? MR. SNOW: It's on there though, sir. I did order it and they received the wrong one. I just ordered it again yesterday. MR. KELL Y: Well, from a board standpoint -- and this is just one person in my opinion -- but it's hard for me to justify whether there -- let me step back. If there wasn't testimony from the respondent's side twice stating a violation did exist, as a board member it would be hard for me to say that there was a violation without seeing that SDP saying whether storage was allowed or not allowed. All I know is that there was a citation served but no proof other than Land Development Code that says that there should be parking Page 83 September 27,2007 facilities provided in accordance with the Land Development Code and they should be stabilized surfaces. Other than that, I don't know how many, I don't know which ones are allowed for storage and which ones aren't, if you know what I'm saying. MR. SNOW: I understand, sir. And the issue, again, is using most of the parking spaces for -- and that's a situation that we can rectify and find out what exactly is designated. It's not the issue, are there five or 12. The majority of the parking is used for storage, and that's why we're here, and they need to vacate that. And regardless of whether they can use five, four, or ten for outside storage, I -- the violation still remains. MR. KELL Y: It's possible though that the shutter company did have in their SDP some certain number of those spaces that would have been allowed as storage, but we can't see that because we don't have it here. And if we were to -- if we had that information, perhaps we could say, listen, clear out 10 spaces and you can continue on until the rest of the process is completed. MR. SNOW: Absolutely. I can't testify to that, sir, but again, it's on its way. MR. KELLY: Very good. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: I have a question. Would they be able to use that grassy area that was in the photo where the -- MR. SNOW: Negative, sir. The code is real specific. It says, non-residential commercial properties may provide parking facilities in accordance with the Collier County code but be treated as a stabilized surface. So, no, they can't utilize the grassy area. MR. MARTIN: For the storage of those slabs? MR. SNOW: No, sir, they may not. Now interior, there's other options that I'm sure their engineers have gone over. There's other options they could do. They could probably do some internal storage, but the magnitude of the amount of slabs on that property -- and the Page 84 September 27,2007 pictures don't do us justice. It's a lot of -- it's a lot of product. And they would need a storage occupational license if they were going to do that. And again, we keep bringing up the occupational license, which is not the issue. The issue here is, there's a violation of utilizing parking spaces for storage. Regardless of how many spaces, that old Site Development Plan, the majority of spaces on this property are being used for storage. And the number, obviously, can be anywhere from -- I can't testify to how many, but it's certainly not what's being there right now. That's a definite fact. MR. BOMBASSIRO: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. BOMBASSIRO: Mr. Snow said that they can't be forced to -- that the Code Enforcement can't shut down their business. These two issues of occupational license and the storage are somewhat linked. I know we're here to address the outside storage. They cannot apply for, even if they move out the slabs, they cannot apply for an occupational license for the correct use until this case is abated. They will not accept an application for occupational license, and that's what we're doing. And the problem is, it's kind of their understanding from Mr. Snow that they are operating under an occupational license that does not conform to their use, and so they have ceased operations. And they would like nothing more better (sic) than to get into some sort of at least limited production while everything is being abated and the process started for the new occupational license. He mentioned the amount of money that they're losing a day in their revenue is phenomenal. And these two cases are somewhat linked because they cannot -- they cannot apply for an occupational license until this case is abated. Thank you. MR. KELLY: Sorry, Mr. Engineer, I forget your name. I apologize. Page 85 September 27,2007 Did you say that -- did I hear earlier that there was an additional facility that they had here in town, or is it just the one location? MR. BOMBASSIRO: Yes. How many locations do you have in town? MR. ANGELL: We have three altogether. MR. BOMBASSIRO: They have three. They're all pretty much full. MR. ANGELL. Full. MR. KELL Y: Okay, thank you. Investigator Snow, if you have an occupational license to have a business here in town, do you need a separate occupational for each building? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, you do. MR. KELL Y: Very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing and have discussion amongst the board. MR. KRAENBRING: This is a tough one because we don't want to be imposing a hardship, especially with, you know, the construction downturn. And you know, I haven't made any site visits to this property but I've driven by it a number of time. I know what it is. I think by the testimony of the respondent, they're admitting that a violation exists, but I think the fact we are probably going to have to find that a violation exists, however, this board has to be extremely lenient with this. We have to get -- in my mind, we don't have an obligation to get these people back in business, but being in business, I feel that we should be working toward that. If a number of parking spots have to be opened up temporarily while everything gets resolved, maybe that's something we can craft into an order, but that's sort of a Catch 22 that they're involved with here. Until this gets resolved, they can't proceed with that site Page 86 September 27, 2007 improvement. The site improvement is minor, from what we understand. So I just would, you know, try to ask the rest of the board members their suggestions on how we can get these people back into business and get this resolved so that we can get the proper documentation and the proper Site Improvement Plan. MR. PONTE: I agree with Richard wholeheartedly. I don't think we heard Investigator Snow's recommendation though, did we? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No. MR. KELL Y: Not till after. MR. PONTE: I'd like to know where the investigator's coming from. It would really help us a lot. Is there any way we can do that? We're just asking for a recommendation. MR. KRAENBRING: I think the one thing is -- we probably have to do, of course, is find if a violation exists. But again, I just encourage the tenor of the board, after we find the violation, that we be as helpful as possible. MR. PONTE: All right. I think we're all there. I don't think there's any other move. I'll make a motion that a violation exists. MR. KELL Y: Well, can I make a comment before the motion goes to a vote. And this is merely for the record. If we did not hear -- if I did not hear the respondent say twice, two different of the respondents say twice, that a violation exists, I would have had a hard time finding that violation because I didn't think county did a good enough job proving the violation. The photos were there, but they weren't of parking spaces. We didn't get a count. We didn't get, you know, kind of a full picture, if you will, and that's more or less for future recommendations. But absolutely -- I'm sorry, continue on with the -- MR. PONTE: No, I agree with you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you second? Page 87 September 27,2007 MR. KELLY: I'll second. MR. PONTE: And the reason I'm making the motion is simply to get us into a position to move along, otherwise we're stalled. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a first and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And now can we hear your recommendation, please. MR. SNOW: Keep in mind the board can -- does what it sees fit. The county requests the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 308.83 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the date of the hearing. One, remove storage from parking spaces within 30 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until storage is removed from designated parking spaces. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put it up -- can you put it up on the -- THE COURT REPORTER: And could you slow down, please. MR. SNOW: I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: There's only one copy. MR. SNOW: Yeah, let me read, and then we'll put it up. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I apologize. MR. SNOW: Designated parking spaces and stored in Page 88 September 27,2007 accordance to and compliant with the Land Development Code and Codes of Laws and Ordinances. MS. ARNOLD: Slow down. MR. SNOW: Two, parking spaces shall be limited to duly designated parking spaces. Vehicles parked in any area not duly designated parking will be subject to a fine of $50 a day per vehicle until such areas are cleared of illegally parked vehicles. And three, is to notify the Code Enforcement investigator that violations have been abated to assure compliance. MR. KRAENBRING: Move that back a little. Thank you. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. KELL Y: If I could hear from the respondent as to their opinion on the 30 days for the removal if we decided to pass this recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have to open -- re-open? Jean, do I have to re-open the -- MS. RAWSON: You do, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to re-open the public -- make a motion, I guess, to re-open the public hearing. MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. CONA: Gentlemen, as discussed earlier, again, sorry, Chris Page 89 September 27, 2007 Cona for the respondent, CS Partners. A 30-day time period is completely unrealistic based on previous testimony by the tenants indicating that -- and also by the Code Enforcement Board, Mr. Snow. It's a substantial amount of product. It's -- the pictures do not do it justice. There's absolutely no way that they could move 5,000 slabs in 30 days even if they had crews working throughout the day, which would require them to hire people to actually do this. If they could move a -- these slabs weigh thousands of pounds. MR. ANGELL: Thousand of pounds each. MR. CONA: It would require based on the calculations of seven slabs per load, like I said, 7-, 800 loads. If you do the math in 30 days, it's -- it just didn't make sense. So that's our position. And Mr. Agnelli (sic) would like to speak as well. MR. KRAENBRING: I'd like to ask a question and make a comment, you know, just for you. I think this action was all brought on because there was parking in the right-of-way. MR. SNOW: That's how it initially started, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. How many parking spots do we need to get -- to alleviate that right-of-way issue where -- you know, so you can accommodate your employees? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, they're already in compliance. After I had the initial meeting with Mr. Angell and Mr. Magilewski, they made sure that that didn't happen again. They have probably 10 parking spaces on the side of the building that are used for their company vehicles. There's no longer any employees there. Again, they're not operating out of that place anymore. MS. ARNOLD: And I would just caution the board in recommending something that is beyond what the code allows. So you need to make sure that whatever you're requiring them to do is Page 90 September 27, 2007 within code. MR. KRAENBRING: I understand that. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But also -- don't we have to also follow the original Site Development Plan that's on that, at this current stage? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, you could always amend your order to state that -- to follow that and the recommendation with a certain amount of days. MR. KRAENBRING: What I'm getting at is, in order to assist this process of going -- of moving along, this order says remove, in effect, all the material. And if we can just move some of the material and make sure that they have adequate parking where we can move forward with the rest of the Site Improvement Plan, you know, that may help to resolve the issue. So that's just a comment. That's why I'd asked ifthere's a certain number of parking spots that you need in order to, you know, facilitate your operation. MR. ANGELL: Yes, certainly. Can I speak? Yes. We were -- actually our first submittal showed that we were going to have six employees there, and we were requesting 14 parking spots, and that was pre-approved, and that's what were -- we're doing -- we were doing. Just the guys, when he pulled in to show someone a slab or something, they're looking at the slabs, they parked in the driveway, and that's what caused all this, which brought the attention that we have the wrong occupational license. So it's a Catch 22. I mean, I'm not getting any help at all from this end, that's for sure. None whatsoever. You know, maybe -- we produce $50 million worth of revenue in this county for you guys, for us, for everybody, and it's all back at the slabs, you know. You've got 20,000 slabs on Commercial on the right side of the street, we've got Page 91 September 27, 2007 5-, 6,000 on Exchange. MR. KRAENBRING: So -- but just get back to the parking. MR. ANGELL: I mean, this is like unbelievable. MR. KRAENBRING: Just to get back to the parking issue. We're looking at -- MR. ANGELL: Yeah, 14. We have 14 right now. MR. KRAENBRING: -- 14 spots is what we have to make sure that we need to accommodate your employees. MR. ANGELL: To accommodate us. But you know, how about if -- again, it's up to you guys what you want to do. MR. KRAENBRING: That was just my question. MR. ANGELL: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any more questions? MR. KELL Y: Yeah, if I could, sir. I'm sorry, before you walk away. MR. ANGELL: Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. KELL Y: If we were to take the recommendation from the county and it does say to remove all of the storage, how long would it take you realistically? MR. ANGELL: Six months. MR. KELL Y: Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But by then you may be -- you may have the Site Improvement Plan or Site Development Plan? MR. ANGELL: Then I'm shut down for six months and might as well just break my lease and move. But once I move them, I'm out of there. We're in court now. That's where it goes. That's the cost. MS. ARNOLD: What was the question that you just asked, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Oh, just if we accepted the recommendation by the county, how long he thought it would take him to move all 5,000 slabs. The recommendation says 30 days, and the respondent asked for six months. Page 92 September 27,2007 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have anything else to say? MR. SNOW: Not at this time, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Well, is the -- is the time period, six months, when you think you're going to have your insubstantial change? MR. ANGELL: I would hope so, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what, obviously, we would like to see you go towards. MR. ANGELL: Yes, yes; me too. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And in this particular recommendation, there's nothing that says that you have to get your Site Improvement Plan in place, and I'd like to see that -- a time frame for that. I don't know how the board feels, but -- MR. KRAENBRING: Unfortunately, we may not be here for that today. That may be the problem. We're just here to address the one issue in order to allow -- to facilitate the movement of that Site Improvement Plan. MR. KELLY: But in our order, could we recommend that they follow the original SDP or a newly approved? I guess we could leave the language vague. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, is that correct? MS. RAWSON: You could. Be sure though that you tie it in with what you've cited them for in terms of the violation. Look at the violation and be sure you tie it in so that it makes sense. MR. PONTE: Here's a thought from way out left. Maybe we're trying to solve the problem and maybe that's not our responsibility to solve the problem. Leave it to the people who are the primary parties to solve the problem and who have had a lot more time to think about this than we have. So if we simply take the recommendation of the county and alter it and say, all right, let it stand as it is, give them 190 days, and let things resolve themselves and let's see where we are. Give the parties Page 93 September 27,2007 time to work this out. We're trying to solve all the problems, and -- MR. MARTIN: I agree with you. We need to bate the case and give him more time. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. MARTIN: Get it over with. MR. PONTE: We're -- we can't solve all of these problems at this dais. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A hundred and eighty days. MR. KELLY: So I'm sorry, real quick, to George. To your point, I think that's a great idea, give him the time that they need to do whatever needs to be done, but I'd say one thing might need to be changed. The order says to remove storage from all the parking spaces. If within this time frame they file and they get a new improved site plan, there's still an existing order that says remove it, period. Maybe we should make sure that the language ties into whatever -- MR. PONTE: You mean say remove the parking spaces or obtain a site plan? MS. ARNOLD: Could I just help the board a little bit? Why don't we modify it to say, remove all storage from unauthorized parking areas within whatever time period that you guys specify, and then we don't have to worry about site plans or anything else. They will have that amount of time to get their Site Improvement Plan or their insubstantial change, whatever's applicable. And if they don't get what they need to get done within that time period, there's also -- there's also the ability for you to come back and ask for additional time from the board. So that's my suggestion. MR. PONTE: Would you like to put that in the form of a motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Michelle, I think you meant to say authorized parking spaces or unauthorized storage spaces. MS. ARNOLD: From authorized, thank you. Thank you. Page 94 September 27, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Authorized. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Public hearing is still open, but I'd like to close that. Do you have anything else to say? MR. ANGELL: Yeah. I just want to make sure I understand the recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. ANGELL: As long as the recommend -- as long as it is like 180 days so we don't have to move all these slabs -- you see my problem, I don't want to move all these slabs off and we have this thing approved in 45 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. ANGELL: That's what I'm -- you know, that's my concern, you know. I mean, that's really a big problem. I'm still shut down because I can't get an occupational license. That's not your problem, obviously. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But what we'll be asking from him, if I'm not mistaken is to move some of the slabs. Right now? MS. ARNOLD: Within a time period, whatever that is. MR. KRAENBRING: From the authorized parking spaces. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, okay. MR. KRAENBRING: Not all. MR. ANGELL: I still can't run so it doesn't -- I mean, just give me the 180 days and I'd be happy. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing once agam. MR. ANGELL: We're fucked. We have no occupational license. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing once again. MR. MAGILEWSKI: Can we reply in any way -- MR. ANGELL: Can my partner go up? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ifhe's sworn in, he can. (The speaker was duly sworn.) Page 95 September 27,2007 MR. MAGILEWSKI: This is-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name, please. MR. MAGILEWSKI: Carl Magilewski. This comes like -- you look like a horse and a cart and a horse and a cart. I'm the individual who first applied for all the permits. I did all the inspections. I did inspections with planning, with zoning. I did inspections with fire. The reason mainly we got the inspection with fire, because we were -- the request was to fabricate. And to have fabrication, small fabrication shop, you need a licensed 4,000 square feet for the rear of the building. Now, we have two buildings one block away from each other. One got 4,000 square feet of offices, which we use and we got the necessary parking. And this building in particular, we have 6,000 square feet of offices, probably 40 offices, but we have them closed down. We don't utilize them because there's no reason for us to use-- to have offices there. So the only purpose actually that we have for that building is to fabricate the tough work and, you know, the very heavy granite work which doesn't require a lot of employees, only two or three good ones, which they work on it, like 6 cm, 8 cm, 12 cm, granite onyx's. Tough work. The other production work is done in other shops. And the only reason was that I asked planning and I met with planning, with Mr. Bombasino (sic), in 2003, and they said to me that it was okay. They going to send somebody from zoning to planning to see if we build the fence so -- they don't want to see the slabs that we're going to store outside. If we build a fence, we pass the fire inspections and we do everything that is required on that lease, they will approve it. And that's what they actually did. They approve it and they hear us, we abated the problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir? Sir? Right up here. We already heard the case and we already found that there's a violation, so what -- Page 96 September 27,2007 to make our decision, I guess that's all-- the reason we have you up here is for you to help us along. MR. MAGILEWSKI: We have to find a way of -- at least that we can proceed with the application of submitting all the necessary -- the necessary documentation that the code requires to do, which we are willing to do. We wish we could do that three, four years ago. But right now, we have to abate one thing in order to do the other one. So we have to find a way. You know, your honorable board is the one who knows how to do that. If we can find a way that we can -- you can give us the time to -- if it's two weeks, we can apply and try to submit everything, because we know that we can use more than one-fourth of the place or one-tenth of the place for storage of material. So is the matter of the case to use it -- to move it one place to another and leave certain -- probably 60 percent of the parking space free so we comply with the ordinances in the court? We must not forget that this is an industrial place, even though right now -- 10 years ago it was in the outskirts of town. Right now it's in the center of town. We have to keep the looks, we have to make sure that it's decent and it's clean because where it is located. So we need to do that for our town and for our country. But we have to try to have the tools in order to comply with the code. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. MAGILEWSKI: That's why we are asking if you can find any wording so we can submit everything next week and submit it, get everything completed like we should. If you can allow us to do that -- we don't know that it's possible, you know, not comply with one thing and then try to do another thing. That's what Mrs. Michelle Arnold is saying. So see if we can find a way, because this -- we know that we have to comply. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. MAGILEWSKI: We asking you please to help us in order Page 97 September 27,2007 to comply. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. I think at this point I'm going to close the public hearing. Okay. And back to the order. Mr. Kelly, would you like to draft an order? MR. KELLY: I'll give it a shot. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that the board orders the respondent to pay operational costs of$308.93 within 30 days of the date of this hearing; two, remove storage from authorized parking spaces within 180 days; three, park vehicles in authorized spaces and cease parking in right-of-way within seven days of the date of this hearing. If a violation continues on either number two or three after those dates, a fine of $50 per day would be imposed. Number four, notify Code Enforcement when the violations have been abated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a motion. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. KELLY: So basically we've given him 180 days to do whatever needs to be done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And seven days to have cars out of Page 98 September 27,2007 the right-of-way. MR. KELLY: Which you said was already abated. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. They've been very compliant with that. MR. KELLY: Good. Good luck. MR. ANGELL: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. KELL Y: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like a break? MR. MAGILEWSKI: They're lazy, park at the end of right-of-way. Now we got this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately it falls under you. We'll recess for 10 more minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. And court reporter has asked when you make a motion, if you can raise your hand and make sure she acknowledges you. She's having a problem distinguishing our voices. And also, for seconds, if you can just make sure that she acknowledges you. Michelle, you all set? MS. ARNOLD: Yep. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus AmSouth Bank. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask that we modify the name slightly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Regions? MS. ARNOLD: And it's AmSouth Bank doing business as Regions Bank, and it's R-E-G-I-O-N-S. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I need a motion for that? MS. ARNOLD: No. Well, she'll just correct it on the record when she's -- MS. RAWSON: I'll correct it on the order, and-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need the respondents to agree to that at all or -- Page 99 September 27, 2007 MS. RAWSON: I think they probably requested it. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is 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. PONTE: Just -- are we combining these cases, merging them? MR. SNOW: They're two separate cases, sir, on two separate properties, even though it's the same property owner. MR. PONTE: Is there no way to merge even though we take that into consideration, even though it's two locations? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We could just -- the same principals of-- MR. SNOW: They are, and the violations have been abated. I just have photographs I need to submit for both cases. They're the same. MR. PONTE: Okay. You want to streamline it? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the package, county's package. MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion to accept the county package into evidence. MR. DEAN: I'll second. Larry, second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Page 100 September 27, 2007 case number 2007-84. Regions Bank is the respondent. Violation of ordinance 04-41, Land Development Code, as amended, sections 5.04.05(A)(1), 5.04.05 (A)(2). Description of violation: Banner displayed without first obtaining required temporary use permit. Location/address where violation exists: 2435 Tarpon Bay Boulevard. Folio number 24745000066. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Regions Bank. Attention properties department, 3000 River Chase Galleria, Number 1600, Birmingham, Alabama, 35244-2372. Date violation first observed: May 31, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation; June 18, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 29, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: July, 2007. Results of re-inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. (The speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Again, for the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This was a case where several locations throughout the county had erected permits without temporary use permits which is required by code. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just interrupt. If we're going to hear them together, can we have Bendisa state all the statement of violation for the other case as well? MS. MARKU: This case is in reference to Code Enforcement Board case number 2007-85. The respondent is present. The respondent is present. The respondent was also sent a package of evidence, which was Exhibit A, and the board was sent the same package. Page 101 September 27,2007 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept this package also. MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MS. MARKU: The information remains the same as the prior case, except with the name -- and the change of name, Regions Bank. The same violation of ordinance, the same description of violation. Location of violation is 7950 Airport Road North, Naples. Folio number 63518000021. The name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Regions Bank, attention properties department, 3000 River Chase Galleria, Number 1600, Hoover, Alabama, 35244-2372. Date violation first observed: June 6, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: June 26, 2007. Date on which (sic) by violation to be corrected: June 29, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: July 5, 2007. Results ofre-inspection: Violation remains. Again, this case is presented by Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. MS. RAWSON: Bendisa, can you tell me why one is Birmingham and one is Hoover? Page 102 September 27,2007 MR. SNOW: I can address that. That was what was on the tax collector, and we -- the ordinance states we go by what is on the tax collector. MS. RAWSON: But it's the same address? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. And I questioned that had myself when I initially did it, but that's what the statutes say. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the respondent maybe have a reason for that? MR. THOMAS: Actually -- just for the record, my name's Chris Thomas. I'm with the Insite Group out of Knoxville, Tennessee. We are the assigned representative for the bank in this matter. We were the people who were in charge of the conversion as the AmSouth Banks were being -- had been bought out and were being converted over to Regions Bank. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just have a question regarding -- could you answer between, why Birmingham and Hoover? MR. THOMAS: Actually-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's a simple yes or no. MR. THOMAS: The headquarters for the two banks are just in two different locations. And I think by the time the paperwork for -- one had encompassed the other by that point in time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. The process is, the inspector will present the case, and if you'd like -- you could sit down if you'd like and wait until he presents the case, and then you could stand up. MR. THOMAS: Oh, that's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's up to you. MR. THOMAS: I've sat long enough. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. SNOW: Again, for the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. We observed -- and I use we. My fellow investigator, Sherry Patterson, assigned investigator, observed these banners being displayed throughout the county when AmSouth was turning over into Page 103 September 27, 2007 Regions Bank. They displayed these banners over their signs. If you can show the pictures. These are just an example of what we -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A motion to accept -- MR. SNOW: Please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- the pictures as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. DEAN: Second. MR. SNOW: And anytime you display banners in the county-- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. SNOW: I'm sorry. Anytime you display those banners in the county, they require permits basically 14 days at a time, 28 days a year total. We did try to gain compliance with the bank several times, but a lot of times, with being such large entities, after various phone calls, they still did not comply. I talked to -- addressed to Mr. Thomas not very long ago. He rectified the situation immediately. He obtained temporary use permits for the four locations. These two locations are here now. The other two abated the violation. Actually all four have. We're requesting a finding of fact that there was a violation property, that there were no permits issued at this particular time. And Page 104 September 27, 2007 that is basically it. We just want a finding of fact that there is a violation. And obviously pay operational costs. MR. DEAN: What were they covering up? MR. SNOW: They had erected new signs, sir, that advertised Regions. And the issue here is, the county would have been a little bit more lenient as far as if they had put shrouds covers on them that were -- didn't advertise AmSouth Bank. If they had just put white covers over them that didn't have any advertising at all, we would have been a little bit more understanding about that. But they had erected new signs and put the old banners up, which they probably could have done with the appropriate permits, but they chose not to do that. I just think it was probably a misconception on their part. I've talked to Mr. Thomas extensively. They weren't aware of our code, and they have their own folks that investigate that, and they assumed that they were doing the right thing but they weren't. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Basically this is done to launch all the banks at the same time, correct? MR. THOMAS: Exactly. Over the course of the July 13th weekend, had had a period of 48 hours in which we were supposed to unveil over 880 sites in the State of Florida, and the purpose was that we were supposed to be putting up the brand new Regions signage. And due to bank regulations, we have to have the existing name still in play until the official unveiling takes place. So AmSouth had to be displayed somewhere on the property. As Kitchell has said, we had some people who looked into that inside our company. The problem was that there was a misinterpretation, and then we had a logistical issue where the project manager who was originally involved was moved off of these sites and a new one came in. The unveiling, as I said, was July 13th, and the date of re- inspection was July 2nd (sic). So you can see everything was happening like right on top of each other. Page 105 September 27,2007 And when the -- I guess the initial notices were sent, they were sent to the bank, at first locally, who denied them, as is their instruction by the bank in general, and they were sent to Birmingham. By the time that we received them, it was well after the fact. But it is -- it is our responsibility to take care of, so that's why I worked with Mr. Snow to take care of everything and rectify it immediately. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? MR. KELL Y: I have a question. Investigator Snow, the signs that were replaced that this banner is covering up, those are properly permitted, correct? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, actually the investigation will be continuing on those, but just -- they are permitted. What we normally do is check and go, make sure it's permitted, but that doesn't mean it's CO'd, and that's where the violation would be. But all the banks that I have had, they have permits issued, so we just have to make sure that it's followed through and CO'd. As we all know, there's four steps to any permits, applied, issued, inspect and CO'd. And if it doesn't meet those four criteria, then there's the violation. But we don't make a habit of going to places that have signs and they have a valid permit and opening a case and just monitor that, because that's not what we do. We would take that in consideration, we would take that date down, mark it down, the CO, and then we would follow up with it, that's all. MR. KELL Y: And a follow-up. Does the code specifically say that during the time where you're installing a new sign, you can't use a banner in its place until it's been CO'd? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, there's no -- there's nothing that would allow them to have a banner other than for a temporary use. And that's what this is. It's temporary, it's not permanent, and that's what the section is for. It's for temporary events, banners, things like that. Page 106 September 27, 2007 And code is very specific about that. It allows 28 days a year, 14 days at a time. And we did make extensive phone calls trying to find the party that was responsible, and we issued Notice of Violations to the property owner and also to the banks themselves. Unfortunately, Mr. Thomas called me out of the blue one day and he said, listen, we need to fix this, and it was done within three days. So it just took a long time to get to him. But he's been very compliant once that was done, and that's all we would desire anyway. MR. THOMAS: If! may, I could also add to that. Regarding our local installers that we use to install the signs, they are required to show proof of permit before we allow them to do this because we don't want to ever be in, you know, drastic violation. In this particular case, I do believe we do have all permits and we are currently waiting to -- you know, before we final a site. We make sure that the local installer finals the site, and we get proof of that before they're paid. So the -- you know, the onus is on them to make sure that everything is done properly or they don't get paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any more questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: At this time I'd like to close the public hearing and open up for discussion amongst the board members. MR. PONTE: I don't think there's much to discuss. I think it's pretty well resolved, so I'll make a motion that a violation did exist as described in the charging documents of these two merged cases, CEB 2007-84 and -85. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor of the motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 107 September 27, 2007 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. SNOW: Just operational costs, sir. That's all we're requesting. Do you wish those right now? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Pardon me? MR. SNOW: Operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what's the amount of the operational costs? MR. SNOW: On case number -- CEB case number 2000-84 (sic), it's $252.56, and -85 is $257.35, and I am under the impression from Mr. Thomas the checks are already being cut for these, so hopefully we'll be able to close this case fairly soon. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have a motion to accept the stipulation, or not the stipulation, but the recommendation of the county? MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. SNOW: Thank you. Page 108 September 27,2007 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I'm not mistaken, that should close the hearings, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And we do have a request because I believe she's the only respondent here in the courtroom for imposition of fines, to move up item 5A4, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Francisca Alas. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Make a motion -- or can I have a motion to move up Francisca Alas? MR. PONTE: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second. MR. DEAN: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. DEAN: You can't make a motion and second at the same time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you'd like to step up. MS. ARNOLD: This is case number 2007-049, Board of County Commissioners versus Francisca Alas. The case was heard by the board on June 18,2007, and at which time the board found a violation did exist and the order entered into by the board is attached to the Page 109 September 27,2007 executive summary for your review. The respondent is not yet in compliance, and we are at this time requesting fines in the amount of $5,000 dollars, 549 -- $5,549 be imposed and that is for noncompliance with item one, which was failure to obtain all applicable building permits for improvements, illegal improvements made within 30 days. I believe the respondent is pursuing permits. That's why we are looking at that one as opposed to item number two, which is an alternative to get a demo permit. And fines are being requested to be imposed between the time period of July 19,2007, through September 4,2007, for a total of $4,700, and there's also operational costs in the amount of $849. MS. RAWSON: What's the total? MS. ARNOLD: Five thousand, five hundred forty-nine. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And the respondent is here, and she is receiving interpretated (sic) services from Susanna Capasso with our office. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you just go over the dollar amounts once again, because our recommendation shows $4,200 for item one, and item three, $1,200. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The executive summary that you have has been updated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So that one only went through August 30th. The dates that I specified were from July 19,2007, through September 4th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what was the total once again? MS. ARNOLD: Four thousand seven hundred. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Four thousand seven hundred. For the fine amounts? Oh, so you're not taking into consideration number three? MS. ARNOLD: Number three -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The second -- Page 110 September 27,2007 MS. ARNOLD: -- is an alternative -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- which was for demolition. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And she's not doing the demolition. She's actually pursuing the permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. It's either? MS. ARNOLD: It's either/or instead of both. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Does she want to say something? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we start, we're going to have -- first we're going to have you, as the interpreter, sworn in. (The interpreter was duly sworn.) (The speaker was duly sworn through the interpreter. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. CAPASSO: She does not want to -- she does not want to add anything at this time. MS. ARNOLD: Susanna, could you ask her why -- ifthere's anything delaying her process? MS. CAPASSO: The person she contracted to help her with the permitting -- MR. PONTE: I can't hear you. I'm sorry. You have to get close to that microphone, please. MS. CAPASSO: The person that she contracted with to help her with the permitting process gave her some bad information and she thought everything had been resolved, but then when the inspectors came out from the health department, he seemed like there were some issues still. And so it has not passed inspection and the process has been ongoing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does she understand that there is a fine for every day that the work is not done? Page 111 September 27, 2007 MS. CAPASSO: Yes, she does. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what is she doing to resolve that? MS. CAPASSO: She just says she's working on it. I'm trying to get specifics from her. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we do know that a permit was submitted back in February, February 2nd of'06, but it wasn't issued until September 4th of this year. Now, whether or not it's, you know, related to what she said, she got bad information, I'm not really sure why it took that long. Do you know? MR. MORAD: For the record, Ed Morad, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator on the case. The respondent did hire a permit agency to submit for the permits and the improvements. There was a considerable delay on the health department review. I constantly was involved with talking with the permit agent and also the respondent about the need to do the revisions for the rejections on that. I think there was an issue basically on, one person didn't get back to the other person, there was some finances involved that the permit agency didn't want to help unless they got paid, issues like that that was out of our control. MR. PONTE: Well, it seems that it's not in our control either. I'm still not quite sure what we're doing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What I'm going to do is I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion to impose the fines. MR. KRAENBRING: It's my understanding that she did not get her permits approved until September. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. KRAENBRING: And through no fault of her own, or just through either bad advice or they weren't submitted for her? They Page 112 September 27,2007 were submitted for her when, again? MS. ARNOLD: February of'06. MR. MORAD: The plans for review was submitted at that time. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. MORAD: All the departments had to review it, including the health department. Finally they got all their issues resolved, and the permits was approved and picked up, September 4th. MR. KRAENBRING: '06? MR. MORAD: Of'07. MR. KRAENBRING: '077 MR. MORAD: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A year and a half later. MR. KRAENBRING: Am I missing something here? MR. MORAD: But she had -- when -- you wrote on the stipulation she had 30 days to get the permits from the ruling of the board. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This case wasn't heard by the board until June of this year, so this -- you know, there was substantial time that staff was working with the respondent to go through that permitting process before this issue even came before the board. So a submittal was made in February of'06, the case wasn't heard until June of'07, June 18th of'07, and you all gave her 30 days to get whatever issue cleared up, but it wasn't cleared up until September. MR. MORAD: Hence the imposing of the fines. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, if it's -- if she wasn't able to pick them up through no fault of her own, whether it be through bad advice -- or it wasn't anything to do with the county not issuing them? MS. ARNOLD: I think there may have been an issue between her contract with her permitting -- MR. KRAENBRING: Permitting. MS. ARNOLD: -- agent. Not the -- nothing to do with the Page 113 September 27,2007 county. MR. KRAENBRING: So if we impose a fine, does she have, in effect, a case against her permitting agent? Is -- and she's not in compliance with anything because she hasn't gotten her permits until recently. MR. MORAD: There is a two-part ruling on that. The other part being, once the permits was issued, she has 60 days to get the inspections and the Certificate of Occupancy. So she's still within that time frame. MS. ARNOLD: So she has an additional 60 days from September 4th to get her CO. MR. MORAD: Or she'll be fined again per day. MS. CAPASSO: I did explain that to her and she said she understood. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. MORAD: The reason she's here, of course, is the order, the hearing, the Notice of Hearing. That's why she showed up. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'll close the public hearing and open up discussion for the board or a motion to impose the fines. MR. KELLY: Might I caution you, Mr. Chair, about asking for a motion to impose the fine? Let us have the chance to discuss that first. I think that's why Jeff is probably standing up there. It would be a motion either to impose, abate, reduce or any option. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I would just want to make sure that she is advised that she has the right to come back here once the violations are cured and that she is advised that she can ask the board for a reduction at that time. I don't want her to inadvertently not understand the procedure at all. MS. CAPASSO: She understands. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. KELL Y: With that said, I'd like to make a motion that we order the respondent to pay operational costs within 30 days and that Page 114 September 27,2007 we abate the fine per order item number one which in -- and which pertains to order -- item number four as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. PONTE: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. MR. KELL Y: Can I also make a comment to that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. KELLY: If the respondent -- if the respondent completely understands that the board was lenient on this case due to the health department circumstances, but she does still have a second part to this order and it is time-sensitive. And I believe she has until November 4th or somewhere around there to complete all of the improvements and to achieve inspections and the Certificate of Occupancy. If she needs more time, I suggest she come back to the board before this delay, but -- just so she understands. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the order states that, too. MR. PONTE: And please just add one other thing. Advise the respondent that if she comes back before this board, she should be prepared to tell the board what has happened. We've had testimony from all around this room today testifying on her behalf. She should be prepared to tell the board why she wants a reduction, or whatever it is that she wants to tell the board. But she should tell it, through you, the interpreter, of course. Page 115 September 27, 2007 MR. KELLY: As an interpreter, would you say that the respondent is nervous and scared right now? MS. CAPASSO: She seems a little nervous, but I can't attest to how scared she would be. MR. KELLY: Because this is intimidating and she can't understand what we're saying, so I mean, it's only through interpretation, and I can understand the hesitation. MS. CAPASSO: She understands. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. She is all set. ***Next imposition of fine will be Frank Fernandez. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know what that is. MR. KELLY: That's a cell phone being placed too close to a microphone. MR. PONTE: So you've done that before? MR. KELLY: All the time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't have mine, so it can't be me. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This next case is 2007-22, Board of County Commissioners versus Frank Fernandez. The respondent is not present. This case for illegal storage of vehicles and materials on unimproved property heard by the board on April 26, 2007, and a finding of fact was entered into and a violation was found. That order is attached for your review. The respondent is in compliance through abatement by the county because that was an option that you all provided on the order. Weare at this time requesting that costs to the county for abatement of the violation in the amount of$I,OOO be imposed in addition to operational costs in the amount of $386.82 be imposed, for a total of 1,386.82. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we impose a fine of Page 116 September 27,2007 $1,386.82. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On to the next one, Roilan Perez. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This is case number 2007-37. The case is Board of County Commissioners versus Roilan Perez. They're not present, correct? MR. PAUL: Oh, no. He's not present. MS. ARNOLD: They're not present. This case for interior and external conversion of non-permitted construction was heard by the board on April 26, 2007, a finding of fact was entered into, and the order is attached for your review. The respondent is not in compliance. The county did, however, board up the property as a request through that board order. We're at this time requesting that the board impose the amount of $499.82 for a contractor's fee for boarding up the property. In addition, fines from the period of June 26, 2007, through August 30, 2007, for a total of$13,000 which continues to accrue because the violation is not being abated, and operational costs in the amount of $366.67, for a total of$13,866.49. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we impose the fines, $13,866.49. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I have a second? Page 117 September 27,2007 MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be BCC versus Jose and Carmen Martinez. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That's case number 2007-50. The case for the erection of a sign without proper Collier County permits and failure to maintain the front windows in a proper state of repair was heard by the board on June 18,2007. A finding of fact was entered into. The -- the order is attached for the board's review. This particular case is in partial compliance. The pole sign has been removed. There are no permits that have been submitted, however, for the wall sign, and the window permits have been issued. Staff is at this time requesting that fines for the period of July 3, 2007, through August 27,2007, be imposed in the amount of8,250 for continued violation, fines in the amount of $200 -- or operational costs in the amount of $296.42 have already been paid. So the total amount of fines, I believe, should only be $8,250; is that correct? I think. Because I have a note here that we're -- the item number nine should not be imposed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: What was the amount again you're saying should be imposed again, $8,000? MS. ARNOLD: Eight thousand, two hundred and fifty. Page 118 September 27, 2007 MR. DEAN: Thank you. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we impose fines of $8,546.42, if my math is correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, the operational costs-- MR. DEAN: They paid this. MR. KELLY: Oh, they have paid? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. KELL Y: Eight thousand, two hundred and fifty dollars. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And next we're going to move on to request for foreclosure authorization. MR. PONTE: Can I ask whether or not we can handle this in a way that would be similar to a consent agenda. We've seen this. And that in the future when we're doing tndings, except in the case where someone is going to ask for a reduction in fine or wants to be -- or is represented, why is it we can't do that on a consent agenda basis as well? I mean, as it is -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, the imposition of fines? MR. PONTE: We just sort of -- you know, if it's not contested, we're just really rubber stamping what you're reading, and we've read it already anyway. MS. ARNOLD: Good point. I don't think that you can't do that. Page 119 September 27,2007 I don't think in your order -- I mean, in your rules and regs you have a consent agenda item, but there's no reason why we can't add that. In fact, that's something we were actually talking about because we're -- in adopting our new software for -- computer software for the division, we have -- we're trying to make both hearing processes, the special magistrate processes, as well as the Code Enforcement process, as similar as possible, and she does have a consent item. And so that's something that we can easily add to your agenda, and we just need to make sure that we are all on the same page with regard to what items are placed on that consent agenda. MR. PONTE: I'm probably out of order in bringing it up here, but anyway, yes, please. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. But yeah, I don't need to go through all of these individual names and cited case numbers. MR. PONTE: Lovely. MS. ARNOLD: You have a memo that has been provided to you. The only item that we're removing, and I think I stated it when we went through the agenda changes, item number two, because they've already made payment. So all the other items specified under your old business, B, we're requesting that you authorize be forwarded to the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I think you can do that with one motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, I'll make a motion that we accept the foreclosure authorization as presented by the county in this memorandum. MR. KELLY: I have four concerns. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: Diana Hall, number one, Juan and-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we have a motion, so if we Page 120 September 27,2007 can -- MR. KELL Y: It hasn't been seconded yet, right? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, it has not. MR. KELL Y: If! can have a chance to comment on it. I just think that, not just for this board but for the county as well, foreclosing on someone's home for $331 might send an ill message to the community. I know that -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, let me correct. It's not foreclosing, and that's why in my comment I said that we forward it to the County Attorney's Office. These are either foreclosed or collections, and County Attorney's Office sends notice and a letter to each of these individuals prior to any action being taken because it's quite a lengthy and expensive process to foreclose on individuals. So -- excuse me -- these are not an automatic foreclosure. MR. KELLY: I understand, and we went through it last month as well. But I'm looking at also Joseph Hamilton and you've got lH. Prettyman, these are relatively recent. They're only a few months ago. Now, I know and understand they're substantial, but has, you know, staff given them enough time to pay? One of them's almost 47,000, the other one's 26,000, but they are relatively recent. Just wanted to make a point. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 121 September 27,2007 MR. KELLY: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And any new business? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any reports? MS. ARNOLD: Just kind of expanding on what we started to talk about. Weare getting ready to implement a new software program and so some of the changes that Mr. Ponte was recommending are things that we can consider at that particular time. October -- the end of October is when we think we're going to do -- go live. So if you'd like for us to bring this back or put an item on the agenda for the next meeting to talk about that, the consent agenda, we can surely do that. MR. PONTE: Yeah. I take your direction on that. So if you think that's proper, let's do it. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any comments? MR. KELLY: Can you explain that again, George, what you are suggesting? What is going to be added to the consent agenda? I'm sorry . MR. PONTE: I'd like to add everything to the consent agenda that is just rubber stamping. We spend time going through it, Michelle reads a piece, and we yes, yes. The only exception would be if a respondent is challenging the fine, wants a reduction of fine, abatement of fine, and that we hear it. But all those fines where no one appears and it's just a matter of reading each one over and over and over again, and you're saying okay, let's do it all in one sweep is what I'm suggesting, consent agenda. MR. KELL Y: I see, okay. MR. PONTE: Just do it as a block. MR. KELL Y: I'd like to have that on the agenda for next time. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. KELLY: Okay. Page 122 September 27, 2007 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I guess that's it for comments. And the next meeting date would be October 25,2007. And-- MS. ARNOLD: Weare just wanting to make a note that the November meeting we're not going to be here. We're actually going to be at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. We'll remind you at the next-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: What's the date for that, please, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me? MR. L'ESPERANCE: What's the date for that one, please? MS. ARNOLD: I think it's November 29th. Because of the holidays, we're a week later. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And could I have a motion? MR. DEAN: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Need a second. MR. MARTIN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor, which I don't think I need to ask. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. A little bit longer than usual. Page 123 September 27,2007 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:03 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD L. LEFEBVRE, VICE-CHAIR These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected Page 124