CEB Minutes 10/25/2007 R
October 25,2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Naples, Florida
October 25, 2007
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, 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:
Sheri Barnett (Excused)
Kenneth Kelly (Acting Chairman)
Larry Dean
Richard Kraenbring
Lionel L'Esperance (Excused)
George Ponte
Charles Martin
Jerry Morgan
ALSO PRESENT:
Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB
Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director
Bendisa Marlill, Operations Coordinator
Page 1
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
Date: October 25, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.
Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FI34112.
NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE
PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS
WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES
UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE
ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER
CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD.
1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 27, 2007
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MOTIONS
B. STIPULATIONS
1. BCC vs. Auto Village of Naples
CEB 2007-101
C. HEARINGS
I . BCC vs. Steven Profaca
2. BCC vs. Fifth Third Bank
3. BCC vs. Saxon Manor Isles Apartments, Limited Partnership
4. BCC vs. Heron Park Partners, L TD
5. BCC vs. Juan Mesta
6. BCC vs. Judith Wages
7. BCC vs. J&C Auto Sales
8. BCC vs. Ted Zhi Luo
9. BCC vs. Osprey's Landing, L TD
10. BCC vs. Aloha Pools and Spa Corporation
11. BCC vs. Bart and Sandi Chernoff
12. BCC vs. James W. Craft
13. BCC vs. Linda Geibelhouse-Deluca and Charles Deluca
CEB 2007-67
CEB 2007-87
CEB 2007-88
CEB 2007-89
CEB 2007-97
CEB 2007-98
CEB 2007-99
CEB 2007-100
CEB 2007-102
CEB 2007-104
CEB 2007-105
CEB 2007-107
CEB 2007-108
14. BCC YS. Alfredo and Miradis Miralles
CEB 2007-109
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Request for Imposition of FineslLiens
I. BCC YS. Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker
2. BCC YS. Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker
3. BCC YS. Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker
4. BCC YS. Alfredo Miralles and Alfredo Miralles JR.
5. BCC YS. Alfredo and Miradis Miralles
CEB 2006-16
CEB 2006-17
CEB 2006-1 8
CEB 2007-66
CEB 2007-79
B. Request for Foreclosure Authorization
I. BCC YS. Ronald Freeman
2. BCC YS. Curtis and Brenda Blocker
3. BCC YS. Curtis and Brenda Blocker
4. BCC YS. Star Mobile Home Park, LLC
5. BCC YS. Star Mobile Home Park, LLC
6. BCC YS. Star Mobile Home Park, LLC
7. BCC YS. Robert and Cristina Ferris
CEB 2005-26
CEB 2005-35
CEB 2005-39
CEB 2005-43
CEB 2005-44
CEB 2005-45
CEB 2007-07
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. REPORTS
8. COMMENTS
9. NEXT MEETING DATE - November 29, 2007
to. ADJOURN
October 25,2007
MR. KRAENBRING: Good morning. I'd like to bring the
October 25th, 2007 Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to
order.
I just need to read a notice.
The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case
presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons
wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes,
unless the time is adjusted by the chairman.
All parties participating in the public hearings are asked to
observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the
court reporter can record all statements being made.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will
need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code
Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record.
Can we have a roll call today, please.
MS. MARKU: George Ponte?
MR. PONTE: 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: Here.
MS. MARKU: Kenneth Kelly?
MR. KELLY: Here.
MS. MARKU: Charles Martin?
MR. MARTIN: Here.
MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence.
Page 2
October 25,2007
MR. KRAENBRING: At this time, Michelle, could you address
MS. ARNOLD: The agenda?
MR. KRAENBRING: Um-hum.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold.
We have several changes to the agenda. The first item is to add an
election of officers. Mr. --
MR. KELLY: Lefebvre.
MR. KRAENBRING: Lefebvre.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. Gerald Lefebvre has resigned and
therefore we have a vice chair position that needs to be elected. So
we'll add that to the agenda, first order of business.
And we also have several motions that needed to be added to the
agenda. The first one is Board of County Commissioners versus Bart
and Sandi Chernoff. And that's -- and the second item is Board of
County Commissioners versus James W. Craft. These are both
motions for continuance.
And the third item actually involves three cases on your
imposition of fine agenda. And they are board of County
Commissioners versus Jerry and Kimberly Blocker. So all those are
request for continuances.
Also, we have several stipulations to be added. The first one is
Board of County Commissioners versus Steven Profaca, and that will
become now BC -- Item 4-B-2.
The next one is Board of County Commissioners versus Fifth
Third Bank, and that will become 4-B-3.
The next one is Board of County Commissioners versus Saxon
Manor Isles Apartments, Limited Partnership, and that will become
4-B-4.
The next is Board of County Commissioners versus Heron Park
Partners, and that will become 4-B-5.
Next is Board of County Commissioners versus Juan Mesta, and
Page 3
October 25, 2007
that will become 4-B-6.
The next is Board of County Commissioners versus Ted Luo, and
that will be 4-B-7.
And we have a late submittal here. And that is Board of County
Commissioners versus Linda Geibelhouse-Deluca, and that will
become 4-B-8.
MR. KRAENBRING: All right. So just in review, cases one,
two, three, four, five, eight and 13 are all going to be stipulated. Okay.
At this time we would like to move to the election of a co-chair, unless
we have another item.
MS. ARNOLD: I do have a correction, I'm sorry.
MR. KRAENBRING: Not a problem.
MS. ARNOLD: We are going to go through the case for the
Chernoffs is what I am being advised by the officer. So they don't
have a continuance. I guess they submitted -- that was their respondent
packet. So that is not a request for a continuance.
MR. PONTE: So Chernoff will be heard, Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That's removed from the motions.
MR. KRAENBRING: Fine. So that's going to be what's currently
number 11 under hearings.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. KRAENBRING: Any other changes to the agenda today?
MS. ARNOLD: No.
MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Again, at this time we'll be moving
to the election of a co-chair. And I'd first like to publicly thank Mr.
Lefebvre for his service to the board. He has been on the board since
I've been here, and he's been a great help.
At this time, though, we do need to hear a motion for election of
a co-chair. And I personally would like to make one, if I could, and I
would like to nominate Mr. Kelly as the co-chair.
MR. DEAN: Second.
MR. KRAENBRING: All those in favor?
Page 4
October 25, 2007
Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. DEAN: I will hand him the minutes.
MS. ARNOLD: I'm assuming that there were no other
nominations?
MR. KRAENBRING: I think it was pretty clear.
So at this time I'm going to take my name tag and give up the
seat and allow Mr. Kelly to come forward.
MS. RAWSON: Congratulations, Mr. Kelly. One of your first
jobs is to vote on the agenda; approval of the amended agenda.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. I'll entertain a
motion for the approval of the agenda.
MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda.
MR. PONTE: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries.
Next is the approval of the minutes. I believe we were all
e-mailed the minutes. Do we have any questions, concerns?
(No response.)
Page 5
October 25, 2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll entertain a motion to
approve those minutes.
MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the minutes of September 27th,
2007.
MR. KRAENBRING: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries.
And on to public hearings. We have the first motion from Mr.
Craft, motion for continuance.
Is the respondent here?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe we do have a letter
stating that he'll be out of the country.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is there any thought from the
board?
MR. KRAENBRING: Does the county have a position on the
continuance?
MS. O'FARRELL: No objection from the county for a
continuance.
MS. ARNOLD: And that was Susan O'Farrell.
MS. O'FARRELL: And that was Susan O'Farrell, Collier County
code investigator.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Susan.
Page 6
October 25,2007
In that case, any discussion amongst the board?
MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we allow the
continuance.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: There's been a motion. Is there
a second?
MR. MORGAN: Second.
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. Craft's been
continued.
Next is a motion for continuance for three cases, and that's from
the Blockers. Is the respondent representation here?
MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman -- or vice-chairman, I guess it
would be today. And congratulations on your elevation.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir.
MR. WHITE: I'm Patrick White with the law firm of Porter,
Write, Morris and Arthur, representing Jerry and Kimberly Blocker in
the three stated cases.
I apologize that my timely filed motion has apparently only been
placed before you, I hope this morning, and would ask that if it would
be this board's favor, that we be granted an opportunity to come back
at your November meeting to discuss matters relating to the
imposition of fine.
Not having had the benefit of considering our motion, I'm hoping
Page 7
October 25, 2007
that will weigh towards it being favorably considered. My
understanding is that the county's position with respect to this, and I'm
not speaking for them, is that they do not object. They may not
support it, but they do not object.
If there's any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them.
There's a bit of substance obviously in that motion that I believe
argues in favor of it reasonably being granted and would ask that you
would approve the motion, please.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
County, do you have a position?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I thought that the attorney was going to
speak to his motion and discuss what was in it, stating the reasons for
needing the continuance, and then the county would respond to that.
MR. KRAENBRING: Swear him in.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In could, can I swear you in,
please.
MR. WHITE: Certainly.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. WHITE: I do. And would ask that anyone else for the
county that's going to so speak would be equally as sworn.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. WHITE: Thank you. The actual motion, like I said, you
probably haven't had a chance to consider it, is based primarily upon
the fact that we anticipate being able to in November demonstrate
more clearly how the fines that you may seek to impose should be
mitigated and potentially even avoided.
We have worked diligently to try and have this case abated. If
you had an opportunity to consider the substance of the motion and
the backup materials, I think it would evidence that we are awaiting a
couple of actions on the part of the county itself that could help us in
making a more well-informed presentation to this board. And I believe
Page 8
October 25, 2007
that in the interest of justice and fundamental fairness that it would be
appropriate to grant the motion.
I'm certainly prepared to go into the specifics, but if you're
inclined to grant it, I wouldn't want to talk you out of it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Fair enough.
Is there any discussion amongst the board as to the feeling?
MR. DEAN: Mr. Chair?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Larry.
MR. DEAN: This has been going on since, like it says, May, '06,
I think.
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
MR. DEAN: And we went through due process on all the things
we had to do, and I don't know why we're continuing it on. Thank you.
MR. WHITE: I would ask if Mr. Dean had had a chance to
consider the motion and review it. Because I believe that the reasons
why are stated in there and the exhibits that follow. And I don't
believe that the county is going to be, as it says in the motion,
prejudiced if we wait one more month.
As I indicated, there are items, public records request that we
have had outstanding since September 19th that has not been
responded to, including as of this morning. We're also anticipating the
board's agenda on November 13th, the Board of County
Commissioners, that deeds of conveyance for the right-of-way
adjacent to my client's property to the west are forthcoming. We
believe that those are matters that are pertinent to this board's
consideration of any amount of fines that should be imposed.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe what Mr. Dean is
speaking to is the fact that we just recently in a recent meeting heard
the imposition for fines and we've approved those, and I think at that
time it would have been a good point for you to __
MS. ARNOLD: No, we haven't.
MR. WHITE: I don't believe that's the proper procedural history
Page 9
October 25, 2007
in this case. We're otherwise scheduled to have fines imposed today.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, you're right, today.
MR. WHITE: And I apologize for interrupting.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, no problem, you're right.
MR. WHITE: So we're prepared to stand before you next month
and make our case. I'm simply looking for a continuance, and this is
our first request for a continuance, and would ask that you would
favorably consider it.
I understand Mr. Dean's point. I'm not trying to belabor the issue
with this board. I simply think that in the interest of justice, given the
notion that we're awaiting materials in fact from the county, that
hopefully we will be able to get those.
I don't want to go the distance to ask this board for a subpoena,
for example, because I don't know how else to get what I believe we
reasonably are entitled to consider and have you look at as part of
your imposition of fines.
MS. ARNOLD: It's the county's position -- although this is the
first continuance that you have heard, we have removed this from the
agenda twice already. And if the board is in the position of granting
this, the county would ask that this be the last continuance that is
granted, and the respondents -- or the counsel for the respondents
waive their notification to the next meeting.
MR. WHITE: We would so waive and would agree that it's not
only our first but last. We're just trying to be able to give you as best a
package of information that's up to date and current, and I believe that
if we had until the November date that that would be the case.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: In all fairness, if you're waiting
to go in front ofthe BCC to receive a variance that hinges on this, and
-- they're not? Okay.
MR. WHITE: No, it's actually relating to our request to have
right-of-way reconveyed to Mr. Blocker, Mr. and Mrs. Blocker, for a
portion of the Broward Street right-of-way immediately to our west. I
Page 10
---'---~--"'-
-'._,-~_.,---
October 25, 2007
don't know how much of the factual basis of the case at the order
finding violations you may be aware of. But it certainly was a
substantial consideration on this board's prior hearing that there was a
close proximity to a junkyard in fact literally coming over the fence.
And those conditions are being remedied. And I believe we can
present you with evidence next month that shows what efforts we have
made to address the health, safety, welfare concerns that this board
was concerned about, and how we otherwise have proceeded to in a
sense abate these violations and hopefully allow you to mitigate the
fines that are otherwise imposed.
I would note for the record that my client, when he was in the
April hearing last year beforehand, just like many of the folks are
going to stipulate today, was given an opportunity to consider a
stipulation that would have given him 18 months to do what he
otherwise in the order was given 12.
So my point is that the county at one point was willing to give
him the time that we're asking for, and I'm hoping that this board will
see that that's really not an unfair request on our part and favorably
consider our motion. I believe Mr. Write may have something to add
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, my only concern, in
fairness to you, is if you were continued at the BCC meeting for
whatever reason, it might run into a delay further.
MR. WHITE: We still would be heard on the 27th, which would
be two days before yours.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fair enough, okay.
MR. WHITE: So I'm believing that although we thought we had
timely submitted for the October board that would have put us in a
position where yesterday or the day before we would have had at least
a part of what we feel we need, those deeds, we weren't able to
navigate the system timely. So I apologize for that.
And the idea that the motion is late to you this morning, I would
Page 11
October 25, 2007
have hoped you would have had a chance to have read it, along with
the rest of your package. If we needed to have submitted it bye-mail,
similar to your minutes, I would have been happy to do so. I'm just
kind of concerned about a process where I timely file and yet you
gentlemen on this board don't get a chance to consider it and have to
read it on the fly this morning. So I apologize for that, but I believe I
did everything I was supposed to do.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Wright?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. WRIGHT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney.
I just wanted to highlight something in the motion to make sure it's
clear on the record what you are voting on.
In paragraph four in the motion, it appears as if the relief
requested is additional time and the wording is such a continuance will
-- I'm sorry, the grant of such a continuance will afford the
respondents needed time to: One, enter into a DEP consent order; two,
obtain deeds from the county and others; three, work with the county
to obtain requested records, et cetera.
And Mr. White has stated on the record that the November date
will give him sufficient time to do all those things. So I just wanted to
make sure it wasn't open-ended and that your order would be specific
to the November date.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Wright.
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're not accepting the motion
as it's written here, we're just accepting a motion to continue. And
we've already waived. So I --
MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Thanks for that clarification.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Any more -- sir?
MR. WHITE: If there are any questions, I'd be happy to address
them. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you.
Page 12
October 25, 2007
At this time, I'll close the public portion. Is there anymore
discussion amongst the board?
MR. KRAENBRING: Just the county's position is that this
month's continuance is allowable __
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Kraenbring, could you please
speak into the microphone.
MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you.
Just that the county's position that this continuance is fair or
productive?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I stated my position. We'd rather this be
the final, because I don't believe that the things that are -- the action
being taken is furthering the goals of the order, the compliance of the
order.
But if the board is inclined to grant it, we request that this be the
final request and that they waive their notice. And I think he's
indicated that they've done that.
MR. KRAENBRING: Okay.
MR. PONTE: I think that the matter pending before the
commissioners should carry some weight and that we should allow the
continuance and be the last continuance and a date of November 29th
be established as the dead -- you know, certain date.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, I'll entertain a
motion.
MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the continuance.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second?
MR. MORGAN: Until?
MR. PONTE: November 29th.
MR. MORGAN: Right. I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
Page 13
October 25, 2007
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any posed?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have one opposition by Mr.
Dean. Thank you, board.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is a -- would move to
stipulations. Number one on stipulations is the BCC versus the Auto
Village of Naples. Is the respondent here?
(No response.)
MR. MORAD: Good morning.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Good morning.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. MORAD: For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement
Investigator Ed Morad. M-O-R-A-D.
The affidavit of service for the notice of hearing was served
personal service and certified mail.
I'm here to introduce stipulation agreement for Code
Enforcement Board Case 2007-101, Auto Village of Naples, Robert
Hall, registered agent.
The violation location is 15575 Tamiami Trail East. The
violation was improvement of property without the Collier County
building permits.
That violates Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(d),
and 10.02.06 (B)(1)(d)(i). Of Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i)
was renumbered on September 13th, 2005 to be 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i).
Also, Section 104.1 of the Florida Building Code 2001 addition
was amended by Ordinance 2002-01, now referred to as the Florida
Building Code 2004 edition, Section 105.1.
I had a pre-hearing conference on October 9th, 2007 with the
Page 14
October 25, 2007
respondent, Mr. Robert Hall and his wife, Holly Daye Hall, the
co-owner of the property.
Geez, I had my script all here, and she wants me to shorten it.
Yes, they did stipulate to the agreement, which is on the overhead.
The respondent agreed to pay the operational cost of $533.30 incurred
in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the hearing, today's
hearing.
The respondent will abate all violations by either obtaining all
required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate
of occupancy and/or certificate of completion for all non-permitted
improvements on the property within 90 days of to day's hearing or a
$200 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains.
Or the respondent will obtain a Collier County demolition permit, all
required inspections, certificate of completion and remove all
nonpermitted improvements within 90 days of today's hearing or a
fine of $200 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation
remams.
Thirdly, the respondent must notify code enforcement that the
violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and
perform the site inspection.
Any questions?
MR. PONTE: Yes, how long do you think it would take to make
the correction?
MR. MORAD: This time frame's reasonable, especially at this
stage of the permitting. The hardest part that they had to do was get an
insubstantial change to their site development plan, which they have
gotten and approved.
MR. PONTE: Am I right, Mr. Morad, in saying that the original
violation to correct was 2005?
MR. MORAD: Yes, I believe so. Yes, 2005.
MR. PONTE: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Morad, in your talk,
Page 15
October 25, 2007
reading through the stipulation, you had mentioned that the
operational cost would be paid within 30 days, but it's not stated in the
agreement in the stipulation.
MR. MORAD: That was agreed upon at our pre-hearing.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If not, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the
stipulated agreement as presented by the county.
MR. PONTE: I'd like to discuss that for a second. I'm concerned
with the fact that this has been dragging along since 2005. That being
the case, I think that the 90 days is very generous in terms of
establishing a completion date, and that the $200 fine that's been
suggested is also very lenient.
I'd make a motion to accept this as written with the amendment
that it be 60 days and $400 a day fine.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any further discussion towards
that?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have
a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries.
Page 16
.-.._....__.-._._,._-~-~..,._"--
October 25, 2007
MR. MORAD: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Morad.
Next order is going to be stipulated agreement with Mr. Steven
Profaca. Is the respondent here?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he is.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I have you sworn in,
please.
MR. CAMPBELL: Tom Campbell, I so swear.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, my name is Tom Campbell,
I'm an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. And we
have a stipulated agreement with Mr. Steven Profaca, who owns First
Class Auto Wholesale Business, on Avondale Street.
I think I can summarize this. Description of violation is:
Respondent continues to violate the site improvement plan and the
previously issued order of the Code Enforcement Board by displaying
more vehicles for sale than allowed on the specific -- than specified on
the site development plan.
His plan runs -- parallels Avondale. And you can see that there
are -- I believe it's seven spaces; a handicapped space, two spaces for
customers, three spaces for displaying vehicles, and the final one in
the far left there is a space for employee parking.
When this case originally came up, there was as many as 37 cars
parked all the way to the center line of the road and around the corner
on the right-of-way. In March of2006 the board found that this was a
violation and they prohibited such action with penalties.
I closed the case -- he came into compliance immediately within
days after the original order. But then a few days later, or sometime
later, the violations continued.
Bring the case before you again as a repeat violation, and we
have a stipulated agreement. And if I can summarize that for you, I
will.
Page 17
October 25,2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Please. And do you have an
extra copy to put on the overhead as well, or no?
MR. CAMPBELL: Sure.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you.
Mr. Profaca agrees the violations noted in the notice of violation
are -- accurately stipulates to their existence. He agrees to pay the
operational cost of$253.79. And he agrees to abate the -- all violations
by paying a civil penalty of $5,000.
B, he agrees to abate the violations by conforming to the current
and approved site development plan and limit the display of for sale
vehicles to no more than three vehicles, as designated in the improved
SIP.
Further, will cease and desist the practice of displaying vehicles
in the county right-of-way.
Item C is he will be removing all unauthorized vehicles within
two days of this hearing or an additional fine of $200 a day per vehicle
will be imposed.
He further agrees that he'll notify code enforcement, myself,
when the violation is abated.
And finally, if the respondent repeats the violation, as noted
above, a fine of $200 a day per vehicle will be imposed each time the
violation is witnessed.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you.
Mr. Profaca?
MR. PROF ACA: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do you agree with everything
that's stated?
MR. PROF ACA: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
I have a question for either Michelle or Jean. On the last case we
had a similar situation where the occurrence happened again, but
Page 18
October 25,2007
because it was abated we had to bring a new case against Mr. Profaca.
In this case we're adding on 2-E, which basically states and leaves this
open-ended. How is that handled from here on out? I haven't seen this
one before, it's the only reason why I ask.
MS. ARNOLD: The question is that we've added an additional
requirement?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It's basically one could interpret
this as an open-ended order to where from two days from now if he
abates the fines but then two weeks from now was found in violation
again there wouldn't be a reopening of a case, it would simply be $200
per day per vehicle would be imposed from here on out with no end
date.
MS. ARNOLD: The state statute allows for that for repeat
violations, so that when it's witnessed again an additional fine can be
imposed, dating back to the date that the violation was -- the repeat
violation was witnessed. So that's why that additional stipulation's
been placed in there.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you.
MR. KRAENBRING: My question would be if the gentleman
disputes the fact that he has violated the order, is there due process for
him?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we could do that as a part of the
imposition of fine process. Because when we were going through that
process, people -- the respondent has the ability to argue the facts that
are noted for why the fines should be what they are. So yes, that could
be done.
MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion to
accept the stipulated agreement.
MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the
Page 19
October 25,2007
stipulated agreement as presented by the county and agreed to by the
respondent.
MR. PONTE: Before we vote on that, is there anything we can
do about tightening up E? I share your concern. It's woolly. And given
that this is a repeat violation, it seems to me that that additional fining
mechanism should either increase or be a more severe slap on the
wrist than this appears to be. And I would think that we could take E
and if the violation continues and he repeats it again, and that's the
history here, that that $200 per day per vehicle be increased to $500
per day per vehicle.
MS. ARNOLD: Whatever the pleasure of the board.
MR. PONTE: And gives it a little more bite.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We as the board have the right
to state that, if we'd like. Is there any further discussion on that?
MR. KRAENBRING: My sense it is the, you know, civil penalty
of $5,000 is a pretty strong deterrent. I'm inclined to stay with the
$200. I think that's substantial enough.
MR. MARTIN: I agree.
MR. PONTE: Just because I don't know this, if the civil penalty
is paid and the violation repeats the civil penalty, what happens to
that? I mean, he's paid the 5,000 and nothing's changed.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, in this case we have seen
up to 37 vehicles.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah, since the board found fault or
violation, Mr. Profaca has contained the number of cars. Quite a
reduction, but still above what's allowed. Generally there's anywhere
from seven to 12 cars there, which is a great improvement, and
alleviates the safety hazard of vehicles being displayed in the street all
the way out and making an impasse for traffic.
MR. PONTE: Still, 200 percent more than are allowed.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: My concern also, going on that
E also, is if the respondent decides to sell the property this order stays
Page 20
-- ..
---.---.....-.-
October 25, 2007
with the property or with the respondent? And if that's the case, if it's
stays with the property, then is it possible that somebody else who
decided to move into that place would be under this order as well, not
knowing about all of the preceding situations that occurred?
MS. RAWSON: It stays with the property. Runs with the land.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And my concern would be
maybe to add in there something to where if the property was sold,
then perhaps that wouldn't continue to be in effect.
MR. CAMPBELL: At any new location?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, new location would be
one thing. I just would hate to see it pass on to somebody who didn't
know all of this had happened and all ofa sudden it's a tri-peat (sic), if
you will, on somebody who's new and trying to get a business up and
going or something.
MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe it would be considered a repeat
for a new owner. We would have to notify that new owner, give him
the, you know, due process in terms of getting it into compliance and
an opportunity to correct before we would consider that something a
repeat.
Now, ifMr. Profaca were to move on to a different property,
knowing what the rules are, it could be considered a recurring or
repeat for him at a different location.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other consideration to
what Mr. Ponte was saying?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: Don't we have a motion on the floor
already?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, there is a motion.
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
Page 21
October 25, 2007
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Motion carries.
Thank you, Mr. Profaca.
Next on the agenda, there's a stipulation with Fifth Third Bank. Is
a representative from Fifth Third here today?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. For the record, Susan
O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental
Specialist.
We are here to present a stipulation for CEB Case No. 2007-87,
Department Case No. 2006120308. It is a violation of the Section
4.06.05(J)(2) of the Collier County Land Development Code, whereas
the required landscape of the commercial property had fallen below its
standards.
Mr. Dresher is here today to accept a stipulation that agrees to
pay the operational cost in the amount of $352.08 within 30 days of
this hearing, and he has already abated the violation by restoring the
landscape of the complete property to its standards.
And I have photos of that, if you'd like to see them.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. If you say it's
done, we believe you.
MS. O'FARRELL: It's done and it looks great. I want to thank
Mr. Dresher publicly for doing that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Mr. Dresher, do you
agree with everything that's in the stipulated agreement?
MR. DRESHER: Yes.
Page 22
October 25,2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And could you state your
position with Fifth Third, and do you have the authority to enter into
this agreement?
MR. DRESHER: Yeah, my name is Paul Dresher. I'm with Vi ox
Services. We subcontract for Fifth Third facilities. And I am
representing Fifth Third Bank here, yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, thank you.
In that case it's more of a formality at this point. If -- I'll entertain
a motion.
MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept.
MR. MORGAN: Second.
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you very much.
Next on the agenda is BCC versus Saxon Manor. Is anyone here
from the apartment? Thank you.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. O'FARRELL: Once again, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County
Code Enforcement Environmental Specialist.
We're here to present a stipulation for you to consider for CEB
Case No. 2007-88. Department Case No. 2006050669.
Saxon Manor is an affordable housing development. They have a
Page 23
-'.-...-.,..--"-.
October 25, 2007
preserve requirement and a littoral shelf planting area requirement.
The property over the last several years has fallen below the
standards set by the Section 4.06.05(1)(2) of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
The age of this case has been -- primarily the problem was
getting ahold of property managers. However, since Ms. Rathbun has
taken over, I've had success in immediate response meetings that have
been attended, and I've seen progress on the property already.
The stipulation that we are proposing is that they will pay the
operational costs of $459.74. They will abate all violations by:
Restoring the required landscape of the property to the standards set
by the county approved site development plan 95-22, with attention
paid to required landscape and native vegetation areas within 90 days
of this hearing, or a daily penalty of $100 shall be imposed as long as
the violation persists.
The restoration of the property shall include the removal of
prohibited exotics throughout the property and in the preserve. The
replacement of all dead, failing or missing required landscape material
in the property buffers and landscaped areas, that would include
around their building perimeters. And the restoration of the littoral
shelf planting area.
They have also agreed to submit a preserve management plan to
be approved by Collier County to ensure the continued maintenance of
the preserve and the eradication of prohibited exotic vegetation in
perpetuity.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Susan, there's no time on 2-2?
MS. O'FARRELL: 2-2.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's the submitting the preserve
management plan.
MS. O'FARRELL: We could put that in 30 days, within 30 days,
if you'd like.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do you think it's
Page 24
October 25, 2007
reasonable they'd be able to get a landscape architect and have that to
you within 30 days?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the property -- the preserve
management plan is more done. I've given Ms. Rathbun a template of
one that she can follow. And it's mostly just agreeing that they're
going to do certain things that are already required by the county and
then identifying a manager who will make sure that that takes place.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Great.
MS. O'FARRELL: And I have given her a template for that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you, Susan.
Ma'am, could you state your name and position for the record.
MS. RATHBUN: Susan Rathbun, Property Manager for Saxon
Manor Isles.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have the authority to
enter into this agreement?
MS. RATHBUN: Yes, I do.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great.
Do you understand and agree to everything that's been discussed?
MS. RATHBUN: Yes, I do.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do you think 30 days to be
able to submit that management plan is okay?
MS. RATHBUN: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is there any questions from the
board?
MR. PONTE: Yeah, I'm a little just vague and curious. How
much work actually has to be done? A preserve to me means
something vast, a place with trees and alligators and stuff.
MS. O'FARRELL: Fortunately there's no alligators in this
preserve. Probably snakes.
The preserve has become fairly invaded by exotic plant material.
I had a call from their landscaper who asked me questions about how
they can remove the exotics, and I explained to them that the first 75
Page 25
----.,,...._~~.,..o,.___..
October 25, 2007
feet they need to remove from the property and treat.
Within the preserve they can leave it in place. They have to kill it and
leave it in place.
So I believe that the 90 days is an appropriate amount of time. I
was out there last week, maybe just two or three days ago, and the
landscaper's already made a really big impact on the property in terms
of replacing plant material.
MR. PONTE: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If not, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept __
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
MR. KRAENBRING: -- the stipulation.
MS. O'FARRELL: And we're going to make that 30 days for the
preserve management plan?
MR. KRAENBRING: Yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: Ijust wanted to make sure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It's been agreed to by the
respondent.
Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you for your help.
Next on the agenda is a stipulated agreement, Heron Park. Is
there a representative from Heron Park here today?
Page 26
._~'-'-"~'--""'"
October 25, 2007
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. O'FARRELL: Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code
Enforcement Environmental Investigator.
I'd like to present a stipulation for CEB Case No. 2007-89.
Department Case No. 2006060034.
Heron Park is an affordable housing development located on
Airport Road, right behind kind of where we are today.
This preserve is 12 to 14 acres, and really, really badly infested
with exotics. We have every exotic -- we could have a class out there
to teach all of you all about exotics. That is why the stipulation has
certain agreements that I think would be beneficial for us to accept.
The violation is of Section 3.05.07(A-D) and (H) of the Collier
County Land Development Code, and are described as a preserve on
the property of Heron Park. Contains a wide variety of prohibited
plant species including but not limited to Brazilian pepper, air-potato,
melaleuca, earleaf acacia and Java plum.
There is not a preserve management plan in place for the
preserve at this time.
The respondents have signed a stipulation agreeing to pay the
operational costs in the amount of$463.91 within 30 days of this
hearing.
They have agreed to abate all violations by submitting a preserve
management plan to be Collier County approved as outlined in
3.05.07(H)(G) within 30 days of this hearing or a daily penalty of
$100 per day will be imposed as long as the violation persists.
The second part of the stipulation I'm going to read slowly,
because it's quite involved.
They have agreed to remove all the exotics from the preserve
area, following the standards set forth in 3.05.07(H)(G)(ii) within six
months of the hearing or a daily penalty of $100 will be imposed as
long as the violation exists.
The removal of the exotics shall follow the above mentioned
Page 27
October 25, 2007
standards, with special attention paid to the following phrase: All
exotic vegetation within the first 75 feet of the outer edge of the
preserve will be physically removed. Any exotic tree that is removed
must be cut down to grade and the stump treated. Exotic vegetation
within the interior of the preserve beyond 75 feet from the outer edge
area can be treated in place if it is determined that the physical
removal will cause more damage to the native vegetation in the
preserve area.
Where prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the stump
remains, the stump must be treed with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide mixed with a
visual tracer dye.
Control of exotics will be conducted on a yearly basis, or more
frequently when required.
The respondents have agreed to obtain any necessary Collier
County or state permits for the removal of the vegetation.
I put this as at the end of the stipulation because if they decide to go
for a vegetation removal permit to use mechanical means, then they
would need to get permits in order to do that. And because of the
wetlands involved, they would need to get state permits to do that.
But in my discussions with the respondents, they do not intend to
use any mechanical means, they're only going to use hand removal,
which does not require a permit.
And I gave them the six months. I proposed six months because of the
immensity of the task.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. Sir, could you state your
name for the record and your position?
MR. McDANIEL: Wayne McDaniel, regional vice president.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have the authority to
enter into this?
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, I do.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you accept everything that's
Page 28
-,---..-..
October 25, 2007
been stated in the stipulated agreement, agree to its terms?
MR. McDANIEL: Yes, I do.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any discussion amongst
the board?
(No response.)
MR. PONTE: Susan, you've been very busy.
MS. O'FARRELL: Busy week.
MR. PONTE: You mentioned six months here. I don't see that.
Maybe it's --
MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry. Let me point it on the -- it's over
here at the end. The end of the paragraph.
MR. PONTE: Okay, I see, thank you very much. Thank you.
MS. O'FARRELL: I just wanted to show off my nails because I
just got them done.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, did everyone
see Susan's nails?
Any further questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments?
If not, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the
stipulated agreement as presented by the county and accepted by the
respondent.
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
Page 29
October 25, 2007
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir.
MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next stipulated agreement
is Mr. Juan Mesta.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Tom Keegan,
Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator.
This is for Case No. 2007050483, CEB Case 2007-97.
It's for an unpermitted conversion of a garage into living space without
valid Collier County building permits.
The county and Mr. Mesta has reached a stipulation agreement.
He has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of 322.16
incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing.
He has also agreed to abate all violations by requesting required
inspections and receiving a certificate of completion for Demo Permit
No. 2007100444 within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a
day will be imposed until said demo permit receives certificate of
completion.
And the respondent will notify the code enforcement department
within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the
investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Mesta, do you agree with
the terms in this?
MR. MESTA: I do.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you already have your
demo permit, you just need to finalize the work and get it called in.
MR. MEST A: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board?
MR. PONTE: Yeah, I have one. Why is it going to take four
months to make this demolition?
MR. KEEGAN: That's pretty much the standard on what we've
Page 30
October 25, 2007
been giving for permits.
MR. PONTE: You have the demolition permit already, right?
MR. KEEGAN: Well, also, Mr. Mesta -- during the process of
this case, Mr. Mesta has been in constant contact with me. I do want to
give him the benefit ofthe doubt that he will get the job done.
MR. PONTE: I'm sure he will, but I just wonder what the reason
why we're not getting it done in half the time as suggested here.
MR. KEEGAN: If the board would like to change it, that's __
MR. PONTE: 120 days just seems -- I mean, four months for
demolition.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, in could ask, Mr.
Keegan, do you know if anyone's living in that area?
MR. KEEGAN: As I was told by Mr. Mesta, no one is living in
that area.
Correct?
MR. MEST A: Yes.
MR. DEAN: Yes, nobody's living in there, right?
MR. MEST A: That's correct.
MS. BARNETT: Thank you.
MR. MEST A: Well, the home, yes, but in that actual area, right.
MR. KEEGAN: No one's living in the garage.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If not, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulated
agreement, with the amendment that the period allowed for correction
be reduced to 60 days rather than the 120.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: In may, Mr. Mesta, will you
be able to complete the demolition and get all your inspections within
60 days instead of 120?
MR. MEST A: This is the first time I go about this procedure, so
that's to be determined. Because I don't know how long it will be for
Page 31
October 25, 2007
inspections and so forth.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Inspections are generally next
day. It would be how much money you have or how much time you
have to devote to this in order to get the work completed so the
inspector can see it.
MR. MEST A: Then I would say yes, but the primary issue from
the beginning was the financial end of it. And that is what has delayed
me with my progress.
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll ask a question ofthe county. Is there a
significant or immediate health and safety issue associated with this
demolition?
MR. KEEGAN: No, sir.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Mesta, the stipulated
agreement that you entered into gives you 120 days. The board has
suggested that maybe that would be too long, maybe 60 days is more
appropriate. If you have a suggestion we would entertain that, how
long you think that you would need. If it's more than 60, say so now.
MR. MEST A: That's fine. I think 60 is sufficient.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. We have a motion.
Do we have a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: By Mr. Dean.
All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. You have 60 days, sir.
Page 32
October 25,2007
Thank you very much.
MR. MEST A: Thank you.
MR. KEEGAN: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next stipulated agreement was
with Mr. Zhi Luo. I believe -- I probably mispronounced that. I'm
sorry.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ted is okay.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, environmental
investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is a stipulation agreement in reference to CEB Case No
2007-100. Department Case No. 2006010225.
We have reached a stipulation agreement with Mr. Luo for the
violation at 5401 Mahogany Ridge Drive.
The violations are of the Collier County Land Development Code
as amended, section 03.05.01(B), as described as vegetation removed
over the allowable acreage without obtaining the proper permits.
The respondent has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of
449.41 within 30 days of this hearing incurred in the prosecution of
this case, and to abate all violations by installing all plant materials in
accordance with the mitigation plan which was accepted by Collier
County that was prepared by Ramsey, Inc., dated April 21st, 2006,
which meets the criteria stated in 04-41, as amended, Section
1O.02.06(E)(3).
The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program that
would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants
used in the mitigation effort over a five-year period -- I'm sorry, I'll
slow down. You want me to go back?
The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program that
would determine the 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.
Page 33
October 25, 2007
A minimum of five reports will be submitted by the respondent.
All plant materials must be installed in accordance with the mitigation
plan within 30 days of this hearing or a daily fine of $200 will be
imposed for each day until the plant material is installed.
And the respondent must notify code enforcement that the
violation has been abated and request an investigator to come out and
perform a site inspection.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Jen, in your charging
documents -- in the NOV, I'm sorry, not the charging documents--
you had listed on the description of conditions constituting the
violation that there were several structures that were not __
MS. WALDRON: Those have been taken care of.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great, thank you.
Mr. Ted, do you agree with the stipulated agreement as its written?
MR. LUO: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion amongst the
board?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If not, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion to accept the stipulated
agreement, as present by the county and agreed to by the respondent.
MR. DEAN: I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you, sir.
Page 34
October 25, 2007
And the last stipulated agreement, if I'm not mistaken, is Mr. and Mrs.
Deluca. Are the respondents here?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier
County Code Enforcement Environmental Specialist.
We're here today to present a stipulation for CEB Case No.
2007-108, Department Case No. 2006081075.
The violation is from Section 3.05.08, prohibitive exotics, and are
described as prohibitive exotics throughout the property.
The property is improved with a home on it. It had a C.O. on the
pool in 2004, which places it under the Land Development Code of
requiring that all exotics be removed from the property in perpetuity.
Mr. Charles Deluca has agreed to pay the operational costs in the
amount of $430.49 within 30 days of this hearing.
The violation has been abated. I was out there yesterday and took
photos of the crew removing the pepper tree and spraying the stumps
with the tracer dye, mixed with Total Pro herbicide.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Deluca, do you agree with
everything in the stipulated agreement?
MR. DELUCA: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any discussion?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: So everything's been abated
then?
MS. O'FARRELL: It's been abated. The crew was there, they
were about halfway through. They were going to be finishing today.
In the stipulation I gave Mr. Deluca 60 days to remove. At the
end of the 60 days I'll go out and check it and make sure that we don't
have re-sprouts. If we do have re-sprouts then I'll just ask him to
remove those.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In that case, discussion or a
motion?
Page 35
- --,--_.
October 25, 2007
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulated
agreement as presented by the county and agreed to by the respondent.
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Deluca.
MR. DELUCA: Thank you.
MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Moving on to public hearings.
There's no more stipulated agreements, Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: No, there's not. But I do have one modification
to the agenda that I forgot to mention earlier, and that is to add to new
business -- we need to discuss the review board for the special
magistrate, because that's something that is coming due. So we just
need to have that in a discussion item.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And didn't we also discuss the
possible consent agenda?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we do need to talk about that. That was a
request that came from one of the board members as well.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we'll add under six, new
business, the review board decisions and a possible consent agenda.
Okay, under hearings -- I'm sorry, you're right, I will need a vote to
add that to the agenda.
MS. RAWSON: Correct.
MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the change
Page 36
.------,-
-."--__.._~ _' _ u.~__.~..._._,_______
October 25, 2007
to the agenda.
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Under hearings, six, Ms.
Wages?
MS. ARNOLD: It's Judith Wages, and she's being represented by
an attorney. I'm not sure what his name is. But we do have a request to
have her attend by telephone, so I can attempt that right now.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Phil Pacchiana, Your Honor, representing
Ms. Judy Jones, also known as Judy Wages.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. RAWSON: No dial tone.
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if we want to go with the next item.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, we'll go ahead and
if we could go to the next item in the agenda and give time for the
respondent to participate via telephone, if that's okay.
MR. P ACCHIANA: You can't get her on the telephone at this
point?
MS. ARNOLD: There's no dial tone, so the technician is coming
up to fix that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's move on to BCC versus
J&C Auto Sales.
Is the respondent here today, or a representative from J&C?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
Page 37
October 25, 2007
MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
He was here earlier, sir, a representative for them. I'd like to
introduce some photographs as evidence.
The violation has been abated, operational costs have been paid
in this case, but the county requests a finding of fact that there was a
violation on the property.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion to accept
the exhibit.
MR. PONTE: Motion to --
MR. KRAENBRING: Motion to accept the photograph evidence.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a dual acceptance. I
guess George can be the one who submitted the motion and then if
you want to be the second. There we go.
All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations
Coordinator, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No.
2007-99.
The respondent was sent a package of evidence, and I would like
to enter their package of evidence as Exhibit A.
MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the packet as
presented by the county.
MR. MORGAN: Second.
Page 38
October 25, 2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. MARKU: The violation of Ordinances 2004-58, the
property maintenance code, as amended, 16(1)(n)(2), 16(1)(n)(3),
16(2)(i).
Description of violation: Signs not maintained in proper state of
repaIr.
Location/address where violation exists: 1701 Pine Ridge Road,
Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00241080009.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location:
J&C Auto Sales, 2374 J&C Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34109.
Date violation first observed: June 28,2007.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July
13th, 2007.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 31st, 2007.
Date of reinspect ion: August 20th, 2007.
Results of reinspection: Violation remains.
At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code
Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow.
MR. SNOW: I think I've already expressed to the board -_ does
the board request to see photographs?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've accepted it. If you want
to show it for the record.
MR. SNOW: Just for the record.
This was a case where the panels have been removed from the
Page 39
..~---_.
October 25, 2007
wall sign and the pole sign. There were some (sic) site development
plan that was being submit by the property owner, but we didn't want
to -- that's the wall sign. We tried to -- he didn't know when it was
going to be submitted, and it was a health and safety issue. It had open
wiring, it had open -- the bulbs. And it just progressed to a point where
nothing was working.
And finally he abated the violation on Friday, once he got the
notice of hearing last Friday. So we're satisfied that he's complied the
way he should have.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any questions from the board?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifnot, I'll close the public
portion. Any discussion amongst us?
MR. KRAENBRING: I guess I'll just make a motion that a
violation did exist.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have
a second?
MR. MORGAN: Second.
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And since it's already been
abated, do you have a recommendation or __
MR. SNOW: No, sir. And they have paid operational costs, for
the record. That was paid this morning, so we're free and the county's
Page 40
-----"e,_,__._.+'.._M...~__._~.;.~..,.___.". .._
October 25, 2007
satisfied everything's been done the way it should have.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great.
MR. SNOW: Thank you, sir.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you very much.
Michelle, are we able to go back to Mrs. Wages, or do __
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just a reminder that you've
already been sworn in.
MS. WAGES: Hello, I'm here. Hello?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ma'am, we'd like to swear you
in for the record, please.
MS. RAWSON: We need to know -- if she doesn't have a notary
a present with her, and I doubt if she does, we need to have somebody
verify that they recognize her voice so that we know that she is who
she says she is. And then we can have our court reporter swear her in.
MR. MUCHA: I can verify that that's Ms. Wages.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. Wages, the county is going
to speak first as to their side of the case and then you'll have an
opportunity to respond. If you can't hear for any reason, please let us
know, and we'll try to speak louder.
MS. WAGES: Okay, thank you.
MS. MARKU: This case is in reference to Code Enforcement
Board Case No. 2007-98. The respondent and the board was sent a
package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence
as Exhibit A.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do we have a motion to
accept?
MR. KRAENBRING: Motion to accept the packet.
MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
Page 41
October 25, 2007
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41, as amended,
Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a),
1O.02.06(B)(1)(e), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Florida Building Code 2004
edition, Sections 105.1.
Description of violation: I observed an existing aluminum porch
on this village residential, VR, zoned property that was altered from
its original permitted state when it was repaired after being damaged
by Hurricane Charley. Improvements made to the aluminum porch
include wood framing, windows and electrical, all without required
building permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 654 Palm A venue,
Goodland, Florida, 34140. Reference Folio No. 46421280007.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location:
Judith Wages, 34 Morgan Street, Candler, North Carolina, 28715.
Date violation first observed: January 12th, 2007.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: May
19th, 2007.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 9th, 2007.
Date of reinspect ion: July 18th, 2007.
Results of reinspection: Violations remain.
At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code
Enforcement Investigator Joe Mucha.
MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Property Maintenance
Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement.
Page 42
October 25, 2007
If I can refer back to another case to kind of give you an idea of
how this started, I'm going to refer to Case No. 2007010396.
In January of2007, code enforcement received a complaint from
an occupant of this dwelling at 654 Palm Avenue. I responded to the
complaint on January 12th. I made a site visit and didn't -- property
maintenance inspection of the dwelling unit. And I had found several
violation at that time to include a screen enclosure that was in the
process, it appeared to me, to be enclosed into another room.
At that point the occupant of the dwelling had given me contact
information for Judy Jones, also known as Judy Wages.
On January 23rd, I prepared an NOV with an inspection report
and sent that to Judy Wages. Because she lived out of state, I had to
send it certified mail. And I also contacted her via phone and we had a
conversation of the violations.
On February 7th of this year I met with Judy Jones at the
property, along with her son, and we did a walk-through of all the
violations that were contained in that report, and we also had an
extensive conversation about the addition to the aluminum screen
porch, where I met -- you know, her son was there and, you know, she
was telling me that her son was a contractor from another county, and
I explained to her, well, you have to have a contractor licensed in
Collier County to get this permitted.
At that point she was unsure if she wanted to do all the repairs or
maybe possibly tear the entire structure down.
On March 12th, I received a phone call from a Mr. Gary Stringer,
who had been hired by Ms. Jones, and he told me at that point that the
property owner was probably going to be selling -- she was going to
be selling the property and the potential buyer wanted to tear it down.
You know, at that point he wasn't sure if he was going to be hired to
maybe tear the building down or do the repairs.
Then on Apri13rd I got a call from Mr. Stringer, and apparently
the deal had fell through for the property and he was going to be hired
Page 43
October 25,2007
to make repairs.
On April 19th, I left a voice mail for Mr. Stringer so we could,
you know, make a time to meet so I could meet him at the property
and go through all the repairs that needed to be done.
On May 1 st I met with Mr. Stringer at the property and he
basically told me at that point he was hired to make all the repairs
inside the mobile home, and the other structure that he was told not to
make any repairs to the aluminum closed porch.
So at that point that's when I started the current case that's before
you today. And I issued a Notice of Violation for the repairs.
And I would like to submit some pictures to -- four pictures to
show you what exactly we're dealing with here.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion to accept it.
MR. DEAN: Motion to accept it.
MR. KRAENBRING: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. MUCHA: Okay, this here is a picture ofa section of wall,
al2-foot section of wall with a window that's actually on -- if you're
looking at the property, it would be on the right corner of the property.
This here is if you're looking from the rear of the property. This is on
-- you know, it would be better if I show you a diagram of __
MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the diagram.
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
Page 44
October 25, 2007
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. MUCHA: So this way I can better explain so you can know
exactly where these improvements were made.
Okay, this is a sketch that's on the property card. And this wall
here was replaced, and that was the first picture that I showed you.
And there's -- and that's a 12-foot section of wall. And then on this
corner going here is another 12-foot section of wall that also has a
window. And there's also a roof over of this section. And as you can
see on the property card, this was an aluminum closed porch.
And this is looking at one of those wall replacements from the
interior. This is the one that was on the rear. You can see there's a
window there. And this is the one that was on the right-hand side of
that aluminum closed porch, and you can see that there's been some
electrical outlets added, and it's all unfinished with the window.
So basically that's where we're at. We have -- this was an
aluminum closed porch and it has been -- it's been altered without
permits or inspections or a certificate of occupancy.
And at this point it's half of -- more than half of it's an aluminum
closed porch and then you've got this little section in the corner that
was put in with these wood frame sections of wall with windows and
electrical work and a roof-over.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, would you like to respond
or would you like Ms. Wages to __
MR. P ACCHIANA: Yeah, let's have Mrs. Wages respond to
those allegations.
Page 45
-.- ._->-----------
October 25,2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Wages, if you'd like to go
ahead and respond, it's your turn.
MS. WAGES: Okay. Is my real estate agent there?
MR. P ACCHIANA: Yes, he is.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, he is. If you'd like him to
speak for you, we would need to swear him in.
MS. WAGES: Well, if you could swear him in and ask him how
I bought the property in '97 or '96, that would clear up a lot. Because
the screen porch has had no electrical. It __
MR. PACCHIANA: I'd like to call Mr. Needles up. And if you
could refer to that sketch that was one of the exhibits that was marked,
and it indicated that there was a -- I believe it indicated it was pending
that it was installed in 2000. And I believe that's inaccurate, and I have
Mr. Needles here to testify to that.
MS. WAGES: And it had a roof over it when I bought it, and it
was -- according to the county records, that was done in '93.
MR. PACCHIANA: Wait, that was -- Ms. Jones, we're going to
have another witness sworn in. Hold on.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. PACCHIANA: Mr. Needles, can you address the issue of
the installation of the -- what do you do for a living?
MR. NEEDLES: A real estate agent.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Did you sell this property to Ms. Jones?
MR. NEEDLES: Yes, I believe it was in 1997.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Okay. And was the porch on the property in
19977
MR. NEEDLES: Yes, the existing wall that was replaced and
wood, that was aluminum and it went around the corner and that was
all aluminum back in '97.
MR. P ACCHIANA: And do you have any idea how long that
had been in existence prior to that?
MR. NEEDLES: The previous owner had owned it at least 10
Page 46
'""--"'_~.-.,..-.._,,-".,-
October 25, 2007
years before that. And I really don't know exactly if and when that
was added. I know it was added, but I don't know how long on __
MR. P ACCHIANA: It was definitely prior to 1997, you're just
not sure when; is that what you're saying?
MR. NEEDLES: Yes.
MR. P ACCHIANA: I would like to call attention to the board to
the fact that the drawing that's been -- that's in exhibit now, it says the
aluminum siding was -- YB, I guess that's year built 2000. And so
obviously that is inaccurate, based on the testimony that we have here
of Mr. Needles.
Okay, Ms. Jones, would you like to continue?
MS. WAGES: Well, I would like for Mr. Needles to tell them
that there was no -- in that section that Mr. Mucha sees wiring, that
there was a Jenn Air cook range was in -- the Jenn Air model was
made in the Fifties, I did see that from the serial number, and that
there was a Jenn Air installed with all the wiring and there was a
washer and dryer installed with all the wiring at that time.
And that's how I bought it. I did not do -- there was no new
wiring other than Condee Electric put GFI receptacles out there,
because it was outside or, you know, it was close to outside.
But I did absolutely no wiring. I did no plumbing except the Jenn
Air range, their Jenn Air stove, Condee Electric took out the Jenn Air
stove because it didn't work and capped off the wires that wasn't
needed. That's the only thing that's been done in wiring is capping off.
And I would like Mr. Needles to tell them how this porch was. The
porch had the roof over it, the porch had windows.
MR. PACCHIANA: Okay, Ms. Wages, wait.
Mr. Needles, can you testify as to the condition ofthe porch at
the time that you sold it to Ms. Jones?
MS. WAGES: With the roof.
MR. P ACCHIANA: With the roof.
MR. NEEDLES: Yes, the existing roof was there, the washer and
Page 47
October 25, 2007
dryer were there, and the Jenn Air was there as well. I don't recall
whether that was in working operation, the Jenn Air, at the time the
house was sold to her.
MR. PACCHIANA: Ms. Wages, are you familiar with the -- you
heard Mr. Mucha testify as to the violations that you were cited for in
January of'07?
MS. WAGES: Well, in January of'07 I got word that the lady,
the young lady that -- I've had a problem of vagrancy in this house,
people breaking in. And there's police reports on file with the Collier
County Sheriff's Department where they have actually came out and
did drive-bys, and then when I see the electric bill up to $100 when
the circuit breakers are all pulled off __
MR. MUCHA: I'd like to object to this testimony. It's irrelevant
to the issue that's at stake now.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mrs. Jones, the county has just
objected to your testimony because they feel that it does not have
relevance. The board will give you a little bit of leniency here. If you
want to explain what point you're trying to get to, that would be great.
MS. WAGES: Okay. The trailer, it's a mobile home, and the
mobile home is a 1951 mobile home. Your records in the appraiser's
office shows that. I have them.
And the lady was supposed to be there three to four weeks
because her parents were building a place. And after three or four
weeks I told her I was coming down from Alaska with my daughter,
she would have to be out. She refused to be out. And she tore up the
place. She completely vandalized the place and called Joe Mucha -- or
called the Code to come out and see the living conditions, and then
she posed as a renter, as having a lease and paying rent.
And I asked Joe -- I told Joe, that's not true. That's not true at all.
MR. MUCHA: I object. This is irrelevant to the issue that's at
stake.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mrs. Jones, at this point in time
Page 48
-"------_.,--
October 25,2007
we're trying to determine whether or not there's a code violation that
exists on the property. And what the county is stating is that there's a
wall or two sections of wall, approximately 12 foot long each, that
were at one time supposed to have been aluminum or structure
aluminum and they've been replaced with wood, and there's windows
that have been added. All of that under Collier County Building Code
would require permits. Could you speak to that?
MR. PACCHIANA: Yeah, if you could just go -- the January
12th violation, just stick to the initial violation. You were told that
there were 10 violations; is that correct?
MS. WAGES: That's correct.
MR. P ACCHIANA: And you had those __
MS. WAGES: They were violating the mobile home because it
was a rental, I was renting the mobile home. I was not renting the
mobile home.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Let's stick to the vio -- the original violation
was brought up by Mr. Mucha, so let's just address that quickly.
Now you had a series of violations that he found when he went
into the house; is that correct?
MS. WAGES: Into the mobile home. Yes, 10 of them.
MR. P ACCHIANA: And you had those -- you had a contractor
come in, give you an estimate, and you had those taken care of; is that
correct?
MS. WAGES: He told me it would be somewhere a little over
$8,000, and I told him to hold off because I wanted to see how much it
would cost to demolition the whole property, knowing that I have
$8,000 now to have to fix the violations in this so-called rental trailer.
MR. P ACCHIANA: And did you get a price for demolishing the
building?
MS. WAGES: I did.
MR. P ACCHIANA: And how much was that?
MS. WAGES: You have it there. You have it. It was -- I got the
Page 49
October 25, 2007
demolition permit -- I mean demolition price for $8,000.
MR. P ACCHIANA: So biased on that then you opted to have the
violations taken care of; is that correct?
MS. WAGES: Well, I flew out of here. I flew from Alaska down
to Florida in February to meet with Joe Mucha to see -- because when
Joe Mucha walked into the trailer, I had paid a man across the street,
Doug, to fix the trailer and take care of all the water damage, pull all
the sheetrock off of the wall, pull all of the drop-down ceiling that she
had pointed, all the broken shower stalls, the glass, to get all of that
out and let's get new stuff to put in and I'll take care of getting this
woman out.
But while he was in the process of working, he said he left one
day and Joe Mucha walked in the next day and he violated him __ the
violations was because it was in process, it was work in process laying
down, it was not --
MR. MUCHA: I object.
MR. PACCHIANA: Okay, so all of those violations have been
taken care of; is that correct?
MS. WAGES: Yes, those violations __
MR. P ACCHIANA: Was there any discussion with regard to the
porch?
MS. WAGES: Not a concrete -- he did not violate me on the
porch on that day. Because I told him I want to see how long it's going
to take to get this -- how much it's going to take to get these violations
fixed in reference to tearing it down and in reference to maybe I can
sell it like it is, and someone else can tear it down. And I said hold off.
And I said, well, are there anymore else -- is there anything else that
we should consider in the pricing of fixing?
He said, I can't think of anything but these right here.
Now, we did talk about the porch __
MR. P ACCHIANA: Okay, can you explain how it came -_ how
the porch came to be fixed?
Page 50
October 25, 2007
MS. WAGES: How the porch came to be damaged?
MR. P ACCHIANA: Yes, how it came to be damaged and how
you came to repair it and what did you do in order to -- did you
contact the county with regard to obtaining a permit at that time?
MS. WAGES: What happened is my next door neighbor, Jim
Graham, called me and said, Judy, people are able to walk in your
house from the back porch -- I mean, from your back porch.
I said, how's that?
He said, well, the hurricane only took off a corner. It was -- the
rest of it's all intact, the side's intact, but it took all the aluminum and
took all that corner off and that inside wall off. It just destroyed that
inside wall. That was all it was.
So I said okay, well, I'm going to get an airline -- I'm going to
come down and get it fixed so people can't just walk in my house.
He said, well, I'll try to watch and make sure that no one's coming in
and taking your stuff or anything. So anyway, the woman had
disappeared, so she --
MR. P ACCHIANA: Did you contact the county about obtaining
a permit at that time?
MS. WAGES: The county. I went to Horseshoe and I went to the
county offices and asked him. There was mobs of people up there.
And I told him I would like to get a permit, because I'm out of state,
all the way to Alaska, 6,500 miles away, and I wanted to get a permit
to fix this back porch back in screen wire and screening, and leave the
roof, because the roofs been there forever, I mean, for a long time.
But just the wall.
And I was told by everybody, stand in line, ma'am, you know,
we're six months out of permitting, giving permits. We've got so many
permits out right now that we don't have personnel to go.
And so I called, tried to call Donna Fiala and ask her what would
be a good way to do to get a permit. I mean, now could I go around all
this or how could I -- is there a special setup fast permitting that I
Page 51
October 25, 2007
could get to? And so she said, I don't know, but she told me to talk to
FEMA.
And so I didn't have to talk to FEMA, FEMA came to me with
one of the inspectors that came that morning. And we were an kind of
picking up aluminum and picking up some to see if there was __
picking up all the pieces that were in the canal. And my son was down
there diving in the canal picking up stuff that was in the canal, from
other houses, too.
And FEMA said, do you need any help? And they gave us that
plaster to put on the -- I mean, gave us a piece of paper. And I said, the
only thing we've got is I'm scared to stay here with that wall, that
corner being out, because I'm not felt -- I mean, I don't feel real safe
with people being able to walk in and me in there asleep and my son's
got to go back to Fort Lauderdale to __
MR. P ACCHIANA: So you had that corner repaired then.
MS. WAGES: They said, go ahead and just fix it, whatever you
can do, just so you'll feel safe.
And the gentleman said -- I said, well, who can I see? He said,
well I'll tell you who you can call and he'll say the same thing is Jim
Turner. So he gave me his telephone number.
So we went back to the county again for the second time and see
if they'd lightened up on giving out permits. And they said no, we're
too busy. We cannot. You're six to seven months out.
I said, but I'm from Alaska and I want to get it done while I'm
here, because the back don't lock in my house. I have no locking
windows or doors in the back, it's just all wide open into this screened
enclosure.
And so -- and we had already tried to find aluminum. And we
went everywhere trying to find aluminum. And these trailer places
where you find trailer aluminum. We went to Home Depot, we went
to every place.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Excuse me, stop.
Page 52
October 25, 2007
MS. WAGES: We could not find aluminum, could not find
aluminum. So my son said, well __
MR. PONTE: Could you please direct your client to confine her
MR. PACCHIANA: Judy, you're going to have to confine
yourself with the issues here. We can't go back to __
MR. PONTE: -- to the violations, please.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Just the violations.
So you had it repaired. You tried to get a permit, you couldn't get
a permit, right? And that's why -- you had to do it on an emergency
basis in order to preserve your premises, that's correct?
MS. WAGES: That's right. And I couldn't get aluminum, so we
did it in wood. And the windows were already there in the original
structure. You can ask the real estate agent. The windows were there.
So the washing machine and dryer was outside. It had blown
outside. Because everything when I leave is unplugged and it was all
unplugged, that so was not a problem. We just pulled that inside.
MR. P ACCHIANA: So you don't believe that your porch at this
point is in violation. You did not get a permit because you could not
get a permit. You constructed -- you did the improvements on an
emergency basis; isn't that correct?
MS. WAGES: Just temporary in wood, yes, until we could get
aluminum.
MR. PACCHIANA: So would you be willing to put -- to do that
piece that you did in wood now in aluminum?
MS. WAGES: Yes.
MR. PACCHIANA: Okay. And is that what you're looking for--
MS. WAGES: Yes.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Is that what you're looking for the county to
be is an ultimate resolution of this, just to have the part that you put in
wood, have it put back in aluminum the way it was __
MS. WAGES: Correct.
Page 53
October 25, 2007
MR. P ACCHIANA: -- at the time --
MS. WAGES: Yes.
MR. P ACCHIANA: -- that it was when you purchased the
property and has been since 1951?
MS. WAGES: Yes.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Thank you.
Now, the issue -- there's also on that Notice of Violation an issue
about a shed on a dock. But that shed has been knocked down; isn't
that correct?
MS. WAGES: Yes, that--
MR. P ACCHIANA: But that's not an issue anymore; is that
correct?
MS. WAGES: -- shed was never permitted, but it's been there. I
bought the house with it there. And Mr. __
MR. P ACCHIANA: All right, so it's been demolished now.
And I believe Mr. Mucha, you've indicated to me __
MR. MUCHA: The shed is gone, it's not __
MR. P ACCHIANA: -- that's not an issue. The shed, even though
it's on this notice of violation, it's no longer an issue.
MR. MUCHA: Correct.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time.
MR. P ACCHIANA: I apologize.
The shed issue, Mr. Mucha, is --
MR. MUCHA: The shed issue is resolved. We're here today for
the improvements made to the aluminum closed porch.
MS. WAGES: I think that's repairs, because it didn't improve it.
Those are temporary.
MR. P ACCHIANA: So I think that's the problem. The issue she
wants -- whatever -- first of all, with regard to the notice of violation,
she -- our position is that she did not violate these various sections of
the code that require permitting prior to repair work being done,
because it was done on an emergency basis.
Page 54
October 25, 2007
And she did make all reasonable due diligence efforts to try to
obtain a permit prior to performing the work, and she did it with the
best available materials that were on hand.
And now -- so I believe it's inappropriate to have these various
actions -- have her be fined for these various actions, certainly, or
have her be charged with a violation of these various actions.
And I would like this board to give direction with regard to
having her just limit any repairs that have to be made to that section
that she did repair to so that it doesn't involve the balance of the
structure at this point.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In may, here on the board we
can only respond to whatever we're being -- what's being brought to
us. So in this case the violation and our order would be strictly
pertaining to just the porch and really just those two walls, because
that's all that's being cited in the violation.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Yeah, that would be of utmost importance,
that it only be limited to the portion that we're talking about, the two
walls.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: However, we could not go back
and say we want -- we're going to tell you to remove the wood section
and replace it with aluminum, because we are not building experts.
We do have background in the building industry, but it is really up to
the building officials to decide what is appropriate here, whether or
not it could be brought up to the existing when it was originally built
or whether it needs to be brought up to new code using new materials.
So we're just really going to say that it comes into compliance, if that's
the will of the board, and we do find that there's a violation here, that's
usually the way we head. So --
MR. P ACCHIANA: And could you direct that compliance be
based on the way it was at the time that it was damaged?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's not up for us to decide. It
depends on -- there's a number of factors. There's certain ordinances
Page 55
..._-~--
October 25, 2007
involved here.
For instance, there's a percentage ordinance. Once a certain
percentage of a structure is damaged for whatever reason or being
replaced because of whatever reason, if it goes over like 25 or 50
percent, whatever it is, then the entire structure has to be replaced, or
that entire porch has to be replaced. And there are things that we don't
-- as a code enforcement board, we're not experts in to be able to rule
that jurisdiction.
What we're going to try to do is simply bring this into
compliance in whatever means are appropriate. So we'll ask probably
for a permit and then a certificate of occupancy proving that whatever
was necessary on that permit was completed correctly and inspected
by the building department.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Thank you.
Do you have any other comments, Ms. Jones?
MS. WAGES: Other than the rest of the porch, the garage area
that the man -- some Latin man back in 1949 converted. And this is
your records. I found this out --
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. Jones?
MS. WAGES: -- from the county records.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. Jones?
MR. P ACCHIANA: I don't think that's relevant.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. Jones? In could caution
you about admitting violations on any other part of your home, it
would probably benefit you.
And also, it would not be a good idea to mention that you had
neighbors performing contracting work for you. So just caution your
testimony.
MS. WAGES: Thanks. This was inside a mobile home.
MR. P ACCHIANA: All right, this is a mobile home.
Okay, I think we're finished. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Great, thank you.
Page 56
October 25, 2007
Anything further from county?
MR. MUCHA: Yes, I just wanted to -- couple things I want to
talk about. First of all, these repairs were done in 2004. I didn't
discover them till 2007, so she had over two years to -- if she wanted
to bring it back to being -- you know, she said this was a temporary
fix. Why in 2007 am I still finding this? It's been well over a couple of
years since the last hurricane, so plenty of materials are available now
to make the correct repairs.
I also have had a structural inspector, Anthony Verlotti, out to the
property on July 18th of this year, and he stated that this would have
to be brought up to current code. If she wanted to keep it as an
aluminum closed porch, she would have to bring it back to that, or if
she wanted to continue enclosing the entire closed por -- it can't be
half and half.
MS. WAGES: That's right.
MR. MUCHA: 25 percent and 75 percent. It has to be either one
or the other. Or she can remove the entire thing. And that's the options
I've given her, and that's why we're here today.
MS. WAGES: I agree.
Well, the only thing I wanted to do was to take the section that we had
to put in wood because we didn't have the -- and make it -- call a
screen porch person, all I want to do, and ask them to do whatever
they have to do to put that corner back in a screen porch just like it
was. I don't want wood all over the whole back, I want only screen
porch in that corner. Because the rest of it, as I was starting to say, is a
concrete wall, a concrete roof over it.
And I might as well, if I have to get into the entire porch and
removing all that concrete overhead, I would have to have it
demolished, I guess. But I've already spent the money that I've spent
into the mobile home where I was told when I called that you don't
permit a mobile home. There's some kind of problem. And Joe Mucha
told me and Gary Stringer, we don't need permits for a mobile home.k
Page 57
October 25, 2007
MR. MUCHA: Ms. Jones, I stated that for repairs inside a mobile
home, I said the building department doesn't inspect them because
they consider a mobile home a motor vehicle. So I said that's why for
any repairs inside I couldn't require a permit, because there's nobody
to inspect it.
MS. WAGES: Well, that's right.
And for the record, that's the only repairs that have been done
inside the mobile home. And my neighbor was doing them inside the
mobile home. They weren't doing anything in the back.
And the reason that Gary Stringer was told by me don't do
anything to the back, I need to get a licensed contractor to come in and
repair this corner and bring this corner back to code.
MR. P ACCHIANA: Okay, thank you, Judy.
Okay, we have no more.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
Is there any questions from the board?
MR. PONTE: Yeah, I'm confused. Aren't we talking about an
aluminum porch? And haven't we spent almost an hour not talking
about the aluminum porch?
So please, 35 words or less --
MR. P ACCHIANA: Yeah, I apologize __
MR. PONTE: -- what's the story on the porch?
MR. P ACCHIANA: -- there for spending more time. I am
concerned.
I guess the -- my major concern is the fact that she was cited for
these violations of various sections of the Collier County code with
regard to permitting and the fact that she did make an attempt to
obtain a permit.
And it was her understanding by doing what she did that that
would take care of the situation, and that that was a fix, she put in the
section and she wouldn't have to do anything else about it. And she
made her effort to do the permit.
Page 58
October 25, 2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Without a copy of the
ordinance or any rules that state emergency repairs made without
permits, we wouldn't be able to use that as testimony to adjudicate on,
if you will.
MS. WAGES: Well, let me tell you guys, my dad was sick, and I
stayed with my father until he died for two years, in 2004, 2005, and
he died in May of 2006. And I stayed right by his bedside until he
died. And I didn't even think about all that down there.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I can appreciate that.
Is there any further questions from the board?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, I'll go ahead and
close the public opinion portion. And this will limit any further
testimony or comments from anyone outside the board themselves.
Okay, any questions, statements?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Comments?
MR. KRAENBRING: I don't know whether we're actually
talking about that much of a repair. It seems like we're just going to be
removing about 24 foot of wall and restoring it to aluminum, its
original aluminum porch. I think that, you know, he have with to make
a finding of fact.
I would find a violation does exist, so this way we can go ahead
and proceed with a cure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion that a
violation exists. Do we have a second?
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second.
All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 59
October 25, 2007
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And would you like to
open up to recommendation from the county?
MR. KRAENBRING: Yes, I would like to hear what the county's
recommendation is.
MR. MUCHA: Okay, my recommendation is the respondents
pay all operational costs in the amount of $291.66 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and to abate all
violations by: The respondent must engage the services of a general
contractor licensed in Collier County to obtain required permits,
related inspections and certificate of -- let me start over.
The respondent must engage the services of a general contractor
licensed in Collier County to obtain required permits, related
inspections and certificate of completions for all nonpermitted
improvements within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day.
Alternately, the respondent must engage the services of a general
contractor licensed in Collier County to obtain demolition permit for
removal of all nonpermitted improvements and resulting debris to a
site designated for final disposal. Licensed contractor must execute
demolition permit through to an issuance of a certificate of completion
within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when a violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection
to confirm abatement.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Could you possibly put a copy
of that up on the screen, if it's typed out?
MR. MUCHA: Sure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And also, in your
Page 60
October 25, 2007
recommendation you had mentioned that a GC was necessary to pull
the demo permit. Can the owner pull it, or does it have to be a general
contractor on a home?
MR. MUCHA: Well, since it's not owner occupied, I would think
it would have to be a licensed general contractor.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you.
MS. WAGES: It's owner occupied. I'm in Alaska, but it is owner
occupied, sir. It's always been. I've never ever not been owner
occupied. Even though I've been in Alaska, I come down and live in it
with my family, with my children and grandchildren.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Jones, we've closed the
public portion. We appreciate the testimony. I believe what county
sometimes uses is tax rolls to see if that is your -- or your homestead
to find out. But in any case, we'll go ahead and discuss that amongst
the board now and see if that language needs to be changed.
MS. WAGES: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any talk amongst the board?
MR. MORGAN: Yeah, I agree with the recommendations of the
county, but I think 120 days is too long. We need to cut it down to 90
days maximum.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is that a motion?
MR. MORGAN: Yes.
MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a
second. All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
Page 61
October 25,2007
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, motion carries. That will
then be changed from 120 days down to 90 days on either the
construction --
MR. MORGAN: Or demolition.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- or the demolition.
Mrs. Jones, you've been given 90 days to get a contractor to
either make the improvements changing that back into an aluminum
structure, whatever needs to be done to satisfy the code that we go
under, or 90 days to demolish that and to receive a certificate of
completion from the county.
MS. WAGES: I understand.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay? And there's operational
costs to be paid of $291.66 within 30 days.
And then when all of the items are completed, please notify code
enforcement so they can come and perform a site inspection for you.
MS. WAGES: Right.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you for participating.
MS. WAGES: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If we could, we'd like to take a
break for 10 minutes. We'll reconvene at 11 :02.
(Recess. )
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we'd like to reconvene
the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board.
Next up on the agenda under hearings is the Board of County
Commissioners versus Osprey Landing, Limited. Is there a
representative from Osprey Landing here today?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2007-102.
The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence,
and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A.
Page 62
October 25,2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a motion to
accept?
MR. DEAN: Motion to accept.
MR. KRAENBRING: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, the Collier
County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 3.05.10(B)(C).
Operational requirements and application to existing lakes in regards
to littoral shelf planting area, LSP A.
Description of violation: Required littoral plantings on LSP A are
deficient and failing.
Location/address where violation exists: 104 Osprey's Landing,
Naples, Florida.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: B&C Corporate Services of Central Florida, Incorporated,
registered agent for Osprey's Landing, Ltd., 390 North Orange
Avenue, Suite 1100, Orlando, Florida, 32801.
Date violation first observed: January 22nd, 2003.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July 9,
2007.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 16th, 2007.
Date of reinspect ion: August 16th, 2007.
Results of reinspection: Violation remains.
At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code
Page 63
October 25, 2007
Enforcement Investigator Susan O'Farrell.
MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier
County Code Enforcement Environmental Inspector.
This case began in 2003. There have been several investigators
involved. We've had littoral shelves planted and failed several times.
At this time the violation has been abated. They have planted the
littoral shelf planting area.
I have photos, if you'd like to see those. They've also installed the
required signs.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion to accept
the exhibit.
MR. PONTE: Moved.
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Moved and a second by Mr.
Dean.
All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. O'FARRELL: This would be a photograph of the LSPA. It
shows the three different strata that have been included in their
plantings to include trees, ground cover and shrubs.
They did submit a plan to me, which I accepted, and the plantings
were done in accordance with that plan.
The signs were also required as part of their -- as part of the
ordinance, and they have installed those signs.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there anything further that
Page 64
October 25,2007
the county needs from the respondent?
MS. O'FARRELL: What I'd like to recommend is that the
respondents pay the operational costs in the amount of $1 ,553.31
within 30 days of this hearing. I would also like to ask the respondents
to submit a management plan of the littoral shelf planting area that
will show a maintenance program for a period of five years.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
Sir, it's your turn to speak to the violation.
MR. McDANIEL: We agree to everything that everything she
said. Wayne McDaniel.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And just out of curiosity, was
there an attempt to stipulate this one? Is there a reason why it's coming
in front of us full board as a hearing?
MR. McDANIEL: There was. But we felt since we had remedied
the stipulation, we didn't have a need for stipulations.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good. Anything
else to add?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, any questions from
the board?
(No response.)
MR. KRAENBRING: Are they looking for a finding of fact
here?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, we would like a finding of fact.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have -- I guess we have an
admittance of the fact that a violation existed from the respondent.
MR. KRAENBRING: I agree. I make a motion that a violation
did exist.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. And without a finding, we can't assess the
costs as well.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand.
MR. KRAENBRING: So I make a motion that a violation did
Page 65
October 25, 2007
exist.
MR. DEAN: I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you had already stated
your remedy, thank you.
I'd like to ask the respondent if there was any concerns about the
suggested remedy, to produce that further -- preservation plan, is that
what it's called?
O'FARRELL: Maintenance plan of the LSP A.
MR. McDANIEL: No, there's not. We did submit something;
however, it needs to be in the proper format. We've talked with her
about that so we have no concern or issue with that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any suggestion how long it
will take you to prepare that new form?
MR. McDANIEL: We'll have that with her within 30 days.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Great. Acceptable?
MS. O'FARRELL: Great, um-hum.
I also gave them the template for the preserve management plan
that they can use to formulate their program.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the
board?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I'll go ahead and close the
public portion and we can discuss questions or comments amongst
Page 66
October 25, 2007
ourselves.
MR. PONTE: Doesn't seem like there's much to discuss.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion.
MR. MORGAN: I make a motion that we accept the county's
recommendations.
MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you have the operational
costs to be paid within 30 days and then of course the submittal of that
plan within 30 days as well. Thank you.
MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next on the agenda, BCC
versus Aloha Pools and Spa Corporation. Is there a representative here
from Aloha?
MS. PATTERSON: The respondent was here but he wished to
leave.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. PATTERSON: Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code
Enforcement, Sign Specialist.
MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board
Case 2007-104.
The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence
Page 67
'-.-.-".-" ~_._-_._--
-,._~-----_._~"-_..
October 25, 2007
and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A.
MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the packet.
MR. PONTE: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41 of the Collier
County Land Development Code, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(2)(a),
1 0.02.06(B)(2)( d)(ix).
Description of violation: Freestanding sign without required
permit, no permit number affixed.
Location/address where violation exists: 2237 J&C Boulevard.
Name and address of person/owner, person in charge of violation
location: Timothy A. Cooke, as property owner and registered agent
for Aloha Pools and Spa Corporation.
Date violation first observed: November 13th, 2006.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: On the
statement of violation you have January 17th, 2007. We would like to
make a change on that. Instead of that date, we would like to say
January 9th, 2007. We'd like to make a correction.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 5th, 2007.
Date of reinspect ion: January 16th, 2007.
Results of reinspection: Violation remains.
At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator
Sherry Patterson.
MS. PATTERSON: I would just like to state that the violation
Page 68
October 25, 2007
has been abated by October 19th, as they obtained a permit, and the
certificate of occupancy has been issued.
That is one reason why the respondent did not wish to stay.
I only have -- I have a photo of the sign of what it looked like before
the permit was issued.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion to accept the
exhibit.
MR. PONTE: So moved.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And who seconded it?
MR. MORGAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. PATTERSON: And as a requirement, the sign was -- it
necessary to lower the sign to I believe it is now eight feet. And I have
a photograph of the after picture of what it looks like today.
Sorry, that photo is not quite as clear.
The county at this time requests a finding of fact that there was a
violation on this property and recommends that the CEB order the
respondent to pay all the operational costs in the amount of$335.67
incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days from the date of
this hearing. And that's all I have.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, thank you.
The board, is there a fact here that there's a violation?
MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that a violation did exist as
described in the charging documents ofCEB Case No. 2007-104,
Page 69
October 25, 2007
Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Aloha Pools
and Spa Corporation.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second?
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kraenbring seconded.
All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And then of course the motion
for the order. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
MR. PONTE: That was abated, wasn't it?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, but we need to impose the
operational costs.
MR. PONTE: How about a recommendation from the county?
MS. PATTERSON: The recommendation was that the board
order the respondent to pay the operational costs in the amount of
$335.67.
MR. PONTE: I make a motion that we accept the
recommendation from the county, as stated.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second?
MR. MORGAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Second by Mr. Morgan.
All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 70
October 25, 2007
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you very much.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you very much.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be BCC
versus Bart and Sandi Chernoff.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. MARKU: This case is in reference to Code Enforcement
Board Case No. 2007-105.
The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence
and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a motion to
approve?
MR. KRAENBRING: Motion to accept the packet.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Dean.
All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41 as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a),
1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i). Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d) (i)
Page 71
-~______~____.,..... m"',_",'~. .____..__~ '~"~"_""'___'''_'_
October 25, 2007
was renumbered September 13th, 2005 as 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Also
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article II,
103.11.1, and 104.1.3.5.
Also Florida Building Code 2004 Edition Section 105.1 and
111.1.
Description of violation: Improvement of property without valid
Collier County building permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 840 Seventh Street
Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120.
Name and address of person/owner, person in charge of violation
location: Bart and Sandi Chernoff.
Date violation first observed: April 14th, 2006.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April
17th, 2006.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 17th, 2006.
Date of reinspection: May l7th, 2006.
Results of reinspection: Violation remains.
At this time, I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator
Ed Morad.
MR. MORAD: For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement
Investigator Ed Morad.
It's going to be real brief.
I'd like to submit a photograph so we can understand what's
happening.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion to accept.
MR. DEAN: Motion to approve.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second?
MR. PONTE: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 72
-'----~.."~.
-------~._.
October 25, 2007
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. MORAD: This is the violation -- can I have that? This is the
violation that's in question. Originally a pole barn was built without a
permit and it's -- has a major side setback encroachment.
Within this pole barn in this area about here was a -- the
respondent built a two-bedroom, three fixtured bathroom, fully
equipped kitchen with living area, apartment dwelling.
Next to that, which is covered up by that bush there, the
respondent built an exercise, workout room with electric and AC. And
also, the shed next to that was placed on the property, all without
permits.
This pretty much concludes my opening. I'd like to reserve my
remaining time for any questions, if needed, to the respondent before I
read my -- or staffs recommendation.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just out of curiosity, why
wasn't there further photos?
MR. MORAD: Oh, I have additional photos, if you'd like to see
them. That's individual --
MR. PONTE: Could we see a photo of what the property looks
like today?
MR. MORAD: It still remains the same today as far as the
structures being there.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the charge is the pole barn
itself or the additions made to the pole barn?
MR. MORAD: Both. All four structures were not permitted. The
pole barn has a major side setback encroachment.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ma'am?
MS. McALLISTER: My name is Colleen McAllister. I represent
Page 73
October 25, 2007
Mr. and Mrs. Chernoff who are here today, should you have any
questions of them. Other than that, I'll try to speak and speed this
along.
We do not contest, it's important to note, the fact of the violations
of the buildings. They exist, we agree that they exist. That's not why
we're here today.
Mr. and Mrs. Chernoff, however, only had anything to do with
the mother-in-law apartment. They admit that they put the
mother-in-law apartment in there without a permit. They were in a
serious medical emergency and they built it. Since then the
father-in-law is deceased, the mother-in-law is in an assisted living, so
it is an unoccupied dwelling at the present time.
The location of the mother-in-law apartment, however, is relative
to the rest of the issue here. When the Cher -- the packet that I've
given you, and I'll skip because of time, an explanation of all those
exhibits, but what those exhibits are designed to show you is that at
the time they purchased the property, except for the mother-in-law
apartment, all of the buildings were already on the property. They
purchased it and paid for the pole barn, they purchased it and paid for
the shed. They had no idea that these violations existed until code
enforcement first came to them.
Originally when code enforcement came to them, they agreed __
code enforcement agreed to delay enforcement of the violations to
allow the Chernoffs to go back and seek a legal remedy for the
violations, since obviously they've paid for the violation and had no
idea when they paid for them, they're seeking liability from whoever
built the pole barn.
Mr. and Mrs. Chernoff had difficulty finding a lawyer because
they didn't have the funds and this is the normally the kind of case
that's taken on an hourly basis. Retainers, hourly.
He filed a pro se motion against the former -- a pro se complaint
against the former owners, obtained default judgment. They were
Page 74
October 25,2007
originally violated in April. By the time he filed his pro se on his own
complaint with the court it was the fall. Obtained default judgment.
Once he obtained default judgment, of course the former owners came
forward with an attorney. That judgment was set -- the default was set
aside and the litigation is now proceeding.
So that's the time frame that we're looking at here.
In the meantime code enforcement then had agreed to delay
enforcement. The reason he needs to delay enforcement is obvious,
because I included also the last page of that exhibit -- shows just the
cost on the pole barn alone to demolish it and rebuild it inside the
setbacks is over $55,000.
So anyway we are now in litigation. At some point several of my
fellow members of the Bar strongarmed me into taking this case for
Mr. and Mrs. Chernoff. I have taken the case. Weare proceeding. I
have propounded initial discovery to the former owners and it should
proceed at pace.
What we're asking for of the board today is not -- and I apologize
for the earlier confusion over using the word continuance. What we're
asking for from the board is only that they continue to grant what they
originally granted to Mr. and Mrs. Chernoff, which was a delay in
enforcement to allow the legal proceeding to move forward so that
they can collect their damages and pay to do what they need to do.
The mother-in-law apartment is vacant, it's not being used. Code
enforcement has not said the structures are in any way a danger or a
public issue, a public safety issue. They've been there for a long time.
The Chernoffs bought the property in 1998. And we think that -- and I
showed you the property appraiser cards to show they were not part of
the original permitting.
There've been four owners. We believe that the previous owner is
the one that built the structures. We have some photographic evidence,
some aerial photographic evidence that supports that. They have, I
will tell you, denied that in their additional answer to the complaint.
Page 75
---"'--~-'--'----'-
October 25, 2007
But we should know more definitively when they answer the
discovery that's been propounded.
Weare also looking for the previous owner -- to the previous
owner, to depose her as well to determine precisely who is
responsible. Then we'll ask the court for judgment. Once we have a
judgment, we'll be able to do several different -- we'll have several
avenues of remedy with respect to it the setoffs. There might be a way
to, for instance, purchase additional property so that we can resolve
the setoff by increasing the size of the property without having to
destroy. They can't do any ofthat without the funds to do it.
So all we ask of the board today is that they allow code
enforcement to delay enforcement of the material violations pending
the outcome of the litigation.
I would be happy to come back to the board on a regular basis
. and give you an update on how the litigation is proceeding every 60
days or 90 days, or even just give Mr. Morad a written report. And in
fact, quite frankly, that might even help me a little bit, because that
would allow me to say no, if there are delays that come down the pike,
gee, I need 30 more days. Well, sorry, you can't have it because we're
under a deadline.
So that's all we're asking for here. We do not contest the
violations. We know they need to be remedied, we just need the time
to get the funds from the responsible party to take care of it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we have two options
here. One, county can voluntarily pull the case from the board hearing
and set it for a later date, if you'd like. Or if they decide not to, we'll
go and we'll continue to hear the case and we'll have to adjudicate and
find the fact that there's a violation. And then as a board, because we
don't like to leave things open-ended, will try to set a date.
Now, the board may be lenient with that date, but that's the
direction in which we go.
So if I could, Michelle.
Page 76
October 25, 2007
MS. ARNOLD: I just had a comment. There's been information
provided to the board that the Chernoffs had done improvements
beyond the construction of the pole barn and some of the other
structures. I would just request that the board consider as an option
that they abate the portion that they were responsible for violating, and
then pursue whatever litigation that they have in the courts against
prior owners for the portion that the prior owners may have
committed. But you did hear testimony that they were responsible for
making the structure into a living structure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so county's position is to
have the board possibly find a fact of the additional -- the addition that
was built under the pole barn by the Chernoffs and seek resolution on
that and possibly be lenient on the remaining structures that were built
prior to them taking ownership of the property.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: May I comment on that suggestion and just
clarify? The mother-in-law apartment is located as part and parcel of
the pole barn and the shed area. So in terms of abating the violation
with respect to just the structure of the facility, that's very simple for
him to do and in fact he's already spoken to Mr. Morad about doing
that.
There exists a larger issue here, which is it was built relative to
those other structures that violate the setback requirements. And it was
built there because he believes that those structures were legal when
he put the mother-in-law apartment in there.
So it would be -- it's not a big problem for him to abate the
violation with respect -- what he wants to do is just tear to out any __
the kitchen's already gone. He wants to tear out anything and just use
it as a storage room. So that part of it is very simple. But it would
continue to be a violation of the setbacks unless he demolished the
whole building.
Page 77
October 25,2007
MS. ARNOLD: And we understand that. Because had permits
been requested prior to doing the improvements, turning the pole barn
into a living structure, the setback encroachment probably would have
been identified to the Chernoffs so they wouldn't have increased the
violation.
So we understand that a portion of the violations may not be
abatable, if the board chooses to take that as an option. But the fact
that they committed some of the violation, perhaps we can resolve that
portion of the violation that they committed themselves.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. Morad, did you have
something?
MR. MORAD: Yes. And for the record, it also included the
workout room next to the apartment dwelling.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the
board?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Might I suggest that if we do
find the violation exists and we go into the resolution portion of our
hearing, that maybe we leave the public speaking option open so that
we could possibly craft a better order that allows time that the family
is able to deal with.
If there's no questions, we'll have to find the fact.
MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that a violation exists as
described in the charging documents ofCEB Case 2007-105, Collier
County Board of County Commissioners versus Bart and Sandi
Chernoff.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have
a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Dean seconded.
All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
Page 78
October 25, 2007
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. Morad, does the
county have a recommendation?
MR. MORAD: Yes, sir.
The staffs recommendation is that the respondent pay all
operational costs of$536 incurred in the prosecution of this case
within 30 days of today's hearing, and abate all violations by either
obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections and
certificate of occupancy, or certificate of completion for all
nonpermitted improvements on the property within 120 days of
today's hearing or a $200 a day fine will be imposed for each day any
violations remain.
Number two: Obtain all Collier County demolition permits. This
is either/or. Obtain all Collier County demolition permits and remove
all non-permitted improvements, obtain all required inspections,
certificate of completion within 120 days of to day's hearing or a fine
of $200 a day will be imposed for each day violation remains.
Number three: The respondent must notify the Collier County __
or code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated
in order to conduct a final inspection and confirm the abatement.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Morad.
Discussion amongst the board?
MR. KRAENBRING: I think I have a question of the
respondents.
If the pole barn were able to come into compliance, either by
purchasing land or by whatever means, would you then be willing to
Page 79
October 25,2007
keep the apartment?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifwe could, could we swear in
the Chernoffs so that we --
MS. McALLISTER: Sure, absolutely.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- can use their testimony,
please?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. KRAENBRING: Just to clarify the question--
MR. CHERNOFF: Ifwe are able to get our time to get the
money to do this, yes, I want to keep the apartment. Not as an
apartment, which I told Mr. Morad. The use for the apartment is done.
My mother-in-law is on the other coast, my father-in-law died. I want
to turn that into storage. It cost money to build that.
I've already spoken to zoning and everybody that I had to talk to,
and they've given me ideas, but everything costs money that I don't
have to do right now until the case is resolved.
Yes, I want to keep all of it. I bought it that way, except the
apartment. The apartment is not the issue with me anymore. The
apartment I want to turn into storage. But it is under the pole barn,
which the side setback it all involves. It's within the 30 feet that I've
been told. Originally I was told 15 feet, now I'm told it's 30 feet. If it
was 15 feet side setback, I can take care of the apartment, the storage
unit I'm going to use it as. I can continue with that now, because it
falls within the 15.
But with the 30, every bit of this is a violation and has to come
down, the side setback.
So answering your question, yes, absolutely, I want to keep it.
But it falls within the 30 foot and I can't bring it up to code until this is
resolved and I have money in hand to do it.
MR. MORAD: There's just a minor correction to that. In thinking
the side setback was 15 foot, he would still have to remove part of that
pole barn in order for that dwelling unit to be used as storage unit.
Page 80
- '--'~"""-"-'''_.~~~''---~--
October 25,2007
MR. KRAENBRING: I guess the point I was just trying to make
to the board was that if we look at correcting the violation that the
respondent has created, and they wanted to keep that area, we're really
kind of tying them into either -- you know, they may be forced to
demolish something that they really want to keep and they may
eventually be able to keep the pole barn.
MR. CHERNOFF: Absolutely.
MR. KRAENBRING: So are we forcing someone to demolish
something and then later on they find hey, they can keep the pole barn
and go ahead and get the proper permits? So --
MR. CHERNOFF: And I have, right after Mr. Morad violated
me, moved my mother-in-law into the home, okay. So the unit itself
has not been used from date of violation except as storage. I've
complied with everything Mr. Morad has asked me to do.
When Mr. Mitchell granted me the time to resolve the lawsuit, as
long as the motion kept moving forward, I kept in contact with Mr.
Morad and did everything asked of me. But, you know, Dennis
Mitchell grant me the time based on another case that they granted
time on, and now Mr. Scribner -- is that his name?
MR. MORAD: Yes.
MR. CHERNOFF: -- comes in and says not on my time. You
know, he comes in and takes away what Mr. Mitchell, who was the
supervisor under Mrs. Arnold's watch gave me. And I just want that
back till this is resolved. And once the lawsuit's resolved and I have
money in hand, my plan is hopefully to make it all legal or tear it all
down and build it within the 30 foot. But it's a money issue. I don't
have the money.
MR. MORGAN: Is additional property available on the north
side so you can increase the setback?
MR. CHERNOFF: It's five acres owned by my neighbor. And I
have to basically buy it from them.
MR. MORGAN: That's what I'm saying. He'll sell it to you so
Page 81
"--'--"'--"---'-"~-
October 25, 2007
you can stay within the 30-foot --
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: He has not committed to that. Originally we
talked to them about a swap of land, which he wasn't interested in.
And it's my conclusion, and Mr. and Mrs. Chernoff and I have talked
about that, that once they have cash in hand in a settlement of the
lawsuit damages, that they might be able to convince them to either
trade with some cash incentive or just sell them the strip.
MR. MORGAN: Right. Okay.
MR. KRAENBRING: I have a question of your attorney.
How long do you think it will take for the case to be resolved?
And also, what's the likelihood of collecting on the settlement?
MS. McALLISTER: We do know that the current defendants in
the case own not only their residence but some additional property. So
they have some assets that would be collectible. There's always levy
of judgment for part of the judgment, money judgments. So we think
the likelihood is fairly good.
As far as time, Jean can speak to this. I can't give you -- all I can
do is keep pushing it forward. And as I said to you, if there were some
-- in your order if there were some reporting requirement, that would
help me a lot in terms of moving it forward because I'd be able to say,
you know, when they call and say can I have 30 more days to answer
this, gee, I'd love to, but no. Code enforcement is requiring me to
move this along without any delay, and I'm sorry, I can give you three
or four days but I can't give you 30. So I can't predict.
A lot of these cases don't ever go to trial. They settle. That being
said, you know, they have 30 days to answer discovery, then we have
to set depositions. I can't predict, you know.
MR. KRAENBRING: Understood.
MR. PONTE: The key here, the real question is not one of time,
it seems, but rather one of money.
MS. McALLISTER: Correct.
Page 82
._----,..-,-~---~,,-,,-,-- -'-'-~"'-"'--'.- . ..'- ----_..-
October 25, 2007
MR. PONTE: And if your legal action is not successful, then the
problem remains, no money. So that if we were to think in terms of, I
don't know, a six-month, nine-month extension, whatever it might be
to get through your pending litigation, we might just end up right back
in the same place, no money, and the problem continuing. So I'm not
quite sure what to suggest or recommend, but that's my concern, that
we're not addressing the money issue here.
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. PACCHIANA: I agree, that the key issue here is money.
As for the prospects of success with the outcome of litigation, I
don't think there's much question that once we identify the owner that
built the structures that the court will find liability on their part for the
violations.
You know, I probably wouldn't have taken the case in didn't feel
that there was a prospect at the end of the road here of money, you
know, and I can tell that to the board in all honesty.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Just to add to what Mr. Ponte
was talking about, you know, even if you were able to purchase the
property next door and fix the setback issue, you still have the issue
that there was a structure that was never permitted or inspected, so
you'd have to go through and bring that structure, I'm assuming, up to
current codes. I don't know that for sure, but there is going to be
additional work that needs to be done there as well.
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: The basis for the lawsuit will be we can't
rely on the fact that there would even be an option in terms of
purchase of the land. That's an unknowable. So the basis for the
amount of damages that we've asked for from the court would include
the cost of engineering, permitting and bringing all the structures up to
code and demolishing, as they were, if that need be.
So we would take, in terms of asking for damages, the worst case
scenario, which is that we couldn't purchase the land and everything
Page 83
October 25, 2007
would have to be demolished. Which is why I put that estimate in
there, just for the cost of the pole barn to be demolished and rebuilt.
MR. MORAD: I have a question for the attorney.
Would your damages also be included if you were to have a time
frame that you couldn't -- that prior to your litigation could not meet
where the fines would kick in?
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: I don't -- that would be damages accruing to
him, and no, I don't believe so. I don't believe any court would find
that that was the responsibility of the previous homeowner.
MR. MORAD: The pole barn would be the responsibility. That's
what your litigation's about, correct?
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: Yeah, but the court would only find
damages for their actual negligence and their actual violations and the
fraud in selling land that they knew to having illegal violations on
them. I don't believe we could get damages for some daily fine that
was accrumg.
MR. MORAD: Even though that caused the fines?
MS. McALLISTER: Do you agree with me?
MS. RAWSON: You can go help her argue the case in front of
the judge.
MS. McALLISTER: Yeah.
MS. RAWSON: I don't think that the court's likely to do that.
You know, it's -- you can certainly ask. You never know on a given
day. But my guess is that that's probably not going to be granted.
MR. KRAENBRING: Jean? In may, Mr. Chairman.
I think we need your help on this one a little bit. This is certainly
a civil matter.
MS. RAWSON: Yes.
MR. KRAENBRING: And in past cases where it involved, you
know, going to the government to get permits and not having a time
Page 84
October 25, 2007
frame, you know, we've been lenient. With a civil matter, this could
drag on indefinitely.
MS. RAWSON: Well, they're not supposed to drag on
indefinitely. They push these cases through because they have
periodic case managements and, you know, they manage the case to
be sure that you're complying with discovery.
And as Ms. McAllister just said, if you have a hammer on her
and she has to report to you, if the other side says I need 30 more days
to comply with discovery, I need 30 more days to do "X", she can
simply say, I can't give it to you because the Code Enforcement Board
is on our case and I'm not allowed to do that, and that's going to move
the case along a lot faster. And she can explain that to the court that,
you know, she's under the gun to get this case moving along.
If you're going to ask me how long this is going to take, I can't
tell you for sure.
MR. KRAENBRING: Because I'm somewhat reluctant to divide
this into the two cases, you know, fixing part of it and then fixing the
pole barn issue later on. Because I think it does tie the hands of the
respondent.
So whatever order that we eventually craft today, because I think
everyone is admitting that the violations exist, is going to be difficult
because we can't make it completely time sensitive outside of just
having her reporting requirement.
MR. PONTE: And Jean, just following your logic of suggesting
that you can use the time frame that comes down today as a
negotiating device with the other side, it then makes sense to make it a
shorter leash, doesn't it, rather than a longer one? Instead of saying
120 days, say do it in 60.
MS. RAWSON: They'll probably be back here in 60 days asking
for an extension of time. Because --
MR. PONTE: I'm just thinking in terms of negotiating with the
other side.
Page 85
October 25, 2007
MS. RAWSON: Well, 60 days--
MR. PONTE: Ninety days.
MS. RAWSON: -- with Thanksgiving and Christmas coming and
not much happening in the courts --
MR. PONTE: I guess what I'm really trying to explore is the
advisability of short leashing it rather than an extended period of time,
which is what I was thinking of originally. Forget about the holidays
and all that.
MS. RAWSON: I don't know if that's going to make a difference,
because it's not going to move that fast. I mean, the wheels of justice
grind slowly, what can I say. It's just not simply going to move that
fast. And if you give her 60 days, they'll be back in 60 days asking for
an extension of time. They may be back in 120 days asking--
MR. PONTE: Right.
MS. RAWSON: -- for an extension of time. And I can't even tell
you what I think is a reasonable amount of time.
I'm not sure exactly what process the litigation is. It appears that the
default has been set aside, and so maybe they're just restarting.
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. PACCHIANA: Discovery.
MS. RAWSON: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: I just had a couple of comments.
The reason why I had suggested separating the two is there is an
issue with the pole barn with regard to permitting and the
requirements for permits. Because they're at one point -- and I think it
still exists today for pole barns constructed on agriculturally active
properties that there aren't any permit requirements. So there is that
question out there with regard to the original construction of the pole
barn -- I limit that to the pole barn -- whether or not there was a
requirement for permits at the time that it was constructed.
So that's going to make a difficult argument for them in the
Page 86
<"_>~_.._._..,,___ '"' __,do, __~.....,___".__
October 25, 2007
courts with regard to recovery of funds. And I just -- that's the reason
why I kind of threw it out there.
I also wanted to note for the board that we have had other cases
before the Code Enforcement Board, maybe not all of you members
that are here were there. There was prior litigation involved and there
was a time period set, and it was out -- it was given substantial time, a
six-month time period, for example, and the attorney reported back on
progress being made with regards to that litigation. And the board,
after that time period, then granted whatever reasonable extension, if
they felt it was necessary to make at that time.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other questions from the
board?
MR. MORGAN: Yeah. Mr. Morad, if they applied for a building
permit today, they would be turned down because of the setback on
the pole barn --
MR. MORAD: Yes, sir.
MR. MORGAN: -- is that correct?
MR. MORAD: They would have the option to get a variance, go
through the variance procedure.
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: I --
MR. MORAD: Which there -- I'd like to continue. Which the
respondent knew that prior --
MR. MORGAN: Yeah, right.
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: Although I have to tell you that the variance
procedure itself is very expensive and requires agreement of the
neighbors for the variance, and this all started with an unhappy
neighbor. So we don't think the prospects of a variance are realistic.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. Well, what are your prospects of buying
another 15 feet, ifhe's unhappy?
MS. McALLISTER: It's not the same neighbor.
Page 87
October 25,2007
MR. CHERNOFF: That's not the same neighbor.
MR. MORGAN: Oh, not the same neighbor, okay.
MR. MORAD: Yes, and to add to that, the complainant still stays
in contact with updated, you know, information on the investigation.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: It would be good to know if
there was such a law or an allowance for these type of pole barns to be
built on agricultural property without a permit.
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: I think the problem for everyone here is that
we don't know the year the pole barn was built yet. We have a range
of dates that we suspect it was built, based on the aerial photographs.
And that would really be relevant to whether the permit was needed or
not.
MR. KRAENBRING: We don't have any real outstanding health
or safety issues associated with this?
MR. MORAD: We did when the in-laws were living in the
apartment. They've had obviously a lot of electric improvements, one
way to get in and one way to get out was by the front door.
MR. KRAENBRING: So that's been taken care of?
MR. MORAD: Yes. As the respondent testified it, he removed
the in-laws from the dwelling.
MR. CHERNOFF: Immediately.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Discussion amongst the board?
MR. PONTE: Well, I'd like to suggest that we consider the
recommendation from the county, but with an extension of time to 180
days rather than the 120, just to allow things to sort of settle here and
see where we are. Perhaps insert a requirement that Attorney
McAllister report at the halfway point, you know, and that 90 days or
so, 100 days from now, just let us know what's happening.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, it's kind of at
Page 88
....-._-----_..__...__.._"._-----_._.._..,-...._~_..~..-.-,,-- ---'-",--
October 25, 2007
double-edged sword, because in one aspect it might give them the
ammunition they need. Hey, it's one thing to say we're under the gun
here, we're going to start to be fined, it's another little bit of fire to say
we are being fined.
But at the same time, if the litigation proves to go against them
and they weren't able to seek the judgment or any type of money, now
they're incurring these fines and they still have to come back and do
something with this structure.
MR. PONTE: That's true.
MR. KRAENBRING: So what's your thinking, Mr. Kelly, that
the time should be lengthened or shortened?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I think we should find that
happy medium. When originally we started talking about litigation, in
my mind I said a year. A year before anything starts happening, I
thought in these type of situations, and we have a couple of attorneys
that could tell us otherwise. But I thought that maybe the 120 days
was a halfway point, but that's just an opinion.
MR. PONTE: Well, 180's a half a year.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, 180's a halfway
point.
MR. KRAENBRING: George, would you like to put that in the
form of a motion?
MR. PONTE: I'm not quite sure of -- yeah, we can put it into a
motion. I'm thinking about Attorney McAllister and what would we
suggest in terms of reporting? What would the county -- what should
we do there?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And what would be the need, if
you will, or the requirement?
MR. PONTE: Yeah, I don't see it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: The only need that I would see
is if we stuck with the county's recommendation of 120 days and we
became -- let's say we were at 90 days from there and the litigation
Page 89
October 25, 2007
was really slowed to a crawl, maybe it would be beneficial for the
Chernoffs or representation to come back and tell us about this
progress and probably ask for an extension of time or so forth.
MR. MORGAN: I think that's the appropriate thing to do.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: But we don't necessarily need
to craft that in the order.
MR. PONTE: No, maybe the easiest thing to do is simply to
accept the county's recommendation as it stands with the revision to
just make it 180 days rather than 120.
MR. KRAENBRING: That may be the simplest way of handling
it. And they're going to be back here for sure.
MR. PONTE: Yeah.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And the issue as to the pole
barn, it says in the order completion for all nonpermitted
improvements. Would the pole barn be part of that if it's not requiring
a permit? Should we specifically cull that out?
MR. KRAENBRING: That would be something that would be
determined later on. I think right now no one knows whether it's
required because of the agricultural issue.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, if there's a requirement for a permit, then
it would be included. If there's no requirement for a permit, then it
wouldn't be included. We can't require someone to get a permit for
something they can't.
MR. PONTE: Did I make a motion or we're accepting what I was
prattling on about as a motion?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It sounds like a motion.
MR. PONTE: It sounded like a motion to me, too. So just to
repeat it, I'll make a motion that we accept the county's
recommendation, as stated, with the amendment of time to 180 days,
rather than the 120 days shown.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, do we have
a second?
Page 90
October 25, 2007
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Kraenbring seconded. All
those in favor --
MR. DEAN: I have a -- just a little discussion on the motion.
I just want to make sure that no one occupies that property while
you're in that --
MR. CHERNOFF: The apartment? No, it's -- the day he violated
me I moved them into the house. He's deceased and she's now on the
east coast.
MR. DEAN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that no occupancy
in the property while we're waiting. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you, Mr. Dean.
We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. and Mrs. Chernoff,
we've extended the time to 180 days. And I'd like to add that if you are
getting close to that time frame and you may need more time, I
suggest coming ahead of time to the board and scheduling with the
code enforcement department to get onto our document so that you
can tell us the circumstances, maybe bring some proof that would help
us to possibly grant you an extension.
And if it ever ran into a situation where you ran out of time and
we were imposing -- we went to impose fines, you do have to
opportunity to come back and ask for a reduction or an abatement of
those fines.
Page 91
October 25,2007
However, in the past the board has not seen that favorably if
there hasn't been a completion or an abatement of the actual order.
MS. McALLISTER:
MR. P ACCHIANA: Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, next on the agenda is
BCC versus Alfredo and Miradis Miralles.
Are the respondents here today?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. ARNOLD: And I just wanted to point out that there may --
Mr. Miralles's son may be translating for his father, so you may want
to --
(Interpreter was duly sworn.)
MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2007-109.
The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence,
and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do we have a motion to
accept?
MR. KRAENBRING: Motion to accept the packet.
MR. PONTE: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances, the Collier County Land
Development Code, 2004-41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A)(B)(C),
1.05.01(F). 2.03.01(H), 4.02.01(A), 9.03.01(A)(D). And
Page 92
October 25, 2007
1O.02.06(B)(1)( a- f).
Description of violation: Unlawful increased development and
use of village residential, VR, zoned property in Collier County,
known as 108 South Sixth Street, Immokalee, Florida, also known as
lots eight, nine and 10, block four, Carson subdivision of Collier
County, record without prior Collier County zoning and land
development review and approval and without a Collier County
building permit.
Structures not built and/or altered to Collier County Building
Code, which poses health and safety concerns.
Location/address where violation exists: 108 South Sixth Street,
Immokalee, Florida, 34142.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Alfredo and Miradis Miralles, 1703 Immokalee Drive,
Immokalee, Florida, 34142.
Date violation first observed: October 27th, 2006.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July
17th, 2007.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 27th, 2007.
Date of reinspection: September 17th, 2007.
Results of reinspect ion: No action taken.
At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code
Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia.
MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia, property
maintenance specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement.
First I would like by offering for evidence an aerial photograph of the
property be submitted.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have additional
photographs so we can link them?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: I do have additional photographs in a
separate package.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we'll accept the aerial
Page 93
October 25,2007
photo first. Do I have a motion?
MR. DEAN: Motion it.
MR. PONTE: Second the motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: This case started in October of 2006. It
was assigned to me. It came in as a health department concern about
the property.
The property, as you can see by the aerial, occupies numerous
structures on the property.
And the health department was doing a routine inspection of
migrant camps in Immokalee at the time. They alerted me to some
condition, safety and health conditions on this property.
On my initial visit to the property I did have numerous concerns.
If you look at building three on the right margin there, in the structure
beneath it that shows removed at this time, on my initial visit, in
looking at that structure and the one behind it, which is also no longer
there, due to the condition of the structures, the construction of them
and the setback violations between that building and building three
above it, I thought that this property needed further research into
permitting issues and land issues.
Which I did. I did go back to the office and I did several days of
research on the property. I was able to discover that several of the
buildings, the ones that are marked two, three and five, were being
used currently as multi-family. And as you can see by the aerial, they
are numbered. Those are the apartment numbers that are on the
Page 94
October 25, 2007
structures themselves.
The building numbers that I've assigned to them were actually
taken off of older permits that I was able to locate where the previous
owner did obtain permits to do repairs, alterations, that kind of thing.
On those permits it identifies those buildings by the numbers I have
designated in the margins. So to be consistent, I tried to keep those
numbers the same.
The other thing too was is on those permits that I did discover, it
also shows that all those structures are identified as single-family
dwellings. I was not able to find any permits in the system for a
conversion to multi-family on those buildings.
The other buildings that I have pointed out before that I have
highlighted in orange, they were removed -- they have been removed.
They were inspected by a structural inspector for Collier County, and
he deemed them unsafe. Therefore, the owner did comply with that
owner and he did remove those.
The building to the bottom of the property says building four in
the bottom margin, which houses apartment 15. It's kind of hard to see
on that aerial there, black and white. That structure is permitted; the
original structure is permitted. However, it has two editions that have
been added to it over time.
The property owner has admitted to me that he did do the
additions. In that photograph you can see that on that side, which
would be the east side of that structure --
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In could stop you just for a
second. We accepted just the aerial. Let me admit this, if I could.
MR. SANTAFEMIA: Oh, I'm sorry.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: You all accept a motion to
admit this?
MR. KRAENBRING: Motion to accept.
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And second by Mr. Dean.
Page 95
October 25, 2007
All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. Go ahead.
MR. SANTAFEMIA: I'm sorry, I thought we got all that out of
the way.
The property owner has also seen all these photos, too, for the
record.
But on that photograph you can see on the east side of that
structure there is an addition that has been added to the building, to the
original building. That houses a laundry area. There's several washers
and dryers that are in that structure. You can see the difference in
construction on that portion of the building.
I was also not able to find any permits for that. The owner did
admit to me when I met with him on-site that he did not have permits
for that.
This photograph shows the west side of the building, building
four again. Again, that's a little difficult to see. However, that portion
of the structure is accessible only from the interior of building three,
so that is added living space to unit 15.
I did meet with -- as I said, I had the property inspected in June
of '07 by the structural inspector. He did identify the structures that
were removed as unsafe and they did comply.
I met with the property owner on July 18th of '07, and with the
help of his son for translating purposes and Investigator Musse, who is
a Spanish speaking investigator, was present at the time, so that there
Page 96
October 25, 2007
was no confusion about what needed to be done at that time, the notice
of violations and order to correct were signed by the property owner at
that time.
Again, on (sic) August of '07, those two structures were
demolished that were unsafe. So he's in compliance there. On
September of '07 there was no action taken by the owner to either
permit the structures as multi-family or obtain a demolition permit and
restore them to their original permitted use.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Anything further from the
county?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: No.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, if you'd like, you can
respond to what's presented.
MR. MIRALLES: I don't have no arguments with it. My only
thing is that it's hard for me to try and translate to my father. My father
is set in his ways. He's not happy with the situation that he's going
through right now, because this is his bread and butter that they're
stepping on, that they're taking out of our -- you know what I'm
saying?
I was talking to my dad and I'm trying to convince him to grab
and go in and talk to Collier County off of Horseshoe Drive and see if
we can come to some kind of agreement where we can pull some
permits and refurbish or redo the whole property. But then again, that's
going to take a lot of money that we don't have. And I mean, it's hard
for me to explain this to him.
(Interpreting. )
MR. MIRALLES: Exactly what I just said. He's saying he doesn't
-- he wants to repair it, but he doesn't have the money to go about and
redo it to make it better. I mean, if it was up to me, I would like to put
two-story building apartments there, but we just don't have the money
for it. I mean, this is what he lives off of. This is his rental units. This
is what he's been living off since 1986 that we came to Immokalee.
Page 97
___"_'_"~_"_'___~.^'"____""__'_'____""'_~_._"___"'_u_.__
October 25,2007
This is one of the few properties that he bought and he bought it just
the way that it was, you know what I mean?
He keeps --like I keep telling him, you know, you keep putting a
Band Aid up on a major cut, it's not mixing it. And I can't get it
through his head to situate it, you know, differently. I can't. He's set in
his ways.
I mean, if you tell him that he's going to have to knock it down,
you're going to -- you're liable to give him a heart attack. I'm not going
to lie.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I can tell you that we're
sympathetic to the situation, but I believe the talk with working with
county is passed now, and we're going to have to make a ruling of
some kind. And if you let him know if he works with us, I guess we
could work with him as well.
MR. MIRALLES: (Interpreting.)
I mean, I don't know what else to tell you.
(Interpreting. )
MR. MIRALLES: He says because if it's because the place is old,
you might as well just tell him to go to the gallows and hang him, too,
because he's old, you know what I'm saying?
(Interpreting. )
MR. MIRALLES: He says just because we're old, we don't have
no rights is what he's saying. I'm just translating loosely what he's
saying, you know?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: When he bought the property,
was it sectioned off into apartments, or were they single-family units,
as county has said?
MR. MIRALLES: I think they were sectioned off into
apartments, but I don't know. I was only 12 years old when he bought
those apartments. I didn't work on them. I never had anything to do
with them.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you ask, if you would,
Page 98
October 25, 2007
please?
MR. MIRALLES: He says they were like that. He says the only
place that he worked on is on the ones that say removed. He says he
had a hand in building those illegally, and he had no problems to go in
and yank them out.
The rest of it, he says he bought it the way it was. And I don't
know if I can pull up records of him receiving his receipt rents, but
that had a lot of apartments already built in there when it was
purchased and run by Leandro Perez, which is the original owner.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: The county has a rule that
regardless of who owns the property now or what happened in the
past, any violations that exist stay with that property. So unfortunately
this might have been something that --
MR. MIRALLES: Was existing.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- was existing but now he
inherits it, if you will.
MR. MIRALLES: Yeah.
He says at that time it didn't have any problems. It didn't have no
violations or anything up to that. He's just stating that he bought those
apartments the way that they are.
Now, as far as him going in and fixing up on them because the
drywall might have fall apart or they might have put a hole through
the wall, I'm not going to say that he didn't. He does, and we still do.
And, I mean -- he says that ever since he bought that, you know,
he's always been a law-abiding citizen, he's paid his taxes, he's paid
his property taxes. He just -- he doesn't feel that they're coming down
-- they're coming down too hard on him.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please, let me just say that we
appreciate the frustration and we would hope that he would make
those repairs as they came up.
Mr. Dean?
MR. DEAN: How many apartments are there?
Page 99
October 25, 2007
MR. MIRALLES: Right now?
MR. DEAN: Yeah. Rented.
MR. MIRALLES: Well, what we're doing now is since they told
us that we couldn't have it multi-family is we wanted to grab and
demo, pull out the extra -- you want to know how many apartments
are there right now. I think there's probably nine or 10.
MR. DEAN: And they're rented?
MR. MIRALLES: Yes. But I'm trying to convert them back to
single family.
MR. DEAN: Does he understand the purpose for a permit?
MR. MIRALLES : Yes, he does, but --
MR. DEAN: It's called protecting people that live on the property
that might be (sic) wiring problem, plumbing problem. And that's why
you have to have permits, is to protect the people.
MR. MIRALLES: He apologized for that, yes. He understands.
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Just for clarification, I don't know if this
will help in the train of thought. The permits that I was able to locate,
that the previous owner did apply and obtain for those structures that
I've identified there, are from 1986. Those are the permits that do
show those structures as of that time being single-family residential
permits, structures.
And the building -- I believe it was building four at the bottom of
your screen that houses unit 15, the two additions to that structure, Mr.
Miralles actually admitted to me that he had added those additions on
when he owned it.
MR. PONTE: Investigator, let me ask you, what's the -- what are
the health and safety issue concerns here in your mind as you see
them?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Well, as I see them, we have structures
that have been altered and converted into multi-family without
inspections, so we have no idea what their construction's like on the
interior. There's been wiring, there's been plumbing added to house the
Page 100
October 25, 2007
additional units.
Again, without inspections it could be endless as far as the
violations go, as far as the code is concerned.
MR. PONTE: But the respondent has indicated the number of
units. How many people would you estimate are living in the units
he's suggested?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: That --
MR. PONTE: I see a lot of cars parking around here.
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Yeah, see, that various rights. On each site
visit that I had been out there sometimes there's a lot of cars,
sometimes there's not. It's hard to say who's coming and going, who
lives there, who's just visiting.
MR. PONTE: In your experience, just to give us a feeling for it,
in units of this size and in this neighborhood, what would you
guesstimate the population is that we're talking about? Are there two
people per unit, one?
MR. SANTAFEMIA: No, I would probably, in had to guess
from experience and working in Immokalee, probably at least four
adults per unit. More as far as children are concerned. There's always
children that are running around. But there's -- very common to have
overcrowding type issues on these properties.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Kraenbring?
MR. KRAENBRING: I was just going to say, I think we've heard
a lot of testimony already, and I was just wondering if we could get
the county's recommendation.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is there anything further from
the board? Any questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll go ahead and close
the public portion of this hearing and look to the board for a finding of
facts.
MR. KRAENBRING: I think that everyone's admitting that these
Page 101
October 25, 2007
conditions exist and I make a motion that a violation does exist.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have
a second?
MR. PONTE: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Second by Mr. Ponte. All in
favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And now if we could have the
recommendation from the county, please.
MR. SANT AFEMIA: County recommendations are that the
board order the respondent to pay operational costs of$587.55 within
30 days of this hearing incurred in the prosecution of this case, and
obtain all required county -- Collier County permits and execute same
through the inspection process to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of
$200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues.
The respondent must also notify code enforcement, myself, when
the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to
confirm abatement.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Could you put that on the
screen for us, please? Thank you.
Mr. Ponte?
MR. PONTE: Is there a way that we can get access to these units
to see how serious the health and safety concerns might be?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Well, they are rental property. And the
Page 102
October 25,2007
county does have an inspection process for that purpose.
A lot of times with properties like this we start out as a Minimum
Housing Code violation type of situation, which this actually did start
out as. They were concerned about the conditions more than anything
else. But we found through experience that inspecting a structure that
is not legal really doesn't do us any good. If the structure needs to be
demolished or converted back or something like that, we try to get it
to go through that process through permitting, zoning or whichever to
get it back to its original permitted state.
Ifhe's going to continue using it as rental property, then at that
time when he is in compliance, then we can inspect the property for
conditions.
MR. PONTE: My concern is that the respondent has apologized
for ignoring the health and safety of the tenants. That being the case, I
think we have to move ahead and take action for him. And if that
holds true, then 120 days is way too long. At the end of 120 days he's
not going to do anything different than he's done for the last 365.
MR. KRAENBRING: Is the -- if I'm missing something in the
order, we're just asking 120 days to get the inspections or to complete
the work?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: What basically happened was is when I
originally served Mr. Miralles with the Notice of Violation, he was
given the option of either getting it permitted as multi-family, and
village residential he is allowed to have multi-family dwellings.
Therefore, he was given the option to come into the county and get
those structures permitted for multi-family, or get your demo permits
and convert them back to their originally permitted conditions. The
option was his.
He did come in, I believe it was in August of this year. He came
in and he spoke with one of our planning people in zoning, a Dave
Hedrick, and he was advised that he would need to set up a meeting,
okay, to discuss with everybody in the county who would be involved
Page 103
October 25, 2007
what he would need to do to complete that, to keep those structures
multi-family.
He never came back. He never contacted us. He never tried to set
up that meeting. They did -- I believe, Alex, the son, did try to get a
demolition permit this past week, which was denied. They wouldn't
give him a demolition permit. He needs to get a licensed contractor to
pull that for him.
My recommendation -- personally, obviously I don't care whether
he gets them permitted as multi-family or permitted back to
single-family. Whichever direction he chooses to go, the county
doesn't -- you know, code enforcement doesn't care, as long as it's
legal. So whether he gets -- whatever permit he gets, he needs to have
it inspected and completed, get a final C.O. or completion done.
Which would be required, regardless of the type of permit.
MR. MORGAN: He's got to start out with the zoning first. Is he
in compliance with the zoning? He's got so many units for -- you
know, I don't know what the size of his property is, a quarter of an
acre or a half an acre?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: I'm not an expert in that.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, in my understand, it's VR zoning, correct?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Correct.
MS. ARNOLD: VR zoning allows for single-family,
multi-family and those, provided it meets certain setback requirements
and square footage requirements and those types of things. So those
are things that he would need to consult with the zoning department
about.
MR. KRAENBRING: You know, George, just as a -- I realize
the seriousness of the potential health issues here. But are we looking
at 120 days as being a reasonable amount oftime? Is it going to
happen before then that he would actually get the permit?
MR. PONTE: He has -- he's not going to get the permit. The
county has extended its hand to help and offered to set up meetings.
Page 104
October 25,2007
He hasn't attended the meetings, refused to go to the meetings. And
give him 120 days or 60 days or 365 days, he's not going to change his
position.
MR. KRAENBRING: But at the same time I think we can't read
into the mind of this man at this point.
MR. PONTE: He's said it in testimony.
MR. SANT AFEMIA: With everything involved as far as either --
ifhe intends on keeping them as multi-family, it will take him that
long, if not longer.
MR. KRAENBRING: That's my concern.
MR. MIRALLES: I just want to say this: We can't even find a
contractor that will come to Immokalee and do this, okay?
MR. PONTE: I'm sorry?
MR. MIRALLES: I said I can't even find a general contractor
that will even waste their time to come into Immokalee, okay? I mean,
right now I've been trying to call Jack Queen, which is in Immokalee,
never returns a call. Jackie Williams never returns a call. I mean, I'm
up against a wall. I don't know what to do. Unless I go and get my
own general contractor's license.
MR. KRAENBRING: I think the thing here is if we give him 60
days, he's probably going to be back in here in 60 days without having
his permits anyway, even ifhe realizes the seriousness -- you know, I
think we have to give the respondent the benefit of the doubt that now
he realizes how serious it is he's going to start to see this fine
accumulate. So I'm hesitant to reduce it to under 120 days, although
for the record I do realize the seriousness of the health and safety
Issues.
MR. PONTE: The fine won't start to accumulate until 120 days.
So if you want to get his attention and say well, these fines are starting
to accumulate, they're serious, then the shorter period of time will start
the fining sooner.
MR. KRAENBRING: But again, ifhe comes back in in 60 days,
Page 105
October 25, 2007
then we're going to wind up having to abate that fine later on because
he has not been able to get the permits because he hasn't been able to
get through the process. That's just the point I'm making here.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Can I also add that the aerial
did show two buildings that were removed when the gentleman was
notified that there was problems. So they're -- although reluctancy to
work with us, I think he has made progress, and I'd like to give him
the benefit of the doubt, if I could.
MR. MARTIN: Is there any community development programs
for migrant housing that they can give assistance and rebuild them or
tear them down?
MR. MIRALLES: I've been looking on the Internet and I cannot
find anything. Something to like better our community or something
along those lines. I've investigated through the Internet.
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Most of those programs I think are more
owner occupied type stuff where they try to help people who live and
MR. MIRALLES: If they're on the premises, yes.
MR. SANTAFEMIA: This is rental property. I don't know if the
migrant community has something special for them.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, there's a number of
things. And you should really go to the Division of Housing and
Public Services, because they do have rental assistance programs and
such that could help with these sorts of things. Not to mention the
amount of grant money they just received for hurricane repairs that
they're rolling over this year to the general fund because there weren't
enough repairs to actually use the money for.
So there are options. And then even Immokalee is its own -- it's
not a rural stewardship, but it's its own zone that gets special funding
and help with the permitting department, so --
MR. MIRALLES: Well, in can get that information, I'll do the
research on it. That's not an issue.
October 25, 2007
MR. KRAENBRING: There's certainly a number of aid
programs out there to improve the living standards for Immokalee
residents, the migrant residents. We've had people come in here
before. There's legal aid. So there are a number of avenues of
assistance to push this along.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think what it's going to take is
the willingness of the respondent to actually seek them out and make
an effort to get it done. I wouldn't feel comfortable writing an order to
make a point without giving them due time.
And we've heard testimony from county saying that 120 would
be on the shy end of what it could possibly take to get it rezoned to
multi-family.
Any other comments?
MR. KRAENBRING: Are you going to be entertaining motions
at this point?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. Entertain a motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the
recommendation of the county.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have
a second?
MR. MORGAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Second.
All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
MR. DEAN: I oppose.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Dean in opposition.
What we've done is we've given you 120 days to--
Page 107
October 25, 2007
MR. MIRALLES: Let me explain that to him.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure.
There are three parts to the order. Number one is to pay the
operational costs of $587.55 within 30 days.
Number two is to obtain valid Collier County permits and improve --
I'm sorry, and bring all structures up to current code, correct? The
process of insurance everything up to and including a certificate of
occupancy.
In that step he can go two ways: He can convert them back to
single-family, or he can seek a variance or whatever to change it to
multi-family. Ifhe doesn't do that within 120 days, a fine of $200 per
day will start to incur.
And when he's finished with everything, please notify code
enforcement investigator so that he can check that all the
improvements were made.
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Just for clarification, there was that one
structure with the two additions that didn't have anything to do with
multi-family, but it did have the two additions.
MR. MIRALLES: We'll try to get a permit for it, too.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. If you can't, then the
other option would be I'm assuming demolition --
MR. MIRALLES: Correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- at that case. But the point is
on this property we need to see certificate of occupancies for all the
changes or additions or anything made to the property.
MR. MIRALLES: All right, I'll try and get a -- if you guys could
give me that information that you were telling me about, I'd greatly
appreciate it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. Marcie Crumbine's the
director. I'm sure the county will get that for you.
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie', are you okay?
Page 108
_'^___'~__U~"____'.'._"~"'__'_'__~'___
October 25, 2007
MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Miralles, if you could stay, because we've
got some other issues with you guys.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, actually, we're going to--
let me just ask real quick. Moving into the imposition of fines, we
have those first three cases, and those are the ones that were
continued, correct? Down under request for foreclosure, is Star Mobile
Home Park the same, or is that separate?
MS. ARNOLD: What do you mean, the same as what?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Same as the Blocker.
MS. ARNOLD: No, no, no, different.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, thank you.
Next up is then going to be an imposition of fines on a different
case, 2007-79 against the same respondent.
MR. MIRALLES: Yes.
MS. ARNOLD: The first case that I have is 66.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, 66, I'm sorry, you're right.
MS. ARNOLD: And that case was heard by the Code
Enforcement Board on July 26th, 2007. And the board at that time
found a violation did exist. This is for properties owned by Mr. and
Mrs. -- or Mr. Miralles and his son at 1715 Roberts Avenue, in
Immokalee. And the order that was entered into by the board is
attached to the summary for your review.
I would just mention that the only reason why the fines are
continuing to accrue is because all of the debris associated with the
removal of the structures have not been removed from the property,
and so we are at this time requesting that fines be imposed in the
amount of $1 ,872.03, which equates to fines at a rate of $250 per day
from the period of September 25th through October 1 st, and
understand because -- I believe the investigator went out there
yesterday and did see additional -- or debris still on the site, that those
dollars amount will -- is larger than that.
And also, operational costs in the amount of $372.03.
Page 109
October 25, 2007
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifthe county would like to __
MS. ARNOLD: Unless they have any questions about that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Miralles, what the county
is saying is that although most of the work was taken care of, there
was still debris remaining. And for that reason __
MR. MIRALLES: I've got pictures that I just took yesterday.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. MIRALLES: We finished cleaning it out. If you guys want
to see it, I can present it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I'll entertain a motion to accept
the Exhibit A.
MR. DEAN: Motion to accept--
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second?
MR. DEAN: -- Exhibit A.
MR. KRAENBRING: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Kraenbring.
All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, could you also
verify the property, please, on the pictures.
MR. MUCHA: Oh, absolutely. Yeah, this is the property.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have two cases. I
wanted to make sure that we keep them separate.
MR. MIRALLES: We just barely finished picking up everything
Page 110
"---.~,._---
October 25, 2007
yesterday.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is vegetation removal part of
that requirement?
MR. MUCHA: That was not a part of the requirement. So that's
kind of a new thing that's happened. That might have to be addressed
in a separate case.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: That has no relevance to this
case then?
MR. MUCHA: No, sir.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And would you agree that this
is considered acceptable under the debris removal?
MR. MUCHA: Well, when I was there yesterday -- now, I was
there yesterday afternoon. And can I show the pictures that I took
yesterday afternoon?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Please.
MR. KRAENBRING: Motion to accept.
MR. DEAN: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. MUCHA: I'm just going to kind of go through them.
Now, this was a pickup truck that was on-site. I didn't see
anybody working, but it looked like it was filled up with debris, so __
MR. MIRALLES: Yeah, that was before the day was __
MR. MUCHA: And this right here was right next to the pickup
truck. I mean, not much debris, there's just some.
Page III
_.._~-'_.,--------
October 25, 2007
And this is a shot that looks like it's been graded where all the
structures were before. So they've been -- I mean, they've been
working, there's no doubt about it.
Part of the problem is in some of these -- you know, when they
remove some of the vegetation, some of the debris it looks like from
when they tore down the structures also got mixed in. And I'm kind of
like, well, I don't want to say that everything's cleared off, because
clearly some of the debris has been mixed in with some of the
vegetation that's been removed.
This was just another little pile that was there. And again, I was
there in the afternoon. You know, Mr. Miralles -- Alex the son told me
today that they were continuing to work yesterday and he had some
pictures from -- they took in the evening. So without me going back
there, I couldn't say. You know, it's possible that they removed some
of these small piles that were left.
MR. MIRALLES: Yeah, I was here in Naples yesterday, and
when I got back, that's when I took those pictures. And I got them
developed that same night. And I was in Walgreen's getting them
developed. But it was about 6:00 in the evening already, just before it
started to get dark that I took those pictures.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And since the vegetation
plow-back, there's a separate issue. Should we keep it separate then in
that case?
MR. MUCHA: Yeah, I would say so. And that's where I'm kind
of -- where it's kind of difficult. Because again, some of the __ it looks
like some of the debris from when they tore down the structures also
got mixed in with that. So I don't know in should necessarily, you
know, clear my issue, then, you know, maybe someone will have to
start another issue because of the vegetation that's been removed.
But some of that debris has been mixed in with the vegetation. So
I don't know. I mean, clearly, I mean most of it -- I mean, the part that
I really wanted done, the structures have been tore down so there's no
Page 112
October 25, 2007
longer the health and safety issue there of people living in these
structures. And it's really, yeah, a little bit of debris that's left.
So, I mean, if he states that everything's been removed, I think
I'm satisfied with that. And then, you know, we could go back and
have somebody address the issues of the vegetation.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good.
MR. MIRALLES: As far as the vegetation, is there any way we
can get like a fire permit to burn it instead of hauling it off?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We don't know that answer, I
don't believe. But you could certainly ask.
The point is that I believe you're probably going to have
somebody come by and visit you again. You might want to start
planning for that one. But we're not going to include any of that in our
testimony or in our decision here.
Do you have any comment as to why it took you longer than
what the board originally granted?
MR. MIRALLES: Because it's just me and my father working it.
That's it. It mean, we have a couple of properties in Immokalee and we
have to maintain them all, so __
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Originally you had stipulated
into a stipulated agreement granting the time to do this, and __
MR. MIRALLES: And like I said, it's just me and my father. We
had to go get a machine, we had to get a dumpster. I mean, these
things take time and money. I mean, to clear this lot alone it cost us
about $9,000.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from
the board?
MR. KRAENBRING: I don't see a reason to reduce the fine.
MS. ARNOLD: Ijust wanted to say that from the 1st to the 22nd,
or 23rd, actually, sorry, is another $5,500. Because I'm assuming they
were in compliance yesterday. We didn't count yesterday. So it would
be to the 23rd.
Page 113
October 25,2007
MR. KRAENBRING: Additional fines?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions for the
respondent or for county?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll go ahead and close the
public hearing then. Discussion amongst the board.
MR. KRAENBRING: I was saying I didn't see any reason to
reduce the fines, but you're saying there's another $5,000 on top of
this?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
MR. KRAENBRING: So the amount should -- the lien would be
$6,800?
MS. ARNOLD: It would -- the fine portion would be $7,000. Is
that right? 5,500 plus 1,500 is 7,000. And then operational costs is
372.03.
MR. KRAENBRING: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: So when we prepared this summary and had the
affidavit, it was as of October 1.
MR. KRAENBRING: All right.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion amongst
the board?
MR. DEAN: That's a lot of money.
MR. KRAENBRING: My comment about not reducing the fines
was based on the last figure.
It is a lot of money, and we're trying to encourage this gentleman
to get these properties cleaned up. Let's maybe, you know, let him
have some of that money to do it. So I __
MR. MARTIN: I would give him some kind of fine, even though
-- you know, he's got to comply. He's got enough obstacles with the
other buildings, my gosh.
MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to note to let the board know that
the structures themselves were removed timely, it's the debris that
Page 114
'------~
October 25, 2007
wasn't.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: So there was the effort
consistently. It wasn't just a last ditch effort because he knew he was
coming up in front of the board.
MR. MUCHA: They were very quick, actually, about knocking
those buildings down. I mean, they knocked them down within a few
weeks of signing the stipulation. So they acted quickly there.
And, I mean, you have to say on their behalf, they did move __
and that was the thing I was concerned about was those buildings, and
those are gone, so, you know.
MR. MARTIN: I mean, he's got an army of workers there. He
should be able to figure this out, too.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In that case, I'll entertain a
motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: I don't know, what's the tenor of the
board?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we do have another case
coming up right behind this __
MR. PONTE: Yes, we do.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- plus the one that we already
voted on. Sounds to me like they're going to be expending quite a bit
of money. And although it wasn't in the time frame that they
voluntarily agreed to, I still think that there was progress made.
MR. DEAN: I do, too.
MR. KRAENBRING: So are we looking at abating this fine
then? Is that the census?
Okay, I mean, I think in the spirit of moving this along and
helping with the other cases, that that would be just.
So I'll make a motion that we abate the fine.
MR. PONTE: Ifwe totally abate this fine, does that set a
precedent what we're going to do about the next case? Because the
logic's the same.
Page 115
..._--'--'_.._---,_._.".,._-~..--_.-
October 25,2007
MR. DEAN: What's the next case?
MR. PONTE: Same case. Same response.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Same piece of property. Not to
mention that there's additional stuff that's coming up on this property
MR. PONTE: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- that they still have to
continue to clean up. Just expenses all the way around.
MR. PONTE: We've got three cases here.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: But at this point we have folks
who are working with us.
MR. MARTIN: One case at a time, so __
MR. PONTE: We've got one case at a time, but I don't think we
ought to abate the fine, because I -- cut it in half, cut it __
MR. MARTIN: Pay operational costs.
MR. PONTE: Two operational costs.
MR. KRAENBRING: Well, they have to do the operational
costs.
MR. PONTE: And $1,000. But I think we ought to--
MR. MORGAN: We have to handle them on an individual basis.
MR. PONTE: -- collect some sort of fine or have something there
to indicate the seriousness of the situation. If we just abate this fine,
then we're going to have to logically just abate the following one or
the next one.
I have sympathy for the respondents, and we're showing leniency
by reducing the fines some $6,000 if we went with the $1,000 fine.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Further discussion?
MR. PONTE: I mean, remember, it was the board who set the
initial fining, the per diem fine. So we're really backing off a lot.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, it was originally a
stipulated agreement.
MR. PONTE: Yeah, that's right, that's right.
Page 116
--_._--_._~_..~,_._-.
October 25, 2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it was voluntary, if you will.
And perhaps if they'd come in front of the board, maybe we would
have said, well, sounds like that's too little a time.
MR. PONTE: We agreed to the stipulation.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's true, too.
So we do have a motion to -- was that a motion, Mr. Kraenbring?
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll withdraw it and go ahead and let
George make a recommendation.
MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that the fine be reduced to
$1,000, a total of$I,OOO, plus covering the operational costs.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, 1,000 for
the operational costs plus -- 1,000 for the fine plus the operational cost
of372.03. Do we have a second?
MR. MARTIN: I still think that's too much money.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Failure to get a second, I'll
entertain another motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll go ahead and resubmit my motion to
abate the fine and impose operational costs.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: There's a motion to abate all
fines and just pay operational costs. Do we have a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
MR. MORGAN: I'll second it.
MR. PONTE: Opposed.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second from Mr. Morgan.
All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
MR. PONTE: Opposed.
Page 11 7
, '.wm_--....
October 25, 2007
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. Miralles?
MR. MIRALLES: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: On that one you have
operational costs to be paid. As a board we cannot waive those fees.
That's what it cost for the county to prosecute the case.
But I want you to know that there was a split decision on the
board. There were some of us who wanted to give you the benefit of
the doubt because you're willing to work with us and you did try hard
to get it finished last night. And we do have other cases going.
But there were others who felt that maybe we should have gotten
this done within the time that was originally agreed upon. So if you
would please pay those costs.
MR. MIRALLES: Do we get a receipt for this, or how do I do
this?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll make sure county gives
you a copy of our order and then you'll have I believe it's 30 days to
pay those costs.
And now moving on to the next case, that's CEB versus Alfredo
and Miradis Miralles, 2007-79. Imposition of fines.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this case is -- was heard by the board on
August 23rd, 2007. Finding of fact was a violation did exist and the
order of the board is attached to the summary for your review.
This violation is on commercial property located at 105 First
Street in Immokalee. Again, the respondent has substantially complied
by removing the unpermitted signs. However, the only violation that
still is pending is the shadowing of where the signs were replaced,
weren't painted over. Consequently, fines in the amount of $1 ,400
accrued from the period of September 7th through September 21 st.
Did you go yesterday?
MR. SNOW: Yes, I did.
MS. ARNOLD: And the site visit yesterday revealed that the
Page 118
October 25, 2007
shadowing still exists.
Additionally, there is an operational cost in the amount of
$335.67.
MR. KRAENBRING: What's the additional amount of the
accrued fines?
MS. ARNOLD: Let me figure that out for you.
MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you very much.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Snow?
MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. I have
worked with Alex Miralles before, and he does what he says he's
going to do. He does what he says he's going to do.
They have tried to comply on this property. I spoke to them this
morning, early in the hall. All they have to do is remove that
shadowing and it's completed. It's very simple.
They've done a lot of other work that was very difficult to get
done and they've complied and done everything they can.
They weren't here on the day of the hearing. Perhaps there was
some misconception about what was expected of them in the
shadowing. They did do everything else on the property.
I have told them what they need to do. We will go up -- or I will
make a site inspection. They said it will be done tomorrow. I will get
up there as soon as possible so we can verify it has been abated.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Miralles, do you
understand about the shadowing, how it needs to __
MR. MIRALLES: Yeah.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- be repainted? Okay.
MR. MIRALLES: The reason I didn't get that done is because I
was knocking down the apartments and removing the debris. So I'm
not an octopus, I can't do so much. But that's the reason why that
didn't get done. I apologize for that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Mr. Snow, the majority of
Page 119
October 25, 2007
the work, was that done prior to the time frame?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, it was, absolutely.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from
the board?
MR. KRAENBRING: Just there probably have been another
what, $3,000 --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, 3,300, yeah.
MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. So just for the record, you know,
we're doing dealing with $4,700 plus operational costs.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, discussion amongst the
board then?
MR. MARTIN: Same situation. He's trying hard, this guy is, so,
you know, abate the fine. Pay the operational costs.
MS. ARNOLD: I would -- you know, this one is not completely
in compliance. We could hold off till the next month. I would hate to
have him have to come back. But whatever is the pleasure of the
board. I just wanted to note that for you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good point. They're
technically not yet abated. And we don't usually like to give any
reductions or abatements of fines unless they are.
MR. KRAENBRING: So what are we going to do, push this and
rehear it at the next board meeting?
MS. ARNOLD: This is kind of a thought that came to my mind
that I don't think we've ever done before, but that's why I'm looking to
Jean, to see if this is possible, that maybe if you were inclined to
reduce it, that it would be contingent upon the violation being abated
by tomorrow.
MR. MIRALLES: As long as we paint it?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MR. MIRALLES: Then it will get done.
MS. RAWSON: I would be more comfortable if you just told
him that and then you just took it off the agenda and put it on next
Page 120
October 25, 2007
month. And if you go out and inspect and you find out that it's in
compliance, then we don't need to hear the case next month.
So we just take it off the agenda today so you guys don't have to
make a decision.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, they would still have to hear the case next
month, because if they don't impose fines today, there's still the issue
of outstanding fines --
MS. RAWSON: That's true.
MS. ARNOLD: -- and then the operational costs.
MS. RAWSON: That's true.
MR. MARTIN: It's so minor work, I'm sure they're going to do it.
It's just get it over with. There's no reason for them to come back here.
MR. KRAENBRING: Or just tell them that if they don't do it by
tomorrow, we'll impose the whole fine. That will be an expensive
paint job.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have other cases.
MR. KRAENBRING: Jean?
MS. RAWSON: Well, you do have the issue of the fines that
have accrued up until today or tomorrow before you. And you do have
to decide whether or not you're going to impose them, abate them or
reduce them. So you're going to have to make that decision at some
point in time, either today or next month.
MR. PONTE: Next month I would think. We can't abate or
reduce fines when they're not in compliance. It doesn't work for me.
MS. RAWSON: Well, I think the statute--
MR. PONTE: So I think we just --
MS. RAWSON: -- tells you not to--
MR. PONTE: -- carry it over.
MS. RAWSON: That's one of the big considerations.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does county have any
objection staying this until next month?
MS. ARNOLD: No.
Page 121
October 25, 2007
MR. DEAN: Motion to stay until next month.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion to continue to next
month. Any seconds?
MR. MORGAN: Second.
MR. PONTE: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Morgan.
All in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Just get it done and I'll
think we'll be pretty favorable next month. And then also before they
get a chance to cite you on that other one, if you can get the vegetation
removed, that would avoid operational costs.
MR. MIRALLES: And where do I find out about getting a fire
permit for that?
MS. ARNOLD: Immokalee Fire Department.
MR. MIRALLES: Okay. And am I going to get a copy of all
these fines?
MS. RAWSON: You're going to get a copy of all the orders.
MS. ARNOLD: In the mail.
MR. MIRALLES: In the mail?
MR. SNOW: Thank you very much.
MR. MIRALLES: Thanks.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Thank you.
Moving on to the request for foreclosure authorization. Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, you have a copy of a memo which notes the
Page 122
October 25, 2007
names of the respondent and the case numbers for which we would
request your authorization to forward this to the county attorney's
office for handling.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any concerns from the
board? Questions, comments?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: If there's no concerns, I'll
entertain a motion.
MR. PONTE: I'll make the motion that we accept the collection
authorization suggested by the county, and that the payment be
forwarded for foreclosure.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay, we have a respondent here I wasn't aware
of. I think this is Brenda Blocker.
MS. BLOCKER: It's Amanda.
MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. For the cases Curtis and Brenda
Blocker, which are Case No. 2005-35 and 2005-39.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Ifwe will, then we'll go
ahead and pull those two cases from this sheet.
And should we vote on the rest of them first or hold off until after
testimony?
MS. ARNOLD: It's up to you all.
MR. DEAN: Let's hold off to the end.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we'll hold off.
Mrs. Blocker, I'm sorry. I should have asked.
MS. BLOCKER: No that's okay. You guys don't -- they don't
inform anybody of this anyway, so--
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we generally don't get
respondents on these.
MS. BLOCKER: Because they don't inform anybody.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, go ahead, if you want to
speak to them.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
Page 123
October 25, 2007
MS. BLOCKER: Yeah, I'm not really sure why you don't get
informed of those proceedings, but I got aware of this because
somebody else that was on the agenda informed me my name was on
the --
MR. PONTE: I'm sorry, I can't hear you very well.
MS. BLOCKER: Somebody else that was on the agenda
informed me that our name was on the agenda for today on
foreclosure.
I'm not really sure how this works. I know that we got imposed
fines because our SIPs were not sufficient enough and they've been
kicked back from the county now six times. I know, maybe we should
come before you and say that our stipulation doesn't have enough
time, that 90 days is not good enough. I'm really not sure what the
procedure would be there.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: I can tell you from what I have
been told, that when these go to foreclosure, the staff attorneys for the
county take a look at them individually and generally try to work
something out, either a payment plan or some kind of settlement
agreement.
MS. BLOCKER: Because you guys imposed fines but they're
still accumulating.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Correct. And the county
attorney's job would be to try to collect those. And ifthere was no
resolution, they have the right to go to foreclosure.
Now, Michelle could probably speak to the process further, if
you have questions.
MS. BLOCKER: Right. Because I plan on coming before the
board and asking for the fines to be abated.
MS. ARNOLD: The process is that we have the original public
hearing and give notice for that. We also give notice for the
administrative function of imposing fine. But it's the respondent's
responsibility to keep the county informed towards their compliance.
Page 124
October 25, 2007
This is just an administrative process, that there really isn't any
action unless the board seeks to do more beyond what they've already
done, which is impose fines and given so much time to comply.
In this particular case I'm not really sure when the date was, but
both those cases were 2005 cases before the board, so it's been--
MS. BLOCKER: Right. Like I'm on my way to the county for
our sixth submittal on an SIP. And the other SIP is completely
approved, besides $20,000 they want for sidewalks that--
MS. ARNOLD: Right. Well, what I was--
MS. BLOCKER: This is just towards the sidewalk grid that's not
even on our property.
MS. ARNOLD: Because this has gone on in so much time from
the date of imposition of fines, as Mr. Kelly's --
MS. BLOCKER: That was only in March of this year.
MS. ARNOLD: As Mr. Kelly has indicated, three months prior
to the imposition of fine, if compliance is not met, we can move
forward to bringing this before the county attorney's office, and at that
time they would work with the respondents to try to get compliance
initially, because fines would not necessarily be abated by anybody,
whether it's the Code Enforcement Board or the county
commissioners, until compliance is achieved.
MS. BLOCKER: Right.
MS. ARNOLD: Once compliance is achieved, then there is the
ability to sit down and look at the fine that has accrued over time. And
if there is a settlement that is reached, that is brought to the Board of
County Commissioners and they're the ones that would modify or
abate or waive the fine, whatever that settlement is.
MS. BLOCKER: Right. Because, I mean, we're in the middle of
one SIP in Immokalee, and I believe that we're probably like one of
the only ones that are going to come into full compliance with the
Immokalee overlay project at all.
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know.
Page 125
October 25, 2007
MR. PONTE: It's not relevant here.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie', could you swear in Mr.
Wright so he can explain further the process?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. WRIGHT: I just wanted to add, this is not a hearing. We've
already had the hearings. And this is just an administrative process, as
Michelle pointed out, just requesting your authorization per the
statute.
And once this is in our hands, we would be more than willing to
entertain everything that Ms. Blocker is putting on the record here,
with the goal of ultimately releasing the lien, hopefully, without
having to go to foreclosure.
So I just wanted to get that on the record that this is not a hearing,
and we're just requesting authorization.
MS. BLOCKER: Right. We just felt like we had the right to
speak without you guys going to foreclosure.
MS. ARNOLD: And you'll get notification from the county
attorney's office that they have received this case from the Code
Enforcement Board and, you know, try and get that whole process
gomg.
MS. RAWSON: And also, you might be aware that they lose
jurisdiction or the right to hear your case anymore. Now the county
attorney's office is who you need to deal with.
MS. BLOCKER: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any other respondents
to speak on the foreclosure collection action?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, in that case --
MR. PONTE: I think I have a motion.
MR. KRAENBRING: Second the motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: There's a motion and a second
by Mr. Kraenbring. All in favor?
Page 126
October 25, 2007
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, all those are going to the
board. Under -- I'm sorry, county attorney's office.
New business. We have -- we're looking for new appointments to
review the special magistrate.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, the prior appointments was--
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Larry and 1.
MS. ARNOLD: Larry, and it was Justin DeWitte, actually.
Actually, it was yourself and Justin, and Larry was the alternate. And
Justin is no longer on the board and so we have Mr. Kelly and Mr.
Dean.
We can move forward with both those representations and get
another alternate in the event that whatever date we make a -- set up a
meeting for reviewing that process, the members aren't able to attend.
But it's up to the board. We need two members to serve on this review
board, and an alternate.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is there anyone on the board
that's interested in participating?
MR. MARTIN: I would.
MR. DEAN: Yeah.
MR. PONTE: Sure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we have Larry,
Richard -- all of them. In that case, I'm definitely going to step down
then and allow someone who hasn't done it. So that will be two
positions open now, Mr. DeWitte and myself.
Page 127
October 25, 2007
And I'll entertain a nomination, I guess. I mean, we have one,
two, three, four, five self-nominations for two places. Does anybody
want to --
MR. PONTE: I'll step down, that will make it easier.
MR. DEAN: I'd like to nominate George and Richard.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I know that you were--
MR. DEAN: I've done.
MS. ARNOLD: Were you at the meeting itself?
MR. DEAN: No, I was--
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, you weren't at the meeting. So, you know,
although he was an alternate, he wasn't able to make that meeting. So
Mr. Dean didn't necessarily serve.
I don't know if you guys want to do a rotation type thing, but this
is an annual process. It involves reviewing the special magistrate
hearing, you know, and then having a meeting to discuss her
performance and whether or not to recommend the continuation of her
servIces.
The two board members are also accompanied by two members
of the Code Enforcement Department and a representative from the
county attorney's office.
MR. PONTE: When is this meeting usually held?
MS. ARNOLD: We would -- once we know who the --
MR. DEAN: Christmas Day.
MS. ARNOLD: -- individuals -- yeah.
Whenever -- once we know who the individuals are, we'll set up
a meeting. It should have already been done, I think.
MR. PONTE: I mean, it's not March or April or --
MS. ARNOLD: No, we want to get it done now as soon as
possible. Because I think September is really the time period that we
should have done it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It is fairly detailed. You sit in
and observe her meeting and then there's -- are we reviewing the
Page 128
October 25, 2007
ordinance again as well, see the parity between the two that we're
trying to match up, or is it --
MS. ARNOLD: No, no, this time it's just a performance review.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It's very interesting, though.
So Mr. Dean, are you staying on or --
MR. DEAN: Sure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. Dean is staying on.
He's already there, that's one spot. And we still have two opens.
MR. MARTIN: I'd be interested.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Martin's interested. And
Mr. Kraenbring. And Mr. Ponte.
MR. PONTE: We just need two, and we've got four volunteers?
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct.
MR. PONTE: Why don't you just appoint.
MR. KRAENBRING: He has to nominate, I think.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, I'd prefer there be a
nomination. Self nomination is allowed, I guess, but -- we'll just see
how the board --
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll nominate the gentleman down on the
end there.
MR. MARTIN: I nominate you then.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other nominations?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, and I'll go ahead and do
a formal vote. We have Larry as a primary. Who wants to be the
alternate? It's the same. You get to do everything the same, but --
MR. MARTIN: I'll be an alternate.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Martin, the alternate and
Mr. Kraenbring the other one.
All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
Page 129
October 25, 2007
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In that case, is there any
further comments?
MS. ARNOLD: We do have the discussion about consent agenda
that you wanted to --
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Let's do that.
George, you want to talk about that?
MR. PONTE: Well, I think we talked about it last meeting. The
idea is simply to take some of these items that we have, like the
mortgage foreclosure -- foreclosures and see if we couldn't just do it
on a consent agenda basis rather than going through them all. And that
was what I suggested for the fining process as well. That is, if there is
a problem, someone's going to request an abatement, reduction,
whatever, certainly we'll hear it. But if they're unopposed and there's
no one here, the fine already having been set, it becomes very much a
rubber stamp thing. Rather than having Michelle read it all and yes,
we vote, and read another one, yes, we vote. You can do it as a
consent agenda, it would seem to me. And just when the case or the
fine is being challenged, for whatever reason, that of course you'd
hear.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And would the board members
have the opportunity to pull an item from the consent agenda for
hearing?
MR. PONTE: Sure.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Michelle or Jean, would we
need to --
MS. RAWSON: I don't see any real problem with it, but we still
Page 130
October 25, 2007
notice all the respondents. And as you well have noted over the last
years, a lot of them will come. So if they come, then you need to hear
them.
MR. PONTE: Yes.
MS. RAWSON: Or hear from them.
Some of them will stand and ask you orally for a reduction or an
abatement at that time, or an extension at that time, without having
filed a written notice. So be sure you give them their due process.
But in terms of the rest, it is an administrative hearing, I think
you could put it on a consent agenda and then pull them off as needed.
MS. ARNOLD: I would just ask maybe that we modify the -- I
guess the presentation in the beginning of the meeting to let people
know if they're there for that reason and they want to speak that they
need to advise staff, so then that way we can pull them off. Because I
would hate to have you approve something and then didn't give them
the opportunity to speak.
MR. PONTE: Absolutely.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And in the agenda we can add
for whoever decides to do this role here, that they're reminded to ask if
there's any respondents who hadn't submitted so we don't skip them
over.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. PONTE: Yeah.
MS. RAWSON: Maybe you could have a signup sheet or
something at the beginning of the meeting, so if they're here and
they're here because of an imposition of fines, then we'll have them
sign up so we'll know which ones to pull off.
MR. KRAENBRING: While I'm all in favor of expediting the
process, is this going to create more problems than it's worth?
MR. PONTE: No. Let's say it reduces the traffic by 50 percent.
MS. ARNOLD: It reduces my work. I don't have to read all that.
MR. KRAENBRING: Michelle's all for it.
Page 131
October 25, 2007
MS. ARNOLD: The other thing that we need to do if the board
were to move towards this is to amend your rules, because your rules
don't say anything about that.
MS. RAWSON: Correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And we wouldn't be allowed to
use this until after they've been amended.
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And when is our amendment
process?
MS. RAWSON: March.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's usually march, but you could probably
reVIew --
MS. RAWSON: Any time.
MS. ARNOLD: -- them at any time.
I just want to note also that we do not send notice for the
foreclosure portion of it. Because it's just purely administrative. And
your rules do note that we do provide notice for the imposition of fines
portion.
MS. RAWSON: We don't write orders on the foreclosures either.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MS. RAWSON: You're just basically voting to turn them over to
the county.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. PONTE: In this recent situation, on what grounds did Ms.
Blocker have to address us during that particular moment? It seems to
me that it was very far afield of what should be done at that time.
MS. RAWSON: Well, it was a first.
MR. PONTE: That's far afield.
MS. RAWSON: I can't answer for her particular motivations, but
she's a member of the public and she's a respondent that's going to be
adversely impacted, so you did the right thing hearing from her.
MR. PONTE: But if you did that, Jean, then everybody--
Page 132
October 25, 2007
MS. RAWSON : Well, we don't notice them.
MR. PONTE: I mean, these are big dollars when they get to --
MS. RAWSON: Correct.
MR. PONTE: -- that kind of situation. There's a lot of motivation
there.
MS. RAWSON: But there's a lot -- I mean, you guys all handled
it very well and explained to her. And I told her you don't have any
jurisdiction now, go talk to the county. It's really too late for her to
talk to you, because --
MR. PONTE: It is.
MS. RAWSON: -- it's not in compliance.
MR. DEAN: She mentioned imposition of fines, and I thought
she was here on this other part that we got extended till November
29th.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, the point still remains,
though, I don't think that we should stop anyone from giving their two
or three minutes.
MR. KRAENBRING: Right.
MR. MARTIN: No, absolutely.
MR. DEAN: I think that's fine. That doesn't bother me at all.
That's what --
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: And since that was --
MR. DEAN: -- we're all about.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. Since that's the first time
that happened, it probably doesn't happen often.
MR. PONTE: No, never happened before.
MR. MORGAN: You're here to serve the public, so you've got to
give them a chance to say what they want.
MR. DEAN: Absolutely.
MR. MARTIN: It's television. They need to be heard.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Michelle, do we want to add
then -- let me take a poll from the board to see if everyone's in favor or
Page 133
October 25,2007
has problems with the new consent agenda item.
Those in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And then let's also vote then to
-- we'll just have it added to the agenda to look at our rules.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All right. Is there any further
comments or anything else?
MS. RAWSON: Isn't the next meeting the one that's at your
offices on Horseshoe?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is.
MR. DEAN: Is it big enough, your office?
MS. ARNOLD: Not really.
MS. RAWSON: The conference room.
I don't want you or any of the people who are not here to go to
the wrong place.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. DEAN: So next month it's at Horseshoe.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Correct.
MS. ARNOLD: And we should --
MR. DEAN: Sounds like a casino.
MS. ARNOLD: -- probably call Mr. White and tell him.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: November 29th, 2007 is the
next meeting. 9:00 a.m. And with that --
Page 134
October 25, 2007
MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.
MR. PONTE: I'll second it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. MARTIN: Aye.
MR. MORGAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. See you next month.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :08 p.m.
Code Enforcement Board
Kenneth Kelly, Acting Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
Page 135