Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/24/2008 R January 24, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida January 24, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean (Excused) Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) George Ponte Charles Martin Jerry Morgan ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Bendisa Madill, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 24, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FI 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LlMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 29, 2007 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion for Rehearing I. BCC vs. Stanley Fogg Jr. and Theresa M. Fogg CEB 2007.1 ] 5 Motion for Continuance B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. BCC vs. Emma Houston 2. BCC VS. Glen and Sharon Van Slyke 3. BCC vs. Jean Claude Martel 4. BCC VS. Audrey Jake 5, BCC vs. Naples Property Services, LLC CEB 2007-82 CEB 2007-1 19 CASE NO. 2007080353 CASE NO. 2007050199 CASE NO. 2007050653 6. BCC vs. Cynthia Aurelio Markle 7. BCC vs. Jeffrey Macasevich 8. BCC vs. A. L. Petroleum, Inc 9. BCC vs. Reinaldo and Zoraida Jardines and Sylvia Jimenez ] O. BCC vs. Mary Edwards ] ]. BCC vs. Carlos Pio and Melva Pio 12. BCC vs. Teudis Zamora 13. BCC vs. James Bachmann ] 4. BCC vs. Ricardo JR. and Magda L. Munoz ] 5. BCC vs. Circle K. Stores, Inc 16. BCC vs. Circle K. Stores, Inc 17. BCC vs. Logical Investments, LLC CASE NO. 2006060005 CASE NO. 20061003]4 CASE NO. 2007040340 CASE NO. 2007030794 CASE NO. 2006080]27 CASE NO. 2006070980 CASE NO. 2006120209 CASE NO. 200609000] CASE NO. 2007100608 CASE NO. 2007050]36 CASE NO. 2007040437 CASE NO. 2007080822 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Reduction of Fines /Liens B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. BCC vs. Mario Alvarez 2. BCC vs. Glen Hollingsworth 3. BCC vs, Ted Zhi Luo CEB 2007-29 CEB 2007-57 CEB 2007-100 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 28, 2008 10. ADJOURN January 24,2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. It is 9:00, so I would like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County meeting to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that the verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call. MS. MARKU: Mr. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Larry Dean has an excused absence. Ms. Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. Page 2 January 24, 2008 MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. We have a quorum. Before I start, I wanted to make note that this is my last meeting. I have been happy to serve Collier County's Board for almost six years now, but my commission ends on the 14th of February. So I will be stepping down and letting someone else take over. Approval of the agenda? I made one note to Bendisa, I guess at the beginning, that we had one case that had a wrong code listed. MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There was a wrong code listed. MS. ARNOLD: The number, yeah. It has a couple of different changes. The one that you're referencing is Emma Houston; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: That number should be 2007-114, rather than 82, as specified on the agenda. Also, we have two requests for continuances. One is your item 4-C-7, Board of County Commissioners versus Jeff Macasevich. And the other one is 4-C-10, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Mary Edwards. Both will be added under the motions for continuances. So those will be one and two respectively. We have stipulations for 4-C-4, which will now become 4-B-1. That is Board of County Commissioners versus Audrey Jake. And we have another stipulation for 4-C-14, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Rico Jr. and Magda Munoz. That will become 4-B-2. We are also removing from the agenda item 4-C-11, Board of County Commissioners Carlos Pio and Melva Pio. And that is because the property is in the middle of foreclosure, so we are having to re-notice. Page 3 January 24, 2008 And then I'm adding an item under old business, C. The rules and regs are back again. That's all the changes I have. MR. PONTE: May I introduce an item under new business, if there is time, to discuss the stipulations and the possibility of fining for people who fail to comply with the stipulations. I would like to discuss that under new business. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to give everyone a few minutes to get their packets in order and then we'll go to approval of minutes in just a few minutes. Is everybody set, including myself? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Approval of the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Move to approval of the minutes for November 29th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor -- I need a second, I'm sorry. MR. PONTE: I will second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 4 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Move to motions for rehearing. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: You were provided a request from the respondent. And is the respondent here; Mr. Fogg? Stanley Fogg? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: I guess no one is here. UNKNOWN PERSON: There are some people in the hallway. MS. ARNOLD: I didn't see Colleen MacAlister out there. I don't know whether or not the board wants to consider the motion or continue it until she's here or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair, I make a motion that we table it for, let's say, an hour to give her time to get here. If they do not arrive by 10:00, then we'll hear the case or hear the rehearing. MR. KELLY: I was wondering, just to save time, if we could maybe poll the board or something. Because I believe the request for continuance states all of the reasons why they want it. And I personally believe there is some validity there. If you would like, I could explain. MS. RAWSON: My advice would be to wait for the attorney. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELL Y: Well, then I second Gerald's motion then. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to table this until the attorney can be present in approximately an hour. MR. MORGAN: Second.o Page 5 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There is a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll table it. So then we move to motions for continuance. We have two requests, the first one being Macasevich, Case No. 2006100314. Go ahead. Do you want to swear in the witness? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BONO: For the record, Investigator Mario Bono, Collier County Code Enforcement. This has been a motion for a continuance that was presented in due time for the continuance. The attorney for the respondent appears not to be here, and I leave it to the board to consider that continuance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Comments or questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would say -- personal thoughts on the case, the reason maybe he's not here is because he has got medical issues. MR. BONO: He does. Actually, I was at the house yesterday. The house has been pretty much closed up. And he was not -- there is no sign of him. His vehicle is not there. I was out to the house to confirm whether the violation was abated or not. It was not. At this point in time there appears to be extenuating circumstances. And obviously his attorney has Page 6 January 24, 2008 corresponded with our office about that. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion we grant the continuance. MR. PONTE: Second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A 60-day continuance. The next one is Edwards. And that is Case No. 2006080127. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. MR. AMBACH: I believe -- I'm sorry. Investigator Chris Ambach, A-m-b-a-c-h, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe Ms. Edwards sent a letter in in regards to this case and a special master case actually that is going on at the same time on her property. The letter was forwarded on to Bendisa yesterday. I don't know the specifics of it, but she has asked for an extension due to health issues that she's having from -- I'm sorry -- for the OSM case. And I think she meant it to be for both cases. That property was posted within 24 hours, one for the OSM case and one for the CEB case. Right now we don't have an objection to giving her an extension. She's requested time to get healthy and to hire an attorney. So the County does not have an objection at this time to continue this case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She's apparently in Manor Care, which is an assisted-living or an assisted-care facility. Page 7 January 24,2008 So anything from the board? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion. I will make a motion to continue for 60 days. MR. MORGAN: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: She is asking until February. MR. PONTE: I think just to take the pressure off her. MR. MORGAN: February or -- MR. PONTE: Sixty days. MR. MORGAN: Sixty days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Continued for 60 days. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe that concludes the continuance requests. We'll move to the stipulations. The first one being Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Audrey Jake, Case No. 2007050199. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MARSH: Good morning. For the record, John Marsh, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is Case No. 2007050199. 4797 North Road, Naples, Florida 34104. Folio No. 26480520100. Owner of property, Audrey Jake. Page 8 January 24, 2008 This is a building or land permit case, violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B) (l)(d), converted pole barn into living space without obtaining Collier County building permit. Before reading the stipulation, I would like to state that the owner has filed for a permit by affidavit and has said some areas that needed readdressing, which she was working on correcting. The order has agreed to a stipulation as follows: Pay operational costs in the amount of $332.69. Abate all violation by: Applying for and obtaining all required Collier County building permits, have required inspections, and obtain certificate of completion for all permits within 120 days from this hearing or a $200 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Or respondent may obtain a demo permit and demo all additions and alterations to pole barn structure and obtain all inspections and certificate of compliance within 120 days of this date or a fine of $200 per day be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Ms. Jake isn't here today. However, I have a notarized statement from Ms. Jake that I would like to read. MS. ARNOLD: Put it on the visualizer. MR. MARSH: Okay. It is dated January 22nd, 2008. It says: I, Audrey Jake, state that I do understand the terms of the stipulation agreement regarding the permit violation of the property owned by me at 4797 North Road, Naples, Florida 34104, and signed the stipulation of my own free will. Dated the 22nd day of January, 2008. And it is signed by Ms. Jake. I witnessed it and it was notarized. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion to accept the stipulated Page 9 January 24, 2008 agreement as presented by the County and agreed to by the respondent. MR. PONTE: I will second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. MR. MARSH: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next stipulated agreement is Ricardo and Magda Munoz. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, I do have two more that are going to be coming, if we can amend the agenda at this time. They are going to be items 15 and 16, both Board of County Commissioners versus Circle K Stores. So they will follow the Ricardo and Magda Munoz case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion? Make a motion to amend the agenda. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 10 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now we'll move to Case No. 2007100608, Board of County Commissioners versus Ricardo, Jr. and Magda Munoz, in said that right. I hope. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This is Department Case No. 2007100608. The stipulation has been reached and agreed upon between the County and the respondent. The respondent agrees that they will: Pay all operational costs in the amount of $270.28 occurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by, A: Remove any vehicles for sale from the property that are not personally owned, licensed and registered to the owners of the property in question within 48 hours of the date of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed until such time as the vehicles are removed. Cease any use in whole or in part that is prohibited within RSF, residential single-family three zoning district, and the respondent must notify a code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection. This is a case -- the violations of Section 02.02.03 as described as using land in ways not permitted by the provisions of RSF-3 zoning district. The property owner is using subject property for the commercial sale and display of vehicles. I have monitored this since the case's inception. They have not had vehicles on since it was originally done. This is a recurring violation. The respondent could not be here today. She was here to sign the stipulation agreement. She has a parent with severe Alzheimer's, so she felt it necessary to go home. She understood and agreed to the stipulation agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has this -- has this property come in front of us before or this respondent come in front of us before? Page 11 January 24, 2008 MR. SNOW: Not for this, sir, no. But it is recurring. There was a notice of violation issued. A complaint was received and there were again vehicles on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PONTE: Investigator, when you were reading that I didn't catch -- I missed it, perhaps. Is there a stipulation in there that would prevent the respondent from doing this again? In other words, is there prohibition against future placement of cars in the same position? MR. SNOW: Well, we are asking them to cease in use in whole or in part. That's prohibited in this zoning district. So if they were to do this again, it would be a repeat violation. We would appear before you immediately. And obviously it would be up to the court to decide the severity of the penalties. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: Move to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Kitchell (sic). MR. SNOW: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next case would be Board of Page 12 January 24, 2008 Collier County Commissioners versus Circle K Stores, 2007050136. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Again, for the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Department Case No. 2007050136. The violations are of Section 04-41 of the Land Development Code as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(2)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(d)(ix), 5.06.04 (C)(8)(b), 5.06.04(C)(8)(c), 5.06.04(C)(8)(d) and 5.06.04(C)(8)(e) and are described as signs erected without proper permits. The respondent is here today representing the property owner. And they have agreed to the following stipulations: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $289.46 incurred in the prosecution of this case; and abate all violations by obtaining required permits for signs if attainable or remove within 14 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until said signs are permitted or removed. All inspections through certificates of completion must be accomplished within 60 days of ATF, after-the-fact permit issuance. After-the-fact permit fees of four times the amount of the original permit are to apply. The permit number is to be affixed to said sign at the time of CO. And B: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Just a few case notes on this. I have been monitoring this. As of this morning I received an e-mail from an affiliate of the respondents that advised me that the permits should be issued this morning. They all have been applied for. I believe that they will be issued this week. I don't think that is going to be a problem as far as the 14 days are concerned. The signs have already been erected. I can't tell you if they are going to be permitted or not. The CO -- I don't do that. Sign review is going to have to take care of that and they will. Page 13 January 24,2008 But they look to be in a fairly good order. So I'm confident this can be done in the time stipulated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There's one little typo error on your document that you have in front of us right in front of the 60. Accomplish with 60 days. It should be within, I believe. MR. SNOW: Absolutely. Within. You're right. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So make that note. MR. PONTE: I have a question. Why is the time 60 days? It seems rather lenient. I had thought in terms of 10 days. MR. SNOW: Well, sir, for the inspections and COing, when after-the-fact permit fees are involved, code says that they have to get it COed within 60 days. It's normally a six-month permit, but that's why it's 60 days when after-the-fact permit fees are involved. That's what the Land Development Code says. MR. PONTE: Is this the one where there are banners and things of that nature? MR. SNOW: No, sir, they didn't have any of those. What they did is they -- I would assume that someone had taken over and they erected signs without permits. They hired contractors. They were out of county. They came from the other coast this morning, drove over in the fog. I'm assuming they hired somebody that didn't get the required permits. I suppose he can answer that better than I can what happened. But this has been an ongoing case. As soon as they realized the severity of the situation, they seemed to take care of it and understand that this was a serious matter and to do what they needed to do. MR. PONTE: Excuse me. So that the signs -- the offending signs that are cited here, the canopy signs, the ground signs, these have been removed? MR. SNOW: No, sir. They are in the process of getting final permitting and COing. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 14 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to ask you a question, but if I can get you to identify yourself. MR. HIGGINS: Joseph Higgins. Core States Engineering. We represent the property owners and the client, Circle K Stores. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: By that representation, here is my question. Do you have the authority to represent these people? MR. HIGGINS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. That was my question for you. MR. HIGGINS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I guess, both of you, I think, stay up here for the next case. MR. HIGGINS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which is board of Collier County Page 15 January 24, 2008 Commissioners versus Circle K Stores, Case No. 2007040437. Do you want to swear them in again because it is a separate case? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Department Case No. 2007040437. This is a violation of Section 04-41 of the Land Development Code, as amended, and Section 05.06.04 (C)(8)(b), 5.06.04 (C)(8)(c), 5.06.04 (C)(8)(d), Section 5.06.04 (C)(8)(e), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(a), 10.06.02 (B)(2)(d)(ix), and are described as signs erected without proper permits. The respondent is represented here today and have agreed to a stipulation with the County. They have agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $304.07 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: A, obtain required permits for signs if attainable or remove within 14 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until said sign is permitted or removed. All inspections through certificate of completion must be accomplished within 60 days of A TF permit issuance. After-the- fact permit fees of four times the amount of the original permit are to apply. A permit number is to be affixed to said sign. And B: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Again, we are at the same -- they have applied for all the permits on this property. As far as the signage concerns, some have been CO'd. Some are issued now. The ground sign is still-- I'm confident that's going to be done today. I have no qualms about saying it's going to be done within 14 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Again, the same question that I posed to you earlier. Please identify yourself. MR. HIGGINS: Joseph Higgins, Core States Engineering. Page 16 January 24, 2008 Yes, I am here on behalf of the property owner and Circle K Stores. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you have permission and authority on their behalf? MR. HIGGINS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. MR. SNOW: Thank you. MR. HIGGINS: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chair, we have some information on the motion for rehearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Appropriate notice was not given, so we are going to pull this off the agenda and notify the attorney and the respondent and then put it back on a future agenda. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you very much. So we'll withdraw. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend, once again, the Page 17 January 24, 2008 agenda removing the motion to rehearing for Fogg. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That moves us to public hearings. And the first one being the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Emma Houston, CEB Case No. 2007-114. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-114. I would like to ask if the respondent is present? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were presented a packet of evidence that I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion we accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 18 January 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 4.02.01(A), table 2.1, 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e), 10.02,06 (B)(l)(e)(i) and Section 105.1 of the Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition. Description of violation: Two mobile homes on property which are approximately 18 to 24 inches from the rear property line in violation of setback requirements. Also, both mobile homes have been illegally converted from single-family units to multi-family without proper permits. And both mobile homes also have additions which are unpermitted. Location/address where violation exists: 415 South Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Emma Houston, P.O. Box 1275, Immokalee, Florida. Date violation first observed: July 18, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 8, 2007. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: September 21, 2007. Date of reinspection: September 21, 2007. Result of reinspect ion: No corrective action taken. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have both parties to be sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: Okay. Good morning. For the record, John Santafemia, S-a-n-t-a-f-e-m-i-a, property maintenance specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 19 January 24, 2008 This case involves the property located at 415 South Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. On July 18th of 2007, I responded to that location to investigate a complaint that I received from a tenant who was renting one of the -- part of the mobile homes at that location from Ms. Houston. The tenant was complaining about numerous minimum housing violations in her unit. While I was doing that investigation and inspection of the property, I did notice a lot of inconsistencies with the mobile homes at that location. I went back to the office and I did quite a bit of research on the property; permits and such, zoning issues. And I discovered that I was unable to locate any permits associated with those two mobile homes regarding placement of them, conversion of them from single- family -- single units to multiple units. And also there were additions to the mobile homes involving the fronts and the roofs of both units. After doing all of my research, I did prepare a notice of violation for the zoning issues, which we are here for now, and the permit issues that was sent to Ms. Houston via certified mailing. We did receive back a signed green card, return receipt requested. I did have conversations with Ms. Houston regarding the property. I advised her what the issues were involving the permitting and land use issues. We also discussed the minimum housing issues. It is important to note that this case was continued from the November hearing. I do also have an open minimum housing case on this property which I have basically put on hold until this zoning issue is resolved. I don't want Ms. Houston putting more money into these units if they are not going to be allowed to stay or if she chooses to abolish them. I do have photographs to show you. Ms. Houston just walked in, so she did not have a chance to see these, if I can have copies. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead and give copies and I Page 20 January 24, 2008 will entertain a motion to accept the photographs as Collier County Board's case B. MR. KELLY: So move. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are those pictures okay with you? MS. HOUSTON: I can look at them now. I can look at them, but I can't make a big -- at this minute. I just walked in. Sorry. I missed my role. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are the pictures of your property? MS. HOUSTON: Yes, ma'am. May I start speaking now, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. I think he needs to finish his case and then we'll turn it over to you, okay? MR. SANT AFEMIA: The first group of pictures that I would like to submit as evidence is -- I'm calling Composite A-I through 9 -- photos 1 through 9. These are going to be of mobile home that I have identified as number two in these photographs. MS. HOUSTON: I didn't get a chance to do this because I'm not a lawyer. But I brought him a paper stating that it's being worked on. And the lawyer that I have was not able to be here this morning because he was in like an extended -- like the court was yesterday and Page 21 January 24,2008 they have intent to go on. So he could not be here. So I still have nothing. I can state my part of what he's trying to express, that this property was given to me during a divorce. I had nothing to do with the permit or anything about it. I was, like, the second person getting this property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, ma'am. MS. HOUSTON: I do want the board to know that I had no intentions of violating anything because I was not the pre-owner of the property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll take all that into consideration, but we need to finish listening to what he has to say and then we'll give you time. MS. HOUSTON: I want that to be known before we go on. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SANT AFEMIA: This is the photograph on Composite A-I that I've identified. It shows the front of the two mobile homes on the property at that location. The second photo, number two, also shows Unit Two, which is the northernmost unit. The green -- the green unit. This photo is number three. It shows the north side of that mobile home, Unit Two, which shows -- if you look at the photograph, you can see where the mobile home stops and the additions start. This photograph, that's the south side of Unit Two. Photograph five shows you the roof-over that was put onto the single-wide mobile home and the addition. The gables are wide open on those. Photograph six also shows the same angle of the roof that was constructed on top of the mobile home. Photograph seven is the rear of Unit Two showing the setback violation. It varies from approximately 16 to 24 inches. It is hard to tell exactly where the property line actually is. The fence that is along that line is partially collapsed. You can Page 22 January 24, 2008 see there is a tree that is growing into it. That is actually pushing it in one direction or the other. Photograph eight, Unit Two, that is actually a photograph of a window on the inside of that unit in the addition part that was covered up as part of the addition that was put on. That's the original window for the mobile home. The area surrounding the wood is aluminum. That's the original siding of the mobile home. And photograph nine is another shot of the rear setback violation. The next group of photos is Composite B of Unit One. The first photograph shows the front of the mobile homes, again from a different angle. The second photograph will show just Unit One, the blue unit. The third photograph shows you the addition. It is very obvious where the mobile home starts and the additions begin. Photograph four is the -- again, the roof-over to that unit, Unit One. And photograph five shows you the rear of both units. You can see that as it goes down it gets very narrow towards that north side. Photograph six shows you again -- that's the north side of Unit One, which shows you the additions and the roof-over. It is very clear again where the mobile home stops and the additions begin. And seven is just the north side of Unit One and the south side of Unit Two. This next photograph, or it's actually an aerial, this I'm submitting as an individual photograph as evidence. I have identified it as C-l. It shows you an aerial of the property. Actually-- MS. HOUSTON: It's not. MR. SANT AFEMIA: -- the top of that photograph or that aerial picture is the north side of the lot. And I've identified the two mobile homes on there as One and Two, Two being the north end. And each unit currently houses two units in what was a single-wide mobile home. Page 23 January 24, 2008 As I said, I did serve a notice of violation to Ms. Houston with a very detailed order to correct, as far as what I felt she needed to do. The issues of the mobile homes, I couldn't find any permits relating to them being placed there. They are in violation of the setbacks. The setbacks for that area -- I have actually researched. I have gone as far back as 1961, as far as County regulations are concerned. And at no point in time were the setbacks allowed to be that close to the property line. The minimum -- the least amount I can ever find was 10 feet from the rear. And, as I said, the order to correct was very specific. You know, she had a lot of time to at least start something to take care of this problem and she has done nothing. Therefore, I did originally prepare this for this hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Now it is your turn. MS. HOUSTON: My name is Emma Houston. I came about this property in 19 -- totally after the divorce in 1995. It was given to me in -- before that, but the person who had the property kept it and they refused to give me the total control of the property and took all the rent for a long period of time. During my divorce when I got this property I know nothing of the permits, nothing of the setbacks because I don't know anything about setbacks. All I know is I got this property, which was only 35 percent of the property that we accumulated. And this is part of my divorce proceedings, my divorce. This property that we are talking about is the income for paying for the mortgages on the other buildings that may look better and is better. So this is the income that I get from this property to pay for my mortgages. As he stated, he came to the property after a young lady had ran up her rent three months. And because I asked her for my money, she got mad and so she called the code enforcement. He came out. I was Page 24 January 24, 2008 there when he came. I showed him where her house was. I was sitting in the yard during his inspection. And he took 30 minutes talking with her mostly and checking the apartment. After that, I started -- I got a letter from him in the mail stating the things to be done. I started on the things to be done, which cost me over $4,000 after going through a -- three months without working, on an accident, which I was not able to work for three months. I put in $4,000 more on the property. And when I called him to come, I said, my time -- could you give me a few days more. I need a guy to come and recheck the sewage lines because he was a guy that came before. And he stated that it was not time yet. But at that particular time I had already spent that money on -- additional money on the property. And this morning, as I come to you, Mr. Tyler is working on the process of permitting and the setbacks and courts. And he gave me this heading, and I don't have a copy of it, to show that I have started, you know, something on the property. And I have talked to -- and my lawyer, McGarvin, he could not be here because he had the continuancy of a trial that he is taking care of. And that's where I sit. I have spent numerous money on this property because I -- in good faith I'm trying to keep it up the best that I know how. And this is all that I have to show because I work -- I work two jobs and also try to manage this property. And everything I have has gone into what you have seen. It may not seem much to you guys, but it is everything that I have. And I have worked hard to keep it up because I have been single for 15 years. And like we're talking back when I married this person, this stuff was there. And here we are. And I'm asking -- I know that you said that you have given me enough time, but may I state that when my -- Page 25 January 24, 2008 he did not state that when he got the papers from the Post Office, someone else got the papers. I was out of town. So when I got the papers was delayed because it was sitting there and I didn't pick it up when I did come back in town. Also, as he stated and you know, I came before you in November. I had a tragedy in my family. And most people will know because my name is Houston. And I have not -- I have done all I can to come up to what I'm supposed to do this morning. And I still have this person working and I have a lawyer that is going to be on it. And this is all I could state for now. But I still do think the code enforcement that is standing before you this morning, he -- in the past I have also had code enforcement and they have worked with me to show me, you know, and stood there with me. But I can say that he has done his part in the paperwork and that's all I can say. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Questions from the board? MR. MORGAN: Is there an encroachment on the adjoining property? I see a thin line and -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: The thin line is -- that aerial is from the property appraiser's website. That's what they identify as the property line. That's not 100 percent accurate. MR. MORGAN: Okay. If that -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: We don't typically go by that. It would have to be surveyed. MR. MORGAN: That's what I'm saying. Because the way I see it -- MS. HOUSTON: I'm still asking for a continuance. MR. MORGAN: Excuse me. The thin red line is the line -- is the property line. The trailers C, D, A and B encroach on the adjoining property. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. Now, she does own one of those properties, I believe, back here. That is another mobile home that Page 26 January 24, 2008 actually has the same issue that's being investigated by a different inspector. But that's also her property there. MR. MORGAN: But still, all in all, the way I see it, the way this is drawn up, there is an encroachment. MR. SANT AFEMIA: There very possibly could be. It is hard for me to say. Like I said, those lines are not 100 percent accurate. Those red lines that you're referring to are not 100 percent accurate. They are put on there by the property appraiser's office. I'm not quite sure how they come up with that, but -- and in Immokalee that's very common to have encroachment issues like that. MR. MORGAN: In other words, you're saying the first priority is to get a boundary survey? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Correct. If I may just continue from there. And in response to Ms. Houston's comments, I think it is important that the board does realize that I actually -- the first part of her statement, I actually had a phone conversation with her on September 10th of 2007, which was not long after she originally got the notice of violation regarding this issue. And I specifically told her not to put money into repairing the trailers until we were sure that they could stay. So if she chose to do that, it was against my advice. Because I knew that I didn't want her spending money on trailers that she may not be able to keep. MS. HOUSTON: Iobject. Can I object? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You can object. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. I object right there. When I called him, it was the day that was on my paper that I thought was the deadline. At that time I called him. Everything I had done at that property at that time was already done when he told me that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Okay. MS. HOUSTON: And I called you. Page 27 January 24, 2008 MR. MORGAN: The investigator had some sound advice. I would get a boundary survey first before I spent five cents on any repairs to make sure that I was within my property line or right-of-way line. MR. SANT AFEMIA: She may actually be confusing the two cases. I don't know. I know that on that date -- because I have it written in my notes -- I actually called her and she was -- I don't know if you remember this. I think you said you were in church or something. And you said you didn't want to talk to me, but to call back and leave a detailed message on your answering service, which I did, which I said, do not put any more money into the -- MS. HOUSTON: Well, this is the time that I recollect. I called you to tell you to come and check because normally that's what an inspection do. When something goes wrong, the health department, anybody, once that correction has been done, they come back and check. Did you go back and check? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. MS. HOUSTON: The first -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: The corrections that you're referring to are not this case. MS. HOUSTON: No, it's not this case, but we are talking about it. Did you go back and check? MR. SANT AFEMIA: But that's not why we're here. MS. HOUSTON: I asked: Did you go back and check? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ma'am, what he's trying to tell you is that's two different cases. MS. HOUSTON: It is. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: His responsibility is in regards to this case. And in order for him to recheck you, you have to have moved the structures. Page 28 January 24, 2008 MS. HOUSTON: May I say something? He brought-- MR. SANT AFEMIA: Let me clarify that for the board and for Ms. Houston. That case, she is referring to the Minimum Housing issues on that property. I already said that case was put on hold, so I haven't even followed up on repairs or anything. I told her, do not repair anything until this is resolved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what she's trying to say is she had already done some of the repairs before she got that information from you. And I have that understood and that's clear. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. MR. SANT AFEMIA: The other thing -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's move forward -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: -- I did want to touch on was, you know, the ample time issue. If you read -- I know you have a copy of the order to correct. She was given a copy. You can see -- I mean, I gave her 45 business days just to hire somebody to determine whether or not they can stay there, the mobile homes. She could get a variance or whatever. And then another 45 days just to apply for a permit. I mean, if you look at the timetable, I actually thought I was giving her quite a bit of time. And had she started anyone of these processes, she probably would not be here today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other -- yes, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Mrs. Houston, do you have a permit or any copy of an application for a permit? MS. HOUSTON: I have Mr. Tyler, construction engineer, that's working on it right now. MR. KELL Y: What about back when the changes were originally made? If they're single-family mobile homes -- MS. HOUSTON: I was not -- I was not in control of the Page 29 January 24, 2008 property. When I got these -- when I saw him, the addition was there. And if we were married today, it would have been about 30 years and have paid taxes on it time after time on this property with these trailers. MR. KELL Y: Ultimately what the County is presenting us is basically that they were not able to locate any permits for the renovations that were made. MS. HOUSTON: I did not get a permit. I did not get a permit, okay? But as I stated -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you know if any permits ever existed? MS. HOUSTON: I do not know. MR. KELL Y: Thank you. MS. HOUSTON: He checked the book. I have not gotten anyone to go into checking the book because that causes my -- I have to have the money for that. And I will have to do that, too. But he stated it wasn't. And if he said it wasn't, I'm truthfully (sic) that he knows what he's talking about. He has everything that he pulled, even some that are incorrect, but we'll take care of that. That's my lawyer's part, not my part. And I'm stating here today that I've got a lawyer. And I'm also stating that Mr. Tyler is working on the application of what state -- the permit. And as you know, that in the month of December is a busy time for people to do anything. Even though you know -- and in the month of December I went through a tragedy with my family. Everybody makes -- thinks, well, that's nothing. It is something for me when my kids have been attacked. It is really hard for me to even stand up here today, but I'm here. That's it. MR. LEFEBVRE: What would be the maximum amount of units that would be allowed -- in mobile homes that would be allowed on this property? Page 30 January 24, 2008 MR. SANTAFEMIA: She can actually, based on estimates of the total square footage of the lot and the zoning -- it is village residential zoning currently. She would be allowed to keep both mobile homes as single units if they were put in the right place. And, you know, part of the problem is that the additions to them were not permitted and they wouldn't be able to get permitted in their current condition. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are the additions encroaching on the setbacks? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. The additions are to the roofs, the roof-over and the fronts. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the fronts, okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which is on the other side. MR. LEFEBVRE: On the right side? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Yes. And to address Mr. Kelly's question, just to touch on that, on the property card from the property appraiser's office they first noted on there these two mobile homes in 1991. MR. KELLY: '91 had good permitting records, so we would have known. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Like I said, I went back to 1964 in our records room through the old books. I hand researched everything. And I have all that documentation. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MR. MORGAN: My second comment was: From the photographs I saw a lot of safety items that needed to be addressed. Some of them are very serious. I wonder if someone has made an inspection prior to -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: Well-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's -- I believe that's the second case that he has that he has put on hold. MR. MORGAN: Okay. Page 31 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. SANT AFEMIA: That would actually be my argument to resolve this as quickly as possible. She did get a continuance in November, the last hearing. But I just want to make sure the board does realize that there are people living there and there are minimum housing violations that are ongoing at this time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have one more question. Has there been any -- since she asked for a continuance in November, has there been any further communication on what her plans were to take care of this issue? MR. SANT AFEMIA: No. My understanding - no communication with me. She has not made any attempt to talk to me. I periodically check the property, haven't found any permits, any new activity, as far as that goes. I think she might have been in touch with Ms. Marku relative to this hearing and stuff. I was under the impression that she wanted time to get an attorney. I was kind of waiting to hear from that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. When did you hire -- is it an engineer? MS. HOUSTON: He was approached the last part of December. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When did you hire him? MS. HOUSTON: The last part of December when I -- I talked to him prior to that, but I didn't have my papers in hand. So I had to go back and get some description and some paperwork for him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'm going to close the public hearing. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask a few questions? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: I'm just -- you've mentioned that you've made Page 32 January 24, 2008 some improvements to the property since the case was started. Which trailers were improvements made to? MS. HOUSTON: The one that -- which is exhibit-- MS. ARNOLD: There is an overhead. MS. HOUSTON: Exhibit A, because that's the one that he came in to ask me to do the necessary things to. MS. ARNOLD: Could you point to it on the screen? MS. HOUSTON: May I use your pencil, please? Okay. This is the one. This here. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So that is the one that you made improvements to where it is unit -- it is mobile home one and A; is that correct? MS. HOUSTON: Yes, yes. That's the one that he stated that these corrections was -- needed to be done. And that's what I did. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. What exactly did you do to that mobile -- that unit? MS. HOUSTON: I put a new refrigerator in there and new stove. We had a window that was repaired. The three windows was repaired. And the -- he stated that it was leaking. So I had someone to go and stop the leak. And he said that it was weak flooring in the unit. And we had that taken care of, too. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So you repaired the subfloors? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. The standing floor. I did not add a floor. MS. ARNOLD: Did you get a permit for replacing the window? MS. HOUSTON: Replacing the window? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MS. HOUSTON: We didn't put in a new window. We just repaired the window. MS. ARNOLD: What did you do to the window? MS. HOUSTON: We didn't -- we didn't move any boards to repair this window. Like, we just set a new window. MS. ARNOLD: You set a new window? Page 33 January 24, 2008 MS. HOUSTON: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: What do you mean by that? I'm sorry. MS. HOUSTON: We did not move boards. We just got the measurements and put the glass in the necessary places and whatever needed to be done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, I have to ask the question here. This is all Minimum Housing violations and that's not what this case is. So how is this pertaining to this case? MS. ARNOLD: I'm wanting to clarify because she is indicating to you all that she has done all these improvements for this particular case. MS. HOUSTON: Only what he stated needed to be done. The paper -- he has a list what needed to be done and that's what I did. Only what he said. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think we are getting conflicting things is what I'm trying to say. That is Minimum Housing violations that he didn't bring forward today. This is on setbacks. MS. ARNOLD: I understand. I just wanted to clarify what improvements she did to further on this particular case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently nothing. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. And I just want to ask Mr. Santafemia a question, in may. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Which unit did you inspect in response to the complaint? MR. SANT AFEMIA: On that photograph right there, I inspected Unit D in mobile home two. MS. HOUSTON: I am sorry. That's D in mobile home two. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Also, if I may add, the notice of violation that was prepared for the minimum housing part of this property violations, she had the notice of violation for this case long before the other one. The other one was refused. I ended up having to post it Page 34 January 24, 2008 well after this one was received. So she knew about these issues before she got a specific -- MS. HOUSTON: I have to state I did not know. The only time I knew is when you sent it in the mail. MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, I have not done any inspections inside mobile home one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. HOUSTON: I still stated I did not know until after the fact of the young lady making the -- against me and you followed up a month after. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time I am going to close the public hearing and move to just the board. MS. HOUSTON: And I also-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, ma'am. That means that there is no more further discussion between the two of you. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm bringing it to the board. MS. HOUSTON: I would also like to state that I need a lawyer to represent me. He is not here today. And I still stand on that and I'm still asking for a continuancy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think she's trying to ask for a continuance, but we just heard the case. MS. HOUSTON: No. I tried to ask for it at the beginning, but no one listened. That's what happens when you don't have a lawyer. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This is the first time you brought up continuance. MS. HOUSTON: Yes. I tried to -- like I say, I thought I said it in the beginning my lawyer was not here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ma'am-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You did not. MS. HOUSTON: Well, my lawyer is not here, like I stated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You did state your lawyer was Page 35 January 24, 2008 not here, that he was being held up -- MS. HOUSTON: And every time you have a lawyer that's not here, what can you do? MR. LEFEBVRE: In November we gave you a continuance for two months, which I feel is ample. This is the time to hear the case. We heard the case. MS. HOUSTON: I will still state -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. MS. HOUSTON: -- I need my lawyer here. If you do it, you do it against my will and that's up to you. You're the County, you're the board. I have nothing to say. I close my lips. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that there is a violation as stated in the charging documents. MR. KRAENBRING: I will second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would like to look to the County for their suggestions. MR. SANTAFEMIA: The County's recommendations in this case are that the property owner pay the operational costs of $333.13 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. They also request that the property owner must obtain any and all Collier County permits for additions to, conversions of, and placement of both mobile homes at the location described on the notice of violation dated 18 July 2007, and obtain all required inspections and Page 36 January 24, 2008 certificate of occupancies within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, the respondent may obtain demolition permits for both mobile homes and completely demolish through the removal of all debris within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day any violation continues. The respondent must also notify the code enforcement investigator, myself, within 24 hours when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you put that up on the board? MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we accept the County's recommendations. MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. That's what we have ruled. MS. HOUSTON: Well, it is against my wishes and it is against me not being represented. And I have brought the proof that we are working on it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We took that into consideration, ma'am, when we made the motion. MS. HOUSTON: When I first came, I thought that we was working on a permit for the trailer being there. And we are not working on that now, okay? That's a different statement. Page 37 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This is what we told you you have to do in order to come into compliance. MS. HOUSTON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You will have to follow through with it. If you disagree, you can take it up with your attorney and you have the right to appeal. MS. HOUSTON: Well, I -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. HOUSTON: Right now I'm blank what you ask me to do. First you ask me to get a permit for the trailer being there and against -- there was not enough room on the line. But right now you're asking more than that. So now you're putting double the work on me right now because I'm not represented. And that is not right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It is not because you're not represented, ma'am. You represented yourself. And you did a good job of it. You will get a copy of our order and then you need to comply with it the best you can. MS. HOUSTON: I can say I was not represented this morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. (Mr. Kelly left the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Glen and Sharon Van Slyke. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-119. For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion to accept the County's packet as evidence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. Page 38 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1.04.01(A), Rules of Construction, Applicability, and 2.02.03, prohibited uses. And violation of Ordinance 05-44, control of litter, weeds and exotics, Sections 5-7. Description of violation: Observed accumulation of vegetative litter on property, outdoor storage of commercial, private, and recreational vehicles on the property. Location/address where violation exists: 6067 Whitaker Road, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation and location: Greg (sic) and Sharon Van Slyke, 6046 Hollow Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: July 26, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 8, 2006. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: October 11, 2006. (Mr. Kelly returned to the boardroom.) MS. MARKU: Date of inspection: July 30, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Susan O'Farrell. Page 39 January 24,2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have both parties sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. VAN SL YKE: Have I stated my name? I don't think. Sharon Van Slyke for Glen. Glen, not Greg, Jr. Home address or violation address? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, we are just swearing you in that you're going to tell the truth. MS. VAN SL YKE: I do swear. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I promise we won't bite. MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. Thanks. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as a note, there is a difference between the charging document. It says Glen, then it says Greg. If you look at number four on the -- this copy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: So it is Glen? MS. VAN SL YKE: Glen Douglas Van Slyke, Jr. MR. KRAENBRING: There you go. MS. O'FARRELL: The property appraiser's website shows the owner as Glen Van Slyke. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Thank you. For some reason I just had it as Greg. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Somebody put in the address Greg instead of Glen. MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, Environmental Specialist. I'm here today to talk about the case with Mrs. Van Slyke at 6067 Whitaker Road. Briefly, on July 26,2006 I observed numerous piles of vegetative debris and one very large pile of vegetative debris pushed to the side of the property. The property had been cleared of vegetation with no Page 40 January 24, 2008 principal structure. The storage of commercial and recreational vehicles to include: One dump truck with enclosed trailer and the name D. Yardbird with the phone number 793-2591 on the side, a company not owned by the property owner and operating without a valid occupational license; one open trailer; one speedboat and trailer; one work truck with BDI Electrical Contractor on the side; four personal vehicles; and two jet skis on a trailer. There was also one garage with a double door bay with roll-down door and entry door. I spoke to the men on the site who stated they were given permission by the owner to park the vehicles and dump landscape litter there. I researched the property, found out who the owner was, found out what permits were and were not issued, and served a notice of violation to Greg or Glen Van Slyke, whatever we want to know him as, with the order to correct the following violations: To cease and desist all non-approved and non-permitted uses on the property. I did ask him to apply for any necessary after-the-fact permits. However, that became a nonissue as the case progressed. And I asked him to hire an environmental consultant to restore vegetation to the cleared property, but then we also determined that may have been cleared historically and not the Van Slykes problem. And I asked them to remove the litter. Since this case started -- as you all know, I worked for engineering for three months, so I have come back and resumed the case. Mr. Scribner, our investigator supervisor, also was working on the case. So there is some time lapses there that we would like to account for and a lot of time given to Ms. Van Slyke to try to figure out what she was going to do with the property. I would like to remind the board that we are here today only to discuss the fact that she is using the property for her lawn and maintenance business in a property that is zoned agricultural. She does not have the right zoning to operate this business. Page 41 January 24,2008 She also is using an occupational license on that business when there is no principal structure. So that is the main focus of our case today. Ms. Van Slyke has cleaned up the litter. She has removed all of the recreational vehicles and she is not allowing people to store vehicles on her property anymore. The pictures that I would like to submit show a large amount of debris that has been pushed to the side, but she told me yesterday that she had someone come in to grade it and smooth that out. So if I could show these pictures now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me have them submitted as Evidence B for the County. MR. PONTE: I have a question. MS. O'FARRELL: I just need to show them to Ms. Van Slyke before we start. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Show them to her. MR. PONTE: I have a question about the photos. Because we are not going to be making a judgment about what we see on those photos, are those facts prejudicial and you could just lead us astray? The issue here is not what we're going to see on the photos. MS. VAN SL YKE: Well, actually the photos show the lawn service equipment on the property. MR. PONTE: Well, I'm going to ask you to -- before you show us the photos -- MS. VAN SL YKE: Excuse me. May I, I guess, object? You may see those photos. MS. O'FARRELL: I object. This is the County's turn to proceed here. MS. VAN SL YKE: I'm sorry, Susan. MS. O'FARRELL: It's my turn to speak today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You get to look at the photos, too, before we get to see them. Page 42 January 24, 2008 MS. VAN SLYKE: Okay. Sorry. MS. O'FARRELL: No, I'm not going to show the photos without you seeing them first, Mrs. Van Slyke. MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. MR. PONTE: I just don't want the board to be propagandized in any way. MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. So I will only show you the photos that show the landscape equipment on the property. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Susan, can you repeat again what exactly we're going to be deciding today? It is not all of the items that are on the statement of violation and request for hearing? MS. O'FARRELL: She has abated the litter violation. She has abated the storage of the recreational vehicles. She is still storing the commercial vehicles for her own business. MR. KELLY: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: We are here to decide that the use of the property is agricultural and she is running a commercial lawn and maintenance business from that property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that on the charging document? MS. O'FARRELL: Pardon me? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's not on the charging document. MS. O'FARRELL: It says non-permitted uses. Prohibited uses in violation of ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The only -- the only ordinance that is not being charged or should be removed from the charging document is the 05-44, which is the control of litter, weeds, and exotics Sections 5-7. Correct, Susan? Page 43 January 24, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: Correct. Exactly. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept Exhibit B, the photos, and let's see them. MS. O'FARRELL: Wait a minute. I'm going to show those photos to Ms. Van Slyke. MS. VAN SL YKE: I stipulate to those. You can go ahead and show them, right? MS. O'FARRELL: Is that all right? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have to vote on it first. Did you have a question? MR. KELL Y: No. I will second the question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. O'FARRELL: Everybody ready? And I'm not showing my fingernails today. Michelle is. She had hers done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a new Vanna. MS. VAN SL YKE: Excuse me. Are these from yesterday you mean? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MS. VAN SL YKE: I thought those were the first ones. MS. O'FARRELL: No. These were taken yesterday. MS. VAN SL YKE: I'm sorry. I misunderstood. MR. KELL Y: Do you object to them? MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, no. I wasn't clear that these were after I Page 44 January 24, 2008 addressed this violation. I thought those were the ones before. I'm sorry . MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. MS. VAN SL YKE: I don't object. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. These photos are showing that she is still in noncompliance. I have nothing further. If you would like to ask any questions or if you'd like to give Ms. Van Slyke a chance to speak. MR. KRAENBRING: I notice that there is a non-permitted structure on the property? MS. O'FARRELL: The structure was originally permitted because Mr. Van Slyke signed a notarized affidavit saying that he was going to use the property for a small nursery. The property was never used as a nursery. So although it is permitted, it is actually, I don't know, a County error in being permitted. It is a confusing situation because the occupational license was issued because they had the shed. But the occupational license is not valid because it's not zoned for that use. So it's -- we have all these -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The occupational license though has been in -- MS. O'FARRELL: Effect for a long time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A long time. MS. O'FARRELL: And they just keep renewing it every year. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. And you said technically they shouldn't be able to get the occupational license because there isn't a primary structure? MS. O'FARRELL: There's no home. There's no structure on the property . CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There is a structure. The garage, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That could not be considered a Page 45 January 24, 2008 primary structure? MS. O'FARRELL: That would be considered a structure that they could use if they were using the Right to Farm Act and if they had their agriculture exemption and they were doing a business that provided a farm product in that agricultural setting. MS. VAN SL YKE: Excuse me. I will stipulate to that, I guess. No, I won't. I'm sorry. I should be quiet. Excuse me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll let you talk in just a little bit. MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. I will calm down. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask Susan a question? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Susan, does the occupational license have anything to do with the zoning approval? MS. O'FARRELL: No. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: The occupational licensing department does not check with zoning before they issue a license. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. It is your turn. MS. VAN SL YKE: Thank you. I guess, I'm here -- I am here today to -- this is -- this is a big decision for me. Seventeen years ago we lied to get our permit. I saw this paper on December 14th of 2007. I had already filed my continuance, so took the remaining days after the holidays to start cleaning up the place and begin semi-retirement plans. And I apologize for my place ever looking like that. And I want to thank Susan for her professional manner. And I think that we're wasting -- is this where I should -- a lot of -- a lot of our staffs time. And I hate to say this because I don't know if it's the right forum for it. But unless you are prepared as I have been -- and it has taken me Page 46 January 24, 2008 a long time to do this. But this last part I had to do since the 14th, so I have been scrambling. And I just hope you'll understand my position because I have so many great things that we could do with that property . Because I have so many customers in Countryside that are, like, all together and in all my little neighborhoods. That's why I protested this so much. Because up until the 14th, I -- and I -- I didn't know about the permit until I talked to my contractor. And I have been talking to him for two years. Finally I said, Scott, was there anything? He said, I don't know. Maybe you signed some little paper that said you were going to start a tree farm. I don't know. He said, call me if you need an affidavit. So I have been flying back and forth on -- for personal reasons and I just -- this notice shows up in the mail and I'm a little nervous. And a friend calls and he's been picking up my mail. He says, you got something from Code. I thought that went away. Because when I was cited before in 2001, I mean, it was like Kathy walked onto the property and said, you can't have this building here. And she said, and you can't litter here. I said, well, I'll take care of the litter. I'll have Yahl Mulching come in. And I said, but you better go back and talk to the County about a permit or I will get a lawyer. And Susan will attest to this. I copped an attitude. So I got my violation, you know, in 2001. And I called Kathy and explained to her that Yahl Mulching couldn't get right there. And I'm working off the top of my head here. So, you know, not to the letter of the law. It's as close as we can remember. And I don't want to get anybody in trouble because Kathy was -- Code Enforcement does a great job. But Kathy came out. I explained to her that John was coming, Page 47 January 24, 2008 but he was -- I kind of ad libbed this part about the rains and the road flooding. He was worried about that, if you have read my stuff. And so she abated the issue. And I got receipts here that say -- I didn't pay for it until, like, August. We were trying. And I lied about that, too, because I was just -- I was so nervous. And I didn't mean to lie, but I put that in that packet. And I had that all prepared before I was going to come here. So, you know, you're trying to remember back. The main reason I'm here -- and I hope you understand, the only reason I did this was those pictures that Susan took. I had a lot of issues lately. I let a lot of things go that I never did before. I never let my customers down, I don't think. I try not to. So I know I'm getting emotional here and I try not to. But I just want you to know that when I found that permit I went to an attorney. Because -- and then I thought to myself -- no, not the permit, the affidavit thingy. When I found that in that record, that's when I was going to go get an attorney and that's when I was going to go pull out all my original papers and everything. Because then I knew I needed help. But I said -- you know, I have been going through this and I filed -- I did all this paperwork and I sent all those e-mails because this -- that affidavit is the only thing that really matters. It is a person's name on a piece of paper. And that's honesty. And that's what we need more of. And I hope you vote for me. And I don't even know what I'm asking for. MR. KELL Y: I have a question. MS. O'FARRELL: Mrs. Van Slyke, why don't you talk to them about the lawn service business and operating it off of the property? MS. VAN SL YKE: Can't they all -- have you read my stuff? MR. KELLY: Yeah. Actually-- MS. VAN SL YKE: Can you just ask me questions? Page 48 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: I'm going to ask you questions. MS. V AN SL YKE: And I will try to be brief, but Susan knows I'm not good at that. MR. KELL Y: This morning at breakfast I read your packet for the third time. My son and I -- he's only 13. He's not qualified, of course. But the two of us are bouncing these things back and forth. In the end I was, like, ready to go to bat for you. I actually saw some holes here and I was all prepared and highlighted and ready to go, but now I'm a little confused about -- don't take this the wrong way, because you said it. What did you lie about and what did you not? Because now I have to go back through. MS. VAN SL YKE: Well, we got the building permit. MR. KELLY: Okay. MS. V AN SL YKE: And we were certain -- and this is our dream. And I could show you a picture of that place. And this is what made me decide that because I have been going: Do I retire, do I not retire? Do I not retire? I have had the business sold for years to the -- to my foreman, who I sold a prior route to. In fact, I have a signed contract. MR. KELL Y: Ms. Van Slyke, careful about too much information. MS. VAN SL YKE: What did you ask me? MR. KELL Y: Our job is to kind of sort through some of the stuff and get back to the facts. MS. VAN SL YKE: Facts. MR. KELLY: The occupational is still in your name. You don't want to be putting on record that you sold the business, but yet it is still in your name and all. MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, no. The business is in my husband's -- I don't know. MR. KELLY: Just the facts. You did have a permit for the Page 49 January 24, 2008 original structure? MS. VAN SL YKE: Yes. Licensed contractor. MR. KELLY: Great. And that structure is the one thing that's kind of up in the air. Even County is admitting that there is -- MS. ARNOLD: It is not up in the air. MR. KELL Y: Oh, no, it's there. Don't get me wrong, but there is a zoning question whether or not that structure is technically going to qualify for a primary structure in order for you to operate a lawn maintenance business on agricultural property. MS. VAN SL YKE: I understand that. MR. KELL Y: The permit is there. You did get that. That structure is legal. MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Kelly, may 1-- MR. KELLY: Please. MS. O'FARRELL: In order for Mrs. Van Slyke to operate a commercial lawn service maintenance business, she needs to go and get a conditional use permit. She needs to submit a site development plan and have it approved by the County so she can do that business on that property. And then that structure would count as her principal structure. But there is a process that she needs to go through in order to do that and it involves a conditional use permit. MR. KELLY: Great. But now we're hearing you sold the business and you're retiring. MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, no. That was just talk. MR. KELLY: Okay. We take that into consideration on the record. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. It's because of the flying back and forth. I get ahead of myself. What my intention is and what has always been -- and I'd really like to show you this picture, in may. Susan, would you like to come over here and see? I haven't Page 50 January 24, 2008 shared this with you. Is that allowed or not? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, it's allowed. And then we'll decide whether or not we're going to enter it in as evidence. MS. VAN SL YKE: Yeah. I didn't go through the stuff yet very much. This is our original land appraisal report and I hope -- these are the pictures when we first started clearing the property. We tried to do the right thing. There is the barn. Wasn't it pretty back then? And this is what made us decide that we really wanted to keep this piece of property and the business on it. Do you want to see this? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Susan, do you have any objections to us seeing it? MS. O'FARRELL: No, I have no objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Entertain a motion to accept that as evidence. I guess, we never really introduced her evidence that we have in our packet. We should do that first. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the packet for the respondent. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KELLY: Procedurally, if it is part of our packet that we are Page 51 January 24, 2008 served with and we accepted it as part of the County -- MS. ARNOLD: No. The County -- you get two packets and then you have to have two motions. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And now we need to ask -- MS. VAN SL YKE: Excuse me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wait a minute. I need a motion to accept the picture as evidence. MS. O'FARRELL: She is withdrawing the picture. MS. VAN SL YKE: Withdrawn. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. VAN SL YKE: Not speaking as an attorney, but I would like you to accept into evidence anything I prepared 15 copies of and delivered. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We just did that. MS. VAN SL YKE: So nothing else. And if you need anything else, I have got some stuff. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the County. What are we really looking at here? I have a description with a violation. And it is -- several of these are not -- we're not looking at -- which is vegetative litter on the property. Weare not looking at that. The only thing that we're looking at is the storage of these two lawn mowers, recreational MS. O'FARRELL: Non-permitted use of the property. MR. PONTE: Licensed recreational vehicles? MS. O'FARRELL: No. They have been removed. MR. PONTE: They have been removed. Anything else, or is it just these two lawn mowers we are -- MS. O'FARRELL: The operation -- MR. PONTE: We've spent a lot of time looking at these two lawn mowers. MS. O'FARRELL: It's the operation of the business in an area Page 52 January 24, 2008 that is not zoned for that operation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Where is that listed? What is that? MS. ARNOLD: It's on the NOV, really. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not listed in the statement though. Statement of violation wasn't -- it should have included all these things on the notice of violation. And we can alter that to include -- Jean, how do we handle that? Because all we really are looking at now, from what I can see, because -- the prohibited use and violation of Ordinance 5-44, which is control of weeds and litter -- MS. O'FARRELL: No, that is different. That's a run-on sentence. It is 2.02.03, prohibited uses and violation of Ordinance 05-44, which is the litter ordinance. MS. RAWSON: Didn't we just take out the prohibited use violation, Ordinance 5-44? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MS. O'FARRELL: That's not the prohibited use ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We took out the violation of the Ordinance 5-44. MS. RAWSON: Control of litter, weeds and the exotics. That's not an issue. So I think the only thing -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 2.02.03, is that where -- MS. O'FARRELL: That's the prohibited uses. MS. RAWSON: I think what we are talking about basically is only the accumulation of commercial vehicles on the property. MS. O'FARRELL: No. MS. ARNOLD: Can I please clarify something? The charging document has on there 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03, which is dealing with the uses. But it failed to describe the violations appropriately. The notice of violation, which is right behind your statement of violation, has the description and corrective actions noted on there pertaining to the issues. We're saying we're striking the portion of the Page 53 January 24, 2008 statement of violation that refers to 05-44, which is -- it says violations of ordinance 05-44, control of litter, weeds and exotics, Sections 5 through 7. We're not considering that. There was other things pertaining to the storage -- the inappropriate storage that has been corrected by the respondent. The only thing that we are dealing with is the use related to the -- your landscaping business and the equipment associated with that use. Weare not dealing with the permit of that structure or anything like that. MS. VAN SL YKE: And if I can correct you, Michelle. Here is another thing I was doing wrong. I only have my lawn maintenance license. I don't have a landscape license at all. I can't say that. I'm doing it wrong, aren't I? I'm trying to be truthful. I'm sorry. I will be quiet. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we didn't cite you for your occupational license, so you don't have to worry about that. If you know that you're doing it wrong, do it right next time before you get back. MS. VAN SLYKE: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORGAN: Ms. O'Farrell, is this agricultural land? I see one thing. It says they signed kind of like an affidavit for a tree farm. I look over here and it says this is an application to return it to agricultural, it says, for the purposes of a nursery. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's asking if it's agricultural. MS. O'FARRELL: It's agriculturally zoned. MR. MORGAN: It is? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. MORGAN: But they're operating their lawn service off the property? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. KELL Y: Are you allowed to have commercial vehicles on Page 54 January 24, 2008 an agriculturally zoned property? MS. O'FARRELL: You're allowed to have commercial vehicles, but they can't be used for a commercial business unless you have a conditional use permit. MR. KELL Y: And at the time this was originally started 17 years ago, did you need it then? MS. VAN SL YKE: That's my question. MS. O'FARRELL: I have a copy of a zoning map, if you want to put it up on the viewer. MR. KELLY: I don't think it's necessary. MR. PONTE: If these tractors or lawn mowers were in an enclosed area in a garage, a barn, then would it be legal? MS. O'FARRELL: No. Because she's still running a business from that property. And as Mrs. -- MS. VAN SL YKE: May I object, Susan. If they are my personal property, I can store them on that storage shed if I'm agriculturally zoned. MS. O'FARRELL: If she's not running the business. If she doesn't have employees coming to the property and then leaving the property with that equipment. MR. MARTIN: Susan, can we get to your recommendations? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. We have to go through a couple of things first. MR. KELLY: I'm thinking traditional agricultural. Let's say, for instance -- I'm not going to promote anyone, but there is a lot of local growers and they have sheds or pole barns or whatever you want to call them and they house their tractors and they also house transportation vehicles that get the product or the vegetables or whatever from there to the packing house. MS. ARNOLD: And they are allowed to do that on agricultural. The issue that we have today is the use is a landscape business that she is operating off of that property, which she is not allowed to do. Page 55 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A landscape business isn't under agricultural zoning. MR. KELLY: There you go. Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: In further answer, those properties are allowed to do that if they're 20 acres or more. Under 20 acres they have more restrictive things. She is allowed to have a nursery on that property without going through any conditional use permit, without any other process, other than having her occupational license for that nursery. The difference is when it gets into a commercial, retail or wholesale. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: If she wanted to run a retail nursery off that property, she would need to get a conditional use permit. MS. ARNOLD: We're not dealing with a nursery. We're dealing with a landscape business. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, we're going to close it to the public hearing and go to the board. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that a violation does exist and I think that the respondent has sort of agreed with that to a certain extent. So I make a motion that a violation does exist and that we need to hear the recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 56 January 24,2008 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The County's recommendation, please? MS. O'FARRELL: The County's recommendation is that the respondent cease and desist -- excuse me. That the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $623.15, within 30 days of this hearing, incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: One, cease and desist all non-approved and non-permitted use on agricultural land known as 6067 Whitaker Road, Naples, Florida, to include outdoor storage of commercial, private, and recreational vehicles by the next business day following this hearing, or a daily penalty of $50 will be imposed as long as the violation persists. That was a daily penalty of $50 per day. The second was: Cease non-approved use of property for a lawn service business until appropriate approvals have been attained by the Collier County Zoning Department within 14 days of this hearing, or a daily penalty of $50 will be imposed as long as the violation persists. I have recommended that she remove all the litter on the property but, as we have discussed, she has abated that violation. And the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KRAENBRING: Susan, can you put that up -- MS. O'FARRELL: Sure. MR. KELL Y: Susan, so all she needs is the conditional use permit and she can use this agriculturally zoned property for the business? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. She would apply for a conditional use permit, go through the process of that, which includes submitting a site development plan. MR. KELLY: That should take about 14 days? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Not the site development plan. Page 57 January 24, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: She needs to stop using the property for that purpose until she gets that completed. The conditional use permit, I believe, they go through several board hearings, don't they, 90 days to six months? MR. KELL Y: So she would have to rent a place, operate the business there until the land use was approved, if it was approved? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. KELLY: And then she could bring it back? I guess it's probably not very fair to give her six months and allow her to try to work that out and continue to operate the business out of there? MS. O'FARRELL: I would oppose that based on the length of time that the case has gone on and the amount of back and forth. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then again, it existed for 17 years in this manner. MS. ARNOLD: Can you ask the audience to refrain from-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The audience needs to refrain from comments. I'm just trying to be fair, Susan. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. I think the fair thing to the County and to the citizens of the County is that she follow the rules like everyone else does. There's lots of landscape businesses out there that run their businesses. They rent storage spots for their vehicles and they go back and forth legally. Their employees go to the storage spot, which is not illegal, pick up the stuff and do their business. I think that that's what would be fair to the county and to other citizens who are following the rules. MR. KELLY: I have a quick question, but not directly related to this case. If you live in Golden Gate Estates, is that a separately zoned area that allows you to operate a lawn company out of your home? MS. O'FARRELL: No. Golden Gate Estates is zoned The Estates. You're still not allowed to operate a commercial business Page 58 January 24, 2008 from your home without an occupational license from that property. And you may not have employees coming back and forth. MR. KELL Y: Most of the landscaping companies I know live out in the Estates. Maybe because I live there I see a lot. I'm just asking. Thank you. MR. PONTE: I have a problem with item one. I think it's too restrictive too fast and that the next business day is an unwarranted hardship, if you're talking in terms of seven days or 10 business days, rather than the next business day. I mean, there are employees that have to be notified, customers that have to be notified, what have you. I would just like to see that expanded to seven business days, 10 business days. MS. O'FARRELL: I think item one was pertaining to the unlicensed -- or the vehicles that she was allowing people to store on the property, which she has stopped doing already. MR. PONTE: You said the removal of the property -- removal of the vehicles? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. That has been abated. I didn't want it to happen it again though. Number two is really the most important one, which is where -- MR. KELLY: We should strike number one. Number one does state commercial vehicle. MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: As of yesterday, I hadn't been able to get onto the property. I wasn't able to see that those vehicles were gone. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifwe strike it, then she could park her commercial vehicles there. And that's not the point. MR. KELLY: Right. But we'd have to strike everything else because it has already been abated. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, she's abated it. You'd only have to strike it because she abated it. It's just making sure that she doesn't continue it. Page 59 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: True. But it's not even on the charging document. We'd have to strike that, too. MS. ARNOLD: It is on -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The commercial vehicles are. MS. ARNOLD: The only thing that --litter is the only thing that we need to strike. MR. KELLY: Litter is the only thing? MR. PONTE: The easiest thing would be really just to extend it to a reasonable business time frame and say seven days or 10 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: To give her a place to find a storage place for her -- MR. PONTE: Exactly. Close down, notify employees, notify customers that everything is suspended for the time being. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He is talking about number one, instead of having to remove the vehicles. MR. KRAENBRING: It would make it consistent with item number two. MR. KELLY: Having moved businesses, that is not enough time to find another location, to negotiate -- MR. KRAENBRING: No. I think it should be for 14 days. MR. PONTE: More lenient. MR. KELLY: 30 to 60 days. I mean, you're a realtor, Joe. How long would it take to get a realtor, look at various properties, find one that is suitable? MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Kelly, I've also been involved in business doing this before. It shouldn't take her more than two weeks to find a storage facility. She doesn't need to buy a property. She doesn't even need to rent a property. She really just needs to go to a storage facility and get a spot. MR. KELLY: Like an open air storage? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Of which there are many in Naples. Page 60 January 24, 2008 MS. VAN SLYKE: Forwhat? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can she run a business out of that? MS. O'FARRELL: Uh-huh. MR. KELL Y: Because the business that is still -- MS. O'FARRELL: She can run a business because it would be an industrial area. Any of the storage spots are going to be in an industrial area. She would be able to run the business. She could have her employees go back and forth. MR. KELL Y : Would the business have to change if she didn't have employees coming from a residential area? Could she still keep it at the home? MS. O'FARRELL: She has too much equipment to keep at her home. MR. KELLY: I know. But the business itself on the occupational and so forth -- and I know that's not an issue. The business operations could stay there. It's just to and from, the storage of the commercial vehicles, all those, could be off site? MS. O'FARRELL: That's all she's doing at the property. MR. KELLY: There you go. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So do you want to do it in 14 days? MR. KRAENBRING: For number one. MS. O'FARRELL: Number one change to 14 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we accept the agreement with the one change where number one is 14 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 61 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Ms. Van Slyke, basically what we've said is you have 14 days to find another location to store your commercial equipment, otherwise a penalty of $50 a day will be imposed until that stops. You have to cease using the non-approved property until appropriate approvals have been obtained by the Collier County Zoning Department within 14 days of this hearing or, again, a daily penalty of $50 will be imposed as long as the violation persists. You have already removed all the litter on the property. So we don't want it to come back. And then the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated. MS. VAN SL YKE: That's all very generous of you. But up until 4:30 this morning I wasn't sure that I could run my business out ofthat property; is that correct? I can run the business out of that property or not? MS. O'FARRELL: No. MR. KRAENBRING: For 14 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: For 14 more days you can, but you have to find another location. MS. O'FARRELL: But I still have the zoning for my building and my -- I used -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have ago zoning at that property, period. MS. VAN SL YKE: That's where I messed up. Because I thought because -- I didn't see the permit document before I was charged. And the only thing that I'm really asking here for is -- could you read that last page of the first packet? Because I have not even gotten into -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ma'am, we have done that. We Page 62 January 24, 2008 are finished with that. Weare telling you what you have to do now in order to come into compliance. MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, I thought I could like -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. We're done. MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, okay. Well, I just wanted to tell you-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You can go to the County and you can ask -- MS. VAN SL YKE: I have to go to the County and ask? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You can get -- MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. I can't run my -- so I can't run my business out of there? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You cannot run the business out of there. MS. VAN SL YKE: After 17 years? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have 14 days. MS. VAN SL YKE: Why? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because it's against the ordinances. MS. VAN SL YKE: But I admitted that I was in error, right? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We understand. MS. VAN SL YKE: So I can't -- because I didn't -- because I said I lied? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MS. VAN SL YKE: Because I was an honest person because I said -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It has nothing to do with that, ma'am. MS. VAN SL YKE: I quit here because I haven't done the research on this part. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It has nothing to do with that. It means -- MS. VAN SL YKE: I screwed up. Sorry. Page 63 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, Susan and Michelle will talk to you. For that, I'm going to go ahead and adjourn for -- give you 10 minutes. So we'll be back at 10:58. (Recess.) (Mr. Martin is absent.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. In can get everybody's attention. My mic is not on, so I will just have to yell. Is the mic on now? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I will call the meeting back to order. And the next case we have is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Jean Claude Martel. MS. MARKU: For the record, it is Department Case No. 2007080353. F or the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the Board was sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, the Land Development Code, Section 1.04.00, subsection 104.01, paragraphs A and B. Section 2.02.00, subsections 2.02.02, paragraph B, subsection 2.02.03, prohibited use. Section 2.03.00, subsection Page 64 January 24, 2008 2.03.01, paragraph H, village residential district. Section 8.08.00, paragraph B. Section 9.03.00, subsection 9.03.01, paragraph D. Section 10.02.00, subsection 10.02.06, paragraphs B-la through to and including F. Description of violation: Unpermitted development and use of village residential zoned property in Collier County, known as 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Location/address where violation exists: 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Name and address of the owner/person in charge of violation location: Jean Claude Martel, 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: August 13th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 17th, 2007. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: September 17th, 2007. Date of reinspection: September 17th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. Could I have both parties please be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. PONTE: Excuse me, Investigator, before we begin. Just clarification for me, what is a VR property? MR. KEEGAN: Village residential. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead, please. MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case opened up on August 13th, 2007. I observed a couple of unpermitted structures on the property in question, 3190 Karen Page 65 January 24, 2008 Drive. Myself and Dennis Mazzone researched the property, pulled the property cards, the permits. Some permits were pulled. They were expired. I do have the permit information on that, the expire dates, the issue dates, if we need them. August 17th, 2007 at a special magistrate hearing I went to issue Mr. Martel a notice of violation, which he refused. I did drop service. It was witnessed by Jeff Letourneau, one of our supervisors. From November -- from September 19th -- yes, September 17th I went on site. The violation remains. No permit actions. Nothing was happening. On the 28th of September, property was still in noncompliance. I prepared it for the Code Enforcement Board. October 17th I talked to Mr. Martel. He stated that someone is going to get hurt and that he doesn't want me on his property and wait and see the hearing date. On the 25th, the packet was returned to me by my director, Michelle Arnold, to give -- when I issued the notice of violation, Mr. Martel was incarcerated. So she returned the packet to me to give Mr. Martel more time to make up the difference. That was fine. November 26th, no permits were pulled. I resubmitted the case for the hearing. And as of this date, no action taken. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: I don't know. I have been over there like 1970. And I buy six more property on Karen Drive and a commercial property off Airport Road. I ain't got no money right now, like I said. My rent went down the tube. And we have a lot of cleanup to do over there and all that stuff. And I don't know what to say. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: If I may approach, I showed Mr. Martel this before. It is just a graphic of what is in question that -- the reason we're here. Page 66 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Have you showed it to him, you said? MR. KEEGAN: I showed it to him, Mr. Martel. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you put it on the overhead? MR. KEEGAN: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to accept it as evidence. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: This right here is the only structure that is permitted. MR. KRAENBRING: Which one? MR. LEFEBVRE: Point to it on the screen. MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry. This one right here. That's the only permitted structure. The rest of these were -- you know, were built. Some were pulled with permits and the permits expired. After six months, no inspections and, you know, there was no other movement on them. MR. KELLY: Are they occupied? MR. KEEGAN: It is homesteaded.. Mr. Martel does live there. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has this property been in front of us before? MR. KEEGAN: It has been before the special magistrate. I don't Page 67 January 24, 2008 know if it's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Martel has been in front of us before? MR. KEEGAN: I have never taken him in front of the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, do you know if this is the same properties that he has been in front of us before? Because I know we've had a couple others that were on Karen Drive that he had a lot of debris and things that he had to get cleaned up. And there was also an unpermitted structure. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that it's other properties that he has owned that has been before you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He mentioned he has several pieces of property. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he does. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: The reason -- I mean, how we came upon this, the County did a bid-out. We had an order. And once -- it took 13 30-yard dumpsters to clean out the property. Once I got on to see exactly what was -- then that's when I took the action and opened up the case. I do have photos of the structures. I would like to submit eight photos. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Has he seen the photos? MR. KEEGAN : Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have a motion to introduce? MR. KELLY: Motion to introduce. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 68 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: Those just show some of the extensions. Both of these are an extension. Same thing. There's two extensions to the original mobile home. That is the original permitted mobile home right there. That's the side to one of the -- we called it, I guess, an open garage/carport kind of thing. It's being used for storage. That's just the back. That's the aluminum shed. That is the addition built onto the mobile home. A cinder block addition built onto a mobile home. That's the side of it. Another picture of the side of it. MR. PONTE: Are people living there? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Martel is. MR. KEEGAN: These I had drawn up so it will show you actually the correct size and what is actually out there, if you would like. I don't know if it would make a difference. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any questions or comments from the Board? MR. KRAENBRING: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No questions, okay. Then I will close the public hearing and go to the -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Martel? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I asked him. He already spoke. He didn't have much to say. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, in light of that, I would like to make a motion that a violation does exist. Page 69 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. County's recommendation, please. MR. KEEGAN: The County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board should order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$265.34 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining all Collier County after-the-fact building permits for all additions and improvements; must execute all issued permits so as to obtain all required inspections to the issuance of a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated; or, in the alternative, must obtain a Collier County demolition permit for removal of all not allowed, non-permitted additions and improvements and to request all inspections through to the issuance of a certificate of completion so as to restore premises to a state of compliance within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violated is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could you put that on the monitor, please. Page 70 January 24, 2008 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the investigator. Is there a particular reason that you have been so lenient in the amount of time to correct; 120 days? It seems a long time to me. MR. KEEGAN: It's pretty much standard with what we do with structures that long to go through the permits process. MR. KRAENBRING: George, I think when you look at the scope of the work that needs to be done here, this is probably a reasonable amount of time. I understand what you're saying about being lenient, but I think it is realistic in order to get it corrected. MR. PONTE: All right. Thank you. MR. KELL Y: If anything, I think it's a little short. If you think about the survey that needs to be done and then you need to have an architect draw up plans and you have got to get the new permits because they are not going to allow him probably to extend the old ones since they are so old, that is quite a bit of work. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORGAN: I think 90 days is a sufficient amount of time. MR. KRAENBRING: I'd have to disagree. I think the 120 and at that point, following Mr. Kelly's point, if the gentleman comes back to us and shows that he has been making progress and needed additional time just to get the work done, then we could address it at that time. But I wouldn't like to see the 120 days changed. I would keep it at that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd also like to see the operational costs to be paid within 30 days. MR. KEEGAN : Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: I will make a motion that we accept the County's recommendation with the changes of the operational costs be paid within 30 days of today's date. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 71 January 24, 2008 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you understand, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case will be the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Naples Property Services, LLC, Case No. 2007050653. MS. MARKU: For the record, I would like to ask if the respondent is present. MR. SIRAGUSA: Yes. MS. MARKU: The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence. And I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I will entertain a motion to accept the County's packet of evidence. MR. PONTE: So move. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 72 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Okay. Violation of ordinances 2004-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(c). Description of violation: Existing structure with interior and exterior alterations, and improvements without prior Collier County Zoning and Land Development review/approval. Location/address where violation exists: 865 95th Avenue North, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Douglas A. Wood, registered agent, 1000 North Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34102. Date violation first observed: May 21st, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 24th, 2007. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: August 24th, 2007. Date of reinspection: October 1 st, 2007. Result of reinspect ion: No permits issued, no work performed. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Ronald Martindale. Could I have both the respondent and the Code Enforcement Officer be sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KELL Y: I have got one question real quick. MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: On the statement of violation that we have for the case today it says that there's an existing structure with interior/exterior alterations, but on the notice of violation order to correct it said that there was a building -- existing building with interior/exterior damages or alterations that needed to be permitted, but it also says an accessory structure without Collier County permit. MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. Page 73 January 24, 2008 MR. KELL Y: That's all together in one? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. KELL Y: You might want to add that to the statement of violations then. MR. MARTINDALE: Okay. MR. KELL Y: All right. MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Investigator Ronald Martindale, Collier Code Enforcement. I would also like to submit this packet of photos of the site for evidence. MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Has Mr. Wood (sic) seen it? MR. MARTINDALE: No. Just for clarification, this is not Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood was a registered agent. This is the actual property owner, Mr. Charles Siragusa. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. who? MR. SIRAGUSA: Charles Siragusa, S-i-r-a-g-u-s-a. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Siragusa. Let him see it first, please. And just verify whether or not this is the structure. MR. MARTINDALE: This is the shed. This is the structure. These are the two. MR. SIRAGUSA: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that the structure? MR. SIRAGUSA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I will entertain a motion to accept. MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 74 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MARTINDALE: This case was initiated in May of2007 as a referral to me from the planning department by Planner David Hedrick. He requested that I enforce the code in reference to the structure being altered and a freestanding structure being built without permits. The accompanying photos -- this will answer your question, sir. A and C aerials point to the addition to the original structure there. That's the original permitted structure. A has been -- the wall has been knocked out and that's been enclosed. And C, the wall has been knocked out and enclosed. And up there -- the light is not hitting it correctly, but B, the top corner, that is the accessory structure that has been built. All of these have been added at some date without permits approved, posted, subsequent inspections and CO. So they are not permitted, nor have they ever been. I served the NOV on the 24th of May at the law office of the registered agent. I was later contacted on the 31 st of May by Mr. Siragusa. And he was referred to David Hedrick to find out exactly what he had to do to come into compliance. On the 9th day of August, he also contacted Mr. Hedrick and I was e-mailed with a -- where he had requested a brief extension, which was allowed. On 10-10 of 2007, I met with Mr. Siragusa; his architect, Bruce Cutler; my supervisor, Patty Petrulli; investigations supervisor David -- I don't have the last name down here. Page 75 January 24, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: Scribner. MR. MARTINDALE: Scribner. Where it was explained to Mr. Siragusa and Mr. Cutler, his architect, who I believe is also present today, what was required to come into compliance. I checked back on the 29th of November with Mr. Hedrick, who had been in contact with Mr. Siragusa several times. Mr. Hedrick couldn't be here today because he is on medical leave. But at that time on the 29th of November he advised that he had had no further contact with the respondent. Therefore, I posted this -- I posted the property on the 17th of December and set up a packet for this hearing. MR. SIRAGUSA: If I may. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. SIRAGUSA: I would like to request a continuance of the hearing date for 120 days. The reason being that the violations can be corrected and they will be corrected. I purchased the property approximately three years ago. When I purchased it, I had no knowledge of these problems. I have not in any way modified the building, touched it. I have done nothing to it. So what you see is what I purchased. Shortly after I spoke with Mr. Martindale, I attempted to get several architects. I tried -- I found one architect who supposedly had found the person who had done the initial designs for the building and had the initial site plan, which would obviously make it much easier. That architect wasn't able to get the site plans. The architect who had originally done the work was out of state. It was very difficult to find an architect who would do this work, quite honestly, six or seven months ago because they were quite busy. Since then I have found an architect. He is here. He is Mr. Bruce Cutler. Since I received the notice of the violations, I have met with Mr. Cutler twice. I have with me preliminary plans that Mr. Cutler has Page 76 January 24, 2008 prepared. I would like, in support of the continuance, for you to listen to Mr. Cutler, in terms of what he has done and what will need to be done in terms of the amount of time that it's going to take to make the corrections. The one thing that is clear is the corrections can be made. The two structures that I now learn should not be there, A and C and B, can be removed. They will be removed. The structure can be returned to its original condition. Another reason that not much was done in the past several months is it was occupied by a day care center. So while it was occupied by a day care center, it would have been rather difficult to get an architect to go in and out and start determining what needed to be done. What I would like to do is if you would listen to Mr. Cutler and he can tell you what it is that needs to be done. And he also has the preliminary plans. If you could, we can give a copy to Mr. Martindale or Mr. Cutler can put them on the overhead. If you will, if you can just go to the overhead and just explain to you what needs to be done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me stop for a second. Ifwe want to do a continuance, then we don't really need to go through all of that. MR. SIRAGUSA: I just wanted you to see that this is real. He's an AA architect. He really has done preliminary plans. I have spoken with him. I know he needs to meet with Mr. Hedrick, who is unavailable. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifwe decide not to go through the continuance, then we probably will listen to him. At that point we need to make a decision here. MR. KRAENBRING: Madam Chair, just a comment. The continuance I don't think is something that we should be considering now. We can have that written into the order that -- if you can do the Page 77 January 24, 2008 work in 120 days, fine. We're probably going to need to hear from the architect. If everyone is agreeing that this needs to be done, you have got plans set, then -- MR. SIRAGUSA: That's-- MR. KRAENBRING: -- that's about it. The fact -- MR. SIRAGUSA: May I respond? MR. KRAENBRING: Hold one second, sir. I'm not done talking yet. Find the fact that a violation does exist and allow the County to give them the amount of time necessary to correct the violation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, did you have input? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I was just going to state that the County objects to the continuance. That ifhe believes that he can correct the violation, we would recommend any time that he indicates he can correct it within to the time granted on the order, if the board finds a violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Two things. First of all, before I make a motion to deny the continuance, maybe a stipulated agreement may be a way to go. They can work out a stipulated agreement for 120 days or a recommendation for 120 days-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And table this? MR. LEFEBVRE: -- similar to what Rich said. That means I would like to make a motion to deny the continuance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 78 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. We are not going to grant the continuance. Do you want to try to work out a stipulated agreement with them? MS. ARNOLD: What I was going to suggest since we've -- the investigator has already done his testimony. He wants to just have his architect tell us how much time he thinks it is going to take him or whatever. MR. KELLY: That's what I wanted to comment. We're already here. And we understand. I think the board is pretty sympathetic. If you have the guy here and he's qualified-- MR. SIRAGUSA: He can speak to it, but it's impossible to get the permits and do the work in 120 days. They cannot be done. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. SIRAGUSA: I'm not familiar with the Collier County permitting process, but I have spoken with Mr. Cutler. And it's impossible to do the work and to get the permits in 120 days. MR. PONTE: Excuse me, you're the one who suggested 120 days. MR. SIRAGUSA: Perhaps what I should have asked for is a continuance to come back with a permit. Weare going to move to get the permits and apply for the permits as expeditiously as impossible. But what's not within my control or Mr. Cutler's as how quickly the Collier County Permitting Department will issue the permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We understand that. And we'll craft it accordingly. Let's go ahead and hear from your architect. MR. CUTLER: I haven't been sworn in. Page 79 January 24,2008 (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MARTINDALE: First off, for the record, my name is Bruce Cutler, C-u-t-I-e-r. I'm a registered architect in the state of Florida. My number, again for the record, AROO10992. What I would like to do is -- a couple of items I would like to have projected. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Then we have to enter it as evidence then, please. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. CUTLER: Before we go on, I'll just keep this slide here. You know, we're all in agreement that this here is the original building of about 800 square feet. Item A, which I consider the south addition, is about 160 square feet. It is my understanding it was an existing open area at one point. It was built -- it was built without a -- it was enclosed without a permit. And the same would apply to item C. Neither Mr. Siragusa or I know when that shed was built. We agree that that will be demolished, leaving the existing 800 square-foot building that has the number 865 on it. This section here. So we will keep that. Page 80 January 24, 2008 But if we can look at the drawing that I have, the demolition plan which I prepared. Turn that 90 degrees. If you can turn that around. MS. ARNOLD: This way? MR. CUTLER: Yes. Zoom that back a little bit. This dotted line here, we are going to take that down and then leaving this section to be modified. Now, we are -- it is going to involve a little bit more than just taking down the illegal, unpermitted appendages that were built. What I want to do is bring that central area -- that original building to code. To do that, if we would look at the next drawing. Again, this was drawn at quarter-inch scale, so it's ready to go right into construction drawings. We're going to need to address, you know, a new entry and a handicapped entry, as you can see on the side, which will be well within the setback. On that back part there is an existing exit. On the north end you see the north arrow. And I want to see if we need that exit. I will have to check with the -- with the code, the building department and so forth. Weare going to rip out the existing bathroom. I know that's not an issue with this board, but just to give you an idea of what the scope and time that I'm going to need and what is going to be involved. We need to put a handicap-compliant and accessible toilet room, as well as the lighting, the electrical. I want to make sure that is all well and good and make sure we are okay with the air conditioning and so on. I'm also going to put a new storefront at the -- in the front that you can see. So typically we probably need at least a minimum of 90 days to go for permit. I would like to -- because what I don't know -- what is sort of the unknown at this point is see if we need a site development plan or an amendment of a site development plan. And that sometimes takes extra time. I wouldn't be in control of what time frame they would need. Page 81 January 24, 2008 I mean, the actual construction drawings, I could probably do that within 45 days or so. You know, just to try to get in between all of the other drawings and -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How long -- MR. CUTLER: -- other work that I have. What I don't know -- one moment. I don't know what the site -- you know, I would use an engineer that is more familiar with the site development or amendment process. I'm not sure what that is going to be at this time. But we would need to -- now, this is also a -- was a nonconforming structure. It is five feet from the west setback. That's the top of the screen there. And that's been acceptable. It is just -- you know, just to do the architectural drawings, I'm not sure what we need in terms of, like I said, the site development goes. I want to make sure that that is okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a question for you. How long do you think it would take you to get everything ready to go in for -- MR. CUTLER: Permit? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- permit? MR. CUTLER: If it doesn't involve -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Worst case scenario. MR. CUTLER: Well, if it doesn't involve the site, you know, review process, I can do the drawings in about -- I would want at least 45 days just to -- again, the actual drawing time and preparation time doesn't take that long, but it's scheduling and working in between. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The reason I ask that is a lot of times, just to give you a familiarity of what we'll do in a case like this, we'll set a time frame where you have to go in to present for a permit. And then once you have obtained the permit, we give you "X" amount of times -- MR. CUTLER: To build it. Page 82 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- to get it completed. That's how we handle that so that you don't have that issue that you guys are concerned about. MR. CUTLER: Okay. So you're not going to say, well, you have got so many days to abate everything completely. I would -- well, I would want at least 120 days to -- this is assuming we might need the site -- to address the site issues, go through the necessary paperwork. We were going to call Mr. Hedrick after this meeting. I assume he's not available at his office at this moment. I want to talk to him in the next -- try to reach him tomorrow or the beginning of the week. The question is I know he needs some lead time to meet. MR. MARTINDALE: If I may, Mr. Hedrick will be -- he will be out until April, I believe, on medical leave. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is there someone taking his place? MR. MARTINDALE: I would refer him to Mr. Ross Gochenaur. He's David's supervisor. And they will provide him with someone else. MR. CUTLER: Okay. We'll write that down afterwards. Okay. So we would contact that office in the next couple of business days to set up a meeting, find out exactly what needs to be done. I have to give this to my engineer. I don't know how long any of the site review boards and -- how long they take. I don't think it would be much. We have an existing building. Weare not adding to. The only addition we're doing is an outdoor, uncovered handicapped facility basically, you know, just to get in the building. Just to let you know, that floor elevation is about 18 inches above grade. So that's why we need the steps and, you know, take care of all that. So I would want at least 100 -- for permit, go to 120 days. That would take us until -- I would like, say, until-- let's see. I'm thinking Page 83 January 24, 2008 out loud here. I would like until June 1st anyway. That is a little more than 120 days. If you're more comfortable, this is 24th, we could -- at least until May 24th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. CUTLER: At least to have gone for permit. And then what will we do, just decide how much time you want to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll get into that in the board. We'll go through that. MR. CUTLER: So if you have any other questions -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody have any questions? MR. KRAENBRING: This building will not be occupied during that time? MR. CUTLER: No, no. It is not occupied now. Just to add, I was just given the go-ahead to start looking at the -- what we could do to the actual architectural part of it. I was just given the go-ahead to do that -- well, January 3rd was when I was -- when I was notified of this hearing and basically given the go-ahead to get started. I didn't want to do too much obviously until we ran it by you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I will close the public hearing and go to the board. Finding of fact. MR. KELLY: I would find that -- I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 84 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KELLY: My comment is this: I'm a little torn. The violation pertains to additions constructed without a permit. Testimony says that they are going to demo those violations. That's an over-the-counter 10-minute application. All of this other stuff would be to benefit the property owner, but it is not necessarily related to abating the violation. So I would like to be lenient, but at the same time keep in mind that we're just really concentrating about abating the violations. MR. CUTLER: Can I -- I think that I would have to interject something. I agree with Mr. Kelly. I mean, it would not take long to demo the building and go in for a demo permit. However, we are going to have open areas and I wouldn't want to see the building compromised. When this is demoed -- when this piece is removed, we are going to have -- this is all pretty much open. It will be open. That's an open space, which I probably didn't clarify that. That will be open. This will be open. Where you see the dark lines here, here and here will be open to weather. Now, I suppose we could blue tarp it, but I don't think we would -- I guess we were just trying to get this all done at once. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Very important. Thank you. MR. CUTLER: I probably didn't clarify those open areas that would exist once the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Demolition was -- MR. CUTLER: Once everything was removed. MR. KELL Y: Thank you, sir. Page 85 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that's a pertinent fact, because I think that would leave it open to then a safety hazard. MR. CUTLER: And vandalism. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And vandalism. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we find that -- just to take the temperature of the board here, 90 days, 120 days? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I wanted to go ahead and look and see what the County had proposed and then we can craft from that. MR. KRAENBRING: Sure. MR. MARTINDALE: Our recommendation is obtain all required permits, inspections all through the certificate of completion within 20 days or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. MR. PONTE: Is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 120 days? MR. MARTINDALE: I'm sorry? MR. PONTE: Does that read-- MR. MARTINDALE: I'm sorry. It is 120 days or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated or obtain Collier County demolition permit through certificate of completion within 60 days or a fine of $200 will be imposed. The respondent must notify myself, as a Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, within 24 hours of the compliance of the order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KELLY: Investigator, what is the operational costs? MR. MARTINDALE: Operational costs of$357.86, I believe. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you stick that on the monitor for us. MR. MARTINDALE: Sure. I don't have the operational costs on this because I just obtained those yesterday. It is $357.86. MR. CUTLER: Excuse me. So are you recommending 60 days? You have a-- MR. MARTINDALE: This was my initial recommendation. Page 86 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We are going to work from that. We're not done. MR. CUTLER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MARTINDALE: The reason doing so is demo permits are relatively easy to obtain quickly. And that's why the 60 days, as opposed to the -- MR. CUTLER: Right. As I had said from the time we go through -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. Excuse me, you're done. It's up to us. Thank you. In our discussions -- I'm just going to say that we had mentioned that they needed to try to apply for the permits within 120 days and then from there we were going to -- after they had received the permits, give them "X" amount of days for completion. I know Mr. Kelly is looking -- MR. KELLY: Only because in the past when we have submitted -- when we had orders that called for a submittal date, many times the review process requires a back and forth action to where you have to correct your submittal and then resubmit. And they may -- you make it 120 days, but then a permit is not issued until three years later because somebody is dragging their feet and not resubmitting for an SDP amendment or whatever it might be. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I guess then we have the other option that they can come back and say they needed more time due to the fact that the -- problems with the permitting. MR. KELLY: It's a possibility, but there is also a variance issue on the setback. I mean, that could possibly get caught up in approvals and boards and everything else. MR. PONTE: Well, we have got so many variables here that might be. I think we ought to just take a line and say it's 120 days for everything here and then come back and take a look at it. What is the Page 87 January 24, 2008 report? Where are they 120 days from now? It has been suggested it might be less than 120 days depending on this or depending on that. May 24th was a suggested date by the architect. I think we just say 120 days and that's it, nice and clear, let us know where we are. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: George, I can see that for getting the permits and starting the inspection. But getting the certificate of completion, I mean, they have a lot of buildings to tear -- to tear down and they are going to -- MR. PONTE: The teardown will take no time at all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. They are also going to revamp some of the structure itself. I don't know how we can say that they need to get inspections and CO within 120 days. That's where I'm having a problem. MS. ARNOLD: Can I interject? Just kind of going off of what Mr. Kelly indicated earlier about the demolition, if it is at all possible for them to remove those structures that were added without permits and then board up the openings that were suggested -- and the County has a boarding certificate process that is free that maybe we can address the security issues, as well as the exposure to the elements to board up those -- I'm looking to the architect because he is the one that maybe can answer whether or not that would resolve that issue, if you allow him to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. CUTLER: I don't recommend it. I would say let's just, you know, do it at once. You know, that way we don't have a problem with demoing everything and -- you know, like in the next few weeks and then taking time to finish the drawings and get -- if there are any SDP protocols necessary. I would rather leave that as a construction site for as little as possible and pretty much do everything in as tight of a frame as possible. I think demoing it and then leaving it boarded up for a Page 88 January 24, 2008 couple of months and then starting the construction phase will not only -- I think that would be more of an eyesore than what you have got now. And you're creating more -- I think you're creating more problems than you're solving. I think it would be better aesthetically, safety-wise, protection of the elements -- MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Cutler, let me just ask you a question. How much time would you need for construction; for demolition and repair to the exterior? MR. CUTLER: Well, when we say repair, in the interior -- MR. KRAENBRING: Exterior. MR. CUTLER: Once we do all the architectural work on the existing 800 square feet? I would have to double check with my contractor to see how much time he would need. MR. KRAENBRING: Thirty days, 60 days? MR. CUTLER: Well, I would think 60 to 90 days would do it, but that is out of my control. MR. KRAENBRING: The thing is you're going to have a fair amount of time to get your ducks in a row. 120 days, as far as to get together with your contractor. MR. CUTLER: I guess I would like that for -- Mr. Ponte is it? MR. PONTE: Yeah. MR. CUTLER: As he suggested, let's do as much as we can in the next 20 days, go at it full throttle and hopefully we're okay to have that permitted within 120 days or less. The reason I'm allowing more time is just there is kind of -- there is a question mark with the SDP Issue. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. CUTLER: Again, I would like to do this all at once, rather than piecemeal. MR. KELL Y: Let me just air this out to the board for your consideration. It might not sound like it, but I'm really trying to help Page 89 January 24, 2008 the respondent. Because I honestly believe that the longer we as a board are caught into it and this order is restricting the time frame, I don't think the respondent is going to have the opportunity to do what he needs to do with this property. He's a businessman. He wants to get this renovation completed so he can rent that place. What I suggest we do is take care of the violations and get the board and the order abated and resolved so that there is no looming timeline, no every day we're being fined "X" number of dollars. He doesn't have a problem in case he wants to get financing because there's a lien against the property because we had to impose fines; whatever might come ifhe ever needed to get a variance or ifhe ever needed a site development plan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which means that he would have to go through the demolition process and board it up as the County has suggested. MR. KELL Y: That's my suggestion. And then you take as long as you want to do, whatever construction you -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not what you want to do but, in fact, it might be more expedient for you. Because if we put into our order that you have 120 days to get your permits and get everything done and it doesn't happen, the fines are going to start accruing and then you're going to be back in front of us stating why it happened. And we'll have to decide whether or not we're going to make them go away. So if we can convince you to do it in a two-step process, realizing you're taking that risk, that is what we're looking at as your protection. MR. PONTE: I don't think that that is such a great idea. We have professional advice here suggesting -- it makes sense to me that it all should be done in one action and 120 days might get it done. It might not get it done in 120 days. But people who have come before this board many, many, many Page 90 January 24, 2008 times said, I can't get it done because I'm holding up in permits, I'm having problems with that. Can I have an extension? I am sure it will be done in 60 days. And they get the extension. So I just think that we have some fixed dates and do it as simply as possible and easily as possible. Not start one job as demolishing and then trying to put up security items to keep the place secure. All of these don't exist as a problem right now. Let it be. Get to work. Do it in 120 days. If you can't do it in 120 days, come back here and say, we are stuck. We are waiting to get "X" permits. Okay. We've heard the case. We'll do it again. MR. MORGAN: I agree with my colleague here. Let the contractor be responsible for whatever he does. Would you be opposed, Mr. Martindale, to leaving out item number two? MR. MARTINDALE: Number two on the demo permit? MR. MORGAN: Yes. Let him take 120 days and complete his work. Let him take care of his business. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's only if he doesn't -- item two is if he doesn't want to do the item one. Gerald had a comment. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree with part ofMr. Ponte's statement. And I don't agree with the part where -- just give 120 days. I think that we should leave it as is because it seems like there are some large openings that would have to be closed up. And the property is currently secured and going in you would probably have to build two by four walls and put up some kind of plywood, which could possibly compromise the structure and allow vandalism and so forth within the structure. So I think it should be left as IS. But I feel that we should possibly give some strict dates on when the items -- certain items should be completed. Meaning, to submit a complete submittal for permits and so forth in a certain amount of Page 91 January 24, 2008 time. And then once those are issued, everything is issued, a certain amount of time to complete the work. I think that might be a way to define time frames and what needs to be done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That is kind of where I was leading with. MR. CUTLER: May I interject? MR. PONTE: That is micromanaging the project. And what we are to do is let the professionals get along with it and give them 120 days from start to finish. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, by doing this, this gives them the leeway. If there is something -- for some reason the County takes three months, it is not on their clock and they don't have to come back to us. So we will know when they have to have a complete submittal to the County. The clock stops there. And then once they are approved to go ahead and do the work, the clock starts again. And those periods are very finite and we will know exactly when those dates are. And we could start fining if they do not meet those time frames. MR. PONTE: It just seems that we're micromanaging the project. MR. MORGAN: I don't want to manage the contractor's project. He knows how he's going to execute his project. It's up to him because he is the architect. He has a contractor lined up. And they probably -- the investor or the owner, he has a deadline that he wants the job finished so he can start recouping some of his money back. That's the worst thing in the world you can do is to try to manage a contractor's plan to execute his work. We don't know how he is going to do it. He knows how he's going to do it. MR. KELLY: I personally -- I don't agree. And I don't think that it is the best use of this board, the respondent, the architect, the Page 92 January 24,2008 County, the contractor's time to come back for extensions or come back for requests for -- MR. PONTE: We don't know that there will be extensions. We don't know that it won't be completed in 120 days. MR. CUTLER: I have got to tell you, in may. Historically-- MR. KELLY: The architect himself has said-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're not really supposed to be interjecting now, unless we ask you a question. MR. KELLY: The architect has already said he can't do it in 120 days. MR. CUTLER: I can't promise 120 days. MR. KELLY: My suggestion is let them get the demo permit. It is three and a half sheets of plywood, judging by the dimensions that are on his own drawing. You know, let him paint it white or whatever color the building face is. MS. ARNOLD: Well, as part of our boarding certificate process, they are required to paint over it so it doesn't look like an eyesore. It is supposed to kind of blend with the original structure so that we are not dealing with something sticking out like a sore thumb. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We seem to be at an impasse, but I need to have a motion one way or the other and we'll see if they pass. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Kelly, would you like to-- MR. PONTE: I will make a motion to accept the violation and the recommendation as has been forwarded by the County, with the exception that item two -- number two about demolition also read 120 days. MR. MORGAN: I will second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 93 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That one didn't pass. Let's move forward and entertain a different motion. MR. KELL Y: I will take a stab at it. Pay operational costs of $357.86 within 30 days of this hearing. Two, abate all violations by securing a demolition permit, inspections and certificate of occupancy within 120 days or a fine of $200 per day. Number three, notify code enforcement within 24 hours that the violation has been abated so that they can verify. And the 120 days can be adjusted as needed. MR. KRAENBRING: And a certificate of completion? MR. KELLY: Completion, occupancy, whatever they call it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Just a question for the County. Would they issue a certificate of occupancy then once that demolition is completed? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. I will second. MR. KELL Y: I'm sorry. Real quick, Richard. Michelle, if they just did the demo without the boarding permit, would I have to put in a boarding permit here as well, or is that all inclusive? MS. ARNOLD: No. It's a separate permit, but they can -- once they do their -- they can do it at the same time. Get the boarding certificate, as well as the demo permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You don't need to enter it in your MR. KELLY: As a formality, I will amend my motion to include a demolition permit and a boarding certificate. MR. KRAENBRING: Again, I will second that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 94 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's try again. Third time might be the charm. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm writing it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald is on his. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I say one thing? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. KRAENBRING: One thing I liked about Mr. Kelly's motion was that it does offer the 120 days. Certainly they are going to be progressing towards getting all of their permits at that time. We're just saying that at minimum they should have their demolition permit. MR. KELL Y: Agree. Nothing stops the respondent from continuing to work on their permits. Are we lobbying now? MR. KRAENBRING: I think we're coming to a consensus. That gives -- it sort of helps George with his issue of the 120 days, gets the work done, and then they can go ahead and proceed on. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think George's problem was opening it up and then boarding it up and then waiting for the permits to get through because it might take a long period of time. And we have no way of foreseeing that. I think that's what George's problem was with the case. MR. PONTE: Is, not was. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is. We haven't done that, so-- MR. KRAENBRING: I think -- Mr. Kelly's comment that it is just a few pieces of plywood that -- you know, I have been a Page 95 January 24, 2008 contractor for a long time. It's probably used in the rest of the construction. I don't think it's a hardship. And I think it does solve the problems with the time line. MR. MORGAN: This is a simple job. Let the contractor plan his work. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's what we're doing, though. MR. MORGAN: I don't want to plan his work for him. He knows how he's going to execute his work. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think he's lobbying for his. MR. KRAENBRING: I understand. I think it is a matter of -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald, are you done yet? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. I'm working. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think this is the first time in six years that I've been up here that we've had a complete deadlock. And it must be because it's my last day. MR. CUTLER: If I can -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not allowed to let you speak. We have closed the hearing. MR. KELL Y: In ask a question of the respondent, would that be allowed? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You can ask him a question, yes. MR. KELLY: No offense, I would actually like to talk to the respondent and not the architect, if you would. MR. SIRAGUSA: Yes. Thank you. MR. KELL Y: Since you're the one cutting the check, you have heard both sides. Do you have an opinion? MR. SIRAGUSA: If you want to put a deadline on by which I have to apply for the permit, that's fine. Because I can make the application. The only issue I have is knowing when I will get the permit to do the building. MR. KELLY: Exactly. And part two of our order would be when the work would have to be completed. So if we said 120 days or Page 96 January 24, 2008 30 days to submit, whatever it might be, part two of that order is going to be and then 100 and so many days to get the work done. So we are still only talking about seven, eight months, nine months from now. MR. PONTE: So do you want to re-craft and say he has 30 days to get the permits and 120 days to complete? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's crafting it. MR. KELLY: You're still back at the possibility of, you know, a variance or a site development plan, resubmittals. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Not if you state in there, once they have obtained the permit. Go ahead, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: This may take some modification, massaging, but let me try this. That the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all fines by: One, within 90 days submit a complete package for permitting. Once the permit -- number two, once the permit is issued, respondent has 90 days to complete all work and receive a CO or certificate of completion. Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement Board within 24 hours of compliance in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. MS. ARNOLD: You need to say how many days after the permit was obtained. MR. LEFEBVRE: 90 days to complete all work and receive a CO. Is that something that we can -- MR. PONTE: I can live with that. I think that sounds good to me. MR. KELLY: The 90 on the construction part might be a little short. MR. PONTE: But you can start it earlier. I mean, ifhe gets the permits before 90 days, you start. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. Page 97 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: You don't have to go through the whole 180 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The problem is the clock doesn't start until once he gets the permits, then he has 90 days to complete the building. MR. LEFEBVRE: This takes out the time where the County may, for some reason, take three months, four months. Now it takes it out of their control. They are not -- it is not on their time. MR. PONTE: Right. I support what you're suggesting. Could this -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, does he need a demolition permit though still in order to demolish those buildings? MR. CUTLER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we need to have that in that order, as well. Because in his process of building he has to have a demolition permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Number three would be: Obtain demolition permit. I mean, whatever way we want to -- MR. PONTE: No. I don't think you have to get that detailed. Just to obtain the permits. The required permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Once all permits are issued, respondent has 90 days to complete all work and receive CO or a certificate of completion. MR. PONTE: I think that is correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Maybe go to 120 days or something. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm asking for, before we go to motion, some consensus here where we can have it and the third time is the charm. MR. KELLY: That's okay. My point is going to be about the middle part. Like the dash in between the two time frames. We just automatically assume it's County that drags its feet. However, we have been -- we have had cases that were brought in front of us by the Page 98 January 24, 2008 County where there had been, you know, a submittal and then-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Respondent must be continually working. MR. KELL Y: There you go. MR. PONTE: But we also know from our own professional experience, and even as you suggested, that the owner is a businessman and wants to turn this into an income-producing property as quickly as possible. So I don't think we'll have the dragging. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just to make sure that we don't, we'll put it in there just to cover ourselves. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to stress in number one is that a complete package by the respondent is to be submitted within 90 days, which now means -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And all follow-up with the County must be completed. MR. KELLY: Follow through until permits are obtained. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Jean, have you gotten-- MS. RAWSON: I've deleted it and rewritten it about four times, but yes, I think I'm with you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you hear the part Sheri interjected? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Since you may have the most up-to-date version, can you just repeat, if that is possible, the-- MS. RAWSON: By applying for all Collier County permits and pursuing the same within 90 days. Once the permits are obtained by completing all work through, with related inspections, through to the issuance of certificate of completion within -- I think it is another 90 days? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 120 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. Page 99 January 24, 2008 Before we take a vote -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If that is your motion, I need a second. MR. PONTE: I will second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now we'll take a vote. Before you want -- you wanted to have a call. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. I was going to ask the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, we don't ask the respondent. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion on the floor and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think this time it carries. MR. LEFEBVRE: So do you want to explain it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. We can explain it to you. MR. SIRAGUSA: When you say the permit, you may have to add the words site development plan, if needed. MR. KRAENBRING: That's covered. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That will cover it because we said to continue to work diligently with it. MR. SIRAGUSA: But it's my understanding that one could get a permit, but maybe you wouldn't have the site development plan. Are they separate or from the same authority? MR. CUTLER: Well, we can probably start getting the process going for the site development plan. MR. SIRAGUSA: My question is, I don't know if the County -- Page 100 January 24, 2008 the portion of the County that issues the building permit would also be the one that would issue the site development plan or if it's different? MR. CUTLER: I think they're separate. MR. KELLY: The point is is that you are submitting for the process. That basically says that within 90 days you're going to submit, whether you need to start with an SDP amendment or whether you need to start with your actual permit application. The fact is that you're starting it within 90 days. MR. CUTLER: So if we submit and it's kicked back, that doesn't go against us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It won't go against you until you get your permit in hand and you're ready to start construction. MR. CUTLER: Or if we submit -- well, you don't have the site development plan complete, even though we're working on it -- MR. SIRAGUSA: To clarify, until we get -- the clock doesn't tick until we get the permit and the site development plan, if needed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We said permit. MR. KELLY: You're not going to get the permit before the SDP. MR. CUTLER: You can't get the permit before the SDP. MR. KELL Y: The one thing that can catch you is if County sends back the packet and says, listen, this permit is no good. You'll have to get a site development plan amendment, and you fail to follow up expeditiously. MR. SIRAGUSA: That won't be a problem. MR. KELL Y: With that review process make sure you resubmit as many times as they take it back for whatever reason and make sure that you follow up. That's the one thing that can catch up. MS. ARNOLD: Can I interject? There was no fines indicated on that motion whatsoever. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: And so -- there is no catch. So I don't know if you need to restate your motion and revote. Page 10 1 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: You're absolutely right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have to withdraw the motion at this point? MR. LEFEBVRE: Am I amending it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to withdraw it, don't we, first? MS. RAWSON: You have to withdraw it because you passed it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll withdraw. MS. RAWSON: Start over again. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to withdraw Gerald's motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Number one, if we put in --let's keep the fines at $200. Number two, $200 also. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now I have a motion on the floor with the imposed fines. MR. PONTE: I will second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 102 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: So can I just reiterate? Operational costs in the amount of$357.86. Obtain all required permits, which would include any site development plan that would be applicable within -- sorry, not obtained. Submit for all required permits. So that could include site development plan, building permits and demo permits, which could be submitted concurrently and reviewed concurrently, just so you understand. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And to diligently -- MS. ARNOLD: Within 90 days and pursue that submittal with due diligence or a fine of $200 per day. Once the permits are obtained, complete all work with inspections and certificate of completion or CO, whichever is applicable, within 120 days or a fine of $200 per day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. And the notification to the code enforcement officer within 24 hours. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. SIRAGUSA: Thank you. Very fair and very creative. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time we'll take a 10-minute break. (Recess.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I would like to call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board back to order. The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Cynthia -- I'm not going to even attempt it -- Aurelio Markle. I hope I said that and didn't mess it up too terribly bad. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. 2006060005. For the record, I would like to find out if the respondent is present. Page 103 January 24, 2008 (No response.) MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the Board were sent a packet of evidence. And I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. MARKU: For violation of Ordinances 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1O.02.06(B)(1), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(I)(d), as renumbered 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e) and Section 10.02.06 (B)(l)(d)(i), renumbered as 10.02.06 (l)(e)(i), and the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 22, Article II, 104.1.3.5, 106.1.2, Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Section 105.1, 105.7, 111.1. Description of violation: Violation of interior non-permitted construction. Location/address where violation exists: 4442 Wilder Road, Naples, Florida, 34105. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Cynthia Aurelio Markle, 4442 Wilder Road, Naples, Florida 34105. Date violation first observed: June 1st, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: July 10th, Page 104 January 24, 2008 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 10th, 2006. Date of reinspection: August 11 th, 2006. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you swear him in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case started on 6-1-06 by Investigator Heinz Box. When he originally got this case, he attempted to contact the property owner, Mrs. Markle. After several attempts, he was unable to. Finally, he was able to get ahold of Ms. Markle on 7/10/06, and she went down to the County building and was explained about the partition wall that she had inside of her garage, that it needed to either be permitted or it needed to be removed. At that time she signed the NOV and was issued a copy and was given until August 10, '06 to do either one. After rechecks on 7/18 and 8/2 and 8/11, owner still hadn't applied for a permit for either one, either the demolition or the permit for keeping the partition wall. The case was prepped for court. And after numerous rechecks after that, still the lady still did not apply for the permits. On 9/21 I received the case. The owner had sent a letter to Commissioner Coyle, which will be put up on the screen, that she felt CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we need to enter that evidence as packet B? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 105 January 24, 2008 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: This is going to be hard for you to read. I'm going to put it on the visualizer, but if you could maybe share a copy of it. MR. PAUL: Real briefly, what the letter says is that Mrs. Markle felt that her neighbors were harassing her and felt that they were using the State and the County as a way of harassing her and making her life miserable. And once this letter was sent over, around that same time frame I had gotten this case. And myself and Supervisor Suzanne Capasso (phonetic) set up a meeting with Mrs. Markle. And we went down to the residence and explained to her her options. And on that same day I did observe that her daughter and her son-in-law and the child was -- were living inside of the garage on the other end of the partition wall. And the other side of the wall was being used as storage. Once explained all her options, she was told she needed to call permitting to set up an appointment so that they can further explain to her what she needs to do. She was given an extension at that time. And a month later, on 10/8, I went over to the property to speak with Mrs. Markle and I asked her what she was doing with the situation. And at that time she said that she wasn't going to do anything. And that she felt that they were going to foreclose on her home anyways, so she wasn't going to do anything. After several rechecks -- and Mrs. Suzanne Capasso gave her a Page 106 January 24, 2008 call on the phone and was unable to get ahold of her, prepped the case for CEB and the property was posted on 12/12/07 for the notice of hearing. And I have been unable to get ahold of Mrs. Markle. And the property is not in foreclosure. MR. PONTE: I wonder if we could pause here and give us a chance to read this letter. I was listening to the testimony from the investigator, now I would like to focus on the letter. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Have you finished the first page? MR. PONTE: I have not. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a question in regards to her letter. She states that she applied for a permit to put in three single French doors coming out of the two bedrooms into the garage storage area and put in an application and was told that she had to include the garage area, so she did, by a gentleman with a long ponytail that worked at the County. Do we happen to know who that gentleman is? MR. PAUL: The gentleman she is talking about is Jeff Kuskow (phonetic). I guess, he was either a supervisor or a manager, I believe, in engineering. He is no longer there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we find any applications or anything? MR. PAUL: I have the application here when she originally filled out the permit for the closet doors, but the thing is this wasn't the violation that she needed to correct. It might have been -- what it is is she did these things and then applied for the permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So it was an after-the-fact permit? MR. PAUL: Right. But she also had that wall in there that she needed to also permit, which she didn't do. This permit application and the permit itself does not include this wall. Here is the permit right here. Page 107 January 24,2008 MR. KELL Y: Was there a CO issued for that permit? MR. PAUL: No, it wasn't. It was just issued. It was never CO'd. But she will be putting up the copy of the permit for the interior walls and such, but no such permit for that partition wall. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The partition wall is from the main house into the garage or -- MR. PAUL: It is all one. It is all one residence. The garage is connected to the house. It is just once you walk into the garage -- I have some photos here. Once you walk into the garage, all you see is this big wall and then like this little opening which goes into the rest of the garage. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Are you done, George? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I will show you the permit now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Should we enter these as evidence packets, I guess, C, including the pictures -- the permit and the pictures? MR. KELLY: Make a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: This is just the last page of the letter. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, yes. Page 108 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: What is that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Hat-racking. We have had cases here because they have done that. They cut the top of the trees and then -- MR. PONTE: All right. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you, George. I thought I was missing something. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It weakens the trees. I learned all about that here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Two years ago, three years ago it was. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I'm going to zoom in on the description of the work. MR. PAUL: As you can see, it only says to take down the closet and we'll paint the garage. It doesn't refer to the wall whatsoever. That needs to be either permitted or removed. MR. KELL Y: Is this the permit for the doors -- the French doors? MR. PAUL: Yes. MR. KELLY: Well, it doesn't say the doors either. MR. KRAENBRING: Is there another permit out there for the doors or -- MR. PAUL: I believe that was the only one. MR. KELLY: Michelle, before you move that, how old is this permit? MR. PAUL: '05. MR. KELLY: Okay. Thanks. MR. PAUL: These are the drawings she submitted when she submitted for this permit in '05. As you can see, there was no partition wall in that drawing. MR. KELL Y: Can you point to where the wall is now? MS. ARNOLD: Do it on here. MR. PAUL: I stand to be corrected. It does show the partition Page 109 January 24, 2008 wall. MR. KELL Y: Using two by fours every 12 inches on center. MR. KRAENBRING: So the wall was there when she submitted for the permit? MR. PAUL: Yes. It must have been. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what her letter states is that that was already done and she was told she had to submit that in when she wanted to make the door changes, too. She kind of tried to include it all in one. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. But we don't really have a door permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We don't have a door permit. MR. KRAENBRING: And we don't have an after-the-fact permit for the wall? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We don't have a completed permit. MR. KELLY: That's the key. We don't have a completed permit. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. Correct. So we're just asking her to come in and get her permits? MR. PAUL: What she is going to have to do is she is going to have to get those doors CO'd, but she's also going to have to get a permit to either keep the wall in there and keep one end as a living space or whatever she is going to do with it, or she is going to have to remove the wall, have a demolition. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a question. Because you say she has to get the doors CO'd. Wouldn't she have to get a permit for the doors, too? Hasn't that permit expired? MR. PAUL: Correct. She is going to have to resubmit for another permit for that and then get that CO'd. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just want to get that clarification. If she just had to get a CO for that, then I was going to Page 110 January 24,2008 say the wall was included on that permit. So that would have created an issue. MR. PAUL: Yeah. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you want to move to a finding of fact? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you want to move to a finding of fact? Anymore questions? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to see the pictures or no? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you want to see the pictures? Go ahead. MR. PAUL: Now, these pictures show that the -- the daughter and the son-in-law were living inside of that area. Living inside of the garage. This is all their stuff that was in there. That is the best picture I could get. That was the storage area. It was so dark in there. And they have a kitchen sink in there and they have a ceiling fan in there and such. So they were living in there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now I will close the public hearing. Move to a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I will make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 111 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Your recommendations. MR. PAUL: County recommends the respondent pay operational costs in the amount of $320.05 incurred in the prosecution ofthis case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondent is to -- respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements and alterations to this residence or obtain permits for removal of all unpermitted improvements to this property within 14 days of the date of this order, and obtain all required inspections and COs within 60 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day the violation remains unabated. The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Investigator when the violation has been abated. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you put that on the screen for us, please. MR. PONTE: Let me just jump in here for a second while we're reading that. The penalties here are severe. $200 a day fine for this sort of violation. We have people that come in here with gas stations with tanks that are open and we fine them $200 a day. $200 a day is very high for this violation. MR. KELLY: But it looked like there was some plumbing and electrical work done, which could also be a health violation. MR. PONTE: It could be a health violation. We didn't touch during the testimony that there were safety hazards. And if there are, then why is it 60 days as opposed to 30 days? MR. KRAENBRING: George, do you have a suggestion on the amount of the penalty? MR. PONTE: I'm sorry? MR. KRAENBRING: Do you have a suggestion on the dollar Page 112 January 24, 2008 amount of the penalty? MR. PONTE: No. It is just open for discussion. I just thought-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: First off, I correct the recommendation. It's not the special master, it's the CEB, just to start. And I am not supposed to direct, but I'm kind of leaning more towards like $100 a day. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. MR. KELLY: How much is the operational costs again? MR. PONTE: $320.05. MR. KELL Y: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The only reason I'm saying $100 a day is in my mind this has gone on a long time. I think possibly she didn't understand that she needed to follow up with the permits and get COs and those types of things. She may understand that now. I don't know. Back then I don't know if she did. MR. PAUL: She does understand. She's just not going to do it. She's told me flat out she wasn't going to do it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. She'll have some fines then, I guess. MR. LEFEBVRE: It would be after-the-fact permit, correct? MR. KELL Y: Well, you might still be able to get an extension on the old one, perhaps. I don't know what their -- MS. ARNOLD: They might. MR. KELLY: It's possible. It's only a couple years old. MR. KRAENBRING: Another thing, it's incomplete. It doesn't include the doors or the wall. It included removal of the closet. MR. KELL Y: Yet the drawing did show the wall. It just says interior improvements. Does that include the door? That is something for them to straighten out. I like the order. MR. KRAENBRING: With the $200 or $1 OO? MR. KELLY: Whatever pleases the board. Page 113 January 24,2008 MR. KRAENBRING: I will make a motion that -- first off, we have amended the recommendation to show that it is the board and not the special master. That you include the operational costs of $320.05 to be paid within 30 days. And that we amend item one to reduce the fine to $100 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. PAUL: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Can I make a motion to change the order of the agenda? If we have anyone that is being represented by an attorney, to help them avoid attorney's fees, if we can move them up. Is that okay? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't have a problem with that. I don't know. Do we have someone in the audience that has that case? MR. FLOOD: Right here. UNKNOWN PERSON: An engineer. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And an engineer. Okay. The attorney's case is -- MR. FLOOD: James Bachmann. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Bachmann, number 13. And the engineer's case? Page 114 January 24, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: It is imposition of fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It is imposition of fines. That is going to have to wait then. I'm sorry. We have to hear these cases first. I will take you as the first imposition of fines. We'll do it that way. UNKNOWN PERSON: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case we'll hear is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus James Bachmann. MR. KELL Y: Thank you, Sheri. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. 2006090001. For the record, the respondent is present. The board and the respondent were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. FLOOD: No objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I entertain a motion to accept the County's -- MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1.04.01 and 2.02.03. Page 115 January 24,2008 Description of violation: Unauthorized prohibited above-ground pool in agricultural zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 1180 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 34104. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: James Bachmann, 1180 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: August 31 st, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: July 6th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 20th, 2007. Date of reinspection: July 23rd, 2007. Results of reinspection: Above-ground pool not removed. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I have you swear in all parties? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SCAVONE: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. This case is in reference to Case No. 2006090001. The violation of -- the location of where the violation exists is on agriculturally zoned property located at 1180 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 3411 7. This case was started on August 31 st, 2006 for possible violations on ago zoned property in conjunction with a mobile home temporary use permit. August 31 st a site visit was made and an above-ground pool was observed on the agricultural zoned property and pictures were taken, which I would like to enter into evidence. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. Page 116 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Has the respondent seen these pictures? MR. BACHMANN: Yes. Two of the pictures were from the Collier County tax appraiser's website. This is just the location of where the pool is in conjunction with the temporary use permit of the mobile home, which is right behind the home. Just a closer picture. And the pool itself. November 1st a meeting was set up with the permitting department and Mr. Bachmann did apply for a pool permit January 30th. The permit number was 2007011761, which expired 7/21/07. And February 1st the permit was received and rejected by Angel Tarpley stating that per LDC-A, this is not an accessory structure that can be placed on ago zoning with a temporary mobile home on it. I would like to enter into exhibit -- just the copy of the paper which states the plan review showing the rejection. MR. KELL Y: Is this part of the same package? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept this as B. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 117 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SCAVONE: As you can see, it has her notes in there stating why it was rejected. At that time -- around that time there were continuous conversations with Mr. Bachmann explaining what was going on and what would possibly need to be done afterwards. I obtained a memo from Planning Manager Ross Gochenaur in reference to a temporary use permit in agriculturally zoned districts and accessory use. And that clearly states that pools are not permitted which, again, I would like to enter that into evidence, the letter that I had received from him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have anything else besides that to go into evidence, and we'll enter them both at the same time? MS. SCAVONE: I have just a couple of e-mails and the last picture showing that the pool still remains. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We are going to wrap up everything together, so we can just do one more, packet C. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 118 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SCAVONE: Do you want a moment to read that or do you want me to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead and outline it. MS. SCAVONE: Basically it is just explaining that they must provide evidence that a structure is directly related to a bona fide agricultural use on the property. The property is -- well, as of right now there is not a temporary use permit because that expired. Because of what is going on with this case, they would not renew his permit. But at the time the permit for the temporary use permit for the mobile home was okay. But anyway, he does have -- you know, he had a bona fide agricultural use permit for that land. And one of the -- it says that it's -- basically that section states that the use of a mobile home is approved temporarily, which means he has to keep renewing it every year, for which the home is an accessory use to that bona fide use for what he is using that land for, as a farm. A farm is defined as land, buildings, supports facilities, machineries and other improvements to the land for that use. So the farm operation is defined as marketing, you know, the product of whatever he is using it for. The home -- the mobile home, as a temporary use permit, is the accessory use to that reason of why he is allowed to have the temporary use permit, which he has to get. The letter is stating that the pool is not an accessory structure required to having -- the reason of having that bona fide use permit to begin with. It is not a -- a pool is not a structure that is used for farming. It doesn't support the farm. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Unless he can prove that the cows are drinking water out of it. MS. SCAVONE: Correct. That is basically what he's saying. Page 119 January 24,2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Got it. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. A copy, again, was given to Mr. Bachmann, which he did not agree with and stated that he did not want to remove the pool. June 29th, 2007 Mr. Bachmann requested an appointment with my supervisor, Gary Dantini, and myself. The case was previously reviewed with Director Michelle Arnold, Investigator Supervisor Dave Scribner, Ross Gochenaur and Ashley Caserta, who are the two members of the zoning and planning department. It was concluded that there was a violation and a new notice of violation was to be issued addressing prohibited uses and land use for the above-ground pool. The County -- the County will not issue a permit for that zoning district and TUP reasons. And those were my e-mails that I was going to enter just stating, you know, how they concluded that reason. This was an e-mail from Ashley Caserta, senior planner. She was just basically expressing that Mr. Bachmann had come in again to apply for the temporary use permit and that reviewing the permit she could not issue it because there was this -- you know this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Extenuating circumstances. MS. SCAVONE: With the pool not being permitted on the property. That's all that basically says. This was just a question that I had: Are temporary use permits for a mobile home issued for full-time residents on agriculturally zoned property? Ross Gochenaur stated, yes, provided that the ago use is maintained. And again he explained that initially, you know, it is first three years that you have to apply for it and after that it is once a year. And the other e-mail basically is that it was also explained to Mr. Bachmann by Ross Gochenaur that ifhe replaced the mobile home with an approved manufactured home that the situation could change. He may possibly be able to get the permit for that pool that he wants Page 120 January 24, 2008 to put up. And the last e-mail basically from Ashley was stating that a couple of times that I had personally spoken with Mr. Bachmann he had stated that, you know, he was going to try to speak with Commissioner Coletta and other people that, you know, could try to help him and explain to him how another way that he could go about doing this and what would be fair or whatnot. Ashley Caserta was another person that he had spoken to, but at this point she wasn't sure -- she didn't remember talking to them. She did talk to the homeowner, Mr. Bachmann, several weeks ago and told him that he needed to remove the pool before he did get his new TUP for the mobile home to be reviewed. Basically -- let's see here. In July Supervisor Dantini and myself met with Mr. Bachmann and we explained all this, all the e-mails, all the evidence and research that we had found to him. A new notice of violation was served to him and he signed it and a copy was given to him. Mr. Bachmann also requested and obtained on July 12th a copy of all the case notes, phone records involved with this case. July 24th, received a phone call from Mr. Bachmann, stated that he had hired a lawyer and was going to look into this matter, and also notified me to not harass him and not to call him, to stay off his property. And at that time I did as he requested and I have had no contact with Mr. Bachmann. So the last pictures were according to the Collier County tax appraiser's web site that the violation of the pool still remained. Up there. And as of present date, it is believed that the violation remains, an unauthorized, prohibited above-ground pool erected on ago zoned property with a bona fide agricultural use in violation of Collier County Land Development Code. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Bachmann (sic)? MR. FLOOD: Yes. How do you want me to proceed? Do you Page 121 January 24, 2008 want me cross-examine her or -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You may proceed in whatever manner you would like to. MR. FLOOD: First of all, I would like to make a statement, that according to your own rules -- Peter Flood, I am the attorney. Article VII -- I would like to make an opening statement -- indicates that the initiation of an action before the board you are to have a code enforcement investigator filing an affidavit of violation which shall include the statement of facts and circumstances of the alleged violation and shall identify the code or ordinance which has been violated with the secretary of the board. If you refer back to the code violation statement that has been submitted here that we have been provided with, there is no clear section cited on that violation. If you go to the memorandum that they have received from Mr. Ross Gochenaur, who I have had conversations with, there is no section quoted in regards to any code violation. Now, the reason I'm bringing this to the board's attention, because there is no section that can be violated in regards to putting a swimming pool on this agricultural property. And if you look at the violation statement, they are quoting Ordinance 2004-41, Land Development Code, Section 1.04 and 1.01,2.02,2.03 that have no bearing. There is no relevance to what is going on here. The code enforcement officer is correct that the purpose of a TU permit for a mobile home is allowed in an agricultural zoning is to support a bona fide agricultural use. Your own land development people have indicated that a deck is allowed. There is other items that are allowed incidental to the use of the mobile home as a resident on this particular piece of property. Now, I'm going to represent to this board that I have researched this issue for the last month and I can find no clear section -- not one section. I may point out that they have submitted 5.04.00 in your Page 122 January 24, 2008 packet, temporary uses and structures, if you see this. And if you could review that, or maybe you have reviewed it, I wish you could identify to me that it states that this use is not allowed by your own ordinance. Now, a couple -- a couple things need to be pointed out. This memorandum that they are relying on from Mr. Gochenaur is merely an opinion. It is not referenced in regards that you have to do something or not have to do something. We rely on our codes. We rely on the rules. We rely on the regulations. You either do something -- it's either stated you can or cannot do it. She is correct. She's done a nice job. She is correct that this is a farm related property. He was originally contacted a year ago about 10 violations or something -- alleged violations that were not violations. They were covered by the Farm Act. It also needs to be pointed out that in Collier County an above-ground pool, the only permit you need if it's not -- the only permit you need because it is not a permanent structure is a fence. And if that pool is 24 inches or less, you don't even need a permit whatsoever. So anybody in this room can walk in Home Depot, into anyplace and buy a 24-inch pool and put it on your property. I don't know if people are aware of that. That is the law. The only reason my client cannot get his TU permit renewed is because he tried to follow procedure in regards to obtaining a permit as a result of the fence for the pool and he was denied that. She is correct. And I have a letter to that effect that I would like to present to the board that was sent by Angel Tarpley. Again, she says per the LDC this is not an approved accessory structure for this ago with a temporary mobile home. MS. ARNOLD: Let me have that. MR. FLOOD: Again, there is no cite. There is no section. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me have that entered into Page 123 January 24, 2008 evidence for you. MR. KELL Y: Any objection? Make a motion to accept. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. FLOOD: So where does this all go and where are we going from here? I mean, if there is no specific statute on this and this is merely an interpretation by the Land Development Code, we have to resort to the law books to see if some sort of issue along these lines has ever been raised in regards to an accessory use on a farm, ago property. What is an accessory use? The only case law that I have found on this is where a fellow over in Miami-Dade County erected an airplane hangar on a farm-related property. And the code enforcement officer came around and filed a violation. There was a hearing held, which was subsequently appealed to the Circuit Court. And the Circuit Court indicated that it was a related farm activity, which he stored a plane in there and he said he flew around his crops and looked around his land, and they allowed that. Now, we're talking about a pool here that my client lives 18 miles out of town. He could basically go out there and -- according to what I've read, he could basically go out there and dig a pond, put a well in there, put a diving board, could come into the County and say, well, that's an accessory use. I'm using it for pumping water out for my Page 124 January 24, 2008 plants and so forth. He legitimately -- and I want to make this clear, and I think she understands this, he legitimately has complied with everything that he has been required to by the County to support his use on the property as it exists today. The only reason that he cannot get these permits is because of this pool issue. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I want to stop because, according to this, the permit application will be canceled -- let's see -- of the Code Enforcement Board 2002-01, Section 104.5.1.1; is that in regards to why he can't get his temporary mobile home? MS. SCAVONE: I'm sorry. Can you please repeat that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In her letter, in regards to the permit for the case, it says, Collier County building review and permit department routinely reviews -- da-da-da-da-da-da. At the very bottom it says, when the applicant is advised of discrepancies and does not respond within six months with correct plans or an appeal to the Code Enforcement Board, the permit application will be canceled. Is that in regards to his temporary housing with the mobile home, Section 2002-01, Section 104.5.1.1? MS. ARNOLD: I believe it is. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because I don't have that in my packet, so I have no way to reference. I just wanted to clarify that. It was in a section that would pertain to a pool. MS. SCAVONE: It is for the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm just crossing my Ts here. MR. FLOOD: He cannot get his TU renewal because of the code violation. MS. SCAVONE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. FLOOD: So can I continue? I just -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You may. MR. FLOOD: I just have a few more minutes. I know it has Page 125 January 24, 2008 been a long day for you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. FLOOD: So it's basically our position on this matter is that there really is no violation. You have to violate something. What is he violating? Now, I am going to ask the code enforcement officer, what section of the LDC has he violated? What specific section has he violated in regards to this pool? Now, I have asked this for three months and I can't get an answer. MS. SCAVONE: It would be Section 1.04.01, generally, that no development shall be undertaken without prior authorization pursuant to the LDC. Specifically, no building structure, land or water shall hereafter be developed or occupied, and no building structure or part thereof shall be erected, reconstructed, moved, located or structurally altered, except in conformity with regulations set forth herein and for the zoning district in which it is located. Basically he doesn't have a permit for the pool to begin with. He did try to get a permit for the pool, but it got kicked back. MR. FLOOD: Because? MS. SCAVONE: Because of -- with the bona fide agricultural use. Again it states that the mobile home is approved temporarily to be on the property and it has to -- because that is the accessory structure to the farm. The farm, again, is to support -- the structures on the farm are to be supportive of the farm. In regards to the pool, it does not support the farm. MR. KELLY: Are you allowed to have more than one accessory structure? MS. SCAVONE: Yes. As long as it is in support of the farm. MR. FLOOD: And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not true. Read the memo she sent you from Ross Gochenaur. I don't think a deck on Page 126 January 24, 2008 a mobile home is supporting a farm. I don't think a carport is supporting a farm. I don't think garages are -- could be supporting a farm. And a shed's not necessarily associated with a bona fide agricultural use. The problem here -- I'm going to be very respectful to everybody here and Michelle and everybody. This is a badly written ordinance or badly written section. It is open to total subjectivity in regards to interpretation. Now, I went through this memorandum and crossed-referenced it with our ordinance, the LDC ordinance. You can all do it, too. I can't find any of this in here. Where did they come up with that? MS. ARNOLD: I guess I'm -- I'm having to object a little bit because I guess what Mr. Flood is arguing is the interpretation of the zoning department, rather than -- what we're here about is does his client have a permit to have the pool? MR. FLOOD: Well, is there a violation? What I'm saying is there can be no violation unless you specifically state in your -- Michelle, in your complaint what he violated. MS. ARNOLD: And it is on there. I believe the Investigator just read what the violation was from the Land Development Code. 1.04.01 says you cannot alter or improve the property without authorizations from the County. And your client doesn't have a permit for the pool. That's what we're here for. MR. FLOOD: You're correct. He does not have a permit for the pool. We went in to get a permit for the pool, but because of this violation that they're claiming that he can't have, which we're arguing it is not a violation because there is no -- there is no rule that is based upon this, there is no law. There is nothing in the ordinance. MS. ARNOLD: That says you need to get a permit for a pool? MR. FLOOD: He doesn't need one. MS. ARNOLD: He doesn't need a permit for a pool? Page 127 January 24, 2008 MR. FLOOD: For a portable pool in Collier County. If! were to go to Recreational Warehouse to get a portable pool, the only thing I need, because it's a portable structure, is a fence. I do not need a permit for that pool. That's your ordinance. That's your ordinance in Lee County. That's a state ordinance. MS. ARNOLD: I'm afraid you're wrong. MR. FLOOD: No, I'm not wrong. You know, in your packet somebody provided me, a swimming pool as any structure located that is intended for swimming or recreational bathing containing water over two inches, even, included, but not limited, in the ground, above-ground and hot tub don't even require a fence. They don't even require a fence. MR. KRAENBRING: But that's not the issue here. The size of the pool requires a fence; is that correct? MR. FLOOD: My issue is there can be no-- MR. KRAENBRING: Wait a second. You keep referring to a two-inch pool. That's sort of not the issue here. MR. FLOOD: My point in this whole argument, the reason I'm here today, there is no violation, okay? They are claiming he violated the Land Development Code. MR. KRAENBRING: I understand what you're saying. MR. FLOOD: I'm telling you, if you read the Land Development Code, she is claiming that a pool is not allowed in the Land Development Code in this agricultural area because of the use. That's what she's claiming. We're not here telling you he didn't get a pool permit. He tried to address that issue to go get a pool permit. That's why I sent the letter m. Now, what has happened here is Code Enforcement has caused an issue now with my client in regards to submitting this violation, which is really not a violation. You have got to violate some sort of rule, some sort of -- some sort of ordinance or some sort of rule. You Page 128 January 24, 2008 have to violate. Where is it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I am going to ask our attorney to weigh in on this. MS. RAWSON: And I am going to call on Jeff, the county attorney, as well. He has been charged with an unauthorized prohibited above-ground pool in agricultural zoned property. You have been given two cites of -- two LDC citations that have been violated. There is apparently -- he was not able to get a permit because the zoning department says it is not directly related to the bona fide agricultural use. That part is not in the statute, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't apply. I think Mr. Flood is arguing quite well an interpretation of the zoning official. I would like to hear from the county attorney as to his interpretation of this statute. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Jeff Wright, for the record, Assistant County Attorney. When you say the statute, do you mean the provision of the LDC? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: It's pretty simple, in my view. I think that reference to a no fence or just a fence requirement for 24 inches or less -- I don't think that that is at play here. I haven't heard any evidence as to the specific size of this pool. MR. FLOOD: I apologize. That is not at play. The pool is deeper than that. That's one of the reasons he has got to get a pool permit. He has got to go get the permit for the pool because of the fence and the depth of the pool. That's the reason. MR. WRIGHT: My understanding is in ago zoning there is permitted uses and there's conditional uses. And this is neither. And Page 129 January 24, 2008 that's why he was cited, plain and simple. That's what the reference is to those two sections in the LDC and the notice of violation. MR. FLOOD: Well, you're familiar with it. Show the board where specifically this use is not allowed in the LDC and -- hold on. Show me where Mr. Gochenaur came up with this memorandum that says where it allows these temporary uses. He's contradicting himself in the memorandum here and he's citing that in this LDC -- he's inferring that this is in the LDC. Where is it? You can't just pull stuff out of the air and say -- for example, you can't just take a law and just start adding things to it. It is either specific or nonspecific or -- you're a lawyer -- it's been interpreted in the case law. Now, this specific section has been interpreted in one case in the state in the last 10 years. And that's this airplane hangar case over in Dade County. I'm not trying to give anybody a hard time. Ifwe were standing here and it was specifically in the ordinance and it says, look, I have got to have -- for example, when I build a barn in an ag., you have to have a building permit. And I don't get a building permit, we are in violation. I have got no problem with that. When it is open for discretionary subjectivity and your own land and zoning is saying that a deck is allowed, which he has a deck -- he has a deck, right? Permitted, allowed. But if you go to the ordinance or you go to the LDC, that's not specifically stated anywhere that he could have that. So my question is: Because the land development people interpret the statute, does that become the law? Is that the -- is that the ordinance? Does that become part of the -- part of the rules? I don't know. Maybe I'm confused. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I would respond to that -- Mr. Gochenaur's opinion is not part of our law, but it is instructive in providing the board with information as to what's going on in this Page 130 January 24, 2008 case. MR. FLOOD: That's my point. That's what the basis of this violation is on is based on Mr. Gochenaur's memo, which has no legal basis in regards to reference to the LDC. That's my point in this whole argument. MR. WRIGHT: Typically in a zoning district, as I just mentioned, there's lists of permitted and lists of conditional uses. And this doesn't fall under either of those. When that happens, it is not allowed, plain and simple, in a zoning district. As far as Mr. Gochenaur talking about certain things being accessory uses, and a pool not falling into that list, if you look at that list of accessory uses that he said are allowed in relation to a bona fide farm operation, a garage, for example, could house a tractor. A deck could be incidental to something to the farm, as well, given the facts of a situation. But a pool -- I haven't heard any facts that would suggest that the pool is connected to the farm operation. If it were, we might have a case here. So far I have heard nothing to suggest that this pool is related to the farm. And since it is not related to a bona fide agricultural use and it doesn't fall into a permitted or a conditional use, it is not allowed. That's why your client was cited. MR. FLOOD: The only reason he is being cited is because of the interpretation of Mr. Gochenaur in regards to a statute and a rule of law that does not exist. It doesn't -- you're double-talking. It does not exist. Now, ifhe had a permanent structure permitted on this property, which he can do under the Farm Act -- because he has a mobile home. Ifhe had a modular home on this property, we wouldn't even be here today with this argument. He could have that structure because it is a related farm use. It is because he has a TU permit. That's the only difference. And Page 131 January 24, 2008 that's what the state law says. Do you want to see a copy of that? Let me show you. MR. WRIGHT: Right to Farm Act? MR. FLOOD: That's right. And the Right to Farm Act controls under this. The Right to Farm Act overrides the LDC in this area. MR. WRIGHT: If there is an inconsistency between the two. MR. FLOOD: That's correct. And that's what I'm arguing today. Maybe I'm not making myself -- MR. WRIGHT: If I may, let me just ask the question. Is this pool used in connection with the farm operation? MR. FLOOD: It's used in connection with his residence, which is an accessory use to the farm. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Now, it's for human swimming; is that right? MR. FLOOD: That's correct. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. That's all the questions I have. I just -- it's not on the list of permitted uses. If I'm double-speaking, I'm -- MR. FLOOD: Where is the list -- you said there is a list for permitted uses. Show me in the statute where the list for permitted uses are. You keep referring to that. Show me. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I don't have the whole book in front of me. MR. FLOOD: Here is the book. MS. ARNOLD: That's not the book. MR. FLOOD: The LDC. Show me where it is. You guys are all talk. MS. ARNOLD: That's only an amendment. MR. FLOOD: Where is it? It is not in there. It does not exist. MS. ARNOLD: It does exist. MR. FLOOD: It does not exist. There is not a specific list in the Page 132 January 24, 2008 LDC for permitted uses in the ago It does not exist. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gentlemen, I am going to stop it. We are way over our five minutes. I'm going to go back to Jean. MS. RAWSON: He has been cited for having a pool without a permit. He clearly admits he doesn't have a permit. I don't know that you guys can interpret the law or interpret the zoning official's opmlOn. You have heard from the County Attorney that it is not permitted. He clearly doesn't have a permit. So you just have to decide, as always, was there a violation. If there was a violation, what are you going to do about it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If they disagree with us, they can take it further. MS. RAWSON: Of course. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'm going to close the public hearing. MR. FLOOD: Well, I would like to conclude, if! could. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You overextended your five minutes and that was probably my fault. MR. FLOOD: I just have one comment. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If you have one comment, I will allow it. MR. FLOOD: In response to Jean. The statement of violation and request for hearing, if everybody could look at it. It says the description of the violation -- we keep going back to this pool permit. The description of the violation is an unauthorized, prohibited above-ground pool in agricultural zoned property. It is not failure to get a pool permit. MS. ARNOLD: How else would the pool be authorized? Through a permit; is that correct? Is that an authorization; a permit? MR. FLOOD: No. He wasn't cited for that. MS. ARNOLD: No. Is a permit an authorization? Page 133 January 24, 2008 MR. FLOOD: A permit -- MS. ARNOLD: Does a permit authorize you to do something on your property? MR. FLOOD: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. FLOOD: But that's not what he's cited with. He's cited with having a pool in an agricultural zoned property. He is not cited for having -- not having a pool permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think he is cited for both. It is unauthorized, which is not permitted is what she is trying to say. And it is an ago zoned property. So I think that is kind of combining both. Do you understand what I'm trying to say, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I agree with you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I understand your complaint and everything, but at this time I am going to close the public hearing and go to the board. Comments, questions amongst ourselves? MR. PONTE: I think Mr. Flood has made some very compelling arguments. I don't think there is a provable violation here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: There are two things that are leading me to agree with George. One, if the home is allowed, I think something that is temporary in support of that home should be allowed. Obviously the deck is there, which is used to get to the pool. I think the pool should be allowed. Number two, judging by the tan on the respondent, he works a lot outside. I am sure he enjoys cooling off in the pool and that can be construed as an accessory use for a bona fide farm operation. And bona fide is not in the code. That was a word added by county staff as an interpretation of the code. And I think that us on the board, being put into this position, have the right to interpret the code just as much as the county does. Page 134 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: I would say that I would have liked to have seen a list of approved or unapproved, unauthorized uses. I think that would help to strengthen the case for the County. In absence of that, I am inclined to find that a violation does not exist. Maybe if the County wanted to resubmit this or strengthen its case with some additional information that would help guide the board, it might be different. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are you making that a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I'm just listening to what the board has to say. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald, do you have a comment? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a comment? MR. MORGAN: I don't have an opinion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Well, I'm torn. Because I can understand and agree with George that I believe your attorney has done you a good job today in bringing up a lot of questions. But I didn't think we were here to interpret an ago zoning. I thought we were here to look at whether or not the pool was permitted. But the way they wrote it, they included both. So I'm kind of -- it's a split decision. I don't think you have a permit for a pool. I think you should have one. MR. BACHMANN: I tried. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But the county is not going to give you one because they say you can't have one. So that's my opmlOn. MR. KELLY: Well, I make a motion that a violation does not exist. MR. PONTE: I second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 135 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: A point of clarification. If a violation does not exist, there should be no reason why he couldn't get a TU permit, correct? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think -- MS. ARNOLD: That's not one for me to decide. That is something that the zoning department -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Zoning is going to have to take care of that. That is out of our hands. I'm going to poll the group that's been so patient out here because we keep -- the cases keep getting longer and longer and longer. It is already 1 :00. We have four more. Who would like to move forward and get them over with? MR. PONTE: Move forward. MR. MORGAN: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Who would like to go to lunch and come back in 20 minutes and then go forward? MR. PONTE: Move forward. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Seeing that I didn't see any show of hands for the lunch, everybody said move forward that showed hands, we'll move forward. I just wanted to ask. The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus AL. Petroleum, Inc. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. 2007040340. For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board was sent a packet of evidence, and Page 136 January 24, 2008 I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violations of Ordinances 04-41, Section 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(e)(i), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(d), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(d)(ix) of the Collier County Land Development Code, and 2004-58, Section 16(1)(n)(3), 16(2)(j) of the property maintenance for the incorporated area of Collier County. Description of violation: Pole sign altered without required permits, and is not being maintained in good repair. Three banners attached to the canopy without required permits. Two wall signs without required permits. Location/address where violation exists: 8900 Davis Boulevard. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Arthur H. Lennox, 8900 Davis Boulevard. Date violation first observed: March 30th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 30th, 2007. Date on/by which violation was to be corrected: July 4th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: October 15th, 2007. Results of reinspection: All signs remain without required permits. Page 13 7 January 24, 2008 At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Sherry Patterson. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I have both the respondent and the Code Enforcement Officer sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) (Mr. Lefebvre left the boardroom.) MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would just like to make one correction for -- the date of reinspection was actually not in October to the site. I did a site visit yesterday to confirm all the violations still remain. First of all, I have six photographs I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit B. I have a packet for the board and a packet for the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you want to walk it over to the respondent and let him take a look at it? The interim, I'll ask the board if they would like to make a motion accept packet B. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept packet B. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) (Mr. Lefebvre returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald, the only thing you missed out is they are entering a secondary packet for the County. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Page 138 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She did a reinspection, too, on January 23rd. MS. PATTERSON: This case involves three unpermitted signs. The first sign I would like to talk about is a pole sign that has been altered without a required permit and is also being maintained -- not being maintained in good repair. MR. LENNOX: $1.77. I like that. MR. PONTE: How old is that photo? MR. LEFEBVRE: 2003. MS . PATTERSON: We got ahead of ourselves here a little bit. The first photo is going to be of the same sign that is in place today structurally, but this photograph was taken in 2003. And it shows the way it appears -- appeared when it was originally permitted in 1996. So this is the original. That's the original photograph of the sign as it appeared in '96 permitted, CO, okay? Now, the second photo that she is going to show you is a sign that was taken -- picture of the sign that was taken yesterday. And as you can see, the alteration came about to the sign when the respondent changed brands and placed a BP banner over top of the Mobil panel. The gas station is now a BP station. Staying with that same photo there, if you could look at the bottom panels, they are missing, but also it shows the exposed internal lighting and wiring that poses not only a nuisance and safety hazard, but let's -- it's definitely a safety hazard, we'll just say that. The second -- and that is right in here. All the tubes exposed and everything. And, you know, who knows what kind of wiring or whatever is hanging out of that. The second photo on the unpermitted sign that I have is going to be the banners on the canopy. Those are the three banners that are atop the canopy. Those are temporary signs. When they do a permanent sign, they are a 12-foot square foot sign. And they are allowed to Page 139 January 24, 2008 have, I think, two on the canopy and have to be facing each street frontage. So I did ask the respondent in the interim, while I was doing this case before it was brought to you, to simply remove those banners so that -- that looked like a simple fix to me. He would just be able to abate that portion of the violation. And he refused to do that, saying that his station would not be able to be correctly identified. The third unpermitted sign or signs that I have is a Subway wall sign. And that is the sign that is in place today. That sign is located on the north side or the front side of the building with a permit number of 96-15658 attached to the sign. Research revealed that this permit was for a Mobil wall sign. So maybe what happened is that he installed a new sign and put the old Mobil sign number back up there or, in fact, it was already there when they put the sign in. When I first saw the sign right here, it appeared that it once had been accompanied by a Dunkin Donuts wall sign, which is my new photograph here. When I went out there to assess the situation on another site visit, that's what I saw. It looked like the Dunkin Donut sign had been taken down and all the shadowing was left present from the removal of that, though the wall has just been painted today and the outline and the shadowing have disappeared. The next photograph I have is an identical Subway wall sign that is on the east side of the building. And there is no permit number attached to that sign. So those are all of the photographs that I have. I would like to say at this time that the respondent has maintained that the Subway signs have a valid 2002 permit. Today when I talked to him in the hallway he mentioned a 1994 permit that they have. But going on the 2002 permit that I found and the only other pertinent sign permit that I could find at this property, let me just say that even if the 2002 permit were valid, which it is not because a substantial change Page 140 January 24, 2008 has been made to that sign by removing the Dunkin Donut portion, it would have to be repermitted. I believe that the 2002 permit that the respondent may be referring to is permit 2002-080991. And this permit was issued for the attachment of a Subway/Dunkin Donut sign. You would think it would be like the picture I just showed you, but in fact, if you take a look at the actual permit that I pulled it says that the Subway/Dunkin Donut sign is to be attached to the awning, okay? So it would be like awning letters. It would be pressed-on letters onto the awning. There is no awning at that location at this time. And I actually have a copy of that 2002 permit that he referred to, if you would like to see it. It actually has a drawing attached to it that shows you this is what the front looked like when it was originally permitted. And it clearly shows and says, lettering on existing awning. It doesn't indicate the other sign on the east side of the building, only on the front side. Introduction of photo packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Is that photo packet going to be C? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept this as C. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PATTERSON: I also called -- because on the front of this permit it has the contractor's name, Hawkeye Sign and Art. And I happened to call them just as a confirmation. Are you on the same page here with me? Because there was a Page 141 January 24, 2008 wall sign up there that said Subway/Dunkin Donuts, but these are like electrical wall signs. I found this permit. Do you agree that that would be lettering only on the awning? He said, yes, it clearly states it right there that that is what it was. If you look across the street to another gas station across the street, they often do that very same thing. They just put the letters as an applique on the awning. Yeah, right there where she is pointing it actually says, lettering only. And the one where we showed the drawing, it says, on the existing awning. And there is no awning at that location right now, as I said. Lastly, I would like to say that there are three new permits that are in ready status at the county at this time. However, it does not appear that any of these new permits are for the existing signs that we are talking about today. They are actually for new signs. The first sign is going to be for a new BP ground sign. And we went back to that -- the original photograph of the sign as it is today, it will show you that this sign is -- is 20 feet tall. By the new code provisions I think 2000 was when they changed this. That sign would have to be brought down to eight feet with a maximum of 60 square feet of copy. So I don't know -- I doubt very much that he could actually use this sign, that a new sign would have to be manufactured. And I believe that's what they have done on all the other BPs that I have ever been in contact with. There is a -- sign two is for -- it says, Subway wall sign. And that sign reads, proud to serve Barney's Krispy Kreme donuts. So the sign that's on there today just says Subway. So my indication is it's going to be an entire new sign. I don't know what he's going to do with the other sign on the other side of the wall, because that is not part of it. Sign three is for new BP canopy signs. Those are to be put on the north and east elevations. So those would take the place of those Page 142 January 24, 2008 little vinyl banners that are up there. And just lastly, I would like to say that these three permits have been ready at the County ready to be picked up since December 10th, '07. And that's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Yes, sir. Your turn. MR. LENNOX: Okay. I have owned the business since '92. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you are? MR. LENNOX: My name is Art Lennox. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. LENNOX: In '94 I became the first Subway in a gas station to be approved down here. In '94 we went and pulled a permit for two Subway signs, one on each side of the wall. I have a copy of the permit right here. This is all I was able to find. I had to go down to the County records because I don't have them anymore. And it was pulled by Hawkeye Sign. And I didn't see a problem with the signs. What happened is in '96 I switched from Chevron to Mobil. And Mobil came in and they do all your signage for you. They did the pole sign, which is the old one that was there. They also changed the front one, which is the one that you have from '96. They went for one application, and the copy of the plan is shown right here with the application, which was the Subway/Mobil and Dunkin Donuts, okay? Since that time, let's see how it started in order. Mobil we'll say terminated my contract. They were a direct distributor to people like myself. There are no more guys like me that have Mobil stations anymore. Mobil runs and owns all their own in the southwest. So they did away with us. So I went to -- to get another gas company to work with, you go to a distributor. They have BP, Shell, things like this. So Bill Holtz, he represents Risser. I went down and signed a contract with BP. Page 143 January 24, 2008 This all happened in late summer of'07. They came in -- the change had to be done on the I st. So they came in. Mobil came in the same day. And the light bulbs that you see, they pulled -- one of the signs they pulled out had an ID of theirs. They stripped anything with their name, except for under the temporary banner that we put in. What I had done starting in the end of October was -- there is a Diane Campignone, I think is her name. She is a sign review specialist. I asked her if I could just change the name from Mobil to BP. I figured I already paid for the sign once. She said I couldn't and was nice enough and sent me all the documents. I asked here, is there a way I can argue this? She said, sure. You can write Susan Murray, head of zoning and planning development. So on November 13th oflast year I wrote Susan Murray, asking if I could keep the sign on an interpretation. Well, I guess, she is pretty busy. She didn't get back to me, didn't get back to me, didn't get back to me. Finally, I called up Diane Fiala, my commissioner. Well, they went and leaned on Susan Murray. Susan Murray gets back to me in late March and says, you can't do it, no matter what. So, bang, she hits me the next day. Amazing how these things happen. What I did right then was I called up Bill Holtz and said, we have to do a monument sign. This is Tim Bauer. He gets ahold of me. He says, what do you want to do for a sign? Well, we had lost Dunkin Donuts in November. Their contract was up. And if you notice, there is less Dunkin Donuts in town. Well, they terminated that person who happened to be the person in my store. The day she saw those letters, they had taken the sign down and they had to patch the holes after that and they had to paint it over. Page 144 January 24, 2008 I got back to Tim. And we had gotten Krispy Kreme, we got Barney's, and we worked out all our sign. It took about a month and a half to get together with Barney's and then he applied for the signs. Well, things don't go too fast in this town. He applied for the signs and they got turned down. I wanted an ID on the west side of the canopy, which is where the Mobil-- we had Mobil on the west, north, and east. He put them in that way and he got turned down. They said you can't have them on the roadside, which is where everybody comes at me from. We reapplied. Then we got turned down again because he put -- what did you put, $16,000 for the sign or $17,000, and they didn't agree that we could do it for that. They had to have a signed authorization from me notarized. So it goes back around. So finally it gets approved. December 10th it got approved. He calls me up. I said, order the sign. Good. Sign is ordered. We don't have to pick up the permit. What do you need the permit for until you start building the sign? He orders the sign from -- who did you order the sign from? MR. BAUER: Sign Source, BP rep. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. I need to have you sworn m. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. LENNOX: Signs take 60 to 90 days to be made. They're all special. We have got the Christmas holidays, so they are coming m. MR. HOLTZ: They take anywhere from six to 10 weeks. I have got like six of them on order with different jobs throughout the west coast of Florida. And the problem with that -- it isn't the jobber who I work for -- that we apply many brands, as well as private brands, but we have to deal with a BP certified manufactured. We cannot just go out to Allen Page 145 January 24, 2008 Signs down the street. I don't care if they have a 10,000 square foot warehouse and 100 people. They only have them make that BP sign. That's how they control their image, as well as Shell with the red bands and Shell word. They protect their trademarks that way and limit. They think they have plenty of manufacturers, but, you know, when you have Circle K taking over Shell and we're trying to do Shell, as well as BP, Blair and Sign Resource -- MS. ARNOLD: Can he speak into the mic? MR. HOLTZ: Blair and Sign Resource could be the same company making the Shells. MR. LENNOX: Anyway, so you understand what is going on. Wernet outside -- MS. ARNOLD: Ifwe could record that, because it doesn't get picked up on the recording, okay? We need to have that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If you could reiterate what you just said. I'm sorry. MR. HOLTZ: My only point is -- it's a true fact that it takes at least six to 10 weeks for a sign to be manufactured. I mean, that's once all the artwork is done and everybody has approved; both the dealer, the oil company, and the permitting, you know, approves the artwork. And the reason for that, there's so many brands going on, a lot of changing in the gas industry and people changing brands trying to compete in the market. It has made these sign companies a lot busier. And we have to use BP certified manufacturers, as well as we would if we were branding it Shell or Chevron, which we apply those brands as well. So it is a legitimate complaint that we have because I have dealers out here -- I have a dealer who just opened up a new station that he is getting two monuments and I had to put a temporary price sign -- a flip change price sign out there for him to open because he4 Page 146 January 24, 2008 won't have signs in time. They gave him a temporary CO, let him go ahead and open, and he is sitting there waiting for us to get the sign from the manufacturer. MR. LENNOX: Anyway, that's where we are on the signs. Now, the only other problem we have is when I did -- when we were going around trying to save the old sign, I happen to be at the corner of 41 and Davis, which is being reconstructed and they are doing a whole new intersection. As of a month and a half ago, I have an eminent domain attorney that will work with the county or whatever they take. They are supposed to clip my corners right where the sign is. Isn't it a waste of county money for me to go put another sign in, rather than changing the face of that, and then who is going to be pay for the new sign? Well, you're going to take the corners, so you are going to have to pay for the sign. But, anyway, that sort of held up this whole issue a little bit. I just don't see a sense of wasting taxpayer money. If I need a permit to put the BP thing in there, let's get the road done and then put a new sign in. We can't do that now. So anyway, we are up for permit. It will be here in another 30 days. The sign. MR. BAUER: Forty-five. MR. HOLTZ: I would say six to eight weeks. MR. LENNOX: So we ask for 90 days from today. That's all I want to keep my business going. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LENNOX: Do you need a copy of this -- this permit on the two Subway signs? MS. ARNOLD: I would like to see it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would like to see it and we'll have to enter it in. May I have a motion to enter that into evidence, please? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the evidence. Page 147 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: I just want to correct. This case is against the property on 951 and Davis, not 41 and Davis. MR. LENNOX: That's not public records. You have to go down to the tax place for that. Do you need a copy of myoid Subway, Dunkin Donuts, Mobil sign? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Probably put it on the overhead and we'll have that added to the public -- MR. LENNOX: I didn't know that you need a permit -- like if you have Collier County and you take the logo down in the middle, you have to get another permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. LENNOX: I didn't know that. What I'm wondering is -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Since the new ordinance. MR. LENNOX: Okay. The sign that I put up for Mobil, Dunkin Donuts and Subway was put up in 1996. The Mobil sign came down that month because Mobil was upset their image -- their sign was smaller than Subway and Dunkin Donuts. Nobody has said a thing to me since 1996. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think it came with the new change, which was in 2000. MR. LENNOX: Nobody said anything since then. Page 148 January 24, 2008 MS. PATTERSON: Excuse me. Are you saying that the Mobil sign came down in 1996 right after? MR. LENNOX: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is this -- MS. PATTERSON: I have a photograph that shows the Mobil sign there. Are you talking about a wall sign or are you talking about a pole sign? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wall sign. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. I apologize. MR. LENNOX: Right after the hurricane. MS. PATTERSON: I thought you were talking about the other sign. If I may, what we are here for today is to say that none of the signs that he has in place right there today have any permits, period. And if they do have permits, valid permits, they have to have the permit number affixed. He has brought over and placed on the overhead a copy of a permit -- when the entire permit is together and submitted to the sign review persons at the county, they are actually dimensions and a drawing that is going to show you exactly what those types of signs are, is it Subway, Dunkin Donuts, Barney's, whatever. There is nothing indicating on this permit, other than it just says simply two wall signs. I could not find a -- let me check. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the wall signs that you're -- that you indicated were up there, were those the two signs that you're indicating is done in '94? Mr. Lennox, over here. MR. LENNOX: Yes. I put those up in '94, the two Subway Signs. MS. ARNOLD: And those are the ones that you took down in '96? MR. LENNOX: No. We took one down and replaced that. Page 149 January 24,2008 Because it was at the lower portion of the -- it was at the lower portion of the building. And we replaced that with a Subway, Mobil, Dunkin Donuts sign. MS. ARNOLD: And did you get a permit when you did that in '96? MR. LENNOX: Yes, we did. MS. ARNOLD: Do you have that, too? MR. LENNOX: She gave that to you. That's Permit No. 96-0015658. MS. PATTERSON: Was for the Mobil sign? MR. LENNOX: Was for a Mobil and Dunkin Donuts sign. MS. PATTERSON: For the Mobil, Dunkin Donuts awning sign? MR. LENNOX: No. That's 202. That 202 was issued to the wrong address. The awning sign that she was talking about was for -- I happen to own the gas station across the street, too. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask a question? Weare here about the two Subway signs. MR. LENNOX: Yes. Which I have brought you the permit for. MS. ARNOLD: That '94 permit is for the Subway sign? MR. LENNOX: Two Subway signs, yes. MS. ARNOLD: Those two brand-new Subway signs were done in '94? MR. LENNOX: No. There were two done in '94 and then we-- we took one of them down and repermitted the front of the building for a different type of -- a channel-lock Subway sign, rather than a -- a can Sign. MS. ARNOLD: Did you get a permit when you took it down and replaced it? MR. LENNOX: Yes. That's the one I just read you. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. LENNOX: Do you want the evidence? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead and show that to Page 150 January 24,2008 Michelle so she can look at it. MR. LENNOX: That's the Mobil sign. One Mobil sign -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think he said Mobil sign -- it had Mobil in the middle and then they made him take it down. MS. ARNOLD: I'm talking about what is there today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He said that they made him take it off in '96. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Is that what you have? MR. LENNOX: Last thing, all I need is another 90 days. Everything will be nice, all right? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LENNOX: And if she wants -- I mean, I think I have a permit for the Subway sign. What we would like to do is pick up our sign permit now and then -- so that we have something to go on. And we talked out in the hallway. We can amend it for the one on the other side, if that will make everybody happy. MR. KELLY: Are there any permits that you -- or any signs that you're looking to keep, or you're replacing all of them? MR. LENNOX: The channel -- the two Subway signs that are up are staying, but we want -- we have already repermitted one of them. I'm saying I think I have a permit for the other one. I'm saying we'll amend our existing permit that was issued that came available on the 10th and amend that one for the other one, if that will make everybody happy. MS. ARNOLD: What you gave me -- I'm over here -- is not what you have got permits for. You have got a sign permit for a block facade, which had Subway, Mobil and Dunkin Donuts on it. What we're here for is just the one sign that has Subway on it. You know, when you take down that whole block, you have to get repermitted again. That's what we are talking about. Not this '96. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He said he didn't understand that, but now he does. Page 151 January 24, 2008 MR. LENNOX: Yeah. MR. HOLTZ: We have a permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I am going to close the public hearing and go to the board. MR. KELLY: I just had an epiphany. I just remembered testimony that's going to have to cause me to recuse this case. You said that you own the station across the street? My company has worked for you. I'm going to recuse myself from voting. Kelly Roofing. MR. LENNOX: Oh, yeah. Okay. That new green roof. MR. KELLY: Okay. (Mr. Kelly left the boardroom.) MR. KRAENBRING: I'm having a little trouble seeing where this -- it's all going. I think this gentleman, from what I can see, is being fairly diligent in replacing signs and trying to obtain permits. And with this flurry of permits going back and forth, I agree to give him 90 days to get this thing resolved. I don't know if the County is looking for a fine for a permit that was or was not issued. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what they want us to do is find a finding of fact that there was a violation and then we can look at how we want to remedy that. If that violation -- if we can give him 90 days to get it all under control, then there wouldn't be any money, other than operational costs. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's where we are headed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And it's what they're leaning towards. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there is, in fact, a violation. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 152 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Your recommendations, please. MS. PATTERSON: The recommendation is that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$573.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by: Obtaining required permits, inspections, and certificates of occupancy within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violations continue. The permit number is to be affixed to the signs at the time of CO. If the respondent is unable to obtain permits for the aforementioned signs, then these signs shall be removed, including supporting structures, within 30 days of this hearing and a fine -- or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator, myself in this case, once the violations have been abated in order to conduct a final inspection of the property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you put that on the monitor for us, please? MR. PONTE: As it is getting onto the monitor, my reactions are to accept it with a couple of amendments. The amendments being that the time frame be changed to 90 days and that the fine be reduced to $100. MR. KRAENBRING: Just a question again to the respondent. Ninety days is good for getting these signs delivered and installed? MR. HOLTZ: Oh, yes. Absolutely. We'll make that. MR. KRAENBRING: I'm going to rely on your opinion. Page 153 January 24,2008 MR. HOLTZ: Well, we can make our end happen, as far as the BP brand. You know, as long as the Krispy Kreme signs and the other ones get manufactured. But, yeah, it is definitely reachable. MS. PATTERSON: Can I add one more thing, please? Ifhe -- ifhe can't get the other signs installed, you know, prior to the 90 days, then they need to be removed and the shadowing needs to go away as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're talking about the Subway sign? MR. LENNOX: There is no shadow. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She is talking about the -- the other signs that you have up now, if you can't get those approved -- MR. LENNOX: They are already approved. MS. PATTERSON: Those aren't the signs you're keeping? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's keeping one. MS. PATTERSON: You're keeping one of them? MR. LENNOX: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. MR. LENNOX: The other one on the other side I said we would go for an amendment to the permit. MR. HOLTZ: Resubmit. MR. LENNOX: Resubmit the one on the east side. And if we don't, we'll just unhook it until then, until we get it reapproved. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. I just -- I have a permit of the Subway sign and it shows all the additions to that, Barney's and something else underneath there, too. So the signs that are on there today simply say Subway. MR. HOLTZ: Are you referring to the building or MIB sign? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wait a minute. I don't want you guys to go back to rediscussing this. We're in the middle of making our suggestions through -- I know you had a question of him, but maybe you can resolve that after we're done. Page 154 January 24,2008 MS. PATTERSON: Okay. I was just trying to make it be entered into the recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a motion for -- on the floor? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He said that he was -- MR. PONTE: I thought we had a motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He had a motion and he was just changing a couple of things, being the dates. Instead of 30 days it would be 90 days and that the fine would be -- instead of $150, it would be $100. He was taking her -- MR. KRAENBRING: There is two places on that where they need to be changed from 30, too. I will second that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before you second it, can we maybe amend this or add in that if any signs are removed and are not replaced, any shadowing will be painted over? MR. KRAENBRING: Isn't that part of the code though, or the ordinance? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently she would like that in there. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. Yes, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you can amend that. MR. PONTE: So amended. MR. KRAENBRING: So seconded. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 155 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Understood everybody? MR. LENNOX: Thank you. MR. HOLTZ: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, did you get all that? MS. RAWSON: I think I did. (Mr. Kelly returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case, Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Reinaldo and Zoraida Jardines and Sylvia Jimenez. I hope I didn't do a really bad job on that. Are they here? Okay. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. 2007030794. The respondent and the board were sent a packet and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I entertain a motion. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d) and 1O.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i), amended June 2007 to 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), Page 156 January 24, 2008 respectively, and the Florida Building Code, Section 105.7. Description of the violation: New seawall construction without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 7 Creek Circle, Naples, Florida 34114. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Reinaldo and Zoraida Jardines and Sylvia Jimenez. Date violation first observed: March 28th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: April 3rd, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 3rd, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: May 4th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation continues to exist. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Christopher Ambach. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I have both the respondent and the code enforcement officer sworn in? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: Okay. For the record, Investigator Christopher Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Before we start, the actual property owners are not here. This is Mrs. Jimenez' husband, Juan, over here, who has given him permission, through a letter I believe he has in his possession now, to speak and work on this case on their behalf. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a letter? MR. JIMENEZ: Just something that we wrote outside. She was here, but she is a schoolteacher and she had to go back to work. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand. Can we have that letter so we can submit it in evidence, please? MR. JIMENEZ: Absolutely. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. Page 157 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Just give it to the court reporter. Give it to her. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. I also have a packet of photographs I would like to enter in as an exhibit. I did leave a packet with Mr. Jimenez, the same photographs. He is aware of those. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. AMBACH: Again, this in regards to a phone-in complaint from a neighbor in the neighborhood in regards to an unpermitted construction of a seawall. On 3/28/07 I observed new seawall construction consisting of cement block and rebar to the left side of the property behind garage/shed. I posted a stop work order on the front door and left a Page 158 January 24, 2008 business card for the owners to contact me. On 4/3/07 I met with owner, Sylvia Jimenez, and her husband on site. I explained the violation in detail and served Sylvia the notice of violation. At that time they stated that the seawall was literally falling into the water and they were trying to save the property. I did notice that while I was on site. There were several sinkholes along the entire backside of the property. On 5/3/07 I received a call from Sylvia Jimenez. She left a message stating engineering drawings were being finalized and she will be dropping them off to the County for approval of the permit. An extension was granted at that time. On 6/6/07 I spoke with Sylvia's husband, Juan. He stated documents were dropped off to the county for the permit. I advised that he fax whatever information he had in regards to that permit so I could attach it to the case to grant him another extension. On 6/25 I received a message that a firm out of Miami was now working on the drawings. I guess between 6/6 and 6/25 -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the owners changed engineering firms. They had, I guess, an issue with the first one and they had picked up a second. On 6/25 again I spoke with a representative -- I'm sorry -- representative of UM Construction, who stated his partner is looking over the finalized plans and would forward those to the County within 48 hours. I'm sorry. Between 6/25 and 7/12 is when they changed engineering firms. I spoke with Sylvia on 7/12, who stated last minute changes were being made to the plans and that she had made contact with a representative from the Department of Environmental Protection and expect letters from them to proceed with the project within a few weeks' time. On 8/9/07 I received a message from Sylvia stating that she had changed engineering firms. I requested more information. On 8/1 0/07 I received that information. I received a letter from lC. Gazinski Page 159 January 24, 2008 (phonetic) and R Cube Design, stating their office was under contract to the owners to provide all necessary documents and plans for Collier County review. And they were currently averaging three to four weeks. An extension was given at that time, as well. On 10/17/07 I made a site visit and observed the violation continued to exist. On 11/17 I observed a permit was now in apply status; however, failed environmental planning in regards to not having the proper paperwork from DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. On 1/23/08, which was yesterday, I spoke with Sylvia's husband who stated after receiving the notice of hearing he started to make several calls to expedite the process; however, he's having difficulty receiving any return calls from a permitting company he had hired, DEP, so on and so forth. Again, the violation continues to exist today. MS. ARNOLD: Did you want to show -- MR. AMBACH: I'm sorry, I thought they were being -- this here is the cinder block wall that was added. And in front of it you will see bags of concrete that have been there I guess for several years. Someone had put those in to try and stop the erosion. Again, that's more bags of concrete there. That's the cinder block wall with rebar again that was put in front to save the property from falling into the water. Just a closeup of the same. There are also pipes. I'm assuming they're some kind of a weephole, the PVC piping that is there to drain any water through the wall. I'm not an engineer, obviously, but I'm assuming that's what it's for, to relieve some of the stress from behind that wall. The rest -- they are pretty much basically the same photographs, just different angles. MR. PONTE: What is the approximate length of that wall? MR. AMBACH: Right now I would say probably about 15 yards. Page 160 January 24, 2008 MR. JIMENEZ: About 30 feet. 30 to 40 feet. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Eventually that wall is going to have to go around to the backside of that property. Because we have sinkholes that run the length of the entire property along that canal. I had stopped them when they were about -- at the 30-foot mark to apply for and obtain permits. MR. MORGAN: So this is just a section? MR. AMBACH: Just a section that they had started, sir, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Are you done? MR. AMBACH: I'm all set. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, it's your turn. MR. JIMENEZ: My father-in-law started to construct the wall on his own. We then, you know, got the notice to stop work. Of course, we did. We spoke to Inspector Ambach. He told us we have to get permits for it. My father-in-law argued, you know, it was really a repair, it wasn't an actual construction, whatever. We said okay, let's just get the necessary documents done. We got an engineering firm at first from Miami that my father-in-law knew. Once -- I actually brought their drawings and the new drawings with me. They gave us drawings and said they weren't going to proceed because DEP was involved. So we then had to go get R Cube Design, which we got. And they finalized the drawings sometime in September or October. I'm not sure when it was. We applied for the permits through the County. We had already received a letter from DEP saying that stuff needed to be done. We forwarded it to R Cube Design. Sometime in November, I think it was like November 19th or something, we received a letter saying, you know, you don't -- we needed Army Corps of Engineers to do -- to apply to the Army Corps Page 161 January 24, 2008 of Engineers and DEP. DEP we had already applied. We knew that. We didn't know Army Corps of Engineers. I have called DEP several times, never got a response. So, you know, it is just the holidays and this and that and the other thing. We got into December and that's when I got the notice for hearing. And I was kind of freaked out about it. I called everybody -- oh, during this process I figured sometime in September or October right before applying for the permits I was going to do it myself. I said, let me get a company. That's what they do and they will know who has to be -- how it has to be applied for. And they didn't do a good job. That's why I am here. They didn't apply to all the other agencies. So in December, when I did find out that we had a hearing scheduled, I called everybody up and tried to, you know, get everything together. I actually spoke to DEP and DEP said that the person that is assigned to this is Ryan Schneider and he went away for the holidays and was going to be back January 7th. So I figured R Cube Design and DEP could get together and have this resolved before this hearing. I thought it was going to be resolved before this hearing. As of yesterday, I continue calling people and I haven't been able to get anything resolved. I spoke to -- to Investigator Ambach and he told me I could do a stipulation where -- four months or so. And I just said, I think I need more time. Because my problem is I haven't been able to get all these people in line together. So that's where I'm at. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Any questions of the parties? MR. JIMENEZ: One more thing. The other biggest problem is that none of these departments work together. And, you know, you have to contact every single individual. MR. MORGAN: You do not have a permit from the Corps, Page 162 January 24, 2008 right? MR. JIMENEZ: A what? MR. MORGAN: You do not have a permit from the Corps of Engineers? MR. JIMENEZ: No, sir. No, sir. MR. MORGAN: Have they given you a timeline? MR. JIMENEZ: I haven't even applied for it because I didn't know until, you know, this morning actually. MR. MORGAN: Well, you're going to be in for a surprise, I can tell you. MR. JIMENEZ: When they said four months, I was like, you know, I don't know if I can keep up with that. MR. MORGAN: They probably have to send it to Washington to get approval on it. So how about the DEP; do you have a permit from the DEP? MR. JIMENEZ: R Cube -- they are requiring something be done to the wall and R Cube Design has to kind of redraw something to the plans to satisfy that. MR. MORGAN: Okay. MR. JIMENEZ: And my problem is R Cube Design has not been able to reach Ryan Schneider at DEP. I'm kind of like in the middle. MR. MORGAN: Your design engineer is a structural engineer? MR. JIMENEZ: Uh-huh. Yes, yes. Yes. I actually have the plans from both engineers there. I just -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. MORGAN: I tell you what, trying to get a permit from the Corps of Engineers is going to take awhile. So I don't know what the timeline would be. MR. JIMENEZ: Well, I was requesting like six months and if-- see where I am at in six months. If I can't get it done, come back for an extension. I don't know what the timeline is. Page 163 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. JIMENEZ: Just trying to get DEP and the engineer together has been a -- over a month. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. If there are no other questions, I will close the public hearing and move to the board for a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I look to the county for their recommendation. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. The recommendation we're asking for is that the CEB Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Those costs, $314.90. Also, to obtain all required Collier County building permits for the seawall construction, including all required inspections, a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Also, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. That's all I have. MR. KRAENBRING: Put that -- Page 164 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Put that on the overhead, please. MR. AMBACH: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Gentlemen? MR. KRAENBRING: I think the time line is too short. MR. PONTE: Much too short. MR. KRAENBRING: And the fine is excessive. MR. PONTE: I agree. MR. MORGAN: I think the time line is really -- I agree with these people, it is too short and the fine is too excessive. And I have worked with the Corps of Engineers on two big projects and I know what they -- they -- tomorrow is tomorrow. Next month is next month. So I would say 120 days and then the gentleman can come back if he hasn't got a permit. MR. KRAENBRING: I would say take it out to about six months. And I think this gentleman has been fairly diligent in working to get his permits and such. I would like to see that fine go down to -- you know, I was going to say $50. I mean, I don't think we really have to have a heavy stick in this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have another question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're probably -- my thinking is that you're not going to receive the Collier County building permits until DEP and everything else is in place. MR. AMBACH: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So saying all required Collier County building permits means DEP and Army Corps have already signed off on it. MR. AMBACH: That would be the way it would go, yes. MR. KELLY: What do you think about giving a little bit of extra time after the permits have been received then for the actual construction? Page 165 January 24, 2008 Maybe another three months after that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you -- have you hired a company or looked into hiring a company to actually build the seawall? MR. JIMENEZ: Actually, my father-in-law would build it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that the plan, he is going to build it? MR. JIMENEZ: I don't know. It's a lot of wall. The section that he -- that he had already done was like the part that was worse off. The actual -- it is a corner lot. I think it is 170 feet on the water. So we might -- we probably might hire a company to do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I'm thinking that you probably would want to hire someone considering, first of all, the detail of it. And I don't know what your father-in-Iaw's profession is, but it sounds like a seawall is probably a very involved project. MR. JIMENEZ: I would think so. MR. LEFEBVRE: Having an engineer go in and prepare it, I'd hate to see the wall being built and not being up to specs and then fail. MR. JIMENEZ: Right. Absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: Especially under certain time restraints. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Besides having DEP and the Corps of Engineers involved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a recommendation that you might want to start looking into a seawall company, a company that does do that as their specialty as soon as possible so you have them lined up when you have everything. MR. JIMENEZ: Right, right, right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody want to make a motion? MR. PONTE: I will -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. PONTE: It depends on how detailed we want to get. But I think the recommendation of the County is fine. I would just change the 120 days to six months and the fine of $200 a day to $50 a day. Page 166 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: I don't know if that gives the respondent enough time to actually perform the construction. It's six months just to get the permit, then the work commences. MR. PONTE: Well, he can come back and say -- tell us that in six months. MR. KELLY: Yeah. But if we do that 17 cases a day -- it is job security. I understand. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you want to just extend the amount of time, instead of making it a two-phase process? Again, the permits is the issue here I think. So give him more than six months. MR. KELLY: Sure. Just give him nine months to start with, instead of the six. MR. PONTE: Fine. MR. KRAENBRING: It could take a year. I mean, it could take longer. MR. PONTE: I will amend to nine months. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have nine months. Good luck. MR. JIMENEZ: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Do we get costs on that? Page 167 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, they did say the costs on it. They kept everything the same, except for they changed your time frame to nine months and they changed the fine to $50. MR. AMBACH: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. JIMENEZ: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Board of Collier County Commissioners versus T-e-u-d-i-s Zamora. I'm not going to try to say it. MS. MARKU: That is reference to Department Case No. 2006120209. The respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. (Mr. Kraenbring left the boardroom.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) (Mr. Kraenbring returned to the boardroom.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a), 1O.02.06(B)(I)( e), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i) of the Collier County Land Development Code, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 22, Article II, 104.1.3.5, 106.1.2, and Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Section 105.1, 105.7. Description of violation: Permit number 2004033362 for a garage conversion and permit number 2004033365 for a laundry room conversion both in inspect status and permits have expired without Page 168 January 24, 2008 being CO'd. Also, fence and shed on property without first obtaining any Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3471 Second Avenue SE, Naples, Florida, 34117. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation: Teudis Zamora, 3471 Second Avenue SE, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: December 7th, 2006. Date property was posted and certified mail was sent for notice of violation: February 9th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 26th, 2007. Date of reinspection: July 9th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. MS. SCAVONE: For the record, Collier County Code Investigator Michelle Scavone. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SCAVONE: This case was started on December 7th for expired permits for a garage conversion and laundry room conversion without certificate of completion, and shed and fence on the property without any Collier County permits. December 7th I made a site visit and observed the shed and the fence on the estate zoned property. Pictures were taken. I will submit a whole packet with everything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 169 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SCAVONE: This is a picture ofthe front of the house. There is a wood fence to the left. Again, a closeup of the wood fence. This is in the rear yard. There is a chain-link fence and the shed structure. And that's as close as I could get for the shed-type structure. I also researched the computer and found permits for the laundry room conversion and the garage conversion both in inspect status. That is what these next items are showing, that they are in inspect status. Two inspections were made. Numerous attempts have been made to contact the owner. I have not made any form of contact. I have tried 4-1-1, yellow pages, left notes. No contact from -- to this date has been made. December 27th a notice of violation was mailed regular and certified. I did not receive any notice of good service. Again, on February 8th, 2007, I sent a new notice ofviolation registered mail, certified mail, posted the property and the courthouse. As a result, I have obtained the service card back unsigned and still no contact with the owner. As of present date, I believe that the violation of the garage conversion and laundry room conversion remain. Also, the fence and shed are still erected on the property without permits on the estate zoned property. This is pictures as of yesterday. The chain-link fence was partially removed from the back. The wood fence on the side along the house is still up and the garage, shed-like structure in the rear yard is still up. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is the house even occupied? It looks like everything is pretty well grown over. Page 170 January 24, 2008 MS. SCAVONE: There is no occupancy there. Yesterday when I was taking pictures of the violation remaining, the neighbor had come out and said that nobody had lived there for two years and he hasn't seen anyone. The notice that I had posted on the garage door was still there. So he says that he has not seen anyone in two years. MR. PONTE: Without sounding like Mr. Flood's echo, I have a question. In the description of the violations -- and I just don't know this. It says a garage conversion permit number and a laundry room conversion, both in inspect status and permits expired without being CO 'd. Is that a violation? MS. SCAVONE: Yes. MR. PONTE: If I have a permit and abandon the property or the work has been done and I don't -- I mean, does it mean that I then have to go get an inspection, even though I don't live there? MS. SCAVONE: The permit was from 2004. I do not know when the property was, you know, abandoned. I don't know that. It is inspect status, which the dates have expired. MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. SCAVONE: Which means the permit is no good anymore. If they have done any work, the permit is not valid. MR. PONTE: I understand that part of it. What I don't understand is if I have abandoned the work that I'm in violation of something. I'm not even using it. MS. ARNOLD: But you started it. And you either have to then convert it back to its original, unpermitted condition, you know, prior to obtaining the permit for improvement condition or you have to continue it and commence through CO. That's a part of the requirement. You don't just simply get a permit and then just forget about it. That's not what the permit requirements are. You have to go through and get your inspections and get a certificate of completion or a Page 171 January 24,2008 certificate of occupancy. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Were any inspections performed at all? MS. SCAVONE: There were two inspections. There was one inspection on each, but one was a spot survey and one -- do you have those papers? MR. KRAENBRING: Was it-- MS. SCAVONE: Notice of commencement. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. So we don't even know if they did the work inside. MS. SCAVONE: Correct. I have not been able to get into the property at all. MR. KRAENBRING: And the neighbors know nothing about the whereabouts of the owner? MS. SCAVONE: No. MR. KRAENBRING: I hope they are not inside or something. MR. LEFEBVRE: The permit, what was the name of the person that pulled that permit? If there was a property transfer or a warranty deed from February 14th, 2005, which is after the permit, so possibly this current owner may not know of any permits that were pulled. MS. SCAVONE: It is possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: So do you have that permit there? MS. SCAVONE: I just have -- it was owner/agent. It was a Jesus Ledo. MR. LEFEBVRE: And Sandra Chacon? MS. SCAVONE: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which were the previous owners. So, theoretically this person, Zamora, may not even know there had been any work -- MS. SCAVONE: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- done or permit applied to. Page 172 January 24,2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'm going to close the public hearing and go to the board for a finding of fact. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Your recommendations, please. MS. SCAVONE: The County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in amount of$251.65 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by submitting a complete application for any and all Collier County building permits or demolition permit, obtain the permit, request all required inspections and obtain a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Investigator within 24 hours of when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Put it on the monitor for us, please. MR. PONTE: That's all fine, but aren't we kind of whistling in the wind here? Page 173 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently the respondent hasn't even been notified. MR. PONTE: Right. We could say $10,000 a day and due -- I just feel that we are wasting a hell of a lot of postage. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She still has -- MR. KRAENBRING: It is troubling that there has been no response. It seems like something is afoul here. MR. PONTE: The property is abandoned. The respondent could be dead. MR. KRAENBRING: Out of the country. MR. PONTE: Out of the country. MR. KELLY: Are we allowed to even hear this case if they are not served or notified? MR. PONTE: I'm sorry. What? MR. KELLY: What is the due process? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: I think probably it was posted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It was posted. The posting was still there when she went back. So we know they haven't received it. So we have done what we have had to do legally, correct? MS. RAWSON: Legally it was posted. So that is notification legally? The testimony is that she never has any contact with the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We just proceed and eventually something will come up and the individual can come back to us, I assume. MR. PONTE: Well, at $200 a day and not being able to get in touch with anybody, we just logically assume that that fine is going to increase at a very, very rapid rate. And in not too long we'll be sitting here looking at forwarding something to the county attorney's office that is in the thousands and thousands of dollars -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I question -- Page 174 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: -- way over the value of the property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: $200 a day seems to be the average fine for today, but I'm wondering, this is a permit that was pulled by a previous party. This individual might not even know that there was a permit pulled. The fact that we haven't been able to get in touch with them is another troubling issue. I don't think it's doing anybody any harm because the permits were there. We don't know if they were acted on or not because you haven't been able to be inside to inspect. MS. SCAVONE: Right. But there is also the shed and the fence, which the fence -- part of the fence was removed, so somebody had to have been there. MR. PONTE: Somebody could have just taken it. MS. SCAVONE: True. It was in the rear yard. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't know, $200 a day is exceSSive. MR. PONTE: I think it is. MR. KRAENBRING: Somebody could have just taken the fence if they felt the property was abandoned. MR. MORGAN: For the violation it's excessive. MR. PONTE: I think whatever fine we put on it is moot. It doesn't make any difference. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about $50 and how about a year? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't have a problem with anything, other than the amount of the fine per day. MR. PONTE: I do have this question. Is the property secured? It is abandoned. Can kids get in it and make it a clubhouse? How forcefully did you try? MS. SCAVONE: You don't. If! knock on the front door and no one answers, I don't -- MR. PONTE: I mean, could someone easily get in it? Could kids start using it as a clubhouse or homeless people use it as a Page 175 January 24,2008 shelter? MS. SCAVONE: I am sure that could happen. I don't know. I have not tried to access the doors or windows. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We are not looking at that. MR. PONTE: I know that. I'm curious. MR. KRAENBRING: I know this may be overstepping the bounds of what we do, but maybe we should call the Sheriff and have them see if anybody is inside or, you know, if -- MS. SCAVONE: We can do that. The way the house is placed on the property, there are two homes on either side of it and then that home is kind of in the back properties of the other two. They are close lots, so everybody is able to see if somebody is coming or going. MR. PONTE: Another curious question. Does it have electricity? MS. SCAVONE: I don't know ifit is turned on. MR. PONTE: If it does, then there is an electric meter and FPL knows who is paying the electrical bill. MR. MORGAN: You can look at the meter and see if that wheel is turning. MS. SCAVONE: Right. As a code enforcement investigator, if! don't have authorization from that property owner to go around the property or behind the front door entrance, I don't. I can't. MR. KRAENBRING: I don't think we are picking on you. MS. SCAVONE: I understand. MR. KRAENBRING: Weare kind of concerned, like I said. MS. SCAVONE: I agree. I have made numerous attempts to try to get ahold of them. This has been since 2006. I have tried everything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Shall we move forward with a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I will make a motion that we accept the County's recommendations, except that we're going to be changing the Page 176 January 24, 2008 fine to $50 a day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: What about the time frame? MR. KRAENBRING: Leave it at 120. MR. LEFEBVRE: $50 I think is a little bit light. MR. PONTE: There's nobody there. MR. KRAENBRING: If that person is avoiding it, that will probably get their attention at $50 a day. MR. KELL Y: I second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Motion passes. And last, but not least, of our public hearings is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Logical Investments, LLC. MS. MARKU: That is reference to Department Case No. 2007080822. For the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence. I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I will entertain a motion. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept packet A. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 177 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, Land Development Code, as amended, Section 5.04.05(A)(I), 5.04.05(A)(2). Description of violation: Banner displayed without first obtaining required temporary use permit. Location/address where violation exists: 1250 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida, Folio No. 68440120003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Gregory E. Leach, 2171 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: August 20th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 5th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 15th, 2007. Date of reinspection: September 28th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Investigator Kitchell Snow. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Department Case No. 2007080822. This case was concerning a legal banner that was displayed without proper permits. The respondent has abated the violation by obtaining a temporary use permit with two times the amount of the normal permit fees for after-the-fact permits. They have paid operational costs in this case. Page 178 January 24, 2008 They are not here today because they have done everything that they need to do to satisfy what the County wished; however, we wish to require or wish to ask for a finding of fact that a violation did exist on this property just in case down the line they do that again. (Mr. Morgan left the boardroom.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for your service. It has been my pleasure to appear before you for the past year. And I thank you for that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. I will close the public hearing and ask for a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: Make the motion that a violation did exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. MS. RAWSON: Are there costs? MR. SNOW: No, ma'am. They paid them. All costs have been paid. They are done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So at this time we can close the public hearings. We'll move to the request of imposition of fines. And I believe there is a gentleman I promised would go first. If he would let me know his name, so we can pull his claims. MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Hollingsworth. MS. ARNOLD: That would be Board of Collier County Page 179 January 24, 2008 Commissioners versus Glen Hollingsworth and Marsha Kendall Hollingsworth. This case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on September 26th, 2007. The order was provided to you for your information. Compliance has not yet been met. And the county is at this time asking for fines for -- from the period of September 26th -- excuse me -- September 27th, 2007 through October 10th, 2007, 15 days, at a rate of $200 a day for $3,000, plus operational costs in the amount of $459.82. This was a conversion of a first floor into living space. And I believe the property owners are working towards getting permits to convert it into storage. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Y es. You said September 27th? MS. ARNOLD: 24th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have the 24th? MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I was trying to reduce the fines for it. Okay. And the Hollingsworth's are here and I believe they have their engineer here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Go ahead. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KELLY: I have a point of clarification. Really quick, I just looked at the order for our board meeting of July 26th and it also states that -- on the affidavit of noncompliance that on July 26th the Code Enforcement Board met. Should it be the 26th? MS. ARNOLD: That's what it says. MR. KELLY: I thought you said 24th. MS. ARNOLD: 24th of September is when the fines started. MR. KELL Y: I see. Thank you. (Mr. Morgan returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sorry. We are getting punchy. Everybody is tired. Go ahead. Page 180 January 24, 2008 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I'm not going to go back in details because I know you have notes. This was a piece of property that we got blindsided. We had all legal documents showing there wasn't any permitting issues out there, that they enclosed it and signed off that there was no additions or anything like that. It was just the way we bought it. So we didn't know. And we ended up getting a surprise. And since then we have done -- we've spent an awful lot of money with the contractors and hiring engineers and drafting and depending on all these people to help me bring this up to get permitted. So I think to explain everything it would be best to have Mr. Lockhart, my engineer, handle that for me and time guidelines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Lockhart, if you will step forward and I will have you sworn in, too. THE COURT REPORTER: He was sworn in. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. Thank you for being patient. MR. LOCKHART: Sure. No problem. It is cold in here. In reference to the case in general, as I understand it, this was an old case that was investigated and supposedly some demolition permits obtained and it closed out. This was back in 2004. Subsequently my client has purchased the property and finds that code didn't do the job properly and the case should not have been closed out. So, you know, again, nobody is perfect. That goes here for my client. When I was retained, plans were put together to convert this area to storage. That was the end of July. A plan was finalized July 30th. Again, the time frame from your meeting, July 26th, not much time was wasted. Because there was work that was done after the fact, or as best as I can understand it, that actually preceded the 2004, I chose to use a permit by affidavit procedure as a registered engineer in the state. And that was submitted to the County -- actually, it was submitted to Page 181 January 24,2008 my client who had retained the contractor. And he was given the burden of submitting everything to the County. And obviously it was clarified to him to do it by September 24th or fines will be imposed. I'm not sure really what the delays were, but everything was given to him by August 30th. Again, all I'm trying to reference is there was due diligence. And yet things do take some time. After the plan was prepared at the end of July until the end of August, I did have to do certain inspections, go into the residence, make sure that what isn't allowed was removed and what was to be remaining was per building code. And then in turn I filled out the various forms and made it such that it would be permittable. And by permit -- by affidavit it actually is supposed to be issuing a permit. I never have really gotten the clarification in Collier County how they work their permits by affidavit, but it apparently is now being reviewed secondarily by the building department. And I only bring this up with reference to -- an application, as I understand it, was submitted on October 7th. And it has been held up by the fire department because they have -- excuse me -- received my plan, reviewed it. I am quoting from the County review letter. However, after field verification, this is a residential occupancy with a tenant living in this unit. This is not storage. It should not be reviewed as such. Please revise this plan to reflect that it is a tenant and that it is a living area. So there is confusion here, in my opinion. Number one, it seems that the fire department is quasi code enforcement. Secondly, it appears that he is not in understanding that we are trying to convert it to storage, even though it is clearly stated in the plan. And I just say this because we are not going to get anywhere, in terms of having a permit issued, until somebody addresses whatever confusion is out there. MS. ARNOLD: I have spoken to Mr. Lockhart and I indicated Page 182 January 24,2008 that I will try to talk to the fire department to clear up the misunderstanding on their part with regard to what the use is being requested for. MR. LOCKHART: That would be great, again, as I'm trying to lay a little foundation that nothing happens quickly. And ifthere is any consideration that the -- my client has worked in a very expeditious manner and $3,000 is still $3,000. And if that could be reduced or abated for good effort, I certainly would appreciate it on their behalf. I think it is consistent with -- the mandate of this board is not to penalize people and punish them and financially do damage, but to get the violations corrected. If you have any questions. MR. KELL Y: Did you say the work was completed? MR. LOCKHART: Yes. MR. KELL Y: In Collier County I believe permit by affidavit means that you come in after the fact, and certify that it has been done correctly. MR. LOCKHART: Well, permit by affidavit is verifying that the walls that were constructed were done per code, that the electrical, minor plumbing was done per code. Again, it should have met all the conditions for a building department, such as Miami-Dade where I have recently done that. I walk in and walk out the same hour with a permit. Again, I'm working with Gary Harrison and other people trying to get some clarification on the permit by affidavit. That would at least eliminate where we're at and we would have a permit in hand and this thing would be closed and we wouldn't have to possibly come back and have more work on it and the code birddogging what is gomg on. Again, I am diligent and going to work on resolving some of those issues. In the meantime, we just need the fire department to understand we want it to be storage. And if there is any concerns Page 183 January 24, 2008 about a future reconversion, we can't change the future. We can't police everybody 24/7. Everything that the prior owners had constructed for it to be a living, water closets, lavatory sink, those have been removed. And, again, that's what is reflected with the plan, the permit application, and my affidavit. MR. KELL Y: Michelle, how long do you think it will take to get the fire department to move on this and then get it finalized? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can try to talk to Bob either today or tomorrow and see what -- they are not being penalized for the time that the County is sitting on the review process. MR. LOCKHART: No, no. Your position is from the date -- MS. ARNOLD: Prior to -- MR. SNOW: And 60 days just wasn't quite enough. We needed 70. And Mr. Lockhart asked me prior to us coming back -- you know, coming here to check the minutes. And I did check the minutes and there was some discussion on how much time to give for that. I believe there was a Contractor Arveel (phonetic )-- MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: -- who said he could do it in 30 days, and the board was generous to give an additional 30 days on top of what he requested. MR. LOCKHART: You hired somebody else? MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Yeah. Right. MR. LOCKHART: Apparently they have hired somebody else because that was unrealistic. It is a hard thing to nail down, especially as the markets have changed. It is funny, today everybody is busy, but what were we a little over a year ago? Super busy. One more comment. I have spoken to Bob Savaggio (phonetic) three different times. This morning at 8:00 he said his boss, Ed Riley, is the one that made the final decision. I would recommend Ed Riley Page 184 January 24, 2008 as the person to talk to. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, what is your position? You want to see completeness. MS. ARNOLD: There was no corrective action taken and normally the board doesn't reduce or abate the fine until the violation has been corrected. MR. KELL Y: My suggestion would be to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just let it run. MR. KELLY: -- give an extension. Can't we terminate the order and write a new one or get an extension to this order? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That gets complicated. MS. RAWSON: It does. I don't know. You know, I don't like to do that because, you know, then I don't like to see you guys changing your orders. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In the past haven't we done something like this and just go ahead and impose the fine? But once you come into compliance, you come back to us -- MS. RAWSON: And then you can reduce it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- ask for a reduction of fines and follow through that way? And you can bring up the points that you have brought forward. And I won't be here anymore, but I understand and I know this group is very, very good about understanding those types of things. I am sure that they will be just. MS. RAWSON: It is right in the ordinance about the fact that you look at -- in terms of deciding whether to reduce or abate a fine. And one of them, of course, is the compliance. MR. LOCKHART: Right. I really didn't mean to dwell too much on that. I know compliance must be made first. I wanted to bring it up because we can't get to compliance unless we get -- nudge the building department. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So I will entertain a Page 185 January 24, 2008 motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we leave our initial ruling in place and they come back upon completing everything. MS. ARNOLD: Well, what the County is asking right now is to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation to impose the fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Mario Alvarez. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard on June 18th and the order was provided for your review. As of the 18th it had not been in compliance. I believe it is still in noncompliance. The County -- this violation was the conversion of a screened lanai into extra living space without county permits. The county is at this time asking that fines at a rate of $200 per day from the period between September 17th, 2007 through December 27th, 2007, 100 -- I don't know if that is 110 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It says 101 here. MS. ARNOLD: 101 days, September to December, okay? 101 days for a total of $20,200 and an additional $315.51 for operational costs, for a total of $20,515.51. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We are all trying to do the math. Page 186 January 24, 2008 It didn't seem right. 31 days in December. So only 27 days, October, November, 30 and 30,87, and then September 17th to the -- he has got it. It is right. Okay. The math is correct. We are all checking ourselves. Please swear in the parties. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, sir. Go ahead. MR. ALVAREZ: Okay. My name is Mario Alvarez. I would like to make a request and I would like to explain why. The house is under my name because my sister and her husband did not have good credit to get the house under their name. So that's why the house is under my name. I do not live there. They are the ones that live there. They basically are the ones who converted the lanai to a -- to like a living space. I do travel a lot. I haven't been here for a few months. So they were the ones trying to fix everything that they started. The husband has not been on a job for almost a year now. So he hasn't been able to pay for the -- I think the last thing he had to do was the electrical inspections. So he had to hire an electrician. He hasn't had the money to do that. And that's the reason why this was stopped. And he doesn't understand and I don't understand what other inspections need to be done. According to the paper, there is a landscape inspection. I think the flooring inspection. We don't know which more inspections need to be done or what other improvements we need to do to the site in order to get the -- everything sealed, everything done. So that's why I like -- if allowed for him to talk about this problem. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Instead of yourself you're saying? MR. ALVAREZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We can swear him in and he can speak. Page 187 January 24,2008 MS. ARNOLD: You will have to interpret for him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does he speak English? MR. DEPOZO: Yes, I do. It is not very, very good English. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you understand? MR. DEPOZO: Yes, I do. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DEPOZO: My name is DePozo. And we are -- my wife, Marta, we are living at 2912 44th Street. That's the house that we bought like about two years ago. And about that time I was -- I got a good job. I was working in New York and I had to travel. My wife stayed by herself in the house. And then when the hurricane came, Wilma, it took our lanai and everything apart. So then she was by herself and my three kids. And she was afraid because there was a lot of animals coming in, snakes and all that kind of animals. So she was afraid. She found somebody to to enclose the lanai. We were not thinking of converting living space, just to close it, but then a person that she found suggested to enclose it and everything. So then we pay someone to do that. We really didn't know that we have -- because we were not doing an addition. And to my understanding, for addition is where you need a permit. But we didn't know that, that information. And so then she -- I got a person who enclosed that lanai. And then -- well, we got that inspection and everything. We got a -- I mean, hearing in the court and everything, but I wasn't here. She was -- she wasn't that much informed about -- she doesn't have much knowledge about it. He wasn't in the country. So, you know, between that and everything, one thing and the other one, we let the time pass and we didn't -- we didn't get the compliance on the job. But I lost my job in New York, then everything changes. All my Page 188 January 24, 2008 -- all my my income went down and everything. I hardly been from one job to another one. And, you know, first thing is -- to me is my family and-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You need to come into compliance. I am sure that the code enforcement officer can work with you to let you know what inspections you still have to finish to come into compliance. And after that is done, then you need to come back to us and explain this type of situation to us that has happened. MR. DEPOZO: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we can look at whether we can reduce the fines or not. But in the meantime, because we have already put into motion the order previously when you weren't here, but she was and she didn't understand, that's running. MR. DEPOZO: I understand that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It has to come into compliance before we can say that that clock has stopped. And then we can look at reducing or rearranging or changing things, but you have to come into compliance first. MR. DEPOZO: Okay. That's the other thing. Like he mentioned before, my son -- my step-son, he speaks a little bit more English. He called the county to see what the inspections we need to get done. And they said that -- that he needs electrical, framing and -- and the -- what do you call it? MS. ARNOLD: The elevation? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Elevation? MR. KRAENBRING: The floor elevation. MR. DEPOZO: But that is what I don't know. I just know that -- it said the only inspection that we need was the electrical and the framing and the insulation. So we did comply with that. But the electrical -- because the gentleman that inspect the electrical, he said we need to hire a licensed electrician to do that. So we -- we don't have the money to do that. Page 189 January 24, 2008 So I asked him how long do I have to finish that job. And he told me, well, you have up to six months. So I said, well, maybe in that time I can get the money and hire somebody. But things are bad for me right now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Before you say anything, if we can have you sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. GOMEZ: For the record, Carmelo Gomez, Code Enforcement Investigator. Ma'am, what happened was when we finally decided in 2006 -- it got to the point that we had to bring it to CEB. At that time Mr. Alvarez on June 19th of 2007 signed a stipulation. And he had 90 days from the time that he signed the stipulation to pick up the permits. First of all, let me get back on track. The permits were already waiting two to three months in permitting. So then that's why we only gave him 90 days when we came to CEB to get it CO'd. The permits were already there. His inspection -- the last inspection that he had was October 19th, 2007, which at that time he had a problem with the electrical. I believe Ed Mitchell from inspections went by and they didn't pass. I also did an inspection on that day just to see how things were going. I did speak to his son-in-law, who happens to be a Collier County employee or was a Collier County employee. And he was more familiar with the routines. So we talked for a little bit and at that time it was brought to my attention that they needed to get the floor elevation taken care of, the electrical had to be done by a licensed electrician. Also, the framing had to be reinspected, which was going to be a problem because now they had to remove the walls to make sure that the framing was done correctly. Page 190 January 24,2008 Also, the very first thing that they were told that they need to get is the product information for hurricane standards, which I'm not sure that was even done up to now. So in essence that's where we stand here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Like I explained to him, you're going to have to come into compliance. You're going to have to do all the things that are required to get your CO. The length of time you take to do it, the fines are going to continue to accrue and keep adding up. So it would behoove you to attempt to get those things taken care of as quickly as possible. Once you come into compliance, then you can come back and ask us to reduce the fines. In the meantime, there is nothing we can do, other than tell you that we'll probably decide to move forward until you come into compliance. Weare kind of caught. MR. GOMEZ: I know. I understand that. Yeah, I just want to let you know that mostly it's an economical situation right now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Understood. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is towards Mr. Alvarez. The house is under your ownership. MR. ALVAREZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: It runs with the property. If you had a tenant in there not paying rent, you still would have to be in compliance. It may be in your best interest to pay for whatever needs to be done to get this house in order and get it inspected so you do not have these fines. You haven't stated to us at all about a hardship -- any kind of financial hardship. Whereas, your brother-in-law has. You, as the owner, it is ultimately your responsibility. So you need to get the house into compliance. Again, this is $200 a day. This is. MR. ALVAREZ: I understand that. That's -- well, I didn't think I needed to tell you about my Page 191 January 24, 2008 financial situation. But it is not -- I don't know. I don't know if it's everywhere, but it's not good for me right now. And it's not for him. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you didn't say that until I just mentioned it now. MR. ALVAREZ: My request was for him to talk, not to talk about me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What Gerald is trying to say is you're still the owner of record of the property . You're the one that is ultimately responsible and it is your credit, I think, technically. MR. ALVAREZ: I know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You guys need to work on it as quickly as you can. That's the best advice I can give you. MR. ALVAREZ: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose the fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The fines are imposed at this time and still accruing. So try to get it taken care of and come back to us. MR. DEPOZO: Thank you. MR. ALVAREZ: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the last person -- last, but not least, Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Ted Zhi"Luo. Page 192 January 24, 2008 MR. LUO: That would be me. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Luo, this case was heard on October 25th, 2007. And a copy of the order was provided for you with the -- with the executive summary. To date we're still not in compliance. And the County is at this time requesting fines at a rate of $200 per day from the period of November 25th, 2007 through December 27th, 2007, which is 32 days, for a total of $6,400, plus operational costs of $449.41, for a total of 6,000 -- I guess the operational costs have been paid. So we're requesting that the fines in the amount of $6,400 be imposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LUO: Okay. Well, when I was here last time I did -- I decide to pay from right here, okay? We are talking about October, but I put 34 tree, which is required, they require 36 tree, okay? I bought 34 tree -- pine tree. I bought eight cypress tree, okay? So I put -- I think I put 28 pine tree, but I have nine tree left over from last time, whatever before. About seven probably about two foot, three foot, but two of them is about like eight, ten foot. So I count for that, too. I put 28. There was altogether like 27, 28, whatever it is. And then I talked to -- whenever I sign the paper, I talk to Michelle. She said, well, I have been there, but there is only 28. I said, well, why? I mean, there is 37 trees there. She said, those are too small, we're not counting those trees. So I plant another six trees left over from what I put. Altogether it should be 36,37 tree from what I have done -- you know, after whatever it is. And then I thought it was -- everything, you know, should be okay, which is late like October, like beginning of November. But November, either the 2nd or the 3rd, I call her -- call Michelle, left a message on her phone. I call her, just want her to call Page 193 January 24, 2008 me back say everything comply, you know, whatever. The tree I was talking about. I didn't receive a phone call. Left the message there either the 2nd or the 3rd, okay, which is November. And then probably three weeks ago I got this paper again, which is for today's hearing. The second day I call her, left a message about this, about the paper. So I guess probably was sometime like November, either 9th or 10th. So that was my first call. The following week, which is November 15th, I call her again, left a message again. So the whole week nobody called. It was Tuesday. My last call from her was two days ago. She called me back, which is the 22nd, about 10:00. I was home. She called me -- it was in my phone, my message, and then I called her back. So I found out, you know, whatever she was talking about the tree, you know, short or whatever. And then I went -- I told her, I said, Michelle, those are trees there. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, it's not Michelle, it is Jennifer. MR. LUO: Jennifer. Sorry. Jennifer, okay? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I asked Michelle. MR. LUO: Asked Jennifer, whatever it is. Sorry. She said, I'm coming over there if you say your trees there. So I didn't go nowhere, but she didn't ask me to stay in my house to meet up there. I did stay. She come by probably maybe an hour or two. So I -- she did everything. I saw someone in the back. She was with another person or whatever from the code enforcement. So I walk towards to her. I asked her what was going on about my tree. And then I show her about -- I do have like five or six dead trees there for the last two months, which -- you know, probably should be. Some of the tree, you put it down you can't be 100 percent surviVe. That was five tree. I showed it to her. I said, Michelle, those are tree dead, but I already replace it. You know, I bought another six, Page 194 January 24, 2008 seven tree from whatever I bought from before, you know. So all of those have been done probably last week, okay? All of those been done. I had two more cypress tree. I have 12 cypress tree right there and should be 37 pine tree in my property. And she is saying those are trees dead and I'm not count those. Those tree short. It is not 10 foot. You know, but this -- after I talked to her, I did call the county manager office, whatever it was, I have. I think it was the secretary or whatever. She recommend order, which is the whole case, whatever -- I found the word Paul. Starting over. In October 24, this is what we got. I think she write all this. Jennifer. Right here, eight cypress tree high above six foot and 29 pine 10 foot high, one cypress tree -- no, one sabal. I mean, why for this long, for last two months? I call -- I called few times. I called one time in November. Why she not return my call? And why -- when I left over here, I was talking to her in the hallway. I say, you know, if you coming over to see the tree, ifnot meet your requirement, you have got my number. I asked her to call me, but nobody did. Nobody called me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jennifer? MS. WALDRON: I did. For the record, Jennifer Waldron, Collier County Environmental Specialist. I just want to state that this -- the stipulation did read that Mr. Luo was required to install the plantings according to what the mitigation plan that was submitted on April 21st, 2006 by Ramsey, Inc. And this plan stated that he was supposed to have 36 pines and 10 cypress. It also stated that they were supposed to be a minimum of 14 feet and three inches in diameter breast height. So that is what was -- originally what he was supposed to be doing. I was working with him because I know 14- foot trees are very Page 195 January 24, 2008 hard to come by and they're very expensive. So I was accepting 10- foot trees. Well, I did go out there on Tuesday and counted the trees with another investigator, Investigator Sorrell also, and he has 34 pines, not all of them being mitigation size. He has got 12 cypress, which I don't believe any of them are mitigation size. And it looks like -- if you break the stem it's still green on the inside, but they are so close to dead. There is -- a few of them have leaves, but most of them do not. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: On the cypress? MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cypress are dormant in the winter. MR. LUO: Right. MS. WALDRON: Most of them still have something on them. I have pictures I can show you, if you want to see them. MR. LUO: Can I say something? Like cypress, like everybody know, this time of the year they grow really slow. I'm not saying I know tree, but I know if you go outside right now any cypress you can't see color right now. There is no color right now. All my 12 cypress trees right now, if you look at the tree some of them already sprout. It should come back, those trees. I only planted a couple last couple months. At this time of year, again, cypress there is no color right now. They already sprout. Like I say, I call her. I willing to do whatever it take. Those tree going to be okay. Those tree going to be grow from what I tell her. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jennifer, again, how many is he short? MS. WALDRON: Well, at this point all of the cypress are not to mitigation size. So he needs at least 10 cypress that are at least 10 feet tall and that are surviving. He is required to have all the plants surviving when I do my final Page 196 January 24, 2008 inspection. And then 80 percent survival for -- I believe, it was still five years at the time of this hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So he needs 10 cypress. MS. WALDRON: The pines I didn't count. I didn't measure all of the pines, so I don't know. You know, at that point I knew he was not in compliance so I didn't measure all the pines to see what the heights were. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He has 34 and he-- MS. WALDRON: He has 34, but not all are mitigation size. MS. ARNOLD: Describe the difference between what is there and what is mitigation size. MR. SNOW: Well, if! could show you the pictures, it would explain it a lot easier what mitigation size is and what isn't. I mean, the trees -- the cypress there right now are probably five feet tall and they are required to be 14 feet by code. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you feel the gentleman has been working towards compliance? MS. WALDRON: I don't. I really don't. He has replanted -- he says replanted, he's replanted. This case has been going on since 2006. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. LUO: Well, if we go that far then, I mean, I -- from this -- from the beginning, I have a permit for my -- to cut the tree in 2006, which is right here. This permit, okay? I have -- I do everything else and submit to the county to get a permit to cut -- where the tree going to be cut. All those going to be cut. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not here to rehear the case. MS. WALDRON: The bottom line is he is not in compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're not in compliance. Okay. I'm going to stop there. The board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose fine. Page 197 January 24,2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No second. Okay. MR. PONTE: It seems to me that he is working hard to be in compliance. MR. KRAENBRING: It is tough to grow a tree in this drought. It seems like he is trying. I know this is a big task. I know that we ultimately impose the fine and have him come back when he's in compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's technically what we need to do because he is not following the order of the board, according to the mitigation agreement. MS. ARNOLD: I think that -- just to make a point of clarification, the order was to submit a mitigation plan. And again the mitigation plan tells you how many trees and the sizes and the types of trees that should be planted. He has planted trees, but they don't meet CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The requirement. MS. ARNOLD: -- the requirement of what the mitigation plan that, incidentally, he submitted. And it is not the county that told him what to plant, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, looking to the board for a motion to impose fines or to not impose fines. That's the question. MR. KELLY: Crazy idea. Since the respondent submitted the mitigation plan, is there any chance that he can resubmit a mitigation plan, given what is planted there now, and it may be accepted by County? MS. WALDRON: No, it would not be accepted by County. It was submitted by an environmental consultant who he hired. They did the mitigation plans according to the Land Development Code. I want to stress to you also, I am giving him a break by letting Page 198 January 24,2008 him plant 10-foot trees. I don't have to. The county doesn't have to do that. The Land Development Code says 14- foot at minimum. MR. KELLY: Can you give him a break on the cypress, too, and be done with it? MS. WALDRON: All I'm asking -- what I'm asking for is 10-foot trees in the amount specified in the mitigation plan, which is what he stipulated to and agreed to. MR. KRAENBRING: So he needs 10 cypress? MS. WALDRON: He needs 10 cypress, 36 pines total. MR. KRAENBRING: So he needs four pines and 10 cypress? MS. WALDRON: They all need to be mitigation size also. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't know if she has the number on how many pines or not. MR. PONTE: When you say you're giving him a credit, how is that credit applied? I mean, knocking off so much per acceptable tree. Giving him credit sounds great, but it doesn't do anything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to decide whether or not to impose a fine or not impose a fine today. That's all we have got to today. He needs to come into compliance according to the mitigation plan. And then he can come back to us and argue to his heart's content in regards to reduction of the fine. That's all we're doing today. I had a motion on the floor. It has not been seconded to impose the fine. Are we saying we don't want to impose the fine and we're just going to let him walk against our order? MR. PONTE: I don't think this fine should be imposed. MR. KRAENBRING: He is supposed to come into compliance though, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: He never completed the mitigation plan. I mean, that's the long and short. MR. KELLY: There are extenuating circumstances. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I don't understand what they are ifhe Page 199 January 24, 2008 didn't follow the plan. I can see if eight trees died or 10 trees died because of drought conditions. That was not the case. He didn't put in the right size. MR. KELL Y: He couldn't get them. The county -- MR. LEFEBVRE: She was able -- she said, okay, I will go down to 10 feet. He is lacking in pines -- in the amount of pines trees, if I'm not mistaken, which he didn't follow the mitigation plan. It is not like he put in -- what is the amount he had to put in? MS. WALDRON: 36 pines. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ifhe put 36 pines in and eight died, I can say he did try to fulfill the plan. He didn't. MR. KELLY: There's thirty-four and two replanted from what he removed. MR. LUO: Okay. I do right now 37 trees right there. Pine trees, 37. But Jennifer come over, she measured up two days ago. But like I say, she been there -- from what I see this report, she been there more than a couple of times. Why all in between those times -- I left phone message on her answering machine, why can't she call me? Why can't she return my call? MS. WALDRON: That's really not relevant at this point. He's still not in compliance. Even though he's saying he called, I have no record of those phone calls in my records also. MR. LUO: I still have my phone in my car for last couple of call. MS. WALDRON: That's not the point. We don't want to argue the case. We need to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The plan was never followed through with. A plan that was not imposed by the county, a plan that was imposed by his own consultant. We're just saying, that's okay you didn't fulfill the plan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He didn't do as we ordered. Page 200 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Per the LDC says you're supposed to have "X" amount of trees, which this Ramsey Company followed and he did not follow. We're now saying we don't have to follow the LDC. That's basically what we're saying if we do not impose a fine. MR. PONTE: I think you have to give consideration to the fact that an effort was made to do that. An expense was also incurred in doing it. Some of the trees died. The County said, okay, 10- foot trees are all right. And that was given some credit. There was a variability there. I'm saying that perhaps we ought not impose this fine today. We ought to see what happens to those cypress trees. Maybe they are not dead. Maybe they are, as the respondent suggested and even the Chairman suggested, that they lose -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He still doesn't have enough cypress trees. MS. WALDRON: And they're not for the right size still anyway. If they die, they are still not mitigation trees. MS. ARNOLD: I think what the County is trying to represent to the board, but we haven't showed you the photographs because they haven't been allowed, is that there was some consideration given to the fact that he planted something. There was some effort made. But the effort that was made, it wasn't a matter of, okay, I have got a requirement of 14 feet and I planted 10 feet and they're 10-foot healthy trees. We are talking about three-foot saplings that are planted as opposed to the required 14 feet in some cases. MR. PONTE: Excuse me. I thought the testimony we heard was that 10- foot trees -- MS. ARNOLD: She would have allowed it, yes. MR. PONTE: You planted three-foot trees? MS. WALDRON: They are all different sizes. MR. LUO: No. Those five trees dead, they're all over 10 foot. I took pictures, but my computer down. I cannot get the picture over to Page 201 January 24, 2008 -- so they are all over 10 foot tall, okay? The five trees dead. All those replaced. Right now she is saying 34 tree right now because the day -- Tuesday she went over there some of those are like eight-foot trees. She say -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We do have pictures. I am going to go ahead and ask to see the pictures. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion to accept the photos. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PONTE: Ifwe wait long enough the trees will be acceptable height. MS. WALDRON: I will explain the pictures as we go through them. This is one of our other investigators who was standing there for scale. And this tree on the top of it -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a diameter requirement also? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MS. WALDRON: Yes. Diameter at breast height is three inches. You can clearly see that is not three inches. MR. PONTE: It's certainly not. MS. WALDRON: That is less than her height, which she is five foot, seven. And these trees don't look like healthy trees to me either. So that's my opinion. That's the mitigation area. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The trees are not 10 foot. Page 202 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: The evidence is wrong, too. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I go back now that we have seen these pictures. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose the fine. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Zhi Luo, you have made an attempt to plant trees, but you have to come into compliance with your own mitigation plan. Those trees have to be a specified height and they have to be a specified diameter. I'm telling you, despite her, you need to have -- is it 34? MS. WALDRON: 36 pine trees. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 36 pine trees that are at least 10 foot tall. MR. LUO: Those are-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Those are not 10 foot tall. MR. LUO: Well, you could-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you need to have cypress trees. MS. WALDRON: Ten cypress trees. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ten foot tall. Get that done, come into compliance and come back and see us. MR. LUO: Well, like I say, those are pine trees probably like two or three probably not over pine tree. Any of you folks come over Page 203 January 24, 2008 and measure it up. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll measure them when they are planted. MR. LUO: Cypress probably not over 10 foot, okay? Cypress, again, no color at this time of year. There's no color. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't bring up the fact that she thought some of the cypress trees were dead. I need to see 10 cypress trees that are 10-foot tall and that have a three-inch diameter. I need to see 36, 37 -- MS. WALDRON: Thirty-six. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 36 pine trees 10-foot tall with a three- inch diameter. Get that done and the clock will stop and you can come back and we'll talk to you about reducing fines because you did make an effort and you put in an expense. MR. LUO: When you're saying I coming back; here? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You come back here once you come into compliance. MS. WALDRON: Let me just note that he needs to contact me when he -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need you to contact her so she can tell you that you are okay. MS. WALDRON: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, you're just thinking you have one day left. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I am not trying to do this, guys. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would just like to take the time -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't think I have done this since, like, my fourth meeting where we went this long and I didn't have lunch. MS. RAWSON: Weren't you here in November? Don't you remember November? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We broke for lunch, didn't we? Page 204 January 24, 2008 MS. RAWSON: We did 20 minutes. MS. ARNOLD: Was it November? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We were here until 4:30. She almost missed her plane. MS. RAWSON: I did. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you miss your plane? MS. RAWSON: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Rules and regs are back. I attempted again to get these endorsed by the board and there were some questions. There was one question about -- let me try to find my notes here. The fact that under Article V, under attendance, paragraph B, it says that if a member misses two out of three successive board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, he or she may forfeit his or her appointment. And the question was: Is it consistent with 2001-55? I believe that's the ordinance that governs all the advisory boards for the Board of County Commissioners. It is similar. It is not exactly the same. This language in your rules has two out of three in the ordinance. And if they miss two -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Consecutive. MS. ARNOLD: -- consecutive meetings that the Chairman may, you know, make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in writing or something like that. So if you want to change it so that it reflects exactly what the language says in that ordinance -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That has been there since -- MS. ARNOLD: I know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Forever. MS. ARNOLD: That was brought up. So if you want to change that. Also, there was a comment under your -- the same article under the voting section where it talks about each member shall cast a vote. Page 205 January 24, 2008 And each question before the board, except if any member has a personal interest, kind of -- that language is talking about a conflict of interest and abstaining, which you did, and whether or not you all were following the ethics ordinance. And should that be combined with the last sentence that you all added as a part of this amendment. That just was a general statement that said that you all shall comply with the Sunshine laws and the Code of Ethics. I'm kind of looking to you guys to see whether or not you want to combine those two sentences. I thought that -- you know, with the two of them, one as being very specific that you need to abstain if there's a conflict and the other one is general that touches upon conflicts and everything else that is contained in the code of ethics. So it is up to you all if you want to combine it. This is a suggestion from one of the commissioners. MR. PONTE: I'm not attempting to be funny here, but aren't we about to do this again? MS. ARNOLD: In March. MR. PONTE: That's right. So why don't we just accept all of that as is? MS. ARNOLD: Well-- MR. PONTE: And then in March -- we'll tighten it up then and also we were going to entertain in the next rules the possibility of a consent agenda for certain items. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. PONTE: There might be even other things. So maybe -- I signed the document. I went over to the office and said, okay, sign. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Several times. MR. PONTE: So let's just let that rest and start in March. MS. ARNOLD: We have a couple of options. Because when the consolidated ordinance was adopted, there was a requirement in there that the board has to endorse or approve your rules. We have always put your rules on the board agenda and the consent agenda and they Page 206 January 24, 2008 have always approved them when they approve the minutes. For some reason, this last go around -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because it is consolidated with the special master, so they are going to take a look at it harder. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know for what reason. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's the only differentiation. MS. ARNOLD: Well, it is not going through. Most of the comments were regarding your rules, not the special master rules. You know, I'm just pointing out those things. And one suggestion I was going to make is maybe a representative from the board be present at the next hearing so that you all can kind of speak for yourselves, rather than me being kind of the intermediary, you know, trying to speak for you all. Because I don't really feel comfortable saying, yes, you guys are going to be okay with that without talking to you about it. And there is kind of a little bit of a conflict in that, you know, you all feel these are your rules and the board has taken the position that they are their rules. They have to be comfortable with them as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I will make a suggestion that Mr. Kelly, who is eloquently able to speak, can stand up for the board at the next County Commission meeting as heard so we do -- so you can turn around in March and you can review them again. MS. ARNOLD: My question is really, are you able to even operate under these rules until they are passed by the board? So the ones that are really effective are the ones approved previously. So if you want to operate under these rules that you have spent a lot of time -- this last go around you guys spent a lot of time with trying to, you know, make sure that there is no conflict between yours and the special master's. If you want to operate under those then, you know, maybe have a representative come to the board, which is the first meeting in February I think we are going to do it, and present that to the board. Page 207 January 24,2008 But I don't know whether or not you want to make some of these changes that were suggested. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How many are there? MS. ARNOLD: There was one that was already recommended to be modified. The language that refers to the -- the Code Enforcement Board granting the County authority to abate violations when the violator fails to do so. Those limited few. We had modified it at the suggestion of the board to reflect what was in the statute and now it is being recommended that we modify it to include -- instead of saying local governing body, say County Manager. So I don't think you will have a problem with that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That is -- MS. ARNOLD: Last, but not least, there is a -- there was a question and I'm not really sure what the direction was about what the language in your rules mean. And this is referring to the language that was amended and included in your rules back in '99 where it gave your lien super status or super priority status equal to taxes. And I tried to explain what that was. And I don't know whether or not the question was that needed to be deleted or why is it in there or exactly what. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, didn't we put that in there -- MS. RAWSON: A long time ago. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In '99 the ordinance was amended. MS. RAWSON: It was Mr. Flegal's idea. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There was a reason for it. There was a case or something that had come up. I think we got bumped out of the picture. MS. RAWSON: Right. I think we lost out because when there is a foreclosure there is no money left for the county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We didn't get anything. MS. ARNOLD: That is still going to happen. Page 208 January 24, 2008 MS. RAWSON: Sure it is. Some ofthese properties our lien is more than the property is worth. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I mean, I don't know if anybody else has any problem with that. I can see that going by the wayside if that is a problem for the county. MS. RAWSON: What was the problem that the county had? MS. ARNOLD: I wasn't really sure. I thought they were just asking me what it meant. So I sent an e-mail saying what it meant and I got a -- another e-mail back. I wasn't sure if I answered the question. And there are -- there was as a part of this -- I'm glad that Jeff Wright walked in. As a part of this I'm supposed to be meeting with Jeff to find out what some of the redundancies are or -- that's the word that was used -- or problems that exist between your ordinance -- I mean, your rules and the special master's rules. The example that was brought up at the board meeting was the fact that you all gave 20 minutes for testimony and the special master gives only 10 and why not make it consistent. I thought there was a lot of discussion when we had our -- MR. PONTE: In theory, we are supposed to be hearing cases that are more complicated than those heard by the special master. That in itself would argue for a longer -- MS. ARNOLD: That was my answer, but I don't know. MS. RAWSON: I bet her hearings don't last until 3:30. MS. ARNOLD: Some of them do. She has 40 cases on her. If we have 40 cases at 20 minutes a pop, that's going to be a two-day hearing, if not three. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't think it was redundant because we are not actually looking at the same cases. MR. WRIGHT: If I may. MR. PONTE: Why not? Everybody else has today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Everybody else has today. Page 209 January 24, 2008 MR. WRIGHT: I think that if there are differences in the two rules and you're able to articulate why there is a difference, I think that's a very good reason for a difference. There's a higher volume of less complicated cases, but theoretically they shouldn't take as long. You're considering a lower volume with more complicated cases. It seems like time -- you would take more time to decide them. I think there is logical, articulable reasons for that difference. But there is others where there may be redundancies. I think that the idea is to get it as user friendly as possible. We talked about this in the workshop. I presented at that workshop a consolidated set of rules that -- I don't blame either the special magistrate or you for pointing to that Section 162 that you have the authority to adopt your own rules. That's basically what you're using as the basis for your rules -- drafting your own rules. But there is -- every time a question comes out there is a desire to limit redundancies and make the rules as small and user friendly as possible. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, I thought that's what we tried to do when we had our joint meeting. We really haven't swayed from that of what we all agreed from that much, I didn't think. We have adopted those rules and we've made a little tweak here and there. That's it. They are going back to questioning us on things that have been in our rules as long as I have been on the board. MR. WRIGHT: I have noticed that. And they are giving it a look as part of their duties. But it does seem that there are -- for example, I don't have the rules right in front of me. The section that says initiation of actions before the board or the special magistrate I think -- I think a lot of the same stock paragraphs appear in her rules and in your rules. And whether that is good or bad is not for me to decide. I think Page 210 January 24, 2008 there was a perception that that was a redundancy that probably made the rules thicker and less user friendly. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifwe have her rules and her rules pertain to her and we leave that out and when we have our rules and they pertain to our board and we have it in, then someone can argue that we can do it, but she can't. MR. SNOW: I understand. The draft of consolidated rules that I came up with -- that our office came up with had a section that said rules applicable to every proceeding, whether it is CEB, OSM or Nuisance Abatement Board, which is another hat that you all wear. Rarely use, but it is also. There is a section that says rules applicable to all proceedings. There was a section that said rules just to the special magistrate. And it deals with her contact renewal terms and all that kind of stuff that is unique to her. And then rules that are unique to the CEB; for example, how many members sit on the board, how they are chosen, then those are truly unique to the CEB. We try to par it out in those three ways. I could actually bring you all a draft. It is old and it probably needs some brushing up, but I can bring you all a draft of that and see if you want to consider that format. At this point I think that the direction is to remove redundancies. And as to how that is going to be done, given the fact that there is two separate set of rules, I'm not really sure what form it will take. MR. KELL Y: Can I make a comment since Jeff is there? Any time that you consolidate the amount of paperwork that the government has -- we see a number of cases where people may have a CEB case, but they also have one in front of the special magistrate. And to have kind of a common ground or proceedings and rules and regs that they have to go through, I think that is beneficial to the public. I think we should try to consolidate, if we can. Maybe in March. Page 211 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: George is having to leave. MS. ARNOLD: He added an item for stipulation on there. MR. PONTE: I'm going to just -- how about doing that -- I can't do it now. Next time. (Mr. Ponte left the boardroom.) MR. WRIGHT: One other thing, if I could, Madam Chair. Whatever you all want in your rules, whether consolidated or separate, shouldn't be missing. So any consolidated rules would include everything that you want them to include. It is just a matter of being there for the public. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Guys, I think it is kind of funny because you're going to be doing this again in March. By the time you get this approved, they will be approved for next year because we are currently not operating under them. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we hold off. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good point. Hold off until March. MS. RAWSON: Not to give Jeff any more work, ifhe came back to you with his draft of what he has done so far, you can take a look at that and then March you could pass the new rules and the ones that you already hashed out and want to pass, plus the suggestions from the County. MR. KELL Y: It would be a good idea to pass on what we have worked on so far and see if you incorporate that. MS. ARNOLD: It's fine for me to consolidate them. You all were pretty adamant about having your own rules because it is confusing to the public that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It is. MS. ARNOLD: -- which part of this rule applies. Even though we try to make it easy for people, they will read something that they don't -- that is not under the paragraph. (Mr. Lefebvre left the boardroom.) Page 212 January 24, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: And it gets confusing. It's up to you all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a hard enough time. MS. ARNOLD: That's why I think it is important for you all to be at the board meeting representing what your thoughts are, rather than me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just from past experience, we have enough time trying to get people to understand what they have to do to come into compliance; i.e., 10 foot, three-inch trees, you know. MS. RAWSON: I think there should be two sets of rules -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agree. MS. RAWSON: They can be pretty much the same, except for those notable differences and her authority and your authority. And, you know, procedure -- not procedure, in terms of -- that should be pretty much the same. But in terms of how you get elected, how you get appointed, your job security and, you know, her contract, that kind of thing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think those are definitely separate because they are totally different. MS. RAWSON: We need to hand out two different packets because people will never understand it if you don't. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If you have them completely consolidated, they are going to wonder, are they at the magistrate or at the CEB? Like today I wanted to make clear on that one order because it said the magistrate -- you know, special master, but no, it wasn't special master, it was CEB. (Mr. Lefebvre returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We were the ones imposing, not the special master. And I think it gets confusing. MR. WRIGHT: It seems like there is a genuine policy question as to which of the two formats is easiest for the public. On the one hand you have two separate rules and that makes it really clear that Page 213 January 24, 2008 there is two separate tribunals, two separate rules. On the other hand, you could have those same rules put together with redundancies removed. I don't know which one would be easier for the public. I think that both arguments -- you know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that has to be weighed by the public. It's not for us to make that decision. That's just my -- MR. KRAENBRING: I think we need to think what the people will -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not the one that is going to be affected. MR. KRAENBRING: You give up. MS. ARNOLD: What is the pleasure of the board? Do I proceed with this, or do I -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I had suggested that we let Mr. Kelly go and represent us all and speak. MR. KELL Y: Is it the first Tuesday or the Thursday? MS. ARNOLD: First Tuesday. Actually, it is the 12th. MR. WRIGHT: The second and fourth Tuesday. MR. KELLY: Okay. I can do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would think that that would be good to let a board member go in front of the Board of Commissioners and explain why we did some of the things we did. This has been a review process that's been going on for years. I mean, we have argued over shall and will. MS. ARNOLD: And may. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because we were trying to make it as specific for a reason. Because of things that we have had that have happened in cases that have come back to bite us. MR. WRIGHT: Well, our office is happy to facilitate this happening however we can help out. I will be happy to bring back to the March or the February meeting a consolidated-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That would be a good thing I Page 214 January 24, 2008 think for these guys to look at. MR. WRIGHT: I don't know if it is going to muddy things up and make more work, but I'm happy to bring that draft. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. I think that would probably be a good thing for them to look at. MR. WRIGHT: I apologize to Ms. Rawson. That might be contrary to the advice that she just gave. MS. RAWSON: No, that is not contrary. They have to decide, you know, whether they want one set of rules with the differences spelled out or if you want one set of rules that looks pretty much the same, except for the differences. I mean, one for you, one for the magistrate. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think there is two separate entities, there should be two separate rules. That's my personal OpInIOn. Are we done? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would state then, good-bye, everybody. Have fun. I'll watch you. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you for your service. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have enjoyed it. Keep in touch. MS. RAWSON: I hate to see you leave. MS. ARNOLD: It has been a pleasure for me to work under you as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't yell at you like Cliff did. MS. ARNOLD: It has been a joy for me to work with you. MS. RAWSON: It has been a joy. And I do think whoever is at the County Commission should mention that we lost our only female member. And I notice these things. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess, guys, your next meeting is February 28th. And I will have not been a board member for 14 Page 215 January 24,2008 days. With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. We can beat 4:00. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make the motion to adjourn. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) ***** . There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, Chairwoman These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected. , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe. BY KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI, RPR, FPR. Page 216