Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/28/2008 R February 28, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida February 28, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte Richard Kraenbring (absent) Charles Martin (absent) Jerry Morgan Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Lionel L'Esperance (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 28, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FI34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL A. Election of Officers 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 24, 2008 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion for Rehearing I. BCC vs. Stanley Fogg Jr. and Theresa M. Fogg 2. BCC vs. James Bachmann CEB 2007-115. CEB 200609000 I B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Raul and Gloria Gutierrez 2. BCC vs. Sergio Valencia 3. BCC vs. Mahir Trading, Corporation 4. BCC vs. Patriot Square, LLC 5. BCC vs. Jose Pineda 6. BCC vs. Vanderbilt-Devco, LLC 7. BCC vs. Mc Ivey, LLC 8. BCC vs. Stewart W. Connard TR. CASE NO. 2007100458 CASE NO. 2006090115 CASE NO. 2007020481 CASE NO. 2007060341 CASE NO. 2006070815 CASE NO. 2006070496 CASE NO. 2007011043 CASE NO. 2007080964 --~,._-~--_._-",'-"--'-'-"-".'-_.'"-'-"-""'" 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Reduction of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Mercedes F. Llosa CEB 2007-75 B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Domenic P. Tosto, a/kla Domenic Tosto Trustee, and Joanne M. Tosto, Trustee of the Family Living Trust 2. BCC vs. Albert Houston 3. BCC vs. Albert Houston 4. BCC vs. Rodney M. and Kathleen M. Case 5. BCC vs. Sanctuary of Blue Heron Association 6. BCC vs. Mercedes F. Llosa 7. BCC vs. Victor Figueroa 8. BCC vs. Eduardo and Maria Rodriguez 9. BCC vs. Auto Village of Naples 10. BCC vs. Naples South Realty Associates, LLC CEB 2007-32 CEB 2007-63 CEB 2007-64 CEB 2007-69 CEB 2007-73 CEB 2007-75 CEB 2007-77 CEB 2007-80 CEB 2007-101 CEB 2007-118 C. Request for Code Enforcement Board Recommendation I. BCC vs. Robert Lockhart CEB 2004-26 6. NEW BUSINESS Rules and Regulations 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - March 27, 2008 10. ADJOURN February 28, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County meeting to order. Date, February 28th, 2008. 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 proceeding 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 the record. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. I'd like to just make one small modification to our proceedings today. We have a presentation that I'd like to make first before we start our daily business. And I'm going to approach the front here, and if you'll join me. And hopefully this is working. Yes. We'd like Sheri Barnett to come up front here and be recognized. Sheri Barnett has been on our board for many years and served as chairman of the Code Enforcement Board. And we would just love to recognize her years of service for Collier County and on the Code Enforcement Board. And we appreciate it. Thanks. MS. BARNETT: Thank you, everybody, and good luck. It's been a pleasure serving with you. MR. PONTE: And with you. MS. ARNOLD: Ijust have one other announcement. We have a new member on our -- it's Ed Larsen, and he's an attorney, local Page 2 February 28, 2008 attorney in town. So welcome to the board. MR. LARSEN: Thank you very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: And now roll call. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator. Mr. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Richard Kraenbring has an excused absence. Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Edward Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence. MR. LEFEBVRE: And approval of the minutes? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ARNOLD: We do have some changes to the agenda, if you want to do those. Or do you want to do the -- let's do the changes to the agenda, okay? Page 3 February 28, 2008 Or do you want to do elections of officers? That's one of the things up first. MR. DEAN: Let's do that first. At this time I'd like to make a motion that Gerald Lefebvre be nominated for chairman of the board and -- do we have a second? MR. KELLY: I'll second it. MR. LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion carries. And for vice-chairman, I spoke to Richard Kraenbring this morning, and he would like -- I'd like to nominate him as vice-chairman. MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion carries. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Well, welcome, new chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. February 28, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: We do have some changes to the agenda. The first is Item No. 4.A.2. That item is being continued to March, and that is at staffs request. Also we are withdrawing Item 4.C.1, that's Board of County Commissioners versus Raul and Gloria Gutierrez. Item 4.C.6, Board of County Commissioners versus Vanderbilt-Devco, LLC. There's a stipulation, and that item will become 4.B.1. Item 4.C.7 is being withdrawn. That's Board of County Commissioners versus McIvey, LLC. Item 5.BA is being withdrawn from the agenda. And there's been a request to replace it with 5.B.9, Board of County Commissioners versus Auto Village of Naples. So that will become our new 5.BA. And item 5 .B.1 0 is also withdrawn from the agenda. And then we're moving the rules and regs from new business to reports. All we are needing on that is your signature. And that's it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion to approve the amended agenda? MR. KELLY: Motion to approve. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion's approved. Approval of the minutes for the January 24th, 2008 meeting. Page 5 February 28, 2008 MR. KELL Y: Done. We already did that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. All right, we're going to start off with public hearings. Motion for rehearing. BCC versus Stanley Fogg, Jr. and Theresa M. Fogg. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, this item is a request from the petitioner to be considered for rehearing. You all have been presented a copy of the request. I was hoping that our legal counsel was going to be here to respond to it. I don't see him at all. So if we could kind of hold off on that until he's here? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And I can check on that. If you don't mind, Ms. MS. McALLISTER: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, start off with stipulated agreements then. And that would be BCC versus Vanderbilt-Devco, LLC. And is the respondent here? MS. WALDRON: No, they're not. MS. ARNOLD: We'll just have her sworn and then-- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, Collier County Code Enforcement, environmental specialist. I have reached a stipulation agreement with Vanderbilt-Devco, LLC for the violation of vegetation removed over the allowable acreage without obtaining the proper permits. The stipulation agreement states that they will pay the operational costs in the amount of 468.31 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. The respondent must apply for the after-the-fact vegetation removal permit for vegetation removed for installation of the fence Page 6 February 28, 2008 from the environmental services department with four times the normal permit within 30 days of this hearing or a daily fine of $50 will be imposed for each day until the after-the- fact vegetation removal permit is applied for. The respondent must prepare a mitigation plan which meets the criteria stated in 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.E.3. The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in Section 10.02.02.A.3. The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program that would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants used in the mitigation effort over a two-year period with replacement required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually. A minimum of two reports will be submitted by the respondent. This mitigation plan must be submitted within 30 days of this hearing or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until mitigation plan is submitted. All plant materials must be installed in accordance with the mitigation plan within 120 days of acceptance of mitigation plan or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until plant material is installed. And the respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and request an investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. And this was signed by a partner of the company, John Varsames, on the 26th of this month. MR. PONTE: Investigator, how many acres are involved here? MS. WALDRON: Excuse me? MR. PONTE: How many acres are involved? MS. WALDRON: Well, it's an undeveloped parcel. I'm not sure what the total -- I think it's a five-acre parcel. But it was -- they were going for -- the original owners of the property were going for an SDP and then they sold the property, and the new owners came in and Page 7 February 28, 2008 installed the fence without getting a vegetation removal permit, removed vegetation to store materials on the property, which isn't allowed. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any more questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have a motion? MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we approve the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. Going to move on to hearings. BCC versus Sergio Valencia. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator. This is in reference to Case No. 2006090115. I would like to ask if the respondent is present. F or 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. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 8 February 28, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, of Sections 3.05.01(B), vegetation removal, protection and preservation. Description of violation: Property has been mechanically cleared without a permit in excess of one acre. Location/address where violation exists: 2080 16th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Name and address of person/owner -- name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Sergio Valencia, 2080 16th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34l17. Date violation first observed: September 8th, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 12th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 9th, 2006. Date ofre-inspection: November 3rd, 2007. Results of re-inspection: A violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Susan O'Farrell. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Investigator. We're here today to talk about the case at the property of 2080 16th Avenue Southwest. Mr. Valencia has cleared -- well, bought the property, which had been about half cleared with the house put on, a patio, a shed and the front yard. He proceeded to clear the rest of the property in order to store business equipment. And that is why we're here today, to talk about Page 9 February 28, 2008 the illegal clearing of the one-and-a-halfacres of his property. The total property is two-and-a-half acres. And I have pictures that I can show you, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to enter those as evidence. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept this as packet B. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm going to show them to Mr. Valencia first. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Valencia has agreed that I can show the pictures to you. This is the back portion of the property that abuts onto the canal. This was what I observed the first day that I came out to look at the property . This was a pile of fill that had been brought in to level out the property. He was intending to use it for storage of business equipment. This is the same area over to the left a little bit. I get so confused with north, south, east and west, so if you have any questions I'll try and figure it out for you. This is facing the house from the back of the property. These are the cypress trees that were graded away from and damaged. It appeared that he had moved a lot of fill from the middle of the yard to try and make it smooth. This is the -- if you're at the back of the property at the canal, Page 10 February 28, 2008 you're standing, and in front of you is the area that's been completely cleared. Just past that is this large grassy area where he installed the grass. And then you can see the house in the distance. This is if you turned directly around and you were looking back towards the canal again. This is a shot of the line between his property and the adjacent property, which does contain a lot of wetland. It kind of shows you that the property has been raised up between five and six inches. Damaged cypress trees. More damaged cypress trees. More damaged cypress trees. This is from outside of the property along the canal. This is past the grassy area, as you're getting closer to the property. This is the side yard. This is the other side of the adjacent property. I think what you can get is an idea is that the whole property's been cleared. Then we have pictures that were taken yesterday after attempts with Mr. Valencia to mitigate the property. He had originally agreed on September 12th when he signed the Notice of Violation to pursue an accessory use whereby he could have removed all of the equipment, fenced the property and had animals, or he could have gotten another permit for an outbuilding and had the square footage plus a setback for that clearing. There were various options that I explained to him that he could do. Unfortunately he chose not to pursue any of them. So these are the pictures from yesterday that were taken by Investigator Jen Waldron. I believe she's still here, if you want her documentation of that. So what Mr. Valencia has done in this picture is along the chain link fence he's planted ficus shrubs. Page 11 February 28, 2008 This is the back property. It's become weeded over, and he's storing pallets of pavers. This is from the street side looking into the property. We have not gone onto his property except to -- I have even posted things outside the chain link fence. I didn't feel comfortable going onto the property after my last meeting with him. This is the back of the property along the canal. And this is the front yard. The whole front yard is completely cleared also. So what the county is asking is that the CEB payoff all operational costs -- oh, yeah, I'm sorry, jumped ahead. I'm finished presenting my case. MR. KELL Y: Susan, in the beginning you had stated that the house was put there and it had a shed and there were parts of the yard that was cleared -- part of the original construction. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. KELLY: Do you know what size of the property was cleared originally versus what he's being cited for as a violation? MS. O'FARRELL: I would say they were on their acre. They had cleared their acre, because of the front yard being completely cleared of everything. All the palmettos, the pine trees, everything had been cleared from the front, the two side yards and the back. And they might even have been in excess a little bit of the one acre. But I would say that he was close to the one acre. MR. KELL Y: In Golden Gate Estates you're allowed to clear one acre without a vegetation removal permit. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. KELLY: Are you allowed to clear anything but exotics-- or all exotics except native vegetation without a permit? Because it looked in the picture like there was a lot of underbrush that was removed. MS. O'FARRELL: What you're allowed to clear is exotics Page 12 February 28, 2008 without using any machinery without a permit. As long as it's hand removal of only exotics, you can clear it by hand without a permit. MR. KELL Y: And is he being cited for a violation of bringing in fill or raising the property level or anything like that? Is that a violation or are we just -- MS. O'FARRELL: That would be a violation without the permit, yes. MR. KELLY: But is this -- MS. O'FARRELL: He was cited for -- the ordinance that he was cited for does include bringing in the fill. MR. KELLY: It does. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: I have it here, if you would like me to read it to you. MR. KELL Y: Did you leave a copy of it in our packet? MS. O'FARRELL: It should be in your packet. MR. KELLY: 3.05(B)? MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. MR. KELL Y: I got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to the respondent. MR. VALENCIA: Hi. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please state your name. MR. VALENCIA: Sergio Valencia. I bought this house almost three years ago. And the pictures that she took drawn in the back I did clear, because I bought the house because I own business. And I didn't know that I need permit to clear the underbrush. I did remove couple sabals. I pull up a permit for right-of-way to culvert pipe on the back of Page 13 February 28, 2008 the property. You see the gravel? And I pull up the permit and I build my driveway. In order for me to do my driveway, I had to bring in fill and gravel and use it for my backyard. If you see the trailer, I did clear with my boss plate (phonetic) back and forth and level the land. If you see the sabal, the trunk, that was the dirt. There was piles in there and I leveled -- and I cleared the underbrush. Where my driveway goes, I did remove sabal palms in the clearing the underbrush. That's what I did. I didn't know that I was doing something illegal or need any permit to do that. I wouldn't mind pull up a permit. But I didn't know. And yes, I did clear part of my property to storage my equipment back then. But since I'm losing the house, there's no more parking, there's no more -- there's no more business outside. I'm going through economic problems right now. And here I am. You guys make the decision. If you have to replace some plants, she was telling me that it needs to survive for at least two years. And I don't know if I'm going to be that long living in the house. And yes, I did clear the lot. I did remove couple of trees and level, and I brought fill to use my parking lot. There's two driveways. There's one here and there's another one here. With permit. If you see the pictures, I can show you from where to where I clear. And I'm here and you guys make the decision. Whatever you guys want to do with me, I ain't got no problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing, and does the board have any questions? MR. PONTE: Just one for Susan. Susan, why has it taken this so long to come to us? This case is a year and a half old. MS. O'FARRELL: I agree. I believe that it went on too long. There was the time when I was away from the Code Enforcement Department. We also had several meetings where Mr. Scribner met Page 14 February 28, 2008 with Mr. Valencia and decided to give him more time. Then it was told -- I had it prepared for Code Enforcement Board and I was asked to hold it off until after the year, the new year. MR. PONTE: I see. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? MR. KELLY: One more question for Susan. Part of the -- I understand that your recommendation's probably going to be somewhere right along -- MS. O'FARRELL: Similar to what Jen just talked about in her last case. MR. KELLY: Realistically, he had talked about a couple of Sabal Palms that were removed. Other than a few Sabal Palms, how do you re-vegetate underbrush? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, we have the mitigation requirements that require the three different strata, which would be the ground cover, the mid-level and then the canopy. Usually when I'm doing a mitigation like this, I try not to push the groundcover quite as strongly. I just think that if you went out onto a normal Estates property and saw what was there, you'd see Sabal Palms and palmettos and the occasional oak tree. And that -- we can use that as a mitigation template, what an adjacent property looks like. I'm not sure if Mr. Valencia explained to you, but he has received foreclosure papers, so he is losing his house. And I wanted to make sure that was clear to the CEB, that you all understood that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Discussion of the board? MR. KELLY: I think it's clear by the respondent's admission that he did remove the trees without the permit. So I would say that a violation did exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone else? Page 15 February 28, 2008 Mr. Ponte? MR. PONTE: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELL Y: In that case I'll make a motion that a violation existed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion carries. There is a violation. And your recommendation? MS. O'FARRELL: The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, in the amount of$847.09. The respondent is ordered to abate all violations. The respondent must prepare a mitigation plan which meets the criteria as stated in LDC 04-41, as amended, Section 1O.02.06(E) (3). The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in Section 1O.02.02(A) (3). The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program, which is in section 10.02.06 (E) (3) (e) (i), that would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants used in the mitigation effort over a two-year period, with replacement required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually. Page 16 February 28, 2008 A minimum of two reports will be submitted by the respondent. Reports will be due at one-year intervals. This mitigation must be submitted within 30 days of this hearing or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until the mitigation is submitted. All plant material must be installed in accordance with the mitigation plan within 15 days of acceptance of mitigation plan or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until the plant material is installed. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up on the screen, please. MR. KELLY: Susan, how many trees do you think we're talking about total? MS. O'FARRELL: I have an aerial that shows neighboring properties pretty heavily vegetated. And I have a case on the other side of the street where they cleared, and it was a pretty extensive amount of Sabal Palms. I can't say for sure how many live oaks, but usually there will be one or two live oaks. And generally those properties out there are pretty densely vegetated with saw palmettos. MR. KELL Y: I was going to make a recommendation to the board that we extend the 15 days to install. I figure that that's where it's headed. And I'm just wondering if 15 days is enough time to find a contractor, get it in there and get it placed. Probably going to need some kind of irrigation as well. MS. O'FARRELL: What I would suggest, and Michelle Arnold is more than welcome to shut me up at any moment, is that the Code Enforcement Board might want to -- instead of recommending the mitigation plan being submitted by a person with those credentials, but rather that he submit a plan showing a certain number of plants that would be installed, rather than having the extra expense of having the Page 17 February 28, 2008 specialist do the plan, since we know what basically the three plants are that need to be done. MR. KELLY: And would staff be able to give him some TA, technical assistance, in coming up with that? MS. ARNOLD: The only reservation I would have about that is I believe the LDC dictates who can submit these things, and that type of thing. So I'm not really sure whether or not you all have the latitude of saying okay, you plant these many trees. I don't know. I mean, if our attorney was here, maybe he could answer that. MR. KELL Y: Well, I'm not an expert. I don't know if any of us would feel comfortable saying "X" number of trees. Just trying to see what we could do to help out. But -- okay, thanks. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the other thing we could also do is give them 120 days to plant so that they're in the rainy season and we don't have to worry about the irrigation. MR. KELLY: I have another question. It's more of a process and legal issue. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KELL Y: When we're done, this gets filed as an order. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. KELLY: Until the time limit is expired and until this comes back to us for an imposition of fines, there's no lien placed, is there? MS. RAWSON: Well, it's a recordation immediately of the order. And so if he were to sell the property, which I think he indicated he might, it's going to show up. MR. KELLY: Okay, good. That's what I was -- thank you. MS. RAWSON: Oh, absolutely. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's good to do this now, because then it gives prospective buyers notice of the pending issue on this particular property. MR. KELL Y: Exactly. Thank you. Page 18 February 28, 2008 I would just make a recommendation that -- two things. First of all, I think the fine of 200 a day, typically the board has used that amount for more health and safety violations. I think that might be excessive. And I think Susan's recommendation to go to 120 day for actually planting would probably be better. MR. PONTE: I agree with you. I think that as constructed right now the punishment doesn't fit the crime, in a nutshell, and that we ought to do everything possible that we can to mitigate the finding of this fine. And $200 is just -- is so high, in my mind, for someone who's trying to cooperate and has obtained other permits, that it's just not viable, in my mind. The extension of the time also is a great idea, and we ought to be as lenient here as we possibly can, knowing that, you know, a violation does exist but punishment here doesn't fit the crime. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MS. O'FARRELL: Is this a closed hearing right now? MS. ARNOLD: Did you already close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I did close it. MR. KELLY: We did, but I'd like to ask the question to Susan to -- what's on your mind? MS. O'FARRELL: What's on my mind is that Mr. Valencia was not cooperative in the beginning. The only permit that he pulled was for the culverts for the driveway and for the fence permit. He didn't pull any other permits for the property. And when I first investigated the case he also did not have his occupational license for that property to run the business. So I'm sorry, Mr. Ponte, I don't agree that he's been cooperative in this. Where he is now is stuck between a rock and a hard place, because he wants to cooperate but he's losing his house. And so I think ultimately what's going to happen is it's going to go into foreclosure and this will be a lien against the property. Page 19 February 28, 2008 MR. PONTE: I think it would be the view of a normally prudent person to think that if a case dragged on for a year and a half, as this one has, that it really isn't that important. And that plays in my mind as well. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, we had a lot of supervisors involved in this case. There was a lot of communication between different supervisors and Mr. Valencia. But really, he kept saying that he was going to do things and then never did them. So that's where I'm standing on it. MR. DEAN: You know, I just don't feel that a foreclosure is that just. I mean, how do you know that? I mean, we're thinking about in the future. And if I was the lender, I probably wouldn't want that property with the problems. So it doesn't mean it's going to foreclosure. MS. O'FARRELL: I agree -- MR. DEAN: But to say it is-- MS. O'FARRELL: -- that the $200 is a little steep. I would probably go to $100. But I don't think either fine is going to make any difference in terms of how this is going to get mitigated. MR. PONTE: Well, the fine makes a difference because one of the responsibilities that we have is to have criteria in place or in mind to guide us to future fines. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. PONTE: So an excessive fine is not excusable in any form. And this one is excessive. MS. O'FARRELL: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Ponte, would you like to make a motion? MR. PONTE: In terms of the fining? I would like to have Susan read the -- what she has with those revisions, the 120 days and -- my screen's not working so I can't read it. MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, okay. Then I'm going to have to take it Page 20 February 28, 2008 off that screen in order to read it. Did you want me to read the whole thing? MS. ARNOLD: Just the dates and the fine amount. MS. O'FARRELL: So this mitigation plan must be submitted within 30 days of this hearing. Are we all -- you all are agreed with that? Or a daily fine of $100 per day -- is that okay? Okay -- will be imposed for each day until the mitigation plan is submitted. All plant material must be installed in accordance with the mitigation plan within 120 days of acceptance of mitigation plan or a daily fine of $1 00 will be imposed for each day until plant material is installed. Does that sound like what the board is looking for? MR. PONTE: Okay, I'll make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion carries. Can you put that back up for a minute, please? MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, I had one question. Because I didn't read out the operational costs. That is still part of the previous recommendation that I wrote. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand what we just did? MR. VALENCIA: Yes, sir. Page 21 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: In understand correctly, you have 30 days to get a mitigation plan, and then 120 days after the mitigation plan to plant the plants, or a fine of $100 per day. MR. VALENCIA: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. MS. O'FARRELL: That's it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. We will be moving on to BCC versus Mahir Trading Corporation. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. For the record, Sherri Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Bendisa? MS. ARNOLD: What I was going to say is that they've entered into a stipulation at this point right now. And rather than go through the whole case -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you tell me that earlier? MS. ARNOLD: No. Actually, no. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, good. MS. ARNOLD: That's why I was starting to interrupt, and-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I wasn't sure in missed something. MS. ARNOLD: Sorry. So if you could just read through the stipulation. And the respondent is here, so they can confirm whether or not they are in agreement. MS. PATTERSON: Well, as the director said, the Mahir Trading Corporation has entered into the stipulation -- a stipulation agreement with the county. Mr. Alam Faiz is here representing Mahir Trading Corp. He is the manager at the Sunoco Station that's owned by Mahir. Page 22 February 28, 2008 And they agreed to the terms and conditions, the violations. And I'd like to read the violations to you now. The violations are that of section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), 1O.02(B)(2)(A), 1O.02.06(B)(2)(D), 1O.02.06(D)(ix) of the Collier County Land Development Code. And the violation is described as a sign without the required permit. We ask that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $439.26 incurred in the prosecution of the case and to abate all violations by obtaining required permits and inspections, affixing the permit number to the sign and receiving the Certificate of Occupancy within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. If the respondent does not wish to permit the aforementioned sign, then the sign shall be removed, including the supporting structure, within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you agree to that? MR. F AIZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Does the board have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have a motion to either accept it -- MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as read. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can I have a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 23 February 28, 2008 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion passes. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go ahead and do our-- the motion, because it's not fair that the respondent's representative is here on time and we're not. So if we can hear that next? MS. McALLISTER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. MS. McALLISTER: Kelly McAllister for respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Stan Fogg. Mr. Fogg is here this morning, if you have any questions. But after chatting with Ms. Arnold, I understand that all we're really here for today is to decide whether or not to grant the rehearing, which is purely a legal argument. We had -- Mr. Chairman and members of the board, we have asked for the opportunity to reappear to argue our violation of LDC 04-41, section 2.02.03 because there was really no factual basis for the board's prior findings of fact and law. The decision was not based on substantial competent evidence, it was based merely on an opinion letter from the zoning verification -- a zoning verification letter, I'm sorry, which in and of itself did not contain substantial competent evidence, and really contained nothing but opinion and a couple of facts that really weren't relevant to whether or not there was a violation of Section 2.02.03. I think I probably pretty well detailed it in the motion itself. But the opinion letter -- to rise to the level of substantial competent evidence, the opinion letter would have had to have been evidence that Page 24 February 28, 2008 was sufficient and material such that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate support for the conclusion reached. The opinion letter -- in effect, these were the facts of the opinion letter that stated that a violation existed. Number one, that sheds could be used for other purposes; and number two, that prefabricated sheds were not mentioned in Section 2.02.03. I would point out that neither are trowels, rakes or shovels mentioned, and yet one wouldn't conclude that those were not accessories to gardening. And I would also point out that many gardening things, such as trowels, rakes and shovels can be used for other purposes. Therefore -- and we also already had the discussion about the SIC codes, which, of course, are totally irrelevant. They are not incorporated and in fact are really used merely to count employees by the Department of Labor and Immigration, and have no relevance here. Although I would point out an interesting fact about the SIC codes that were mentioned by zoning, and that is that both numbers of code classifications that he mentioned fall under the general category of building materials, hardware, garden supplies and mobile home dealers. So you can see that the SIC codes, which are actually not even really much used now, were not relevant and do not constitute substantial competent evidence. What we would like is the opportunity to come back and present you with the competent and substantial evidence that will show that the sheds that Mr. Fogg is selling are indeed accessories to gardening and properly should be considered part of the allowable uses under Section 2.02.03. I think also there was a second violation, and we saw it again this morning, in that the charging packet was never given to Mr. Fogg until actually about five minutes before the hearing started. And the Page 25 February 28, 2008 board did look at the photographs that were included in that charging packet, and I cannot say whether or not the board considered that in making its decision, but I can say that they were looked at, they were mentioned in the hearing, and we of course did not have the opportunity to present any photographs or any material in response to that charging packet because we didn't have it. We only got the notice of hearing in advance, and that is a procedural due process violation, according to the board's own rules, which state that the charging packet must be presented to the violator along with the notice of hearing. Those are the two bases for the request for rehearing. MS. ARNOLD: Can I speak to that? Just to address the last point about the charging document. The charging document was presented to the respondent and his representative, and the charging document is a statement of violation, along with a notice of hearing. What wasn't presented is the evidence, and the photos represented evidence at the hearing. And those things are presented at the hearing, not prior to the hearing. And just to speak to the process itself, the county does object to the content of this request because we disagree with the finding that -- we believe that the respondent is asking the board to interpret the Land Development Code, and that is not something that this body is responsible for doing. The process is if they disagree with the zoning interpretation letter, they can request a formal request for interpretation of the Land Development Code by the zoning director, which is the person responsible for interpreting the Land Development Code. That hasn't been done. So we object for the fact that they're asking you to do something that you're not authorized to do. And that was, I believe, brought up at the hearing. Page 26 February 28, 2008 The other point about the sheds being accessory to the agricultural sale or what the client is mentioning, we agree that the Land Development Code doesn't specifically define all accessory uses. It doesn't define those uses that were mentioned by Ms. McAllister, the shovels and the like. But the shovels and the like aren't what are being addressed right here. It doesn't also address tractors, and tractors are used in agricultural things, and that would not be a permissible sale item as well for this nursery establishment. And those are, for those reasons the county objects to the rehearing. MS. McALLISTER: Mr. Chairman, may I respond? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. McALLISTER: First of all, I would point out as to the last point, actually the code does address the issue of tractors in that it says the sale of large power equipment such as lawnmowers, tractors and the like shall not be permitted in association with a retail plant nursery in a rural agricultural district. So it does specifically exclude those large items like tractors and lawnmowers. The second thing I would point out is that we are not asking this board to interpret the Land Development Code. We had that conversation last time we were here, and it was clear that this board and I do not have the authority to make that consideration. What I am saying to you is that you have the authority to say, when you get a zoning verification letter, to say to the zoning department you need to give me a letter, you need to give us a letter that has something in it that we can hang our hats on in making a decision. And the mere fact of the issuance of a letter, an opinion letter, is not in and of itself substantial competent evidence, which this board must base its decision on. And I would ask for the opportunity, to number one, show that Page 27 February 28, 2008 that is not -- that is merely an opinion letter based on nothing except a conclusion by a member of the zoning department that prefabricated sheds can be used for other purposes. And I think this board has the authority to say no, we don't agree that you've provided us with enough to find a zoning violation in this particular case. And that is what we are -- we would like to come back and argue in response to the zoning verification letter. We would like to provide you with the substantial competent evidence that it does indeed fit under the accessory uses in that particular part of the code. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: I'll wait until it's closed. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing. MR. KELLY: For the board's consideration, I have four points to bring up in support of allowing the rehearing. Number one, I agree that it was a casual interpretation of the Land Development Code. And I understand that Ross is qualified, but it's still yet an interpretation, which leads to my second point. The interpretation is an opinion. And I believe that our board is often called upon to help give direction in those gray areas. And I think it is within our right to rehear this. Number three, the fact that the letter quoted the standard industrial classification code and the fact that that's not referenced in the Land Development Code as an accessory way of classifying these zoning issues, which led to my fourth point, the fact that this board was split right down the middle, you know, a four-four vote, and had to go to revote before it was passed. But I think those together I think are good reasons to rehear this case. Page 28 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other discussion of the board? MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think we have to move very slowly here. Rehearing cases is a very serious consideration. And I agree with what my colleague has said. And also, both the county, Michelle, and the attorney made some compelling arguments. I think that what we have to decide first is what our real position is and how hard our position should be about setting standards for rehearing. This is a big question because it will come up over and over again. And I think it ought to be difficult for any respondent to get a rehearing. So those are my just initial thoughts on it. I can't respond more than that right now. I hear what you're saying, and they're all valid. But I just don't want to rush pell-mell into going along with the rehearing. MR. KELL Y: If it pleases the board, might I suggest that possibly when this comes -- if we were to vote for a rehearing, that we subpoena Ross to have testimony to explain why the letter was written the way it was and what supporting evidence is found in the code, prior experience, common law, whatever is used, to help better justify the position that the zoning department took. MR. PONTE: That's an excellent idea. MR. KELLY: Which we would do in a venue of a rehearing. MR. MORGAN: I agree. MR. DEAN: Jean, could I ask a question? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. DEAN: Re-hearings. I didn't think we did re-hearings. I thought there was a process that they took and went on to the next step if they weren't satisfied, the code gave them that right. MS. RAWSON: Well, we do. I'm going to read to you from your rules. A party may motion a rehearing of the board's order based only on the ground that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the Page 29 February 28, 2008 hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the decision of the board. And then it goes on to say it has to be a written motion. You have a written motion, which basically alleges those grounds. And so you can grant or not grant a rehearing based on your decision whether or not your last decision was contrary to the evidence or involved an error on the ruling of law that was fundamental to the decision that you made. So you do have the opportunity. And I might ask, and if you decide that you're going to grant it or not grant it, please give me specific findings of fact so that can be in the order. MR. DEAN: Let me ask just one more question. So let's say that it was denied. They still have a process where they can go and carry this further, right? MS. RAWSON: Well, she has the right to appeal. MR. DEAN: Right. That's what I'm saying, right of appeal. MS. RAWSON: And I believe that her motion for rehearing was timely filed, so that that tolled her time for an appeal. MR. DEAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion that we grant the appeal on the grounds that the evidence presented was an interpretation of law; was not clearly explained; that the respondent did not have the opportunity to mount a proper defense; that the opinion given does not constitute evidence; that the standard industrial classification code, which was admitted as part of justification for the evidence is not an amended justification or further class code of the Land Development Code. And that's it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. Page 30 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor, say aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion carries. MS. RAWSON: If I could just say one thing. I know that you just misspoke, you granted her an appeal. And basically what you did is you granted her a rehearing. So she has the right to come back before this board and present evidence again. It's not really an appeal. MR. KELL Y: I apologize. A rehearing. MS. RAWSON: That's okay. I just want what you ordered to look like what I'm going to write. MR. PONTE: Good idea. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need to amend it at all or-- MS. RAWSON: Why don't you just amend it orally that it's not granting her an appeal but granting her a rehearing. MR. KELLY: Correct, it's granting a rehearing, not an appeal. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. MR. DEAN: That was on the agenda, I thought that's what we were doing. MR. KELL Y: My bad. I word-smithed it some. MR. DEAN: I heard you correctly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Moving on to our next hearing, which will be BCC versus Patriot Square, LLC. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Case No. 200706-034l, Patriot Square, LLC. Property owner Dennis E. Claussen, registered agent. Page 31 February 28, 2008 F or the record, I would like to ask if the respondent is present? (No response.) MS. MARKU: 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. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion is passed. MS. MARKU: A violation of ordinances 04-41, 1 0.02.06.B.l (E)(i), 1 0.02.06(B)(2)( a), 1 0.02.06(B)(2)( d), 1O.02.06.(B)(2)(D)(ix) of the Collier County Land Development Code, and 2004-58, Sections 16.1 and 3 of the Property Maintenance Code. Description of violation: Freestanding sign without required permit. Sign has missing panels and exposed internal wiring. Location/address where violation exists: 4143 Tamiami Trail East. Folio No. 394440004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Dennis E. Claussen, Registered agent, 141 0 West Irving Park Road, Chicago, Illinois, 60613. Date violation first observed: June 5th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July 2, 2007. Page 32 February 28, 2008 Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 7th, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: October 17,2007. Results ofre-inspection: Sign remains without required permits and in state of disrepair. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Sherri Patterson. (Speaker duly sworn.) MS. PATTERSON: Again, Sherri Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. As stated, this sign is in violation of the Collier County Land Development Code for not having the required permit. And it is also in violation of the property maintenance code for the unincorporated area of Collier County for not being maintained in good repair. I have a couple exhibits I'd like to enter, if! may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: Motion to accept the exhibits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. DEAN: Second. MR. KELL Y: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion carries. MS. PATTERSON: This photograph here was taken back in June of '07. It shows the extensive damage that was done to the sign. The property owner told me that the damage was done by Hurricane Wilma, actually, so it's been there for quite some time. And then this is another photo that was actually taken yesterday. Page 33 February 28, 2008 As you can see, the sign hasn't changed at all. MR. KELL Y: Sherri? MS. PATTERSON: Yes? MR. KELL Y: So we're supposed to see signage in the open part of the frame -- MS. PATTERSON: Correct. MR. KELLY: -- below the sign's -- MS. PATTERSON: Yeah, there's Lexan panels that go in those, and they have the tenant's names on them. So those have been blown out. And there's -- and this last photo right here is going to show you that -- the health and safety issue. We've got wires hanging out all over there and, you know, God knows what else is under there. But that's just a close-up shot of that bottom panel. There's other stuffup at the top, so -- So I had actually -- I had talked to Dennis Claussen, the registered agent for Patriot Square, the property owner. I actually tried to deliver personal service of a notice of violation to him on July 2nd, 2007, but he was unavailable. So I was able to catch up with him the next day by phone and we talked at length as to what the violations were and how to correct them. Mr. Claussen said that he understands that there are provisions that he needs to follow under the code. He said that Collier County makes it difficult to get those permits. And I kind of asked about, you know, what his problems were with it and told him I'd be able to help him in any way that I could. But he said to just go ahead and send the notice of violation to him. I told him that what needs to happen with the sign is that it will have to be permitted and repaired or the sign and the sign structure would have to be removed entirely. So I told him that I was going to be mailing the notice of Page 34 February 28, 2008 violation, and asked if the address that I had been provided through the Sunbiz Corp. was correct. And he said no. So he asked that I mail it to him at 1410 West Irving Park Road, Chicago, Illinois, 606l3. The notice of violation was mailed certified return receipt on July 5th, 2007. The date the violation was to be corrected was August 7th, 2007. I had no other further contact from Mr. Claussen until on September 26th, 2007, after the permit had expi -- after the time frame had gone by, he called to say that Sign Craft, who's a local sign contractor here, was going to be submitting the permit application as soon as they figured out who the tenant names on the sign was going to be. After that I had no further contact from Mr. Claussen or anyone acting on his behalf. And the search of the county records revealed that there's still no permit for this sign and it remains in the condition that you just saw. And I guess that's pretty much it. So, you know, we're asking that he, you know, get the permits and -- you know, repair the sign, gets the permits and inspections and get eventual CO for that sign. MR. KELL Y: Does community development's computer system allow you to check to see if a permit was applied for, not necessarily issued? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, it does. MR. KELLY: And nothing applied for at all? MS. PATTERSON: No, it has not. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The sign as it stands, it can be repaired versus it doesn't have to be replaced? It would meet all the current codes? MS. PATTERSON: I'm not a structural engineer, you know, in any way to know that the structure is fine. Obviously it needs the Page 35 February 28, 2008 panels replaced and things like that. But if there's been any damage to the actual frame and stuff like that, I wouldn't know. But the sign would, I believe, still qualify as a directory sign, and so he would be able to have that there. But the main thing is he needs to get the panels replaced. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But the height of it is -- MS. PATTERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- still meets land code -- development code? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. MORGAN: Does the sign permit include the electrical wiring, get one permit for both? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, it does. There's like -- we have -- well, I don't know if they would go through the footer inspection, but they call it a footing or footer inspection. And what that does is they inspect the base of the sign to make sure it's sturdy. And then the next inspection is actually the electrical that they do on it. And then the last and final one is the final sign inspection, making sure there's not too many tenants and what have you, it meets setback and all that. MR. MORGAN: How about the structural? MS. PATTERSON: I'm not sure if the -- yeah, probably would be a structural on this one as well, yes. I don't have the permit in front of me right now, but you're right, that probably would be done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any more questions? MR. LARSEN: Yes. When you spoke to Dennis Claussen, did he acknowledge that he knew the sign was damaged? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, he did. MR. LARSEN: And that was after you first contacted him? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. Mr. Claussen was a bit angry that I had Page 36 February 28, 2008 called him and told him that the sign needed to be fixed. Although he knew about it, he wasn't very happy hearing from me. He has -- I guess he's had some concerns with the county and their code ordinance, the ordinances, you know, particularly to signs. Maybe at some other place that he owns or something. And I said that, you know, it doesn't matter ifhe -- you know, he needs to get it done, basically. It just needs to happen. MR. LARSEN: Ijust have one more question. Besides the tenants that are continued to be listed on the sign, were there other tenants that were operating from the property whose panels were blown out by the hurricane? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that a violation exists as described in the charging documents of Case 2007060341. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PATTERSON: The county's recommendation is that the CEB order the respondent to pay all the operational costs in the amount of$384.67 in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and abate all the violations by obtaining required permits, Page 37 February 28, 2008 inspections and certificate of occupancy within 30 days of the hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The permit number is to be affixed to the sign at the time of CO. If the respondent is unable to permit the aforementioned sign, then the sign shall be removed, including supporting structure, within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order for the code inspector to perform a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up, please, on the screen. And it would be a certificate of completion, correct, not a CO? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you been -- I guess have you contacted the sign company at all? MS. PATTERSON: Um-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just wondering if that 30 days-- MS. PATTERSON: I do not have any name for a sign company that they were going to use. Let's see, I think I do have -- I was contacted at one point by a company called Premier Electric. And this was near -- right after the notice of hearing was posted. And they wanted to know what the issue was with the sign because they were going to maybe be contracted by the respondent and try to get it done. When I told them what it was and how extensive the damage was and everything, they were a bit concerned and they wanted to put the ball back in Mr. Claussen's court and let him do what he wants to do. They didn't want to get involved -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm just wondering if30 days would be sufficient to have a sign -- you know, if it does need more extensive work than just the panels and the electric work, it may take longer to Page 38 February 28, 2008 actually have the sign fixed. MS. PATTERSON: It very well could. MR. MORGAN: Does the -- it says the sign shall be removed, including the supporting structures. Does that include the footings? MS. PATTERSON: I apologize, I didn't hear. MR. MORGAN: Does that include the footings, when you say remove the structure? Because the footings may be a foot above grade or two foot above grade. That includes it, right? MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. They usually have the bolts that stick up out of the ground -- MR. MORGAN: Right, that's correct. MS. PATTERSON: -- and, you know, it poses a health and safety issue. And if I may, there is one more thing I'd like to add. You know, as far as the 30 days go, the reason why that time frame was given is because it is a health, safety issue as well with all the panels being broken. They're very sharp. And all the wiring is like hanging down out of the top and coming up from the bottom. There's pieces of -- you can see these sharp pieces of metal right there, and the bolts. And that was actually kind of close to the ground. So that's why the 30 days was given. MR. LARSEN: If I may ask, how is the respondent notified of today's decision? MS. PATTERSON: He was notified by -- I posted the property MR. LARSEN: No, how will he be notified of to day's decision? MS. ARNOLD: Regular mail. MS. RAWSON: He will get a copy of this order as soon as it's signed. We have a five-day turnaround, and the orders go out by mail. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And he's in Chicago. So with the 30 days from the date of the hearing, that gives him less than the full 30-day period of time in which to obtain permits or take remedial action. Page 39 February 28, 2008 MR. PONTE: The 30 days seems to be a little bit of a concern here. My feeling about the 30 days is it's right on target. This damage was done, according to the respondent's conversation with the investigator, by Hurricane Wilma. He's known for a long time that the sign has been damaged. He has ignored any kind of coming into compliance to fix it. And I think that the 30 days may be a bit on the close side, but it will build a little fire under this respondent to get some attention. This matter is not obviously high on his priority list, let's push it up the list. MR. DEAN: I agree with George 100 percent. You know, ifhe has a problem, let him come back and ask for more time. But, you know, like you said, it is a health hazard. Kids play on that. I wouldn't give him 30 days but, you know, that's probably the most realistic thing to do. So I concur with George. Thanks. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments from the board? MR. KELL Y: One more comment. I don't know that a sign company is going to be able to order in these panels and have them back in time to comply. I think 30 days, although you're right, I agree, I would love to see this thing fixed, but Wilma happened October 24th of 2005. MR. PONTE: October 28th. MR. KELL Y: I thought it was the 24th. I think it was the day before my wife's birthday. Anyways, but it's been there a long time. And this has been eight months since the code enforcement first violated the property. I don't know that it's realistic. And I'd hate to see this gentleman have to come back in front of us and face fines and so forth for something that I think we all agree isn't within the realm of possibilities up front. MR. DEAN: On the other hand, like when you talk about 30 days, once he hires somebody they'll go over there and probably rip Page 40 February 28, 2008 this problem out. Might take them longer to get the sign, but at least they'll clean up this problem here. And then that health hazard is gone. So then the concern isn't as great. MR. KELLY: Can I make a suggestion then, since this might appease the board? Then we give him 30 days to clean up any of these electrical wires, shut down power to it, clean up any sharp edges or metal pieces and then give another 60 to erect the new sign or demo the entire sign if necessary. MR. PONTE: That would be 90 days. I can't go along with that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about 30 days from the hearing to take care of wiring and so forth and then 60 days to get the sign panels back in place? MR. KELLY: That was my suggestion, but George said that 90 days -- MR. PONTE: That's 90 days. MR. KELLY: So 30 and 30? MR. DEAN: Thirty and 30 I'll buy. MR. PONTE: Thirty and 30, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. What I'm saying is 60 days out from today to have the sign in complete order. MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to put that in a motion? MR. KELL Y: Well, George sounded like he had it. MR. PONTE: We'll take the -- just as read, with the exception that the sign be 60 days rather than 30. Isn't that what you're saying? MR. KELLY: No, what I was saying is add another line into this motion -- let me give it a shot. Let me give it a shot. We go ahead and we accept the county's recommendation with the addition that the respondent is given 30 days to remove sharp metal objects, exposed wiring and to shut any power or electrical Page 41 February 28, 2008 services to the sign. And then 30 days -- additional 30 days, which would be 60 from the date of the hearing, for both the demo and permit certificate of completion for a new sign or to remove the structure. MR. DEAN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we second it, should we also add in there that it must be done by a licensed contractor? MS. PATTERSON: Licensed contractor. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask for clarification, too? He's got 30 days to remove any unsafe items or what? MR. KELLY: $150 per day. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, does that-- MS. RAWSON: You're just adding another line, that he's got 30 days to clear up all exposed wiring, sharp objects and stop all electrical current to the sign or $150. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, but it must be done by a licensed contractor. MS. RAWSON: Okay. And then we go to the recommendation of the code enforcement officer. MR. KELLY: Right, with the -- MS. RAWSON: But it's 60 days. MR. KELLY: Sixty days total, yes. And I'm amending the motion to reflect that. If you want to re-second it. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 42 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just have some more further clarification? Okay, it's 30 days to remove items and 30 days from that to obtain permits? MR. DEAN: Right. Total 60 days. MR. KELLY: Total 60, yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I think it would just be a lot easier to say 60 days from mailing, 60 days from hearing so we have a specific date to go by, instead of 30 days from -- MR. KELL Y: Well, I think that's what Jean read back was 60 days. Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Moving on to the next case, BCC versus Jose Penda (sic). MS. WALDRON: Pineda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Pardon me? MS. WALDRON: Pineda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Pineda. Thank you. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Case No. 2006070815. F or the record, I would like to ask if the respondent is present? (No response.) MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present. MR. KELL Y: Bendisa, in could stop you real quick. I'm not sure if it's the same person, but I do have a competitor with this last name, and I think it is the same person. And I'd like to recuse myself so that there's no bias to the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. (Mr. Kelly leaves the room.) MS. MARKU: The respondent and the board was sent a packet Page 43 February 28, 2008 of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept? MR. DEAN: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.0l(B). Description of violation: Vegetation removed on undeveloped property without obtaining the proper required Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3585 33rd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jose A. Pineda, 3730 Seventh Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: July 24th, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Posted property on April 10th, 2007. Date on which/by which violation to be corrected: May 10th, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: October 16th, 2007. Results of re-inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Jennifer Waldron. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 44 February 28, 2008 MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a case about vegetation removal on an undeveloped property. What happened was -- and I'd like to submit some photos so I can show you as I'm explaining. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have a motion to accept the photos. MR. MORGAN: Motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: It looks as though someone has been illegally dumping on this property. They've been bringing roofing tiles in, which is in turn -- it looks like they brought in heavy machinery to dump the roofing tiles and has removed the vegetation in the process and has prohibited any kind of vegetation to re-grow on this property. You can see here the pictures of the roofing tiles. This is one section where it looks like they just -- stuff fell off the truck and vegetation is trying to re-grow, but it's not doing well. That's the same thing, basically. This is looking towards the rear of the property. There's -- it looks like there's numerous times been different loads of the roofing tiles brought in. That's probably the best view that you can see of how much Page 45 February 28, 2008 vegetation has been actually destroyed during this process. So they're not allowed to bring anything, kind offill, basically, onto the property to destroy any kind of vegetation. There are no permits. That's pretty much it. It's pretty cut and dried. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. Any discussion or questions from the board? MR. PONTE: Yeah. Again, I know this is a familiar question. Either I missed it or -- the question is how many acres are involved here? MS. WALDRON: It's a 1.66-acre lot. And in had to estimate, I would say it's probably a quarter of acre vegetation that was removed. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: I make a motion a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Recommendation? MS. WALDRON: The county's recommendation is that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 398.10 within 30 days of this hearing incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by: The respondent must remove Page 46 February 28, 2008 any fill brought on the property prohibiting the growth of vegetation by hand as to not disturb any additional surviving native vegetation within 15 days of this hearing or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until fill is removed. The respondent must prepare a mitigation plan which meets the criteria stated in Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(E)(3). The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in Section 10.02.02(A)(3). The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program, 10.02.06(E)(3)(e)(i), that would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants used in the mitigation effort over a two-year period, with replacement required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually. A minimum of two reports will be submitted by the respondent. This mitigation plan must be submitted within 30 days or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until mitigation plan is submitted. All plant materials must be installed in accordance with the mitigation plan within 120 days of acceptance of mitigation plan or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until plant material is installed. 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. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jennifer, how realistic is it to remove all those tiles via hand? A quarter acre -- MS. WALDRON: After looking at it yesterday, it's going to be a lot of work to do it by hand. But the problem is that there is new native vegetation growing in the entrance area where they originally brought it in. So if they're going to bring big trucks in there, they're going to be destroying native vegetation also. Page 47 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And they wouldn't be able to get a permit to, let's say, destroy that vegetation to get in there? MS. WALDRON: No. MR. DEAN: Even if they were going to put it back? MS. WALDRON: I mean, we can do an allowance for that, saying if you destroy this native vegetation it's got to be replaced. MR. DEAN: So a truck could get in there. MR. PONTE: As written, it sounds like a penal colony exercise. We have to -- there has to be a more realistic way to resolve the problem, rather than going in and clearing one-and-a-half acres by hand of scattered roof tiles. MS. WALDRON: It's not the whole property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's a quarter-acre. MR. PONTE: A quarter acre? MS. WALDRON: Yeah. It's probably a quarter acre of roofing tiles. And it's not solid roofing tiles throughout that whole quarter acre. MR. MORGAN: Could you clear it with a land leveler and a Ford tractor? You know what a land leveler is? MS. WALDRON: No. A bush hog? MR. MORGAN: It scoops up and levels land in small areas. MS. WALDRON: They could. But what we're trying to do is trying to retain as much native vegetation that's there already so they don't have to replant. MR. PONTE: But you're going to replant it anyway, right? MS. WALDRON: Well, they are, but it would cut the cost for the respondent if we try to save as much as possible in the meantime. I understand it's going to be a lot of work and that it is ultimately your decision what you decide to do, so -- MR. PONTE: That's right, a lot of work is going to be costly, too. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're going to pay one way or the Page 48 February 28,2008 other. MR. PONTE: That's right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, do I have any more discussion of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Look for a motion. MR. DEAN: I make a motion to accept the code enforcement's (sic) as recommended. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? MR. PONTE: (Indicating.) One. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next hearing should be BCC versus Stewart W. Conrad (sic). MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Case No. 2007080964. I would like to ask if the respondent is present. MR. MONT AL VO: Actually, my name is Oscar Montalvo, I'm representing Connard Stewart. He lives out of town and he works for the federal government and he couldn't appear today. MS. MARKU: For the record, a representative of 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. KELLY: Before I make a motion to accept, I was Page 49 February 28, 2008 wondering if the respondent's representative can state, first of all, the relationship and just for the record if you could state that you have been given authorization to represent Mr. Stewart. MR. MONTALVO: Yes. My last conversation with Stewart was in January. He asked me to come in and take care of this. I'm actually the business owner taking care of the issues that arised. MR. KELLY: Thank you. I make a motion to accept the packet as A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(2)(a) and 1O.02.06(B)(2)(d)(ix), 5.04.05(A)(1) and 5.04.05(A)(2). And Ordinance 2004-58, the Property Maintenance Code, Sections 16(2)(i) and 16(2)(j). Description of violation: Signs erected without permits, and a banner displayed without permit. Location/address where violation exists: 525 15th Street North, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 75211880002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Stewart W. Connard, Trust, 800 Lambiance Circle, Apartment 205, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: August 28th, 2007. Page 50 February 28, 2008 Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 15th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 3l st, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: November 19th, 2007. Results of re-inspection: Violation remains. At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. That's spelled K-I-T-C-H-E-L-L. This is a case that involved erection of signs, permanent signs without a permit and displaying a banner without a permit. I would like to submit in evidence -- let me show the respondent, I didn't show him earlier, these photographs. And for the record, we have seen significant progress here in the last few days. But again, there's some circumstances involved. It wasn't moving forward the way we thought it should move forward. But let me show the photographs and I'll explain. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept the county's package A? MR. PONTE: So moved. Move to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. SNOW: As you can see, these are photographs. This is a photograph of the business before it was actually opened. The pole Page 51 February 28, 2008 sign that you see and the awning sign were not permitted. This is just another photograph of the same thing, a little closer. This is a photograph of the banner that was displayed without proper permits. And the last one, and this is our significant progress, this is as of yesterday. The permit was issued in actually December, and the work is just starting to commence yesterday. And actually it looks much, much better than it did. The respondent indicated that he was economically challenged and has some issues with some funds. He had paid a contractor -- and he'll testify to this. He had paid a contractor to do the work. The contractor has since gone out of business, didn't pull any permits, and he got kind of caught in the -- with the problem. There has been proper service given in this case to the property owner and to the business owner. And again, there's a violation -- there is a violation on the property. We'll go over recommendations, but that's it on my side. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name. MR. MONTALVO: Oscar Montalvo, III. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you give the spelling on that -- the spelling on the last name, please. MR. MONTALVO: M-O-N-T-A-L-V-O. I just want to state for the record, I've been in Collier County doing business for about 15 years, and I've never had any issues. Unfortunately, I hired a contractor to take care of the signs back in August out of Inverness, Florida, O'Neil Signing, and I assumed that they were going to take care of everything they were supposed to take care of. My first indication that there was a problem came to me in December. As soon as I found out that there was a problem in December, I started making phone calls. And sure enough, the Page 52 February 28, 2008 company that did the business is no longer in business. So I contacted the officer, Snow, I believe it is, and explained to him the situation and told him that, you know, I'll do everything I can but, I mean, I'm a little bit challenged in this area. It's something that I did more as a favor to Stewart Connard, because he -- the person that used to run the business there went out of business. I had really no interest in going to Immokalee, but I went ahead anyway. And being the responsible person I am, I went ahead and hired Sign Craft to please take care of the issues there. And they did. I contacted Klaus Hossman (phonetic) in December and told him to please try to do whatever he can and resolve the matter as quickly as possible. And with that, I got the pictures and the permits for both of the signs that they told me to take care of. And I thought the issue was rested until I got a notice saying that I had to come over here. And here I am. I ask that under the circumstances, everything that I've done, that I be slapped on the hand and don't do it again. It wasn't something that I did intentional. If you check my records, the restaurants I have in Naples has never had any issues. I've always complied with everything they asked me to comply with. And that's all I have, folks. MR. SNOW: Just one more point before we -- that's a letter from Mr. Connard to -- stating that in November that they had received word. So obviously somebody got a notice of violation before then, it was before December. And I and my supervisor both had conversations with the business owner before then. So proper notice was given. They had plenty of time to get the sign permit. And again, I think there were some economic issues that were brought up. Page 53 February 28, 2008 We have -- if we hear the recommendations, there are some changes to the recommendations from the original ones. And that's basically where we're at right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a couple of questions. The first one is, one of the first pictures you showed on the screen showed a sign and then it had white below the sign -- not this one, the one prior. It had white below and it said Manager's Special. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And then there's a secondary sign, the last picture you showed. MR. SNOW: That is the same sign. That's the same sign. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So this sign's been removed? MR. SNOW: It's been cut down, yes, sir, to meet code. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and gotten rid of the Manager's Special in the white -- MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. This particular sign was never permitted. That's why a new permit had to be issued. It had to be brought up to current code. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it ended up that it's basically the top of this sign where it says Checkers, burgers, fries and colas? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. The building permit says -- I can show that to you if you want -- says it will be about 15 feet, which is what they're allowed to have. This sign here was, I would say it's in excess of25. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just wanted to make sure that we were looking at the same sign, that last picture wasn't a secondary sign. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, it looks much better than it did. MR. MONTALVO: I do like to add something else. You know, there's a lot of businesses out there that have rent or have a triple net lease that has nothing to do with the property owner who's responsible for that property. And they should have something in place where it Page 54 February 28, 2008 notifies the business owner as soon as possible to take and jump into it and take care of it before it gets to this stage. I think that Stewart Connard is always out of town. He has an apartment here in Naples, but he's actually out of Michigan or Minnesota and he's never around. And he's always traveling. He works for the federal government. He's never around. I mean, the only communication I have with him besides that we call maybe once in a while is e-mail. And he called me and -- you know, I mean we can talk to him if you want, but we had our conversation -- our first conversation about this particular issue was in December, and that's when I called this gentleman. Because I think he stopped over at the restaurant and notified one of my managers, and I had -- my managers called me and that's when I started making the phone calls necessary to correct the problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing at this point. MR. KELL Y: One more question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, you can ask questions. MR. KELLY: Kitchell, what is left now in violation? MR. SNOW: Just the banner, sir, and obtaining the final certificate of completion for the sign and the inspections. MR. KELL Y: And then posting the permit number on the sign? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. They've got a CO for the awning sign. And like I say, progress has been made. It just wasn't moving forward. And for the record, I talked to the business owner before then, and as we can see on there, on November 23rd, or in November he received a notice from the business owner or the property owner that he was given permission to do the sign. So our dates are a little bit confused here. And proper service was given. I had talked to the business owner. My supervisor did talk to the business owner again, and he Page 55 February 28, 2008 wasn't happy about it. And again, I think there were some economic issues involved in here. And we always, always will contact the business owner, which I did do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Well, if it's okay, I'd like to hear the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we have to have a motion. MR. KELLY: No, I mean, I'd like to -- it's not a sticky point for me that -- you know, the service or the notice, I'm pretty sure that it was gIven. The violation, since it's in the process of being basically taken care of, I guess right now is more of a formality to vote that there was a violation that existed or still exists and then to go from there? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And recommendation? MR. SNOW: Sir, the recommendations are as follows: The CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution in the case in the amount of$381.51 within 30 days of the Page 56 February 28, 2008 day of the hearing and abate all violations by: Obtaining all inspections; the certificate of completion, CO, must be accomplished within 60 days of after- the-fact permit issuance or a fine of$150 a day will be imposed until such time as the sign receives the final CO. ATF fees, after-the-fact fees, permit fees of four times the amount of the normal permit fee are to apply. And number two, when you have a -- display a banner, you're allowed to do that as a business normally 28 days a year, 14 days at a time. Because in between time when I was talking to the business owner the original order was to charge him for both the two weeks or the four weeks, and I don't feel that's just at this point, because only the first two weeks would qualify. Because again, he has to have time to abate that violation. So we're only going to charge him for the first two weeks. We aren't going to bill for the full 28 days. And this is to obtain temporary use permit for the banner displayed from 8/28/07 to 9/10/07. After-the-fact permit fees of two times the amount of the normal permit fee are to apply. And three, ifhe's displaying any sign that is not in accordance to and compliant with the Land Development Code of unincorporated Collier County. And four, the respondent must notify the enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KELL Y: I have a question, Mr. Snow. The permit you said was already applied for? MR. SNOW: The permit for the sign, yes, sir. So it was issued on 12/19. So he's got 60 days of permit issuance to get all COs through certificate of completion of CO. MR. KELL Y: But yet you mentioned in there four times the amount because it's an after-the-fact. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. Page 57 February 28, 2008 MR. KELL Y: Has that already been paid? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KELL Y: So do we need it in the order or is it just for -- MR. SNOW: No, sir, we can scratch that. MR. KELL Y: But the two times the amount for the temporary use banner is necessary? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, that has not -- MR. KELLY: There's no -- MR. SNOW: No, sir, that has been paid. MR. KELLY: And the dates that you had stated was 8/28/07 to 9/28/07, that's a 30-day period; however, we're -- MR. SNOW: 9/10, sir. 9/10/07. 8/28 to 9/10. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MR. MONT AL VO: I have a question. I have actually pulled two permits and paid about a little over $1,000 in fines and late permit fees for an action that another sign company didn't -- failed to pull the permits necessary to do this signage. Under the circumstances, after paying this kind of money to comply with the ordinance, I feel that, you know, that's -- I mean, I lost $5,000. Not to mention that I had to pay another $5,500 to Sign Craft to correct the problems. And on top of that pay about -- a little over $1,000 in fines. And if I'm hearing the gentleman correct, they're asking me to pay an additional fine on top of that. That's a little steep. Especially with the way the economy is going, and it's really hard for a single businessman to do it. I mean, it is very difficult. Very, very difficult. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What they're asking is after-the-fact permit fees of two times the amount of the normal permit fee for the banner, okay? And all the other items looked -- if I'm looking at it correctly, looks like you pretty much paid for the other items, the permits for the SIgn. Page 58 February 28, 2008 MR. MONTALVO: Exactly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All you need to do right now is get the certificate of completion. MR. SNOW: And pay off the costs, sir, operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, and operational costs, right. MR. MONT AL VO: They want me to pay operational costs and pull more permits and pay for 14 days of banners on top of what I've already paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. KELL Y: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Snow? The banner is a simple express permit, it's like 34.50 or something like that? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, it's not that expensive. MR. KELL Y: So what he's asking you for is not just the normal 34.50, it's twice that. MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry sir, no. To have that is $200. MR. KELLY: Oh, it is 200? MR. SNOW: It's 200, yes, sir, for a temporary use permit. MR. KELLY: So in this case it would be 400. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So 400 plus the 381.51. MR. MONTALVO: So we're looking at almost $800. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Is two times the amount for an after-the-fact temporary use permit, is that a Land Development Code issue or is that something we have the right to waive? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we can't waive it because if they have to get a permit, they have to pay that. That's a set fee, correct? MR. KELLY: That's what I'm asking, is that a set ordinance or can we Waive -- MS. ARNOLD: I think in the Land Development Code it specifies what the fee is. And if the matter is brought to this level Page 59 February 28, 2008 because it's an after-the-fact, I think then the penalty applies. So I'm not sure whether or not you all do have the ability to do that. Let me ask Jeff, though. Hold on. MR. WRIGHT: I'm unable to -- Jeff Wright, for the record, County Attorney's Office. I'm unable to recall any provision that would allow you discretion to waive a permitting application fee. I haven't been able to look in the books here, but I'm unaware of any provision in the LDC that would allow this board to do that. That would be my opinion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just for the record and to let you know, we do not have any leeway in the operational costs either. So according to the county attorney and based on our rules, we do not have any discretion in those fees. MS. ARNOLD: I think the only discretion that you might have is just to -- you may be able, because this is something that existed and it's gone now, just note that that has happened and, you know, don't do it again, and just not require him to get a permit for something after the fact, because it's gone. But when it comes to the fees, you don't have any discretion what to charge. If you're requiring him to get a permit. MR. KELL Y: So in other words, on number two we could strike secure an after-the-fact permit, because it's done, this banner's down, we don't need to -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. KELL Y: And then also, that eliminated my second question was to be -- if we were going to ask to get a permit, then we probably should have put a time limit on that. But I guess that negates the issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So are you making a motion to remove number two? Page 60 February 28, 2008 MR. KELL Y: I'll make the motion to -- although I think you want number two in there so it shows that he's already displayed for 14 days and that there was a violation, but he does have another 14 days within a one-year period -- MS. ARNOLD: This calendar year. MR. KELL Y: This calendar year. So I think it's important to leave number two. But I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with the change that in number two that the line after-the-fact permit fees of two times the amount of the normal permit fee are to apply, I would ask that that would be stricken and that no permit would be necessary to be secured, since the violation has been abated and it's already taken care of. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Then you would have to change the obtain temporary use permit -- MR. KELLY: Correct, sorry. MS. ARNOLD: I think the easiest way to do it is strike it, because you've already found that there was a violation when you made a motion that a violation existed. MR. KELLY: Okay, I make a motion to accept county's recommendation with number two stricken. MR. PONTE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we do that, would it be better maybe to put in there that the respondent has -- can display a banner for another two weeks if the permit was to be pulled? Should we do that? That acknowledges that they still have two weeks to have a banner -- MR. SNOW: Well, sir, actually this was displayed last year. So new calendar year he has 28 days. So he's fine. I think just strike it. We're aware that there was a violation on the property. Ifhe does it again illegally, then it's a repeat violation, we come directly here. Page 61 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. Do you understand? MR. MONTALVO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You'll be responsible for the operational fees -- MR. MONT AL VO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to be paid within 30 days. MR. MONTALVO: Not a problem. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MR. MONT AL VO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. That should end the public hearings. We will come back at ll:0 1. We'll recess until 11:01. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call Code Enforcement Board back to order. And if I'm not mistaken, requests for reduction of fines is next. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. You have a document that was submitted by a Ms. Llosa. But she is not present. I think that the respondent is requesting that all the fines be abated. Also on your agenda is the actual county's request for imposition of fines. Mrs. Llosa's request indicates that she corrected the violation Page 62 February 28, 2008 on December 23rd, 2007. However, she didn't call the investigator, so we have no way of verifying whether or not it was actually abated on that particular time. The demo permit was issued on October 26, '07. Our verification is that she didn't make a call, she requested the CO or certificate of completion be -- inspection be done on the 1st of January. And the county went to do the final inspection and granted the CO on the 4th of January. We do just want to note for the record that the respondent did pay operational costs as requested. We have no way of validating either way. We don't have any objection to her request either. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And she had 90 days to correct the violation; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Your order is -- provided 60 days, I believe, to -- and that was by -- 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ninety days. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. December 26th was when she needed to do it by. MR. LARSEN: And what were the fines? MS. ARNOLD: Or a -- fines were pretty high. They were $200 per day. MR. LARSEN: And the amount of the -- MS. ARNOLD: The total is $1,600. MR. DEAN: That's in the middle of your package. MR. PONTE: I'd like to suggest to the board that the operational costs have been paid, that the respondent is in compliance, and that's the function of this board, to bring people into compliance and not to be a revenue producing center for the county. I would think that we should abate these fines totally. MR. MORGAN: Is that a motion? MR. PONTE: It is a motion. MR. MORGAN: Second. Page 63 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Request for imposition of fines and liens, BCC versus Domenic Tosto, a/k/a Domenic Tosto Trust and Joanne M. Tosto, Trustee of the Family Living Trust. MS. ARNOLD: For those of you that have been on the board, this has been before you a couple different times, and I think at the last hearing you all requested -- or granted an extension of time. And this particular case was heard by the board on April 26, 2007. The order entered into has been provided to you for your reVIew. The violations included two things. Litter. If you recall there was an accumulation oflitter on the property, as well as requiring to improve the structure that's there, either by removing it or getting permits for it. And if you recall, the property owner is diligently working on obtaining permits. But it's more than obtaining permits at the county level, it's at the state level. And I won't steal his thunder, I'm sure he'll have an earful for you to go through. At this point, however, we still have not obtained compliance for the construction portion of it, or the structure. The litter has been abated, and I believe that they've been maintaining the property free of litter. Page 64 February 28,2008 And to date, however, the fines have accrued to the amount of $59,795.34, and that is made up of fines that accrued from November 2nd, 2007 through February 27th, 2008. And that's 64 days at a rate of $250 per day. That's $29,250. And then an additional fine amount, and that was another item that required certificate of completion and the like for the same time periods, for an additional $29,250. There's an additional $1,295.34 for operational costs which have not been paid. MR. KELLY: Michelle, are the number of days possibly wrong? MS. ARNOLD: Well, the 64? MR. KELL Y: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it looks like it should be more. MR. KELLY: 117? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Bendisa was having an off day that day. It should be more. MR. PONTE: If that's the case, is the fine accurate? MS. ARNOLD: The fine is not -- is it accurate? MR. KELL Y: The fine's accurate, the number of days aren't. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. Did you verify that? Yes, the fine's accurate but the days are wrong. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And it's February 27th, 2008. Right here you have 2007. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You need to swear in both parties, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't know which -- you want to go? MS. ARNOLD: If you have questions for either party. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I know when we first heard this Page 65 February 28, 2008 case, I realized it was going to be a very difficult endeavor, to say the least. I guess if you can tell us some of the progress you have made or not made. MR. TOST A: Sure. The last time we were here, I believe that we were -- the state was unsure who actually had jurisdiction over the property. They have settled who has the jurisdiction. We've continued the permitting process. And the state has actually agreed to issue a permit based on some stipulations involving some wildlife species. At this point we're -- and the window of construction is between November and March. So at this point right now we're optimistic that we can start the construction period in November and complete the structure part of it, which would require the heavy machinery, in between the turtle season and the bird shore nesting season. We have started the design and engineering process. So as soon as the state gives us the environmental resource permit which is needed to pursue the county permit, we will be able to submit our plans right away. We've continued to maintain a clean beach. We go out there regularly and maintain the property. And above that, there's nothing more I have, really. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you're looking at a November time frame to start? MR. TOST A: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: November of this year then. MR. TOST A: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have any other questions? MR. MORGAN: As I recall, you had to certify some existing piling; is that correct? MR. TOSTA: Yes, sir. Page 66 February 28, 2008 MR. MORGAN: And then you had to drive some new piling. MR. TOST A: Yes, sir. MR. MORGAN: Have you driven some test piles, or are you allowed to do that now? MR. TOST A: We're not allowed to do anything without an environmental resource permit. MR. MORGAN: So you're going to have to wait until November to even do your test piles. MR. TOSTA: The test piles would only be if the engineer requires them. At this point right now we do have the borings from the original piles that were driven out there. And it doesn't look like we're going to need to require some prerequisite pile driving out there. As long as the engineer proceeds as he is, we will not need to do some prerequisite piles. MR. MORGAN: You're going to use the old report and the old logs? MR. TOSTA: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to impose the fines? MR. KELLY: Well, here's the trouble with this particular case. It's like we all knew that we'd be in this position one day, but yet it has been the philosophy of the board that we do not abate or reduce fines or even stop them from being imposed until there's compliance. So it puts us in that awkward position. However, if we do go by what we need to do as a board, I think it's our duty to impose the fines, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess I've got another question before I move forward. And I might have asked this last time. Are you going to finance any of this? Page 67 February 28, 2008 MR. TOST A: Yes, we are. Are we going -- what do you mean by -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Bank finance. MR. TOSTA: Oh. As of right now, no. We haven't obtained any bank financing. It's all been personal. MR. PONTE: I think really to amplify the question, is it your intention to in the future attempt to get some bank financing? MR. TOST A: I don't believe so. I don't believe so. Bank financing for this type of proj ect is very difficult. MR. PONTE: True. MR. MORGAN: So your hands are tied by the environmental people; is that correct? MR. TOST A: Yes, the -- we need an environmental resource permit to do anything. MR. MORGAN: And that's forthcoming? MR. TOST A: They have agreed to issue it as long as we can work out the details around the wildlife species. MR. MORGAN: And within that time frame? MR. TOST A: Yes. MR. KELL Y: I think Michelle's going to suggest what I'm going to suggest. Go ahead. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I was going to say, we could -- if you do impose today, you could choose not to relinquish your authority so that this doesn't move outside of your jurisdiction and to the county attorney's office. And then at the time of compliance, you can decide what you would want to do with that fine. MR. KELL Y: Along the same lines, my thought was to grant an extension like we've done in the past on this case, and then there wouldn't be a situation where he would be in violation or in need of fines at all. But Michelle's point is well taken as well. Page 68 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is it -- what's the choice of the board? MR. PONTE: As is Ken's, this is getting very eye-catching in terms of amounts of money here. I think we almost need some professional advice. We have a recommendation from the county as to what might be done. Do we have any other advice? This is sort of a wild horse that's runnIng away. MS. RAWSON: You can continue the matter, not to hear it today, not to impose the fines today. In other words, take it off your agenda. I mean, the fines are going to continue to accrue. At some point in time you're going to be back here having to impose more fines. But you haven't imposed the fines, you haven't issued an order for fines that would be recorded if you wait. And, you know, maybe when you're to that point there'll be a motion for an abatement of the fines. I mean, the fines are continuing to accrue daily. MR. KELLY: So procedurally we could decide to take this off of to day's agenda or not impose the fines, whichever the vote may be, and then give an opportunity for the respondent to come back and request an extension, or we could request staff not to bring this to us until a date in the future? I mean -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. And I think actually you should request that Michelle take it off rather than you take it off. I would rather see you do that than make an extension of time, because then what you do is you go back and you change your original order. And we don't usually like to change orders. So if you don't impose the fines today, she's going to bring it back at some point in time, because the fines are accruing. MR. KELLY: Michelle, what are you comfortable with? MS. ARNOLD: Whatever the board is comfortable with. Page 69 February 28, 2008 MR. PONTE: So you can just withdraw it. MR. DEAN: Let me say this: I don't have any problem with that, but I'd certainly like to see the operational fees paid in order for me to do that, because we do have a cost. So I think if that was paid I would go along with something like that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But the operational costs, there's going to be more investiga -- MR. DEAN: Well, right now we have $1,295.34. And if that was paid, then I'd certainly go along with something like this. It's give and take a little bit. MR. KELLY: It's the same original op. costs that were in our order back in April of '07. They haven't grown at all. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would that change your order if we were requesting that they pay within 30 days? MS. RAWSON: Well, this is interesting. You do an order that they just pay the operational costs and maybe you could reserve on the imposition of fines? I guess we could do that. MR. PONTE: Is it neater, though, just to withdraw it? MS. RAWSON: Maybe there will be a voluntary payment of the operational costs. MR. DEAN: Might be neater, but I mean, there's a cost there, and we're going in a negative direction. I would feel good if the operational cost is paid in order to continue on with what we're doing. MS. RAWSON: Well, you can enter an order that says that and reserve jurisdiction to impose fines at a later date, keeping in mind that they're continuing to accrue. MR. KELLY: Or in a not so subtle way we could kindly request that the respondent pay the op. costs, knowing that this whole thing could come back to us in the near future and we might be asked to decide on whether to impose fines or not. And giving the statements on the board, if the operational costs Page 70 February 28, 2008 were paid, we'd be more favorable to not impose the fines or as heavily or so forth. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think we cannot impose the fine, that we really should not do that today. Whatever mechanism we use to extend the time, whether it's a withdrawal of the item, whatever the mechanism, but the imposition of a fine today I think really could be detrimental to the respondent. MR. DEAN: Are you calling an operational cost a fine? MR. PONTE: No, sir. And pay the operational cost, that's fine. They're not going up, they're not changing, as you've pointed out. And if we could withdraw this case or just postpone it to November and see where we are then. MS. ARNOLD: The county withdraws this case for now. MR. PONTE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The county withdraws the case. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you, County. Next case will be BCC versus Albert Houston. We have two cases. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this first case is 2007-63. This case was heard by the board on July 26th, 2007. And this was for -- the violation was for -- the violation was for various -- well, let's see here, the existence of wood frame structure without valid building permits. The respondent has yet to comply with the board's order, and fines are accruing. And we at this time would like to impose fines at a rate of $50 per day from the period of August 28th, 2007 through February 27th, 2008, which is 183 days, for a total of$9,150. Additionally, from the period of December 28th, 2007 through February 27th, 2008, for 61 days at a rate of$50 per day, for a total of $3.050. And operational costs in the amount of$513.31 has accrued. MR. KELL Y: Michelle, is this the one where it was part of the Page 71 February 28, 2008 divorce settlement? MS. ARNOLD: No, that was -- that was a different person. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I take it the respondent is not here? MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we impose the fine as recommended by the county. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. On to the next case. Albert Houston also. MS. ARNOLD: This is Case No. 2007-64. This case was also heard on July 26th, 2007. And this violation was another property, but similar mobile home structures without permits. And the respondent has not complied. Well, actually, this one is a unique one. The mobile home on the structure has been removed, and it was removed on August 15th, 2007. There was no permit obtained for that removal. And then your order required the respondent to obtain a demolition permit in the event that that option was taken. And so technically they didn't comply completely with your order. So that's where we are on that particular issue. But if you look at your order, literally what's being requested, you know, kind of complies with your order in terms of the fines. MR. KELLY: So what happens there, you need to go just get an Page 72 February 28, 2008 after-the-fact demo permit, basically? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And then they'll do a cursory look at the site to make sure all of the utilities are capped off and that type of thing. MR. KELL Y: So that inspection hasn't been done. So we really don't know for sure whether or not it was abated. MS. ARNOLD: I'll look to the investigator for that. He's been out there and he can testify to what he's seen on the site. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you swear him in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. Spelled M-O-R-A-D. Yes, I have made a site visit and confirmed that the violation, as far as the mobile home and the debris created by the mobile home, was removed. However, the order did state that a demolition permit was needed for that. MS. ARNOLD: And Ijust want to clarify, my notes say August 15th actually the mobile home was gone but there was some debris on the property still. And then actually on September 19th, all the debris was removed at that time. So the full compliance wasn't until September 19th, which was, you know, 22 days after your order deadline. MR. KELLY: Well, Investigator Morad, did you see any electrical or sewer, water lines that were not properly capped off or removed? MR. MORAD: I really didn't check for that. I didn't know that the order requested a demolition permit until I came back and researched the actual order. But it's -- I mean, if a demolition permit was issued, that particular inspection would have been done and a certificate of completion issued. Page 73 February 28, 2008 MR. KELLY: Well, to the board, in my eyes I don't want to say that the issue was abated. I think that a violation should continue to remain then in that case, because how do we know for sure that an electrical line is not sitting live, you know, underneath two inches of dirt. I think we need those inspections and I think we should continue with the assumption. In the original order it said to notify and that wasn't done either. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion? Do I have a motion to impose fines? MR. KELLY: They could always come back later and explain what had happened and give us the option. So I make a motion that we accept county's recommendation as stated and impose the fines. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Sanctuary of Blue Heron Association. MS. ARNOLD: We moved the Auto Village piece. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Apologize. BCC versus Auto Village of Naples. Page 74 February 28, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Well, I'll start. This case is 2007-101. The case was heard by the board on October 25th, 2007. The violation was for improvements of the property without valid building permits. The order has been attached for your review. Compliance. They are in compliance, aren't they? MR. MORAD: No. MS. ARNOLD: They are not in compliance. Fines accrued at a rate of $400 per day between December 25th, 2007 and February 27th, 2008, 64 days, for that total of $25,600. Plus operational costs in the amount of $533.30. And the operational costs have been paid, so the fine to date is $25,600. In this particular case it was stipulated -- there was a stipulation that was presented to the board, and the stipulation contained 90 days for compliance and $200 per day was the suggested fine. But the board modified the stipulation and reduced the time to 60 days and increased the fine amount to $400 per day. And the investigator is here to speak to it. I don't believe that the respondent was here to hear your modification of that stipulation. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. HALL: I'm Holly Daye Hall. Do I start or-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You can start. MS. HALL: I have some handouts that I wanted to give you all. You can get it afterwards or now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we'd like to get those prior to the hearing so we can review them and -- MS. HALL: Okay. All right, well-- MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask what the handouts are in reference to? MS. HALL: Well, they're a copy of the construction timetable. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, just to give the board an idea of why it hasn't complied. MS. HALL: Right. It's really nothing to go over, I mean, it's just Page 75 February 28, 2008 all -- MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion that we accept the respondent's Exhibit A. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. I just saw how thick it was, that's the reason. I'd like to make -- we'll take a couple of minutes to review it. Obviously some of the points you're going to make are going to reference these documents you're giving us? MS. HALL: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just give us a couple of minutes to look at them so we at least can be familiar with them. Investigator, have you received a copy? MR. MORAD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. It may be good to -- MS. HALL: I think I have one in there for him. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And then the court reporter should get one also. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, this is a lot to even -- to pretend to fully understand. And I am not a speed reader. MS. HALL: You're right, it's just really -- MR. PONTE: I think that what we should do is to just continue this. If we're going to want to look at this suddenly introduced material, then I'm going to ask that we continue it because I can't take it all in that fast. MR. MORGAN: Is that a motion? Page 76 February 28, 2008 MR. PONTE: That's a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's a motion to continue this. Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Okay, this is going to be continued. MS. HALL: Well, really, I'd rather not. MR. PONTE: Then would you want to withdraw this packet? MS. ARNOLD: Maybe she could just kind of walk you through those things instead of having you to review everything. MS. HALL: It's really just after-the-fact stuff confirming -- it's confirming what I'm going to say really other than -- MR. PONTE: I guess, ma'am, what I'm saying is if I don't have any responsibility for having read this, and I haven't read it, then I suggest that we hand it back and we'll make our decision on your verbal testimony. MS. HALL: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, can we un-accept a package that we made a motion to accept? MS. RAWSON: You have to make another motion, and it has to pass. MR. PONTE: We just did, didn't we? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We made a motion to continue. MR. PONTE: Oh, to continue. All right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So then we have to make probably two motions, one motion to -- to return the package, one motion to -- Page 77 February 28, 2008 MS. RAWSON: Not continue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- not continue. Let's start with a -- MR. PONTE: Yes, I'll amend my motion and -- I will amend my first motion and ask that it be withdrawn. The second motion that I'm making -- well, let's vote on that first, okay? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The second has to -- MR. PONTE: And then on the second part of -- or another motion -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let me take a vote. Can I have a vote on withdrawing the motion to continue. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, the second motion. MR. PONTE: Second motion is to withdraw the packet that was just recently submitted so that we are not responsible for having given the opinion that we've read this packet and responsible for having seen its content. And that we base our decisions, whatever they be, based on the oral presentation from the respondent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 78 February 28, 2008 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? MR. KELLY: (Indicating.) MS. HALL: Okay, so do I start? MR. KELL Y: I already saw it. MR. PONTE: Yeah, well, you're a speed reader, I'm not. MS. HALL: Okay, my name is Holly Daye Hall, and I'm half owner of Auto Village. Robert S. Hall is the respondent. We are not a huge conglomerate or property developers. We're a mom and pop business that started with a couple, one having a dream, the other by his side. Bob was born in St. Pete, came to Naples out of the Coast Guard in '64 -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All we're here is to ask why you're looking for a -- I guess a reduction of fines. We don't need to have -- MS. HALL: Well, it -- yeah. MR. PONTE: It's not a hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So if you can just keep to why you feel that there should be a reduction of fines. MS. HALL: Well, we have already started the process. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What process? MS. HALL: We hired a -- now you've thrown me off. MS. ARNOLD: Ed, do you want to help her? MR. MORAD: I think, if I can interrupt. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure, absolutely. MR. MORAD: The process I'm thinking that Mrs. Hall's in reference to is twofold: One being the -- she had to do a revision to a site development plan and then the other process of course is the building permit process. And she started one, being the site development plan and Page 79 February 28, 2008 completed it. And now she's still in the process of getting her permits reviewed. Not issued yet, but just reviewed. Did that help? MS. HALL: Well, they keep getting rejected. And it took -- it took Hole-Montes three years to finish our first site plan and two years for the second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you're going to have any testimony, sir, we're going to have to swear you in also. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: Can you state your name for the record, sir. MR. HALL: Robert Hall. Okay, we have a contractor, Scott Marcotte Construction Company, who has started on this phase. And we have an electrician who has started on this phase. They both have submitted their permits, permitting to the permitting department. And they've got -- been rejected a couple times. They have -- January 3rd, plans reviewed by the health department. January 9th, informed by the health department that the septic tank and drain field was not large enough. So we submitted that information to the contractor. He's got somebody to put a bigger septic tank in. The contractor met with Bob Keene over the redraw of the septic tank. He reviewed it the same day and submitted it the same day. Health department on January 11th approves plan sent back to Collier County building department. Received a fax notice that I may now submit corrections on items previously turned down. I'm speaking for the contractor. He submitted corrections. January 29th, '08, Holly had discussions with Albert at the health department regarding huge size of drain field. February 5th, went to the Collier County department to check on Page 80 February 28, 2008 status of plans. They said they're rejected and had not received letters yet. February 22nd, received corrections from the electrical and architect. Will submit on Monday, February 25th. In other words, we've got contractors for the putting in the septic tank, we've got contractors for doing everything. And they've submitted all the necessary papers to the zoning department. And we hired Scott Marcotte Construction Company, September 7th. And we paid him about $19,000 for all that work done. In other words, all the information has been forwarded to the Collier County Zoning Department and we're waiting for the information to come back. They have had -- they've done quite a bit of work already. We had to move -- we had two trailers there, and the original problem was on one of the trailers that we had there, we had built on a canopy in front of the trailer without a permit. Okay? And we have inside the trailer this part, we have three Teletype machines -- three Teletype machines and three men at the counter selling automobile parts. Well, the zoning department said we had to remove that. In order to remove that, we have to have a place for the three people that are there to move to. So we had a trailer next to it. And right behind the trailer was a retention lake, which is almost an acre. We have five acres altogether there. So we had to move that trailer, I think, 13 feet forward so it wouldn't be interfering with the retention pond. Well, we had taken all the wheels and axles and everything off the trailers and they were just sitting there. So we had to get rollers, big telephone pole rollers, buy those, and we had to roll that whole building about 13 feet. Then we had a man come in that was certified to tie it down properly, and that was all done. Page 81 February 28, 2008 It's just been one thing after another. And it's not that we're not trying to do it. We're doing everything we can do to get it done. It just takes time. And the time that we had was Christmastime, and so things are shut down and it just takes a long time. But we're moving along. We're getting it done. And it will be done, just -- that's about all I can tell you. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Hall, are you requesting then additional time? Is that -- MR. HALL: Well, we need additional time to finish what we're doing. We've already hired the contractors and we were going to bring them today, but we didn't bring them today. But we need additional time to get this done. And we can show that we have done part of it. In other words, if I could -- if we could get it done tomorrow, we'd do it. But we have to move trailers, we have to just -- there's more to it than just taking that shed or whatever it was that was over the other trailer. That we can do in one day. When all this is done and we are ready to have the guys move in the other trailer, we can tear that down in one day. It's no big deal there. It's just that we have to get all the permits. I've been in business here for 40 years, and I've had a salvage yard on the other side of town for 30 years and I've had this one for 10 years, and we're doing everything we can to get it done. That's all I can say right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator, has there been progress made on this? MR. MORAD: Oh, yes, sir. Yes. It's rather a large project. Original site development plan was for one two-story metal building without any electric, water. It developed into several structures being brought in unpermitted, electric, water, sewage. So yes. And being in the industrial area, there's a lot involved with the site development plan revision. And like I said, they have completed that part of it. Page 82 February 28, 2008 The permits is another long, hard process. Revisions, if you don't jump on those revisions when they're being rejected, takes even longer. So they have hired -- they did hire an engineer, they did hire a contractor, a licensed contractor. To be perfectly honest, we stipulated an agreement to the board. They were put 30 days into the hole by revising that stipulation to 60 days instead of an agreed 90 days. They were put into a hole as far as increasing the fines from an agreed upon $200 per day to $400 per day. And like Mr. Hall mentioned, that two-month period, it kind of went into a holiday season. So that added to the -- to his -- or their effort. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So again, we have a couple of choices here. I mean, we could -- MR. DEAN: Are all permits pulled? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, I think you're still in the permitting process, right? MR. HALL: I think we have the permits. I think we have the permits. You mean to put the building up and do all that? MR. DEAN: Have they all been applied for? MR. HALL: Yes, they have been applied for. MR. MORAD: They're in review status still. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They've been rejected a couple times. MR. HALL: Yeah, we had to move the building up 13 feet and just lots of little things. I've been in this business right here in Naples for 40 years, and I know it just gets harder every year, but everybody has to do it, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any idea when you will be out of permitting? When you will have your permit and -- MR. HALL: Oh, we'll probably have it all done -- I would say we'll have -- should have everything done in the next two months, Page 83 February 28, 2008 everything. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You mean everything taken care of? MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Permitted, everything, and CO'd and MR. HALL: The permit's already -- all that's -- the hardest part's done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we have a couple of choices here. We could either have him come back in a few months, impose the fines. I mean, there's -- do we have any questions on the board? MR. DEAN: Well, I believe we should extend this -- MR. PONTE: I agree. MR. DEAN: -- time frame, I mean. I hope 60 days is enough. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about do you want to continue it until 90 days out, bring it back in front of the board? MR. DEAN: That's fine by me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would it be the May meeting then? MR. DEAN: Fine by me. MR. MORGAN: Okay by me. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion that we continue this until the meeting in May. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Do you understand what we just did? Page 84 February 28, 2008 MR. HALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case should be BCC versus Sanctuary of Blue Heron Association. MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, members of the board. MS. ARNOLD: This particular case, the county is requesting imposition of fines, but you also received a packet from the attorneys representing Sanctuary of Blue Heron. I believe also the attorney representing the unit owner is here as well, right? This case was -- just to refresh your memory, a spa hot tub was constructed without building permits on a lanai area which happens to be also the common area within that development. And I'll turn it over to the respondent. MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, members of the board. I'm not going to be sworn in. I'm the attorney that represents the Sanctuary at Blue Heron. The name's Ron Campbell. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. CAMPBELL: For the purpose of expediency, members of the board, I would like to point out that the certificate of occupancy has been filed. We provided this along with our packet of materials within a week of it being filed. To the extent that this causes the county to withdraw the imposition of the fine or that it abates the fine, I'll rest. To the extent that it doesn't, I would like to proceed in presenting our case. MR. KELLY: Well, I think that in the documentation that we had, I'm okay with hearing any testimony that wants to be entered, but to the board I think it shows here how there was some legal issues, how the association couldn't proceed or couldn't help because of that. Maybe we could kind of poll the board and see where we stand on this. I'm personally in favor of abating the fine. MS. ARNOLD: Let me just interject that the issue was one of whose responsibility it was to, because the Sanctuary of Blue Heron is the property owner, but the unit owner actually was the one that had to Page 85 February 28, 2008 pull the permit and those type of things. I just wanted to give you, in terms of what activity transpired, and you -- I'm not really clear on the dates when the court told you, the Sanctuary, that they needed to at least allow the property owner to obtain the permit. MR. CAMPBELL: Well, there are two important dates. Approximately a month before we came to the initial board hearing there was an arbitration before the Department of Business and Professional Regulations. The final order came down in, I believe, it was June of -- June 13th, something like that, 2007. That order provided two things, one of which was that the association did not have the authority to require the unit order to remove the spa from that limited common element lanai. So we were foreclosed in part from complying with the Code Enforcement Board's order in that we were foreclosed from taking out a demolition permit and obtaining the certificate of occupancy following that demolition. Approximately a month after that initial Code Enforcement Board hearing, the circuit court entered an order reiterating that we were not allowed, that we were prohibited from interfering with Mr. Boschelli's use and enjoyment of that spa. So again, we were prohibited from pulling a demolition permit. And as Ms. Arnold stated, we weren't in control of the installer. There was no legal basis for forcing his hand to pull all the appropriate permits and for forcing him to complete the electrical work on the spa, for forcing him to ask for that certificate of occupancy. We did, when the November date was coming and it became clear to us that the work was not going to be completed in a timely fashion, we moved the circuit court to compel Mr. Boschelli to complete the work in accordance with that arbitrator's final order. The circuit court took our motion under advisement and has yet Page 86 February 28,2008 to issue an order. In that time period, however, the certificate of occupancy has been filed. And I believe that the property is now in compliance. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. Your order allowed both to obtain a permit or a demo permit. And the permit was obtained -- let's see what the issuance date was. MR. CAMPBELL: I do have a copy of it. Looks like February the 13th? MS. ARNOLD: That's the certificate of completion. The application for permit was submitted to the county on November 6th of2007. It is approved on November 15th, 2007 and issued on that same day. And the CO was issued on February l3th of'08. And there were a couple problems with us, the county, that is, accessing the property to do inspections, and I think that was part of the delay that occurred. I mean, inspections were requested but then there was no access to the property to get on there and actually do the inspection, so that delayed the actual issuance of a final CO. MR. CAMPBELL: I would like to chime in on that point. I don't believe that any of the difficulty was due to the respondent. You could correct -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. CAMPBELL: Just to be clear. MS. ARNOLD: The unit owner. MR. KELLY: Doesn't that put us in that predicament, if we were to impose fines, they would be against the owner, which is the association, technically, as a common -- correct, as the common owner? Not necessarily the unit owner. MR. CAMPBELL: It would not -- your fine would not be imposed against the unit owner, would not be imposed against the individual who installed without the permit. MS. ARNOLD: And I'm not really sure why we ended up only issuing the order against the unit owner. Because both the unit owner Page 87 February 28, 2008 and the property owner were notified in our notice of violation proceedings. And I believe they were both here at all the hearings that were involving this. MR. KELLY: Well, to avoid, which would probably turn into another round of legal action -- MR. CAMPBELL: Well, the legal issues are ongoing, just so you know. We're still before Judge Ellis in the circuit court. There has been an order with respect to what to what we can and cannot do. But the remaining legal issues are ongoing. MR. KELLY: Answer this: Ifwe were to go and impose these fines, they would go against the association. The association would then come back and start a suit or another suit or tack this on to what's going on against the unit owner, right, for causing this problem? MR. CAMPBELL: That's a good guess, yes. MR. KELLY: I'm just saying, if it's in compliance, why don't we just abate the fines and avoid the whole rest of the legal issues from anything further than this and let them go on and do what they need to do? Is that satisfying what you wanted to do, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to let the board know all the facts, that's all. MR. DEAN: Can I ask just a question of you, sir? Let's say I live in a gated community and I want to do improvements and I come to the county and apply for a permit and get it and I'm ready to go. MR. CAMPBELL: Not enough, because of the declaration of-- or go ahead -- MR. DEAN: I agree with you. So in other words, I would have to go to the association also and get approval at the same time, right? MR. CAMPBELL: Absolutely. And that's based on contract law. MR. DEAN: So therefore it really shouldn't be a problem, it should be cut-and-dry in a way. MR. CAMPBELL: As far as his authority to build -- Page 88 February 28, 2008 MR. DEAN: They're both notified. I got my permit and I went to the association and I have to get approval there. MR. CAMPBELL: That's the legal issue. It's our position that he did not seek the appropriate permission from the board of directors. MR. DEAN: Okay, very good. MS. ARNOLD: I think it's really up to the board what they want to do. Although there were some issues with regard to the access of the property to delay the certificate of completion and that type of thing, I think there was a delay on the part of action that's created with the court system for that property owner to even try to obtain a permit from the county. MR. CAMPBELL: To the extent that this causes the board to abate the fine, which is what we're asking for today, I'll rest. Otherwise, I would just like to just address some of the legal framework of the imposition of the fine itself. MR. KELL Y: Let's take that for a test drive. I'll make a motion that we abate the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: I'll second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. You do know the operational costs have been paid, okay. MR. CAMPBELL: They have been paid, right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Next case will be number seven, BCC versus Victor Figueroa. Page 89 February 28, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on August 23rd, 2007. The violations were several Minimum Housing Code violations for the property -- in the property identified. The board's order has been provided for your review, and it has been complied with. Compliance was obtained by February 15th. Fines accrued at the rate of $200 per day for the period of December 27th, 2007 through February 15th, 2008,50 days, for a total of $10,000. The operational costs in the amount of$354.74 have been paid. And the respondent -- is that the respondent -- is present and has Christina Perez translating for her. But we'd like to have her state on the record that she's in agreement to have the investigator perform that duty for her. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: I could kind of address this. I think that the respondent worked really hard to get -- come into compliance, and the county doesn't have any objections to -- I believe she's wanting to request abatement of the fines. Can we confirm that? MR. KELLY: But Michelle, we have a notice of noncompliance in our packet. MS. PEREZ: Because of the dates. MR. KELL Y: As of 23rd of August. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, we have a revised affidavit that was submitted that didn't make it into your packet. It was the -- when we were having our code board review, it came up that they were actually in compliance. But -- and it was a matter of the days. The first one was December 28th and then we did one later. MR. KELLY: In that light, I'll make a motion that we abate the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. Page 90 February 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SERRANO: Muchas gracias. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. The next one -- next case is BCC versus Eduardo and Maria Rodriguez. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard on August 23rd, 2007. The violations were unpermitted shed and carport erected on residential property without building permits. The order has been provided for your review. And they're not in MR. KEEGAN: Yesterday they came into compliance. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, as of yesterday they were in compliance. I know that in your executive summary it says that they're not, but they are as of yesterday. Fines, however, accrued at a rate of $l 00 per day between December 22nd, 2007 and February 27th, 2008,67 days, for a total of $6,700. And they have paid the operational costs, which were $243.17. (Speakers and Interpreter were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It has been abated? MR. KEEGAN: As of yesterday. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: As of yesterday, okay. MR. KELL Y: What was the reason, as you understand, the delay? Page 91 February 28, 2008 MR. KEEGAN: Well, they did fail one inspection for -- and I can read the inspection results. Was no permit posted, full of debris, including two refrigerators with doors attached. That's why they failed the inspection on the demo. MR. KELLY: So nothing internally. There was not anything with the construction, it was just some debris left over. MR. KEEGAN: Yes, there was a lot of debris left over. Whatever was inside the structures remained on the slab. You know, they took down the frame, what we cited them for, and left everything there. That's why they failed the inspection. MR. KELLY: In your opinion did they work diligently to get this taken care of? MR. KEEGAN: In my opinion, no. MR. KELLY: It was one of those last minute type things? MR. KEEGAN : Yes. Yes, sir. It's actually -- if I may bring it up, during the hearing Mr. Rodriguez and myself agreed to a stipulation, which we presented, and the board revised it and actually gave him more time and cut the fine down, and he still did not come into compliance. MR. KELL Y: Is there any way that the respondent could explain to you so you can translate to us the reason why it took so long for them to get this project started? THE INTERPRETER: She says to begin with, they thought that it was -- I'm not exactly sure what was on-site. They thought it was a smaller portion that they had to demolish and not the entire thing that they had to demolish. So her husband knocked down what they thought was to be -- that was illegal, and with little work he tried to work as much as possible and little by little he started removing the trash. But, you know, because of work and because of the misunderstanding, they didn't understand exactly what they were supposed to demolish, they took a long time to do that. Page 92 February 28, 2008 MR. KEEGAN: Can I ask a question? When we were outside, Christina was translating and the respondent stated, you know, that they also went to Mexico, I believe, during that time frame. So that could be a reason something didn't get done. I have a picture of what we actually cited them for, in could refresh you guys' memory, the board's memory, ifneeded. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't really want to rehear the case or anything, so -- Does the board have any recommendations? MR. KELLY: I'm pleased that it's in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any recommendation to reduce the fines? Do I have a motion to impose the fines? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Before it goes to vote, I don't know if we should impose the entire fine. It is in compliance -- MR. DEAN: Partial. MR. KELLY: Maybe a partial. MR. DEAN: I'll second. I'll second his motion. MR. KELL Y: The full amount? MR. DEAN: No, he didn't say full amount. MR. PONTE: No, I said to impose the fine. MR. DEAN: To impose a fine. How much would you suggest? A couple of bucks, I'm sure. MR. PONTE: Well, I don't know. There was a stipulation agreement that was signed. They've been dragging their feet. We can be understanding, but only understanding to a point. And I think one of the points we're overlooking are signed stipulation agreements was there. MR. KELL Y: And the board granted more time than what the stipulation agreement said. MR. PONTE: That's correct. So I think the fine as it exists now Page 93 February 28, 2008 should stand. My motion would be to impose this fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The motion doesn't pass due to not having a second. Do I hear any other suggestions? MR. KELLY: I think, you know, in light of the fact that it is abated now, it did take longer, but I think maybe $1,000 would be an appropriate fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you make that a motion? MR. KELL Y: I do. MR. DEAN: I'll second. MR. MORGAN: I second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. All those not in favor? MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please explain. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, I've been translating as we're going. She just wants to know how much time she has to pay the thousand dollar fine. MR. DEAN: 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: She needs to talk with us. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the next item, are you ready, Michelle? Page 94 February 28, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: We actually have to playa video for you all. This next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Lockhart. And it's one of those different things, you've never really been asked to do this before. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I've been on the board for nearly seven years and have not. MR. PONTE: I certainly haven't. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you've been on 11, so-- MS. ARNOLD: What is -- you've heard this case, you've imposed fines on this case, you've relinquished authority, and the Board of County Commissioners requested that you look at it and give them a recommendation for a reduced fine amount. And so that we don't -- I'm not translating for the board, we actually got a copy of the meeting. And so if you all could look at that. But if we could take a two-minute break so that we can set up, that would be great. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Till quarter after. We'll give you four. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to reconvene the meeting for the Code Enforcement Board. And this is regarding BCC versus Robert Lockhart. Request for code enforcement board recommendation. And just for the record, we're going to be watching a video of the county. MS. ARNOLD: Their February 12th, '08 board meeting. (A video was played.) MS. ARNOLD: That's the direction. Just so that you all know, you have a copy of the executive summary that the board actually was presented with at the meeting that was referenced that day. And at the time the proposal for Mr. Lockhart was that we would Page 95 February 28, 2008 reduce the fine, which is currently 58,150. He was willing to pay $2,907.50, which is roughly five percent. And the board did not accept that proposal. And now they're asking that you all look at it. As you all heard, there was a 25 percent of the total that was mentioned at the meeting. And that would equate to $14,537.50. And Mr. Lockhart is here to speak. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to speak? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LOCKHART: And a deeper hole. Yes. Again, to cut to the chase, the board meeting that I originally started a petition, public petition that kind of opened up this issue. The commissioners heard my explanations for what had transpired, my lack of cooperation, as it may seem to some, lack of diligence. There's two sides to every coin. But to the end result, they had made a motion at that board meeting back in November 27th, I believe it was, to provide a settlement that ranged anywhere from zero percent to five percent to 10 to 15 to 25 percent. I was of a mindset that cash was what we had to talk about and I didn't think of coinciding with a closing, which is now kind of where this has evolved to. So that is where I have no resolve to -- or no hesitation. And my offer of 25 percent, which seems to be the maximum the board had wanted, it's on the table now. That's what I wish this would be resolved for, abated to. Certainly we could get into the issue, if you'd prefer, or if you'd like to. I do have some justifications for the time frames that went on, but recommendation is what the board had asked of you, so if you have any questions or if you'd like a quick presentation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we did impose the fines, so I think we're past, if I'm not mistaken -- are we past the point of discussing reasons why, or-- MS. RAWSON: Yes. Once you turn it over for foreclosure, you Page 96 February 28, 2008 don't have jurisdiction. In addition to which you're not an advisory board. Notwithstanding the fact that you no longer have jurisdiction, and notwithstanding the fact that you're not an advisory board, you're an enforcement board, the County Commissioners have asked you for an opinion. So you have the right to give them an opinion, but it's not going to be an order. You heard the commission meeting, they're asking you for your opinion, and they're going to make the determination. MR. KELL Y: Well, in that case I make a motion that we recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to accept the 25 percent offer from the respondent to settle this. MR. PONTE: Gee, you know, I'm not comfortable with this kind of negotiation at all. We're supposed to have -- you know, operating in the sunshine, and here we are suddenly faced with a quasi agreement or solicitation around by some back door entrance that says okay, I'm willing to pay 25 percent. Well, it's just not the way the game is to be played, in my book. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, and that's the note I made to myself when I read all of this. All I know is that I don't like it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What I have a problem with is it sounds like the property is for sale, he has a willing buyer, and all of a sudden this has become an issue, the difference between 58,150 and potentially the 25 percent. And to me it just sounds like I'll take the 25 percent, sell my property and be on my way and basically put in $4,400 in my pocket. That's to me what it sounds like. And if I'm not mistaken, you were on the Code Enforcement Board at one time? MR. LOCKHART: Yes, I was. But again, let me give some more feedback. It's not a case where I just ignored everything that went on until recently with the house sale. I've been trying to resolve this over the years since day one. Page 97 February 28, 2008 There's been a difference of opinion, and unfortunately it went beyond the board's time frame that I had any option or ability to corne in and speak to the board. I've tried to work with the county attorney's office on at least six different occasions. I have tried submitting a permit by affidavit and it was not accepted. Finally met with the county attorney September of this year -- of last year, excuse me. And the direction at that time was agreed upon, non-binding, obviously, but with the county attorney trying to resolve this, myself trying to resolve it, issue or submit for a permit, the conventional permit process, not a permit by affidavit, get inspections, have a CO, take care of the code fines -- I'm sorry, the -- MR. KELLY: Operational cost. MR. LOCKHART: -- operational cost, get a certificate of compliance, which I have all of those in my hand here. It has been CO'd from the standpoint of the time frame when that agreement was reached, as I thought it was an agreement, in September of last year. The permit application was submitted October 1st. This was six days, the meeting was on the 24th of September, so October 1 st permit was submitted, 17th the permit was issued. On November 6th the certificate of occupancy completion was issued. The same day the code costs of $1 ,209 were paid. The permit also included triple the permit fees. Didn't include any impact fees that were outstanding. And again, it was an issue of not agreeing -- non-agreement with the county's process when it carne to the additions. And I can only explain it further as, being an engineer, that the way that it was constructed over a period from 1988 to 1994 did not have a process that allowed the county permit to be issued that would not have been expired and a requirement to renew it, continue it, et cetera. And at the same time it went through a period of from '94 until Page 98 February 28, 2008 2003 that there were no objections. Furthermore, Hurricane Wilma carne through during the time period that this code case started. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on. There was a stipulated agreement, I'm looking here, March 3rd, 2004. MR. LOCKHART: I understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was way before Wilma. I mean, this has dragged on an extremely long time. And being that you're an engineer in accounting, I would think you know the process and what to do to get things permitted and so forth. I am hard pressed to agree to the 25 percent reduction in the fines. MR. LOCKHART: I will say again, the -- there was never a question of the health, safety, welfare of the public with everything that was done. And that is evidenced by the fact that there was no damage to those portions through Wilma. The rest of the house was damaged, the roof was blown off, but not with those portions that I added, because I did construct them to the current codes. Furthermore, 58,000 is roughly one-half of the current assessed value of the house, the entire house. Notwithstanding that there's reasons for what you do, it just is an exorbitant amount of money. And it isn't a case of selling the house to get out of the situation. I'm forced to sell the house because there's other construction going on that I have no choice. I'm left without an option. And it is -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, let me state also that the fine of $50 a day is reflective that it is not of a health and safety issue. If it was a health and safety issue, as you probably -- you sat through the cases here, the fine would have been much more than what it is. So $50 is a very small fine for a case like this. It's very -- it's in line with what we've done with other cases. So with that being said, I don't know what the -- Page 99 February 28, 2008 MR. KELLY: I'd like to make a comment about the reality of the process. We have seen cases corne in front of us, we have voted to have fines imposed that totaled more than what the value of the property was worth. And the reason why I believe this was kicked back to us by the commissioners is because one, this was the original body. And two, the commissioners, the county, the people they represent, they're not in the business of taking people's homes. And I don't think they want to see this go to foreclosure. And when the 25 percent was thrown out by one of the commissioners, I think that was a guideline that we should take very seriously as our recommendation. We want to see people corne into compliance. We don't want to go and make examples of folks, if you will. And I'd hate to see any type of vendetta or any type of example being made here of one particular respondent. I would like the opportunity to reiterate again that 25 percent I believe is a fair amount and we should accept that. It happens every day. Jeff Wright is here, he can testify. When these things go to foreclosure, very seldom, if any, do they have their property taken away. Those are for extreme cases where the property has been abandoned, it's being used as a drug house that they have to demolish the building and they have to recuperate their cost. The job of the county attorneys is not to go and take people's homes, it's trying to negotiate a settlement amount, and that's what realistically happens when it leaves here. MS. ARNOLD: I think that's what we're -- that's being requested of you is what is that settlement amount that you feel is appropriate for this particular situation. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Kelly, if I could just correct you. You can't re-enter it, you don't have jurisdiction. MR. KELLY: You're right. MS. RAWSON: They're asking you for an advisory opinion Page 100 February 28, 2008 because the county attorney is going to negotiate this settlement. MR. KELL Y: Right. MR. PONTE: I think a $50 a day fine is the minimal fine. Ifwe went with this, we'd be talking about imposing a $12.50-a-day fine if we went along with this 25 percent recommendation. This board got itself into trouble once when it issued a fine of $1.00 a day. Here we are at $12.00 a day. It's not a good place to be. Our recommendation was when we carne to the conclusion that the fine should be $50 a day. The fact of whatever all of these other things have happened or have not happened, the recommendation and the finding was $50 a day. That's what it is. My recommendation is that's what it should be. If we were to be in the position of having to hear everyone who said ah, the fine has exceeded the value of the property, we might as well open another division. MR. KELL Y: Well, and that's not the case here. But the truth is, even today there were cases that carne in front of us $200 a day, and we just completely abated them. I think we have the purpose -- I think we have a duty to our community to not only enforce code violations but also to be compassionate to the respondents, especially when they have abated those fines. MR. PONTE: Then let's put it this way: In this case the respondent has not convinced me of his position. In the other case that you reference, the respondent did. Now, I'm only sitting here as a human being and that's all I can tell you, that I'm not convinced that it should be done. And that's the challenge that the respondent has. MR. KELLY: That's a fair response, George, I appreciate it. MR. DEAN: I agree with you gentlemen. But one thing that bothered me too is sometimes when something goes back a couple of years, there's a problem of dispute, due process. So at the time it was Page 101 February 28, 2008 disputed, and so he's losing time because it looks like he dragged his feet for two years. But also he was part of the dispute. He had a difference of opinion than we did. So it finally carne to a head and here we are. So I don't think a 25 percent thing is that bad. I think that's pretty good. I mean, all fairness. For the whole thing, I don't see it. Only because they've been going back and forth. That's where he lost the time. It isn't that he didn't do anything from '04 to now. He disputed what we were saying or whatever, so we were giving him that due process. But in the meantime, the clock kept ticking against him. MR. PONTE: But what he did was to go way out of channel, and that's what cost him time. Now he's asking us to pay for his mistake. MR. KELL Y: I don't agree with that, George. And nothing personally but, I mean, we have the right to appeals, we have the right to go search -- you know, just because a law or in this case an order is handed down doesn't mean that that's it, that's the end of it. It's a good thing that he has the ability to try to seek justice somewhere else. MR. PONTE: In channel. MR. KELL Y: In channel. It didn't work in his favor this time, but I appreciate that process that we have. MR. PONTE: So do I. But that's a channeled process, it's not I'll do whatever I want to do. This opens -- this would also set the precedent of opening up new channels, which I think has far-reaching implications that we're not deciding with this one item if we just decide to go along with the 25 percent, this negotiated amount of money. I think it opens it up dangerous grounds for future. MR. KELLY: I don't know if this is appropriate, but I would be very curious to hear from the assistant county attorney. Out of all the settlements -- I'm sorry, out of all the foreclosures that this board passes on, how many of them actually go to foreclosure? And if Page 102 February 28,2008 they're settled, what is the average amount that they're settled for? MR. PONTE: Good question. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I don't have -- again, it's Jeff Wright, county attorney's office. I don't have all the numbers at my fingertips right now. And every case is situational. When it gets forwarded to our office, we really do make an effort to sit down with the respondent and Michelle Arnold and hear the story, hear what's gone on since the lien was entered to determine what would be a fair amount to resolve the case. And ultimately we forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that we have to be able to stand behind, based on the facts. Wernet with Mr. Lockhart, we followed all those same procedures and it just didn't work out. It might have been a financial issue, but when Mr. Lockhart carne to us for that very meeting, he offered hours of service and a nominal fee. And we couldn't support that going to the board. And that's kind of where we ran into troubles. But as far as for closures, we get a lot of cases, you see them on that list that gets forwarded to our office. In my two years at the office, there's been one foreclosure on those. That's not to say that we wouldn't do it if the situation is not appropriate, but we've only had to do that one time. MR. KELLY: Jeff, if! had to ask you, please give us a range, where do you see the average of these settling for, from the original fine amount? MR. WRIGHT: It might be a misguided number if I were to give that to you. Because let's just say 50 percent, just for discussion purposes. If I were to say that as a rule of thumb 50 percent is about what we end up settling these for, then the next guy comes in without any explanation for -- any reason for reducing his lien amount, that guy's going to get 100 percent. You have to have a reason for us to be willing to forward a recommendation to the Board of County Page 103 February 28, 2008 Commissioners. So I would throw out that number, 50 percent very, very loosely and highlight the fact that it depends on the facts. MR. KELLY: I apologize for presenting that question to you. I know it puts you in a tough position. And I don't want it to give anyone any type of justification in the future. I apologize. But thank you. MR. LOCKHART: If I may? Being in a position of working with the county attorney's office since '05, a number of documents have been provided to me, and there's precedence established for this. And I've got a reference to a case with a client, owner Verano, code enforcement case numbers 94-97. And the settlement was reached in April of '05, and it was less than 25 percent. And again, a precedence is already established for reduction of fine/abatement. I mean, you do it every month. Now, the value of that is your prerogative and based on evidence presented to you. Again, I have a time line of what my life was involved with from the day that this code case started up 'ti1 the present resolve of it. It really isn't my desire to air any laundry here before you and to anybody, but it wasn't as if! was sitting back on easy street. I had gone through quite a bit of disruption in my life through a neighborhood squabble. It didn't start over this, it started with a mistake in my personal life of getting engaged to a next door neighbor that ended up in a criminal case against me for stalking. How do you stalk a next door neighbor? Well, I was forced to leave my home for over a year because of the turmoil, the constant calling police on me. I surely was in a situation to abate this situation with construction plans -- MR. PONTE: Excuse me, without getting into any of those personal items, why didn't you just request an abatement of fine? Why didn't you corne before us and do that? Page 104 February 28, 2008 MR. LOCKHART: At the time that this was going on was right in the beginning of all of my other legal problems, and I thought the clearest, cleanest way -- and I had full intentions to do a further remodel in my home. And that was what I had signed the stipulations with Michelle at that date back in June of '04. And my failure was just the fact that the court problems exacerbated and it just didn't leave me in a position to address that. I lost the time frame because I was in Destin, Florida from a standpoint of any kind of appeal. I did, I believe, contact the code's attorney at one point two years ago about a process and I was informed that the door was shut, time had already expired, that I could go to legal counsel. Well, that's the one thing I've tried to avoid here is getting an attorney involved, because I do understand that there's not going to be any openness of any boards, board of commissioners or the code board if an attorney's involved, especially when it's gone to a point with the county attorney office in foreclosure. So I didn't want to eliminate any options for me of speaking on my own behalf in trying to go back in time if I could. And that's been the whole problem, I have no means of going back in time explaining to you why this wasn't corrected in a month. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Lockhart, how much do you charge for your personal services as an engineer? MR. LOCKHART: Right now, about $75 an hour. I'm self-employed, one person since 1989. I try to do a good service for people at a fair, reasonable fee. And at the same time, I'm very familiar with the county's processes of building permits. In the last five years I've been involved in probably 500 building applications. And I still stand behind that what I did was correct, and an affidavit for permit should have been accepted, and there was just a confusion between the building department, permitting department, ,inspections and possibly county attorney's office. Page 105 February 28, 2008 But I can only beat myself against a wall so many months, years, before I have to acquiesce and say fine, I'll play it by your rules, even though Florida Statutes allows me that other option. Again, I'm not an attorney, but I felt I was in the wrong. Apparently the burden of proof is against me. But here I am asking for some reduction, some consideration. It is a large sum of money. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Lockhart, I'd like to ask you, is this a personal residence or an investment property? MR. LOCKHART: No, it's my personal residence. It's where I've lived and worked since 1985. MR. LARSEN: And it's currently under contract for sale? MR. LOCKHART: It is. MR. LARSEN: What is the contract price of sale? MR. LOCKHART: 235,000. MR. LARSEN: Do you have a mortgage on that property? MR. LOCKHART: An equity line of 130,000. MR. LARSEN: So there's approximately $100,000 in equity in the property? MR. LOCKHART: And which this would take more than half. MR. LARSEN: Thank you, sir. My position, my advice to the county board would be accept the 25 percent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need a motion or -- MS. RAWSON: You know, that's interesting. I don't know. I'm not going to write an order because you don't have jurisdiction to enter an order. I think probably because they've asked you for your advice they would like to know how you feel, whether, you know -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to just go down the line and maybe just voice a 10-minute synopsis of how each party feels -- MS. RAWSON: They're asking for your advice. MR. PONTE: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where are we going here? Page 106 February 28, 2008 This is so far off the track, Mr. Chairman, honestly. MR. DEAN: Make a motion. MR. PONTE: I'm not quite sure from a standpoint of rules, Roberts Rules, how to handle this. But we are way off the track. MR. KELLY: Can I make a motion we get a consensus of the board? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, this is -- I mean, I've not been through this before, so -- MS. RAWSON: Nor have any of us. MR. DEAN: I'd like to -- I made the second. I'd like to amend it that it be 25 percent, which is 14,000 and some change I had written down. And that's how I feel. And so there's a motion and second, so any discussion? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor -- MR. LARSEN: Of the 25 percent? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Twenty-five percent. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in disagreement or not in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. WRIGHT: If I could just add something at this juncture. You're not stuck with that number. I think you'd be doing a service to the Board of County Commissioners if you carne up with some suggestion as to what's fair. You're not required to do that, but I think that that would be consistent with their request. MR. KELLY: Could we pass on that the board was split decision, three to three? MS. RAWSON: I think they're going to know that, that you February 28, 2008 were split three to three on the 25 percent. I think what Mr. Wright is asking you to do, do you have another suggestion for the board, because they've really asked for your input. MR. KELL Y: George, what's your position? MR. PONTE: My position is that the $50 a day fine is fair. MR. KELL Y: Full amount then. MR. PONTE: No -- no, no. And if we were then to consider our usual process of abatement of fine, request for abatement, reduction, all of that is well and proper and should be done. My objection is that this is way out of channel. Now, if the dates have been passed where he should have filed or asked for abatement or reduction, then maybe we have to address that. But we've got to get this back in channel, and it's not. So I mean, I have compassion and sympathy for the respondent, but I have compassion and sympathy for most of the respondents who are here and have stories to tell us and reasons why and facts and some not facts of why things have happened the way they are. I listen with a very open ear. But they have to convince me. And they have to convince me in a line that's in channel that follows procedures. And this is not. MR. LARSEN: I just have a question for counsel. Is there a protocol or a method by which Mr. Lockhart could bring this back to the board for purposes of an abatement or reduction of the original fine, or is complete jurisdiction now -- MS. RAWSON: Complete jurisdiction has been divested from this board when they sent it for foreclosure to the county. There was in the beginning a method by which you could corne back, ask for an abatement. That time has passed. Once this board asks the county to take the matter for foreclosure they lose jurisdiction. So this is an unusual request, because I know that you're new on the board. The county is basically asking for some advice from this board. That isn't a usual thing that happens, but they've requested, so Page 108 February 28, 2008 you can certainly give them your advice. MR. PONTE: I just have to amplify that. It's an unusual request even if you're old on this board. MS. RAWSON: That's true, by George. MR. LARSEN: Can the county remand it? MS. RAWSON: I don't think so. You can ask Mr. Wright that question. MR. LARSEN: Can the county remand? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I would -- I've never seen it done. I'm not aware of any law that would allow that. And I just want to highlight this portion of your rules that say under no circumstances may a request to reduce/abate fine be made after the board has authorized foreclosure by the county attorney's office. If I took that word for word, the answer to your question would be no. MS. ARNOLD: Well, and let me just clarify that you're not -- as Jean mentioned, you're not entering into an order. This is just something that the Board of County Commissioners is requesting your opinion, assistance on. They've done it before. Not when it was related to a specific case. This is unusual that it's related to a case. They've asked your assistance or asked direction for other matters, but it was more in relation to how do we do our business, how do we do our operation and that type of thing, rather than -- one example was the affirmative defense that carne back to the board in an ordinance. They asked you all to look at all of these cases that have existed, or these permit violations that have existed for a long time. Should we -- should they look at a specific date where if it was done before a certain date then you would just forgive that violation. And this board considered that and said no, we need to make sure that each structure that is out there that has been built is safe. And Page 109 February 28, 2008 the way to determine that is to go through a process of inspections. And so that's where the affirmative defense carne up. So, you know, this is not unusual that the board is -- they don't do it often, but they have asked this board to look at certain situations. It's just unusual that they're asking you to look at a case that you've already handled and turned over to them. MR. PONTE: I agree with that. But also, the commissioners are asking us to do something that we don't do, and that is to provide them with advice on what they should do regarding a lien that they own. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PONTE: Let them seek professional financial advice if they don't know what to do and determine themselves what they should do with their lien and what they should settle for on their lien. Our position is closed. We're not financial professional advisers. MS. ARNOLD: I agree with that, but I also think that you all have the expertise because you do this on a regular basis, on a monthly basis where you look at cases and make a determination what's an appropriate -- MR. PONTE: That's correct. And it was $50. And I'm not changing that. MR. DEAN: You know, I think the commission is professional. I recommend that -- can I make a statement? All right, I'll do it under old business. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We've already taken a vote and everything and I think we should move on at this point. Okay. MR. KELL Y: So what is our recommendation to the BCC? MS. ARNOLD: What I -- since there's been a motion that failed for, you know, lack of majority, I'll just let them know that your -- the recommendation was 25 percent, but it failed 3-3. MR. KELL Y: But they can interpret that as maybe 25 percent was too much, when what I believe I'm picking up as the consensus was it wasn't enough. So maybe we should get input from the three Page 110 February 28, 2008 nays and see if half of us think it should be 25 percent, half of us think it should be 50 percent or the whole amount, so that they had some direction. But right now it seems like it's in limbo. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what I wanted to do originally, just go right down and have everyone voice their opinion, but then Mr. Ponte said no, that we were out of line. That's the reason I took the vote. Again, we can do that and just explain our positions, spend about 10, 15 seconds apiece. I don't know if that -- again, there's no precedent on doing this. So I don't know what direction to take. MR. KELL Y: Well, there are three of us who agree on 25 percent. How about we hear from the other three and maybe that will help give staff some kind of talking points to go back with. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Mr. Ponte? MR. PONTE: Fifty percent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You said 50 percent. And I think you explained yourself and your reasoning. MR. PONTE: I certainly believe I have. MR. MORGAN: Fifty percent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do you want to explain your reasoning at all? MR. MORGAN: Well, the county attorney said most of these settlements are based on about one-half of the figure. So I'll agree with him, 50 percent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: My thought process is that we did make a ruling and to impose the fines. I feel that $50 is not a significant amount for this case. I think it's in line with other cases that are on the same level of, I guess, importance. So I would think our original fine should stand. MS. ARNOLD: So yours would be 100 percent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One hundred percent. Page 111 February 28, 2008 So I guess we polled everybody. MR. DEAN: Well, can we go on -- no, let me finish. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. DEAN: Thank you, no problem. And let me just say, I appreciate the county. And all they asked us to do was give them a recommendation. And I thought that was highly professional. There's nothing wrong with that. It should go back and forth amongst the board. That's why we're here, and that's what we're supposed to do. And also, I still go back to the fact that the reason I went to the 25 percent was that this gentleman, regardless of what you remember, as I remember two years back in '04, it started. He was in a difference of opinion. Maybe he made a mistake or whatever, but I don't see that we should be charging him "X" amount of dollars because he's in dispute of it. Once it's rectified and if he was right, we would be abating it. So the point is that I don't see penalizing him just going back because it took him time to get his case heard and all the things he needed to do. So that's why that everyday rule kind of -- and that's why 25 percent to me makes a little more sense. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any more comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are we -- okay. Okay, I think at this point we're going to move on. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. DEAN: Wonderful. Rules and regs. MR. KELLY: New business. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Under new business. MS. ARNOLD: The only -- Page 112 February 28,2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm wondering if! can add a couple of things. MS. ARNOLD: Under new business? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Do I need to -- MS. ARNOLD: Is it action items or you could just do it under comment? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One would be an action item. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And one, I guess, would be comments or -- I'll leave it under new business. First of all, the court reporter carne up and asked that if there would be a way to get, I guess, the stipulated agreements and the recommendations, county recommendation to the reporter and also to Jean, our attorney, prior to the hearing. MR. KELLY: Are you looking for a vote from the board to recommend that to the county? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm not really sure what we need to do, but it would just make it easier for both of them to have those in front of them prior to the day of the hearing. MR. KELL Y: I agree with that. That would be good. Michelle, is it possible for staff to supply? I think most of the staff comes with kind of an idea to try to stipulate things out before they go to a full hearing. Would it be okay for staff to provide an extra copy for Jean and Cherie'? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. Not a problem. MS. RAWSON: The reason we don't give you one is because you can't be predetermining what you're doing. It would be helpful for me since I'm trying to take notes and then reduce it to writing. And if I had their recommendation, it would be a lot easier, I think for Cherie' and me that we can take those recommendations and scratch out what you don't want us to do. So I would appreciate that, only because it will make it faster for Page 113 February 28, 2008 me to get my orders done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't think that needs an order, but it's an administrative issue. The other thing is the Marshal case. Is there an update on the Marshal case? MR. WRIGHT: I'm not sure what the latest that you had heard. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The latest I heard is the filing. MR. WRIGHT: There are two cases going on. One is an '05 case that is an appeal of a CEB decision, and that's ongoing. The court -- there was a petition for writ of certiorari and the court denied it. Since that denial on that '05 case, he has filed eight motions, by my count, various motions. I won't get into the specific captions on the motion. One of them was motion to recuse the judge. Another was motion to sanction the staff attorney who wrote the judge's opinion. And the court didn't take too kindly to those and struck them down as unauthorized. So there's a handful of motions left on that code case. And in addition, the case that you're probably more interested in is the '07 case. It's a civil action against various members of the board and the county. That's ongoing. We have an outgoing discovery request. And he has recently moved to consolidate the two cases into one. And we're going to oppose that effort for various reasons I don't want to comment on right now. But basically, that's where we're at. Both cases are still alive and we're just now cranking up the discovery phase of the cases. MR. KELL Y: Have all of the people who were listed on that and served, have they been assigned representation? MR. WRIGHT: As far as I know they have, but I can double-check and make sure. MS. RAWSON: I think there are two that are not yet served. And I helped the county attorney comply with some of the discovery requests, and at that time, which was about two or three days ago, Page 114 February 28, 2008 there were two of you who had not yet been personally served. At this point in time, the county attorney is filing a motion to dismiss on behalf of all of the defendants, which includes you. But they are very good about keeping in touch with me. So not to worry. MR. PONTE: I do have one under new business. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask him to give you an update on that Bonita Mobile Media case, too? Because that was something that was also -- MR. WRIGHT: Right. You know, we have this policy of not commenting on litigation that's outstanding -- MS. ARNOLD: Is it still pending? MR. WRIGHT: It is still pending and I'm happy to inform you on the procedural aspects of it. There was a preliminary injunction requested and it was granted in their favor. And what that means is that the order that this board entered is null for the pendency of the action. And we don't know where it's going to go from here, but we're working with the other side in trying to find some sort of middle ground. But at this point the case is ongoing. That was a preliminary injunction. So as to whether or not it's going to be made permanent or what the ultimate outcome of the case is going to be, I don't know. But it's ongoing. And if you ever have questions about the status, I'd be happy to update you. MR. PONTE: I have just an item, I thought, and request for direction from anybody willing to give it, following on Gerald's ideas about stipulation. I think the stipulation agreements need reinforcing. That is, frequently respondents sign a stipulation agreement, then we find them back here later in violation of the stipulation agreement. Is there a way that we can say, okay, when we do the order, and Page 115 February 28, 2008 if you enter a stipulation agreement, if you fail to comply with your stipulation agreement that there will be an additional penalty of like -- I don't know. Is there a way you can make it a two-step procedure? That is, here's the court order, if you enter -- or here is our order, if you enter into a stipulation agreement and fail to comply with the stipulation agreement in the dates, then there is a penalty for failing? MS. ARNOLD: I can kind of talk to that. I don't want to discourage anybody from entering into those stipulations. The stipulations are just -- well, they're intended to kind of expedite the process ifthere's going to be no dispute, you know, that there is a violation. But sometimes people are making an honest guess at how long it's going to take them to comply and things happen that prevent them from complying timely. MR. PONTE: But then, Michelle, all the other mechanisms are in place to corne back and say gee whiz, I couldn't do it. As opposed to today we had stipulation agreements signed and no show, they don't care. They wanted to get out of here early, out of here by 9:15, so I just sign the stipulation agreement and I'm gone. MS. ARNOLD: Well, one of the stipulation was modified by the board and they weren't here. And so I don't know if I want to -- MR. PONTE: Well, let's not get into specifics. I'm just saying as a general happening, there are frequently people who have signed stipulation agreements who are ending up not complying with them. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And I don't believe staff is shy about telling you when, you know, we think that they just signed it just to get out of here early as opposed to really having -- MR. PONTE: I've never heard that. But what I have seen are people who have signed stipulation agreements who have not complied with what they signed. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the board can make those Page 116 February 28, 2008 recommendations. The stipulations are really something that the county enters into with the respondent. You all, as a part of your order, could be more strict. MR. PONTE: What I'm saying is we can't do anything after the order. So if with the order when we agree to the stipulation agreement, just as there is the standard phrase that the county is going to be reimbursed for all operational costs, there should be a standard phrase in there that simply says if you fail to comply with the stipulation agreement, you'll be fined an additional -- I'm just throwing a figure out here, $10 a day, $20 a day, $500 a day, I don't know. But something. Anyway, I think we ought to consider it. I don't know what the mechanism is to get it done. MS. ARNOLD: I think it would just be a part of your order. MR. PONTE: Each and every order? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Urn-hum, yes. MR. PONTE: So really, that saying the stipulation agreements are written by the county with the respondent, it should be inserted at that point because the respondent and the county are agreeing to the fining mechanism and to the compliance mechanisms, and they also ought to agree to the penalty mechanism. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I guess if the position of the board is that there should be a stiffer fine in the event that a stipulated agreement isn't complied with, then that's something that we should disclose to the respondent, obviously, before they sign it. Because, you know, I don't think that it's fair to them. MR. PONTE: Not a stiffer fine. This is a penalty for not compliance. It's not a fine anymore than the reimbursement of the county for costs is a fine. It's separate from the fine. It's not a fine. MS. ARNOLD: Well, a stiffer penalty then. MR. PONTE: It's a penalty; that's what I keep calling it. MS. ARNOLD: I guess I'll have to -- if that's the position of the Page 117 February 28, 2008 board, then that's something that we would disclose to the respondents. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we have to look at each case individually. We can't go across the board. MR. PONTE: What I'm trying to do is to kind of clear the field so that when we next have a stipulation presented to us and George goes forward and says, and I'm going to suggest the stipulation be changed for -- and we do that several times so we don't have the discussion again. Why would you want to do that? I mean, I'm just searching for a way to -- MS. RAWSON: Well, if! can weigh in, I think that to have a general rule that if you enter into a stipulation it's going to cost you more than if you don't has a chilling effect for people entering into stipulated agreements, which are really designed for expediency of the process. I would not like to see you vote to do that -- but of course you can vote to do whatever you want to do -- because it would deter, I would think, any reasonable person from ever wanting to enter into a stipulation. Notwithstanding that, you know that you have the right to change every stipulation on a case-by-case basis once it's presented to you. You don't have to accept it. You are the trier of fact here. And when you look at the facts of the case and the respondent, you recognize that respondent because he's been here a dozen times, you can certainly interject your thoughts and vote to change that stipulated agreement at the time. But I'd hate to see you put across the board it's going to cost you more if you enter into a stipulation. MR. PONTE: And fail. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. PONTE: It's doesn't cost you more to enter the stipulation agreement, it only costs you more if you fail to comply. Page 118 February 28, 2008 MS. RAWSON: I understand what you're saying. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Going to move on to reports. Rules and regulations. MS. ARNOLD: We got our rules approved by the board, so I have the documents here for your -- and thank you very much, Mr. Kelly. Both Mr. Kelly and the special magistrate was in attendance at that meeting and I think that helped a lot. So I thank you very much. So all I need before you all leave is -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Signature. MS. MARKU: I would like to state that Mr. -- I would like to make a comment that Mr. Charles Martin had an unexcused absence and he was not a voting member today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I guess that would fall under comments. Next meeting will be March 22nd, 2008. And I make a motion -- can I have a motion to adjourn. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: You said March 22nd? MR. PONTE: Seventh. Gerald, is it 2,,2 or 2,,77 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2..7, according to the agenda. Page 119 February 28, 2008 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :08 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 120 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR • COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ■ST NAME—FIRST NAME— IDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE )4//y rune f /I;c � �,.� C�� � �, , f,;:r: � F �c (;_ �.> . AILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL.COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 9 G> /(<_ S'f A-). - 0 CRY ,COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY TY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: NTE ON WHICH VOTE OFCURED MY POSITION IS: V)-. - V 0 ELECTIVE *APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, :ommission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting :onflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending :n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before :ompleting the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143; FLORIDA STATUTES \ person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which nures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- ;ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the )arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or o the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that :apacity. :or purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, nother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation ire not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: n addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. 4PPOINTED OFFICERS: \Ithough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you nust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made )y you or at your direction. F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE EAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) I 'F FORM 8B- REV. 1/98 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I4.I I, / , hereby disclose that on l 4-u : (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, _ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: /tea' ^/J _714, t7 C fie" ca" / C L/ �j� �� // ✓� �� .1 „9, cJ Scar rn a,,, n-a- Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B-REV. 1/98 PAGE 2 •