Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/25/2008 R September 25, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida September 25, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Community Development Services, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Richard Kraenbring Lionel L'Esperance George Ponte Robert Kaufman ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB J ennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: September 25th, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Community Development Services, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FI34104. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES P ARTICIP A TING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 22nd, 2008 4. PUBLIC HEARINGSIMOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Re-Hearing 1. BCC vs. Richard and Lisa Karnes CEB NO. 2007060801 Motion for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Pry of Naples, LLC. CEB NO. CES20080002782 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Florida Metal Master, Inc 2. BCC vs. Empire Developers Group, LLC. 3. BCC ys. James Hargraves 4. BCC vs. Angelo B. and Diane M. Campanello 5. BCC YS. Susan B. Williams 6. BCC vs. Reyes TR Andres 7. BCC vs. Israel and Delma Gallegos 8. BCC vs. D.C. KerckhoffCo. 9. BCC YS. Roberto Reyes 10. BCC vs. Richard and Judith Sizer CEB NO. 2007090640 CEB NO. CESD20080007919 CEB NO. 2007110616 CEB NO. 2007080375 CEB NO. 2007060820 CEB NO. CELU20080000296 CEB NO. 2007060101 CEB NO. 2007090683 CEB NO. 2007090686 CEB.NO.2007100109 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of FineslLiens 1. BCC vs. Jeffrey Macasevich 2. BCC vs. Mary Edwards 3. BCC vs. 6240 Collier Group, Inc. CEB NO. 2006100314 CEB NO. 2006080127 CEB NO. 2007080153 B. Motion for Red uction/ Abatement of FineslLiens 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of FineslLiens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. BCC vs. Ricardo and Magda Munoz CEB No. 2007100608 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - October 31st, 2008 11. ADJOURN September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. The respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak at any agenda -- -- on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is being based. N either Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing the record. If there's anyone that would like to stipulate their case, there's a room across the hall that's available for discussion with the code enforcement. And also, if there's anyone that would like to speak, please come forward and talk to Jennifer right here on the left, so that we can address you at the time of the case that you want to speak about. Thank you. And can I have the roll call. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? Page 2 September 25, 2008 MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Present. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the agenda? Changes? MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor. We do have some changes to the agenda this morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can go slowly, because-- MS. WALDRON: I will. The first change will be under No. 4.A. We are adding a request for continuance, which was number C.6, BCC versus Andres Reyes Trust. The next will be an addition under 4.A. It will be 4.A.2, BCC versus Caribe Investments. This is a motion for extension of time. Under 4.B, stipulations, we would like to move C.l 0 as 4.B.l, BCC versus Richard and Judith Sizer. MR. KRAENBRING: That's going to be a stipulation? MS. WALDRON: Stipulation, yes. 4.B.2 will be BCC versus Empire Developers Group, LLC, which is C -- 4.C.2 currently. Will be 4.B.2. 4.B.3 will be BCC versus Roberto Reyes, which is currently 4.C.9. That's it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have a motion to approve the agenda? MR. LARSEN: So moved. Page 3 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Raise your hand when you second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Approval of the minutes for August 22nd, 2008. May I have a motion? MR. LARSEN: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we'll move on to -- MR. KELLY: One abstention. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We'll move on to the public hearings, motions. And the first one will be BCC versus Richard and Lisa Kames. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I understand from staff that this letter that went out for the notice Page 4 September 25, 2008 apparently was not delivered. The gentleman was informed bye-mail, but he did not show up. Technically it's a technicality, but we think we should re-notice him by certified mail so, you know, we have absolutely good notice and there's no technicalities. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion, questions? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we approve the rehearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Can I make a suggestion? I'm not sure that you want to approve the rehearing or just continue the motion for rehearing. MR. LARSEN: What was the application? MS. WALDRON: It was a motion for rehearing. You just want to continue it till next month? MS. RAWSON: I don't think you want to grant the -- MS. WALDRON: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- rehearing. She's right. MS. WALDRON: You don't want to grant the rehearing, which I think is what you just did. Page 5 September 25, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: So I'll remove that and we'll go with the county's recommendation to just continue it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the next one would be Andres; is that correct? MS. WALDRON: Sure, you can do that one next. MR. LARSEN: It's BCC versus Reyes Trust Andres. It's under C.6. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion to continue, correct? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Marjorie Student-Stirling, again, Assistant County Attorney. This property has recently changed hands, so it's being continued so we can properly notify the current property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please state your name and MR. REYES: My name is Andres Reyes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you were the previous owner; is that correct? Page 6 September 25, 2008 MR. REYES: Yes, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And is that correct, you sold it a couple days ago, or -- MR. REYES: I never buy this property. I'm not a previous owner in this property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, I'd rather not get into the merits of the matter here. Suffice it to say, two days ago a deed was recorded from this gentleman to a subsequent purchaser, so we knew to notify them. And we should not be getting into the merits without the current owner present -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- and properly noticed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a motion to continue to -- MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to continue. MS. WALDRON: We would like to continue till November. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Till November. MS. WALDRON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so two meetings from now. Do I hear a motion to continue until November? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to continue till November. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye.t Page 7 September 25, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay, the next one will be for a motion for extension of time. BCC versus Pry of Naples, LLC. Maybe they're in the other room. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a representative from the county? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, he's coming. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, Kitchell Snow's coming. Trying to be two places at once? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. COOK: My name is William R. Cook, Jr. I'm representing the Hess Corporation today. And we're here today to ask for a time extension. We -- there are several signs on the property that need to be permitted. We have the LD. sign permitted, but two wall signs had to be permitted. And I was only aware of the one being permitted -- needing a permit for it. So I'd like to request a 60-day extension to get those other ones permitted. MR. LARSEN: What's the county's position? MR. SNOW: For the record, Supervisor Kitchell Snow. I have been in contact with the respondents. They have been diligent on what they're trying to do. We believe the -- along with the board's approval with the time is fine. Sixty days would be fine, as long as the board approves that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear any discussion? MR. PONTE: I have a question. We've already given 60 days before, and now we're going another 60 days. That's 120 days. What's so complicated about the Page 8 September 25, 2008 sign? MR. SNOW: Sir, a lot of times they're going to have to get a sign company, which he's doing, or maybe change the sign, change copy on the sign, figure out where they can put the sign. They may even have to change the sign because it may not be allowed to be there specifically. So that's why we need to do -- this is in conjunction with the original. They've done the pole sign but this is a wall sign. They had two. They can only have one. They've got to change it and figure out how they want to do that, which requires engineered drawings and other problems. So they're starting the process all over again. I don't know how far -- I believe they're pretty far along. MR. COOK: Yes, sir, we -- I have the drawings for one of the signs, but I was unaware that the other sign of the building had to be changed. And actually I submitted the sign package in on the 5th of September, but was told that the second sign had to be permitted as well, so I'm waiting for those drawings to be done. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions of the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Has the fine been paid yet? MR. SNOW: Operational costs is what you're talking about? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. That was due in 30 days, according to-- MR. COOK: That was an $89.43 one? Yes, I paid that, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to approve the extension of time. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 9 September 25, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: We thank the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be Caribe Investments of Naples. And is the respondent present? (No response.) (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, I will offer that we did receive a phone call that some folks showed up at the BCC chambers, so it may be that they're on their way here. I don't know about them in particular. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we want to push this back a little bit and give them some time to see if they -- MS. RAWSON: I would. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, if it's easier, I'm in favor of granting the extension. There is a letter that accompanies the request, and it looks pretty reasonable to me. I think they're just safeguarding the fact that they might be running a little close to the time that we originally gave them, and they're just asking for a slight extension. So if it pleases the rest of the board if we grant it now, we might save the placement in the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What time frame are you recommending? MR. KELLY: Well, they're saying that it's supposed to be done somewhere around the 18th. However, we're giving them to the 24th. So they're not even sure that they're going to not comply. I think another 30 days would be reasonable, given the fact that it is going to Page 10 September 25, 2008 be close. MR. KRAENBRING: Does the county have a position on this? MR. LETOURNEAU: We have no objection. They're not-- there's nobody occupying the two units at this moment, so it's not really any kind of a health or safety factor. And they did have a change on their permit on September 10th I think they had to deal with too, so I think they're being pretty much aboveboard with this request. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Kelly, do you have a motion on the floor? MR. KELLY: Sure, I'll make a motion that we grant a 3D-day extension on the original order. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be on -- we're moving on to stipulations. MR. KELLY: Can I just real quick, I have a question. Going back to -- before we leave and go to the stipulation section, back on the original request for rehearing, on the Andres Reyes Trust, was that a hearing that we did here and there was an order entered? Because if Page 11 September 25, 2008 there was, wouldn't -- MS. WALDRON: No. MR. KELLY: -- it be a rehearing? MS. WALDRON: There was no hearing yet. MR. KELLY: Oh, there wasn't? Okay, very good. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And on to stipulations. First one will be BCC versus Richard and Judith Sizer. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Environmental Specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. 2007100109, with violation ofa deficient required buffer between the vehicular use area and the right-of-way. Its violation is located at 2090 J&C Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Service was given on March 5th when the property was posted, along with the courthouse. It was also sent by certified mail, which was signed for on March 28th, 2008. Now I'd like to present the stipulation that is agreed to by Mr. Sizer and the county, whereby Mr. Sizer agrees to a violation existed, and he will pay the operational costs incurred in the case. The violation has been abated. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has everyone read it first? I have a motion, do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. MR. LARSEN: Hold on. MS. O'FARRELL: And I have copies of the abatement, if you'd like to see them. MR. KRAENBRING: I think the one thing that we all can say is Page 12 September 25, 2008 that the operational costs need to be paid within 30 days. Is that something we can enter into that stipulation? It's only $87, but still. MR. KELLY: That's standard now. So I'll amend the motion to accept the stipulated agreement with the addition that the op. costs be paid within 30 days. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next stipulation will be Empire Developers Group, LLC. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080007919. It's dealing with the violation of disturbed land in Vita Toscana. It has not been hydro-seeded and they're now creating dust. That's located at Folio No. 00186000005. It's south ofOlde Cypress, just north of Immokalee Road. Personal service was given on 7/1/08 to a Maria Gutezzia (phonetic. ) Now I'd like to present the stipulation agreement that we've entered in. Page 13 September 25, 2008 The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, versus Empire Developers Group, LLC stipulation agreement. The violation noted in reference of notice of violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. The violations are that of sections of the Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Chapter 1 Permits, Section 22-26, subsection 105.5.5 and 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 4.06.04A.1.a.vii(a-d), and they are described as the elevated lots in Vita Toscana have not been hydro-seeded and now are creating dust. Therefore it is agreed that both parties, the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $88.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And number two: They abate all violations by hydro-seeding all disturbed land in V ita T oscana within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of $180 will be assessed until the violation is abated. And B: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We do have someone from the public that would also like to speak about this case too; is that correct? MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we make a motion, I'd like to hear it. MR. KELLY: Actually, I have a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: Investigator, did you say that was a fine of$180 flat fee, or is it $180 per day? MR. BALDWIN: $180 per day. MS. WALDRON: We do have a speaker. Ms. Diane Ebert, if you'd like to come forward. MS. EBERT: All the community is-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could-- Page 14 September 25, 2008 (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can please state your name. If you could pull the mic down to you so we could hear you. THE COURT REPORTER: Spell your last name, please. MS. EBERT: Yes, E-B-E-R-T. Diane Ebert from Olde Cypress. All that we really wanted is to have the whole area hydro-seeded. They have known this since last November. And the people would be very happy if they just plain hydro-seed the whole thing. That's all we request. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what we have in the stipulation, and that's what they've agreed to at this point. Thank you very much. If you can step up, have a couple -- if you can bring the mic up so we can hear you. If you could state your name for the record and also -- you're not Mr. Slavich, I know that, so -- MR. FRALEY: That is correct. I'm Gene Fraley, Vice-president of Empire Builders. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Fraley, could you spell your last name, please. MR. FRALEY: F-R-A-L-E-Y. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do you have the authority to -- MR. FRALEY: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- agree to the stipulation? Okay. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone else have any questions? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: No, it seems to me 14 days, is that good for the -- for you, ma'am? MS. EBERT: That's fine. MR. KRAENBRING: All right. Page 15 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: I'm more concerned as to whether or not you can get it done in 14 days. Do you have a contractor lined up and ready to go? MR. FRALEY: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulation agreement as so proposed and as executed by the county and by the respondent. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Next stipulated agreement will be BCC versus Roberto Reyes. Swear the parties in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: Just for the record, Mr. Gallegos is going to help the respondent translate. (Interpreter was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: Can we request that everyone please make sure to speak into their microphones also. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Investigator. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record Senior Investigator Christina Perez. This case is in reference to Case No. 2007090686, dealing with the violation of an expired pool permit. Page 16 September 25, 2008 Location of the violation was at 3330 33rd Ave. Northeast in Naples, Florida, 34120. Notice of violation was given on September 24th of2007 to the Respondent Roberto Reyes. We met this morning here at today's hearing and we agreed to come into stipulation with the county. The stipulation reads as follows: The respondent agrees to pay the operational costs in the amount of $87.87 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And also to obtain a Collier County building permit for a pool and all inspections through certificate of completion within 120 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Or obtain a demolition permit for the pool and all inspections through certificate of completion within 120 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Also, that the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm abatement -- compliance, I'm sorry . Would you like me to repeat the number two? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One question I have is what stage of completion is this pool at now? Does it have a fence around it, a cage, is it secure? MS. PEREZ: The entire property has a fence around the property, and that has a valid permit. There's only two inspections, which is a final inspection and site drainage, which we discussed. And he said that maybe within the next month he would be able to complete that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, 120 days seems like a long time, and $200 a day fine seems like a lot, if it's not a health and safety Page 1 7 September 25, 2008 issue. And he seems pretty close to being done. You know, if there wasn't a fence protecting it or so forth, then I could see a $200 a day fine, but personally I feel that that might be a little bit excessive. MS. PEREZ: And just for the record, this is the second permit that has expired for Mr. Reyes, so this new permit that he would apply would be the third permit that he would be applying for. So which is why, you know, we give him the sufficient amount of time for him to be able to complete it. But then, you know, because of the fact that this would be the third permit that's being obtained. MR. KRAENBRING: The pool's completed? MS. PEREZ: Besides those two inspections, yes, which would be a final -- there's a final pool inspection and a site drainage inspection. MR. KRAENBRING: So it's just a failure to get the inspections. MS. PEREZ: To finish those two, yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? MR. KELLY: I'm interested to hear what George thinks about the time. MR. PONTE: I think the time is long and I think the fine is high for something that's near completion. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I ask the county why 120 days -- is that the amount of time you think is necessary in order to get these inspections? MS. PEREZ: There's -- he still has to do some work, according to what he told me, especially with the site drainage. He has a narrow lot and he has to make a retaining wall. So that's -- you know. And he was expressing to me that he's just had a lot of financial hardships, which is why he hasn't been able to complete that. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, then, you know, just sort of -- my thought is that if 120 days is fine, there's no health and safety issue here, he's got to take care of some landscaping, and then the $200 fineB Page 18 September 25, 2008 actually pushes him to get it done. So I'm kind of thinking that the county's position is correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would agree with your statement. MR. LARSEN: I just want to ask, this pool, it's a residential poo 1, correct? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And it's behind a house? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And is the house occupied? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: It's occupied by the -- MS. PEREZ: By the owner. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. LARSEN: And there are the applicable safety fences, or not? MS. PEREZ: He has a fence throughout the whole property with a gate in the front. MR. KAUFMAN: Does the pool have water in it? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Are they using it? MS. PEREZ: Yeah, that would be something that you would have to ask him. MR. DEAN: This is a single-family dwelling, right? MS. PEREZ: Yes, it is a single-family home in the Estates. MR. DEAN: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we want to hear from the respondent? MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman? THE INTERPRETER: What would you like me to ask him? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have a direct question for him? MR. LARSEN: Are you using the pool currently? THE INTERPRETER: He said yes. Page 19 September 25, 2008 MR. LARSEN: What is the additional work that you have to do before you can get the inspections? THE INTERPRETER: According to what he said, he said the landscaping -- with what she said about the drainage wall, I don't know, he said something about some drainage wall similar to what she said. MS. PEREZ: Retaining wall. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Retaining wall. THE INTERPRETER: Retaining wall. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, that's what he said. That's what he needs to finish. MR. LARSEN: And is he going to be able to finish it within 120 days? THE INTERPRETER: He said yes, he should be able to finish it in 120 days. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Just the one thing. Just please let this gentleman know the severity of the fine. I mean, Mr. Chairman, just -- I think he needs to know that -- I'd like to hear him say that -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that's part of the stipulated agreement. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But he does understand that there will be a $200 fine -- if we do agree to the stipulation -- after 120 days, $200 fine every day per day. THE INTERPRETER: He says he understands. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We'd also like to see operational costs paid within 30 days of this hearing. MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to suggest to the board that we consider reducing the fine. Just a matter of consistency. Page 20 September 25, 2008 $200 a day fine whether imposed in fact or not is on the books. And -- our books. And I just think it's a very severe fine, harsh fine for a pool in your backyard that's near completion. I don't think the fine should be anything like that. MR. KELLY: I have a question for the respondent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: Sir, do you have either an alarm system on the doors and windows going to the pool or a security fence around the pool to stop children from going into it? THE INTERPRETER: No, he says he doesn't. And he says he doesn't have no kids. MR. KELLY: Florida Building Code 2001 requires either one of those as a prevention to go into -- for drowning purposes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I believe I heard testimony from the county that there is a fence around the property, however. MR. KELLY: However, there needs to be one around the pool -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Correct. MR. KELLY: -- if there's a cage. Or an alarm system. So it might constitute a health and safety issue. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Good point. MR. KRAENBRING: And I think that will be picked up at the inspections. George, with all due respect, I think that, you know, there is a health and safety issue here, potentially. And, you know, when the Chairman calls us to make a motion, I'll make a motion that we -- MR. PONTE: Okay, I understand that. And now with the health and safety issue there, I agree with the fine level. But if I could hear the stipulation again. Was there anything in the stipulation about erecting a fence or a gate or an electronic device to protect the pool? MS. PEREZ: Well, it's like Mr. Kenny (sic) had said, you know, the -- it's a part of the building code so they would have to be required Page 21 September 25, 2008 by the county before a C.O. is issued. MR. PONTE: Does the respondent -- is the respondent aware of the fact that he's going to have to build another fence? MR. KRAENBRING: I don't think it's so much another fence, George, as that the gates have to have certain safety. MR. PONTE: Right. Well, the gate's on the fence, right? MR. KRAENBRING: Right. MR. KELLY: But in order to get the final inspection, he would have to have some sort of items of -- MR. PONTE: Well, just so we're not back here in 120 days and he's saying, well, now I've got to put up a fence, they've told me I have to put up a fence and now I need another 120 days. Let's get it all done at the same time. . MR. KRAENBRING: We don't want to be reading the building code into these orders. I make a motion that we accept the stipulation as presented by the county and the respondent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- hear a second? All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. PONTE: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. We're going to move on to hearings. The next -- the first hearing is BCC versus Florida Metal Page 22 September 25, 2008 Masters, Inc. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007090640. F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.03(B)(5). Description of violation: Airplane fuselage, granite, marble slabs and dumpster in parking area intended for vehicular parking, violating Site Development Plan 99-125. Location/address where violation exists: 4443 Arnold Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34104. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Florida Metal Master, Inc. Jill Palmer-Trapasso, registered agent, 3609 Cottage Club Lane, Naples, Florida, 34105. Date violation first observed: September 20th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Received by certified mail on March 19th, 2008. Page 23 September 25, 2008 Date on on/by which violation to be corrected: April 14th, 2008. Date of reinspection: April 25th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Noncompliant airplane fuselage, granite, marble, stone slabs and dumpster remain at 4443 Arnold Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34104. At this time I would like to call on Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz Box. MR. BOX: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, my name is Investigator Heinz Box from Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. 2007090640. And this is dealing with violations of a site development plan 99-125, which is having an aircraft stored over parking spaces designated for employee and customer parking at 4443 Arnold Avenue, here in Naples. A notice of violation was given and delivered on March 19th of 2008 by certified mail. And gentlemen, the reason that we're here today is to determine whether or not a violation of the site development plan exists by having an airplane fuselage parked over parking spaces. Ordinance 04-41, Section 4.05.01(A) states that every building or use must provide off-street parking for the occupants, employees and visitors and customers and patrons. Section of the LDC 04-41, Section 1 0.02.03(B)( 5) states that a violation of the terms identified in the approved site development plan shall constitute a violation of this code. We received this complaint on September 20th of '07, and on that day Supervisor Capasso, who's my supervisor, and myself went to this property, which is in the Industrial Park right across the street. We advised Mr. Trapasso, who was the owner of the property, of the nature of the complaint, and we observed several slabs of marble and an aircraft fuselage covering the designated parking spaces at this location. The marble and granite slabs have since been removed, but there Page 24 September 25, 2008 is a dumpster that is blocking one of the entrances at 4443 Arnold. On October 1 st of 2007 Investigator Manager David Scribner, Susana Capasso and I met with Mr. Trapasso at our office. During the meeting we explained the violations and discussed the options for correcting. Okay, at this time what I'd like to do is enter into evidence two photographs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: First of all, have the parties all been sworn in? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept this as evidence A. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Flood, have you seen the photographs? MR. FLOOD: No, sir. MR. LARSEN: Give them to Mr. Flood. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Flood should see them first. MR. BOX: Just for the record, I have these items labeled B-1 and B-2. One's a photograph, a GIS photograph of the property, and the other is a photograph of the aircraft fuselage. MR. LARSEN: Do you have any objections, Mr. Flood? MR. FLOOD: No objection. MR. KRAENBRING: That's an airplane. MR. BOX: Okay, I'll continue here. Page 25 September 25, 2008 During our meeting with Mr. Trapasso, he indicated that he wanted to keep the plane and that he had not yet decided what he wanted to do with it, but he definitely knew that he wanted to keep it. He said he was also willing to do whatever it would take to come into compliance. And this was on October 21st. On October 5th of '07 I went and attempted personal service of notice of violation at 4443 Arnold Avenue, but I was unsuccessful. The notice of violation was sent certified mail and the return receipt was received on the 15th of October. Occasional follow-ups showed no signs of progress towards compliance and removal of this airplane, and revised notices of violation were sent out via certified mail to the registered agent of this property, who is Jill-Palmer Trapasso, Michael Trapasso and Steven Trapasso. And the U.P.S. tracking confirm shows that it was delivered on March 19th of2008. And the reason that I sent another notice of violation out was that the ownership in the initial notice of violation was incorrect. Since that time I've done various site visits out to this location and there's been no compliance. And on May 7th I prepared the statement of violations and request for the hearing. One other thing I'd like to submit as evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the respondent seen this? MR. BOX: No. These will be listed as C-1 and C-2, copies of the site development plan. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any objection? MR. FLOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept this as Exhibit B from the county? MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor -- second, sorry. Page 26 September 25, 2008 Second? MR. KELLY: I'll second. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. BOX: Just for clarification, C-l that I gave you is the actual SDP, okay. And it's a little hard to see the parking spaces marked there with all the other overwriting on it. And C-2 is the irrigation plan, and you can clearly see where the parking spaces are. Okay. MS. RAWSON: When you gentlemen finish with exhibits, be sure you give them to the court reporter, since you've introduced them into evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. You can just pass them back, at least one of them back. MR. BOX: I'll continue here. The initial hearing for this matter was July 31 st of 2008. It was continued at Mr. Flood's request, who's representing Mr. Trapasso. On August 13th Counsel Peter Flood, Michael Trapasso, Ross Gochenaur, my supervisor, Susana Capasso and I met at the code enforcement office to discuss the violations and options for abatement. One thing I'd like to remind you is that the reason that we're here today is to determine whether or not this airplane can stay on this Page 27 September 25, 2008 property. In my mind it's clearly in violation of the site development plan. And my main concern with this is the safety issue. God forbid if there's a fire there, how are fire apparatuses going to get in there or EMS people to get in there to save that property if there is a fire in there? As for my recommendations -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, no, not yet. Are you all set? MR. BOX: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Flood? MR. FLOOD: Yes, my name is Peter Flood. I was retained by Mr. Trapasso who owns the Florida Metal Masters, Inc. I think it's important for the board to understand what my client does for a living. I think it's also important to understand that he is in an industrial area with industrial zoning, that certain things are allowed in that industrial zoning. I've supplied a copy of that with my packet in regards to the general industrial section. I'd like to read into the record what that specifically indicates as set forth in the code. General industrial shall mean a use for the purpose of basic processing, manufacturing of materials or products, predominently from extracted or raw materials or products for the purpose of storage of or manufacturing process using flammable or explosive materials, storage of manufacturing processes that potentially involve hazardous or commonly recognized offensive conditions. Also used for the purpose of manufacturing predominantly from previously prepared materials or finished products or parts including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging and incidental storage, sales and distribution of such products. My client is in the metal business, sheet metal business, okay? He manufactures, he processes sheet metal. One of the reasons he bought this plane -- he did buy the plane from Collier County Page 28 September 25, 2008 Mosquito Control. Is that correct? He initially thought he could take the plane and rehab it. When he got into the project he understood that he could not rehab it because of the cost. He currently is in the process of right now planning on either cutting the plane up, utilizing the material on the plane in his processes and for his plane; is that correct? So I think that's important in regards to what we have here. Now, Mr. Heinz is correct, we had a meeting on August 13th, 2008. Mr. Gochenaur came from the zoning department. One of the things I specifically asked Mr. Gochenaur was to interpret the violation as set forth. Attached to our package is his response in regards to reading several sections he interprets that there is a violation. It's our position that my client, who by the way has two full-time employees and one part-time employee. Has what, 11 parking spaces? MR. TRAPASSO: Thirteen. MR. FLOOD: Thirteen parking spaces. He's not a retail operation, he's not a wholesale operation, he's an industrial shop where people or a truck backs in, unloads and removes. And he ships and receives. There's not people coming and going. There may be an occasional salesman coming and going. That's important. So I asked Mr. Gochenaur to specifically point out where it states in our Land Development Code where parking -- the differential between parking and storage. And I would submit to this board if in fact that my client is in violation of the Land Development Code, every other person is in violation. If parking places are only supposed to be used for parking, they can't be used for storage; i.e., you can't take a recreational vehicle and put it in a parking spot and call that parking. You can't take a boat and put it in there and call it parking. You can't go by the Sprint Page 29 September 25, 2008 building on Davis and have commercial trailers sitting there for months at a time. Is that parking or is it storage? My client actively works on this plane. He doesn't work on it every day, he works at it on the weekends. He's parting it out. That's his business. Is it blocking or impeding his employees? No. These other matters that Heinz is discussing in regards to the fabrication of the materials, he has corrected all that. The slabs are removed. He went down and got his occupational permit for additional equipment and machinery brought in there. That was not only for fabrication of marble, it was also for fabrication of steel. It's a water jetting machine, $60,000 machine. Our position is, is that my client can utilize his space for the temporary storage of this plane while he's disassembling it. County's position is no, it's for parking of motor vehicles only. And I would submit to this board, you can ride around every industrial area in this county and you can look at people putting in their parking spaces things that are stored there. If my client were to bring in a 40-foot semi trailer, for example, and it needs to have the sheet metal redone on it and it takes him three, four weeks or it takes him a month and a half or two months and he parks it in the parking place, is that parking or is that storage? I didn't write the Land Development Code. Mr. Gochenaur didn't write the Land Development Code. It's not specific. How is my client supposed to understand a Land Development Code that Mr. Gochenaur can't even interpret himself and seeing it takes him three sections to come up with it? If you read the facts that was sent to Mr. Trapasso, nowhere in there does it specifically say that the parking places in an industrial area cannot be used for storage. Doesn't say that. That's just an interpretation. My client pays approximately $20,000 a year in taxes. He's in an Page 30 September 25, 2008 industrial area. He's over there trying to make a living. The reason he went into the industrial area is because he wanted to utilize that properly zoned land for this specific business. It's the only place in town you can utilize it. Fabrication of raw materials, sheet metal, bending, all this. So we would submit to the board that they have not submitted their burden or met their burden in regards to any violation. Keep talking about the Land Development Code. That was when he originally built this building. What was that, nine years ago or eight years ago? He went in there, these were for parking places. Sure they're for parking places. Go to the Budweiser dealership, drive by there on your way home tonight, okay? They're slow. They've got vehicles and they've got trucks stored all over their parking places. Go by the U.P.S. shop, they've got them stored all over the places. Is that storage or is it parking? I don't know. But I know one thing, it's not in the Land Development Code. It's not specifically set forth that a person in an industrial zoned area cannot utilize his parking to put some sort of structure or some sort of vehicle or some sort of truck or something out there that he's working on. I mean, it just doesn't fit. So that's our position. Would you like to say anything? MR. TRAPASSO: My name is Mike Trapasso. I'm the president of Florida Metal Masters. And our property is gated and fenced in. The parking area is used as a transfer area on a daily basis for us to do business. We have trucks coming in, unloading, and trucks loading up pulling out. Many times these are large items. We put them in the parking lot. They're private parking spaces. We own the spaces. Some of the spaces we choose to use as storage, some we park cars in. For Collier County to come in and try to micromanage what I do in my private fenced-in gated property, industrial zoned, is absurd. Page 3 1 September 25, 2008 Every time I move something around, they're going to come in and give me a ticket? Is that what Collier County is all about as far as code enforcement? And I just -- I've had it. I'm really fed up with the Land Development Code they're trying to pin me on here. Which has to do with new construction, by the way. The pieces of code they're citing is new construction code. And it really has nothing to do -- we're not bothering anybody, there are no complaints on how we operate. And, you know, the fenced-in gated as far as a hazard to the community, I don't see that flying. This thing has an eight-foot high fence with barbed wire, and the gate is closed at night. And I just ask the board to realize this is an industrial property and what zoning do I need to do the kind of work I do if I can't do it in industrial? Where do I go? MR. FLOOD: One last thing the board has to understand. This plane has no gasoline, has no engines, it's just a fuselage. Also what the board has to realize is that the initial complaint on this action came from an individual from Tampa, Florida. Didn't even come from Collier County. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing. Any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: I just had one question. Is that parking lot, is it open to the public at all? Or do you have to -- MR. TRAPASSO: The gate is open. Anybody can pull in during business hours. There -- if you were to go there right now you would see 10 marked parking spaces available for parking. The plane takes up three spaces. It's not in the way, it's not near the building, it doesn't impede any commerce in and out of the building. As Mr. Flood stated, my traffic is truck traffic in and out. Very Page 32 September 25, 2008 little vehicular traffic other than that. There's only two full-time employees, one part-time employee. We do not have a parking problem and parking does not overflow into the right-of-way. MR. PONTE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on a second. I think the county has something else to say; is that correct? MR. BOX: Yes, just a question here of Mr. Flood and his client. How long has that airplane been parked there? MR. FLOOD: Two years. MR. BOX: Two years. Okay. So that wouldn't be considered temporary storage then, would it? MR. FLOOD: Temporary storage could be 10 years, could be 15 years, it could be 20 years, it could be five minutes. MR. LARSEN: I believe the County Attorney wants to-- MR. PONTE: I do have a question and that is regarding the fuselage. Does it block easy access to the building by emergency response vehicles? MR. TRAPASSO: No, it does not. The fuselage is at the center -- if you look at the site development plan that was passed around, those spaces away from the building where there's eight spaces going up to the road, it's in that section there. So it's not in the way of the main drive entering the building or the overhead. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. Is the fuselage adequately tethered to the ground in case of high winds? MR. TRAPASSO: The fuselage is bolted down to the ground. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And County Attorney? MR. BOX: I have to say that I didn't notice that when I was out there, and that was one of my main concerns also was the fact that, Page 33 September 25, 2008 you know, how this thing would hold up to high winds, whether or not it would be a big projectile flying across that parking lot and damaging someone else's property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: County Attorney? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. Again for the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I just want to point out that our Land Development Code has parking requirements in it for all commercial and industrial zoned areas. And if memory serves me correctly, in this area it's one space for 500 square feet of building area. And then what happens when a person comes in to get their site development plan, it is a graphic representation of code requirements. So that site plan shows the number of required parking spaces that the county approved. And again, as -- the stated violation of the terms of the site development plan is considered a violation of the code. I would offer that, you know, parking spaces, just general definition, doesn't include long-term storage of materials. And I would also further argue even if you go to several commercial parking areas in town, they'll say no overnight parking permitted, so that there's no issue about storage of anything in the parking area. I would submit that there is a remedy for this problem in our Land Development Code, and that would be for this gentleman and his company to seek a parking exemption from the board, which would relieve him of the need for the number of parking spaces that are shown on the site plan. And Code Enforcement Board isn't really the agency to get parking exemptions. That's either the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you very much. MR. LARSEN: I have a question for the County Attorney before she leaves. If I understand correctly, it's a violation of Ordinance 04-41, Page 34 September 25, 2008 correct? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The violation -- well, the violation is in 10.02.03(B)(5). MR. LARSEN : Well, it says violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, that's the Land Development Code. MR. LARSEN: -- of the Land Development Code, Section 10.02.03(B)(5), correct? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Uh-huh. MR. LARSEN: Did you have an opportunity to see the e-mail from Mr. Gochenaur dated Wednesday, August 13th, 2008 to Susana Capasso and Heinz Box? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's not in my packet. MR. LARSEN: Because I believe Mr. Flood referred to this. And it says, Section 2.3.13 of the previous LDC states the required off-street parking can't be reduced or changed to any other use unless the use served is discontinued. Then it goes on to say, although this language failed to appear in the current LDC, Ordinance 04-41, recitals of 04-41 state that the recodification does not substantially alter in any way the prior existing LDC text. And if I understand Mr. Flood's argument is that if you're going to have a statute to enforce the statute, it has to be clear. And his statement just that recodification doesn't alter a prior statute isn't sufficient in this case. I wanted to get your opinion on that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. My opinion stands as I stated it, that it's sufficiently clear in my mind citing the 10.02.03(B)(5) referencing the site development plan. He noticed what the require -- what a site development plan shows, and that site development plan is a graphic representation of code requirements for that particular use. I rest my case. Page 35 September 25, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Mr. Flood, your understanding of the language that I guess is contained in this e-mail, amI correct in assuming that what you're saying is that basically since that original language about changing of the off-street parking wasn't included in the LDC it's not applicable? MR. FLOOD: That's correct. And the other thing I'm saying is that the -- if you read his original site plan, it is not modified. MR. LARSEN: I'm not asking you about the statute, sir. I understand about that. MR. FLOOD: I don't think the statute is applicable at this point. MR. LARSEN: The current LDC. MR. FLOOD: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: And why is that, because of the industrial zoning? MR. FLOOD: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: And why is that so special as compared to other manufacturing or residential? MR. FLOOD: Because let me -- can I just finish my point? My point is the basis for their argument is that he has modified his original site plan. He's not modified his original site plan. Modification of a site plan indicates that you're going to be removing parking places. Okay, we're talking about use, how he's utilizing the parking places. They're indicating just because he's using them, putting the plane on it, he's taking away those parking places and thereby unilaterally modifying his site plan. That's not what he's doing. That's what they're hanging their hat on. If he was to take those parking spaces and put some sort of structure on them where he was to eliminate -- come in and dig them up and build another structure or building on them, that would be modification of his original site plan. He's not modifying the number of parking spaces in his site plan. We're talking about use. Page 36 September 25, 2008 And that's when we had the meeting with Ross, that's what I emphasized with Ross. How he uses his parking places in my opinion is not a modification of his site plan. Is it storage, is it parking? How he uses those parking spots does not indicate whether or not he's in violation of his original site plan. That's our argument. Our argument IS use. Their argument is by him storing the plane there he's violating his original site plan by taking those parking spaces up with the storage of his plane. That's their argument. Our argument is he can bring stuff in and out of there, put them in those parking spaces ifhe's working on them. That doesn't constitute a violation of the Land Development Code in regards to his site plan. If that's the case, every person in the industrial section is in violation. MR. LARSEN: All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. TRAPASSO: Can I make a short statement? If you look -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We already closed the public hearing and we're at the point of asking -- MR. LARSEN: I think you should let him speak. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We've already closed the public hearing. Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I think we should just open it up for discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Open it for discussion. Who would like to go first? MR. LARSEN: Well, I think the crux of the matter is whether or not under the current rules and regulations storage on top of a parking Page 37 September 25, 2008 spot actually, you know, violates the code. Whether or not you have to use a designated parking space for parking of vehicles or whether or not you can use it for other purposes such as the temporary storage of equipment or material. MR. PONTE: I don't think it's clear. And if it's not clear and you have a violation -- MR. LARSEN: Well, what I'm troubled about is that in the e-mail it says, this language failed to appear in the current LDC, which in the prior language is more restrictive. MR. KRAENBRING: You know, I don't like to sit on precedent, but in previous cases where we've had people use parking for storage, we have ruled in favor of the county. I remember one person in particular, one case where they were storing marble slabs and, you know, they were inside their fence and it really wasn't an eyesore to me, but we did find that it was a use of storage rather than for parking. And at that point I think we had a situation where the employees needed to park in the street because they couldn't park, you know, where that marble was stored. With all due respect to, you know, Mr. Flood's comment about, you know, his temporary storage 10 years or 15 years, two years is more than temporary storage in my mind. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Also the respondent stated that it is tied down, the plane is tied down. And to me that doesn't sound like it's temporary. It's making it more permanent than temporary. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How would this board feel about giving a temporary allowance for this fuselage to be there, giving a specific date for it to be finished, parting out, sold and then not in that location anymore. MR. KELLY: I don't think we're the venue to allow a temporary. However, I agree with maybe granting a little bit of leniency in the Page 38 September 25, 2008 time frame to allow them to continue to pursue possibly amending their site development plan. Maybe they can get a special use for those parking spaces that are being utilized now. I just think it's funny because 30 years from now maybe we might have this discussion whether an airplane is transportation and moveable and all that kind of stuff. But I agree, I don't think that this constitutes a temporary storage. If it was a trailer that could be used at will or a recreational vehicle or a boat that could be -- that is trailered, I think that's a little bit different. I wouldn't consider that storage, I consider that something that could be moved in and out and used for parking. In this case I don't see it that way. MR. PONTE: Well, but the respondent has said he is using it. He's cannibalizing it. And eventually it won't be there. MR. KELLY: However, parking spaces are not allowed to be utilized to temporarily store anything. So, for instance, a delivery truck was to come back up into an industrial location and off-load goods and supplies. They have to be transferred directly into the building. They can't be just put into a parking space, blocking those parking spaces temporarily. Not for five minutes. I mean, that's not what parking spaces are designed for. They're designed for transportation and vehicles and trailer and equipment and so forth. MR. PONTE: The County suggested that the respondent might solve the problem by applying for a parking exemption. And if that be the case, maybe we ought to consider giving him time to apply for a parking exemption. MR. KELLY: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other thing is, you're looking at this picture with the plane in it. There's a car there and it doesn't look like it's even in one of the parking spaces. So the argument that there's enough parking spaces even with this plane doesn't appear to be so in Page 39 September 25, 2008 this picture. I think I would agree also with giving a time period to go ahead and try to get the parking exemption. MR. KRAENBRING: What's the likelihood that the county will grant the parking exemption? MR. BOX: Good question. MR. KRAENBRING: Because if we grant them this -- if the county grants them this exemption then, you know, does that open up -- maybe Ms. Stirling can come up and address that. Because if they are granted this exemption, then is that going to just open up for other businesses to also cite this as a precedent? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: The Board of Zoning Appeals or Board of County Commissioners, as the case may be, looks at these matters on a case-by-case basis, and every situation's different. So I wouldn't be that concerned about the precedent. Insofar as in trying to determine whether or not they will grant it, they will review the facts against the appropriate criteria in the code and make a determination at that time. MR. KRAENBRING: So as I understand it, it is your position that really this isn't the venue for this. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, it's not the venue to reduce the number of spaces. But the other things that you brought up, and I guess your attorney could advise you, but, you know, I think you do have some latitude as to when the violation is abated and things like that, so -- and come crafting a sort of stipulation, if you will, with -- MS . RAWSON: Basically you can only determine if a violation exists. You can't grant, you know, any kind of variances, you can't do any of that. You just determine if a violation exists. And if you think it does and you think he can maybe cure it some other way, that's up to him. You can't order him how to do it, you can just give him so many days to do it. Page 40 September 25, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: I think the other thing, just as a note to other members of the board, is if this were a boat, we probably wouldn't be sitting here listening to this. It's just an unusual item to be stored. MR. FLOOD: That's correct. MR. KRAENBRING: May I ask the respondent, how long do you think that the fuselage will be there? I mean, is it something that you're going to maintain forever, is it a trademark for you, or -- MR. TRAPASSO: No, no, we're in the process of working on it. And I'm not really sure if I'm going to part it out or turn it into a limo. And that's where I'm at with it right now. And this is what I do. This is metal fabrication type work. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you have a sense of how much time you would need in order to turn this into a limo or part it out or -- MR. TRAPASSO: It could be six months or a year. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you give us -- what would you say? MR. TRAPASSO: I'm really not sure exactly. I mean, I don't want to be pinned down -- MR. KRAENBRING: You don't have any set plans for it at this point? MR. TRAPASSO: I'm working on it. I have plans for it. But as far as how long it's going to take, I mean, it's a hobby. I can't, you know, specially say when it will be complete. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Sir, is this a hobby directly related to your business? MR. TRAPASSO: Yes, it is. It's -- I'm in the metal fabrication business, and this is a metal structure which we're working on. We're probably the only company around that has the equipment to do what we're doing to it. And it's part of the business right now. MR. BOX: May I say something? MR. KRAENBRING: Please. Page 41 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. BOX: This thing's been sitting out here two years now. And the only thing that's holding the airplane together are the rust and the rivits. Okay, I haven't seen any work done on that airplane since I started this case, which has been about a year ago, a little over a year ago. And for this gentleman to sit here and tell you that it's a part of his metal fabricating business is just untrue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to -- MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. LARSEN: Nay. MR. KRAENBRING: Nay. MR. FLOOD: For clarification, the violation exists as set forth in the notification of the violation; is that the violation? Is that the specific section? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. FLOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have the vote? THE COURT REPORTER: I have two nays. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. Actually, Mr. Kaufman cannot vote. MR. BOX: Gentlemen, I just want to read the recommendations. Can I do that real quick for the record? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not-- Page 42 September 25, 2008 MR. KELLY: We might have more questions. MR. BOX: I don't think they're going to want to leave. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Respondents? Mr. Flood? MR. FLOOD: Yeah, we're listening. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not done yet. MR. FLOOD: Yeah, we understand. MR. BOX: Recommendation on this case is that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $87.44, and that the -- incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by applying for an administrative parking reduction, APR, within 15 days of this hearing. And once approved, the respondent must submit plans for an insubstantial change to a site development plan within 30 days from the APR date. Or, the respondent needs to remove the airplane fusilage, the granite and marble -- which has already been moved -- and the dumpster, which is still blocking one of his entrances, from the designated parking areas within 15 days of this hearing or be fined $100 a day for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Wasn't it stated, Jean, you said that we could not tell them what to do to get it corrected? MS. RAWSON: Right. You just have to tell them abate the violations within so many days. MR. DEAN: Right. MS. RAWSON: Now, if it was a permit, you can give them so long to get a permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let me see the -- MS . RAWSON: This is a little different. MR. KELLY: What's the op. cost? MR. BOX: $87.44. Page 43 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This is a little different, meaning? MS. RAWSON: He's going to have to get -- apply for -- what does APR stand for? MR. BOX: Administrative parking reduction. MR. KRAENBRING: Within 15 days of the hearing. MR. BOX: In essence what we're doing is we're giving him an option to either do that or remove it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or we could just say within a certain amount of time. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, the one thing is that -- I know everybody else has to look at this again, but they're asking that the plane be removed within 15 days if -- they have to apply for the parking reduction or remove the plane within 15 days. I think it would be tough to remove that plane within 15 days. MR. DEAN: I just feel it's such a big item that 60 days should be fine. And then he has that amount of time to do what he needs to do. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. I mean, we're out of hurricane season. I don't think this thing's going to be flying around. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long? MR. KRAENBRING: 60, 90 days? MR. KELLY: I was looking at one year. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. I don't-- MR. DEAN: Well, the respondent said he could -- six months is one of his targets to -- MR. KRAENBRING: Right. So let's come up with a date or a time frame. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long does it take to get an APR; do you know? MR. BOX: No, I don't. MR. PONTE: You know, we just gave someone 120 days to correct a swimming pool problem. MR. BOX: I was just told by my supervisor the application Page 44 September 25, 2008 process takes two weeks. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. And that's what's in the recommendation of the county is not that he obtain it, it's that he file for it. MR. BOX: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: But still, that's a short time frame. MR. BOX: I was just going to say, keep in mind it's been out there for a couple years already. MR. KELLY: And open ended. MR. DEAN: But it's come to a head now, so I think that 60 days is -- or excuse me, six months is fine, too. That's my opinion. Because now he knows he has to do something with the plane and it's not a small item. It's not like a boat, so -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would feel comfortable going with the county's recommendations as stated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'll have everyone review the recommendation one more time and then see if someone wants to make a motion. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, while you're doing that, we've been asked to pull the mics closer to us, because they're still having trouble hearing us. MR. LARSEN: I think the county's recommendation is fine except for number three, which is the removal, should they choose that option, within 15 days. I'd feel more comfortable giving them 30 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think even that, maybe a little -- I think that may even be a little short. MR. PONTE: Yes. We have to keep in mind, if you're removing it, you have to remove it to some place. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or dismantle it. MR. PONTE: So the time has to be -- MR. BOX: My understanding was it was gotten from the airport. Page 45 September 25, 2008 So that's probably where it's going to end up going. MR. LARSEN: Unless he disassembles it. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, we shouldn't be making that supposition. MR. BOX: I understand that. MR. KRAENBRING: We can't tell this person what to do with it. MR. KELLY: I haven't seen the recommendation yet, but from what I remember was it kind of leaves an open-ended time frame. It specifically grants a certain amount of time for a submittal but no time thereafter, in case the submittal process drags on. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, I think it will be back in front of us again if it -- MR. KELLY: Well, technically if he submits and spends the next year going back and forth with -- in meetings and hearings and postpones and delays, he's still technically in compliance with our order, if that would be the case. So for the board's consideration, I'd like to just throw a motion out there. MR. KRAENBRING: Please. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation exists as cited in the charging documents. Number two, the respondent is to abate the violation within 180 days or a fine of $100 per day will be assessed. Number three, pay operational costs of $87.44 within 30 days. And number four, notify code enforcement within 24 hours of the violation being abated. MR. LARSEN: All right, I think we already had the motion on whether or not a violation exists. Other than that first point. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, do you always start your orders off with a violation existed as -- MS. RAWSON: I think you already voted that it does exist. So Page 46 September 25, 2008 what you're doing now is making a recommendation that -- and if I understand it, you're just saying 180 days to abate the violation, period. MR. KELLY: Correct. MS. RAWSON: However he does it is -- MR. LARSEN: Right, I would second that motion. MR. DEAN: Operational costs is $88.44, right? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or $87.44. MR. DEAN: Was it 87? MR. BOX: Yes, 87.44. MR. DEAN: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as a note, this is going to allow him to either do something with the plane or go ahead and get the reduction in the parking. MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: Is that what we all understand it to be? MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's comfortable with me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a first and I have a second. I'd like to take a vote. All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. BOX: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Flood, do you want to -- if you Page 47 September 25, 2008 can come up to the mic and -- do you understand that? MR. FLOOD: We're all set. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be BCC versus James Hargraves. And before we start this, would you like a break? THE COURT REPORTER: I would love a break, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Excuse me. Before we start this case, if we can just take a five-minute recess. MR. KRAENBRING: Give her 10. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, 10 minutes, 10 minutes. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call this meeting back to order. The next case is BCC versus James Hargraves. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MARTINDALE: Good morning. For the record -- MS. WALDRON: Hold on. This case, they're requesting -- the respondents are requesting a continuance due to the fact that they've just obtained a new attorney. So I'm not sure if you want to go through the whole reading everything off of the case. MR. KRAENBRING: So this constitutes a change in the agenda? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This would be another change, but let's hear. MR. FLOOD: Yes. Board, I was just retained by Mr. Hargraves yesterday afternoon. He came in. And I've reviewed the file, I've had a chance to talk to Mr. Martindale. This is a substantial violation in regards to -- I'm sure everybody is aware of what it is in their packet in regards to the violation. It's a non-permittable addition onto a home in regards to some setbacks. I talked to Mr. Martindale and what we'd like to do is request a Page 48 September 25, 2008 3D-day continuance for the fact that there appears to be some conflict between what is in the county records and what has been represented and so forth -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I don't want to get into the case. MR. FLOOD: Well, I'm just stopping right there. And that's the reason for the continuance, so I can get that information and then sit down with Mr. Martindale and the staff and go over it and see if there's some sort of resolution or some way we can resolve this prior to coming back for a hearing. That's the tend -- the way I handle these things, or try to handle them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is this the first time this was on the agenda, this case? Or was it -- MR. MARTINDALE: No, sir, I believe it was on a prior agenda. I wasn't -- I was on leave at the time it was, and it was -- MS. RAWSON: It was continued in August to September. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Was that because you were out? I'm just trying to recollect. MR. MARTINDALE: I don't know. I wasn't here. MR. HARGRAVES: Well, that and the lawyer we had didn't realize he was coming to court and he went to Michigan. So he wasn't here to represent us. MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, you know, I think under the circumstances it's only fair that we give a continuance. You know, give Mr. Flood an opportunity to get up to speed on the file. So I'd be inclined to do that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: If that's in the form of a motion, I would tender my second on that. MR. LARSEN: So I so move that we grant the 30-day continuance -- is that correct, Mr. Flood? MR. FLOOD: That would be perfect. I'd appreciate that. Page 49 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It would be a continuance to our October 31 st, I think that's when our next meeting is, correct? MS. RAWSON: Halloween. MR. KRAENBRING: I just ask the county, are there any health or safety issues here? MR. MARTINDALE: Not that I could ascertain, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Very good, thank you. MR. KELLY: And do you want to waive service, Mr. Flood? MR. FLOOD: Yeah, I'll waive service. They can send me in. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And where is the meeting going to be held? Is it going to be here? I just want to make sure, since we're in a different location today, I want to make sure we know -- MR. FLOOD: That was interesting this morning. MR. KRAENBRING: Diane, are we -- MS. WALDRON: I believe that the meeting is here. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, it's here again next month? MS. WALDRON: I believe so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If that changes, can you -- since this is his notice, can you please -- MS. WALDRON: I'll send him a courtesy copy of the -- MR. FLOOD: I'll check with Mr. Martindale. MS. WALDRON: -- notice of hearing anyway. MR. FLOOD: He and I will be conversing on this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, we have a second. Do I hear a vote? All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 50 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. FLOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We'll see you next meeting. MR. KRAENBRING: Diane, are we going to be meeting here more frequently, or is this a -- MS. FLAGG: Sir, the reason that you all are meeting here today is that there is one group that bumps this board, which is the Board of County Commissioners. So during this time of the year they're scheduling looking at property values and so that board is meeting in the boardroom. So-- MR. KRAENBRING: I didn't know where it was going to be. Just a question. MS. FLAGG: It's only -- right, it's only when that board is in session that we'll be meeting here. MR. KRAENBRING: It's actually more convenient for me to meet here, but -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: The coffee's free. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next hearing is BCC versus Angelo B. and Diane M. Campanello. I'm not sure I said that correctly. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007080375, the BCC versus Angelo B. and Diane M. Campanello. F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the packet. MR. LARSEN: Has the respondent seen the evidence? MRS. CAMP ANELLO: No. MS. WALDRON: It's the packet that was sent to them in the Page 51 September 25, 2008 mail. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MS. WALDRON: This is violation of Ordinance -- Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Section 105.1, permit application. Description of violation: Electrical wires run through backyard to wooden posts with electrical outlet and water pump. Pipes run to and from water pump. Improvements made without obtaining building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 141 First Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Angelo B. and Diane M. Campanello, residing at 141 First Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: August 3rd, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 12th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 13th, 2007. Date of reinspection: November 15th, 2007, and July 16th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels. Page 52 September 25, 2008 MS. SORRELS: Good morning. For the record Investigator Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. 2007080375, dealing with a violation of unpermitted electrical ran throughout back yard to electrical recepticals on a wooden post. Service was given on September 12th, 2007. The NOV was posted at the property and at the courthouse. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, which has four pictures dated 8/3 of '07. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have the respondents seen the pictures? MS. SORRELS: Yes, they have. They have copies. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct, sir? MR. CAMPANELLO: I guess. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept the exhibit? MR. KELLY: Make a motion that we accept. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SORRELS: On August 1st, 2007, I received a complaint stating electrical wires running through the back yard, underground for lights, camera and had not been permitted. Page 53 September 25, 2008 On the 3rd of August of 2007, I made a site visit with Collier County Sheriffs Office Mike Nelson. Talked to the next door neighborhood who allowed me to enter his back yard so I could see into Mr. Campanello's back yard. I observed in Mr. Campanello's back yard a wooden post. And if you look at your pictures, you'll see the wooden post. On those posts are electrical receptacles that are mounted on it. You can see the conduit running up from the ground, up the posts to the receptacles. I could also see another wooden post in the far back of the property that was by the water pump as well had electrical receptacles on it. Upon research through our different programs, I searched for any permits that had been obtained for this type of installation of electrical, and I did not find any permits. On the 23rd of August, 2007, I attempted personal service with -- to Mr. Campanello with the sheriffs office, and he was not cooperative. On the 12th of September I made another site visit and I posted the property with the notice of violation. I also posted the courthouse. Mr. Campanello had come out but was not cooperative with me. Conducted several rechecks, no permits were issued, no contact has been made to either respondent in regards to this violation. On the 21 st of August, 2008, I gave one last attempt to contact Mr. Campanello, left a message. No contact was made regarding the violations. On the 8th of September, 2008, Investigator John Connetta posted the property with a notice of hearing. As of now, the violation still remains. MR. KELLY: I've got a question of the County real quick. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: What year was the home built? MS. SORRELS: Pardon? Page 54 September 25, 2008 MR. KELLY: What year was the home built? MS. SORRELS: That I cannot answer, sir. I might have it on the property card. Give me one second. MR. KELLY: That's okay. If you want to let the respondents go, I can ask that later. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. HAMIL TON: Good morning. My name is Philip Hamilton. I'm a local attorney and I represent the Campanellos. And I just got on the case this week. At any rate, with respect to the charge against the Campanellos that they're unlawfully violating 015.1 wherein it's stated that electrical and plumbing stuff was observed, ladies and gentlemen, my client -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Get closer to the microphone. MR. HAMILTON: Oh, I'm sorry. My clients obtained a permit from Collier County in '97, of which I have a copy, for the installation of the items that the pictures disclose. My clients are ready to testify to the effect that the building permit was approved, finalized. They did pay the Charles Nelson electrical contractor approximately $675 to do this. And the county approved it. And the items that you're being asked to be considered a violation were placed therein and approved by Collier County in 1997. Now, my client is ready and willing -- my clients are ready and willing to testify to that effect. We do have a copy of the permit. And the permit states -- well, at least -- MR. KRAENBRING: Would you like to put that into evidence? MR. HAMIL TON: It stated that the electrical items were permitted that you see in these pictures. MR. KRAENBRING: Would you like to enter that into evidence? Page 55 September 25, 2008 MR. HAMIL TON: Yes, I would. But I have to find the last page of the permit. I do apologize. MS. SORRELS: To answer Mr. Kelly's question, the house was built in 1995. MR. HAMILTON: I have a three-pager. I only have one item right here. MR. CAMP ANELLO: I might have it. MR. HAMILTON: Okay. That's all I have. I'd like to enter it into evidence, but I don't have 18 copies. MR. LARSEN: Why don't you show it to the County first and then -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Then it can be passed around to us. MR. HAMILTON: All right. MR. LARSEN: And I'm sorry, is it Mr. Philip Campbell? MR. HAMILTON: Philip Hamilton. MR. LARSEN: Hamilton? MR. HAMILTON: Philip Hamilton, yes. I was ready to come here to ask for a continuance today because I just got on the case, but -- oh, well. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept this into evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LARSEN: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 56 September 25, 2008 MR. HAMILTON: So I'm asking today that this board dismiss the charge against my clients based on the fact that the charges are not acceptable. In fact, they did in '97 comply with the Collier County code by asking Collier County to approve these items. And they were approved. MR. LARSEN: Officer Sorrels, have you had an opportunity to look at this? MS. SORRELS: I just did, sir. MR. LARSEN: Do you have any comment on it? MS. SORRELS: I do, sir. That permit that they have that you have in your hand, the 973616, I have pulled off of microfilm. And that permit does not apply to the back yard. And I have copies of the layout and everything that was planned to be permitted. And what I have here, it says project name is yard lighting, post light and ground lights. And of course it's at the address of 141 First Street. I have the application here that shows that it's electrical. I also have the certificate of completion. But the most important part is I have the plan showing exactly what is permitted. MR. LARSEN: And have you shown that to Mr. Hamilton? MS. SORRELS: No, I have not. I did not know that they were going to present this permit as being a permit for the electrical in the back. MR. LARSEN: Why don't we show that -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. LARSEN: -- to Mr. Hamilton. MR. HAMIL TON: I've seen that as part of my investigation. However, my clients are ready and are prepared to testify that the items in the back yard were approved by the county, and it was part and parcel of the entire transaction. And that's our presentation. MR. KAUFMAN: You have to accept that into evidence. Page 57 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Once they look at it. MS. SORRELS: If I could just go ahead and mention, while they're looking at that, the actual description of the work was electrical for yard lighting and a light post, not for electrical receptacles that you can plug things into, power cords. MR. LARSEN: I don't quite understand what you're saying in regard to electrical outlets that you have to plug things in. How does that relate to what your violation is? MS. SORRELS: Pardon? MR. LARSEN: How does that relate to the violation? MS. SORRELS: The violation is the electrical that's ran through the back yard to the wooden post that has the receptacle outlets on them. The permit -- the '97 permit only applies to the yard lighting that's in the front yard. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the respondents' packet B. MR. KRAENBRING: The county's. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: County's. MR. KELLY: Well, this one -- I'm sorry, county's. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This is county's. MR. KELLY: County. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. CAMPANELLO: Am I allowed to speak a moment? Page 58 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. CAMP ANELLO: I've been in Collier County since 1971. 1981 I married my wife. We've enjoyed living in Collier County. But as an activist, still today the code enforcement investigators harass the public, they enter without consent. MS. SORRELS: Objection. This has nothing to do with the case. MR. CAMP ANELLO: Excuse me, I am speaking. I think I have my motion to speak at the time of the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, sir. MR. CAMP ANELLO: I would like to show you evidence at a later time, this investigator spending numerous time -- MS. SORRELS: Objection, this has nothing to do with the case. MR. CAMP ANELLO: -- in front of my home with a sheriffs deputy bending over while the deputy was behind his wheel for a good hour and 30 minutes -- MS. SORRELS: Board, I ask you guys -- MR. CAMPANELLO: -- off my security camera. MS. SORRELS: -- object to this. MR. CAMP ANELLO: Is that how we pay our tax dollars, when a code enforcement investigator makes out to waste our tax dollars, as well as the sheriffs department -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir. MR. HAMILTON: Mr. Campanello, please. MR. CAMP ANELLO: I would just like to say this: I am being totally harassed. I have evidence in that box to show pictures of health, safety and welfare that have been ignored by my neighbor next door. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're talking about your case specially. MR. CAMPANELLO: Okay. Well, this is where it all started from. Page 59 September 25, 2008 Mr. Mudd has blocked my rights to speak to Commissioner Donna Fiala through Azure Sorrels, the citizen liaison. And I am hoping to have a meeting with the new director to show her why code enforcement -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's totally separate. If you have any evidence regarding your case, we're glad to hear it. MR. CAMP ANELLO: Once things are approved and signed off by public record, I'm being harassed here. Thank you. MR. HAMIL TON: Mr. Campanello, would you tell the board, did you have those items in the back yard put in there independently, or was that part of the permit? MR. CAMPANELLO: That was part of the work being done. I had already purchased $8.00 (sic) worth of material. That day we had rain when it was installed. And he said, I will put it in, being that the labor and everything was all consistent. But during the rain he could not put that on the back side of it. It has all been documented. And it says here, even though noted on the Invoice No. 2236 from Nelson Electric, receptacles -- I can't think of the other word in the code violations -- were installed of the same time under Permit No. 97361. Now, I think there should be an investigation put on every investigator of code enforcement for not thoroughly looking into the codes. When a consumer gets a permit by law of this county and they do not thoroughly look into their computers when they change computer data bases. She didn't do her job correctly. MR. LARSEN: I actually have a question of Officer Sorrels. Officer Sorrels, the violation states that there are electrical wires run through the back yard to the wooden posts with electrical outlets and water pump. Where do these electrical wires originate? MS. SORRELS: Sir, I wish I could answer that for you. But since Mr. Campanello is not cooperative and does not leave (sic) us on Page 60 September 25, 2008 his property, I could not investigate completely to where they go to to the structure, the main principal or to an electrical panel or anything of that nature. All I can see is that there's conduit coming from the ground supplying the electrical wires to the post. MR. LARSEN: All right. And pipes run to and from the water pump? MS. SORRELS: I should have clarified when we began. When I had done that originally, I was underneath (sic) the assumption that the plumbing would need a permit. However, I have spoken with a plumbing structural inspector plan review person that said it would not -- because it's above ground. So the plumbing is not an issue, it's just the electrical. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And then finally it says improvements made without obtaining a building permit, right? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Now, this permit, which was proffered by the respondent, you were aware of that permit? MS. SORRELS: Yes. The '97 permit? MR. LARSEN: That's correct. MS. SORRELS: Correct, yes, I was. MR. LARSEN: And what is your understanding of why that permit was issued? Specifically why was that permit issued? MS. SORRELS: The permit was issued for the yard lighting and the light post in the front yard. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And that's separate and distinct from the electrical wires that run through the back yard to the wooden post with the electrical outlets and water pump in the photograph? MS. SORRELS: That is correct. MR. LARSEN: All right. So it's the County's position that they're two separate. That permit didn't allow the work in the back yard. MS. SORRELS: Correct. And that's what shows on the site plan Page 61 September 25, 2008 that was submitted with the permit application, showing just specifically what that permit covered, which was the landscape lights and the light pole in the front. MR. LARSEN: All right. And you had four photographs here. One shows a pole with a thermometer on it and two electrical outlets on the top. And that's specifically what you're referring to? MS. SORRELS: That is correct, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Are the wires laying on the ground or they're underground? MS. SORRELS: For the pole that's -- the wooden pole, that post that's in the center of the back yard has conduit going up the front of it, which would be housing the wiring. MR. KRAENBRING: But for it coming from the house -- MS. SORRELS: That I could not answer, sir. MR. LARSEN: All right. And there is a separate red pipe which looks like it's got black wire into it, and that's what you feel is the water pump? MS. SORRELS: Correct, that is what I feel is the water pump. And then the power cord plugging into the receptacle on top of the wooden post. MR. LARSEN: And in your review of the county records you didn't find any kind of permit in regard to that? MS. SORRELS: No, sir, I did not. MR. LARSEN: All right. Thank you, I have no further questions of the officer. MR. HAMILTON: Excuse me, Mr. Campanello wants to say one more thing. MR. LARSEN: All right. Just-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. If it's relating to the case, that's fine. MR. CAMPANELLO: Yes, when the inspector came out to our house, it was raining. He had to stay under the eight-foot eave up Page 62 September 25, 2008 against the wall of our home. And he looked at everything. And he says, it's fine, I'll sign you off. Now, the reason why that stormwater pump is in the rear yard is because of a next door neighbor bringing in 47 truck loads of fill dirt, which I have evidence, to cause -- I think it's the word blocking of a stormwater drainage. He has also bought two properties which now he owns three. There is no culvert stormwater drain pipe to allow stormwater flow -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's not relevant to this case. MR. CAMP ANELLO: I am dumped with water. And that plug is only plugged in during and after a hurricane and it's removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That is not -- go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Closer to the microphone. MR. KAUFMAN: This layout that is part of the building permit from 1997 -- MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- this was submitted by the electrical contractor at that time? MS. SORRELS: That is correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you ever seen this before today? MR. CAMPANELLO: Yes, I have. The gentleman is no longer in business, he's been retired. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything else from the respondent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing. Anymore questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: I just want to be clear that basically as part of the county's package they cited Section 105.1 which requires application to the building officials and obtaining the required permits Page 63 September 25,2008 for electrical work. And I want to make sure that's what, you know, is the basis of the violation. Is that correct? MS. SORRELS: That is correct. MR. LARSEN: I just want to read that into the record. 105.1, any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. And it's the County's position that was not done; is that correct? MS. SORRELS: That is correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? MR. KRAENBRING: Just a comment, I guess. I hate to say it's much ado about nothing, but I'm kind of seeing it that way. We have to rely on the County's record, and there is no record of this being on that original permit. It may have been missed. You know, it may have been an error of the previous inspector, you know, back in 1997. But I think that we have to rely on a written record. It seems to me it would be a simple thing of just getting a permit and having this thing inspected and having it approved and being done with it. I'd like to think that you're not being persecuted. That's really not part of the case. But I would say how much is a permit for this thing going to cost? You know, a few dollars and get it done and be done with it. MS. SORRELS: I could not answer that accurately, I'm sorry. MR. KRAENBRING: That's just sort of my opinion as to what I'm seeing here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other? Page 64 September 25, 2008 MR. KELLY: I have a comment. If you were to go out today and contract to, let's say, for instance, have storm shutters put up on your windows and you said, you know what, I want you to leave this side of the house open because I feel for whatever reason I can't afford it or I don't want it at this time, but work commenced and a permit was pulled and the original spec showed that you were going to do all but one side of the house and at the last minute you decided, you know what, I'm going to throw in this last side of the house, I'm going to bite the bullet and I'm going to get it all done since you're here. All of that would just be umbrellaed under the original permit. There wouldn't necessarily need to be a change if the inspector came out, saw the original layout, saw the work that was done additionally and approved it. And if he signed off, he's approving all the work done. I don't see it much different in this case to where they originally had a diagram for work to be done on the front of the house, the customer went out, bought some of the materials needed to do one more additional post in the back and he threw it in as part of the original permit and it was signed off. And that we have proof of, both as an invoice showing that the contractor did that additional work, and the signature card showing that the inspector signed it off. I think it was above-board and that there is no violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, have we closed the public hearing? Is this now under discussion? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: You know, I would tend to agree with my colleague, except for the fact that the diagrams in the county records indicate that the work that was originally approved was for the front yard, it wasn't work in the back yard. And I don't think it's reflected anywhere in the county records that any work was authorized, Page 65 September 25, 2008 inspected or approved in regard to the rear yard. And that's my concern. And seeing that basically there's a water condition back there, there's unimproved electrical, that there might be a health and safety issue in regard to this. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would echo that comment. MR. LARSEN: And what I'm concerned is ~hat the County hasn't had an opportunity to inspect this to ensure that there isn't an ongoing problem. Now, you know, I agree that latitude has to be given to the citizenry in regard to projects that were undertaken in the Nineties and things like that which have existed for a number of years. But still, I think that we would be remiss if we didn't ensure that the county had an opportunity to at least inspect and approve work, whether it was done by a licensed contractor or otherwise. And I think in this particular case I'm more inclined to find that a violation did exist, and just allow them an opportunity to go and get, you know, a permit and have the county go out there and inspect and sign off on it so -- to make sure that problems do not arise in the future. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I actually have one more question of the respondent. When was the fill for your next door neighbor put in? MR. CAMP ANELLO: Over the years when we took possession of our land since 1997, I'd noticed this neighbor was operating a business without a current occupancy license -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, I asked when was the fill, the 47 dump truck loads of fill put in? MR. CAMP ANELLO: That started in 1997. They were coming in Sunday nights -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Through when? MR. CAMP ANELLO: Up until the time of his building being Page 66 September 25, 2008 permitted. MRS. CAMPANELLO: Till 2003. MR. CAMP ANELLO: 2003 I would say, yes. Prior to all that, that's why I have all that stormwater. He already elevated -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was my only question. MR. KELLY: The respondent also testified that the pump is actually a plug-in pump. So it is not hardwired. It's just something that's plugged in the receptacle. And I'd be concerned that we might be causing double jeopardy on the respondent. If it was originally signed off, there was a permit and inspector (sic) and the inspection says final electrical, meaning the entire property. That to me says it's been approved. MS. SORRELS: May I say something? MR. LARSEN: Well, it seems to me that basically -- and this is a key question that was just asked by the Chairman. I mean, basically if these permits were applied back in '97 and the dump truck work was started to be -- you know, which occurred, you know, in '97 going forward and the pump was originally installed to address that issue, that it possibly was installed or done after, you know, permits were originally, you know, pulled. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's my point. If the dirt was installed over a period of five or six years, the issue that he stated prior that it was instaUed because of the fill, the house wasn't built until 2003 and the fill wasn't installed. So that would possibly show that after the fill was installed up until 2003 when the pump was installed at a later period. MR. KELLY: I've got one more question then for Azure. When you pull an electrical permit, are you required to specify exactly all the electrical outlets and lines that you're going to put in -- MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. KELLY: -- at the time? Page 67 September 25, 2008 MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. KELLY: So the fact that this wasn't shown would mean that the inspector probably never even looked at it in the first place. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LARSEN: So, you know, my inclination of course is to find that a violation did exist. And, you know, when the opportunity presents itself, that's the motion I'd be making. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman, you have a comment? MR. KAUFMAN: Since-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could bring your mic close. MR. KAUFMAN: Since you haven't had access to the building, you wouldn't know whether there's a GFI breaker in there? MS. SORRELS: Correct. I do not know any of that, correct. MR. CAMP ANELLO: There is. There is. I can assure you that. I will have code enforcement come onto my property with counsel present, if need to be. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments from the board? MR. KRAENBRING: I just think what you just said is probably what we're looking at. If -- just allow them to come onto your property, you know, and if a permit needs to be pulled, then fine. MR. CAMP ANELLO: I'll be more than happy to get the permit. MR. KRAENBRING: That seems to be the answer. MRS. CAMPANELLO: But we don't want Azure Sorrels on our property. MR. CAMP ANELLO: Yeah, there was a conflict there with my wife. My wife's going through a severe depression effect. She might be having surgery -- MR. KRAENBRING: You don't want this -- MR. CAMPANELLO: I don't want her because of her -- MR. KRAENBRING: You can work that out with the county. MR. CAMP ANELLO: There is employee harassment, and I do Page 68 September 25, 2008 know that's under investigation. MR. LARSEN: That's far afield. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, that's far afield. MR. LARSEN: I move to strike. MR. KRAENBRING: I would -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to find that a violation did exist when the -- when the violation was originally issued. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes, there is a violation. Do I hear a recommendation? MS. SORRELS: Yes, sir. Collier County recommends that the respondents pay the operational cost of $86.78 that was incurred in the prosecution of this case; obtain all required Collier County building permits/inspections/certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or $100 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent also has the ability to obtain a demo permit, remove electrical, obtain inspections and certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or $100 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains.r Page 69 September 25, 2008 And the final would be the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement for an inspection to confirm. MR. LARSEN: All right. Number one, it says obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing. Is that practical to have a certificate of completion within 30 days? MS. SORRELS: I would believe yes. This is not something that's going to be very detailed in pulling a permit. It's -- you know, it's a minor electrical through the back yard. Submit the permit. Once the permit's obtained -- the work's already done. All they have to do is then call for an inspection. And if it passes, they'll receive the certificate of completion. If there's something that holds up it from being passed, they have time to fix it and then obtain another inspection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd just like to see that operational costs are paid within 30 days also. Any other comments? MR. LARSEN: How much are the operational costs? MR. DEAN: 86.78. MR. LARSEN: 86.78. I would just think that basically, you know, the 30 days may be a little too short in time. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that -- let me just ask something of Diane. There seems to be some animosity here between, you know, the County and the respondent. We don't want to tell you how to do your business, but is it possible that someone else is going to be able to go out there and -- MR. DEAN: See, now, I don't agree with that statement, sir, because for the simple reason she was doing her job. And I think if she got on the property to start with, we wouldn't be here. Page 70 September 25, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: I'm just saying-- MR. DEAN: So -- but she's doing her job and that's her territory, so -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't think we should second guess the MR. DEAN: And it's not up to us to make that decision. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- management of the code enforcement board employees. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One person at a time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't think we should second guess the management of the code enforcement board employees. MR. LARSEN: I have to agree with Mr. Morgan (sic). MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. I'm just trying to say, you know, if the situation can be diffused, then -- MR. DEAN: That's not our-- MR. KRAENBRING: As I said, I don't want to tell people how to do their job, but obviously there's some animosity here, and I think we all just want to get along. As far as the time frame is concerned, are we looking at allowing it more time? MR. LARSEN: I'm just concerned with the current state of affairs where there's been budget cuts in the county and, you know, there may be delays in inspections and permits, I think 30 days is a bit short. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is the time frame that you're looking for? MR. LARSEN: I would say 45 days. That would give them a full month and a half. And I'd feel comfortable making a motion to approve the recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. Page 71 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. CAMP ANELLO: Can I just put one comment on record, please, for my protection as a homeowner? Due to South Florida Stormwater, I have requested them to come out to see why my neighbor could dump all his stormwater onto my land and cause health issues. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's irrelevant to this case. MR. CAMP ANELLO: Well, I'd like to find out to see if Diane Flagg would have her presence with my attorney -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You can talk to her after-- MR. CAMP ANELLO: -- to get this all resolved. Because this is harassment by county employees. MR. HAMILTON: That's okay. Thank you. MR. KELLY: Gerald, also you're going to clarify that that was the acceptance of the county with 30 days for the op. costs and 45 days instead of 30 for the time frame? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. You understand, sir, you have 30 days to pay the operational costs. MR. CAMPANELLO: I'll do it right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 86.78. And then 45 days to go ahead and get permits and the CO. MR. CAMP ANELLO: I'll do it right now. But the exception is if there's water back there in the next storm, am I supposed to leave it Page 72 September 25, 2008 there to have it inspected why all this water came onto my land? MR. HAMILTON: Come on. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're done. MR. HAMILTON: We're done. MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. HAMILTON: Thank you. MR. CAMP ANELLO: Health, safety and welfare by the judge -- I mean by the county -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, that's it. Can I have the package from -- MS. RAWSON: Be sure you guys give all the exhibits to the court reporter. I see she doesn't have a lot on her desk. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Susan B. Williams. Is the respondent present? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007060820, BCC versus Susan B. Williams. F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: I make a motion to accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 73 September 25, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e), 10.02.06 (B)(I)( e )(i). Description of violation: Remodel of the bathroom, adding a bathtub and removing a closet and shower without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1705 Tarpon Bay Drive South, Naples, Florida, 34119. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Susan B. Williams, 18519 Bear Creek Terrace, Leesburg, Virginia, 20176. Date violation first observed: 10/16/07. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 16th, '07. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 15th, '07. Date of reinspection: 6/4/08. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time, I would like to call Code Enforcement Board Investigator Patrick Baldwin. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. 2007060820, and it's dealing with the violation of unpermitted remodel of the bathroom, adding a bathtub and removing a closet. And it's actually to put the shower from one side of the room over to the other room. And it's located at 1705 Tarpon Bay Drive South, Naples, Florida. Service was given on 10/16/07. The green card was delivered to Leesburg, Virginia on 10/22/07. I would like to present my case evidence and the following exhibits. I have two photographs that were taken on 10/16/07 of the Page 74 September 25, 2008 bathroom. They are B-1 and B-2. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion to accept Exhibit A (sic) from the county? MR. KELLY: Motion to accept Exhibit B. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. MR. BALDWIN: I also have C-l, composite C-l. And that would be a signed statement by Building Inspector John Clements. And also the master plan of the Caymans Community. And that should be included there as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, it's included here? Okay. MR. LARSEN: How did this come to the attention of the county? MR. BALDWIN: This was brought forth -- it came in by the building department. It was a former inspector, a plan reviewer for plumbing and mechanical, Dick Schmidt. He came in and brought it to my attention. He lives in the community and the house was being sold, and he went in there, or someone went in there, and found that the house does not look like all the other ones in the development. So after pulling the master plans, it was determined that yes, the bathroom is different, and it was remodeled sometime after. Page 75 September 25, 2008 The house was C.O.'d in 9/8/2003. The final plumbing happened on 8/21/2003. Then John Clements has that signed statement there. He's the one that signed off on the bathroom at that time. The house was bought on 9/22/08 (sic). And Susan B. Williams is the one that bought the house. She -- prior to having purchased the house, she asked for some changes made to the bathroom. They were made. Unfortunately WCI did not pull the permits for those additions, remodeling of the bathroom and the bathtub and the showers. MR. LARSEN: All right. So it's a WCI community. MR. BALDWIN: Correct. MR. LARSEN: And WCI did the work and they didn't pull the permits, and she went in there -- and Ms. Williams bought the condo and then put it up on the market, and somebody saw that the bathroom wasn't properly configured and it came to the county's attention. MR. BALDWIN: Correct. Which she is unaware that WCI never pulled the final permits. MR. LARSEN: And have you had communication with Ms. Williams? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, off and on. For the last year we have had communication. The last time I spoke to her back in January she stated that she was trying to get a contractor to pull the permits. But she travels back and forth. Apparently she has an important job and she hasn't been down there since. I have made several phone calls since then and she has not returned my phone call, so that's why we're here today. MR. LARSEN: All right. And you've looked over the county records and when WCI originally filed for the permits. Basically it was configured in a different form. MR. BALDWIN: Correct. That's why I submitted with the C-l the master plan of the house. It shows the closet and the bathroom to the right. And when you look at the photographs looking in, there's clearly a whirlpool/bathtub, no closet, and the shower is over to the Page 76 September 25, 2008 left with a small closet. MR. LARSEN: So this person is caught in the middle. MR. BALDWIN: Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: So when the house was built, it was built with this alteration. MR. BALDWIN: When the house was originally built, it was built to the master plan that WCI submitted to the county. After it was C.O.'d on 9/8/2003, after it was C.O.'d, sometime between then and 9/22 the remodel of the bathroom took place. MR. KRAENBRING: WCI performed this remodel? MR. BALDWIN: To the best of my knowledge, yes. MR. DEAN: You know, a lot of times a buyer will get a credit to finish, because it looks like a nice tile floor bathroom, and it's not a common thing that they would provide. So they give them a credit and then they go to their own contractor and finish it. So it doesn't mean WCI did it, it means they might have had their own contractor do it. MR. KAUFMAN: When did you say she purchased this property? MR. BALDWIN: 9/22/08 (sic). MR. KAUFMAN: You sure that's -- 9/22/08? MR. BALDWIN: I'm sorry, 9/22/07, correct, sir. 9/22/07. MR. KAUFMAN: She didn't buy it yesterday. MR. BALDWIN: Right. Sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 9/22/03. MR. BALDWIN: Again, let me make a correction. She purchased the property in 9/22/03, roughly 14 days after the house was C.O.'d on 9/8/2003. MR. LARSEN: This is a familiar quandary where we have a large builder like WCI who mayor may not be responsible for the reconfiguration which deviated from the plans. And a homeowner who of course is, you know, not a full-time resident of Collier County. Page 77 September 25, 2008 But the problem is that basically we have an unapproved improvement to the property. And, you know, without proper permits and inspections, we do not know if it was done correctly or not. So it appears that to my mind at least that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments from the board? MR. DEAN: Well, let me just add to that. I feel the same way, because of the fact that I know out there that a lot of builders will give a credit to a buyer that wants to finish it in a more professional manner, more expensive tile. So they give them a credit. So I've known some cases like this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But this is a little more than tile. This is something that a homeowner would probably not do afterwards. Because there's issues with the slab and everything. You would have to dig up the slab and so forth. That's usually not what a credit is given to. Like you said, a credit is given for tile and so forth. Being in the business, I know that. But to reconfigure walk-in closets and moving a tub, that would be more than likely done prior to someone taking occupancy. And unfortunately it's the owner's responsibility to make sure it's correct. MR. LARSEN: Right. And that's the problem we have with Ms. Williams. She was probably acting in good faith, was not aware that permits were not obtained, but she is the owner and she is ultimately responsible. And it's unfortunate, but that's the law. So I would make a motion to find that a violation does in fact exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 78 September 25, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays. MR. KRAENBRING: Nay. MR. LARSEN: Recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $87.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by: One, applying for and obtaining all Collier County after-the- fact building permits for improvements. Must execute all issued permits so as to obtain all required inspections through to issuance of a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: Or in the alternative, must obtain a Collier County demolition permit for the removal of all non-permitted additions and improvements, remove all material from the property, and to request all inspections through the issuance of the certificate of completion and so as to restore the premises to the state of compliance within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A comment. Is there any way to get around the after-the-fact permit fees, due to the fact that this was not even remotely in her control? Is that at all possible? MR. BALDWIN: I believe that would be up to the building department. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Building department, okay. Page 79 September 25, 2008 And I think that the $200 a day is quite excessive. Any other comments from the board? MR. PONTE: I agree with you about the fine. MR. LARSEN: Well, I don't know if the term excessive is appropriate. If you're asking it to be reduced, perhaps you can provide a number to which you think it might be more appropriate. MR. PONTE: I think $100 would be much more appropriate. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think $100 is still a little bit on the high side, but I would be -- MR. KELLY: I would think $50. And, you know, if they're four times the amount that I see as appropriate, I would consider that exceSSIve. MR. KRAENBRING: $50 is exactly what I was thinking. And 120 days is fine. My sense of it is that this probably will just go right through. Probably professional work is probably done by the builder and somehow she's caught in the paperwork here. MR. LARSEN: Well, I think I'd support a motion for $100 per day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just another I guess statement of fact. She may be able to provide some documentation showing that these changes were asked of the builder. Usually that is written in like a sales purchase contract. Or there may be some kind of plan that she can provide to show that she -- this is the way she wanted the bathroom configured. So maybe going to the building department with that, showing that WCI did the work, that might streamline the building process, I would think. MR. LARSEN: She might be able to go back to WCI and ask. Well, they're in some kind of reorganization, I think. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. LARSEN: I don't think that would work. Page 80 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But usually something of this magnitude to be changed would be written down somewhere. And usually it's changed in a -- some kind of format. But we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Actually, we-- MR. LARSEN: I don't know if we have a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendations, with the change to the fine being $50 per day on both items number one and two. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Israel and Delma Gallegos. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Case No. 2007060101. F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? Page 81 September 25, 2008 MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), 10.02.06(B)(I)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(e)(i). Description of violation: Multiple additions built onto structure without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1318 Pair Street, Imokalee, Florida, 34142. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Israel and Delma Gallegos, 1318 Pair Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Date violation first observed: June 1 st, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 8th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 8th, 2007. Date of reinspection: June 26th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time, I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Jon Musse. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 82 September 25, 2008 This is in reference to Case No. 2007060101 dealing with the violation of unpermitted -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Speak a little more slowly, please. MR. MUSSE: I apologize. Located at 1318 Pair Street, Imokalee, Florida, 34142. Personal service and notice of violation was given on June 8th, 2007. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: B-1 through 10. Property owner did get copies. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MUSSE: On June 1 st, 2007, received this case as a complaint stating that the property owner added onto the structure without first obtaining permits. Upon my arrival observed construction debris on the ground, and also observed obvious additions on both sides and rear of mobile home, and addition to the shed that was converted into a guest house for migrant workers. Spoke to a gentlemen that was working under the bus and asked him if he was the property owner. He stated that he was a tenant that Page 83 September 25, 2008 lived in the rear of the property, but the owner lives in the main house. I then spoke to Delma Gallegos and explained the complaint. She stated that she wasn't aware of any unpermitted additions, but her husband might know something but he isn't home at this time. I then gave her my card with my contact information and asked for her husband to give me a call as soon as possible. Conducted some research on the property and was only able to find one permit. Permit No. 75-1930, for a 14 by 25 room (sic) addition onto a mobile home. If you look at the picture of the aerial shot, the orange is the actual mobile home. To the side is the shed. That was the original structure. Right over here -- on the property card it did not state what exactly was permitted. All it gave me was measurements, 14 by 25. I asked the property owner. He couldn't remember because it was such an old permit. So I took measurements of this structure and it added up to 14 by 25. We're assuming that that's the permitted structure, addition. And the rest of the property is unpermitted. June 8th, 2007, on-site I spoke with Israel Gallegos and explained the violation. He informed me that he has placed his son in charge of his property and asked me if I could wait for him to arrive. About 15 minutes later I met with Jacob Gallegos, son of the property owner. I explained the violation and informed him that he would need to get -- go to the building and permitting department and obtain a permit for all the additions, if permissible. Notice of violation was served and signed by Jacob Gallegos, who stated earlier that he lives at this residence. September 4th, 2007, violation remains, no permits have been issued at this time. Called Jacob Gallegos. He stated that he went to the building and permitting office and was still confused on how to obtain a permit for the additions. Page 84 September 25,2008 I decided it would be best to schedule a meeting with Mr. Gallegos in the building and permitting department. September 12th, 2007, received an e-mail from Carol Stachura from permitting and building. Invited me for a permit meeting on September 14th. September 14th, 2007, met with Maria Rodriguez of permitting and Jacob Gallegos in the Immokalee office. She informed him that he would need to obtain engineered drawings for all the unpermitted additions and obtain permits for them, if permissible. If permit could not be obtained he would have to obtain the demo permit and remove the additions that are in violation. Mr. Gallegos stated that he will speak with his father and make a decision. October 26th, 2007, went on the site, took current pictures of the violation. Spoke with Israel Gallegos. Asked if we could take pictures of inside the unpermitted additions. He stated -- from inside of the house. He said that he doesn't feel comfortable without the presence of his son. He attempted to get in contact with his son but wasn't able to get ahold of him. Case was scheduled to appear before the Board of County Commissioners on November 12th, 2007. November 12th, 2007, case was presented before the Board of County Commissioners. The board recommended code enforcement to hold off on sending this case to the Code Enforcement Board for at least six months and have the property owner get in contact with Rick Heers of IHOPE to see if they're eligible to get a new mobile home. Continue to monitor the property with the violation remaining. September 12th, posted notice of hearing on the property and courthouse. Conducted a site inspection September 23rd. Violation remains, no permit has been issued. That concludes my -- Page 85 September 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Yeah, we realize that we're in violation. We understand all that. I've worked -- I haven't worked closely with Mr. Jim Coletta when we went to the Board of County Commissioners. He said he would work with us. I've gone out to the Chamber of Commerce, I've met with him a couple of times -- well, few times within the last eight months. I've met with Mr. Rick Heers. IHOPE is saying they don't have funding just yet to help us out, because it's kind of like a little complicated situation. My dad doesn't -- he didn't work for the county, he didn't have ajob to where he can reach into a 401-K and take care of this matter within six to 12 months. So what we're asking is, or what I'm asking is, is there any way we could get a little bit more time? Because I talked to Mr. Rick Heers, which is in charge of IHOPE. We know we're in violation, we understand that. We want a little more time to see ifIHOPE can help him out. He -- currently he's employed by me, because I own a small business in Immokalee. I'm a new small business owner. I pay his medical bills, I pay everything for him. So it's more of a financial crisis than not wanting to get this corrected. I'm asking for more time, see ifIHOPE can help him out. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How much time are you looking for? MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Okay, I had one scenario. I was asking to see if I could get to next May, and let me explain why I say that. He had a large family. I have a lot of brothers and sisters. I've gone to Plan B and I've gone to them, I've gotten with them and I said hey, look, this is the situation. This is where he's at. And before I get to that, I had to sell my house back in May of last year to move in with him to help him out, the medical situation Page 86 September 25, 2008 with him and my mom and all that. So I pay most of his bills, his water bill, everything for him. I've gone Plan B. I would hope to get to next May. And I say this -- this is why I say that. Because tax season comes in. I've gotten two quotes from Freeman and Freemen Construction and YEI, another company, about demolition. Because one of the choices is either demo some of the building and get the rest of it engineered. The costing is anywhere from 10 to $15,000. And I don't have money to pull that out right now just to write a check to someone, you know, within this time frame. I know I'm not going to have that money. So I was hoping till next May, you know. And after that, whatever happens happens. Because income tax season comes in. I've asked my brothers and sisters, said hey, can everyone individually give me $1,000 so I can take care of this matter. Whether it's demo, whatever our option is at that time. If -- best case scenario is IHOPE steps in and helps us out. You know, I've spoken to Jim Coletta a couple times, a few times down at the Chamber of Commerce in Immokalee, and he said, you know, just to keep talking and working with Rick Heers. So that's kind of where we're at. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the respondent? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely, yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. From what I gathered from the officer's testimony was there was originally a mobile home here? MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Right. MR. LARSEN: And was it your father that built up and around the mobile home? MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Yeah. Him and his brothers, yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And when they built around the mobile home, what, did they add on living space, storage space? What kind of space did they add to the mobile home? Page 87 September 25, 2008 MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Well, first it was living -- well, he can answer it but, I mean, I've lived there most of my life. Most of it was say you build a storage space. Well, when you have a large family -- see, he had nine kids. There's nine of us. And then his brothers. You're talking about 1975. And out in Immokalee, I mean, I can just -- I know how it is today. I can just imagine how it was back in 1975. It became living space because, you know, nine kids, all of a sudden you have 15 people in the household, 20 people in the household. It's a different situation back in 1975 than it is today. So it was first built as storage space, but as time moved on all of a sudden it became a bedroom. Because that's-- MR. LARSEN: And is there electrical service to those rooms? MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Yeah. Most of them there is. MR. LARSEN: And do you know who did that electrical service? MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Who's that -- MR. ISRAEL GALLEGOS: Sam Baker. MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Sam Baker. He used to be a contractor out there in Immokalee. MR. LARSEN: And is there plumbing, water service to that? MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Just to the restroom. Not to the rooms or anything like that, just to the restroom. MR. LARSEN: All right. And is it only family members that are living there now, or are there non-family members? MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: No, it's just me and my kids and my mom and dad. MR. LARSEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: From the investigator's testimony, he did say that he spoke to a person who stated that he was a tenant in one of the units there. MR. MUSSE: I have spoken to Mr. Gallegos about that and Page 88 September 25, 2008 informed him that since it's an unpermitted structure, he's not allowed to have any migrants living in there, and he has removed them. MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: It was a few guys that does odd jobs for me, for my business, you know, the farm workers and stuff like that. They did -- they would live there. You know, I would give them a break. So that's -- I mean, it's a large house. I'm not going to sit here and say it's not. I'm not here to say no, I'm not in violation. I know I'm in violation. I'm just trying to buy some time to -- you know, it's a big financial cost, I don't -- to get an engineer. I've started to work with Freeman and Freeman now. And, you know, I'm just -- I'm hoping -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? MR. KRAENBRING: I would just say that it's apparent from the county and the respondent that a violation does exist. It's just going to be a matter of when we get the county's recommendations how much time we can afford this gentleman to -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you making a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: -- correct it. I make a motion a violation does exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Page 89 September 25, 2008 County recommendation. MR. MUSSE: The county recommends respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.45 within 30 days of this hearing incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by: Obtain a Collier County building permit for all the additions and obtain all inspections, certificate of completions within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until violation is abated. Or obtain a Collier County demolition permit, inspections and certificate of -- THE COURT REPORTER: Slow down, please. MR. MUSSE: Still too fast? I'm sorry. Obtain a Collier County demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completions within 120 days of the hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation's abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. MR. KELLY: I have a comment for the board. A little insight. As chairman of the Affordable Housing Commission, I am familiar with IHOPE's application. I can't tell you obviously the status of it, but that they have submitted for funds. There's also DR! or Disaster Recovery Initiative funds that are available to Collier County, and there's of course SHIP funds. And one of the most active parts of the Housing and Human Services Department is the rehab program. Depending on income qualifications, there are a number of avenues that the respondents can take to try to help this situation. However, all of them are going to take a significant amount of time; much more than the 120 days suggested. MR. DEAN: You know, I think most of the time we care a lot about health and safety issue. And it's always on our minds, and I Page 90 September 25, 2008 know as we talk all the time, because there's some additions put on there, there's some wiring done, and you're always worrying about a fire if it's not done properly. That's always my main concern. So -- and I'm sure that the board members have that same concern, as we all do. So -- and that would be my main concern that -- your statement. I'd be happy to help you, but I just have a problem with safety issue. Thanks. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Kelly, what do you think would be an appropriate time frame, considering your insight knowledge of these funding? MR. KELLY: Well, obviously it all rests on whether or not he qualifies for any of those programs. But I can tell you, we're going into a new cycle. If funds are appropriated he probably would not be able to use them for at least six months and then probably another six months after that before construction could be completed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is the board's -- any other board members? MR. L'ESPERANCE: We have to keep in mind that no matter what the time period or time frame is we have on this particular recommendation from the county, that it can always come back to us after the accomplishment or not accomplishment of the construction process, and we can mitigate this order. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments from the board? MR. PONTE: No, I think we have to take very seriously the professional opinion and observations made by our colleague, who is on several boards. And I would think then that one year is not unrealistic in this case. And I think the $200 fine per day is excessive in this case. It's just unrealistic. MR. LARSEN: I agree that the $200 per day is unrealistic. I do Page 91 September 25, 2008 agree. My concern, however, is basically they have a history of having migrant workers in the house. That, you know, this has been going on quite a while. It seems like it's a substantial violation. We do not know if they qualify for these different programs. I'm, you know, flexible on 120 days, but I would not like to see this go out, you know, so far that we lose track of it. MR. PONTE: Well, the only point is that Ken has mentioned that you would not have funding for at least six months; is that correct? MR. KELLY: That's correct. MR. DEAN: I'd like to add one thing. Don't forget, the first violation was June, '07. This is September, '08, you know. And nothing -- it still remains, so -- they were notified over a year ago and it's still the same way. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't think we should lose our sense of urgency when it comes to the safety and welfare issue that you were speaking of earlier. And if we extend this too long, I think we reduce the amount of urgency and concern we have over the safety and welfare issue. And again, we can come back and revisit this when something is accomplished. MR. LARSEN: Yes, I agree. And I appreciate Mr. Morgan (sic) pointed out that the original violation was observed on June 1 st, 2007. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think six months. Then if they come in front of us again in six months and see what the progress is would be a good way to keep them in front of us. And also reducing the fine from 200 to maybe $100 a day. MR. LARSEN: I agree with that. I do. I think that's a fair -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear someone making a motion? MR. KELLY: Well, if they're asking till May, do you want to give them until the end of May? That's just another month and a half Page 92 September 25, 2008 or so. MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Please? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can possibly give them until our May hearing. MR. LARSEN: I think that's fair, sure. I believe that's an appropriate suggestion. I do not know when the May hearing is, but I guess we can just say until the date specified in May for this board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, we usually give a date specific instead of -- MS. RAWSON: We do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- meeting specific. MS. RAWSON: I can only guess what Thursday that would be in May, but I'm sure they haven't worked out the schedule yet. They're very efficient, but -- MR. LARSEN: Oh, they wouldn't be coming back on the calendar in May, would they? MS. RAWSON: They might. It would be May 21st. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So if we give -- that would be about seven months out, eight months out? MR. KELLY: Seven and a half. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Give them eight months out and -- MR. LARSEN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- that would give them past our May meeting, correct? MR. LARSEN: And your suggested motion was $100 per day? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It wouldn't be my motion, it would be someone else's. MR. PONTE: It was my suggestion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It was Mr. Ponte's suggestion. MR. LARSEN: It would be $100? Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I guess Mr. Ponte, do you want to make the Page 93 September 25, 2008 motion? MR. PONTE: I think you have it all right there. MR. LARSEN: Okay. I'd make a motion that the penalty be imposed -- or the recommendation of the county be amended to give the respondent until May 21 st, 2009 in order to obtain the building permit or to obtain a Collier County demolition permit be extended until May 21 st. And that a fine of $100 per day be imposed until the violation is abated. I so move. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll so second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of the abatement in order to MR. LARSEN: Right, all other parts of the recommendation, with the exception that the operational cost be paid within 30 days remain the same. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. DEAN: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. MR. KELLY: Also, if I may, I'd like to add that invite the respondents to participate in an open house down at the Housing and Human Services Division. And I've written the date and the time on the back of this, if you'd like to pass it on. MR. JACOB GALLEGOS: Appreciate that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, next case will be BCC Page 94 September 25, 2008 versus D.C. KerckhoffCompany. MR. KELLY: Jean, I need one of those handy-dandy forms, as I need to recuse myself. Kerckhoffs our customer. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And I need to recuse myself also, so we'll need two, Jean. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman will be voting on this case and this case only. MS. WALDRON: For the record, also, they have agreed to a stipulation agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, we're able to break Mr. Kitchell Snow of talking too fast so -- MR. SNOW: My reputation precedes me. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kraenbring is going to be stepping out for a minute. He's not feeling well. So would it be proper that he not vote until the next -- MS. RAWSON: So let's be sure we have a -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a quorum. MS. RAWSON: -- quorum. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, we do. We have four. MR. DEAN: Five. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Five. Thank you. I can't count. Five voting members. So we should be fine. MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This is Case No. 2007090683. We have reached an agreement between the county and respondent as follows: They're to pay operational costs in the amount of $91.07 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days. And two: A, to submit for and obtain an improved site development plan within 180 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until such time the site development plan is obtained, or cease utilizing said property by removing all Page 95 September 25, 2008 storage, machinery, sheds, et cetera, and return the property to its original state within 180 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until said property is returned to its aforementioned state. And 2-B is: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. LARSEN: Supervisor Snow, what is the violation? MR. SNOW: The property is being utilized without first obtaining a site development plan. He's rented the property for quite some time, but it's never been approved for any use. It's vacant industrial. And he needs to have a site development plan to use that. MR. LARSEN: And what is he using it for? MR. SNOW: Usually storage of machinery, storage of product. And he does have some unpermitted sheds on there. Depending on what he wants to do with that property is going to determine how long the site development plan's going to take, what his engineer submits. My initial feeling is the 180 days is okay, but I have advised him and his counsel that if they approach the 120, 140-day mark and they don't see a whole lot of progress because of the submittal process, then we request them to come back to the board to resubmit for more time to accomplish this. But 180 days is sufficient. MR. LARSEN: Where is Elsa Street, Naples? MR. SNOW: It's in the Industrial Park, sir, up off of Pine Ridge. MR. PONTE: I have a question for you, Investigator. In the order to correct the violations, you asked the respondent to cease and desist business activities, but that's not here in this stipulated agreement. So 180 days seems very lenient indeed to me if the order to correct violation was going to be cease and desist business activity. MR. SNOW: Well, sir, we're asking him to -- as long as he's Page 96 September 25, 2008 submitting for the site development plan, and he has submitted already, he has applied, so he's in that process. So either he has to continue with that process or remove anything he's got on there. He's not actually conducting business from that site, he's using it for storage. He's got some sheds on there. So technically he could remove all that off of there and it would be fine. He's not having customers come on that. That's for employees. He's just storing product on there. He has a couple sheds and he has machinery on there. MR. PONTE: Okay, thank you. MR. LARSEN: Do I read this correct? What is the size of the property? It seems -- a legal subdivision, it says 100 acreage? (Mr. Kraenbring enters the boardroom.) MR. SNOW: Let me look, sir. It is a large parcel on there. It's 2.45 acres. MR. LARSEN: 2.45 acres. MR. SNOW: And again, depending on his utilization, what he wants to utilize that for, is going to determine how long and how expensive his site development plan is going to take. And he has applied already. He applied in February for the site development plan. But it's just no progress on it. MR. LARSEN: And during this period of time, what is going to be the status of the activity on the property? MR. SNOW: It continues in the same status. It's got the sheds on there. And again, this is typical when they are applying for a site development plan. The county allows them to continue to utilize that property, as long as they're progressing toward an end. MR. LARSEN: And the nature of the activity is heavy machinery and storage? MR. SNOW: Storage. Storage of product, machinery. He's got a few sheds on there. Page 97 September 25, 2008 And again, there's no customer contact. There doesn't look to be any electricity on the back of that property. He purchases -- he's got a property in the front. It would be landlocked, except that he owns that property in the front so he has access directly to that property. MR. LARSEN: And there's no problem with the property in the front, this is just -- MR. SNOW: No, this is just the property in the rear. MR. LARSEN: So there is no problem with ingress or, you know, exit from the property? MR. SNOW: No. No, sir. MR. LARSEN: It all goes through his. MR. SNOW: No, that's fine. The property in front is in compliance, it's just the property in the rear. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And the stipulation is where? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: (Handing.) MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any reason for a stipulation to show $250? MR. SNOW: That's a -- it's a land use issue. And this case has gone on quite some time. Again, we're talking February when the application was submitted. And we don't want to impose any undo hardship on any client. It's just a little incentive to go ahead and let's get this done. Let's get this over with and continue on with business. We don't want him to stop doing business. We don't desire to have any undo hardship on any respondent. Again, this is just to let him know we've got to get this done. 180 days is sufficient time. But ifhe runs into some roadblocks, he can always come back before this board and say I need more time. And the board has always been more lenient in that venue. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Kerckhoff, this is fine with you? You think you'd be able to do this within the time period? MR. KERCKHOFF: I hope so. $250 is a lot to pay. We've been Page 98 September 25, 2008 using the property for the same purpose for about 20 -- almost 20 years. MR. LARSEN: And you feel that you can get the site development plan and everything together within 180 days? MR. KERCKHOFF: From what I understand today, this is -- I hope I can. MR. LARSEN: Okay. All right. Well, in that case, basically I'd make a motion to approve the stipulation between the county and the respondent as so proposed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need a break again? MR. LARSEN: We're going on to old business now. THE COURT REPORTER: I wouldn't mind five minutes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Fine. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. And under old business, motion for imposition of fines and liens, BCC versus Jeffrey Macasevich. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Case No. 2006100314. F or the record, the respondent is not present. Page 99 September 25, 2008 On March 27th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order, and that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation and the respondent has not complied with the board's orders from March 27th, 2008. At this time the county is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of $150 per day for the period between July 27th, 2008 to August 4th, 2008 for a total of nine days and a total of $1,800. Operational costs in the amount of $264.18 have not been paid. MR. PONTE: Jen, I have a question. With the operational costs is -- I know that there's been a change and we're going to talk about that in the workshop, but is there -- should this operational cost then be reduced? MS. WALDRON: I think that might be a question better for Jean. Since this was ordered, I'm taking it directly off of the orders that are recorded. MS. RAWSON: This is a case that appeared before you on March 27th. And that's before the change. And on that day you ordered operational costs. So I think it's already in the order. MR. LARSEN: Is the calculation of the damages of $1,800 correct? MR. KELLY: The damage calculation is wrong. However, the amount is correct. And the reason why is because item number three has a fine of $200 per day, not 150. So the final calculation I believe is correct. MR. LARSEN: All right. Let's see here. MR. KELLY: Item number three under the order, second page. MS. WALDRON: Yeah, that should state $200 a day instead of 150. Which would be the correct amount for 1,800. MR. LARSEN: All right, number three on the order dated the 2nd day of April, 2008, if the respondent shall not comply with paragraph one of the order of the board by July 26th, 2008, then there Page 100 September 25, 2008 will be a fine of 200 per day for each day the violation remains. So the recommendation of the county is now changed to fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between July 27th, 2008 to August 4th, 2008, a total of nine days for the total of$1,800. And fines continue to accrue; is that correct? MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we impose the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LARSEN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next one will be BCC versus Mary Edwards. And Ms. Edwards is going to come up to the table here right next to Jean. Are you able to hold the mic? Not a problem? Okay, very good. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Case No. 2006080127. F or the record, the respondent is present. On March 27th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order, and that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation and the respondent has not Page 101 September 25, 2008 complied with the board's orders from March 27th, 2008. At this time the county is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of$200 per day for the period between July 27th, 2008 to September 8th, 2008, 44 days, for the total of $8,800. Operational costs in the amount of $303.13 have not been paid. And at this time, Investigator Ambach would like to just speak to the case, please. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. For the record, Investigator Christopher Ambach, A-M-B-A-C-H, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd just like to let the board know that on September 23rd, myself and Supervisor Suzanna Capasso met with a housing department representative, Tammy Hammer, and she's informed us that Ms. Edwards has applied for and has been approved for a new modular home under the Residential Rehabilitation Program, and she's working towards abatement as we speak. And again, once the violation has been abated, she can come back in front of the board at that time. But she is -- she's been in contact and they're working very closely with her. So we're very happy. MR. L'ESPERANCE: She's been in contact with who again? MR. AMBACH: With Tammy Hammer, the DR! rehabilitation specialist through the Housing Department for the Residential Rehabilitation Program. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And was a time frame given on when this may be abated? MR. AMBACH: They didn't -- no. Not a specific time frame, no. MR. KELLY: There could be a major issue here. They're not going to get a loan from the government if there's any type of lien against the property. It could halt this whole thing right in its tracks. Page 102 September 25, 2008 I would like to see if there's any way county could pull this and maybe see how the application process goes for a month or two before we continue. Because if she's been approved, then they go to find this lien, it would stop it. MS. WALDRON: We would be -- MR. LARSEN: Let me ask a question of the officer first. You stated that she's been approved for a new modular home? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: And a new modular home would be placed where? MR. AMBACH: On the existing property. MR. LARSEN: And that means the old modular home would be taken away? MR. AMBACH: The old mobile home, sir. MR. LARSEN: Old mobile home will be taken away. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. As far as I know, I'm not sure if Ms. Edwards has made a decision as to whether or not she's going to actually go forward with that. MR. LARSEN: And the violation initially was that basically she had not obtained an enclosure permit for the enclosure attached to the current mobile home? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And that would be a moot point if she gets a new home? MR. AMBACH: That would be correct. MR. LARSEN: Then I agree with Mr. Kelly. Should we place a lien against this property, you know, Ms. Edwards would probably have a major problem down the road from a title point of view. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ms. Flagg would like to speak. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, the County would very much support a continuance on this case. MR. LARSEN: For how long? Page 103 September 25, 2008 MS. RAWSON: I think the easiest way for you guys to do it is just ask the County if they would just pull it off. Because you're here because you want to impose a lien, a fine. And if you don't hear it, you know, then leave it up to Ms. Flagg to decide when she wants to put it back on. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ms. Edwards, I guess -- MR. LARSEN: Is that what the County wants to do? MS. FLAGG: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to speak at all? MS. EDWARDS: No. I don't have anything to say, really, except that I live on an extremely fixed income and I got this property as an inheritance from my father. And what he did previous, I have no idea. I know that that part has been built on that trailer, at least part of it, for 35 years. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you have applied and you've been approved and you plan on moving forward and so forth? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do you understand what we were just discussing right now? MS. EDWARDS: I certainly do. Both Lisa and Tammy have been in contact with me all the time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you do understand the conversation we just had was that we were going to possibly decide to pull it from today and then at some time in the future bring it back and hopefully -- MS. EDWARDS: I totally understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- that time in the future will be when you have a new mobile home and everything can be taken care of at that point. MS. EDWARDS: I totally understand you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We don't want to place a lien on your property which may hinder you getting approval or final Page 104 September 25, 2008 approvals and getting your mobile home. So that's where we stand right now. MS. EDWARDS: I'd rather you wouldn't do that also. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So let's -- do I hear a motion to -- MR. KELLY: I move to continue. MR. KRAENBRING: I don't think we need a motion. It's just going to -- MR. DEAN: Well, it's on the agenda. You've got to pull it, no? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's no motion that needs to be made? MS. RAWSON: I don't think you can decide what they put on the agenda. If they take it off the agenda and tell you that we're not going to hear it today, it's really up to them. MR. DEAN: But it's on there now, though, so we can still-- MS. WALDRON: We're not going to hear this today. MS. RAWSON: Okay, well-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You'd like to withdraw the case. MS. WALDRON: Yes, we'd like to withdraw this case at this time. MR. DEAN: That's what I like to hear. Okay. It's withdrawn. MR. LARSEN: I'd like to thank the officer for his candor in this matter. I mean, he was very protective of the taxpayer citizen in this regard. MR. AMBACH: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You all set? Have a great day. MS. EDWARDS: You too, all of you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just watch out backing up. There's a bigger object behind you than -- MS. EDWARDS: I'll do a rotation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. The next one is BCC versus 6240 Collier Group, Inc. Page 105 September 25, 2008 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Case No. 2007080153. F or the record, the respondent is not present. On May 22nd, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order, and that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation, and the respondent has not complied with the board's orders from May 22nd, 2008. At this time, the County is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of $150 a day for the period between August 20th, 2008 through August 29th, 2008, nine days, for the total of $1,350. The operational costs in the amount of 537.93 have not been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I take it there's no representative. Go ahead. MS. O'FARRELL: I recommend the same. This is the County's recommendation. Because Mr. Gillama (phonetic) did call me last night at 6:00 and said that he didn't have the money to do it and he would let me know when it was done. So I haven't had any contact with him whatsoever since the hearing until last night at 6: 00. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Describe to me again the nature of the business or the location, please. MS. O'FARRELL: 6240 Collier Boulevard is part of a shopping center. It includes the Goodyear -- I'm sorry, Firestone, a tattoo shop, a couple of other places. And there's a buffer that screens it between the adjacent single- family home residences. So what he's been asked to do is replace that buffer. The shrubs that he planted are doing fine. However, probably 70 percent of the trees have died. Page 106 September 25, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any new business? Consent agenda. And I guess the next thing would be request to forward cases to county . MR. KELLY: It's already been consented. Just real quick, the 31 st, is it definitely going to be back here? MS. FLAGG: Yes. MR. DEAN: Halloween night, huh? MS. WALDRON: Wear your costume. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm already wearing it. MS. WALDRON: I didn't want to say that. MR. DEAN: 6:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess the only thing left is to adjourn. Do I hear a motion? Page 107 September 25, 2008 MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second. MR. KELLY: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Lunchtime. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Gerald Lefebvre, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on or as corrected as presented Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 108 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LA I:NA E-FFIIRSST_NAMME-MIID�DLE NA E �? I� NAME OF BOARD OUNCIL,CIMMIS�S/IION,AUTHOR! OR CCOOMMITTE MAL RESt1L'(AN\[l k1 V ev`s•.i coat, Wwt� l CJ� Lr THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMI SION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON, n/YL4 I\v ciAtOc WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF CITYCOUN Y O CITY OUNTY O OTHER LOCA• L AGENCY �- /�r/, J// NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VO�E OCCUj$ED ,.... C v [���5 D� MY POSITION IS: CI O 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, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict 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 on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure 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 parent 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 to 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 capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-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 are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In 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. APPOINTED OFFICERS: x Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • 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) CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 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. LI DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST UyN2 t. z I, 'Q���Ih'L' hereby disclose that on > 0C/ (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: INIAtNs. •P •C ‘ 1 la h t7 b' c - ; (� I I. V 0�tle ` te,,,,/ ro - , JA:Aits. , 11 ANNti tai■••_. ( Ateov,61-8,-0 1 jzs-i_cr 411. ........, . , glair Date Filed Si. �re 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-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST N j ME�FI ST NAME MIDDLE E NAME BOAI),COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADORE S - / THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON fJ C1 1 6 .C-� /` WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY 0 CITY COUNTY D OTHER LOCAL AGENCY /(AY)/ - J/ NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON1 -gW H VOTT OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: / v j D 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, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict 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 on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure 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 parent 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 to 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 capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-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 are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . . . ELECTED OFFICERS: In 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. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • 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) CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 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. )4 VQ4 DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER''S NTEREST I,__!__ , hereby disclose that on__ / a ,20 : (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: C 01— ir 4/1224 2/ c 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-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2