The URL can be used to link to this page

CESM Minutes 04/02/2010 April 2, 2010 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, April 2, 20 I 0 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secretary DA TE: LOCATION: HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AGENDA April 2, 2010 at 9:00 A.M. Collier County Government Center, 330] East Tamiami Trail, Bnilding F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida 34112 NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF Till: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO. AND THERITORE MAY NEt.!) TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF TilE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE. WHICH RECORD INCLl'DISI HE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITIIER COLLIER COUNTY NOR Till' SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. L CALL TO ORDER - Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding A. Hearing rules and regulations II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 5,20]0 IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Exfension of Time I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: V. PUBLIC HEAR]NGS A. Stipulations B. Hearings L CASE NO: OWNER' OFFICER VIOLATIONS VIOLATION ADDRESS' CES))200800]5]62 ROSALIO & JUANITA AGUAYO INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER JR. COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS. CHAP f1.R 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS. ARTICLE II, FLORIIJA BUILDIN(i CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF TilE FLORIDA BUILDING CODI. SECTION 22-26(B)(104.I .3.5) CONSTRUCTION/REMODELING BEING DONI. TO SI ILl) ON PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMITS 65070520005 5 I 6 PALMETTO AVENUE, IMMOKALEE SO] 72140-CEEX20] 00000] 02 SONORA SCHUBINER DEPUTY KENNETII ROBINS "2956 CODE OF LA W & ORD.. SEC 130-67 PARKI,D BLOCKING STRIPED ACCTSS. HANDICAPPED SPACT VANDERBILT BI,ACH TURN A ROUND. (iUIYSIIORI. & VANDERBILT BEACH 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS VIOLATION ADDRESS 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: VIOI.ATION ADDRI'SS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOI.A TIONS FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: SO 168259-C E EX200900 17 I 50 OLAF CHRISTOPH DEPUTY KELLER # 2421 CODE OF LA W & ORD., SEe 130-67 HANDICAPPED SPACE; NO VISIBLE PERMIT WATERSIDE BARNES & NOBLE, 5377 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH SOl 68213-CEEX201 00001740 ,JOSEPH GALMISH DEPUTY KELLER II 242 I CODE OF LA W & ORD, SICC 130-67 IIANDICAPPED SPACE; USIN(; MOIIIICR-IN-LA W'S PI.RMIT 5628-8 STRAND BLVD SO 138051-CE EX20 I 00002664 RICHARD FOSTER CORPORAL ESPINOSA "2503 CODE OF LA W & ORD., SIT 130-67 IIANDlCAPPED SPACE HOLLYWOOD 20 TlIEATER, lAST PARKING LOI SOl66757 - CEEX20100001985 KENNETH GARSIDE DEPUTY KLlNKMANN #1660 CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEe. 130-67 HANDICAPPED SPACE: NO VISIBLE PERMIT GOLDI'N GATE CITY CI.EANIRS PR042243-CEEX20 I 00002659 ELAINE OSBOND PARK RANGER MAURICIO ARAQUISTAIN 115525 CODE OF LA W & ORD. SIT. 13IJ-66 FAILURE TO DISPLA Y PARKINC; LOT FEE. GULFSHORE BEACH ACCESS PU4624-CE EX20 I 00002220 G.L. HOMES INVESTIGATOR MIKE ANDRESKY CODE OF LA W & ORDINANCES 1997-33, SECTION 6A6 OBSERVED A BACK FLOW ASSEMBLY LA YING ON TilE GROUND. NO OWNER MAY ALTER THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLY WI I'HOlJT APPROV At. OIJ288200004 6617 MARBELLA LANE. NAPLES 2 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: VIOIArJON ADDRESS 9. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: VIOLATION ADDRESS 10. CAS!- NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS I I. CASI,. NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS 12. CASE NO OWNI':R: OFFICER: VIOLA lIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS PR044 I 41-CEEX20 I 00003143 NAPLES HILTON PARK RANGER CYNTHIA GA YNOR CODE OF LA W & ORD., SEC 130-66 FAIEURE TO DISPl.A Y PAID PARKING RECTI PT. 2ND mFENSI: CLAM PASS CEEX20100003234 ,JANET BILOTTI INVESTIGATOR JEREMY HARRELSON FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 767 AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES 2008-5 I, CHAPTER 10. SUBSECTIONS 3 AND 4. DANGEROUS DOG PARKVIEW LANE & PARKSHORE COURT CEPM20100000031 ZONIA LAMBERT TR. INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF l.A WS AND ORDINANCl.S, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SITTlON 22-231(2) DWEELlNG TIIAT IS BEING OCCUPIID WITI I CITY OF NAPLES WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS SHUT OFF. TIlE OCCUPANTS 01 IIII' DWELlING ARE USING UNAPPROVED WEEL WATER SYSTEM. 744 ] 3960006 3450 CHEROKEE STREET CEROW20090016239 TIMOTHY & BEATRICE FRANK REGGIE SMITH COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF EA WS & ORD, CI IAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES, ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGI IT OF WAY, DIVISION I GENERALLY, SECTION II0-31(A) FICUS BUSHES PLANTED IN RIGHT-OF-WAY 52953400006 2308 KINGS LAKE BLVD CEPM20090014601 CLIFFORD C. NElJSE INVESTIGATOR JONATIIAN Ml:SSI COLLIER COUNTY CODL OF l.A WS & ORD, CI IAPIU, 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING RI'GULATIONS, ARTICEE VI PROPI'RTY MAINTLNANCl. CODL, SECTION 22- 23 I( 12)(L) MISSING OR RIPPED SCRU'N PANLl.S FROM TIlL l.ANAI 62840000004 5 I I I 03RD AVENUE N. 3 13. CASE NO: OWNER OFFICER: VIOLATIONS FOLIO NO VIOLATION ADDRESS 14. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: C. Emergency Cases: VI. NEW BUSINESS CEPM20090005325 SUSAN SHROYER INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS & ORD, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCI' CODE, SECTION 22-23 I. SUBSECTIONS 121, 121l, AND I2C MISSING WINDOWS, EXTERIOR WALL DAMA<;j-. AND ROOF DAMAGE 63402960002 4728 CAPRI DRIVE CEPM20090007445 ZACK & GRETCHEN MOEN INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 2004-58, SECTION 12 THE LEFT REAR CORNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS BURNED IN A HOUSE FIRE. 37923600000 4645 13'1'11 A VENUE SW A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNLR OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS' CEPM20090004672 JOSE & SARA CARRASCO INVESTIGA TOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS & ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-243 A VACANT HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH BROKEN WINDOWS OR NO WINDOWS OR DOORS, ALLOWING ACCESS TO 1'111' INTERIOR. 62258560000 53 I 4 TEXAS A VENUE, NAPLIS CEPM20090015884 GEORGE LAMBERT INVESTIGATOR RON MARTINDALI. COLLIER COUNTY CODF OF LA WS & ORD, CIIAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTlCLL II FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. SECTION 22-26 I (103 11.2) PRIV ATE SWIMMING POOL WITHOUT SAFETY H,NCI. OR ENCLOSURE 37987440002 3580 WHITE BL VD 4 3. CASE NO OWNER: OFFICER VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO OWNER OFFICER: VIOlATIONS FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5. CASF NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOI.IO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO OWNER OFFICTR: VIOLATIONS 1'01.10 NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNLR: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CEPM20090011797 PAUL & LINDA CHRISTOPHER INVESTIGATOR RON MARTINDALE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS & ORD, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINITNANCE CODE, SECTION 22-23] (15) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PRIV ATE SWIMMING POOL 51978032049 14647 INDIGO LAKES CIRCLL NAPLES CEPM20090017256 ULlSES PUENTES, PLATINUM HOME INVESTMENT CORP. RALPH BOSA COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCT 2004-58. SECTION 12 HAZARDOUS AND DANCJEROllS BUILDING 40352480008 3231 18TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES CEPM20090002451 ARNOLD FRANK C/O EXETER HOLDING LTD INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX COLI.IER COUNTY CODE OF I.A WS & ORD, CIIAPTER 22. BUILDING AND BUILDING REGlILATlONS, ARTICLE II FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SLCTION 22-26( I 03 11.1) UNSECURED, UNSAFE BUILDING OJ{ STRlICTlJRE 67342280000 171 CARICA ROAD, NAPLES CEPM2tl090012930 KAREN A. FAIOLA INVES rIC;A!'OR CARMELO (;OMEI COLLIER COUNTY CODF OJ- LA WS AND ORDINANCIS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION (19) SI If'D INFESTED WITH BEES 36516480007 4120 29TH PLACE SW. NAPLES CEPM20090005155 ANDREW MILLER & LAUREN GILBERT INVESTIGATOR RON MARTINDALE COLI.IER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS & ORD, CIIAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS. ARTICLI VI PROPERTY MAINTINANCL CODI':, SECTION 22-231 (15) I'RIV ArE SWIMMIN(i POOL NOI MAINTAINI';() CONTAINING GREEN. POLLUTED, ALGAr FILLIJ) WATER. CONDUCIVE 10 INSLCT INIISIArION 49660104585 2063 MORNING SlIN LANE, NAPLES 5 VII. OLD BUSINESS VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Refcrenced in Suhmitted Executive Summary, B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Lien.s on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. IX. REPORTS X, NEXT MEETING DATE: April 16,2010 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier Connty Government Center, 330] East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida XI. ADJOURN 6 April 2, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Special Magistrate Garretson gave hearing Rules and Regulations. The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:15 AM RECONVENED: 9:33 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County due to payment: · Agenda #3, Case #SO 168213 - CEEX 20100001740 - BCC vs. Joseph Galmish · Agenda #5, Case #SO 166757 - CEEX 20100001985 - BCC vs. Kenneth Garside · Agenda #6, Case #PR 042243 - CEEX 20100002659 - BCC vs. Elaine Osbond · Ageuda #8, Case #PR 044141 - CEEX 20100003143 - BCC vs. Naples Hilton (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED at the request of the Deputy: · Agenda #4, Case #SO 138051 - CEEX 20100002664 - BCC vs. Richard Boster (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: · Agenda #12, Case #CEPM 20090014601 - BCC vs. Clifford C. Neuse (d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: · Agenda #4, Case #CEPM 20090017256 - BCC vs. Ulises Puentes, Platinum Home Investiment Corp. · Agenda #7, Case #CEPM 20090005155 - BCC vs. Andrew Miller & Lauren Gilbert The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. 2 April 2, 2010 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 5, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on March 5, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Extension of Time: 1. Case #CESD 20080015162 - BCC vs. Rosalio & Juanita Al!:uavo The Hearing was requested by Respondent, Juanita Aguayo, who was present. Maria Aguayo, the Respondent's daughter, served as translator. Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Kitchell Snow was present on behalf of Investigator Weldon Walker, Jr. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Adoption and Amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(B)(l04.1.3.5) Construction/remodeling being done to shed on property without Permits. Folio No.: 65070520005 Violation Address: 516 Palmetto Avenue, Immokalee The Respondent resides at 516 Palmetto Avenue, Immokalee, Florida. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent, Rosalio Aguayo, is deceased and acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's letter requesting an Extension of Time. Investigator Snow stated a Demolition Permit was issued to the Respondent and the County had no objection to granting an additional sixty (60) day extension. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time. The Respondent will have until June 2,2010 to complete demolition of the shed. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: None B. Hearings: 7. Case #PU 4624 - CEEX 20100002220 - BCC vs. G. L. Homes The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by William Fenno, Director of Land Development. Collier County Public Utilities Ordinance Enforcement Investigator Michael Andresky was present. Joe Thomas, Manager, Collier County's Water Department, appeared as a witness. 3 April 2, 2010 Violations: Code of Laws & Ordinances 1997-33, Section 6.A.6 Observed a backflow assembly laying on the ground. No owner may alter the Backflow Prevention Assembly without approval. Folio No: 00288200004 Violation address: 6617 Marbella Lane, Lot #272, Naples, Florida Mr. Fenno's mailing address is 6678 Marbella Lane, Naples, Florida 34105.. Investigator Andresky found the violation on February 11,2010. He stated service was given to Tamara Wolf, Project Manager/Vice President of G.L. Homes, on March 15,2010. He introduced the following Exhibits which were admitted into evidence: · County's Composite "A" - 3 photographs taken on February 11, 2010 · County's "B" - a copy of Work Order #114341 (one page) Mr. Fenno stated the lots were originally approved for townhouses but were subdivided to accommodate single-family homes. The problem was the County began to install water meterslbackflows in front of three homes that were under construction. He further stated the previously installed meters (for the townhouses) were being removed by Haleakala Construction on behalf of G. L. Homes and new meters were to be installed in the correct locations to provide stable service for the single-family homes. He introduced a copy of emails between himself, Todd Denney of Haleakala Construction, and Joe Thomas which was marked as Respondent's Exhibit "#1" and admitted into evidence. Mr. Fenno contended the County's Utilities Division rushed to install meters before checking the change of location. Joe Thomas, Manager, Collier County Water Department, stated Work Orders are in place for installation of all meters within a subdivision over the course of the project. Meters are installed as soon as a Permit board is posted at the site. G. L. Homes was advised to contact the County's Utility Billing to revise the meter installation requests. He stated the Notice of Violation was served because the meters that were installed, whether or not they were to be removed in the future, were to have been protected by the Contractor as required by the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate stated Mr. Fenno did not present any evidence to contradict the evidence presented by the County. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of$100.00 as well as an administrative fee of $5.00. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before May 2,2010. 4 April 2, 2010 Total Amount Due: $/55.00 10. Case #CEPM 20100000031 - BCC vs. Zonia Lambert Tr. The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. Julio Lambert, the Respondent's son, was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(2) Dwelling that is being occupied with City of Naples water and sewer connection shut off. The occupants ofthe dwelling are using an unapproved well water system. Folio No.: 74413960006 Violation Address: 3450 Cherokee Street, Nap]es, FL 34112 Mr. Lambert resides at 3450 Cherokee Street, Naples, F]orida 34112. He stated the Trust was set up for the benefit of his sons and himself. His sister, who resides in Panama, is the Trustee of the Trust and his mother resides in a nursing home. The Trust's only asset is the house. The Notice of Violation was served on January 13, 20] 0 and Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse. Investigator Mucha stated the case involved a Health, Safety and We]fare issue. The Special Magistrate allowed the case to proceed. The Special Magistrate stated the copy of the Quit Claim Deed submitted only verified that Zonia Lambert conveyed the house into the Revocable Living Trust. Because Mr. Lambert did not provide a copy of the Trust document or prove he had authority, the Special Magistrate determined he would not be permitted to represent the Trust but could appear as a witness. The Investigator introduced a copy of the Account History (provided by the City of Naples) for the property detailing the outstanding bills totaling over $1,600 which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. Mr. Lambert stated he contacted the City of Naples when he became injured and set up a payment plan, which he has been unable to maintain because his Workers' Compensation benefit payments have been delayed. He further stated the City's representatives told him as long as paid the sewer fee, he could use the well water. Investigator Mucha stated he had previously spoken with Mr. Lambert's sister to notify her of other problems at the property. He further stated the water service was shut off on March 28,2008. An anonymous complaint, made on January 5, 2010, claimed water was obtained from a neighbor's property. He conducted a site visit on January 13, 20] 0 and was informed by Mr. Lambert's 5 April 2, 2010 son that the motor for the well had been stolen and the system was no longer operational. He gave a copy of the Notice of Violation to Mr. Lambert's son and advised him the water connection must be restored. The Notice of Violation was sent, via certified mail, to the Trust. Mr. Lambert stated he and his sons moved into the property in January 2009. He reiterated he was informed it was "legal" for him to use the well. He is attempting to obtain assistance in order to pay the outstanding bill. He has been using well water for the house. The Special Magistrate stated while the Trust is responsible for the property, the Ordinance had been violated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to restore water and sewer service with active and valid accounts with the City of Naples Utilities, or vacate the premises until water and sewer service is restored, on or before Friday, April 9, 2010, or afine of$500.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation (vacating the premises) and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.73 on or before May 2, 2010. The Respondent is to notifY the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $Il2.73 RECESS: 10:52 AM RECONVENED: 11:08 AM 1. Case #SO 172140 - CEEX 20100000102 - BCC vs. Sonda Schubiner The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Sheriffs Office Deputy Kenneth Robins was present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-67 Parked blocking striped access. Handicapped space. Violation address: Vanderbilt Beach turn-around - Gulfshore & Vanderbilt Beach Supervisor Waldron stated the Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on G April 2, 2010 February 24,2010 to Michigan and then forwarded to a Naples address for delivery on March 9, 2010. She stated the case has been noticed several times. Deputy Robins introduced a photograph of the vehicle which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of$250.00 as well as an administrative fee of $5.00. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of$50.00 on or before May 2,2010. Total Amount Due: $305.00 2. Case #80 168259 - CEEX 20090017150 - BCC vs. Olaf Christoph The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Sheriff's Office Deputy Lawrence Keller who was present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-67 Handicapped space. No visible permit. Violation address: Waterside Barnes & Noble, 5377 Tamiami Trail North Supervisor Waldron stated the case has been noticed several times. The Notice of Hearing was sent via international Certified Mail to Germany on February 24,2010. The USPS indicated the document left the United States on March 2, 20 I O. Deputy Keller stated the Citation was issued on October 26,2009. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay afine of $250. 00 as well as an administrative fee of $5.00. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before May 2,2010. Total Amount Due: $305.00 14. Case #CEPM 20090007445 - BCC vs. Zack & Gretchen Moen The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondents were also present. Violations: Collier County Property Maintenance Code 2004-58, Section 12 The left rear corner of the property was burned in a house fire. Folio No.: 37923600000 7 April 2,2010 Violation Address: 4645 14th Avenue SW, Naples, FL The Respondents reside at 4625 30th Place SW, Naples, Florida. Investigator Mucha introduced three photographs of the property, taken on June 8, 2009, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and four photographs, taken on April I, 2010, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B" and admitted into evidence. He stated the structure was declared to be a Dangerous Building by the County on November 6,2009. It has been boarded and is secure. He further stated a Lis Pendens was filed against the property and it was referred to the County's Foreclosure Team. The Respondents have continued to mow the lawn and remove fallen trees because they intend to completely repair the structure. The Respondents stated there is a dispute with the insurance company because the mortgage company did not pay the insurance premiums to the insurance company. The case is in litigation and they requested additional time to settle the issue. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondents' Request for a Continuance and ordered the Respondents to provide updates to the Investigator who will determine when the case is to be placed on the docket. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 3. Case #CEPM 20090011797 - BCC vs. Paul & Linda Christopher The County was represented by Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Ron Martindale. The Respondents were not present. Marco Scola, president of Independent Brokers Realty, was present and represented Regions Bank, the current owner of the property. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(15) Failure to maintain private swimming pool Folio No: 51978032049 Violation address: 14647 Indigo Lakes Circle, Naples Mr. Scola's business address is 953 N. Collier Blvd., Marco Island, Florida 34145, and stated the property has been sold. The closing date is scheduled for April 16, 2010. His company listed the property for Regions Bank. Supervisor Letourneau stated County abated the violation on February 3, 2010. 8 April 2, 2010 Fines have accrued at the rate of$250 per day for the period from December 15,2009 through February 3, 2010 (51 days) for a total fine amount of$IO,200.00. The Operational Costs of$112.23 have been paid. The abatement costs incurred by the County of $795.00 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $10,200.00 Mr. StoIa requested dismissal of the fines and stated the Bank had no previous knowledge of the prior proceedings against the property. Supervisor Letourneau stated the County would not object since its costs were paid. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 6. Case #CEPM 20090012930 - BCC vs. Karen A. Faiola The County was represented by Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff Letourneau and Investigator Carmelo Gomez. The Respondent was present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section (19) Shed infested with bees Folio No: 36516480007 Violation address: 4120 29th Place SW, Naples The Respondent resides at 4120 29th Place SW, Naples, Florida 34116. Supervisor Letourneau stated the County abated the violations on December I, 2009. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period from October 24, 2009 through December I, 2009 (39 days) for a total fine amount of$9,750.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.87 have not been paid. The abatement costs due to the County of$342.00 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $10,209.87 The Respondent stated she hired a company in February, and the bees were completely removed from the shed. She stated the County's Contractor never asked for access to the locked shed. Any spraying done by the Contractor around the shed was not effective since the queen was not removed until the Respondent's company accessed the shed's floor boards and removed the hive and three buckets of honey cones. She introduced five photographs of the shed, taken on February 17, 2010, which were marked as Respondent's Composite Exhibit "#1" and admitted into evidence. She asked for an explanation of the charges and was told there was a charge for re-sodding around the shed. The Respondent stated no re-sodding had been done, and there was no evidence of earth being disturbed. She disputed the accuracy of the bills. 9 April 2, 2010 Supervisor Letourneau introduced the contractor's invoices for work perfonned on November 18,2009 and November 30, 2009, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He referred the Special Magistrate to Page 3 of the Minutes of October 16, 2009 (initial Hearing). The Special Magistrate stated she would take "Judicial Notice" of the document. Investigator Gomez conducted a site visit on October 26, 2009 and the bee infestation was evident. The County's Contractors were hired on November 18, 2009 and sprayed for bees. They returned on November 30, 2009 for an "exclusion," i.e., to remove the bees. The Investigator stated he returned to the property on December I, 2009 and did not see any evidence of bees. He did not inspect the shed's interior during any site visit. The Respondent's Contractor infonned her that bees would go underground in cold weather giving the appearance the infestation had been eradicated. She stated she is at home during the day and would have given access to the shed if asked by the County's contractor. She would not have hired a company in February 2010 if the problem had been corrected by the County's contractor in November 2009. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fine but, due to mitigating circumstances, reduced the total amount to $117.87. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 11. Case #CEROW 20090016239 - BCC ys. Timothy & Beatrice Frank The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Reggie Smith who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 110 Roads and Bridges, Article II, Construction in Right-of- Way, Division I Generally, Section 110-3l(A) Ficus bushes planted in Right-of-Way Folio No: 529534400006 Violation address: 2308 Kings Lake Blvd., Naples Investigator Smith stated the Notice of Violation was personally served to Timothy Frank on November 30,2009. Supervisor Waldron stated the Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19,2010 and was signed for on March 20, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 22, 2010. ]0 April 2, 20 I 0 Investigator Smith introduced the following Exhibits which were marked and admitted into evidence: · County's "A" - one photograph taken on October 14,2009 · County's "B" - one photograph taken on November 20,2009 . County's "c" - one photograph taken on April 1,2010 The bushes at the Respondents' property were measured to be between 5 and 6 feet high and posed a Health and Safety hazard (visibility to drivers). While some bushes were trimmed and others were relocated, the violation has not been completely abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either obtain a Right-of-Way Permit, if possible, from the Collier County Department of Transportation, or to remove the bushes to a location outside the right-of-way (no Permit required) on or before April 5, 2010, or afine of $200. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $112.29 on or before May 2,2010. The Respondents are to notifY the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.29 13. Case #CEPM 20090005325 - BCC vs. Susan Shroyer The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231, Subsections 121, l2B, and 12C Missing windows, exterior wall damage, and roof damage Folio No: 63402960002 Violation address: 4728 Capri Drive, Naples, FL The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19,2010 and was delivered on March 20, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 15,2010. II April 2, 2010 Investigator Musse introduced the following Exhibits which were marked and admitted into evidence: · County's Composite "A" - four photographs taken on May 11, 2009 · County's Composite "8"- six photographs taken on August 18,2009 · County's Composite "c" - four photographs taken on April 1,2009 The Investigator spoke with the Respondent's son who stated he intended to repair the problems, but did not have the funds. The violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain the proper permits to repair all damages noted on the Property Maintenance Checklist, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion on or before April 9, 2010, or afine of $200. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of$112.64 on or before May 2,2010. The Respondent is to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.64 C. Emergency Cases: None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case #CEPM 20090004672 - BCC vs. Jose & Sara Carrasco The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-243 A vacant house under construction with broken windows or no windows or doors, allowing access to the interior Folio No: 62258560000 Violation address: 5314 Texas Avenue, Naples 12 April 2, 2010 The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19,2010 and was forwarded on March 24, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 15,2010. Investigator Sykora stated Part "B" of the Order issued on September 18, 2009 was abated by the County by boarding the property on October 12, 2009. Part "c" of the Order (repair or demolish) has not been abated. For Part "B," fines have accrued at the rate of$100 per day for the period from September 20, 2009 through October 12, 2009 ( 14 days) for a total fine amount of $1,400.00. For Part "C," fines have accrued at the rate of $1 00 per day for the period from December 19, 2009 through April 2, 2010 (105 days) for a total fine amount of $10,500.00. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.78 have not been paid. The abatement costs incurred by the County of$3,275.00 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $15,292.78. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $15,292.78 and notedfines will continue to accrue until Part "C" of the previously issued Order has been abated. 2. Case #CEPM 20090015884 - BCC vs. Geor!!e Lambert The County was represented by Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Ron Martindale. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-261(103.11.2) Private swimming pool without safety fence or enclosure Folio No: 37987440002 Violation address: 3580 White Blvd, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19,2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 15,2010, Supervisor Letourneau stated the Respondent has not abated either Part "B" or Part "c" ofthe Order issued on October 16, 2009 For Part "8" (install temporary barrier), fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period from October 20,2009 through April 2, 2010 (165 days) for a total fine amount of $33,000.00. 13 April 2, 2010 For Part "c" (install permanent barrier), fines have accrued at the rate of $200 per day for the period from November 17, 2009 through April 2, 2010 (137 days) for a total fine amount of $27,400.00. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed Operational Costs of$ll7.70 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $60,517.70. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of$60,517. 70 and noted fines will continue to accrue. 5. Case #CEPM 20090002451 - BCC vs. Arnold Frank c/o Exeter Holdinl!, LTD. The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz Box. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(103.11.1) Unsecured, unsafe building or structure Folio No.: 67342280000 Violation Address: 171 Carica Road, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on March 19,2010 and was signed for on March 22, 20 I O. The property and the Courthouse were posted on March 11,2010. Investigator Box stated the violation was abated by the County on October 12,2009. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period from September] 2, 2009 through October 12, 2009 (31 days) for a total fine amount of$7,750.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of$117.6l have not been paid. The abatement costs incurred by the County of$7,254.00 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $15,121.61. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of$15,121,61. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. None 14 April 2, 2010 B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE: April 16, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. RECESS: 12:24 PM RECONVENED: 1:02 PM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 9. Case #CEEX 20100003234 - BCC vs. Janet Bilotti The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present and represented by her attorney, Michael McDonald, The County was represented by Assistant County Attorney Colleen Greene and Domestic Animal Services Animal Control Officer Bonnie Kubicsek. Violations: Florida Statutes Chapter 767 and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances 2008-51, Chapter 10, Subsections 3 and 4 Dangerous dog Violation Address: Parkview Lane and Parkshore Court The Special Magistrate stated she does not rule on Florida Statutes but only on the applicable sections of the County's Ordinance which references Florida Statutes. She noted the proceeding was a Trial de Novo and was televised over the Coun(y's cable channel as well as recorded. She stated the Hearing would be conducted as a Court proceeding, all testimony would be taken under oath, and this was the first case to be heard under the revised Special Magistrate Ordinance. Neither attorney elected to make an Opening Statement. The Countv oresented its case: Frank Szot, the victim, resides at 630 Fountainhead Way, Naples, Florida, had prepared a written statement of the incident (dated February 14,2010) which the 15 April 2, 2010 Special Magistrate reviewed. The Special Magistrate stated the document would not be admitted into evidence as an Exhibit but will be considered as a demonstrative document and included as a part of the record. Attorney McDonald objected to any portions ofMr. Szot's statement which were hearsay. The Special Magistrate explained while the Ordinance which governs the Special Magistrate Hearings allows hearsay testimony to be presented, she is precluded from ruling on hearsay. She further stated portions of Mr. Szot's narrative will be considered as direct testimony. The incident occurred on Monday, November 9, 2009 at 8:30 PM (undisputed). Assistant Attorney Greene stated Mr. and Mrs. Szot will testify to the damages sustained by their dog because information was not included in the narrative. The dog received subsequent care by a local Veteranian and the family incurred bills for the treatement. The Veteranian's treatment was offered as confirmation of the injuries which the victim claimed his dog had sustained. Mr. Szot stated the lacerations sustained by his dog ("Peanut") were deep and required surgery, instead of sutures. "Peanut" was kept overnight by the Veteranian. Attorney McDonald objected to any testimony from Mr. Szot concerning what he was told by his Veteranian The Special Magistrate stated Mr. McDonald's objection will be noted as an ongoing objection. He further objected to any rendering of expert opinion by the witness as to the medical conclusions of the Veteranian. The Special Magistrate sustained Attorney McDonald's objection. She stated she wanted to know only where the lascerations were located on Peanut's body, not the diagnostic details. Mr. Szot described the locations of the injuries. "Peanut" died one week after the incident. He stated his goal was not to have the Respondent's dog put down, but to ensure the provisions of the Ordinance were enforced to require the Respondent's dog to be walked only when it is muzzled and to safely restrict the dog to its yard to prevent it from running loose, i.e., off property. Cross-examination of Mr. Szot bv Attornev McDonald: He directed the following questions to Mr. Szot: · What was "Peanut's" age at the time of death? o 14 years · Did he ever own any other dogs during the l4-year period he owned Peanut? o Yes · Did "Peanut" every growl at other dogs during his l4-year lifetime? 1(, April 2, 2010 o "Peanut" growled only when he was a young dog and barked only when someone rang the door bell o "Peanut" did not growl at either a person or another animal when walked Attorney Greene objected to the relevance of the questions. Attorney McDonald stated the purpose of the questions was to determine the character and nature of"Sadie," and if she was correctly labeled as a dangerous dog or if the situation was triggered by circumstances. The Special Magistrate stated she would allow some latitude, but preferred presentation of the specifics of the case rather than historic data. Cross-examination of Mr. Szot (continued): · When was Mrs. Bilotti first seen on the night of the incident? o She approached at a right angle to Mr. Szot, approximately 20 to 25 feet from the comer and Mr. Szot was about the same . When did you see her dog? o A second or so later · What was the distance between Mrs. Bilotti and "Sadie"? o Approximately six to eight feet · Did Mrs. Bilotti.s dog, "Sadie," stand and growl at you? o It did not "stand" -- it kept moving . How did it move? o In a crouched position toward the comer o "Sadie" saw "Peanut" as they approached the comer . What did you do? o Mr. Szot stated he kept walking, looking toward Mrs. Bilotti, expecting her to look up and see him but she did not - she was distracted by her phone. Then it was too late to pull "Peanut" back because "Sadie" was on him . Had Mr. Szot ever seen "Sadie" before the night of the incident? o No · Did he have any evidence of his own knowledge that "Sadie" has ever harmed anyone else? Attorney Greene objected. Attorney McDonald restated the question to Mr. Szot. · Prom your own knowledge, have you ever seen any activity regarding "Sadie" to indicate aggressive behavior? o He stated he had never seen "Sadie" before the night ofthe incident Continuation of the Countv's case: Mrs. Joan Szot was called to testify. Attorney McDonald stated he would object if the testimony to be presented was cummulative. 17 April 2, 20 10 The Special Magistrate asked Mrs. Szot if she could confirm the contents of her husband's written statement which she did. Attorney Greene stated Mrs. Szot's testimony would be the same as her husband's. It was decided her testimony was not necessary since it would not add any new information. Attorney McDonald elected not to cross-exmaine the County's witness. Officer Bonnie Kubicsek was called to testify concerning her initial determination declaring the dog as dangerous. Attorney McDonald objected, stating only a Special Magistrate could make such a legal detennination. The Special Magistrate explained the Ordinance required an intial determination to be made by an Animal Control Officer, and she would review the determination within a Trial de Novo. The objection was noted, but was overruled. Officer Kubicsek confirmed her status as an Animal Control Officer for Collier County's Domestic Animal Services, and stated her mailing address was 7610 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34104. She testified: · A call was received in November 2009 and was answered by Officer Harrelson who was no longer employed by DAS · Her responsibility is to review all dangerous dog cases after an initial investigation was conducted by the investigating officer · The severity of the injuries sustained by "Peanut" was the reason "Sadie" was declared to be dangerous · The criteria for "serious injury" was outlined in the Ordinance Cross-examination of Officer Kubicsek bv Attornev McDonald: . Did you make an independent evaluation of "Sadie" other than reviewing the initial report? o She stated she reviews all cases that come through DAS including the officer's report and sworn statements of witnesses. I made a determination after consulting the County's Ordinance and the State's Statutues. · Your determination was based upon one incident? o Correct . Do you have any direct knowledge of any other incidents involving "Sadie"? o No . Have you ever seen "Sadie"? o Yes - the dog was seen at the DAS' offices with her owner . What did the dog do? o She was sitting on the floor of the office · Did the dog growl at you or attack you? o No 18 April 2, 2010 . Did the dog threaten you? Attorney Greene objected to the relevance of the last question. The case was concerned only with the incident of November 9, 2009 and the actions of "Sadie" toward "Peanut" at that time. The Attorneys disagreed concerning the necessity to establish the character of "Sadie," Attorney Greene stated the only considerations should be the language of the Ordinance and whether or not to declare the dog as dangerous based on the incident investigated by Domestic Animal Services. The Special Magistrate requested Attorney Greene to refer to the specific section of the Ordianance. Section 14-35, "Dangerous or vicious dogs; definitions and procedures," of Collier County Ordinance 2007-23, as amended, states: "(a) Definitions. (1) Dangerous or vicious dog means any dog that according to the records of the appropriate authority: b. Has severely i~ured or killed a domestic animal while off the owner's property; (3) Severe injury means any injury that results in broken bones, multiple bites, or disfiguring lacerations requiring sutures or reconstructive surgery." Attorney Greene stated the County's Ordinance does not have a provision regarding the propensity of the dog to behave badly or well. The Ordinance requires a finding, based on the incident at issue, that the dog is in violation of the Ordinance. Attorney McDonald stated the Ordinance was passed after the incident occurred and his client had no option other than to proceed under the new procedures. The Special Magistrate clarified the Ordinance was in place prior to the incident while the Amendment occurred after the incident. The only change was to give the Special Magistrate jurisdiction to conduct a Trial de Novo to review the initial determination made by Domestic Animal Services and decide if a dog should be labeled as dangerous. Attorney McDonald stated the Ordinance, if interrupted as suggested by the County's Attorney, was "nonsense" because every dog that has ever growled or barked at another dog can now be classified as dangerous and required to be muzzled. Every dog that has ever defended its owner from an intruder or an attacker is now a dangerous dog. He further stated the issue should not be whether the dog, itself, is dangerous as evidenced by a one-time incident. If a dog defends its owner during an attack, it should not be declared dangerous because it was protecting its owner. He suggested the Ordinance is unconstiutionally vague. 19 April 2, 2010 Attorney Greene responded the provision for defintion of a dangerous dog and the factors to be considered in declaring a dog to be dangerous were taken directly from Florida's Statutes (Chapter 767). The Special Magistrate stated she cannot rule on the Constitutionality of an issue, and applies the provisions of the Ordinance as it stands until it is overturned. Cross-examination of Officer Kubicsek (continued): · At what point in time was the dog, "Sadie," required to be muzzled? o The dog was declared to be dangerous on January 8, 2010, approximately two months after the incident · Why was the dog allowed to "menance the population" for two months? Attorney Greene objected to the question as argumentative. Officer Kubicsek explained an investigation letter is sent to the owner informing him/her of the restrictions to be followed to keep the dog confined. The dog is to be muzzled until the investigation is completed. The dog was declared dangerous on January 8, 2010 but is still being walked without a muzzle using a retractable leash. · Is the definition of a "muzz]e" in the Ordinance? o It is a device that prevents a dog from biting while allowing it to breathe/pant, and cannot cause any injury to the dog while being worn. Re-direct bv Attornev Greene: · In your opinion as the supervising Animal Control Investigator, did the dog meet the initial qualifications of the Ordinance to be declared as dangerous? Attorney McDonald objected on the grounds that it was a question of law to be decided by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate sustained the objection and narrowed the question - did the dog meet the requirements within the purview of what the Officer was required to do under the Ordinance? Attorney Greene agreed stating Officer Kubicsek was the officer in charge of making the initial determination of the dog. Attorney McDonald objected as outside the scope and said the question had already been asked and answered. The Special Magistrate stated the question could be answered as "Yes" or "No." · Officer Kubicsek responded "yes." The Respondent's case was presented: · Jeannie Bates was called to testify, and her address is 2496 Kirkwood Avenue, Nap]es, Florida 341 ]2. 20 April 2, 2010 Ms. Bates is employed through the SW Florida Professional Dog Trainers Alliance which is in partnership with the Humane Society of Naples. She stated the Alliance provides canine training and behavioral services at the shelter. She has been training professionally with the Humane Society for the past five years and is a member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, a professional member of the International Association of Canine Professionals, and a Ccrtified Evaluator for Delta Society and the American Kennel Club. She also sees private clients on a weekly basis. Examination of Ms. Bates by Attornev McDonald: · Have you ever encountered "Sadie," Mrs. Bilotti's dog? o Yes . Under what circumatances? o The dog has been enrolled in group training classes at the Kirkwood Avenue Center. "Sadie" has attended 8 classes. · Have you been directly engaged with "Sadie" during those classes? o Yes. She came shortly after the incident. A behaviorial assessment was performed and the dog was not deemed to be a menace or dangerous. "Sadie" has been enrolled in basic training in the group classes which are approximately one hour for each session and attended by 5 to 9 dogs. · What is done during the group classes? o Basic obedience training. "Sadie" was very well behaved. · Did you observe "Sadie" interact with other dogs? o No signs of aggression toward other dogs. Attorney Greene objected to the relevance of the dog training officer's testimony. The issue was to assess "Sadie's" chacteristics only on November 9th, the day of the incident, when the dog attacked the dog, "Peanut," causing lacerations. "Sadie's" previous history was not relevant. Attorney McDonald stated he was required to make a record regardless of the Special Magistrate's ultimate interpretation of the Ordinance. His suggested interpretation of the Ordinance is to determine whether or not the dog is overall a dangerous dog and not based on one occasion. The Special Magistrate stated she would allow some latitude and overruled Attorney Greene's objection subject to Attorney McDonald not going "too far afield." She asked for clarification of the date when "Sadie" first attended classes at the Kirkwood Center. (Response) · "Sadie" began classes approximately ten weeks ago or after the incident. Examination of Ms. Bates by Attorney McDonald (continued): · Did "Sadie" show affection toward any of the other dogs? o Her behavior was totally neutral. Had her behavior been different, she would have been placed in a special class for growly dogs 2] April 2, 2010 · Was "Sadie" aggressive toward human beings? a No · Do you have an opinion as to whether or not "Sadie" is a dangerous dog? a She stated they conduct temperament --- Attorney Greene objected to the opinion testimony because the witness was not qualified to render an opinion. This is an interpretation of the application of the County's Ordinance. The objection was sustained. Attorney McDonald asked to proffer for the record. a Temperament testing is done for the Hwnane Society and "Sadie" was tested for ten problem areas - everything from dominance through hyper prey drive --- The Special Magistrate stated she anticipated by "proffer" that Attorney McDonald would summarize rather than ask the witness to give her specific testimony. He responded that the testimony was too complex to be summarized. The Special Magistrate asked the witness to present a brief explanation. The witness reiterated the dog passed all ten elements of the temperament test which is standarized and nationally accepted Cross-examination of Ms. Bates hv Attornev Greene: · When did "Sadie" pass the ten elements of the test? a Approximately 10 weeks ago when she started attending the program. When asked about when "Sadie" started the program, the witness could not remember the exact date, only that it was after the date of the incident with '''Peanut.'' · What was the reason given by Mrs. Bilotti for bringing her dog into the Center for a behavioral assessment? a She menetioned "Sadie" had been involved in an incident with another dog and wanted to know if she was handling her dog appropriately. · Were you aware of any other incidents involving "Sadie" other than the November 9,2009 incident? a No Continuantion of the Resoondent's case: Mrs. Bilotti was called as a witness and testified her residence is 656 Parkview Lane, Naples, Florida. She stated "Sadie" was rescued by her son approximately 3 Y2 years ago and she inherited the dog during Thanksgiving 2008 when her son moved to California. Examination of Mrs. Bilotti hv Attornev McDonald: · Since "Sadie" has resided with you, has she ever been involved in an altercation with another dog? a Only when someone approached the witness - as her protector - or if 22 April 2, 2010 another dog was coming at her. One other time, an unleashed dog ran at "Sadie" from across the street. · During that incident, did "Sadie" bite the other dog? o No The witness was asked to described the incident of November 9,2009 and stated she considered the incident to have been a dog fight - not a dog attack. She stated she rarely walked her dog late at night. She was reading a text message on her phone and, as she looked up, saw a man approaching and was frightened. She jumped a bit and her dog reacted. She stated "Peanut" did growl and the dogs began to fight. She was too far away then but knows now not to use a retractable leash. She further stated Dr. Szot did nothing to separate the dogs until she did so and fell on the asphalt breaking her toe. She recalled Dr. Szot walked away with his dog on the leash. Examination of Mrs. Bilotti (continued): · Did you hear "Peanut" growl before "Sadie" growled? o Yes - "Sadie" doesn't growl · Could you see the other dog? o She only saw the figure of a man and was frightened . Could you see the dog as it growled? o She could tell it was a small dog . What happened when "Sadie" went over? o She heard two dogs "arguing" - fighting. She has learned through the training that dogs do fight. . Were you able to see? o No - T separated the dogs and they [Dr. Szot and "Peanut"] walked off. The witness stated she paid $1,800 in Vet bills for "Peanut." . Was "Sadie" protecting you? o Yes Attorney McDonald formally requested a Trier of Fact View of the dog, "Sadie" (i.e., the Special Magistrate to examine the dog). Attorney Greene objected to moving the venue to the parking lot in view of the initial determination already made by Domestic Animal Services. The Special Magistrate declined to move the proceedings to the parking lot but offered to walk by the Respondent's car at the conclusion of the Trial. She requested to see a photograph ofthe dog, "Sadie." Attorney McDonald stated the notebook he provided contained photographs. Cross-examination of Mrs. Bilotti hv Attornev Greene: . What type of dog is "Sadie?" o She is a mixture of greyhound and some other type of hound - possibly Sharpei. . Do you know her age? 23 April 2, 20 10 o It has been approximated by different Vets as about six. . What is the approximate weight of the dog? o About 40 pounds. · Did you see the two dogs interacting in the altercation that you described? o I saw two dogs fighting. . Did you see the lacerations on "Peanut?" o Dr. Szot walked away with his dog on the leash. · Do you dispute that your dog,"Sadie," caused lascerations to "Peanut?" o I've been told that is correct and I paid the Vet's bills, but I can't answer that under oath because I don't know. · As evidence of your good will, you paid the costs of "Peanut's" Vet bills? o Yes, and for when they decided to put the dog down. · Are you aware of an incident with a dog owner named Diane Dewaive, a resident on Gulf Shore Avenue? o No - I don't know that name. · She used to live across the street from you and you are not aware of her? o No, I don't know them. Re-direct hv Attornev McDonald: · The previous growling incident occurred with a dog across the street? o Yes, but I don't know their names - it could be them, they were renting and only lived there a short while. · When the dogs were fighting, the little dog was biting "Sadie" as well? o The little dog was definitely the aggressor. Attorney McDonald stated the notebook he presented to the Special Magistrate contained affidavits from approximately 25 indivdiuals and offered them in lieu of testimony. Attorney Greene renewed her objection regarding relevance. Attorney McDonald stated the affidavits and photographs of "Sadie" were being offered as evidence. The Special Magistrate offered both sides to admit photographs of the dogs. Attorney Greene further objected to admission of the notebook's contents because she did not have an opportunity to review the documents since it was handed to her just after the proceedings began. The Special Magistrate stated if Attorney Greene discovered something, after the Hearing concluded, that was objectionable, she would have the ability to advise Mr. McDonald and both attorneys could submit emails containing their comments concerning the affidavits. Attorney Greene requested to provide Mr. and Mrs. Szot with an opportunity to provide character affidavits for their dog, "Peanut." Attorney McDonald did not object. The Special Magistrate stated both attorneys will be given one week to submit their documentation to her. Attorney McDonald requested an opportunity to submit a Memorandum of Law. 24 April 2, 2010 The Special Magistrate stated she would allow Attorney Greene to respond to any Memorandum submitted by Attorney McDonald and confirmed that photographs may be submitted by each side. [The Transcriptionist was requested to identify the exhibits by number. Refer to "Identification of Respondent's Exhibit" on Page 26.] Attorney Greene will submit the Szot's photographs along with their affidavits and she will provide a copy to Attorney McDonald. The Special Magistrate stated submission of evidence will be left open until Friday, April 9, 2010, and her Opinion will be written within thirty days. Attorney Greene did not object to the stated time frame but requested the Respondent keep her dog in compliance with the requirements of the County's Ordinance and confirmed the initial determination will stand until the Special Magistrate has ruled. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent's testimony that she was no longer using a retractable leash and requested that Officer Kubicsek state the requirements. Officer Kubicsek stated: . When the dog is walked, it must be on a leash and wearing a "basket" muzzle. · If the dog is outsidc in a yard that is not fenced, it must be kept in a 6 x 6 enclosure, i.e., with a top, bottom, and four sides. · If the yard is fenced, the dog may be walked outside without a muzzle as long as the owner is present. The Special Magistrate reviewed the above-referenced conditions and asked if the Respondent had any questions. The Respondent indicated she understood the restrictions. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 2:14 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING Breuda Garretson, Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented ~, or as amended 25 April 2, 2010 Exhibit List Countv's Exhibit: Document Description Narrative statement of incident (November 9, 2009) (5 pages) Signed by: Frank A. and Joan K. Szot (Affim1ed by Frank A. Szot, but not notarized) Dated: February 14, 2010 Marked: County's Composite Exhibit "A" Respondent's Exhibits: 18 pages of photographs of Respondent's dog, "Sadie," shown with adults, children, and other dogs in various locations. Some photographs contained descriptive captions, but dates were not identified Marked: Respondent's Composite Exhibit "1" One-page Affidavit of Christina Forbes dated February 14, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: Christina Forbes did not sign the Affidavit, and the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat by signing the document as both Affiant and Notary Public.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "2" Statement by Michael Salke (Scrivener's Note: The document was not dated or notarized.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "3" Medical Reports from Animal Dermatology and Allergy for office visits on January 12, 2009 and January 26, 2009 (2 pages each) Signed by: Glen Burkett, BY Sc. Marked: Respondent's Composite Exhibit "4" Medical Report: skin test results from Animal Dermatology and Allergy for exam date of January 26, 2009 (2 pages) I Marked: Respondent's Composite Exhibit "5" One-page Affidavit of Christine Knudsen dated February 16, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: Christine Knudsen did not sign the Affidavit, and the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat by signing the document as both Affiant and Notary Public.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "6" One-page Affidavit of Janet Bilotti dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "7" One-page Affidavit of Lisa S. Hogan dated February 2, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "8" 26 April 2, 2010 Respondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One-page Affidavit of Christopher Melfi dated February 3, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: The Jurat was incorrectly completed by the Notary.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "9" Two-page Affidavit of Stephen Swiecicki dated January 26,201 0 Marked: Respondent's Composite Exhibit "10" One-page Affidavit of Al Buschauer dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "11" One-page Affidavit of Barry A. Meltzer dated January 25,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "12" One-page Affidavit of Louis A. Rizzo dated January 24,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "13" One-page Affidavit of Katelyn Witsell dated January 28,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "14" One-page Affidavit of Richard W. Shaffer, II dated January 26,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "15" One-page Affidavit of Jack Clemence dated January 23,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "16" One-page Affidavit of Ann B. Melfi dated February I, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "17" One-page Affidavit of Anne L. Fitzgerald dated January 26,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "18" One-page Affidavit of Gisselle Calleja dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "19" 27 April 2, 2010 Resoondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Descriotion One-page Affidavit of Pam Durkin dated January 22, 20] 0 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "20" One-page Affidavit of Ear! Harrison dated February 2,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "21" One-page Affidavit of Gregory E. Wallace dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "22" One-page Affidavit of Bill Martin dated January 25, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "23" One-page Affidavit of Rick Bowerman dated January 25,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "24" One-page Affidavit of Tatum Purslow dated January 25,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "25" One-page Affidavit of Peter Cullen dated January 26,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "26" One-page Affidavit of Chris L. Carlson dated January 27, 20 10 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "27" One-page Affidavit of Robert Shockley dated January 22,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "28" One-page Affidavit of Sheryl Hilburn dated January 26, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was missing information.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "29" One-page Affidavit of Joseph A. Daniels dated January 27,20] 0 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "30" 28 April 2, 2010 ResDondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One-page Affidavit of Rev. Eugene Bilotti dated January 25,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "31" One-page Affidavit of William C. Simpson, TIT (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was not dated, The Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "32" One-page Affidavit of Judy Cunningham dated January 24,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "33" One-page Affidavit of Meghan Murphy-Goode dated February I, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "34" One-page Affidavit of Patrick Joseph Goode, II dated January 25, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "35" One-page Affidavit of Lorraine C. Davis dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "36" One-page Affidavit of Neal Bobba dated January 27, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "37" One-page Affidavit of Jay Murphy datcd January 21, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "38" One-page Affidavit of David H. Collins dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "39" One-page Affidavit of Christina Heller dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "40" One-page Affidavit of Richard C. Ainsworth dated January 26,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "41" One-page Affidavit of Ronnie Hilburn dated January 29, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was dated 01/29/10 but was notarized on 01/28/10.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "42" 29 April 2, 2010 Respondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One-page Affidavit of Paul 1. Bovio dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "43" One-page Affidavit of Denise Collins (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was not dated.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "44" One-page Affidavit of Denise A. Russo dated January 22,2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "45" One-page Affidavit ofJean M. Durkin dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "46" One-page Affidavit of Mayra Y. Maya dated January 25,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "47" One-page Affidavit of Sean Murphy dated January 25, 2010 Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "48" One-page Affidavit of Jon Spencer dated January 25,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the JuraL) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "49" One-page Affidavit of Michael Szugyi dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jural.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "50" One-page Affidavit of Kim Oplt dated January 22,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the JuraL) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "51" One-page Affidavit of JeffOplt dated January 21,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the JuraL) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "52" One-page Affidavit of Gary Skelly (Scrivener's Note: The Affidavit was not dated completely and the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "53" 30 April 2, 2010 Respondent's Exhibits (continued) Document Description One-page Affidavit of Den a D. Baker, DVM, dated January 29, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "54" One-page Affidavit of Luis Colon dated January 27, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "55" One-page Affidavit of Lawrence A. Goodson dated February 23,2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jural.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "56" One-page Affidavit of Cheryl M. Tamowicz dated March 4, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jural.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "57" One-page Affidavit of Glenn Jenkins dated February 18, 2010 (Scrivener's Note: the Notary incorrectly completed the Jurat.) Marked: Respondent's Exhibit "58" JURAT (format): STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Sworn to (or Affirmed) and subscribed before me this (name of verson makinf! statement). day of 20_, by (Notary Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC Print Notary Name: Personally known: OR Produced Identification: Type ofIdentification produced: (Refer to "GOVERNOR'S REFERENCE MANUAL FOR NOTARIES," State of Florida, Page 30) 3]