Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/28/1990 1990 Code Enforcement Board June 28, 1990 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY DATE: June 28, 1990 TIME: 9:00 A.M. PLACE: 3rd Floor Boardroom, Building "F", Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida CEB STAFF PRESENT ANDREWS EXC. CLARK X CONSTANTINE X MANALICH X ..- LAMOUREUX X SMITH X LAZARUS X WILSON X PEDONE X YAVANOVICH X STRAIN X TOMASINO X WILLIAMS X DAHIR X MINUTES BY: Sherry L. Keaton, Recording Secretary and Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk CALLED TO ORDER AT: 9:00 A.M. ADJOURNED: 10:55 A.M. PRESIDING: Mr. Timothy Constantine, Chairman ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA: Six items by Mr. Bill Smith, Compliance Service Coordinator. Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY -. ITEM: COMMENTS: ITEM: COMMENTS: ITEM: COMMENTS: ITEM: COMMENTS: ITEM: COMMENTS: ITEM: COMMENTS: ITEM: MOTION: JUNE 28, 1990 Case No. CEB 90-035 Mr. Bill Smith, Compliance Service Coordinator, explained that Case No. CEB 90-035 has been postponed until July 27, 1990. ***** Case No. CEB 90-021 Mr. Bill Smith explained that Case No. CEB 90-021 has been dismissed. ***** Case No. CEB 90-029 Mr. Bill Smith explained that Case No. CEB 90-029 has been dismissed. ***** Case No. CEB 90-030 Mr. Bill Smith explained that Case No. 90-030 has been dismissed. ***** Case No. CEB 90-031 Mr. Bill Smith explained that Case No. 90-031 has been dismissed. ***** Case No. CEB 90-032 Mr. Bill Smith explained that Case No. 90-032 has been dismissed. ***** Minutes of March 22, 1990 Made by Mr. Pedone that the minutes of March 22, 1990 be approved as presented. Seconded by Mr. Lazarus. Carried unanimously. Page 2 ~. ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JUNE 28, 1990 ***** ITEM: Minutes of April 26, 1990 Made by Mr. Strain that the minutes of April 26, 1990 be approved with the following changes to Case No. 90-028, J.W. Craft, page 32, MOTION: The vote should reflect a 5/0 vote with Mr. Lamoureux abstaining, rather than a 6/0 vote. Seconded by Mr. Pedone. Carried unanimously. MOTION: ***** CASE NO: CEB 90-036 RESPONDENT: Mr. Michael David Holland LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 5881 Shirley Street, in J & C Industrial Park, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; except the East 30 feet, which is reserved for road right-of-way and LESS AND EXCEPT: The South 100 feet of the North 200 feet of the East 140 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. VIOLATION: Sections 5,6,7,8, and 9 of Ordinance No. 88-45, the Collier County Litter Ordinance. COMMENTS: Compliance Services Enforcement Coordinator Smith informed that the recorder and the Board have been provided with Composite Exhibit "A", and requested that this be admitted into evidence relative to Code Enforcement Board 90-036, Mr. Michael David Holland, Respondent. The consensus was to admit Composite Exhibit "A" into evidence for Case No. 90-036. Mr. Smith said the respondent was properly notified as required, and is not present, adding that Mr. Holland is charged with being in violation of Sections 5,6,7,8, and 9 of Ordinance No. 88-45, the Collier County Litter Ordinance and is the owner of Page 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JUNE 28, 1990 the property located at 5881 Shirley Street, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; except the East 30 feet, which is reserved for road right-of-way and less and except the South 100 feet of the North 200 feet of the East 140 feet of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Holland has been repeatedly advised that the following violations; unauthorized accumulation of trash, debris, litter, consisting of plastic, garbage, and construction debris, must be corrected. Continuing, Mr. Smith stated that on March 30, 1990, Complaint No. 90-04-00458 was started. He stated that on April 2, 1990 a Notice of Violation and a stipulation was mailed Certified, Receipt No. P301011673, to the owner of record, Michael David Holland, and signed by same. He further stated that on April 18, 1990, an agent of Mr. Holland's signed for the returned receipt. He noted that on April 24, 1990, the subject property was checked and rechecked on May 14, 1990 and found that the violation still existed. He stated that on May 20, 1990, Code Compliance Investigator Tomasino talked with Mrs. Debra Holland, the mother of Mr. David Holland, and advised her that the case was to be presented to the code enforcement board. He noted that Mrs. Holland indicated that she was going away and would not be back in town until June 15, 1990. Code Compliance Investigator Tomasino, upon being sworn in, testified that as of June 27, 1990, no attempt has been made to clean up the subject viola- tions. In answer to Mr. Strain, Mr. Tomasino stated that just because the lot is used for Industrial purposes, does not mean that it can abstain from having litter. He indicated that the County is presently trying to clean up the Industrial Parks lot by lot and are constructing opaque fences around the lots that have outside storage. He further indicated that the sub- ject lot is behind a business and stated that it has an enormous amount of trash piled on it. Page 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: MOTION: JUNE 28, 1990 In answer to Mr. Strain, Mr. Smith indicated that staff is taking the older complaint cases first as opposed to the patrol cases. Mr. Smith suggested that the CEB entertain a motion to require Mr. David Holland to remove the subject violations immediately, and if he does not comply, staff recommends a $100/day fine for every day after June 29, 1990. Presentation of evidence in this case was closed at this time. Made by Mr. Strain that the Findings-of-Fact in Case No. 90-036 are that this case came before the CEB on June 28, 1990, and the Board heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respec- tive to all matters, thereupon issued its Findings-of-Fact; that Mr. Michael Holland is the owner of record of subject property; that the CEB has jurisdiction over the respondent; and that Mr. Michael Holland was not present at the Public Hearing; all notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 have been properly issued; the property located at 5881 Shirley Street, Florida is in violation of Sections 5,6,7,8, and 9 of Ordinance No. 88-45, the Collier County Litter Ordinance, as amended in the following particulars: unauthorized accumulation of trash, debris, litter, consisting of plastic, gar- bage, and construction debris. Seconded by Mr. Lazarus. Mr. Strain questioned if staff would be opposed to a higher fine? Mr. Smith responded with no objection. Upon Call for the question, the motion carried 6/0. Made by Mr. Strain that the Conclusions of Law are that Michael David Holland is in violation of Sections 5,6,7,8, and 9 of Collier County Ordinance 88-45, as amended; based upon the foregoing Findings-of-Fact; the respondent is ordered that the respondent correct the violation by removing all trash, debris and litter, and that said correction be completed on or before June 29, 1990, and in the event of non-compliance the respondent is hereby ordered to pay a $250/day fine for each and every day Page 5 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JUNE 28, 1990 any violation described herein continues; failure to comply with the order within a specified time will result in the recording of a lien on the property which may be foreclosed on the subject property and may be sold to enforce the lien. Seconded by Mr. Lamoureux. In answer to Mr. Lazarus, Mr. Smith responded affir- matively and stated that it is possible to correct the violation in one day. Upon Call for the question, the motion carried 6/0. ***** CASE NO: 90-037 RESPONDENT: Dalton Holaway LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 628 St. Clair Shores Road, Naples, more particularly described as the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida VIOLATION: Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Collier County Litter Ordinance No. 88-45. COMMENTS: Compliance Services Enforcement Coordinator Smith informed that the recorder and the Board have been provided with composite Exhibit "A", and requested that this be admitted into evidence relative to Code Enforcement Board 90-037, Mr. Dalton Holaway, Respondent and present. The consensus was to admit Composite Exhibit "A" into evidence for Case No. 90-037. Mr. Smith reported that Mr. Dalton Holaway is in violation of Section 5, 6, and 7 of the Collier County Litter Ordinance No. 88-45. He stated that Mr. Holaway is the owner of the parcel located at 628 St. Clair Shores Road, Naples, more particularly described at the South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Mr. Smith stated that the evidence as reported in Exhibit "A" shows that Mr. Holaway has been advised Page 6 QODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JUNE 28, 1990 of the violations as required by Ordinance, and that they need to be corrected. He noted that on March 14, 1990 Compliance Services received a complaint concerning the accumulative amount of trash, debris and litter at the subject property. He said Code Compliance Investigator Dahir arrived at the subject property on this date and took 5 photos of the viola- tions in question. Mr. Smith requested that these photos be admitted into evidence relative to Code Enforcement Board Case 90-037. The consensus was to admit the 5 photos of the Holaway property into evi- dence for Case No. 90-037. Mr. Smith informed the Board that a notice of viola- tion and stipulation was mailed Certified, Receipt No. P241093912, to Mr. Holaway on March 15, 1990 and was received and signed by Mr. Holaway on March 16, 1990. On April 18 and April 23, 1990, he indicated that further site inspections were made by Investigator Tomasino and found that the violation still existed. Mr. Holaway was notified at this time that he needed to remove the trash and debris. Mr. Smith informed that on May 15, 1990 Investigator Tomasino talked to Mr. Holaway, who insisted that he was not in violation and informed Mr. Tomasino that he refused to clean-up anything further. After being sworn in by Mr. Smith, Code Enforcement Supervisor Dahir advised that he had made random inspections of the subject property between March 15, 1990 and April 23, 1990. He noted that during this time, only a small amount of the trash and debris had been removed. He indicated that since his last inspection was made on April 23, 1990, it is very possible that the violations have since been corrected. Mr. Clark questioned if the Litter Ordinance gives a definition as to what trash, debris and litter is? He further questioned if the Ordinance states that any substance that has no value, other than nominal salvage value, can be considered trash and debris? Investigator Dahir answered affirmatively and stated that the old motors, parts, tires, refrigerators, washing machines and metal on the property have no value what so ever. Investigator Tomasino stated that he visited the site on the afternoon of June 27, 1990 and reported no Page 7 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JUNE 28, 1990 change to the property, and noted that Mr. Holaway is still in violation of the Litter Ordinance. In answer to Mr. Strain, Assistant County Attorney Mafialich informed the Board that the Ordinance states that items must be properly disposed or consumed and indicated that the value of the property is not a crucial element. After being sworn in by Mr. Smith, Mr. Dalton Holaway stated that he is the owner of the property located at 628 St. Clair Shores Road, Naples, Florida. He affirmed that he did receive a Notice of Violation and stipulation from the County on March 16, 1990. Mr. Holaway explained that most of the items that are in violation on his property have been removed or moved to a storage building. He indicated that the lumber, oil drums and roofing tin are usable items that cannot be considered as debris or trash. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Holaway that Compliance Services does not have a problem with the lumber, but noted that there is piles of trash, oil drums, piles of metal, etc. that are in violation. Mr. Holaway informed the Board that some of the mowers and old refrigerators have been moved inside a storage building, and others have been moved outside of it. He indicated that the oil drums in question are not debris but barrels that are used to store feed for his animals. Mr. Smith questioned if 30 days will be ample time to correct the violations? Mr. Holaway indicated that due to his failing health and lack of money, he is not able to do much of the work himself nor can he hire someone to do it for him. Mr. Clark explained that the County had notified Mr. Holaway several months ago of the violations and had told him to correct the situation. He indicated that a 30 day extension is a sufficient amount of time to correct the violations, and noted that the County will not recommend any more. Mr. Clark recommended to the Board that Mr. Holaway be given 30 days to correct the violations, and if he fails to comply, he will be fined $150/day for each and every day thereafter. Page 8 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: MOTION: JUNE 28, 1990 Mr. Holaway stated that he will do the best he can to correct the violations. Presentation of evidence in this case was closed at this time. Made by Mr. Lazarus that the Findings-of-Fact in Case No. 90-037 are that this case came before the CEB on June 28, 1990, and the Board heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respec- tive to all matters, thereupon issued its Findings-of-Fact; that Dalton Holaway is the owner of record of subject property; that the CEB has juris- diction over the respondent; and that Mr. Holaway was present at the public hearing; all notices required by Collier County Ordinance 88-89 have been properly issued; that the property located at 628 St. Clair Shores Road is in violation of Section 5, 6, and 7 of the Collier County Ordinance 88-45 as amended in the following particulars; unauthorized accumulation of trash, debris, and litter. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Upon Call for the question, the motion carried 6/0. Made by Mr. Lazarus that the Conclusions of Law that Dalton Holaway is in violation of Section 5, 6, and 7 of Collier County Ordinance 88-45 as amended, based on the foregoing Findings-of-Fact; the respondent is ordered to correct the violation on or before July 28, 1990, and in the event of non-compliance on or before the date, respondent is ordered to pay a fine of $150/day for each and every day the violation described herein continues; failure to comply with the order within a specified time will result in the recording of a lien on the property which may be foreclosed and the subject property may be sold to enforce the lien. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Mr. Strain recommended that a member of the Code Enforcement staff visit the property of Mr. Holaway before the 30 day extension expires, and explain to Mr. Holaway explicitly what must be removed. Upon Call for the question, the motion carried 6/0. Mr. Constantine informed Mr. Holaway that he does have the right to appeal this decision. He noted that any person who wants to appeal the decision of the CEB must have a record of the proceeding, and Page 9 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY *** ITEM: COMMElfTS: JUNE 28, 1990 therefore, may need to have a verbatim record of the proceeding made. Deputy Clerk Hoffman replaced Recording Secretary Keaton at this time *** Case NO. CEB 90-023, Board of County Commissioners vs. Royce Stallings - Request for Penalty Mr. Clark advised that Mr. Stallings, through his attorney has asked for a declaration by this Board, and a review of the fine that has been imposed on the Stallings market on Santa Barbara Boulevard. He indicated that upon this request, he has met with the County Attorney's office, Mr. Stallings, Mr. Stallings' attorney, O. B. Osceola, the person who built the chickee hut in question which caused the violation, and the engineer, representing Mr. Stallings interest in obtaining the SDP and permit for the chickee hut. Assistant County Attorney Mafialich informed the Board that the Ordinance, Section 9, Subsection 7 indicates that the Enforcement Board shall have such additional powers as may be authorized or granted by Chapter 162 F.S. He noted that the Statutes provides that the Enforcement Board may reduce a fine imposed, pursuant to this section. Attorney Robert Adamski affirmed that Mr. Stallings owned 58 acres at the corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard which was zoned Agricultural. He advised that the corner parcel was sold to a developer, but Mr. Stallings still retains 38 acres to the north directly on Santa Barbara. He indicated that as part of that transaction, his client donated to Collier County a strip along Santa Barbara for right-of-way, valued at $700,000. Attorney Adamski stated that Mr. Stallings uses his property as a citrus grove, and he decided to open up a farm store and contacted O. B. Osceola to construct a chickee hut. He advised that Mr. Stallings was informed by Mr. Osceola that because he is a seminole indian, he was not required to obtain a permit. He noted that Mr. Stallings received notification from the County relative to problems with this procedure, and Mr. Osceola talked with County staff and was advised that he could construct the chickee hut without a permit~ and was later told that he needed a permit. Page 10 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JUNE 28, 1990 Mr. Adamski related that Mr. Stallings engineer, Mr. Stevens, advised that he was in compliance with code, and assured him that he would appear at the hearing before the Code Enforcement Board (CEB), but he did not appear. Mr. Adamski reported that Mr. Stallings called him and explained that the CEB imposed a fine against him of $250/day. He indicated that his intent was to be in compliance, but he received some bad advice, some of which came from the County Building officials. He indicated that Mr. Stallings has closed his business as of May 31, 1990; has agreed to obtain a permit; submit the site plan; and go through the process as required by the County. Attorney Adamski noted that in his view, this is a building permit dispute, and Mr. Stallings never intended to violate the County Ordinances or this Board. He related that the original fine totaled between $7,000-$8,000, and after lengthy meetings and negotiations, Mr. Stallings agreed to pay a fine of $1,500, which he feels is quite expensive for this type of violation. He indicated that Mr. Stallings is out of the country, and unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Stallings did employ pro- fessional people to obtain advice relative to the construction of the chickee hut, and he has no reason to doubt his statements. He revealed that applica- tion has been made for the site plan, and the opera- tion has ceased as of May 31st. He pointed out that Staff time involved in this investigation and the procedures involved amount to $1,500, and he believes that this would be a reasonable fine, with the stipu- lations that the client continue the permit process and if requested to provide additional information that it be provided forthwith. He indicated that the $1,500 would take care of the violation up to today, and 30 days henceforth, and therefore, the building permit needs to be obtained within the next 30 days. Mr. Constantine questioned the total amount of the original fine to date. Mr. Clark replied that the total fine, up to today, is $8,000. Mr. Strain mentioned that Mr. Stallings may move in his best efforts to proceed in the next 30 days to Page 11 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: JUNE 28, 1990 obtain the permit, but the County may not be able to process it that quickly. Mr. Clark suggested that the stipulation be modified to indicate that if for any reason the permit is not obtained within the next 30 days, due to Mr. Stallings' failure to supply the necessary information, the clock will start running again. In answer to Mr. Strain, Mr. Clark advised that a permit is required, if the building is not being placed on the reservation, and this was relayed to Mr. Osceola. Mr. Strain stated that if Mr. Osceola is required to pull a permit, he also is required to be a licensed contractor. Mr. Clark indicated that he has referred this to the County Attorney's office. Made by Mr. Lazarus that in the Case of Board of County Commissioners vs. Stallings, Respondent: Upon receipt of further information from Respondent, and recommendation of the Collier County Code Enforcement Office, the fine of $150/day imposed upon Mr. Stallings be mitigated to a total fine of $1,500 pro- vided that Mr. Stallings receives from Collier County a building permit within 45 days, and in the interim period, he agrees that he will not use the facility in question, pending issuance of said permit. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Attorney Adamski indicated that if for some reason, the permit cannot be issued, his client will contact Staff to work something out. Mr. Clark indicated that if Mr. Stallings will keep in communication with his office, Staff will attempt to coordinate that process. Attorney Mafialich advised that the motion needs to be clarified, in that, during the 45 day period and sub- sequent thereto whether any rate of fine will apply in the event there is noncompliance with the Board's order. Mr. Lazarus questioned whether it is reasonable to hold the case in abeyance for 45 days, and then if there is a problem, go back at that time, rather than assess a fine at this time. Mr. Constantine related that if a case was recom- mended by staff and voted on to assess a fine of Page 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JUNE 28, 1990 $150/day, he has a problem with the fine now becoming less than $25/day. He indicated that he sympathizes with the fact that Mr. Stallings received some bad information, but it is still his respon- sibility. He noted that Mr. Stallings has retained an attorney to represent him, but he is about 60 days late in doing so. Mr. Lazarus explained that if he, as a property owner, act in good faith upon the representation which is made by a contractor, subcontractor, or a Collier County official, that should act in mitiga- tion of any fine that may be imposed. He noted that there are mitigating circumstances in this case. Mr. Pedone stated that in January, Mr. Stallings was informed that he needed a permit, and the case was heard in April. He questioned why Mr. Stallings did not take the time to find out what he needed and what was not needed. Attorney Adamski advised that Mr. Stallings was informed by his engineer that the Board did not know what they were doing. Mr. Pedone indicated that he believes that Mr. Stallings should go after his engineer. Mr. Williams suggested that the fine be made retroac- tive to the first day if Mr. Stallings doe not follow through at the end of the 45 day period. Attorney Maflalich called attention to Section Eight of the Ordinance which provides that should the Code Enforcement Board be unable to issue a decision imme- diately following any hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such nature the decision can- not be immediately made, the Board may withhold issuing its decision until a subsequent meeting. He indicated that the Rules And Regulations, Article 9, Section 6, states that the Board may at any hearing order the reappearance of the respondent at a future hearing. He stated that the Board may decide to have its previously instituted fine continue from a date set forth in the future, given the agreement that is being contemplated; or, simply hold the matter in abeyance on the issue of future application of the fines under the authority of the two Sections pro- vided and order the reappearance of the parties and reassess the situation at that time. Page 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTIOR: COMMElfTS: JUNE 28, 1990 Mr. Lamoureux stated that no one represented Mr. Stallings in April, and he should not have ignored the situation. He remarked that these types of fruit stands normally close down in the summer since there is no product to put on the market, so it is likely that this stand would have closed anyway. Upon call for the question, the motion failed 3/3 (Messrs. Lamoureux, Pedone and Constantine opposed). Made by Mr. Lazarus that the words of the previous motion stand, with the exception of the amount of the fine for mitigation be set at $2,000 instead of $1,500. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Mr. Williams stated that he has a problem with the motion since it is a fine imposing situation rather than bringing the violation into compliance. Mr. Constantine indicated that he is willing to accept the suspension beginning with this date, but it is still a 400% reduction. He related that he believes that this will be setting a precedent. Assistant County Attorney Manalich explained that this type of a hearing addresses each case on its own merits. He remarked that the Board can draw its own conclusions with regard to the value of precedence any decision may have. Mr. Smith stated that Staff is recommending accep- tance of this, and in another case, they may not recommend same. Mr. Pedone stated that he made the original motion for a fine to be assessed at $150/day, and no one was present at the hearing to contest that action. He noted that there has been correspondence during the past 3 months, and Mr. Stallings is aware of the situation and made no efforts to take care of it. Mr. Clark reported that a certified letter was sent to Mr. Stallings but he was out of town, and one of his personnel signed for it. He indicated that Mr. Stallings became aware of this situation, when he, himself asked Mr. Smith to contact him. He stated that Mr. Stallings was located in the Keys, where he resides during the summer, but he was not aware of the events which had taken place. He noted that once Page 14 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTIOR: JUNE 28, 1990 Mr. Stallings became aware of the situation, his attorney contacted staff 4 days later. Attorney Adamski advised that the County issued an electrical permit to this location after it was completed, and questioned why this would be done if there was a question of noncompliance? Upon call for the question, the motion failed 3/3 (Messrs. Lamoureux, Pedone and Constantine opposed). In answer to Mr. Pedone, Mr. Clark explained that since the motion failed, the fine will continue each day until a permit is issued. Attorney Adamski suggested that he is willing, if the Board desires to continue this case, so that Messrs. Stallings, Osceola, and the other persons involved, could come forward and tell their stories. Attorney Mafialich advised that he had previously indicated that any matter of negotiation would be between staff and Mr. Adamski and his client, but the County Attorney was not party to any negotiated agreement. A lengthy discussion took place with regard to all the events that were previously discussed, i.e., the amount of the fine, the purpose of collecting the $8,000, the time that elapsed from January until April, the fact that Mr. Stallings was misrepre- sented, the good faith effort on the part of Mr. Stallings, when he was advised of the situation, and the question whether Mr. Stallings should be pena- lized because of his engineer. Made by Mr. Strain that the language of the original motion be maintained, but the fine value changed to $2,002.35. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Carried 4/2 (Messrs. Lamoureux and Constantine opposed). Assistant County Attorney Mafialich stated that the only unresolved issue is whether the action as taken in the motion is suitable to Mr. Adamski's client. Attorney Adamski indicated that he feels that his client will accept the fine as reduced. Attorney Mafialich advised that there is a 30 day requirement for filing an appeal, should Mr. Stallings elect to do so. Page 15 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: MOTIOR: MOTION: ITEM: COMMENTS: JUNE 28, 1990 Mr. Manalich noted that the Board did not address the issue under the agreement relative to future fines. Made by Mr. Lazarus that if the Respondent does not accept the mitigated fine of $2,002.35, the previous fine of $150/day will then be reactivated. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Carried 6/0. Made by Mr. Lazarus that any further action on any fines shall be held in abeyance until the expiration of the 45 day period, at which time a report will be received from Staff or otherwise notified of the sta- tus of the situation, and further action may be taken, if such action is required. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Carried 6/0. Made by Mr. Lazarus that Mr. Stallings be given 15 days from today to respond as to whether the miti- gated fine is accepted, and to pay the fine. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Carried 6/0. *** Old Business Mr. Constantine expressed his displeasure with not being notified last month that there would be no meeting. He indicated that he happened to run into Mr. Clark by chance, and was informed that a meeting would not take place. He remarked that he plans his schedule weeks in advance, and had left that date open. *** Mr. Constantine questioned whether Attorney Manalich has arrived at a legal interpretation of the situation relative to the Wittenberg's. Assistant County Attorney Manalich indicated that there is some correlation relating to the Landlord/Tenant Act which needs to be reviewed to streamline the procedures. He indicated that he will report back further on this, but he has not come to final conclusion as yet. *** Mr. Constantine asked about the status of the Tari lawsuit. Attorney Manalich advised that there is outside counsel from the insurance carrier handling Page 16 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY JUNE 28, 1990 this matter, who has filed motions to dismiss the various allegations and the matter is in Federal Court pending a hearing on those items. He noted that there is other interactions taking place between the attorneys, but there is nothing definite at this time to report. *** Mr. Pedone inquired about the fees that were levied for Walda J's? Mr. Smith replied that last week, Staff mailed out $22,000 in bills. He advised that other than the $250, which was paid by Spanky's, no other monies have been received. *** ITEM: Next Meting to be held July 26, 1990 at 9:00 A.M. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Timothy Constantine, Chairman Page 17