Loading...
CEB Minutes 11/29/1990 1990 Code Enforcement Board November 29, 1990 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AQ~N.RA Date: November 29, 1990 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1 . ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 24, 1990 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Board of County Commissioners vs Larry Parks, CEB #90-049. 5. OLD BUSINESS Review request for fine reduction CEB #90-025 Board of County Commissioners vs Imperial Wilderness - McCarthy. 6. NEW BUSINESS Request for fine reduction CEB #90-035 Board of County commissioners v.s. Michael Holland. 7. REPORTS None NEXT MEETING DATE No meeting December - Happy Holidays! Next meeting - January 24, 1991. 8. 9 . ADJOURN DATE: TIME: PLACE: CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY November 29, 1990 9:00 A.M. 3rd Floor Boardroom, Building "F", Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida CEB ANDREWS CONSTANTINE LAMOUREUX LAZARUS PEDONE STRAIN WILLIAMS STAFF PRESENT EXC X X X X X EXC CLARK SMITH WILSON MINUTES BY: Wanda Arrighi, Deputy Clerk CALLED TO ORDER AT: 9:00 A.M. X X X PRESIDING: Tim Constantine, Chairman ADJOURNED: 10:05 A.M. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA: One item. ---,--, Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA t, Q g !:l Q t, Date: November 29, 1990 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 24, 1990 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Board of County Commissioners vs Larry Parks, CEB #90-049. 5. OLD BUSINESS Review request for fine reduction CEB #90-025 Board of County Commissioners vs Imperial Wilderness - McCarthy. 6. NEW BUSINESS Request for fine reduction CEB #90-035 Board of County Commissioners v.s. Michael Holland. 7. REPORTS None 8. NEXT MEETING DATE No meeting December - Happy Holidays! Next meeting - January 24, 1991. 9. ADJOURN --11-- CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY ADDENDA: ITEM: MOTION: CASE NO: RESPONDENT: LOCATION OF VIOLATION: VIOLATION: COMMENTS: NOVEMBER 29, 1990 *** Mr. Strain stated that he would like to have a workshop at the end of the regular meeting to discuss the minutes. *** Minutes of September 24, 1990 Consensus of approval with Mr. Strain abstaining. *** CEB 90-049 Mr. Larry J. Parks 1200 Mingo Road, Naples, Florida and legally described as The West half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 27 East Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance No. 88-45, the Collier County Litter Ordinance and Sections 7.9 and 10.2 of Ordinance No. 82-2, the Collier County Zoning Ordinance Compliance Services Enforcement Coordinator Smith informed that the Board and the recorder have been provided with a Composite Exhibit "A", and requested that this be admitted into evidence relative to Code Enforcement Board Case #90-049, with Larry Parks the Respondent. It was noted that the Respondent was not pre- sent. It was the consensus of the Board to accept Composite Exhibit "A" into the record as evi- dence. Mr. Smith stated that as documented in Composite Exhibit "A", Larry Parks is charged with being in violation of Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2 Sections 7.9 and 10.2 Page 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 and Collier County Litter Ordinance 88-45 Sections 5, 6, and 7. He informed that Mr. Parks is the owner of the parcel at 1200 Mingo Road. Mr. Smith advised that as documented Mr. Parks has been repeatedly informed that the viola- tions need to cease. Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Parks has been cited to Misdemeanor Court and put in custody several times and is at present on probation. Mr. Smith explained that Compliance Services first cited Mr. Parks to Misdemeanor Court, and Mr. Parks was told by Judge Trettis to correct the violation which Mr. Parks chose not to do and, therefore, spent ten days in jail. After Mr. Parks' release from jail, Mr. Smith summarized, he let the violations con- tinue and again was sent to jail and put on probation. Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Parks has not shown for probation, or the hearings and the violation has not been corrected. Mr. Smith related that Mr. Parks has commented that he does not feel the need to clean up the litter and debris because the property is "in the middle of nowhere"; however, there are nicely kept properties abutting Mr. Parks' and these neighbors have to look at this trash which is why Compliance Services has taken the actions they have. After being sworn in by Mr. Smith, Mr. Robert Nonnemacher, Investigator for Collier County Compliance Services, stated that the violation was first noted by Investigator Sylvia on October 11, 1989, and on October 13, 1989, a notice of violation and stipulation was sent to Mr. Parks. Investigator Nonnemacher informed that on November 21, 1989, he and Investigator Sylvia met with Mr. Parks on the subject property and at that time it was noted that a transmission was being removed from an automobile. He explained that while at the property on November 21, 1989, photos were taken as well as a list made of all the auto parts present on the property which included twelve dismantled vehicles, a Ford Bronco, an Page 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 approximate 10 foot by 14 foot storage shed, a workshop shed with a large quantity of tools, roofing materials, an old truck body filled with used auto parts, numerous transmissions and torque converters, large piles of assorted auto parts, piles of old tires, and a dilapi- dated mobile home. He reported that on November 22, 1989, Code Compliance Supervisor Dahir responded with a Collier County Deputy with a warrant for Mr. Parks' arrest, and Supervisor Dahir issued a NTA for the viola- tions. Investigator Nonnemacher disclosed that on November 28, 1989, Mr. Parks was found guilty and fined $600 with six months proba- tion to clean the property, and if the pro- perty was cleaned within sixty days the Court ordered a reduction of the fine to $300. Investigator Nonnemacher noted that on December 14 and 28, 1989, he rechecked the property and the violations remained the same. He related that on January 11, 1990, Supervisor Dahir talked to Mr. Parks at the property site and advised him that he had two weeks in which to clean the property in order to be entitled to the reduced fine; but on January 26 and 29, 1990, when Supervisor Dahir rechecked the property there was no compliance and Probation was notified. Mr. Smith interjected that there were pho- tographs taken when visits were made to the site and suggested that perhaps the Board would like to review them with the documen- tation provided. Mr. Smith advised that there are nine pages of 46 dated photographs to document into Composite Exhibit "A" which will be pages 44 to 53. It was the consensus of the Board to accept the nine pages of 46 photographs into Composite Exhibit "A". Compliance Services Supervisor Clark questioned if the photographs submitted to Composite Exhibit "A" are true to the best of Mr. Nonnemacher's knowledge? Mr. Nonnemacher concurred that they are and after rechecking Page 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 the property again on November 28, 1990, the violation remains the same. In response to Mr. Strain, Mr. Smith clarified that on page 23 of Composite Exhibit "A" the type of complaint listed is, "Litter, Junk Cars, Trash" and also noted is the comment, "Legal, they think Township 48S, Range 27E, Section 32, Parcel 26."; and under the complainant's name is, "Phone", which means it was anonymous. Mr. Lazarus questioned if any of the vehicles noted are in working condition to which Mr. Nonnemacher answered that a couple of them were. Mr. Nonnemacher explained that this is part of Violation 7.9b4, Illegal Land Use, Operating a Major Repair Shop on Agricultural Land. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Parks used pro- perty that Mrs. Holland was in charge of where he operated a transmission shop; and when Mr. Parks was told to cleanup the transmission business which was located off Shirley Street, he took all the junk and debris and deposited them onto his own property which is the sub- ject property. Mr. Lazarus asked if there is an accumulated fine against Mr. Parks? Mr. Smith explained that there is no fine at present because the Board has not heard the case for this pro- perty. Mr. Constantine inquired as to who decides the value on vehicles for Code Enforcement pur- poses? Mr. Smith commented that in reference to the the Corvette found on the property, Compliance Services would say there is some value to it; however, when looking at the whole picture with all the other vehicles without engines, seats or some missing parts, it becomes apparent that the vehicles are junk. In order to clarify this issue, Mr. Clark asked Mr. Nonnemacher to state his profession prior to starting with Compliance Services. Page 5 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: NOVEMBER 29, 1990 Mr. Nonnemacher stated that during his career with Nassau County Police Department in Long Island, New York, he was assigned to the Auto Squad which is a detective squad that investi- gates organized auto theft rings. Prior to this, he commented, that he was an active part owner in an auto wrecking yard for eight years. He advised that he was classified by the Courts as an expert regarding substantive or nominal value on auto parts. In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Nonnemacher noted that in regards to the auto parts such as engines, transmissions, etc. that were found on the subject property, and were kept outside, they had little value. Mr. Smith stated that he would also like to submit into evidence an Affidavit of Publica- tion that shows public notice was published in the Naples Daily News on November 5, 12, 19, and 26, 1990. It was the consensus of the Board to accept the Affidavit of Publication as evidence. Mr. Clark asked if all legal notice require- ments have been met regarding this case. Mr. Smith concurred that all notice requirements have been met. In response to Mr. Lazarus' question, Mr. Smith advised that Mr. Parks was staying in a van on the subject property, but he comes and goes, and it appears that Mr. Parks is not in the area at the present time. The Presentation of evidence for Case 90-049 was closed at this time. Made by Mr. Strain that the Findinas-of-Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Board in Case No. CEB 90-049 are that this cause came on for public hearina before the Board on November 29, 1990, and the Board havina heard testimony under oath, received evidence, and heard arauments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues its Findinas of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Board as follows: that Larry James Parks is Page 6 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: NOVEMBER 29, 1990 the owner of record of the subject property; That the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdic- tion of the person of the Respondent, but that Respondent was not present at the public hearinq; All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 have been properly issued; That the real property leaallv described as The West half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 32, Township 48 South, Ranqe 27 East is in violation of Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance No. 88-45 and Sections 7.9 and 10.2 of Ordinance No. 82-2, in the followinq particulars: Illeqal and unauthorized accumulation of litter, trash, debris; major auto repair and storaqe of auto parts, constitutinq illeqal land use; and erectinq structure without permit. Seconded by Mr. Lazarus. Carried unanimously. Made by Mr. Strain that the Conclusions of Law are that Larry J. Parks is in violation of Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Collier County Ordinance No. 88-45, the Collier County Litter Ordinance and Sections 7.9 and 10.2 of Collier County Ordinance No. 82-2, the Collier County Zoninq Ordinance. Based upon the foreqoinq Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority aranted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89, it is hereby ordered that the Respondent correct the viol~- tion of Sections 5, 6, and 7, Collier County Ordinance No. 88-45 and Sections 7.9 and 10.2, Collier County Ordinance No. 82-2 in the followinq manner: Removal of all illeqal and accumulation of litter, trash and debris; discontinuinq major auto repair and storaqe of auto parts; and removal of the structure built without a permit. That said correction(s) be completed on or before the 4th day of December, 1990, and if Respondent does not comply with this Order on or before the date, then and in that event Respondent Js hereby ordered to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each and every day and each and every violation described herein consti- tutes this past said date. Failure to comply with the Order within the specified time will Page 7 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed, and Respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. Done and Ordered this 29th day of November, 1990, at Collier County, Florida. Seconded by Mr. Lazarus. Mr. Lamoureux asked what was the date for compliance to which Mr. Smith replied December 4, 1990. Mr. Constantine questioned whether the fine should be at the maximum since there are no life threatening issues involved with the case? Mr. Strain commented that he does not feel that there is going to be any response and the property would be foreclosed upon. He added that the maximum fine would help expedite the situation and result in having the property cleaned up quicker. He expressed that the $250.00 per day fine should pertain to each Section of each Ordinance and any repeat offense would have the same application. Mr. Constantine stated that he does not agree with the reasoning for a higher fine which is so the County can foreclose faster. Mr. Clark suggested that the fine be applied to each violation instead of each section. Assistant County Attorney Wilson agreed because there are three types of violations, therefore, making it more appropriate to pena- lize the three actions. Mr. Strain amended his motion to include that the fine apply to each of the three actions of violation. Mr. Lazarus amended his second. Mr. Clark commented that the recommendations by this Board are consistently upheld by the Appeals Board regarding the seriousness of the offense such as how it effects the neighbors and the cooperativeness or failure to cooperate on this basis. In response to Mr. Strain, Mr. Clark concluded that Mr. Parks has not cooperated at all and pointed out that Mr. Page 8 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 Parks has gone rather than clean up the pro- perty. Mr. Strain called attention to the fact that these violations have been going on for 14 months. Mr. Lamoureux questioned if it is possible to clean up all the debris in one week? Mr. Smith affirmed that it is possible and pointed out that Mr. Parks has been in violation since October, 1989. Mr. Nonnemacher confirmed that if Mr. Parks worked every day at cleaning the debris he should be able to have it cleaned in one week. Mr. Constantine commented that in maintaining the consistency of the Board and the rulings of the Board, $250.00 per violation is in excess. Mr. Lazarus stated that Mr. Parks is a known recalcitrance who has gone to jail twice for failure to cleanup property and emphasized that it is the Board's responsibility to secure compliance in the most expeditious manner possible which is to order him to clean up the property rapidly as well as impose a fine that can be swiftly enforced through a lien on the property if he does not comply. He added that under the circumstances where there is a party that is not cooperative and the neighbors have complained, the proposed action is appropriate. Mr. Pedone concurred. Upon call for the vote, the motion carried 3/2 (Mr. Constantine and Mr. Lamoureux opposed). *** ITEM: Old Business CASE NO.: CEB 90-025, Request for Fine Reduction, Board of County Commissioners vs Robert W. McCarthy, Trustee COMMENTS: Compliance Services Enforcement Coordinator Smith stated that this case was carried over from the October 25, 1990, meeting. He com- mented that the property is still not in compliance and there is no representative for Page 9 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 this case present. He explained that in the October 25, 1990, meeting it was requested by Mr. McCarthy to reduce the fees once the violation had ceased, and he assured the Board that this could be done, but no progress has been made. Mr. Constantine stated that since there is no one present to argue that the fine should be reduced, there is no need for further discussion. In response to Mr. Lazarus, Mr. Smith informed that the property has been rechecked and as of 3:00 P.M. November 28, 1990, it was still in violation. There was no further discussion on this item. *** ITEM: CASE NO: New Business CEB 90-036, Request for Fine Reduction, Board of County Commissioners vs Michael and Deborah Holland COMMENTS: Attorney Louis S. Erickson of the Law Offices of Sparkman, Erickson, Quinn, P.A., repre- senting Michael Holland and his mother Deborah Holland in the subject case, advised that the property is owned by Michael Holland; however, Deborah Holland handles the management of the property. Mr. Erickson stated that he is requesting a reduction to the fine that was assessed against the property and which constitutes a lien on the property. He related that there is no question that proper notices from the Board were mailed out to his client regarding the hearing held June 28, 1990. He explained that Mrs. Holland was out of town on that date and through conversation with his office was under the impression that everything was taken care of prior to the hearing on June 28. In response to Mr. Lazarus, Mr. Erickson com- mented that there was a breach of due process Page 10 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 in that Michael Holland and Deborah Holland were out of town at the time the Order was rendered and notice of the Order was not mailed until 3 or 4 days after it was ren- dered; however, the fine started the day following the ruling. Mr. Constantine pointed out that since Mrs. Holland was aware of the hearing, it was her responsibility to find out its outcome. Mr. Lazarus agreed that this was an oversight on her part and a miscommunication between her and the attorney's regarding the hearing. He explained that Mrs. Holland did make arrangements prior to leaving town to have the debris removed, but the plans did not work out. He reported that after returning, Mrs. Holland again contacted someone to remove the debris which was approximately 5 days after the June 28, 1990, hearing, and this time the debris was disposed of within 5 days. He informed that after these 5 days Code Compliance Investigator Tomasino issued Mrs. Holland a certificate reflecting that the violation had been resolved. Code Compliance Officer Smith summarized that the Board met on June 28, the cleanup was order on June 29, the property was still in violation on July 11, and on July 12 the pro- perty was cleaned. Mr. Lazarus concurred that this was true. Compliance Services Supervisor Clark noted that Mr. Lazarus' letter of October 12, 1990, implies that Mrs. Holland was in town on June 28, 1990. Mr. Lazarus clarified that this was an error on his part, and she actually left town approximately one week before the hearing. In response to Mr. Strain, Mr. Smith disclosed that Mrs. Holland was given one day to cleanup the debris, and cited that the photographs taken prove that one day it was not cleaned and the next day it was. Mr. Smith noted that the subject case was several months old before being brought to the Board, and related that there were complaints from the neighbors. Page 11 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 Mr. Strain questioned if it really was only a one day effort in getting the debris removed from the property? After being sworn in by Mr. Smith, Deborah Holland stated that her address is 3178 Lakeview Drive, and that she is the agent and mother of the owner of the property, Mr. Michael David Holland. Mrs. Holland explained, in answer to Mr. Strain's question, that the cleanup took 5 days because of the rain. She specified that she had contacted a Mr. Floyd Evans to remove the debris, but the equipment being used quit working and Mr. Evans stopped clearing the property. She explained that she was out of town when this happened. She informed that she then made arrangements with a Mr. James Williams to have him clean the property; however, with all the rain he had to stop working because of the standing water which resulted in the project taking 5 days to finish. In response to Mr. Lazarus, Mrs. Holland advised that she had started contacting people to cleanup the debris in December of 1989. Mr. Constantine questioned when Mrs. Holland actually did come back into town. Mrs. Holland explained that she is constantly in and out of town due to her father's sickness and she returned to town sometime around the 1st of July. Mr. Clark inquired to what amount is the reduction in fine being requested? Mr. Erickson stated that he is asking that the fine be eliminated or reduced to a minimal amount. He pointed out that the property was cleaned within 12 days of the Order. Mr. Constantine reiterated that because Mrs. Holland was aware of the hearing date, she is also liable to the outcome of said hearing. Mr. Lazarus stated that there was an over- sight. Mr. Constantine questioned if the reduction in fine is being requested because of the law firm's mistake? Mr. Lazarus noted that if someone had been present at the Page 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: NOVEMBER 29, 1990 hearing to represent the case, the outcome would have been different. Mr. Strain cited that in a prior case, compliance was order in one week so time could be allowed for notification to the person in violation and questioned if legally the fine could be imposed the day following the hearing since it is not logical that Mrs. Holland could be notified in one day? Assistant County Attorney Wilson asserted that the fine starts the day the Board sets for compliance and not when the person receives notice. Ms. Wilson also clarified that due process simply means that a person is entitled to be heard before any action is taken against them which in this case they were given that opportunity on June 28. Mr. Constantine called attention to the fact that there have been one-day cases before. Mr. Strain pointed out that in a prior instance when a fine was reduced, the Board stated that their goal is for compliance. He stated that because of equipment failure and weather conditions it took 5 days to clean the property which accounts for half of the days from the time ordered for compliance; there- fore, he specified that the fine should be reduced by half. Made by Mr. Strain that the fine for CEB Case No. 90-036 be reduced by 50% because of the circumstances involveq. Seconded by Mr. Lazarus. Mr. Clark suggested that included as part of the motion be the condition that payment of the fine be made within ten days; and if the fine is not paid during this ten day period, the fine will return to the original amount due. Mr. Smith responded to Mr. Pedone's question by emphasizing that the property was not in complete compliance until July 12, 1990. He acknowledged that there were equipment and weather problems. Page 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 Mr. Lazarus pointed out that Mrs. Holland did make a good faith effort to cleanup the debris. Mr. Lazarus commented that as part of the motion he would like the following conditions added: the payment of the fine should be made within ten days; this is not to be construed as a precedent for future cases; and any recurrence of any debris on the property will result in a fine being reinstated at the rate of $250.00 per day. Mr. Strain amended his motion to include Mr. L~~rus' comments. Mr. Lazarus seconded the amended motion. Mr. Smith stated that Compliance Services has no objections to these conditions. Mr. Erickson requested that 30 days be allowed to pay the fine so Mrs. Holland can have suf- ficient time to secure the money for the fine. Mr. Strain responded that he has no problem with allowing 30 days. Mr. Strain amended his motion to allow paYment to be made within 30 days. Mr. Lazarus seconded the amended motion. Mr. Constantine alleged that it is detrimental to the effectiveness of the Board to reduce the fine. He pointed out that this action does have an impact on the Board. Mr. Lazarus remarked that this case is a claim for mitigation and questioned if the Staff has any problem with mitigation under these cir- cumstances. Mr. Smith replied that they had no problem with this. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 3/2 (Mr. Constantine and Mr. Pedone opposed). Mr. Erickson asked how much notification would Mrs. Holland receive if there was a recurrence of debris on the property because she may not know about it. Mr. Smith communicated that Mrs. Holland would have ample notification before a fine would be imposed. Page 14 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 *** ITEM: Reports CO~NTS : Mr. Smith noted that to date the Board has ordered $33,302 in fines be paid. He explained that of this amount, there is $31,050 in fines not paid. He related that prior to the November 29, 1990, meeting, the Board has heard 53 cases. Mr. Clark explain that liens are being pro- cessed against the properties on which fines have been levied and not paid. Mr. Lazarus asked how many liens have been attempted to be enforced by foreclosure to which Mr. Clark replied that at present none. Mr. Clark wished to extend the Staff's and his appreciation for the efforts of the Board and noted that these efforts have made a positive contribution to Collier County. Regarding notification of workshops, Assistant County Attorney Wilson informed that notifica- tion should be given for future workshops, in particular if something is discussed that the Board will later take action on. *** ITEM: Next Meeting Date - January 24, 1991. *** There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Tim Constantine, Chairman Page 15