Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/22/1989 1989 Code Enforcement Board June 22, 1989 ,~ CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY DATE: June 22, 1989 TIME: 9:00 A.M. PLACE: 3rd Floor Boardroom, Building "F", Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida CEB STAFF PRESENT ANDREWS CONNELLY CONSTANTINE LAMOUREUX PEDONE STRAIN WILLIAMS X X X X X X X BAR TOE BOYCE CLARK CONTI LAUBACH MAZZONE MORAD SMITH SILVIA WILSON MACKENZIE BRUTT SALVAGGIO X X X X X X X X X CALLED TO ORDER AT: 9:00 A.M. MINUTES BY: Annaliese Kraft and Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerks ADJOURNED: 3:05 P.M. PRESIDING: Darlene Connelly, Chairman ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 19, 1989 Page 1 r" CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF-COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGE N D -,A Date: June 22, 1989, 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 May 19, 1989 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Code Enforcement Board vs. Humberto Robert Ayala; Case No..89-003 B. Code Enforcement Board vs. Samuel Montello, David Barbino, Joseph Cali and Jeffery Ryan d/b/ a St. Mathew's House; Case No. 89-005 C. Code Enforcement Board vs. Salvatore Palermo; Case No. 89-006 5. OLD BUSINESS Review cases heard before the Board on May 19, 1989, which were ordered to comply. 6. NEW BUSINESS Approval of amendment to Rules and Regulations for the Code Enforcement Board. 7. REPORTS 8. NEXT MEETING DATE Scheduled for July 13, 1989, at 9:00 A.M. 9. -ADJOURN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by Mr. Andrews to reflect on page 17 the change that all meetings, unless otherwise determined, will begin at 9:00 A.M. Seconded by Mr. Lamoureux. Carried unanimously. CASE NO. RESPONDENT: 89-003 Code Enforcement Coordinator Smith stated that Composite Exhibit "A" is being submitted as evi- dence in Code Enforcement Board Case 89-003. Humberto Robert Ayala LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 233 New Market Road, Immokalee, Florida Ordinances 86-49 and 87-19 VIOLATION: COMMENTS: Attorney Thomas Montgomery, representing Respondent Humberto Robert Ayala, stated that this matter was presented to Staff and he was under the impression it was resolved. He explained that this was in reference to a mobile home being placed on Mr. Ayala's property, and unfortunately, Staff did not read his letters, nor go back and search the aerials for the year 1971. He stated that Mr. Ayala has owned the property since the '60s possibly the '50s, and there have always been mobile homes on the property. Ms. Connelly asked if Mr. Montgomery was going to contest the charges Mr. William smith, Code Enforcement Coordinator elaborated and read? She explained that Mr. smith would introduce exhibits and his case, an opportunity would then be given to Attorney Montgomery to respond on behalf of Mr. Ayala and cross examine any witnesses called, or point out anything he wished with respect to the exhibits. Mr. Montgomery asked to see the exhi- bits. Mr. smith introduced as evidence Composite Exhibit A and handed it to Mr. Montgomery. Ms. Connelly asked Mr. Montgomery if he had any comments, and he responded that the only important item was the 1964 deed executed from Mr. Collins to Mr. Ayala. He also stated that Mr. Ayala was now present. Mr. smith noted that Mr. Ayala, owner of property located at 233 Market Road, Immokalee, Florida did Page 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 in February of 1988 remove a completely burned out mobile home and replace it with another one without first obtaining a permit to do so. He stated that Mr. Ayala also allowed illegal storing of this mobile home in a commercial industrial district. He pointed out that the documentation contained in Composite Exhibit A proves Mr. Ayala has been repeatedly advised to cease these violations since July~ 1988. He indicated that on July 8, 1988 Investigator Pete Lewkowicz issued a red tag and explained to virginia Villarreal, the manager of the property, that the mobile home would have to be removed. He stated that on August 24, 1988, Investigator Lewkowicz returned and found the violation still existed and advised Virginia Villarreal to have Mr. Ayala call him. Mr. smith reported that on September 23, 1988, Investigator Lewkowicz sent a Notice of Violation letter to Mr. Ayala, advising him he must remove the mobile home, and on October 17, 1988 Investigator Lewkowicz reinvestigated the premises and found that the violation still existed. Mr. smith advised that on November 2, 1988, Investigator Lewkowicz sent a Notice of Violation letter to Mr. Aya~a advising him that he must remove the mobile from the premises, and on November 7, 1988 the Collier County zoning Office received a letter from Mr. Thomas Montgomery, attorney for Mr. Ayala, advising the county that he would be applying for a variance. He stated that on November 21, 1988, Mr. Richard Clark, Code Enforcement Supervisor, responded to Attorney Montgomery's letter advising him that a delay in the county action could be granted, but only after the filing of a formal variance hearing request. He stated that on November 30, 1988, Investigator Lewkowicz sent a Notice of Violation letter to Mr. Ayala advising him to remove the mobile home from the premises, and on March 28, 1989, the case was taken over by Investigator Thomas Bartoe who checked with David Weeks of the Planning Department. Mr. Weeks explained that a variance had not been applied for, and also that it would not be appli- cable in this situation. Mr. smith indicated that on April 29, 1989, Investigator Bartoe mailed a - Page 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Code Enforcement Board Notice of violation to Mr. Ayala and his attorney, Mr. Thomas Montgomery, and on May 4, 1989, he mailed a copy of the Ordinance, the Affidavit of Violation, and a case summary to both Mr. Ayala and Attorney Montgomery. He stated that on June 2, 1989, Inspector Bartoe rechecked the property and found that the violation still exists. Investigator Anthony B. Silvia, after being sworn in, stated that he is a Code Compliance Investigator for Collier County, and noted that he had been working with Investigator Bartoe for the last week, the area was checked periodically, and yesterday 2 photographs were taken of the mobile home in question. Attorney Montgomery cross- examined Mr. Silvia regarding the length of his employment with Collier County. Mr. Silvia responded that he had been employed for one month. In response to Attorney Montgomery, Mr. Silvia stated that he was somewhat familiar with the pro- perty and had been by the property a few times but not prior to his employment with Collier County. In response to Attorney Montgomery, Mr. Silvia responded that he had never looked at an aerial of the property in question. Attorney Montgomery asked Mr. Silvia if he was advised that the pro- perty owner in question felt that he had a right to have a mobile home on this property because he had purchased the property in 1964 with two mobile homes and some other buildings, not there now, were on the property? Mr. Silvia responded that he is aware only of the conversation. In response to Attorney Montgomery, Mr. Silvia stated that he would have to look at the Ordinance sought to cite Mr. Ayala that was passed in 1982. Mr. Constantine questioned if copies of photos taken yesterday were available? Mr. Smith responded that Investigator Bartoe would introduce them at the time of his testimony. Ms. Connelly questioned Attorney Montgomery as to which County Code Ordinance he was referring to in the questioning of Mr. Silvia? Attorney Montgomery stated that it was the code regarding the actual presence of a mobile home on the property, not failure to obtain a permit to put a mobile home there. Page 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Ms. Connelly questioned if the Ordinance would be 82-2 and Attorney Montgomery responded that was correct, and Respondent concedes an occupied mobile home is on the property, but the only issue is whether or not respondent is entitled, as a matter of law, to the full use of his property because he purchased it in 1964, prior to the passage of the laws the CEB is now seeking to enforce. In response to Mr. Clark, Attorney Montgomery responded that his contention is that two mobile homes were there; one was burned which Mr. Ayala was told by Mr. Clark's office to remove and he did. In response to Mr. Clark, Attorney Montgomery responded that a mobile home is there, but conceded that it was brought in during the last 12 months. After being sworn in, Mr. Thomas Bartoe responded to Mr. Smith's questions. He stated that he had been conducting an investigation of a mobile home brought to the property prior to 1988 and, as of Tuesday, still on the property and in violation of the No Permits Obtained Ordinance in a Commercial C-5 area. In response to Mr. smith, he checked his notes and ~tated that continuous checks through June 20, 1989 and yesterday show the mobile home is still there. He also pointed out that photographs taken on May 16, 1989 and June 5, 1989 show evi- dence of the mobile home. Mr. Smith introduced in evidence Code Enforcement Board Case 89-003 with Mr. Ayala as respondent, 3 pages of an investigator's report showing that the mobile home is still located there and 4 pho- tographs as Exhibit "B". Attorney Montgomery stated he had no objections to the Exhibit. Mr. Clark questioned Mr. Bartoe if the existence of a mobile home on this property with this zoning sti- pulation would be considered a non-conforming use? Mr. Bartoe responded that it would, and in response to Mr. Clark pointed out that if the mobile home was removed, legally it could not be replaced. Attorney Montgomery objected to the question because it called for a legal conclusion that this witness is not competent to answer. Ms. Connelly explained that the rules of evidence do not apply to these proceedings, but his objection is noted. In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Bartoe read a section regarding the non-conforming lots and uses in Paragraph B, under Section 6.1 (copy not provided Page 5 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 to Clerk to the Board). Mr. Clark summarized that this is not a legal opinion, it is a non-conforming use and after removal, nothing new or additional can be placed on that lot and Mr. Bartoe concurred. Attorney Montgomery cross examined Code Compliance Investigator Bartoe in regard to the property in question. Mr. Bartoe replied that in 1971 he did not know what was on the property and had looked at aerials, but not for 1971. He stated he was not aware that 2 mobile homes were on the property in 1971, and had looked at the January, 1988, aerials. He stated that he was not aware there were 2 mobile homes on the property in 1980 and investigation revealed the mobile home was put there shortly before the JUly, 1988, investigation. He admitted that he did not know if the mobile home was on the property before the one that was destroyed by fire was removed. He stated that he did not know if a variance could be granted for the use of a mobile home on the premises. He responded that Investigator Lewkowicz was the investigator assigned to the area before him, and he did have personal contact with Mr. Ayala. He stated that the mobile home destroyed by fire had been removed, but he did not know who removed it and had no knowledge of an investigator telling Mr. Ayala to remove the home. He stated he knew of no threat that utilities for the entire property would be turned off if the mobile home destroyed by fire was not removed. He responded that neither he, nor the inspector before him spoke Spanish. He indicated that the property would be classified as a non- conforming use regarding this mobile home, and once the non-conforming use ceases, the property owner loses his right to a non-conforming use. He indicated that he did not know if a mobile home had been on the property since Mr. Ayala purchased it in 1964, nor did he know the period of time a mobile home was not on the property and unoccupied. Ms. Connelly questioned if the County would be willing to stipulate a mobile home on the property had been inhabited since 1964, as stated by Attorney Montgomery, and Mr. Clark responded the County could not. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Bartoe if mobile homes on the property prior to 1964 were relevant and the issue of whether or not this mobile home was placed on - Page 6 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 the property after removal constitutes non- conforming use, making it illegal under the Ordinance, and Mr. Bartoe responded "Yes, sir". Mr. strain questioned if the Ordinance establishing a non-conforming use applies purely for the struc- ture that was there from 1964 until the time it was altered, burned or changed and after that a new structure coming into play does not apply? Mr. Bartoe responded "Correct". After Mr. Smith was sworn in, he responded that prior to 10 months ago when he started working as a Code Enforcement Board Investigator for Collier County, he was a state certified general contractor and a police officer for the state of Michigan prior to that. He stated that he had participated in the investigation and on May 2, 1989 he spoke with Virginia Villarreal, manager of the bar at 233 Market Road, Immokalee. He entered into evidence a statement from Virginia Villarreal dated May 2, 1989 indicating that she had spoken with Bill Smith and Dick Clark, and informed them the mobile home behind the -bar burned in January of 1988. She stated that the debris was removed 2 or 3 days after the fire and in February, a new mobile, still there, was brought in. She indicated that she has been employed at this location for 17 years and the mobile home is approximately the same size as the one that burned. Mr. Smith stated that a letter from David Weeks of the Planning Department indi- cated a variance would not apply in this situation. In response to Mr. Lemoureux, this letter was also admitted into evidence. Attorney Montgomery con- ceded that the variance does not apply, and that is why one was not applied for. Attorney Montgomery stated that from a legal stand- point, Mr. Ayala is entitled to non-conforming use for as long as he owns the property, unless he does not use the property for 30 days. In response to Ms. Connelly, Attorney Montgomery responded that a property owner is grandfathered in after purchase of property unless they cease that use for more than 30 days. In response to Mr. Lemoureux, Attorney Montgomery responded he did not have an Ordinance to back that up because this is Code Enforcement, and case law exists. Mr. Clark stated that the County would stipulate that is true for Page 7 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 existing non-conforming structures, but the land use remains the same. He pointed out that Mr. Bartoe read the Ordinance correctly and that the Ordinance specifically stipulates non-conforming structures that are removed cannot be replaced. Mr. Lemoureux noted to Mr. Smith that he did not see a copy of Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with non-conforming uses, and a copy was given to the Code Enforcement Board and entered into evi- dence. (copy not provided to Clerk to the Board) Ms. Connelly stated that Section 6 of Ordinance 82-2 contained in Exhibit "D" was read into the record by Inspector Bartoe earlier. Mr. Lemoureux stated that his understanding of a non-conforming use is that if a condition exists that is non- conforming, it can continue to exist and there can be situations such as this as long as the non- conformity does not increase, and requested the additional pages of the Ordinance. Pages 13 and 14 of the Ordinance 82-2 were marked and entered into evidence as Exhibit "D". (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board). Mr. Lemoureux noted that under these circumstances a mobile home existing on the property for the length of time Attorney Montgomery stated, replacing one mobile home with another may not be a violation of the non-conforming section of the Ordinance. Attorney Montgomery requested a legal opinion from the County Attorney. In response to Ms. Connelly, Mr. Smith indicated that the state- ment in the original investigator's report reported the mobile home was there, it was burned, removed and a new one was brought in but he does not know when the burned one was placed on the property. Mr. Williams stated that he lives in the area, is familiar with the property, and noted that there has been a mobile home there since 1964 and 1965. In response to Mr. Lamoureux, Mr. Williams stated there have been one and/or two, but he did not know the legality of how they got there. Attorney Montgomery corrected himself that the use is 90 days, not 30 in Subsection "C" of the Ordinance. Mr. Constantine questioned the date the fire took place, and Mr. Smith responded that a statement from the firefighter, Richard Carley, will be admitted into evidence. Code Enforcement Exhibit "E", 89-003, a two page document from firefighter Page 8 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Richard Carley stating that the mobile home was 90 percent burned on January 20, 1988 was entered into evidence. Attorney Montgomery had no objection to the evi- dence. Ms. Connelly stated that Pages 15 and 16 of Ordinance 82-2, section 6.7 through part of 6.14 were admitted into evidence as part of Exhibit "D". In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. smith responded that 90 percent of the structure was burned and Mr. Smith read page 15 Paragraph "B" under non- conforming structures. (copy not provided to Clerk to the Board). In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Smith responded that this unit could not be replaced because more than 50 percent of the structure had been burned. Attorney Montgomery cross examined Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith stated that, according to the sworn state- ment taken by him, the mobile home was put on the property in February of 1988. Mr. Smith indicated that he took the statement from the manager, Virginia Villarreal, she spoke English and read the statement. Attorney Montgomery questioned if Mr. Smith knew, from his own personal knowledge, if this mobile home replaced the one that was there? Mr. Smith replied that he did not, nor did he ask the fireman if it was there, and responded that he had not looked at any aerials from 1971 or 1985. He admitted that he did not know if there were 2 mobile homes on the property at the time of the fire. He admitted that he did not know if the pro- perty was not used to house a mobile home for more than 90 days. Mr. Constantine stated that in the final paragraph of the firefighter's letter, the firefighter stated that "He had an opportunity to observe all around the mobile home after the fire and did not observe any other mobile home in the area." In response to Attorney Montgomery, it was noted that the firefighter is here to testify. Mr. Clark asked if Mr. Smith doubted the truth- fulness and veracity of the witness he took the statement from, or Attorney Montgomery's stipula- tion that the mobile home was brought in within the last year and Mr. Smith responded "No." Mr. Strain read statements in the Ordinance under 6.10 C relevant to non-conforming structures. He Page 9 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 questioned if the new structure or structure existing is in the same location as the burned out structure? Mr. Smith replied no photographs from the burned out one were available to show whether it is the same location. Mr. Strain read 6.12 on the same page 16. (Copy not supplied to Clerk to the Board) and noted that removal of the -structure shall eliminate the non-conforming status of the land. Attorney Montgomery asked if the mobile home exposes the public to any danger, if in all other respects this mobile home complies with the laws of Collier County, i.e. setbacks, etc. and if it was inspected for that purpose. Mr. Smith responded "Not to my knowledge". Firefighter Richard Carley of the Immokalee Fire Department was sworn in. He stated that upon arri- val at the mobile home at 233 New Market Road in January, 1988, the mobile home was fully involved and it appeared that the fire had started in the middle of the trailer in the living/room dining room and moved to both ends. He explained that when the fire was put out, approximately 90 percent of the mobile home was destroyed, the roof was caved in, the walls were leaning in towards the center from the collapsed roof, the floor was burned out and the only thing left was the frame. He stated that he did not notice another mobile home on the property, but there is another struc- ture northeast appearing to be a bar/restaurant. Mr. Clark stated that a provision can be applied for a temporary use permit for one year for that mobile home, and a variance is not needed. He explained that if he wishes to do that, the matter can be resolved today, if he stipulates that the violation is there, and his client will either remove the mobile home within 15 days or obtain a permit. Mr. strain asked if this would apply to resolution of both counts? Mr. Clark responded "Yes". Attorney Montgomery agreed to Ms. Connelly's suggestion of preparing and agreeing to the stipulation. Mr. williams questioned what process the County has to go through at the end of one year to remove the mobile home? Mr. Clark responded that he did not know if a temporary permit can be renewed, but if the stipulation is that it is a violation, this can Page 10 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 come back before the Board and monetary punitive methods can be requested. Attorney Montgomery cross examined the firefighter. Mr. Carley stated that the date of the fire and his report was January 20, 1988, but acknowledged that he did not have the report with him. In response to Ms. Connelly, Attorney Montgomery stated that information in the statement is not in the fire- fighter's report and questioned if the firefighter was requested to put in his report that there was no other mobile home present? Mr. Carley stated that there was no other mobile home present. Mr. Carley stated that his report was back at the sta- tion, and he did review the report before preparing the June 7, 1989 statement. Mr. Carley indicated that there was nothing in the report about the existence of another mobile home and that he had not been on the property before, nor observed two mobile homes on the property. He stated that he has not been back on the property since the fire and it was night time when he was there. Attorney Montgomery requested the pictures in Exhibit "B". Mr. Carley stated that there was another building, not a mobiie home, sitting on front of the property and the mobile home was on the southwest corner of that building. In response to Attorney Montgomery, Mr. Carley noted that he could not, from the pic- tures, state that the mobile home on the property now is not in the same location as the one that was burned out. Mr. Carley stated that it was Investigator Bartoe who requested that he prepare a statement, and the type of mobile home that burned . was on the report. He indicated that it was approximately 65 feet, and that he did not know the value of the mobile home, nor the cost of replace- ment. In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Carley reported that 90 percent of the mobile home as well as its com- parative value was destroyed. Mr. strain questioned the length and width of the lot under the non-conforming question? He noted, after an inaudible response from the audience, about 100 by 200 maximum and asked if fighting a fire at that location would enable the firefighter to see another structure within the boundaries of that line? Mr. Carley responded that he could not, as he was not looking for one. He pointed out that Page 11 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 the mobile home that burned was 15 or 20 feet from another structure that had power lines running to it. Mr. strain questioned how many feet around the mobile home he could observe another mobile home? Mr. Carley responded that he saw nothing further than 30 or 40 feet. In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Carley replied that he saw no other mobile homes in the area. Mr. Clark stated that the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. He noted that an employee with 17 years of experience states that the burned out mobile home was moved, and Attorney Montgomery sti- pulates that the mobile home was brought in within the last year; the Ordinance clearly states that a non-conforming structure destroyed by 50 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction shall not be reconstructed, except in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. He indicated that this Ordinance states that should any non-conforming structure be removed, it cannot be replaced. He pointed out that testimony and evidence present an overwhelming case for finding that the violation exists. Attorney Montgomery stated that there are aerials offered for exhibit which date back 3 years. The aerials were examined at the Code Enforcement Board table. The Chairman noted for the record that the Board reviewed Respondent's Exhibit 1, an aerial photo dated April, 1973, with Mr. Ayala explaining where the 5 mobile homes on the site were located. Mr. Ayala indicated that Pine trees made the homes difficult to observe, but the pine trees have since been removed. Mr. Smith stated that he did not see the mobile homes. Ms. Connelly stated that Exhibit 2 is an aerial photograph dated February, 1985, and Mr. Ayala stated that the little house cannot be seen on Exhibit 2 because it was removed from the property due to insurance requirements. Mr. Ayala pointed to Exhibit 2 and indicated that there wer~ 3 trailers on the property on February of 1985. ~he Chairman stated Respondent's Exhibit 3 is another aerial photograph dated February, 1981, showing the subject property and the little house is not shown in Respondent's Exhibit 3 but he could point out and indicate the presence of 3 trailers on the pro- perty. It was noted for the record that the aerial photographs are out of sequence in terms of the years. Page 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Mr. Clark had no objection to the admission of the documents, but said that Compliance Services would like to state that the relevancy of those documents to the charges are immaterial. Ms. Connelly noted for the record that the rules of evidence do not apply to these proceedings and Respondent's Exhi- bits 1 through 3 will be accepted into evidence and Mr. Clark's comments will be noted by the Board for whatever purposes they see fit. Mr. Humberto Robert Ayala, after being sworn in, stated that he owns the property at 233 Newmarket Road. Ms. Connelly noted that Mr. Ayala had not been under oath when he showed the Exhibits to the Board and asked for his sworn testimony applied to the comments made about Exhibits 1 through 3. Mr. Ayala concurred. In response to Attorney Montgomery, Mr. Ayala replied that he has owned the property at 233 Newmarket Road since 1961 - 1962, and that he purchased the property from Malcolm Collins and the Deed reflects issuance of title to the property in 1964. He stated that the property when purchased, had a bar, 5 or 6 trailers and a small house on the 4 lots. He indicated that the trailers were used for living quarters and trailers have been on the property since 1964. He explained that the date of the fire was in January of 1988 and two trailers were on the property. He pointed out that the property was 100 x 95 and the mobile home that burned was on the property itself, not one lot. He stated that the second mobile home was located on the same property about 30 or 35 feet from the mobile home that burned. He explained that he was not there when the fire occurred. He responded that investigator Bartoe did not know about the second trailer on the property. He stated that he had not spoken to anyone about the removal of the burned out trailer. He reported that his Manager was told by one of the County inspectors, Mr. Oss, that if the 2 trailers were not moved off the property, electric power to run the business would not be provided. He stated that in May, after the fire, the trailer was put on the lot. Mr. Ayala moved the burned trailer because of what the inspector told him. He responded that the second trailer was sold because of the inspector's threat to turn off the utilities to the barn. He noted that the trailer would not have been sold if the County had not told him to move it. He stated Page 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 that he owns I bar and 4 recreation centers in 4 different counties, and if the utilities were turned off to the bar in Immokalee his income would have been lost and that is why he moved the trailer. He noted that electrical service is hooked up to the trailer that is on the property now. He stated that Mr. Oss is a building inspec- tor -for the County in Immokalee and that Mr. Oss said.he does not remember telling Virginia Villarreal and Joe Ayala both trailers had to be removed before the permit would be issued for electric. He stated that the conversations took place after the fire. Mr. Clark questioned if the electricity was off because of the fire, and Mr. Ayala responded that Mr. Oss would not put the electric back on until the 2 trailers were removed. Mr. Clark stated that no one is trying to impune Mr. Ayala's integrity. He questioned the value of the burned mobile home. Mr. Ayala responded $8,000 and he sold it for $50.00. Mr. Ayala responded that he did not get a permit to replace the mobile home. Mr. Ayala stated that a County employee told him the burned trailer would have to be removed. Mr. Clark questioned if Mr. Ayala would have moved the burned out trailer anyway, and Mr. Ayala responded "Yes". In response to Mr. Pedone, Mr. Ayala stated he did not know the exact date in May the trailer was brought in. After being sworn in, Virginia Villarreal stated that her statement read earlier in the hearing was true. She noted that she resides at 1314 South Tangerine street, and prior to that she lived behind the bar in a trailer. She stated that the trailer that burned belonged to her, and another trailer was located there at the same time directly across from hers. She stated that she has managed the property for Mr. Ayala and has been employed by him for 17 years. She indicated that someone was living in the second trailer before it burned, and it was removed because the building inspector told them to in order to get power turned on. She stated that the bar had been closed for 5 days, and that she did not ask the inspector why the trailer had to be moved in order to get power. She stated that the other trailer was sold to a friend. She indicated that she lived in the trailer alone, and that Mr. Oss was the inspector who told her that the trailer had to be moved some time in May. She Page 14 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 stated that the second trailer was not damaged by fire and was not too close to the one that burned. She responded that because of the fire, water was put on the top of the roof of the bar where the electrical wiring was. Mr. Clark questioned which trailer was moved first? Ms. -Villarreal responded the burned one. She responded that after removal of the second mobile home off premise there were no mobile homes there until the one that is there was brought in. She responded, that to the best of her knowledge, no permit was obtained to put the mobile home there. Attorney Montgomery asked her if Robert Ayala would have moved the second home if the inspector had not told him he could not get electric, and she replied "No, there was nothing wrong with the trailer to be moved". In response to Mr. constantine, Ms. Villarreal responded that the trailer was moved between February and May. Mr. Andrews questioned Attorney Montgomery the date he became involved and asked if his contention is that this is a conforming use of the trailer? Attorney Montgomery responded September or November of 1988, and he would respond to the second part of the question at a later time. After being sworn in, Mr. Jose Ayala stated that he lives in Immokalee and is the brother of Robert Ayala and in February of 1988 he lived at 69 Madison Avenue, Immokalee. He noted that there were 2 trailers on the property when the fire took place. He stated that one of the trailers was burned and had to be removed, and that a Collier County inspector told him he could not get electri- cal if he did not move both trailers. He stated that he did not know exactly when the other trailer was put there after the fire. Attorney Montgomery concluded his case and argued that evidence shows his client is entitled to a non-conforming use to his property and takes issue with the Code. He stated the Code cannot take away the property right that exists by passage of new laws. He submitted to the Board that by passage of the Code, Mr. Ayala's right to use his property owned since 1964 has been taken away. He stated that Mr. Ayala has used his property since 1964 in Page 15 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 a non-conforming way but they not know when it became illegal to have mobile homes on commercial property. He submitted that the property itself would have to be classified as non-conforming when the Zoning law was passed, and as long as Mr. Ayala used the property within a reasonable period of time, he would not lose that right. He stated that most counties have no provisions for time, but Collier County does, and there is no evidence that this property was ceased to be used in a non- conforming way to house mobile homes for 90 days or more. Mr. Clark reiterated that the Ordinance clearly states that any mobile home or structure damaged by 50 percent or more that is removed cannot be replaced. He pointed out that the 90 day clause is not applicable, nor applies to this situation. Attorney Montgomery directed the Board's attention to 6 3 E of the Code Ordinance (copy not provided to Clerk to the Board) and the fact that one year after it was passed, any non-conforming mobile home not associated with principal structure had to be removed. He emphasized that a property right existing at the time the law is passed cannot be taken away. Mr. Lemoureux questioned if Inspector Oss was pre- sent, and Mr. Clark stated that he was but the issues and witnesses have been presented and the case is closed. Made by Mr. strain that based on the findings of fact and the evidence as presented, Mr. Humberto Robert Ayala is the owner of the subject ~ at 233 New Market Road, Immokalee, Florida, was present at the public hearing and all notices ~uired by Collier County Ordinance 88-89 have been properly issued, and the ~erty located at 233 New Market Road, Immokalee, described as LaEstrellita Bar, Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, Block 50 of that certain Subdivision known as New Market is in violation of Section 86-49 and 87-19 Collier County Ordinance No. 103 as amended in the following ~.~ ticulars: Failure to obtain a Permit. . Seconded by Mr. Pedone. Carried unanimously. - MOTION: Made by Mr. strain that based on the findings of fact and the evidence as presented, Mr. Humberto MOTION: Page 16 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Robert Ayala is the owner of the subject ~ at 233 New Market Road, Immokalee, Florida, described as LaEstrellita Bar, Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, Block 50 of that certain Subdivision known as New Market is in violation of section 7.24 Collier County Ordinance 82-2 as amended in the following particulars: mobile structure not aEPlied for s~ cial exemption for section 10.6 temporary use ~ mite Seconded by Mr. Williams. COMMENTS: Mr. Lemoureux questioned the County not examining the original inspector and stated that he has a problem with the possibility of a County Inspector making threats and the 2 trailers allegedly on the property at the time of the fire. Mr. Strain responded that findings of fact are directed to the violations. He pointed out a mobile home tem- porary use permit has to be applied for. Mr. Clark concurred. A discussion followed about Section 7.24 C-5, Commercial Industrial Districts in Ordinance 82-2 and Section 10.6. Mr. Lamoureux stated he was not convinced Mr. Ayala is in viola- tion of the non-conforming section of the Ordinance. Attorney Wilson explained that the Ordinance allows the Board members to receive evidence, a presen- tation made by Staff and the Board can question witnesses presented, but cannot initiate pro- ceedings or ask for more evidence to be introduced. A discussion followed about the Board's authority and the rules and regulations. Ms. Connelly questioned Attorney Wilson if the Board is per- mitted to call witnesses as necessary? Attorney Wilson responded "Yes, a witness critical to the case". Mr. Constantine commented this has no bearing on whether or not this violation has taken place. Mr. Strain commented that the reason he worded his motion the way he did was because Section 10.6 IS a direct reference out of Section 7.24. MOTION: Upon call for the question, the Motion carried 5/0. (Mr. Lamoureux and Ms. Connelly opposed). ***Recess: 11:10 A.M. - Reconvened: 11:25 A.M.*** MOTION: Made by Ms. Connelly to set forth date where speci- fic actions must take place to comply with Page 17 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 COMMENTS: MOTION: COMMENTS: Ordinances 86-49 and 87-19 and Ordinance 82-2, County Code section 7.24 b.4 providing for imposi- tion of fine beyond the date set for compliance. Mr. Strain stated that he would like to take the counts separately. Made by Mr. strain that pursuant to Ordinances 86-49 & 87-19, Count 1, Humberto Robert Ayala obtain a permit for the removal and setting up of a mobile home on or before two weeks, and if Respondent does not comEly, a fine of $100 will be levied for each and every day the violation occurs and failure to pay the fine will result in recor- dation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Fla. statutes and the property sold to enforce the lien. Seconded by Mr. Lamoureux. Carried unanimously. A discussion followed about the time requirements for applications and permits. Attorney Wilson explained that there is a provision for a rehearing, and if there is any difficulty in making the_application or complying with the Order, the Respondent can come back to the Board and explain the circumstances. Mr. Strain stated that there must be a time constraint. It was the consensus of the Board that the order be reconsidered and the fine be amended to $50.00 for each count, and Mr. Ayala be required to apply for a temporary permit and said applica- tion to be made on or before July 7, 1989. It was the consensus of the Board that the motion be amended and the fine of $50.00 is for each count. Mr. Constantine read the Findings of Fact on 89-003 as follows: Mr. Ayala is the owner of record of the subject property, all provisions on Count 2 are identical and apply, and based on conclusions of law for both counts, there have been violations of Ordinances 86-49, 87-19 and 82-2, County Code Section 7.24 b.4. Respondent is ordered to correct violations of sections read by applying for a tem- porary permit, correction to be completed on or before July 7, 1989 and a fine of $50.00 per day levied for each and every day a violation continues Page 18 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 before said date. Failure to correspond with the Order may allow foreclosure of lien, Respondent has opportunity to appeal. tetete CASE NO. 89-005 RESPONDENTS: Samuel Montello, David Barbarino, Joseph Cali and Jeffery Ryan LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 2501 S. Airport Road, Naples, Florida See appended 15 page document dated April 10, 1989 VIOLATION: COMMENTS: Dick Clark, Code Enforcement Board Supervisor, stated that the issue is code violation charges, not if the operation of St. Matthews should be allowed to exist or exist at its present location. Mr. William Smith, Code Enforcement Coordinator, stated that Exhibit "B" be admitted into evidence. Ms. Pamela Mac'Kie, as pro bono attorney for St. Matthews stated that motions not relevant, nor con- testing wh~ther St. Matthews is in violation of the code as described are not going to be addressed. She stated that penalties and time considerations to allow St. Matthews to correct the deficiencies are what is sought. In response to Ms. Connelly, Attorney Mac'Kie stated that St. Matthews does not contest the existence of the violations. Ms. Connelly noted that Composite Exhibit "B" is entered into evidence and appropriate action can be considered by the Board. In response to Attorney Wilson's request, Attorney Mac'Kie confirmed that she had seen the composite exhibit. Ms. Connelly noted that the hearing is not being closed with respect to accepting evidence for findings of fact purposes, the evidence portion of the proceedings is still in session. Attorney Mac'Kie stated that the problem is that the people who are running St. Matthews are good at feeding and giving shelter, but are not versed in procedures for going through County processes. She emphasized that there has not been a lapse in good faith efforts of the owners and operators to comply with the violations they were notified about. She pointed out that they did not know the appropriate procedures, i.e. permits for windows, shower - Page 19 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 stalls, relative to the site development review process. She explained that a site plan will be offered into the record and a contractor and archi- tect are present to answer any questions. She pointed out there is an estimated budget of approximately $10,000 to make the improvements required by the Code, the money is in place and budgeted for this purpose, people are committed to make the improvements and they are asking the Board to provide a prospective date allowing reasonable time to make the improvements, after which penalties will be appropriate. Mr. Clark stated that he applauded the presen- tation, but it does not meet the requirements, and since December the owners of the property have allowed this use. He pointed out that a fire sta- tion does not have the required necessities, nor does it meet the requirements for living quarters and it does not meet requirements for human habita- tion. He pointed out that these people are being exposed to unsanitary and dangerous conditions, and the County Code is set up to address safety and health iss~es. He emphasized that if fire breaks out in that station, people will be disoriented when they wake up and it is a known fact that smoke kills more people than fire. He suggested that beginning Monday a fine of $250.00 per day for insufficient ingress and egress be imposed, together with fines of $50.00 per day for each of the other 15 violations. He emphasized that these violations can cease tomorrow if people find alter- nate homes for these people and there are enough supporters in the community to take in these people. Ms. Connelly questioned if during the time of the permitting process, the inhabitants of the subject property residing there is a health and safety violation. Mr. Clark concurred. In response to Ms. Connelly, Mr. Clark stated that when the building ceases to be inhabited, the violations cease. He explained that it is a com- mercial building, and corrections are not required if no one lives there. Attorney Mac'Kie responded that the contractor is present and requested the permit today. She stated that work would start immediately to correct the safety violations. Mr. Clark explained that all items have to be corrected, and there is no alternative. Attorney Mac'Kie stated that there is no choice available for these Page 20 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 people, they will have to go back to the woods. She emphasized that the parking requirements for 7 spaces is comparable to a nursing or convalescent home and St. Matthews is a homeless shelter and homeless people do not have cars. She requested that another section of the County Ordinance for public buildings be determined by the Director so that the parking requirements can be met. Mr. Pedone questioned what would happen if a fire occurred this evening? Attorney Mac'Kie responded that the people would be evacuated, Mr. Pedone asked "how"? He noted that there is no acceptable method of evacuation, and questioned how he could reconcile his conscience by allowing people to sleep in the woods or by reading that 40 or 50 people were burned alive? Attorney Mac'Kie responded that weighing the odds, some shelter is better than none. Ms. Connelly stated that she also shares that concern but questioned the legal responsibility of the County if the facility is allowed to remain open? Attorney Wilson stated that if the violations are known by the County, not corrected and no definitive time period is set for correction; the County may be in a liability posi- tion not only from the inhabitants, but from any visitors to the shelter. A discussion followed about the liability concern. Ms. Connelly pointed out that the Board must focus on what is to be done about the order and compliance with it. Attorney Mac'Kie questioned the liability concern if a deadline is set, and Attorney Wilson responded that completion of the procedure for the site plan creates an open end time period. Attorney Mac'Kie stated that respondent is willing to have the County set a date, but pointed out that the possi- bility for delay is controlled by Staff. Mr. Constantine emphasized that people cannot be allowed to stay in unsafe conditions and respondent did not follow the proper procedures. Mr. Constantine replied that no fires occurring to date does not make acceptable the gamble that there will be no fires from today on. Mr. Clark reiterated his statement that alternative housing can be found for these people. He emphasized that they have not submitted an acceptable plan since December, and admitted that Attorney Mac"Kie is correct in stating that the County's permit review time cannot be controlled. Page 21 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Attorney Mac'Kie noted any limitations for reaso- nable submission of the plan would be acceptable, and the only defect is the parking requirement. Attorney Wilson responded that the time factor of the permitting process is not in the hands of Staff, but also the applicants. Ms. Connelly encouraged submission of the material and approval by the County to encourage both sides to work out the violations. Attorney Mac'Kie stated that there are three spring operable garage doors for fire evacuation. Mr. Clark reiterated that people are disoriented when sleeping and a fire occurs. A discussion followed about inspections made by the County and letters sent to the respondent. Attorney Mac'Kie questioned if the Board could instruct the planning staff to hear this applica- tion in a 6 week time frame. Attorney Wilson responded "No". She pointed out that more details could be found out from Staff about the permitting process and time periods and the hearing could be continued. Mr. Smith stated that per- mitting does not address the life safety issues. Mr. Clark reiterated what would happen if a fire occurred at night and 40 or 50 people were killed because the County did not do its job? Mr. Smith pointed out that the respondent has been aware of the violations, both by letter and telephone conversations. Attorney Mac'Kie responded that respondent tried to comply, but recently became aware of the comprehensive approach to the plan. Mr. Clark suggested that the alternate housing should be brought up to Code and the penalty should be imposed beginning Monday. Ms. Connelly noted that this allows the respondent the option of closing the building down and paying no fines. Attorney Mac'Kie pointed out that Mr. Kay advised that it is possible a permit for the window and doors could be pulled today and that would address the fire safety issues. Mr. Lamoureux emphasized that the Board is bound by compliance with the codes, but if the County can give priority, the Board would also. Mr. Clark repeated that respon- dent waited until the last minute to submit plans. Attorney Mac'Kie emphasized that there has been an effort to comply. Mr. Constantine stated the fact is that there was a delay. Mr. Strain asked when the architect was assigned to the Project, and Attorney Mac'Kie responded "a few weeks ago". Page 22 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Mr. Douglas Kay, Encore Construction, was sworn in. He stated that materials have been ordered, but the County will not allow permits to be done on a per item basis. In response to Mr. Strain, Mr. Kay replied that 2 months ago he was approached by the owners to correct items on the list of violations, the materials were ordered and a deposit made. In response to Mr. Strain, Mr. Kay stated that he thought short forms for permits for adding windows, doors etc. could be used without obtaining the site plan permit. Mr. Kay stated that the reasoning was if he had done life threatening items at the end of the short form permit, there would be no "CO" issued. Mr. Strain commented that a possible ave- nue to look at may be short forms while the long process is going on. Mr. Clark stated that incor- porating a life safety issue into total needs is not a wise idea, all needs should be met at the same time. Mr. Kay responded to Mr. Pedone that he thought it was in the best interest of St. Matthews to put in a package plan and not waste money on each item. Mr. Pedone_questioned obtaining a permit for doors and windows at this time? Mr. Kay stated that he does not believe it is outside the parameters of the County's ability to issue a short form permit, but they were not willing to issue permits one item at a time. In response to Ms. Connelly, Mr. Clark stated that the building should not be used because there are violations and all violations must be completed before a "CO" is issued. Attorney Mac'Kie pointed out that the Board could decide not to impose fines. A discussion followed about fining the owners and the building remaining open. Roger Wiedeback, attorney for Mr. Sam Montello, was sworn in. He stated that he was not aware this was a Chapter 162 hearing. He noted that the building is not in violation, the use is and stated that there is an agreement between St. Matthews and the owner that St. Matthews will comply with any Ordinances. He indicated that he could not see how the County or the Board could be liable for taking or delaying action. He stated that it took time for St. Matthews to get people, machinery, time and effort together and that caused the delay. He noted that the series of requirements imposed by _ Collier County are somewhat difficult to determine. Page 23 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Attorney Wilson clarified for the record that notice was duly given to all of the owners of the property that the hearing would be held today and it was continued from May 19, 1989. Attorney Wiedeback stated that Mr. Montello understood some time this week a conference to achieve complying with the County requirements would be held, but he became aware yesterday when the packages were deli- vered to Cummings & Lockwood and him. Mr. Smith stated that the package was hand delivered to the owners. Mr. Andrews questioned if the agreement between St. Matthews and the owner of the property makes St. Matthews responsible for compliance, financially and physically? Attorney Wieder back responded that St. Matthews House will comply with the Ordinances and Statutes. He responded to Mr. Strain that the lease was signed in November of last year. Mr. Strain questioned the parties who signed the lease. Attorney Wieder back stated he needed to look at the abstract, and the documents in the record show the property was conveyed by the fire station to an undivided one half interest for Mr. Barbarino, and undivided one-quarter interests to Mr. Cali and Mr. Montello, and a quick claim deed from Mr. Barbarino was given to Mr. Montello giving him a three- fourth's undivided interest. He stated that he understands Mr. Cali will be conveying his interest to Mr. Montello. Mr. Strain asked what Mr. Montello's occupation was and Attorney Wieder back stated he is retired. Attorney Wiederback replied to Mr. Strain that he did not think Mr. Montello knew the problems he would encounter. Mr. Andrews expressed concern about who would be liable for the recommended $250 fine for ingress and egress and $50.00 for the others. He stated that it seems that the property owner would be responsible. Attorney Wiederback responded that he could not dispute that. Mr. Sam Montello was sworn in. Mr. Montello stated that a lot of work has been done and the County is fully aware of it. He stated that a leach bed has been put in, a septic tank installed, electrical work has been done, screen door installed, and the building is safer. He stated that it is impossible for anyone to get hurt and all that has to be done Page 24 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 is raise the door to get out of the building. Ms. Connelly questioned if his point, as a property owner, is that violations brought to his attention by the County, have been complied with? He noted that the County will not advise what kind of fire system to install. He indicated that St. Matthews hired a builder and architect to get things going. In response to Ms. Connelly, Mr. Montello responded that he owned the property himself. A discussion followed about Mr. Montello's ownership. Mr. Smith stated that as of May 3, 1989, he had additional evidence that Mr. Cali and Mr. Barbarino still own the property. Ms. Connelly requested that the evidence be marked and put into the record. Attorney Mac'Kie requested the County Attorney be asked if a document has to be recorded to be an effective transfer. Attorney Wilson stated that by Ordinance the County must give notice and serve the record owners. She pointed out that unrecorded documents do not change the record. She emphasized that the official records of Collier County show the owners and he should record whatever he has in his possession. She stated that if the record owner does_not pay the fine, the lien is imposed on the property itself. Mrs. Larry Smelling, Vice Chairman of the Board for the Homeless, was sworn in and stated that she does not speak officially for the Board. She noted that she has a problem with statements made by the County and Mr. Clark. She indicated that if this is not a proper use why did the County itself give cots for the people to sleep on, and the Sheriff's Department bring clients for them to house? She noted taking care of these people in alternate ways is unrealistic and places for them could not possibly be found by Monday. She pointed out that these people have no cars, have to be fed, and have to be screened. She stated that it is not realistic to expect this issue to be resolved in 30 days so that these people can move back in. She pointed out that if a homeowner has a fire in his home, he is in the same position as the County would be. She explained that she had spoken with people who live there. She pointed out that one gentleman has a drug problem and is required to report to his parole officer. She noted that he got into trouble because he had to walk past the woods and associates that got him into trouble in Page 25 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 the first place. She indicated that there is a spouse abused lady with two children, and a han- dicapped person who lived in a car at St. Matthews. She questioned where can they go? She stated that she is also concerned about the safety of these people. She asked if the Board has the authority to do something to immediately address the life threatening issues, and implored them to do something. Mr. Constantine commented that the issue is not the homeless people, but whether or not the violations exist. He pointed out that the role of this Board is to encourage them to correct the violations and, thus, abide by the rules and regulations of the County. *** Recess 1:00 P.M. - 1:15 P.M., at which time Deputy Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk Kraft *** Ms. Beth Knake, Executive Director, Project Help, advised that her organization runs a crisis coun- seling referral service. She reported that between 60-70 calls are received each year from homeless people of all ages and races, but there are limited resources for these folks. She indicated that calls that have been received during the day, are channeled to the various churches, but eventually those funds are exhausted. She advised that home- less males who call during the night, are instructed to go to an all night restaurant, or an all night laundromat. She explained that calls relating to homeless women and children are also instructed to go to an all night restaurant or an all night laundromat. She noted that this is not safety. She stated that a caseworker from the Society of St. Vincent De Paul has taken in home- less women and children. Ms. Knake indicated that many calls have been received from law enforcement officials and the hospitals, asking what to do with these people, and Project Help was feeling helpless. She noted that the homeless will not disappear, if the shelter is closed, but they will be back on the streets and in the woods. Ms. Knake stated that St. Matthew's House is not glamorous, but it does provide a bed, food, and labor pool, in hopes that the occupants will be able to get on with their lives. She indicated Page 26 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 that counseling, AA and NA meetings are offered at the shelter, and those needing de-tox are taken to Ft. Myers. Ms. Knake requested that an opportunity be given to pertinent parties so that compliance of the requirements can be met, so that these people are -not put back on the streets or into the woods. She ~dvised that 500 people occupied the facility during the month of June. Mr. Randy Liebers, Night Manager of St. Matthew's House, stated that there is the need for an occupa- tional license, in order for the facility to go on, but it stands in the way of the violations being corrected. with regard to the issue of parking, he advised that very few of the clients have cars. He indicated that rests on the County to decide whether or not this facility will receive an Occupational License based on the number of parking spaces. He indicated that correcting the Code violations, rests solely on the deliberation of the County. Father Job Serebrov stated that he is a newcomer to Naples, but noted that his observation of problems with the homeless are the same patterns allover the country. He indicated that with the multiplication of the homeless, due to increasing disparity between rich and poor, this is a problem that will not disappear. He noted that if St. Matthew's House is closed, these people will be going into the wealthy downtown areas, and into the woods, and the picture that Naples wishes to pre- sent as a beautiful vacation spot without these kinds of people, will be contradicted, by the reality of seeing these people in the streets. He stated that there are disaster relief programs, and housing is provided during times of disaster in public buildings to shelter and feed people. He suggested that possibly the County or City buildings could be used to take in these people, until their building comes up to Code. Architect Mario LaMendola advised that he cannot imagine the subject building having any use without violations. He indicated that there is no legal parking on that site for any use. He indicated that the parking in front of the building is pave- Page 27 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 ment from the road to the building, 20' back. He advised that the building has only 9' sideyard. He noted that any user of this building would have a multiple of violations. Mr. LaMendola reported that he has submitted a site plan, and if this is insufficient, he is willing to submit additional backup material, noting that it does address all the violations. He noted that with regard to the egress violation, the following is proposed: enclose the 3 overhead areas in the front; the installation of 5 windows and a double door; the windows in the ladies' sleeping area will be changed; a fire alarm will be installed; and, exit lights will be installed. with regard to parking, Mr. LaMendola explained that 4 perpendicular parking spaces are proposed, one of which is an 11' handicapped area. He noted that rather than wait for approval of the site development plan, Staff could waive or approve any portion of it, and work with Mr. Kay, the Contractor, to issue the permit, and corrections could be mqde Mr. Clark questioned if in Mr. LaMendola's experience, this issue would have been addressed 6 months ago, would the entity be in operation today? Mr. LaMendola stated that he believes, without the site plan review, this could have been possible. He indicated that if the Zoning Department would have been willing not to make certain requirements, this facility could have been operational. Rev. James Kirk, representing Naples Ministerial Association, that advises St. Matthew's House, stated that there has been an increasing awareness over the past 7-8 months, to make this a shelter which meets all the proper requirements. He noted that he realizes the scope of what this Board is here to do, but there are hungry people at that building who are being fed, and there are people who have no shelter, and have a roof over their heads. He advised that there are also people at the shelt~r ~ho are,touched by chemical dependency, who are flndlng rellef. He stated that he believes that because of the lives that are being restored. through that ministry, that everyone should work Page 28 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 together to find out the reasons for keeping the shelter open, and bring this building up to specifications. Mrs. Smalley stated that not a single thing can be done about the violations, unless the the proper permits and licenses are obtained. She indicated that the County does have the authority to legally permit what this facility desires to do. She noted that until the required parking spaces are per- mitted, no occupational license will be issued. She explained that evidence has been submitted which indicates that there is sufficient parking, therefore, this could be waived, and an occupa- tional license could be obtained. She indicated that once a permit is received, corrections will be taken to bring the building into compliance. Mr. Clark advised that there are provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which state that a certain percen- tage of parking can be off-site, noting that there is a church right next door. Fire Protection Plans Compliance Specialist Salvaggio, stated that when the East Naples Fire Department occupied the subject site, the building was up to Code, but it does not meet current Code, even as a Fire Department, as of today. He reported that if St. Matthew's House moved into the building, and brought the building up to Code, it would not be up to Code ten years down the road, but they would not be asked to comply with that Code. Mr. Salvaggio explained that the East Naples Fire Department is classified as a storage business occupancy, and if for some reason St. Matthew's could be classified as this, no further require- ments would be added to that building, but they are changing the occupational classification, and therefore, the building must be brought up to Code. He noted that he does not believe that a precedent should be set on this case, since it will cause a "wide-open" situation from now on. He advised that a short form permit cannot be issued because of the change in classification. Mr. Clark asked if Mr. Salvaggio is comfortable in making a decision as to the safety of the sleeping Page 29 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 area in the garage? Mr. Salvaggio replied that this is a very dangerous situation. He indicated that the occupants are not accustomed to the area, since they may be at the facility for a day or a one week period. He explained that in the case of a fire, and people are not familiar with a specific room, there is a general panic. Mrs. Connelly questioned whether Mr. Salvaggio's concerns would be met by having routine fire drills at the facility? Mr. Salvaggio stated that fire drills would not alleviate his concerns, since new people are coming to the facility daily. Attorney Mac'Kie advised that all avenues for solving the parking problems are being explored. She indicated that the first steep is to obtain the number of spaces required to a reduced level which meets the need. She noted that once that process is exhausted, a parking arrangement can be entered into with the Methodist Church or the County. She indicated that if her earlier proposal cannot be accepted, she suggested that a grace period be granted for the site development review process. Mr. LaMendola stated that his concern is that the site plan review is very open-ended regarding the proper landscaping, having the seven functional parking spaces on site, etc., and the Department has the authority to waive any and/or all parts of the site plan review. He stated that if this Board can do anything to get an answer on that, he would be able to arrive at a quicker time as to when the work could begin, but a building permit cannot be applied for without this. MO~ION: Made by Mr. Constantine that the hearing be closed. Seconded on Mrs. Connell~. Carried 7/0. *** Recess 2:05 P.M. - 2:15 P.M. at which time Deputy Clerk Hoffman was replaced by Deputy Clerk Kraft *** MO~ION: Made by Mr. constantine that Samuel Montello, David M. Barbarino and Joseph Cali are the owners of record of the subject property, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent and that Mr. Montello was ~ sent and Mr. Barbarino and Mr. Cali were not at the public hearing and that all notices required bX- Page 30 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 COMMENTS: Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 have been ~ perly issued and that the property located at 2501 South Airport Road, Naples, Florida is in violation of ordinance No. 89-06, 86-49, 87-19, 82-2 and 81-42 be considered as findings of fact in this case. Seconded by Mr. Andrews. Carried unani- mously. Made by Mr. Constantine that based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Cha~ 162 Fla. Statutes in Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 it is hereby ordered that the Respondent correct the violations of section 89-06, 86-49, 87-19, 82-2 and 81-42 a total of 16 violations and that the corrections be completed on or before June 26, 1989 and if Respondent does not comply with this Order on or before that date and in that event Respondent is hereby ordered to ~~y a fine of $250 per day for section 5, Subsection 12D and $50 for each other violation listed for each and ever~ any violation described herein continues past that date after each additional violation. Mr. Strain-commented that the circumstances are unique and a better solution could be worked out to this problem. He noted that the Board is forcing the occupants to vacate, whether done by imposing penalties or telling them to vacate. He suggested working with the occupants and phasing an order to allow time to correct the emergency life threatening issues first and a proper amount of time to allow for the completion to a "CO". He indicated that each phase should be consecutive with a penalty for not completing each phase. He noted that earlier it was stated that it was not known whether a policy decision or an ordinance decision resulted in a short form permit, but Mr. Silvaggio testified that he would have to change the format if one of his superiors told him to do so and in that regard it must be a policy. He stated there might be some leeway at the County to work with this if they were given a reasonable amount of time to do so. He noted that according to the contractor only a couple of weeks may be needed to complete the work, and a short form per- mit can be obtained rather quickly. He suggested giving some leeway for them to finish up the non- life threatening issues and go through the process. Page 31 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 He pointed out that it might be in the best interest of the people who stay at the house as well as the public because the Sheriff, Naples Police Department and everyone else will have to handle the matter of these people being turned out to the open. Mr. Williams stated that he could go along with that except for the fact that these people have had over 7 months to comply, and are now doing something because they are being forced. Mr. Constantine concurred. Mr. Strain stated that the fines totalling $1,000 a day effective Monday are stringent. Mr. Lemoureux pointed out that they have posed a solution and not giving them any time is not fair. He stated that if he were going to vote on this he would extend the time by 1 or 2 months. Mr. Pedone pointed out that the main question is safety and the hazard of sleeping there if a fire occurs, not how long it will take to fix the problem. Ms. Connelly noted that any order imposed does not change the reality of fact. She stated that imposing an order effective June 26 and subjecting them to $1,000 a day in fines will not make it safer. Mr. Pedone responded that if the Order is given, not having them sleep there will be in accord with the current classification of the building. Mr. Lemoureux stated that the Board is setting precedents by saying you can violate ordi- nances depending on who you are, and that is not right. Mr. Lemoureux suggested amending the motion to extend the time frame to August 28. Mr. Constantine declined the amendment. Mr. Williams seconded Mr. Constantine's motion. MO~ION: COMMEN~S: Attorney Wilson explained that the motion maker declined the amendment. Mr. Andrews pointed out that he agrees with everything everyone said, but the Board has to remember the fines have to do with the owners, not St. Matthews. He pointed out that unsafe conditions still exist and the decision of when to begin the fines is the issue. He noted two dates were mentioned and the Board has to compro- mise some place along the line. Mr. Lemoureux questioned the alternative of safety. He noted that being on the street or finding some other place is not necessarily safe either. He suggested giving them time by allowing a short term permit to be issued and allow them 2 to 3 weeks to complete the work before a penalty becomes effective and Page 32 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: COMMENTS: June 22, 1989 then allow another phase to complete the "CO". Attorney Wilson stated that a phase type order is permissible. In response to Mr. Strain, Mr. Constantine stated "My motion stands". Upon roll call vote, the motion carried 4/3 as follows: Mr. Williams aye Mr. Pedone aye Mr. Lamoureux nay Ms. Connelly nay Mr. strain nay Mr. Constantine aye Mr. Andrews aye The cause came on for public hearing before the Board of Collier County Code Enforcement on June 22, 1989, and the Board having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters thereupon issues its Findings of Fact. That Messrs. Montello, Barbarino, Cali and Ryan are the owners of record of the subject property and the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the persons of the respondents and that Mr. Montello and his attorney were present at the public hearing. All notices required by Collier County Code Ordinance No. 88-89 have been properly issued and the pro- perty located at 2501 South Airport Road has a legal description contained in Composite Exhibit "B", is in violation of Sections 89-06, 86-49, 87-19, 82-2 and 81-42 Collier County Ordinances as amended, and the particulars can be found in Composite Exhibit "B". Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of law and pur- suant to the authority granted in Chapter 162 of Fla. Statutes in Collier County Ord. 88-89, as amended, it is hereby ordered that the Respondents correct the violations of sections just mentioned of the Collier County Ordinances as amended and that said corrections be completed on or before June 26, 1989, and if Respondents do not comply with this Order on or before that date, then and in that event, Respondents are hereby ordered to pay a fine of $250 a day for violation of Section 5-12D and $50 a day for each other violation for a total of 15 violations as listed in Composite Page 33 " CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 Exhibit "B". Failure to comply with the Order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162 Fla. Statutes which may be foreclosed and Respondents' property sold to enforce the lien. Attorney Wiedeback questioned what instituted compliance? He said that the Order speaks in terms of completion and is directed to the owners. He asked if filing an action to evict St. Matthews' House would be in compliance? Ms. Connelly stated that the motion made said that Respondents are to correct the said violations. She noted that if there are no violations on June 26, 1989, no penalty will be imposed. Attorney Wilson responded that filing an action to evict will not be in compliance, because the relationship between the owners and their tenants is a relationship between the two of them. Attorney Wiedeback stated that the Board put the matter completely out of control of the owner. Attorney Wilson stated that Jeff Ryan referenced in his oral dissertation of the Order t0at he is an agent of St. Matthews House, not an owner, and requested that the Order be brought up to date as to the record owner of the property and any changes be implemented into the written Order. She indicated that this request was made so that the record is clear and no discrepancy between the oral and the written order exists. Mr. Lemoureux stated that his understanding was that if there were no occupants in the building there would be no violation. Attorney Wilson stated that if Attorney Wiedeback had asked if an action was filed, a hearing was held, and an eviction order was given by Monday, her opinion would have been different. She stated that an eviction action can take a long period of time even though it can be done in short order. Respondents are hereby ordered to pay a fine of $250 a day for violation of Section 5-12D and $50 a day for each other violation for a total of 15 violations as listed in Composite Exhibit "B". Failure to comply with the Order within the spe- cified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162 Fla. Statutes which may be foreclosed and Respondents' property sold to enforce the lien. Page 34 June 22, 1989 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY CASE NO.: RESPONDENT: ...... 89-006 Salvatore Palermo LOCATION OF VIOLATION: Unit 10 N. 180' of Tract 180 Golden Gate Estates VIOLATION: COMMENTS: Illegal Land Use - storage of construction materials, shed, vehicles, tires, trash, mobile home Code Enforcement Board Investigator Smith requested Composite Exhibit "C" be admitted into evidence. Mr. Palermo responded that he does not wish to contest the charges and had reviewed the Composite Exhibit "C". He noted that he did remove some of the materials, i.e. vehicles. Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Palermo will come into compliance, but needs an additional 10 days to remove the balance of the materials and Compliance Services has no objection to 10 calendar days for removal. He noted that at the end of the 10 days, Compliance Services will check to make sure that the balance of the materials have been removed and recommend that $100 per day fine be imposed against Mr. Palermo if the debris and substances have not been removed within the 10 calendar days. Mr. Palermo questioned the situation if he obtains a building permit for his building materials within 10 days and Mr. Clark responded that if he obtains the permit and the substances are not violative, that would be permissible. Mr. Andrews questioned why Mr. Palermo waited until now to comply? Mr. Palermo was sworn in and responded that he had removed the vehicles, but Venetian Bay Construction went out of business and he purchased building materials and had to take all of the building materials. He stated that he purchased the materials to build his house. He indicated that he went to Miami and New Jersey to earn money to pay for the supplies, and the last 2 letters of viola- tion were signed for by someone else. Mr. Palermo agreed to remove all violations within the 10 day period. Mr. Lemouretix questioned if this could be done in a shorter period of time and Mr. Palermo Page 35 , .. l' CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 stated that there are many left over materials, hot water heater, tub, doors, sheds, and everything to build his house with. Mr. Clark stated that the situation does not pose immediate eminent danger and suggested a $100 a day fine for each day after the 10 day period, if everything is not removed. MO~ION: Made by Mr. Constantine to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Young. Carried unani- mously. Made by Mr. strain that the Findings of Fact that Salvatore Palermo is the owner of the record of the subject property that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the persons of the Respondent, and that Salvatore Palermo was present at the public hearing, all notices required by Collier County ordinance No. 88-89 have been ~ issued and the property is located at 281 9th Street, N.W. described as unit 10 N. 180' of Tract 180 Golden Gate is in violation of section 7.10 Collier County Ordinance 82-2 as amended in the following particulars: illegal land use by storinq of construction material, shed, vehicles, tires, trash, and mobile home. Conclusion of law: Salvatore Palermo is in violation of Section 7.10 Collier County Ordinance No. 82-2 as amended and the Order based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162 of Fla. Statutes and Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 as amended, it is hereby ordered that the Respondent correct the violations by removing materials, shed, vehicles, tires, trash and mobile home that are not in compliance and said correction be completed on or before ten days from tOday's date and if ~ondent does not comElY with said Order on or before that -date, Respondent is hereby ordered to ~y a fine of $100 per day for each and ever~ any violation described herein continues past said date. Failure to com~y with the order within the specified time will result in recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162 Fla. Statutes which ma~ foreclosed and Respondent's properties sold to enforce the lien. Seconded by Mr. Constantine. Mr. Lemoureux stated that he would like the fine increased from $100 to $250 per day. Mr. Strain Page 36 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 accepted that as an amendment to his Motion. Carried unanimously. *** OLD BUSINESS: Report on cases heard on May 19, 1989. Mr. Smith stated that said cases have been complied with. NEW BUSINESS: Approval of Amendment to Rules and Regulations for the Code Enforcement Board. COMMENTS: MOTION: COMMENTS: MO~ION: REPORTS: Attorney Wilson stated that the provision whereby the Board calls witnesses should be taken out of the Rules and Regulations, because the Ordinance itself requires the Board to sit and receive evidence and does not contemplate calling witnesses. She noted that a problem occurs when someone is not present at the hearing and, from a legal point of view, the Board is to base their decisions on the evidence presented to them rather than asking to see site beforehand, etc. Made by Ms. Connelly to accept the Collier Countx Fla. Code Enforcement Board Rules and Regulations and delete from Page 4 in Subparagraph E under Article 8 Hearings add a period after witnesses, close the parenthesis and strike "or call any witness as necessarx". Seconded by Mr. Pedone. Mr. Lemoureux questioned if someone is in the room why the Board cannot ask question him? Attorney Wilson stated that it would be difficult to draft rules and allow a small opening without allowing a larger opening, and you would have to be very specific in limiting the witnesses, changing the role of the Board. Upon call for the question, the Motion carried 6/1. (Mr. Lemoureux opposed.) *** Mr. Heywood Boyce, Compliance Services Manager, stated that April statistics have been brought up to date. He indicated that 868 new illegal land use cases were developed in the month of May and of those, 394 were public complaints and patrol by the 10 Code Compliance Investigators picked up the Page 37 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY June 22, 1989 remainder of 474. He emphasized that 87 percent of the cases were closed successfully, an increase from 70 percent in April. He pointed out that 4 cases went to Court and 2 were found guilty and fined and the other 2 have not gone to Court. He explained that 128 overgrown or debris strewn lot cases were developed and will be resolved by the owner of the lot or the County's mowing program followed by a lien on the property. He stated that the half year statistics are 28 percent ahead of last year. He pointed out that weeds and overgrown lot cases are 40 percent ahead of their forecast and the demolition is 50 percent ahead of their forecast. He pointed out that an additional Code Compliance and Minimum Housing Investigator will be hired as of October 1, 1989, subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The next meeting will be held July 13, 1989 at 9:00 A.M. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time 3:05 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Darlene Connelly, Chairman Page 38 CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD ATTORNeYS AT LAW JOE B- COX BOARD CERTIFIED TAX LAW,YER SOARD CERTIFIED ESTATE Pl...ANNtNG AND PROB"'TE LAWYER LAWRENCE .... FARESE BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE BO"'RD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE LAWYER KENNETH D, KRIER BOARD CERTIFIED EST"'TE PLANNING AND PROB"'TE LAWYER HOWARD S. TUTHILL. 300l TAHIAMI TRAIL. SORTH June 26, 1989 LIND'" C. BENGSTON KEVIN G. COLEM"'N SUS"'N STORTER HARMON F. EDWARD JOHNSON CH"'RLOTTE A. KELLEY CH"'RLES 1'1, KELLY, JR. P"'MELA S. M...C'KIE RIK... .... MEHT'" CATHY S. REIM"'N JAMES C, STEW"'RT, JR. _GEORGE .... WILSON BOARD CERTIFIED ESTATE PLANNING AND PROBATE LAWYER DAVID L. WOLFE POST orYlCE BOX 413032 NAPLES, I'LORIDA 33941-3032 (813) 262-8311 ~COP~R (813) 263-0703 -ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT & NEW YORK ONLY BAND DELIVERED Brenda C. Wilson, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Bldg. F - Third Floor Naples, Florida 33962 Re: St. Matthew's Bouse Dear Brenda: Please consider this my formal request for a rehearing of the Code Enforcement Board decision with regard to the above-referenced matter. My request is based on the ground that the decision made by the Board was contrary to the evidence presented in its failure to allow a reasonable period of time for obtaining site development permits and constructing the improvements required by the order. I will appreciate your notifying me of the date, time and place of the public meeting wherein the Enforcement Board will make a determination as to whether or not to rehear the matter. It is my understanding that the original order of the Enforcement Board shall be stayed and that the time for taking an appeal of that order shall not co~~ence to run until the Board has responded to this request. PSM/lf cc: Mr. Jeffrey Ryan Mr. Wheeler Conkling, Chairman of the Board of Directors Mr. Richard R. Clark, Contractor, Licensing & Zoning Enforcment Supervisor (via hand delivery) TEN STAMFORO FORUM STAMFORO. CT oeSto.... TWO GREENWICH PLAZA GREENWICH. CT 08830 ZSO ROYAL PALM WAY PA.LM BEACH, FL 33480 CITYPLACE HARTFORD. CT 05103