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