Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/26/1989 1989 Code Enforcement Board October 26, 1989 - , .>~.l L1 .~ i ., ," ;'''.. .. DATE: TIME: PLACE: CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY October 26, 1989 9:00 A.M. 3rd Floor Boardroom, Building "FII, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida CEB ANDREWS CONNELLY CONSTANTINE LAMOUREUX PEDONE STRAIN WILLIAMS STAFF PRESENT X X X X X X X CLARK MARALICH SMITH WILSON X X X X MINUTES BY: Ellie Hoffman and Annaliese Kraft, Deputy Clerks CALLED TO ORDER AT: 9:00 A.M. ADJOURNED: 12:00 Noon PRESIDING: Darlene Connelly, Chairman ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA: Workshop to follow regular agenda Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGE N D A DATE: October 26, 1989, at 9:00 A.M. NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 28, 1989 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Board of County Commissioners vs. Jack w. Barrs;~' Case No. CEB 89-009 B. Board of County Commissioners vs. Floyd & Carol Ann~ Green; Case No. CEB 89-011 C. Board of County Commissioners vs. Jess & Evelyn ~ Mootispaw; Case No. CEB 89-012 D. Board of County Commissioners vs. Jane H. Alander; Case No. CEB 89-013 E. Board of County Commissioners vs. willie & Erlina McCoy; Case No. CEB 89-014 F. Board of County Commissioners vs. Marco Castaways Resort. Inc.; Case No. CEB 89-015 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 7 . REPORTS 8 . NEXT MEETING DATE Scheduled for December 14, 1989, at 9:00 A.M. 9. ADJOURN ~~tL~ ~ - - 2 - CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 *** CASE NO: 89-013 COMMENTS: Attorney John W. Emerson, representing Jane H. Alander, stated that he has filed a written motion for continuance of the above-referenced case. He requested that this be heard before the regular hearings. Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark explained that Compliance Services not only objects to the request for continuance of the subject case, but also objects to it being taken out of the line up of the agenda, since other people have also been waiting. Attorney Emerson stated that he will amend his written motion for continuance to request that the Alander case be heard after the scheduled business matters of the meeting are heard. MOTION: Made by Mr. Constantine that Case No. 89-013 remain as the fourth case to be heard, as scheduled on the agenda. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Carried unani- mously. *** ITEM: Approval of Minutes of September 28, 1989 MOTION: Made by Mr. Strain to approve the minutes of September 28, 1989, as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Andrews. Carried unanimously. *** CASE NO: 89-009 RESPONDENT: Jack w. Barrs LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 3012 Sunset Boulevard Collier County Parcel 8.1 & Parcel 78, Section 9, Township 50, Range 26 Naples, Florida COMMENTS: Code Investigator Smith presented Composite Exhibit IrA" and requested that this documentation become a part of the record relating to Case No. 89-009, Jack W. Barrs, respondent. Page 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 Chairman Connelly asked Mr. Barrs if he has any errors or corrections regarding Composite Exhibit "All that he desires to be pointed out for consider- ation? Mr. Barrs indicated that he has no discre- pancies. Mrs. Connelly stated that Composite Exhibit IrA" is accepted and will be entered into the record. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Barrs is charged with being in violation of Collier County Litter Control Ordinance 88-45, Sections 5, 6, and 7. He reported that Mr. Barrs of Sunset Boulevard has operated and allowed a junk yard to exist in a rural agri- cultural district. He indicated that the documen- tation provided in Exhibit "A" will prove that Mr. Barrs has been properly notified and that these violations have existed since February 14, 1989. Mr. Smith advised that on February 14, 1989, Code Compliance Investigator Dennis Mazzone investigated Complaint 289-00393 of abandoned vehicles and a junk yard at 3012 Sunset Boulevard. He stated that Investigator Mazzone advised Mr. Barrs at that time, that due to the enormous amount of vehicles and trash, he could remove 1/3 of the amount each month, and have the property totally cleaned up and brought into complete compliance by June 1, 1989. He noted that Mr. Barrs signed a Cease and Desist Agreement, agreeing to these situations. Mr. Smith stated that on March 16, 1989, Investigator Mazzone reinspected the subject pro- perty, and found that Mr. Barrs was making some progress. Mr. Smith reported that on June 1, 1989, Investigator Bolgar rechecked the property for compliance, and found approximately 50 vehicles and trash still remaining. Mr. Smith indicated that on June 23, 1989, Investigator Bolgar rechecked the property, and found that progress was still being made. Mr. Smith informed that on July 28, 1989, Investigator Bolgar sent Mr. Barrs, via certified mail, a Notice of Violation and Stipulation, with an extension and an order to correct by August 29, 1989. Page 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 Mr. Smith noted that on August 17, 1989, Compliance Services received certified mail receipt P147120223 returned mail received back undelivered. Mr. Smith advised that on August 30, 1989, Investigator Bolgar prepared the case for the Code Enforcement Board, and on October 3, 1989, he hand delivered the packet to Mr. Barrs at his residence, where he personally signed and accepted same. Upon being sworn in by Mr. Smith, Mr. Jack W. Barrs advised that he is owner of record of the subject property. He concurred that there is a violation of Ordinance 88-45, Sections 5, 6, and 7, but noted that he is in the process of continually cleaning up the property. In answer to Mr. Clark, Mr. Barrs stated that the abandoned cars had previously been picked up by Bonita Salvage, but noted that it is becoming more and more difficult to have any salvage company pick them up, since market prices have dropped significantly. Mr. Barrs advised that he is currently under doc- torls medical care, and he will be going into the hospital for back surgery. He requested that the Board allow him one year to bring his property into complete compliance. Mr. Clark stated that Compliance Services is recom- mending a period of thirty days from this date to bring the property into compliance, and if the violation is not corrected by that time, that a fine of $100/day be imposed for each and every day until the violation is corrected. He explained that he believes that the County has been more than lenient in this situation. Mr. Barrs advised that he has several vehicles which he utilizes for his own personal use, and questioned whether he will be limited to keeping one or two vehicles on his property? Mr. Clark indicated that as long as the vehicles are properly licensed, Mr. Barrs may keep them on his property. Mrs. Connelly asked Mr. Barrs what he feels is the shortest period of time in which he can bring his Page 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: MOTION: OCTOBER 26, 1989 property into compliance? Mr. Barrs replied that 6 months is the shortest period of time, but noted if he does have back surgery, he will be unable to do the clean up work. Mr. Robert M. Dalter, after being sworn in by Mr. Smith, stated that he has known Mr. Barrs for 45 years. He noted that for many years, people have been abandoning their vehicles on Mr. Barrs' pro- perty since they were aware that he would get rid of them. He indicated that since Mr. Barrs has been cited for violation, there has been a steady flow of outgoing vehicles and trash, but noted that an accumulation of twenty years worth of junk can- not be disposed of in 6 or 7 months. In answer to Mr. Constantine, Mr. Barrs exp12~' .~~ that at the time he signed the Cease and Desist Agreement, he believed that he could have his pro- perty cleaned up by June 1, 1989, but noted that he has been unable to do so. He advised that he has continually been disposing of debris. He noted that a company from Miami that had previously hauled abandoned vehicles from his property, has recently advised that they can no longer remove any vehicles without the proper title. He indicated that many of the vehicles on his property have been there for 15 or 20 years, and questioned what he is supposed to do? Mr. Clark stated that the property owners in the vicinity of Mr. Barrs' property need relief, and he does not believe that they will tolerate this situation for another year. Made by Mr. Constantine that Jack W. Barrs is the owner of record of the subject property; that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the per- son of the Respondent and that Mr. Barrs was pre- sent at the public hearing; all notices required by Collier County Ordinance 88-89 have been properly issued. The property located at Collier County Parcel 8.1 and Parcel 78 Section 9, Township 50, Range 26 is in violation of Ordinance 88-45, Sections 5, 6, and 7. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously. Made by Mr. Constantine that corrections of the violation of Ordinance 88-45, Sections 5, 6, and 7, Page 5 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 be made on or before the 25th day of November, 1989, and if the Respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, the Respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $100 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. Seconded by Mr. Lamoureux. Mr. Strain stated that he feels that an accum- ulation of twenty years of debris is a lot of clean up to do. He noted that the Ordinance for which Mr. Barrs is being cited was adopted in 1988, and he is uncertain as to when an ordinance prohi- biting such activity became effective. He indi- cated that some of the accumulation may have taken place prior to an ordinance being in effect which prohibited this. He explained that he believes that Mr. Barrs should be given a little more leeway, i.e. 3 or 4 months, in lieu of thirty days. He questioned whether Mr. Constantine would con- sider amending his motion to increase the time to February 26, 1990? Mr. Constantine indicated that considering the fact that Mr. Barrs was notified on February 14, 1989, the extended time would allow him one year to bring his property into compliance, and noted that he feels this is too long. Mr. Andrews stated that he concurs with Mr. Strain. Mrs. Connelly advised that she too, concurs that thirty days is an unrealistic time frame. Upon call for the question, the motion failed 2/5 (Messrs. Andrews, Pedone, Strain, Williams, and Mrs. Connelly opposed). MOTION: Made by Mr. Strain that corrections of the violation of Ordinance 88-45, Sections 5, 6, and 7, be made on or before the 26th day of February, 1990, and if the Respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, the Respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $150 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. Seconded by Mr. Williams. Carried 5/2 (Messrs. Constantine and Lamoureux opposed). Page 6 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 Mrs. Connelly explained to Mr. Barrs the action which was taken by the Board. Mr. Clark advised that Mr. Barrs mentioned earlier the possibility of selling his property, and noted pg~tyhupd~g~ ~~Y~,t~r ggt~8ndg~iF~~~ing his pro- *** CASE NO: 89-011 RESPONDENTS: Floyd & Carol Ann Green LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 58 Dolphin Circle Isles of Capri, Florida 33934 COMMENTS: Code Compliance Investigator Smith requested that Composite Exhibit rIA" be submitted into the record as evidence. Mr. Smith advised that the respondents reside in California, and they are not present. He reported that the respondents have complied, and the viola- tion no longer exists. He informed the Board that Compliance Services does not believe that the violation will reoccur, and therefore, recommends that this Case be dismissed. Mrs. Connelly noted that Composite Exhibit "Arr will be accepted as part of the record. MOTION: Made by Mr. Constantine that Case 89-011, Floyd & Carol Ann Green, be dismissed. Seconded by Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously. *** CASE NO. 89-012 RESPONDENTS: Jess E. & Evelyn E. Mootispaw LOCATION OF VIOLATION: Section 24, Township 49 S, Range 26 E, Tract 39, N 82.5 feet of 577.5 W. 1/2 5 acres, Naples Farm Site, Inc. COMMENTS: Code Compliance Investigator Smith presented Composite Exhibit "Arr, and requested that it be sub- Page 7 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: OCTOBER 26, 1989 mitted into the record as evidence. Mrs. Connelly indicated that Composite Exhibit "A" will be entered into the record. Mr. Smith advised that the respondents are charged with being in violation of Collier County Ordinance 88-45, Sections 5, 6 and 7, and Collier County Ordinance 85-33, Sections 5, 6 and 7. After being sworn in by Mr. Smith, the respondents, Jess E. & Evelyn E. Mootispaw stated that they are the owners of record of the subject property, and they affirmed that a violation exists. Mr. Smith indicated that the County is recommending that the respondents be given a thirty day exten- sion to comply, and after the extension, that a penalty be imposed of $100 per day for each and every day that the violation exists thereafter. He explained that Mr. and Mrs. Mootispaw have begun cleaning up the property to comply. He reported that there had been a question as to whether they own the property, and if the land contract they have is legal, but noted that they have been informed that they are the owners of record and are responsible. Mr. Mootispaw advised that he agrees with the recommendation as stated by Mr. Smith. He explained that he does have a disagreement relating to ownership of the property since the other par- ty has not paid off the property, and left it in quite a mess. He stated that he will bring the property into compliance within thirty days. There were no other comments. Mrs. Connelly stated that the presentation of evidence relating to Case 89-012 is closed. Made by Mr. Strain that Jess E. and Evelvn E. Mootispaw are the owners of record for subject pro- perty, that the Code Enforcement Board has juris- diction over the persons who responded, and that Jess and Evelvn Mootispaw were present at the public hearing, that all notices required by 9p~~~er County Ordinance 88-89 have been properly issued, and that the property located in Section 24, Township 49S, Range 26E, Tract 39, N. 82.5 feet Page 8 , . CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 of 577.5 W 1/2 5 acres, Naples Farm Site, Inc., Naples Florida, is in violation of the following: Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance 88-45, and Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance 85-33. Under the conclusions of law, it is ordered that the respon- dents correct the violations of Sections 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance 88-45, and Sections 5, 6, and 7 of ~di~ance 85-3~ ~ cleanan~ u~ thj litter ~d at ng the nu s ce, an ha sa d correc on be completed on or before November 26, 1989. If the respondents do not comply with this Order on or before that date, then, and in any event respon- dents are hereby ordered to pay a fine of $100 per day for each and every day that any violation described herein continues past said day. Failure to comply with the Order within the specified time will result in recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162 Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. Seconded by Mr. Constantine. Carried unanimously. *** CASE NO. 89-013 RESPONDENT: Jane H. Alander LOCATION OF VIOLATION: Lot 26, Coconut River Estates, Unit 1, according to Plat Book 3, Page 58, Public Records of Collier County, Florida COMMENTS: Mrs. Connelly advised that as previously stated at last month's hearing on the above-referenced Case, due to a conflict of interest, she will be abstaining. She turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman, Constantine. Attorney John W. Emerson, representing Jane H. Alander, stated that he has a pending motion for continuance of the hearing, and requested that the Board consider same. Assistant County Attorney Wilson advised that this Board does not have a procedure for preliminary motions since there has not been the necessity to do so. Page 9 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 Attorney Emerson explained that he has just recently become involved with the representation of this case. He noted that Attorney Pickworth pre- viously represented Mrs. Alander, but has resigned from the case. He stated that Mrs. Alander has requested that he represent her, and noted that he advised that he had a problem with the timing of the hearing since he had a trial scheduled in Ft. Myers this morning, and had requested a con- tinuance. He noted that the Ft. Myers case was settled prior to trail, but indicated that he has not had sufficient time to prepare for this case. He stated that the Notice of Hearing does not state what the charges are, and therefore, he could not represent Mrs. Alander without such knowledge. Mr. Constantine explained that the Alander's have been aware of this situation for a long time, and it is not the fault of the County or the Board that they have decided to obtain the services of a dif- ferent attorney at this time. Mr. Clark advised that Compliances Services objects to any further continuance of this case. He noted that this matter is over three years old, and the people of the subject area have been subjected to the violations for that period of time. He reported that at one point, Mr. Alander was in court and plead guilty to the same offense for which he is appearing before this board today. He noted that Mr. Alanderls fine was to provide barriers and not allow parking in the violated area, but as a result, additional seats than what is allowed have been installed in the restaurant and parking has been encouraged on a piece of ground that he has been found guilty of the same violation. He stated that there has been a series of continual procedural maneuverings for the past three years to continue the violation for financial gain. He advised that the people who have been adversely affected by the violation, have attended one meeting after another, attempting to have their complaint resolved, and they are present today. He noted that Staff objects to any further continuance of this case. Attorney Emerson submitted a photograph (not received by the Clerkls Office), of the property in Page 10 , . CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: COMMENTS: OCTOBER 26, 1989 question, to be introduced as evidence for the motion for continuance. He indicated that a rezoning petition was to be heard before the Board of County Commissioners on October 24, 1989, but was continued for the same reason that he is requesting a continuance of this case. He stated that he does not believe that persons are presently~ parking on the property in violation. Made by Mr. Strain that Case 89-013 be heard this date, as scheduled on the agenda. Seconded by Mr. Pedone. Carried unanimously. Mr. Smith requested that Composite Exhibit "A" be entered into the record as evidence. Attorney Emerson voiced his objection to the submission of any such document on the grounds that he has not seen the package, it contains hearsay information, and there has been no predicate for including any such information as evidence. Mr. Constantine indicated that the packet was pro- vided to Mr. Emerson's client quite some time ago. Attorney Wilson concurred, and further noted that a good portion of that package are documents that the Alanderls have been served with, and the Notice of Hearing included an attachment stating the viola- tion and advising of same. She further advised that the Statute and the Ordinance which govern this Board, allow for hearsay evidence, and the Chairman or Vice-Chairman may determine what evi- dence is appropriate. Mr. Constantine stated that Composite Exhibit "A" will be accepted into the record as evidence. Mr. Smith explained that as documented in Composite Exhibit "A", Mrs. Jane A. Alander is charged before this Board with being in violation of Collier County Ordinance 82-2, Section 7.11, Subsection b.4 (Illegal Land Use). He advised that Mrs. Alander is the owner of record of Parcel 37, Coconut River, a/k/a Spanky's Speakeasy, 1150 Airport Road and adjoining Lot located just behind the west of Spanky's, Lot 6, Coconut River Estates Unit 1. He noted that Mrs. Alander has, on many occasions allowed her residentially zoned property to be used as a commercial parking lot for the patrons of Spankyls Speakeasy since June of 1986. Page 11 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 Mr. Smith reported that on June 4, 1986, Code Compliance Investigator Tomasino cited Mr. Fred Alander, owner of Spanky's Speakeasy, to Misdemeanor Court for illegal use of land. He noted that on October 24, 1986, Mr. Alander entered a plea of no contest, adjudication was withheld, court costs in the amount of $75 was ordered, and he was further ordered to install concrete bumper parking blocks so that vehicles could not drive across from the commercial lot to the residentially zoned lot. Mr. Smith stated that on May 27, 1987, a second warning citation was issued for the same illegal land use, after already having been cited and pleading no contest. He noted that on May 29, 1987, Investigator Tomasino talked with Mr. Alander, who advised him that he had hired an attorney, and he intended to apply for a variance. Mr. Smith informed the Board that on June 11, 1987, Investigator Tomasino issued a third citation for the same illegal use of land. He advised that on June 25, 1987, Mr. Bob Duane of the Planning Department confirmed that Mr. Alander's attorney was applying for a Petition, and he was to be given a 90 day extension. Mr. Smith explained that on December 17, 1988, Investigator Tomasino was notified by Planner David Weeks that the Collier County Planning Commission was to hear the case before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Smith stated that on June 14, 1989, Investigator Tomasino received a copy of the letter sent to Planner Weeks from Mr. Alanderrs attorney, stating that the Alanderls and Spanky's Speakeasy are not using the residential lot. Mr. Smith indicated that on August 23, 1989, Investigator Tomasino and himself found that the lot was still being used as a parking lot, and Notice of Violation and Stipulation was sent via certified mail, receipt #P147121375, to Jane Alander at Spankyls Speakeasy, and receipt #P147121376 to her address of record at 800 Riverpoint Drive, #214, and receipt #P147121377 was sent to her attorney, Page 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 Donald Pickworth, with an order to cease all viola- tions by September 1st, to which her attorney agreed. Mr. Smith noted that on September 6, 1989, September 12, 1989, September 20, 1989, and October 10, 1989, the lot was still being used as a commer- cial parking lot, and there is parking in the ease- ment in the back. In addition, he reported that the parking lot only allows for 72 seats in the restaurant, and Notice of Violation and Stipulation has been sent to the Manager, who has advised that they will have no more than 72 seats in the restaurant which will help to alleviate the parking in the right-of-way and the easement. Attorney Emerson indicated that he objects, in that, Investigator Smith is making statements and conclusions, and is not testifying the facts, and his testimony in that regard should be stricken. He noted that any reference to the seating situation, unless it is contained in the charges should not be alluded to or testified to. Mr. Constantine advised that Investigator Smith is merely stating the County's case, as they believe it to be. He informed Attorney Emerson that he will have the opportunity to rebut everything that Mr. Smith is stating. Mr. Gerald Scanlon, of 2777 Longboat, after being sworn in by Mr. Smith, stated that he resides imme- diately next door to the subject property. He affirmed that he concurs with the opening state- ments made by Mr. Smith. He noted that the parking situation has adversely impacted his lifestyle. He explained that he bought and paid for a new lanai, but has been unable to use it, due to the cars driving through the parking lot, causing C-~t, dirt, noise, etc. He stated that he has put up a new fence a little more than two years ago, but today, it has 15-20% of slats broken out, and has a roller coaster effect. He reported that the dumpster from Spankyls has been moved from the commercial lot to directly next to his fence, which is less than 401 from his kitchen and lanai. He noted that the lid remains open, with garbage and trash piled high. He advised that he submitted Page 13 . . CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 photos to Compliance Services on October 5, 1989, which depicts the trash. He indicated that one month ago, rats were sited. In answer to Mr. Clark, Mr. Scanlon stated that when he bought his home with residential lots on both sides, he had no expectations or desires to live next to a commercial property. Attorney Emerson stated that he has a continuing objection to any such questions which are leading the witness. He noted that the answer to these questions are not relevant to the issue at hand. *** Recess 10:30 A.M. - Reconvened 10:40 A.M. at which time Deputy Clerk Kraft replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman *** Mr. Clark indicated that Compliance Services stated that further parking on that lot is a viola- tion, and he noted that if counsel wishes to stipu- late to the fact that further parking on that lot is a violation, and no further use of that residen- tial lot will be permitted, he recommends a fine be imposed of $250.00 per day, should such violation reoccur. He questioned if counsel wishes to stipu- late that parking existed and will not occur again until such time as the property is rezoned, and that no further use of that residential lot will be conducted? Mr. Constantine stated that the record should reflect that photographs were submitted as evidence by Attorney Emerson to the Code Enforcement Board. (Photos not provided to Clerk to the Board). Attorney Emerson advised that the entire residen- tial lot is owned by Mrs. Alander with the excep- tion of one or two feet, has been cordoned off by a fence of a neighbor or a berm of gravel located on the boundaries of the lot. He noted that Compliance Services feels that parking on the por- tion to the rear of the lot near the water is not permitted, but pointed out that Mrs. Alander has no control over that because (a) she does not own the property, it is in the plat of Bears Paw and (b) it is also subject to a South Florida Water Management easement. He indicated that the yellow pipes were installed as a fence by the South Florida Water Management District. He advised that Mrs. Alander has made every effort to keep new employees from parking there. Page 14 -., CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 In response to Mr. Constantine and Mr. Strain, David Weeks, Project Planner, explained that the Zoning Ordinance does not address access crossing commercial property and legally blocking an ease- ment. He reported that SFWMD requires access to the easement for maintenance service, and that is the reason it precludes certain types of develop- ment within the easement. Mr. Clark pointed out that the property is still zoned residential regardless of the easement; any blockage of that easement would have to occur across from the com- mercial property, and any cars parked there would be as much of a violation of the denial of usage to SFWMD as putting up a barricade. He reported that the access can be blocked off with a movable barri~ cade. Mr. Weeks concurred. Attorney Emerson expressed concern about blocking access to property that a governmental body has an easement across. He advised that a permanent barrier cannot be put up, and noted that since Mrs. Alander does not own the property, she cannot comply with the require- ment. He questioned if the zoning is residential because it is in the Bears Paw plat? Mr. Strain reported that the Alanders have a lease with the SFWMD and a permit to use the property, and they are responsible for it. Mr. Weeks advised that the permit from the SFWMD allows certain improvements to be made within the easement and read the improvements allowed: "Beautification consisting of 3 concrete planters with trees and a rock pile, a bird feeder, and a 19 foot x 64 foot paved parking lot on the south right-of-way to the Golden Gate Canal located immediately west of Airport Road." He explained that the permit authorizes certain use within the easement by the SFWMD and certain conditions attached to the stipu- lation, i.e. any damage made to the easement has to be corrected by the person committing the damages, and he also noted that the applicant must make the necessary repairs. Mr. Clark stated that the Alanders have authority to use the easement which allows them use as a parking lot, but noted that that request was made to the SFWMD so that the lot itself could be zoned commercial. He explained that until such time of the rezone the lot is still zoned residential and cannot be used as a parking lot. Mr. Weeks concurred, and advised that the Page 15 " , CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 permit only addresses the use of the easement as far as the SFWMD is concerned, and if it is not zoned commercial it cannot be used for parking. Mr. Constantine questioned if there was any objec- tion to a temporary blocking of the easement area? Mr. Weeks responded that there was not from a County zoning standpoint. Mr. Clark stated that if the SFWMD allows the easement to be used for parking, there would be no restrictions from parking their own automobile to block the access. Mr. Weeks concurred. Mr. Strain questioned the gate shown on the adjoining neighborls residential lot to cross the easement, and suggested a similar solution. Attorney Emerson indicated that this permitted use may not be applicable to the balance of their easement. He explained that the special conditions require the permittee to be responsible for the repair and replacement of facilities, but there is no legal language explaining what it covers. In response to Mr. Clark, Attorney Emerson replied that he did not know if his client has the right to obstruct SFWMDls access to the easement. A discussion followed about blocking the easement. Attorney Emerson advised that his client could con- tact SFWMD and seek permission to block the ease- ment. Mr. Lamoureux questioned who constructed the concrete slab next to the yellow pipes in the pho- tograph? In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Alander advised that the SFWMD was there twice last week and today in the Canal itself. He noted that the yellow gates were put up by SFWMD, and he put the concrete slab and dumpster in, as directed by Lou Pope from the Zoning Department. He explained that SFWMD told him to remove the dumpster. In response to Mr. Constantine, Attorney Emerson indicated he would put a temporary block on the easement if SFWMD authorizes that. Mr. Clark advised that further use of the parking lot, excluding the ease- ment, should be subject to a fine of $250 per day, and a letter be requested from SFWMD within 30 days asking for permission to block the easement with a temporary barricade. Attorney Emerson stated that the residential lot, exclusive of the easement, can be controlled, but requested that the fine be reduced to $100 per day for the area not within the Page 16 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: COMMENTS: OCTOBER 26, 1989 Alanderls control. Mr. Strain pointed out that the Sheriff can cite people for parking on an easement, and the Code Enforcement Board could call the Sheriffls Department for a citation. Assistant County Attorney Wilson concurred. Made by Mr. Lamoureux that the findings of fact are that Jane Alander is the owner of record of the subject property, the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction over the person who respondedr and that Jane Alander was present at the public hearing and all notices required bv Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 have been proper IV issued and that the property located at a lot west of 1550 Airport Road, Naples, Florida is in violation of Ordinance No. 82-2, Section 7.11, Subsection b.4 of the Collier County Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Andrews. Carried 6/0 (Ms. Connelly abstained). Made by Mr. Lamoureux that based upon the foreqoing findinqs of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to the authority qranted in Chapter 162 Fla. Statutes in Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 it is hereby ordered that the respondent correct the violations of Section 7.11, Subsection b.4 Collier County Ordinance 82-2 bV not parking or storing any vehicles or not using the residentially zoned lot for other than residentially permitted uses and that the said correction be completed on or before October 27, 1989 and if the respondent does not comply with this Order on or before that date, then and in that event respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $250 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. Failure to comply with this Order within the specified time will result in the recor- dation of a lien, pursuant to Chapter 162, Fla. Statutes which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. Seconded by Mr. ?edone. (Ms. Connelly abstained). Mr. Strain requested an amendment to the motion including the fact that an application to SFWMD for the use of blocking that easement be done in an expeditious manner, and that within 30 days, per- mission to put up a gate or other subsequent blockage of that easement be done by the owner. Page 17 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 Mr. Lamoureux concurred that that issue needs to be addressed, but noted that he did not want it to be a cause for future violations to occur. He advised that the Alanders should restrict entry to the easement. Mr. Strain noted that if the Alanders receive permission to restrict that easement, they do so within 30 days, or the fine becomes active on the entire parcel. Mr. Lamoureux agreed to the amend- ment. MOTION: Made by Mr. Lamoureux amending his motion to include the fact that an application to SFWMD for the purpose of blocking of the easement be made in an exPeditious manner, and upon receipt of per- mission to restrict that easement, respondent shall do so within 30 days, or the fine becomes active on the entire parcel. Seconded by Mr. Pedone. Carried 6/0. (Ms. Connelly abstained). ***** CASE NO.: 89-014 Code Enforcement Coordinator Smith stated that Composite Exhibit "A" is being submitted as evidence in Code Enforcement Case 89-014 RESPONDENT: Willie P. & Erlina B. McCoy LOCATION OF VIOLATION: N.E. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4, Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida VIOLATION: Section 5, 6 and 7 of Ordinance 88-45, the Collier County Litter Control Ordinance COMMENTS: Erlina McCoy, Respondent, advised that she was not aware of the problem because William McCoy had not told her he spoke with Investigator Smith. She reported that her daughter signed for the certified letter and did not give the letter to her. She indicated that when she spoke with Investigator Smith on Friday, she told him that the violation would be taken care of. She stated that she would like more than 30 days to correct the violation. In Page 18 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 response to Mr. Smith, she advised that she did not realize that there was debris on the back of the property. Mr. Smith advised that there is only one pick-up load left and Mr. McCoy had agreed to 30 days. Mr. Smith noted that the McCoys had been properly notified since May, and telephoned in September, and he did not think 30 days was an unreasonable time to correct the violations. Mr. Clark questioned if 45 days would be reasonable to the McCoys? Mrs. McCoy and Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. McCoy indicated that he would put a chain across the property to prevent people from dumping gar- bage on the property. MOTION: Made by Mr. Andrews that the findings of fact are that William & Erlina McCoy are the owners of record of the subject property, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction over the person who responded and that William & Erlina McCoy were present at the public hearing, that all notices reQUired by Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 have been properly issued and that the property located at N/E 1/4 of the S/E 1/4 of the N/E 1/4, Section 9, Township 47, South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida is in violation of Section 5, 6 and 7 of Ordinance No. 88-45, Collier County Litter Control Ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Constantine. Carried unanimously. Made by Mr. Andrews that based upon the foregOing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pur- suant to the authority granted in Chapter 162 Fla. Statutes in Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89, it is hereby ordered that the respondent correct the violations of Section 5, 6 and 7 of Ordinance No. 88-45, Collier County Litter Control Ordinance by removing all mentioned litter, said correction to be completed on or before 45 days, December 10, 1989, and if respondent does not comply with this Order on or before that date, then and in that event, respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. Failure to comply with this Order within the sPeci- fied time will result in the recordation of a lien, pursuant to Chapter 162, Fla. Statutes which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. Seconded by Mr. Constantine. Carried unanimously. Page 19 " CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY CASE NO.: RESPONDENT: OCTOBER 26, 1989 ***** 89-015 Code Enforcement Coordinator Smith stated that Composite Exhibit "A" is being submitted as evi- dence in Case 89-015 Marco Castaways Resort LOCATION OF VIOLATION: North Collier Boulevard and Elkcam Circle, Marco Island, Florida - March Beach 2nd Replat, Unit 6, Block 796, Lot 11 VIOLATION: COMMENTS: MOTION: Ordinance 82-2, Section 7.23 Subsections b.4, of the Collier County Zoning Ordinance; and violation of Ordinance No. 88-45, Sections 5 and 7, the Collier County Litter Control Ordinance Attorney Biff Crane of Stearns, Weaver, Miller, 1 Tampa City Center, Suite 3300, Tampa, Florida stated that he represents Marco Castaways Resort, Inc. Mr. Smith stated that the violation has been cleared up, and asked that the case be dismissed. Made by Mr. Strain that Case 89-015 be dismissed. Seconded by Mr. Constantine. Carried unanimously. ***** *****Recess: 11:30 A.M. COMMENTS: Reconvened: 11:35 A.M.***** Code Enforcement Coordinator Smith advised that the Code Enforcement Board under Ordinance 88-89 Section 7, No.5, can hear a case immediately if the violator has been properly notified. He indi- cated that the owner is present and requested that the Board hear Case 89-016. Mr. Strain reported that due to prior discussions with Mr. Kaye, he may find it a conflict of :~~t~-~st for him to par- ticipate in this hearing. Mr. Kaye responded that he did not have a problem with Mr. Strain par- ticipating in the hearing. In response to Ms. Connelly, Mr. Kaye stated that he had no objection to having the Board consider Case 89-016 at this time. Page 20 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY MOTION: CASE NO.: RESPONDENT: OCTOBER 26, 1989 Made by Mr. Constantine adding to the agenda today, as Public Hearing G, Board of County Commissioners vs. Stewart o. Kaye, CEB 89-016. Seconded by Mr. Lamoureux. Carried unanimously. 89-016 Code Enforcement Coordinator Smith stated that Composite Exhibit "AIr is being submitted as evi- dence in Code Enforcement Board Case 89-016; Stewart O. Kaye, Respondent, present as Trustee for the Joseph Morgan/Elizabeth Morgan Trustees under the Morgan Family Revocable Living Trust Stewart O. Kaye LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 3000 Areca Road & 3005 Areca Road Block E, Lots 3,4,5 and 6 Sabal Shores VIOLATION: COMMENTS: Ordinances 89-06, Section 5, Collier County Unsafe Structure and Building Ordinance; 76-70, Section 7, and Ordinance 86-49, adopting Standard Building Codes and Section 102.4 Hazardous Buildings In response to Ms. Connelly, Stewart O. Kaye, residing at 1125 Clam Court, indicated that he is the Trustee for the property and did not contest the violations. In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Kaye reported that he has the legal authority as agent to represent and control the subject property. Mr. Smith stated that an inspection on August 25, 1989 was made of the property at 3000 Areca Road and 3005 Areca Road, and there were multiple viola- tions of the housing code, i.e. severe electrical problems with bare electrical wires exposed and electrical outlets hot and hanging out of the wall with no plates or protective covering. He reported that there were also severe plumbing problems; flushing of the commodes causing water to come out through the walls, plumbing backed up, and noted that there were several units with 2, 3, 4, or 5 people and children. He explained that the County had grave concern about the electrical problems, all the residences were red-tagged and Mr. Stewart Kaye contacted. Mr. Clark reported a notice had been sent to Mr. Kaye several weeks ago, but due to his schedule he Page 21 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 did not have the opportunity to see the violations until recently. Mr. Clark indicated that when Mr. Kaye saw the violations, he realized their severity, and that they could be dangerous and life- threatening. He reported that he has taken imme- diate corrective action, and several work crews have been addressing the problems. Mr. Clark indi- cated that Mr. Kaye assured him that most, if not all, of the life-threatening violations have been corrected by today and the remaining of the emergency, life threatening violations would be corrected by Monday. Mr. Clark recommended that all life threatening, electrical and health violations outlined by Mr. Smith be corrected by Monday, or a $250 fine per day per violation be imposed, and the numerous remaining non-life threatening violations, be corrected within 30 days from today, or a fine of $100 per day per violation be imposed. Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Kaye would not like to displace the residents, if possible, and is trying to be humane in correcting the viola- tions, without putting the tenants out on the street. Mr. Kaye stated that it is a most unfor- tunate situation that occurred, and he was unaware of the problem. He indicated that he notified the manager, who took no action, and last Friday he took steps to remedy the situation. He reported that the man in charge of the renovations will bring the Board up to date on what he has done in the last four days to correct the violations and the time schedule to complete the work. In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Kaye stated that the violations listed are in fact violations, and he is responsible for those violations. Mr. Kaye advised that there are four people legally occupying units, not ten units with tenants, as reported. Mr. Frank Rodriguez, 3211 64th Street, Golden Gate, reported that Mr. Kaye got in touch with him and he went there with four men, tore everything out, filled 4 or 5 dumpsters, shut the power off and cleaned up the units that no one occupied in order to move tenants into them while their units are being repaired. In response to Ms. Connelly, Mr. Rodriguez indicated that there are no life threatening situations where the people are pre- sently living. He advised that all of the repairs Page 22 .. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 and removal of violations could be done in 30 days or less. In response to Mr. Clark's question if the necessary building permits had been applied for and received, he stated that they had. In respons~ to Mr. Clark, Mr. Rodriguez reported that he would request necessary inspections to insure that the corrections are done according to code. Mr. Strain- advised that units 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not noted, and questioned if inspections were done? Mr. Smith replied that they have been unable to gain entry to those units and that is why they were not listed. He indicated that the units did not appear to be occupied. In response to Mr. Clark, Mr. Kaye stated that he would cooperate with all the necessary inspections to make sure that all viola- tions are removed. Mr. Lamoureux questioned Mr. Smith if he would con- firm that all the life-threatening violations had been corrected at the October 21st inspection? Mr. Smith replied that they had not, but noted that he had not had a meeting until after that inspection with Mr. Ross, an agent for Stewart Kaye. In response to Ms. Connelly, Mr. Clark replied that if there are other units with problems on that pro- perty, the Code Enforcement Board will be advised. Mr. Smith pointed out that there are two different properties, 3000 Areca Road and 3005 Areca Road, and Mr. Kaye is aware of that. Ms. Connelly reported that her concern is directed to Mr. Kayels comments that he was not aware of what was going on, and advised that if he is a Trustee he should be fulfilling his responsibility as a citizen and trustee to ensure that problems are not brought to his attention by enforcement people. MOTION: Made by Mr. Andrews that the findings of fact and conclusions of law and order are that this cause came before the Code Enforcement Board for Public Hearing this date, October 26, 1989, and that Stewart O. Kaye, under the land trust agreement, dated July 13, 1984, is Trustee of the subject property and the Code Enforcement Board has juris- diction over the person who responded and that Stewart O. Kaye was present at the public hearing, that all notices reQUired by Collier County Ordinance No. 88-89 have been properly issued and that the proper tv located at 3000 and 3005 Areca Page 23 "" '1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COMMENTS: MOTION: OCTOBER 26, 1989 Road, Naples, Florida is in violation of Section 7, Ordinance 76-70, Sections 102-4 of Ordinance 86-49, Section 5 of Ordinance 89-06, violations of health, safety, sanitation, infestation, plumbing, electrical, structural failures, and that Stewart O. Kaye, Trustee, is in violation of said law, sections and ordinances of Collier County as amended. Seconded by Mr. Pedone. In response to Mr. Strain's question about the 101 violations listed on 11 pages in the Violations and Ordinance section being referred to as Exhibit Composite A, Pages 39 through 51, Assistant County Attorney Wilson stated that the Code Enforcement Board could refer to it in its motion and she would attach it as the listing that applies. Mr. Andrews amended his motion to indicate that the violations, according to Composite Exhibit nAn, pages 39 through 51 be attached. Seconded by Mr. Pedone. Carried unanimously. Made by Mr. Strain that based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur- suant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, Collier County Ordinance 88-89, as amended, it is hereby ordered, that the respon- dent correct the violations of Sections according to Composite Exhibit "An, pages 39 through 51, as attached of Collier County Ordinances 89-06, 86-49, 87-19 and 76-70, and said corrections be completed on or before for life threatening matters, Monday, October 30, 1989, and for non-life threatening mat- ters as determined by the Code Compliance Official, 30 days from this date, November 26, 1989 and if respondent does not comply with this Order on or before that date, then and in that event, respon- dent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $250 per day per violation for life-threatening violations and $100 per day per violation for non-life threatening violations for each and every day that any violation described herein continues past that date. 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 respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. Seconded by Mr. Andrews. Carried unanimously. Page 24 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY OCTOBER 26, 1989 COMMENTS: Assistant County Attorney Wilson informed Mr. Kaye that it is his responsibility to ask for an inspec- tion, when they have corrected the violations, in order to avoid having fines imposed. -***** ITEM : OLD BUSINESS .~ Assistant County Attorney Wilson stated that the changes to the ~dinance creating the Code Enforcement Board have to be reviewed by County Attorney Cuyler and Staff. She explained that the draft will be distributed to the Code Enforcement Board within the next week to ten days. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Monty Lazarus, who is present at this meeting, has applied for appoint- ment to the Code Enforcement Board in the soon to -be vacant position. Ms. Connelly indicated that the next meeting date will be December 14, 1989 at 9:00 A.M. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair and went into Workshop Session. COLLIERM~NTY // FORCfENT BOARD t!"15L l-+v I hairman CD...,) :s ~ ~ t :.\ \ - c... J \ I... 'C..- L l c.. '.... "-__ Page 25