Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/26/1995 1995 Code Enforcement Board January 26, 1995 January 26, 1995 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Naples, Florida, January 26, 1995, met on this date at 9:04 a.m. In Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE CHAIRMAN: Lionel L'Esperance James D. Allen Charles M. Andrews Monte Lazarus M. Jean Rawson Louis F. Laforet ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Assistant County Attorney Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Richard R. Clark, Community Development Services Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDED AGE N D A Date: January 26, 1995 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier County Government Center, Bldg "F" Third Floor 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 22, 1994 and October 27, 1994 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. Francisco Casales - CEB No. 95-001 B. BCC vs. Otto Kristen and Elsa Gustafson - CEB 95-002 5. NEW BUSINESS Filing of Affidavit of Compliance CEB - 94-007 BCC vs. Bonita E. Bosonac, A/K/A Bonita Cater 6. OLD BUSINESS Imposition of Fines CEB No. 94-005 BCC vs. Anthony J. Varano, Jr. Discussion regarding Elba Development Corporation's proposed resolution of fines imposed CEB No. 93-003 7. REPORTS N/A 8. NEXT MEETING DATE February 23, 1995 9 . ADJOURN January 26, 1995 CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: We have a quorum and we have the staff necessary to begin. If I could call to order the January 26, 1995, meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County. Any person who decides to appeal the 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. Roll call starting on my left, please. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. MS. RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MR. LAZARUS: Monte Lazarus. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Lionel L'Esperance. MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Approval of the minutes of September 22, '94, and October 27, 1994. Any comments, questions, or changes to the minutes from staff or board members? MR. ANDREWS: I'll move we accept the minutes. There was one thing CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Yes, Charlie. MR. ANDREWS: There was one thing about the Embassy deal which was it was a day's reading. There were a few typographical errors I think but nothing real serious, and I can understand why there could be errors in that particular one under the conditions. So I approve it. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Certainly. We have a motion and a second to approve both September and October minutes. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Passes. Item number four, public hearings. Mr. Clark. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, my name is Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Coordinator. Can we go back to the approval of the agenda, please? There's a few items there that I would like to make a couple of changes. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Certainly. Please proceed. MS. CRUZ: Under public hearings, item A, if we could move that item to the end of the agenda, the respondent is trying to comply at this time. He's trying to obtain the building permit. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Yes. Certainly. MS. CRUZ: Item B, we would like to continue that item due to proof of notice of hearing hasn't been served yet. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Certainly. MS. CRUZ: And the respondent's out of the country so we would like to give him more time. Item six under old business, number two, discussion regarding Elba Development Corporation, proposed resolution of fines imposed, we would like to remove that from the agenda at the respondent's request. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: 94-007? MS. CRUZ: 93-003. Page 2 January 26, 1995 MR. MANALICH: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I've distributed a letter from Mr. Reina indicating his request to remove this item. It was sent to me. MR. ANDREWS: Remove it completely? MR. MANALICH: Yes. MR. ANDREWS: I didn't get a chance to read it yet. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: The question was raised for Case 95-002, continued until an approximate time date of when? MS. CRUZ: The next meeting, February 23. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: February 23, '95. Okay. Any other changes or amendments? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. MR. LAZARUS: Move the adoption of the agenda as amended, Mr. Chairman. MS. RAWSON: Second. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Passes. MS. CRUZ: Our next item will be under new business, filing of affidavit of compliance for Case No. 94-007, BCC versus Bonita Bosonac also known as Bonita Cater. This respondent came before this board on September 22, 1994, for violating a county ordinance by having a failed seawall. He order -- The board issued an order to the respondent to correct the violation by November 21. Staff did a re-inspection on January 5, 1995, and verified that the violations have been corrected. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Very good. Any other new business? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. MR. LAZARUS: There was no fine, I take it? MR. CLARK: We recommend it be dismissed because of compliance. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Do you need a vote on that, Mr. Clark? MR. CLARK: I don't think so. I don't think the board necessarily needs to take a vote. It's just -- It's just that it is stated for the record. MS. CRUZ: We need the affidavit of compliance to be recorded since the order of the board was recorded also. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: So you just need a signature in the near future. MS. CRUZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Okay. On to old business. MS. CRUZ: On to old business. Old business, imposition of fines for CEB 94-005, BCC versus Anthony J. Varano, Junior, who is present at this time. Mr. Varano came before the board on May 26, 1994, for violating Land Development Code 91-102 section 2.1.15 and section 103.6.1.2, also violating 91-56 which is the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code. The order -- The board ordered Mr. Varano to obtain a valid demolition permit for the removal of the second-story structure, an abandoned structure. Bear with me for a second, please. There was a couple items that the board ordered Mr. Varano to do. One of them was to obtain a valid demolition permit for the removal of the Page 3 January 26, 1995 secondary structure within seven days of the date. Another was to complete the removal of the second-floor portion of this structure within 30 days; to remove all unusual trusses and debris from the job site; to secure the site within -- with a six-foot chain-link fence; to obtain a valid building permit within ten days; commence construction within 30 days; to pass a building inspection within 90 days; and to obtain a certificate of occupancy by June 26, 1994. Staff has made several re-inspections. None of these items have been complied with. We have an imposition of fines order that we're requesting the board to issue. We have the total of 1,367 days at the rate of $250 which is a total of $341,750 of fines we're requesting the board to impose on Mr. Varano for failure to comply with the board's order. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Is there any public danger or any health and safety concerns that we have here? MR. CLARK: Yes, there are, Mr. Chairman. As you'll recall -- What was the date of the building permit, the one that -- This has been going on for some time. This has not -- the fact that the respondent -- Mr. Varano, if you would, if you'd stand at the mike over there. It probably would be beneficial to the board and to Mr. Varano to perhaps have some dialogue on this. Mr. Varano, when did you start building that structure? MR. VARANO: Well, first, I'd like MR. CLARK: If you would, if you'd be so kind to raise your right hand first. MR. VARANO: Yes. (Thereupon, Anthony J. Varano, Junior, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows.) MR. CLARK: Your name for the record, please. MR. VARANO: Yes. For the record, Anthony Varano, 34 Bamboo Drive, Naples, Florida. First, I'd like to say good morning to the board. I've been in construction for 30 years. Never had to come up before a board of your type. I've built in three different states. I'm building this house as an owner/builder. I think you need to have a little bit of background on the whole situation. Now, I understand you had a meeting. And I have to apologize. I received this and sat down and read it at this chamber at 8:30 this morning. I just got in from a business trip at two o'clock this morning so I'm MR. CLARK: You received it at home though; right? MR. VARANO: Well, someone was collecting my mail for me, but I got in at two o'clock this morning. I sat in this chamber this morning at 7:30 and read it for the first time. MR. CLARK: Excuse me. My point is, the mail was sent to your address of record for you to get; is that correct? MR. VARANO: There -- From the person who collected my mail told me there were articles that were scotch-taped to a door. MR. CLARK: Sir, sir -- MR. VARANO: Never received anything MR. CLARK: Sir. MR. VARANO: -- Anything like that. Page 4 January 26, 1995 MR. CLARK: Sir, excuse me. Was it sent to your address of record? MR. VARANO: I can't tell you how it got there, Mr. Clark, honestly. All I know is it was collected. It was sitting at my house when I got home at two o'clock this morning. MR. CLARK: It was provided to your house; right? MR. VARANO: It was in my house so evidently -- MR. CLARK: There's a whole stack of information that you've been getting -- or that's been available to you and you selected someone to get your mail. The county did not. MR. VARANO: Well, I'm -- when I'm out of town, somebody collects my mail, right. MR. CLARK: But you appointed someone to collect your mail; correct? MR. VARANO: Correct. MR. CLARK: Okay. So the county is not responsible for what happened to your mail after it's sent there. You appointed someone to collect it. How often you collect it or if you collect it MR. VARANO: It's collected every day. MR. CLARK: Okay. Thank you. MR. VARANO: Yeah. Okay. So the background I want to give is, first of all, the first meeting -- I guess it was in May. Like I said, I'm totally unprepared. I don't have any of my files with me. All I've got is the notice of hearing that I looked at this morning at 8:30 in this chamber. I understand there was a meeting, I think, Mr. Clark, you said in May. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. May 26. MR. VARANO: Okay. Again, I'm out of Collier County most of the year. Okay. I was not aware of this meeting. Evidently you have a record that I was not here. Okay. Again, I don't have any of my facts with me, so I'm going to have to depend on you, Mr. Clark. MR. CLARK: We'll help you. MR. VARANO: When was it that I actually got in contact with you? Do you remember? When we sat down and we spoke, and you said there had been a meeting and I wasn't there and why wasn't I there and so forth, how long after that meeting was that? Do you -- MR. CLARK: That was a week or two after that but -- MR. VARANO: A week or two. MR. CLARK: If we can get a little history for the board and for you. MR. VARANO: MR. CLARK: correct? MR. VARANO: That sounds right. MR. CLARK: In December of '92 it expired due to failure of progress, unnecessary progress? MR. VARANO: Correct. And we stopped construction. MR. CLARK: Okay. And the point that the board needs to understand and, to be frank, we do too, you as an owner/builder -- and this is kind of a statement, but it's kind of a question to make sure you understand. We have a contractor on the board. We have people Okay. In May of '91, you obtained the building permit; Page 5 January 26, 1995 who are involved in the business and who have -- the people on the board have a lot of knowledge about these ordinances. As an owner/builder, you are -- and I would be. Any of us are required to abide by the same standards that a contractor would be. In other words, if I get a building permit and say the building permit requirements say I must get a -- requires inspections every six months to keep it alive and must complete construction in 18 months -- MR. VARANO: I understand that. MR. CLARK: -- That's true for you, true for contractors, and true for everybody. MR. VARANO: I've been involved 30 years in construction so I'm aware of it. MR. CLARK: Okay. So from that point, that's how we got to the board. There are some life safety -- if a child would go on that property, although you may say he shouldn't be there, they do -- MR. VARANO: Right. MR. CLARK: -- Things they shouldn't do. MR. VARANO: You're aware that the property was secured when construction stopped? I mean, there's locks on the doors and so forth. MR. CLARK: But there is litter on the property. There's a lot of things that shouldn't be there. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. CLARK: Okay. So I guess my point is, once the board made that decision, and we talked about it afterwards -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. Correct. MR. CLARK: To see what the board had ordered and what you were required to do, and you said, "I understand now. I'll take care of it. " MR. VARANO: MR. CLARK: MR. VARANO: Right. That was May of '94? If you say so. Again, I don't have any of my notes with me. MR. CLARK: So if that was May of '94, here we are January of '95. We're in the same position now. I guess the board needs to hear what happened since then. MR. VARANO: Okay. At our meeting from what I'm recalling with, like I say, three hours worth of sleep last night, you had told me that it would not be necessary to put up the chain-link fence. We agreed on that. MR. CLARK: Yes. If you began construction immediately and finished it. MR. VARANO: And the debris was already removed by the time we spoke, okay, and you were supposed to send someone out there to check that. MR. CLARK: There's additional debris there. That's the problem. MR. VARANO: Okay. There was a question on that. The removal of all -- Well, let's go to item one. Okay. Go to item two. Removal of debris which was done. The chain-link fence, you found that was not necessary. MR. CLARK: So we can make sure that we're stating accurately, I stated if you renew the building permit and began construction Page 6 January 26, 1995 immediately, the chain-link fence would not be necessary because it would be a normal construction site. You did not. MR. VARANO: Okay. Then that was a misunderstanding on my part because I don't know of any construction site that I've ever seen in 30 years that people want construction to stop for some reason, anybody was told to put up a chain-link fence but -- MR. CLARK: But you were by this board, and we asked for it, to be frank with you, because it was not a construction site. It was abandoned. MR. VARANO: Well, the property's never been abandoned. MR. CLARK: The construction has -- The construction has been abandoned. Once the building permit expires MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. CLARK: -- it's been abandoned. MR. VARANO: If that's the legal term, then okay, but, I mean, the property has not been abandoned. Again, to go back to background. Okay. I moved to Collier County eight years ago. Being in construction -- MR. LAZARUS: May I -- May I -- I'm sorry to interrupt. MR. VARANO: That's okay. MR. LAZARUS: Please, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question about this chain-link fence. The order was issued on May 27 of 1994, and it says within 30 days of execution's order secure the site with a six-foot chain-link fence. So that takes you to June 1994. When did you have your conversation with Mr. Clark about not getting -- MR. CLARK: Prior to the 30 days. MR. LAZARUS: Prior to the 30 days. MR. CLARK: Yeah. And he had agreed to get the building permit renewed which would make it a normal building site and begin construction immediately. MR. LAZARUS: All right. And did you do that? MR. VARANO: Okay. No. At that point -- I guess there's a lot of explanation that's needed. After I sat down with Mr. Clark, okay, and we agreed to do certain things. The reason that none of these things were done, bottom line is -- because I could stand here for an hour and tell you a million reasons. The bottom line is construction now has stopped. The building permit ran out. Two basic reasons for it is lack of funding to continue the construction of the house. That's the bottom line. Okay. So once Mr. Clark -- Once I was notified that there was a meeting and I wasn't even here because I was out of town, which brings up other questions as during your speaking to Mr. Clark and Maria, that someone was not notified because they were out of the country. Well, at the time I was out of the state, but yet the meeting continued without me. So I don't know why one person would be postponed until they were notified, yet my meeting went on without me. So that was one question I never really got an answer for but MR. CLARK: Let me explain that to you. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. CLARK: I can explain that very easily to you. This is to keep Page 7 January 26, 1995 people from evading service and evading responsibility for actions which violate our codes. In other words, if someone doesn't want to be serviced and doesn't want to comply, they can't put their head in the sand and say, "I didn't know about it; so, thereby, I don't have to do it. " MR. VARANO: But we've known each other for quite a while and if I -- you know -- MR. CLARK: And you still haven't complied. That's the issue, not whether -- MR. VARANO: Right. MR. CLARK: -- I know you. Whether you've complied is the issue. MR. VARANO: Well, I'm talking about why wasn't my first meeting in May, I believe it was, why wasn't it postponed, because you knew I didn't receive anything. I was out of the state, and this gentleman was out of the country, why my meeting wasn't postponed. MR. CLARK: I think we're having a little pattern and perhaps we need -- it may be the point to bring this up. You were notified legally per ordinance. The board recognized that. Now, let's talk about it. Okay. You say, "I didn't receive notice prior to the hearing." MR. VARANO: I didn't even know about the hearing. MR. CLARK: Well, let me tell you. MR. VARANO: Yeah. MR. CLARK: You say you didn't receive notice prior to the hearing. You may not have received it. It was provided to you in the legal method that's required by law. Now, let's forget about that for a moment. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. CLARK: That's not an excuse for not complying. Once you were told what you needed to do, you had how many months? May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. Now MR. VARANO: I realize that. I was just -- MR. CLARK: Okay. We can't come -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. MR. CLARK: -- before the board -- and I'm trying -- MR. VARANO: Right. MR. CLARK: -- to be nice here. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. CLARK: We can't come before the board and provide ignorance to the first meeting, because you were notified even after the meeting what you were required to do and you still haven't done anything. So let's talk about that. MR. VARANO: Yeah. I understand that and I agree with you. I understand what had to be done after the May 26. But when I sit here this morning and I hear someone else's meeting being postponed because they weren't notified, I was just wondering why that didn't occur to me, you know, that wasn't given -- my option that I was not notified because you know all the certified mail that you say you had sent to me came back because there was nobody at the house at all to receive any mail. So I just want the board to know that the first meeting you had I was not even aware of it until afterwards when I came home and Mr. -- The gentleman that was working on the case at the time. Page 8 January 26, 1995 MR. CLARK: It's immaterial. MR. VARANO: Well, someone had left a message on my recorder, and when I returned home that week I called. I called Mr. Clark, and that's how we had that meeting at his office. But I want the board to understand that the first meeting that you had here for me, I was out of the state, and I was not aware of the meeting at all. Now, Mr. Clark said they do what they have to do as far as certified mail or whatever, but no one has ever showed me that any certified mail was signed by me or anybody at the house so -- MR. CLARK: It was sent. That's all that needs to be done. MR. VARANO: It was sent, but no one obviously received it because you didn't get anything back from the post office saying it was received. MR. CLARK: Yeah. We got something back that said it was undeliverable. We have not gotten anything back from the other gentleman that you referred to previously because he's out of the country. We posted notices on your door. We put tape on your door. We've put things MR. VARANO: Right. But it's -- MR. CLARK: Now, for you to say, "That's my legal address. That's where I'll get my mail, and I'm going to have somebody else collect it, but I'm not responsible," I don't think that's going to work. MR. VARANO: This time I agree with you, and that's why I'm here today. But for the first meeting there was no one at that house and I -- the meeting came and went and I was not even in the state. MR. CLARK: Since the first meeting, how many months have you had? Let's talk about that. MR. VARANO: I agree with you. MR. CLARK: Let's talk about that. MR. VARANO: But I just want the board to understand my situation. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Varano. MR. VARANO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: I think the board has heard your comments and MR. VARANO: Okay. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: -- underst~nds the situation. Let's proceed to another topic, please. MR. VARANO: Okay. After the May -- well, not May meeting -- whenever we spoke. Was it June? I don't know. May. Okay. Mr. Clark said I need to do these certain things that the board found me guilty of these situations. Like I say, the bottom line is since that time -- now I have someone who is also -- my name appears on the property, but my future wife is also part of this construction as far as finances go. Okay. So not to talk about my personal business, but the bottom line is there is no money to continue the construction of the house at this time. Now, also we had damage. The original damage that was done to the house, the roof that was torn off during one of the storms that was out there, I have a legal case going with Allstate Insurance on that for them not paying the claim for that. Okay. So that's monies that's tied up there. So basically the house is just tied up in legal Page 9 January 26, 1995 problems, and the money that was supposed to finance the completion of the house was based on a piece of property that I own in New Jersey which is also tied up in court. So basically -- MR. LAZARUS: How did that prevent you from putting a chain-link fence around the property? MR. VARANO: There is no money to do anything. MR. LAZARUS: Even to put up a fence? MR. VARANO: Even to put up a fence. MR. LAZARUS: Did you explain that to Mr. Clark? MR. VARANO: At that time, that wasn't the situation. MR. LAZARUS: Did you explain it to him later? You knew you had the obligation, did you not? MR. VARANO: Yes, I did, but at the time I wasn't quite sure, you know, money-wise what was going to happen because if the contract went through on the property in New Jersey, there would have been no problem. There would have been more money that it would have taken to finish the house. MR. LAZARUS: When did you realize you didn't have enough funds to continue the construction of the house? MR. VARANO: Basically we found out a couple of weeks ago. MR. LAZARUS: And, meanwhile, you took no action to either get the permit and go ahead with the construction or to construct the fence? MR. VARANO: Well, I explained to -- there was another gentleman involved and I can't think of his name who was at that meeting, Mr. Clark. But, anyway, it's in your records. Like I say, I have nothing. I don't even have any paperwork from that meeting when we sat down but MR. CLARK: I think -- I think -- MR. VARANO: Go ahead. MR. CLARK: -- what we're getting to is you were aware because I gave you the documents. MR. VARANO: Right. MR. CLARK: You were aware of the meeting, and the board said $250 a day if you don't do certain things by certain dates. I mean, to me if somebody told me, "Dick, you're going to have $250 a day assessed against your property if you don't do certain things," that's going to ring a bell pretty loud. It's not something I'm going to say, "Oh, well, something might happen." MR. VARANO: Well, if you recall what I did say at that meeting, there were -- there were three things that I brought up why the house wasn't being continued. Number one was the lawsuit with Allstate which I mentioned which you should have in your record. The second thing was lack of funds. And the third thing was that unless I received the money from the property in New Jersey, the house would not continue. MR. CLARK: So you're going to demolish it; right? MR. VARANO: No. We're waiting for the money. The money could You know, the property could be sold up there tomorrow or my -- my MR. CLARK: Is that property going to be sold for $341,000? MR. VARANO: No. MR. CLARK: That's the amount of fines you have assessed against you right now. Page 10 January 26, 1995 MR. VARANO: Well, see, this is the first time I'm aware of the fines. MR. CLARK: No. You're not aware. You were told $250 a day. The day I sat down and gave you the papers, you were told $250 a day is going to be assessed against you. That has to ring a bell somewhere that it's going to total up to a lot of money if I don't do something. MR. VARANO: To be very honest with you, the way it was explained to me was that would be the worst case scenario, and you had said to me at the time -- MR. CLARK: That's right. MR. VARANO: -- you know, you're not -- MR. CLARK: Unless you finish the house. MR. VARANO: Right. Right. MR. CLARK: And you didn't. MR. VARANO: No. There is no money to finish the house. I mean, this house is being built for myself. This is not -- I'm not a contractor in this situation. Okay. We came down here to build a dream house. Unfortunately things don't always work out how you you know -- MR. ALLEN: Mr. Varano, okay, you're not going to be able to finish this house. Okay. Let me tell you why. Because the trusses that have laid on the ground were built in 1990 or 1991. They don't meet 1994 code. MR. VARANO: There are new trusses already built and paid for for that house. MR. ALLEN: The ones I MR. VARANO: They're not already built, but they're already paid for. It's just that we -- we just came to a dead stop. The monies -- The last monies that were made -- The last monies that were available to continue the construction -- and I have the check -- was the trusses were ordered. They were paid for. They're just waiting for me to say to be built. So they will be built. MR. ALLEN: If you could have afforded the truss, you should have afforded the fence. MR. VARANO: Well, it was not made that big of a deal at that time about a fence going up, to be very honest with you. MR. LAZARUS: Please help me out, Mr. Varano -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. MR. LAZARUS: -- because I -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. MR. LAZARUS: -- just don't understand. There's an order which says you should cure the site with a six-foot fence. MR. VARANO: I was told at the meeting -- MR. LAZARUS: There was -- MR. VARANO: -- I didn't have to do that. MR. LAZARUS: Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. LAZARUS: Let me just finish the question MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. LAZARUS: and then help me understand. MR. VARANO: I'm sorry. Page 11 January 26, 1995 MR. LAZARUS: Please help me understand. There was a requirement to remove all unusable trusses and debris. MR. VARANO: Correct. MR. LAZARUS: If I understand, that you talked to Mr. Clark about all of this, and you were on notice to the point of understanding that you either had to have a fence or remove the debris; is that -- MR. VARANO: Right. MR. LAZARUS: -- correct? MR. VARANO: Right. And debris was removed. MR. LAZARUS: The debris was removed? MR. VARANO: It was removed. MR. LAZARUS: Well, it's my understanding MR. VARANO: It's been removed for a lo~g time. The only thing that's left there right now are the trusses, okay, are the trusses that are going to be used to continue the house. There's no other debris there of my knowledge. Now, I have not been there for three weeks. So unless somebody dumped something there, to my knowledge, all debris was removed. MR. LAZARUS: Did you make any effort after that initial meeting with Mr. Clark to get back with him to say the debris has been removed and -- MR. VARANO: I told him the debris would be removed, and he said he would send somebody out there to check it. We were supposed to have a meeting. Okay. There were a couple of questions as far as -- there was supposed to be a meeting on -- MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman and the board, I'm showing him some photographs that were taken 1-5 of '95. You see all of this debris -- MR. VARANO: Okay. Now-- MR. CLARK: -- lumber -- MR. VARANO: Go ahead. MR. CLARK: Let me finish, please -- debris, lumber, and so forth, and this is protruding from the house. This is out in the yard. (indicating) MR. VARANO: Those are all trusses that I'm looking at unless you MR. CLARK: That, that is not. MR. VARANO: Okay. Now, that's -- that's -- MR. CLARK: That's not a truss. That's-- MR. VARANO: These obviously -- these -- someone had dumped tires here by looking at this photograph. Now, you took this on the fifth of this month. I have not been out there this month because I've been away. Okay. There are five or six tires here, okay, do not belong to me. It's the first time I'm looking at them. The debris that Mr. Clark is pointing to are brand new trusses that -- I mean, you know, when I say "brand new," they were unused trusses that were supposed to continue the roof. MR. CLARK: 1992. MR. VARANO: Yeah. Probably made in 1992, but they are still brand new trusses. They were not used in the house and then torn down and stacked out there. MR. CLARK: Are those covered, sir? Page 12 January 26, 1995 MR. VARANO: trusses. MR. CLARK: covered? MR. VARANO: No. There's no protection on them because the protection -- to cover them, it only holds the moisture on them. MR. LAZARUS: Excuse me, Mr. -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. MR. LAZARUS: -- Mr. Varano. The order says remove all unusable trusses. So you were notified that the trusses were to be removed. Furthermore, whether -- whether you appreciate it or not, I believe those tires are yours right now. MR. CLARK: On your property. MR. LAZARUS: They're on your property. MR. VARANO: I don't -- I don't recognize them as they sit there right now. MR. LAZARUS: Well, you may not recognize them, but they're yours. MR. VARANO: How did they get there? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: They're on your property. MR. LAZARUS: It doesn't make any difference. They're on your property. MR. VARANO: Okay. Well, if we're talking about five tires to be removed, those can be removed in a matter of an hour. But as far as the trusses go -- Mr. Clark, do you want this? MR. CLARK: Yes. Thank you. MR. VARANO: As far as the trusses go, no one told me the new trusses. And when I say "new," meaning, yes, they in '92. As far as the trusses that were cut up or damaged usable, those were removed a long time ago. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Clark, would you say that we might consider entering those photographs into evidence? Is it necessary for the county's case? MR. CLARK: Yes. We would like to have that entered into evidence, those photographs provided. MR. VARANO: Maybe there's a difference in opinion on what trusses are new and usable and what aren't. If you're telling me today for the first time that I can't use those trusses because they were built in '92, this is the first time I'm being told that. But as far as any damaged trusses -- and there were damaged trusses from the storm, that debris had been removed a long time ago. MR. ALLEN: Had you tried to obtain a valid building permit, okay, you'd have to submit engineering for the trusses to obtain a valid building permit. MR. VARANO: Correct. MR. ALLEN: Engineering trusses in '91 and '92 is substantially different for a valid building permit than '94 and'95. MR. VARANO: I'm hearing that for the first time. No one had told me that before. MR. ALLEN: have known that. MR. VARANO: Those were never -- I was never told to remove the Are they -- Are they protected from the weather and to remove were built and not Well, had you done what the board ordered, you would Well, as I explained, at the time there was no sense Page 13 January 26, 1995 in me going ahead with a building permit if I don't have the money to continue finishing the house. The bottom line is there's no financing at this time to finish the house. It was not that I didn't want to get a building permit. It's not that I don't want to finish the house. It's not that I don't want to comply with county regulations. I mean, I've never been found in 30 years not to comply with county regulations. I've never built a house where I failed one inspection in 30 years. MR. LAZARUS: You have now. MR. VARANO: Well -- but, again, not to my -- not because of something that I did. MR. LAZARUS: Oh, it's because of something you did not do which is also a reason. MR. VARANO: Financial situation, sir. I -- I mean, I cannot control that. Properties did not sell that were supposed to sell. Insurance companies don't want to pay claims. You know, it was part of the hurricane situation. MR. LAZARUS: That's a hardship and that's -- MR. VARANO: Well, then I'm here on a hardship situation then. MR. LAZARUS: And that's unfortunate. MR. VARANO: Right. MR. LAZARUS: The question I still have in my mind is, knowing the hardship and knowing the unfortunate circumstances -- MR. VARANO: Right. MR. LAZARUS: -- after that initial meeting with Mr. Clark, it appears that you did nothing to come back to the Code Enforcement staff to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, I have a hardship problem. Help me out. " MR. VARANO: I made that clear at the meeting because there'd be no reason for me not to continue the house and not to comply if I had the money to do it. So if you want to say it's a hardship, yes, it is a hardship, yes, and Mr. Clark is aware of that. He's aware of my mother being sick with a heart problem for three years which takes me out of the state most of the time. So if you want -- I mean, like I said, I'm not here to lie or deceive you. There is no money to finish the house at this time, and that's really why nothing was complied with. I did what I could do that didn't cost any money. I removed the debris, you know, which I found to be debris. The trusses that were new at the time, like the gentleman says, they may not be up to code now, but this is the first time I'm hearing it. MR. LAZARUS: Are you a -- MR. VARANO: Those -- Those were -- MR. LAZARUS: Are you a licensed contractor in Collier County? MR. VARANO: No, I'm not. No. No. MS. RAWSON: I'd make a motion that we introduce -- MR. VARANO: It's just a matter of money. MS. RAWSON: -- into evidence the packet of pictures provided us by the county. MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: We have a motion and second to enter into evidence the photographs as provided by the county staff. Any Page 14 January 26, 1995 '\ discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Passes. Please continue. ~ MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, if I may try to close at least for the county staff's position, I realize what Mr. Varano is saying, that he has financial hardships, and I'll be real frank with you, Mr. Varano. We all have financial hardships during our lives at some point or other. That does not allow us the permission to violate county laws, state laws, federal laws. And building a house is a business decision. It's a financial decision. If we can't afford to build it, don't build it. MR. VARANO: say, things -- MR. CLARK: Did you have a loan at that time? MR. VARANO:\-Yes.we have a loan, but our loan would have to be looked at in April when -- when -- when the -- you know, the -- we have a balloon mortgage, okay, and it's due in April. Meanwhile, our bank has been bought out by another bank. So we have to sit down in April just to get -- you know, again, there's a lot of explaining to do. You people are sitting here, looking at me like, well, you know -- MR. CLARK: -Let me speak if I might and certainly you can make some comments to the board. The point is if my problems create a problem for society, it's not acceptable. It's that simple. If you can't afford to build the house, you should have sold the house. If you can't afford to finish the property -- finish the house on the property, you should have sold it. Three years. Four years. We're four years. 1991 you pulled that building permit. And I'm not being derogatory, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out if in four years you're not able to do something with a piece of property and I've already been cited for it and if I don't do something, the clock's going to -- by a certain date that the Code Enforcement Board said I had to do it, it doesn't take a genius to say, hey, I'm going to have $250 a day fine imposed if I don't do something. Maybe I should sell the property, tear the house down, do whatever I've got to do so I don't face that. Right now you're facing $341,000. Your property is not worth $341,000. MR. VARANO: That's correct. MR. CLARK: So, I mean, I don't care if you're in New Jersey. I don't care where you're at. The same amount of time goes by, and that bell would be ringing every day with me. That's $250, $250. MR. VARANO: This is the first time I'm aware that-- that -- -- The first time I was aware that those fines add up to this was this morning -- 8:30 this morning here when I read this the first MR. CLARK: I guess that's what I have a problem with. If somebody told me on a certain day that after that day it's going to be $250 a day, nobody would have to tell me they're adding up. I'd have a calculator. MR. VARANO: MR. CLARK: At the time we could afford to build it. But, like I that 7:30 time. I was not told that. You were. You were provided the documents that said Page 15 January 26, 1995 $250 a day will be imposed from this day forth if you haven't done these things. You were provided it. I handed it to you personally. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman. MR. VARANO: If you say so. I'm not -- Mr. Clark, you know, you know me. I'm not going to say that you're not telling the truth, but I found out that these fines were imposed on me I guess by the board at that meeting I was not at at 8:30 this morning. I'm not here to lie or deceive anybody. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. Mr. Clark is absolutely correct when he mentions $250 a day being the order of the board. I do want to make a clarification though which is that I'm not sure how we're arriving at the total amount because what I show is from May of'94 through the present, and it's listed as 1,367 days. I think it's a typo there, you know. So I'm just saying I think the fines are actually substantially less than that because -- MR. CLARK: Good. MS. CRUZ: Excuse me. The way it was figured out was if you look at the list that the board ordered -- for example, number one says, obtain a valid demolition permit within seven days of the date of the order. I calculated seven days from that date. I mean, seven days after until the present. That came up to a total of 216 days just for that item. And then the next item was 193 days. So-- MR. MANALICH: Okay. I see. Yes. And that raises MS. CRUZ: All those days were added on. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I understand how she arrived at it., The question clearly -- and she's correct and staff has very correctly followed the order but I just -- in retrospect here, I just have an issue that I want to discuss with the board which is the statute and the ordinance talk in terms of up to 250 a day for the violation. The violation that's in the order is allowing a continuing existence of a partially constructed and abandoned structure. The things that we are fining for there are requirements that we have imposed for correction. It appears to me that -- and, you know, on this regard I may need to review my prior opinion which is simply I think we may be limited to 250 a day, and that 250 a day attaches for anyone of these requirements, but it does not compound since the statute only talks in terms of one violation. So what I would say -- my opinion would be that we need to interpret this as meaning 250 a day from May of '94 but not 250 a day from May of '94 for each requirement for correction. I would invite the input of either Mr. Lazarus or Ms. Rawson with their legal background if they agree with me on that. MR. LAZARUS: I do. MS. RAWSON: I do too. MR. MANALICH: I mean, that's -- you know, certainly falls within my camp. Staff has correctly done their job, you know, as far as the calculation, but that's just my opinion at this point. MR. CLARK: We agree. MR. LAZARUS: For the record, are you satisfied that service in this case has been proper? MR. MANALICH: It appears to me that the legal requirements were Page 16 January 26, 1995 met. And, as a matter of fact, I have information here in my file that Ed Morad was at that time -- because of the nature and the importance of this case, the board is real concerned about the safety of children and others out there. We -- I, with staff, specifically went to extraordinary means to post, phone, mail, et cetera, and those were all undertaken. So I know of no deficiency in that regard. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: But I do want to stress, Mr. Varano, these fines -- I will recalculate them now. They will not be 341,000. They're going to be substantially less than that. MR. CLARK: If I might MR. VARANO: Well, you know -- MR. CLARK: Mr. Varano -- MR. VARANO: Yes. MR. CLARK: if I might, and, Mr. Chairman, we will also provide copies where it was -- we went much further than that. We advertised it in the paper for four weeks which is much further. MR. MANALICH: Oh, okay. Well, that is conclusive at that point. MR. VARANO: Mr. Clark, I have never doubted that you have not tried to get in touch with me. I want the board to understand that. MR. CLARK: But my point is not whether we tried -- MR. VARANO: But, you know, if I'm not here, regardless if it's in the paper -- and I understand. You know, I mean, I'm not stupid. I'm 48 years old. I don't doubt the -- MR. CLARK: My point is we've met the legal requirements, and that avoids the possibility of that -- Those requirements are set up to avoid this scenario where someone can avoid service and thereby avoid -- and I'm not saying purposely -- but avoid service and thereby avoid complying. MR. VARANO: You know, again, it's not like you've met me for the first time. I've worked with county commissioners in this county. I've worked with the sheriff's department very closely, been a volunteer in law enforcement, gentlemen, for 26 years. I know everybody in the county, and everybody in the county knows me, and I'm sure they would vouch for what I'm saying, that I'm sure Mr. Clark did everything he had to do to get in touch with me. But even to take yourself, if you are not in the state for months, no matter what's in the paper, no matter what is going to your home address, you are not receiving it. I know -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Varano -- Mr. Varano -- MR. VARANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: -- I'm going to lay to rest right now the issue of proper notification. The board has heard your opinion. I thank you very much for your input, but proper notification was offered and legal compliance concerning the attempt to notify you has been ruled upon by the attorney. MR. VARANO: I agree with CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: So MR. VARANO: I agree with it just didn't get to me. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: you. let's move on to a different issue. you we did they did everything, but What's the next point, Mr. Clark? Page 17 January 26, 1995 MR. LAFORET: Mr. Varano, I'd like to -- MR. VARANO: Yes, sir. MR. LAFORET: -- ask you a couple of questions, please. MR. VARANO: Yes, sir. MR. LAFORET: In your 30 years of experience -- MR. VARANO: Yes. MR. LAFORET: have ever you had occasion to leave a project for an extended period of time for any reason whatsoever? MR. VARANO: No. MR. LAFORET: You've never left the project? MR. VARANO: No. MR. LAFORET: Is it your business practice to make an investment in anything and then walk away from that investment and forget it, make no provision to protect it? MR. VARANO: Of course not. MR. LAFORET: Make no provision to ensure that whatever you'll invest in is stable is there? You are aware in any part of the country today that it's not uncommon for materials to be stolen from construction projects? MR. VARANO: I'm aware of that, and all that was taken care of. MR. LAFORET: Did you have insurance on this? MR. VARANO: Yes. That's why we're fighting with Allstate for the claim. MR. LAFORET: How did you -- How did they contact you, or how did you contact them on renewals of this insurance? MR. VARANO: All of my finances as far as bills and so forth and so on are separated from the mail and are taken care of obviously; otherwise, when I return home, I'd have no electric or cable or any other utilities. That is all taken. Any other mails are just put in a bin for me to receive. Like when I got home last night at 2:00 in the morning, at seven o'clock this morning, I was starting to go through my mail with, like I say, three or four hours' sleep. I opened this at seven o'clock this morning. MR. LAFORET: I heard that. MR. VARANO: I contacted Mr. Clark I believe at eight o'clock this morning to let him know that I was in town and I was just aware of this meeting. So if I was trying to hide from the board, I obviously wouldn't have called him this morning to say that I'm going to show up. MR. LAFORET: That's not answering my question. MR. VARANO: Well, it should show you something about me as a person where I could have simply said, well, I wasn't home at this meeting either. I did find this this morning at seven o'clock. I did call him approximately eight o'clock, and I was here at 8:30 when you and the other gentlemen walked in, and you might have noticed that I was reading this and was reading it for the first time. So I wasn't trying to, you know, hide or -- MR. LAFORET: I'll accept MR. VARANO: -- any other description that Mr. -- MR. LAFORET: -- what you did and what you didn't do. MR. VARANO: Right. MR. LAFORET: My question is trying to determine -- where did you Page 18 January 26, 1995 get the money to pay your bills that were forwarded to you? MR. VARANO: You mean, such as -- MR. LAFORET: You say you have no money to continue the MR. VARANO: There's no money MR. LAFORET: -- project. MR. VARANO: There's no money to continue the construction. MR. LAFORET: But you have money to pay the bills that were forwarded you? MR. VARANO: When you say "bills," you mean, like -- MR. LAFORET: Your insurance bill, tax bills, electric bills that you were talking about. MR. VARANO: Well, sure. That's -- That's a small amount of money. A house this size -- I mean, to start, just to start which would be -- the next step would be to finish the construction of the roof. Okay. MR. LAFORET: Did you make any effort to have somebody visit the project and see the status of it? MR. VARANO: Oh, yeah. I had someone go out there every There's always someone out there to keep an eye. I even have County deputy that checks the construction site for me almost daily basis. MR. LAFORET: What I heard, the inspector was unable to locate anybody on the project. MR. VARANO: There's no one on the project daily because there's no construction going on. I had to stop -- I was told by the county I had to stop construction when the permit ran out. We never put one nail in that house after the permit ran out. Being in the business, obviously that would be a violation. Even Mr. Clark -- MR. LAFORET: I think you run the obvious violation now. MR. VARANO: Well, right but -- but I just -- I just want to explain -- MR. LAFORET: That's why I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. MR. VARANO: -- explain to the board and Mr. Clark would back me up on that, we never -- we ceased construction actually three days before that permit even ran out. We never were on that site to do any type of work after that cite -- you know, after the permit ran out. MR. CLARK: But you're not charged with that either. MR. VARANO: Correct. Well, again, I want the board to understand that. At the time, I believe there was Mr. Ed Garring who was working for the county at the time, and him and I were in contact constantly about the status of the house and the permit had run out and so forth and so on. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: you'd like to make, please. MR. CLARK: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd probably like to summarize by stating that the county has made all notice requirements as stipulated by the county attorney or County Attorney's Office and Mr. Varano. I don't think he's contested that. The point is, is one of philosophy, not one of law. I think Mr. Varano does not accept the gravity of the situation whereas we -- I'm talking about county staff -- and this board has an obligation to this society, to this community. We have an week. a Collier on a Mr. Clark, move on to your next point that Page 19 January 26, 1995 obligation and so do you. We jointly have an obligation to make certain that we abide by the laws and the ordinances of this county for the good of the community, for the good of this county. MR. VARANO: I've always obeyed by the law. MR. CLARK: Let me continue, please. But the point being, when we don't, it -- when we don't, it creates a problem for this community, and your failure to do so has created a problem for this community. You've been notified about that. You weren't imposed any fines. Even though we could have cited you to court to take immediate action at the time, we didn't. We cited you before this board to give you time, for this board to give you a period of time in which -- in fact, we even -- to be frank with you, very laboriously laid out a set of steps for you to do. I handed those to you. I discussed some of those with you. You assured me you would do that. MR. VARANO: That's correct. I did. MR. CLARK: And then a long period of time went on and it was as if we'd never had the talk and you'd never agreed to do anything and the board had never set an order and now we come back before this board with kind of surprise. Gee, I didn't know any of this was going to happen. You had to. You're a reasonably intelligent person. And to be frank with you, we have no option except to recommend for the community, not you. You had your opportunity. But to recommend to the board that the amount of total fines as being calculated by staff and the County Attorney's Office at this time, that that amount be imposed today. And I'll be -- I'll go one step further. We're going to recommend that you be given 30 days to pay those fines, and that if you fail to do that, however that happens, that foreclosure action be initiated as quickly as possible, and they will take a few months to do that, but we're going to have to recommend that. We cannot allow in good conscience that to remain in the way it is if a child, even though he may be trespassing on your property or someone goes on that property and gets hurt and this board has knowledge of it and we have knowledge of this condition that's existed with our knowledge since May of '94 and we've advised you -- the board has advised you that you need to correct that and you fail to do that, that would be unconscionable on our part not to -- to take -- be taking the steps, prudent steps, that are necessary to remedy this situation. If the county ends up with that property and has to bulldoze it down or if you want to take it down now, that's up to you, but this cannot go on for four years. I mean, there's no end to it. In your situation, it could go on for 20 years. You have absolutely no remedy in mind. MR. VARANO: Yes, we do. You just haven't heard it yet. MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. VARANO: The remedy obviously is -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Excuse me, sir. Any other questions that the board members may have for Mr. Clark, for Mr. Varano, specific questions? The county's presented all the information it needs to present? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Do we have a recalculated figure of the Page 20 January 26, 1995 fines? MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, that is something I'm contemplating at this point. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: The question that I'm legally contemplating is we cited two ordinance sections that were in violation, but what I'm looking at is whether substantively I can justify doubling the fine if essentially the finding is the same for both ordinances -- that is, allowing the continuing existence of an uncompleted or abandoned structure. MR. CLARK: That's fine. MR. MANALICH: I'm -- Yeah. I'm -- I'm -- I tend to say here and, actually, it's to the benefit of Mr. Varano, that to be on the safest position and purposes for the future, we have 250 a day available given the marginal situation here where I'm not -- I can't really say it substantively is two different violations. I would advise you to simply consider it one violation, only impose 250 and not 500 a day. MR. CLARK: We'd rather take the conservative approach. What we want obviously is what we all want, compliance, and I'd rather take the conservative approach on the fine issue, but let's resolve the problem. MR. VARANO: I also want to comply. I want the board members to know that and we are -- and, you know, we are going to be renegotiating with the bank that has the mortgage to borrow more money because it's a very small mortgage on that structure. It's only a $30,000 mortgage on that structure, and I don't know if you are aware how large of a structure it is. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Counselor -- I don't think the counselor finished his thought. Please proceed. MR. VARANO: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MANALICH: I just want to -- So my opinion is-- and I think Mr. Clark concurs with it -- is it should be only a one $250-a-day fine. Mr. Varano, you understand that Mr. Clark is being imminently reasonable in that in that he is not pursuing the compound fine. MR. VARANO: I understand that. MR. MANALICH: He's not pursuing the 500. He's agreeing to follow my advice to the board which is the 250 a day which is substantial savings of fines here. The other thing I'd point out to the board is that-- I've researched this prior to coming down. The board was concerned at the time this case was heard with whether this was a danger to the public and to children. We do have an unsafe structure ordinance which does allow the county to follow certain procedures and have this thing torn down and bill the owner for that procedure. Now, that's something else you can think about if your concerns are still the same as they were back then. MR. CLARK: Mr. Varano, I'm going to advise you now on the record in front of this board that we are going to send notice to your legal place of residence, if you get it or if you don't. It's your responsibility. We are now You're being placed on notice. We are effectively this week going to cite you for violation of 76-70 which is Page 21 January 26, 1995 an unsafe structure ordinance. We're going to inspect that house in lieu of that ordinance. And if it's found to be in violation, which I suspect it's going to be, the remedy that we have is to provide notice to you. If you haven't complied, it will be demolished within 30 days. MR. VARANO: Let me -- Let me ask the board and yourself a question just so we understand because obviously there was some misunderstanding, maybe on my part, when we met last time. I'll even go one step further. If you need me to do, I will contact you personally once a week so there is no problem, but what I need to know is what is unsafe about the structure. The structure, if the board knows it or not, is a two-story building. There have been always padlocks on the entrance. There's only one way to get in the house, and that's through the front doors, and those have been padlocked since the house started once there was a frame up and there was a front-door entranceway. So there's no way to get into windows. There's no windows to get into because everything -- the house is raised up. I don't know if -- you know, if the board is aware of this. It's not a normal house where children can just walk in and out and do what they want to do. The house is raised up. The closest window is probably 20 feet off the ground. So unless you've got a substantially large ladder, you're not going to get in that house. MR. CLARK: Let me say it another way. MR. VARANO: And no one has ever gotten in that house since it's been under construction. No one has ever broken into that house. MR. CLARK: Let me say it another way, Mr. Varano. There are two portions of ordinances that you're in serious violation of. One is 76-70, the unsafe structure possibly. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. CLARK: The other one is an unpermitted structure. MR. VARANO: Correct. MR. CLARK: You have no building permit on that. You have MR. VARANO: And I want to be in compliance with it. MR. CLARK: Please -- Please let me. You have no authority to have that structure on that piece of property because it does not have a proper building permit, and it has not been CO'd. You will be notified that you will remove the structure. If you don't, the county can. MR. VARANO: I think what we really all want is we want the house to be finished; correct? I mean -- MR. CLARK: Or gone -- MR. VARANO: I want -- I want MR. CLARK: -- or removed. MR. VARANO: Well, being gone isn't even reasonable, actually. MR. CLARK: That's reasonable for the community. It may not be reasonable for you. You've had the opportunity to complete it. Now, how -- what are you telling the board? Now, you're being placed on notice. You're going to get legal notices. I don't want to hear, "Gee, I didn't get it." Whoever has -- got the mail -- MR. VARANO: Like I said, to -- to -- MR. CLARK: Let me finish, please. MR. VARANO: I'll -- I'll -- I'll call you every week if I have Page 22 January 26, 1995 to. MR. CLARK: I don't want you calling me every week. I want you picking up your legal notice. I want you getting your legal -- I don't want you coming back, "Gee, I didn't know, Mr. Board. Gee, I didn't Mr. Commissioner." You have an obligation to see that your mail is forwarded to you, some responsible person picks it up, or change your forwarding address to somewhere that you will get it. MR. VARANO: Well, I'm on the road. That's the problem. I'm never -- You know, I'm never in one area that long. But what I'm saying is I'm not making excuses. I'm willing before the board on the record to contact your office to make sure if you did send something to me, that I'm aware of it. And if I have to send someone to your office in person, I will do that if I'm on the road. So there will be nobody saying,"Well, I didn't get it," or whatever. MR. LAZARUS: Mr. Varano -- MR. VARANO: I'm trying to do as much as I can do. I don't know what -- you know, what else I can do. As far as that issue goes MR. LAZARUS: With all respect, Mr. Varano -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. MR. LAZARUS: -- it isn't a question of whether you contact Mr. Clark every week or every day or every minute. The question is, will you come into compliance. MR. VARANO: I want to come into compliance, yes, I do. MR. LAZARUS: That -- That is what this board is -- MR. VARANO: Yes. MR. LAZARUS: -- is charged with. MR. VARANO: Yes. I do want to come into compliance. MR. LAZARUS: We have to be sure. MR. CLARK: How are you going to do that and when? MR. VARANO: The first thing I have to do -- and, like I say, I'm not here, you know, making up stories. It's a financial situation. I have three options. One piece of property is tied up in litigation in New Jersey, so we're not going to sit around and wait for that. I have an option of -- I have to go back to the bank in April and renegotiate my loan, and if they give me the proper fundings based on how much structure is up there, then we will continue to build a house. I want to continue to build a house. I mean, it's a house that I actually drew from my thoughts and built that house with you know, I've got my blood and sweat in that house. It's not a house that I'm building for someone else. MR. CLARK: Sir, nobody's questioning what you want to do. MR. VARANO: Right. MR. CLARK: How are you going to do and when? That's the two questions. MR. VARANO: I -- I have to -- I have to sit down with the bank in April and refinance that mortgage and borrow more money to finish it. I have no personal money that I can put into the house. I mean, yes, I have money to pay my electric and my phone. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Varano, April is an improper time frame. It's not soon enough, sir. MR. VARANO: Well, I can -- I can -- Well, that's when my balloon Page 23 January 26, 1995 mortgage is due, in April. I assume I -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: It's not soon enough. MR. VARANO: I assume I could go to the bank any time. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: We have a 30- to 60-day time period here we're talking about for you. MR. VARANO: Okay. Well, I assume I could go to the bank at any time then and -- you know -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Good thought. MR. VARANO: Yeah. Well, like I say, this is the first time I've ever been in this predicament so, you know, you MR. LAZARUS: It doesn't make any difference. MR. VARANO: -- Have to -- you have to bear with me. MR. LAZARUS: Mr. Varano, it doesn't matter whether it's the first time or not. You have a problem. We don't care how you solve it, but you have to solve it. MR. VARANO: Well, I want to let you know -- MR. LAZARUS: You're going to be MR. VARANO: -- that I do want to solve it, you know. MR. LAZARUS: If this board votes to impose a fine and corrects the amount, you are going to be under a mandate to come into compliance and to pay a fine. ,How you do it is your business. It's not ours. And I don't know whether you have anything further to say about this. We've heard a lot of -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. Just Just basically I'm at the mercy of the board. It's a hardship case. I have no money to pay fines no.matter what they are, and I am going to have to go to the bank to renegotiate the mortgage. Like I say, there's a very low mortgage on the house right now and hopefully -- you know, I don't see a problem, but with banks you never know. You know, the bank was just bought out by First -- Well, I don't even know the name of the new bank but -- I'm going to do whatever I can on my part to get the money to continue to build the house and to become in compliance. You know, like I said, I never wanted to not be in compliance but financial situations happen. If all of a sudden, you know, you all lost your jobs and you had no money, you'd have a hard time paying your obligations. I -- I've always paid my obligations, but this situation just -- And to answer Mr. Clark's statement before, I've built four other homes for myself and never had this problem, but financial times were different. The economy was different. Properties were easy to sell. I have more -- more than enough money to finish the house as far as investments. I own other properties in Collier County, but you just can't liquidate things that fast nowadays. So, now, I have the assets. I just don't have the cash to continue the house, but I do want to build the house. I do plan on living in it -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Clark. MR. VARANO: -- with my wife. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I -- I -- I'd like to close if I might by stating there is no -- and you are aware of that. There's no personal animosity from staff, from the board, from anyone else. We have an obligation to you, but we also have an obligation to the Page 24 January 26, 1995 community as a whole, and that's why this ruling has been made. That's why staff has brought it forward. We have an obligation under law to do MR. VARANO: I understand that. MR. CLARK: -- exactly what we're doing. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if you would entertain the motion of closing the public session of the meeting, and the fines that I've been advised total up to $57,000, if you'd grant an order imposing the fines and order that the foreclosure action begin as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to close the public hearings at this time and introduce or invite discussion amongst the board members for the motion, please. What's your pleasure? MS. RAWSON: I have a question. How do we get the fence built? Can we include that in an order that he has to build a fence within 30 days? MR. MANALICH: I think at this point the order includes the fence. I mean -- MS. RAWSON: It's already there. MR. MANALICH: It's already there. So, I mean, really all we're doing here is imposing the fines. So it's already there. If any of the things outlined in the order are not done, for anyone of those things this $250 a day applies the way things stand right now. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Clark, would it be in the county's best interest for safety, health, and welfare for the county to consider putting up a fence? What's your opinion? Is that necessary? Would that be prudent? MR. CLARK: I'd like to view that and perhaps bring it back at the next meeting. I'd like to view that because at that point it almost becomes an issue if it's that bad that the county is going to be expending funds, I'd rather expend the funds to tear the house down. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: True. MR. MANALICH: The other thing I'd like to point out for Mr. Varano and for the board members is that obviously depending on what you decide here, if you do decide to impose the fines, I'll need to ask you if you want this order recorded because under law if the order is recorded, it becomes a lien not only on that property but upon any other property that you own, real or personal. So this has ramifications beyond just this property, Mr. Varano. It can extend to any other property on the lien. MR. VARANO: Could I ask you a question? MR. MANALICH: Sure. MR. VARANO: Why wouldn't -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Real briefly. MR. VARANO: Why wouldn't the county give me the opportunity to finish the house and collect property taxes on the house rather than talking about the cost of putting up a fence which may run a couple thousand dollars compared to tearing down a 10,000-square-foot home? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: That's getting into the case in chief again. We finished that discussion, sir. MR. VARANO: So, you know, I would imagine if I was sitting on the board, I would want to give someone an opportunity to finish the home. Page 25 January 26, 1995 I'm not standing here going that I'm never going to finish the home, that I don't want to finish the home, that I'm walking away from it, that I'm going to write it off as a loss. I want to finish the home. I want to live in the home. I plan on living in Collier County until the day I die. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Varano, we finished that MR. VARANO: Well-- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: -- part of the discussion. MR. VARANO: I didn't have -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: We finished that part of the discussion. MR. VARANO: -- the opportunity to say that, so I wanted to say that CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. VARANO: -- that I want the opportunity to finish the home. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. LAFORET: I would like to ask counsel a question. In the event the county or anyone else were to put up a fence, in the event some child climbed that fence, got hurt on that fence attempting to climb it, who is liable? MR. MANALICH: Well, it would depend -- MR. LAFORET: It's the county's fence, and the complaint would be you did not erect a child-proof fence. Hell, in prisons they don't have a prison-approved fence at any cost. I would personally object to the county putting up the fence. Now, whether they added the cost of the fence to the claim or not, I don't know if that's legal, but personally to have the county do it, I would vote against it. MR. MANALICH: Obviously it would seem to me that any time we affirmatively do anything out there -- I mean, on the one hand, you know, it certainly can be argued that we're taking actions to protect the public interest. On the other hand, if a fence is erected negligently by whomever, it certainly can be -- result in being named in a lawsuit. No doubt. As things now stand, the obligation is for the -- Mr. Varano to put up the fence. If he doesn't, that by itself will justify the 250 a day continuing. MR. VARANO: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: No, sir. The public hearings are closed. MR. VARANO: Well, I realize that but -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Sir, the public hearings are closed. I'm sorry. MR. VARANO: No. you're saying? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: The public hearings are closed. The board is discussing the matter amongst themselves. MR. VARANO: Well, I just want to refer Clark had said, that he was going to look at there was any -- you can get hurt climbing a I have no right to say anything anymore is what to something to what Mr. the house to make sure fence easier than you can CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Varano -- MR. VARANO: -- on a construction site. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: -- We've had these discussions already. Thank you, sir. We've heard you. Page 26 January 26, 1995 MR. MANALICH: As I see things right now, I have given the legal opinion that under this order we're limited to one $250-per-day amount, and the decision for you to make now is if you're going to impose that fine for the period since this order went into effect and continuing. MR. LAZARUS: I have two questions for staff, Mr. Chairman. First is, would the fine be -- your recommendation the fine be for the period of June 3, 1994, through January 5 or through today? MS. CRUZ: From May 28 the board -- the order was signed May 27. So from May 28 through January 9, the last time-- the last -- January 9 was the last date the staff did are-inspection. MR. LAZARUS: So it would be May 28. MS. CRUZ: Through January 9. MR. LAZARUS: Through January 9. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: And the amount is 57? MS. CRUZ: 57,000. MR. LAZARUS: The amount is 57,000. MR. MANALICH: Is there'any particular reason why it's not through today? MR. LAZARUS: MS. CRUZ: We MR. MANALICH: MR. LAZARUS: question. MS. CRUZ: January 9. MR. LAZARUS: Through the last re-inspection. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: As far as visual confirmation. MR. LAZARUS: Yeah. Is the staff recommending that the fine be extended every day past that -- that the -- that the violation continues? MS. CRUZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: And is the staff also recommending imposition of 76-70, or is that something that will have to come forth later? MS. CRUZ: separate. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Okay. Okay. MR. LAZARUS: Chairman, I have a motion. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Please proffer your motion. MR. LAZARUS: The motion is for an order imposing fine, slash, lien. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on May 26, 1994, after due notice to respondent at which time the board heard testimony under oath, received evidence, and issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and thereupon issued it's oral order which was reduced to writing and furnished to respondent. See attached Exhibit A. Said order required respondent to take certain corrective action by a time certain as more specifically set forth in this order. An affidavit of non-compliance bearing the dates of August 26, August 30, December 6, 1994, and January 5, 1995, has been filed with the board by the Code Enforcement official which affidavit certified under oath that That's -- can -- If you want, we can -- I'm saying, do you know whether Well, why wouldn't it be through today, is my Based on the last re-inspection the staff did was That's something that would have to be determined Page 27 January 26, 1995 the required corrective action has not been taken as ordered. Accordingly, and having been brought to the board's attention that respondent has not complied with the order dated May 27, 1994, it is hereby ordered that the respondent for the Collier County is fined in the amount of $57,000 for non-compliance of the board's order of May 27, 1994. This fine is for the dates of May 28, 1994, through January 9, 1995, at the rate of $250 per day. It is further ordered that a fine of $250 per day continue to accrue until respondent comes into compliance or until judgment is rendered in a suit to foreclose on a lien filed pursuant to section 162.09 Florida Statutes. This order shall be recorded and shall, pursuant to section 162.09 of Florida Statutes, constitute a lien against the property described in Exhibit A and/or any other real or personal property owned by respondent. Done and ordered this 26th day of January 1995, in Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Counselor, is that motion -- MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, one clarification -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Go ahead. MR. MANALICH: The motion I think is adequate and reflects what's been discussed. Just one clarification. It mentions the -- bearing the dates, the affidavit bears the dates. I think the affidavit is actually dated January 9 and references re-inspections that were conducted on those dates. So I would just add to your motion MR. LAZARUS: Amend -- Yes. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. Amend it to that effect. MR. LAZARUS: Amend it to that effect, please. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Certainly. Do! have a second? MS. RAWSON: I second. MR. ANDREWS: I 'second. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: We have a motion and multiple seconds. Any further discussion at this point or clarification by counselor or board members? MR. MANALICH: And I do -- based on what Mr. Lazarus indicated, the motion is to record, and this will constitute a lien. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: The word "shall" was used. MR. LAZARUS: I used the word "shall" instead of "may. " MR. MANALICH: Right. Exactly. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Very good. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. MR. VARANO: Mr. Chairman, could someone explain to me exactly what you decided? Because I have no -- I have no idea. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: You will receive a copy within a day or two, a copy of this order. MR. LAZARUS: The board has just voted that you are liable for a fine now of $57,000. If you do not pay that fine, there will be a lien imposed on that property and any other property you own in Collier County, and that property may be foreclosed to pay the amount of the fine. The way to avoid paying additional fines is to bring yourself Page 28 January 26, 1995 into compliance by getting a valid building permit, continuing the building, securing the property. There are many ways of doing it. MR. VARANO: Well, that's what I need to know. MR. LAZARUS: That you need to discuss with Code Enforcement staff. MR. VARANO: Does the board realize by imposing the $54,000 fine MR. LAZARUS: 57,000. MR. VARANO: -- 57,000 fine, that alone, even if I were to refinance the house, would stop me from continuing building? MR. LAZARUS: I don't know what the other board members believe, but I understand that thoroughly and completely. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Yes. I'm certain most of us do. MR. VARANO: So you don't want me to continue to build the house then? MR. LAZARUS: It isn't what we want. It's a matter of non-compliance with the -- MR. VARANO: Well, you could -- you could have voted to start the fines after -- MR. LAZARUS: We could have -- we could have -- MR. VARANO: -- let's say today; right? MR. LAZARUS: We could have done a lot of things but we didn't. MR. VARANO: Okay. And where do I appeal this decision? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Counselor. MR. MANALICH: Well-- MR. VARANO: Because, like I say, the fines alone -- and I was not aware that these fines were being calculated daily. Okay. And I stated on the record under oath that alone would stop me from being able to finish the house because if I went to the bank and got $50,000 more loan, that would just be enough to pay the fine. So if the county really wants me to finish the house, they should say to me, now, as of today, we'll fine you $250 a day. You've got $30 to -- 30 days to put the fence up. I mean, I can put the fence up, and then I have to go to the bank and renegotiate the loan. MR. LAZARUS: I'm sorry, Mr. Varano. I don't think it's wise to prolong a debate but -- MR. VARANO: Well, it's my -- it's my house. MR. LAZARUS: Excuse me. Let me interrupt your interruption. MR. VARANO: Go ahead. I'm sorry. MR. LAZARUS: There was an order dated the 27th day of May in which you were put on notice that there was a fine of $250 per day to be levied against you. MR. VARANO: I did not understand that. MR. LAZARUS: Well, that's your problem. MR. VARANO: Well, I'm just being honest with you. Do you think I would have done nothing if I knew that I was going to end up with $56,000 worth of fines? No reasonable person would have done nothing if they thought they were going to have to face $56,000 worth of fines. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I was asked a question. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Counselor, yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Mr. Varano asked a question. Just a -- Well, Page 29 January 26, 1995 first of all, a clarification. MR. VARANO: I'm just being honest. MR. MANALICH: A clarification first which is, the board has acted today to impose and record a lien in the amount of $57,000. You need to understand that that order also provides that every day that passes from this point on, another 250 is accumulating, so this is not over. This continues to accumulate. Now, one other point. You asked about your relief. I cannot advise you. I'm not your attorney. I'm the board's attorney. I would, however, comment as follows, which is that there are provisions in the ordinance that you would need to review for both rehearing as well as appeal of decisions, and they indicated where those are proper, and there's time frames that apply to those. You'll have to review that. I can't advise you on that. There's also under the statutes a provision regarding appealing to this board in the future, especially if you come into compliance with regard to whether you would like a reduction of fines. But I -- you know, my experience with the board has been that that's not even a reasonable or a realistic consideration unless you've come into full compliance. MR. VARANO: Well, there's no way I can ever come into compliance as far as the fines go. MR. MANALICH: When I say "compliance," I mean doing what the order said as far as the property. MR. VARANO: Well, all I can tell the. board is that I'm willing to do whatever it takes to come into compliance, and I told you how I have to do it. I have to go to the bank to renegotiate the mortgage. But as far as the $54,000, they're not going to renegotiate a mortgage with $54,000 worth of fines against the property. No bank in their right mind would do it. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Varano, if you come into full -- if you come into full compliance, you have the right to come to this board and ask for a reduction in fines. MR. CLARK: Are you making payment on a loan on that property now MR. VARANO: Yes. MR. CLARK: -- for the construction of that house? MR. VARANO: On the $30,000 that I borrowed? Yes. MR. CLARK: For construction? MR. VARANO: The property was bought free and clear. The construction part of it -- MR. CLARK: So you borrowed on the land, not the house? MR. VARANO: Right. Well, I borrowed on a combination of both because I already had started building the house before I got the approval on the loan. And then when they went to look at the house, they appraised the house, what was started, at that time just the foundation, and then the house. MR. CLARK: I think what the County Attorney's Office has stated MR. VARANO: You've got to realize, this is all new to me so if I act stupid, it's because I'm not -- Page 30 January 26, 1995 MR. CLARK: But, to be frank with you, if you pay attention and listen -- and I'm not sure you're doing that. Let me tell you why. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. CLARK: The chairman has and other board members have told you it's 57,000 -- MR. VARANO: 57,000. MR. CLARK: -- but you say 56,000. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. CLARK: Listen. Please listen. MR. VARANO: Well, it's a lot to absorb. I mean, they're taking my -- they're taking my MR. CLARK: No, it isn't. 57 and 56 -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. They're taking -- MR. CLARK: -- is easy. MR. VARANO: My dream house has just been pulled out from under me. You have to realize that. You're all -- You're all human beings. You all have a family. MR. CLARK: I was about to make another comment but I'm not. MR. VARANO: Okay. Well, I'm sorry. You know, it's a lot to absorb, you know. MR. CLARK: You've had a long time to absorb it, and you haven't paid attention. MR. VARANO: I did not realize that the fines were being calculated from the day we sat down; otherwise, I certainly would have contacted you somehow. Okay. And I can just tell the board and they can -- you know, whatever they believe they can believe, but nobody is going to sit and let 56,000, 57,000 -- it doesn't really matter what it is -- accumulate. I had no idea that that time was clicking; otherwise, I would have went to the bank, you know. MR. LAZARUS: Read your mail, Mr. Varano. MR. VARANO: Well, like I say, you know, I -- I -- maybe I misunderstood it. Maybe I did read it and didn't understand what it was saying; otherwise, I'm sure I would have appeared here with an attorney or something. But, you know, I came in here not having any idea that -- until I read this this morning at 8:30 in that seat, that I was having -- being hit with all these fines. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Varano -- MR. VARANO: I had even asked Mr. Clark about -- We'd even gone to a step where he said I would have to pay impact -- new impact fees. Okay. And those were calculated for me, and they said that I could go before the county commissioners if I had a question about having to pay new -- So it wasn't that I just abandoned anything. I had no idea that these kind of fees were being imposed against me and my property. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Varano, my advice to you would be proceed as fast as you can to come into compliance. And then if you come into compliance, approach this board for us to consider a reduction in fines. Got it? MR. VARANO: Okay. I have one more question. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Simple as that. MR. VARANO: I have one more question. Because I was told one thing by Mr. Clark and it appears that I'm -- you know, I've got the Page 31 January 26, 1995 list of things I need to do to be in compliance. I was told at that time that I would not have to put the chain-link fence up if the debris was removed from the property. We removed the debris from the property. So there seems to be -- Mr. Clark still believes that there's debris out there. If there's no debris out there and it's just a locked structure -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Clark stated that you do not need MR. VARANO: -- is it necessary -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Clark stated that you do not need a fence if you are under current construction. You are not. MR. VARANO: Okay. But we can't be under construction because we can't -- you don't want us to be under construction with no permit; correct? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Very true. MR. VARANO: Okay. So it's like what do you do? You put up a fence. Like the gentleman said, more people get hurt climbing over a fence than they would in a building that they can't enter anyway. It's a block building. They can't -- Nobody can enter it. Nobody's ever been hurt in four years. Why does anybody think we should spend thousands of dollars to put up a fence that kids probably will try to climb just for the sake that it's there? If we can eliminate the fence problem, it would make it easier to comply with. And if there's other debris out there, I'm willing to go out there with Mr. Clark or anybody from the county, let him point out what debris is there, and we'll remove it. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: As soon as you get a valid permit, I think that fence issue will be a past issue. MR. VARANO: So what you recommend is get the permit first and then not worry about -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: If you get a permit, you're under current construction activity. You do not need a fence. MR. VARANO: Well, I just want the board to know my final statement is that I am going to go to my bank and renegotiate my loan, and as soon as I have the money, everything will go into compliance. I want to build that house. I want to finish that house. I want to live in that house. I do not -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: remember that. MR. VARANO: amount of days or MR. MANALICH: Well, actually, it's 200 -- walk out of here today, every day that goes by, on. So, I mean, there really -- you need to go CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Now. Today. MR. VARANO: Well, like I say, I'm going to go to the bank, and however long it takes to -- for the bank to do what they have to do CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: And then keep in mind you're also going to be charged with 76-70. MR. VARANO: Which is? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Which is the demolition of your structure within probably 30 to 60 days. You have a very short time frame. You What is the time frame on that? Is there a certain from the moment you $250 a day is piling now. Page 32 January 26, 1995 MR. MANALICH: That involves at least a 30-day -- they have to give you notice of that if they intend -- if -- the staff will make that determination. If it intends to declare it unsafe and demolish the structure, they give you notice of that, and then there's a time frame that kicks in. MR. VARANO: Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. If I make the property safe, there's no reason to demolish it; right? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: That's correct. MR. VARANO: Someone needs to tell me what I need to do to make the property safe. MR. LAZARUS: That's not our function, Mr. Varano. That's something -- MR. VARANO: Mr. Clark. MR. LAZARUS: you should discuss with the county staff. MR. VARANO: Mr. Clark. MR. MANALICH: Yes. MR. VARANO: Okay. Because, I mean, if I'm in the middle of negotiating with the bank -- MR. LAZARUS: It's not our -- That's not our problem. MR. VARANO: There's no sense in demolishing the house if I'm getting a loan; right? MR. LAZARUS: Mr. Varano, that's not our problem. MR. VARANO: Well, you need to tell me who to go to then. MR. LAZARUS: Start with Mr. Clark and ask him who to speak to. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. LAFORET: Mr. Varano, it appears to me that a contractor of your 30 years' experience -- MR. VARANO: Never been in this situation, sir. MR. LAFORET: -- would at least obtain the rules and regulations for construction in a county in which he wishes to do construction. MR. VARANO: I have those but there's nothing -- MR. LAFORET: Then read them. MR. VARANO: There's nothing in there about a situation like this. MR. LAFORET: My recommendation is that you read them. This information is contained in the rules and regulations. MR. VARANO: Well, I've never been -- MR. LAFORET: If it wasn't -- MR. VARANO: Yeah. MR. LAFORET: -- we couldn't recommend it. MR. VARANO: I've never been out of compliance in 30 years so it's a new situation for me. MR. LAFORET: You are now. MR. VARANO: Well, not because I want to be. Believe me. MR. LAFORET: You know, I haven't killed a man in 30 years either, but I might do it, and if I do it, I'll pay the penalty. MR. VARANO: I'm not in a situation I want to be in. MR. LAZARUS: Contact county staff. They're very helpful people. MR. VARANO: Okay. MR. LAZARUS: They're very cooperative, and they will advise you to the best of their ability on what you can do to come into compliance. Page 33 January 26, 1995 CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: discussion for this case. MR. VARANO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Next item. MS. CRUZ: Next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Francisco Casales. CEB No. 95-001. Mr. Casales is a property owner, property located at 740 23rd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, unit 8, tract 31.1. Mr. Casales was cited with ordinance Land Development Code 91-102, section 2.7.6, paragraph 5 and 3.9.3. Mr. Casales violated this ordinance by removing protected vegetation prior to obtaining the valid removal permit. Mr. Cas ales was served with a notice of violation on April 1st, 1994, the compliance date -- with the compliance date of April 11, 1994. Several re-inspections were conducted after that date and revealed violation still remains. At this time, I would like to call on Mike Kirby to the stand, please. MR. MANALICH: Excuse me. Before we proceed any further, is Mr. Cas ales here today? MS. CRUZ: Mr. Cas ales was supposed to be in the meeting this morning. He's over at the Code Enforcement, Community Development department trying to obtain the building permit. MR. MANALICH: Is that by his choice? MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry? MR. MANALICH: That's his choice to -- MS. CRUZ: By his choice, yes. MR. MANALICH: -- be there and not here? MS. CRUZ: Right. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I'm just -- The only reason I'm concerned is simply because he's not here to defend it all, but apparently he made the choice that he wanted to go and try to get the permit as opposed to being here? MS. CRUZ: Right. Right. Raise your right hand. (Thereupon, Mike Kirby, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows.) MS. CRUZ: State your name for the record. MR. KIRBY: Mike Kirby. MS. CRUZ: Your position with the county? MR. KIRBY: I'm the environmental investigator for Code Enforcement. MS. CRUZ: location? MR. KIRBY: MS. CRUZ: property? MR. KIRBY: The site had been cleared. It was -- It was mostly Cypress in the typical Golden Gate Estates lot with vines allover, and there were Cypress and Sabal Palms and some pines. And when I -- When I went out to do the investigation, most of the Cypress on the entire lot had been cleared and leveled and into piles, numerous piles. I didn't take a count of the Cypress. There were too many. There were -- There were numerous, numerous piles. I guess you'll have to refer And on that note, I'm going to close the Mike, you've had a chance to inspect the subject Yes, I have. Would you please tell this board what you found on this Page 34 January 26, 1995 to the photographs on the site. MS. CRUZ: It is correct that a permit is required for this type of removal? MR. KIRBY: Yes, it is. A building permit can be obtained that acts as your vegetation removal permit. You get to clear one acre with your building permit, or in certain instances you can obtain a vegetation removal permit for work on a single-family lot. And let me add, more than one acre was cleared which should not have been done even with a building permit. He would have had to get a building permit and a vegetation removal permit for additional clearing for other uses of the land that he might want. MR. LAZARUS: Did he go beyond his own property? MR. KIRBY: I did not notice that. MS. CRUZ: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Any other questions? MR. ALLEN: Mike, did the -- Mr. Kirby -- Excuse me -- does the fellow know the difference between Cypress trees and Malaluca, or is he just out there cutting it all down? MR. KIRBY: It was indiscriminate. I didn't ask him that question, but in this case there weren't any Malaluca there. MR. ALLEN: Okay. MR. LAZARUS: He did cut Brazilian Peppers though according to the description MR. KIRBY: Yes. Yes. MR. LAZARUS: They're not protected hardly? MR. KIRBY: No. No. MR. LAZARUS: Okay. Now, he's -- he -- If I understand it, he's up trying to get a building permit now? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. KIRBY: What we do on a lot of those cases, if I may jump in MR. LAZARUS: I was hoping you would. MR. KIRBY: Sometimes if they get an early start, they buy their property, and they get an early start, we say, okay, simply pay double the permit fee, and that's what was advised of him. If you pay double the permit fee within 30 days, we know these things happen, just do it. That didn't happen. So that is why we're here before the board. , MS. RAWSON: Well, I would move for into introduction of evidence the packet regarding CEB No. 95-001. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Do we have a second, please? MR. LAZARUS: Second. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Motion and a second to accept Exhibit A, 95-001. Any further discussion at this point? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Please proceed. MS. CRUZ: Staff recommends that this board issues an order and finds Mr. Casales in violation of Land Development Code section 2.7.6, paragraph five, and section 3.9.3, and orders Mr. Casales to obtain the valid building -- valid building permit within 15 days or a fine of $100 be imposed for each and every day the violation continues. Page 35 January 26, 1995 CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: The fine to begin after a 15-day period starting today? MS. CRUZ: Starting today. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: What's the pleasure of the board, please? MR. MANALICH: Did Mr. Casales indicate whether he was planning to return and appear before the board today at all? MS. CRUZ: I advised him that the meeting was going to be held at nine o'clock, and he stated he was going to try to be here. That's why at the beginning of the meeting I requested this item -- MR. MANALICH: Right. MS. CRUZ: be moved to the end. MR. MANALICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I mean, obviously there's no defense here which troubles me a bit for the record; however, in response to my question, staff has indicated that the individual was aware that the hearing was going on, and he chose to go to Development Services to get the permit. I mean, obviously in this situation we'd have either the ability on that record, I think although possibly somewhat marginal to go forward and make a ruling here today in this case. The other one obviously would be to continue it. But, then again, I don't think that anyone would be served by that. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Would anybody be served by making a phone call to your offices to see if anything has been accomplished? MS. CRUZ: I can do that. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: A wild thought. MR. MANALICH: That would be a good step, I think. MR. LAZARUS: The other thing is that if we're giving him a IS-day grace period, if he does get his permit, then it officiates the violation; isn't that correct? MR. MANALICH: My understanding is, yeah, his corrective order MR. KIRBY: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: -- recommended would be to get the permit. MR. LAZARUS: So by issuing the order, he still has the opportunity. MR. MANALICH: Right. The question comes up though if he doesn't get the permit, then he's going to say he didn't have an opportunity to defend, although I think he has been and he's made a choice not to from the record that's been presented here. MR. KIRBY: At this point, if I may add again, he'll be paying double the permit fee so -- MR. ALLEN: For the house also, Mr. Kirby? MR. KIRBY: Yes. MR. ALLEN: Okay. So he's going to be paying approximately a $4,000 fine? MR. KIRBY: No. It doesn't add up that much. I believe it's somewhere around $800. They don't -- When they calculate the fine up front for double the permit fee, they don't include the impact fees and a few other things. They simply add up the building permit, the -- fifty-ones. You know, there's different categories, and on a basic 1,200-, 1,400-square-foot home. MR. ALLEN: Structure only for a small house. MS. CRUZ: I've just been informed that Mr. Casales did obtain the Page 36 January 26, 1995 permit. We have a permit number 95-583. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Is that permi1: the proper permit necessary to stop any further action upon him? Is 1:his what the county is looking for? MS. CRUZ: Yes. This is the -- He obtained the building permit. MR. LAZARUS: Does that change your recommendation? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. I guess that s1:aff recommends that this case be dismissed at this point. MR. MANALICH: I have just passed ou1: two alternative order forms, one with findings, the other one without -- no findings. MS. CRUZ: Can I amend that recommendation? Can we recommend that instead of dismissing the case, that Mr. Casales abides by the permit guidelines? Because he can let this permit -- you know, be cancelled. MR. ANDREWS: I can't hear you. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Say it again, please, one more time. MS. CRUZ: Staff recommends that the board issue the order that Mr. Casales since he obtained the buildinq permit, to abide by the permit guidelines, that he has to commenCE~ construction and pass an inspection every six months by the permit requirements. MR. LAZARUS: Isn't that an automatic requirement? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: That's an automatic requirement on anybody. MS. CRUZ: Yeah, but he can -- he can allow this permit to cancel. MR. LAZARUS: Well, if he does, then we have -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Then that would be another case then. MR. LAZARUS: That would be a diffenmt case. MR. MANALICH: Right now the problem is I don't think he's in violation right now as we sit because if he's just obtained the permit, he is in compliance. I mean, he's not in violation. So I don't think the board can enter an order of violation at this point. MR. LAZARUS: I wonder if we -- We have an oral notification of permit number. Is that -- Does that satisfy you, counsel, or should we continue this to get a report back at the next meeting? MR. MANALICH: That might be a wise course also -- MR. LAZARUS: Rather than close it out now -- MR. MANALICH: Unless we have it on qood information from staff CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: We could continue this to the next meeting. MR. LAZARUS: Yeah. That's what I'm suggesting. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Sure. MR. LAZARUS: Chairman, I move to continue this case until the next meeting of the Code Enforcement Board. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Then to receive a current status report possibly. MR. MANALICH: So we're going to withhold any findings at this point pending a report at the next meeting? CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Sounds reasonable. Sure. Do we have a second on that motion? MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: We have a motion and a second to continue until the February meeting and then to receive a current status report that Page 37 January 26, 1995 to be sure the gentleman's in compliance. Any further discussion? MR. MANALICH: I assume -- CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Yes? MR. MANALICH: -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman, that CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Yes. MR. MANALICH: -- if for some reason he was not in compliance, then we would need to notice him for that hearing because at that point the board would be giving him an opportunity to be heard and/or make findings. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Certainly. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Passes. Next item. MS. CRUZ: That's it. MR. LAZARUS: May I ask about -- MS. CRUZ: That's the end of the agenda. MR. LAZARUS: Just for the record to be sure, we had a letter from Elba withdrawing their matter from the agenda. MR. MANALICH: That's correct. MR. LAZARUS: And so the ball is in their court, so to speak? MR. MANALICH: Essentially. Although obviously my office based on your direction of the October meeting at Embassy Woods will need to be evaluating if we are going to proceed in foreclosure and if their properties are available. We did -- I've shared with you all the board members correspondence back and forth, some of it more diplomatic than others, from both sides, and basically what we have now done is we have filed a lien on a property which the title search indicated was owned by Elba Development Corporation, and it's known as Admiralty Point Condominium. And at this point, we will need to evaluate in my office when and to what extent it is feasible to pursue that property. I do notice that there are a number of encumbrances listed on the title search on that property and will obviously have to weigh a cost benefit analysis of what we can possibly derive if we pursue that. As you know from the correspondence, Elba has indicated that they intend to appeal the board's decision and that they have mentioned the possibility of another lawsuit against the county regarding this case. We at the County Attorney's Office don't believe that lawsuit has any merit. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Very good. I would like to thank the Code Enforcement Board. This will be my last meeting for the Code Enforcement Board. My term is up. And since my plate is full, I'll not be seeking another term on the board. I'm not sure that my term extends into February. I'm not quite sure of my -- I think maybe January is the last meeting that I have on my term. So I just want to thank the staff. You'll still see me for the Contractor's Licensing Board, but for the Code Enforcement Board I want to thank you very much. It's been a pleasure. MR. LAZARUS: Chairman, I -- I -- MR. ALLEN: You've done a great job. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. LAZARUS: I have a resolution for the record. Are we on Page 38 . , ~ ~anuary 2~, 1995 still on the record? MS. CRUZ: Uh-huh. MR. LAZARUS: -- resolve that the Code Enforcement Board extends its deep appreciation to our chairman for his outstanding service as a member and as chairman of this board during his term. MS. RAWSON: Second. MR. ANDREWS: Third. MR. ALLEN: Fourth. MR. LAFORET: Fifth. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I certainly do. Certainly do. There being no further business MR. ANDREWS: Going to miss you. CHAIRMAN L'ESPERANCE: Ah, Charlie. We are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 10:35 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF CO~_~R COUNTY ~h~ CHAIRMAN J. t) A\(er--- ~~ TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR Page 39