Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/30/1995 1995 Code Enforcement Board March 30, 1995 , CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA :?QgNQ:? t5 "tH Date: March 30, 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 February 23, 1995 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC VB. Paul L. Riddleberger - CEB 95-004 B. BCC VB. Billy Parker - CEB No. 95-005 5. NEW BUSINESS N/A 6. OLD BUSINESS N/A 7. REPORTS N/A 8. NEXT MEETING DATE April 28, 1995 9. ADJOURN March 30, 1995 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Naples, Florida, March 30, 1995 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Allen Charles Andrews Mireya Louviere M. Jean Rawson Louis Laforet ALSO PRESENT: Romero Manalich, Asst. County Attorney Maria E. Cruz Dennis C. Mazzone Page 1 March 30, 1995 CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the March 3th, 1995, Code Enforcement Board of Collier County, Florida. 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 indicates 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. We'll start with our roll call to our left. MR. LAFORET: Louis Laforet. MS. RAWSON: Jean Rawson. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Jim Allen. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Before we get into our hearings, we'd like to welcome Mr. Lionel L'Esperance, our chairman, and we'd like to make this presentation to Mr. L'Esperance for doing a wonderful job. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's pizza. It's pizza. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Mr. Laforet was in charge of doing this nice thing, Lionel, okay, and then he asked us for money back. Yeah, he bought it. Then he asked for park money. Can you believe that? MR. ANDREWS: Did he put the bite on you, Lionel? MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's what that check was for. MR. ANDREWS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: You did an absolutely wonderful jOb while you were here as a chairman, and hopefully I can do half the Rob's Rules of Order that you do correctly that I fumble through. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much, everybody. MR. ANDREWS: Very nice. MS. RAWSON: We all looked at it last month; you weren't here. MR. MAZZONE: I'd like to say on behalf of code compliance and staff we appreciate your efforts and look forward to working with you in the future. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You're very welcome, and thank you for cooperation of everybody on the staff. Please tell them. Of course, I'm still here, contractor licensing board. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We also have you a card here that Louis put together. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. (Applause) CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We'll start with approval of the agenda. MR. ANDREWS: Of February 23rd. I approve it, but my tongue in my cheek. I couldn't I couldn't understand half of it but -- because I, of course, made most of the mistakes. And I want to apologize to you three guys for what I'put you through plus Romero and my good friend, Mireya. But I couldn't understand why all -- I just found out this morning from this lady how come all those dashes and everything. I couldn't make sense of a lot of those sentences with all their dashes in there. But I guess a lot of it was my own fault, but we'll follow through. So with that in mind, from what I -- the way I could translate it, I will Page 2 March 30, 1995 approve the minutes of February 23rd, 1995. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All right. We were asking for the approval of -- we're going to approve the agenda and the minutes simultaneously? MR. ANDREWS: Oh, I'm sorry. Here I go again. I promise to shut up today. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we approve the agenda as it stands for March the 30th, March the 30th; right? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: March the 30th? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Correct. All those approve, say aye. All those opposed? It carries unanimously. And then item number 3 we have a motion by Mr. Charlie Andrews to approve the minutes. MR. ANDREWS: Yes, I will approve the minutes of February 23rd, 1995. MS. RAWSON: I will second. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before the vote I just pointed out on the first page of the minutes there's a reference to some generic language that was used here, but there's a reference to the Code Enforcement Board as also acting as the board of zoning appeals and the governing board of the special districts, and, to my knowledge, that is not correct. So I would ask that you amend your motion to have a deletion of those two references on the first page. MR. ANDREWS: I so move. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a MS. RAWSON: I'll amend my CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those Opposed? None. Carries. Thank you very much, sir. Before we get rolling too fast this morning, our court reporter has asked that we speak one at a time because she really sometimes can't see our names, and we don't overtalk. Therefore, she can -- be a lot easier for her to record and transcribe and save the county time and money and effort. Thank you. We'll go now to our public hearings, Board of Code Enforcement of Collier County versus Paul Riddleberger, case CEB 95-004. MS. CRUZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record my name is Maria Cruz, the code enforcement coordinator. Mr. Chairman, the board, the recorder, and the respondent to Mr. Riddleberger, they have been provided with a composite of Exhibit A -- I'm sorry. Composite Exhibit -- this has been marked as composite Exhibit A, CEB number 95-004, BCC versus Paul L. Riddleberger, Jr. This case is before this board due to uncomplete construction of a structure along with an expired building permit and the absence of a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Riddleberger is not present. I requested this composite exhibit be admitted into evidence at this time. MS. RAWSON: I would move for the introduction of composite Exhibit A. MR. MAZZONE: second? second. in favor signify by saying aye. Do you have an extra copy of that that we could put Page 3 March 30, 1995 into the record at this time? MS. CRUZ: No, I don't. copy. MR. MAZZONE: Oh, okay. She does have one? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. Good. do you know? MS. CRUZ: 41 MR. MAZZONE: MR. ANDREWS: here. MR. MAZZONE: No. I think the court reporter already has one. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: I'll have that marked as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion on the floor to accept the exhibit. Do we have a second? MS. LOUVIERE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Carries unanimously. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, this violation is a violation of the Land Development Code 91-102, sections 2.1415 and section 2.7.6. It's also a violation of the Collier County Building Administrative Code number 91-56, section 103.6.1. I repeat this violation is an uncompleted construction of a structure along with an expired building permit and the absence of a certificate of occupancy. On March 21 staff met with the property owner, Mr. Riddleberger. At this time we obtained a statement from Mr. Riddleberger and stated that he acknowledged the violation existed, acknowledged the permit had expired but that he had to leave the country and that on his return he would reapply for the permit. - MS. LOUVIERE: And Mr. Riddleberger is not in? He's not available at all. MS. CRUZ: No, he's not. He knew that he -- MS. LOUVIERE: He knew. Okay. So he -- he has been served. He is aware of this, and he is just not here. MS. CRUZ: Correct. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So -- because of the authority that this board has, we should be starting to fine Mr. Riddleberger. MS. CRUZ: Correct. MR. MAZZONE: Ms. Cruz, just for the purposes of the record, it's my understanding since he's not here, as far as notice is concerned, that certified mail notice was sent? MS. CRUZ: Yes, it was, and also I provided him with the copy of this composite exhibit at the time I met with him on March 21st. MR. MAZZONE: And that composite exhibit had a notice of hearing? MS. CRUZ: Yes, it did. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Miss Cruz, from what I'm reading here, this violation -- this man has been on notice now for more than a year; lS that correct? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Has he done anything to correct this problem in I provided the court reporter with a How many pages approximately is that; pages. I'll have that marked. I got one here you can have after I get through Page 4 March 30, 1995 the past year at all? MS. CRUZ: No. He -- like I said, he was out of the country, and he returned on the week of March 21. And he came into our office, and he tried to correct this matter, but when he -- when we directed him to the building permit, he -- there was impact fees that he needed to pay. There was other documents that he needed to provide, and he -- he was unable to provide all this information at that time, and he had to leave the next day. He had to leave the country, so he signed a statement where he said that he will when he -- on his return, he will reinstate -- try to reinstate the permit. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: What is staff's position? What -- what -- what do you feel is fair at this point in time? MS. CRUZ: Staff would recommend that we find Mr. Riddleberger in violation, allow him 60 days to obtain this permit, to apply for the permit or $75 be imposed for each day the violation or the permit is not obtained or violation exists. MS. LOUVIERE: You said 60 days for him to go ahead before we start fining him. I think we ought to shorten that time. He's had over a year to comply with this. You've served him. He's not here. I think 60 days is a bit excessive. I would like to see more along the lines of something like 30 days, and then you start fining him. MS. RAWSON: Miss Cruz, did you give him a time limit in the letter or the notice he signed that he would apply when he got back in the country? Was there a time limit on there? MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am, we didn't. MS. RAWSON: Did he indicate to you when he would be back in the country and reapplying? MS. CRUZ: To my best recollection, I believe he's due back in by the end of April. MS. LOUVIERE: He should be back within 30 days then. MS. CRUZ: Uh-huh. MS. LOUVIERE: Perfect. MS. CRUZ: Do you have any objection to 30 days? MR. MAZZONE: For the record my name is Dennis Mazzone. I'm an investigator for code compliance services. I have no objection to the change, but I think that the 60 days would be probably more workable due to the fact that he's out of the country. We might have had previous agreements with him in our obtaining the statement from him that the GO-day period would be acceptable at that time, and he might be under the impression that that is what we're going with. I don't know. I wasn't privy to that conversation, but it doesn't seem that unrealistic to go the additional 30 days, because I think we will accomplish what needs to be accomplished. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Since that is your goal to get this resolved and you feel the additional 30 days -- and that was your kind of maybe verbal agreement with him, let's -- let's go ahead and leave it. MR. MAZZONE: That's very possible. That's correct, that that could have been verbally stated to this gentleman and -- MS. LOUVIERE: Verbally conveyed to him. MR. MAZZONE: Conveyed to him, correct. MS. LOUVIERE: All right. We'll go with 60. Page 5 March 30, 1995 MR. MANALICH: I have a question for staff. You mentioned there's apparently a statement or acknowledgment of violation that has been signed by the respondent; is that correct? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Are you intending to offer that in evidence at this time? MS. CRUZ: I would like to introduce that statement into evidence. MR. MANALICH: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Marked as composite -- I'm sorry, marked as Exhibit B. MR. MANALICH: How many pages is that document? MS. CRUZ: One page. MR. MANALICH: And what is it titled? MS. CRUZ: It's titled Exhibit B. MR. MANALICH: I mean does it have a title other -- MR. MAZZONE: Statement. MR. MANALICH: Okay. This appears to be a handwritten statement signed by Mr. Riddleberger with a photocopy of his Florida driver license, and I'll have that marked as Exhibit B. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we accept Exhibit B into the into our records. MR. ANDREWS: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? None. It carries unanimously. MR. ANDREWS: Does anybody have a hard time hearing? I can't hardly hear you, Maria. Can you speak a little closer? MS. CRUZ: I'll try, yes, sir. MR. ANDREWS: Well, none of this is coming across too loudly, but you especially. MS. CRUZ: Is the mike on? MR. ANDREWS: Is the mike on? I wonder if the mike's turned up properly. Can you fellas hear back there okay, everybody? Okay. It's probably my tin ear then, sorry. I -- I have to give you a bad time once in awhile. Sorry. MS. CRUZ: It's no problem. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any more discussion by staff? Board members? MS. CRUZ: No further discussion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We'll close the public hearing now. Do we hear a motion? MS. RAWSON: Before we have a motion, I think probably the board would like to see the exhibit to see if we have an acknowledgment and, therefore, an admission which will make the findings of fact a little different. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Good point. MR. MANALICH: I'll just read this for a moment, and I'll pass it down. This is my comment on this for the board. It appears to me that a violation is being recognized. However, it's not totally 100 percent clear that he's admitting a violation. I think it's implied very strongly that he is because he mentions that he's before the code enforcement coordinator discussing the violation which exists on the property. He acknowledges he's going to request a permit when he Page 6 March 30, 1995 returns, and he understands the matter will appear before the board and that if a violation is found, he can be fined. So I think it's -- overall it's clear. While the board is reviewing that document, as our usual procedure I have to pass out two sample orders, one finding no violation, the other one finding a violation that you can use as a guide when you choose to make your findings. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we hear a motion from the board? MS. RAWSON: I'll make a motion in the case of Paul L. Riddleberger, Jr., findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on March 30th, 1995, and the board having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the board as follows: Findings of fact, that Paul L. Riddleberger, Jr., is the owner of record of the subject property; that the code enforcement board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent and that the respondent was not present at the public hearing, although he was duly noticed of the hearing; that the respondent has aCknowledged that a code enforcement violation exists in Plaintiff's Exhibit B, which was introduced in evidence at the board hearing, and that he acknowledges he is the property owner of the subject property and that he acknowledges the code violation which exists on the said property; that all notices required by Collier County ordinance number 92-80 have been properly issued; that the real estate property legally described in the Plaintiff's Exhibit A is in violation of section 2.1.15 and 2.7.6 of ordinance number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, and section 103.6.1 of code number 91-56 of the Collier County Building Administration Code in the following particulars: Uncompleted construction of a structure along with expired building permit and the absence of certificate of occupancy. Conclusions of law: That Paul L. Riddleberger, Jr., is in violation of sections 2.1.15 and 2.7.6 of ordinance number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, and section 103.6.1 of the code number 91-56 of the Collier County Building Administration Administrative Code. That's my motion. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Carries unanimously. Continue. MS. RAWSON: Therefore, it will be the order of the board based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance Number 92-80, it is hereby ordered; one, that the respondent correct the violations of sections 2.1.15 and 2.7.6 of ordinance number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code and section 103.6.1 of code number 91-56, the Collier County Building Administrative Code in the following manner: That Paul L. Riddleberger, Jr., obtain the necessary permits and certificates of Page 7 March 30, 1995 occupancy within 60 days from today's date, which would be on or before the 30th day of May 1995, and if respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, then and in that event respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $75 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to chapter 162 Florida Statutes which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. MR. ANDREWS: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? None. It carries unanimously. We're ready to hear our next case, CEB number 95-005. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, the board and the recorder and the respondent have been provided with a composite exhibit marked Composite Exhibit A, case number CEB number 95-005, BCC versus Billy Parker. Billy Parker is brought before this board due to violating Collier County Land Development Code 91-102, Sections 2.1.15, Section 2.6.7.1, and Section 1.5.6 by unlawfully storing a camper being utilized as a primary residence and storing unlicensed vehicles on a nonimproved property. Mr. Parker is not present. I request that this composite be admitted into evidence at this time. MR. MANALICH: Does the court reporter apparently have that? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MR. MANALICH: I'll mark that as Exhibit A then. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I'll make a motion that we accept Exhibit A. MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor? None opposed, carries unanimously. MR. MANALICH: One moment, Mr. Chairman, please, until we have the exhibit marked. For the purposes of identification it appears to me that it is a 19-page composite exhibit, is that correct, staff? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. It has been marked. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Shall we continue? MR. MANALICH: Is Mr. Parker here, the respondent? MS. CRUZ: No, he's not here. We've taken every measure that we could think of to make him aware of this notice of hearing. We sent certified mail. He -- it came back to code enforcement marked as refused. We've posted a copy of the notice of hearing at the subject property and at his residence. MR. MANALICH: Have you had any communication indicating why he is not present? MS. CRUZ: I haven't. I'm -- later on during this hearing I'll have the investigator come up, and he has had conversations with Mr. Parker. MS. LOUVIERE: How long has Billy Parker been using his trailer as his primary residence? MS. CRUZ: He -- on April 15th, 1994, that was the first time that staff observed the violation there. MS. LOUVIERE: So this has been ongoing for approximately a year? Page 8 March 30, 1995 MS. CRUZ: Correct. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Did we have -- I don't recall a vote in regard to Composite Exhibit A. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes. MR. MANALICH: That was admitted? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I made a motion, and Miss Louviere seconded it. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. I was marking here. MS. CRUZ: I would also like to add that Mr. Parker is the property owner of record of this subject property located at 9080 Miller Boulevard in Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 112, south 105 feet of Tract 40. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Can Mr. Hedrich tell us what Mr. Parker told him? MS. CRUZ: Yes. I would like to call Mr. Hedrich up to the stand, please. MS. CRUZ: THEREUPON, DAVID HEDRICH, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MS. THE MS. THE MS. exhibit? THE WITNESS: No, not -- not at the time. MS. CRUZ: Look at page 12 through 16 to tell the board if this is the violation that existed on the subject property, page 12. THE WITNESS: Yes, these are the violations that exist at the property. MS. CRUZ: please? THE WITNESS: The photos show a pretty good overlay of the area. One of the photographs was taken from above, a helicopter shot of the property down below off Miller Boulevard showing his camp site, the illegal vehicles, piles of litter, trash, old tires, and just general rubbish that he's accumulated out there on this property. MS. CRUZ: When was the last date that you inspected this property? THE WITNESS: 3-28-95. MS. CRUZ: Was the violation still -- THE WITNESS: Yes, they were. They still exist at this time. MS. CRUZ: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do the board members have a question for Mr. Hedrich? MS. RAWSON: I do. Do you have -- did you have a conversation with Billy Parker about the violations? Raise your right hand, please. CRUZ: State your name for the record. WITNESS: David Hedrich. CRUZ: What's your position with the county? WITNESS: Investigator, code compliance. CRUZ: Mr. Hedrich, you don't have a copy of the composite Would you tell the board what these photos depict, Page 9 March 30, 1995 MR. HEDRICH: I never had a one-on-one conversation with Mr. Parker. This property being so far out there, I visited it many times, many different occasions trying to find him. There were times I believed he was out there just actually hiding in the woods from me somewhere, and I made many attempts to try and track him down, but it was very hard. I did receive one message on my phone recorder from his wife, Robin Parker, quite irate and profound about all this what was going on. And that's when I started posting notices and leaving posted red tags and so forth behind. MS. RAWSON: Is it your belief that Mr. and Mrs. Parker live in this subject property? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, it is. MR. MANALICH: Question, Mr. Hedrich. MR. HEDRICH: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Just for -- if I can assist the board. Is there any type of structure at this location, or is it the camper? MR. HEDRICH: Just the camper itself. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: I understand the camper is still there? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, and it does have water connections, and there are electrical generators out there to supply electricity, none of which were permitted. MR. MANALICH: And those are actually connected? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Anything else? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. MR. LAFORET: This is Golden Gate? MR. HEDRICH: This is the extreme southeast section of Golden Gate Estates. MR. LAFORET: Nobody stole a generator? MR. HEDRICH: Well, it requires quite a long distance to travel. It's very well secluded and hidden, and chances are you'll get stuck if you don't have a four-wheel drive to get out there. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any other -- any other comments by the board or staff? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? MR. ANDREWS: I'm going to move -- Charlie Andrews -- move that we close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Carries unanimously. Do we have a motion?; MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we find Mr. -- what does staff recommend at this point? We can start fining Mr. Parker effectively? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: What is your time line for this? MS. CRUZ: Staff recommends that Mr. Parker be found in violation, allow him 30 days -- Page 10 March 30, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: 30 days in this case? MS. CRUZ: to remove the violation from the subject property. MS. LOUVIERE: 30 days to remove the violation completely? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: We're not talking about maybe going out there and just unhooking this stuff and then just storing it. You want the whole thing removed? MS. CRUZ: To remove everything from the property or a hundred dollars be imposed for each and every day violation exists. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So remove completely within 30 days, or we can start assessing fines of a hundred dollars per day. MS. CRUZ: Uh-huh. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: 150? MS. LOUVIERE: 150. No, they -- staff recommended a hundred dollars per day. MR. ANDREWS: Okay, thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: Therefore, I will start reading the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the board. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on March 30th, 1995, and the board having heard testimony under oath, received evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters thereupon issues its findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order of the board as follows: Findings of fact; one, that Billy Parker is the owner of record of the subject property; that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent and that Billy Parker was not present at the public hearing. All notices -- number three, all notices required by Collier County Ordinance Number 92-80 have been properly issued; number 4, that the real property legally described as -- where is your legal on this parcel? Oh, it -- I have to find the legal on number 4. Oh, I missed a part here, sorry. Just bear with me. -- as described at 5522 Oak Broadway -- bear with me, please. I don't think that's it. MR. MANALICH: I believe -- MS. LOUVIERE: 9080 -- I found it -- Miller Boulevard, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates Unit 112, south 105 feet of Tract 40, is in violation of sections of ordinance number 91-2, more particularly, sections 2.1.15, 2.6.71, and 1.5.6 of the -- oh, of Collier County Ordinance 91-102, better known as the Collier County Land Development Code. Therefore, it is the order of this board that based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes in Collier County, ordinance number 92-80, it is hereby ordered that the respondent correct the violation of sections 2.1.15 and 2.6.7.1, and 1.5.6 of Ordinance Number 91-102, better known as the Collier County Land Development Code in the following manner: That Mr. Parker has got 30 days to totally remove the existing trailer from the subject site, that said corrections again be completed on or before the -- today's March the 30th. He has to complete it by the 30th day of April 1995. And if Page 11 March 30, 1995 respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, then and in that event respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $100 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. MR. ANDREWS: Second the two motions. MR. LAFORET: Did I understand you to specifically state only the -- the trailer to be removed? I thought the county recommended that everything be removed. MS. LOUVIERE: I understood Maria to direct me -- my staff directed me that I am to have this illegal structure which is being used as a primary residence -- to remove only the trailer is what I understood. You want everything removed? MS. CRUZ: Yes, please. MS. LOUVIERE: I would like to modify my motion that everything on the subject site be removed including all other matters of -- there seems to be some garbage being stored on the site. MS. CRUZ: Garbage and unlicensed vehicles. MS. LOUVIERE: Garbage and unlicensed vehicles. MR. ANDREWS: I amend my second. MR. LAFORET: I would qualify everything -- MS. LOUVIERE: Everything. MR. LAFORET: -- to exclude natural growth. MS. LOUVIERE: Happy to do so. Everything except natural growth, which in this case means trees. MR. ANDREWS: I amend my second for that. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Motion -- the second amended? All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before we take a vote, just a couple clarifications. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes, sir. MR. MANALICH: Going back to point number 4 on the first page of the order in the findings of fact, I just have something I want to discuss briefly, which is the motion has found -- or would find violations of all of the sections cited by staff. My only question in that regard for the board to consider is section -- and this is found on page 9 of your -- MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. MANALICH: -- composite exhibit. One of the sections cited is 1.5.6 of the LDC, and if you look there on page 9, the quoted section of the LDC mentions no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, used, et cetera, other than as permitted under the code. I believe the violation that's alleged here is in regard to the camper. Now, the question becomes whether the camper as described by the evidence is a structure or a vehicle. Perhaps Miss Rawson who is also ~n attorney might be able to assist me. But it would appear to me that ~f, as the witness described, the camper is connected, I believe, by electric and water, et cetera, it might then qualify as a structure as Page 12 March 30, 1995 opposed to being a vehicle, and the violation would be appropriate. I'm kind of struggling with that just a little bit. MS. RAWSON: I think since we had testimony from staff that they live there and that the electric and the -- is connected to generators and that the water has been connected, it would qualify as a structure. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, I think that's the correct interpretation. I -- I thought about it a little bit, and that's why I asked the witness that question, because if it was simply a freestanding camper, I would have a little bit more reservation, but I tend to agree with you, so that was merely an observation. I think we can pass on from that point. And additionally I would like if we could be perhaps just a little more specific in this point 4 as to the following particulars. We described the sections violated. I might suggest if you want for ease of reference here -- if you want to incorporate into your recitation of point number 4 on the first page of the order the staff description at page 2 of your packet -- MS. LOUVIERE: Oh, I see. MR. MANALICH: -- description of violation so we have a factual description of the violation. MS. LOUVIERE: Let's -- let me go ahead and amend number 4, finding of facts, in the following fashion. I'll just read it from beginning, and I will go ahead and describe the property again, list sections, and in -- particularly I'll give a description of the violation. MR. MANALICH: If -- to save time, if you prefer, if you just want to simply amend your motion to include in point number 4 the description of violation contained at page 2 of the composite exhibit, if you just say that, we can save some time. MS. LOUVIERE: He made the motion. Let -- let's go ahead and amend -- let's make a motion to amend number 4 to include the description of violation found in page 2 of our code compliance book. MR. MANALICH: Okay, that's fine. The only other thing there is that does not reference any violation stemming from litter. There has been no charges brought here of litter, okay. The violation that's been brought has to do with the unlawful storage of the camper as a primary residence and unlicensed vehicles on the unimproved property. Now, later on in the order we correctly stated that if that's the violation, they are to remove the trailer and the unlicensed vehicles. But then we got into the garbage issue, and I'm not sure that that was the subject of a charge that was brought. My suggestion would be that we limit ourselves at this point to the camper and the unlicensed vehicles since that were the charges that were brought. I don't know if staff has any comment.; MS. CRUZ: I would have to agree with counsel, yes. MR. MANALICH: I mean I don't want to be difficult, but I feel that as a matter of due process we have to only act on the violations that were noticed. So if we could simply then amend the last part of the motion in the order of the board to state to remove the trailer and unlicensed vehicles and excepting, of course, not including the natural Page 13 March 30, 1995 gr~wth, and leave out the reference to the garbage since that was not cited. MS. LOUVIERE: I hereby amend my motion that we have Billy Parker remove the trailer and the unlicensed vehicles currently stored on this site. MR. ANDREWS: I amend my second. MS. LOUVIERE: Do you have any other recommendations on how you would like to see this? MR. ~1ANALICH: I think that's plenty. MS. LOUVIERE: That's plenty. We have to be specific. MR. MANALICH: That's fine. Your motion is very good. I'm just trying to make it a little better. MS. LOUVIERE: Perfect. Better is always better. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you. Are we ready for a vote now? MR. MANALICH: I think so. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? None. It carries unanimously. We have no new business it appears, no old business. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have a small report and also a question. On both of these cases that we've had this morning, is it the board's direction to record these findings of fact, conclusions of law? As you know, the purpose of recording that is not to lien the property but merely to put on notice any subsequent purchasers, et cetera, of the fact that these fines have been imposed. I mean typically my office's recommendation has been that we do record to fully preserve our rights in the case, because if the property were transferred, et cetera, we have a -- you know, a concern that -- but it does obviously affect people's title, but I mean that's why they're here, I guess. MS. RAWSON: I would move that we record both of these orders. MS. LOUVIERE: I second. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Go ahead. MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. None opposed. It carries unanimously. MR. MANALICH: The other item that I had -- staff may want to give their comments on this also, but at the last meeting I think Mr. Andrews had inquired in regard to the vacancies on the board, and I indicated I would try to find out some information. Staff may be in a better position than I am. However, I did speak to Sue Filson, the administrative assistant to the board office, and she indicated that we had two vacancies on this seven-member board, Mr. L'Esperance, Mr. Lazarus, that the information from her was that Mr. L'Esperance, although he initially reapplied, then withdrew that application. Then Mr. Lazarus did apply again for a third term. Apparently there were other applications submitted also, but they were received after the deadline that had been fixed by the board, so the matter went to the Board of County Commissioners, and the board directed that staff readvertise so they'd have the -- as I understand it -- the selection of whoever was interested because some of them had Page 14 March 30, 1995 applied after the deadline. So they did readvertise, and that deadline was last Friday. And apparently in addition to Mr. Lazarus three others have applied, and Miss Filson indicates that she then -- apparently the normal procedure is for her to submit the applications to staff who then, I believe, review the qualifications of the applicants and then respond to her. And she then places it on the board agenda. I don't know if staff has any addition. MS. CRUZ: I was advised this morning by Sue Filson that she had submitted those applications to our department, and I will review those this week, and hopefully we can make a decision. MR. ANDREWS: Do you have those now? MS. CRUZ: Excuse me? MR. ANDREWS: Do you have those in hand now, the applications? MS. CRUZ: No, but I will this afternoon. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, my understanding is that the procedure is, I believe if I'm correct, that staff does not actually make a recommendation. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: They simply review the qualifications to see if they meet the requirements of the ordinance, and then it's submitted to the board for their decision. MR. ANDREWS: So it will probably be a week from Tuesday before before they will get to it then? MS. CRUZ: Probably. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Yeah, it depends on, you know, whatever time it takes to review. And then you have, of course, you know, a certain time frame. You have to get it on a certain time on the board agenda MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: -- for the following week, so however that works out. MR. ANDREWS: Well, that was my concern because the term's going to be almost over before they get on. MR. MANALICH: That provides a little bit of history from Miss Filson previously as to what has occurred. MR. ANDREWS: I appreciate your going into this thing, because I was -- I'm deeply concerned, so we're going to operate with a five-man board for awhile yet. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have any other comments or reports from staff? From the board? MS. CRUZ: No, sir, not from staff. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We do have -- our next meeting date is April 28th, 1995, and we shall now adjourn. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 9:53 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ~ CHAIRMAN Page 15