Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/25/1995 1995 Code Enforcement Board May 25, 1995 May 25, 1995 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, May 25, 1995 Met on this date at 9:03 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ACTING CHAIRPERSON: Jim Allen Charles Andrew Celia Deifik Mireya Louviere Louis Laforet Richard McCormick ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Asst. County Attorney Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Page 1 - ( CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AQgNQA Date: May 25, 1995 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier County Government Center, Bldg ifF" Third Floor .~ NOTE: &~ 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 TrlE CODE ENFORCEME~IT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1 . ROLL CALL 2 . APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 30, 1995 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. Ronnie Parks - CEB No. 95-006 ( 5. NEW BUSINESS A.' BCC vs. Otto Kristen and Elsa Kristen Affidavit of Compliance B. BCC vs. Billy Parker Affidavit of Compliance 6. OLD BUSINESS > 7. REPORTS A. BCC vs. Meadowood Club Apartments Status Report 8. NEXT MEETING DATE June 29, 1995 9 . ADJOURN ( - May 25, 1995 CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Good morning. I'd like to bring to order the May 25th meeting of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board for 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 roll call to the left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Louis Laforet. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Jim Allen. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We'd like to move to MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that Jean Lawson's absence be excused since she advised our office she was going to be absent today. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: So noted. MS. CRUZ: Thanks. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We'd like to go ahead and move the approval of the agenda. MS. CRUZ: We have a couple of additions to the agenda. First of all, we would like to introduce our new members. They are Celia Deifik and Richard McCormick. I would like to thank them for their willingness to serve on our board. Welcome aboard. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you. MS. DEIFIK: Thanks for having us. MS. CRUZ: Also I believe this is the time that we have to make the elections for the chairman and the vice-chairman. MR. MANALICH: What I would recommend on that, Miss Cruz, is since we have two new members that just started this month, Mr. Allen has been acting chairman, I would recommend that we defer it for one month and then at that time have the elections since these people have just come on board. And, also, I'd like to put that on the agenda so that everyone knows that's coming up. It wasn't on this agenda. Is there any comment from the board members? That would be my advice as to -- typically we like to have it on the agenda a month before so all the board members know it's coming up, and also we have two new members. MR. ANDREW: Well, the only problem -- we've been going so long that the chairman's (sic) going to be half over before we __ before we have a new chairman. It doesn't make any difference, the fact that, you know, they're acting -- we have an acting chairman and so forth. But it's, you know -- they've had an awful time getting a board together, and we put it off. We were supposed to have this election way back in February. But if the rest -- if the rest of the board wants to go along with it for a month, I -- I don't know what Page 2 ~ May 25, 1995 they can learn in a month, one meeting a month, but -- MR. MANALICH: Right. MR. ANDREW: -- it's okay with me. MR. MANALICH: It's at the discretion of the board, you know, whatever -- however you choose to proceed. I just thought it would give everybody a chance to settle in, and put it advertised on the" agenda would be preferable but, you know, I'd open it up to your discretion. MR. ANDREW: What's the consensus? MR. LAFORET: I don't -- MR. ANDREW: We don't have to vote on it. It's just -- MS. DEIFIK: I think it makes sense to wait. MS. LOUVIERE: I don't have -- I don't have a problem. MR. ANDREW: In other words, we've waited this long. We can wait another month. MR. MANALICH: Well, my thought is that Mr. Allen has done a fine job as acting chairman, and I don't think for one month there would be any harm done. MR. ANDREW: Oh, no. MR. McCORMICK: That sounds fine with me to wait. I appreciate the extra month. It couldn't hurt. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I think we all agree. MS. LOUVIERE: A month is fine. MR. MANALICH: Okay. So next month then we'll have it on the agenda for election of both chair and vice-chair then. MS. CRUZ: Will do. There is another item under new business that I would like to add. It's case BCC versus James R. and Debra A. Whittemore. This is an affidavit of compliance that we would like to report on this day also. MR. ANDREW: Would that be 5-C? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have any other changes in the agenda? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I'd like to have a motion to approve the agenda. MR. ANDREW: So MS. LOUVIERE: I CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Opposed? None. Passes unanimously. We now go to the approval of the minutes of our March 30th, 1995, meeting. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the minutes, just a very small typo on page 2 of the minutes at the very top. I believe it says March 3th, March 30th, very small. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Is that so noted? MR. MANALICH: Just if you -- in approving the minutes, if that amendment can be made to the minutes and anything else that anyone else saw. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: moved. second it. All those ln favor? Shall we have a vote to approve the Page 3 ~ May 25, 1995 minutes with the notation? MR. ANDREW: I make a motion that we accept the minutes of March -- March the 30th with -- with the amendment that our attorney just made. MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. It carries unanimously. We'll go and proceed into our public hearings. MS. CRUZ: For the name -- for the record my name is Maria Cruz, code enforcement coordinator. Mr. Chairman, the board, the recorder, and the respondent have been provided with a copy of a composite exhibit. At this time I would like to mark this composite Exhibit A, CEB 95-006, BCC versus Ronnie Parks who is not present at this time and is the owner of the subject property we're about to discuss. This exhibit contains documents pertaining to violations described existing on 1200 Mingo Drive, and it consists of 66 pages. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We need to enter that into the record as an exhibit? MS. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Do you have an extra copy that I can mark? MS. CRUZ: I provided the recorder with a copy. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we need to vote on that? MS. CRUZ: You need to vote on that. MS. LOUVIERE: I make amotion that we accept this exhibit into the record. MS. DEIFIK: Second. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? There is none. It carries unanimously. MS. CRUZ: Ronnie Parks is the owner of record of the property located at 1200 Mingo Drive, Naples, Florida. And this case is brought before this board because he was allegedly in violation of unlawful accumulation of litter which consists of cement roof tiles, metal, plastic, paper, wood, glass, vehicle parts in piles, and tires. This is a violation of 91-47, Section 5, 6, 7, and 8. He's also in violation of unlawful accumulation of unlicensed and nonoperable vehicles, which is a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 91-102, Section 2.6.7.1.1, and also in violation of unlawful storage of a travel trailer being used as a primary residence. He's also in violation of Land Development Code 91-102, Section 2.1.15. Mr. Chairman, code enforcement conducted several investigations of this property, which is owned by Mr. Parks, I repeat. These investigations revealed the above-mentioned violations existing at the subject location. Photos were taken at this time which depict these violations. If you refer to page 47 through 66 on Page 4 - May 25, 1995 this Exhibit A, you could see that these -- the violations on these photos, the accumulation of litter, the unlawful accumulation of unlicensed vehicles, and the storage of the travel trailer being used as a primary residence. Notice of violations and stipulations were mailed certified mail to the property owner, Ronnie Parks, and also to Larry Parks who is the agent. Let me add that Larry Parks was the -- is the former owner of the subject property. He was brought before this board in '91. These notices required a compliance date of April 4, 1995. Certified receipts were received at the code enforcement department for notices sent to the property owner. Notices addressed to Larry Park's agent were returned marked as unclaimed. On March 15 another inspection was conducted. At this time a verbal warning was given to Mr. Larry Parks who resides unlawfully at this location in the travel trailer. On April 5th, '95, a reinspect ion was conducted by compliance revealing violations remained. At this time this case was referred to this -- for CEB prosecution. If I may -- I may give you a little history on this property, in 1990 Mr. Larry Parks was the owner of the subject property. On November 29th, 1990, he appeared before this board for violating Ordinance 88-45, Section 5, 6, 7, which was amended with 91-47. He violated Section 7.9 and Section 10.2, which violated Ordinance 82-2, amended by Land Development Code 91-102. And based on the testimonies and evidence presented to the board, Mr. Parks was found in violation of the above-mentioned ordinances and section in the following manner: Allowing illegal and unauthorized accumulation of litter, trash, and debris; major auto repair and storage of auto parts constituting illegal land use, and; erection of structure without permit. Code Enforcement Board ordered Mr. Parks to correct mentioned violations by removing the litter, trash, and debris; discontinuing major auto repair and storage of auto parts; and remove the structure built without the permit. The board further ordered the said corrections be completed on or before December 4th, 1990, and if the violations continued past said date, a fine of $250 per day per violation for a total of $750 for each day and every day the violations continue past said date. On February 11th, '91, an order imposing fines was filed for failure to comply with the board's order of November 29th, 1990, for a total amount of $9,250. And on March 27, 1991, a quitclaim deed was recorded transferring ownership from Larry Parks to Ronnie Parks. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: May I ask you a question? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: So the quitclaim deed basically because the board had not filed a lien against Ronnie Parks, he was able to quitclaim lien this piece of property to his brother? MS. CRUZ: Repeat that again, please. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. Okay, I'm asking a question. Had the board filed a lien against Ronnie Parks back in 1990, could he have quitclaimed deed -- could he have quitclaimed the property to his Page 5 - May 25, 1995 brother had the board filed a lien? MR. MANALICH: If I may address that, Mr. Chairman, basically with the quitclaim deed you're basically saying whatever interest I have is going to you subject to whatever liens or other encumbrances there are. And we had, in fact, recorded the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and I believe also the order imposing fine MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: -- so the successors in interest are bound by that. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. So the successor is bound by the Code Enforcement Board at this point in time? MR. MANALICH: That property is subject to it, and the successor in interest of that property took that property subject to that interest. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. MR. ANDREW: Well, this this brings back the question I asked you a few minutes ago. If -- if that was true, regardless of this switching back -- back and forth with the quitclaim deeds, I -- I don't understand why we have to hear this. It's -- the violations are identical. Everything is the same. It may be different auto parts and stuff like that, but it's basically the same thing. Why we should have to go through another hearing -- it seems to me that that other one -- the fine has been accumulating for four, five years now. I haven't figured it out. I don't think the land is probably worth what the fine would be. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. It appears to me the land continues to be subject to this lien based on the initial action. However, by bringing this -- I'm sorry. MS. DEIFIK: Homestead, is that the problem? This guy lives there. MR. MANALICH: What I understand is Larry Parks, who is the subject of the original action, is still living there; is that right? MS. CRUZ: Yes, correct. MR. MANALICH: Ronnie Parks, who lS the new owner, is out of state. MS. CRUZ: Correct. MR. MANALICH: Now, the only -- in response to Mr. Andrew's questions, the only advantage I would see here by bringing this action is that under the statute the violator is -- all of his real and/or personal property is subject to foreclosure or, you know, execution by this board on its lien. By also instituting this action against Mr. Parks, if you find a violation by Mr. Parks, then not only is the land, but also Ronnie Park's real and personal property is also subject to that as the new owner. MS. DEIFIK: I have -- MR. MANALICH: So it would appear to me that there is an advantage to be gained through this action. MS. DEIFIK: I have a question. One of the items that was sent -- it's at page 45 and 46, order imposing fine/lien -- the Page 6 - May 25~ 1995 certificate of service says that the foregoing order imposing fine/lien has been furnished by mail/personal service to respondent and/or respondent's authorized counsel, Larry J. Parks. When did Larry J. Parks become Ronnie Park's counsel? And is he a member of the bar, or is this meant to indicate that he was his attorney in fact? Is there a power of attorney? Have I missed something? MR. MANALICH: Not -- not that I'm aware of. I don't know if that's a misstatement in that order. MS. DEIFIK: Is that going to be a problem? MR. MANALICH: Well, that action was against Larry J. Parks himself, so I have a feeling that this is a typo there. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Oh, I see. This is the original one against Larry. MR. MANALICH: Right. This is Larry, not Ronnie, who is the subject today. So, Mr. Andrews, to be concise then, I do see an advantage for the board if it wishes to exercise its lien rights by staff's action, which is bringing the action against Ronnie if -- I think it makes Ronnie Parks, his real and personal property beyond just this particular parcel, subject to the board's actions if you find a violation against Ronnie. MR. ANDREW: I appreciate your clarification. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. I would just interject at this point perhaps -- I noticed that Ronnie Parks is not here today. What type of notice was provided just for the record? I believe was there certified mail notice? MS. CRUZ: Yes. There was a certified mail sent, which we received a receipt yesterday, and also the notice was posted at the subject property. MR. MANALICH: The certified mail 'was returned? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. The receipt -- the receipt for the MR. MANALICH: Okay. Was that signed for by anyone? MS. CRUZ: It was signed by someone other than Ronnie Parks. MR. MANALICH: And it was also posted at the property? MS. CRUZ: It was also posted at the subject property. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, the minimal obligation under the ordinance is certified mail notice. It appears that's been complied with. Under the ordinance you can proceed when that has been accomplished. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have any other comments by staff or questions? MS. CRUZ: Staff has a couple witnesses. Dave Hedrich, please. THEREUPON, DAVID HEDRICH, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Page 7 ~ May 25, 1995 Q. State your name for the record, please. A. For the record my name is David Hedrich, code compliance investigator. Q. Dave, I believe you were one of the primary investigators at this location? A. That's correct. Q. You have a copy of the exhibit? A. Not at this time. Q. Could you please tell this board during your investigations what you found on this property? A. Upon my first visit to this property we found many derelict vehicles, too many to count at that time. We didn't get a full inspection of the property, but they were stacked all the way up to the street as far back into the property as we could see. MR. MANALICH: Excuse me, Mr. Hedrich. Have you been sworn in? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I'm sorry. I was taking notes. Go ahead. A. We observed piles of litter to include all kinds of concrete debris, glass, wood, various bits of plastic, papers, aluminum, as well as junk auto parts and engines, this type of thing. Q. I believe if you go over to page 47 through 66, these photos depict pretty much the violations? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. And you've had communication with Larry Parks? A. Correct. From the very first day we went out to check the investigation -- or start the initial investigation, we did have contact with one Larry Parks. Q. And Mr. Parks is residing at this travel trailer on the subject property? A. Yes, he is. Q. Were you able to inspect the travel trailer? Were you able to see -- A. Not at that time. Q. -- personal items? A. Mr. Parks, after about a 10-, IS-minute investigation on my part onto the property, insisted that we leave at that time. Q. Have you had verbal communication with Ronnie Parks? A. No, ma'am. MS. CRUZ: No further questions from staff. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Members of the board, any questions of Mr. Hedrich? MS. DEIFIK: life? MR. HEDRICH: Ma'am? MS. DEIFIK: Who was the party who threatened your life? I saw a statement in here by you that one of the Parks had threatened to -- MR. HEDRICH: MS. DEIFIK: Who was the party who threatened your That was made by Larry Parks. Okay. So you did speak to Larry Parks? Page 8 - May 25, 1995 MR. HEDRICH: Yes. She mentioned Ronnie. She asked me if I had spoken to Ronnie Parks. MS. DEIFIK: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I keep getting confused between Ronnie and Larry. MR. HEDRICH: Yes. Larry Parks is the one who did make that statement. MS. CRUZ: There is a statement on page 37 from Mr. Larry Parks which is not a very pleasant statement. MS. DEIFIK: Has anybody taken any action with regard to those threats? I saw something about a warrant from the sheriff's office being involved. MR. HEDRICH: Yes. Larry Parks was cited at the time for the prohibited use, living there in the trailer, was issued a court citation and failed to appear in court, and that's when the bench warrant was issued for his arrest. MS. DEIFIK: And what was the outcome of that? What happened? Was he picked up? THE WITNESS: Yeah. Larry was picked up on the warrant and spent a few days courtesy of Sheriff Don Hunter, made his bail, and was released. He's pending a court hearing. MR. ANDREW: Do you know when that court hearing -- do you know when the court hearing -- the date is set up for? You said it was pending. MR. HEDRICH: July 3rd. MR. ANDREW: July 3rd? MR. HEDRICH: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: And that's a,citation for unauthorized living on that cite, not for-making the threats? MR. HEDRICH: Correct, just strictly the prohibited use of living on that land. MR. MANALICH: I just have a supplement question to staff because there has been a lot of discussion about there's two apparently related people here, Larry and Ronnie. The certified mail notice you mentioned earlier, was that sent to Ronnie? MS. CRUZ: It was sent to Ronnie. MR. MANALICH: At both the Tennessee and local address? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And the return receipt you received, was that from -- locally or from Tennessee? MS. CRUZ: Tennessee. MR. MANALICH: From Tennessee? MS. CRUZ: Uh-huh. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. MR. LAFORET: There's one thing I really don't understand by your office. Aren't you fellas deputized so you can action -- have access for inspection of properties? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, we are. But once we are requested to leave that certain property by a representative -- a landowner or representative of the landowner, we must comply and do so at that time. And we may return upon -- to complete the investigation with a warrant if necessary. Page 9 ~ May 25, 1995 MR. LAFORET: Don't make sense. What good is the deputizing if I tell you to get off my property? MR. HEDRICH: Well, we're -- when you say deputize, you mean like the sheriff's department is deputized? MR. LAFORET: That's right. MR. HEDRICH: No. We have authorization from the commissioners, you know, as an authorized agent of the commissioners to embark upon investigations. MR. LAFORET: Then you're not deputized. Okay. All right. MR. HEDRICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any other questions? MS. DEIFIK: What are staff's recommendations? MS. CRUZ: We have another witness. Thank you, Dave. MR. HEDRICH: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: At this time I would like to call Christine Jones from pollution control. THEREUPON, CHRISTINE JONES, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon her oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. State your name for the record. A. For the record my name is Chris Jones. I'm with pollution control. I'm a pollution control specialist. MR. LAFORET: Speak a little louder in the mike, please. MS. JONES: Yes. BY MS. CRUZ: Q. Chris, would you please tell this board -- I believe you -- you had a chance to visit this subject property? A. Yes, I did, with code compliance. Q. Would you please tell this board what your findings were? A. Upon entering the property it was littered with various automobile parts. The ground was stained with oil throughout the entire property that was accessible. There were paint cans, solvents, various type of automobile-type chemical wastes. There were tools, storage shed, trailers, just a whole bunch of litter-related items, as well as chemical wastes that I was looking for from pollution control. There were drums -- various chemical drums which had residue, maybe an inch of residue in them, et cetera. MS. CRUZ: Any questions? MS. LOUVIERE: I do have some questions. What is your name again, please? MS. JONES: Chris Jones. MS. LOUVIERE:- Chris Jones. I noticed two things when I was reading this. You went ahead and sent all this information to the Department of Environmental Protection; is that correct? Page 10 - May 25, 1995 MS. JONES: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. And what did they say when that came back to you? They said basically that this person was not triggering their guidelines, so there was nothing they could do to help us? MS. JONES: Well, DEP, because it's a residential property, asked us to take it as far as we could along with code compliance. They couldn't really get involved at this point. So after the samples came back -- we took soil analyses at the site, two samples. They came back below detectable limits, which -- as far as the oil in the ground. They took lead analyses and things like that. Now, any hazardous chemicals could have volatilized off, and the oil doesn't leach greatly into the ground, but these were only two samples on the entire property. MS. LOUVIERE: So really basically if we continue to monitor that situation -- I mean your -- basically you're telling me that the DEP seems to be reluctant in getting involved and helping us with this case because it's a residential facility and because they don't think it's drastic enough? MS. JONES: Not necessarily reluctant, but they did want us to do as much as we could because I -- they have a lot of cases. They -- they get involved more with businesses. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. The other question I have is he had some tanks, right -- or I don't know if that's the correct pronunciation -- that were shipped to Collier County? MS. JONES: Yes, he did. MS. LOUVIERE: Did we ever find out how he got them? MS. JONES:, I have investigated this. There were three 55-gallon drums. They were plastic drums. The contents of the drums are in my report. Upon investigation with the company that shipped them to Collier County, they were at -- they did make their way to facilities, maintenance department. And speaking with Skip Camp, they -- the drums used to be kept outside and locked, and the only possible explanation we have right now is they were stolen. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, now we can't -- we can't do anything about that -- that past situation MS. JONES: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: -- but maybe we can do something about the future. MS. JONES: From now on the drums will be kept inside, and they will be locked up. Yeah, I was talking to Skip Camp yesterday actually. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MS. JONES: They said at that time the drums were shipped in 1994, and at that time they were kept outside. Their practice is when a drum is emptied to cut the top off, triple rinse the contents, dispose of that wastewater as a hazardous waste, and then dispose of the drum, the cut drum. These drums were not cut off, and they were not triple rinsed, so they were stolen before they were properly handled. I shouldn't say stolen. They were -- whatever happened to them, we don't know. But they were kept outside, so the Page 11 . May 25, 1995 probability is they were taken. MS. LOUVIERE: So even after we find what's going on -- what -- after we find this person, after we continue with this investigation, are you still going to be involved in monitoring the soil out there? MS. JONES: I'm not positive if we will be involved in monitoring the soil at that point. We will be available to assist with the proper disposal of the hazardous waste on the property. We can supply everything that Mr. Parks needs to know and the names of the people, the transporters, et cetera. There will be special precautions. He won't be able to just get rid of it as normal litter. He's got 55-gallon drums of chemicals, different types of oil-based fluids, several aerosol paint cans and solvents and stuff like that, so there will have to be a special disposal. So we will assist him with that if -- through the litter law he's required to clean the property. MS. LOUVIERE: Great. You gave me a lot of information. Thank you very much. MS. JONES: Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: I don't know if anyone else has any questions. Anyone else? MR. LAFORET: I have a question. Is there any limitation on time that I can have a contaminant on private property, for instance, whether it be paint cans, gasoline, oil, drainage from my car, or these contaminated cans you're talking about? Is there a time limit to have them on my property? MS. JONES: Okay. Now, as far as the drums go, the three 55-gallon drums from Collier County, they have to first be proved as abandoned. Okay. Anyone is allowed to have chemicals on their property unless the chemical has-been banned from -- by the federal government. So until we prove that these drums have been abandoned, which would have occurred from the date that we saw them there, which is a year later, if we go back and those drums are still there a year later, they can legally be abandoned. DEP can at that point get involved as treating them as abandoned drums and have someone clean them up. Otherwise legally they can really sit there for as long as Mr. Parks wants them there if they're not leaking. MR. MANALICH: To the extent that -- MR. LAFORET: How about other contaminants beside these drums? MS. JONES: No. You're not allowed to have any other type of contaminants. He has leaking drums. He has transmissions, oil filters, all sorts of auto body parts MR. LAFORET: Okay. But my question was, how long can he keep them on his property. MS. JONES: If they're leaking, he can't. He -- he needs to clean it up. If -- if he just has an oil filter, it can sit there forever. If it's a, leaking oil filter, he should clean it up. I mean there's no time limit that you can have a leaking MR. LAFORET: Fine, okay. Now you answered my question. There's no time limit. Page 12 ~ May 25, 1995 MS. CRUZ: If I may add, he may not keep any item on unimproved property. MS. JONES: I mean that's -- MR. LAFORET: What if he made provisions to restrict contamination -- what if no provisions were necessary to restrict the contamination? Now, what I'm trying to explain is, what if the oil that drained out only went 3 inches in the ground, it didn't go into any farther or interfered with any other property. Isn't that a restricted disposal? MS. JONES: Could you clarify what you mean by restricted disposal? MR. LAFORET: Restricted. It doesn't move. It stays in one place, doesn't contaminate anything anywhere. MS. JONES: He would still need to clean that saturated -- oil saturated soil up, because that's considered contaminated ground. MR. LAFORET: How long does he do that? MS. JONES: That should be done as soon as possible. MR. LAFORET: I know it should be done, but I'm asking you legally what does the law say it should be done? MS. JONES: As a resident there's no time limit. It's as soon as we can get him to do it, as far as I know. MR. LAFORET: There's no time limit? MS. JONES: When -- when you discovered that chemicals have been improperly disposed of, the point is to clean them up immediately. I do not know if there's -- if he can leave that legally there for three years before it becomes a problem. I mean, legally I do not know. MR. LAFORET: All right. I don't want to -- don't want to hide you with your -- I'm just trying to understand you. MS. JONES: There's -- whenever you go into a business or -- we deal more with businesses. This being a residential was a little bit different. Like I said, DEP deals with the businesses. It's a little harder when you're with a resident. You're allowed to have the stuff on your property. You're allowed to change the oil in your car. If a little leaks out, no one's going to go after you. But if you have 20-some vehicles on your car (sic), it looks like you're running a business, you become into that category where he's improperly disposing of hazardous wastes from a business, although he has no occupational license, et cetera. We would really like to get him into that category where we could treat him as a business, prove that, you know, he's -- he's running a business out there, and put him under those regulations. There would be a lot more cut and dry legal MR. LAFORET: Then you know he's running a business? You know he's getting paid for this? MS. JONES: Well, I know that he had a business in Collier County, Larry's Transmissions. I have -- I inspect in the field a great deal, and I know of people who have taken their vehicles to him. I do not know if he's been paid. I don't -- MR. LAFORET: Is this documented? Page 13 - May 25, 1995 MS. JONES: This is just daily basis that I -- I've -- MR. LAFORET: All right. MS. JONES: Uh-huh. MS. LOUVIERE: Can I ask you one last question? MS. JONES: Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry. You stated that you seem to have a goal maybe of triggering him into a business situation wherein the DEP might be more involved. How successful do you think that might be possible -- do you think that might be possible? MS. JONES: Well, if -- if you could -- code compliance could prove that he's running a business. Regardless of whether he has an occupational license or not, if he's running a business on that property, he will be subject to what we call small quantity generator. It's under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act that we enforce. And we go out to businesses and help them with these laws. He would be subject to those rules. Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: So Collier County code compliance has to prove that he's running a business -- MS. JONES: Well, he -- yes. MS. LOUVIERE: in order for you to be able to do this. MS. JONES: Yes. Otherwise he's a resident with a lot of litter on his property, and it's a lot harder. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, to the extent it may assist the board, I have one question for the witness. If you could return. MS. JONES: I'm sorry. MR. MANALICH: There's a letter from Florida Environmental Protection that's been submitted which says that the results do not reveal soil that has been contaminated to a level which would be of health risk concerns. And that's on page 40 of the packet. MS. JONES: I don't have your packet, but -- could you repeat the section that you wanted me to -- MR. MANALICH: On page 40. MS. JONES: Uh-huh. MR. MANALICH: The second paragraph. The first sentence says that the tests do not reveal soil that has been contaminated to a level which would be of health risk concerns. My question is based on your inspection are the conditions out there such that they pose a serious threat to public health, safety, or welfare? MS. JONES: Absolutely they could, in my opinion. MR. MANALICH: They could or they currently do? MS. JONES: Well, based on the soil analyses, they they currently have not created a major concern because it's primarily oil. And as I mentioned before, anything -- a lot of the chemicals and the oil could have volatilized off in the air, and the oil would have stayed in primarily, like we talked about before, maybe a 3-inch area, you know a couple feet long in a certain area, that it would have stayed contained. However, I did see other things out there. It from being in the field on a you know, I've come across. Thank you, young lady. Page 14 .. May 25, 1995 was not just oil. We took two soil samples. That was it. MR. MANALICH: But at this point then it's the potential, but it's not currently a serious threat to public health, welfare, safety? MS. JONES: There is a potential. MR. MANALICH: Is any of the conditions out there irreparable or irreversible at this point? MS. JONES: No. As far as -- like it couldn't be cleaned up? MR. MANALICH: Right. 'MS. JONES: No. I believe it could be cl~aned up. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any other questions? Any more witnesses from staff? MS. CRUZ: No more. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Shall we close the public hearing? MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Go ahead. Go ahead. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, once you close the public hearing, can we still discuss on how we're going to handle this, because this one is a little different? MS. CRUZ: Staff has a recommendation on this. If this is the proper -- MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Let's go ahead and close the public hearing, and then we'll hear staff, see what they say. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Close the public hearing, go for staff's recommendation. MS. CRUZ: Staff recommends this board finds Ronnie parks; who is the present owner of the subject property, in violation of the above-mentioned ordinances and sections. Staff also recommends that Mr. Parks remove these violations within 60 days or a fine of $250 per violation for a total of $750 per day for each and every day these violations continue past that day -- date. Also staff recommends that this board authorizes staff to be able to follow the bid-out process under Ordinance 91-47. It authorizes staff to -- to remove the violation if the property owner fails to comply with this order. MS. LOUVIERE: These are good recommendations. I just wanted -- I'm wondering, first of all, we are going to have to deal with hazardous waste disposal when we get into cleanup; right? That means Collier County is going to have to pick up this tab; correct? If we -- I mean what you're telling me, that you -- you're recommending that if -- if he doesn't clean it up, that Collier County should have the right to be able to come in and clean it up. MS. CRUZ: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. That means that we are going to have to come in and clean up the hazardous waste, and we're going to have to dispose of it. So Collier County -- basically the taxpayers are going to have to come in with this tab; right? MS. CRUZ: I don't know how the lien process works, but with the property Page 15 . -May 25, 1995 MR. MANALICH: Well, you can attempt to recover those costs. Obviously you get into a question, is -- does this individual have any assets. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. MR. MANALICH: You know, I had asked the question earlier of the witness about whether there was currently a serious threat to public health, welfare, safety because there's provision statutes allowing us to immediately go out and take corrective action if those commissions are present and then charge the violator. But from the report I saw in the packet and from the witness's testimony, it does not appear currently there's the potential for it to reach that level, but apparently currently it was not at that level. That's why I asked that question. But essentially in response to your point, we can always, you know, charge the violator for any cleanup efforts. But if we're not able to collect, then obviously, yes, we would be stuck with it. MS. DEIFIK: I have a question. A good point has been brought up that if we could prove or if we were able to make a finding that he was actually conducting a commercial business, other rules and state agencies might come into play, and perhaps that would enable Collier County to move some of the burden of the financial expense to some of the state agencies. And my question is, are we at a point now where we can make such a finding. Is that something that should have been noticed in the -- in the notice of violations that was sent to him? Is that something that we need to take some action on, or can we address it today? And what other facts do we have before us that would enable us to do that? MR. MANALICH: I think that's a good point with regard to a due process issue on that. And, frankly, I don't know if what the witness is referring to is another procedure available under another body of law. I'd be hesitant on the present state of the record to make that kind of a finding. MS. DEIFIK: Would there be any harm, however, in asking staff to -- to give that kind of notice and bring it back before the board at a future date so that if some of this expense can be moved to a state agency -- I guess that's not very attractive to some people but rather than Collier County bearing the entire burden? MR. MANALICH: I think you can definitely direct staff and obviously my office to work together with regard to what other procedures, whether it be before this board or otherwise, can be implemented to effectuate cleanup through the business angle. MS. LOUVIERE: I think when we started with this whole conversation about the DEP, if I remember correctly -- and I keep forgetting your name, because I'm the worst at it. What is your name again? MS. JONES: Chris Jones. MS. LOUVIERE: Chris stated that the only way she could get other agencies involved was if she got -- code compliance could prove that he's running a business. I think you stated something like that. MS. JONES: Yes. Page 16 - May 25, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: Could you get up here for -- and talk to us? You are a very important part in this thing. MS. JONES: That or if there had come back to be a potential health problem, we did notify the HRS, and they are that -- to look out for drinking water problems in that area. that would come back as a problem, you could -- you could get in that angle too. MS. LOUVIERE: Do you have guidelines or something that is set up by the DEP that determines what set off -- what -- what would we need to go ahead and get code compliance to be able to prove that he is running a business out of there? And then DEP would look at his -- his residence as a business. I mean there's usually like guidelines that DEP sets up. MS. JONES: I would have to research that a little further before I could address that. I don't know exactly how -- how you can -- you class -- DEP will classify a business. I mean if someone has an occupational license and they run a business in Collier County, and they have a potential to generate hazardous wastes, we inspect them. And they are then broken down into a couple categories of hazardous waste generators. It gets very complicated. But I can research that. MS. LOUVIERE: Excellent. I would see -- I would like to see -- I tend to agree with Celia; is that correct? And I would like to see this tabled for, you know, for a period of time. And we can continue to go ahead and fine him, but I would like to see maybe staff work to maybe get this residence be looked at by the Department of Environmental Protection in a commercial light so that we can perhaps get assistance with some of this cleanup. MS. JONES: Okay. I would imagine there, would have to be some sort of investigation as to whether people have taken)their vehicles there and paid. MS. LOUVIERE: And that's excellent. This is where code compliance could come up, and maybe we could set up some sort of monitoring where we could actually maybe see that there is people coming and going and picking up the automobiles. MS. DEIFIK: Do I have -- excuse me. Ramiro, are we making this harder than it needs to be? Might there not be something in the Collier County code or ordinance that says you're running a business if you, you know, maintain X number of vehicles or if you do this or if you have this kind of a facility, it is, you know, automatically considered a business? I don't want to make it harder than it needs to be. Is there something that we're overlooking here? MR. MANALICH: Yeah. I'm not sure if in the occupational licensing law or elsewhere there might be -- I -- I do recall that there are provisions indicating that a number of trips to and from -- this has come up as an issue in another context where people run businesses out of homes. MS. DEIFIK: Uh-huh. MR. MANALICH: And -- I mean I don't have that -- my direct reference here, but my concern would be that, as you mentioned earlier, this particular aspect of this -- these charges was not aware So if involved Page 17 ~ May 25, 1995 noticed in the hearing. And I'm not sure that we have much in the record supporting that. I mean we've got some references to auto parts, but I don't really believe we, under the testimony presented, ever entered into a discussion of how many trips were observed or anything like that. MS. DEIFIK: Uh-huh. MR. MANALICH: I don't find, however -- I don't believe that simply because today you make a finding based on the charges presented that you could not come back with other charges if they're warranted regarding the business issue. MS. DEIFIK: One other question is how much money would we really save. I mean how much -- has anyone done an estimate of what it would take for the county to go out there and clean this facility up? And does the county have the resources to do it properly? MS. JONES: Pollution control could assist in getting the proper resources to clean up that site, yes. We do have access to hazardous waste transporters and contractors that could do that job. I do not know an estimated cost at this time. Someone would have to look at it and make that estimation for you. MS. DEIFIK: Could you provide us that at a later date? MS. JONES: I could look into that, yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Generally when I -- with my firm I do deal with site contamination studies, and it usually gets expensive. I mean probably something at this site might not be that expensive because it's not a large site, but you still have to deal with disposal, the fact that there's high liability involved, and not a whole lot of people deal with, so -- MS. JONES: Actually it's pretty large. The contamination out there is pretty -- MS. LOUVIERE: Really. MS. JONES: -- significant ground-wise the area it's taken over. It goes from one side to the other. The whole road is basically oil saturated. It -- it reeks out there of petroleum products. It's difficult to be on the property because of the way it smells, so if that's an indication of a -- MS. DEIFIK: Well, that presents another problem in that we don't want to wait -- we don't want to put off cleanup so long that we wait until there is a problem. MR. McCORMICK: I have a question. I don't want to change directions too much. I'm supporting the direction to try and identify whether or not we -- we can clean up the hazardous waste. But if I can ask staff to clarify their recommendation, you said that staff recommends to remove the violation. And as I understand it right now, that doesn't include any hazardous wastes cleanup, does it? That would include removing the drums? MS. CRUZ: It includes removing everything on that property. He's not allowed to keep anything on that property since it is unimproved property. MR. McCORMICK: Well, what I'm getting at or considering is those drums as they are now, they're -- we haven't identified them Page 18 - r May 25, 1995 as leaking. If we were to properly close them, transport them, and dispose of them, that may be relatively easy. But if they were to be spilled or if there was to be -- if the contamination was to be increased, then we may cross some thresholds with the DEP concerning the health risks. And then it could be astronomical the cleanup costs that we may have to get into. Is there some way we can clarify what -- what we would have to do now to remove the violation and separate that -- the rest of it into something else that we're going to pursue? MS. DEIFIK: That's a good idea. MR. LAFORET: I think this case has been running so long on these current violations that are listed, and this environmental protection is a new gimmick or a new phase, new consideration. I don't think the representative of environmental protection has proven it's a public health menace. I don't think they have made any attempt to test anything. They haven't listed the various chemicals that exist that are contaminants. They haven't presented any evidence. They haven't listed it in detail. They haven't said how much of this is biodegradable and has already degraded so it's no longer a contaminant. There are so many openings. I think that the board -- I recommend the board proceed with our case. And if environmental protection wants to come up with their own case, then that's their own case. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I disagree, Mr. Laforet. Here's a lady who is in the field on a day-to-day basis and from my -- from what I heard. Here's a person who is a field operative, okay, and she says there is a potential hazard. She's a professional in her -- in her job, and I think we should listen to her. MR. LAFORET: Well, I listened to her. However, she didn't tell me anything. She didn't'tell me what precise exact contaminants that she has seen. She hasn't tell -- told me whether they are in their present condition an endangerment to public health and safety. She hasn't given me any details, merely her observations MS. LOUVIERE: If-- MR. LAFORET: -- and I don't think that's good enough. MS. JONES: May I clarify what the pollution control department does? MR. LAFORET: Sure. MS. JONES: We are there -- we go out, and we inspect the different businesses. We respond to pollution complaints. We compile information, take pictures, call the appropriate authorities that have to come in. We do not have any legal authority. We do not get involved in taking samples to a date -- great degree. This was a special situation/which we got special permission just to take two soil samples, because we felt that it was a very high-risk situation and that we needed to take samples. Unfortunately, they didn't come back as a great health hazard. As I explained before, that's because the chemicals probably volatilized off in the air. I imagine he's been doing this for quite some time. We are there to help to get the environment cleaned up Page 19 . May 25, 1995 if there's a potential problem, to solve problems before they become a major problem. That is our only function. It is -- it's not to and if you've read my report, it does detail the chemicals found out there. The drums -- it mentions what's in each single drum, how much residue in each single drum. It also mentions throughout the property where there were 55-gallon drums, where they were leaking and where they weren't. So if you take a look at my particular file, you will see that information. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just as an addition here, obviously you have this proceeding here which is to lien the property and order this particular violator to take corrective action. Obviously what I'm hearing from the board is we'd like to do something beyond just an order to this individual. We have heard there might be -- and we would have to pursue that independently -- proceedings through the state or local environmental laws that might be pursued including the business angle aspect. Finally, I'm seeing here in our litter ordinance that there is a provision that says that litter is declared to be a public nuisance, and when something is a public nuisance, as the code further indicates, that in addition to this proceeding, the county may also take other lawful action in a court of competent jurisdiction, including injunctive relief. That may be another avenue that we could pursue in addition to this where we could begin an injunctive proceeding of some type in -- in court to force compliance. The concern I have is that under our Chapter 162 which governs this board, the testimony indicates that right now at this time we do not have that health hazard. If we do, then you're allowed to go in there, make the cleanup, and then charge the violator. What I'm hearing is we have the potential in the future for this to become a health hazard, but we do not right now. But I'm saying that possibly staff and my office can also look at the possibility of pursuing this as a public nuisance, and then you could bring actually a court action. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes, ma'am. MS. DEIFIK: Miss Jones, could you for the record and to address some of the concerns stated by some of the other board members -- could you layout what your professional qualifications, educational qualifications are in this field? MS. JONES: I have a degree in environmental studies, environmental science. I also have a degree in English. I've been with the county for a year and a half, almost two years. I'm OSHA certified and have been trained on the job. MS. DEIFIK: Thank you. Miss Jones, I want to -- I just want to make clear that I didn't mean any disrespect by asking that. I thought it would be helpful to have it on the record -- MS. JONES: That's fine. MS. DEIFIK: -- that you have qualifications to speak on the subject~ Ramiro, when you talk about bringing a court action for an injunction, don't we come back -- up against the same law that we Page 20 ~ May 25, 1995 can bring all the court actions that we want, but if this guy has no money and is not willing to cooperate, it's going to wind up being the county getting out there and cleaning it up? MR. MANALICH: Right. My point being that obviously MS. DEIFIK: Other than forfeiting the land. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. We could get stuck with the bill. But if, in fact, when the board -- the cleanup be effectuated, we might be able to achieve that. MS. DEIFIK: One question that I had when I went through -- and I did try and read thoroughly all of the material that I was given, but I have to confess this is my first time here, and so I'm not fully familiar with everything that relates to this. There is a statement in the synopsis of the law that although we can instruct the county to foreclose on the lien, the county cannot foreclose on homestead property. And so that tells me that unless and until a sale or a devise takes place, there's not going to be any way of getting the money back; is that correct? MR. MANALICH: I haven't looked at that closely, but it would appear to me that we cannot on a homestead foreclose. MS. CRUZ: I have a question. Is a vacant piece of property consider -- or I mean is it allowed to be a homestead property? MR. MANALICH: Well, I believe it has to be -- does it not have to be registered as homestead with the proper record authorities? MS. DEIFIK: Now, the case law is really very -- I know that a lot of people believe that if you haven't filed a statement of domicile, that you're not going to be able to claim homestead. That certainly may be true for the purpose of getting the homestead exemption, but my understanding of the-law is that that may not be relevant to whether it's homestead under the Florida constitution. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. That's definitely an issue. MS. DEIFIK: So I -- I just -- I'm asking these questions because I think that realistically and pragmatically we may never have a way of getting this money back, but the more important concern is public health. MR. MANALICH: Right. And I mean does -- the lien does attach to any real or personal property of the violators. I mean anything else he has we could.pursue also if he has it. MS. DEIFIK: And if he ceases using the property as homestead. But this brings up another point which is I'm still confused -- (The proceedings were momentarily interrupted by a fire drill.) CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Everybody ready to start again? Celia was asking a question. MS. DEIFIK: I was? Oh, I think I was asking -- are we on the record? Okay. The point that I wanted to bring out, so that we can discuss, is that the person who owns this property does not reside on the property. But evidently from what staff has told us is the brother of the resident, Ronnie Parks, owns it. Larry Parks lives Page 21 - May 25, 1995 there; is that correct? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MS. DEIFIK: All right. So we come back to the homestead issue. One of my fellow board members inquired whether we couldn't get around that because the -- the owner was not using the property as a homestead. I think that we have a problem with that. But, of course, I would defer to our counsel, because the homestead provisions of the constitution extend to persons related within three degrees of blood relation, and I think that Larry certainly falls within that category. But I think it bears investigation. And I would refer that to Ramiro. That might be a way of getting around it. But, frankly, from my knowledge of the law, I doubt it.' MR. MANALICH: Celia is a divorce attorney, domestic relations, and she deals with this subject a lot more then I do actually in my practice, so I put a lot of stock in what she says. I'll be happy to look at it. But I have feeling that if she says __ the courts have interpreted homestead rather broadly. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay, so -- MR. LAFORET: I would like to have equal time with Miss Deifik's request. I never challenged the qualification of the young lady. I challenged her report as being adequate. MS. DEIFIK: I wasn't saying that you were. I thought for someone reading a fair record -- MR. LAFORET: My purpose is to express my own qualifications for ,asking the questions. That's the equal time. I'm a registered professional engineer in six states for 30 years including the State of Florida. As part of my duties many years ago I was environmental protection when we started air pollution. I progressed into the pollution of hospital wastes. I progressed into the pollution created by vehicular traffic in an area. I progressed into sick buildings. I have appeared as an expert witness in court in all of these instances, sewage treatment plants. I do not profess to be an expert in Florida law or national law on environmental protection on these chemical wastes. However, I am not naive on the subject. And I would like to offer that for the record as my qualifications. Thank you. MS. JONES: That's fine. MR. ANDREW: Let's get on the subject. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. Let's go on and go ahead with the meeting. The -- my whole concern here -- and I really don't know how to word this, this motion, is the reason I kept trying to bring the Department of Environmental Protection, is because I believe or I feel that the cleanup of this hazardous waste is going to be pretty costly. So basically what we are going to be doing is going to be cleaning up this guy's lot for him. My goal was to see more the Department of Environmental Protection get involved so maybe they could pick up some of the cleanup costs. That's where I was going with this. I -- I don't -- there -- there's been a couple of venues that we could use, maybe trigger this into a commercial business, and then we could get the DEP to pay us more attention. That's fine. If somebody could just help me word this, that's where I was hoping to go Page 22 ~ May 25, 1995 with it. And then also there's a issue that this -- this man __ this is his homestead. So we couldn't even' perhaps even go against __ go get his -- that actual land. But maybe Celia was mentioning he has other assets that we could start looking at. So my first goal, as I see it, or -- this is just Maria here speaking is to get the Department of Environmental Protection involved so maybe they can help clean up this mess so that Collier County doesn't have to totally be the one to pick it up. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: To make a full circle -- I'm asking a question myself -- is that what Miss Louviere is saying, we want to proceed with the findings of fact and conclusions of the law for the board. But what we want to do is delay the 91-47 bid process, Miss Cruz, delay the bid process in order to try to get DEP involved for financial gains. Would that be a fair assessment of what we're going to do? MS. LOUVIERE: Right. Do we have to be specific as to how -- MR. MANALICH: I think you can go ahead and make your findings on this case in particular with regard to this violator. You can also as part of today's direction to staff and to county attorney ask them to report back to you with any alternatives that they see feasible to effectuate cleanup in a cost effective manner or in a manner that would not involve excessive costs to the local taxpayers. And they could report back on what those alternatives might be. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That's good. MS. LOUVIERE: I got a lead-in. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Go ahead. MS. LOUVIERE: I'm not good at this. Okay. We will continue with the findings of facts, and I would like to go ahead and direct staff if they could please do further research as to come in with maybe other alternatives that are more financially feasible besides just having Collier County actually clean up the site, whether it means doing further research to determine that this is -- this property is being used as a business and, therefore, we can get the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to assist us with site cleanup. MS. JONES: The reason I mentioned that as an alternative is Collier County pollution control has no regulatory authority at all. MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. MS. JONES: There is nothing we can do except come as witnesses as to what we saw with code compliance as to hazardous waste litter. MS. LOUVIERE: And that's why I want to bring in an agency that does have regulatory authority. And, by the way, you did very well. MS. JONES: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry. We have another staff member that Page 23 . May 25, 1995 would like to comment on this issue. MR. MORAD: My name's Ed Morad. I'm the supervisor for code enforcement. Maybe I can address some of your concerns as far as the past experiences that we -- that we have had with the DEP. In the past they've considered something that we're facing now as -- as not really a big issue per see Even some of the businesses that we've had them involved with, they've felt that they don't have the staff, the time, the finances to help with our investigations into this matter. As far as the business part of it, to try to prove there is a commercial business out there, that -- that would -- I mean we would go in that direction if you wish. But to prove something of that magnitude is really hard. We need a lot of cooperation from, say, Mr. Park's clients or -- or -- or his people that he's doing work for. And that -- that tends to get real lengthy as far as investigative man-hours. The issue that -- how our department got involved with this was the neighboring community that was tired of looking at this litter, debris, derelict vehicles out there. And by our -- our recommendation that -- that we could get this through our bid-out procedure in the -- in the litter ordinance that if -- if you want to address -- address a contamination -- excuse me, I got a bad cold -- contamination problem, we can do that with our -- staff can help DEP or pollution control in any way that we can by getting these derelict vehicles removed from the property under Section 8 of our litter ordinance. That -- that would help as far as the contamination problem that we're facing now. If we continue or postpone this in any way to allow those vehicles to stay there, it's definitely going to make the cleanup a lot more expensive. MS. LOUVIERE: I see all your points, and thank you very much. I'm sorry. What is your name, not -- not your name, the gentleman, the tall gentleman that works in environmental? MR. SMITH: My name is Ray Smith. MS. LOUVIERE: Ray. MR. SMITH: I work for pollution control. MS. LOUVIERE: Hi. MR. SMITH: It seems like the information I was going to initially provide has been brought up already. I just want it reiterated. It's going to be very expensive, $50,000, maybe greater. There's a lot of analyses that have to be performed. In addition to the cleanup, you have to identify the extent of the cleanup, et cetera. Typically we refer these to the DEP. They have the regulatory authority in this area so -- MS. LOUVIERE: So can we get the DEP involved? In your expert opinion, can we get the DEP involved? MR. SMITH: We're going to try. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. That's all I want to hear. We're going to try. Thank you very much. MS. DEIFIK: We still need to do findings of fact and conclusions of law. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That's what we're going to do right now. Page 24 . May 25, 1995 MR. MANALICH: You have right now -- Mr. Chairman, just for your reference, at the beginning of your packet right after the agenda you should have what staff has provided you, as always, two sample orders, one of which is for generic form for findings, the other one a generic form for no findings, and if you want to utilize that for your assistance. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you very much. MR. ANDREW: I'd like to ask Mireya one question. I'm confused. This case is going to come up in July from the old original deal. What -- what's -- what's going to be determined at that case in court? What-- MR. MANALICH: Oh, in July? MR. ANDREW: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: I believe that was under the litter ordinance. You have different approaches that can be taken. One is to cite someone to court for violating the ordinance; another one is a code enforcement action; another is the injunction-type thing I talked about. I believe the court one -- Mr. Hedrich is more informed on that, but I believe that's a separate misdemeanor allegation for having a residential trailer on unimproved property. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MR. MANALICH: But that's totally separate and away from this proceeding. MR. ANDREW: That's the only thing that's going to be brought up in court then? MR. MANALICH: Well, this that's all that has come up so far. I have said -- MR. ANDREW: Well, that's on the old original case; right? MR. MANALICH: No. That's on this one. Ronnie Parks; right? MS. CRUZ: No. Larry Parks. MR. MANALICH: That's Larry Parks? Okay. But Larry Parks due to his present living on the property in a trailer; 1S that right? MR. HEDRICH: Right. MR. ANDREW: But does that -- does that case that was pending stop the buildup of the violation penalty? MR. MANALICH: No. No, it does not. MR. ANDREW: So that penalty has been going on then since -- MR. MANALICH: As to Larry Parks, yes. That penalty has been building up. MR. ANDREW: Well, it's the property, isn't it? MR. MANALICH: Right. Now, apparently there was a transfer of ownership a couple of years back. MR. ANDREW: Still same property, though. MR. MANALICH: Right. And that's been accumulating on the property. This action is against Ronnie Parks to put him in violation. MR. ANDREW: Well, okay. I heard -- and you -- and you Page 25 - May 25, 1995 before suggested that because it's just -- doesn't have any bearing on anything, but make it legal, in other words. MR. MANALICH: Well, what it will do, if you bring this action against Ronnie Parks, it will then enable you to pursue any of Ronnie Park's personal or real property assets as a violator who is in current ownership. MR. ANDREW: So I think it's to our advantage then just to go ahead with this violation that we had before us today and get involved in the environmental part of it later on. MR. MANALICH: Well, I think what's been discussed today, Ms. Louviere has pointed out that she in her motion not only wants to entertain these findings of fact here on this case, but also wants staff to review and report back with regard to other cost effective alternatives, whether they be through the environmental laws or they be through a court action for injunction, whatever those may be around. MR. ANDREW: That's wonderful. Then, Mireya, you can take over. MS. LOUVIERE: Can I take over now? MR. ANDREW: I won't have to do this. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I think we're ready. MS. LOUVIERE: Findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order of the board. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on -- MS. DEIFIK: May 25th. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. -- May 25th, 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: That Ronnie Parks is the owner of record of the subject property, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent, and that Ronnie Parks was not present at the public hearing. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 92-80 have been properly issued, that the real property legally described as 1200 Mingo Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as the west one-half of the northwest one-quarter of the northwest one-quarter of the northeast one-quarter of said Section 32, Township 48 south, Range 27 east, is in violation of the following sections: Section 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Ordinance Number 91-47, the Collier County litter ordinance, and Sections 2.6.7.111 and 2.1.15 of 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. MR. ANDREW: I second. MS. LOUVIERE: Conclusions of law. MR. MANALICH: Excuse me. On that if you want just to expedite matters, you mentioned the sections that are in violation, but it also asks here for factual findings and what particulars. MS. LOUVIERE: Oh, yes. You would like for me to describe the violations. MR. MANALICH: Right. Now, you have at page 2 of your packet the description of violation. Page 26 . May 25, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: MR. MANALICH: reflects that -- MS. LOUVIERE: Uh-huh. MR. MANALICH: -- you can refer to that as the factual basis, or you can have other factual findings that you believe are warranted in the record. MS. LOUVIERE: No, this is fine. As the violations described in -- can I just reference this as page 2 of our packet? MR. MANALICH: Yeah. It would be number 2 of page 2. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. More particularly described in number 2 of page 2 in our agenda packet. Conclusions of law: Number one, that 1200 Mingo Drive is in violation of -- and we just went through that. MR. MANALICH: That would -- excuse me, just one correction. That would be Ronnie Parks. MS. LOUVIERE: Ronnie Parks. Sorry. Order of the board: Based upon the foregoing 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 that the respondents correct the violations which are listed as number 1, page 2 of our agenda packet in the following manner: That said corrections -- okay. Basically what we spoke here is he is to -- he is to -- I lost it. MR. MANALICH: You need to specify here what it is that you want him to -- how you want compliance to achieve. MS. LOUVIERE: We would like for him to clean up the site. And if he doesn't accomplish that -- that said corrections be completed before the 23rd day of July 1995. If the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, then and in that event, respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $750, correct, per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. MR. MANALICH: Let's stop there. MS. DEIFIK: Clean or remove? MR. MANALICH: Yeah. I think we need a couple of things to improve -- let's go back to what Ms. Deifik is talking about here. I think we need to be a little more specific on exactly what the corrective action is, and perhaps there is an amendment that Ms. Deifik has. MS. DEIFIK: I would just -- MS. LOUVIERE: violations, and I to remove -- MS. DEIFIK: To remove. MS. LOUVIERE: -- number one, unlawful accumulation of litter consisting of cement roof tiles, metal, plastic, paper, wood, glass, derelict vehicle parts, and piles of tires; also unlawful -- the unlawful accumulation of unlicensed and nonoperable vehicles; and also the storage of the travel trailer which is currently being used as a primary residence. Uh-huh. If you believe that the testimony To clean up -- to clean up the following in this respect I mean clean up, number one, and Page 27 - May 25, 1995 MR. MANALICH: So basically the removal and cleanup of those items and also then to cease unlawfully storing the travel trailer as a primary residence. MS. DEIFIK: Remove the items and clean the site. MS. LOUVIERE: At this point this -- this is like -- this order -- once we finish with this order of the board, we -- the other recommendations that we want to propose to staff, can they be done outside of this order, or should I include it in this order? MR. MANALICH: No. That can be done additional to this order. MS. LOUVIERE: In addition to this order. MR. MANALICH: The other correction that I had was that we should specify here that it would be -- there are three types of violations here which have been described. The maximum allowable fine is $250 for a violation. That's how we reached the 750. MS. LOUVIERE: Correct. MR. MANALICH: But I do believe they are different types of violations, so I think we can specify 250 per each violation that is not corrected, which adds up to your 750, but it is not 750 per violation. MS. LOUVIERE: I understand. MR. MANALICH: It's 250 per violation. MS. LOUVIERE: So let me go ahead and modify my statement and state that it is going to be $250 per violation for a total -- since there are three violations, for a total of $750 which he is going to be charged. MR. MANALICH: And now the only other thing I just want you to consider in setting this amount of fine is that -- and I think it may very well be justifiable, but if we're ever on appeal on this 'thing, the Court will look as whether the fine -- in this case a maximum fine for each type of violation is reasonable or not. MS. LOUVIERE: We had gone through this, I think, before in another instance. I mean I think we can argue that this has been ongoing for a long time and that $750 does not appear excessive. MR. MANALICH: Okay. . MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So I need to just finish it up if I may, please. 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. Done and ordered this 25th day of March 1995, at Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have a motion? MR. ANDREW: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have a second? MR. McCORMICK: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor, signify by saY1ng aye. All those opposed? None. It carries unanimously. Go ahead, Ms. Louviere. Page 28 ~ May 25, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: And the other thing that I had directed staff, if they could please come back to us and -- and provide us with recommendations to how we can get the Florida Department of Environmental Protection involved to assist us with cleanup costs on this matter. And, you know, I understand the concerns that code compliance has as far as to actually getting this triggered into a business situation and getting the Florida Department of Environmental Protection involved. But it's something that we need to do, otherwise Collier County is going to have to pay $50,000. I don't want my taxes raised. Do you? So if you could help us. MR. SMITH: Can -- can I just offe~ one thing to the board? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. SMITH: Again, my name is Ray Smith. MS. LOUVIERE: Hey, Ray. MR.' SMITH: We'll be getting on the phone with DEP once we leave this meeting and providing DEP the findings of the board and the recommendations of the board. And I feel confident that we can at least make DEP aware of the concerns that the board has regarding the cleanup of this material. DEP typically goes out to sites like this and performs an inspection such as we have. We can provide them our records and -- and obviously they need to do -- they may require the site owner to do remedial action or an assessment of the site to determine what materials are out there, if they're, in fact, wastes or products of a hazardous nature. So we'll work on that once we leave here. MS. LOUVIERE: Excellent. Thank you very much for all your help. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you very much. Let's start on our new business. Miss Cruz, are you -- MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I'm sorry. Would you like to start on new business with BCC versus Otto Kristen and Elsa Kristen? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. Mr. Otto Kristen and Elsa Kristen appeared before this board on February 23rd, 1995, and were found in violation. The board issued an order and asked them to remove such violation by April 23rd, 1995. Staff conducted an inspection on April 25th and verified the violation was removed. At this time I would like to file an affidavit of compliance. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Wonderful. So basically file the affidavit of compliance. MS. CRUZ: Please. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we vote on that? MR. MANALICH: That would be a motion simply to record was the findings of fact, do you know in this case, recorded? MS. CRUZ: Yes, they were. MR. MANALICH: Okay. This would be a motion to record this affidavit of compliance so that the property title is not ln any way affected. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. Well, ~'ll make the motion that we accept the affidavit of compliance for CEB case number 95-002. Page 29 . May 25, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? It carries unanimously. MS. CRUZ: Next one is the Board of County Commissioners versus Billy Parker, case number 95-005. Again, this case came before this board on March 30th, 1995. Mr. Parker was found in violation of accumulation of litter. The board ordered him to comply before April 30th, '95. Staff made an inspection on May 11th, 1995, and which inspection revealed the matters were removed. Again, an affidavit of compliance is being requested to be filed at this time. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we accept the affidavit of compliance from the Board of County Commissioners versus Billy Parker. MS. DEIFIK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. All those signify by saying aye. Any opposed? None. It carries unanimously. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before we leave that case, I did want to pass out correspondence that I received on this case. Simply, this is the -- this is correspondence apparently from one of the subjects of the action -- I think it's the wife of the respondent -- not particularly happy with our action. And, you know, it's one of -- it was directed to me. But I can take the time on behalf of the board to respond if the board deems it appropriate. If not, this is just part of life in the public sector. MS. CRUZ: Can we get a copy of that document? MR. MANALICH: Sure. Sorry. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, I think Mrs. Parker has a right to express her opinions. That's why we live in America. I don't really see where the need to respond to this is necessary. MR. MANALICH: That's fine. As I said, you know you're absolutely right. There is an absolute first amendment right to express your dissatisfaction with certain actions. I, frankly, don't agree with the contents of the letter, because having been familiar with this case when it came to the board, I think it was properly handled. But I just wanted to make the board aware and staff also obviously, and we can just leave things as they are. MS. LOUVIERE: She spelled your name right. MR. MANALICH: That -- that's -- I was impressed by that. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Before we go on I'd like to have a comment to Mr. Hedrich off the record. I think we've got a way to help Mr. Larry Parks, the thing that Ms. Louviere was running on about how to make sure that he's running a business. That would be my suggestion, that you take your personal vehicle to the residence to get your transmission worked on. MR. HEDRICH: Do you mind if I borrow yours to take there? ' Page 30 ~ May 25, 1995 CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That would be fine too, I'm sure. MS. DEIFIK: Take a county vehicle. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I just would point out that I think that the court reporter correctly approaches these hearings in the sense that even if we say it's off the record, it still remains on the record. I have no concern with what you said, but for your information, because under the sunshine she's doing her role correctly, I just thought I would just make you aware of that. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That means I'll be walking next week. Shall we continue, Miss Cruz? MS. CRUZ: Yes. The next item was the item we added on to the agenda. At this timer would give you copies of this affidavit. It's for James Whittemore and Debra Whittemore, case number 95-003. This case came before this board on February 23rd for violations of the litter ordinance. It was found in violation. The board ordered the respondent to correct these violations by May 23rd. Staff made an inspection on May 23rd and discovered the violations were removed at that time. Again, I'm requesting an affidavit of compliance be filed at this time. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have a motion to accept this? MR. McCORMICK: I make a motion to accept the affidavit of compliance. MR. LAFORET: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's clarify that as CEB number 95-003. MR. McCORMICK: Yes. That's correct. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? It carries unanimously. I think we'd like to at this point in time thank Mr. Hedrich, Mr. Morad, his staff. I think this is an absolutely great job of bringing things into compliance quickly. This board has watched a lot of things try to get into compliance. It has taken years. I think you're all doing a great job. You have done this quickly and painlessly. Thank you. MR. McCORMICK: I'd like to reiterate that this being my first time on this board, I found that the information you presented was very thorough and really helps give me an idea of the violation to take appropriate action. So I would just like to commend you and encourage you to keep up the good work. MR. HEDRICH: Thank you very much. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have no old business. But we do have a report on Collier County Code Enforcement against the Meadowood Club Apartments, status report. MS. CRUZ: I've provided the board with a copy of the status report of Meadowood. You remember this case came before this board on August 25th, 1994. There were violations found, an order and imposition of fines placed. This order was -- ordered the respondent Page 31 . May 25, 1995 to pay $11,876.78 for costs for prosecution of this matter. And in addition to that there was another $5,000 impose for fines. And this was ordered to be paid before March 31st, I believe -- March 1st. And just to bring to your attention that they've complied, that violations were corrected, and they also paid the costs incurred with the fines. MS. LOUVIERE: Excellent. MR. ANDREW: Hooray. MS. LOUVIERE: Very good work. MR. MANALICH: So I'd like to congratulate staff on that, because I know that was a very involved case with many serious violations out there that were a danger to human safety. And I think they did an excellent job. ' MR. ANDREW: Wonderful. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: They did a great job collecting because I recall it very well. The lady said either we're going to give you X amount today, or you're going to get nothing. You did a great job collecting. MR. ANDREW: Thanks. I appreciate that one. MR. MANALICH: Affidavit of compliance has already been previously filed? MS. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: With that in mind, our next meeting will be June the 29th, 9 o'clock in the morning. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, I just have a very quick handout on the Elba Development case as an update. MS. LOUVIERE: Elba? MS. DEIFIK: Eli Barron? MR. MANALICH: Right. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, that's a correction on that next meeting date. It's June 22nd. MS. LOUVIERE: June 22nd? MR. MANALICH: This case -- as the memo indicates, as you know, in October of last year fines were imposed by the board, and those orders are recorded as liens. And what has happened, they have -- a notice of appeal was filed in late November. I'ye shared with you some correspondence that's gone back and forth. Essentially on this appeal they normally under the appellate rules have, I believe, 70 days to file briefs. During that period of time after the notice of appeal is filed and prior to the time the briefs are due, counsel for Elba contacted me and, frankly, I agreed that they had a legitimate point with regard to the index to the record that was prepared in the clerk's office. And it was not in a form that both parties could use to cite to the record in the appeal briefs. So we've gone through a somewhat lengthy process of trying to get that record straightened out. Judge Brousseau -- I've attached here an order from Judge Brousseau in which he gives a final direction to the clerk on the record to be prepared. I expect in talking with Irene Berube in the appeals division of the clerk's office, she's going to be working on that promptly. I expect if they're going to pursue the appeal, the brief will be filed, and we'll respond, and we'll get on to the merits Page 32 . May 25, 1995 and getting the thing concluded. MS. LOUVIERE: So basically Elba Development 1S appealing our decision? MR. MANALICH: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: To a higher court? MR. MANALICH: Yeah. To the district court. MS.. LOUVIERE: To the district court. In the meantime what happens to the fines? This is just for my own curiosity. Do they continue to accumulate while he's appealing? MR. MANALICH: If -- I believe -- staff can maybe correct me on this, but has not compliance been achieved at this property? MS. CRUZ: Compliance has been achieved, yes. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. MR. MANALICH: So we're only talking about the fines they delayed in getting into compliance. MS. LOUVIERE: They obtained a compliance, and now they're just going to the appellate court. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, on the issue of the fines. MS. LOUVIERE: On the issue of the fines MR. MANALICH: Yeah, they haven't -- MS. LOUVIERE: -- in their opinion. MR. MANALICH: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: Great. MR. MANALICH: So we'll keep you posted as things go on. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Great. Do we have any other business, new or old? Comments? MR. ANDREW: I want to thank staff and including Ramiro for all their help MR. MANALICH: I would also like to thank Sergeant Beattie (phonetic) pertaining to my request that he'd been given some of the comments that I saw in the packet in the Parks case, and just out of an abundance of precaution I asked his presence today. MS. LOUVIERE: I notice -- I noticed the comments also, and I would like my name removed from the minutes. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I like that. MR. ANDREW: You did a nice job today, Mireya. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thanks. We'll adjourn now. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 10:47 a.m. ~ ALLEN, ACTING CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING Page 33 . May 25, 1995 BY: Barbara A. Donovan Page 34 ~