Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/27/1995 1995 Code Enforcement Board July 27, 1995 July 27, 1995 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, July 27, 1995 The Collier County Code Enforcement Board met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ACTING CHAIRPERSON: Jim Allen Charles Andrews Mireya Louviere Celia Deifik M. Jean Rawson Louis Laforet Richard McCormick ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Asst. County Attorney Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Page 1 l L ~ CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDED ~QgN!2~ Date: July 27, 1995 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier County Government Center, Admn. Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DEe~SION 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 June 22, 1995. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. J's All Marine Service -CEB No. 95-009 B. BCC VS. JaCk A. Queen, Tr., - CEB No. 95-011 C. BCC VS. Louis Filostin and Ocepha Polite - CEB No. 95-012 6. NEW BUSINESS NONE 7. OLD BUSINESS A. BCC VS. Minnie Simpson and Rodolfo Manzano, Agent 8. REPORTS A. BCC VS. John R. and Emily Landgrebe - CEB No. 95-010 B. BCC VS. Ronnie Parks - CEB.No. 95-006 8. NEXT MEETING DATE Augu~t 24, 1995 9. ADJOURN July 27, 1995 CHAIRMAN ALLEN: This is the July 27, 1995, meeting of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. 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 insure 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. We'll start with our roll call beginning at my left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. MS. RAWSON: Jean Rawson. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Jim Allen. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All right. We'll go on to the approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes from staff? MS. CRUZ: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under public hearing, item A, we would like to continue that item till August 24th, 1995. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may add on that. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Go ahead. MR. MANALICH: This matter has been continued once before from the June meeting. That was at the request of opposing counsel, Charles Murray, who had a trial conflict on that date. I have now received a request prior to this hearing from both Mr. Murray and also Attorney Burt Saunders who is also representing one of the parties. And because of medical reasons because of their client apparently not being able to attend, I did ask for a confirmation from the physician about this. They have indicated they will provide it to me. I have not gotten it to me yet. I told them, however, under the circumstances, if it deals with a medical emergency, I was willing to grant and not oppose a continuance on this occasion. However, I was asked if the continuance for medical reasons could be for two months. I had indicated that this case has been pending for some time, and I did not believe that I could agree to that. This is the case that I had told you I was going to be representing staff on, but since it's going to be hopefully continued today, obviously on the rest of the hearings today I'll be acting as your counsel. But at this point the request would be from all parties involved for a one-month continuance. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Does staff agree with the continuance? MS. CRUZ: Yes, we do. MR. ANDREWS: Do we have to move on it? MR. MANALICH: I think that there should be a vote. The only other item would be that -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Allen, but I believe this is a matter that you may have had some knowledge or involvement about, and it might be appropriate for you not to participate in any vote or anything on this matter. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Good. Well, since I am involved, why don't we address this to our vice chairman. MR. MANALICH: That's fine. Yeah. So those are basically the requests at this point by all parties involved in this Page 2 July 27, 1995 particular case, and I am representing staff in this case. It is for a one-month continuance. It may be that in August, from what I've heard from the respondent's counsel, they will be asking you for a further continuance for medical reasons. I'm not prepared to agree to that, and we can address it in August if the case is set for August. MS. RAWSON: Staff has no objection to the continuance? MR. MANALICH: No. I'm representing staff in this case, and they agreed with that. MS. RAWSON: Do we have a motion? MR. ANDREWS: I'll make a motion that we -- MS. LOUVIERE: Can I ask a question before we make the motion? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: Who is Representative Saunders representing in this matter? MR. MANALICH: He has told me he is representing the respondent. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. Okay. MR. MANALICH: Now, there are actually -- Let me clarify that further. There are two respondents in the case. MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. MR. MANALICH: There is a Mr. McMillan and there is a Mr. Ackerman. And Mr. Murray and Mr. Saunders have indicated to me that they are representing Mr. Ackerman. I have not been informed of any counsel for Mr. McMillan at this point. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Thank you. MS. RAWSON: Do we have a motion? MR. ANDREWS: Yes. I make a motion that we continue public hearing number 95-009 for one month. MS. RAWSON: Is there is a second? MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. MS. RAWSON: Any discussion? MR. LAFORET: Yes. I would like to amend the motion to exclude one month, as it may be conflicting. If it's one month from today, we'll miss the next meeting. So could it be till August 22nd with a firm date, the August 22nd meeting? MR. MANALICH: Thank you for that clarification. That was my intent. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. Yeah. I accept it. MS. RAWSON: I thought the next meeting was August 24th. MR. ANDREWS: I'm sorry. I didn't mean one month. I meant till the next meeting. Continue it till the next meeting. MR. LAFORET: All right. Fine. MS. RAWSON: Is there a second to the amended motion? MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. MS. RAWSON: Any other discussion? All in favor? Anybody opposed? It passes. Cause number 95-009 will be continued until the next meeting which is at this time scheduled for August 24th, 1995. MR. MANALICH: And if the record could reflect that I believe Mr. Allen did not participate in that vote. MS. RAWSON: We'll have the record so reflect. Page 3 July 27, 1995 CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any other changes in the agenda? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? I'm sorry. We should have a motion to approve the agenda first. MS. LOUVIERE: I so move. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, just one question at this point. Would you care to add under reports just a brief item that I had questioned for my part as to whether you might want to consider having at some point down the road a workshop on quasi-judicial procedures? We're doing that with the contractor board. I don't know if you're interested in having that but we can discuss that, if we can add it under reports. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We'll accept that. MS. RAWSON: I would move that we add that under reports on the agenda for today. MR. ANDREWS: In today's session? MS. RAWSON: A discussion. MR. MANALICH: Yes. That's to discuss whether we want such a workshop. MR. ANDREWS: Oh, okay. I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. It passes unanimously. So we vote for approval of the minutes now. Any changes in the minutes? MS. CRUZ: No changes. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Fine. Do we have a motion for approval of the minutes? MS. LOUVIERE: I'd rather hold off from this motion. I think I found an error, but I want to make sure. Just give me a second, please. On page 29 at the bottom, it starts -- I state, "I make a motion that we only fine Minnie Simpson and Manzano, as they are the ones that have the legal use of that trailer." I think that needs to read that they have the illegal use of the trailer. It starts at he bottom of page 29 and then it continues onto page 30. MR. ANDREWS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Let's show that the minutes be amended after Ms. Louviere's comments. Do we have any other discussions or any changes in the minutes? Do we have a motion to approve the minutes with these modifications? MS. DEIFIK: With those clarifications I move that the minutes be approved. MS. RAWSON: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? None. Approved unanimously and one clarification. We're going to show that the approval agenda was passed with the addition of a discussion of judicial proceedings to be added underneath the reports just for clarification. We'll go now to our public hearings. Staff? Page 4 July 27, 1995 MS. CRUZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Coordinator. The board, the reporter, and the respondents have been provided with a copy of the composite exhibit. At this time I would like to mark this composite exhibit as Composite Exhibit A, CEB 95-011, Board of County Commissioners versus Jack A. Queen. Let the record show that Mr. Queen is present, and at this time I would like to ask Mr. Queen if he has any objection to the admitting of this composite exhibit into evidence. MR. QUEEN: Everything is in order. Are you going to present the extension that we -- MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I request that this Composite Exhibit A be admitted into evidence. MS. RAWSON: I move that it be admitted into evidence. MR. MANALICH: Do you have an extra copy of that by any chance? MS. CRUZ: No, I don't. of the exhibit. MR. MANALICH: Oh, okay. Good. All right. I'll mark that copy then. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second that Exhibit A be moved into evidence. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. None opposed. It passes unanimously. Please continue. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Queen is before the board due to increasing of a nonconforming structure occupying a area of land and a structure without proper permits, which allegedly a violation of the Land Development Code 91-102, 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5. On March 6, 1995, code enforcement conducted an inspection at the above location, which inspection revealed that an addition added to an existing nonconforming structure without the authority of any building permits. On February 1, 1995, Mr. Queen addressed a letter to Barbara Cacchione, who is with chief long-range planning, requesting for assistance for a formal interpretation of the Immokalee master plan regarding the C-5 zoning for subject location and the possibility of getting a permit to expand under existing zoning. Ms. Cacchione responded to Mr. Queen on February 28, 1995, providing him a copy of the Immokalee area master plan and advising that the C-5, which is, "Heavy Commercial Zoning District, is not permitted within the Commerce Center-Mixed Use District due to the uses and intensity of the District would be incompatible for the surrounding residential area." The code enforcement department served Mr. Queen a Notice of Violation and Stipulation on March 10, 1995, via certified mail, requesting to obtain proper building permits or remove the addition by March 30, 1995. Receipt of this notice was received on March 13, 1995. On March 17th, Mr. Queen sent a letter to Ms. Cacchione requesting assistance in obtaining a permit/variance to expand his I provided the reporter a copy greater lS Section Page 5 July 27, 1995 business located at the subject location. Again Ms. Cacchione responded to Mr. Queen on April 20th, 1995, advising him, as stated before, that a variance request would not remedy a nonconforming use. At this time I would like to ask Mr. Hedrich to come to the stand, please. WHEREUPON, DAVID HEDRICH, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. State your name for the record, please. A. David Hedrich. Q. Dave, you are employed by Collier County? A. Yes, I am. Q. And how long have you been with Collier County? A. Just over one year now. Q. You have been all this time in the code enforcement department? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. What is your position in that department? A. Code enforcement investigator. Q. I understand you have been at the subject location? A. Yes, I have. Q. Would you please tell this board what your findings were during your visits. A. On two different site visits to that location, we observed additions that were added onto the existing structure. At that premises no such building permits were recorded for being used to allow the extension to be placed onto the building. Q. Can you tell us approximately how big is this addition? A. Just offhand, it probably -- I couldn't tell you for sure. Maybe Mr. Queen could be more exact, but probably approximately 50 feet one way and -- MR. QUEEN: 40 x 40? A. Yes. Approximately 40 x 40. Q. The type of construction? A. The type of construction is a steel frame construction. MS. CRUZ: Staff has no further questions for Dave. MS. LOUVIERE: I have a question. Mireya Louviere for the record. How long has this use been existing on that site? MR. HEDRICH: Mr. Queen had the original structure there for some 20 years now, I believe, or maybe just over 20 years. MS. LOUVIERE: What type of use is it? MR. HEDRICH: It's a commercial use. MS. LOUVIERE: Commercial uses can be a lot of things. What is he actually doing there? MR. HEDRICH: The business there is land excavation and a construction-type business. MR. QUEEN: Excuse me. That's a repair shop. MR. HEDRICH: Repair? MR. QUEEN: Yeah. MR. HEDRICH: For the construction equipment? Page 6 July 27, 1995 MR. QUEEN: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: Does he store things there overnight as far as trucks or whatever he's repairing? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any other questions of Mr. Hedrich? Mr. Queen, would you like to speak, sir? If you could come forward please. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if Mr. Queen had any questions for Mr. Hedrich. WHEREUPON, JACK QUEEN a witness, having been duly affirmed, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. Would you please state your name for the record. A. My name is Jack Queen. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Queen, before you begin your statement, did you have any. questions for Mr. Hedrich about his testimony? MR. QUEEN: No, because we had went over this before, and it's just a matter now of settling time-wise on this thing. There's no -- MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, as procedure, I just wanted to afford him the opportunity to cross-examine. Apparently he does not have any cross-examination. MR. QUEEN: Do I need to say anything to you about it? MR. MANALICH: Does staff have any further evidence or testimony? MS. CRUZ: No, we don't. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I think we're at Mr. Queen's stage then. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. MR. QUEEN: I don't suppose the board wants to hear of our situation in Immokalee. It's the availability of industrial property, and we're pretty well limited there. But anyway, we've made attempts for many, many years now to get the proper zoning so we could expand, and it just got to where the shop was -- needed a little more space, and I had exhausted all means. I've asked for variance and things like this. Now, since we went through and exhausted most of our means, unless there's something that you can do about the master plan, we still can't change anything. And what this hearing is, could I ask you Chairman Allen? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes, sir. MR. QUEEN: Is there any variances in the master plan? Any way to get a variance so that we can get an industrial zoning in that area? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: My understanding -- I mean that's not really what our board is here to do, but I mean it's almost impossible to get a variance for a nonconforming use. MR. QUEEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I that manner, but that's MR. QUEEN: Right. mean, I wish we could help you in not really what our board is here to do. So anyway Page 7 July 27, 1995 MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, if I might be of assistance, I would also add that in reviewing the materials that have been submitted, there is an April 20th letter from Ms. Cacchione which apparently left this matter at saying that the only other remedy available to this particular individual was to make an appeal to the board of County Commissioners under the ordinances, and I don't know if that ever occurred, but that apparently was the last administrative remedy of relief. MS. LOUVIERE: Does he want -- I'm a little bit confused and that is to what Barbara Cacchione wants. I just want clarification for me. Is she saying that this is a nonconforming use per the growth management plan for Immokalee, the master plan for Immokalee; therefore, this is a use that needs. to be rezoned? And that's one of her options. And then it states that it should not even be used there, right? That even if he attempted to rezone, this is a use that doesn't fit in that district. That's correct, right? MR. MANALICH: I believe you're correct in those comments. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. I just wanted to know. MR. MANALICH: I mean essentially, as I understood it, and maybe staff can assist me if they have more familiarity with this, but just in reviewing the materials, it appeared to me that Ms. Cacchione was saying that he would need to make application to the board if he wanted to ask for some type of rezone. MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly~ MR. MANALICH: Otherwise the use that existed could continue but could not be expanded, and apparently the alleged violation is the expansion of the existing nonconforming use. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. The zoning classification where the alleged violation exists is an RMF-6, which is a residential multifamily. MS. LOUVIERE: It's multifamily. MS. CRUZ: Exactly. MR. QUEEN: The master plan, though, leaves it open up to C-4. We needed C-5. See, this is a combination area on the master plan. It could be commercial through applications up to C-4. We were trying to get to C-5 on it. Now, David can probably verify that. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Queen, did you at all consider appealing to the Board of County Commissions per staff's letter? MR. QUEEN: After I went through all the districts here, I talked to on -- this thing -- David, this thing happened in '94, didn't it? MR. HEDRICH: No, it's all been this year, '95. MR. QUEEN: I've got a call here to you on 12/15 of '94 for -- I didn't get an answer on your phone. MS. LOUVIERE: I see a letter was sent to you on April 20th of 1995, and ori it, it gives an interpretation of the Immokalee RM Master Plan, and it references the fact that your property would need to be rezoned to "(C-5) Heavy Commercial or (I) Industrial Zoning District." Then in the second paragraph, it actually goes and it tells you that. An interpretation was requested and staff determined this. And therefore, if you do not agree with staff's recommendations, you have 30 days to go ahead and appeal this to the Board of County Commissioners. Did you attempt to make an appeal to Page 8 July 27, 1995 the Board of County Commissioners, sir? MR. QUEEN: Not with a letter to the commissioners, but I did go with the -- I thought I was working through the zoning board and the -- MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. And so we go right back to the same thing, which is this board doesn't have the authority to grant you these variances at all. There's only one board in Collier County that can give you what you're asking for and that is the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. MR. QUEEN: Well, they shot me down. They shot me down through Barbara Cacchione's office saying that that's the limit. You know, you can't get C-5, so. MS. LOUVIERE: Barbara Cacchione can only -- she's chief of a long-range planning, and she can make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. But the Board of County Commissioners which also serves as the zoning appeal board will have the ultimate say on what is able to be placed there. And Barbara Cacchione being chief of long-range planning stated that that was your option. So that is really the only option left to you. MR. QUEEN: Okay. Are you familiar with the name of Mr. Sharome (phonetic)? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, I am. MR. QUEEN: And another fellow that -- we went through all the books and everything. . MS. LOUVIERE: You're talking planners. Those are developmental services, planning staff. MR. QUEEN: Well, I guess I'm ignorant. I don't know how this government body works to the fact that I -- MS. LOUVIERE: I can respect the fact that it is Unless you do it all the time, it can become a complicated process, but there's a lot of professionals in the area that can assist you. MR. QUEEN: Yeah. Well, is there an opportunity yet to appeal to the -- MS. LOUVIERE: MR. QUEEN: a rezone? MR. McCORMICK: I think that may still be possible. In the Land Development Code it says 30 days, but I think that they would hear your request, and they would decide whether to accept it or not and schedule it for the board. That would be their decision then. MS. LOUVIERE: I'm not saying that it would be granted. MR. QUEEN: Yeah. MS. LOUVIERE: This just gives you the option to be heard. I personally have a problem with you intensifying there without obtaining rezoning. I don't really see why intensified your use without getting the proper zoning in MR. QUEEN: Well, I couldn't -- I wouldn't want to invest anything else into -- unless I had the proper zoning now. We're -- MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. decision. MR. QUEEN: Yeah. We don't have any plans. In fact, we're going to correct our problem and start from scratch, but it would be nice, you know, to relocate. It's very expensive. To the Board of County Commissioners? to the Board of County Commis,sioners for the use you place. That would be a wise and logical Page 9 July 27, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: I understand that. MR. QUEEN: And if we could take one more shot at it, I'd like to appeal to the County Commission and see if we can get the C-5. And if they say no, why we'll -- MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Queen, have you had any feedback from your county commissioner on this matter? MR. QUEEN: I wrote Ms. Matthews a letter on this. I didn't -- My bookkeeper was out today, and I didn't have I couldn't find the file this morning, her answer to that letter. But she did answer my letter, and I don't think -- Do you have got a copy of that? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, sir, a brief breakdown here. MR. QUEEN: I think I have a copy here too probably. MR. MANALICH: I have not looked in-depth into the time frames that might be involved on any appeal here. I know Mr. McCormick indicated that he thought there might still possibly be an avenue of relief for him. MR. McCORMICK: I think the planning staff would probably defer to the county attorney's office and to make maybe an opinion on whether or not the board should hear it, but it still is an option for Mr. Queen, I think. MR. MANALICH: Right. He could certainly explore it. I just cannot tell him here today that in fact he will be able to do that or not, because if there are mandatory time frames, that may affect his situation if he missed them, but certainly he can look into it. MS. LOUVIERE: And, you know, it's just not logical or smart for you to have a nonconforming use. You know, in case something happens, they will not insure you. It's just not something wise. MR. QUEEN: Yeah. We were grandfathered into this. This was a construction yard in the '40s, the late '40s. MS. LOUVIERE: They grandfathered what you used to have. MR. QUEEN: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: You became nonconforming when you expanded your use. MR. QUEEN: Right. And this is what we were -- we were hopeful, and it's a lot of business in that area already that's MS. LOUVIERE: Right. And you were fine as long as you stayed the size you were -- MR. QUEEN: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: -- when you expanded your use. MR. QUEEN: And this is an issue that we want to get settled too. We want to get this cleared up so we can go ahead with whatever we got to do, whatever do we have to do with this. MS. LOUVIERE: So what are you proposing to do, sir? What are you going to do on this matter? MR. QUEEN: Well, I didn't know that this avenue was open to appeal to the county commission. I would like to have that opportunity. And then a little time -- If that's rejected, then a little time to remove the building. MR. LAFORET: I would like to ask you, sir. You've owned this property for some time. The original building was on there Page 10 July 27, 1995 for 20 years? MR. QUEEN: No, I built the building about 20 years ago. MR. LAFORET: All right. 20 years ago. MR. QUEEN: That wasn't -- One part of the building was there before, when I bought that. MR. LAFORET: All right. Were you in the repair business, the same type of business then that you are now? MR. QUEEN: Mm-hm. Yes, sir. MR. LAFORET: The same type of business? MR. QUEEN: Right. MR. LAFORET: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: To summarize this, Mr. Queen is -- I'm just asking a question or discussing right now. Mr. Queen is willing and able to take one more shot at the county to try to get zoned from C-4 to C-5. Is it the consensus of the board that we should give him some time to do that, and then if the county commissioners do not allow a rezone which would allow the expansion, then we could take action to have the l,600-square-foot addition removed. Would that be agreeable to staff? MS. CRUZ: Staff has board grants Mr. Queen an as long as he shows staff appeal. MR. DEIFIK: I indicates that it's MS. RAWSON: I Thirty days maybe. MR. MANALICH: Let me see if I understand what would be the request. Is it to avoid making any findings today and simply continue the matter, or is it to proceed with findings and allow a time in the future when a fine would kick in? I'm not sure which way you want to approach it. MR. McCORMICK: My recommendation would be to continue the matter until the appeal is made, and that an appropriate time frame would be two weeks for that response to be submitted to either the county attorney's office, the county commissioners. MS. RAWSON: Is that's a motion, I'll second it. MR. McCORMICK: I'll make that a motion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second that this item be continued and predicated that Mr. Queen makes an appeal to the commissioners for a zoning change within a two-week period. Is that correct? MR. McCORMICK: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: If, Mr. Chairman, for whatever reason he has lost his time frames and is legally unable to make that appeal or he makes the appeal and is rejected, do you have a time frame for this case to come back to you? MS. LOUVIERE: Can I ask a question, I'm sorry, before we go ahead and vote on this motion? If they go ahead and the Board of County Commissioners denies this, do we have to hear his motion do we have to get Mr. Queen up here again or does he -- right away wouldn't he just have to remove the nonconforming addition? You built the building about no objection in granting if the extension to appeal before the commissioners proof of this appeal, of the request of this have no problem as long as counsel not a problem. think we should give him a time limit. Page 11 July 27, 1995 MR. MANALICH: Well, that was the essence of my earlier comment, which is that what I understand you're doing today and based on the motion and the discussion is you are simply holding this case in abeyance or continuing it without making findings. That's been the motion made. Now, if you were to proceed the other way which I mentioned, which is you could hear the case out today, make a decision and then afford some time for the compliance to take into effect whether he appeals or not, but if we're going to give him the chance to appeal, obviously that might affect the underlying decision here. So maybe MS. LOUVIERE: Right. MR. MANALICH: -- it's wiser to continue. MR. QUEEN: Could I insert something here? I had talked to the lady about the time limit that I need to relocate some repair equipment that's under this roof and things like this. And if it's agreeable with the board, we can make the appeal to the county commission and maybe it should be included in this vote here. I would like 90 days to get the building down and get the equipment relocated. It might include all that at one time from now, you know. And if the county commission turns it down -- MS. LOUVIERE: We go ahead and proceed with that. MR. QUEEN: we'll go ahead and take the building down. MS. LOUVIERE: You want to amend your motion? MR. MANALICH: Well, essentially as I understand it, what that would require would be that this board today would proceed to a decision with what we're just talking about here. And I think the motion that was made was simply to defer a decision on this to see if any appeal is in the works or not. MS. DEIFIK: I believe that it's wiser to stay with the original motion and continue it, and then we can readdress this if it has to come up again. MR. McCORMICK: If we could possibly explain this better to Mr. Queen and try and get your opinion again on the matter. What we're proposing right now is to not find you in noncompliance. MR. QUEEN: Right. MR. McCORMICK: We're not going to do that today. We're just postponing that matter. But what you asked us to do was to actually find you in noncompliance and give you a 90-day time frame. MR. QUEEN: Yes. We admit we're in violation. Like I say, after we -- We didn't do this until after we exhausted the means of trying to get the proper zoning. Now, we'll need a little bit of time. We're not going to be able to relocate in 90 days. MS. DEIFIK: You may not need the time. MS. LOUVIERE: If you go and apply -- MS. DEIFIK: That's the point. You may not need the time. If the county -- If you appeal to the commissioners and they find favorably and give you the variance, then you won't be in violation. You won't have to be back before us, and that issue will go away. If they don't grant you what you're looking for, you'll be back in front of this board and we'll start from scratch. And then we'll -- MR. McCORMICK: After that time we would consider your request for 90 days. Page 12 July 27, 1995 MR. MANALICH: What might be a good suggestion would be to continue this case tentatively for a month to the August meeting. MS. DEIFIK: Till the next meeting. MR. MANALICH: He has a requirement, sir. Within two weeks you must prosecute this appeal. And maybe a determination needs to be made whether you have the ability to appeal or not or have you lost your time frame, because that needs to be determined, you know, appropriately, but you need to make your appeal attempt within two weeks. MS. DEIFIK: A good-faith effort. MR. MANALICH: A good-faith effort. MR. QUEEN: The county attorney can inform me of that. MR. MANALICH: Sir, I can assist with that as well as staff. First of all, if you do not prosecute your appeal in good faith within two weeks, then this case will definitely come back. If you do prosecute your case and you're able legally to get a hearing before the county commissioners, then this process will wait until. that occurs. If the county commissioners rule in your favor, then obviously this violation may not be a problem. If they reject your appeal, then you would be back here. But in any event, we may want to set this for next month's meeting as a status update so that this doesn't fall between the cracks, if that's the pleasure of the board. I mean that's basically what I've heard so far. MR. McCORMICK: We can include that in the motion, that we'll receive an update next month. MR. MANALICH: And I would suggest that he be required to be present unless otherwise notified by staff. Because if for some reason this appeal cannot go through, then I'm sure the board wants to bring this to conclusion in August. MS. DEIFIK: Do we need you to have to restate that motion then to include. all of this? MR. MANALICH: I spoke a lot. MR. McCORMICK: Well, if you want a summarize it, you know, that's fine. MR. QUEEN: One other thing to consider here. The Board of County Commissioners a lot of times has a busy agenda, and we may not have a hearing on this. MR. MANALICH: Well, that's why I mentioned it would be purely for a status update. I mean if for whatever reason your appeal is not available to you, either you don't do it, or it simply legally lost the time frame, then it would be back here for a hearing. And we indicated if you in good faith within two weeks prosecute it, if legally you can do so, if you can get a hearing date before the board, then this board, I think, is willing to wait until that process is resolved. MR. QUEEN: All right. That's sounds fair. MR. MANALICH: But the main point being that since we don't know how this is going to unfold, what I would suggest is that this matter be continued to August, and that this gentleman be required to appear back here ready for a hearing if the appeal does not go through. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That's sounds logical. Is that all right with you, Mr. Queen? MR. QUEEN: That's fine. Page 13 July 27, 1995 CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Is that okay to you, sir? MR. QUEEN: That's good. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. We have a motion, amended motion, a second. We have and amended MS. RAWSON: Amended second. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: -- an amended second to include all of the above. All those in favor -- MS. DEIFIK: Plus-- CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Go ahead. I'm sorry. Any discussion? MS. DEIFIK:' I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All right. All those in favor? Any opposed? No. It carries unanimously. MR. MANALICH: Just to be clear, sir. Basically, the essence of the motion is you have a one-month continuance. Within two weeks from today's date, you need to have a good-faith prosecution of your appeal in bringing it forward. And you need to plan to be back here at the next meeting date. MR. QUEEN: I'll I be notified of the meeting date? MR. MANALICH: Ms. Cruz, do we have a date certain for the next meeting? MS. CRUZ: Yes. It's August 24th. MR. MANALICH: That's when you will need to be back here. MR. QUEEN: All right. And who do I see now about the proper appeal? MR. MANALICH: If you can talk first to staff and they will consult with our office if necessary. MR. QUEEN: All right. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you. MR. QUEEN: When could I meet with the staff on this? MS. CRUZ: Let me give you my number and you can call me and we can set up an appointment. Do you have my number? MR. QUEEN: I think I've got it. Put it down here. I think I still have it in the notes from today. All right. Thank you. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. We'll move on to our next case. Ms. Cruz, would you like to continue? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. The next case is BCC versus Louis Filostin and Ocepha Polite, Case No. 95-012. Again, a composite exhibit has been provided to the reporter, to the board, and to the respondent. I would like to let the record show that Mrs. Polite is present, who is the owner of the property. And at this time I would like to ask Mrs. Polite if she has any objection in admitting this package into evidence. MR. MANALICH: Can you come up, please? MS. DEIFIK: Mrs. Polite, can you speak and understand English? MRS. POLITE: No. My daughter can speak for me. MS. DEIFIK: Counsel, do we have a problem if the party does not fully understand the proceeding? MR. MANALICH: Yes, I think we do. MS. DEIFIK: Are there provisions for this, such as Page 14 July 27, 1995 using court interpreters or is there funds for that kind of MR. MANALICH: I don't know if this -- I believe this may be her son. Okay. Do you speak English? MR. POLITE: Mm-hm. MR. MANALICH: What is your name? MR. POLITE: Kanson Polite. MR. MANALICH: And how old are you? MR. POLITE: Thirteen. MR. MANALICH: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: I would have a serious due process problem using a child as an interpreter when I don't know the level of the child's facility with the two languages. MR. MANALICH: That's a valid point. MS. RAWSON: The court, as you know, has a number of interpreters on their staff that we could probably utilize, but I don't know if we could get them right away. MR. MANALICH: I don't know if we took a brief recess, if I could call over and see if anyone might be able to come over and assist us. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, if I may add. During the investigation code enforcement has not experienced a problem in communicating with Ms. Polite. Perhaps if we'd talk slowly she could understand. MR. MANALICH: Are you able to understand English? MRS. POLITE: A little bit. I don't speak good English. MR. POLITE: She can manage. MS. LOUVIERE: Where are you from? MRS. POLITE: I'm from Haiti. MS. LOUVIERE: Haiti? MRS. POLITE: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: How long have you been in the United States? MRS. POLITE: MS. LOUVIERE: MRS. POLITE: MS. LOUVIERE: MRS. POLITE: MS. LOUVIERE: visit in Haiti? MRS. POLITE: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. I think she understands English. MR. MANALICH: Ideally, what I would suggest, let me, Mr. Chairman, if I could propose a five- or 10-minute recess where I could see if we have an interpreter available first. We can try and exhaust that first. If we don't, then I guess we have to deal with it. MS. LOUVIERE: All right. I feel if you want to take a recess, that's fine; but I think she responded to several of my questions and she seems to understand English. She answered that she was from Haiti. She's been here thirteen years. MRS. POLITE: Do you want my son to help me? MS. LOUVIERE: You speak English fine. I think you speak English good. Thirteen years. Thirteen years. Yes. A long time. You miss Haiti? Sometime I go. I Sometimes you go come back. and come back and you Page 15 July 27, 1995 MR. MANALICH: Well, the only concern I have is that even though apparently she understand -- MRS. POLITE: And I don't speak good English. MR. MANALICH: She apparently understands it more than she speaks. Her son apparently is fluent. But what I'm concerned about is the point made by Attorney Deifik, which is that any time we deal with anything involving legal ramifications, the question arises that if she has a limited understanding ability, if her son assists her who is thirteen, does he have a full grasp of what is being said to be able to translate it? MRS. POLITE: You know, my daughter she speak, but she wants to help me, but she speak. Maybe she afraid. I don't know. MS. LOUVIERE: I think that's fine. Just-- MR. MANALICH: Let me -- if I can first try to see if we can get the assistance and then we can make the decision. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: You're the counsel. We'll take a five-minute recess. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. MRS. POLITE: But when you speak but I hear you. I understand. But I can't give you good answer, you know? MR. MANALICH: Okay. MR. POLITE: I can't give good answer but I hear you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. We'll take a five-minute break and will be back. (A short recess was taken.) MR. MANALICH: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I had contacted court administration, who is in charge of the court interpreter services over there, and they are looking to see if they can see if they can within the next 20 to 30 minutes get someone over here. They don't know if they will able to or not. I am expected to have someone come down and tell me that within the next 20 minutes or so. I would also add, I did confer with Mr. Cuyler, the county attorney, on this point. I explained to him the situation here. It's his inclination to not hear this matter under these circumstances simply because he's concerned about the record. It might subject to being -- On any appeal, we might be subject to being overturned because of the language barrier. I mean, I explained it's kind of a close call, that even though we have one person here who is thirteen and apparently proficient in the language, that person is so young that I'm ~ot sure we can have full confidence that legal concepts and important matters such as fines or, you know, violations, what they consist of, can be adequately explained. So what I would suggest, if we can perhaps pass this matter over for 20 or 30 minutes while we proceed to others, we can know if we can have an interpreter here. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Is that agreeable to staff? MS. CRUZ: Yes, it is agreeable with staff. MR. MANALICH: I guess this is something that my office and staff will need to consider for future hearings. We'll work jointly on that, you know, when we have possible language issues. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All right. Well, let's continue. Since we have no new business, let's continue to our old business about Board of County Commissioners versus Minnie Simpson and Rodolfo Manzano. Page 16 July 27, 1995 MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, case number 95-008, Board of County Commissioners versus Minnie Simpson and Rodolfo Manzano, appeared before this board on June 22, 1995. The board found the respondent in violation of illegally storing a mobile home being used in the primary residence. Staff conducted further research which resulted in a building permit that was issued for this mobile home. Staff would like to request that this case be dismissed due to that there is a permit for this mobile home. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, staff did inform me when this discovery was made, and that was prior to my having issued the order. This is a case where we had made a finding of a violation, and I did not send out the order finding a violation because of that information from staff, because they indicated it was going to be brought to your attention today. So no previous order has yet gone out on this because of the situation. So basically there's no -- I guess we'll need to have a vote to you -- you did enter an order here orally on the case finding a violation, but I think the vote today would be on staff's request to overturn the previous vote due to newly discovered evidence, and, in essence, dismiss the case. MR. McCORMICK: If you could clarify, the mobile home was moved off of the site, that it was a violation? MS. CRUZ: The mobile home still exists at that same location. MS. LOUVIERE: Because you found that there's a building permit that has been issued for this mobile home? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Can you please explain to me how a building permit was issued for this mobile home when the person didn't have a warranty deed or showed ownership? MS. CRUZ: The permit was issued by the former owner back in -- MR. HEDRICH: In 1984. MS. CRUZ: In 1984, the property was owned by Mr. and Mrs. White, and this permit was issued to them for this same mobile home, and I'll explain it. This parcel, at one time there was three individual lots. They each had a different deed, an individual deed. At the time that Mr. White sold the property to the Reynas, this property was converted into one deed. So the building permit was recorded on a property card for that individual lot when it was an individual lot. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. Okay, I've got that. And now, is this building permit good for the rest of it -- for the rest -- Like once you issue a building permit, it's good for the rest of your life? MS. CRUZ: That property -- That mobile home became a nonconforming use. Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. And so now this person bought a new -- bought this land, right? And he just had no idea that he had the -- he had this use on this land, right? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. HEDRICH: That's correct. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. And if he wants it removed, which is what we were eliciting to before, there's nothing he can do or -- Page 17 July 27, 1995 MS. DEIFIK: Oh, there's something he bring an action for trespass and ejectment that's -- MR. HEDRICH: can do. He could in the circuit court, but The ReYnas are going to proceed with civil means -- MS. DEIFIK: -- that's their problem. MR. HEDRICH: -- to have the Simpsons be removed. MS. LOUVIERE: But he went through that last -- He had kind of gone through that. They've gone MS. DEIFIK: No. MS. LOUVIERE: -- through the court system. MR. HEDRICH: The other system they had gone through before was the Reynas had tried to have Ms. Simpson and Mr. Manzano removed from the trailer by eviction, not with the trailer. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So we have to make a motion to -- MR. MANALICH: -- vacate the prior oral order that was entered by the board and enter an order of dismissal. That's what it was. MS. DEIFIK: I move that we do so. MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. MS. RAWSON: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? None. It carries unanimously. Shall we go on to our reports? Maria, are you ready with the reports? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir, I am. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Our report will be for BCC versus John R. and Emily Landgrebe, case number 95-010. Again, this case was here before the board on June 22, 1995. At that time the board decided to continue this case, to verbally allow Mr. Landgrebe 30 days to remove the violation of storing a mobile home on his property and asked staff to come back today with a status report. An investigation was conducted yesterday at this property which revealed that the mobile home still exists. So I would request that this case be heard on our next board meeting, which will be August 24th. MR. MANALICH: Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand he did have until that date of August 24th to achieve compliance, correct? MS. CRUZ: I was under the impression that he had 30 days to remove the violation, and if he didn't remove it within those 30 days, that we would reschedule this case for our next board meeting, which would be August 24th. MR. MANALICH: Well, in any event, the request is to continue till August 24th. Now, I suppose if he in fact does do the removal prior to that date, then there will be no need for a hearing. MS. CRUZ: Right. MR. MANALICH: But he should be notified of the August 24th hearing. MS. CRUZ: Yes, he will. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Mr. Hedrich, have you had any Page 18 July 27, 1995 discussion with Mr. Landgrebe? MR. HEDRICH: I tried to make contact with him in the past couple of days. I've been unable to. MS. RAWSON: I would move that this be put on the calendar for the August 24th meeting and that the respondents be duly notified. MR. ANDREWS: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. Do we need to vote on this? MR. MANALICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. It carries unanimously. MR. MANALICH: It's my understanding this gentleman may have gone back to Illinois. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MS. DEIFIK: I'm looking at the minutes. On page 47 of the minutes, Chairman Allen says, "I guess what I'm suggesting is we table this and we continue it for 30 days." Is there something specific said about how long he was going to -- and then the next page they give him 30 days to do it. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, that was essentially a continuance to see if he would achieve compliance. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Pardon me for being wrong. MS. DEIFIK: Oh, no. I didn't mean that. I'm asking questions because I wasn't here. I just want to be sure I understand what happened. MR. MANALICH: I believe we have an Illinois address for this gentleman, have we not? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. HEDRICH: As well as telephone number. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Shall we go on to the -- We have a motion and a second. It's carried unanimously to bring the Landgrebe matter back before the board on the August meeting. Shall we go to the our next report? MS. CRUZ: The next report is BCC versus Ronnie Parks, CEB No. 95-006. This case came before this board on June 11 for unlawful storage of a mobile home. The board ordered to continue this case 30 days to allow the property owner to comply. Furthermore, it ordered staff to provide a status report regarding compliance status. Staff has conducted several inspections at the property which result in noncompliance. We also obtained bids. The contractors, they met us at the property on Monday this past week, and we only had been able to obtain two bids. I can provide this board with copies of those bids. MS. LOUVIERE: And they're in charge to clean up the site, correct? MS. CRUZ: Yes. That's to remove all the litter and debris. There is a bid here that includes the removal of the junk vehicles also. MR. MANALICH: Perhaps for further background, I would make the board aware that Mr. Parks recently contacted my office, and I believe there was -- we need to clarify that there's two Mr. Parks Page 19 July 27, 1995 here. They are brothers. I believe the gentleman that contacted me -- MR. HEDRICH: Larry Parks is the uncle to the landowner, Ronnie Parks. MR. MANALICH: Okay. It's an uncle relationship. Larry Parks, I believe, is the one that contacted me this week, and he had basically requested a copy of the transcript of the proceedings. There was no one in attendance when we last had proceedings on Ronnie Parks. And Larry Parks contacted me to request a copy of the transcript, which I left for his pickup. I also then had -- my secretary also contacted and reminded him that there was going to be a discussion of this case today, and apparently my secretary did speak with him and advise him of that, but apparently he is not here today. One other point, which is the bids that we're talking about here, it is my understanding in talking with staff about this concern of the board to have this property cleaned up, as you know, you entered an order indicating that by July 23rd this litter problem was to be corrected. Beginning July 24, fines, as you imposed, began to accrue. Now, the discussion that I had with staff in attempting to carry out the board's order is that under the Code Enforcement Board procedures, we have the ability to fine and foreclose on the property after the passage of a certain amount of time. The concern the board expressed was for cleanup .to be effectuated rather promptly. What my office indicated to staff was that given that there was a July 23rd compliance date, there is another avenue available to staff to proceed for immediate cleanup, and that is Ordinance 91-47, I believe, which is the public nuisance law for litter and weeds. And that has a summary procedure under which the person can be notified, and after proper notice staff can obtain contractors to go on and clean it up and then bill the person for the cost of cleanup. And I believe that is what staff is now presenting to you today, is an indication that they may be inclined to proceed under the public nuisance approach upon conferring with my office in order to carry out the board's desire to have cleanup effectuated rather promptly. Is that correct, Ms. Cruz? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. We sent Mr. Parks a letter under the 91-47 ordinance on July 3rd, 1995, requesting for compliance for July 23rd. MR. MANALICH: So essentially there's two different procedures going on at one time, if that meets with your approval. Obviously if cleanup is effectuated by whoever that may be, if it's by us through our contractor, then the fines stop. They started accruing July 24. Whoever achieves the cleanup, when that cleanup is achieved, the fines stop. But under the public nuisance procedure, we have the right to bill the cost of cleanup back to the respondent. And whatever fines were accrued between your compliance date and the date the cleanup was effectually will also be added. MS. DEIFIK: These are two separate land procedures then in the end? MR. MANALICH: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: And can you outline for us what the differences are going to be as far as what this board's considerations would be? Page 20 July 27, 1995 MR. MANALICH: Well, essentially, the one procedure has already been put in place, and, that is, the Code Enforcement Board procedure with the fines. That is already in place; however MS. DEIFIK: Let me restate my question. Do you have a recommendation as to whether one is superior to the other or whether we're going to back ourselves into a trap by trying to use both? MR. MANALICH: If the interest of the board is to, and staff, is to achieve cleanup on a quick basis, it appears to me that the Public Nuisance 91-47 approach will best effectuate that. Now, that's something that frankly you don't really have a hand in. That is something that's done by the county manager through this staff in following the procedures in the ordinance. What you've put in place, of course, is the Code Enforcement Board procedure saying that if this person does not clean up, fines begin to go into place. And if they accumulate long enough and you enter an order imposing fine later on, then you have a lien. And if you wait a little longer after that, then you have the right to foreclose on that lien, but we're talking months down the road under that procedure. MS. LOUVIERE: So basically what you're saying we can go ahead and vote on this and get it cleaned fines stop because then the site has been cleaned. looking at it. MR. MANALICH: You won't because, as I explained, it's what you have done already in MS. LOUVIERE: Right. MR. MANALICH: -- staff and the county manager in assistance, you know, with our office intend to attempt to achieve -- MS. LOUVIERE: Compliance or -- MR. MANALICH: compliance or cleanup MS. LOUVIERE: -- the cleanup of the site. MR. MANALICH: -- on a quick basis through the public nuisance provision of that ordinance. MS. LOUVIERE: And then you're going to try to lien the property to collect these funds. MR. MANALICH: And under both procedures, under their procedure we have the right to bill and eventually lien if they don't pay the bill for the cleanup. Under your procedure, for whatever frame of time, fines did accumulate. Obviously, you know, we follow that too. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. time? MR. MANALICH: I don't believe, staff, that it's necessary for them to take any action on this public nuisance approach. You're just simply informing them -- MS. CRUZ: Exactly. MR. MANALICH: -- of what is happening on the case. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Good. MR. MANALICH: Is that correct? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Great. One other question. Okay. You only have two bids here. Can the county move with two bids or do you have to have three? is that up and then the That's one way of even need to vote on it mainly to inform you that in addition to this case What do you want from us at this Page 21 July 27, 1995 MS. CRUZ: I believe we have to have three. MR. HEDRICH: We had three contractors show up at the site. One after briefly looking at the property bowed out, did not wish to continue on. MR. MANALICH: Frankly -- Oh, I'm sorry. MS. LOUVIERE: That's okay. It's been stated that we're going to need three bids. So I guess staff kind of has their work cut out for them. You're going to have to get back on the phone and try to take a -- get another bid in. You could proceed -- MS. CRUZ: What I'm going to do is I'm going to discuss this, further discuss this with my supervisor to see if we can make an exception and go with this lowest bid we have here today. MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. Okay. I think maybe Ramiro needs to get involved in that -- MS. CRUZ: Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: -- because if we're going to lien this property, we have to make sure that we follow the correct procedures so that when we go ahead, we gave -- we got three bids. We got the lowest bid, and we cleaned up your site. Therefore, now we're going to -- you didn't pay us for that, so we can follow the correct procedures. MR. MANALICH: One other note is, and we've discussed this, which is this may necessitate having some type of law enforcement presence when the contractor does this, because if you'll recall, this is the case that there were written threats that were reported in your materials, and that's something we'll take into account also if we actually take this on. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: So we need no further motion for anything? This is basically just -- MR. MANALICH: No, I think is only informative for you. To update you on the case, your procedure, as far as I can see, is in place. This is another procedure that's available. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Fine. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, one more thing. The board also requested if could staff could obtain assistance from DEP. MS. LOUVIERE: I have read the documents. I have read the correspondence that came back to us from DEP saying that it didn't trigger their guidelines. So I understood. I mean, you're welcome to share that, but I did read that. MS. CRUZ: We have a crew member from the DEP department here today. MS. LOUVIERE: Oh, good. MS. CRUZ: And maybe perhaps they could elaborate on their findings and answer any questions you may have. MS. LOUVIERE: Fine, since they made the trip. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Please. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Krumholz, would you like to come up, please? MR. KRUMHOLZ: Sure. MR. MANALICH: While they're on their way up, I would mention that when Mr. Parks called me in the last few days, Larry Parks, that is, he did indicate that his -- His nephew is Ronnie? MR. HEDRICH: Yes. MR. MANALICH: -- his nephew was in the military and out Page 22 July 27, 1995 of the country. He also took some issue with what had occurred here. I indicated to him he had not been present at the hearing which would have been his opportunity to take issue with those things. I also encouraged him to speak to Mr. Bolgar who I know has an open-door policy on these things, to try discussing resolution of this cleanup that needs to be done, and we'll have to see if he follows that suggestion or not. MS. CRUZ: Sir, do you want to state your name for the record? MR. KRUMHOLZ: Sure. My name is Bill Krumholz of the -- MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry, raise your right hand. MR. KRUMHOLZ: Oh, I'm sorry. WHEREUPON, BILL KRUMHOLZ, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. State your name, please. A. My name is Bill Krumholz. I'm the environmental manager of the solid waste section of the Department of Environmental Protection. MS. LOUVIERE: Are you familiar with this site? MR. KRUMHOLZ: I've not been down their personally, no; but from other people in our office, I've looked at their reports and I've looked at the pictures. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. What is your conclusion? I mean, you do know why you're here, right? MR. KRUMHOLZ: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. That we felt this site had been contaminated to such a point that the Department of Environmental Protection perhaps could get involved in helping us obtain cleanup of this site. MR. KRUMHOLZ: Yes. I'm not in the hazardous waste section. As far as solid waste goes, there's a number of items out there that we would consider solid waste. And within our rules we'd write a letter and ask that they be cleaned up, basically the same thing that you're doing now. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. So basically you would not get physically involved. It still would be up to Collier County to go ahead and get bids and obtain cleanup of the site. MR. KRUMHOLZ: Yeah. In cases like this I've mentioned to your people that if you had more trouble or whatever and you wanted us to get involved when you were done or something, we've done that. But in most cases in the past, we don't like to get involved at the same time, but we could do that if you wanted to at a later date. Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Well, I want to thank you for coming down here. MR. KRUMHOLZ: Sure. Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: And it appears that we're going to proceed with cleanup. It seems to be the most simple thing. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you very much, sir. Do we have any other comments, reports or discussions? Page 23 July 27, 1995 Mr. Manalich? MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, the only item I had added to the agenda -- Oh, excuse me. Before we go to that, I did receive an update on the case that we had continued for a few minutes with the interpreter. Apparently they're having difficulty. This person that translates in Haitian, or Creole as it may be, is not on premises and they were trying to contact them by phone, but at this point it appears somewhat doubtful that we'll be able to obtain that person's presence today. MR. ANDREWS: Do you suggest that we continue this? MR. MANALICH: Well, I guess I would like to hear staff's comment as to the nature of the violation, whether it can and if this -- can this matter be continued without any kind of irreparable harm or anything like that. MS. CRUZ: Sure. The violation is that there's five shacks, five structures in the back of the main primary residence. These are being occupied. We have electrical cords laying on the ground. It could be a safety hazard. It's a violation of the housing code also. I believe there's no bathroom facilities; is that correct? MR. HEDRICH: Correct, no waste facilities that the tenants of these buildings were using. It was primarily open ground that was being used at the rear of the residence, and neighboring residents were concerned about this. MR. MANALICH: I mean from your answer, I'm trying to gauge. Are we saying that there is cause for immediate action here? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MS. RAWSON: Are there any other agencies involved with this other than us? MR. HEDRICH: Not at this time. MS. LOUVIERE: Can there be other agencies involved? I mean, we understand what you're coming up to the board with, but are there other housing authorities that could be involved? MS. CRUZ: Probably because that the use, it's illegal -- MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. MS. CRUZ: And it's not authorized to be there. MS. LOUVIERE: We understand. MS. CRUZ: And the only way to resolve this will be to remove these structures from there. No one else will get involved. MS. LOUVIERE: There are people that are living in it, so that's why I was hoping of maybe bringing an interpreter in and talking to these people about the fact that this is a nonconforming use, that they stand the possibility of removing this use completely and that they have to find an alternate form of housing. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. From my latest inspection and understanding, we were down to one tenant left in these structures at this time. MS. LOUVIERE: Do you feel that if you had the right or correct -- you know, someone that spoke her language, that perhaps you could persuade this individual to move? MR. HEDRICH: Yeah, I don't feel there would be any problem in persuading them, you know, to remove this last tenant especially, and that would remove a lot of the hazard involved in this Page 24 July 27, 1995 case, and I've discussed this at length with the property owner here present at this time. We've never had any problem communicating or never needed a translator at any time for any of our conversations. MR. MANALICH: At this point I guess I might ask for the assistance and comments of perhaps Ms. Rawson and Ms. Deifik as far as -- I mean having been in the litigation trenches yourselves, do you have any thoughts on the interpreter situation given what staff has said? MS. DEIFIK: I have an area 'of inquiry. I was involved in a case once where septic tanks were not properly maintained. I believe it was HRS or some similar agency. Perhaps it was someone from the county concerning public health that came out and issued some kind of an order that these pumps couldn't be used anymore, which of course was going to cause serious problems for the condominium that utilized the septic system. I was involved peripherally on behalf of the condominium association that went in to obtain an injunction against the adjoining property owner where the pumps were located. I'm wondering why the public health division of the county or some similar agency is not involved here and if that might give us some additional help. MR. MANALICH: And do you know anything on that? MS. CRUZ: From previous experience, the HRS department, we've asked for their assistance on other similar cases, and their response has been that as long as the -- they only address human waste. And unless it's on the ground and they can see it, they cannot address our situation. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. But I think what I'm saying is that in this situation, that is exactly what the situation was, that the fill was insufficient in the septic system. And so there was a division of the county who was coming out on a regular basis, and perhaps, Ramiro, you can identify that division for me. MR. MANALICH: Pollution control perhaps. MR. HEDRICH: We have had HRS work with us on similar matters like this, but there again, and unless they're able to come out and physically see it on top of the ground or invading someone else's property, they're not really going to take action against it and request we handle it by our means. MS. LOUVIERE: I have a motion. MR. ANDREWS: Well, didn't you -- MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. ANDREWS: Didn't you say that that's exactly what you found out there, that there is refuse on the ground? They're not even using a septic tank. They just use -- on the ground. It's the same thing. MR. HEDRICH: Yes, sir. The times I've been there, that's what I've seen. MR. ANDREWS: Well, then that's the same thing. MS. LOUVIERE: But he's saying that he has gotten them involved in other previous matters, in other previous situations that resembled this one and nothing was done. MR. HEDRICH: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: So if anyone else has any questions or comments? MS. DEIFIK: Jean. Page 25 July 27, 1995 MS. RAWSON: I have a question. You know, assuming this board were to find that this is in violation of the code and that the structures had to be removed within a certain period of time, and the respondent is probably financially unable to do that, is there some other means that we would have of removing the structures? The county. MR. ANDREWS: I was wondering if we could red-tag them, all those buildings, for the time being till this thing gets further along. MS. LOUVIERE: Ramiro, would one solution be to have a hearing with the understanding that only an interim or a temporary order might be entered and that anything we did could be reversed at that subsequent hearing where an interpreter is present, just to abate the public health problem? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think it's an emergency. I mean I believe that the testimony from the staff tells us that it is, and it's not something that we can continue. But I do think that because of the due process problem, that they should have the right to come back. MR. MANALICH: For essentially a rehearing? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: I would like to see something, and this is what I propose; that we give this individual 30 days in which time we can go ahead and try to get an interpreter in place so she understands the due diligence process. In the meantime if staff would please -- I would like to address staff to please work with these individuals, to find them an alternative housing situation. Obviously once we get going on this, we're going to remove these structures and they will have no place to go. Within 30 days, if staff could get a little more diligent in communicating with these individuals in finding them somewhere else to go; and if not, they come back to us with an interpreter so that we can find due diligence. That is my motion. MR. HEDRICH: We're speaking of the last remaining tenant in the shacks? MS. LOUVIERE: Mm-hm. MS. DEIFIK: Is there is a second? MR. ANDREWS: Yeah, I second that motion. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, if I may add to answer Ms. Rawson's question, the only other way that the county would get involved in assisting in the removal of these structures would be under the 76-70 ordinance, but we would have to determine if these structures are unsafe. MS. RAWSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I'm going to ask a question too. In looking at this it seems that we do have -- I know county in times historically the county has had unsafe structures and has taken them down, and we've used a different approach of taking a timetable to take these buildings down. Are these buildings unsafe, Mr. Hedrich, in your estimation? MR. HEDRICH: They are quite makeshift and put together with pieces and scraps. MS. DEIFIK: And someone can be killed. MR. HEDRICH: Ma'am? Page 26 July 27, 1995 MS. DEIFIK: MR. HEDRICH: unsafe. MS. RAWSON: Electrical cords lying on the ground MR. HEDRICH: Yes, ma'am. MS. RAWSON: -- in the rain. MS. DEIFIK: I think that we have to do something today. MR. MANALICH: Well, I think we can attempt to proceed and at least venture -- so like he said, maybe some interim orders with an understanding that these people, prior to any fines being assessed, would have the right to come back in and contest those fines or rehear the case. I mean, the only problem is obviously you're taking orders and corrective action. MS. DEIFIK: Well, we don't have to remove the buildings. We just have to remove any people from that parcel for the interim period so that the public health nuisance and the safety problem abates. MR. MANALICH: will that suffice to deal with the public safety issue? I mean, you're talking about removing the resident, but I don't know how accessible these are to -- MS. DEIFIK: Posting signs in several languages or fencing it in some way. MR. MANALICH: Are these efforts going to be directed at the respondent to do these things, I assume? MR. ANDREWS: I would think so. . MR. LAFORET: What powers do the public health people have that we don't have directly effecting the removal of the building? MR. MANALICH: I don't know. MR. LAFORET: If we can't get it done, how do you expect public health to get it done? MS. DEIFIK: Public health can apply to the circuit court for an injunction. MR. LAFORET: This is costing the county money if you call in other people. The buildings people. MR. MANALICH: We think there is a motion -- MR. LAFORET: We have a violation of the law. Why can we not prosecute directly on the building people's complaints? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: It's a good point. We have a motion and a second on a floor. MR. MANALICH: Now, could you please just -- could you restate what your motion is? MS. LOUVIERE: I think before I go ahead and continue and make this motion again, I think I want to explain myself to see my thinking here. I understand we have a public nuisance out there and that people can get hurt. What I propose to do is because when we move these people, they're going -- or when we demolish these structures, we're going to have to find some place for these people to go. MS. DEIFIK: There's only one person living there. MS. LOUVIERE: There's only one person living in there? MR. HEDRICH: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: These other children do not live there? Basically a safety hazard. Yes, I feel they could be determined I would have to check that out. Offhand, Page 27 July 27, 1995 MS. CRUZ: They live in the primary residence. MS. LOUVIERE: They live in the primary residence? MR. HEDRICH: That's correct. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. And who is the person that lives there? Just the lady? MR. HEDRICH: No, none of these people present are any of the tenants in the structure. MS. LOUVI~RE: Who is the tenant that's in the structure? MR. HEDRICH: Unknown at this time, his name or his origin. MS. LOUVIERE: And why are these people here? MS. CRUZ: Mrs. Polite owns the property MS. LOUVIERE: I see. MS. CRUZ: -- where these structures sit at, and she is collecting rent from these tenants. MR. HEDRICH: And these members are her own family who live in the main house with her. MS. LOUVIERE: And the main house is in compliant use -- MR. HEDRICH: Oh, yes. Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: and everything is functional? MR. HEDRICH: Oh, yes. Yes. It has nothing to do with our MS. LOUVIERE: So we have one person which is sitting out in this supposed shed? MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MR. MANALICH: Is Mr. Filostin here? Was he notified? Is he another owner? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, he is another owner, a co-owner. MR. MANALICH: He was notified of this hearing today? MR. HEDRICH: He was sent all the proper notification, yes. MS. LOUVIERE: MR. HEDRICH: MS. LOUVIERE: me a lot. MR. MANALICH: Well, I guess then what I've heard from our two attorney members on the board is that they think that given the urgency of the situation, it may be worth proceeding. I think, despite my reservations obviously, an ideal world, we would have an interpreter here, but we should probably try -- given the threat to human health and safety and life, we may want to proceed. It looks like a rather simple order can be directed to this respondent. The case is proven. We may want to proceed today and specifically inform the respondent that if fines become applicable, they will have the right of rehearing where an interpreter is present, you know, to at least get this thing on the move. MS. DEIFIK: I so move. MS. RAWSON: There's a motion on the floor. MR. MANALICH: So we need to withdraw that motion. MS. LOUVIERE: I would like to withdraw that motion. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. So now we're back open for discussion. I see. He is unable to be reached at this time. I understand. That clarifies things for Page 28 July 27, 1995 MR. MANALICH: I think we're back in presenting the case. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: So our motion and second have been rescinded. Mr. Laforet, any other questions or discussion? MR. LAFORET: No more. I just had that question as to why do we need some other department and if we have legal backup for this department and we're placing their fence. MS. LOUVIERE: I was under the impression that all these people were living there. He's telling me one person. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Let's proceed with our staff's report which we basically outlined. Would you bring us a little more quick sYnopsis? And we'll do it quickly. MR. MANALICH: Ms. Cruz, had you requested that Staff Exhibit A be moved into evidence? I don't recall. MS. CRUZ: We stopped at the point where I asked the respondent if she had any objection to admitting this composite exhibit into evidence. Mrs. Polite, would you please come up to the stand. WHEREUPON, OCEPHA POLITE a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon her oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. Would you please state your name for the record. A. My name is Ocepha Polite. MR. MANALICH: Mrs. Polite, before staff begins, are you able to understand some of the English language? MRS. POLITE: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Your son is here. He's thirteen. Is he fluent in English? MRS. POLITE: Yes. MR. MANALICH: He speaks English and understands it? MRS. POLITE: He speak good English, my son. MR. MANALICH: Okay. What is his name? MRS. POLITE: Kanson Polite. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Could you, young man, come up here please? Okay. What is your name? MR. POLITE: Kanson Polite. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Do you understand English? MR. POLITE: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: And you also speak it? MR. POLITE: Mm-hm. Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Can you help us today in having -- if your mother does not understand something, can you explain to her in your native language what was just said? MR. POLITE: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you for your help. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. Mrs. Polite, I have a package here, which is copies of all the information, letters we sent you, photos of your property showing the structures in the back of your residence. Do you have any objection? Do you mind if I present this package to this board? MRS. POLITE: (After interpreting) Yes, ma'am. Page 29 July 27, 1995 MS. CRUZ: Do you mind or is it okay with you if I present this package to the board? MRS. POLITE: (After interpreting) Yes, ma'am. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Let the record reflect that her son, and I expect this will be a continuing pattern, did assist her in her native language. MS. RAWSON: Then I move for introduction into evidence Exhibit A. MS. DEIFIK: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: So we have a motion and a second. Acknowledge. It passes unanimously. Let's continue please. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Polite, who is the property owner of the property located at 210 Eighth Street -- MRS. POLITE: 210 North MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry? MRS. POLITE: 210 North Eighth Street. MS. CRUZ: 210 Eighth Street, North, Immokalee, Florida, more particularly described as Joyce Park, Block C, Lots 5 through 6, is before this board. This is for allowing the unauthorized existence of five structures without first obtaining proper permits, which is allegedly violations of the Land Development Code 91-102, Sections 2.1.15 and Section 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5. MR. MANALICH: Ms. Cruz, if you could stop there. Ma'am, were you able to understand that? Did you understand what she said? MS. LOUVIERE: Counsel, may I inquire of Kanson? MRS. POLITE: You want to read that -- MS. LOUVIERE: May I inquire of Kanson? I want to ask him a few questions to determine the level of his fluency and his education. MR. MANALICH: Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: Kanson, how old are you? MR. POLITE: Thirteen. MS. LOUVIERE: And when is your birthday? MR. POLITE: March 27 -- MS. LOUVIERE: March 27th what? MR. POLITE: 1982. I was born 1982. MS. LOUVIERE: And what grade are you in? MR. POLITE: I'm going in the eighth. MS. LOUVIERE: You're entering eighth grade. And what school do you attend? MR. POLITE: Immokalee Middle School. MS. LOUVIERE: Immokalee Middle School. Are you active in any extracurricular activities at Immokalee Middle School? Are you in the band or a chorus? MR. POLITE: Band. MS. LOUVIERE: You're in the band. What instrument do you play? MR. POLITE: Trombone. MS. LOUVIERE: Trombone. How long have you been playing the trombone? MR. POLITE: Since the sixth grade. Page 30 July 27, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. What other courses are you taking at Immokalee Middle School? MR. POLITE: That's all. MS. LOUVIERE: Are you taking English? History? MR. POLITE: Oh, yeah. I have language arts, math, and social studies, and science. MS. LOUVIERE: How are you doing in language arts? MR. POLITE: I got an A. MS. LOUVIERE: You got an A last year? MR. POLITE: Mm-hm. MS. LOUVIERE: Very good. Congratulations. That's basically a conclusion of my inquiry. MR. MANALICH: And what I'd like, ma'am, if there's anything that she has -- anybody is talking, if there's something you do not understand, please ask your son to translate for you or ask us to stop and we'll let him explain to you in your native language. MRS. POLITE: Yes, sir. MR. MANALICH: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Thank you, Mrs. Polite. You requested -- you had asked me to read what I just read before. Basically what I told this board is that you are before this board because you are allowing the existence of five structures behind your primary residence, and that's violation of county code. That would be County Code Land Development Code 91-102, Section 2.1.15 and Section 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5. MRS. POLITE: (After interpreting) Yes, but I know it's illegal. I know. MR. MANALICH: If you want to say something, go ahead. MR. POLITE: Oh, okay. MRS. POLITE: You know, I know it's illegal. When my husband, when I buy this property with my husband, I find one -- I think three Mexicans stay in this house, because the mortgage is too high. But I find three people in the house. You know, the property owner make one small house. Now somebody make food. But, you know, my husband buy something, and prior to go in this house, I tell him, "No, don't do that, because you have to respect the law. It's illegal." He told me he do whatever he want to do. And I tell him, "You're not in Haiti. You in United States, but you have to respect the law. It's illegal. You don't have to build the house behind the house, you know, the house." He told me he do whatever he want to do, but MR. MANALICH: Who is he? MRS. POLITE: My husband. MR. MANALICH: What is his name? MRS. POLITE: Louis Filostin, L-o-u-i-s. All the time I tell him, I tell him, I tell him. I tell him, "Why did the inspector came but, you know, the other building you build is -- Maybe you go to the court or you go to the jail." He tell me, "Oh, listen. You talking, you talking, and you talking. Why I go to the jail? I don't see nothing." But I said, "This building you build, which is illegal, they don't accept you do that. Because when you buy this house, only one small "Ie tiki" (phonetic) MR. POLITE: A small hut. Page 31 July 27, 1995 MRS. POLITE: Yeah, a small hut, like a little -- like somebody made. MR. POLITE: It was already there. MRS. POLITE: Yeah. But I tell him all the time he make one. Other time he makes two. Other time he make -- All the time I tell him -- I tell him all the time he want to make trouble with me. He boss me. All the time I tell him. Remember one day in which a lady come (conferring with Mr. Polite) MS. LOUVIERE: Could I ask you a question? Thank you. MR. POLITE: Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: You have somebody living back there now? MRS. POLITE: One person. MR. POLITE: One person. MS. LOUVIERE: What is the person's name? MRS. POLITE: I don't know the person's name. He's Mexican. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. MRS. POLITE: But, you know, all the time I go to work. I go to work, but I don't know nobody stay down there. My husband know somebody name, but I don't know his MS. LOUVIERE: Do you get rent from him? MRS. POLITE: What you mean? MS. LOUVIERE: The Mexican. MRS. POLITE: (After interpreting) My husband take it, but tell somebody -- don't nobody -- My husband marry with me. He got a girlfriend. He stay with a girlfriend. He spend a lot of money for her, but sometime he don't pay my mortgage. He don't do nothing. MR. POLITE: What she's saying is that she doesn't take the money. My dad takes the money. MR. MANALICH: Ma'am, do you have any control over whether that person will stay there or not? MR. POLITE: Yeah, she does. Yeah, she can tell him to leave. Yeah. MS. LOUVIERE: That's what needs to be done. MR. POLITE: Okay. She'll do it. MS. LOUVIERE: Tell your mother not to cry. Tell her everything in life you survive. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Mr. Hedrich? MR. HEDRICH: I'd like to add a few things here at this point. Ms. Polite has been very cooperative and helpful throughout this thing. My main contact has been with her husband, Mr. Filostin, as far as the violations are concerned. And just until recently these events have taken place where he has almost disappeared literally off the face of the earth and left her behind to deal with this. And the only time he seems to reappear is when rent was due or something like that. It's been very difficult finding him. He just recently left his job of five years where we had hoped to catch him last. We missed him by two days at that point. And he literally hasn't been seen unless he comes around to take money from the family. MR. MANALICH: Is there any kind of written lease for this individual? I assume not. MR. HEDRICH: No, no kind of lease agreement or anything. In previous conversations with Mr. Filostin, he has wholeheartedly admitted he has built these structures just so he could Page 32 July 27, 1995 obtain rent from people, to establish a higher income. And all along his wife has been totally against this thing her husband has been doing. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Hedrich, do you know if there would be any danger to this person if she carries out an order telling these people to leave? Would there be any danger at all from Mr. Filostin if she is the promoter of that action? Can you tell from your investigation? MR. HEDRICH: It's difficult to say. Mr. Filostin is very, as you might have been able to establish, very anti-government, pretty much would do whatever he wishes to do. MR. ANDREWS: Has he been supporting this family? MR. HEDRICH: He had at one time. MR. ANDREWS: But recently? Not recently, did he? MR. HEDRICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question of counsel. Is it not possible that we can find Mr. Filostin to be in violation and order that he remove the structures or that he be fined and simply order Mrs. Polite to ask the tenant to leave? MR. MANALICH: I think so. I think you have the order of -- the power under the ordinance in the statute to issue whatever order is necessary to carry out your mandate. I would sanction that. MR. HEDRICH: The only reason Mrs. Polite was listed on the notices of violation and such, as required by law, that all property owners have to be listed and so forth. MS. RAWSON: And then somebody might want to inform Mrs. Polite how she can go across the street and go to the sixth floor and get an injunction for protection before she does this. MS. DEIFIK: Or perhaps she might want to visit -- legal, to get some assistance also. MR. HEDRICH: I'd be more than willing to continue to help her any way I can. MR. MANALICH: Well, it appears that there's been -- from what I've been told by staff, the certified mail notice has been attempted for Mr. Filostin. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Was that returned at all? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, it was. I believe it was returned unclaimed. MS. CRUZ: No, I'm sorry. The notices have not been returned at all. MR. MANALICH: So, I mean, we're simply waiting for whatever occurred to return. MS. CRUZ: That's true. MR. MANALICH: Have we had any personal service on him at all? We have had contact with him. MR. HEDRICH: Have had contact with him on several occasions. MR. MANALICH: Was any mention made as to personal contact of this hearing date? Do you recall? MR. HEDRICH: As per my last conversation with him, it might have been sometime back in May, maybe even prior to that. And Page 33 July 27, 1995 this date or this hearing was, you know, untalked of at the time. MR. MANALICH: Well, he's been given the minimal notice. At this point I think it's enough to have him -- if you choose to enter an order against him as a respondent, he can always come in and, you know, seek whatever relief later on. If he claims lack of notice, he ought to show that. MR. HEDRICH: We also tried to personally serve him just -- I think it was last month, just prior to this, and it was then I found out that he had been terminated from his last place of employment due to never showing up or never calling in. MS. CRUZ: And if I may add, during the meeting with Mr. Hedrich and Mr. Filostin on January 2nd, Mr. Filostin was aware that these shacks needed to be removed in which he agreed to remove these within 30 days at that time. MS. LOUVIERE: I recommend that -- Jean's idea was an excellent one, and I think we ought to put that in a motion. MS. RAWSON: I'll make that a motion. MR. MANALICH: Before we get to that point, is there anything else? I don't know if there's anything that she would want to say in addition to this. It appears that they're not contesting the violation from the comments made, but I don't believe you're even entering an order against her anyway. MS. LOUVIERE: No. MS. RAWSON: No. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Do you have anything else? MR. POLITE: She said no. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Does she understand that what has been discussed is to enter an order against Mr. Filostin, okay, where he will -- and you'll need to explain it to her -- where he may be subject to fines, she will not. But she will need to maybe do one thing, to tell the people to leave. MS. DEIFIK: Well, I think we're going to have to put some leverage on the order that she -- inform the tenant that he move. As I understand your motion being she does not need to remove the shack but she must go and -- MR. MANALICH: Okay. I got ahead of myself. I apologize. MS. DEIFIK: -- and tell the tenant that he must leave. MR. MANALICH: You can listen now and you'll hear what the board -- how they want to deal with this. MS. DEIFIK: Ms. Polite, what the board wants to do at this point in time is enter an order compelling your husband, Mr. Filostin, to remove the shacks but also enter an order compelling you to advise this tenant that he must leave the property. And, you know, we're not going to dictate how you go about that. You may want to seek counsel. But you will need to deal with the tenant and have him advised that he needs to remove himself from the property. Can you do that? MRS. POLITE: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: And you understand that there may be some fines if you fail to do that? MR. ANDREWS: While we're waiting -- MR. POLITE: Okay. She said that she don't know where my dad is. And he said that he has to, like, destroy the houses in Page 34 July 27, 1995 back, but we don't know where he is. MS. DEIFIK: We understand that. MR. POLITE: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: All we're concerned about immediately is that the tenant leave and there in be no persons living in those houses. MR. POLITE: Okay. She can do that. MS. LOUVIERE: You want to tell her that or did you already tell her that? MR. POLITE: I already did tell her. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Jean, you want to make a motion? MS. RAWSON: Charlie? MR. ANDREWS: No, I just want to ask a question. What happens if she can't get this guy out or whoever it is? He won't go. What happens then? I mean, she should know. Give her some kind of a clue of what she can -- MS. LOUVIERE: She can get him out. MR. POLITE: Yeah. MS. LOUVIERE: She can ask him. MR. ANDREWS: Well, she can ask him, but I mean -- MS. LOUVIERE: Do you think you can get him out? MR. POLITE: Huh? MS. LOUVIERE: Do you think she could get him out? MR. POLITE: Yeah, I would. MR. MANALICH: Will he leave if she asks him to leave? MR. POLITE: Yeah. MR. ANDREWS: You're sure? MR. POLITE: I'm sure of it. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. That is my only concern. MS. LOUVIERE: That's a good concern. MR. HEDRICH: I would be more than happy to assist or be there on the premises when this does take place. MR. ANDREWS: I appreciate that. MS. RAWSON: I'll make a motion. MS. DEIFIK: Kanson, we need your attention. MR. POLITE: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the board. This cause came up for public hearing before the board on June 27th, 1995, and the board having heard testimony under oath received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues it's findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order of the board as follows. Findings of fact. That Louis Filostin and Ocepha Polite are the owners of record of the subject property; Two, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the persons of the respondents, and that Ocepha Polite was present and Louis Filostin was not present at the public hearing; Three, all notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 92-80 have been properly issued; Four, that the real property legally described in the statement of violation introduced in evidence in this cause is in violation of Sections 2.1.15 and 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5, of the Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, in the following particulars: allowing the unauthorized existence of five Page 35 July 27, 1995 structures without first obtaining proper permits. Conclusions of law. That Louis Filostin is in violation of Sections 2.1.15 and 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5, of Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Code. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? MS. DEIFIK: I thought there was to be an additional point in there, that Ms. Polite was in violation for permitting occupancy by these persons. MS. LOUVIERE: I thought we had discussed that she was not going to be found in noncompliance at this time, that we were just going to deal with the husband, and that she has understood that she is to ask the tenant to move. MS. RAWSON: I was going to put that in my order. If you look at the ordinance number that we were referring to MS. DEIFIK: All right. Then I'd like to vote on it. MS. RAWSON: I'm not the sure that that's a violation, just to have a person there. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. So the motion stands and a second. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: The motion stands and a second. We phrased it basically that the motion and the second stand as stated ln the findings of fact. MS. RAWSON: Order of the board. Based upon the report -- CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Excuse me. We need to vote. MS. RAWSON: Oh, didn't we vote? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: No . MS. RAWSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That's why we stopped. Any opposed? We have no opposed now, correct? So we do carry unanimously in our findings of fact. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, I think that was also the conclusions of law, both. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Sorry. MS. RAWSON: Order of the board. Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance 92-80, it is hereby ordered: One, that the respondent, Louis Filostin, correct the violation of Sections 2.1.5.15 and 2.7.6, paragraphs 1 and 5, of Ordinance No. 91-102 in the Collier County Land Development Code in the following manners. That the five structures on said property be demolished within 30 days of today's date; Two, that the respondent, Ocepha Polite, evict the tenant that is located in one of those structures as soon practicable but no longer than 30 days from today's date; Three, that said corrections be completed on or before the 24th day of August, which is our next hearing date, 1995, and at that time, if the respondents do not comply with the order on or before that date, then in that event respondent, Louis Filostin, is Page 36 July 27, 1995 hereby ordered to pay a fine of $250 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past that date; that if Louis Filostin does not destroy those structures within the next 30 days, the county be authorized to take whatever means necessary to have the structures destroyed. Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in a recordation of a lien, pursuant to Chapter 162 Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and respondents' property sold to enforce the lien. MR. ANDREWS: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: A motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? MR. MANALICH: The amount again of the fine would be? MS. RAWSON: $250 a day. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And the reason for that? That is a maximum fine. Is that going to be helpful for safety? MS. RAWSON: Correct, because of the emergency situation that exists. MS. LOUVIERE: Staff, do you think that's excessive? MS. CRUZ: Staff would suggest that the fines be reduced to $150 due to -- the tenants are evicted, the last tenant, and the properties will be vacant. And if I may make a suggestion to include in your motion, to have Mrs. Polite secure these structures to prevent any other people from coming in at any other entry. MS. RAWSON: I will amend my motion and lower the fine to 150 a day and amend my motion to include Mrs. Polite to prevent any other tenants from occupying the premises. MS. DEIFIK: Excuse me. Kanson? MR. POLITE: Uh-huh. MS. DEIFIK: I understand you want to talk to your mom, but if you're going to assist her, it would be very helpful if you would listen to Ms. Rawson because what's she saying is what your mom needs to do, and we need you to be sure to repeat to your mom exactly what Ms. Rawson has said. MR. POLITE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Kanson, I've said in my motion that your mother must ask that tenant that's living there now to leave immediately. And if he doesn't leave, then she can employ whatever legal means necessary to get him out, and that she has to do that immediately but no longer than 30 days from now. Further, that she won't let anybody else live in any of those structures until they get torn down, and that she will do whatever necessary to keep anybody else from living there, including securing those structures. Would you be sure she understands that? MR. POLITE: I'll make sure of it. MR. MANALICH: For clarification -- MR. POLITE: Okay. She understand. MR. MANALICH: Just a clarification on the motion, then as I understand it is for the respondent, Mr. Filostin, to remove the five structures or demolish them within 30 days of today's date. Secondly, that Ms. Polite evict the tenants immediately in no later than 30 days from today's date. Also, that if Mr. Filostin does not do the removal after the 30 days, the county can employ whatever legal means it must use to achieve the removal, that -- and this is the part I was not clear on. As I understand it, is there going to be a fine Page 37 July 27, 1995 of $250 until eviction occurs and then 150 after that for any violation? MS. RAWSON: No. The $150 a day doesn't have to do with the eviction. I don't want to impose a have reduced it to 150 at staff's suggestion. The only be levied against Mr. Filostin if he fails to structures. MR. MANALICH: Ms. Polite? MS. RAWSON: No. Practically speaking, if we destroy those structures, they're going to be evicted. I would also maybe add one more thing in my motion, that Ms. Polite remove the electrical cords and any other thing that would be considered dangerous or hazardous immediately. MS. DEIFIK: Kanson, can you tell your mom? MR. POLITE: Okay. M~. MANALICH: So there's only one fine of $150 a day, and that will be imposed only against Mr. Filostin if he fails to remove the structures. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. MANALICH: If she does not order the people to leave or allows others to come in, is there going to be any fine against her? MS. RAWSON: I think we'll have to bring her back if that happens. What I would like to see happen, because he probably won't tear these structures down, is that the county use whatever means they can to go in and tear them down for him. MR. MANALICH: And perhaps the unsafe structural ordinance. MR. ANDREWS: I accept the amended motion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? None. It carries unanimously. MR. MANALICH: Ms. Polite, do you understand what the board has said that you must do? MR. POLITE: Okay. But she got a question, though, because since my daddy's not here, she asked, like, what if the houses aren't removed? What's going to happen then? MR. MANALICH: Well, what's going to happen under the board's order is that your dad will be subject to fines, and the county staff can come in and through the appropriate method do the removal of the things that the -- the county will do it. MR. POLITE: What does that mean? MR. MANALICH: If your dad does not take down within 30 days those five shacks or structures, then the county will go in and take them out. MR. POLITE: MR. ANDREWS: MR. MANALICH: MR. ANDREWS: tear them down. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. anything fine on her, and I 150 should probably destroy those There is going to be no fine against Oh, okay. At their cost. And it will cost your dad. It will cost you for whatever it costs to Page 38 July 27, 1995 MR. MANALICH: Do you have a question? MR. POLITE: Well, since my dad is not here, then mom is going to have to pay for it, right? MR. MANALICH: No. The board has said your mom will need to pay anything. All she needs to do is to tell the leave immediately and not allow anybody else to come back MR. POLITE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Then the rest of it is up to your dad. And if he doesn't do the other things which is, mainly, remove the buildings, then he can be fined and billed for whatever it costs. MR. POLITE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Do you understand that? MR. POLITE: Yeah, she understands that. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Do you have any other questions about this? MR. POLITE: That's all. No questions. MR. MANALICH: You're sure? MR. POLITE: Yeah, I'm sure. MS. LOUVIERE: It's okay for her ask any questions. This is the time. MR. MANALICH: Okay. not people to in. Okay? If you have a question, ask it now. MR. POLITE: I answered it. MR. MANALICH: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: No problem. MRS. POLITE: You know, but I don't want to (conferring with Mr. Polite) -- MR. POLITE: And I have something else to say. Okay. We have, like, the house that we live, we have three people tnat are -- like they're in sections of the house. You want them removed too? MS. LOUVIERE: No. No, they can stay. MR. ANDREWS: Just the shacks. MS. LOUVIERE: Just the shacks. MR. POLITE: Oh, the shacks only? MR. ANDREWS: Just the five shacks. MS. LOUVIERE: Just the stuff outside. MR. POLITE: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: And they're all empty and closed so that nobody can get in. MR. POLITE: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: That's all she has to do. MR. POLITE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: The reason for that is what we're concerned about is the report is that the shacks are dangerous. MR. POLITE: Oh, okay. MR. MANALICH: Somebody might get hurt. MR. POLITE: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: That's why we don't want people there. MR. POLITE: I understand. Okay. MR. MANALICH: Can you explain that to her? MR. POLITE: Yeah. Okay. She understands. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you Kanson. Page 39 July 27, 1995 Thank you, Ms. Polite. Thank you, Mr. Hedrich. MRS. POLITE: Thank you very much. God bless you. MR. McCORMICK: If I can ask staff. Will this item come back as old business next month for an update report? MS. CRUZ: If the board requests it? Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. McCORMICK: Yes. MS. CRUZ: Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: Do you have a question? MR. POLITE: No. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. They want to know if they're finished or not. MS. CRUZ: Yes, they are. MR. MANALICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you. MRS. POLITE: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Mr. Manalich, in light of -- We changed our agenda a little bit. This discussion that we were going to talk about today, can we continue that next month? MR. MANALICH: The only thing I wanted to bring up on that is did you feel there would be a need or would you want to have a workshop where we discussed quasi-judicial procedures? I know one of the things that brings it to mind is the fact that we recently, the Board of County Commissioners, recently passed a resolution having to do with disclosing certain types of contacts that are made with the board on land use matters and other matters. That was because of a change in state law. There's a lot of other issues that surround, you know, how a quasi-judicial board must operate. I think in the past -- you know, and our membership evolves and changes obviously. In the past we've had those discussions with at least some of these members here. Perhaps some of them heard it. I was just was inquiring: would it be beneficial to you if we had a workshop of that nature and at least laid these things out so that everybody is kind of on the same page when it comes to those procedures? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I think we should do that. Does everybody agree? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. MR. McCORMICK: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: Could we leave it to the discretion of the staff when we have a short agenda, to put it on the agenda? Is there any particular rush on this? MR. MANALICH: We can do it different ways. We could have it on the end of an agenda. We could have it as a special by itself, a date we meet somewhere. It's really however you want to do it and when do you want to do it. MS. DEIFIK: I'd rather do it sooner. I think, for me, personally it would be very beneficial before we have any complex agendas. MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: Are we saying you'd like to have then just a meeting, you know, a workshop just dedicated to that? Page 40 July 27, 1995 MR. ANDREWS: MR. MANALICH: sometime? MR. ANDREWS: MR. MANALICH: hour to two hours. MR. LAFORET: August. I will be MR. MANALICH: also. MS. RAWSON: August 24th. Is that going to be a busy MS. CRUZ: Not at this point. MS. RAWSON: We know we've continued some things. We MR. MANALICH: Well, I do know we -- Well, that first case I mentioned today that I will be acting as staff's counsel on, that will take some time. I know that case well, though. If we hear it, now, there's, you know, an issue of medical excuse. I don't know how it's going to shake out. But if we hear it, it will take some time. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Why don't we do this. If we can wrap it up by eleven o'clock on the 24th of August, it would take them eleven o'clock to twelve o'clock, we just dedicate an hour for that point in time. MR. MANALICH: At the end of that agenda then? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: It'll be done by noon on the 24th. MS. RAWSON: Or, forgive me for saying this, we can start at eight. MR. ANDREWS: That's okay with me. MR. MANALICH: The only question I have, I guess, is will that impose any hardship on the respondents, I mean, getting here at eight? MS. CRUZ: The notices have been sent out. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: No, no. This is just us. Just us. Just the board. MS. RAWSON: MR. ANDREWS: MS. CRUZ: I viewpoint. MR. ANDREWS: If we can't do it an hour, we could finish it after the other part. MR. MANALICH: I'm only thinking out loud here. My only concern with that would be if on that date we are having outside counsel represent you for that whole day because of my involvement on a case with staff, we're kind of in a situation where we're kind of mixing the rules. You know, in the workshop, I'm planning to sit as your advisor, you know, as far as -- MS. DEIFIK: Do you have materials that would help us get a little bit more familiar? MR. MANALICH: I can come up with some. I don't actually have a body of materials. This is more just a very basic discussion of some of the basic areas, but I can come up with that. Is there any inclination to have a one- to two-hour workshop meeting prior to the 24th? MR. ANDREWS: Prior to what? No. Is everyone available here in August Well, how much time are we talking about? I think we could probably do it within an I'll be absent the 13th to the 20th of out of the country. I may have a problem in that time frame Our workshop can start at eight. You can have it before the agenda. see no problem with that from staff's Page 41 July 27, 1995 MR. MANALICH: Prior to the 24th. Just an hour or two, the workshop by itself? MS. DEIFIK: I would be willing to do it, but I would prefer the the board to actually -- MR. MANALICH: And I realize we all have busy schedules. I don't know if you want to add another meeting. If not, it can be added at the end of the agenda for the 24th, although maybe you were thinking you would have the benefit of having the discussion prior to the next set of hearings. Maybe that's what you were thinking. MR. LAFORET: We can have a luncheon meeting if the attorney's office picks up the tab. MS. LOUVIERE: That's a great idea. MR. MANALICH: The only thing is we will -- and this would be one of the subjects of the discussion. But under the sunshine law we have to meet at a place that's accessible to the public, you know, and in a sense -- MR. LAFORET: Accessible to the public. MR. MANALICH: Luncheon meetings under the sunshine law are generally frowned upon. MR. ANDREWS: Well, why not have staff set up a short agenda for that date, and then we'll go from there. We'll have the two on. I mean, you can't tell how long but you can tell whether it's going to be real long or not. MR. MANALICH: Well, the only concern I had on that was I wanted to avoid mixing the roles, because if I'm going to be acting as staff's counsel on the 24th MR. ANDREWS: Okay. MR. MANALICH: -- because of that case we're presenting to you, you know, if we have outside counsel coming in, I wanted to -- MS. LOUVIERE: But couldn't we on August the 24th hear our agenda from, let's say hypothetically it would be nine to eleven, and at that point close the agenda. You know, close public hearing and say, okay, we're done with that, and then we can go ahead and have the public -- have this workshop -- MR. MANALICH: We can. The only thing is -- MS. LOUVIERE: -- since it's closed. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, we certainly can do that. Now, you will not have had the benefit of a discussion before the next set of hearings but, I mean, that's the consequences. MS. LOUVIERE: All right. But I mean this legislation just recently passed regarding disclosure. I was reading about it, and the Board of County Commissioners just accepted it. So I think it's pretty much understood that it's going to take a little bit of time before you have the opportunity to share this information with me. And I'm sure most of us have pretty good common sense and know not to accept gifts. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, I don't think it's urgent or anything. I just, you know, brought it up. Maybe you want to put it at the end of .the 24th's agenda based on those comments. MR. ANDREWS: Well, that's been suggestion from the start, but -- MR. MANALICH: I know when we get to talking about eight o'clock, my only concern with that was simply, you know, I almost Page 42 July 27, 1995 prefer to do it at the end of the agenda so I'm not perceived as being your advisor that day prior to the hearings when actually I'm going to be representing staff. MR. ANDREWS: Well, I think it should be after. Let's try it. Let's try it. Have it after, not set a time, just after the agenda and pick out agendas that are short. MR. MANALICH: If it's not short, I guess we'd have to continue it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That doesn't take a vote, does it? MR. MANALICH: No. No. We'll shoot for the 24th then? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Right. MR. MANALICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: The question concludes. Any other discussion before we close this hearing? We'll adjourn. ***** There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11:18 a.m. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Sharon A. Sullivan Page 43