Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/22/1996 1996 Code Enforcement Board February 22, 1996 February 22, 1996 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, February 22, 1996 Met on this date at 8:45 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: M. Jean Rawson Jim Allen Charles Andrew Mireya Louviere Celia Deifik Louis Laforet Richard McCormick ALSO PRESENT: Michael Pettit, Asst. County Attorney Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Specialist Linda Sullivan, Code Enforcement Director Page 1 February 22, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: will now come to order. my left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Before we get to the approval of the agenda, I would like to make a little presentation to Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen so faithfully and well led us as our chair in '95, and we thank you, James Allen. MR. ALLEN: Thank you very much. Thank you, Board. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: people voted to get him a MR. ALLEN: It would very much. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: approval of the agenda. deletions? MS. LOUVIERE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Motion to approve the agenda. MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the agenda. All in favor. The agenda will be approved. The minutes of January 25, 1996, has everybody had a chance to go over those? MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion we approve the minutes of January 26. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ANDREWS: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Move and seconded that the minutes of January 25th be approved. All in favor. The minutes will be approved. Now we'll go to the public hearings. The first one is the Board of County Commission versus Elizabeth Crews, CEB number 96-004. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record my name is Maria Cruz, code enforcement specialist. BCC versus Elizabeth J. Crews, case number 96-004, staff requests that at this time the case be dismissed due to it is in compliance. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion we dismiss case 96-004 as it is in compliance. MR. McCORMICK: I second that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that we dismiss case 96-004 because it's in compliance. Is there any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes. Then 96-004 is hereby dismissed. Let's move on to Board of County Commissioners versus The Code Enforcement Board of Collier County We will start with the roll call starting on That's a very nice plaque. Some turkey for the county, but be more appropriate. Thank you Thank you. Now we'll have the Are there any additions to the agenda or Page 2 February 22, 1996 Jean Claude Martel, 96-005. Do you want to take these separately or together? MS. CRUZ: That was going to be one of my questions, since it's the same property owner. But due to the -- there's four different legals, different properties, I think that we're better off going separately. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Let's start with 96-005. MS. CRUZ: Mrs. Chairman, I provided the board, the recorder, the respondent with a composite exhibit. I'd like to mark this as a composite exhibit at this time as Composite Exhibit A, CEB 96-005, BCC versus Claude -- Jean Claude Martel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I need a motion to introduce in evidence the composite exhibit for 96-005. MR. PETTIT: Just a moment. The reporter is indicating she doesn't have the exhibit. I think it's located in this notebook. Yes. And prior to the motion could -- is Mr. Martel here? MS. CRUZ: Yes, he is. MR. PETTIT: Mr. Martel, could -- could you come up to the -- Mr. Martel, did you receive the Composite Exhibit A prior to the hearing, which is a package that should include the notice? MR. MARTEL: I got everything in here. MR. PETTIT: Could you please swear Mr. Martel. THEREUPON, JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETTIT: Q. Let me Martel, did you A. I know them. Q. Okay. This first case concerns an allegation that you have storage sheds built without first obtaining a required building permit at 3190 Karen Drive. Did you receive a complaint package concerning that matter? A. A storage shed? Q. Yes. A. I got -- I got three -- I got a permit for that one over there to build it. MS. CRUZ: Counsel, counsel, if I may interrupt. Mr. Martel, we met a couple weeks ago, and I gave you a copy of all the documents that we've collected during the investigation on your property located at 3190. That's what he's asking you, if you received that package. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. BY MR. PETTIT: Q. And do you have any objection to any of those documents being entered into evidence before the board on your hearing today? A. Well, I not got no money to get the permit. I got -- I got robbed two months ago and stabbed on my own bed. Q. Okay. We -- we understand that you are going to put on some evidence of your own, but the question now is do you object to let me just ask you again for the record, Mr. receive from the county the exhibit for case 96-005? one thing; I just got a bunch of papers from Page 3 February 22, 1996 these documents being entered into evidence. A. I don't really object. I've -- I got two permit going. I can't handle all that stuff, you know. MR. PETTIT: You can proceed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. MARTEL: I can't do all that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We're now going to vote on the motion that we introduce as the whole packet as the evidence under this case number, ninety 96-005. All in favor. All opposed? Then this will -- this entire packet under 96-6005 (sic) will be introduced into evidence. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, Jean Claude Martel, who is present, is the property owner of the property located at 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Naples Golf and Truck -- just a second -- Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, number -- Unit 2, Lot 100.13. Mr. Martel was brought before this board for being in violation of Ordinance 91-56, Sections 103.1.1, 103.1.2, 103.6.1, 103.6.1.1, paragraph B, and Ordinance ninety-one 0 two (sic) as amended, Section 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5, for build storage sheds without first obtaining the required building permits. A investigation was done on August 16, 1995, noticing the violation existing as a storage shed without the required permits being obtained. Mr. Martel was given a notice of violation on September 15, '95, and asked to obtain -- was asked to obtain a permit or remove the structure by Aug -- October 15, '95. Several reinspections were conducted. The last one was re -- redone -- done yesterday and resulting in violation still exists. I'd like to call Mr. Dennis Mazzone to the stand, please. THEREUPON, DENNIS MAZZONE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you start with your name and occupation for the record, please. MR. MAZZONE: For the record my name is Dennis Mazzone, M-a-z-z-o-n-e, and I am a code enforcement investigator for Collier County. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Mazzone. Go ahead. EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. Mr. Mazzone, I understand you had a chance to inspect the property at 3190 Karen Drive? A. That's correct. Q. And this property is owned by Jean Claude Martel? A. That's correct. Q. Could you please tell this board what you found during your inspections at this location. A. It was a previous investigation that took me onto the property. And in further investigating the other reports, we had found buildings that were unfinished and would appear to be unsafe, Page 4 February 22, 1996 not having met Collier County building code or fire codes and perhaps some questions concerning setback. So we queried our -- our system looking for permits for -- for these particular structures. In doing so we discovered there were permits issued in nineteen -- let me see, in 1973 there was a original permit issued for the large carport-type structure which we're referring to as a storage structure, which is just on the east side of 3190 Karen Drive. That permit had never received final C.O. or inspections. And, therefore, it was canceled out several years ago and never renewed. We discovered another structure, a concrete block structure referred to as a storage or a workshop-type structure to the rear east of -- rear west side of this very same residence at 3190 Karen Drive. This same structure had no proof of permit in our -- ln our records. Q. Did you notify Mr. Martel of these violations? A. Yes, I did. Q. And how did you notify Mr. Martel? A. I notified Mr. Martel in person. First of all, doing the -- the initial invest -- investigation, I had let him know that we would be looking into all the permit records and into the property appraiser's cards to see just what has been picked up as having been permitted. There was quite a bit of confusion over the fact that Mr. Martel was believing that the initial permits that were issued back in '73 and another permit issued in 1980 for -- there was a permit issued in 1980 for this west con -- west rear concrete block addition, that he thought these permits were still valid and -- and still able to be addressed as being active permits. I had informed him that they would not be so in that he would have to obtain current permits so that we could do a final inspection and see all these additions to make them legal and to make sure that they were up to county code. We had called Mr. Martel into the office. We discussed in detail these pending violations on all these properties with Mr. Ed Perico who is now the -- he is now the director of our -- our building department. He -- he was not then the director, but he was still, I think, acting director. Mr. -- let's see, Mr. perico, there was myself, and there was my then acting supervisor. There's so many of those. I'm trying to think. Who was that? MS. SULLIVAN: Mike Kirby? A. Mike Kirby, Mr. Mike Kirby, and there might have been some other people at that meeting. But we discussed in detail what would be required of Mr. Martel. Oh, Mr. Bolgar was also at that meeting. He was then the acting supervisor or acting director perhaps. Q. zoned A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. obtain a Dennis, as? It's zoned residential RMF-6. And -- No. I'm sorry, VR, village residential. Village residential? Yes. If Mr. permit excuse me, do you know what this property is Martel would try to obtain a permit, could he for these structures? Page 5 February 22, 1996 A. If they were to meet setback requirements in -- and -- and code, yes, on this particular location. On the other locations that are -- will be coming up, he would require to have a licensed contractor obtain his permit for him. Q. My question is for this particular location. A. He -- yes, he -- Q. Could he obtain a permit if he would try to? A. Yes, he can. MS. CRUZ: I have no further questions for Mr. Mazzone. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, do you have any questions for Mr. Mazzone, anything you want to ask him? MR. MARTEL: Not really. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any member of the board have any questions of Mr. Mazzone? MR. ANDREWS: You know, Mr. Mazzone, what was or not Mr. Mazzone, Mr. Martel. What was your actual use of this property? What was -- MR. MARTEL: Well, I live there, and I got my hobby shop back there, you know. MR. ANDREWS: You had a -- what kind of a shop? MR. MARTEL: A hobby shop. MR. ANDREWS: Hobby. Consists of what? What kind of equipment and stuff do you have? MR. MARTEL: Well, I got -- I mess -- I'm messing with TVs and electronic and electric solar panel and that stuff. MS. LOUVIERE: When you first stepped up there to the podium, you said that you were in the process of obtaining permits. Have you tried? MR. MARTEL: Yeah, I already got the plan did and everything on the 3176 and 3190, but they won't let me have the permit at 3176 because -- on the rental property, but they let me build a garage over there. They'll give me the permit to build a garage. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Okay, let's try to talk about them one at a time because I can't talk about the other stuff. Let's talk about 3190. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's do this; if nobody has any questions of Mr. Mazzone -- MS. LOUVIERE: Sorry. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- you can, I guess, have a seat. Do you have any other evidence you want to present before I have Mr. Martel give his statement? MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am, not at this time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Mr. Martel, why don't you just tell us about 3190 Karen Drive. We're just talking about the storage sheds now. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And the board's just going to be asking you questions about that one property, 3190 Karen, about those storage sheds. And it's been alleged that you don't have permits for those. Why don't you tell us about that property, and we'll ask you questions. MR. MARTEL: 12-by-18 shed CHAIRPERSON That first one I built is at -- is a 12 by over there when I first moved over there in 1970. RAWSON: Do you have permits for 3190 Karen Page 6 February 22, 1996 Drive for those storage sheds? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. I got -- I got a permit to redo the garage over there, too. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: When did you get permits for the storage sheds? MR. MARTEL: About four months ago. MS. CRUZ: Chairman, permit number 95-10505, it was it was given for the condition of repair garage, install door, extend roof. Till today no inspections have been passed. This was only to repair garage, not for the storage shed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does the county have any permits for those storage sheds? MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any questions of Mr. Martel from the board? MR. MARTEL: I think they got the -- they got the permit. I make the plan and everything. They got the permit, but I got -- I already got the elevation over there, and I need -- I need -- I need to -- I need a survey over there. I've been living over there for about 26 years over -- 26 years over there, and this had to have a survey to measure the setback over there. That little shed is seven and a half feet, that little shed. I got a permit 25 years ago. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So you were told that you need to get a survey so you can be sure -- MR. MARTEL: Yeah, they want $500. I don't have that money, that's why. That's all the money -- I got stabbed over there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So you needed a survey, and you didn't have the money for the survey. Is that what you're saying? MR. MARTEL: No, no. MS. CRUZ: If I may add, there was a permit pulled in '91, number 91-1335, for attached shed, slash, garage, existing electrical. This permit was expired due to no per -- no C.O. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Martel about the sheds? Mr. Martel, do you have anything else you want to tell this board? MR. MARTEL: Well, as soon as I get the money, I'll get it surveyed, get the permit pulled for that, you know. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have any idea -- MR. MARTEL: Right now I got -- I got -- I got two permit right now, and I can't -- I can't handle all this permit, you know, by myself. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, do you -- do you have any idea how much time it would take you to get the survey and, therefore, get the permits for the shed? MR. MARTEL: Well, I got to pay my property tax, first. That's -- I sold my swamp buggy to pay some of it and my Mustang because they cleaned me out. I got -- I got no license now, and my green card is gone. I had three grand in my wallet when they stole it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have a time limit that you want to suggest to this board that you could have the permits pulled by? MR. MARTEL: Right now if I don't get going on those two building, they're going to expire on there, too. You know, I've got a Page 7 February 22, 1996 lot of -- I'm working by myself. I got nobody to -- to help me. And I can't afford to hire no contractor, that's for sure. MS. DEIFIK: Can I ask a question of -- for Mr. Mazzone? I note, you know, these are four completely different violations. Do the storage sheds present a public safety issue? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, ma'am, in this case. This is beyond -- if you'll look at the photographs, this is really what we call something beyond a storage shed. It was originally constructed as being a wood frame carport which abuts a metal-framed structure, a typical mobile home structure. This carport exceeds the height of the -- the height and the width of -- and the length of the metal framed mobile home structure. It's never been finished. There -- the wood has been left uncovered and unprotected from the -- from the weather making it very, very dry. And there's storage of oil derivatives and gasoline or whatever and equipment within -- within this structure. We would MS. DEIFIK: If those -- if those materials were removed, would the shed itself present a public safety issue? MR. MAZZONE: Without being sarcastic, I believe the shed would probably collapse if they removed the materials. It's just cram packed with items that appear to be holding up the shed. It is in such a condition of disrepair, that it would certainly -- it could be a potential fire hazard to neighboring properties, which are very close by, if not for the -- the property that it's -- that it's attached to. MS. DEIFIK: Thank you. MR. MAZZONE: You're welcome. MR. MARTEL: That -- that wall is just wood. Everything is steel. That ain't going to fall, ain't no way. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Mazzone, you said a week or so ago you talked to Mr. Martel about what he needed to do in order to get the permits and to come into compliance. Can you then expand on what you just told us which was wrong? What could -- what can he do to bring this into compliance? MR. MAZZONE: We had suggested to Mr. Martel that he try to -- first of all, he obtain a survey to make sure that everything would meet setback requirements and that he try to find local engineers or contractors that could assist him in -- in obtaining these permits to determine whether or not it's really worth getting the permit for. The structures are in such disrepair that we don't want to stir -- steer Mr. Martel in the wrong direction by suggesting that he does get the permit that if, indeed, a permit would not be obtainable. We want to make sure that the setback requirements are met, number one, and that the -- the fire and electrical and other codes are met that would be required by Collier County before he even attempts to get the permit. So, therefore, that would necess -- necessitate hiring somebody who could tell Mr. Martel that information with some -- with some professional -- MR. McCORMICK: His other alternative would be to remove the structure? MR. MAZZONE: Tear down and remove the structure. Pardon me. MR. McCORMICK: To remove the structure. Page 8 February 22, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: either -- MR. LAFORET: Yes. Mr. Martel, do you now -- are you now aware of the number of different kinds and types of inspections required to build a building here in ColI -- Collier County? MR. MARTEL: Oh, yeah. MR. LAFORET: You're aware of the number of different types? MR. MARTEL: I built -- built by the code when the inspector told me. MR. LAFORET: You realize inspections, fire inspections, required to have an electrical contingencies? MR. MARTEL: I know that. MR. LAFORET: You're not aware of those contingencies? MR. MARTEL: Every time you change your front door, you have to have a permit for that now. MR. LAFORET: All right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions either of Mr. Martel or Mr. Mazzone? MR. ANDREWS: Was there a -- how'd it come about on the investigate -- on the investigation? Was it a complaint? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. There were -- there were several complaints on all of the properties, all anonymous phone calls to our office that were registered on the cases. We had prior to those complaints an investigation that was ongoing by another investigator who had been transferred to another location. I was picking up on a recheck of his complaint when I saw even a larger infraction of our code. MR. ANDREWS: But was the last year that you had MR. MAZZONE: Oh, I'd weeks, every time I -- MR. ANDREWS: You had no complaints before -- before that? MR. MAZZONE: We've had complaints on this property throughout the years. MR. ANDREWS: Ever since the '70s? MR. MAZZONE: I would say through 1980 through current we've had -- and we can prove that we've gotten complaints on these particular properties. MR. ANDREWS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions by the board? Does staff have a recommendation? MS. CRUZ: Yes, Miss Chairman. Staff recommends that Mr. Martel be found in violation of said ordinance and sections, that this board orders Mr. Martel to obtain a -- apply and obtain a permit within 15 days. If this permit by any chance is denied, further orders Mr. Martel to remove said structures within 15 more days. And if this -- if he fails to com -- to do so, a $50 fine be imposed for every day this violation exists. MR. ANDREWS: Does he have to have a survey before he can get these permits? Anybody have any other questions that you've got floor electrical inspections. You're contractor. Are you aware of these it just recently, you know, within these complaints? say within the last couple of Page 9 February 22, 1996 MR. MARTEL: I can pick up the permit. I don't need a survey right -- I don't need a survey. My setback is okay over there. I can pick up the permit and -- MR. ANDREWS: I thought you had mentioned that was the thing that was holding you back because it would cost you 500 bucks for the survey and that you couldn't afford it. MR. MARTEL: Right. Get away with the survey; I can pick up the permit. They all -- they all got it ready over there for me, got all the plans and everything. I got everything ready over there. MS. CRUZ: Miss Chairman, could I call Bob Salvaggio to the stand? Perhaps he could answer that question for us. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sure. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. THEREUPON, ROBERT SALVAGGIO, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. SALVAGGIO: S-a-I-v-a-g-g-i-o. EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. Mr. Salvaggio, the question was does Mr. Martel need a survey to obtain the subject permit. A. He would need a survey to obtain the permit and then a ten-day spot survey after that. MS. DEIFIK: Is it likely that he would obtain such a permit for the sheds as they stand? MR. SALVAGGIO: I'm not -- I just got word about this case late last night. See, I'm not sure about which structure we're talking about since we do have many structures. We did send one of our building inspectors out there. And they did mention many of the buildings were in such a bad shape that we would not issue a permit unless we had an engineer that would certify the building, that it would be sound, due to the fact that these buildings are already up. MS. DEIFIK: Do you have any idea how much money it would cost Mr. Martel to bring them into compliance so that a permit could be issued? MR. SALVAGGIO: I have no idea, ma'am. MR. ANDREWS: See, this is what concerns me. The man is in really dire straits right -- right now, and your recommendation of 15 days don't seem fair to me. That's why I'd like to get a little more information on this thing, how much it's going to cost so we can get a commitment when he can handle the -- these things because, gees, I hate to just go in there and tear everything down and not give him a chance. MS. LOUVIERE: I really don't think it's a matter of time because Mr. Martel has other issues. These buildings do not even meet setback requirements. So even if he attempted to go through the process of obtaining a permit, what I'm hearing from staff is that these structures are unsafe and that they do not even meet setback requirements per our Land Development Code at this time. So even if he went through the motions, it doesn't seem likely that a building permit would be granted. My name is Robert Salvaggio, I'm the customer service agent supervisor. Page 10 February 22, 1996 MS. DEIFIK: Exactly. MS. LOUVIERE: So I -- I stand -- I like what staff's recommended, the 15 days, or even if we extended it to 30 days and if he doesn't obtain his building permit, then he has to remove his structures. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Salvaggio, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. Is there anything else you can contribute on this issue? MR. SALVAGGIO: If he -- if we did come over and we were able to issue a building permit and it did not -- also this is something else Mr. Martel has to understand. If he was not able to meet the setbacks, there would also be a variance that would have to be granted for that which is -- I'm not mistaken, it's like $800 in 30 days or something like that to be able to be granted. MS. LOUVIERE: Actually a variance of this nature would take about three months. Yeah, it takes a while. MR. LAFORET: Sir. MR. SALVAGGIO: Yes. MR. LAFORET: You're speaking that you made or you're going to make an inspection for the septic system. MR. SALVAGGIO: No, sir. We sent the building inspector out there to look at the structure at -- at all the locations. When Mr. Martel came into our office to discuss it, we informed him he could build an owner-builder permit on the one structure that he was -- primary residence, but everything else he had to have the general contractor for. But we just took an overlook at -- over all the buildings, and our building inspectors -- no building inspector would sign off on it due to the fact that the buildings were already there. Since we never saw them go up, they don't feel they would -- they would withstand very much of anything. So we would have at that time kind of told him that we would require some type of an engineer, architectural-type seal to say that the buildings were sound. MR. LAFORET: But your building inspection, would that include a -- a plumbing inspection? MR. SALVAGGIO: Yes, sir, plumbing, electrical. MR. LAFORET: All right. That's -- that's what I was after. MR. SALVAGGIO: Yes. MR. LAFORET: All right. Thank you. Does he have a plumbing system there now? MR. SALVAGGIO: Sir, I don't -- I do not know which building we're really discussing now. MR. MARTEL: Ain't no plumbing on that building over there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any further questions? MR. ALLEN: I just have one comment for Mr. Salvaggio. Basically what Mr. Mazzone and what you've said, Mr. Salvaggio, is that irregardless of obtaining a permit, if you had had an architect or engineer certify these structures, that's not going to happen in reality of the world since no one seen them go up. So the reality of this project is actually it's going to have to come down before it can go back up. So these -- these structures even to comply to a permit are going to have to be removed. Is that your -- I mean from these Page 11 February 22, 1996 photographs -- MR. SALVAGGIO: From what -- from what our inspector said, I would have to concur. I did not go out and physically see. I just sent one of our structural inspectors out there, and that's basically what he was saying. MR. ALLEN: Well, if that's what the -- if the county is saying if they're going to want an architect or engineer to certify this, that ain't going to happen. MR. SALVAGGIO: That's what we are going to require. MR. ALLEN: So if an architect or an engineer won't certify it, that means it has to come down to go back up. MR. MARTEL: It ain't coming down, though. I'm going to fight for -- before it comes down, guarantee. You hear me? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any further questions from Mr. Salvaggio? MR. PETTIT: Mr. Salvaggio, did I understand -- this is Mike Pettit, county attorney's office. Did I understand you to say that he would not need an architect or engineer or general contractor to assist with respect to the structure at 3190 Karen, which is, I believe, the residence? MR. SALVAGGIO: He would not need a general contractor if that was his primary residence. He could do it as an owner-builder but, yes, he would need some type of an engineer-architectural-type design to make sure that the building was sound. MR. ANDREWS: When did you build -- when did you build this particular building? MR. MARTEL: It's about 15 years ago. It's got -- it's got a tie beam. It's got a column every 10 foot on it. It's built to all MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. that the MR. MARTEL: No, it's concrete. It don't deteriorate. MR. ANDREWS: Well, I mean, the plumbing and elec -- MR. MARTEL: No plumbing in there. There's electric, an extension cord over there. MR. ANDREWS: Whew, boy. MR. MARTEL: I got 12-inch rafter with a steel beam in the center, three-quarter plywood for the roof. MR. ANDREWS: I'll ask the attorney. In 15 years isn't there some grandfather deal on the -- on this -- on this particular situation on -- on a residence? MR. ALLEN: I don't think we're talking about the residence. I thought we were talking about the sheds. We're not talking about the residence. We're not talking about your residence, Mr. Martel. MR. MARTEL: MR. ALLEN: block residence. MR. MARTEL: Well, that's what you got -- what you got. That's what you're talking about. ANDREWS: MARTEL: ANDREWS: MARTEL: ANDREWS: And you did get a I got a permit -- Permit. -- that's And have -- you did get a -- got expired. you let anything deteriorate so Which one? We're not talking about your concrete and Page 12 February 22, 1996 MR. ALLEN: No, we're talking about your shed. MR. MARTEL: Well, that shed ain't nothing more -- well, there's just that wall. It's got a wood wall, and it's rot. MR. ALLEN: That's all we're talking about right now is your shed. MR. MARTEL: MS. DEIFIK: CHAIRPERSON MS. DEIFIK: of the hazardous renovated. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any further questions for Mr. Martel, Mr. Salvaggio? Mr. Salvaggio, I guess you can be seated. Thank you very much. Any further discussion, or do I have a motion? MR. PETTIT: Would you want to close the hearing to then deliberate on this particular item? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If we -- any further questions for Mr. Martel? Then we'll close the public hearing. MS. CRUZ: Miss Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. CRUZ: -- could I interrupt for a second? I'd like to amend our recommendation that instead of 30 days be -- the deadline be for our next board meeting, which is March 28th. MR. McCORMICK: Can I hear your -- your recommendation over, complete? MS. CRUZ: Our recommendation was allow him 15 days to apply for permit. If the permit is denied, remove the structure by March 28, '96, or a $50 fine for every day violation continues to exist. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We'll close the public portion of the hearing. Any discussion from the board? MS. DEIFIK: I wonder if applying for a permit is not an exercise in futility. I understand what Charlie is saying about not putting undue burdens on Mr. Martel, and I certainly sympathize with Mr. Martel's financial situation. But what we're hearing is that this structure and the material inside it is a danger to life and limb. And if that's the case, then all we're doing is prolonging the situation and increasing the danger that someone might get hurt. MR. MARTEL: Ain't nobody is going to get hurt over there. That building is safe. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other discussion? MR. LAFORET: I would support the position of my associate here. I think it just ought to be torn down. It's just -- the whole thing is not safe. MR. McCORMICK: I acknowledge that the building might not be permitable, but I think Mr. Martel has to be given the opportunity to apply. It's the building department's decision and not ours on that -- on that part. The staff recommendation of applying in 15 days, I think, is agreeable to apply for the permit. The only thing about your recommendation was it has to be torn down by the next -- MS. CRUZ: If the permit is denied. MR. McCORMICK: If it is denied. Well, I got the permit for that. Mr. Chairman, I -- Miss Chairman RAWSON: Yes. -- I also have a concern about the disposal waste in that shed if the shed were to be removed or Page 13 February 22, 1996 MS. CRUZ: He's got until March 28th to remove the structure. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: Is that doable? MR. McCORMICK: If it's not denied until March the 20th, then maybe that's not doable. So there has -- MS. CRUZ: If it's not denied, then we would like to see him obtain the permit, pay for the permit, and begin work before March 28th. We don't want him to get a permit and then let it expire. MR. McCORMICK: If the permit is approved, then what's the time frame recommended? MS. CRUZ: I believe the permit life is six months. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. And if it's denied, it should be torn down March 28th. MS. CRUZ: Uh-huh, by March 28th, or the fines will start accruing. MR. McCORMICK: I think it needs to -- to be amended so that it's by March 28th with a minimum of 15 days. In other words, the permit needs to be denied by March the 13th in order for that to to really work. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion? MS. CRUZ: I want to add something else for the record. Mr. Martel, do you pay mortgage on this residence? MR. MARTEL: What's that? MS. CRUZ: Do you owe a mortgage? MR. MARTEL: Not on this one. MS. CRUZ: Do you have someone else living with you? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MS. CRUZ: Is he your roommate? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MS. CRUZ: Does he pay any rent? MR. MARTEL: No -- a little bit once in awhile. MS. CRUZ: How much is a little bit? MR. MARTEL: Most -- most of my tenant on my street does not pay the rent on that. It's too much trouble get evicted today. I got me -- I got one who owe me four grand. MS. CRUZ: Excuse me, Mr. Martel. I'm talking about the one that's living at this residence, 3190. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MS. CRUZ: Do you allow this person to live there for free? MR. MARTEL: No. MS. CRUZ: Does he pay you anything? MR. MARTEL: Once in awhile. MS. CRUZ: How much does he pay you once in awhile? MR. MARTEL: Sometimes he gives me 50 bucks, in there. MS. CRUZ: Is that every week? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MS. CRUZ: Fifty dollars every week? MR. MARTEL: Yeah, because I -- they didn't pay me. He got no work. He goes to labor pool. MS. CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Martel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do have we have a motion? MS. LOUVIERE: I'll make a motion if that's okay. I Page 14 February 22, 1996 make a motion that we find Mr. Martel in violation because the storage shed has been -- does not meet our current land development codes as to setback requirements and -- and the sections quoted here. I make a motion that we find Mr. Martel in violation and that he does -- if he does not obtain the necessary permits within -- by March 28th, 1996, that we start to fine him $50 a day; correct? Is that what you wanted the motion to say? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Actually I'd like for you to make a motion. MS. LOUVIERE: Like this (indicated)? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Like this (indicated). MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Is that staff -- is that okay with staff, or you guys are thinking about it? Okay. MS. SULLIVAN: The -- the only problem we have with the order is we're not sure whether it meets the setback lines or not. It's real close. MR. PETTIT: I -- I was going to -- MS. LOUVIERE: So we'd like to leave that out and just go by the sections that's quoted in our agenda package as to violations. MR. PETTIT: Yeah. I was going to point out I don't think he is charged with having a structure that doesn't meet setback. MS. LOUVIERE: All right. Thank you. Okay. So you want me to just go to finding of facts, or do you want me to make the motion again? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go to the findings of fact. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay, the board of -- the code compliance board finds that Mr. Jean Claude Martel is the owner of record of the subject property, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction over the person of the respondent in that, one, that Mr. Martel was present at the public hearing. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance ninety-two eight -- 92.80 have been properly issued, that the real property legally described in our -- can I just reference our agenda package here? MR. PETTIT: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: in our agenda package is in violation violation of the sections quoted in our agenda package. It is our conclusion of law that Mr. Martel, Mr. Jean Claude Martel, is in violation of the sections quoted in our agenda package of the Collier County ordinance number which is also referenced in our package. It is all right here, so I can just reference that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. That's good. MR. PETTIT: I would -- I would like it if you would state the specifics of the violation, the factual specifics. MS. LOUVIERE: The description of the violation, he is in violation of Sections 103.1.1, 103.1.2, 103.6.1, 103.6.1.1 (b) of Ordinance Number 91-56, the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code, and Section 2.7.6, par 1 and 5 of Ordinance Number 91-102 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violations are also as follows; storage sheds built without first obtaining the required building permits. And the location and address of the violation which are currently in existence is 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, more Page 15 February 22, 1996 particularly described as N G and CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: There's findings of facts and conclusions MR. McCORMICK: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. Miss Louviere, if you would go on to the order. MS. LOUVIERE: It is the order of the board that 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 that the respondent correct the violation in the above-referenced sections in the following manner; that, A, Mr. Martel obtains a building permit for this structure prior to March 28th, 1996, as outlined in paragraph 4(A) of the above findings of facts. The said corrections need to be completed -- I already said that -- before the 28th of March of 1996. And if the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, then and in that event respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $50 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past that dead -- date. Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. I think in addition, too, that the corrections be completed and that if he does not obtain a permit prior to March the 28th, I think we want the board -- the board's ordering you to take these structures down if you cannot obtain a permit prior to March the 28th. MR. MARTEL: comes down. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay, thank you, sir. MR. MARTEL: You got that? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, sir, I heard that. Thank you for sharing that with me. Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. Done and ordered this -- what's today's date? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 22nd. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. -- 22nd of February 1996, at Collier County, Florida. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Just so I understand the motion, he's got to obtain a permit by the 28th. Was that your motion? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, ma'am. And if that permit is denied, does he have to tear it down by the 28th? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, ma'am. MR. McCORMICK: We can -- can we say that he has 15 days to tear the building down after the permit is denied? MS. DEIFIK: Can we amend the motion to -- MS. LOUVIERE: I don't see a problem with that. I'll T C L F, Unit 2, Lot 100.13. a motion which includes the of law. Do I have a second? You'll have to kill me first before that Page 16 February 22, 1996 amend my motion to grant him 15 days after -- after the permit is denied. If within 15 days after the permit is denied he does -- he needs to take the structures down within that time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. McCORMICK: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? It passes unanimously. Now, Mr. Martel, do you understand the order of the board? MR. MARTEL: But I'm going -- I get the permit of it. If they don't want to give it to me, that's -- I can't do nothing about it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, you need to get a permit by March the 28th. If the permit is denied, then you have 15 days from the time it's denied to tear those structures down. Okay? Do you understand? MR. MARTEL: Down. Okay. Going to be a war, me and the county. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's move on to the next order the next case before this board, which is 96-006, Board of County Commission versus Claude Martel. MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: We want to make -- we want to make sure that we're clear on the order, if you don't mind. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, go ahead. MS. SULLIVAN: We had -- I think what we envisioned was having him either repair with the permit or come back before or have the fines imposed at the next board. If the order reads that he has until the 28th to obtain a permit and 15 days after that, then that's going to put us past the next board meeting. I think that's why we recommended 15 days to obtain a permit, and then that gives him 15, 17, 18 days to remove it if he can't. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think the way the order reads, as I understand it, is that he's got to obtain a permit. Then from the time it's denied he has 15 days to tear it down. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. MS. DEIFIK: What we need to do, say that he has to promptly and in good faith move to get that permit right away. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I -- MS. SULLIVAN: If it reads that he's not -- that he has to obtain a permit by the 28th, then that would give him 15 days after the 28th -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. MS. SULLIVAN: -- to tear it down so, you know, whatever. I just to want make sure we're clear. MS. LOUVIERE: I think the way that the or -- that it currently reads, and then it was amended, is that he must obtain a permit prior to the March the 28th meeting. If he does not obtain a permit, we start fining him $50 per day. And he has from March the 28th; he has 15 days in which he has to remove the structure. MS. SULLIVAN: That will work. MS. LOUVIERE: That will work. Page 17 February 22, 1996 MS. SULLIVAN: That will work. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And you might our docket for next month so we can get Next case, 69-006, Board of County Claude Martel. MS. CRUZ: Again, I've provided the board, the recorder, the respondent, Mr. Martel a copy of a composite exhibit marked Composite Exhibit A, CEB 96-006, Jean Claude Martel. Mr. Martel, again, I gave you a copy of all of the evidence package for the property located on 3155 Karen Drive. MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. MS. CRUZ: Do you have any objections in admitting this package into evidence? MR. MARTEL: What's -- what's the problem over there? MS. CRUZ: Mr. Martel-- MR. MARTEL: I bought -- I bought the place. Somebody had -- had extend the bedroom on the back side of the property MS. CRUZ: Okay MR. MARTEL: -- and abut you know. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Martel, I'm talking about the copies I gave you. Do you mind if that package is introduced into evidence at this time? MR. MARTEL: I don't know. I didn't -- I didn't go through this over here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: a packet of paper -- MR. MARTEL: Yeah, right here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: which is about 3155. MR. MARTEL: It's going to take me 20 years to take care of that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The question is, do you have an objection if the board looks at this packet in case there's a motion to introduce this into evidence. MR. MARTEL: What are you trying to do, just take all my property away from me? That ain't -- I ain't going to go for that shit. CHAIRPERSON before you is do evidence so that MR. MARTEL: I'm pissed off. MS. DEIFIK: Have you looked through the paperwork? Is there anything in there that's wrong? Are these not pictures of your property? MR. MARTEL: I know it's wrong, but I -- you got to give me time to fix them up, you know. I only got -- I only got two hands. MS. DEIFIK: We're not -- we're not talking about the issue. We're just talking about the papers that Miss Cruz gave you. Are those papers -- have you looked at those papers? Is there anything in there that -- MR. MARTEL: I never got time to look. I just looked real quick; that's it. MR. PETTIT: Mr. Martel, did you receive these papers want to put this on a status. Commissioners versus the property was like that, Mr. Martel, Miss Cruz has given you RAWSON: Mr. Martel, the only question you have an objection if this is introduced the board can look at the packet. I don't know what you're talking about. into Page 18 February 22, 1996 before the hearing today? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: How long ago did you receive them? MR. MARTEL: A week ago. MR. PETTIT: Do you have -- the question before you is do you object to the board considering these as evidence on your case relating to 3155 Karen Drive. MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. MR. PETTIT: You object to the board reviewing these papers and considering them as evidence? MR. MARTEL: Well, what I supposed to do? I know what you guys want to do. You want to clean up the whole street over there, get a bulldozer and clean everything out. That's what you guys are trying to do like you do -- you're trying to do on Holly Avenue and everything else. You just -- you guys just sit at the desk out there and bullshit and everything else. I'm -- I pay my taxes, and now what -- you got to leave me alone. MS. DEIFIK: Is there any -- MR. PETTIT: Madam Chairman, you may want to look at the ordinance for Code Enforcement Board proceedings which provides that the formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. It further states that irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded, but all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the courts of the state. I believe it would be fair to assume that Mr. Martel is objecting to the Composite Exhibit A that's been offered into evidence by staff, and you can be guided by those provisions in your rules to determine whether you want to admit that evidence or not. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Pettit. Do I have a motion? MS. DEIFIK: I move that we admit the package into evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any discussion? Hearing no discussion, we'll vote on the motion to admit the packet into evidence. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? It passes unanimously. The packet will be introduced into evidence. Miss Cruz. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Jean Claude Martel is the property owner for the property located at 3155 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, Number 2, Lot 100.41. Mr. Martel was brought before this board in regard to this property for allegedly being in violation of unlawfully accumulation of rusted major and minor vehicle parts, tires, and one unlicensed vehicle, which I may add at this time that violation was removed yesterday, the unlicensed vehicle. Also he's also in Page 19 February 22, 1996 violation of a wood-frame shed built without first obtaining the required building permit. Mr. Martel was -- MR. MARTEL: It's not a shed. It's not a shed out there. MS. CRUZ: Excuse me, Mr. Martel. notice of violation on December 8th to December 28th. Final reinspection was noncompliance. I would like to call Mr. Mazzone to the stand at this time again. MR. MAZZONE: For the record I'm Dennis Mazzone, code compliance investigator. MR. PETTIT: Excuse me. It probably would be best or maybe a little bit for -- formality, but to swear Mr. Mazzone and Mr. Martel and other witnesses for each particular case, so if the court reporter could swear Mr. Mazzone. THEREUPON, DENNIS MAZZONE and CLAUDE MARTEL, witnesses, having been first duly sworn, upon their oath, testified as follows: Mr. Martel was given rectify the violation by done yesterday resulting in BY MS. Q. Drive. A. Q. A. Q. found A. Yes. Q. during your inspections? A. We had found a wood-frame structure that was a shed-type structure. It resembled a shed, but it was attached to the existing mobile home structure that was on the same property appearing to be possibly used for living quarters. No siding on the same structure. It appeared to be unfinished and separate and something added to the main structure. We found a metal framed shed-type structure in the rear yard which was falling down. It had no rear walls to it. The side walls were listing and falling. This same incomplete structure was full of major and minor vehicle parts which were there for a considerable time. They were rusted and appearing to have little salvage value. We found a Ford Thunderbird stored to the rear of another storage structure which has since been removed. Q. You have communicated with Mr. Martel regarding these violations? A. Yes, I have. Q. Has Mr. Martel's contentions -- has he tried to comply? A. We've had no signs of -- signs of compliance. Q. Have you researched the county records for any permits for these structures? A. Yes, I have. Q. Have you found -- did you find any? EXAMINATION OF DENNIS MAZZONE CRUZ: Mr. Mazzone, the location in question is 3155 Karen Are you familiar with that property? Yes, I am. And I believe Yes, I have. Violations you have inspected this property? could you please state the violations you Page 20 February 22, 1996 A. There were no permits found. Q. You're saying -- you stated that the structure is being used as a living quarters? A. They appear to be living quarters. And when I asked the occupant of the mobile home structure, she confirmed that they were used for living quarters. MS. CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Mazzone. A. That -- I'm sorry. Let me clarify that. That is only the wood frame attached structure that's used for living quarters. The other metal shed to the rear of the property is not used for living quarters. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Mazzone? MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Mazzone, on page 4 of the composite exhibit on the facts and circumstances of the violation, it only refers to the vehicle parts and tires, and the second part is the wood-frame shed. That's the one that you've described attached to the mobile home; right? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. I refer to it as a wood-frame-type structure. MR. McCORMICK: The other two sheds you also mentioned on the property are not -- are not a part of this violation? MR. MAZZONE: There is one metal shed that is a part of this violation that appears to have been constructed or placed without a permit. When we queried the system, we found no such -- no permits for this structure, and that is dilapidated and falling down. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: Why is it not listed on the violation or statement of violation? It's not in the affidavit or statement unless I'm missing it. Looking at pages 2 through 4 -- MR. McCORMICK: Is it somewhere else? MR. MAZZONE: Let me take a look here. Unsecured accessory structure in rear yard of -- of this location, 3155, that would be how it's referenced. MS. DEIFIK: What page are you reading from? MR. MAZZONE: I'm reading right from the notice of violation. MS. CRUZ: Page 7. MR. MAZZONE: On page 7. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Mr. Pettit, do we have a problem in addressing the metal shed now since it's not listed in pages 2 through 4 in the affidavit and in the statement of violation request for hearing? Do we have a due process issue? MR. PETTIT: I believe we do. It may be more in the nat -- nature of an ordinance issue. Let me look at the ordinance on the affidavit of violation because there's some specific provisions on that. MS. CRUZ: Madam Chairman, that violation is contained in the ordinance in the section cited, which is Ordinance 95-16, Section 103.1.1. MS. DEIFIK: Pettit. If it's violation, do we Yeah, but I -- I repeat my query to Mr. not laid out in paragraph 2 of the statement of have a due process issue? Page 21 February 22, 1996 MR. PETTIT: Section 2-1012 of the Collier County Code, which is also your Ordinance Number 92-80, Section 7, states that the code enforcement official shall execute a written affidavit of violation which shall include a statement of facts and circumstances of the alleged violation and shall identify the code or ordinance which has been violated. The -- this further requires a written notice of a hearing containing the date, time, and place of the hearing, and a copy of the affidavit shall be provided to the violator. The affidavit of violation does not reference that -- that structure. In an abundance of caution, I would recommend that the charge be limited to the wood frame. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Staff could address that as another issue before another board meeting? MR. PETTIT: If it remains a violation uncorrected, yes. MS. CRUZ: Madam Chairman, perhaps it could be a typo where -- under page 4, item 3, which says the second violation. It should be wood-frame shed. MS. DEIFIK: Well, isn't the other one metal? MR. MAZZONE: The -- the wood frame is a wood-frame-type shed-type structure which is attached to the original residence. The separate -- there is a separate metal framed shed which is not specifically mentioned on page 4 but is specifically mentioned in the -- in the notice of violation stipulation which was mailed to Mr. Martel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there more than one wood-frame shed? MR. MAZZONE: No, ma'am, there is not. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: There's only one wood-frame shed, and the other is metal? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. MARTEL: It is not a shed. It's -- it's the bedroom, the back -- he's extend the bedroom, the guy who owned it before. MR. MAZZONE: We called it a shed-type structure. It was hard to identify from the exterior. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, in the description of violation, unlawfully accumulation of rusted major and minor vehicle parts, tires -- he's already taken care of the unlicensed vehicle, so we can eliminate that. But the other one says wood-framed shed built without first obtaining the required building permit. I believe what Mr. Pettit is telling us is that that is the only thing that we probably have jurisdiction to discuss here today. MS. DEIFIK: Today. MR. MAZZONE: And the rusted major vehicle parts? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The rusted major and minor vehicle parts and tires. MS. DEIFIK: Anything that's listed we can proceed on today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any further questions for Mr. Mazzone? MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Mazzone, in your opinion, the wood-frame-shed-type structure, did Mr. Martel receive a permit for Page 22 February 22, 1996 that? Is there any considerations for the last case? MR. MAZZONE: I think that question would be more appropriately asked of our building officials. MR. McCORMICK: Do we have anybody here that might address that? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, we do. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Mazzone, the -- and -- and I want to follow up on Mr. McCormick's question, but I just want to ask in this violation that's before us now is this an anesthetic problem, or lS there a safety problem? MR. MAZZONE: No, it goes far beyond aesthetics. It is a safety problem as this complaint was registered by the occupant of this dwelling. MS. DEIFIK: Really. What are the safety issues? MR. MAZZONE: There were questions as to fire, rodents, or snakes in particular coming into the -- into the dwelling, electrical. We've never entered into the wood-frame-type structure, only took exterior photographs. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. McCormick. MR. McCORMICK: Miss Sullivan, can we have somebody comment on this structure and whether or not as it is it would be permitable, or would there need to be contractors, engineers, architects involved? MS. SULLIVAN: I believe Mr. Salvaggio could do that since he -- his department sent someone out to inspect these CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Mazzone. Mr. Salvaggio, if you would come back. MS. DEIFIK: We need him sworn? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I believe we need to have him sworn in again. THEREUPON, ROBERT SALVAGGIO, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. SALVAGGIO: For the record my name is Robert Salvaggio. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Salvaggio, the question that I asked was on this particular shed-type structure is it permitable as it's been constructed, in your opinion? Would there be a need for an engineer, architect involved in this also? MR. SALVAGGIO: There would be a need for some type of a certification this building was a sound building. I have not visited this structure. But if there was no legal permit pulled at any given time on this structure and we are now issuing a 1996 building permit for it, it would have to meet the 1996 code. Just off the top of my head I can see that the U.S. window would not meet it. MR. McCORMICK: And now I see in Mr. Mazzone's original notice of violation that he notes a licensed contractor must be used. MR. SALVAGGIO: Yes. We did state that since this was not the primary residence for Mr. Martel, that he would have to have a general contractor do this permit. MR. McCORMICK: Okay, thank you. MR. PETTIT: Mr. Salvaggio, when you said -- you say that you haven't visited this structure, but you referenced looking at Page 23 February 22, 1996 the structure. Are you looking at page 12 of Composite Exhibit A? MR. SALVAGGIO: No, I was looking at page 13. MR. PETTIT: That's also a part of Composite Exhibit A showing the shed? MR. SALVAGGIO: Is this the shed or the wood structure that is attached to the mobile home as living -- used for living? MR. PETTIT: That's the wood structure. I just wanted to clarify what you were looking at when you gave that opinion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions for Mr. Salvaggio? Any further evidence from the Board of County Commissioners? Do you have anything further? MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, you understand what the violations alleged are? MR. MARTEL: Ain't no violation there. All they -- they killed (sic) the car over there, the car and the tires. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr.-- MR. MARTEL: That metal -- that metal shed, they all came tore up -- Andrew tore it up. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, the violations alleged are that you've accumulated rusted major and minor vehicle parts and tires and that you have a wood-frame shed built without getting a required building permit. MR. MARTEL: I didn't do that. Somebody else did that before I owned the property. I bought the property, that shed was -- that bedroom was built like that when I bought the place. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You are the owner of the property now? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Since you've been the owner of the property, have you applied for a permit for the shed? MR. MARTEL: No. I didn't do nothing over there. What I need a permit for? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there anything you want to say about the rusted major and minor vehicle parts and tires? MR. MARTEL: I've got it -- it's all moved. It's all gone out of there. MS. CRUZ: If I may add, I did an inspection myself yesterday at the subject location, and the only thing I noticed was gone is the vehicle and the motor, an old motor that he had sitting by the right-of-way. Everything else is still there. MR. ALLEN: I have a question for staff. Do we do we have any record whatsoever showing when the shed was it added to the trailer? Do you have a time frame of that? Do we know when it occurred? MS. CRUZ: According to the evidence I've prepared, on December 7th, '95, that's when the initial investigation was conducted, and that's when it was noticed that the shed was there without permits. MR. ALLEN: I'm saying do we know when the shed was added to the trailer. MS. CRUZ: No, sir. MR. ALLEN: Okay. Do you know, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: What's that? Page 24 February 22, 1996 MR. ALLEN: When the shed was added to the trailer. MR. MARTEL: Oh, that's about 15 years ago. And I owned the property like five -- it was about six years now I owned that property. Six or seven years is when I bought it. The shed was always there. It's a bedroom. It's not a shed. It's a bedroom, extended bedroom back there. It just needs to be stuccoed. The wires' all there -- on there and everything, just needs to be stuccoed to be finished. MR. ANDREWS: You're saying that that shed was there when you bought the property? MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. MR. ANDREWS: And it was permitted? MR. MARTEL: It's not a shed. MR. ANDREWS: Well, I mean -- I'm sorry, an addition, an addition. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. We're talking about -- it's like that, yeah. It's all drywall and -- MR. ANDREWS: And that -- and that was there when you bought the property? MR. MARTEL: Right. MR. ANDREWS: And is there a record showing that he had a permit originally from the previous owner? MS. CRUZ: Staff researched record -- of the county records and found no permits for this shed. If I may add -- and counsel perhaps can help me here -- I believe it's Section one nine 1.95 from the Land Development Code, 91-102, that states the owner, once he buys the property, he is liable for any violation existing on that property. MS. SULLIVAN: So any any grandfathering provision would -- would be void at the time of the transfer of the property. Any nonconforming use would end at that time. MR. ANDREWS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any further questions for Mr. Martel? MS. CRUZ: I have a question for Mr. Martel. Is this property rented, being rented at this time? MR. MARTEL: (Nodded head.) MS. CRUZ: Do you owe anything for this property? MR. MARTEL: No. MS. CRUZ: May I ask how much rent you collect from this property? MR. MARTEL: Four hundred, a hundred dollars a week so far. MS. CRUZ: A hundred dollars a week? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MS. CRUZ: So there's -- some months have five weeks, so you collect about five hundred dollars a month? MR. MARTEL: About four hundred a month. MS. CRUZ: No further questions. MR. PETTIT: Mr. Martel, you have an opportunity to cross-examine either Mr. Mazzone or Mr. Salvaggio. Would you like to do that, ask them any questions? MR. MARTEL: That guy back there? MR. PETTIT: There were two witnesses called, Mr. Page 25 February 22, 1996 Mazzone and Mr. Salvaggio. You can -- you can examine either of those witnesses or ask questions. I don't think you have -- were specifically given that opportunity before. MR. MARTEL: I don't know. I don't know exactly what you mean. MR. PETTIT: You can ask -- if you believe that they said things that you disagree with or think were incorrect, you have an opportunity to ask them questions. MR. MARTEL: I don't know. I suppose they want me to tear that down, too. Is that what you're trying to tell me? MR. PETTIT: No, I'm -- I'm telling you that you have a right, because this is a hearing -- MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: -- as -- to ask questions or cross-examine witnesses whose -- who have come in and offered testimony about this matter. MR. MARTEL: I don't know. Only thing I can do out there is -- I know I can't pull a permit my -- I can't permit my -- my I can't even work on my rental property no more. That's a bunch of bullshit right there. You guys got so many -- MR. PETTIT: You aren't interested -- you are -- are waiving your right to cross-examine the witnesses then? MR. MARTEL: What do you mean? MR. PETTIT: Well, you are -- you are not -- you have no questions to ask Mr. Salvaggio or Mr. Mazzone at this time? MR. MARTEL: Well, I want -- I want to get that done, get it stuccoed. That's all it needs. MR. ANDREWS: I think -- I think what he's trying to -- trying to ask you, those two gentlemen that were at the podium that -- that told -- told what the violations were, if you disagree with anything they said, you can ask them to come up, and you can question them. If -- if -- if you don't, then we have to assume that you agree with it, so on. So this is your chance to tell your side of it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have any questions for either one of those gentlemen, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: Those two right there? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. MARTEL: What do you want me to do? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. I'm asking do you want to ask them any questions. MS. DEIFIK: Maybe if we had Mr. Salvaggio and Mr. Mazzone come up so Mr. Martel can see them and identify who we're talking about. Is there anything else about your property that -- that you want to ask these gentlemen about or anything you want -- any questions that you want to ask them that you think would be helpful for us to know? MR. MARTEL: I don't know. What do you want me to do? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you want to ask them any questions, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: Yeah, ask me some question; I answer. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, do you want to ask these gentlemen any questions? MR. MARTEL: Well, I just ask him, and he don't say nothing. But what do you want me to do? Page 26 February 22, 1996 MR. ANDREWS: Well, they explained all that before. MS. DEIFIK: Well, but he has a right to ask a question. I'm not sure he understands who will make a decision. Mr. Martel, who specifically are you asking that question of? Mr. Mazzone? MR. MARTEL: I don't know. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Pettit, just just to protect the record maybe we could have each of them answer that question to the extent that they can. MR. PETTIT: That's fine. MR. MAZZONE: Would Mr. Martel please repeat that question? MS. DEIFIK: I think the question is what -- what would you recommend that he do, or what are you saying that he should do? I know you've told us, but let's have you tell him again. MR. MAZZONE: I would recommend that Mr. Martel, again, get the advice of a qualified engineer, a licensed engineer, and see if, indeed, the wood-frame addition to the mobile home would be something that that would be allowed, if it would meet Collier County fire code and building code before even attempting to apply for a permit for that structure. And then, of course, if that's an affirmative answer and he says, yes, it is something that would be allowed, then you would have to hire a licensed contractor, somebody that you could -- those would be my recommendations. MR. MARTEL: Not me. What you think? I'm a millionaire? MS. DEIFIK: Did you want to ask Mr. Salvaggio the same question or any other question? MR. MARTEL: I can't get no contractor to -- to want to do the work, and I can't afford it. MS. DEIFIK: Did you want to ask Mr. Salvaggio a question? MR. MARTEL: If you give me the permit, okay, I'll do it. Give me the permit. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Pettit. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have any questions you want to ask either one of these gentlemen, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: I don't want nothing to do with those guys. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And so you're saying for the record that you don't have any further questions of these gentlemen? MR. MARTEL: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have anything that you would like to say to this board? Now we're talking about 3155 Karen Drive. MR. MARTEL: Well, the place is -- is rent right now. It's safe and everything. What's -- what's -- what's the problem? You just want to add that -- I pay enough tax over there, you know. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, the problem is the alleged violation that there is an accumulation of vehicle parts and tires -- MR. MARTEL: Ain't -- ain't no because they're gone. I told you that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- and that the shed was -- MR. MARTEL: That what -- that shed, I can take care of that later on. But it's closed now. Nobody can get to it. The Page 27 February 22, 1996 door is shut, and later on -- I got -- I got too much right -- to do right now. I can do so much, you know. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there anything else you'd like to tell this board, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: You got to give me time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: How much time? MR. MARTEL: Well, I got -- I got enough to do right now as it is. I can't afford to hire nobody. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you want to give this board an estimate of how much time you need? MR. MARTEL: I don't know. Next couple of months. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there anything else you want to tell this board, Mr. Martel, just about 3155 Karen? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. A couple of months I should have that shed out of there with all the junk in there, get rid of all that stuff. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything else? MR. MARTEL: I don't know about the building. I can stucco it. It just needs stucco. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any questions you want to ask Mr. Martel related to this property? MR. LAFORET: I have a question. I didn't understand his last answer of -- first he said he would have the building out in a couple of months, gone, and now he's mentioned stuccoing. MR. MARTEL: Just that alum -- just aluminum shed, make out a carport. It won't take no MS. DEIFIK: Metal shed and a wooden bedroom building. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further? MR. ALLEN: Mr. Martel, I'd like to say something to you. See, the Land Development Code of Collier County MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MR. ALLEN: -- okay, there's no gray area. Okay, you either have to get a building permit, okay, or you got to remove it. See, we don't -- we don't have that flexibility to try to help you do your own work. That's just not an option that anybody has. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MR. ALLEN: So that's -- that's where you're -- and, you know, I think where we're getting confused in this issue is that nobody is trying to tell you to tear something done, okay. That's not -- that's not the case. We're saying clean up the garbage, get the junk gone, which you're agreeing to. But on the addition to the trailer, you got to pull a building permit, okay? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MR. ALLEN: And bring it up to code, okay? MR. MARTEL: Well, I -- I didn't do that. That's what I'm trying to tell you. MR. ALLEN: We understand that. Okay. And I -- I sympathize with you, okay. But as per the Collier County ordinances that staff has quoted, because you bought it and it was in violation when you bought it, it still remains in violation. And since you're the property owner, it's up to you to bring it into compliance. So the easiest thing to do -- I mean, you definitely don't want to take it down. We understand that. But you're going to have to find a way Page 28 February 22, 1996 to mortgage it or whatever you -- means you've got to do so you can employ yourself a contractor, and the contractor can bring it into compliance. Okay? MR. MARTEL: I can check on that. MR. ALLEN: I mean that's basically where we're gOlng to have to go with it. MR. MARTEL: Okay. MR. PETTIT: I'd like to ask staff, could you give me the citation that you rely on that when he purchased it if there was no permit, he had to obtain one again? MS. CRUZ: I believe it's Section 1.9.5 from the 91-102. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Pettit, would you be so kind as to read that to the board when you find it? MR. PETTIT: What was -- the ordinance cited again was 91 what? MS. CRUZ: The ordinance cited was in respect to the existing violations. It's a different ordinance than the ordinance that I'm quoting where he states that he's liable for the violation existing at that location, which is Ordinance 91-102, Section 1.9.5. I may be incorrect with that section. I don't have the book in front of me. MR. PETTIT: The -- the Land Development Code of one point nine point -- 1.9.5 does not deal with this lssue. MS. CRUZ: Does it deal with liability? MR. PETTIT: It does deals with perceived -- it deals with liability. Let me see here. I think -- just a minute. There's one above it. 1.9.4 states; any owner, tenant, or occupant of any land or structure or part thereof and any architect, engineer, builder, or contractor or any other agent or other person, firm, or corporation, either individually or through its agents, employees, or independent contractor who violates the provisions of this code or who participates in, assists, directs, creates, or maintains any situation that is contrary to the requirements of this code shall be held responsible for the violation and be subject to the penalties and remedies provided herein or as otherwise provided by statute or ordinance. And that's Section 1.9.4 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance 92-73, Section 2, 93-89, Section 3. It looks to me like the operative word is "maintains any situation that is contrary to the requirements of the code. II MS. DEIFIK: I think he would be responsible under common-law anyway for anything on his property. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, do you understand what the attorney just read to us? Basically the law says that you're maintaining a structure without a permit even though you're not the one that put it up, even though you're not the one that originally was the owner of that structure. Now you are the owner of that property, and because it was never permitted in the first place, it's your obligation to permit it. That's basically what the attorney was telling us. You understand that? MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The court reporter would probably like it if you would answer out loud. Was that a yes? MR. MARTEL: (No response) Page 29 February 22, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you understand what the attorney is saying, that it's your obligation to get that permit? MR. MARTEL: Yeah, I know. I'm going to try. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: What length of time would it take you to to pay for that permit? MR. MARTEL: Well, I got two -- I got quite a few coming in right now. This is a new one now. You got me now. MR. ANDREWS: We haven't -- we haven't got you. MR. MARTEL: It has to go -- go up to the county over there; that's where I get my permit. MR. ANDREWS: We're trying to help you. We're trying to help you and hope you understand what we're trying to do. In other words, we've got -- we've got to give you a time limit. MR. MARTEL: I wonder if the contractor's going to pick up my permit. I'm going to see if I can get a contractor to pick it up. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: How long do you think it would take you to get a contractor? MR. MARTEL: I don't know. I'm going to hit the phone book. I got a telephone at home. MR. ANDREWS: You mean they haven't cut that off yet, huh? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Earlier you told us a couple of months. MR. MARTEL: Well, that -- that shed back -- that metal shed, you know, with all the junk in there -- right now I'm cleaning up around my house over there. And I sold -- I sold my Mustang and my swamp buggy so I got enough money to pay my taxes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there anything else that you'd like to tell this board, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: I know we can work together, I guess, because I don't want no trouble. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: Can you handle you think you can handle both of these in two months' time? MR. MARTEL: The permit, I sure hope so. MR. ANDREWS: You hope so? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MR. ANDREWS: The other one you -- the other one you committed. You said you could do it in two months, the cleanup. MR. MARTEL: I've got to get -- there was two buildings to do because the permit's going to be expire. I got about a month and a half to -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything further? We'll close the public portion of the meeting then. Any discussion by the board? MR. ALLEN: What does staff recommend? MS. SULLIVAN: Staff would make the same recommendation it did on the previous property. The only reason that we would be opposed to giving him more time on this one is the complaint originated from the tenant and, you know, there's, we believe, a fire hazard, and we don't think that we should mess around with this one for too much time. MS. LOUVIERE: I agree with staff. I think this is Page 30 February 22, 1996 ongoing for a long time, and I -- I think it needs to be handled. How much -- what -- how -- do you want to address it in the same fashion as you did before, that he has to clean it up, otherwise we start fining him? MS. SULLIVAN: That he has to clean it up or we -- the cleanup -- I think the cleanup has to be separate from the permit, don't you? MS. CRUZ: Uh-huh. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. There's two issues on this one. MS. DEIFIK: Can we give him more time on the cleanup of the auto parts and -- MS. SULLIVAN: I wouldn't have any problem with that. MS. DEIFIK: Fifteen days to get a permit on the bedroom wooden structure? MS. LOUVIERE: Fifteen days. After that if he doesn't get the permit, he has to remove it, otherwise we start fining him $50 per day. Okay, and how much time do you want to give him to go ahead and clean up the vehicle parts? Thirty days? MS. SULLIVAN: Thirty days would be, you know, the next board meeting. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: March 28th. MS. SULLIVAN: We've got him on the agenda to come back for a status report on that. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay, great. MS. SULLIVAN: Then we'll renotice on the metal structure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do I have a motion? MS. LOUVIERE: Celia, do you want to handle this motion so I can take a break, and I'll take the next one? MS. DEIFIK: Okay. I make a motion that we make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order as follows: That this cause came on for public hearing before the board on this date, February 22nd. The violation charged is -- make sure I have the right thing -- violation of County Ordinance Number 92-80 of -- and Ordinance 95-16 as more fully set out in the statement of violation and request for hearing, page 2 and 3 of the exhibit that was introduced dated February 12, 1996, and which I incorporate herein. The board finds that Claude Martel, John Claude Martel, is the owner of record of the subject property, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent and that John Claude Martel was, indeed, present at the public hearing and was given every opportunity to present a case, cross-examine witnesses against him. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance Number 92-80 have been properly issued, that the real property legally described in the deed, which is attached in the package we were rec -- that was introduced, the street address of which is 3155 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida; legal description more particularly described as Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, Number 2, Lot 100.41, is in violation of the sections above cited of the ordinance set out in the statement of violation following particulars: Number one, unlawful accumulation of rusted major and minor vehicle parts and tires. The unlicensed vehicle was, indeed, removed. Number two, wood-frame shed built without first obtaining the required building Page 31 February 22, 1996 permit. To make it clear for the record, the wood frame shed is the same structure that Mr. Martel describes as a bedroom structure attached to the mobile home. The board finds that all of this property is in violation of Section 95-16 and the other section stated in the statement of violation of the Collier County ordinances. I further move that the order of the board be that based upon the foregoing find -- does anyone have an objection to the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated so far? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's do this. Let's vote on the motion that includes the findings of fact and conclusions of law first. Any -- I need a second. MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? MR. PETTIT: The -- I just want to clarify. It would be my understanding that the accumulation of the major and minor vehicle parts, tires, and debris would be the violation of Section 5, Subsection 16(a) and (b) and of Ordinance ninety -- Number 89-06, and the failure to obtain the permit for the wood-frame shed would be the violation of the Ordinance Number 95-16, the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code. MS. DEIFIK: That's correct, and I would amend my -- my statement to include that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We have an amended second? MR. ALLEN: Amended second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. Go ahead. MS. DEIFIK: All right. The order of the board based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance Number 92-80, it is hereby ordered, number one, that the respondent, John Claude Martel, correct the violation of Section 89-06 of the Collier County ordinances in the following manner. 89-06 concerns the vehicle parts and debris, and it is ordered that he remove those -- that debris and parts within 30 days. If he fails -- excuse me, by March 28th, 1996. If he fails to do so -- MS. CRUZ: Excuse me. I need to add that Ordinance is not 89-06. It's 91-56 as amended by 95-16 as the Collier County Building Administrative Code. MS. DEIFIK: I'm sorry. It's 91 what? MS. CRUZ: Fifty-six. MS. DEIFIK: Ninety-one, dash, fifty-six? MS. CRUZ: As amended by 95-16. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Pettit; is that correct? MR. PETTIT: I think -- I think Miss Deifik was dealing with simply the cumulation of debris which is 89-06. MS. DEIFIK: I'm trying to separate them out. MS. CRUZ: Eighty-nine, dash, 0 six is the housing code ordinance. MR. PETTIT: And -- and the violation -- I thought we clarified the violation of that ordinance was the accumulation of the rusted major and minor vehicle parts. Page 32 February 22, 1996 MS. CRUZ: That's a violation of 91-102, 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5. MR. PETTIT: Okay. We need to back up because that's not consistent with the affidavit of violation. All right. I -- I'm looking at the description of violation at page 5 in Composite Exhibit A. Let's see if we can clarify this. How long -- MS. DEIFIK: Yeah, it says 95-006. It's not consistent with the statement of violation. MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry. I apologize. I was looking at the next case. MR. PETTIT: Okay. So we're right? MS. CRUZ: You're right; I'm wrong. MR. PETTIT: And you're wrong, okay. MS. CRUZ: I feel like crying. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. That the respondent correct the violation of Section 89-06 of the Collier County housing code in the following manner: Remove all of the described debris and material on or before March 28, 1996. If he should fail to do so, a fine of $50 a day will start immediately. Secondly, that the wood frame bedroom structure, which is referred to in statement of violation as a shed, be -- have a permit obtained and be brought up to code -- excuse me -- that John Claude Martel obtain a permit for the wood frame bedroom structure within 15 days; if a permit is denied, that he remove that structure on or before March 28, 1996; further, that if a permit is obtained, that he act diligently in good faith to complete the structure and satisfy the requirements of the permit as outlined by the county. If respondent does not comply with this order on or before March 28th with regard to the wood frame bedroom structure, alternately referred to as a shed in the statement of violation, then in -- and in that event, the respondent, John Claude Martel, is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $50 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and the respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. MR. PETTIT: Let me interject here before you move forward. And I did not read this to you last time. I know you're all familiar with it, but -- and this will serve as the only reading for today, but if it becomes necessary later -- when imposing a fine, I just wanted to remind you the factors involved: The gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and any previous violations committed by the violator. All those factors need to be considered. MS. DEIFIK: Then -- then I would say further that the board is -- has determined to take this action because of the number of years this violation has been continuing, the number of visits by code compliance officers to the Martel property, the aggressive and hostile manner with which Mr. Martel has reacted to all suggestions with which staff has attempted and the code enforcement personnel have attempted to assist him, and the fact that despite repeated warnings and reinspections, Mr. Martel has failed to -- to take any action. The board is cognizant of Mr. Martel's financial problems, as he has Page 33 February 22, 1996 described. However, the board is also cognizant of the public safety issues involved in this matter. Does anyone have any additions? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The proposed order has been given by motion. Is there a second? MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? MR. ANDREWS: No. The reason I vote no, I don't -- I don't think that the permit on the frame building is -- the length of time is -- is enough. MS. DEIFIK: To get the permit or to tear the structure down? MR. ANDREWS: To get the permit. MS. DEIFIK: Do you have a suggested amendment? Do you have a suggested amendment, Charlie? MR. ANDREWS: No. I just think 15 days is an awful short time under his financial circumstances, so I can't set a time which we all agree on. MS. DEIFIK: Well, I think the issue is, and I think we need to be clear about this -- MR. ANDREWS: I know -- MS. DEIFIK: -- are we -- are we attempting to accommodate Mr. Martel's financial situation at the cost of public safety, and where is -- where do we draw the line? What what's the balancing test here? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, the Code Enforcement Board just passed that motion by a vote of six to one. MR. ANDREWS: It passed, so it doesn't make any difference. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. It passes. The vote is six to one. Mr. Martel, do you understand that you must remove the vehicle parts and the tires and that you need to apply immediately for a permit for that bedroom shed? MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You understand what the board just did? MR. MARTEL: Well, I'll get a contractor first. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay, fine. MR. ANDREWS: Mr. Chairman -- Miss Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take about a five-minute break, a five-minute break. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Andrews wants to take a five-minute break. Does anyone have any -- MR. LAFORET: I would prefer we have the vote first. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we did. MR. LAFORET: We did. Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We did. We -- we are finished with 96-006. MR. LAFORET: All right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We'll take a five-minute recess. (A short break was held.) Page 34 February 22, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Code Enforcement Board will come back to order. The next order of business before the board is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Claude Martel, CEB Number 96-007. MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman, if I may, does the court -- does the board wish to have a report on the previous matter as well as the first one at the next meeting? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Martel, would you please come back to the stand. Madam Chairman, I prepared a composite exhibit. I provided copies to the board, to the recorder, to the respondent. This composite exhibit is marked as Composite Exhibit A, CEB 96-007. Mr. Martel, again, do you mind if I -- if the board looks at the documents with respect to the property located at 3176 Karen Drive? You have no problem with the board looking at these copies? MR. MARTEL: No. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. MR. PETTIT: Let me just clarify again. You received the documents that Miss Cruz is referring to about 3176 Karen Drive? MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. MR. PETTIT: Yes? MR. MARTEL: (Nodded head.) MR. PETTIT: And you own -- that's property you own? MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: You don't object to the board considering that as evidence on this alleged violation? MR. MARTEL: Well, I got the permit over there for the finish the garage, stucco, and put the garage door on. MR. PETTIT: Okay. You -- you will have an opportunity to make a statement about the alleged violation, but the question now is again as before. This is a package of material that you received prior to today about this alleged violation. It's been marked as an Exhibit A for this hearing. Do you object to the board considering it as evidence? MR. MARTEL: What violation we got over there? MR. PETTIT: In this instance the allegation is that you have unlawfully allowed a garage addition to exist with an expired permit and no certificate of occupancy. And there are allegations that this violates various code sections, 103.1.1, 103.1.2, 103.6.1, 103.6.1.1 (b) of Ordinance Number 19-56, which is the county building construction administrative code, and Ordinance 91-102, Section 2.76, paragraphs 1 and 5, which is part of the county planned development code. MS. CRUZ: Excuse me, Mr. Counsel, should Mr. Martel be sworn in? MR. PETTIT: Yes, he should. THEREUPON, CLAUDE MARTEL, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Page 35 February 22, 1996 BY MR. PETTIT: Q. Going back to the question question is either you do or do not package of material and evidence on Karen Drive. A. It should be in here. Q. Okay. Is that you do not object? A. No, I didn't read that. MR. PETTIT: I would simply caution the board as in the prior case. I won't read again the provisions of your ordinance that relate to the reception of evidence and consideration of evidence. It's unclear whether Mr. Martel is objecting or not. I think you could assume that he is objecting and then proceed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Pettit. Do I have a motion to introduce this packet into evidence? MR. ANDREWS: So move. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? All right. It's unanimously passed. We will accept this into evidence. Miss Cruz. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. This case is basically the same type of violation that we've had in previous cases. But for the record Jean Claude Martel is the property owner for 3176 Karen Drive, more particularly described as Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, Unit 2, Lot 100. The violate -- violation brought before this board is unlawfully allowing a garage addition to exist with an expired permit and no certificate of occupancy as being a violation of Ordinance 91-56, Section 103.1.1, 103.1.2, 103.6.1, 103.6.1.1, paragraph B, in Ordinance 91-102, Sections 2.7.6, paragraphs 1 and 5. If I just go on with the case, Mr. Martel had several meetings with the code enforcement staff, Dennis Mazzone, in respect to this violation. Mr. Martel obtained a permit in 1990 to rebuild an old garage, permit 90-11128. This permit expired in September '95. He came back and obtained a permit for only stucco and garage door allowing the structure previously permitted to exist with the -- an expired permit and no C.O. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have any evidence to present? MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, the allegation is that on -- at 3176 Karen Drive there's a garage addition that has an expired permit and no certificate of occupancy. Do you want to tell this board about that property at 3176 Karen Drive? MR. MARTEL: The permit is not expired. I think I have one more month over there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel thinks he has one more month on the permit. MS. CRUZ: If I might add, referring to is the permit that door and stucco the structure. again, Mr. Martel, the object to the board receiving this the alleged violation at 3176 the permit that Mr. Martel is was given to him for install a garage That permit was issued on September, Page 36 February 22, 1996 20, '95. Yes, he does have till March as the permit life, but that's not the purpose here. The violation is that the structure itself is sitting there without a valid permit or without a certificate of occupancy. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, do you understand what Miss Cruz said? She says, yes, you do have a permit, but that was for the stucco and the garage door. MR. MARTEL: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The permit that you don't have that has expired is to have the garage addition itself. That is the permit that expired in September of '95. MR. MARTEL: A garage addition. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. MARTEL: Where is the garage addition at? That's 3190. MS. CRUZ: 3176 Karen Drive. MR. MARTEL: 3190, that's that one that -- MS. CRUZ: Okay. We're talking about 3176. MR. MARTEL: Right. MS. CRUZ: You have a garage addition at the rear of the property MR. MARTEL: Now, we -- we build MS. CRUZ: -- to the side of the property on the end. MR. MARTEL: It was a garage out there before I rebuild that. MS. CRUZ: Okay. Back in December of 1990 you came in to the building department -- MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. MS. CRUZ: -- and obtained a permit, permit number 90-11128, for addition, alteration, rebuild old garage. MR. MARTEL: Right, uh-huh. MS. CRUZ: That permit expired. You never called in for inspections. It was never -- the certificate of occupancy was never issued. MR. MARTEL: Well, I got a -- I got a -- five months ago -- I renewed the permit five months ago. MS. CRUZ: Okay. The permit you're talking about now MR. MARTEL: Yes. MS. CRUZ: five months ago, which was issued on September 25, '95, that permit was only for stucco the exterior and install the garage door. MR. MARTEL: Right. That's all that need to be done. MS. CRUZ: If we -- if we could go back, when you came in back in 1990 to rebuild the garage -- MR. MARTEL: Right. MS. CRUZ: -- you never called in for inspections. MR. MARTEL: I call in inspections. MS. CRUZ: Okay. The records -- MR. MARTEL: I got three inspection, and that was -- I didn't get a C.O. because I didn't get time to do the stucco. MS. CRUZ: Okay. You need to call -- you needed to call for the final inspections and obtain the certificate of occupancy. You failed to do so allowing the permit to expire. In order for you to keep this garage there, you have to reapply for a permit. Page 37 February 22, 1996 MR. MARTEL: I just have to call for an inspection even if it's not done. MS. CRUZ: You have to reapply. That permit is no longer valid. You would have to reapply for a permit for a C.O. MR. MARTEL: Who -- who say -- who say that? MS. CRUZ: The law says that, sir. MR. MARTEL: The law? MS. CRUZ: Yes, Ordinance 91-102 -- MR. MARTEL: That's news to me. MS. CRUZ: -- 91-56 says that you have to apply for a permit and call in for inspections, obtain a certificate of occupancy for any structure you're going to have on your property. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, what Miss Cruz is telling you is that you need to go pull another permit for that garage at 3176 Karen Drive and then obtain a certificate of occupancy. Do you understand what she's saying? MR. MARTEL: What you mean by it, because I -- I mean, you know, I'm not -- I mean, I -- I don't rent that garage for my own use over there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand, but what she's telling you is that your permit for that garage is expired. MR. MARTEL: Next month, maybe expire next month. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That was just the permit for the garage door and something else, stucco. MS. CRUZ: Stucco. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The permit to rebuild that garage itself is what expired. You need to go pull a new permit to have that garage there at all. That's what she's telling you. MS. CRUZ: Madam Chairman, if I can guide you to page 21 of the composite exhibit, this is a sworn statement signed by Mr. Martel where he met with another code enforcement investigator with the knowledge that he needed a permit or that he needed to obtain a hire a licensed contractor to obtain a valid permit for the completion of the said garage. (Mr. Allen left the board room.) MR. PETTIT: Mr. Martel, I'm going to show you what -- the page that Ms. Cruz just referred to in Composite Exhibit A for this case 96-007. It's page 21. Is that your signature and sworn statement? MR. MARTEL: I guess I'm going to have to find me a contractor again, huh? MR. PETTIT: Did -- did you -- is that your signature? MR. MARTEL: Yes. MR. PETTIT: Did you sign that MR. MARTEL: Yeah, that's my -- MR. PETTIT: -- sign page 21? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, do you have anything else you want to tell the board about the property at 3176 Karen Drive? You understand that code enforcement officers are saying you need to go pull a permit for that garage addition. MR. MARTEL: I'm going to try my best. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Martel? MS. LOUVIERE: The only question I have, and it keeps Page 38 February 22, 1996 coming up, that he keeps making the statement that these structures were there when he purchased the property. But I was reading here in page 20 that -- and you signed this, you -- how long have you lived in this -- at this house? MR. MARTEL: Twenty, twenty-six years. MS. LOUVIERE: Twenty-six years? MR. MARTEL: Not -- not 3176, but 3190. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. I -- I just wanted to just state make sure that I heard you right and heard you say that you have been living in these premises for approximately 26 years. MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions for Mr. Martel? Mr. Martel, do you have anything else you want to say to the board? MR. MARTEL: I'm going to try to get the permit, okay? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does staff have a recommendation? MR. PETTIT: Let me clarify that staff is going to rely on Composite Exhibit A and the statements of Mr. Martel under oath and not put on any additional evidence. MS. CRUZ: That's -- that's true. That's all. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Staff have a recommendation? MS. SULLIVAN: Staff has a recomm -- same recommendation for this property, too. The only reason that we decided to present these separately, because we thought to need to make clear the amount of the fines on each one with the recommendations. MS. LOUVIERE: And the fines you're still recommending $50-per-day fines? MS. SULLIVAN: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion? Do I have a motion? MR. PETTIT: Could we close the public meeting? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Pettit. MR. PETTIT: Mr. Martel, you have no other evidence to put on, no witnesses to call? MR. MARTEL: For what? MR. PETTIT: For the alleged violation of not having a permit for the garage at 3176 Karen Drive. MR. MARTEL: When I -- that permit I got, that was, I think, the final permit, you know. I didn't know the -- you had a -- MR. PETTIT: But you have no other evidence or witnesses to call on this matter? MR. MARTEL: What do I need witnesses for? MR. PETTIT: Just to present your side of the case. I think the record can reflect that Mr. Martel's been given an opportunity to put on witnesses and evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Pettit. We will now close the public portion of the meeting. Any discussion? MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman, we -- we would like to add that there are also tenants in this property for the record. MS. DEIFIK: In the garage? MS. CRUZ: The garage is attached to a mobile home -- MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. Page 39 February 22, 1996 MS. CRUZ: and he's got tenants living in the mobile home. MS. SULLIVAN: In the mobile home. This is how we made the -- this is the basis for our recommendation of the fines. MR. PETTIT: Are there tenants living -- pardon me. Are there tenants living in the -- at 3176? MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Can I have a motion? MS. LOUVIERE: Do I just go into the findings of fact without having to make -- this cause -- thank you. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on February the 20th, 1996. MS. CRUZ: Twenty-second. MS. LOUVIERE: Twenty-second. I'm totally lost these days. And the board having heard testimony under oath, received evidence heard with respect to all the appropriate matters, thereupon, issues its finding of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the board as follows: Findings of fact, that Jean Claude Martel is the owner of record of the subject property, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction over the person of the respondent in that Jean Claude Martel was present at the public hearing. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance Number 92-80 have been properly issued; that the real property which is described as 3176 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, Unit 2, Lot 100, is in viola -- violation of Sections 103.1.1, 103.1.2, 103.6.1, 103.6.1.1. (b) of Ordinance Number 91-56, the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code, and Ordinance Number _ 91-102, Section 2.7.6, par 1 and 5 in the following particulars; that he has unlawfully allowed a garage addition to exist with an expired permit and no certificate of occupancy. It -- should I continue to the conclusions of law? It is the conclusion of law that Jean Claude Martel is in violat violation of the above-referenced sections of Collier County ordinances of the -- of the Collier County ordinances quoted before. Are there any comments so far before I continue with the order of the board? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's take a vote on the motion that includes the findings of facts and conclusions of law. Do I have a second? MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? Let the record reflect that it's a unanimous vote, but we have lost the vote of Mr. James Allen. Go ahead. MS. LOUVIERE: It is the order of the board based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance 92-80, it is hereby ordered that the respondent correct the violation of the above-referenced sections in the following manner; that he is to obtain a building permit prior to our next meeting of March the 28th, 1996, as outlined. MS. CRUZ: He needs to hire a licensed contractor. He Page 40 February 22, 1996 ..... -", cannot obtain a permit himself. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. I'd like to modify my conclu -- my order of the board, the respondent correct the violation by obtaining a building permit through a licensed contractor as outlined in paragraph 4(a) of the above finding of facts. The said corrections must be completed on or before the 28th of March -- is that the right date -- 1996. And if the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, then in that event, respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $50 per day for each and every day any violation described continues past said date. And I'd like to modify that and add that if he does not obtain his building permit prior to that day, he needs to bring down that structure and then in addition to the fines, okay. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MS. LOUVIERE: Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. Done and ordered this 22nd day of February, 1996, at Collier County, Florida. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I have a motion. Do I have a second? MR. McCORMICK: Comment. I think it's okay for the record to note that a contractor will be required, but I'm not sure that we should include that in the order of the board. MS. LOUVIERE: He has -- he does have a point. That is -- I really believe that is up to -- to -- to Mr. Martel whether or not he chooses to use one. MR. McCORMICK: Or it's up to the building department MS. LOUVIERE: Or it's up to the building department. MR. McCORMICK: -- to approve the permit or not. MS. LOUVIERE: I think we're overstepping our boundaries by adding that. MS. DEIFIK: I have a couple MS. LOUVIERE: Go ahead. Go ahead, Celia. MS. DEIFIK: -- comments. I think that I'm unclear as to in what time period that order is asking him to take down the garage if he does not obtain a permit. I think he -- the time period should be specified. I think it should be longer than the time period we gave him for the sheds because the garage is a more substantial structure. I also would submit that $50 a day is too harsh given that this particular structure is not a safety hazard and that we have imposed 50-dollar-a-day fines on him for the two other violations. We have to look at the cumulative effect here. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So I modify my order and remove the clause that states that he needs to use a licensed contractor to obtain his permit. We'll remove that. And then in addition, he has to go ahead and obtain the building permit again prior to March the 28th. If he does not, then may -- he will be fined $25 per day, and he has 30 days from that day to remove the structure. MS. DEIFIK: Let me ask Mr. McCormick -- maybe you're more familiar with these kinds of structures -- and Mr. Laforet. How much time do you think is reasonable to take down a structure like Page 41 February 22, 1996 that? Isn't that a concrete block structure? MR. MARTEL: No doubt that one is not concrete block. It's 2 by 4. MR. McCORMICK: If we gave him 15 days for the other structures, I think 30 days -- MS. LOUVIERE: Thirty days. MR. McCORMICK: -- based on your comments is MS. SULLIVAN: For the -- for the record the recommended the same period of time is because we attached to the residence, and it could present a because it doesn't meet the fire code. MS. LOUVIERE: I personally agree with you. I personally think this is ongoing for a long time. I -- I would like it -- I don't think it's that difficult to hire somebody. Since he's going to have the equipment there, he knows he's going to have to take these down if he cannot get the building permit. However, I would like to have the board back -- back up this or my motion, so that's why I'm being a little -- and changing it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me be sure I know what your motion is because we don't have a second yet. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Your motion gives him till MS. LOUVIERE: -- March the 28th to go ahead and obtain a building permit, and then after that he will be fined $25 per day. And if he does not obtain a building permit after the 28th, he has 30 days from that date to go ahead and take down the structure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second to that motion? MR. ANDREWS: Second. MR. PETTIT: Just to clarify, are you saying that $25 is going to run regardless of whether he removes the structure timely if he chooses not to obtain a building permit? MS. DEIFIK: Yeah. I think that's a good point. I think that it should run from the end of the time period. So, in other words, he's got until March 28th to get a permit. If he doesn't get a permit, he's got 30 days to take it down. Then the fines would start to run if he fails to take it down. MS. LOUVIERE: I disagree. I really think that the fines should start right after he does not obtain his building permit. Doesn't staff agree with that? MS. DEIFIK: But-- MS. SULLIVAN: If -- if -- if we do that, I think we have to put a time limit on the day he can get the permit. the other orders what we said was he has to either obtain a remove the structures by the 28th, and then the fines would run. okay. reason we believe this is safety hazard I think on permit or start to MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. MS. DEIFIK: No, she's agreeing with me. MS. LOUVIERE: No. MS. SULLIVAN: I'm -- I'm saying that if you want the fines to start running at the time the permit is denied, you need to put a day or deadline for the permit because the way the order is -- is proposed right now, it's that he would either obtain a permit or remove the structure by the 28th. In other words, if he doesn't obtain the permit and start repairing, then it -- then it should be Page 42 February 22, 1996 torn down by the 28th, is the way I understood the order. MS. LOUVIERE: Originally that was the order, but Celia thought and other board members recommended that we give him some time after the 28th to go ahead and build that -- and bring the building down. So the order was modified that he has until March the 28th to obtain his permit. And if he does not obtain a permit, then fines of $25 per day would commence -- MS. SULLIVAN: From March the 28th. MS. LOUVIERE: From March -- from March the 28th. MS. SULLIVAN: That's the way I understood it. MS. LOUVIERE: And then from March the 28th on he has 30 days in which to take his building down. In the meantime, from March the 28th on right after we find out he cannot obtain a building permanent, then fines will commence. MS. SULLIVAN: We don't have any objection to that. MR. McCORMICK: The problem with that is if he is told that he can't get a building permit on March the 27th, it's not realistic he can tear it down in one day. I think there needs to be something on the front end that he has to submit for a permit within 15 days, for example, so that there is time between when -- if that permit gets denied, when he has to tear it down before the fines start. Do you see what I'm saying? MS. LOUVIERE: Uh-huh. Modify it then. MR. McCORMICK: It's okay that -- okay. The last thing that you said was that by March the 28th he had to either have a permit -- MS. DEIFIK: Just design a new order from the start. MR. McCORMICK: -- or tear it down. No thanks. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So now you're saying you want to give him an additional -- you want to give him 15 days to go ahead and try to pull the permit? MR. McCORMICK: I think you have to put that on the front end in order for him to have time -- if it's denied, for him to have time to tear it down before the fines start. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. He has this is a good one. We give -- he has 15 days from today to go ahead and start to obtain a building permit; right? MS. SULLIVAN: He has 15 days from today to obtain a permit, and if he doesn't obtain a permit, then he has 15 days to tear it down, which would make it before the next board meeting. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. He has 15 days to obtain a permit. And if he does not, then from -- from that -- from that date he has 15 days to turn it -- to tear it down, and -- and fines will commence from March the 28th. MS. DEIFIK: At what rate? MS. LOUVIERE: At $25 per day. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Instead of the 15 days, why don't you -- we give him until March 28th on that? It's just easier because we're going to put all these back on next month's docket. Fifteen days to obtain a permit, and if he doesn't obtain a permit, he needs to tear it down by March 28th or $25 a day; is that the motion? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MS. DEIFIK: I'll second it. Page 43 February 22, 1996 MR. ANDREWS: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Move and seconded. Any discussion? Ready to call for the vote. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? Unanimously, again with Mr. Allen's being absent. Mr. Martel, you understand you need to go pull a permit for this garage addition at 3176 Karen Drive? MR. MARTEL: You should give me more time than that, all you got me for. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it's -- you know, you need to go down there, pull all these permits. MR. MARTEL: I'm not a -- I'm not a machine. I'm not a machine. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You can pull them all maybe at the same time because they're all pretty much the same time limit. MR. MARTEL: Well, you want to work -- if you want to work with me, I'll do that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think you'll find the staff will work with you. As long as you're down there, you may as well pull them all. The next -- MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairman, again, we would ask if the board wants us to put this on the agenda -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: -- in next month for a report. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, please. MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The next matter before the board is the Board of County Commissioners versus Jean Claude Martel, CEB Number 96-008. This has to do with 3000 Karen Drive. Would the court reporter please swear Mr. Martel in again for this matter. THEREUPON, JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Miss Cruz. MS. CRUZ: Jean Claude Martel is the property owner of the property located at 3000 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, Unit 2, Lot 100.19. Mr. -- I prepared a composite exhibit marked Composite Exhibit A, CEB 96-008. At this time I would like to ask Mr. Martel if he objects to admitting this composite exhibit into evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, did you get a packet of papers that has to do with the alleged violation at 3000 Karen Drive? Is that in your packet, too? It's the one that alleges that there's some unsafe electrical wiring, rotted floors, and leaking ceilings at that address. MR. MARTEL: I don't know. It's got to be in there. Got 200-pager in here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Did you receive that packet of materials prior to today? Page 44 February 22, 1996 MR. MARTEL: Right here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Did you get that before today? MR. MARTEL: Five days -- a week ago. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Mr. Martel, it's the same question we asked you in the other hearings. There's going to be a motion, I presume, to introduce this whole packet into evidence so that the board may look at it. Do you object to that, us looking at this papers? MR. MARTEL: I didn't -- I didn't see the paper. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's part of the packet that you have with you. MR. MARTEL: Yeah, I didn't -- I didn't go through this. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The question is, do you mind if this is introduced into evidence and the board looks at it. MR. MARTEL: I guess -- nothing I can do about it. You can go ahead and look. MR. ANDREWS: So move. So move. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think the record might reflect that that is not an objection this time. Do I have a motion? MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So I guess -- MR. ANDREWS: And a second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that we introduce the whole packet of materials on 96-008 into evidence. Any discussion on the motion? Call for a vote. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? Again, unanimously it passes. It will be introduced into evidence. Miss Cruz. MS. CRUZ: Madam Chairman, Mr. Martel is brought before this board for allegedly being in violation of Ordinance 89-06, Section 5, Subsection 9 and 11, and Ordinance 91-56, Section 103.1.1 for unlawfully allowing the existence of the following violations throughout the dwelling unit; unsafe electrical wiring, rotted floors, and leaking ceilings. Code enforcement has done investigations of the subject location, found the listed violations. The final reinspection was done yesterday resulting in the same violations continuing to exist. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have any evidence you want to present other than Exhibit A? MS. CRUZ: I'd like to call Clyde Ammons to the stand, please. THEREUPON, CLYDE AMMONS, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. Mr. Ammons, would you please state your position with the county. A. Chief electrical inspector. Q. Mr. Ammons, you have a copy of the Composite Exhibit A? Page 45 February 22, 1996 A. Q. page. A. Yes. Q. You -- you had a chance to visit the subject location on September 6, '95? A. Yes, I did. Q. Would you please tell the board what your findings were during those -- during that investigation. A. Well, I found initially what's -- what's on the investigation. You want me just -- or just say it in my own words what it Q. Please. A. Okay. I drove up to the trailer and went inside. The door wasn't even closed. I went in, and I walked around, and the floors -- I was afraid to walk on them they were so bad. The ceilings were drooping in places; and I noticed electrical boxes or outlets out of the wall in a few places, open wiring around, romex going around the walls that weren't fastened, going into fixtures illegally which, you know, when you go to a fixture with wiring, you should have a fitting of some type. These screws weren't going into fittings. I saw a fan was plugged with -- wired with a lamp cord which had no ground, and it was spliced also. The panel box -- the initial investigation said the panel was open. I believe the panel was closed at the time. Somebody put the cover on it. But the wires coming underneath the panel looked kind of bad, frayed, coming up through the floor. They should be protected according to the National Electrical Code. There was also wires going under the trailer that were laying on the ground. Romex is not for a wet location, so they should be tacked up. Also romex wire was going through the metal skin from the outside to the inside. That should be protected because the wire could -- could rub against the metal skin and cause the whole trailer to be activated with electricity. So, yes, it was a dangerous situation there. MS. DEIFIK: Are there people living there? MR. AMMONS: The -- there were someone there the day before I got there, but they had -- they were next door. They came over when I came up there, and they left. MS. DEIFIK: But did they -- does anyone reside there? MR. AMMONS: They weren't there when I was there. MS. CRUZ: I can answer that question. Yesterday there was no one living there. There was no evidence of anyone living there, but the place is unsecured. MR. AMMONS: It is unsecured also. MR. ANDREWS: Is it furnished? MS. CRUZ: Excuse me? MR. ANDREWS: Is there any furnish MS. CRUZ: No furniture. MR. ANDREWS: Just an empty building? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MS. DEIFIK: It's a mobile home, not a building. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any further questions Yes, I do. Would you -- on page 7 -- would you please refer to that any furnishings? Page 46 February 22, 1996 for Mr. Ammons? Mr. Martel, do you have any questions you want to ask Mr. Ammons based on what he just said he saw? MR. MARTEL: I got to pay -- I got the -- the county give me what's got to be fixed before I can rent it out. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Do you have any questions you want to ask him? MR. MARTEL: And I don't have time to fix it right now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you want to ask him any questions? MR. MARTEL: Okay. I think I got the paper -- Dennis, I think you give me the paper for what's got to be done on that place. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think the question was, did you give him some papers and tell him what's going to be done. MR. MARTEL: You -- you guys get the tenant construc -- this -- my tenant do the -- the work out there. Somebody's got somebody's going to rent it, I give them a free -- a month's free rent to fix the place, you know. So that -- that's what I do over there. I can't watch over there. That's too far from my -- that's why I got that place up for sale. I'm trying to sell it, the place over there. I had it for sale for about four, five months now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have anything you want to ask Mr. Ammons based on what he said? MR. MARTEL: What do you want me to do? Is that what you want me to ask you? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: him to do. MR. MARTEL: You want me to go over there, screw the door shut so nobody can get in there? Is that what you want me to do? MS. DEIFIK: That would be helpful. MR. AMMONS: Well, it should be locked up so no one can so no one can MR. MARTEL: MR. AMMONS: wiring should be MR. MARTEL: there. MR. AMMONS: MR. MARTEL: The question is, what do you want Right. so no can get into the wiring. The Or the breaker shut off at the meter out Can you do that -- Breaker shut off, yeah, and the water, too. MR. AMMONS: Good. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Ammons, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: Well, it it will be fixed all right because the county's going to inspect it before I rent it out if I don't sell it. MR. LAFORET: I have -- I have a question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. LAFORET: Yeah, what I would like to ask you, is the meter pulled on that thing -- MR. MARTEL: No. MR. LAFORET: -- on the trailer? MR. MARTEL: No. MR. AMMONS: It was not when I got there, sir. Water and electricity don't mix. Any other questions you want to ask Page 47 February 22, 1996 MR. LAFORET: MR. AMMONS: MR. LAFORET: MR. PETTIT: And everything was locked? Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Martel, no one is living in the trailer now? MR. MARTEL: No. MS. DEIFIK: Can the county do something about -- with FP&L, make sure that that meter continues to be shut off? Does anybody know? MR. AMMONS: We can have the meter -- we can have the power cut, yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions for Mr. Ammons? Thank you, Mr. Ammons. MR. AMMONS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further evidence, Miss Cruz? MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, is there anything you want to say to the board? MR. MARTEL: I -- I told -- I just told you what I what I possibly do over there, you know. I want to rent it back up, have the place legal, you know, get the wiring all fixed and everything, the floor, and that one leak on the roof. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything else you want to say? MR. MARTEL: That's it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody got any questions for Mr. Martel? We'll close the public portion of the meeting. Any MS. DEIFIK: Can I ask Miss Sullivan a question? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sure. MS. DEIFIK: Miss Sullivan, can you follow up with Mr. Ammons and make sure that that electrical flow is definitely cut off? MS. SULLIVAN: That was going to be part of staff's recommendation. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Well, it sounds to me like it's something that -- that really can't wait. How soon can that be done? MS. SULLIVAN: How soon, Clyde? MR. AMMONS: I can call today and get it done. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: What is staff's recommendation? MS. SULLIVAN: Staff would recommend that we be a little bit more lenient on this because it is not occupied at the present time. We would be willing to give him 60 days to make some kind of progress on this as long as the property is secure, the utilities are shut off, and if he starts to move anyone in or the property transfers, that he notify us first. MS. LOUVIERE: How much time do you want to give him to correct the violations, and how much fine do you recommend? MS. SULLIVAN: Sixty days and twenty-five-per-day fine. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: What would you expect him to do within 60 days -- MS. SULLIVAN: Well CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: specifically. MS. SULLIVAN: I would expect him to get a contractor, Page 48 February 22, 1996 since it's not his residence, and make some -- come back and show the board some progress on the items that were checked on the list that we gave him and at the same time make sure that the premises are secure during the repairs. MS. DEIFIK: Or alternatively remove the trailer? MS. SULLIVAN: Right. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Pettit, does the county require an order from this board in order for them to follow through with Miss Sullivan and Mr. Ammons and get Florida Power and Light to turn off the meter there since we're not the property owner? I mean is Florida Power and Light going to have some problem when they call them -- when Mr. Ammons calls? I just want to make sure that they have whatever ammunition they need to make sure that the electricity is cut off. MR. MARTEL: I shut the disconnector, run up on the meter and shut the whole thing. The breaker will. And that I will I will need electric over there to repair the mobile home. And when I -- when I need it, I can shut it off. When I don't need, I mean, I shut it off. You got -- you got to work out there. MS. LOUVIERE: I thought it was going to be part of our order to go ahead and -- and include shut-off on the light to the -- from Florida Power and Light, right, that was part of your recommendation. MS. SULLIVAN: If -- if he gets a contractor within that time and -- and submits some kind of plan to us as to what do you want to do, we'll work with him at that time. We just want to make sure it's secure until -- until someone's in there watching it. MS. LOUVIERE: There's also extension cords, I believe, that can be used if there's no electricity. MS. SULLIVAN: Do you -- do you need anything else from us? What do you -- what do you need? MR. AMMONS: Are you -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm hearing two different things. You want the power loose? To get the power off -- MR. MARTEL: We need the power on to repair over there. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Ammons, can you come up here so we can hear you? MR. AMMONS: What -- what exactly is the question? MS. SULLIVAN: The question is, what do you need to have the power cut off with Florida Power and Light, what kind of order. MR. AMMONS: We have -- we have a form in the county that we have filled out, and the mainstay of it is that no one is living there or there are no children that -- or anyone under life support and that the owner be notified. MS. SULLIVAN: So that you can do that under -- from your inspection that you've done? MR. AMMONS: Yes, ma'am. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. MR. PETTIT: The order -- you might want to include in your order that -- to Mr. Martel that he cooperate in that procedure to have the power cut off and then maybe make provision for it being put back on if and when he obtains a contractor to do the necessary repairs. MS. DEIFIK: Only for those limited purposes. My concern is that Mr. Martel will go get the power turned back on saying he's going to do work and then just leave it on. Page 49 February 22, 1996 MR. MARTEL: Yeah. Well, I -- I can just put a padlock on the -- on the -- disconnect -- disconnect on the bottom of the meter. MR. LAFORET: You can't put a pad -- padlock on it. MR. MARTEL: Yeah. MR. LAFORET: That's right. MR. MARTEL: Yeah, I got -- they got a 200-amp disconnector on the bottom. I can put a padlock on it. When I need the electricity -- MR. LAFORET: It's illegal, though. MS. DEIFIK: But it -- MR. LAFORET: The only one that can put a padlock on the meter is the power company. MR. MARTEL: On the -- on the disconnect box, yeah, you can. MR. LAFORET: All right. MR. AMMONS: May I -- may I make a suggestion? MS. DEIFIK: Certainly. MR. AMMONS: When he gets a contractor to pull the permit to repair the trailer, he can also -- he can add a temporary power pole on that. MR. MARTEL: Well, it is he says that's up -- that is a -- it is on a temporary pole over there. It's -- it's on a pole. MR. AMMONS: Well, he can get a temporary pole, and it can be done without being attached to the trailer, yes. We can do it that way. When they get the temporary, then we know that the contractor has control of it, and that's what counts. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion? MR. LAFORET: I would like to ask the electrical inspector, when you cite a violation electrically on your inspections, dq you cite each and every individual violation that you can see, or do you say bring it up to code? MR. AMMONS: We -- we like to cite what we can see unless we see so many things that it's kind of hard to -- to write them all down. You know what I'm saying? MR. LAFORET: Yes. MR. AMMONS: It gets -- MR. LAFORET: This was my point. It's been my experience in the construction industry if you give any instructions to contractors or to homeowners or to anybody, they will do those specific items and no more so that if they in the course of their work observe ungrounded equipment or something, they won't repair that because it's not on your specific list. That's why I suggest you use the term bring it into compliance. MS. SULLIVAN: Actually the inspection list that we have given to -- to Mr. Martel, it has one section that says electrical code, and it lists the wires under the panel, the outlets coming out and several things under here, so it's pretty detailed on the report. MR. LAFORET: Well, you could -- you could avoid that by listing what you saw. MS. SULLIVAN: That's what I'm saying. MR. LAFORET: So any -- any -- MS. SULLIVAN: It is listed on here. MR. LAFORET: Yes. You could do that superficially and Page 50 February 22, 1996 then say all other violations observed during the course of the work. MR. AMMONS: Yes, sir. Well, when they pull the -- when they pull the electrical permit, then when we inspect, this will come up to code anyway. MR. LAFORET: All right. I'm not telling you your business. I'm telling you my experience. MR. AMMONS: Yes, sir. I -- I -- appreciate you saying that, the information. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions for Mr. Ammons? Thank you very much, Mr. Ammons. MR. AMMONS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any more discussion by the board? Do we have a motion? MR. McCORMICK: I'll make a motion. Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the board: This cause came on for public hearing before the board on February the 22nd, and the board having heard testimony under oath, received evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters thereupon issues its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the board as follows: That Mr. Jean Claude Martel is the owner of record of the subject property, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the persons of the respondent, and Mr. Martel was present at the public hearing. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance Number 92-80 have been properly issued, that the real property legally described as Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms, Unit 2, Lot 100.19 is in violation of Sections 5, Subsection 9 and 11 of Ordinance Number 89-06 of the Collier County Housing Code, Section 103.1.1 of Ordinance 91-56, the Collier County Building Construction Administration -- Administrative Code in the following particulars: Unlawfully allowing the existence of the following violations through -- throughout -- throughout the dwelling unit; unsafe electrical wiring, rotted floors, and leaky ceilings. Conclusion of law; that the above-described description of violation is in violation of Sections 5, Subsections 9 and 11 of Ordinance 89-06 and Section 103.1.1 of Ordinance 91-56 of Collier County. That's complete. MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? Motion passes. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. I make a motion for the order of the board. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, Collier County Ordinance Number 92-80, it is hereby ordered that the respondent correct the violations of the above findings of facts in the following manner: That Mr. Martel will immediately secure the trailer so that nobody can gain access to the interior of the trailer, that within 60 days Mr. Martel will have begun the repairs of the electrical system and will have notified county staff that you've begun those repairs. MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. MR. PETTIT: Are you limiting that repairs to the Page 51 February 22, 1996 electrical system and excluding repairs to the floors and ceilings? MR. McCORMICK: No, I'm not. Did all -- that all the repairs have -- have begun within 60 days, I believe, was the recommendation of staff. MS. SULLIVAN: By a contractor. But we can't say that. MS. LOUVIERE: It -- I thought in this case you could because it wasn't his premises so, therefore, he couldn't pull the building permit himself. I mean he -- he -- MS. SULLIVAN: I think -- MS. DEIFIK: He's not qualified to do electrical work. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. MS. SULLIVAN: Right. I think the I think the -- the original recommendation was that within 60 days he hire the contractor and the contractor MS. LOUVIERE: Right. MS. SULLIVAN: -- report to us as to his progress in repairing the building. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. So within the -- the order of the board it's also noted, Mr. Martel, that you will have to hire an electrical contractor to do these repairs, and if the electrical contractor makes contact with county staff within this 60 days, then that is sufficient to meet this order at that time. MR. MARTEL: I got -- I got -- one of my tenant works for Rand R Electric over there. He can probably fix that for me. MS. DEIFIK: Can we ask that the contractor present a schedule showing that the work will be done in a diligent and good-faith fashion? MR. McCORMICK: Yes, we can. MS. SULLIVAN: I think -- I think if the contractor presents some kind of plan to the elec -- to the building department, then they can arrange for the electrical hookup or whatever is needed at that time and can do it all at once. MR. McCORMICK: Any other comments? MS. DEIFIK: Can we add in there that the county takes steps to have the meter shut off? MR. McCORMICK: It's also noted that -- the order of the board that the county will shut off the meter immediately and coordinate that with FP&L and that Mr. Martel will cooperate with that action. Anything else? MR. PETTIT: Are the -- is the -- are the -- is the order to retain a contractor and present a plan of repair within 60 days, or is it to begin repairs within 60 days? MR. McCORMICK: It's really to retain the contractor and make contact with county staff. MR. PETTIT: Okay. MS. SULLIVAN: I've just been advised by the building department here that the order probably should reflect that he will have to have a different contractor for the ceilings and floors, let an electrical contractor do that, and I think we're indicating one contractor here. It might be confusing. MS. DEIFIK: Well, wouldn't one general contractor coordinate all of this? MS. SULLIVAN: A general contractor could, yes, a general contractor. We were -- we were envisioning maybe just -- it Page 52 February 22, 1996 would be confusing. Then he might get one electrical subcontractor here, just to make it clear that he needs someone to do the floors and ceilings, too, as well, a contractor as well to do that. MR. McCORMICK: And you'd recommend that that is initiated within 60 days also? MS. SULLIVAN: (Nodded head.) MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Martel, the order of the board is that you would retain an appropriate contractor to do all of the work that can be done either through a general contractor or may require more than one. MR. MARTEL: I don't know if I can do all of that in -- MR. McCORMICK: Failure to comply with this order within a specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and the respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. Failure to complete the discussed retaining of the contractors and the coordination with county staff within 60 days will result in a fine of $25 per day starting immediately after the 60-day time frame. Done and ordered February 22nd, 1996, Collier County, Florida. MR. PETTIT: Again, in -- in voting to approve the fine you should consider the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, any previous violations committed by the violator. MR. McCORMICK: The board acknowledges that the staff's recommendation, explanation for that, is what we're following ln this case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: There's been a motion. Is there a second? MR. ANDREWS: Second. MS. DEIFIK: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Move and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. The motion passes unanimously, but the board notes that James Allen is -- is not here to vote. That will be the order of the board, Mr. Martel. You need within 60 days to get a contractor to contact the building department to talk about making those repairs. MR. MARTEL: Probably do the same one I'm going to get to do all -- pull all of my permits for me. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. MARTEL: All right. R -- Rand R Electric and do that CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's good. Mr. Martel, I -- I hope that you understand that the county is not -- and this board is not just picking on you. Our job is to just enforce the ordinances and if there's a violation, you know, to point those out and try to get them corrected. And we're not just picking on you. We want to help you. And I think that the board has given you sufficient time to look into these matters, and I know that the staff of the county will work with you in getting these things accomplished. Okay? MR. MARTEL: I hope so. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Page 53 February 22, 1996 MR. MARTEL: All right. Thank you. MS. DEIFIK: Good luck, Mr. Martel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The next order of business before the board is new business. There being nothing on the agenda MR. ANDREWS: Are you all through? MR. MARTEL: Am I done? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel, thank you. We're finished with all your hearings. There's nothing under old business, so we are down to reports. MS. CRUZ: Next case, BCC versus Micaela and Pedro Nunez. This case, Case Number 96-001, was brought before this board on January 26, '96. This board continued this case to allow the respondent to obtain a permit for the trailer that was stored at 1421 North Apple Street, Immokalee, Florida. A reinspection was done two days ago resulting in the trailer being removed from the property. So staff requested this case be dismissed since it is in compliance at this time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a motion to dismiss this case? MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion we dismiss Case Number 96-001. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ANDREWS: Second. Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? It passes unanimously. Next case. MS. CRUZ: Next case is BCC versus Clara A. Ayala, CEB 96-002. Again, this case appeared on this -- before this board on January 25, '96. The board issued an order requesting the respondent to obtain a building permit or remove the structures. Another reinspection was done yesterday and resulting in the obstruction being removed. Again, we ask that this case be dismissed. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion we dismiss Case 96-002. MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? It passes unanimously. Anything else to come before this board? MR. PETTIT: I had -- the last time I was here I didn't realize I was going to be here again so soon. Ms. Louviere asked me about several items. One was the nuisance abatement ordinance. I think Mr. Manalich has probably distributed that to you all by now, and you know that it's going to come before the Board of County Commissioners, I believe, next week. MS. DEIFIK: Do you know where it is on the agenda so if we wanted to attend we could? MR. ANDREWS: Not yet. MR. PETTIT: I don't know whether that's going to -- that would arise under the county attorney's item or whether it would Page 54 February 22, 1996 MS. SULLIVAN: It -- it probably will. I don't know whether you all are aware, but there was an executive summary put in Friday that requested a change in the ordinance, the change being that the sheriff's office has requested that -- that code enforcement now receive the complaints and serve the notices. MS. DEIFIK: But didn't we have -- MS. SULLIVAN: I wasn't -- we had an agreement, and I wasn't notified of the change, and -- and I would object to MS. LOUVIERE: Are you going -- are you I'm sorry. didn't mean to interrupt you. Are you going to be present and -- MS. SULLIVAN: I'm going to be present. I'm going to talk to my superior, you know, and see. It's -- it's going to create some problems that we hadn't anticipated. MS. DEIFIK: I thought the whole point -- we had a -- a huge discussion about this when it was first brought up that we don't want to put code enforcement officers in danger. MS. SULLIVAN: Well, there -- that was -- that was the agreement. And they still say that they will -- the first the first meeting we had the sheriff's department agreed to do everything and that we would be in an advisory capacity to, you know, help them present cases before the board. Then the next thing was that we would present the cases before the board after they had done the investigations, and we had agreed to that, and this -- this requested change Friday I wasn't notified of until yesterday. MS. DEIFIK: Do you know who initiated this? MS. SULLIVAN: So we're just going -- the sheriff's office, but we're -- we're just going to have work it out, I guess, before the hearing on Tuesday. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, it would be great to work it out. Then all you just -- you know, you can bring that up in the hearing process, and maybe you can get the commissioners to amend the ordinance. MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah, I just -- you know, they've asked that it be amended, too, so that we would receive all the complaints, then refer them to the sheriff's office. The sheriff would investigate the complaints, then refer them back to us to serve notice. And, you know, to me that's a duplication of work, and I -- I'm not going to get up there and argue with the government, but I'm hoping that we can -- I -- I would have hoped that we could have worked this out before the change is requested. MS. DEIFIK: Miss Sullivan -- MS. SULLIVAN: I wanted you to be aware of that. MS. DEIFIK: can you let all the members of this board know if you do find out when -- where it is on the commission agenda so that if we wanted to attend, we -- MS. SULLIVAN: I don't -- when do those -- when do those agendas come out? Late this afternoon? MR. PETTIT: This -- we should have an agenda late this afternoon. MS. SULLIVAN: I'm -- I'm almost sure it's going to be under the county attorney's section. But we like he says, we should have something late this afternoon. it, but -- I to go ahead Page 55 February 22, 1996 MR. PETTIT: Who prepared the executive sunner -- summary? MS. SULLIVAN: Who prepared it? MR. PETTIT: Did -- did our office prepare it? MS. SULLIVAN: David Weigel prepared it. MR. PETTIT: Then I -- I -- I suspect it's under our -- our MS. SULLIVAN: County attorney item. MR. PETTIT: A county attorney item, and that will be -- MS. SULLIVAN: Which means it will be near the end. MR. PETTIT: Be near the morning, but before -- I don't know whether -- well, there's going to be a public hearing on that as well because it's an advertised ordinance, so it may appear under public hearing. MS. SULLIVAN: You might want just to call over here this afternoon if you've got faxes and have them fax you a copy of the agenda when it comes out may be the easy way to do it. MS. LOUVIERE: We can get the agenda index, and the agenda index lists what -- what item it is and where. MS. DEIFIK: All I want to know is about what time -- MR. PETTIT: My -- my guess is it's going to be -- now that I think about it, it very well may be public hearing, which means it could be stuck in some other public hearings. I could -- I could be wrong about that. MS. SULLIVAN: Just no way to tell. MR. PETTIT: And that -- and that would mean that you could be sitting for awhile. MS. SULLIVAN: One time they had -- one time they had 28 public hearings scheduled, and some of the people got tired before it was -- before they had -- MS. DEIFIK: You go on, and you just call us and let us know MS. SULLIVAN: I go in there and call you when it looks like it's coming up? Okay. MR. PETTIT: Two other matters Miss Louviere inquired about. One was the Deauville Lakes matter. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. MR. PETTIT: And I don't know that you've gotten any report back from Mr. Manalich on that. MS. LOUVIERE: No. MR. PETTIT: There is -- we were contacted by -- and I was initially, but for work-load constraints I'm not -- Mr. Manalich is going to appear and represent the county in a trial of a consolidated proceeding involving Deauville Lakes and a bank and several mortgage foreclosures, and I don't know all the ins and outs of it. My understanding is -- and I should have gotten the date. I rushed out this morning. I think the trial is scheduled for either March or April. Whatever month it is, it is second on the docket. We have been advised by counsel for the homeowners' association that he believes that when all is said and done, there will be the sale of two units and that there will be leftover proceeds that may satisfy one of our liens, the $18,000 lien. There is a priority dispute, as I understand it, with an entity called, I think, called Moons' Carpet or something of that sort. They filed something Page 56 February 22, 1996 called an assignment of proceeds in the county records a month or two before our lien was recorded. I don't know where we are on our research on how that priority dispute will wash out. There may even be, however, enough from the sale of the two units that are left, assuming that's how the trial ends up, to cover both of those liens. Now, the $244,000 lien, I think, is is in the process of being filed or has been filed, but it is subordinate to any liens of the -- of the homeowners' association. As I understand it, it would not be assessed against the homeowners' association. So that's the status of that, so I think that -- that that's something -- you will have some kind of final decision and trial, I would assume, before May. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Whose docket is that? MR. PETTIT: I don't know off the top of my head. Final thing, you -- we had talked about, and I know that you were appointed by board selection to sit on the selection committee for permanent counsel. I was told last week, and I haven't verified it -- I assisted in the drafting of the RFP. I got it to purchasing, I think, at the beginning of last week, and they felt it would be on the street yesterday. And so we would anticipate, assuming they hit that -- that timetable yesterday or today, I believe they told me they thought they would leave it out until March 22. So our hope is to have permanent counsel for the May meeting for the board. MS. LOUVIERE: Is it possible for me to receive a copy of the RFP that you guys sent out? MR. PETTIT: Yeah, that would be no problem. MS. LOUVIERE: That would be great. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything else further to come before the board? MR. LAFORET: I would like to ask Miss Sullivan a question. You sent me a letter February 4th regarding -- where is it? MS. DEIFIK: Embassy Woods? MR. LAFORET: Yeah, Embassy Development, a letter from a president of a civic association. Is that just for information, or is it for comment? MS. SULLIVAN: It's just information. MR. LAFORET: Oh, because I personally -- this man is asking for the money that we agreed would go for the plantings within the development. He's asking for it in the middle of the median of Embassy Woods. MS. SULLIVAN: We're -- we're having ongoing problems with that. Mike Kirby's working on it trying to get -- get something going on it, but we -- we're having ongoing problems with that one. MR. LAFORET: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything else further? Well, the next board meeting is scheduled for March 28th, and I want all of you to put that on your calendar because it -- it's going to be a big one, and you need to all be here. MS. SULLIVAN: Unless we get lucky. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If nothing else further before the board, the board will adjourn. Page 57 February 22, 1996 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:49 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD fYI~~ R~ MO. JE WSON, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan Page 58