Loading...
CEB Minutes 11/25/1996 1996 Code Enforcement Board November 25, 1996 November 25, 1996 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NAPLES, FLORIDA, November 25, 1996 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:36 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "Fit of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: M. Jean Rawson Charles M. Andrews James D. Allen Celia E. Deifik Louis F. Laforet Richard McCormick ABSENT: Mireya Louviere ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney Shirley Jean McEachern, Assistant County Attorney Richard D. Yovanovich, Attorney to the CEB Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 11-13-19965:25PM FROM 64.3 834.5 P. 1 ~ CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA ~2A!iJ2a Date: November 25, 1996 at 8:30 o'clock A.M. LOcat~on: Collier County Government Center, Admn. Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE:: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS SOARD WIllI" NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERSATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MAI>E. WHICH RECORD INCI"UOBS THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO SE BASED. NEITHER COLLI1!:R COUNTY NOR THE PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RBSPONSISLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1 . ROLL CALL ... 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA .,.... 3 . . APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ September 30, 1996 and October 24, 1996 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Board of County Commissioners vs. Mildred M. Anderson CEB No. 96-013 B. Board of County Commissioners Va. Dale H. and Joyce S. Steinberg CES NO. 96-014 S. NEW BJ.1S lNESS RIA 6. OLD BUS rNESS N/A 7. REPORTS NIA 8. NEXT MEETING DATE December 12 and 13, 1996 9 ADJOURN ~ November 25, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Collier County Code Enforcement Board will come to order. Today's November the 25th. And let's start with the roll call. We'll begin at my left. MR. MCCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The first item is approval of the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda, Miss Cruz? MS. CRUZ: No. No. There are no changes from staff. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: In that case we will ask for a motion for the approval of today's agenda. MR. ANDREWS: So moved. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MS. DEIFIK: I second. MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Approval of minutes. Let's do the September 30 minutes first. Everybody had a chance to look over the September 30 minutes? Anybody have any corrections or additions? September 30. MR. MCCORMICK: I'll make a motion that we approve September 30 minutes. MR. ANDREWS: I second. - U,_ CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Been moved and seconded that we approve September 30 minutes. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It passes. I'm going to put off the approval of the October 24 meeting minutes until the end of the meeting since we have a couple of public hearings today, and that's going to probably require some discussion on the part of the board. So we're going to reserve that part of the agenda until the end. Let's get on to the public hearings then. The first item to be heard before this board today is Board of County Commissioners versus Mildred M. Andrews, [sic] CEB No. 96-013. Mr. MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Madam Chairman. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney. Before I allow Mrs. McEachern to proceed with this case, I just want to mention that a representative of the board office had come by and mentioned that Ms. Louviere had called in and had complained of suffering from a migraine and could not attend today, and that was the excuse that was conveyed to me. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MS. MCEACHERN: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Code Enforcement Board members. I'm Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant Page 2 November 25, 1996 county attorney. The first case that we have today is Board of County Commissioners versus Mildred M. Anderson. It is a case that is with regard to certain violations of the Collier County housing code ordinance. And today we have, in fact, the property owner, Mrs. Anderson, who, number one, has agreed to allow us to put our package -- our hearing package into evidence with -- we also have the green card that she had signed and we just got in the mail late Friday, and I just received it. So if we have no objection, I'd like to enter that into evidence. (Staff Exhibit A was offered into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there no objection from the respondent? Hearing none, let's have a motion for introduction into evidence the entire packet for Mildred Anderson's case. Do we have a motion by some member of the board? MS. DEIFIK: I so move. MR. ANDREWS: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All in favor of introducing this entire packet into evidence as the county's first exhibit, please signify by saying aye. Passes. If you'll mark the exhibit. (Staff Exhibit A was marked for identification.) (Staff Exhibit A was admitted into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The exhibit will be admitted. MS. MCEACHERN: Secondly, Mrs. Anderson and I have had t~e._ opportuni ty to speak with her prior to this hearing, and she has also agreed to stipulate to the violations that are stated in that package and, in fact, has requested that she be allowed sufficient time to remedy these violations. The violations are an apartment on Marco Island, and there are certain violations such as there's leakage from the roof, there's an unpermitted structure on the roof, some of the guard railings are loose, there's a walk-in closet on the second floor that protrudes kind of outside and seems to -- it looks like from the pictures and the package, has a hole in the bottom of it. It appears to be unsafe. And then there were some hot wires on the property as well. And she's here today with her son, and one of the issues is Mrs. Anderson has, in fact, pulled what's called a -- if I say this right, an owner-occupier building permit that is required in order to correct these violations. There is a dispute as to whether or not the property is occupied because she has had some tenants that she feels that she didn't know or is not completely certain are actually occupying the property because she just got -- Mrs. Anderson just arrived here from Michigan a few days ago with her son. And if the property is actually occupied by these renters and if they were to scay there, they need another permit, and it would actually require a contractor to pull that permit which again wouldn't take that long. If the property is not occupied or if they, you know, ask the tenants to leave and they do leave, then I've been told that the permit that Page 3 November 25, 1996 they have pulled will be correct. I've been told that January 9 -- by January 9 should be sufficient time to actually have the permit issue corrected and the problems out there corrected as well. And what the county would like to do is if by January 9 it's not corrected, we would have a county person go out to the property, and if it turns out that the problems aren't corrected, then we have our fine of $250 a day that is imposed until such time as the violations are corrected. Mrs. Anderson, did you want to say anything? You have to get up by the mike. MR. ANDERSON: No. We have nothing to say other than that we'd like to get this corrected. My name is Gary Anderson, Mildred Anderson's son. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: in, please. THEREUPON, GARY ANDERSON, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead, Mr. Anderson. Tell us whatever you would like. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I guess that would be sufficient time, and we'd like to get this cleared up because my nephew took this -- these peoples in, and I guess they put their furniture in there, and they were just supposed to be housing it there until we got everything settled and we got down here and straightened this all out, and now we're here, and we~re going to proceed and take care of the problems. -.- MS. MCEACHERN: Madam Chairman, one thing we'd like to do is perhaps have one of our members of the code enforcement staff actually meet with the property owners out at the property and kind of walk through the violations and -- and assist in any way they can and we can get everything fixed. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm leaving tomorrow back to Michigan. I have to get back to work, and she's going to be here. But my nephew's going to be on his way down, and we're going to get him and -- He's the one that got us in this hot water anyway so MS. MCEACHERN: Okay. Well, maybe after this hearing we can even see if we could have some time this afternoon -- MR. ANDERSON: All right. MS. MCEACHERN: -- or today where everyone can walk the property. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. MS. DEIFIK: Can -- Can I ask a question? MS. MCEACHERN: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: It all sounds great to me to get it -- you know, to have until January 9 to get these issues resolved. thing I'm concerned about is this hot electrical wire. Has been done about that, or can something be done immediately, power turned off or have that wire disconnected or whatever be done? Mr. Anderson, would you be sworn The only something have the needs to Page 4 November 25, 1996 MR. ANDERSON: It was -- It was a lamp post that was out and the rust -- the ru -- the bottom rusted away and that is the wire that is hanging out. It is shut off at the breaker, so it is not a hot wire just hanging out. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. MS. MCEACHERN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well MR. LAFORET: Dis -- disconnected with a circuit breaker? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. taken out now because the away. MR. MR. MR. It has to be taken -- physically the the lantern that was out rusted LAFORET: ANDERSON: LAFORET: Are you going to disconnect the wire? Yes. Oh, all right. All right. I thought you were MR. ANDERSON: But right now it's just -- MR. LAFORET: -- just going to trip the breaker. MR. ANDERSON: -- shut off at the breaker. It's just shut off at the breaker now. Yes. We're going to disconnect it -- MR. LAFORET: All right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you suggesting -- MR. ANDERSON: -- as soon as possible -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Anderson. Are you suggesting that we give them until January 9, or are you suggesting that we find that a violation exists today and that it has to be cured by January the 9th? MS. MCEACHERN: Mrs. Anderson has told me -- and if I'm wrong~' please correct me -- that she stipulates to those violations, that they are existing; and, therefore, there's no need today to go forward with the evidentiary hearing and that they can start this afternoon to try to get the violations remedied. And then if -- By January 9 we would send somebody out there to determine whether or not the violations have been corrected, and if not, upon the issuance of a certificate of the violation still existing, then the fine of $250 a day, which is the maximum fine for a first violation under the code and under the ordinance, would be imposed. We do not have another board meeting until later in January, so actually that fine would -- we would bring it -- it would be on the agenda for that next board meeting, and it would be retroactive to January 9 so -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You want $250? That's the maximum, isn't it? MS. MCEACHERN: For a first violation that is what staff has recommended. MR. LAFORET: In lieu of a coordinated plan which mayor may not be complete by January 9, as a little incentive could we apply the fine today to be reconsidered on a January board hearing? MS. MCEACHERN: It is within -- I think you'd have to ask your counsel, but I believe that's within the board's discretion, but we want to do everything to work with the property -- especially Page 5 November 25, 1996 when we have a property owner that has expressed a desire to remedy the problem, we most certainly want to do whatever we can to encourage the property owner to remedy the problem as soon as possible. MR. LAFORET: It just appears to me they've had a considerable period of time. I guess I'll have to address my own counsel. They've had a considerable period of time, and although they show a willingness today -- MR. ANDERSON: Well, sir, we've been out of state -- MR. LAFORET: -- in addition to a willingness, I'd like to leave them an incentive. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Laforet, you ,are still required, if you find a violation, to give them a reasonable opportunity to cure the violation before the fines can go into effect so -- MR. LAFORET: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- you may not agree with January 9, but you need to give them an opportunity to cure it before you can fine them. So you cannot fine -- start the fines running today is what I'm -- what I'm saying. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Isn't it possible that for a first violation we could do $150? MR. YOVANOVICH: You -- The amount of the fine is within the board's discretion based upon the seriousness of the violation. I mean, you're -- you're not required to accept a $250 recommendation. You can go anywhere from zero to the maximum of $250. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further evidence from either side? MS. MCEACHERN: No, Madam Chairman. - H._ CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything else you want to say, Mr., Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Well, we've been out of state. We're from Michigan, and we just got here. The amount of time has just been a couple of months here. I'm not sure about the time. So we are trying to remedy this as quick as possible. It has not been a lingering problem as far as I know. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Madam Chairman, just -- just for the record, I -- I haven't heard the respondent actually stipulate to the violation and to staff's recommendation. Can you just state for the record, Mr. Anderson, that the respondent does stipulate to the violations and to -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We do stipulate to the violations. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and to the recommended recommended -- recommended fine by staff? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any of the board members have questions for either side? MR. MCCORMICK: Just one question. Miss McEachern, can you tell us how you came up with the January 9 date? MS. MCEACHERN: Yes. We met with staff last week and we Page 6 November 25, 1996 decided that -- past experience, if we give too much time, the work doesn't get done, and when there's a more limited time that is still sufficient time to get the work done, that gives them over a month, and it gives them two weeks prior to the next board meeting as well, and it was just a date that staff then chose. MR. MCCORMICK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions for either side? MR. ANDREWS: Mr. Anderson, have you contacted or made any agreements with the contractor? Are you going to have a contractor -- MR. ANDERSON: We had a contractor, Michael Hewitt, that was supposed to be taking care of these before, and I haven't been able to find him on the island, so I'm not sure where he's at, and we have to hire another one right now and get to work. MR. ANDREWS: That might take some doing for all that work. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I don't think there's that much major work there that needs to be done. It's just a few minor things that have been picked out, and I think we'd be able to remedy this pretty quick. MR. ANDREWS: Well, I wish you a lot of luck. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You think January 9 is a sufficient amount of time, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: I hope so. I'm due back in February to come down with my family and I -- hopefully I do not have to do any work or take care of anything like that. Yes, I hope -- it should be remeCli'ed by then. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. If there are no further questions, then we'll close the public portion of the meeting, and we are now open for discussion andlor motions from the board. MR. ANDREWS: Well, I'll make -- I'll make a motion that we -- we go along with a January 9 date as far as the -- it's a fictitious figure anyway right now, the amount, so I think we could leave it at 250. We can always change it. So I'll -- I'll make a motion that we go along with the program that the -- our attorney or the staff attorney has suggested. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. MCCORMICK: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? MR. LAFORET: (indicating) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: One no. Motion carries. Mr. Yovanovich, we don't have a proposed order up here, I don't think, with the findings of facts and all, but if you would prepare an order for my signature, I think we are -- the findings of fact are that the parties have stipulated to the violations, and the parties have reached an accord whereby January 9 is a reasonable time to cure the Page 7 November 25, 1996 violations, and the parties understand that if the violations are not cured by January the 9th, that a $250 fine per day will be then imposed. And if you would prepare that kind of an order, I believe that's -- would be the order of the board, and I'll be happy to sign it. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Anderson, and we appreciate your cooperation and hope you get this problem remedied right away. The next public hearing is Board of County Commissioners versus Dale H. and Joyce B. Steinberg, CEB No. 96-014. MR. MANALICH: Good morning again, Madam Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney. A couple of preliminary matters before we begin, and that is I believe that Mr. Steinberg and another gentleman are here this morning as respondents. I had had some limited discussion with Mr. pires who, I think, is their counsel of record on this and other matters. I guess the first thing we need to address is whether Mr. pires will be representing Mr. Steinberg this morning or what is the situation. Maybe, Mr. Steinberg, if you could please take the podium or if you have any other representative here today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, would you state your name for the record, please, and allow the court reporter to swear you in. MR. STEINBERG: Dale H. Steinberg. THEREUPON, DALE H. STEINBERG, . a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as fcrll-ows: MR. STEINBERG: In answer to the question, my understanding is that Mr. pires did not get notification of the meeting, and the first that he had become aware of it was last Thursday when we had something faxed to our office. We were notified of it earlier, but when it was faxed to our office at that time we'd contacted Mr. Pires, and he had no awareness of the meeting. He is our legal counsel. There are probably a couple -- There are legal things here that may need to be addressed, and certainly I would want my attorney to address those. There's a practical matter of which I don't even know if we have to look at the legal aspect of it, but we may be able to go ahead and -- and proceed with it. I have no idea where it's going to go from here. We've been working with the landscape architect very well, with Wayne Arnold very well, Tom Kuck, and there's a time - constraint that was involved. We've had the plan in for the landscaping for -- between six or seven weeks. We did not get any response of what needed to be done until last Thursday when it was faxed to our office that this is what we would like to have you do. At that time I went down and met with Nancy Siemions immediately, and I says, "What do we need to do?" She was somewhat handicapped because Mr. Wayne Arnold was out on a meeting at that time and couldn't get the personnel that she needed to work with because there was some Page 8 November 25, 1996 problems with the landscaping. Not the least of them, one is that the -- there's water flow area of which the county is dumping water on our property which presented a problem. We put landscaping in because we've got to get rid of the water. Nancy Siemions has been very good to work with. We just need the time to work with her, and we had no idea that we needed her to do it until last Thursday, late last Thursday. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, I think at this point it's my understanding -- and staff can correct me if I'm wrong. It's my understanding that -- and I think the evidence will show if we get to that point -- that there has been an ongoing series of discussions here between the respondent and the county about this entire situation. Some of those meetings, I believe, Mr. pires has attended. Some he has not. MR. STEINBERG: Correct. MR. MANALICH: In any event, I don't -- I see Mr. pires here, as a matter of fact, just walking in. Mr. Pires: Hello. MR. MANALICH: You're the center of attention here, Mr. Pires. MR. ANDREWS: Have your ears been burning? MR. MANALICH: Well, where we're at, we have not started the case yet but -- I'll let him confer with his client for a moment. Mr. pires -- MR. STEINBERG: Under the circumstances all of our goal is accomplished what needs to be accomplished. There are things that are in the report that have been given to you that are not factual. It's not our effort to sit and dispute that because we've been told aTlal'ong all we need to do is to get the landscaping in and have that amended site plan approved. That's the direction we have been moving in and wish to move in. My attorney had just told me to go ahead with it. If things come up within the report here -- and I'll use one as an example, is the original site that -- that the thing that was questioned on, and three times in the report it says that we had the wrong legal description on the permit that was paving the wrong property. If that is wrong, then Bruce Green's survey is wrong. It's taken right off Bruce Green's survey. I will explain that because I think it was a -- You're grinning, Bob. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, perhaps to expedi te matters, the only reason I -- I started this initial question was simply to inquire whether Mr. pires is going to be representing -Mr. Steinberg today or not. First if we could have a clarification on that, then we can understand maybe how we're going to proceed today. Mr. pires: Anthony Pires, Jr.; Woodward, Pires, & Lombardo law firm. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Good morning. Mr. Pires: Good morning, Miss Chairman, members of the board. I represent the Steinbergs on some other issues and have been representing them on this particular issue. We have conflicting Page 9 November 25, 1996 appointments -- arrangements this morning with another matter dealing with the Steinbergs, and my clients have indicated a desire to proceed with this matter but they have -- It's primarily factual issues that they feel they need to dispute andlor make other factual representations to this board so they have a better and a clearer picture of what transpired. I don't know if that clarifies the situation. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it does. You -- You're going to represent Mr. Steinberg, and we are going to proceed with the county's case this morning? Mr. pires: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Mr. pires: Thank you very much, Miss Chairman. MR. MANALICH: The -- The second question I would have to possibly save time would be to Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Pires, and that is, is there any stipulation to these violations, or are they contested? If so, then we'll begin with the case, but if not, obviously we can save some time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The -- The violation says failure to submit amendments as requested to site development plan as further described in the attached exhibit. MR. STEINBERG: I -- I apologize. I was talking to Mr. Pires, and I didn't hear what you said. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The description of the violation on the statement of violation is failure to submit amendments as requested to the site development plan. MR. STEINBERG: Okay., In answer to -- to that, the submit -- plan has been submitted. We had originally had a meeting a~ ~~-as the chronological report that you have in front of you on 9-11, and we had a couple meetings with Wayne Arnold after that to get a clarification of what was needed because it was an amendment to the plan and it was not -- it encompassed -- encompassed three sites which the tax records have one number on, and that's where the confusion come in, was whether there was a site plan for each site or a site plan for all three. We have met with Mr. Wayne Arnold on that, and we got that clarified. He told us what we wanted. We submitted the first site plan on -- revision was done on 9-11. At that time we had another meeting with Mr. Wayne Arnold on it, and he had made some suggestions which had to do with the traffic arrows which had come from Tom Kuck on the site plan. We went back and had those revisions after that meeting. We had done what we were asked to do on September 17. There was another revision on September 18, and I think that that was an error that was done on the person that was doing the site plan. We picked up on it, and we went back and asked them to correct that. Then after that meeting we had met with Mr. Wayne Arnold again, and he said that he was having some input from Tom Kuck, the engineer, which was not part of our original meetings. Mr. Tom Kuck had presented the information. I met with Mr. Wayne Arnold again. He Page 10 November 25, 1996 told me what -- what we needed to have. We went back and accomplished all of that except for one item which was difficult for us to do, and I discussed that with Wayne Arnold. He said we'll need to talk to Tom Kuck on that. But we submitted that site plan again on October 2. That site plan had all the landscaping that was on there. The only issue that was in question at that time was the elevations to be done by a surveyor that Mr. Tom Kuck was asking for. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, I -- I don't mean to interrupt you. I -- I guess the question to you from Mr. Manalich was, do you stipulate that you have failed to submit amendments as requested to the site development plan. If the answer is yes, that saves us a lot of time. If it's no, then they've got to present evidence to that e'ffect. MR. MANALICH: It appears to me that he -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but the way you've just described it, you think you're in compliance. MR. STEINBERG: We're in compliance, and my answer to that would be, yes, we have submitted it. They have asked for final tunings each time we come back. Now we're into the last one which we almost accomplished last Friday, and I think that will accomplish it. So from our first meeting, second, or third meeting, the answer is yes. We had submitted what was asked to be submitted. From what we received last Thursday on the fax machine, there was other things that they wanted to look at that was brought to our attention for the first time, and we can accomplish those. And so from last Thursday, no, we haven't but -- MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, the MR. STEINBERG: There's-- -, ,- MR. MANALICH: -- county staff's position is that there has not been compliance. I mean -- and we'll get into this, I guess, if we're going to hear the case as to Mr. Steinberg's version versus staff's, but I don't believe this is a stipulation at this point. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. I -- I don't think so. MR. MANALICH: So we can go ahead and move forward and present our case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. MANALICH: And obviously, Mr. Steinberg, you'll have an opportunity to present your case also during the course of this hearing. MR. STEINBERG: I almost did. MR. MANALICH: Well, you've got a good start. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is your attorney coming back? MR. STEINBERG: I don't -- I don't -- not for the hearing here within thi~ time frame, I don't believe. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then I -- What I will ask you you to do if he's not going to be able to come back, as this county presents their evidence, I'm going to give you an opportunity to ask questions of them about what they,'ve had to testify to. MR. STEINBERG: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. MANALICH: County calls as its first witness Page 11 November 25, 1996 Mr. Tomasino. Madam Chairman, before we begin you should have all received, and Mr. Steinberg should have also received, a copy of Staff Composite Exhibit A consisting of approximately 40 pages plus at the end a 2-page warranty deed and at the beginning a table of contents. At this time I'd like to move into evidence -- this is Staff Composite Exhibit A, subject to any objection that Mr. Steinberg may have to its admission. (Staff Composite Exhibit A was offered into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, they're asking that we be allowed to have introduced into evidence for our consideration this packet which you've also received. Now, just because it gets into evidence and we get to look at it doesn't mean that you can't disagree with some of the facts in it, and we'll be happy to hear from you on that. He's just simply asking that we be allowed to look at it and consider it as the county's evidence. Do you have an objection to that? MR. STEINBERG: I don't have an objection to it, but again it's somewhat difficult because my attorney might have had an objection to it, but I don't have any objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I understand that you think that there's some factual inaccuracies in here, and we're going to give you a chance to point that out to us. But hearing no objection, do I have a motion from a board member that we accept as Exhibit 1 or A for the county the packet BCC versus Steinberg? MR. ANDREWS: So moved. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ALLEN: Second. - ",- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All opposed? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Passes. This will be introduced into evidence. You can have the court reporter mark that with this and make this a part of the record. (Staff Composite Exhibit A was marked for identification. ) (Staff Composite Exhibit A was admitted into evidence.) MR. MANALICH: I'll let the court reporter have an opportunity to mark this here for a moment. THE COURT REPORTER: It's marked. MR. MANALICH: All right. Would you please state your name for the record. MR. TOMASINO: Charles Tomasino. Excuse MR. MANALICH: And how are you employed, THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I think him in. MR. TOMASINO: MR. MANALICH: MR. TOMASINO: Charles Tomasino. MR. MANALICH: Excuse me. Yeah. Let-- All in favor signify by saying aye. me. Mr. Tomasino? I need to swear I'm a code -- Oh. All right. -- code enforcement investigator. Page 12 November 25, 1996 MR. TOMASINO: You want to swear me in. Okay. THEREUPON, CHARLES TOMASINO, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. MANALICH: Mr. Tomasino, how are you employed? MR. TOMASINO: How am I employed? I'm a Collier County code enforcement investigator. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And how long have you been in that job? MR. TOMASINO: MR. MANALICH: case that is before MR. TOMASINO: MR. MANALICH: that case? MR. TOMASINO: September, was it? MR. MANALICH: Was it July, actually? MR. TOMASINO: July. Okay. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And what happened MR. TOMASINO: Well, I was driving -- I'll tell you the circumstances I was under; okay? MR. MANALICH: Okay. MR. TOMASINO: I was in my vehicle. I -- I got a call on my radio to go to the corner of Estey and Airport and investigate a large amount of paving going on on a vacant lot. I drove up to the s:j,. t:~, '. and I observed two large dump trucks, a steam roller, and about seven men. I drove to the site, and I said, "Can I speak to the -- the boss?" And I -- I think it was Better Roads, Incorporated, was doing the job. I said, "Do you guys have a permit?" And at that point Mr. Steinberg came out, and he said, "What's the problem?" I said, "Do you have a permit? Because this looks like a large job." He said, "Yes, I do, but I don't have it on me." So I said, "Would you kindly accompany me back to the office at Horseshoe Drive, and we'll take a look through the records and see what kind of a permit you -- you've acquired." MR. MANALICH: Okay. Before you go any further, let me show you -- You have before you a copy of Staff Composite Exhibit A. Before you go any further, just to clarify, on page 37 of that exhibit, there's a map. Could you tell us where on that map this site is located? MR. TOMASINO: Thirty-seven. It's on the corner of Estey and Airport Road, looking at the map, the middle of the map on the right-hand side. MR. MANALICH: Okay. area there pictured there MR. TOMASINO: That rectangular area. Yes. MR. MANALICH: that's where the paving was occurring? Twenty-two years. Did you have occasion to investigate the us today involving the respondent, Mr. Steinberg? Yes, I have. Okay. When did you first get involved in I believe it was on the -- 11th of And is that entire rectangular Page 13 November 25, 1996 MR. TOMASINO: MR. MANALICH: 16 of the composite represent. MR. TOMASINO: These represent the -- the paving in progress. Part of it was not completely paved as I approached the site. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Who took these photographs? MR. TOMASINO: I did. MR. MANALICH: Was that on or about July 11? MR. TOMASINO: 7-11. Right. MR. MANALICH: Okay. You said you met with Mr. Steinberg at the site. Then you asked him back to your office. What happened there? MR. TOMASINO: We went into my supervisor's office, Mr. Bolgar, and we looked up the record, and we found that Mr. Steinberg has obtained an express permit which is not the type of permit involved -- that should be involved .in this type of an operation. MR. MANALICH: Why is that? MR. TOMASINO: An express permit is for minor minor objects like minor repairs, putting a shed on a property. What was involved had to have much more detail involved. He's beyond the scope of his permit. MR. MANALICH: normally require a MR. TOMASINO: _ .._ ~. MANALICH: estimation require MR. TOMASINO: MR. MANALICH: comment during your improvement plan?' MR. TOMASINO: Well, he -- he brought up the name Wayne Arnold, and he said he's been in -- working with Wayne Arnold and that we should wait for Mr. Arnold. And we tried to get in touch with Mr. Arnold. This is around 2:00, 3:30 in the afternoon, and our workday stopped at 4:00. So we please asked -- We asked Mr. Steinberg to please stop working until the next day. MR. MANALICH: Did that occur? Did he stop work? MR. TOMASINO: Well, we had a meeting the next day, but he did not stop. He completed the work after I gave him a verbal stop. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Steinberg after MR. TOMASINO: meeting, yes. MR. MANALICH: been completed? MR. TOMASINO: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Was the work completed? I In the middle portion of that area. Now, I also direct your attention to page exhibit, and please tell me what these photographs Okay. And does an express permit site improvement plan? No . No . Did this particular work in your a site improvement plan? At -- Yes. Okay. And did Mr. Steinberg have any meeting regarding whether he needed a site Did you have another meeting with this? The next day we had the Wayne Arnold Is that where you found out the work had Page 14 November 25, 1996 understand there was hot asphalt and the trucks; is that correct? MR. TOMASINO: That's correct. Yeah. MR. MANALICH: All right. Did you indicate to Mr. Steinberg that he needed to get a new permit and provide a site improvement plan? MR. TOMASINO: That was beyond the scope of my expertise. All I know, he had the wrong kind of permit. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Did you issue a notice of violation for this case? MR. TOMASINO: I gave him a verbal. At the site I gave him a verbal. A few days later we sent him a stipulation. MR. MANALICH: Is that what's on page 19 of the composite exhibit? Is that your signature and your notice of violation? MR. TOMASINO: Yes, sir, it is. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And on that -- Is it your testimony that the cited violation is the failure to obtain the property permit with the site improvement plan? MR. TOMASINO: At that point in time, yes. MR. MANALICH: And was this also in your meetings verbally conveyed to Mr. Steinberg? MR. TOMASINO: Yes, it was. MR. MANALICH: Okay. No further questions. MR. LAFORET: I have a question for the witness. Sir, at the time you asked Mr. Steinberg to quit working at 3:30 or so in the afternoon, how much hot asphalt was left on the truck? _ , ,_ J;m. TOMASINO: At least a truck and a half, two dump trucks. MR. LAFORET: Is that asphalt salvagable? MR. TOMASINO: I'm not an expert on that, sir. MR. LAFORET: Did you ask any of the drivers if they could salvage it or anything? MR. TOMASINO: My-- MR. LAFORET: My point -- My point that I'm trying to get at is, was your request reasonable to stop the work irrespective of the dollar loss in damages to the person who was laying asphalt? MR. TOMASINO: Well, my -- my -- MR. LAFORET: From my experience in asphalt, you better lay it so it will roll in properly. MR. TOMASINO: With all due respect, Mr. Laforet -- MR. LAFORET: Now, if you're rolling it in, you have a little bit of time that you can wait the next day, but if it's on the truck, you don't have a lot of time. MR. TOMASINO: Well, he knew it. Why did he do it without a permit? MR. MANALICH: Mr. Tomasino, Mr. Laforet raises a valid point obviously but you -- Just to be clear, you have not cited him for having put in the asphalt and completing the work. You cited him for not getting an after-the-fact permit; is that correct? MR. TOMASINO: I said, "Come on in and let's get Page 15 November 25, 1996 this" -- "Come on in before I do anything and -- and get it straightened out," and it wasn't straightened out. MR. MANALICH: You're -- You're not requesting by your notice of violation, are you, to rip up the asphalt; right? MR. TOMASINO: Well, I think that's for fu~ther into the case. If he -- if he -- If he abides by everything, he's -- the asphalt will stay down. MR. MANALICH: In other words, if he submits a site improvement plan? MR. TOMASINO: MR. MANALICH: MR. MCCORMICK: Mr. Tomasino -- MR. TOMASINO: Yes? MR. MCCORMICK: -- was there any work done on the 12th, the next day? Was there any pavement laid or any work? MR. TOMASINO: To my knowledge, when he came in on the 12th for our meeting, it was all paved. It was -- MR. MCCORMICK: It was already done? MR. TOMASINO: -- already done then, right, before us. MR. MCCORMICK: Okay. Thank you. MR. LAFORET: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, do you have any questions that you would like to ask Mr. Tomasino based on his testimony? MR. STEINBERG: Yes, I do. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Please go ahead. _._ ~. MANALICH: You want to use this podium? MR. STEINBERG: Mr. Tomasino, you stated that there was no permit on the site. MR. TOMASINO: I believe there wasn't or I wouldn't ask you to come into the office. MR. STEINBERG: Was not this permit stated on the front of the building facing Airport Road of which I pointed out to you when we discussed it? MR. TOMASINO: Not to my recollection. MR. STEINBERG: Second question: When we met, you asked me to stop -- have the pavers stop paving? MR. TOMASINO: Yes, sir. MR. STEINBERG: Did I not ask you that they only had a short portion of the paving left to go. And I, in fact, pleaded with you. I -- Let me get back to that. I want to ask another question first. It was not an issue whether the permit was on the site that you had originally approached me about. You told me I was paving the wrong property; is that not correct? MR. TOMASINO: I had no way to know that, sir. It was just -- MR. STEINBERG: Did you not say that the property that you got a permit for is way down there on Rock Creek? You did not say that? Right. Right. All right. Thank you. I have one additional question. Page 16 November 25, 1996 MR. TOMASINO: No, sir. I had no way of knowing. MR. STEINBERG: You did not pullout the copy of the application for the permit that you had and said, "On here it says that you're supposed to be paving Rock Creek and not this," and I did not respond to you. I said, "I'd be a fool if I'm paving someone else's property"? MR. TOMASINO: It might have happened in the office when we got back but not in the field, no. MR. STEINBERG: That did not happen on the site? MR. TOMASINO: No. MR. STEINBERG: Back to the other question: Did I not then plead with you that we had approximately a dozen men out there, a couple of big machines -- and Better Roads is paving this. I'm not paving it. Better Roads is the contractor on this -- that we had the machines out there, we had the hot asphalt that was waiting, and I says, "Let them go ahead and finish, and if I am wrong on my legal description on my permit"-- 'which was your only question at the time. I says, nIf I'm wrong, I will go back to the office" -- and that I'm the one that volunteered to go back to the office, and I said, "If I'm wrong, I will take it back up." And you says, "Okay. Let them go ahead and finish, and we'll go to the office right now." Did you not say that? MR. TOMASINO: No . MR. STEINBERG: At that point I instructed the pavers on the site, and we went back to the office. Is that -- Do you remember that? MR. TOMASINO: I said~ "I'll give you a verbal stop. I will not red-tag the job because.I don't know my situation here. So lett-s.'go back and get it rectified. Let's go back to the office, and I'll give you a verbal stop instead of red tag and tell everybody to go home." MR. STEINBERG: Okay. That's your testimony? MR. TOMASINO: That's my testimony. MR. STEINBERG: We did go back to the office and met with Mr. Bolgari right? MR. TOMASINO: Right. MR. STEINBERG: At that point did I not point out that -- that there was a discrepancy that they were talking about Rock Creek as being on the permit, and did we not discuss that? And I sat in the office, and at that time we had made an agreement to meet the following morning because I said there was a site plan on file in your reference to Mr. Wayne Arnold, and you could not find or compliance service could not find a site plan that existed, and I said that there was one on site or on -- on file and that we ought to meet the next morning? Is that in close proximity of what took place? MR. TOMASINO: Well, I was addressing an express permit, and I didn't know how that fit into the picture because it shouldn't have. That -- That's as far as I go with this. MR. STEINBERG: Okay. Did we meet the next morning? MR. TOMASINO: Yes, we did. MR. STEINBERG: We met with Mr. Ed Morad, Wayne Arnold Page 17 November 25, 1996 and myself and I believe Bob Mulhere. I'm not sure about that but I think -- MR. TOMASINO: True. Bob Mulhere. Right. MR. STEINBERG: Was it? MR. TOMASINO: Right. MR. STEINBERG: At that point did you not state that we had a permit for the wrong address? MR. TOMASINO: Well, in reading the permit, there was some incongruities there. There was -- The legal was wrong, and the address was right, or the address was wrong and the legal was right. I couldn't -- I can't remember right now, but it did not jive. It did not go together. MR. STEINBERG: Did I not point out at that time that it was a survey, that it says, starting at Lot 35 and Rock Creek, you will go North 100 feet to the point of beginning, and your contention was that we were paving Lot 35 and Rock Creek? MR. TOMASINO: I -- I can't remember, but I -- I don't see what the issue is. I can't recall. MR. STEINBERG: The issue, Mr. Tomasino, is that you were claiming it was the wrong permit for the wrong property. MR. TOMASINO: No, sir. I'm claiming you've got an express permit for whatever property, which is wrong. You need the site plan. MR. STEINBERG: I have no further questions for this, Mr. Tomasino. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Tomasino, just one follow-up question. Obviously you've been asked about some confusion with regard to the location. - ,- MR. TOMASINO: Right. MR. MANALICH: But, regardless, in the notice of violation you issued, the basis for that violation is that the permit is not supported by the proper site improvement plan; correct? MR. TOMASINO: Partially, yes, yes. Partially. MR. MANALICH: Is there more? MR. TOMASINO: Well, it's the wrong type of permit he got. . MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you. MR. STEINBERG: One -- one question to follow up on that. It was the wrong type' of permit, but you issued no red tag on the site because you agreed to go back to the office to see if it was for the right property? MR. TOMASINO: No. To see if we had -- why did you get an express permit rather than have a whole site plan approval. That's why. MR. STEINBERG: If you thought this was the wrong permit and improperly done, why did you not issue a red tag? MR. TOMASINO: Because I was being a gentleman. There was hot asphalt, and I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. MR. STEINBERG: Would there have been any difference between having a verbal stop order for hot asphalt or perm -- or issuing a stop order for hot asphalt? Page 18 November 25, 1996 MR. TOMASINO: Yes. I -- I would have to be sure of my facts before I give you a red tag complete stop. Sure. I -- I had to check my facts. MR. STEINBERG: No further questions. MR. MANALICH: Okay. You -- Mr. Tomasino, you had an opportunity to check your facts, and you're still convinced, are you not, that that notice of violation was correct because it was the wrong permit and didn't have a site plan? MR. TOMASINO: Absolutely. Yeah. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. MR. TOMASINO: All right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Next witness. MR. MANALICH: Next witness, Dennis Mazzone. MR. MAZZONE: Good morning. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Tomasino, could you let Mr. Mazzone have a copy of that exhibit. MR. MAZZONE: Good morning. For the record my name is Dennis Mazzone. I'm an investigator for Collier County's code enforcement. MR. MANALICH: Swear the witness in, please. THEREUPON, DENNIS MAZZONE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Mr. Mazzone. MR. MAZZONE: Good morning. MR. MANALICH: In your duties as code enforcement i~v~stigator, did you have occasion on or about August 9 of 1996 to become involved in the investigation of the case presently before the board? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. What happened on that date? MR. MAZZONE: On that date I was called into Mr. Bolgar's office to discuss the background of the case that was just presented to the board, given the information of the history of what had taken place, and asked to look into the further enforcement of -- of the -- our ordinances that would be guiding Mr. Steinberg into obtaining the proper revised site improvement plan or site development plan that would be required for the new permit that he was to obtain for his paving. MR. MANALICH: Did you personally investigate the underlying facts of this case? MR. MAZZONE: I did. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And what did you find after being assigned the case as far as whether there were any violations, and what were they? MR. MAZZONE: It appeared as though there was some early confusion over which permit would be acceptable for the type of work that was being performed. We had -- We came to the conclusion that it would take more than an express permit and that Mr. Steinberg would have to be made aware of the fact that formal architectural drawings Page 19 November 25, 1996 and engineered plans would have to be presented to Collier County's planning department along with the proper permit to continue with the project. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And why was a .so-called express permit inadequate under these facts? MR. MAZZONE: Because the type of work, the size of the project in itself, and the resurfacing of such an area could have changed the -- the flow -- the flow of the water and had -- could have adversely impact neighboring properties. with the -- with commercial property as Mr. Steinberg has at this location, if repaving takes place, along with the repaving, there's a required restriping in making sure handicapped spaces are adequate and -- and put back into place, that landscape is up to code, and we wanted to make sure that everything was taken care of as it would have been required for this -- the scope of this project. MR. MANALICH: Okay. On or about August 9, then shortly after being assigned to the case, did you have a meeting at which Mr. Steinberg was present? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And did you explain to him the requirement for a site improvement plan? MR. MAZZONE: I -- I mor~ or less left the expertise of explaining that up to Mr. Wayne Arnold who was also in attendance at that meeting. I-- MR. MANALICH: Were you present? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, I was. Yes. MR. MANALICH: Did Mr. Arnold explain the site i~p~oyement plan to Mr. Steinberg? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. Mr. Tom Kuck and Mr. Arnold were present, I believe. I -- I'm positive Mr. Arnold was. I'm almost sure Mr. Kuck was present also. And the parties that were present went over the additional information that was required by , Mr. Steinberg and what he had to resubmit to Collier County as an amended site improvement plan. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Did Mr. Steinberg agree to do that? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, he did. MR. MANALICH: On page 23 of your packet, there's a letter from Attorney Anthony pires requesting an extension of the compliance date in this case. Do you know if the county granted Mr. pires' request? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, we did. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Compliance time was duly extended then? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. We were working very well, actually, with Mr. Steinberg and his attorney. He -- They were coming in and asking the right questions and we were -- we were trying to get this so that we would get the information submitted in a timely way. HR. MANALICH: Okay. On page 21 of your composite exhibit, there's a letter from Better Roads. Does this letter in and of itself satisfy any of the requirements for a site improvement plan? Page 20 November 25, 1996 MR. MAZZONE: To my knowledge, it -- it does not. MR. MANALICH: Why is that? MR. MAZZONE: I believe what the county was looking for was a -- a letter under the seal of an engineered -- an engineer's letter sealed that would be more official for this type of work. MR. MANALICH: On September 11 did you have another meeting with the respondent? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, we did. MR. MANALICH: And what was discussed there? MR. MAZZONE: One moment, please. MR. MANALICH: Just briefly in summary. MR. MAZZONE: The very -- the very same conversations as to what was required in addition to what he had already submitted on his plan. I guess there were -- there were some additional information that the planning department needed. MR. MANALICH: Now, you had those discussions, yet on page 17 of the composite exhibit there's a notice of violation signed by you dated October 2. Why did you find it necessary to issue that notice? MR. MAZZONE: Because we wanted to make sure that what we were requesting was submitted back to Collier County in a timely manner. MR. MANALICH: date? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Then on page 9 of the composite exhibit, there's another notice of violation dated October 29. Why did you issue that one? -- MR. MAZZONE: Again, I had been checking periodically with the planning department hoping that we can clear this up in a timely manner and receiving information back from Mr. Arnold andlor Mr. Kuck saying that we didn't have quite everything in our packet that we were looking for. We didn't have the revisions as we had requested, and it was important that we did have all those in a timely manner. And also this notice was to -- Right after I wrote this notice I had contacted Mr. Steinberg's attorney, and I tried to contact Mr. Steinberg. I believe he was out of town at that point. But we wanted to let them know that we would be presenting this case to the Code Enforcement Board; therefore, we wanted to put -- lock them into a date. MR. MANALICH: November 6? MR. MAZZONE: MR. MANALICH: inspections? MR. MAZZONE: No. The -- the -- the -- I have not been ins~ting the property personally. I have been comparing notes with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Kuck and the internal staff. MR. MANALICH: Based on those communications, has compliance been achieved at the site improvement plan requirements? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir. Not to date. It had not been submitted as of that Did you also reinspect the property on I did not, no. Okay. Have you had any recent Page 21 November 25, 1996 MR. MANALICH: Okay. Page 41 and forty -- oh, excuse me. Beyond page 40 and what actually could be numbered 41 and 42, there's two pages. There's a warranty deed. As far as your investigation of being able to tell, this is the warranty deed whereby Mr. Steinberg is the owner of the property where the paving was done; is that correct? MR. MAZZONE: Mr. Steinberg and his wife. That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you. You've cited in your -- on page 9 of the composite exhibit the sections of the Collier County codes that have been violated. Basically could you tell me, please, why you cited in in summary form these particular sections? And you have -- What is the essence of the violation, then, in other words? MR. MAZZONE: The essence of the violation is that in the sections referred to the control that Mr. Steinberg does have of the property, he and his wife, and that with them having knowledge that there is a violation in that we -- we do need compliance by a reasonable period of time. He still -- or the parties involved still have not really come into complete compliance with Collier County, although we know we're -- they're working in that direction. But they had to either submit the revised site improvement plan as required and live up to the letter of the -- the permit of what was allowed for them to do out there or remove the improvements. MR. MANALICH: Staff B. (Staff Exhibit B was marked for identification.) MR. MANALICH: Mr. Ma~zone, I'm showing you what has been marked as Staff Exhibit B. I'm showing it to Mr. Steinberg who hasa~knowledged that he has previously had an opportunity to see this. Could you please describe what that document is. MR. MAZZONE: Excuse me. This document consists of comments from the various interior building planning officials within our building on Horseshoe Drive. MR. MANALICH: And specifically what individuals? MR. MAZZONE: That would be Nancy Siemion. I -- and they may be pronouncing her wrong -- her name incorrectly. It's S-i-e-m-i-o-n. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And who is she? MR. MAZZONE: She's a planner who would look into landscape and I -- I believe irrigation. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And does she have a series of comments regarding what is lacking on this site as far as landscaping? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, she does. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Who else is in that document? MR. MAZZONE: Bryan Milk is also a planner with Collier -- He works with current planning with Collier County. He also has comments. MR. MANALICH: MR. MAZZONE: wish. MR. MANALICH: Jus t in summary what Regarding what? Regarding -- I can -- I can quote if you Page 22 November 25, 1996 MR. MAZZONE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: is his subject matter? MR. MAZZONE: The screening on the three sides of a dumpster and -- and -- and such matters as that. MR. MANALICH: On the cover sheet of that document, does Mr. Kuck comment regarding some fees that have not been paid? MR. MAZZONE: To go -- Excuse me. To go back to Mr. Milk, he also goes into additional parking spaces that are required and which is probably as important, of course, as the screening. MR. MANALICH: paid? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, there are. There's an application fee. The normal application fee is $215. Mr. Steinberg had paid only $85 of that, leaving a balance of $130 due. MR. MANALICH: What about copies of sets of drawings? MR. MAZZONE: There were only three unsigned, unsealed drawings submitted by Mr. Steinberg, and our requirements are seven sets signed and sealed. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Any other individual that has commented on those documents? MR. MAZZONE: Mr. Kuck had made a couple of comments. Note that no retention areas were provided -- excuse me -- since no new improvement [sic] areas were being created, the site was grandfathered, vested on the issue but required to provide handicap spaces in compliance with the LDC. MR. MANALICH: Based on everything we've talked about here this morning and everything that you have reviewed in your inve~t1gation, is it your opinion that this property and this respondent are or are not in compliance? MR. MAZZONE: It's my opinion that they are not in compliance. MR. MANALICH: Okay. No further questions. MR. LAFORET: I have a question for the witness. Mr. Mazzone, on page 37, the map of the -- the layout of the property, the middle of the page on the right-hand side is Estey Street and Airport Road. Now, there's two blocks there that are marked off with some symbol. I'm assuming it's a P which would be parking, and I'm assuming that this area was being repaved. Was it? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. Bear with me one moment. MR. LAFORET : Sure. MR. MAZZONE: Just to assist I brought a little sketch of the -- the -- One parcel has been divided into three different sites. MR. LAFORET: MR. MAZZONE : MR. LAFORET: MR. MAZZONE: MR. LAFORET: were labeled with MR. MAZZONE: Is there some fees that have been not I saw that. Oh, you've seen this? I see it here. Oh, okay. Great. It's on there. My question was that the first two a P. Right. sites Page 23 November 25, 1996 MR. LAFORET: Were they initially paved? Is this a repaving job on top of that, or were they initially paved? MR. MAZZONE: It's my understanding that there's been a repaving job. MR. LAFORET: On that part? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. MR. LAFORET: Not the rest of that part -- MR. MAZZONE: Sir-- MS. DEIFIK: On both sections? MR. MAZZONE: I could be incorrect. As I remember, it was not paved, having driven on it. MR. LAFORET: That's -- The bottom part was not paved? MR. MAZZONE: I don't recall, sir. MR. LAFORET: I refer you to page 21 on Better Roads' letter. MR. MAZZONE: Yes. MR. LAFORET: It's says, "Concerning the" -- If I ask you a question that's beyond your scope, you holler. MR. MAZZONE: I will. MR. LAFORET: "Concerning the paving of three sites referenced above, the previously existing water flow and drainage was not altered in accordance with the property owner's instructions. Also,. the surface or subsurface area prior to paving was impervious, consisting of limerock, poured concrete, asphalt, and concrete washout." Deducing from that letter, correctly or incorrectly, then this map would show the bottom third section as not being paved previously. MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. - ,- MR. LAFORET: That' s correct? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. MR. LAFORET: All right, sir. Now, limerock, .poured concrete, and asphalt, then it was paved previously. MR. MAZZONE: I believe that would be the -- the two two parcels are -- that are on the northern -- the -- the the most northern end on Estey Avenue and the center parcel. MR. LAFORET: All right. I'll get -- get directly to my point then. My point is, a hard surface, asphalt or concrete, has been theoretically installed, proper drainage, and proper runoff into a collection system following the storm water collection system. Now, any additional area that was not hard-surfaced, if you paved that surface, you're increasing the runoff. Now, do you understand what I'm saying? MR. MAZZONE: Oh, yes, sir. , MR. LAFORET: Now, in my experience on the design jobs I did, we had to produce to the planning commission a study of the area, the amount of rainfall on this area that we were hard-surfacing plus the impact on the storm drainage system. In some cases the storm drains had to be increased in size. Did any such calculations exist on the application here to pave the unpaved area? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir. As I had stated before, the -- the letter from Better Roads was not sufficient because of the very Page 24 November 25, 1996 same issue you just -- you just raised that we would have it -- had to have engineered -- sealed engineered drawings to show that there wasn't going to be any adverse runoff effect on the neighboring properties because of this resurfering (phonetic) -- resurfacing. MR. LAFORET: All right. Then in addition -- you're saying in addition to the complaint of the prior witness who said his complaint on the subject was that they were paving the wrong lot, and you say not only were they paving the wrong lot but there's no calculations that the additional runoff -- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to -- MR. MAZZONE: If -- if I may -- MR. LAFORET: -- say bluntly what I understand from your testimony. MR. MAZZONE: MR. LAFORET: additional runoff. MR. MAZZONE: If I can try to clarify it, there were a couple of permits pulled by Mr. Steinberg. As -- As he was progressing, he started on the -- the most northern site -- there's A, B, and C sites, and was progressing, I believe, in a southerly direction from what I'm understanding, and he was pulling his permits as he -- he thought to be adequate for -- for the work being done. At a point Mr. Steinberg was made aware of the fact that he had to pull a different kind of permit than an express permit. That simply wasn't sufficient due to the fact that we needed -- as important and prior to the permit being pulled, we needed the site improvement plan, the -- tne -- an -- an updated plan showing that nothing would be adversely affected. - ,- MR. LAFORET: Thank you, sir. MR. MAZZONE: You're welcome. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, I'm -- I'm going to give you an opportunity to ask some questions of Mr. Mazzone. The exhibit that you had marked for identification as B, did you want that admitted? MR. MANALICH: Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. MCCORMICK: Let me -- If I may, may I ask a question about that exhibit? Mr. Mazzone, were those letters from the other county staff members -- were those related to the -- the dates which you published the notice of violations on October 2 and October 29? In other words, did your notice of violations coincide with those comments? Were they related at all? MR. MAZZONE: No, sir. These letter -- These comments came as recently as last week. We've been asking for the -- for the submittal of the '-- the revised plan, and Mr. Steinberg had submitted his revisals, but these were comments on the submission of the revisal -- the revised plan. 1m. MCCORMICK: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: This is something in addition to what they're asking currently that he needs to do. If -- if I could -- There were no calculations on the plan for Page 25 November 25, 1996 MR. MCCORMICK: MR. MANALICH: question to that? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Mazzone, under 3.3.9 which is located at page 15 of the composite exhibit, a citation of our Land Development Code, is it not the requirement of the code that there be an approved -- and I emphasize "approved" -- site plan prior to a building permit being issued? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Would these comments that we've just referred to in those documents not all relate to what is necessary for approval? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, you want to ask some questions of Mr. Mazzone based on his testimony here today? MR. STEINBERG: Yes. Of course. . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. STEINBERG: You and I have covered so much territory, I don't know if I can remember what questions to ask and -- but we'll try. Going back to the first meeting that we had because that was the first one that you were with when we met with Mr. Tony pires and Bill Bolgar, Wayne Arnold, and yourself. That's who was -- attended that meeting. At that time they had found a site plan that had been approved at a prior date but indicated that being that it was resurfacing th~ area, that they needed to have an amended site plan. I~that close to what Mr. Wayne Arnold had expressed? MR. MAZZONE: I'm not sure who discovered the site plan, but a site plan was presented and it -- Yes. Indeed. MR. STEINBERG: We found one. There was some question because the permits had been issued and the paving was done whether there was a required amended site plan or not and this discussion -- and this is one of the reasons that we had our attorney there, because I wasn't sure what -- the legal aspects of it, whether we needed one or not -- that Mr. Arnold said that we're not looking for that much. We need an amended site plan, just -- if we do an amended site plan, because there was one location that did not have landscaping in front of it. And he said if we could get three trees in front of that and some landscaping, that's what we're looking for. Is that not what was expressed to -- at the meeting? MR. MAZZONE: I don't recall the exact conversation, but I do recall Mr. Arnold making some changes on the plan physically, I believe, and discussing with -- with you what was required. MR. STEINBERG: Correct. At that point did I not say rather than argue whether we needed an amended site plan or not, if this is what we're looking at doing, that we wanted the landscaping in front of there also, we'll go ahead and submit an amended site plan and proceed with it? Okay. Madam Chairman, may I ask a follow-up Page 26 November 25, 1996 MR. MAZZONE: Yes. I recall that. MR. STEINBERG: Okay. Is that not the only issue that we really dealt with on that first meeting? MR. MAZZONE: In all honesty, I -- I do believe we -- we talked about a handicap parking space that was required that had to be relocated and some striping. MR. STEINBERG: Was that not at the September -- I don't have it in front of me, but it was the next meeting we-had when we met in the conference room at that time after we brought a site plan in and that there was a high line pole sitting in a particular place and we wanted to be able to -- MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. STEINBERG: -- move the handicap space? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. And also the discussion of the -- a sealed letter from an engineer. MR. STEINBERG: Correct. Okay. But there was a site plan that was already submitted at that second meeting, and I'm -- I'm just referring to the first meeting. MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MR. STEINBERG: Was there any written instructions given to me as to what was required on that site plan after our first meeting? MR. MAZZONE: I didn't provide you with written instruction. MR. STEINBERG: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: But I -~ I can't answer for any -- anybody else. - ,,- The -- Excuse me. If I may add, in our notice of violation that we had provided, we did ask that -- that you submit the revised plan as requested, referring to the meeting as we had requested and -- MR. STEINBERG: Correct, but no written request -- no written -- You had nothing in your documentation that says what was really requested other than the landscaping we had talked about? MR. MAZZONE: I didn't have a copy of the revised plan. No, I didn't. MR. STEINBERG: Well, the question was, did you have a copy of any instructions to me? MR. MAZZONE: No, I did not. MR. STEINBERG: Is there one that existed that you know of? MR. MAZZONE: Not to my -- I don't know. Not to my , knowledge. MR. STEINBERG: At the meeting that we had, the next meeting which we had already submitted a site plan but we wanted to get together to see if there was any changes that were needed on it and this was the one that took place in the conference room with Mr. Wayne Arnold, yourself, myself, my son David, and yourself -- I said that. I believe that's who was in attendance there. At that time several things were brought out. They had asked that for the Page 27 November 25, 1996 traffic pattern that the arrows be installed; was that correct? Mr. Wayne Arnold asked for that? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. MR. STEINBERG: That's a meeting that was discussed on the handicap parking space because in order to get it closer, that I expressed I met with Florida Power & Light to see if we could do something with the pole that was sitting on the property that would place the handicap closer to the building parking spot, and that was our desire to be able to do that and that I had had two meetings with Florida Power & Light concerning that? MR. MAZZONE: I recall the conversation, but I'm not sure if it was established that you actually had to move that pole or -- or not, but I knew that there was conversation about having to move the handicap space and identifying each -- each lot separately and calling out what -- what kind of business was on those lots. MR. STEINBERG: Correct. MR. MAZZONE: Yeah. MR. STEINBERG: It was not a request by Mr. Wayne Arnold that I move it to that location, but it was my request to him that there was a time frame when Florida Power & Light could move that pole, that I would like to be able to put it there, and he said, "We'll work with you on that, designate on there that it's projected," or whatever. MR. MAZZONE: That -- that would be -- I can't speak for Mr. Arnold. MR. STEINBERG: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: I really don't know. MR. STEINBERG: All right. - .. ,- MR. MAZZONE: I can' t recall. MR. STEINBERG: Also, at the 8-27 meeting, there was a discussion about this property being impervious and that it was resurfaced because it consisted of several types of limerock, concrete, asphalt, and gravel that was over the limerock and that was asked to get a letter from Better Roads stating what was there and what they had done. MR. MAZZONE: It was my understanding that there was a letter that was required by an engineer to be sealed, somebody that had an engineer's degree or had the ability to state that we did not adversely affect that water flow. MR. STEINBERG: At this meeting -- think about this meeting, that there -- was there a request that a letter be from an engineer, or was it a request that we have a letter from Better Roads? MR. MAZZONE: I believe it was Better Roads, that I was -thinking it was in the vein of somebody that had -- who was an engineer from Better Roads. This is my understanding. MR. STEINBERG: Okay. There was a letter later on MR. MAZZONE: There was. MR. STEINBERG: -- at another meeting that -- that after the letter was presented from Better Roads that they said they would like to have additional information. Was that not the meeting that :he other letter was asked for? Page 28 November 25, 1996 MR. MAZZONE: I think you're correct. I -- I -- I'm not positive. MR. STEINBERG: Excuse me if I may. The question, that in working with this, have I stayed in contact with you consistently on -- MR. MAZZONE: Yes, you have. MR. STEINBERG: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: And I have stayed in contact with you. MR. STEINBERG: Correct, and that which I appreciate. You had given me a call several times indicating that you were going to send out a notice. Also, when you sent out the notice, did you not -- On -- The plans show a revision for October 2. On or about that time -- MR. LAFORET: Excuse me, sir. Could you identify that plan that you're reading from? MR. STEINBERG: The -- It's a site plan that has been submitted to the -- to the county. MR. LAFORET: There should be a date or a number or something. MR. STEINBERG: Yes. I'll identify it. It is the site development plan -- revision of Site Development Plan No. 92-110. MR. LAFORET: Thank you. MR. STEINBERG: That we had submitted site plans which was on a Friday to the county for their approval. On approximately the same time -- and I -- I believe it was the next Monday -- that you had called me and said that you were going to send out another notice for violation on that and I had told you to check with Mr. Wayne Arnoid, that we've already submitted the site plan, we believe we have everything on there that they wanted, did you check with Mr. Wayne Arnold? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, I did. MR. STEINBERG: Did you send out the notice? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, I did. I -- Mr. Arnold was not in his office that particular day, and my instructions were to send -- send the notice so that we could arrive at a meeting time with the board to -- to make sure that this matter gets resolved. MR. STEINBERG: Did Mr. Arnold discuss with you after we submitted them that he had gotten a letter from Mr. Tom Kuck at this time -- this is after October, and I believe these were submitted on October 7. They were revised on the 2nd, somewheres in that period -- that he had a letter from Mr. Tom Kuck and that he needed to discuss with me maybe some additional information was needed? MR. MAZZONE: I believe that was a conversation that I had with Mr. Arnold, yes. MR. STEINBERG: Do you know if I had a meeting with Mr. Tom Kuck concerning that? MR. MAZZONE: No, I don't. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Steinberg. MR. STEINBERG: Yes? MS. DEIFIK: The -- The plan that you're looking at, Page 29 November 25, 1996 92-110, is it signed and sealed by an engineer? MR. STEINBERG: No, it is not, and we'll get into that at a later date with Mr. Tom -- Tom Kuck. After the meeting with Mr. Tom Kuck, there was one other revision that was made on the site plan which was November 13. Did I inform you of that revision and that the new site plans have been turned in with that? MR. MAZZONE: I cannot honestly say I remember you doing that, but I -- I have to say that you -- Whenever I spoke to you in any chronological order as the case was progressing, you did make every attempt to try to update me on what was submitted, and I tried to make an attempt to let you know or your attorney know that there was additional information needed as per Mr. Arnold's interpretation and to please contact him directly. I just -- I don't recall that exact discussion. MR. STEINBERG: After the landscaping plans had been submitted on October 2 or thereabouts when the change was made, did I receive any -- any notices or any -- anything to correct on the landscaping? MR. MAZZONE: You say after what date, sir? MR. STEINBERG: After October 2. MR. MAZZONE: The only notice I could refer to would be our notice of violation. MR. STEINBERG: And did not the notice of violation state to submit an approved site plan? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. That would have to -- That would be including any landscape that would be needed in addition to what was there. - '-MR. STEINBERG: Right. It didn't specifically say what had to be done. It just said approved site plan. MR. MAZZONE: That's -- That's correct. MR. STEINBERG: Are you aware of what was submitted here that was faxed to us on November 21 or 22 last Thursday and Friday for changes on the site plan? MR. MAZZONE: Are you referring to the comments by the MR. MR. MR. before? MR. MAZZONE: MR. STEINBERG: Friday. MR. MAZZONE: No, sir, I did not. MR. STEINBERG: Okay. What time period do we have between October 7 and November 22? Approximately six, seven weeks? MR. MAZZONE: Correct. MR. STEINBERG: And, again, has there ever been any indication that I have not spent the best effort I could to cooperate? MfL MAZZONE: With my -- my personal relationship with you in this matter you've been cooperative. STEINBERG: Yes. MAZZONE: Yes, sir, I am. STEINBERG: Have you ever seen any of these comments Before this day? Correct, or before last Thursday or Page 30 November 25, 1996 MR. STEINBERG: you that MR. MAZZONE: You did express you had a death in your family at one point and -- MR. STEINBERG: That there was three MR. MAZZONE: Yeah. Yes. Certainly you that we were willing to work with you MR. MANALICH: No questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Mazzone. MR. MAZZONE: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Call Mr. Wayne Arnold. Mr. Mazzone, do you have Staff Exhibit B there with you? Swear the witness in, please. THEREUPON, WAYNE ARNOLD, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. MANALICH: Good morning. Would you state your name for the record. MR. ARNOLD: Collier County. MR. MANALICH: your duties? MR. ARNOLD: My responsibilities include the oversight of the site development plan review process, rezoning process, land development regulation in general. MR. MANALICH: Okay. .And are you certified in the area of land planning and plan review? - ..,- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I hold certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Mr. Steinberg, do you have any objection to qualifying Mr. Arnold as an -- as an expert on land planning and plan review? MR. STEINBERG: No, I do not. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. Madam Chairman, we'd so move. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You'll be certified as an expert. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Arnold, you've had the benefit of listening to testimony this morning regarding this entire case. Have you had a series of meetings with the parties regarding the lack of submission of an adequate approved site improvement plan for this case? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we have. MR. MANALICH: And how many meetings would you say ,you've attended? MR. ARNOLD: My best estimate is approximately five meetings with the Steinbergs and/or their legal representatives. MR. MANALICH: Did this begin in the summer of this year? MR. ARNOLD: My best recollection is that it began sometime in July, if I'm not mistaken, and has been ongoing as -- as through last week. Even under circumstances I expressed to deaths? I expressed back to as best I could. Wayne Arnold, planning services director, Mr. Arnold, in that capacity what are Page 31 November 25, 1996 MR. MANALICH: Is Mr. Steinberg currently in compliance with the required site improvement plan requirement of the Land Development Code? MR. ARNOLD: No, he is not. MR. MANALICH: And why isn' the? MR. ARNOLD: As was entered into the record, your Exhibit B, which was our staff comments relative to the revised site development plan filed for Mr. Steinberg's property, we had several comments relative to his submission that were deficient. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think that that was not admitted into evidence. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. At this time, Mr. Arnold, would you please describe what is -- what is that document and what it -- MR. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. MANALICH: -- conveys. MR. ARNOLD: I'm looking at a document that's marked Staff B Exhibit, and it's dated 11-21-96. This was our comment form that was faxed to the applicant relative to comments that staff had on their revised site development plan submittal, and I guess I would just like to point out for the record that the site development plan that was not submitted to Collier County formally until November the 14th, 1996. There were several meetings that had been held between Mr. Steinberg and his representative, at which time he presented plans to us. And, in fact, I did walk into my office one day to find a set of rolled plans on my chair. I immediately called Mr. Steinberg's legal representative, Tony Pires, indicating that we did not have a formal submittal, and the ~- the plans left on my chair did not constitute a submittal. There was no application fee included, no apprication form, no engineered surveyed plans, etc. Mr. pires indicated that he would inform his client of such and that we would proceed from there. MR. MANALICH: Now, the people that report in that document as to the inadequacies of the site plan, are these people that are under your supervision? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, they are. MR. MANALICH: And who are those individuals specifically? MR. ARNOLD: Specifically we had our landscape architect, Nancy Siemion, review this; Tom Kuck who is the county engineer; Bryan Milk who's a principal planner in our site development review section. MR. MANALICH: And are you responsible for reviewing and supervising their determinations in these types of cases? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I am. MR. MANALICH: Now, just briefly, could you tell us what each of your employees found to be lacking with the site plan as it stands? MR. ARNOLD: Generally our -- I'll start with our landscape architect, Nancy Siemion. Her comments were, in my opinion, relatively straightforward. We had mentioned throughout to Mr. Steinberg that one of the things we would be looking for was an Page 32 November 25, 1996 enhanced landscape buffer requirement, especially along Airport Road. Miss Siemion as part of her job responsibilities made a site visit to the site and informed me that there were several trees that had been damaged through improper pruning that would also need to be replaced. She also indicated that there was no buffer along the -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Arnold, could I stop you just for a minute? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma' am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Just to protect the record because Mr. pires is not here and because what Mr. Arnold is doing is obviously testifying about hearsay evidence, just so that we protect everybody's rights, are you going to introduce that into evidence and find an exception to the hearsay rule for me? MR. MANALICH: Well, first of all, I haven't heard any objection to that being introduced. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I know, but Mr. pires is not here to help Mr. Steinberg. MR. MANALICH: Well, he was here. He apparently may have chosen not to have him participate. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, perhaps he's reading from a business record. MR. MANALICH: Well, that's true too. trying to lay the foundation for that with in light of the absence of an objection, I sufficient but -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I would be -- be more comfortable since Mr. pires has had to leave the room if you introduced this into evidence, and then he can testify from it. -"-MR. MANALICH: Okay. Mr. Ar -- Well, let me at this time then move into evidence Staff Exhibit B consisting of the reports from the employees of Mr. -- Or under the supervision of Mr. Arnold that have just been described. (Staff Exhibit B was offered into evidence.) MR. MANALICH: And in response to your question, I would state that the basis for admission is, number one, that there has been no objection to its admission; number two, that I think I laid a foundation that this is kept as part of their business records by people that report to and over matters of which Mr. Arnold has final authority and review and that he is personally informed by reviewing these documents as well as -- Mr. Arnold, have you also spoken to these individuals about their findings? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I have. MS. DEIFIK: It would still be -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, they are moving to introduce into evidence for probably our -- we could probably see this, members of the board, and he could certainly testify about it, a document -- Have you seen this document with all the comments from the staff'? MR. STEINBERG: Friday? I mean, I was the earlier questions, but thought that that would be The one that was faxed to us last Page 33 November 25, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm not sure. MR. MANALICH: If you could, Mr. Arnold, could you show him that document, please. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Manalich, what did you mean by, number two, it's an admission? Are you trying to say it's an admission against him? MR. MANALICH: No. No. I -- I -- I said I'm also admitting it or asking -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you saying that -- MR. STEINBERG: Yes. Those are the ones -- MR. MANALICH: -- asking for it to be admitted as a business record excep -- exception to the hearsay rule. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. STEINBERG: Yes. Those were the ones that were faxed to us last Friday, and I have seen them. That's the earliest I had seen them, and I have met with staff on them. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Do you have any objection to the board hearing evidence about that or seeing that particular record? MR. STEINBERG: Yes, I do, because I'm not -- I'm not sure that Mr. Arnold has been brought up to date with the conversation I had with people that made those comments. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we're going t9 give you the opportunity to tell us about subsequent comments and conversations you had with those people. But in terms of just the comments that are on that piece of paper and that piece of paper itself, do you have any objection to the board seeing it? MR. STEINBERG: No, I do not. -"-CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. In that case we'll have it admitted as the County's Exhibit 2 or B. MR. MANALICH: B . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: B. (Staff Exhibit B was admitted into evidence.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Now, I feel more comfortable. Why don't you carry on, Mr. Arnold. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Arnold, just to -- to supplement, are these types of reports that we're discussing in that document routinely prepared in your organization for matters of plan review that you are ultimately responsible for? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, they are. MR. MANALICH: And are they prepared at your direction, and do you also personally inquire into the contents of those reports? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I do. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you. Briefly tell us what is lacking under the site plan based on both your knowledge and what is contained in that document. MR. ARNOLD: I guess I would summarize overall that very little is -- is lacking to bring the site into compliance with our site development plan regulations. And in handling this as an amendment, we have a little bit more discretion in the time frame in which we can review this and some of the information that we need to Page 34 November 25, 1996 see which I think goes to assist Mr. Steinberg in helping to make this a little bit easier. But I guess I would also say that until we saw the formal site plan submittal in which Mr. Steinberg made his best attempt to address all the comments that we have provided to him in our various -- I would call them preapplication-type meetings that we normally have with individuals, this was our opportunity for all of our staff that reviews it as a team to make their comments. And I guess relative to landscaping, the -- the two issues that I would think were the most critical that -- that might have been of some surprise to Mr. Steinberg but our landscape architect hadn't had the benefit of numerous prior meetings was that there was no landscape buffer along the Estey Avenue road frontage of this project nor was there a landscape buffer along the southern perimeter of the project. Additionally, the landscape architect pointed out that several trees had been damaged or were dying from improper pruning that needed to be replaced. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Arnold, before you continue, on page 12 of the composite exhibit, do you see the text of one of the cited code sections, 2.4.5? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. MR. MANALICH: Is this the code section that covers the landscape deficiencies? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. And that essentially says that where we have an existing site where we've had additional site pavement work that's being done, that you shall bring the landscaping on that site up to the code requirements to your greatest extent possible. - ,,-- MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you. You were continuing to talk about the other areas of deficiency? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. Let me move on to the issue relative to the -- what appeared to be the most critical issue as -- as we first found out about this notice of violation, and that was whether or not the additional pavement surfacing over this almost 3 acres created any water management issue for not only the property owner but to the county or any surrounding property owners. Mr. Steinberg's submittal as of about a week and a half ago did address this. It had an engineered letter -- engineered sealed letter that indicated subsurface materials that were in effect. At the time it had some drainage arrows completed on the plan which addressed the drainage flow on the site. The county's engineer has reviewed this and indicates , that no additional impervious areas were created from the paving of the property and that the impervious areas that remained were sufficient and located sufficiently to handle any runoff that occurred from this project, which I think is 'significant. That -- that and -- and the essence of the county's position was one of the major problems ~th the -- the pavement prior to looking at the site plan. I guess I would go on to Mr. Milk's comments. He indicated several minor things, in my opinion, such as screening of Page 35 November 25, 1996 the dumpster, which is required in all cases. He looked for an additional parking space for Site A and B. There were additional comments about a loading space, which there is no size requirement, which means he can essentially use an extra parking space for that. There was also requirements from planning indicating that he needed to indicate the proposed and existing land uses on each tract of land, which is nothing more than a notation on the plan, and needed to clearly indicate where his auto display or boat display areas would be. That's really the substance of all the comments that staff had. And it may be a number of them, but I -- I can assure you they're all relatively minor in terms of what needs to be done to correct the planning and get it in full compliance. MR. MANALICH: To finish on the cited code section, if you look on page 11 of the composite exhibit, one of the cited sections is 1.9.2. How does that tie into this case, briefly? Is that due to the lack of the formal accepted submission of a site plan? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I think this just indicates that prior to completing the work with the building permit, 'you would have had to complete the site improvement plan or site development plan. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And also on page 14, 3.3.7 has been cited by code staff. Is that, again, due to the nature of the substantial work done there that a site plan is required? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, and the fact that Mr. Steinberg previously had a site development plan that was submitted and approved for the central of the three lots. We felt that it was an easier process and procedurally easier to follow if we brought all three lots into one site plan as an amended site plan from his '92 original submission. , -'-MR. MANALICH: Mr. Mazzone cited 3.3.5 at page 13 of the composite exhibit of the code section. How does that relate to this case? MR. ARNOLD: These are merely the site development plan review procedural aspects and what we're looking for as part of that process. MR. MANALICH: And has yet to be accomplished? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And last and most importantly, page 15, 3.3.9, the last section cited by Mr. Mazzone, does that not require an approved site plan prior to a building permit issuing? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it does. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Lastly, Mr. Arnold, obviously you've described, and other witnesses have described, that there has been ongoing dialogue here between the parties. If this board were to find a violation and offer a period of time for compliance, what would you say would be a workable time frame in order to require submission and approval of site plans and, secondly, for -- Go ahead with that first. MR. ARNOLD: I guess given the -- the holiday week that we have here, I would say it would be maybe not reasonable to expect that Mr. Steinberg could ask his architect or -- or plan person to prepare a new submittal, but I would think certainly within two weeks Page 36 November 25, 1996 it would be easy enough for Mr. Steinberg to bring forward a -- an amended plan to reflect the comments that staff had. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And also then obviously the work, whatever reflected on the plans, has to actually be done on the site. How long would you say reasonably would be required for that to be done once the plan is approved? MR. ARNOLD: Again, on that point I'm not sure what the -- the time frame might be for getting someone out there to install landscaping or the availability of it, but generally something of this nature which it's going to come down to landscaping installation and some minor screening around the garbage dumpster and maybe some pavement markings, that seemingly could be completed within a couple of weeks as well I would think. MR. MANALICH: All right. Thank you. No other questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg. MR. MCCORMICK: I've got a couple of questions. CHAIRPERSON ~WSON: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MCCORMICK: Is it better to wait until after? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It -- It doesn't make any difference what -- MR. MCCORMICK: Okay. I'll go ahead and ask them. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You go ahead and ask him, why don't you, while it's on your mind. MR. MCCORMICK: Mr. Arnold, is it your department's policy to ever review application submittal that's -- that's incomplete that didn't have sealed plans or an application fee? MR. ARNOLD: Generally not. I think in this particular case we were certainly willing to work with the applicant. Mr. Steinberg and his son were trying to do a lot of, you know, the leg work involved in putting all this information together, and I think with that we were -- all of the staff, including the code enforcement and planning staff, were -- were willing to sit down and try to describe it as best as we could what he was going to need to do to bring this together. MR. MCCORMICK: Have you yet received the application fee, the completed application -- MR. ARNOLD: We have not received the balance of the application fee, and I'm not sure exactly what happened there. It could have been an error on -- on my part in communicating with either Mr. pires or Mr. Steinberg, depending on what process we eventually were going to undertake here. But the site development plan amendment process costs $215. That is our application fee. Mr. Steinberg paid an $85 fee which is the fee for an insubstantial change to a site development plan. So there's an outstanding balance of $130. MR. MCCORMICK: The Site Development Plan 92-110, I believe, was -- you determined that that was still valid, and that's why you only needed an amendment, and that really was to ~~ Steinberg's benefit to go through that process? MR. ARNOLD: That was certainly easier from our perspective than to go back out and create a new site development plan Page 37 November 25, 1996 for the two other parcels rather than just amending an existing plan. MR. MCCORMICK.: If this property wasn' t under a violation and an application came to you for a revised site development plan, would the reviewers, your engineers, your planners, landscape architects -- would they have reviewed it in the same way that they have and provided those same comments? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, they would. MR. MCCORMICK: In your opinion, if there wasn't a violation on this property and somebody submitted an application, it's not -- is this not one of the easiest site improvement plans to get approved? I mean, there's really very little that is required. MR. ARNOLD: We believe it is. It is a preexisting condition site which in some ways makes it a little more difficult in going in up front and identifying exactly what has to be completed, but from a procedural standpoint, it is one of the easier amendments to obtain. MR. MCCORMICK: I think you touched on this a little bit, but for -- for our benefit if you could again. In your opinion, why is it important for your staff to have the review time and to review a site improvement plan and to go through this process that we're currently engaged in versus just having something built and and signed off on? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we would believe it important that -- For instance, on this particular site, it was partially improved, and prior to that there was some asphalt laid on one of the parcels, but we're looking at this as one unified site. We need to make sure the site functions. There are .interconnections between the parcels. There are various access points to county roads. We need to make sure that- we don' t have drainage impacts. We need to make sure that landscaping is ,placed to code ,requirements. We need to make sure that internal circulation on those sites can be adequate and safe for people visiting the site, the handicap accessibility as to code requirements as well. This is our opportunity to review the site for those. MR. MCCORMICK: The last question: Do you know what -- what -- Has the site been used since it was paved in July? Is it sitting vacant? Is it -- What's been the MR. ARNOLD: No . MR. MCCORMICK: -- the use of it? MR. ARNOLD: The parcels are -- are fully occupied, and -- and this action really had little, if any, I guess, negative impact to Mr. Steinberg's ability to rent the parcels. The sites were occupied in their former condition of having limerock, gravel, and -- , and asphalt surfacing. This was, you know, probably an attempt in my -- my best estimate to upgrade the site to a degree, but there were other things that came with that desire to upgrade the site. . MR. MCCORMICK: Thank you. MR. ALLEN: I have a question for Mr. Arnold. Mr. Steinberg said he submitted on October 2 or October -- or October the 7th. What happened between -- in that five-week gap? I think that's why we're all here. Someplace in the -- Page 38 November 25, 1996 MR. ARNOLD: I guess -- MR. ALLEN: -- formal -- MR. ARNOLD: -- it's my opinion that submittal that Mr. Steinberg submitted to me were a set of rolled plans. They were not accompanied by an application, by an application fee, by a letter acknowledging that this was for the submittal of his plan. I was -- I think that was submitted possibly on a Friday. On the following Tuesday, I received a fax from Mr. pires indicating that that submittal did constitute their revised site development plan. I called Mr. pires and informed him that it did not, in fact, constitute a submittal of a site plan, that we had not received the signed and sealed plan or signed and sealed engineered report on that property. There was no application fee. There was no application. It did not constitute a submittal. And in that intervening period of time, we've had several more meetings with Mr. Steinberg and his son and -- and Mr. pires trying-to iron out the details of what we were, in fact, going to look at. But I had encouraged them throughout this period submit the -- the plan formally so that we can get it into the process and let all of our reviewers take a look at it and get you back comments so you can amend if once instead of every time we come in and meet so you don't get back to your auto-CAD technician and ask them to modify something else based on our meeting to give him the benefit of changing it once rather than several times. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. MR. MCCORMICK: One more follow-up question, Mr. Arnold. If the site development or. site improvement plan is approved, normally there's a time that the applicant is allowed before it expires that they have to build the -- the site. In this case it's after the fact. will the site improvement plan approved by the county stipulate a time period for construction? MR. ARNOLD: Well, generally a site development plan has a two-year lifespan before you must complete the improvements. In this particular case, because it's tied to a code enforcement violation, it's certainly something we could entertain. If we wanted to put a compliance date in there, it's totally an administrative process from our perspective. We typically wouldn't put a compliance date. But if that was something that this board were to ask staff to do, we could certainly comply with that order. MR. MCCORMICK: It's likely something that we would do here, but I'm asking what you would do. Okay. Thanks. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, may I ask one addi tional direct examination question? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. Mr. Arnold, between pages 24 and 36 of the Composite Exhibit A of staff, we have three permits that were issued, and we've had testimony regarding them. In regard to those permits, were those permits issued in error based on the information submitted? MR. ARNOLD: I guess it would be my opinion that they were sub -- they were submitted in error in the fact that they weren't Page 39 November 25, 1996 accompanied either by the site development plan as a simultaneous submittal or that they didn't come after the site development plan had been approved. MR. MANALICH: So let's be clear then. The fact that these permits were issued does not eliminate the need for the proper site development plan required by the Land Development Code; right? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, you may ask questions now. MR. STEINBERG: The application fee that was submitted of $85, it is your understanding that that may have been a misunderstanding of what was relayed to Mr. Pires, my attorney, that related the amount to me? And as of last Friday, are you aware that I was in the county trying to find out what the correct application fee was? MR. ARNOLD: I spoke with Sherry Long, our plan review technician who processes our site development plans. She indicated that she had spoken with you relative to that fee. She did later ask me in the day if I had received that fee from you, but I had been at meetings and not had a chance to check my box or -- or her submittal, and as far as I know to date, we do not have the balance due on that. MR. STEINBERG: Correct. For the record, 85 is all that's been submitted. But, again, was -- we tried to find -- You were out on a meeting last Friday, and we talked to -- I believe it was Norma and she had -- MR. ARNOLD: Norma Boone. Yes, I believe you spoke with her. - ..- MR. STEINBERG: Oh, okay. That is something to be resolved yet apparently. There is a larger fee, but there's a fee structure, and the wrong one may have been submitted. The landscaping that -- primarily that we were talking about, particularly in our first meeting that was in front of -- of Dollar that there is no landscaping there, and there is none, are you aware of why there is none? MR. ARNOLD: I believe you've brought to my attention and I know Mr. Kuck, who is currently the county engineer, was also the project manager for the Airport Road widening project. I think it's been relayed to me that your opinion is that the county removed the existing landscaping at the time the road would have been widened and -- and did not replace it and that that's been an outstanding issue between you and the county. MR. STEINBERG: And that was in the 12-foot turning lane that was donated to the county, that that's where the landscaping was taken out of? Has there -- Has there ever been any objection on my part on going ahead with the site plan? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. MR. STEINBERG: The issues we are looking at that we received last Thursday or Friday, were they ever brought to my attention earlier other than the $85 for the -- the fee? Page 40 November 25, 1996 MR. ARNOLD: I'm not aware. I know that we had previously discussed, for instance, the engineering report, that that would probably be sufficient. I know you had met personally with Tom Kuck in our office to discuss exactly what you needed to submit to satisfy our requirements. Some of the other landscaping issues, I think, had been discussed, but I think this was your first formal submittal to you for our review comments. MR. STEINBERG: What -- What outstanding issues -- and we made note of this after meeting with Mr. Tom Kuck and meeting with -- Norman Siemions, is it? MR. ARNOLD: Nancy Siemion, our landscape architect. MR. STEINBERG: Is it Siemions? Siemions? And she had a couple of questions. Has she been able to contact you? And I realize you was out Friday -- contact you ~nytime late Friday? MR. ARNOLD: We spoke briefly -- I can't recall if it was Wednesday or Thursday of last week relative to your site. She had indicated that she had made a site visit to the site, and because it was existing, she wanted to discuss with me whether or not we would be pursuing internal landscape islands, for instance, as something that would bring your site to the code -- code requ~rements to the greatest extent possible. I indicated to her that those were used car lots and didn't normally require car dealerships, boat yards, etc., to provide internal landscaping islands, for instance, for their display areas and that she indicated she would rather, in lieu of seeing those anyway, see you supplement your perimeter landscaping, and I believe her comments reflected that discussion, and that would have been my last discussion with her. . ~. STEINBERG: And,af -- after that we received our fax; and when we met with her on the perimeter landscaping and the one area that we had discussed, did she bring to your attention that Collier County has approved a PUD along one side property which is the size of the property of a building that is approximately 200 feet long that's with a zero lot line, and that's where they were looking for landscaping, but she didn't realize until Friday that there was going to be a building there according to -- MR. ARNOLD: This would be adjacent to the Salvation Army MR. STEINBERG: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: property? MR. STEINBERG: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. No, she didn't bring that to my attention, but I did ask her to review that site plan that was approved for the Salvation Army. So I think that those are certainly the give and take that we have once we respond that we could sit down and try to resolve any of those outstanding issues that we might have. MR. STEINBERG: And as far as I know, they have been resolved except for the two, and the other one was along Estey Avenue when they widened that, that they took away the drainage easement and actually came over on our property and are draining county water onto our property, and it presented a problem with -- with the landscaping there and that my agreements with her is, yes, we can put a hedge in Page 41 November 25, 1996 there, but it's going to have to be on the county right-of-way, and she okayed that. And, in fact, she did it on a set of prints here that she MR. ARNOLD: Right. MR. STEINBERG: sent along and said I can take with me. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. That was my understanding as well. When we discussed mid-last week relative to your project, she was going to request some additional landscaping along Estey Avenue but realized that that would probably be within county right-of-way. MR. STEINBERG: And also was it discussed when they expanded Estey Avenue that they took out the landscaping that existed there? MR. ARNOLD: (The witness nodded head) MR. STEINBERG: And so the two areas that we're talking about is what the county has removed from the landscaping, what -- and we're working on those? And are there any other areas other than We did not get to talk to Bryan Milk for the loading zone, and so I -- I don't know the answer on that at this point. They had found that it was short two parking spaces, but I believe that the parking spaces are there, but the -- the designer forgot to put the car stops in, so they weren't counted. The spaces are there designated, but they weren't counted because the car stop wasn't onto them, which I presume he didn't push the right button on his CAD machine. I -- I -- I think that you have covered -- covered it. I think now we've finally got the picture. We covered a lot of territory up and to that, but is there any other outstanding issues tliat ! need to address that if we weren't able to sit down where we had the time with -- with Nancy Siemions and address the building next to the property with a zero lot line or the PUD projected building and the Estey Avenue area there, which he, in my opinion, has already addressed, but saying, yes, we can put a hedge up there, addressed that Friday, and the loading zone -- is that not really the three issues that are on this thing that has to be looked at? MR. ARNOLD: I'd say that's fairly correct. We have about three issues that need to be addressed. Yes. MR. STEINBERG: Have I been able and willing to be available at any time that we've had any of these meetings? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. MR. STEINBERG: The plans that were delivered on approximately October the 2nd you say were just left on your chair? MR. ARNOLD: That's where I found them, yes. MR. STEINBERG: And was I contacted anything concerning landscaping on those, that your position was they weren't -- a fee wasn't submitted with them, so it wasn't the proper application? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. STEINBERG: I have no further questions for Mr. Arnold. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any further questions for Mr. Arnold? Page 42 November 25, 1996 MR. MANALICH: I have some redirect. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Fine. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. Mr. Arnold, throughout your meeting did you not point out to Mr. Steinberg that a formal submission is required under the Land Development Code for review? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I did. MR. MANALICH: And when was that finally done? MR. ARNOLD: I believe the date was November 14 or 15, to the best of my recollection. MR. MANALICH: Now, once a formal submission occurs, that's when the give and take can occur that you referred to earlier, right, as far as what negotiation would be in the requirements? MR.' ARNOLD: Generally that is the date at which we begin the formal review and we comment formally back to the applicant telling them what they need to do to comply. MR. MANALICH: Now, Mr. Steinberg has brought up the fact that this iss -- list of issues that we have on Staff Exhibit B was not mentioned to him until last week, but you've had, as we have testified before, have you not, ongoing discussions on this whole case and some of -- partially on some of these issues in the past; right? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we have. MR. MANALICH: Okay. You mentioned that the county had removed some landscaping. Do you know if the landscaping that was there previously would have complied with the requirements? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know specifically what landscaping was removed. No. ~. MANALICH: Okay. - ..- MR. ARNOLD: Sorry . MR. MANALICH: Lastly, you don't intend the testimony here today to be a substitute for the formal process of review which is required under the code; right? MR. ARNOLD: No, I do not. He -- Mr. Steinberg will still need to comply with staff's stipulations. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you. No other questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No more questions for Mr. Arnold? MR. STEINBERG: Can I redirect a couple of questions if that's all right? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sure. MR. STEINBERG: Mind you, I was told by Mr. Dennis Mazzone to just show up, no big deal. I'm not totally unprepared here. I'm doing it by the seat of my pants. The attorney here had said that the ongoing meetings that indicated -- I don't remember the exact question. Could you read back what he asked about -- on the ongoing meetings of -- we had discussed the items that were sub~itted last Thursday, or does everyone remember enough of that question? MR. MANALICH: I'll object to that characterization because I did mention -- and we can read it back, but my understanding of what I asked was that there had been ongoing meetings and had partially discussed some of these issues that had been brought up. Page 43 November 25, 1996 MR. STEINBERG: Okay. That's -- That's fine. Any particular issues that we're talking about that come in last Thursday that had been discussed in a prior meeting? MR. ARNOLD: I guess to my recollection maybe the -- the southern landscaping issue had -- had not been discussed previously nor possibly the screening of the garbage dumpster. Those are the only two things that come to my mind that we might not have discussed over the last several months in general terms. MR. STEINBERG: I don't don't believe we need to discuss that anYmore. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification, Madam Chairman -- This is a follow-up to that point, Mr. Arnold. It -- Is it your clear recollection that formal submission was discussed in those prior meetings? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And what about the need for an approved site plan? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. I -- To the best of my recollection, we had discussed that with Mr. pires and Mr. Steinberg. MR. MANALICH: Were your -- Just to be fair to Mr. Steinberg now, you're saying that you don't recall exactly whether everything on those documents were brought up in meetings previously or not; right? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Okay. MR. STEINBERG: What we were working to was for approval of a formal site plan and the submission? -. .- MR. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. STEINBERG: No further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Next witness. MR. MANALICH: No further wit -- no witnesses. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Steinberg, do you wish to say anything else further to the board or call any witnesses of your own? MR. STEINBERG: Yes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MR. STEINBERG: The only witness I have here that delivered the site plans -- and I don't know where they were put or who they were given to -- that might have left them on his chair or what was needed is not here at this point. I would like to say that we felt -- MR. DAVID STEINBERG: I heard you over the intercom. David Steinberg for the record. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you have him sworn in, please. THEREUPON, DAVID STEINBERG, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: Page 44 November 25, 1996 MR. DAVID STEINBERG: delivered the plans -- MR. STEINBERG: Yes. MR. DAVID STEINBERG: -- on a particular day. MR. STEINBERG: Yes. I -- because I have no idea who they were given to, but Mr. WaYne Arnold had testified they were just left on his chair. MR. DAVID STEINBERG: I was instructed -- When I dropped off the plans, the receptionist was there. I told her I was there to drop off plans. Mr. Arnold wasn't in. I said, "What should I do with them?" She said, "Put a rubber band around them. Leave them here. I'll deliver them to Mr. Arnold." That's where I left them. I actually left them with the receptionist as per her instructions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Any questions? MR. MANALICH: What date -- What date did you deliver those? MR. DAVID STEINBERG: I don't recall the date offhand. I believe it was October 2. I believe it was a Friday. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions of that witness? Okay. board? MR. STEINBERG: None other than the -- we have -- When Better Roads has issued the permits to do the paving and the one thing that was indicated that -- that was a -- almost 3 acres of paving, and there"was two sites that were on there. The other site had already been paved. That is not -- not the case. That's been paved for probably ten years. We did not realize -- although we had contacted the department ahead of time by telephone to ask them what was needed for Better Roads to get the permit for paving. They asked us if it was an impervious site, and we said it was. And they told us that -- just pull the permit and that it was indicated to us that there was no other site plan development work that was needed. We understand that that was erroneous information at a later date. We did not know we had originally a site plan that was developed. We had a letter that was issued at the time it was developed that said that it could be -- that was approved for paving. Through -- and this was -- and the other site plan was -- was -- was submitted. It says project review, services review, the construction plans for the referenced project and has no objection to the construction of paving and drainage aspects of the project subject to the following stipulations. And it goes on, require fees to be paid and permits to be received. When we understood -- and that apparently was ignorance on our part, that there would need to be an amended site plan. stated earlier, we did not object to that effect, but we said, we'll go ahead and submit one. We just needed to know what to I think I'm here to testify that I Mr. Steinberg, anything else you want to tell the As I yes, submit. Page 45 November 25, 1996 That has been somewhat frustrating because we felt that a number of times we did what was asked of us. It would have been much simpler on our part to have done it all the first time once -- I can assure you of that -- and including the person that is drawing it. We have tried to comply with them to -- to do this. We still are. And as has been indicated here, there are only two three outstanding issues. One I still don't have the answer to because it was -- the first that it had come up was last Friday. And the other two have to do with landscaping and this -- and on the two areas that they are talking about, a lot of that depends upon -- I can meet with them today if we can resolve it, but a lot of it has to be answers that come from the county. It's not something that I can do, is to go out and put landscaping on a county right-of-way unless I've got an approval, and that I received from the landscape architect last -- last Friday. Honestly, I don't know why we're here. We've been working to that direction, and I don't have the vaguest idea. If we would have taken the same amount of time that we spent here this morning and been able to work with Bryan Milk and Nancy, we'd probably have these issues -- I'd have the answer so I know what I can put on the plan. I can't put something on that plan until I get the answer back from them, and the question was presented last Friday. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have any questions you want to ask him, Mr. Manalich? MR. MANALICH: No questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any of the board members have any questions to ask Mr. Steinberg? ~. ALLEN: I've just got one comment. Mr. Steinberg, I could'totally sYmpathize and empathize with you 100 percent, other than the fact the reason that we're here is that you didn't make formal application as was required by Mr. Arnold. Had you made formal application, you'd know exactly what the county was going to require. I mean, I think that's -- it's just about that simple. MR. STEINBERG: I do not offer an excuse for that. I can offer a reason, and I didn't understand what that -- that formal application for the detail -- I thought it meant submitting a plan to get it approved. MR. ALLEN: I understand you didn't understand it. That MR. STEINBERG: Right. MR. ALLEN: We're -- We're totally in agreement, but when Mr. Arnold called your attorney, Mr. Pires, who is familiar with this -- I mean, we've got a five-week window which nothing happened, and I guess that's my problem with the situation. MR. STEINBERG: I -- I can't comment on that because I don't know what was done with Mr. Pires, but certainly it wasn't relayed to me. And I -- I think there was the understanding that the right fee had been made. Even as of last Friday, I was down endeavoring to find out what the correct fee was, and it's somewhat difficult to do something if -- if you don't know, if someone isn't there. And I can understand and SYmpathize with the fact that there Page 46 November 25, 1996 weren't people -- people were out on -- on meetings last FridaY,to be able to -- to address that and MR. MCCORMICK: Can I ask you a question MR. STEINBERG: Yes. MR. MCCORMICK: -- Mr. Steinberg? MR. STEINBERG: Yes. MR. MCCORMICK: The -- The three notice of violations that you received, all three of them require your action to be to submit an amended site plan, and the last one you received on 10-29, and you also received them on 10-2 and 7-19. You were noticed to come to this board, I believe, on November the 8th because at that time an amended site plan had not been submitted. Are you telling us that the reason that action wasn't taken was solely because you didn't understand the action that needed to be taken? What -- What did we miss there? MR. STEINBERG: My -- My understanding is that there was an amended site plan that was submitted. What Mr. Allen was saying, I think, is -- getting to the point, is whether there was compliance with the formal submission. It is one thing to submit a drawing and say you have submitted a site plan and the other was -- there was There was two issues that Mr. Arnold had asked for, and one was a cover letter, which was submitted. That was submitted. I forgot to ask him about that. And as far as I know, the only thing that was not properly submitted was whether it's 85 or $210. I had the check with me last Thursday. If I would have known -- MR. MCCORMICK: Well, let's even say when you dropped off those plans on the 2nd.of October if you thought that was going to constitute an application for the amendment -- You received a notice of'v1olation on the 29th of that month. Did that indicate to you that your -- what you had submitted before did not bring you into compliance, that it was not adequate? MR. STEINBERG: I'm sorry? I didn't -- MR. MCCORMICK: If you received a third notice of violation on the 29th of October, did that indicate to you that those plans -- the rolled up plans that you had left for Mr. Arnold did not constitute an application for an amended SDP? Because this notice to you that appeared before us didn't go out until the 8th of November, so there was still some time there between the 29th and the 8th. MR. STEINBERG: Correct. I believe -- and I have to go through that chronologically because I believed that they were submitted until Mr. Arnold had contacted me about the elevations that were required by Mr. Kuck. So when I received the violation -- If the violation came before or after I -- I got that information I don't - know. If it came after I got the violation, yes, I would believe that more had to be done and proper submittal wasn't provided. If it's before, yes, I believe I had submitted it. And if you'll notice that after the October twenty -- 29 notice, that on November 13 that factor was cured. That's when we had a meeting with Mr. Tom Kuck at that time, and so on October -- or November 13 is when that was taken care of. MR. MCCORMICK: At what time did you employ the services Page 47 November 25, 1996 Jf an engineer to assist you with that application? MR. STEINBERG: I -- The first drawing was completed on September 11. I had already contracted with someone to do that. And I'd have to check my records, but it would have been sometime in July or the first week of August, but that is also when my father died, so I don't remember if it was before he died or -- or after. But I can't answer that question, but it was a number of weeks before that. MR. MCCORMICK: But it wasn't just within the last month? It wasn't just prior to -- MR. STEINBERG: Oh, certainly not. No. MR. MCCORMICK: -- the 14th? MR. STEINBERG: No. No. It's -- It's been going on. We've been working with him since day one. MR. MCCORMICK: And they didn't give you any advice as to what might be required for the -- the approval of the site plan, or is that a long story? MR. STEINBERG: Unfortunately that it was in hindsight that I probably didn't hire a person that was well qualified in informing me of what ,to do -- do here. I worked directly with the county, and I went to him and said, "This is what we need." That's It certainly would have been better -- and I'm not -- I -- I don't want to say anything about the person I'm using, but it would have been better if I'd had more information at that time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any more questions? Any more evidence or witnesses? MR. ANDREWS: I have -- I have a remark. It's not -- It's not for Mr. Steinberg., Maybe a little later. I have well, I can -- Yeah, I'll make it now. - . .- I"' ve -- I've been on this board several years, and I've never seen such -- so much cooperation between the respondent who happens to be Mr. Steinberg and our staff on any projects, and I've been on a lot of them. And actually what I've heard here today as a laYman I don't know why we're here. He's -- he's doing the -- He's doing everything in his power to satisfy the staff, and the staff is doing everything in their power to help him. I don't know why we're sitting and listening to all this. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other witnesses? If not, we'll close the public portion of the meeting and open it for board discussion or motions. MR. ANDREWS: I'll make -- I'd make a motion that we just take this off the record and let -- let him -- let him finish the job. You can either continue it or -- or just vote against it, whichever you -- you -- you -- You attorneys can figure that one out for me. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think if I can -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. -- I'm sorry. Mr. Andrews CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I think the appropriate motion would be to find no violation if -- if you want this to be done with at this point. I don't think this board can continue it. So I think the ~ppropriate motion would be to find no violation. Page 48 November 25, 1996 MR. ANDREWS: Okay. So moved. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. LAFORET: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that this board find that there's been no violation. Any discussion? MR. MCCORMICK: For -- For discussion, Charlie, I -- I agree with you that I don't know why this is in front of us either, and from what I hear, it appears that we can get to a solution pretty easily that should be able to be done in a real short period of time. But to me it's -- if we have to decide on whether there's a violation or not a violation, that it's clear that the respondent did not comply with what was in the notice of violation, and that was to submit an application. I think that we should give him an adequate time period to -- to get this resolved and built out, but I -- I can't agree that there's no violation at all. I think that's -- that's clear-cut. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, if I may ask at this point, I -- I believe the board -- the Chair has chosen not to hear any kind of closing statement by either side. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm sorry. I-- MR. MANALICH: Would either -- would -- Well, I only offer this in the extent -- If it would help your -- your consideration of any motion, would it assist to hear from Mr. Steinberg and I in closing, or do you simply want to close the public meeting as you have and not allow any further comment? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON:- Well, I didn't mean to not give you that opportunity. I guess I'm just sensitive to the fact that Mr. Steinberg just told us.everything he wanted to tell us at the end. So that was probably his closing remark. If you want to summarize, you'KnOW, I'll reopen that public portion -- I mean, that part of the -- of the proceedings and allow you to do that since he really did that in his testimony. MR. MANALICH: Well, you know, you may want to consult with your counsel but -- I mean, I would say, if it will assist you in making a determination to hear from both myself and Mr. Steinberg, even if he has to be heard again, if you want to do that. If not, you know, however the board wants to handle it. I'm not insisting. I'm just saying I'm offering that if it will assist you to hear from both of us again. MR. YOVANOVICH: I -- I think it's within your discretion. If -- If you want to reopen it for the board's purposes, fine. I think at this point there's really -- It's up to you. I mean, I don't think Mr. Manalich has a right at this point to --He's not requesting an opportunity just to summarize his test -- his case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, there's a motion and second on the floor, and so while we are in the purposes of discussing that motion, would it assist any of the board members to hear again from the county or from Mr. Steinberg? MR. ANDREWS: I think we've heard enough. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Then we have a motion and a second on the floor that this board find no violation. Any further 1iscussion on that motion? Page 49 November 25, 1996 MR. ALLEN: I would like to agree in theory with Charlie, okay, but I'll -- I'll -- but in fact I agree with Richard. I think the violation does exist. We've had three notices of violations and three stipulations. In Mr. Steinberg's defense, I'd say, if -- if you were doing all the processing yourself, I'd really, really sYmpathize with you. But the fact that you had an attorney and an engineer, okay, to guide you, I don't think you can -- I don't think we can be lenient. I think, you know, your attorney did not give you proper information nor did your engineer because this is a very, very simple process, and I'm -- I'm sorry for you in that respect, but the violation does exist as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's vote on the -- Mr. Andrews' motion. All in favor of Mr. Andrews' motion that this board find a -- not a violation, please signify by saying aye. MR. ANDREWS: Aye. .MR. LAFORET: Aye. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All opposed? MR. ALLEN: Aye. MR. MCCORMICK: Aye. MS. DEIFIK: Nay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. The motion fails to carry. For was Mr. Andrews and Mr. Laforet. And opposed was fr. Allen, Miss Rawson, Miss Deifik, Mr. McCormick. MR. ANDREWS: Well, nQw can I ask a question? How can we dismiss this thing? If we call it a vi -- a violation, do we have t~go.through all the paperwork on it? Is there any way of dismissing it and -- and admitting that there was a small violation? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think that's a question for our attorney. MR. ANDREWS: He hasn't done anything today. Come on. MS. DEIFIK: Can I make a motion? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry? MS. DEIFIK: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: At this point the only way for this to be dismissed would be for staff to decide they don't want to go forward, and I don't think that's going to happen. So at this point -- or nobody brings a motion for violation that passes. You're not -- You can structure your motion of violation pretty much any way you want, giving them as much time to get into compliance and -- and the amount of fines, if any, you want to levy for the violation, but you cannot make the case go away at this point without the parties' agreeing that it -- it will go away. MS. DEIFIK: Madam Chairman, I have a motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: I move that we find Mr. Steinberg in violation and give him three weeks in which to come into compliance. If he does not come into compliance at the end of the three-week ~eriod, then we impose a fine of $100 a day. Page 50 November 25, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you define "coming into compliance"? MR. ALLEN : MS. DEIFIK: MR. ALLEN : Steinberg; okay? MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Arnold said. MR. ALLEN: We need more time. It's going to take -- with the window of opportunity of Thanksgiving week, it's going to take his engineer after he -- they got the comments Thursday and Friday, probably ten -- MS. DEIFIK: Give me a period of time then. MR. ALLEN: It's going to take ten days to draw it. It's going to take staff ten days to review it. There's three weeks. We've lost Christmas. We've lost Thanksgiving week. And it's going to take probably to get the subs lined up at this time of the year probably 30 days. I think -- MS. DEIFIK: How about until January 15? MR. ALLEN: I think that's a realistic time. MR. MCCORMICK: That's a good date. MR. ALLEN: I think he needs a 60-day window. MS. DEIFIK: I was only saying three weeks because Mr. Arnold said two weeks. MR. MCCORMICK: I think normally we might have said the 1st of January, but with the holidays -- MS. DEIFIK: Fine. _ MR. MCCORMICK: -- we go to the 15th. - ..- MS. DEIFIK: January 15. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. So we've amended your motion to January 15. What I would like for you to do is to define "compliance." Is that -- MS. DEIFIK: I'm going to let Mr. McCormick do that because he's far better at that than I am. MR. MCCORMICK: I think "in compliance" would mean that the site has been -- the site improvement plan has been approved by the county and that all corrections have been made on the site, that the site is physically in compliance also. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Yovanovich, are you getting all this down? MR. YOVANOVICH: I am writing away. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is that amendment satisfactory with I -- I'd like to amend your motion. Certainly. And that's -- that's not being fair to Mr. And I'm saying this very candidly. Oh, it's time to give him more time than you? MS. DEIFIK: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there.a second to this motion? -MR. ANDREWS: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. MS. DEIFIK: CHAIRPERSON MS. DEIFIK: Do you want me to try and restate it? RAWSON: Yes. Okay. The -- The motion as it stands now Page 51 November 25, 1996 with all amendments is that we find Mr. Steinberg in violation. The board will give him until January 15 to come into compliance. "Compliance" will be defined as having submitted and having had approved a full site development plan or amendment to the previous site development plan and accomplish the work that's set out on that site development plan by January 15. MR. ALLEN: Let's -- Let's clarify. That's a site improvement plan. MS. DEIFIK: Site improvement plan. And if that is not done by January 15, then a fine would be imposed starting on January 16 at $100 a day until compliance was accomplished. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Everybody understand the motion and the second? All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? (No response) MR. ANDREWS: Hurrah! CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Passes unanimously. Again, Mr. Yovanovich, we don't have a form order up here, and so we really need the proper order with findings of fact and conclusions of law and order of this board, but if you would be so kind as to draft that for me, I will be happy to sign it. Okay. I guess that takes care of this case. The next item of business is new business, doesn't appear that there is any. Then there's ~ppears that old business there's not any. And there's not any. . Before we get to talking about the next meeting dates, let""S'go back to the minutes of the October 24 Public Nuisance Abatement Board. By deferring this I didn't mean to suggest that, you know, I found any corrections or additions to the minutes. I just want to discuss the minutes. We can go ahead and approve them and then have this discussion. Did anybody have any additions or corrections to the minutes of October the 24th? Well, at this time, then, I would -- MS. DEIFIK: Excuse me. The -- The thing I'm now confused about is I'm looking at this and it says that Celia Deifik was not present. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You weren't present at the beginning. I think we had a roll call, and then you all came in and -- MS. DEIFIK: Okay. being there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then we had a reroll. It's about three pages in, and I make the statement that we're all present. Well, let's take a vote on approving of the minutes of October 24. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 'ofi'i tten. and there no business. It reports looks like Because I specifically remember The minutes will be approved as Page 52 November 25, 1996 Now, here's what we need to discuss relative to what happened at that Public Nuisance Abatement Board. And if I could have the board just follow along and our attorney, on page 66, on the top of the page, Miss Deifik makes the motion that there is a violation, and that motion passes. There were seven of us here. Six voted to pass the motion that there's been a violation, and there was one in opposition, and that was Mr. Andrews. So we have a motion made and a finding that violations continue to this day and that the problem property is a public nuisance. Then on page 74 -- let's see -- 71, I'm sorry, Mr. McCormick makes a motion. I guess that probably -- I'll find out where he made that motion. MS. DEIFIK: At the top of page 70? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. Mr. McCormick makes the motion on the top of page 70 in terms of -- now that we found the violation, some things that need to be done to abate the nuisance. Okay. That's on the top of page 70. We vote on that on page 71, and it passes. Again, it passed 6 to 1. We were all seven still here. Now, if you will skip over to page 74, toward the end of the page, Ms. Louviere exited the board room. So now there's only six of us here. And Miss Deifik continues. The first motion, which we discussed a while ago which passed, she says, was mine, and she then amends the motion to include a finding that the owner failed to take reasonable action to abate the nuisance within the time frame; and, therefore, the public nuisance exists -- continues to exist. And Mr. IcCormick seconds that amendment to the motion. On the top of page 75,. I call for the vote, and it appears that I vote no, Mr. Andrews votes no, Mr. Laforet raises his handL, -and everybody else votes yes. And either I can't count or the attorneys present -- Mr. Murphy was still here -- can't count -- I say, Okay. There's three no's and -- one, two -- three yeses, and then I say four yeses. It's too late. The motion passes; is that right? Everybody nods their head. And I say the motion passed. Well, obviously the motion didn't pass because there were only six of us here, and it appears to me that three and three aren't seven. MR. MCCORMICK: What about the possibility that Miss Louviere returned? I think that maybe she only stepped out for a quick moment. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think she was gone and did not come back. MR. MCCORMICK: Oh, did she leave? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: She was MS. DEIFIK: She was gone. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: She was gone. Now -- So what I think technically here is that we have passed an amendment to a motion that really didn't pass. I think it was 3 to 3. So I think the amendment to that motion didn't pass. Now, I'm not sure what to do about that. That's why I'm going to ask our counsel. Can we -- It probably can't. We can't revote on it now without calling all the parties back. Is it lecessary that we do it -- In my infinite wisdom, I say on the bottom Page 53 November 25, 1996 Jf page 74, "In order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Nuisance Abatement Board, I guess we have to have that finding." MS. DEIFIK: We could have a serious problem. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And if we have to have that finding and we didn't really pass that amendment, what is it that we should do? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman -- MS. DEIFIK: Madam Chairman ,-- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes? MR. MANALICH: -- in fairness to Mr. Yovanovich, he was not the attorney -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I know. MR. MANALICH: -- of record that day. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It was Mr. Kowalski. MS. DEIFIK: There -- There's another problem that bothered me after this, which is that no one -- and I remember thinking about this as we left -- that no one told us until the end, until after all the hours of testimony that this board's jurisdiction couldn't be invoked unless we met a certain threshold, and that was just sort of thrown at us at the end, and I have serious questions as to whether that issue was properly addressed. And in fairness to the -- the party that was cited for a violation, I -- I think that that needs to be revisited or addressed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it was our first Nuisance Abatement Board meeting. It was our first case. And I think you're :ight. We probably didn't know that finding had to be made. My concern is that we only -- .The finding really wasn't made. There was a 3-to-3 vote. And I don't mean to pick on Mr. Yovanovich. He just happ~nB to be sitting here as our attorney today. This is clearly' Mr. Kowalski's problem, and I have not even called him and alerted him to this. But I guess we're going to have to have another little rehearing on this matter because, otherwise, we really didn't pass the amendment which would invoke the jurisdiction of the board which would give me the power to do what I've already done, and that is to sign that order. MR. MCCORMICK: Are you sure of that, or is that what we were voting on, whether we needed to do that or not? MS. DEIFIK: I -- I -- I think she's right. MR. ANDREWS: Wha t do you say, Attorney? MR. MCCORMICK: I don't remember it real clearly. MR. ANDREWS: How do we get around it? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have a suggestion, Mr. Manalich? MR. MANALICH: Well, we don't have any objection to scheduling a rehearing through Mr. Kowalski for clarifying this matter with proper notice to Mr. Murphy as -- as well as to us, and then we'll review the transcript and then take a position at that time. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Manalich -- with the Chair's permission, can I -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: -- inquire? Page 54 November 25, 1996 I think what bothered me the most about this was that we proceeded through this whole hearing and at the end -- and, Richard, I think this is -- this may be the problem and where we're confused. At the end we were told it's not a matter of whether the property is a nuisance or not. I think we were all in agreement the property was a nuisance. It's a matter of whether the owner has taken reasonable action to cure that nuisance that is the threshold that then gives us jurisdiction to find a violation. Those are two very different questions. MR. MANALICH: Now, that direction that you're talking about, would that have come from Mr. Kowalski? MS. DEIFIK: That -- Mr. Murphy and you raised that -- Both of you raised that at the very end when we were getting ready to adjourn. MR. MCCORMICK: I think that Mr. Kowalski raised that in looking at the -- his last comment on page seven -- 73. MS. DEIFIK: And then we have to get into whether we -- what the property owner did was or was not reasonable under the circumstances. You know, the evidence may have shown that the problem was not cured, but what I understand Mr. Kowalski to be saying at this point is the unit owner -- the property owner didn't have to cure it. You have to find as a board that the property owner didn't take sufficient, reasonable steps to attempt to cure it, and I'm not even sure that that's the law, but if that's an issue, I think that needs to be resolved. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. I think we would probably have a position contrary to that as far as on the law but -- MS. DEIFIK: I understood Mrs. McEachern at the very beginning of our hearing kept saying it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you did. The issue is, is it a nuisance or isn't it. And then at the end we're told, no, that's not the issue. The issue is something different. And I think that legal issue needs to be clarified first because -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think we probably need to revisit this whole matter. If your position is right, it doesn't make any difference that we didn't really pass the amendment. If our attorney's position is right, we have to have -- we have to pass the amendment. MS. DEIFIK: And it interests me that Mr. Murphy never raised that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I don't think he noticed nor did any of the rest of us -- we must have been tired -- that there were only six of us here and it -- the vote was 3 to 3. MS. DEIFIK: No. I mean, he didn't raise the issue as to what was the threshold of our jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, Miss Cruz, if you don't mind, would you somehow next year, I guess, get us all back together just for a brief rehearing on -- on that issue, given my concern that we really don't have a clean record here. If there were only six of us and it was 3 to 3 and I said that passed, clearly it didn't. MS. MCEACHERN: Madam Chairman. Page 55 November 25, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes? MS. MCEACHERN: If I could make a suggestion, perhaps what we could first do is schedule a conference call between you, Mr. Kowalski, Mr. Murphy, and the county attorney's office -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Great idea. MS. MCEACHERN: -- because I know I need to read that transcript again with the very issues that you've raised, and then we can discuss it and decide -- all of us decide if we need to actually come back or what -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I -- I would -- MS. MCEACHERN: -- and, if so, then we can come back for that limited purpose. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- I would appreciate it, you know, and I -- I'll be happy to participate in a conference call. MS. MCEACHERN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: The other aspect that you should take note of is that this board -- I believe some of its membership runs through February if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. MANALICH: So we'll need to -- after that conference call, if there's a need for the hearing, it should be done prior to your departure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. Okay. Now, the next meeting dates for those of ;till serving on the Lely Barefoot Beach case And I don't remember exactly, but they're not 13th is only until noon, as I recall. - '--MR. ANDREWS: Both of them are noon. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The January date is when? MS. CRUZ: The 23rd. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay.. MS. DEIFIK: The -- The other three of us do not need to be there for the Lely? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: here. MS. MCEACHERN: Madam Chairman, may I add something? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. MCEACHERN: With regard to the 12th and the 13th hearing on Lely Beach, we want to be sure that those board members who were there at the -- last time and will be there on that date have the transcript from the July -- the first day of the hearing and, if not, to please make inquiries to Maria Cruz, our code enforcement specialist, because we can give you that transcript again and -- because we've been told you -- you've been -- you were given it a while ago, and we just want to make sure you have it, and then we specifically request that those board members read that prior to the hearing on the 12th and the 13th. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. ALLEN: Is there a way we can limit the -- the lttorneys not going a full day and a half, or is that just what it's Thank you. us who are are December 12 and full days. I think 13. the Unfortunately you do not need to be Page 56 November 25, 1996 ,oing to take? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, limiting attorneys is never easy. I'll do my best to keep the proceedings moving. MR. LAFORET: If I recall correctly, that issue came up, could they read the transcripts, and the attorney for the respondent said, no, that he liked to see the expression on the people's faces as they testified. MS. MCEACHERN: Right. Mr. Laforet, this is a differ~nt issue. That was to bring back the other members who were not here in July. In fact, Mr. Hazzard who represents the property owner on the Lely Barefoot Beach case has specifically requested that the board members -- the four that were here which are Mr. Andrews, Mr. Allen, Ms. Rawson, and yourself -- just so you review what was said before since there has been so much time -- MR. LAFORET: Oh, I agree with that. MS. MCEACHERN: Right. That's all we're requesting. MR. LAFORET: Okay. MS. MCEACHERN: Yeah. MR. LAFORET: I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, there being nothing further to come before this board, I'll see three of you December 12 and the rest ofUyotCJanuary 23. The -- The board will be in recess. ***** .' There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:21 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD m~~ M. J. RAWSON, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR Page 57