Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/23/2000 RMarch 23, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida, March 23, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the North Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Don W. Kincaid Roberta Dusek Darrin M. Phillips Peter Lehmann Rhona Saunders Diane Taylor NOT PRESENT: George Ponte, Kathryn M. Godfrey ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney to the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Enforcement Official Page ..u~zz~uu 1Z:~_.~A,L )11 &oa za&5 (~ilIU.NrA~ D~vtsL,urm~t tlluu~ A~ENDA Date: ~ 23, 2000 ~ 9:00 o'clock ~cation: Cclli~ Co~y ~vex~t C~Zer, ~- Bl~, 3~ Fl~r 1. XOT.T. CAT.T. - Election of Officers 2. APPROV)]. OF 3un~n~ 3. JLTPROV~T. OF 24, 2000 4. .n'wm,-~.F~T.w'~T oF RULES ~ p~n~.~TTC~S 5. Pt~T~IC m~TNGS A. BCC vs, RAK ))rEBRPRISBS B. BCC vS. Pa~rr~,t3STAL CHURCH OF GOD CEBNO. 2000-009 CIB No. 2000-010 6. N~W BUSINESS me~aest t~t filtag o~Aff~iavit of imm-C: &34--~e e,'~ ~ti~o£ A. BCC vs.Charles Holland B. Rolsn~ Surin and ZelCa A. Robinson C. 8hs4owCourt Fuels, Inc, D. 9/e~m~L. B3~lebes an~MarshaL, Towasexd Z. B~iZanio H. H-r-a~dez andMaxluel H. Iiernx-dez F. K. O. ~n~Mar~haVaughn ~. Southern Exposure o~ Naples, Inc. CB~BNo. 99-076 ~No. 99-067 CEBNo. 99-052 CEBNo. 99-073 CEBNO. 99-044 CEBNo. 99-032 ClBNO. 98-005 7. nt~ BUSII~gS A. BCC vs. An~h_n~ Vsrano R~DRTR CBB Ho. 97-029 A, BCC VS. William Klohn, Tr. B. BCC vm. Narh_--- Bendermort, Tr. =t-, A1 amt Waynell, ~uben C. ~eorge Dtthlino ~nd John DiMeZOO D. FO~SCLONORB~ 9. CC~m~TS CXBNo. 99-070 C~BNo. 99-068 CEBNo. 99-07~ 10. l'4~)):XT~~na,~. April 27, 2000 March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. We'll call the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order. Prior to 9:30, we'll have our organizational meeting, so let's first call our roll, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, code enforcement investigator. Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal? MR. FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey; let the record show that Ms. Godfrey informed that she was going to be absent. Don Kincaid? MR. KINCAID: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann? MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips? MR. PHILLIPS: Here. MR. PONTE: George Ponte; let the record show that Mr. Ponte notified that he was going to be absent also. Rhona Saunders? MS. SAUNDERS: Here. MS. CRUZ: Diane Taylor? MS. TAYLOR: Present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before our organizational meeting, the first order of business is March, and under our current rules and regulations, this is when we elect officers, we have a new chairman and vice-chairman. And at this time, it should also be noted, since Mr. Ponte is absent as a regular member, our alternate member will participate. So Mr. Phillips, you will participate, please, this morning. MS. ARNOLD: Also, Ms. Godfrey is absent, so our other alternate would participate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She is an alternate. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, she is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She is an alternate, yeah. Mr. Kincaid Page 2 March 23, 2000 is tO do. is a regular member. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. TAYLOR: May I ask a question, please? Is it possible for our chairman to be chairman again? And let me tell you why I'm asking this. He is fair, but he's also firm, which is an absolute must as chairman of this board. And I'm asking if he can be chairman again. MS. RAWSON: Under the present bylaws, no. Under your present rules and regulations -- one of the things you're going to do today is talk about any amendments that we're going to add to your rules and regulations. But right now, that's probably not a possibility, unless you change the rules. MS. TAYLOR: Then can we -- because I would like to make an amendment to the bylaws, if we can hold off this election of a new chairman until after -- I think it's very important. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need some advice. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's -- what you're really asking to do change the order of the agenda, which the board can vote to CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I have a question, Jean. Who is legally supposed to preside over this meeting today? I mean, I know that '- MS. RAWSON: The present chair. MS. DUSEK: But if we were to reverse the order, does it make any difference? MS. RAWSON: Well, the -- whoever is the duly elected chairperson would preside over today's Code Enforcement Board meeting. If you had elected your new officers first, then the new chairman would have moved into that seat and presided over today's. Because this is the March reorganizational meeting, so it would have been the new chairperson. MS. SAUNDERS: Why don't we go ahead and change the agenda first and talk about the rules and regulations and then do the election? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If that's the pleasure of the Page March 23, 2000 board, I have no problem. We have a request, or a motion, I guess I should call it, to adjust the agenda. MS. TAYLOR: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's move the -- I would recommend that we move the amendment of the rules at least down to -- because we shouldn't make the public sit through that, because that may be a little lengthy -- down to Item 8, shift everything up one, and move the election of officers down to item -- make it Item 9. Move Item 9 to 10, 10 to 11, 11 to 12. How's that, Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: It would be at the pleasure of the board. You can certainly do that. You can hear the public hearings, complete your regular agenda, then talk about the rules and do the election. I mean, if that's your vote. I mean, it's up to you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think that would be best. I don't think the public needs to sit through us doing our rules and regulations. That's an inconvenience for them. MS. TAYLOR: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll make that motion. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a second on adjusting the agenda. MS. ARNOLD: If you make the -- repeat what that modification was again? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're going to do is take the amendment of rules, which is Item 4, we are going to slide that down into the Item 8 position, which moves everything up one. We are going to take the election of officers, move that down and make that Item 9. Move comments to Item 10. Move the next meeting date to Item 11. Move the adjournment to Item 12. Page March 23, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second. Any question? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'll now entertain a motion to approve the revised agenda. MS. ARNOLD: I have one other revision to the agenda. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. ARNOLD: Item A, under what is now 4-A, public hearings, is -- is being removed, because the respondents are in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, would you repeat that one? MS. ARNOLD: Under public hearing, Item A is being removed. The respondents are in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: That's RAK Enterprises. MS. ARNOLD: The Board of County Commissioners versus RAK Enterprises. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay. Approval of minutes of the February 24th meeting. Are there any changes, additions, corrections? MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion to accept. MR. KINCAID: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any question? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We also have the minutes of our workshop held on February 24th. Are there any additions or corrections to the workshop minutes? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to accept as submitted. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'- I have a motion. Do I hear a second? MS. DUSEK: Second. Page March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion and a second. Any question? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We'll now open our public hearings. Before we do that, please make note that any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Case No. 2000-10. MS. CRUZ: Case No. BCC versus Pentecostal Church of God, Case No. 2000-010. Let the record show that Mr. Wendell -- Pastor Wendell C. Rimes, on behalf the respondent, is present. Staff has prepared a packet and provided this packet to the board, to the respondent and to the court reporter. I'd like to -- if there's no objection from the -- from Mr. Rimes, I'd like to request that this packet be admitted into evidence, marked Composite Exhibit A, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Pastor Rimes, do you have any objections to the county submitting the documents? I'm sure you've got a copy of all them. It's what they provided you, sir. They just want to submit it as evidence. Do you have any objection? REVEREND RIMES: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, thank you. So approved. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation before this board is a violation of Section 2.7.6, paragraph one and five of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description is interior alterations to include framing, insulation, plumbing, electric, drywall and mechanical without first obtaining the Collier County building permits. Page March 23, 2000 The location where the violation exists is 102 North Seventh Street, Immokalee, Florida, and is more particularly described as Millers Park, Block 5, Lots 19 through 22, the less South 20 feet for the right-of-way. The owner of record is Pentecostal Church of God, America Florida District, Inc. The address of record is 7401-D Temple Terrace Highway, Tampa, Florida. The violation was first observed on July 30th, 1999. The person in charge was given a notice of violation on August 20th, 1999, requesting compliance by September 30th of 1999. The reinspection was conducted yesterday, reflecting violation remaining. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I have an issue, a question. You state the owner of record is the church? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The package that I received and that you have evidently submitted shows the deed for Mr. Turner. Is that just papers in error, or-- MS. CRUZ: May I have a second, please? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: While Maria's looking at that information, I did just speak with the Reverend, and he did not receive a copy of the packet. He was -- misunderstood when you asked whether or not he had any objections to entering the packet into record. If we can provide him a copy so that he can look at that now -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: By all means. We don't want anything in that he has not seen. MS. ARNOLD: Right. I'll provide that copy to him so that he can review it and make his motion. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. CRUZ: The deed included in that packet is incorrect. It's not the deed that applies to the subject property that we're discussing at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do you have a copy of the correct deed? MS. CRUZ: No, sir, I don't. Page ? March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would it be possible to have someone bring you a copy, at least one copy that we could take a look at? MS. CRUZ: Yes, I can obtain a copy of that deed, if you'd like to move this item. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't you ask somebody to do that while we're proceeding here. But I would like to see the deed. MS. CRUZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Arnold, is Pastor Rimes going over the document? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. He's -- I've explained to him what was in the contents of the document, and he's reviewing it right now. And I have also informed him that you'll ask him again whether or not he has any objections to entering it into the record. MS. DUSEK: Maria? MS. CRUZ: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: How did you determine who was the owner prior -- you know, without this deed that we supposedly were supposed to have? How did you determine? MS. CRUZ: When the investigator who does the research in the property records through the property appraiser's office -- when the property's entered in the system, the owner of the subject property shows. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Maria? MS. CRUZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On your executive summary where we talk about the case history, your first paragraph states that Mr. $oldano spoke with the assistant pastor, who stated that Mr. Ryan. Is that supposed to be Mr. Rimes? Is that misspelling, or is there somebody else other than the pastor that's the owner? That's why I want to see the deed. We've got a couple of different names floating around here and I'm not sure who owns what. MS. CRUZ: I would like Mr. Soldano to answer that question when it's his turn to testify. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page March 23, 2000 Ms. Rawson, while we're waiting for the Pastor to read through this package, any objection that we just proceed, even though it's not entered? MS. RAWSON: Since he's reading the package, and since you're waiting for the deed, you could, you know, amend your agenda again and start on to some of the affidavits of noncompliance, I suppose. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think he was -- yes, sir? REVEREND RIMES: I'm through. The only other thing in here is the deed is not correct. The deed is listed as the Pentecostal Church of God. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. Other than the deed, sir, do you have any objection to it being submitted? REVEREND RIMES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Thank you, sir. So the package is submitted with the exception of the deed, until we get the proper deed and take a look at it. Okay? While we're waiting on the deed, let's proceed. MS. ARNOLD: I'll ask Investigator Soldano to come and provide his testimony. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SOLDANO: My name is Sal Soldano. I'm the investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On August 2nd, 1999, I initiated this case at the location in question. And yes, you are correct, Mr. Flegal, that should have read Mr. Rimes-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. SOLDANO: -- not Ryan. On August 4th, I researched our records and found no permits for the renovation to the building. I later posted a red tag on the property, and I contacted Pastor Rimes and advised him of the procedures to abate the violations. On August 18th and on August 20th -- on August 18th there were no efforts taken towards compliance. I met with Pastor Quinones, and he said he spoke to Pastor Rimes over the phone. And on August 20th they were served with a notice of violation, Page March 23, 2000 certified mail. And on September 9th, notice was received. On August 5th, November 12th, December 2nd and January 4th, 2000, I inspected the property and the violation still remained. As of yesterday was my last visit, the violation still remained. During that period of time I spoke to Pastor Rimes several times. I also spoke to the assistant pastor, Quinones, and advised them of what they needed to do. And as of yesterday the violation still remained inside, and no permits or any papers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This section of 91-102, 2.7.6, paragraphs one and five, what you've cited them for, is there a copy of that section available that we could look at? There was not a copy in the packet, so -- or at least in mine there was not. I'd like to see that. MS. ARNOLD: No, we don't have a copy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Soldano, as of today is the work continuing? Has all worked ceased, to your knowledge? MR. SOLDANO: No, the work has stopped. It stopped a while ago, but it still remains. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Soldano, am I correct that the violation is not actually the work that was done, it was the fact that it was done without a permit? MR. SOLDANO: That's correct. MS. SAUNDERS: But the work has been passed by the county inspectors, and there would not be a problem with the work if the permit was able to be obtained? MR. SOLDANO: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Chairman, if you would like for me to, I can read into the record Sections 2.7.6, paragraphs one and five of Ordinance 91-102. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just want -- since I hadn't seen them, I wanted to see what they say to make sure we know what we're talking about. MR. LEHMANN'- Ms. Rawson, in essence, those sections reference the prohibition against any alteration, construction, ad infinitum, regarding buildings without permit, basically; is that correct? Page March 23, 2000 MS. RAWSON: Correct. The first one's a zoning action on building permits. The next one is improvement of property prohibited prior to issuance of building permits. These are not unfamiliar sections to this board, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now that I see them -- MR. LEHMANN: We see these almost on a monthly basis. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item I is about the plans being submitted, and zoning. Okay, and Item 6 is basically the same thing, zoning certificate, and attest that it is required. Mr. Soldano, do you know if this -- what the zoning is on the property? MR. SOLDANO: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay, so we don't know if it's correct. MS. ARNOLD: C-4. On the notice of violation, it indicates the zoning. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of preserving the record, I would recommend that we let Investigator Soldano finish his testimony. At least the presentation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Soldano? MR. SOLDANO: I believe the zoning is C-4. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir, thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Soldano? MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Soldano, short of having -- not having the engineer's drawings, is there any reason why a permit would not be provided for this property for the work that's been done? MR. SOLDANO: I couldn't answer that. I don't know what the qualifications would be for the permits for that particular property, what they intend to do. That would have to be processed by permitting and Planning Department. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You said all work stopped some time ago? MR. SOI. DANO: Yes. As far as I could tell. I didn't get in the building. I could only see from outside. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So to your knowledge you don't know if all the work is really completed or not completed. MR. SOLDANO: No, I do not. Page March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Investigator Soldano, for the record, what is the purpose of applying for a permit? Why do we as a county require a permit to be pulled? MR. SOLDANO: Well, basically it's for public safety, to make sure that all the work is done properly and inspected by county inspectors, make sure especially with electric, so there's no fire, and plumbing, there's no health hazards. And basically for public safety. MR. LEHMANN: Basically to provide for the public welfare, safety? MR. SOLDANO: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. KINCAID: Mr. Soldano, has there been any action by the Pentecostal Church to apply for these permits at all; do you know? MR. SOLDANO: Not that I'm aware of. MR. KINCAID: Okay, thank you. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have a deed that shows the proper owner, a proper legal. We'd like to modify that composite exhibit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Could I see it, please? Or if you could put it on -- so we could at least get a look at it. I want to see the proper owner. Now it's so small I can't read it. MR. LEHMANN'- If you could focus it on the property owners. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, move it down. There we go. To the Pentecostal Church. That's what we needed to see. Pastor Rimes, we now have the proper deed. If you don't have objection, we'll submit that as -- REVEREND RIMES: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let that be submitted. Thank you, sir. Any further questions for Mr. Soldano? Thank you, sir. Pastor Rimes, if you'd like to come forward, sir. MS. ARNOLD: For the board's information, the question about permits and what is being required, have the permits been requested -- I believe there was some communication with our Page March 23, 2000 planning staff, but at your workshop last month they went over the process. If they use this change from one to another, there may be a requirement for a site development plan. And I think that might be the case in this particular case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: All right, Pastor Rimes, if you'll tell us your side of the story. REVEREND RIMES: Okay. Did all of you get a copy of my letter? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, we did. REVEREND RIMES: Basically that's the way that it all come about. There has been three different pastors there. We, as the Pentecostal Church of God, are an organization that tries to help other people have churches. And basically I just represent the Pentecostal Church of God here today. And I know there were several questions come up a while ago that I thought I could answer, but I can't remember all of them now. But all the work was immediately stopped, and there has not been any other work done in there. And we did get the inspectors to come and look at the building. The electrical inspector that looked at the building was Jerry van Dyke. And I have looked and I can't find the name of the other gentleman that looked at all the framing and stuff. But what originally happened was with the first pastor that was there that we originally helped, you know, did some work in the building, and the second one did some work in the building, and the third one's done some work in the building, and we're kind of just trying to get through all of this. We thought we had done right when we went, you know, before the zoning in Immokalee to find out if we could have a church there. And I assumed if there was any other problem, that they would have -- should have told us at that time, because we told them we was talking about buying the building for a church and wanted to know if it was zoned for a church, and they said there was no problem with that. So the building already had electric in it, already had Page March 23, 2000 plumbing in it. It had everything in it. So we just bought the building and moved the people into it and started having church. And eventually some of them done some work. But there's been no structural work done in that building. There's been some interior stuff done in there, but nothing structural. And as soon as I found out about all this, I went before the board to -- I think it's Mr. Hendrick, is that your name? MR. SOLDANO: Dave Hedrich is another investigator. REVEREND RIMES: Okay, Mr. Hendrick (sic) was the one I think originally was talking to me, and asked him about getting somebody in there to look at the building and see if it was -- you know, there was something done that was wrong, that if there was anything that was not done correct, if indeed they wanted us to go in there and tear the whole building out, that there was just no way we could continue on, because we couldn't afford to do that. And so they agreed to send the inspectors over to look at what's been done, and they didn't find any violation of code problems in the building. In other words, there's nothing that's been done that was not done according to code. It all would pass inspection. When we found out that we needed to get a contractor and get permits, we tried to find one. It took awhile to finally get somebody that would even talk to us about it. It's hard to get a contractor over there to do something like that. Just almost impossible. And it took us two or three months, really, to finally get somebody that would go in there and work for us. And when he tried to get the permits, he apparently went to wherever you go to get the permits, and they told him that he could not pull the permits without going through the whole process of a planning -- they had to redo the parking lot, had to do a -- like a pond for draining everything. I don't remember what all, you know, it entailed. But I went and found a -- after that I went and got a -- talked to an engineer about it. And he wanted over $7,000 just to draw the thing up. And, you know, there's just no way these people can afford that kind of stuff. Page March 23, 2000 And so, you know, we're at the place where we're trying to raise the money, but we've not been very successful. It's been really hard because of the fact that we couldn't use the building, we're having to go outside of that building and rent another place for them to have church, plus pay all the stuff that goes along with that. And it's just been real, real difficult to -- we're just kind of caught in the middle. We bought a building that we're having a tough time trying -- they could have church in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. The changes you're trying to make, sir, are they inside the building, or out -- REVEREND RIMES: Inside the building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everything is in -- REVEREND RIMES: Everything's been inside the building. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. Okay. With your statement of parking lot and drainage and ponds and all that, I'm kind of confused. REVEREND RIMES: Well, they wanted us to do that before they'd give us permits. He said you've got to have the plan, have -- do the whole thing all over again, the whole property. MR. LEHMANN: Reverend Rimes, what was the original use of the building? REVEREND RIMES: I was hearing this, but I didn't know where it was coming from. Sorry. MR. LEHMANN: What was the original use of the building before you converted it into a -- REVEREND RIMES: It was a U-Haul place where they rented MR. LEHMANN: A warehouse type? REVEREND RIMES: I guess they did their renting trucks and trailers from there. MR. LEHMANN: And I'm just looking at this and thinking that we may have a possibility where, in the conversion of the occupancy, the use of this particular building, it has triggered the requirement for a site development plan, which is -- REVEREND RIMES: Well, I understand that down the road that that's what got us in trouble. MR. LEHMANN: The interior alterations, they're complete at Page March 23, 2000 this point in time? REVEREND RIMES: No, they're not quite complete. The drywall is not finished in it. I mean, all the basic carpenter work was done and they needed to do some drywall mudding. MR. LEHMANN: And you say at this point in time you've already had the county inspectors -- REVEREND RIMES: Yes, MR. LEHMANN: -- to the site? They verbally approved -- REVEREND RIMES: Yes, MR. LEHMANN: -- the construction? REVEREND RIMES: Yes. They couldn't actually go through the process without us having permits, but they were able to come in and tell us that what had been done was done according to code, and there wasn't anything wrong with it, with what had been done. MR. LEHMANN: You had mentioned that you had electrical done. Did you also have the insulation and the plumbing and the HVAC there, the air conditioning? REVEREND RIMES: I suppose all of that's been done. You know, I've had three pastors through there since then, so it's -- you know. MS. TAYLOR: I don't feel that this board is able to say go ahead without following the correct procedures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. LEHMANN: No. MS. TAYLOR: I don't think we can do that. MR. LEHMANN: No, ma'am. It would be a violation of our ordinances. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, what we're here to find out is if in fact there is a violation and what we would recommend as a procedure to correct that violation. From what I'm hearing, there is in fact a violation. Now we have to get on with it. Any other questions for Pastor Rimes? Or Pastor Rimes, would you like to say anything else? I would recommend that the letter that Pastor Rimes submitted be entered as Defendant's Exhibit A. Is there any Page March 23, 2000 objection to that? So it's on the record. Anything else, Pastor Rimes? REVEREND RIMES: The only thing, you know, is that we're trying to do something about it. We've been trying all this time. And it looks to me like that we don't have a lot of choice but to maybe possibly sell the building and, you know, just -- MS. DUSEK: Reverend Rimes, have you been told that you cannot use the church until you get the permits? REVEREND RIMES: Right. They told us that immediately. We shut the doors as soon as I found out about all this. We shut the doors and nothing's been done to the building, you know, since then. And we've had to go out, you know, and try to find them someplace else to have church. And that's -- so that's where we're -- what we've been doing. MS. DUSEK: So basically your problem is you don't have the funds to follow the procedure for getting the permits. REVEREND RIMES: Well. MS. DUSEK'- That's basically it. REVEREND RIMES: That's basically it. We would have had enough money, had they allowed us just to go ahead and pull the permits and finish the inside of the building and use it. We wouldn't have had a problem. But now they want us to go back now and do all the other stuff to that parking lot and all that. It's just -- I don't see any way. We just -- you know, it's just too much money. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, I know that staff works with all the respondents in detail, but in this particular case, is there any other avenue that this particular respondent can pursue other than the SDP? MS. ARNOLD: That would have to be a decision made by the Planning Department to see whether or not the use is not going to be a substantial impact over the prior use on the property. And what they look at, of course, is, you know, the impacts on parking and drainage and that type of thing. And I can't say whether or not that evaluation had been done, and that's why Mr. Rimes had been advised that they needed to go through that site development plan process. I can't speak to that, but -- Page ~- ? March 23, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS: Ms. Arnold, is it standard procedure for county inspectors to inspect a building in this case when permits have not been pulled? MS. ARNOLD: We do courtesy inspections, and that's what was done, just so that we can verify that the improvements were done in a safe manner. And that was just done as a courtesy to the church. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think-- I think in this case we certainly do have a violation of code. Unfortunate. But I would make a motion for a finding of fact in that matter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before I ask for a second, I want to ask Ms. Arnold a question. Would it be possible to get the staff to maybe lend some extra effort to see if there isn't something that could be done for the church? My thought is if this was a building where they operated a you-haul-it or whatever, there must have been a lot of vehicles stored there. So parking cars to go to church once or twice a week, I wouldn't think would be any more than the storing of vehicles. So I'm kind of confused about ponds and drainage. And I understand that if a use changes. But if there's a way that staff could work with the church to try and come up with a system to help them, it would sure I think be a good move on the county's part. And I do understand there's a violation. I'm just saying, if you could look into it when MS. ARNOLD: I'll clarify with the planning staff whether or not a site improvement plan could be required, rather than site development plan, which is a less costly procedure. Engineering plans aren't required and those types of things. So I will confer with them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' That would be fine. Pastor, do you have anything else to say? We're going to do some discussion. You don't need to stand there, you may sit down, if you're finished. REVEREND RIMES: The only thing is, I need to let you know that as of the 1st of April that I won't be the one that's involved Page March 23, 2000 in this any longer. I was not voted back into my position. And so it will be C.W. Goforth (phonetic) that you'll need to contact. Same phone numbers and addresses, just be a different person in my place. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you'll give all that information to the county staff when we're finished, I would appreciate it. So that if there's any assistance the county can do in trying to give you or your successor information that will assist, that's what we want to do. And that's the intent. REVEREND RIMES: When will we know something? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you're going to know in a very few minutes what we decide. And then as far as the county giving you some assistance, that will be between you and them. But you're going to know in just a few minutes what we decide should be done. And you'll hear that within the next three to five minutes. REVEREND RIMES: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, as far as my motion goes, I want the board to be aware that I think that a violation definitely does exist. I think that we don't really have much of a choice other than to find so. However, I would request the board to consider the situation of the respondent in this case. This is not what I would consider a normal respondent giving staff and the county a difficult matter and just trying to achieve compliance. So certainly consider that when it comes to the next portion of this particular action. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In that vein, let me ask Ms. Rawson a question. In our ordinance, and in the statute, it gives us the ability, I believe, if we can't make a decision, to withhold it to a later period. Is it -- what I'm looking for, is it possible to find that there is a violation, but as far as the corrective action or if it's not done by a certain date, the fine would go into effect? Can we not do that at a later meeting? Am I -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you could continue that part of it. Or you could give a corrective action and give more time for the corrective action to be done. I mean, you give them longer time Page March 23, 2000 to comply with the violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: In Peter's motion, should we elaborate? I mean, be more specific with the case and the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'- Well, the finding of fact that there is in fact a violation, we will have to note the ordinance and the section, as we always do. What I'm trying to do is a prelude to when we get to the -- MS. DUSEK: To the recommendations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to the recommendations, if there is a way to move that to later, or if it would be better to put some extended period of time -- MS. RAWSON: I think it's always better if you complete your order. And, you know, keeping in mind that you can give them as much time as it's the pleasure of the board. In addition to which, he always has the right to come back and, you know, request further relief from you, abatement of fines, if any, or to report to you what's been going on, or what he's worked out with the county. I mean, that option is always open to the respondents. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: And I might just remind my colleagues on the board, in my own decision-making on this particular case, I think it is very important for us to obtain our objectivity as far as respondents coming before us. What we unfortunately have to do sometimes is to look at the case in a very black-and-white sense and treat and weigh all respondents equally. As much as you want to be compassionate in one case or another case, I don't know that we have that ability. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not an option, unfortunately. MR. LEHMANN: Right. So although I personally feel for the respondent, I don't know that we as a board have that option, nor -- I question whether we should begin to set a precedence in that nature. And this is why my motion was only for a finding of fact, not for any further action, such as fines or so on, so forth. MS. DUSEK: Well, elaborating on your motion, if I may, just to bring all the particulars into it, with Mr. Lehmann's motion Page ~' 0 March 23, 2000 stating that there is a violation with the Board of County Commissioners versus the Pentecostal Church of God, CEB Case No. 2000-010, a violation does exist. This violation of Section 2.7.6, paragraph one and five of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. The description of the violation, interior alterations to include framing, insulation, plumbing, electric, drywall and mechanical without first obtaining a Collier County building permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' We have a motion that there is in fact a violation as described. Do I hear a second to that motion? MS. TAYLOR: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor that there is a finding of a violation, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question on your recommendation. You've stated that you want him to remove everything within 30 days if he doesn't obtain the permits. Is this what he has to do? It can't be left the way it is? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, we can say whatever we'd like. MS. ARNOLD: That's the recommendation that staff has, that the improvements be removed. MS. DUSEK: I didn't know if that was something we had to following because it's the zoning requirement, or -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. DUSEK: -- it's just a recommendation by staff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. TAYLOR: I suggest that we wait until Michelle finds out what she can, and then bring it back before us again. Then we can make a final decision. We know it's a violation. We have established that. But let Michelle find out what she can about these following procedures, bring it back before us again, then we can make a final decision. Page March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, since we have a finding of fact, at this point can we -- MR. KINCAID: Yes, we can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- continue to a later meeting, or would it be to our advantage to issue with the finding of fact and order giving them some time period, and then at that point whatever that time period may be, whether it's 30, 60, 90, 120 or something days, have them -- the onus put on them to come back to the board and say this isn't enough time, we've reached our time limit, and we need more time? MS. RAWSON: I'd rather see you do that than piecemeal it and only have a finding of fact today and then continue the second part. It's better to put it all in one order. And you can be as flexible and lenient as you want in the second part of the order in terms of the imposition of fines. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, possibly the board's action may assist this respondent in his action. People out there in the industry may take him more seriously -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: -- if we have an order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: To further address Ms. Dusek's question, technically if you all find that there is a violation, the improvement to the property is a violation. So unless something is done with it, the violation will remain. MR. LEHMANN: The options available to the respondent at this point in time is either obtain the permit, including the SDP and the full process, or to remove the improvements. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Within the time limit that the board sets. MR. LEHMANN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: says 30 days. MS. ARNOLD: No. So we don't have to follow the 30 days. There's nothing in any ordinance that Page March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can make that number anything that we feel comfortable with. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: And I do want to bring to the board's attention, in staff's recommendation, they had recommended 45 days for an SDP. In our workshop just last month we were advised that a 90-day period would be more appropriate for that type of an action as a minimum time frame. MS. ARNOLD: And that's for the submittal. 45 days for the submittal and -- MR. LEHMANN: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Okay. Now we're down to the order of the board. Do I hear any motions or recommendations to the board? Everybody seems gun shy. All right, I'll stick my neck out. MR. LEHMANN: You are the chairman, after all, that's your job, to stick your neck out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I know, that's why I figured I'd just jump in. REVEREND RIMES: Could I ask a question? I don't know if -- MS. ARNOLD: You need to be on the microphone, please, Mr. Rimes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we don't have a motion on the floor, we'll permit you. REVEREND RIMES: If indeed all of this proves to be financially impossible for us and we should decide just to sell the building, and as long as we sold the building to somebody full well knowing that these violations do exist and that they would be able to take this thing and do whatever to make it correct, would I run into a problem being able to do that? It sounds to me like it's going to be -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, my understanding is the improvements are on the property. If he sells the property, the new owner is in violation; is that not correct? MS. RAWSON: Correct. And he -- obviously all the problems run with the land. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Yeah. Page March 23, 2000 So any sale you would make would have to be disclosed on the front end to the new buyer. REVEREND RIMES: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that they understand the property is in violation. The onus now is on them to correct or they would be in trouble. Of course they could remove everything and just get down to a shell again and that would solve the problem. MR. LEHMANN: And Pastor Rimes, just for your own information -- REVEREND RIMES: I'm sorry, there's something wrong with the speaker. MR. LEHMANN: I'm not 100 percent sure of this, but I think the new statutes actually require you as the seller to properly notify the buyer of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. They do. To help you out, Peter. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There is a -- it's either an ordinance or a statute that states that you must inform the buyer. I don't have it with me, but I've read it. REVEREND RIMES: I agree with you, there is that. I know I'd have to do that. But my question, I guess, is at that point, if I found a buyer that was willing to do that, could they just pick up where we basically left off and apply for the proper planning or whatever and just carry it on or -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When the deed changes name, I guess at that point you would have to notify the county that you're no longer the owner, and they would have to notify the county that they are the owner. REVEREND RIMES: But they would have to deal with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they may choose A, to take everything out so there is no violation, or B, do what we are going to tell you to do. REVEREND RIMES: Okay, that answers my question. MR. PHILLIPS: Pastor, one other thing. If you were listening earlier, there may be a much more cost effective way for you all to do what you want to do with the building. And it was discussed with Ms. Arnold, they're going to get with the planning Page March 23, 2000 people and you may be able to find a much more cost effective way to do it other than the $7,000 that you indicated you may have to spend now. REVEREND RIMES: That was just a drawn up -- I mean, that's no work to be done, that was just to draw the plans. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before you give up, you need to have yourself or your successor talk with Ms. Arnold and see if there isn't a better way that the county could help you do what we're going to tell you needs to be done. REVEREND RIMES: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to correct the violations by obtaining either an SDP or SIT, whichever is required, for the improvements to the property within 120 days. If it is the intent not to use the property for the church, all improvements must be removed within 120 days, or a fine of $50 will be imposed each day the violation continues past said date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion that states 120 days to obtain everything or remove the violations from the property. Is there a second to the motion? MS. TAYLOR: Well, I think it's impossible for them either way. They're between a rock and a hard place. And 120 days is just a number, because that's not going to make any difference at all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the object is to give them something to maybe help assist them -- if we don't give them a deadline, this could kind of go on forever. So based on the recommendation of Ms. Rawson, what we've done previously is we've tried to pick a point to get people to. As they get close to that point or at that point, they do have the right to come back before us and say that's not enough time, could I have an extension, and we have the power to do that. We can move the 120 days to another t20 days. But this gives them a mark to shoot for to at least get something moving. MS. TAYLOR: All right, I'll -- MS. DUSEK: That's what I based my motion on. Page 2 5 March 23, 2000 MS. TAYLOR: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion and a second for 120 days to obtain proper documentation and/or remove the infraction, or a fine of $50 a day, I believe it was, and we have a second. Any further question on the item? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed, nay. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The ayes. Call it all eyes. Pastor, do you understand what we have just said? REVEREND RIMES: I think so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have 120 days to get the proper permits or remove everything from the site. If that doesn't occur in 120 days, we will -- you will be fined $50 a day until you do do it. As you get close to that date, you or whomever -- if it looks like you can't meet the 120 days before your fine kicks in, you need to notify the county, tell them you want to come back before this board and ask for an extension. If you don't do that, sir, the fine will go into effect, and then you would need to do two things: Ask for an extension and alleviate the fine with a new extension. Okay? All right, sir, thank you. No other public hearing items? MS. ARNOLD: No, there are not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, close the public hearings. Filing of affidavits of noncompliance and imposition of fines. 99-076. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This item was heard by the board on -- the first -- the item was first heard by the board on December 23rd. At the time the board did find the.respondents in violation for the existence of accessory structures and the addition without first obtaining building permits. And the respondent was given until January 23rd or fines of $75 would be imposed. And at this time, we are filing a noncompliance affidavit before the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' Violation still exists? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, the violation still exists. A visit was done January -- February 23rd. And the fines at Page March 23, 2000 that day will total $2,250. Also, the cost incurred by staff was $621.14. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to impose the fines as presented by the staff? MS. DUSEK: I so move. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines as presented. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 99-067. MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me. The next item is 99-067, Ronald Surin and Zelta Robinson. And this item was heard before the board on November 29th and again finding of fact, conclusion of law found the respondent in violation. They were given until December 15th to comply, or fines of $55 would be imposed each day the violation continued. The site was revisited on December 16th, and at that time we found there was still a violation. And the fines -- so at this time we're requesting a filing of affidavit of noncompliance and imposition of fines from the periods of December t 6th to February 28th. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, a point of correction, the fines were not $55 a day, it was 50. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, excuse me, 50. MR. LENMANN: And you did pick that up in your recommendation. So the -- MS. ARNOLD: The calculations are correct but the dollar amount stated is incorrect. MR. LEHMANN: Recommendation dollar amounts are correct, even though the past order summary is incorrect? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have somebody here on behalf of the respondents. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. If you would just wait a minute, sir. Page 2 ? March 23, 2000 Ms. Arnold? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You say you visited -- someone visited the site on December 16th? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. As well as the 28th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the 28th of-- MS. ARNOLD: February. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- February? Okay, that's what I wanted to hear. Yes, sir, if you'll come up over here, sir. MR. MOON: James Moon, on behalf of the respondent. Just wanted to address this briefly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your name, sir? MR. MOON: James Moon. I'm an attorney for Mr. Surin. I know this would be out of the ordinary at this point. As you know, we're here to impose fines against Mr. Surin as a respondent. However, I believe in this situation Mr. Surin is suffering from an obvious language barrier. He has been attempting to get his permits. He attempted in December. The problem is that he needed a survey. He didn't understand that. He also didn't understand that he could come back before the board and ask for an extension of time to get his permits. Mr. Surin, through our office now, understands how to get his survey. The mortgage company has been contacted to get a survey. We do anticipate getting that survey either in the mail today or tomorrow. It was ordered on the 21st of March. He does understand that he is not in compliance, but he would, even though this is out of the ordinary, like an opportunity to apply for the permits, now that he knows what he needs. He has attempted through the permitting office. He just simply doesn't understand. He's from Haiti. He has this block that he didn't know what he was supposed to do. We would have a proposal for the board, or if the board would provide an abatement of sorts of approximately 90 days to allow him one last opportunity to go ahead and get a permit by Page March 23, 2000 providing a survey, leaving that fine over his head. And I have talked to Mr. Surin, that in the event he would not be able to get that permit, he has no problems removing the structure, getting the property permits and removing the structure altogether. It's just he didn't understand the process of being able to come before you and asking for an extension so he could do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: May I ask you, sir, when you got involved in this? MR. MOON: Two days ago, sir. Mr. Surin also suffers from obvious financial difficulties. MS. TAYLOR: Michelle, how long did this go on before this was brought before the board? Do you have any idea? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. One minute. The case was initiated in July of '99. MS. TAYLOR: I would recommend denying this request. MS. SAUNDERS: I would suggest that we give him some time, but I don't -- I think we obviously want to keep some pressure on, because he hired an attorney two days ago. That's a good start. It was two days before this. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just note for the board that what we're asking for is imposition of fines. The attorney and the respondent can come back, once they're in compliance, and ask for modification of those fines. That's an option. MR. MOON: Well, what we would ask is that the fines in fact be levied; however, they not be levied for a period of 90 days. And if he is successful in gaining a permit, that the fines be excused at that point. Understanding of course that if he is not successful at the end of that 90-day period, the fines continue to run and they're levied against him. And he's fully cognizant that these fines would be levied against him if our proposal would be accepted and he is unsuccessful. I don't believe the board would have anything to lose by giving him that opportunity. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, correct me. Until we impose a fine, the county has no lien on the property. MS. RAWSON.' Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if we fail to impose these fines, if we set them aside for some additional time period, we Page March 23, 2000 have no way to start the clock running on any kind of lien to get the money back for the county. So I would recommend the board consider that. We do impose the fines and they have the option at a later date to come back and ask us to reduce or remove the fines entirely, if they so desire. But I think we should impose them, personally. MS. TAYLOR: So again, I deny this request. I suggest that we deny it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: My thoughts are fairly in line with our chairman's. What the respondent's attorney is asking for in essence is a roundabout way of getting to where we would be if we impose the fines and then the respondent came back and we waived the fines. If we do nothing to alter these fines as they stand right now, the stick is still there. My recommendation again is not to approve this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a recommendation to deny the request to abate to a later date. Any further question? All those in favor of denying the question, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sorry, Mr. Moon. MR. MOON: That's okay. If we could ask the amount of fines at this time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now through February 28th is $3,700, plus $553 of costs incurred by the county to prosecute the case. MR. MOON: 553 or 523? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 553. Now that's, like I say, through February 28th. MR. MOON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, there's additional money we just have not imposed yet. MR. MOON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Moon, when the order is drawn, I'll be Page ~ 0 March 23, 2000 sure that you get a copy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's our attorney. MR. MOON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to impose the fines as submitted. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines. Any questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 99-052. MS. ARNOLD: This item was a landscaping violation that was heard before the board October 28th of '99. The respondents were given until November 28th of '99 to comply, or a fine of $100 per day would be imposed. At our site visit on December -- I'm sorry, January 18th, the violation still remained, and the request is for an affidavit of noncompliance, as well as imposition of fines from January 18th -- to January 18th from December 10th of 1999. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any question by the board? I'd entertain a motion to impose the fines as submitted. MS. DUSEK: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a second by Mr. Lehmann. MR. QUINTANA: May I speak, sir? I'm not the contractor, I'm the subcontractor with the landscaping company. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Would you give your full name, please? MR. QUINTANA: Dennis J. Quintana. Q-U-I-N-T-A-N-A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. QUINTANA: The fines are going to be imposed on the oil company, or the gas station company. Unfortunately they're Page March 23, 2000 going to fall down to us. It was in the end our fault I guess that the stuff wasn't done. But it wasn't a lot of work done, and we had to come back here. We're from Miami, so it's a little distance time. We had a person who was supposed to be taking care of this early in December. The person is no longer with our company because they didn't take care of it. Additionally, right when the end of the year came around, the owner of the company, who's in direct contact with this person out here at the gas station who -- our superiors, he was out of the country for another additional 20 days or so, which was right before the last inspection. We found word of that immediately after we released that person. Not only because of that reason, for other reasons, however. But a few days later, we did complete the work there. And we do also guarantee all our work anyway for a full year no matter what. So even if there's still trouble there, we do our -- comply to come back and do any repair. I believe the stuff that was actually in question was only about five or six small plants. Nothing major. No torn up grass, no dead trees all over the place. I'm not part of a big company, so $100 a day for a few plants seems a little high. I'm just asking for a little mercy on that, because ultimately it's going to come down to us. MS. ARNOLD: Can I clarify for the board, the violation also existing, the installation of an irrigation system. And at our last visit on March 8th, the irrigation system has not yet been installed. MR. QUINTANA.' That's not -- that won't trickle down to me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Well, what you need to understand, sir, this is against Shadow Court Fuels -- MR. QUINTANA: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- which you are not. MR. QUINTANA: Right. Again, it's still going to trickle down for the landscaping portion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What you need to understand is they're the only ones that can come here and ask, so -- Page March 23, 2000 MR. QUINTANA: Somebody sent me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' The fact that they're going to pass the cost on, I understand. But we're in a position that there is a violation. It still remains. No one has corrected it. So at this point I would probably recommend to my fellow board members that we impose these. If in fact when everything is completed, okay, that if they want to send their -- themselves or send an attorney to ask to alleviate some of the dollars, the board would be receptive. It's really the only recommendation we can give you at this time. I understand the position you're in, but you need to understand the position of the county. We're looking for something to be done. It hasn't been done in a timely manner. There's always lots of excuses, but it still hasn't been complied with. I personally have a problem with -- you know, if it was only five plants, that's about a day's worth of work. There's a ton of landscape nurseries here. You go out there, you pick them out, they deliver them tomorrow and they put them in. It's not a big deal. MR. QUINTANA: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here we are months down the road, still no irrigation system. That's about a two-day deal. MR. QUINTANA.' It's got no irrigation in the whole property? Is there any way that somebody can at least relay to me so I can relay the message exactly what's wrong? I know that the plants were fixed. And that's the only part -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They can see it in the order telling them what was wrong. MR. QUINTANA: Okay, I can relay back -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We issued an order back in -- MR. QUINTANA: -- that's better. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' We issued an order to them back in November in writing, a written order, which is same as coming from a judge. MR. QUINTANA: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A written document, says do this. Page March 23, 2000 They haven"t done it yet. Sorry. MR. QUINTANA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They need to get on board. Excuses aren't -- you know, what I'm hearing is pretty much excuses. I'm not saying they're your fault, it"s just -- MR. QUINTANA: I have to deal with them, that's all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct, sir. I'm sorry we can't help you right now. MR. QUINTANA: Okay. Well, thank you for your time. Can it be noted that we did do the landscaping repair, and it was -- MS. ARNOLD: It is noted in the case. And as I indicated for the board, a part of the order was to correct the irrigation, and that's what's still outstanding. MR. QUINTANA: That helps me out already. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The county does the inspections, and they're the ones that makes notes in the file and tells us, you know, yes, certain parts of it were done, but the order states it all has to be done. We didn't do it in pieces. MR. QUINTANA: Is there anyone I can be in touch with to help? Because I am loyal to our superiors, so I would like to help them out of their situation or at least -- you know, help you guys get it fixed, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't-- MS. ARNOLD: If you have any questions regarding the case, you can contact the investigator, and that was Alex Sulecki. And MR. QUINTANA: Alexandra Sulecki? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And you should have a phone number for her. 403-2444. MR. QUINTANA: 403-2444? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. QUINTANA: Thank you very much. MS. ARNOLD: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second, as I remember. Any further question on imposing the fine? Page March 23, 2000 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 99-073. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this is -- MS. TAYLOR: You know what? Excuse me, but nobody did make that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Yeah. MS. TAYLOR: That was so long ago. Sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, it was made and seconded. MS. TAYLOR: Okay, sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this next case is Richard L. Kniebes and Martha L. Townsend, for - there were various violations on this particular property. The case was heard on December 23rd, and at that time the board did find them in violation. And they were ordered to correct the violations by January 23rd, 2000, or fines of $100 per day would be imposed. Staff's visit of the site on February 24th, 2000, revealed the violation remains, so we're asking for filing an affidavit of noncompliance and that fines be imposed in the amount of $3,100 for the period of January 24th through February 24th, and an additional $618.70 for costs incurred. MS. TAYLOR: I make a motion that we file this recommendation. MR. KNIEBES: May I speak on that? Lawrence Kniebes. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: You are? MR. KNIEBES.' Mr. Kniebes. I obtained a permit for that house out there of mine in Naples Manor. And I got that two days ago. I'm a partly disabled person. I've been in the hospital a week. Here's my discharge from January to early February. I've been diligently trying to get this permit together. I had some problems with surveys and such that I got from the mortgage company, running down documents once they was doing the drawing. They won't accept the elevation survey from Page 35 March 23, 2000 my flood insurance company. I had to get another survey done. Then after I did apply for everything, it was like 17 days before I could pick it up down there at the county after everything did pass through. So it just takes some time to pick up those permits and stuff, like I'm saying. Also, I came down here for a fence violation. I got a county record here, and my records show that that permit number was 71-70. My girlfriend, Mar]orie Townsend, bought that permit for $42 on December 5th, 1988. And 1969 the house was built, Permit 69-255. That was February 4th. Let's see, 1975 it was that utilities shed addition, they were worried about the plumbing and electric there. Failed '75. I didn't purchase the house till September of '88. Also, in '92 I pulled a sewer and plumbing permit for the house. Hooked up the new sewer and plumbing. '93 I pulled a reroof permit for the house. Again here in 2-6 I bought the one for the garage enclosure -- the permits for the garage enclosure and the improvements done to that area. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' I understand what you're saying, but we're not here to rehear the case. If you're in compliance with our order, then you need to talk to the county and convince them that you are in fact in compliance. MR. KNIEBES.' That's what I'm telling you here now, I'm in compliance with most of these things -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to go to the county. What we're here to do is impose the fine. Because as of a certain day, there was no record that you were in compliance. Okay? Now, what you have the right to do, if we impose these fines, is convince the county that you have corrected it and they were all corrected back when, and then come before us and say you'd like us to -- MR. KNIEBES: You have to impose the fines before I can ask you to moderate the fines or eliminate the fines? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Well, the county has told us that you haven't complied with everything. You need to get the documentation and convince the county that you have complied with everything. Page March 23, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: We're dealing with a through February 24th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but he's naming things that happened years ago, and so -- MR. KNIEBES: No, I'm just here to show you that I spent over -- the house only cost $700 to build. I spent myself over $8,000 on permits for this house. I'm not here being a scoff law or nothing. I'm trying as hard as I can, being disabled, with no money, being hospitalized, to comply with everything here without having no more fines levied against me. I'm not a scoff law. And I'm here to show you that I've spent more than what the house cost on permits already. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MR. KNIEBES: And I'm only trying to comply with everything here. It's not -- 30 days is not long enough to get a permit in this county. Go down and start to get a permit, 30 days is not long enough. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, could you refresh my memory? How long did this case proceed before coming before the board? MS. ARNOLD: The case was initiated in July of 1999. And the board heard the case in December of 1999. MR. LEHMANN: So approximately 11 months. MR. KNIEBES: Yes, but sir, I've been cited three times for over a year on this fence. And I bought a permit for it in '88. A nice wooden fence in front of my house. Three times. Twice it's been okay, okay. Now I'm brought before the board on this matter. I'll showed them my records where I bought this fence. My ledger book's not good enough. They can't find the records down at the county. I finally found the records. I found the permit number. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then-- MR. KNIEBES: And that's been going on for more than a year. Three times he's been out there violating me on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, sir, since -- MR. KNIEBES: These are the problems that have been going on and on. There's stuff that's not factual. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since you did the work to find the Page 3 ? March 23, 2000 records, it would be in your best interest to take what you found and sit down with the county and show them that you have found MR. KNIEBES: I sat down with them -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and it is complete. MS. ARNOLD: That information was provided at the board meeting in December, I believe. All of this was given to the board in December. Some of the permit information, that was -- I'm just recalling from memory. There was a permit that was issued that expired, and he would have to reapply for that particular permit again. So attempts had been made, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're -- we're getting far afield here. We're getting to rehear a case that -- MR. KNIEBES: There's just one more part, please, is that my tax records show -- my tax property card from the county does show that that carport had been converted into a garage before I bought the property. I know that I'm still responsible. I want it to be legal. But that work was done, according to tax records, before I bought my property. It's on my property card. And that utility room was done 25 years ago. That garage conversion was done at least t2 years ago, according to the public records here. I had nothing to do with that. I want to bring it in legal and be into compliance, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If it's illegal, it's illegal, so -- regardless of who built it. MR. KNIEBES: I know. I inherited it. I don't want no one else to inherit it. It's just I want to fix it; I want it right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you'll work with the staff -- MR. KNIEBES: I'm trying to work with staff, but I can't handle these fines. If you want my house. MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I made a motion that we follow staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay, we have a motion to impose his fines as recommended. Do I hear a second? MS. SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I would just make a note for Page March 23, 2000 the board's consideration, as that when the case was originally heard, these issues were considered by the board in its recommendation for the fine. So it is not as if we're rehearing the case again. We have heard this case and we have deliberated on it and already made a determination on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. Okay, we have a motion and a second to impose the fines as recommended. Any further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. 99-044. MS. ARNOLD: This case is Epifanio Hernandez and Manuel Hernandez. And we need a translator for this, so I'll ask Maria to -- I'll go slowly and ask Maria to translate for the respondents. (Ms. Cruz translated.) MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this case was brought before the board on July 22nd of 1999. At that time the board found the respondent in violation of having mobile homes and RV's on the site without first obtaining appropriate permits. (Ms. Cruz translated.) MS. ARNOLD: The respondent was given until September 5th of 1999 to obtain site improvement plan or site development plan, whichever deemed appropriate, or fines of $250 per day would be imposed. (Ms. Cruz translated.) MS. ARNOLD: At this time, staff would like to recommend filing of affidavit of noncompliance. We went out to the site on March 8th and found that the violation continued. (Ms. Cruz translated.) MS. ARNOLD: The fines are from September 6th of 1999 through March 8th of the year 2000, which is at $43,750, plus an additional $577.10 for operational costs incurred. (Ms. Cruz translated.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Ms. Rawson, I have a question, because we seem to be getting afield here. In imposing fines, is this the proper venue for someone to come before the board and Page March 23, 2000 ask for the fines to be reduced? MS. RAWSON: They have the right to be here. We have to notice them. And, you know, if they're here, they have the right to be heard. They can request relief. And if they're not here, of course it's just an automatic. If they haven't done it. And staff tells you that they've been out and inspected the property and the improvements are whatever, the property's not in compliance, then you have the right to impose fines. But we have to notice them to be here, so -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I guess what I'm trying to look for is I'm not interested in rehearing the case. That's done. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're here to impose a fine number based on the dollar of our order. MS. RAWSON: Correct. Well, as in the last case, I think it was February 24th. If something has been done prior to February 24th, you are correct in saying well then you need to tell the county. But if there's no evidence to show that there's anything that has been done to bring it into compliance prior to February 24th, then you just move on with the imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Staff. As of March 8th, did the violation still exist? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, what I'm interested in hearing from the respondent is if he's done something prior to that March 8th date. Okay? Because we're going to impose fines up to that period. If he wants to tell us what he's done since then, unfortunately I'm really not interested. We can do that at some other time. Right now we're dealing with up to March 8th. If he has something to tell us about that time period that staff is not aware of, we're interested. Okay? MS. CRUZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that we don't get into rehearing the case. I'm really not interested in the board doing that. MS. CRUZ: Would you like him sworn in? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't you tell him first what we're interested in, because he may not have anything to tell us. I Page40 March 23, 2000 don't know. (Ms. Cruz translated.) MS. CRUZ: What he just said is that he received a letter back in July, the notices for the hearing. And not knowing what the letter stated, someone translated those notices for him, and he came down in September to remove the trailers -- the violation, I should add. He came down and removed three, because -- MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, this is testimony. He needs to be sworn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm interested in is you as a staff has told us that the violations existed as of March 8th, okay? Did they exist as of March 8th? MS. CRUZ: Yes, they did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's swear him in and I'm going to ask him a couple of questions. (Speaker and translator were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My first question. Did he remove -- did he remove any of the violations prior to March 8th of the year 2000? MS. CRUZ: Three only. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Only three. MS. CRUZ: There were four. He says the interpreter that read the documents to him stated that he only needed to remove three. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't know what document he's talking about. Our order just says to remove all unpermitted structures. My next question is, what date did he remove the three by? MS. CRUZ: In September, 1999. MS. SAUNDERS: And could staff tell us what violation still remained? What portion of it. I'm confused. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the order just says remove all. So the order doesn't say there's three or six or 20 or whatever, So-- MS. ARNOLD: During the case, we identified that there were three mobile homes and one RV on the site. So there were four Page March 23, 2000 structures. MS. SAUNDERS: And what still remains? MS. ARNOLD: On March 8th, when the investigator went out, all trailers remained -- mobile homes remained. MS. SAUNDERS: So three remained out of four that were there. MS. ARNOLD: All of the violations still remained on the site. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess I'm -- MR. LEHMANN.' Ms. Arnold -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Arnold, let me clarify this. You are telling me that according to the county's testimony, on March 8th, all three mobile homes plus the RV trailer remained on site. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-hum. MR. LEHMANN: And the respondent, in his testimony, is saying that in September, the three trailers were vacated? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct. In March the investigator came back and indicated violation remains, added an additional trailer to site. Talked to Amy, daughter of the respondent, to remove second trailer and remove -- or obtain a permit for original violation. MR. LEHMANN: So your position at this point in time is now that four trailers exist instead of the original three? MS. ARNOLD: According to the report filed by the investigator, yes. MR. LEHMANN: Plus the RV trailer. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First, if he brings another trailer, that's-- MS. ARNOLD: That's irrelevant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' -- a totally different violation. That doesn't count. MR. LEHMANN: No, I understand that. I'm just trying to understand. Both testimonies are sworn testimonies. Who's telling the truth now? MS. SAUNDERS: Maria, could you ask him if he removed three trailers, why there -- or three mobile homes, why there are still three mobile homes on the property. Page March 23, 2000 MS. CRUZ: He's saying that as of September there's only one trailer in the house. MR. LEHMANN: Were new trailers brought back to the site? MS. CRUZ: No. MS. SAUNDERS: Would you ask him if he's been to the site recently? If that's his site. MS. CRUZ: He said approximately November, December he has not visited the site. MR. KINCAID: Ms. Arnold, what's the date of this photograph? MS. ARNOLD: It is March 8th, I believe. Let me see. MR. LEHMANN: And could you identify what we see in the photograph? MS. ARNOLD: The photograph is March 8th, and there is a large trailer to the left of your screen, and there's another trailer, RV, to the rear of the screen, and then there are vehicles. I'm not sure whether or not this is the entire site that was taken. MR. LEHMANN: So the original violation, we have three mobile homes and one RV trailer. I'm assuming the one RV trailer is the one we see in the far right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: And identify the three trailers -- the mobile homes. I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: I don't see them on -- in this photograph. MR. LEHMANN: You don't see the mobile homes? MS. ARNOLD: The other two mobile homes in this photograph. MR. LEHMANN: Is this van considered the RV, or are you looking at the trailer behind the van? MS. ARNOLD: The van is considered a vehicle. There is also a station wagon on the site and another vehicle to the right of the van. I believe the RV is that which sits in front of the van. MR. LEHMANN: So my understanding is that as of March 8th, the violation that we can determine out of this photograph exists for one RV and one trailer -- or mobile home. MS. ARNOLD: From the photograph, correct. MR. LEHMANN: And Ms. Cruz, would you ask the respondent Page March 23, 2000 again -- explain to him that my understanding of his testimony is that all of these are removed. I'm having a hard time understanding who's telling the truth, so to speak. MS. CRUZ: He's saying that there were four mobile homes like that, the big one. When he removed the three, he brought in the travel trailer. MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I think I've heard enough to go ahead and impose fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I've heard more than enough. MS. SAUNDERS: I move that we accept staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Tell him thank you and tell him he can sit down. MS. SAUNDERS: I move that we accept staff's recommendation and impose fines of $43,750 plus $577.10 through March 8th, 2000. MS. TAYLOR: I second that. CHAIRMAN FI,EGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? And then I have a couple of questions before we ask for a vote. MS. SAUNDERS: I do have one question for staff. I'd also like to begin foreclosure proceedings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have to impose the fines and they have to be there for a minimum of three months. What I'd like to know from staff is -- my memory isn't that good, and I don't know what's in the file. I have to get -- look it up when I get back. But do we have pictures of the violations when they existed back in -- whenever we did this, back in July? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay. I assume that staff has some kind of records. They say they were there on September 5th or 6th or something when it was -- MS. ARNOI,D: Yeah, they were there on the 6th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Did we take any pictures that day; do you know? Page March 23, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: I don't know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But the violation existed that day, so we're assuming that the pictures you had prior to that, the same trailers were sitting there on the 6th? MS. ARNOLD: Or some variation of the violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that the violation still existed and that the board's order was not complied with. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, we have a motion and a second to proceed as on the recommendation of the staff to impose the fines. MR. LEHMANN: One comment, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. LEHMANN: The board has to realize that by the imposition of the fine in the amount that you have, this is probably the value of the property, or more. Just as a comment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. Any other comments? All those in favor of imposing the fines, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' 99-032. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this is K.O. and Martha Vaughn. This case was heard before the board on June 24th, 1999, and the respondents were given until July 24th of 1999 to comply with their order, or fines of $150 would be imposed each day the violation continued to exist. At this time, staff is indicating that the violation remained when a verification was done on February 28th of 2000, and that we file an affidavit of noncompliance for that date. And staff is also requesting that the board impose fines for $32,700 for a period from July 25th, 1999 through February 28th of the year 2000, plus an additional $808.82 for operational costs incurred. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions from my board members? Page '~ 5 March 23, 2000 MS. TAYLOR: I make a motion that this board follow the recommendation of staff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just a moment, please. MR. VAUGHN: Do I get to say anything? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. And you are, sir? MR. VAUGHN: I am K.O. Vaughn. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Please step up, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. VAUGHN.' I went before the board -- or the zoning board whenever it was last year. I agreed with those people that I would get a permit. I started the process of getting that permit. I sent the code enforcement officer a copy of the prints for what was to be done. I submitted those to the Building Department. They said they had to be engineered. I also requested to get a building permit. They told me that I had to have a general contractor. I said I'm an owner/builder on a commercial building. My understanding is that I can build $25,000 under owner/builder on a commercial building. McClung I think was the building director at that time. What I'm getting at is this is what started this whole deal. This man told me that I could not build anything under owner/builder on commercial. So I said, "Well, show me in the zoning book where it says that." He showed me the book, but it wasn't printed there. I said, "Well, it doesn't read this." He says, "Well, they changed it" -- the commission changed it. It wasn't this commission, it was a prior commission. They changed it and it has not been written in the book yet. So learning this a month or so ago, that it is a state law that owner/builder can build under commercial up to $25,000, which would cover the cost of what we're talking about here, this improvement of this piece of -- or this one building. So I agreed to get the permits, I submitted all of the papers to get the permits, and I told them at that time that we needed the site development plan. They told me that we needed the site development plan. I called those people four times. I got three -- or I called them three times. I got three different answers from three Page March 23, 2000 different people. My wife called them one time, she got a different answer. My son-in-law, he called them and he got a different answer. Two of the answers were just turn it in, it's not going to pass anyway. I called them before and asked exactly what you need. There was 11 copies of this site development plan that I had to submit, which I did submit. Eight of those came back on hold. So at that time I have been taking them one at a time and going and trying to get them cleared up. But I did say at that time of the meeting that I would get a permit. I'm the one being punished now, because the red tag that was put on there says stop work. That's exactly what I did, I stopped work. And it also says until the proper permits are obtained. Well, where does it come to say how long it takes to get those permits? You're saying that -- that board says well, you can get them, and we'll give you 60 days or 90 days to get them. Well, maybe it takes 120 days, or two years. I don't know. But the red tag says stop work. I've been punished from that day until now because I can't do anything on that building, because I don't have a permit. But I have full intentions of getting that permit. I'm going to get that permit, because I've got a lot of stuff to do there. And I have called the Building Department or whatever that place is, management, or whatever. I called them. They don't return their calls. Mr. Sal -- the guy -- the zoning thing, it took him two days to get back and return the call. He spoke to me sometime ago, and I explained to him then that the permits were in the hands of the engineer to be engineered. And as you should know in this county that you don't tell an engineer what to do, he tells you what he's going to do. You don't rush him. Because it took me two months to find this one. So anyway, the prints are in the hands of the engineer. The prints that I submitted before, the county would not accept, because the engineer had to put on there the map. There was a map. They had to have a location map to find Shirley Street. I said, "Well, here." "Well, you can't do that. The engineer's got to put that on Page March 23, 2000 the print." I took the site flow meter from the fire department to the fireman. I said here's the thing. Well, I don't know where that site development -- you got to put it with the site development plans. Does that mean I got to submit another site development plan with this on there, that I can't put it on there, the engineer's got to put it on there? So I got aggravated time and time again with those people. I plan on being here for many, many years more. I've been here for many, many years now. So if I get aggravated with them people, I just turn around and leave. And then whenever the mood strikes, I'll go back. But I have full intentions of getting those permits. And I'm going to get them. But I don't see any reason for me to have to appeal something that you put on there, or you put a fine on there that you cannot collect. I don't see any advantage in doing that. It's just going to cause a lot of problems for -- down the future. Because I'm being punished already. How much do you want to punish me because of what you're saying? It says stop work, I stopped work. I'm going to get the permits, but I don't see where you people have the right to say that you got to get those permits in this many days. As long as I don't work on that building, I don't need a permit. But when I do decide to work on that building, I've got to have a permit. I knew that I had to have a permit to start with. But if that guy had not misled me, saying that I could not work on my own property -- I'm not working on somebody else's land, this is my land. I can't do anything on my land without a general contractor. And all that does is give them a license to steal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, sir, I understand what you're saying, and it's unfortunate. But as far as the stop work goes, we have nothing to do with that. That's the county. MR. VAUGHN.' I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I remember you from when you came before, now that I've seen you. This board does have the power to tell you to get something Page March 23, 2000 done. You also have the right to come back and ask for an extension. We told you to do it within 30 days of July of '99. This is the first I've seen you since July. You obviously didn't want to come back and ask for an extension. MR. VAUGHN: I don't remember. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Well, I'm reading it and I do, so -- MR. VAUGHN: I don't remember-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's my turn to come back now. MR. VAUGHN: -- to come back and ask for an extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you didn't come back, and now you're telling us that, you know, you have all these problems. You should have asked for an extension. What we're here to do is impose this fine, if that's what we choose to do. We appreciate your comments. I understand them. But we put some of the onus on you to follow through in doing some things and providing information to this board so we can help you. At this point -- MR. VAUGHN.' I did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- I'm not inclined to help you, since from July to now we hadn't heard from you. MR. VAUGHN: I have talked to those people. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, they work for the county. We don't work for the county. MR. VAUGHN: I don't even know when you meet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: We meet once a month. MR. VAUGHN: Right. The County Commission meets on Wednesday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' We're not the County Commission, so -- MR. VAUGHN: I thought that's what this is. But anyway, whatever. What are you saying? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Well, we heard you and we appreciate your information. And we're going to proceed to do what we need to do now. MS. DUSEK.' Ms. Rawson, if we do impose these fines, as we have said before, he can come back after the work is completed? MS. RAWSON: Yes, he can, and ask that you reduce them or Page March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or waive them. MS. RAWSON: -- waive them. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Vaughn, do you realize that? MR. VAUGHN: Yeah. MS. DUSEK: Because sometimes I feel that the public doesn't totally understand the whole process, even though we may tell you when you're here the first time. It's most likely that we are going to impose the fines. If you complete the work, you can come back and ask that there be some relief from the fines. Do you understand that? And we meet once a month. You can check with the staff exactly what day it is and what time. It's the same every month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's the last Thursday of the month, normally. MR. VAUGHN: You didn't tell me that in the other meeting. I had -- I was dumbfounded about that. I had no idea to come back here. As long as I was trying to get these permits, which I was trying to do. It's not-- MS. DUSEK: But do you understand that? MR. VAUGHN: -- not a case -- ma'am? MS. DUSEK: Do you understand that now, that you can come back? MR. VAUGHN: I understand that I can't come back. I understand that it's getting late and we need to go take a break. MS. DUSEK: No, that's not the point. Once you complete the work -- MR. VAUGHN: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- we most likely will impose the fines. MR. VAUGHN: Okay. And explain to me imposing the fines, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Imposing the fines is we're going to take a vote and impose or not impose this fine. And what that does is at that point says you owe "X" as of a certain date. And there will be a lien on your property until you pay it, or get the problem solved and come back and ask us. MR. VAUGHN: A lien? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A lien on your property. Page 5 0 March 23, 2000 MR. VAUGHN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do you understand what that is? MR. VAUGHN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. VAUGHN: How do you collect? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We look for you to pay it, and if you don't pay it, we'll foreclose on your property. MR. VAUGHN: How do you foreclose on something you don't have a mortgage on? MS. SAUNDERS: The lien gives us the right to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The lien gives us the right to do that. You need to go get an attorney, sir and go talk to -- MR. VAUGHN: You need to understand it, too. It's a lien, it's not a mortgage. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we're done with this conversation. MS. TAYLOR: I have made -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. TAYLOR: -- a -- I have made a motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to impose the fines as suggested by the county. Do I hear a second? MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? Motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next case, 98-005. MR. VAUGHN: I want to say one other thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, sir, you -- MR. VAUGHN: I didn't get any help from the management place out there in order to solve this problem. I'm not getting any help here either. Thank you very much. Have a good day. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the next item is Southern Exposure of Naples, Incorporated. This item was heard before the Code Enforcement Board February 26th, 1998. At that time the board did find the respondents in violation, and requested that they obtain a conditional use approval by August 28th, and also Page March 23, 2000 correct the violations by obtaining permits for the structures on the property by March 20th of 1998. The violations still exist, and the board said that if the violation continued past the August 28th date, fines of $250 would be imposed. To date, no conditional use application has been submitted to the county, and nor has building permits been submitted to the county for the structures. And staff is recommending that the board file an affidavit of noncompliance for the date reflecting January 6th, the year 2000, and impose fines for the period of March 21st, 1998 through January 6th of the year 2000, for a total of $189,350, and $100 -- no, I think there's a mistake on the recommendation. And there is no additional cost incurred, because that wasn't a part of the board's order at the time. MS. RAWSON: So what's the corrected number, Ms. Arnold? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if we go back to -- MS. ARNOLD: Then what happened was the board's order had two amounts. There was two parts of the order: One for the conditional use and one for the permits. And there was a fine of $250 per day for the conditional use and $100 per day for the permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: So there isn't an error. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, there was two amounts in our order. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you're saying that based on the figures you're dealing with here and applying those two dollar figures, you've come up with this fine of 189,3507 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, 189,350. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I just -- let me back up a second. Okay, I understand and I remember this case. MR. RYNDERS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Morning, sir. My name is -- (Speaker was duly sworn.} MR. RYNDERS: Good morning, chairman, members of the board. Page 52 March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: May we have your name, sir? MR. RYNDERS.' David W. Rynders. I'm an attorney representing Mr. Keiser, who is the owner of the land. And we filed a lawsuit within 30 days of the board's decision and litigated that. And I think the mandate finally came down in January of this year saying that the case we had filed was not ripe because this board had not taken any adverse action against LIS, CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Correct. MR. RYNDERS: And I argued to the court, well, maybe some adverse action is these fines they say are accruing. And your lawyer told the court, no, no, no, haven't any fines fixed in this case. Now, this is a 1998 case. If there were going to be a hearing on fines, my thought would have been it would have occurred within a month or two after August 28th, 1998, and then I could have made that allegation in the court and the case would have been ripe for adjudication then. But because the board did not levy any fines until the lawsuit was over -- and the lawsuit was adjudged premature because no fines had been levied, and what this board had done, the court found, was not final. So we spent all that time finding out that this board had not taken any final action. Obviously, if you impose fines, then that removes that obstacle from the court's jurisdiction and we can go ahead and go back into court and litigate the matter. Now, I've discussed this with the attorneys for the county and so on, and we have agreed that we will file the application for CUP, and in fact it's on file now, filed by 4:00 p.m. yesterday, because of this hearing. I had met on January 20th with the planning staff. Let's see, Bob Mulhere and a number of the other -- the attorneys involved in the case and some other planners, and they agreed we should go ahead and file the application for the CUP. They set up a meeting for me on January 26th with Susan Murray in the Planning Department. I met with her at 2:00 p.m. on the 26th of January, and I promised her I would get our CUP application in as soon as I could. Page March 23, 2000 And I have to apologize, because I got involved with a bunch of things and did not pursue my client to get his site plan sketched up. I told him that I would process this CUP application through the County Commission without any fees because of the time that we spent and the money that it cost him to litigate. The court essentially said we're not going to hear this until -- we're not going to hear the question of whether your CUP is appropriate or not until you've given the County Commission one chance to approve it, since it only cost $700. Our argument had been that it's going to cost substantially more. Well, we paid the $700 -- actually, I brought a check with me on January 20th for $700 for the application. They wouldn't take it then because they wanted all these site plans. I couldn't get Susan Murray to take it on the 26th. But they did log it in yesterday afternoon, along with all of the checklist of items we had to submit. So our CUP application is in the process now. Now, I want to state with regard to the separate item, which the board ruled on on February 26th, '98. They said correct violations pertaining to structures on the property by obtaining required permits and CO by March 20, 1998. Mr. Keiser will testify here in a moment that he went down to the building department on or about March 20th and applied for those building permits and certificates of occupancy. And for some reason or another, the building department had in its head -- and this is a matter of some record that was developed during the litigation -- they said oh, we're not going to issue you building permits until you get your conditional use permit. Well, this board clearly did not have in mind that the building permits were conditioned upon approval of the conditional use permit, because they gave us till August 28th, 180 days, to get the conditional use permit, but told us to get the building permits by March 20th. Well, when Mr. Keiser was turned away from the building department saying he couldn't get those permits until the CUP was approved, it created a catch-22. In other words, we could not comply with Section B of your order, paragraph l-B, because another department, whom you're not involved with, said they Page March 23, 2000 wouldn't issue those permits until the CUP was approved on it before the 28th. Now, when the court's mandate came down here in January of this year, I sent Mr. Keiser immediately back to the building department. And he went over there again. And I even called -- unfortunately I didn't call the county's attorney, I called the attorney that this board hired to represent this board during the litigation. And I forget, Jori -- MS. RAWSON: Fishbane. MR. RYNDERS: Jon Fishbane. And I said "Now, look, I'm sending my client down to get these permits." Now, over a year and a half ago when he tried to get these permits, they told him they wouldn't give him one because the CUP wasn't issued yet, which is an impossibility until you -- we go through that process, and certainly can't meet that March 20th date. I mean, the building department made it an impossibility. So would you please call down there and like make sure they don't make that same mistake again. "Sure, sure, sure." So Mr. Keiser went down in January, sometime before January 20th, because I know he had gone down there by the time I met with Bob Mulhere and the attorneys at the development department over on Horseshoe Drive. And once again, for one reason or another, was told he can't get his building permits until he gets a CUP. So the message didn't get through. And then when we met, I discussed this with the county attorney, Ramiro Manalich, and the attorney who came, someone came from Jon Fishbane's firm. It wasn't Jon. But we all agreed that when the CUP application was filed, then the building department had something in their mind about how they couldn't issue these permits which you required before the CUP. They couldn't issue them unless there was a CUP in existence or something. And the compromise was that when we got the CUP filed, then they would issue the building permits. And it's because I Page 55 March 23, 2000 have been for one reason or another litigating with the City of Naples, it seems almost seven days a week since then, I -- some time went by. I wasn't able to really marshal my client and get his site plan, site -- conceptual site plan drawn up. We finally got it, which I think was the intent of this hearing. We finally got it filed yesterday afternoon. And it is now logged in so that he can go down now for the first time and apparently apply for those building permits, and hopefully they will be issued. They keep telling me they're going to fix this mistake. But until he goes down there and does it, I don't know if they're going to fix it or not. In any event, his inability to pull the building permits required by March 20th was because of some understanding I allege is a mistake, although the court sometimes tell me I'm the one in error. But it seems to me a mistake in understanding by the building department that no permits could be issued until the CUP was obtained. You can see by the order itself that makes it an impossibility and would impose an automatic fine on them of some maybe four or five months of -- or 30 days of $100 a day. And that was not this board's intention. In any event, we get down to the fundamental question of whether during the period of litigation these fines accrued or not. In other words, were -- was there a cessation or -- I can't remember the term -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Stay. MR. RYNDERS: -- sort of a stay until the conclusion of the litigation. And that's a question of law that I have an opinion about, particularly since I argued before the trial court and the appellate court, the appellate circuit court of appeals, that this board might take the position that they were not stayed. But the lawyer for -- who is representing them said this is not a problem, there's no hundreds of thousands of dollars accruing in fines here. So the court said the case was not ripe because there hadn't been any application for a CUP yet, and we're going to let them try one time at this $700 cost before we're going to waste any of our judicial time on this. Page March 23, 2000 And believe me, if you all had imposed a fine of September, October or December of '98 of $250 a day, I would have had a completely different lawsuit, because it was dismissed for lack of ripeness. We hadn't suffered any damage yet, no fines had been imposed. And if you imposed fines, we've just got to go back to court. That fulfills the requirement for ripeness. But your lawyers allege that there wasn't any fines that had been fixed or even threatened during the pendency of the litigation. So I lost taking, you know, my argument to court and your lawyer won. Now, if you all turn around and impose fines, I'm going to have a problem obviously not only in connection with your determination of whether these fines kept accruing during the period of litigation, but I'm going to have a problem with that lawyer and the representations he made, because he obviously didn't check with his client first. And under Federal rules, Rule t 1, he is required to do that. And if it results in some difficulty, maybe he can pay those fines. But it's not something -- since he argued that the case was not ripe since no fines were fixed, he made an argument that was successful. But today you're talking about imposing the very fines he said were not a threat. Anyway, I think your fundamental question is are these fines stayed for the period of the litigation. And the fact that the building department wouldn't issue the permits because we didn't get the CUP made it an impossibility to comply with the board's order; in other words, the county to whom you want us to write a check, and in whose favor you will impose a fine -- not your own favor, of course -- prevented us from doing that. And frankly, I think some individuals are guilty of malfeasance, if that turns out to be the case. Because anybody can read this simple order here and realize that we were expected to get those building permits completely separate and apart from that conditional use permit. The building department, taking that position, made it impossible for us to comply. And so -- and we did allege in the suit that there was some personal malice against this property owner and his use. Page March 23, 2000 But we want to abandon all that. And I do not want to litigate in federal court anymore. And I'm very tired of this case. We just want to process our CUP and apply for the third time to get these building permits, which we are told that they will now accept since the CUP has finally been filed. And I want to apologize for being busy during the month of February and the last couple of weeks of March, aggravating the City of Naples instead of getting this CUP application filed. But it's well within -- we were given 180 days, and if you subtract the period of litigation, there's barely been -- 30 plus 60 -- there's barely been 90 days that have gone by for us to have an opportunity to obtain the CUP. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My initial question to you is, you had an order issued in February of '98 which gave your client some dates to comply with something by. Those dates came and gone, and he never approached this board to ask for any kind of extension. MR. RYNDERS: We filed a lawsuit, which we are allowed to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. MR. RYNDERS: And during the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're allowed to file any kind of lawsuit you like. That's the way United States runs. MR. RYNDERS: And during the pendency of the suit -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My question is, why didn't he ask for some relief? MR. RYNDERS: Well, because we were litigating the question of whether this board's ruling on his requirement for a CUP was constitutional or not, which you all invited us to do. When we were here, you told us don't ask us these constitutional questions, you have to go to court to do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. RYNDERS.' We went to court. The court said well, there's nothing final here yet, so you have to go back to the county and apply for that CUP, because nothing -- you haven't been damaged, in other words, is what the court said. So it's not ripe for us to consider the constitutional issue, and it won't be Page March 23, 2000 ripe until the County Commission either grants or denies the CUP. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay. Well, we've heard that part of it before, so I don't want to hear it again. I just wanted to ask you that question. MR. RYNDERS: I'm sorry, what was the question? It's possible I did-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' The only answer was you filed a lawsuit. So that's fine. MR. RYNDERS: We did what you told us to do, we filed a lawsuit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. You've answered my question. MR. RYNDERS: And I have a question. Is there any reason why the board did not take this matter up in '98 for the levy of imposition of fines at that time? I mean, is it the practice of the board to let two years go by before you impose fines? I mean, clearly this board took a position and did not impose fines during that litigation, and let the fines accrue at what is obviously a very phenomenal rate. This board's failure to impose fines meant that -- meant to the court that there was no fine threatening this client, and so they said he doesn't have any damage yet. Now, if you want to give us the damage, we'll go back into court. But believe me, your attorneys do not want to litigate that issue. I don't want to litigate the issue. But the fact that the board failed to impose fines in September, August, December, January or any time in 1999, and waited until this moment, indicates some position that you had during the last two years on whether these fines could be imposed. MS. ARNOLD: Can I speak to that? A part of the reason why we hadn't imposed fines until this date is because a request came from Mr. Rynders to hold off on that imposition of fines for the period of -- we initially did not impose fines because we were directed -- because there was a pending lawsuit before the courts to hold off. And then once the decision was made, we were going to impose fines, as you recall, at your December Page March 23, 2000 hearing -- or January hearing, we pulled it off the agenda. A request was made to -- MR. RYNDERS: By me. MS. ARNOLD: -- not impose fines until they had an opportunity to submit their conditional use by a certain date. MR. RYNDERS: Right. Well, you submit it as soon as possible. I don't think any specific date. The request you're referring to by me was made in January -- MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. RYNDERS: -- of this year. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. RYNDERS: All right. So it wasn't a request in '98 or '99. MS. ARNOLD: No, I initiated that the initial was because of the pending lawsuit. Because this involves -- The pending lawsuit -- Excuse me, I know you can't take both of us MS. RAWSON: MR. RYNDERS: MS. RAWSON: at once. Because this involves questions of law, I'm going to ask that you listen to Ms. Vasquez. She's going to give you the county's position. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, because we have three parties, basically. You have the respondent, the county, and then this board. So let's hear from Ms. Vasquez. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. VASQUEZ-' Melissa Vasquez, assistant county'attorney, for the record. I just have a few points that I wanted to discuss about Mr. Rynders' statements. I wasn't the attorney that handled the federal litigation; however, I am familiar with some of the process that they went through. First of all, as far as the issue of staying the fines, it's the county attorney's position that there is no automatic stay of those fines. In order to get a stay, you have to file something with the court and have the court rule on that. That was never done. And I have had discussions with Attorney Mike Pettit, and he Page 6 0 March 23, 2000 has also discussed with Jon Fishbane, and I believe there was one other attorney involved with the case; his name escapes me at this time. However, they checked their pleadings and, you know, thought about comments that Mr. Rynders made that there was a representation that no fines were accruing. Nowhere in the pleadings could we find that that existed, and the memories of the counsels involved was that they never made the representation that impositions -- an imposition of fine was not made, but they never said anything about fines accruing. And Mr. Rynders can make hay with the distinction of those two words all he wants; however, that was not the representation. We did not represent that the imposition of fines had not occurred or did not occur or will not occur. It's just that the fines -- I'm sorry, the representation was imposition of fines has not occurred, but there was no representation that the fines had not been accruing. And again, he can comment on those, the distinction of the two. More importantly, I think, Attorney Manalich has had extensive conversations with Attorney Rynders in trying to assist and facilitate obtaining the conditional use permit, or at least going through that process. When the staff put the imposition of fines on your agenda in December or January -- January of this year, December of last year -- we talked with staff, and it was our recommendation that we have a conversation with Attorney Rynders and tell him that yes, we will agree to postpone that, as long as you make the guarantee that your client will go through the process. He did that. There was a letter sent to him. It said -- on January 26th, the letter was sent to Mr. Rynders and it said, "County staff agrees to withdraw this matter from the agenda upon the following conditions: Your client shall apply and pay appropriate fees related to said application for the conditional use and building permits required by the CEB order in this case. Said actions shall occur prior to the next CEB meeting date scheduled for February 24th, 2000. Once the application and fees are paid for said processes, your client shall exercise Page March 23, 2000 reasonable diligence to follow through to conclusion the appropriate application and permit procedures with the county." Now, the county attorney's position is, or office position is, that if they had applied for that process -- we weren't saying you had to get it by the 24th, but if you had started that process, gone down and started the process, then we would look at whether or not this imposition of fines would be placed on the agenda for the following month, or if ever, or we would address that issue at that time. In that letter we also clearly state that the parties disagree as to whether or not fines have accrued during the pendency of the CEB in federal court case litigation. That's something that we're going to argue about. It's the county attorney's position that that's not -- that a stay did not occur and that they were accruing, although imposition did not occur. Again, as you have said earlier today, if you impose the fines, they can always seek reduction, if they've gone through the process. The purpose of this letter was to ensure that the process was initiated, and that was not done. And I just want to say for the record, I take issue with the disparaging comments that Attorney Rynders has made toward any attorney affiliated with the county attorney, with the county representing this board or any of the individuals in that lawsuit. Their representations, I do not believe, misled the court in any way. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Vasquez, can I see that letter? MS. VASQUEZ: Excuse me? MR. LEHMANN: May I see that letter? MR. RYNDERS: Actually, I'd like to see the letter. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody has to understand~ there are MS. ARNOLD: He signed it. MS. RAWSON: You know, it seems to me that while I don't guess that letter was shared with the board at the January meeting, we did have a discussion about why it was removed from the agenda. Page March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' I think what we need to understand -- Ms. Rawson, you can guide me in this -- there are three parties, so to speak here: The respondent, the county and then this board. And whether the respondent wants to sue the county or sue the board or whatever, that's something people in the United States are permitted to do. And as I read the ordinance that governs this board -- not the county, this board -- they can file for a rehearing and such. They have two methods to do that. And they can go to the court. And then if they do that, there's a stay of a max of 20 days. They didn't do either of those. MR. RYNDERS: There is a stay of the max of 20 days? MS. RAWSON: Well, they could have requested a stay. I think that's what Ms. Vasquez is telling you. They could have requested a stay in the federal court, because they appeal not to the circuit court, as is usually the case, but to the federal court, which is their right to do, because this involves constitutional issues of law. MS. VASQUEZ.' And if I could just clarify that. It was not an appeal, it was a lawsuit filed on constitutional issues, so it -- MS. RAWSON: That's correct. MS. VASQUEZ: -- wasn't an appeal of this board's decision. MR. RYNDERS: It was a petition for certiorari. Count II was a petition for certiorari. MS. VASQUEZ: And I stand corrected, because again, I'm not familiar with that litigation. But as my understanding was, it was not an appeal of this board's decision. MR. LEHMANN: For the non-lawyerly type that don't speak Latin, if it is Latin, appeal for certiorari, define that? What are we talking about? MS. VASQUEZ: What I believe Mr. Rynders is referring to is that that's what it's called to appeal the board's decision. It's basically a petition saying to the court look, this board made a wrong decision, will you issue a writ saying they have to show cause as to why -- what they've done is not wrong. And Mr. Rynders can elaborate on that, if he wishes. MR. RYNDERS: I have to say -- and it puts Ms. Vasquez at Page March 23, 2000 some disadvantage not to have been involved in this from the start. But if the county attorney has a position that there is no automatic stay of these fines, when this issue came up -- and it was argued in written memorandum, not orally -- both to the trial court and the appellate court, the county attorney failed to make his position clear. And in fact, if his position is as certain as you indicate today, he had an obligation to inform the court when I brought up the fact that these fines may be accruing. As a question of ripeness, the county attorney had an obligation to inform the court of that matter under Rule 11 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Rynders? MR. RYNDERS: -- and did not do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Rynders, I think we've got way far afield for this board. If you want to argue law, you need to do it somewhere else. MR. RYNDERS: My argument is with this board. You all did not choose for some reason or other during the pendency of the litigation to impose fines. Had you done so, the litigation -- the whole issue of ripeness would have been dealt with in an entirely different manner. To await the end of the litigation and say guess what, they were accruing, is not fair. It's simply not fair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For your information, sir, since that time this board has changed members a couple of times, so you're dealing with some people that weren't here then. So you can't look at them and say it's your fault. MR. RYNDERS: I just said the board. I've been looking at you, MS. DUSEK: I have a question. MR. RYNDERS: MS. VASQUEZ: I haven't said anything else. I'd just like to add for the record, too, that it's my understanding -- and again, I don't have the court's order in front of me. It's my understanding, however, that the court's decision did not say because there is no imposition of fines you don't have a ripe case. It was because you have not gone through the process and you haven't suffered any damage which could be imposition of fines or rejection of that CUP. Page March 23, 2000 MR. RYNDERS: Exactly right. Because we haven't suffered any damage. But you're now saying -- which is not what your attorney said in the litigation -- that we have suffered damage during the last two years. MS. VASQUEZ: I'm just trying to clarify your characterization of the court's order. It does not say that there -- you haven't suffered -- you're not ripe because you haven't suffered an imposition of fines. It says you have not suffered damage, and that's because you haven't gone through the process. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's get back to the imposition of fines. We're way past that. If you didn't get -- do what the order said by the certain date and there was no stay, appeal, whatever word the lawyers would like to use, of the fines until it all got cleared up, this board is here to decide yes, we're going to impose him, no, we're not. After we do that, then you're welcome to do whatever you would like to do. MR. RYNDERS: I ask you -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have no recommendation from the county not to impose fines, so this board will make a decision based on that. MR. RYNDERS: I ask you -- MS. DUSEK.' I have one question -- MR. RYNDERS: -- please, do not get this federal litigation rolling again. We can resolve this matter if you'll just give us the 180 days you originally offered. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Rynders, I have a question for you. Since we weren't privileged to be in on the court case and hear all sides, we're hearing your side and -- MR. RYNDERS: And the county's side. MS. DUSEK.' -- and -- yes. So we're hearing kind of partially this case, which is really not what we're here to do. But I have one question for you. As an attorney, did you realize that you could ask for a stay, despite what the county attorney might have said? Did you realize that you could ask for a stay? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes or no. Page March 23, 2000 MR. RYNDERS: No. MS. DUSEK: You didn't know? MR. RYNDERS: Absolutely not. Because the county attorney never made his position known. MS. DUSEK: It doesn't matter what his position is. MR. RYNDERS: Well, it does, if that's his -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're dealing with -- MR. RYNDERS: -- his position. His position was requested during this litigation, and he did not make that position known. Had he done so, then we would have requested a stay. But he never did. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Rynders-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to understand, we're not here to rehear this case. Let's all get back to square one. We're here to impose fines -- MR. RYNDERS: And we're here to determine -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- period. If you want to do a hearing -- MR. RYNDERS: -- whether those fines -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, wait a minute, I can only take one at a time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to understand something -- MR. RYNDERS: I'm asking -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have the floor, sir, please. If you want a rehearing, there was a way to do that. Now -- MR. RYNDERS: No, I don't want a rehearing. I just want the answer to the question, does this board take the position that the fines accrued during the litigation? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you'll let us do our job, you're going to get that answer directly. MR. RYNDERS: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Are you done talking, sir? We need to move on. I'm not going to rehear this case. That's not what we're here to do. Are you done, sir? MR. RYNDERS: (Shakes head positively.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir, you may sit down. Page March 23, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, just-- MR. RYNDERS: I have another witness to testify. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, I hesitate to open a can of worms, so to speak, but just, I need a little clarification on a few things. The ordinance that this board is governed under does have provisions for rehearing of the board action. The respondent has not chosen to exercise those rehearing rights; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: That's what the record would reflect. MR. LEHMANN: And I'm not trying to censor you, but keep it to a yes or no. I'm just trying to understand at a basic level. We also have an appeals method. And the respondent again chose not to exercise that right; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: You know, I was not involved in this litigation either. It's my understanding that this wasn't the usual appeal that goes to the circuit court, but in fact was the writ of certiorari -- that's what he told us -- in the federal court. So it's not the usual appeal of this board's order; that's correct. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So normally this board has vehicles in which case the respondent has the ability to request for a hearing, request appeals. None of those were exercised. In lieu of that, the respondent chose to exercise an appeal method through a federal court as opposed to a circuit court. MS. RAWSON: Well, he went to federal court. I don't know whether he would characterize it -- or they would characterize it as an appeal. But yes, he chose to go to the federal court. MR. RYNDERS: We filed our petition with federal court. MR. LEHMANN: In which case, that particular case was lost. MR. RYNDERS: It was said it was not ripe yet because we hadn't suffered any damage. Hadn't suffered any damage. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're still off the beam. Let's get back to the fines. MR. RYNDERS: No, we're not -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not rehearing the case. MR. RYNDERS: -- off the beam at all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We are not -- Page 6 ? March 23, 2000 MR. RYNDERS: We're not off the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' -- rehearing the case. MR. RYNDERS: -- beam at all. This board, by standing silent and -- can take a legal position. And by standing silent since late 1998 took a legal position about those fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then I'm sure-- MR. RYNDERS: And by letting them -- and by not notifying us that the fines were accruing in a reasonable period of time, this board took a position during that litigation about the accrual of these fines. To surprise us now and say oh, we do want to fine you a year and a half later after we've found we won is not, when that issue was presented to both the trial and appellate court, is remiss. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Rynders. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Please, Mr. Lehmann. For the last time, we are not rehearing it, we are done. Sir, would you please sit down? MR. RYNDERS: Okay, I have another witness. MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman? MR. RYNDERS: Mr. Keiser needs to testify. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Would you please sit down, sir? MS. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman? MR. RYNDERS: If I can get my witness to testify. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll see if we want a witness. Sit down, sir. We determine if there's a witness. Yes, sir, we do. Sit down, sir. MR. RYNDERS: He was notified. And part of due process is an opportunity to be heard. And the opportunity to be heard is for Mr. Keiser and his -- MS. TAYLOR: We heard him through you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, we need to understand why we're here. Imposition of fines, period, not to rehear the case. The county -- will you tell me, do the violations still exist Page March 23, 2000 today? MS. ARNOLD: The -- we are here to tell you that the violation existed up to January 6th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I am not privy to any application filed as of 4:00 yesterday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As of January 6th, they existed. That's all I want to know. MS. TAYLOR: I make a motion that we follow staff's recommendations. MS. DUSEK: Before you do that, I just have a legal question to Ms. Rawson. Are we legally obliged to hear the other witness? MS. RAWSON: You're not legally obliged to hear him, but if he can shed any light on anything different from what his attorney has told you, or if he can tell you that the -- he was in compliance prior to January the 6th, then whatever he has to say is relevant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. His attorney was up here and said that they didn't file until yesterday, so they're still not in compliance because his attorney admitted they didn't have the permits yet. MS. SAUNDERS: I do feel that if the witness is here, that we ought to give him -- perhaps set a time limit on it, but perhaps give him three to five minutes to give -- express any testimony that he has. MR. LEHMANN: I don't know that we can set a time limit. MS. SAUNDERS: Ms. Rawson, may we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: He was noticed to be here. You know, you can determine whether or not his testimony would assist you in making a decision today, you know, but I think you should hear him. MS. SAUNDERS: I do, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: And your name? Page March 23, 2000 MR. KEISER: James Keiser. The thing that I've got to testify about is the building permits. And shortly after the first meeting back in '98, I went to the building department and talked to the office manager in there; her name's Wanda. And my wife and I brought the plans of the different structures that we added on to the original -- with the original building, which did have a building permit. It was permitted as an accessory building to a nursery. And we had all these plans approved basically by her saying that there was no reason why we couldn't get building permits. On that basis, it was just a matter of whether they were going to charge us after the fact, or whether it was just going to be the standard building permit fee. She went to check, and she went back to code compliance to find out what their reaction was, and they went -- she went to Mr. Morad, and Mr. Morad says you do not need to be giving building permits to them because they do not have provisional use. In other words, I couldn't even get a building permit to add on to a structure that was already permitted. And so she came back to me. She told me that she could not or would not issue building permits. Even though we had the permits all filled out and everything. It was just a matter of writing a check for it. And I said, "Well, I'll go ahead and tear everything out." She said, "I'm sorry, sir, you can't do that either, because you have to have a demolition permit, and you cannot have a demolition permit until your provisional use status is clarified." And so that's where I'm at. And that's when -- when this notice came back in, was it January? I went back down and told her that the county attorney was supposed to have talked to the building department and got this clarified so that I could go ahead and get the building permits and bring them up to date. Because this is what we've wanted to do is to get everything back in order. She said, "Mr. Keiser, your situation is still the same, you have not got conditional use out there, we cannot give you the building permits." Page ? o March 23, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Mr. Keiser? MS. SAUNDERS: I have a question for staff. Is a portion -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. SAUNDERS: A portion of the fine is for the building use permit; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, $100 per day is for the building permit. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. Can we break that out? How many days that was as to which portion of the fine that was? The reason I'm asking is it sounds somewhat to me that if we gave an order that was request -- to do something and the county determined that that was not doable, then we ought not perhaps to consider fining for that reason. MS. ARNOLD: I can't speak to what the county told him, whether or not something like that was doable. I can't speak to what the customer service agent -- and we can verify that, if you'd like. But the differences in the amounts would be $65,600 for the building permits, and 123,750 for the conditional use. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. Just something for the board to consider. If what I'm hearing is that the building permit was applied for in a timely manner and denied, then perhaps we ought to consider imposing fines for the conditional use permit and defer imposing fines for the building permit until the staff has an opportunity to review that portion and see if those fines were a correct -- were correct. Does that make sense? I was throwing that out for discussion first. It's a confusing case, I wasn't part of the first one. I think clearly in my mind the fines accrue, whether or not they are imposed officially by this -- so I'm not questioning that in any way. But if we directed the applicant, Mr. Keiser, to apply for something that he was -- that we were inappropriate as a board in directing him to do, then I would assume that we don't have to do fines. I'm not saying we were wrong in doing that at all. I'm simply asking staff if we put two different things on the order at the same time and it was impossible to do those two, then that does sound like something that we ought to correct. MS. ARNOLD: A part of -- and we had a case earlier today Page March 23, 2000 about -- and the question was raised to me whether or not we would require them to remove it. The violation would still exist, whether or not a permit is applied for. So the alternative would be to remove it. Mr. Keiser did testify that he was told that he couldn't get a demolition permit without first obtaining a conditional use. I've never heard of that before. I don't know why or who indicated that to them. When someone builds something without obtaining a permit for the improvement, they are then allowed to get a demolition permit without getting further development orders approved. MS. SAUNDERS: So it would have been possible for him to comply with our order, with both portions of that order? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was going to I guess add to your comment that I guess at worst case, I would look for it. If we asked him to do -- put the cart before the horse, so to speak, is what they're telling us that you can't get one permit until you have the conditional use, then there was a five-month period, March to August, where you really shouldn't impose a fine, so there's five months at 100 bucks a day. And if you were going to do anything, that would be the only amount that I would be interested in lowering. That sure doesn't come to $65,000. But there's a five-month period, five times 30, 180 days, 100 bucks a day. If you're looking to reduce something, that would be the most I would probably even lean to. MS. SAUNDERS: I'm looking to reduce it only if we asked him to do something that was impossible to do; if it was a catch-22 situation that could not be dealt with. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And that's how my analogy would work. If you can't do one without the other, it's only five months, five times the average of 30 days. MS. SAUNDERS: And I'd like actually the staff to help us make that decision. Was this a catch-22? Are we imposing a -- that extra $100 a day fine on something that could not be accomplished, or if you feel comfortable that it could be complied with, then I say we go with the original fines. Page 7 2 March 23, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: And I -- neither I was a part of this case originally. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask you the basic question. MS. ARNOLD: And I think probably the appropriate measure would have been to get the building permits after the conditional use. But it's quite possible that the reason why the board at the time told them to get building permits is to address the safety issue, to have somebody go in and look at the structure to see whether or not it was meeting the health, safety concerns of the county. I'm guessing. But we could have addressed that, as we have on other occasions, with a courtesy inspection to see whether or not that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson-- MR. LEHMANN: The respondent testified that he had attempted to do something in that order. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, if the board so chose, because it seems you can't get one without -- till you have the other, in the imposition of fines, if we chose to reduce it to give him some relief for that, say, five-month period at the most, that is within our purvey? MS. RAWSON: Clearly within the discretion of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: I do have one other concern on that, and that is I don't want to weaken the county's abilities to deal with this issue in any way. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' I don't know that we would weaken any county position just by saying the board may have made a mistake saying that -- or wasn't clear that you needed one permit before you could get the other permit. I mean, we're not in the permit department. We relied on information. We weren't sitting here when that decision was made, so we're kind of working in the blind. But if in fact -- I think the board's position should be if there's any kind of question that we've imposed something that can't be done, we should be lenient enough to apply a little relief. Page March 23, 2000 I don't think that would circumvent the county's position that the order and fines are totally weakened. MS. VASQUEZ: I think I would agree with you. I would defer to your counsel on -- as what you can do. However, I would agree with that statement, I don't think you're doing anything to any future or past litigation that the county's involved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I wouldn't think so. MS. DUSEK: Clarify your motion and let's go with it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess what I would recommend to my colleagues is that if there was an order that asked the respondent to do something that appears couldn't be done, from what they're testifying to, that the board might consider some relief in the $100 a day fine, which was for his permits and CO, which started March 20th. The other date being August 28th. That's roughly a period of five months and eight days. That's the $100 a day period. So we're basically looking at $18,800 that we might reduce on the imposition of fines, understanding that there may have been some confusion on somebody's part. So to apply a little relief, I would recommend that maybe we reduce it by that amount. MS. SAUNDERS: I would agree with that. MS. DUSEK: Is that a motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll make that motion, that we reduce the fine by $18,800 to -- because there may have been a conflict in what you had -- what permit you had to apply -- acquire first. MS. DUSEK: I second. MR. LEHMANN: Before we vote on that, I just wanted to ask Ms. Rawson. The order itself reads that the respondent specifically is to correct the violations by obtaining the permits. Does that preclude the respondent from correcting the violation by removing the structure? MS. RAWSON: Well, I can only read the order the way it's written. Apply for and obtain a conditional use permit by August the 28th, and correct violations pertaining to the structures on the property by obtaining required permits and Certificate of Occupancy by March 20th. Page March 23, 2000 He had to do, according to the way this order is written, both. MR. LEHMANN: Well, my question again is hypothetically, if I want to eliminate Item 1-B from the order, can I not do that just by removing the structure, instead of obtaining the CO? CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Yes, but then you would have to come back before the board and ask for the order to be changed. MR. LEHMANN: Amended, yes. MS. RAWSON: You could do that. You could remove the structure, rather than doing the permits and the CO. MR. LEHMANN: Would that require an amendment to the order then? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think it's too late to amend this order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Right. But I guess he's looking at could that have been done. MS. RAWSON: Could that have been done? Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, it could have. MS. RAWSON: That could have been done. And then of course he could have come back to court -- I mean come back before this board and said there's no structure there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MR. LEHMANN: But as it's read, maybe the respondent has given the idea that that's my option. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: But he didn't exercise it, so -- we have a motion and a second. Any further questions by the board? All those in favor of imposing the fine -- MS. ARNOLD: I can modify it so it's from August 29th, 1998 to January 6th, 2000, for $350 a day. And we'll do the calculations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, let's just do it so there's no -- I get 170,550. MS. SAUNDERS: 550. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that what you come up with? MS. SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Imposition of fines in the amount of $170,550. That's the number that we're dealing with. We have a motion and second for that amount. Page March 23, 2000 Further questions? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Let's take a five-minute break, give our court reporter and everyone else a chance to stretch. (Recess.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's make note that we had a couple of members that had to leave, but we do still have a quorum. Let's move quickly to -- we have two affidavits of compliance, is that what we have? MS. ARNOLD: Yes -- three. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Three, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Three. MR. KINCAID: What about old business? MS. ARNOLD: These are just reports that -- and there's no need for formal action on them -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- I don't believe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You just want to file those? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The first one is for affidavit of compliance, Board of County Commissioners versus William Klohn, Trust. And the affidavit was filed on the 25th of February of 2000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The other case is Board of County Commissioners versus Nathan Benderson, and that was also filed on February 25th, 2000. The actual -- on that particular one, the investigator actually went out on December 20th to find the property in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the other one? MS. ARNOLD: The third one is George Dublino and John DiMarco, and that was filed on February 23rd, 2000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Since they're filed, to my knowledge, there's no motion on accepting those. What's done is done. Page March 23, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: It's just informational to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Very good. MR. LEHMANN: Do we have any old business? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Tell us what Mr. Varano's item is. I skipped over that, and I apologize. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that was a request from the Respondent Anthony Varano to have the board hear his plea. And we are filing a foreclosure on his particular property, the one that's located up in the industrial park up north of Pine Ridge. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that the vehicles? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, the vehicles. And he made a request through the County Attorney's Office to be placed on the board's agenda. I believe that they're in the process right now of doing -- finalizing that paperwork. And this was his last effort to make a plea to the board. Here's Melissa, who can speak a little bit more to that particular item. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is way past any rehearing, because this is a '97 case. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I -- should it be the board's position that once we've instructed the county attorney to foreclose that the board should rehear in any manner? MS. ARNOLD: Not rehear, but -- go ahead. MS. VASQUEZ: If I could just comment on that. Assistant County Attorney Melissa Vasquez. Mr. Varano had called me, once he got served with the foreclosure complaint, and went through the entire mystery of this case with me. He also asked that he get before the board and explain his position, what happened since the time of being before the board, since the time of the board's order and since the imposition of fines. I had conversations with staff, and specifically Michelle, and suggested that Mr. Varano be given the opportunity to explain anything so that this board could make an informed decision. It's not a rehearing, it's -- what he was looking for was to -- first of all, he asked for an extension of time to answer the Page March 23, 2000 complaint, which I will do on a lot of occasions as a professional courtesy to other attorneys. And in this case because he didn't have an attorney, I allowed him to do that. And he said he wanted to get before the board, because he said if he spoke before the board, he was sure that the board would not want to foreclose. I'm not suggesting that you rehear the order, change the order or anything. I just felt it would be fair and reasonable to have Mr. Varano speak on the foreclosure. That's not required of you. I didn't require that of Michelle. I just -- I thought it would be beneficial '- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson? MS. VASQUEZ: -- to Mr. Varano. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess I have a little problem that once we've gone through "X' period of time and we then under our requirements of the ordinance instruct the county attorney to start foreclosure procedures and then somebody wants to come back to the board and for whatever reason say gee, I don't want you to foreclose on my property for this reason. I mean, he's had all this time to pay the money, do whatever, come before the board, ask for relief, and now when you get down to hypothetically the short strokes of foreclosing, oh, gee, if I come back and make a sad plea, maybe you'll not foreclose on my property. I mean, pay the money. From '97 to the year 2000, I'm '- MS. RAWSON: Does he have a defense to the foreclosure? MS. VASQUEZ: He didn't relay any to me, other than cost. But, you know, he's not represented by an attorney, so I can't really comment on whether he has any defenses or not. He did not indicate a defense other than he doesn't have the money and he may be forced to sell. That was essentially it. The substance of the conversation was focusing on disabilities and illnesses and things of that nature. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He did the same thing when we actually did the case. Because I remember it. I was sitting on the board, and I heard all that. And that's why he couldn't do this and that and -- Page ? 8 March 23, 2000 MS. RAWSON: Well, his plea probably needs to be more to the circuit judge rather than to this board. MS. VASQUEZ: I just '- MS. RAWSON: And if he doesn't have any money, maybe he can get -- no, legal aid won't take him. I directed him to the Legal Aid Society and MS. VASQUEZ: the bar '- MS. RAWSON: MS. VASQUEZ: The bar. -- for referrals. I did the -- I gave him those numbers. And I did that in a letter to him, saying if you want to speak to the board, you have to get with Michelle Arnold and she can put you on the agenda, but you have to do that before the next board meeting. And I told him the date, and he, from my understanding, has not contacted '- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I think '- MS. VASQUEZ: -- Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- what I'm leading to is once we've instructed the county -- they've expended a lot of hours and money to get up to the actual foreclosure doing. And now for the board to sit there and say well, gee, county, stop what you're doing, we're going to give this fellow another 'X" time, he's already had "X' time to pay and he didn't do that. I don't know that the board wants to get in that position. MS. VASQUEZ: And I instructed him that I did not have the power to not go forward with the foreclosure. So he's aware of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I just '- MS. RAWSON: Well, the litigation's been filed. MS. VASQUEZ: Yes. MS. RAWSON: And all you've done is given him a courtesy extension of time in which to file an answer. We do that all the time. MS. VASQUEZ: And get counsel. I instructed him that he should probably get counsel. MS. RAWSON: Well, you know, more than that, I'm not sure what we can do. You know, he, as any other person aggrieved or any member of the community, can always asked to be put on Page March 23, 2000 the agenda to talk to you at the end. But I don't think you have any power to do anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, there's litigation going on all -- I mean, listening is -- I mean, if we did anything, it would be look at the county attorney and say don't foreclose. Well, I don't think this board ever wants to be in that position once we've instructed them to foreclose and say forget it. MS. RAWSON: It's already started now. And you're not going to instruct her to dismiss the litigation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I think at this point I personally am not interested in having Mr. Varano come before for us. I don't know about the other board members. MS. RAWSON: Well, it's probably moot if he hasn't asked. MS. VASQUEZ: It is moot, because I instructed him that if he wasn't -- didn't get with Michelle and get on the board's agenda, that I was going to move forward. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think it's a bad position to start. Thank you, Ms. Vasquez. What I'd like to do at this point, since we had so many members leave and it's drug out, we have some items left, which are rules and regulations and our election of officers. I'd like to set those back to our next meeting in April so that '- MS. ARNOLD: You have one item left under reports, and Ms. Vasquez is here. Foreclosures. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, okay. Ms. Vasquez, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to shut you down. MS. VASQUEZ: No, and you didn't shut me down. I'm just here if you have questions. MS. SAUNDERS: I have a question. On -- there's two properties that it seems to me we ought to have moved on or I would like to see us move on. One is Wood and the other is Combs. Both fairly significant amounts, and they've been hanging for quite a while. Is there any action planned? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, as I remember the procedure, the county attorney probably won't do anything until we instruct them to do something. Is that what you do? Page 80 March 23, 2000 MS. VASQUEZ: Typically, I think how the process has happened is that the Code Enforcement Department has gone before the Board of County Commissioners and said if the Code Enforcement Department instructs us to -- Code Enforcement Board instructs us to foreclose, is that going to be okay, and the board has blessed that. So I think you're accurate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As I remember the ordinance, the board is supposed to instruct the county attorney to proceed. So I guess '- MS. VASQUEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- my position is after our three-month period people haven't complied with what we've done and the fines are imposed and they -- I don't want to get them out of hand. We've had some in the past that were astronomical, and I think that's a little beyond the county's scope. So when we get to that time period, I think we just need to automatically proceed with foreclosures. In other words, we have three months once the fine is imposed and filed in the courthouse, as I understand it. MS. ARNOLD: What we can -- yes. What we can do is bring it to the board as a report that these three cases are past the three-month period from the time that we've done imposition of fines, and that we will be bringing those items to the Board of County Commissioners for their '- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I mean, right now I'm looking at -- you have the first five cases are from '97 to '98 so we know '- back then it was six months. So he we know that's passed. And I don't know if those are the ones you're currently doing anything with. MS. ARNOLD: No, none of the ones that we filed are on this list. These are all '- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Southern Exposure we just did today, so we can't include that. But Mr. Wood, Hill, Nesmith, Combs. MS. ARNOLD: Nesmith is paying on a regular basis. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, you've set up a schedule? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I don't have a problem with that. Page March 23, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: Wood is paying on the 99-031 case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says no payments here. So which is it? MS. ARNOLD: Oh, I'm sorry, the other case, the first one, 97-004. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As I remember, that's the one where we-- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that's the one that '- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: --stood here and negotiated with his attorney and he said he was going to say if we reduced the fines and '- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that's the one he's paying on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- we reduced the fines and he hasn't paid. MS. ARNOLD: No, I was misspoken. He is paying on that one. But the second one, the 99-031, he has not paid on. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, then let's start procedures. That wasn't the deal when we negotiated with him. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, my recommendation, just to try to streamline all of this administrative work, is that we direct staff to give us an update when the time period is expired. Put it before the board on an case-by-case basis as an administrative task, whether or not we're going to direct the county to proceed with foreclosure, and just move this whole process along. This is CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we need to '- MR. LEHMANN: This has -- it's taken too much time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- not get these numbers out of hand. So the first meeting after the three-month period has passed, if you'll bring it to our attention that they haven't paid their fines that we've imposed. If you could do that at the meetings, we will then instruct you to pass the word on to the county attorney to do something. Is that possible, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, thank you. Okay. What I'd like to do is take the amendment of our rules and regulations and the election and set it back to our April Page March 23, 2000 meeting and ask that it be put on the agenda at the time. I think it's important for all the board members to be here for both those items. They all need to have input. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved --second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to set those items back to the next meeting. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Naturally not. Next meeting is April 27th, 9:00. And what I think, Michelle, you should do is put those items probably at the end, because I know the rules and regulations are going to take some time, and I know we'll want to do those before we do the elections, which is what the membership asked for today. So -- and I'd like to get the public out of the way. They don't need to sit through all that, because it is going to take some time. MS. ARNOLD: So you're wanting us to put them at the end -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- all those items? Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. It's the only fair way to do it. They all need to participate. It won't be a five-minute deal on the rules and regulations. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: Maybe we ought to bring lunch in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Motion to adjourn? MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you for your patience and your time. Page March 23, 2000 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected ~ as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE~ INC, BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page