CEB Minutes 05/25/2000 RMay 25, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
OF COLLIER COUNTY
Naples, Florida, May 25, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board,
in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 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
Roberta Dusek
Don W. Kincaid
Kathryn M. Godfrey
Peter Lehmann
Darrin M. Phillips
George Ponte
Rhona Saunders
Diane Taylor
ALSO PRESENT:
Jean Rawson, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board
Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director
Teresa Beck, Enforcement Investigator
Page I
05/19/00 13:$3 FAX 941 403 2345
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
* CL~RK OF BRD
~o01/OOl
Date: May 25, 2000 at 9',00 o'clock A.M.
Location; Collier County Government Center, Adm~. Bldg, 3rd Floor
~OTR: ]%NY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAININC THERETO, AND TMEREFOREMAY NEEDTO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS ~$ MADE, W~ICM RECORD INCLUDES T~ETESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON W14~CH TYlE AP?FJkL tS TO B~ BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE
~NFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBL~ FOR PROVIDING T~I$ R~CORD.
2,
3.
4.
8.
12.
APPRO OF ! April 27, 2000
PBLCH RN
A. BCC ~s. Glenn anO Su~an R, Eiseruberg
B. BCC rs. C. Roger and ~tonia V. Bile~
C. ~C rs. Jack ~ail
D. ~CC rs, Mario D. and Nin~tta Magis~ro
NgW ~us~ss
o~
NEX~ ~E~N~ DkT~
J~e 22, 2000
CEB No, 2000-014
CEB No. 2000-015
CE8 NO. 2000-016
CEB No. 2000-017
May 25, 2000
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's 9:00. If everyone will take their
seats, please, we'll call the meeting of the Code Enforcement
Board to order.
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.
May we have the roll call, please.
MS. BECK: Roberta Dusek?
MS. DUSEK: Here.
MS. BECK: Clifford Flegal?
MR. FLEGAL: Here.
MS. BECK: Kathryn Godfrey?
MS. GODFREY: Here.
MS. BECK: Don Kincaid?
MR. KINCAID: Here.
MS. BECK: Peter Lehmann?
MR. LEHMANN: Here.
MS. BECK: Darrin Phillips?
(No response.)
MS. BECK: George Ponte?
MR. PONTE: Here.
MS. BECK: Rhona Saunders?
MS. SAUNDERS: Here.
MS. BECK: And Diane Taylor?
MS. TAYLOR: Present.
MS. BECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did anyone hear from Mr. Phillips?
Okay.
Approval of the agenda submitted. Are there any changes or
additions to the agenda?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director.
We are going to remove Item C, Board of County
Commissioners versus Jack Hail, which is Code Enforcement
Board Case 2000-016.
And we're also removing Item D, Board of County
Page 2
May 25, 2000
Commissioners versus Mario D. and Ninetta, whatever, 2000-017.
Those -- that's for lack of receipt of notice.
We are adding an item under new business. There is a
request for rehearing that you all were handed out today. And
that's Hernandez case, CEB Case 99-044.
And then we're also adding an item under reports. We are
doing an RFP for our legal counsel, and we need two committee
members from the board to sit on this election committee.
(Darrin Phillips enters boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let the record reflect Mr.
Phillips has joined us.
Any other changes to the agenda?
I'd entertain a motion to accept the agenda as changed.
MR. LEHMANN: So moved.
MS. SAUNDERS: Second.
MR. KINCAID: Second.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to
accept the agenda as changed. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Minutes of our April 27th meeting?
MR. KINCAID: I have a -- was Ms. Arnold here?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I'm here.
MR. KINCAID: Were you at the last meeting?
MS. ARNOLD: No, I wasn't.
MR. KINCAID: That's what I -- they had you down here, and
that's why I was curious.
And Mr. Bolgar was in your place; am I correct?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. KINCAID: Okay. That's the only change I have.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other changes to the minutes?
I'd entertain a motion to accept as changed.
MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'd move that we accept the
changes as amended -- or accept the minutes as amended. MR. KINCAID: I second.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: We have a motion and a second to
accept the minutes as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Page 3
May 25, 2000
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you.
We'll now open our public hearings. First case, 2000-014.
MS. ARNOLD: This case is Board of County Commissioners
versus Glenn and Susan Eisenberg. There is a request for a
continuance. The Eisenbergs aren't here today. So we can go
through the information. All the notices have been sent and
received. Or you all can act on that request prior to going
through that information.
MS. SAUNDERS: Michelle, haven't they asked for a number
of extensions prior to this? Is it correct that -- I recall seeing
that they had given us their schedule and they were going to be
out of town and that this fit when they were in town, if I thought
-- if I have it correctly. Yeah, actually, their letter dated May
15th.
MR. KINCAID: They won't be back till the 28th.
MS. SAUNDERS: They won't be back till the 28th this time.
Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: No, they're saying that they're unable to make
that meeting.
MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. Are they in town for any of the
scheduled dates that we have meetings?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Looking at their schedule, it appears
that they would probably -- if they're only going to be -- is this
June 17th to July? Are they going to be out of town through that
period? There's not a dash there, but I assume that's what they
mean.
So they're really not going to be back until the August
meeting.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's an additional three months.
They have received notice. From a legal standpoint, I assume
we are not really obligated to grant the continuance.
MS. RAWSON: Yeah, it's at the pleasure of the board. I
think you can construe this letter as an official request, a motion
for continuance, and then vote on whether or not you want to
continue the matter.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's tackle it that way.
We have a request for a continuance from the respondents.
What's the pleasure of the board? Should we grant it, deny it?
Page 4
May 25, 2000
They have been notified, they do know the problem. They have --
there's been many phone calls back and forth with the county.
They have been properly noticed, so --
MS. SAUNDERS: My inclination is to deny it, simply because
they do -- it's not like they're -- it's a month or more. I do believe
these people could have had representation here by an attorney
or someone else if they felt they weren't going to be here, and I
think this is too long a period to extend, just for their travel
convenience.
MS. TAYLOR: I agree.
MS. DUSEK: I would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Could I hear a motion to deny
the continuance?
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the continuance.
MS. TAYLOR: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion?
All those in favor of denying the request for a continuous,
signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's proceed with the case.
MS. BECK: For the record, Teresa Beck, Collier County Code
Enforcement investigator.
First case on the agenda this morning is Glenn and Susan R.
Eisenberg, CEB Case No. 2000-014. This case is violation of
Section 3.2.8.4.7 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land
Development Code.
Description of the violation is allowing the existence of sod
and fill in a 20-foot conservation easement of the rear of the
subject property.
The location where the violation exists is 222 Malibu Cove,
in Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Folio No.
00000074435002502, subdivision of Southport on the Bay, Unit 1,
Lot 22.
Name of the persons in charge of the location where the
violation exists is Glenn and Susan R. Eisenberg. Address of
record is 3739 Royal Fern Court, Bonita Springs, Florida, 33923.
At this time I'd like Investigator Alex Sulecki to come
forward, please, and be sworn.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
Page 5
May 25, 2000
MS. SUI. ECKI: For the record, my name is Alexandra
Sulecki. I'm an environmental specialist with the Code
Enforcement Department. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board
members.
This case came to my attention through a staff member in
the planning department who was working with a boat dock
issue. His concern was that there was some mangroves
removed or excessively trimmed on the site.
When I went there, it appeared that this may have occurred,
so I contacted the state and was told that there was also a case
on this property regarding mangroves and some other issues.
What I did see also while I was at that site visit was that the
yard extended all the way down to the water.
When I came back and did some research, I pulled up the
plat of Southport. I found some language on the plat, and I'll just
briefly read it to you here. It says, "There will be no removal,
trimming, fill, transplanting or planting of any vegetation within
the conservation easement without approval of Collier County."
In further looking at documents for Southport, I determined
there was a 20-foot conservation easement behind Mr.
Eisenberg's home. We discussed this problem, and he had felt he
had some kind of approval. But the approval that's mentioned in
here is a more official kind, just kind of a word of mouth on the
site.
And so in attempting to deal with this issue, we set a
meeting at the county building with the environmental -- the head
environmentalist and someone who works with the plats.
Because one of the ways that we could work with this was to
allow Mr. Eisenberg to vacate a portion of that easement.
And I worked with Barbara Burgeson, who's the senior
environmentalist on this, and she was willing to support about a
five-foot vacation of that easement. And so Mr. Eisenberg agreed
to have the lots surveyed and find that easement line, and then
we would determine whether we would pursue the plat vacation
-- or the easement vacation.
When he did that, I went back and did a site visit and
determined that the fill and the sod impacted the easement
anywhere from 13 to 18 feet, which is a little too much for a
planning department to support for a vacation. At that time we
informed Mr. Eisenberg that he would need to remove the fill.
Page 6
May 25, 2000
MS. DUSEK: What was his reaction when you advised him
that he was going to have to remove it?
MS. SULECKI: He wasn't pleased.
MS. DUSEK: Did he say he would?
MS. SULECKI: He desires to work with us, but at the same
time he has a pool that he feels will be structurally -- the
structural integrity of it will be compromised by the removal of
the fill. I don't know whether that is true or not. He looks around
him and sees the same sorts of things around him. He's -- he
wants to make sure that this is definitely a requirement.
MS. TAYLOR: What do you mean he looks around and sees
the same things? You mean people on either side of him have
violations also?
MS. SULECKI: There are some other violations in the
neighborhood. I have done a walk-through with the senior
environmentalist and we have identified some other properties
where the same violation exists, and we will be addressing them
as well.
MS. DUSEK: Did you let Mr. Eisenberg realize that you will
be notifying these other people -- MS. SULECKh Yes, I did.
MS. DUSEK: -- so he doesn't feel he was selected as the
only one?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Ms. Sulecki, these pictures that are
included in our packet, I'm trying to get a handle on what they're
actually showing us. Could you run through those for us?
MS. SULECKh Sure. I will start at the first one. That's Mr.
Eisenberg's lot. That's the rear of it after he had the survey
stakes put in, showing the impact into the easement. Everything
to the right of that is impacted.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay, where the stakes are, is that the
edge of the 20-foot setback?
MS. SULECKh That's correct.
The second page is the neighbor one lot over from him on
one side, showing the correct easement treatment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: Yes, you can see the lot was filled up to a
certain point. There's a protective fencing, and then it's at
ground level.
Page 7
May 25, 2000
MR. LEHMANN: The easement on that particular lot is
represented by the red and white flags? The yellow and red and
white flag?
MS. SULECKI: I'm not exactly sure whether -- that may be
the lot line. I believe that the easement is represented by that
black fencing. I'm not exactly sure, but that's -- that's what I --
MR. LEHMANN: Could that black fencing just be temporary
construction fencing?
MS. SULECKI: It is. And it's required to prevent that fill
from going into the easement.
MR. LEHMANN: The subject property we're looking at right
now is under construction?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, this is a neighbor's.
MR. LEHMANN: This is a neighbor's?
MS. SULECKI: A neighbor's.
MR. LEHMANN: It's under construction?
MS. SULECKI: Right. So--
MR. LEHMANN: So that the final easement on this may or
may not be here.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I included it to show that people in
there are aware of the easement, and they are constructing their
homes in accordance with it.
MS. TAYLOR: But in picture No. 2 where these stakes are,
that is the absolute line, correct?
MS. SULECKI: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Looking at this
picture now, I can't recall exactly what those stakes mean. They
could be from this lot. I'm not quite sure. That's about the width
of the easement.
The third picture is another property along there that --
where the more or less correct treatment has been made. You
can see the wall. The building is on a slope there. There's a fill
area. And then the rest is down at ground level.
That was -- this picture was also taken because there are
some other issues in that development. One of them is exotics,
and there's some exotics here.
These are some other ways that that easement has been
treated. The violations run from not very severe at all to fairly
severe, like Mr. Eisenberg's.
This one has some plants in there that are not native. That
is covered in a DEP permit. When these homes were permitted,
Page 8
May 25, 2000
there was a requirement to replant native vegetation. But that's
not something that the county is requiring. We're not working
with that issue. Only the impacts into the conservation easement
and the exotics.
This is another property where that easement has been
observed. There is a walkway over it, but it's a permitted thing.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In this one that you're just showing us,
where the actual fill is on this property, I assume that it's on the
-- comes to the edge of the easement; is that what you're trying
to show us?
MS. SULECKI: Yes. Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: And the final picture is the property just to
the right of Mr. Eisenberg's. This is his end survey stakes,
showing that that -- there is the same issue next door.
CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Okay.
MR. KINCAID: Same problem, in other words?
MS. SULECKI: Same problem.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's go back to your first photo, which
is on Page 23 or --
MS. SAUNDERS: 22.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 23, I guess it is, where we show the
stakes. I assume the fence is around Mr. Eisenberg's pool -- MS. SULECKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- is that correct?
Okay. So where the fill has been added, which that slope
looks to be probably a good 12 feet. MS. SULECKI: 15 to 18 feet.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The structural integrity of the
pool, they could have built a wall across there to hold the dirt
back and then put some kind of vegetation in front of the wall to
hide it. So--
MS. SULECKI: I'm not an engineer.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I've seen that done before, and I am
privy to doing that on a couple of homes that I've built. So there
is another way around it. This is the easiest way, just put dirt in.
It's the cheapest way out. Okay.
MS. DUSEK.' Are we just addressing removing the fill and
the grass, the sod, or are we concerned with the mangroves at
all?
Page 9
May 25, 2000
MS. SULECKI: The mangroves are essentially a state issue.
They have authority over them. They do have a case on this
property. And typically when I receive a complaint of mangrove
trimming, excessive trimming or removal, I open the case and I
monitor it until the DEP comes to a resolution, and then I close
my case. Because we do also have some vegetation removal
and protection laws that could possibly apply, so I want to make
sure that the situation's addressed before I close my case.
MR. KINCAID: Is the statement in your report, the Brazilian
pepper trees in this area, is that true?
MS. SULECKI'- There were some when I initially went there.
I didn't look last time I was there, so I'm not sure they're still
there. It was a minor problem.
MR. KINCAID: Am I correct they're supposed to be
removed?
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The fence you cited him for is really
only encroachment into the easement? MS. SULECKI: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So that's really all we can consider.
MS. SULECKI: Yes. And I think the exotics were kind of on
the borderline there, so I don't think I included them in the
original piece.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not from what I read. What you cited
them for is strictly putting fill in the easement, so -- MS. SULECKI: The fill.
MS. TAYLOR: But if they had to remove this fill, that would
also affect those trees, correct?
MS. SULECKI: The mangroves?
MS. TAYLOR: The -- all the exotics.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I think the exotics were right on the
edge here, on the border. So I --
MS. TAYLOR: That wouldn't be affected then by removal of
the fill?
MS. SULECKI: No, I don't think so. In what way do you
mean?
MS. TAYLOR: Well, this seems to be an issue. And I thought
this balanced it out, takes care of it. But it won't, right?
MS. SULECKI: But the exotics are there. And they may not
even be on Mr. Eisenberg's property but just right on the border
Page 10
May 25, 2000
on the next door property. I remember one being there, anyway.
That would have to be removed at some point. But since I didn't
notice it in here, it's possible that it was on the other side of that
border, and may not even be his.
MR. PONTE: I think we have to just refocus on the issue.
The question is whether or not there's sod there, and there
clearly is.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Obviously from the stakes the land has
been filled, because it's got quite a slope to it. And I assume
before they put the fill in to build the house, I assume that was
probably fairly level land. I can remember back when there
weren't any houses up there.
So basically where his stakes are, if you drew a line down in
the earth some -- I don't know what the slope is there, but
probably a good four, five feet up from ground level, slope up
about that far, maybe a little further --
MS. SULECKI: That's about correct, three to four feet.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you would be asking him to cut down
and take that sod and fill out, which means he would have to
come up with some kind of wall or something. Unless he
requests a variance from the county, correct? He could get
some type of variance. Not this drastic, but some type.
MS. SULECKI: Well, that was the first resolution that I
explored. And I was told that there is no variance for impacting
a conservation easement. And that was why we moved to the
issue of possibly vacating a portion of the easement, if it wasn't
too great an impact.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But from your write-up, the most
I guess the county is considering that would be acceptable
vacation would be maybe five feet? MS. SULECKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Which five feet isn't going to
help this slope a whole lot. If you come out five feet from that
stake and then had to cut down some four or five feet and take
all that out, I still think you'd have a -- from an engineering
standpoint, probably a structural integrity problem with the pool,
maybe. You'd still have to put some little kind of wall. So I don't
know that that's going to help him.
Okay, any other questions?
MR. LEHMANN: Yes.
Page 11
May 25, 2000
MR. PHILLIPS: What's the status of the other homes in the
neighborhood who have similar conditions who are in violation of
that code?
MS. SULECKI: At this time I have done an initial
investigation; however, I have not opened actual cases, because
it's a very large project. And right now I'm so busy, I don't -- I
wouldn't have time to address a large project like this.
So I have the information, I have pictures, and I'm waiting
until I have -- I have time to actually address violations of this
size.
MR. PHILLIPS: Is Mr. Eisenberg's estimate that
approximately 40 percent of the homes in the neighborhood have
a similar issue?
MS. SULECKI: It's close.
MR. PONTE: How many would that be? I mean, 40 percent
is what? What number?
MS. SULECKI: I surveyed one section, and I believe I came
up with about 15 properties that were in violation. That was not
even the whole Southport, just the area immediately adjacent to
Mr. Eisenberg's home.
MR. PONTE: Is there a way that we can -- I mean, that's a
large general problem, and it seems to me that it's not equitable
to single out a single person with a -- when there is a common
problem. Is there a way that we can or that the staff can pull
this into one general case rather than 40 or t5 individual cases?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As I would understand it, when you -- a
violation is against the law, and you can't really -- this would be
similar to like a class action, I guess.
MS. RAWSON: I don't think you can do a class action. I
think that basically what you have to do is you have to cite each
individual alleged violator. You can then put them all on the
agenda for the same day, which would make sense, and -- you
know, so that you don't have to go through all the same evidence
over and over and over again. But unless you notice each
individual alleged violator, you can't say because he does it and
we know everybody else does it they have to stop it too.
MS. DUSEK: Well, they probably have different amounts.
Like maybe one would have 10 feet, one would have 15, so I
guess we have to cite each one. But I think it would behoove the
staff to go ahead -- I do believe the Eisenbergs are in violation,
Page t2
May 25, 2000
but I don't think they should be singled out. And I think we
should move promptly on the rest of the neighborhood.
MS. SULECKI: The issue with the Eisenbergs was that there
was an actual complaint that directed me there.
When I discussed this with Mr. Eisenberg, I asked him would
he wish to make a complaint. He did not wish to do that. So I'm
moving ahead on a patrol -- basically a patrol case for the rest of
the properties as quickly as I'm physically able to do so.
MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson, does the board have the
authority to direct staff to investigate other properties?
MS. RAWSON: Well, you can suggest that they do so. But
what Alex is telling you is that this is a patrol basis. In other
words -- correct me if I'm wrong, staff -- we're mostly not a
proactive enforcement, we are more reactive to complaints. I
mean, they don't have time to go out and cite everybody unless
somebody complains. But when somebody brings it to their
attention, they have no choice. And what Alex is saying is that
they don't have any complaints over the others. Not that she
can't act on them, but it's a patrol basis rather than reacting to a
citizen's complaint.
MS. ARNOLD: That's -- for the record, Michelle Arnold. That
is a correct statement. But let me assure the board that we will
make this a priority and we'll look into those other violations as
well.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, what I guess bothers me
is we have a complaint, we have somebody in violation, and I'm
hearing that -- while I understand we don't want to single
anybody out, I wouldn't think it would be good for the board to
say gee, okay, Mr. A is in violation, but because Mr. D down the
street has the same problem, let's not do anything to Mr. A until
we can get to Mr. D.
I think now the board would be in a position that almost any
case that comes before us, somebody could say gee, my fence is
seven feet high, but the guy down the street's fence is eight feet
high and you didn't cite him. I mean, I can just see this forever
and ever somebody picking on a neighbor down the street that
we haven't had come before us, and they have a basis to say this
is what you did on that case, why aren't you giving me the same
latitude.
MS. TAYLOR: Right.
Page 13
May 25, 2000
MS. RAWSON: Well, in my years of working with this board,
this will be not the first time we've heard that defense, that my
neighbors are also doing it. I think you just have to remembdr
what your charge is; that is, to look and see if there is a violation
and try to get the alleged violator in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, okay.
MS. SAUNDERS: Are there houses there still under
construction? I mean, is this area completely built out at this
point or -- I'm concerned that some of the violations may be
occurring by the developer who is still constructing there. And
those we could stop at this point, or, you know, the other houses
we can get to as time and recommendations permit.
MS. ARNOLD: I think what we should try to do is stay
focused on this particular case. And I will have my staff look
into the other cases. And as we identify why these things are
occurring, we'll present it with those cases when and if they
come before the board.
MS. DUSEK: That sounds fair.
Then I make a motion that there is a violation in the case of
Board of County Commissioners, in the case with CEB No.
2000-014 versus Glenn and Susan Eisenberg. And that violation
is of Section 3.2.8.4.7 of Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County
Land Development Code.
The description of the violation: Allowing the existence of
sod and fill in the 20-foot conservation easement at the rear of
subject property.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion that there is in fact
a finding of fact of a violation. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
MR. KINCAID: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir.
MR. KINCAID: Wasn't it only 15 feet that was required
instead of 20 feet? Didn't the county say that they could have
five feet in back of that? Am I correct?
MS. ARNOLD: The recommendation that you have in your
executive summary indicates 15 feet, but it would probably be
appropriate just to see what -- because it varies. The
encroachment is maybe 15 in some instances and 18 in another,
Page 14
May 25, 2000
because it's not a straight line. So you'd probably want to leave
out the footage requirement and just indicate the encroachment.
Because there is a survey that clearly identifies what that
encroachment is.
MR. KINCAID: In other words, take out the 20 feet and just,
say, remove it to the easement line, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
MR. KINCAID: Is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, that's what we have to do.
MR. KINCAID: Well, I'm just getting that.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we're not in a position to grant
easements, vacations. We can find that they're in violation and
that's it, period. If they want to approach the county and request
a vacation, they can.
Any further questions?
Okay, all those in favor that there in fact is a finding of fact
of a violation, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, before we go on to the order of
the board, I think we have some mitigating circumstances here.
Staff recommended a fine of $75 a day, effective the 22rid of
June. That seems high to me, given the fact that there are so
many other violations in the neighborhood.
Additionally, the Eisenbergs not being here, they can't
remedy the situation by the 22nd of June, quite clearly. So I just
bring those items to your attention.
MS. SAUNDERS: I agree with you, Mr. Ponte. I think we
ought to give them 60 days, because that does cover the period
that they're going to be back here.
And as far as the fine, the amount of the fine, I don't have a
strong feel on that. But I think we do want it to be large enough
so that they say okay, we're going to take action, or start
something.
MR. PONTE: How about this, the finding to start at some
very future date so that some of the other cases can also come
into line so that we do start to pull this together. Rather than
doing a fine of $75 July 22nd against the Eisenbergs, there are
other violations, we're aware of them, they're in the same area,
Page 15
May 25, 2000
they are the same violations. There ought to be some way to pull
it all together.
MS. DUSEK: I think we have to stay focused on this one
case --
MS. TAYLOR: I agree.
MS. DUSEK: -- period, and forget that there's anything else
around it. Although we do know that. But we have to stay
focused as though this is the only one.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think if the board ties any decision
into quote, unquote, possible violations of other people that will
be handled at future dates, almost any case that comes before
us can be put in that vein; therefore, you've now basically ruined
what we're sitting here to do. We find a violation, we tell people
to correct it. That we haven't got to their neighbor is really
immaterial. The county will get to them. When they do, they can
bring them to us. I don't think we need to start adding all these
contingencies to each case. I think that defeats our purpose.
MR. PONTE: Yeah, it's a very --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to do it on a case-by-case
basis.
MR. PONTE: It's a very convincing argument.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Unfortunately. It may not be fair, it
may be -- run against our grain, but it really is the best course of
action.
MS. DUSEK: I agree.
MR. PONTE: I agree.
MS. SAUNDERS: I agree.
MS. DUSEK: And I think the $75 fine is not out of line.
MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, just a few other comments.
The final plat on this property does clearly show that there's
a 20-foot setback. It is -- with all the other residences that are
under construction in this particular residence, I find it difficult
to believe that the respondent wasn't aware of this. So again,
the $75 fine, I think that's adequate, I think that's fair. And I
agree, we should look at each case individually. But again, I
agree with my colleague as far as the 60 days extension. Get it
within a time frame.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. And the Eisenbergs have told us
they will be out of town. And as we know, it is difficult to do
things over the telephone, especially when it deals with your
Page 16
May 25, 2000
property, and you're saying go in and cut this out and build a
wall. You like to be around.
So time period-wise, I would be with the board and a
recommendation of some reasonable time, as long as it's not too
far out. The 60 days seems within reason. That gives them --
they're going to be in and out of town during that period, so they
can make arrangements to have these things done within a
60-day period, if that's the pleasure of the board.
MS. SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that the
Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to correct the
violations by removing the fill and sod encroachment within the
conservation easement and restore the area to its natural state
within 60 days, or a fine of $75 be imposed each day the violation
continues past said date.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay.
MR. PONTE: I would second.
MS. DUSEK.' Do we need to specify the date? When you say
60 days, from when? Today?
CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: 60 days from today.
MS. SAUNDERS: 60 days from today.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion. Do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Ponte, yes.
We have a motion and a second. 60 days and $75 a day for
each day thereafter the violation continues. Any question?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
MS. TAYLOR: Me.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One.
Thank you.
Case 2000-15.
MS. BECK: Next case on the board's agenda is C. Roger and
Antonia V. Biles, CEB Case No. 2000-015.
This case is violation of Section 2.7.6, Paragraph I and 5 of
Ordinance No. 91-012, Collier County Land Development Code.
And also Section 104.1.1 and 3401.1 of the Collier County
Building Construction Administrative Code.
The description of the violation is the enclosure of a two-car
garage and conversion of a portion of space therein to habitable
living area without first obtaining Collier County building permits.
Page 17
May 25, 2000
The location in which the violation exists is 4520 Normandy
Drive, Naples, more particularly described as Folio No.
0000022620440002, subdivision Avalon Estates, Unit 1, Block 1,
Lot 1:3.
Name of the persons in charge of the location where the
violation exists is C. Roger and Antonio V. Biles, also of 4520
Normandy Drive, Naples, Florida, as record address.
At this time I'd like Investigator John Kelly to come forward
and be sworn.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. KELLY: Chairman, members of the board, good
morning. The Biles are here today.
This case was initiated proactively during routine patrol.
Observed on October 22nd, 1999, the enclosure of the garage
portion of this house with a private entrance. At that time I
talked to a resident at the property who had advised that the
work took place while they were away. So I left my calling card
and requested that the property owners contact me.
That contact took place on October 26th, at which time I
talked to Mrs. Biles, who admitted that the conversion of the
garage area was necessitated by some family emergencies,
which they are probably better left to explain.
I did observe inside the garage area interior walls, an air
condition unit, plumbing and electric.
A permit search through the county permitting system
revealed no permits, which again Mrs. Biles admittedly said the
work had been done without permits.
At that point in time I told them that I would place a note on
the system to withhold after-the-fact fees until after November
10, simply because they did have a family type emergency, and
that I would try to work with them.
Mr. Biles came into the office and met with the customer
service agent on November 3rd. And at that time requirements
for the permit was explained to him. He provided the name of
the person that completed the work. And I had referred them to
contractor licensing, in the event they would like to pursue the
actual person that did the work.
On November 17th, no permits had been obtained by that
date. At that time I requested a Code Enforcement Board
warning letter be mailed.
Page t8
May 25, 2000
On December 6th, I met with the customer service agent, as
did the Biles, and at that time it was fully explained again that he
needed to provide a survey to show the setbacks, completed
floor plan to include plumbing and electric, showing both added
and preexisting. He needed a schematics to show the interior
and exterior typical wall sections, and a survey to show the
finished floor elevation.
I should note that the elevation of the garage area that was
enclosed is lower than the remaining portions of the house.
On January 4, no permits had yet been obtained. At that
time I requested the case be scheduled for the Code
Enforcement Board.
Several other telephone calls had taken place, and still no
permits obtained.
On May 24, I was -- which is yesterday, I was informed by
one of the customer service agents that Mr. Biles was again in,
didn't have all the work necessary. He would be turned down for
a permit again. However, the customer service agent advised
that the floor plan showed all areas to be storage.
I went by at approximately 6:30 to talk with Mr. Biles and
told him if there was anything good I could say to the board, I
would like to do that, and could I please see that areas had been
converted from living to storage area. Unfortunately, when he
did let me in, I observed that the interior room of the garage
continues to be a residence, I believe for a family member. But it
is still habitated.
MS. RAWSON: If I could interrupt. At this time we probably
need to introduce the packet into evidence. And I don't think we
introduced the packet into evidence in the Eisenberg case either,
so we may have to go back to that one and reopen it for the
purpose of doing that after we're done with the Biles case.
MS. BECK: At this time I'd like to enter into evidence as
Composite Exhibit A the packet that's been presented to the
board.
MS. SAUNDERS: You want to ask if there's any objections
from the Biles, since they're here?
MR. BILES: Yeah, there is an objection.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you people receive this
information?
You have no objection to this information being submitted?
Page 19
May 25, 2000
MR. BILES: No.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's enter the information as
requested.
MR. KELLY: And that would also conclude my testimony,
other than questions.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Mr. Kelly?
MS. DUSEK: Mr. Kelly, as far as the permitting goes, they
need -- I'm not sure what is left in getting the permit, but is one
of the parts that it has to be a licensed contractor or person to
do the plumbing, electrical, et cetera?
MR. KELLY: They would probably be required to have a
contractor do the plumbing and electric; however, the -- they can
obtain an owner/builder permit, as they reside there.
MS. SAUNDERS: John, isn't the follow-up to that, that at
some point they're going to need to get an occupancy permit,
and they're really in violation until the occupancy permit is
issued?
MR. KELLY: Correct. Because they are in a flood zone, and
the elevations differ from the garage portion of the house and the
principal portion of the structure. MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. PHILLIPS: Was there actually any electrical work or
plumbing work that was performed there?
MR. KELLY: They do have laundry facilities within the
garage, which includes both plumbing and electric.
MR. PHILLIPS: But the construction work that was done, as
I understand it, was just enclosing the garage; is that correct?
MR. KELLY: I'm uncertain at what time different work took
place. It was rather apparent when they had enclosed the
garage, which brought all this to light.
MR. PONTE: But the electrical work and the plumbing could
have been part of the original construction of the garage?
MR. KELLY: It's doubtful, as it was open.
MR. PONTE: It was a carport?
MR. KELLY: Correct -- I'm sorry, no, it was a garage. I stand
corrected.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'll get your turn.
MR. KELLY: I'm uncertain.
MR. LEHMANN: So Investigator Kelly, explain to me now
what improvements were made.
Page 20
May 25, 2000
MR. KELLY: The enclosure of a garage with interior room for
purposes of habitation.
MR. LEHMANN: Is that defined as enclosing the garage door
opening?
MR. KELLY: It would consist of enclosing the garage door
opening.
MR. LEHMANN: Okay. And again, the question is, is the
electrical and plumbing for the washer? It's not uncommon to
have a washing machine in the garage as an original
construction permitting.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Kelly, they've replaced the garage
door with block or something. Now, when you go into the quote,
unquote, garage area, are there any interior walls built? And that
-- I assume the garage is at least probably 10 foot wide? MR. KELLY: There is a new interior wall.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In these interior walls, did you notice
any electrical outlets in those new interior walls?
MR. KELLY: My first time into the actual structure, the
actual garage, was yesterday, and no, I did not.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So are you telling us what
they've done is they've closed this garage door portion and
behind that they've built a couple of two-by-four walls with some
plasterboard that does not contain any electrical outlets? No
lights or no light switches or anything like that?
MR. KELLY: The new portion of the interior room was
lighted. I believe I observed a clock radio within as well.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay.
MR. LEHMANN: I'm still having a difficult time
understanding the sco. pe of what the improvements are. It
sounds like from Mr. - from Investigator Kelly's testimony that I
have a residence that has an existing or has a potential for an
existing washer and dryer with a potential for existing electrical
in there that you would normally see in a garage. And the
respondents have closed off the front overhead garage door and
applied some sort of a surface finish to that.
Was there any other construction that was done in the area?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He said they built an interior wall.
MR. LEHMANN: But again, was that interior wall up against
where the garage door was, or was it interior dividing walls, or
where was that wall?
Page 21
May 25, 2000
MR. KELLY: The wall is--
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Kelly, let me ask you to do this:
Take a blank sheet of paper and kind of, you know, draw a
square that's a garage and show me what you saw. MR. LEHMANN: Do you have the plan?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll get -- let me hear what he saw.
That's what I'm interested in first.
MS. SAUNDERS: It does look like there's an air conditioner
in the window there.
MS. DUSEK: I think we have another issue with this.
Whether there's electrical or plumbing in there, the fact that
they've enclosed it for living space, most likely it does not meet
the FEMA rules for elevation, which would be a major problem.
Just because it's an enclosed living space and not above proper
sea level elevation.
MS. ARNOLD: If I might add some comments or response --
or that -- to Mr. Lehmann's question.
When they -- if they're intending to use a space for habitable
space, when they go in to obtain a building permit, there may be
some electrical requirements, because there's requirements in
the code that you have to have so many outlets, so many feet.
So they may have to do electrical work.
There also may be plumbing requirements that the county
will require them to have, and that would be determined at the
time they obtain a building permit and, you know, the customer
service agent will advise him that if you are going to do
plumbing, electrical, you'll have to get a contractor. However,
you can obtain an owner/builder permit to do the balance of the
work. And that's if the space is going to be habitable.
MR. LEHMANN: I'm just trying to define the situation.
Because just by changing this room from a garage --
MS. ARNOLD: You still need a permit, though. You still need
a permit.
MR. LEHMANN: I mean, we've already crossed the line at
that point. And what you've drawn here is -- we do have a
separate room in here; is that correct, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' And there are -- as I remember, having
built a few houses, the electrical codes, when you put up walls, I
think is every six feet or something like that --
Page 22
May 25, 2000
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's four feet.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- there has to be an electrical outlet.
Okay, any other questions for Mr. Kelly?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Biles?
(Mr. Biles was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir.
MR. BILES: Well--
MS. ARNOLD: Will you state for the record your name,
please?
MR. BILES: Initial C. Roger Biles.
There was no plumbing done. The existing appliances, the
refrigerator, the washer, the dryer, the sink, were all there when
we purchased the house 15, 20 years ago? MRS. BILES: 15.
MR. BILES: 15 years ago. The only thing we did was close
off the garage door and built this L-shaped wall to enclose -- to
have an enclosed area.
Initially we did want to put our daughter in there. And I will
say she is in there. But we were told you can't build a bedroom
there, because like you've said, the floor level is too low, and it
wouldn't meet other requirements.
So -- and what started all this construction work -- and we
had to have it done in about 30 days -- was last July the courts in
Iowa, who had taken my four grandchildren from my eldest
daughter, awarded us custody of the kids. We had 30 days to go
up to Iowa and get them.
Four little kids have a lot of stuff; bicycles, clothes,
unbelievable amounts of toys. The only place we could put them
where we could keep an eye on them was in what was my
daughter's room in the back of the house. Because that's right
across from where we -- our room is. Keep an eye and an ear on
them at night. So we figured also we're going to have to have a
place to store all this stuff, and we wanted it where they couldn't
get into it. They like to get in the stuff. So we decided on
building a room within the garage. And of course that would
necessitate taking the garage door down and walling up the
garage.
And we also figured a sideline to that would be it would be
safer from a hurricane standard, because that door wouldn't --
Page 23
May 25, 2000
wasn't much for wind. It was too old.
So we did do it. We asked around, did we need a permit to
do this. We asked friends and acquaintances. They said well,
probably not, because you're just putting up a wall inside and
closing off the door. That was ignorance on our part. I've never
done remodeling down here, in all the years I've lived here. I had
no -- so I took -- because everybody said it, that we probably
didn't need to do it. That was my error.
So we had 30 days to get this done. We had -- we tried a few
contractors, but either they were busy or because we weren't
building a shopping mall, they weren't interested. So we said
well, let's do it ourselves. We had some friends and
acquaintances that are electricians, do electrical work, do, you
know, stuff. So we figured ask them, can you help us do this, you
know, for as minimum amount of money as we can do it.
Because we only had 30 days.
They said, yeah, we'll be glad to help you. They knew how
to build the walls, put up the concrete block. We got together
with them. They're the ones that told us, you know, you're not
going to be able to put a bedroom there.
So I said, well, we need to get the walls up. On the outside
of the walls we've got shelving with louvre doors for cleaning
supplies, canned goods, all the stuff you put out there.
And they built it for us in about a three-week period,
between the first of July -- first of August when they started it,
till -- well, they were still working on it when we left for Iowa on
the 20th of August. And in fact, it wasn't done until -- the day we
got back on the 23rd of August is when it was finished. And they
had to take down all the furniture that was in my daughter's
room, put up two sets of bunk beds in there for the boys, all in
one day.
When we got back, everything had been moved into the
storage room in the garage. And that's the way we left it.
And then Mr. Kelly spotted the fact that the enclosed garage
door wasn't painted. It's still not painted, because we don't have
any more money left to paint it.
And that's all we did. And yes, on the inside of the room
there is one, two, three -- three outlets, electrical outlets. There
is an air conditioner, but that's plugged into an existing outlet
that was in the garage. It was a heavy duty outlet. So evidently
Page 24
May 25, 2000
the previous owners may have had an air conditioner in there or
maybe had a -- he fancied himself a handyman, I know, and
maybe he had a lot of power tools, so he had a heavy-duty outlet
in there.
In one corner of the wall, in -- or I'll show you this diagram,
there's a little L-shaped indentation, because we have a freezer
there. And the L-shaped indentation was put in so that we could
use another one of the existing outlets to plug the freezer in so
we wouldn't have to put in another outlet on the outside of the
room.
So basically all we did was build that L-shaped room with
the outlets on the inside and closed up the wall. There was no
other plumbing, no other electric. They worked around it so that
we wouldn't have to put any other stuff in there. And that's all
we did. There is no plumbing. I think that's where the problem
started.
Then when we tried to apply for a permit, being totally
ignorant of the system, I had no idea how this worked, I went up
there after he told us we needed to get one, went to one of the
service people, and they said, "Oh, over there as you come in the
front door there's a table. Pick up a permit."
I went over there, and there's just piles of stuff. So I start
reading it. And I see a short form, and I started reading what
was on the short form, and it seemed to apply to me, home
improvement, do-it-yourself sort of thing. I fill out the short form,
get it notarJzed, take it back to them. They never mentioned any
of this other stuff that we were going to need. They said, "Well,
no, you have to use the long form." And we also needed a site
elevation, a survey of the property to make sure you didn't
encroach on the property line. And I said, "Well, how would I do
that?"
And I swear to God, the clerk that I was dealing with at that
time said, "Well, get yourself some graph paper, measure the
outside of the building, measure the walls on the inside, the size
of the windows, and as best you can to scale, make a drawing by
hand."
So I did that. And it backfired on me. Took it all back up
there to him. No, that's not what they need. They need a
professional architectural drawing, they needed the site
elevation survey, they needed the property survey; needed to be
Page 25
May 25, 2000
done by professionals.
Okay, we go back, called up two different companies to get
all this stuff done. We had to be put on their list. It took a while
for them to get around to doing it. Plus we had to find the money
to pay for all this. Got it done, took it back to them.
No, they still weren't satisfied. They wanted to know how
the walls were constructed, how the concrete block was built,
they wanted to know about that.
So back home again we get in contact with two people to
help us to come over to the house, in the evenings after they get
off work. Make drawings. So we do that. Take it back up there.
Now all of a sudden they tell us well, you need an architectural
drawing of the inside of the building, okay?
We contacted the land survey company, figuring that they
could do it for us. Well, he tried. But it was a very basic
blueprint drawing, just where the walls were, no electrical
outlets. He didn't draw in the appliances.
So when we took that back, they said no, that's a little too
basic. We need to see where the outlets are, where the
plumbing is, blah, blah, blah.
So we -- and Wanda Warren, the lady who I started dealing
with up at the -- whatever, place up on Horseshoe, who is the
only one that was really being cooperative -- wrote down exactly
what she wanted. And she said, "Have the architect call me."
She kept the wrong blueprints, the bad one, and said, "When he
calls me, we can both be looking at the same thing," because I
had about four copies of it.
The guy called her, several times he told us, and he could
not get her to call him back. And, quite frankly, he said after
about a month he forgot about it. But he had told us, I'll contact
you as soon as I get -- you know, get with her about it.
So after about the first of May I said, you know, we haven't
heard from him yet. So my wife called him and he said, "Yeah,
well, I got finally back with her and she said -- told me what she
wanted." And he said, "That's really -- you need an architect." He
said, "1 don't do that sort of work. I'm not capable of doing an
interior architectural drawing."
So he gave us the name of a couple of people who do small
little jobs like this. One was too busy. Another woman out in
Golden Gate had closed her business up because she has cancer
Page 26
May 25, 2000
and is undergoing chemotherapy and just can't work anymore.
So my wife opened up the Yellow Pages and started reading ads
for architects, looking for ones that specialized in small jobs.
We finally found this gentleman, Larry Warner, down in Old
Naples. He came out. We showed him what we wanted, told him
to get in touch with Wanda, and so he called Wanda. And she
told him what they wanted. She said, "1 need to see what's new,
what's existing, where all the doors lead to," and everything had
to be labeled. So he drew us up this blueprint.
But what he failed to understand from Wanda was that she
wanted the words new, pointing to what was new, and the word
existing, pointing to what was existing, not just a general
drawing. So -- plus where the door goes from the garage into the
house, she wanted to know what was on the other side of the
door, not just as he put here, interior residence. She wanted to
know where the door went. She said, "You get that done, you
give me on this blueprint the actual interior square footage, you
bring it back to me and I can process it, because you now have
everything you need." That was yesterday.
I contacted Mr. Warner yesterday. He's supposed to come
out to my house tonight after work on his way home, and he'll
recheck everything, make some notes. I gave him -- I wrote a list
of the things that we need from him that has to be on this
blueprint.
Once we get that back from him, I suspect early next week,
my next day off from work is next Wednesday, I'll ship all this
stuff back up. Wanda said bring it to her, she knows I have
everything I need, she says, and I'll put it through for you. And so
that's where I stand.
I was given this information, and being I guess in the winter
months, it must be a busy time for contractors and surveyors and
all the rest. We had to be put on the list. So we have to wait for
this stuff to get done. It's not like we had all these -- all our
horses in a row. We had to do each one. And each time we
called somebody, we had to wait for them to come out and do
the survey.
I apologize for not getting a permit. I have never done this
before. I am totally ignorant of this system.
Quite frankly, up there yes, they would tell me stuff, but they
wouldn't tell me everything. So I would get most of it right and
Page 27
May 25, 2000
then have to go back and do it again, because I really didn't
understand what they were talking about.
We finally have it right. And I realize it's taken us what, six
or seven months. But as soon as he redoes his blueprint, Wanda
said we're ready to go. And that's the way it stands.
And no, an interior room, it was supposed to be called a
bedroom. We still call it a bedroom. And yes, my daughter's
stuff is in there. And the air conditioner was suggested. That we
put in after the construction was done, because the fact that we
do store clothes and whatnot in there. And with as much clothes
as was in there, and that garage gets extremely hot, he said
you're going to have a mildew problem. So he suggested putting
an air conditioner in, hence the reason for the air conditioner.
And, you know, my daughter wanted to do a lot of things in
there. I said, "No, you can't. It cannot be a bedroom. You can't
have your own phone." She's 19. She wants her own TV. I said,
"No, you can't have any -- you can't live in there, honey. You're
going to have to join the rest of us in the house."
So that's the way it stands. It's going to be used for
storage, and it has to be used for storage, because of all the stuff
from my grand kids. And that's the way it stands.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Anybody have any questions
of Mr. Biles?
MR. BILES: If you want to see this, I've got it here. It can
show you where the electrical is.
MS. DUSEK: I have a couple of questions. In the process of
applying for your permit, did they require a site elevation survey?
MR. BILES: Yes, ma'am. And I got one.
MS. DUSEK: And you're okay with that?
MR. BILES: I guess. Wanda was happy with it. She's been
looking at it.
MS. DUSEK: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: The reason why he's having to use it for
storage is because it's lower, I think, right?
MR. BILES: Yeah. Because we wanted to use it for a
bedroom, and everybody said well, you're not able to do that
because we'd have to elevate the garage floor about six or eight
inches. And he said when you do that, because it is a garage,
the ceiling was so low you'd have to walk around like this in the
garage.
Page 28
May 25, 2000
So yeah, we call it a bedroom because -- well, that's what
we call it, we call it a bedroom.
And the other thing she wanted to change, in the L-shaped
portion of the garage that wasn't enclosed, she wants us to --
wanted the architect to mark it -- label what that L-shaped area
is. She said in front of the washing machine, she said you can
put laundry in front of this other area. She wants the word
storage. They want to know what that's for, what that area is
being used for. So that's another reason this has to be
completely redone.
I'm assuming early next week they'll have it done. When he
did this one, he had it for us in about five days. But I don't know.
MS. DUSEK: Well, Mr. Biles, it sounds like you've been
working very diligently -- MR. BILES: Yeah.
MS. DUSEK: -- to accomplish what the county is asking.
MR. BILES: Yeah. And filling out -- I don't know whether
you've ever done it personally, ever filled but one of those
applications for permits, but by God, the next time I do anything,
I'm having a contractor do it. All that legal mumbo jumbo and
initials and stuff. Half the time I'd bring it back up there and
she'd have to tell me what that meant so that I could fill it in
what it was for.
This is definitely not a job for somebody -- I'd never do a
do-it-yourself job again. But because I had only 30 days to get
ready for my grand kids -- and I had to take them; otherwise, the
State of Iowa was going to put them up for adoption, because
they had absolutely no interest in my daughter getting her kids
back. What are you going to do?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' Any other questions for Mr. Biles?
MS. TAYLOR: I think everybody's trying to do the absolute
right thing. Mr. Kelly's doing his job, you're trying to do what
you're told. And personally I just would like to see this just held
for 30 days and see what happens and go from there.
MR. BILES: Well, like Wanda told me yesterday, she said you
get this completed and you've got everything else. Because she
sat there and went through all the stuff I had there yesterday.
Because I thought I had everything. But the architect just
misunderstood what she physically wanted to show on here.
Plus, and I guess Mr. Kelly thought and the people up at the
Page 29
May 25, 2000
Horseshoe Drive place, I seem to think they thought we put in
the sink and the washer and the dryer and the refrigerator at the
time. Well, we didn't. We just bought a new washing machine a
week ago.
MS. TAYLOR: It's a mass state of confusion.
MS. DUSEK: You're on the right track.
MR. BILES: I think they thought I was trying to pull a fast
one. And I wasn't.
And like I say, there is three outlets in the bedroom,
because I think we were told we had to have so many outlets for
-- you know, even for storage you had to have so many outlets. I
mean, we were told this. But everybody said I don't think you
need to do a permit because it's not a load-bearing wall, you
didn't tear anything down, you just subdivided the garage up. So
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any--
MR. BILES: -- you live and learn.
MS. TAYLOR: I'd like to support him.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions for Mr. Biles
at this time? Thank you, sir, you can sit down.
I did hear one of our board members comment that maybe
we could continue this. We need to remember that we've put
ourselves in that trap before when we continue an item, because
then at that point we basically have to rehear the case again
before we can take any action. Understanding that Mr. Biles has
worked very diligently to resolve the problem. He's put in a lot of
effort and he's really trying. And I'm on his side that he's making
a very concerted effort.
I think the board should consider yes, there is a violation,
yes, he's trying to get it done. Let's give him some time to get it
done. You know, let's do the whole process right. Hopefully he's
going to solve it before any -- if a fine is anticipated before that
ever kicks in. I think we could do it. Let's bring the case to an
end. He is working. If we give him sufficient time, he can solve
it, rather than try to continue it.
MS. DUSEK: So our process is to cite the violation. That's
the only way --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes.
MS. DUSEK: -- so we didn't -- we won't have to hear the case
again.
Page 30
May 25, 2000
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you don't have to hear it again, you
should -- is there in fact a violation? Yes, there is. Then what do
we want to do with it? Then in making that decision, we should
give him the time. He's working very hard, so let's give him a
little time to finish it up. Therefore, nothing's going to kick in.
Next time we hear about it, it will be abated, and there won't be
any fine. That's what I would recommend to the board members.
MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I agree 100 percent with that.
In light of that, maybe we could make a recommendation for a
90-day time period. That is more than sufficient hopefully to take
care of all this.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. If that's the pleasure of the
board. That sounds excessive, but if that's what you would like --
MR. LEHMANN: Well, I think 30 days is sufficient for it, but
again, this respondent is trying his best to comply with the code,
and that's all that we're asking for. If the board looks at 60 days
or 30 days, that's fine.
MS. DUSEK.' Well, he could always come back and ask for
an extension.
MR. LEHMANN: He certainly can.
MR. PONTE: I think 60 days is reasonable.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think you need to also -- let me throw
something in for consideration. To help Mr. Biles, now that he's
before us, now that we're possibly going to find him in violation,
to maybe give him some leverage at Horseshoe Drive, the date of
completion should be one that's fairly close to put a little
pressure. If you make it 90 days, I don't know how fast
Horseshoe Drive's going to try to help him.
I know that may sound unfair to Mr. Biles, but what we're
trying to do is give him a tool where he can go to the county and
say gee, I've got everything, and I'm also in violation and I need
your help because I'm going to start getting fined in "X" days.
Maybe they'll -- this lady seems like she is trying to help him.
Let's give him an added tool to use in his favor, if we can.
MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, does that in fact occur down at
the building department? Do they take into account these
deadlines, or do they just operate as if they don't exist?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can't really speak for the building
department. I can try to encourage them to, you know, put it
ahead. But, I mean, their workload is regulated by somebody
Page 3t
May 25, 2000
else.
Mr. Biles did say today that Wanda indicated to him that it's
ready, with the exception of just some, you know, changes on --
or notation changes on the plan. So what she would do is then
accept it and then submit it to the plan reviewers to review and
consider. I think 30 days is sufficient. But if the board wants to
extend that time, that's fine.
Once the plan is submitted, we will monitor it to see, you
know, whether the holdup is on the side of the county or the
property owner. And we would -- if it extends into the time
period for compliance, or beyond the time period for compliance,
we would note that to the board so that, you know, we can note
for the record it wasn't the respondent's fault that it was delayed
and not in compliance with the board's order.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Once it's accepted by Horseshoe Drive,
Wanda, once she says yes, everything's here and she's going to
pass it on, once she passes it on, what's the time period to
approve it so Mr. Biles gets his permit? Is that a 10-day, 20 day,
30-day --
MS. ARNOLD: On a, you know, normal basis, it's probably a
couple of weeks. If they're -- I think they're pretty backed up
right now. So it probably would be like three weeks.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So if he's going to get
something in a week from his architect and then he's going to
submit it and they need a couple weeks, that's pushing the 30
days pretty tight. So --
MR. PONTE: 60 days.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 60 days seems logical. That's
probably the best help we can give him without hurting him.
Maybe the board should consider 60 days, and if it's not done in
60 days, then some type of a fine might kick in. Maybe that's the
best consideration that we can give him.
MS. DUSEK: Well, I'll begin the process with making a
motion --
MS. ARNOLD: Can I make one other addition? That we get
an inspection of the property, once it's approved. And I'm not
sure -- well, with the building permit process he would have to
request an inspection for the final CO.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was going to say, part of his permit
would be an inspection, so -- well, he's going to have to do
Page 32
May 25, 2000
everything to meet codes. We're finding him in violation, and
he's going to have to solve it to come in line with whatever the
county requirements are. So if that includes an inspection, then
that will be part of it.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
MS. DUSEK: Okay. I make a motion that in the case of
Board of County Commissioners versus Roger and Antonia Biles,
CEB No. 2000-015, that a violation does exist. The violation is of
Section 2.7.6, Paragraph I and 5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the
Collier County Land Development Code, and Sections 104.1.1 and
-- and I'm not sure if after 340 there's supposed to be a point
there? 340--
MS. ARNOLD: 3 -- 1.0t.
MS. DUSEK: Okay, .1 of the Collier County Building
Construction Administrative Code.
The description of the violation is the enclosure of a two-car
garage and conversion of a portion of space therein to habitable
living area without first obtaining Collier County building permits.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion --
MS. SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- that there is in fact a violation. We
have a second. Any further question?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now the pleasure of the board,
the order.
MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a comment in the
recommendation, that staff has recommended $100 a day, and I
feel that's too high.
MR. PONTE: I agree.
MS. DUSEK: I think this man has worked very diligently to
try to accomplish what we've asked him.
MS. SAUNDERS: I would recommend $25 a day.
MR. PONTE: I would agree to that, too.
MS. SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion that the Code
Enforcement Board order the respondent to correct the violation
by applying for building permits for the improvement of the
garage, or remove all such improvements within 60 days, which
would be July 21st, 2000, or a fine of $25 per day be imposed
Page 33
May 25, 2000
each day the violation continues past said date.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I request a slight modification, just to
include to obtain the permit, too? Because we're just indicating
applying for.
MR. LEHMANN: Good point.
MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. Yeah, sure.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The only recommendation I may make,
since we're playing -- trying to help Mr. Biles, the $25, I'm reading
this I think correctly, that there -- he is in violation of two
different ordinances, so that's two separate violations. So I
would say the $25 to me would be acceptable, if it's $25 per
violation. That's an additional incentive to get it corrected. That
makes it $50.
MS. DUSEK.' I agree with that, too.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' I wouldn't have a problem doing that, if
I could ask you to amend your motion.
MS. SAUNDERS: Sure, I'll amend it. I'm assuming he's never
going to get to that point.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Yeah, we're all hoping that it's
going to go away in 30 days.
MR. BILES: I don't know how it got to this point.
MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of that?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-' Since there are two violations, I think
that when you impose a fine, that the fines should be per
violation. You know, it's an additional incentive to the violator to
get resolution of the problem. If you have 10 violations and you
just say gee, $t00, there's no big incentive. But if you say $100
per violation, now all of a sudden it's $t,000, and I've really got
some incentive. I don't want to be charged $1,000 a day, where
$100 a day or 25 or a dollar is not a big incentive. But when you
make it per violation, all of a sudden the incentive goes up.
That's my reasoning behind that.
MS. DUSEK: I completely agree with the Chairman.
So you've amended your motion?
MS. SAUNDERS: I will amend my motion. Although I do
think $25 a day is also pretty stuff, but I will gladly amend it.
MS. DUSEK: So that's $25 per--
MS. SAUNDERS: Per day per violation.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Per day per violation.
MS. SAUNDERS: Right. $50 per day.
Page 34
May 25, 2000
MR. LEHMANN: Well, I'm looking at the violation, and I
actually see three separate code sections that are violated. I'm
looking at Ordinance 91-102, Section 2.7.6.
CHAIRMAN FI,EGAL: Okay, you're correct.
MR. LEHMANN: Paragraph I and 5. 104.101.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There are three violations, I'm sorry.
Stand corrected. Thank you, sir.
MR. I,EHMANN: So what we're looking at in essence is a
possible fine of $150 a day.
CHAIRMAN FI,EGAL: No, $25 per would be $75.
MR. LEHMANN: Oh, 25 per. Yes, I'm sorry. So we're looking
at $75 a day.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Yes, sir, I stand corrected. Thank you
for pointing that out.
Again, we're all assuming that this is never going to take
place. But it may be the incentive to make sure that phone calls
get placed and that papers get carried and follow-up gets done.
MS. DUSEK: Also, keep in mind, in support of the
Chairman's suggestion, that Mr. Biles can always come back to
us in the event that there is a problem that is not his fault. But I
do feel that the $25 per violation is fair.
MS. TAYLOR: I disagree. Again, $25 a day is quite sufficient
what this man is going through to try to get this resolved. And
Mr. Eisenberg, we go back to that, and that was practically
nothing for what they have done, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,
and they're putting this off and putting this off, and you're
smacking him on the back of the hand.
Mr. Biles is trying every which way possible to resolve this.
$25 is quite sufficient.
And I hope you never have to pay one penny of it.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have currently on the floor a
motion for $25 a day per violation. Is there any second to that
motion?
MS. DUSEK: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any
further question?
All those in favor of it, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
MS. TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motion carries.
Page 35
May 25, 2000
MR. PONTE: I'd like to just add one note and request that
staff gives this case their personal attention in monitoring the
progress with the building permit department so that as much
assistance is given to Mr. Biles as is possible. MS. ARNOLD: So noted.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Biles, do you understand, sir?
We've given you 60 days to try and get the problem solved.
MR. BILES: I should have this back up to Horseshoe on
Wednesday, if the architect --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. We just want you to
understand, you've got 60 days to solve the problem, and if you
don't, for every day past that 60 days you're going to be fined
$75, okay? So we hope that you're going to get this solved
within 30 days. And the county's going to try to help you. Ms.
Arnold is very good about that. She said she will try to help you,
so she will. Thank you, sir.
MR. BILES: Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have to go back to
Item A and open up that public hearing to enter in evidence.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we're still in public hearings, we
will reopen Case 2000-14 for the purpose of --
MS. BECK: Entering the evidentiary packet into evidence as
Composite Exhibit A.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So moved. It will be accepted.
Having no further public hearings, the public hearing section
is closed. New business. MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I need to ask Ms. Rawson, I don't know
if she's had a chance to read this. MS. RAWSON: I have.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm a little confused. I looked in our
April minutes. Maybe I overlooked it. I didn't see that there was
a request for a rehearing in April for the Hernandezes. If
somebody could point it out.
MS. KIRBY: It's on Page 15.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 157 Okay, thank you.
MS. KIRBY: My name is Lisa Kirby from Craig, Cavanaugh &
Cavanaugh for-- I guess we're doing CEB No. 99-044, Board of
County Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me a minute, ma'am. I need to
Page 36
May 25, 2000
have you sworn in.
MS. KIRBY: -- versus Epiphanio Hernandez.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I'm looking at Page 15 of our
minutes and I don't see anything that refers to the Hernandezes,
so you need to --
MS. KIRBY: Page 15 of the minutes I got from the --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What minutes are they? I mean, you
need --
MS. KIRBY: April 27th meeting.
MS. ARNOLD: The minutes that are in your book right now.
On Page 15.
MR. KINCAID: Right at the bottom of the page.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, right at the bottom.
You have another request, Maria Hernandez.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, it doesn't say any names, so
what are you telling me? I mean, where do we find the
Hernandez name?
MS. ARNOLD: It's right after -- it says Chairman Flegal says,
"We have another request, Maria Hernandez." And then Maria
responds, "Yes, sir."
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Thank you.
Okay. Ms. Rawson, I guess I need to ask you this question.
When this was brought up in April, if I'm reading everything in the
minutes correctly, we had imposed a fine in March. Since we
imposed the fine in March, any request for a rehearing had
already passed. Because the order would have been before
March. And under the ordinance --
MS. RAWSON: The order was before March, because March
23rd I believe is when the board imposed the fines. But I think --
and you're correct, of course. I don't know that this is -- I think
her argument more has to do with a failure of the notice
requirements. And I think we probably should let her make her
argument, and then I'll tell you what I think the law says.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm sorry, your name again,
ma'am?
MS. KIRBY: My name is Lisa Kirby. I'm here for Cavanaugh
& Cavanaugh for Epiphanio Hernandez.
On March 23rd, they were -- I believe there was no notice
prior to that. They were receiving the notices. How, I'm not
Page 37
May 25, 2000
sure. Maybe the person from code enforcement was coming out
and giving them the notices.
If you'll notice, the certificate of service on all the
documents that were sent was to P.O. Box 1189. I have the copy
of a code case detail report printed off from code enforcement
which lists the address as P.O. Box 1789. So the Hernandezes
were not getting a lot of these notifications.
In any event, they appeared at the order -- at the imposition
of fines hearing, at which time I've since received the minutes of
the notes. And I would argue that there is some -- that the
record reflects that the decision of the board was contrary to the
evidence and that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of
law, which was fundamental to the decision of the board.
In any event, what my argument is, is that after that hearing,
which I believe was -- there were some procedural problems with
that. The rules allow -- the rules allow a rehearing of the board
action to the Code Enforcement Board within 10 days of the date
of the receipt of the board's written order. My clients never
received a copy of the board's written order because it was
being mailed out to the incorrect address.
So the time has not passed, I would argue, to make a motion
for a rehearing. There was no receipt of the written address.
The certificate of service on all these orders from the board is to
the wrong address. So I am now making the motion for a
rehearing.
It looks like the -- my clients sent in a letter to Maria Cruz,
who was the Code Enforcement Board officer, requesting a
hearing. And I notice from the April 24th -- or April 27th meeting,
that that was denied, based on the fact that they were not there.
MS. ARNOLD: No.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. They don't have to be here.
MS. KIRBY: They do not have to be there, but --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct.
MS. KIRBY: -- it kind of looks like --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, just so we understand. It wasn't
denied because they weren't here. You need to understand that.
MS. KIRBY: I do understand that. But it looks like it was
denied because they didn't think it was important enough to be
there.
They also would --
Page 38
May 25, 2000
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not correct either.
MS. KIRBY: They also -- I also would like to say that they
were under the impression that the meeting that they needed to
be to here was today, at today's meeting.
I talked to code enforcement. They told me that was not the
case, that there was nothing on the agenda for today. So at that
time I made my motion for a rehearing.
And I didn't want to bring up any factual issues about the
motion for rehearing until I can determine whether the
procedural issue -- it will be granted on the procedural issue.
Because if it will not, then we are out of time. But I do not
believe we are.
MS. RAWSON.' Before I advise the board, let me ask
Michelle one question. Were they here on the hearing on July
30th, 19997
MS. ARNOLD: I don't recall whether or not they were here.
MS. RAWSON: I don't know either. At any rate, I don't know
whether Ms. Kirby's motion goes back to the July 30th notice, or
if we're talking about the March 23rd notice.
MS. ARNOLD: Could I make a correction? I did review the --
some -- the mailings of the case. The only notice that was
mailed to the address of 1789 that she's indicated was the notice
for imposition of fines and not any of the other notices. In fact,
we had multiple mailings for all of the other notices that went to
the property owner.
MS. RAWSON: Well, if we're talking about the notice that
went out on March 23rd, 2000, that was the day that you
imposed the fines, I can make a -- these comments: Florida
Statute 16209 talks about what happens when you've already got
an order and now you're ready to enforce the order by issuing
fines. And basically says if a finding -- and I'm reading t6209(1),
the last part. "If a finding of a violation or a repeat violation has
been made as provided in this part, a hearing shall not be
necessary for issuance of the order imposing the fine."
And then if you turn to the amended Ordinance 80 -- 92-80,
under notices, you will find the very same language about the
notice not being necessary.
And it's also in the ordinance before it was amended, the
amendment having to do with posting. And so basically while we
are required to give notice before you come before the board on
Page 39
May 25, 2000
a hearing, if you are just imposing fines, the notice is not
required either by the statute or the ordinance.
Now, as a practical matter, we always give notice and invite
people to come. And under our rules, which we've adopted, we
only have to give them certified mail return receipt requested or
serve upon the violator an order that imposes the fine. After
you've imposed the fine, then you have to give them notice by
certified mail or personally deliver it so they know that the fine
has now been imposed.
But we simply invite them as a courtesy to the board
meeting, but we don't rehear anything, as you well know.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right.
MS. RAWSON: But there's nothing in the statute or the
ordinance that even says we have to do that.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Correct. That's what I remember.
MS. KIRBY: Well, the copy of the ordinance that was just
provided to me by the Collier board states that all -- the only
issue that I have is the amount of time that I have to have the
rehearing, and that's the t 0 days from the time of the receipt of
the order.
They were there at that -- even though it was sent to the
wrong address, they were there at the public hearing on March
23rd, and so we would waive that there was no notice there.
They were there. But the time for the rehearing --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: March 23rd wasn't the public hearing.
Wasn't that the imposition of fines? MS. RAWSON: It was.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, so the public hearing --
MS. RAWSON: The public hearing was July 30th.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- was -- it had to have been --
MS. KIRBY: Well, we're not fighting that.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, then there's --
MS. KIRBY: There was a violation.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then there's no question then.
MS. KIRBY: But the evidence was -- in fact, the evidence
that I spoke with Michelle about was contrary to the evidence
that was presented at the hearing, on the March 23rd imposition
of fines hearing.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the imposition of fines isn't a
hearing.
Page 40
May 25, 2000
MS. RAWSON: No, it isn't.
MS. KIRBY: When the fines were imposed. The evidence
that was presented at that time was contrary to what Michelle
and I have talked about.
MS. ARNOLD: I think what Ms. Kirby is referring to is there
is a statement in the March 23rd or 25th hearing that the board
asked me whether or not the violation still remained, and I
answered all the violations are -- still exist on the property. But
the truth of the matter is that not all of them exist -- not all of the
trailers existed on the property. Some had been removed. But
the violations still remained on the property at that time.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the violation still existed, so --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- imposing the fine, the fine is based
on the violation. It's not whether you have -- MS. ARNOLD: One or 50.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- one trailer or 10 trailers, the violation
is a violation. So it's immaterial that some trailers got removed.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The violation still existed.
MS. KIRBY: If I could read from Section 1 t of the ordinance,
which was provided to me, 92.80. "Penalties. In determining the
amount of fine, if any, the enforcement board shall consider the
following factors." Section B would be any action taken by the
violator to correct the violations. And that was not taken into
consideration --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. You have to go back to when we
issued the orders and imposed the fine of -- I don't know what it
was, $t00 a day or -- I don't honestly remember. That's when we
consider what's going on. The imposition of fines is if the
violations are there. It's just a procedural matter that at some
point we impose a fine of what we originally assessed. Time
passes, so the clock's running. 75 times 10 days. You come
before us and say impose a fine of $750. That's -- it doesn't make
any difference that you went from six to one, the violation still
exists. We didn't rehear the case to lower the $75 to something
else. 75 is -- whatever the number was, and I don't remember.
MS. KIRBY: Right. Well, in the alternative then I would
request a hearing for a reduction of fines for the next meeting.
Because it is in compliance now. A certificate of compliance
Page 41
May 25, 2000
was sent out. They went out to the property yesterday and
inspected. Incorrect information was presented at the imposition
of fines hearing. So I would request a reduction of fines to be set
for the next meeting so that the people can testify.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I don't know where we stand
on that particular case, whether it's --
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we haven't filed an affidavit of
compliance. Our staff did go out to the property and all of the
mobile homes are not standing. I mean, there's one that is
demolished and on the property that is not involved in this
particular case. We would have to open up another case,
because it's now a different violation. So all the mobile homes
as of yesterday, on our inspection, are gone -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: -- from the property.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you just haven't --
MS. ARNOLD: Filed the affidavit of compliance. And we
haven't -- because that inspection occurred yesterday, we
wouldn't ordinarily bring that to you the next day of the board
meeting.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So as I remember the
procedure, the clock is still running until you file that affidavit of
compliance, correct?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, it would --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Until whatever that date is that you
found they met?
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So the amount that we imposed
back in April has grown.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You just haven't brought that --
MS. ARNOLD: We haven't done subsequent inspections of
the property since that date. So our last inspection was
yesterday, and the violation as of yesterday has been removed.
MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Kirby, am I correct in assuming that
you've removed your request for rehearing?
MS. KIRBY: No. I guess it was denied, right?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, on this request that I have
before us for a rehearing, I would recommend to the board we
deny this, because there's no basis for a rehearing.
Page 42
May 25, 2000
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we deny the rehearing.
MR. PONTE: I second.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to
deny the request for rehearing. Any questions?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The request is denied.
Now, if you want to be put on the agenda for -- you need to
talk to Michelle about that.
MS. KIRBY: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need to talk to Michelle about
that.
MS. KIRBY: About what?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you want to get on the agenda for
request of reduction in fines.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we'll get it --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You work that out with her.
Any other new business?
MS. ARNOLD: No.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under old business, I would like to ask
if staff has any idea where we stand on liens. I bring this up from
time to time, and I really never hear what we're doing. The last
listing I had is dated in February, and it showed there was only
one foreclosure pending out of a list of probably -- MS. ARNOLD: Eight.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- 25 or 30 that's on this list.
MS. ARNOLD: Oh, well --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And there's an old list that some of
these cases aren't even on there. Going all the way back to
91-003, 91-0t5. And there's a bunch on the old list.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, all of that information -- and I don't know
what occurred in terms of status report for foreclosure at the
last hearing. I'd asked --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There wasn't any.
MS. ARNOLD: -- Maria to present to you a table, so to speak,
kind of giving you an indication of what the status of each of the
cases that you've heard so far. That wasn't done?
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We haven't had anything since --
MR. PONTE: January.
Page 43
May 25, 2000
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. You will have that at your next
meeting. But all of -- only eight items have been forwarded to the
County Attorney's Office for foreclosure. That was that initial
eight that we sent.
You all have to -- would have to make a decision whether or
not those that are past the compliance date and fines are
accruing. You know, that you've made imposition of fines and
we filed that document and it's past the three-month period,
you'd have to make a decision individually on each of these
whether or not you want to proceed with foreclosure. It's not an
automatic thing. And then as a courtesy, we bring those items to
the Board of County Commissioners for their endorsement.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I'm looking at the list from
February where fines have been imposed. I'm going all the way
down through Case 99-056. That's -- so that takes some five, 10
-- there must be at least t 5, not counting the ones from the old
list, of which there's probably an additional five or eight.
If you're looking for us to give you some kind of authority,
then I would recommend to my--
MS. ARNOLD: I would rather, rather than you look at the
numbers, just simply because we've imposed fines, there are
different circumstances for each case, so I'd rather us go
through them individually and make individual recommendation
for --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Circumstances like what? Are they
paying the bill or not?
MS. ARNOLD: Some may be paying and some are not.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Right here you're listing, one,
two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, tl, 12 --you
listed 13 that aren't paying. So you're going to give me a list
next month to tell me --
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know what you're -- I'm not looking at
what you're looking at, so I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's a list from you back in February.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. But like I said, I'm not looking at it so I
don't know what the status of --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess I have a problem, Michelle, in
that back when we started this, we came across all these
people, I mean, who owed 400 and some thousand, 300 and some
thousand, 800 and some thousand, and we got into this thing,
Page 44
May 25, 2000
let's get the money or do something. MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And all I've ever seen done is the
county attorney come up and say we're processing one person.
We're sitting up here imposing fines. You tell us that --
sometimes when we ask you -- that people aren't paying. And we
say do something. And when I ask what are we doing, I never
get an answer.
MS. ARNOLD: I'm not saying that we're not answering you. I
said rather than you listing 13 of which I don't know what the
respondents' names are or their case numbers, we should -- and
I've assured you that they will be at your meeting, at next
meeting -- go through them individually by case number so we
know what the board's position is on each of those individual
cases, and then we will forward those to the Board of County
Commissioners for their endorsement.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' I mean, you know, it seems like we're
fighting a brick wall here that we can't get somebody to move
forward on taking some kind of action to collect this money that
we're sitting up here making very hard decisions, that bother
some of the board members that we're imposing fines, and then
we never collect the money. I mean, why do we even come here
if we're not ever going to have the county collect this money
because there's violations? And we can't get any resolution.
I ask from time to time -- I'll go through the minutes. But I
know I ask about these liens and I never get any answers, other
than we'll talk about it next month. Well, here we are again,
we're going to talk about it next month.
I'm looking for some kind of resolution here. Otherwise,
we're spinning our wheels.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can't --
MR. PONTE: For example --
MS. ARNOLD: I will bring that -- that report should have
been before you last month. I was not here. I apologize for that.
It will be before you next month. And my only recommendation
is that you take them on an individual basis and make a
recommendation for foreclosure. That's our only remedy right
now. We don't have any other means to handle those particular
cases.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I want done, and that's
Page 45
May 25, 2000
what I thought we were trying to do, but --
MS. ARNOLD: But it's not an automatic thing.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, but I remember when we got your
original list with the 400 and some thousand dollars and 800 and
all that, we told the county attorney to proceed. And the young
lady came back and said she was looking into it. And since that
day, zip. Now--
MS. ARNOLD: She's proceeded --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- what are we doing?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, she's proceeded on two. They've only
been filed, two out of the eight, that we forwarded to them.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, how -- has the county waived
it? Are they still continuing to accrue? I mean, what are we
doing? Nobody ever tells us.
MS. ARNOLD: What are you --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, if you're only proceeding on
two out of about eight, what happened to the other six?
MS. ARNOLD: They're --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I know the people didn't pay the
money.
MS. ARNOLD: No, they haven't paid the money.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the county doing?
MS. ARNOLD: They are processing the liens. That's what -- I
mean, not the liens but the foreclosure papers. I mean, the
County Attorney's Office has to go through whatever legal
findings that they need to do to process the paperwork.
All of what we can do in terms of giving them information
and title information has been done for those. But nothing --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're going to tell us all this next
month?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we'll tell you that next month.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For sure.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MR. PONTE: Is it possible we get somebody from the County
Attorney's Office here and --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I'll ask Ramiro Manalich to attend,
because Melissa Vasquez is leaving the County Attorney's Office.
I believe there's staffing problems is part of the reason why
things aren't getting processed as quickly as this board would
like.
Page 46
May 25, 2000
MR. PONTE: I mean, clearly we've got to build a bonfire
somewhere.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Foreclosures aren't that tough, I'm
sorry. I've been involved in a couple. They're not that tough to
do.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think it's a workload problem rather
than a difficult -- you know, whether or not it's difficult.
MR. PONTE: Did we -- by the way, just clarification here,
looking at -- the reports were supposed to be quarterly.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right.
MR. PONTE: And I'm looking at Case 91-003. Respondent is
Thibodeau. And that goes back to 1991.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I'm talking about.
MR. PONTE: Is that still --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Nobody will tell us whether it's still --
MS. ARNOLD: That's not the initial list. That's one of those
that you forwarded for foreclosure. And it's sitting in the County
Attorney's Office. I can't answer you any more than they're
preparing the case for foreclosure.
MR. PONTE: Then is there a way that we can communicate
with the County Attorney's Office and ask for a specific report on
all of the cases that have been put forward?
MS. RAWSON: I believe she said she would invite Mr.
Manalich here next month.
MR. PONTE: But he has to be prepared to answer, rather
than to whitewash the situation, which has been done in the
past.
MS. RAWSON: I'll be happy to share your feelings with him,
and I'm sure Michelle will as well.
MR. PONTE: So that he should be prepared to answer
specific cases. And give us a progress report, and not
generalizations.
MS. RAWSON: I'll be happy to give him a call.
MR. LEHMANN: I would recommend that the county
attorney be requested to show and do exactly that. And prepare
not only an updated spreadsheet but also an executive summary
on each case, so that we as a board have the ability to try to
make some informed decisions.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know, it gets extremely
disheartening that nine people sit up here going through all kind
Page 47
May 25, 2000
of contortions to do the right thing, and then it just dies. And the
public is sitting out there saying, I'm sure, no big deal, whatever
those people do doesn't matter. Because if we don't pay the
money, they're not going to do anything to us anyway. Which is
obvious by somebody who owes the county $467,000 and
somebody else who owes 800 and some thousand and nothing's
ever been done. One of my purposes was I wouldn't permit that
to happen and all of a sudden we're back in the same boat. Not
with those kind of numbers, but --
MS. ARNOLD: I disagree with that comment. None of the
fines that have been imposed are at that level. The ones that
you're making reference to are all those eight that have sat over
years and years. So --
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Mr. Combs was in '98, and I was here
in '98. 98-024, owes 46,500 bucks. Nice big number.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, and that was approved last year.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, you know--
MS. DUSEK: I think everybody's made their point, and I
think we just now need to give Michelle the opportunity to come
back and address everything that our chairman has asked. And
I'm sure she will.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not very impressive. Okay, I'll --
MS. RAWSON: Before we leave old business, you will recall
last month, and on Page 71 of your minutes, that you passed the
rules and regulations to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board. I have them here for you to sign. I'm just delighted that
all nine of you are here. I can't believe it.
And so I'm going to start them with Rhona and ask that you
pass them down and all put your signature on them. You can
look through them first, if you wish. And when they get to Darrin,
then you can give them to Michelle and she'll probably get copies
to you so that you'll all have them in your books in the future.
And thank you for doing that.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, besides a copy for my book,
I'd like a copy for myself, too. MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Because I normally don't take the book
home, but I like to take the things homes, because I read through
them.
Any other old business? How about any reports?
Page 48
May 25, 2000
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I added on the agenda we need to have
two members sit on a selection committee for a legal counsel.
The RFP, or the request for proposals, is going to be sent out, or
has been sent out. And we have a standard list. And based on
the responses that we get back, there's a committee that's
established of five -- a five-member committee, selection
committee. Two members are usually from the code board. We
have two staff people and one from purchasing. So I don't know
if you want to vote amongst yourselves who would sit on that
committee.
MS. DUSEK: I'd be interested.
MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'd be interested --
MS. DUSEK: I'd be interested also.
MR. LEHMANN: -- at the board's pleasure.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have two people that have voiced
their interest. Anybody else?
MS. RAWSON: Just so you understand how that procedure
works, the RFP's are sent out and an attorney is awarded -- the
contract is for one year, and then the right to be reviewed for
two subsequent years. So my two subsequent years that I've
been renewed are up. So I'll have to get in the RFP process like
everybody else.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would like to do it, but since
we have two people doing it, I trust their judgment and integrity
a lot, so I would acquiesce to them and I would recommend to
the board that those two be permitted to be on the committee.
MS. SAUNDERS: Done.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that all right with the board?
MR. PONTE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Terrific. You have your two members.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay, that was Peter Lehmann and Roberta
Dusek.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes.
Any other reports? Any comments?
Next meeting, June 22nd. Here.
MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I think I will be out of the
country on June 22nd. I'm not sure if I'm going to be back that
day or not. So put me down, and if I'm here, great. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay.
MR. KINCAID: I also will be gone.
Page 49
May 25, 2000
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay.
MR. KINCAID: I've already let Teresa know.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Very good.
Anybody else going to think they might be absent?
MS. DUSEK: Outside possibility.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other comments for the
meeting?
I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
MS. DUSEK: I make a motion we adjourn.
MR. LEHMANN: Second.
MR. KINCAID: Second.
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL:
saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FLEGAL:
All those these in favor, signify by
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:55 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR
Page 50