Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/18/2008 Closed Session (#12A-Blocker) Minutes BCC BLOCKER CLOSED SESSION November 18 , 2008 FINAL DISPOSITION FORM 1.998 This form is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting judicial workload data pursuant to Florida Statutes § 25.075, and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.100(c)(3) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA I. CASE STYLE COLLIER COUNTY, Case No.: 09-1281-CA Plaintiff, v. Judge: Frederick R.Hardt JERRY BLOCKER,et al., I Defendants. •ORIGINAL FILED H. MEANS OF FINAL DISPOSITION. (Place an"x" in one box only) M�sft 1 8 2013 X Dismissed Before Hearing COLLIER COUNTY CLERK _Dismissed Pursuant to Settlement—Before Hearing X Dismissed Pursuant to Mediated Settlement—Before Hearing Other—Before Hearing _ Dismissed After Hearing _Dismissed pursuant to Settlement—After Hearing _Dismissed Pursuant to Mediated Settlement—After Hearing _Other After Hearing Disposed by Default Disposed by Judge Disposed by Non-Jury Trial Disposed by Jury Trial Other: Signature of Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Collier County: C6962eAilthisQ4ce - 0 3 Colleen M.Greene,Esq. ate Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No:502650 cc: Gregory N.Woods,Esq.,Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Steven Bracci,Esq.,Counsel for Defendants Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker Wanda Collins,Trustee,Defendant Kenneth Blocker,Sr.,Movant to Intervene IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION JERRY B. BLOCKER and KIMBERLEA BLOCKER, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: 08-9355-CA COLLIER COUNTY, a political Judge: Frederick R. Hardt subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant. FINAL DISPOSITION FORM (Form 1.998) II. MEANS OF FINAL DISPOSITION(Place an"x"in one box only) ❑ Dismissed Before Hearing ❑ Dismissed After Hearing ❑Disposed by Default ❑ Disposed by Judge ❑ Disposed by Non jury Trial ❑ Disposed by Jury Trial X Other: Disposed by Court-Approved S t • ! ent Date: March 15,2013 Stev- . Bracci,Esq.` y Steven J. Bracci,PA Florida Bar#157562 2590 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Suite 208 Naples, Florida 34119 Ph: (239) 596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 Email: steve @braccilaw.com Secondary email: service @braccilaw.com Attorney for Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15th day of March,2013,a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished by Email or U.S.mail (as indicated below)upon: Gregory M. Woods,Esq. Woods,Weidenmiller&Michetti,P.L. 5150 N.Tamiami Trail, Suite 603 Naples,Florida 34103 Email:gwoods@lawfirmnaples.com Jeffrey Klatzkow,Esq. Steven Williams,Esq. Jacqueline Hubbard,Esq. Collier County Attorney's Office Harmon Turner Building 3301 Tamiami Trail E, Floor 8 Naples,FL 34112 Email: JeffKlatzkowa,colliergov.net Steven J. Bracci,Esq. Steven J. Bracci,PA Florida Bar#157562 2590 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Suite 208 Naples, Florida 34119 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 Email: steve @braccilaw.com Secondary email: service @braccilaw.com Attorney for Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker November 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, November 18, 2008 CLOSED SESSION Item #12A - Blocker LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 12:15 p.m., in ATTORNEY-CLIENT SHADE SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coyle (absent) Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Jacqueline Hubbard, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 Item #12A THE BOARD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSED: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF JERRY AND KIMBERLEA BLOCKER V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., CASE NO. 08-0066-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.- CLOSED SESSION MR. KLATZKOW: This is a mobile home park, I guess, is the best description. It's in an industrial zoned area in Immokalee, and it's been there forever. Adjacent to the property is an automobile wrecking kind of place. And the issue we have is, a number of years ago code enforcement started cracking down in Immokalee. The idea was to clean up Immokalee. This place has been there 50 years. For 50 years the county was okay with it. As you can see, you've got these units here. Directly adjacent to the units is the wrecking place; industrial zoned property in Immokalee. It does not allow this type of use. To the best that we can determine, going back to the '65 code, it has never allowed this use, all right, but it's been there, and for years we didn't do anything about it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How'd it get there? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oversight. MR. KLATZKOW: Over time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I mean, it was so far back in antiquity that no one cared, and it's just one of those things that, you know, look the other way because it's Immokalee. Tell them about the master plan and all that. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And they've been -- this has been Page 2 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 going on now three, four years, and they've always said, well, we're changing the master plan for Immokalee. Once that's done, we'll be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Everything will be okay. Yesterday I was talking to Commissioner Coletta, and he got Penny on the line. Penny tells me that the owner of this place tells her, no, I want to keep it industrial, all right. I don't want to change the zoning at all. So that the argument they've been giving us and they've been giving to the judges and everybody else for the last couple of years, that has just been for talk, all right. When it actually came time for them to actually deal with the visioning committee and change the zoning, they don't want to change the zoning. Now, I can understand from their perspective because industrial zoned land, generally speaking, has a greater value than residentially zoned land. So their intent right now, to me, appears to be that they want to keep this trailer unit going. It generates revenues for them. When the market gets to the point where they can sell this for industrial use, they'll sell it -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They'll do it. MR. KLATZKOW: -- for the industrial use and evict the tenants anyway, all right. The issue that I have for you is this. One, I have to come here because they've filed a Bert Harris claim on this. I think it has no merit, but under the statute I have to make some sort of offer to them within a statutory period of time that we're within. And two, what I'm going to tell you is the best thing I can do on this case is, at the end of the day, get this trailer park demolished and these people will be evicted. That's the best I can do, all right. I don't know if that is the result that this board wants. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I can help you with that, Jeff. If you're ever going to come to a point that you're going to shut down a trailer park, I doubt they're going to find anything that's going to be Page 3 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 as cheap as this because, I mean, this is as deplorable as Santos corner that we had to shut down. And remember then, the saying was, you're going to displace people, they won't find anyplace. There is a lot of empty real estate around Immokalee. It's going to cost more, but there is a place for these people to go now. I mean, you don't want to wait for the recovery to come and then take action again when Immokalee's full and it becomes a real issue. Can you give them plenty of time to do it in? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where I was going to go with this. Is this basically a slumlord that's -- is this a slumlord type of situation? MS. HUBBARD: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a slumlord as you get. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't -- I don't -- you know what, I think we -- we owe it to the people that they need to have better living conditions than what they're living in, okay? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do they -- did the owner -- MR. KLATZKOW: This is an aerial. This is their unit over here. This is where the car place is over here. It's -- you can just see it. It's just an industrial zoned area. People shouldn't be living here -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- at end of the day. But for Immokalee, that's been customary. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think Immokalee wants to change; am I right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Immokalee wants to change. They don't want to be Immokalee what they were 30 years ago, 40 years ago. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me help you with this. The Master Plan Committee is not in agreement to allow something like this to continue. They're not -- they're not willing to build anything in Page 4 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 place to be able to protect it. Penny Phillippi's the one that brought my attention to how severe the conditions were there. Now, you're going to have difference of opinion with some people that are going to say, you know, leave Immokalee alone. Leave it the way it is, but we never agreed with that. Boy, we've made a hell of a difference. This is probably one of the last deplorable places going. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's great. Boy, that's good news, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is. MR. KLATZKOW: They had a number of these parks throughout Immokalee that upgraded themselves a number of years ago. There was a program that the county manager's people put into place to do that, and they took advantage of it. He didn't take advantage of this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's their basis for a Bert Harris suit? MR. KLATZKOW: They have none. They're saying that, at the end of the day, we're now enforcing the law against them that's diminishing the fair market value of their property. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not if it's industrial. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They don't want to change it. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think they have a legitimate claim, but they throwing -- and Jackie can tell you, I mean, I've got books after books after books of litigation on this thing. They have been throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us trying to get things postponed as much as possible because it's a cash cow for them. We went through -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: May I weigh in on this? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Page 5 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: We do have residential next to industrial properties in Collier County. Did they -- Pine Ridge Industrial Park. Did they make any indications of what they would settle for or what they had in mind for settlement? MR. KLATZKOW: What they want is to keep the use there until it comes to the point in time where they flip the property, and they will upgrade the -- well, they say they'll upgrade the living conditions while this is going on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And how will they upgrade the conditions? MR. KLATZKOW: It's to be negotiated. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- what is the Master Plan Committee, their vision for this area? MR. KLATZKOW: Industrial, which it currently is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So that -- if we keep it industrial, they'll be in agreement with the Master Plan Committee? The problem is, is the present use that's been going on, you said, for 50 years? MR. KLATZKOW: Fifty years. I mean, it's evolved over the course of time, but it -- it appears there's been some residential there in some capacity for about 50 years. I mean, the trailers are old. Unless they took the trailers, old trailers, and put them on -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Probably rotting out and everything else. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know, because there's very few building permits on this place. It's kind of hard to track it from that standpoint. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It does have building permits; does it? MR. KLATZKOW: Not really, no. MS. HUBBARD: No. It appears there was a concrete block structure in the beginning. The 1965 zoning codes did not permit mobile homes, explicitly did not permit them in this area, but it looks Page 6 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 as if in the years after 1970 when you adopted your code, the number of trailer mobile homes just grew. There're now, I forgot, 30 something on there now? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. MS. HUBBARD: So I mean, they were -- the staff takes the position it was an illegal use, at best it was nonconforming. But they've increased the nonconformity, you know, 3- or 400 percent, if not more, by putting trailer -- I mean mobile home after mobile home on the lot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But those are in inspected by the State of Florida; is that correct? MS. HUBBARD: I have no idea. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they farmworkers? If they're farmworkers -- remember when we went over there and took our tour? If they're farmworkers, they're inspected by the State of Florida. If they're not farmworkers, they're not inspected. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a great revelation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think a mobile home, under the statutes, it -- and this is not my legal opinion. It's just that I have done research, all right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not a legal opinion? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't have a legal opinion. I do my homework. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That the State of Florida is the one who inspects mobile home installations, not local jurisdiction. MS. HUBBARD: I don't know. The only thing I can tell you is that the code in 1965, the code in 1970, they had a provision in there for mobile homes, a whole separate zoning provision for mobile homes, and this property was not in there, wasn't zoned for mobile homes. It had -- Page 7 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm just talking about inspecting when you put a mobile home in. MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea if it's been inspected. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask here. You said these things continue to appear, no permits or anything? MR. KLATZKOW: There were no tie-down permits. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then nobody knows that they're even coming on board. Who would inspect them? MS. HUBBARD: True. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's true. I don't know how the state department works on those. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do you know they're appearing, right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if they did. That's a good question. But I know the county doesn't -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's a code enforcement case because it's, in the opinion of staff, an unlawful use. That's how this started. And their opinion, we've been here 50 years, why do you care? And the response is, we're trying to clean Immokalee up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we owe it to the citizens of Immokalee to get it cleaned up. I think there's a dawning of a new era there, and I really think that they're looking to us to figure out how we're going to clean it up. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And we -- I mean, the Code Enforcement Board years ago ruled against them, and fines are accruing daily. At this point in time they're how much? MS. HUBBARD: They're over $400,000 in accrued fines. MR. KLATZKOW: Just -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: What they need to do is clean it up, and we'll forego the fines. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, do you want them to clean it up or get Page 8 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 rid of it? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Get rid of it. MS. HUBBARD: Demolish. That's what the board -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And forego the fines. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: $400,000 in fines has been accruing for how long? MR. KLATZKOW: This goes back at least two-and-a-half years. I remember arguing with Patrick White on this one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somehow I don't even want to forego all those fines, because if they've been snubbing their nose at us and now -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're famous for it. They've -- the Blockers have been -- they rule Immokalee. They had in the past, and things just went their way. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. We'll go half, then the rest is negotiable. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That would be a little more reasonable. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How's that sound? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I agree. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they can keep it as industrial property, and some day it will -- they'll reap the gold from it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they have to clean it up, right? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Get rid of what they've got now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we'll forego half the fines. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that you'd have to vote on out in the open, if that's what you want. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions, comments? COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you think, Chair? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, listen. We're so successful, let's tackle another subject. Page 9 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you think, Chair? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you've got an ongoing use the government never did anything about, and the -- what -- the comments here, I don't think is reasonable. I mean, I think we need to try to settle with them. They want to continue the use, you should put a finite time on it, and after that, it goes away. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you're both saying the same thing. You're not going to be able to go and tell them tomorrow they're going to remove everything. There's going to have to be a time part in there that's realistic. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what the code enforcement issue is, is that time has passed where they needed to remove the mobile homes or get it rezoned. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The way this worked in the Code Enforcement Board is they went to the Blockers and said, look, go out there and get this thing rezoned. I'll give you the time to do it. They never bothered to do that. Time ran out, it came back to the Code Enforcement Board. Did you get this rezoned? No, didn't get it rezoned because we've got this visioning program going on and we've got to wait for that. And the -- after a couple of sessions, Code Enforcement Board got angry and just whacked them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'm saying, don't do the rezone. Let them continue the operation for a finite period. And after that, those trailers need to go. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would you do that when all of this effort has already been made to do that? They've got $400,000 in fines while they continue to thumb their nose at us, and they've been appearing -- bringing these things on line without ever getting any permits no matter -- this whole thing shows that they have been violating every single law. Why would we give them a break at all? COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're absolutely right. Page 10 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: Only because for years -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, wait a minute. She asked me a question. I think she wants an answer. Because it's been going on for 50 years and government hasn't done anything for it in a 50-year time frame. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but we have. We've taken them before the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just in the last two years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. So that's two years that they've had to clean it up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, if somebody had a use for a long period of time and government hasn't done anything about it, I think they play a part in it, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think government's trying to do something. That's why they're suing us, right? They're suing us with the Bert Harris Act now. MS. HUBBARD: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: One possible -- I'm trying to bridge what everybody's saying. One possible thing we can do is we can say, look, you can stay there until you've got the new Immokalee master plan in place. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't know when that's going to be. COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, that's the problem. And this is what Jim was saying just before. We don't know when that Immokalee master plan will be in effect. Let's face it, they've been working at it two years and it's still not done -- not very close at all. Second of all, right now while the economy is down and while people can find places to live that are reasonably priced, he said now is the time to do this before the economy begins to pick up again and then they won't have a place. So I think what our -- we should take action now. Page 11 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree, too. But I mean, still, Commissioner Henning's right about, there has to be an identified time period to have so that everybody can make the transition they have to make. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about one year? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe that would be reasonable. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But what happens after one year if they thumb their nose and they decide not to do anything? The fines continue from where they left off-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- like they never stopped? MR. KLATZKOW: We could take that approach. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we negotiate. We can take off half the fines if they agree to it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Once they clean it up, we take half the fine off. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They've got to agree to it. In that case, if they do it or not, we'll take it off. COMMISSIONER HALAS: They've got to agree, yes. MR. KLATZKOW: So one approach -- and you'll have to vote on this -- would be that they have X amount of time, you know, to shut it down. At that point in time they have to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And clean it up. MR. KLATZKOW: Clean it up. And at that point in time the fines will be reduced by a wide percent and what the board agrees to, and I can take that as a settlement offer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, how does Tom feel about it now that it's answering some of his concerns about time, giving them Page 12 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 time and so forth. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think one year's enough -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You just said they had 50. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. They've had the use for 50 years, government hasn't done anything for -- hang on -- for 48 years and -- you know, the last two years that something's going on. When you've had a long-term use like that, I just have a problem with someone saying you've got to, you know, shut it down in a year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many votes do we need on this? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's a majority vote. So in this case it's going to be three. MS. HUBBARD: Well, you have to vote outside. MR. KLATZKOW: But that will be outside. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just before we go -- I hate to leave it hanging like that. What do you seek as realistic as far as time goes? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Five years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no. Never go for that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've been working two years on it already. They realize that they've got a problem. They should also realize that they've brought additional living facilities there without -- and they circumvented the county's codes in regards to it. We have no idea what kind of permits they've got or anything else. Obviously they don't. So I think, since the commissioner of that district has been involved in trying to clean up Immokalee and to get it to the community that a lot of people are expecting, I think that the two years plus an additional year should be more than sufficient to take care of the problems that they have there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How does the additional year figure into that? Explain that. Page 13 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: The additional year, at least they understand that they have to move on this thing and that they have to clean the property up. It has to be void of all of these living -- the slum trailers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He means we've already got two years under our belt, not two years more. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I thought you were trying to go to two years. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. We've already got the two years already that we've addressed this issue with them, and to no avail. So they've accumulated all these fines and so we're saying that you've got another year to get this thing taken care of, and then we'll forego half the fines. If they don't, then the fines remain in place and then we may have to go to litigation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, let's see if there's a possibility there might be a compromise here, not that I want to give away anything. Could you vote for, Commissioner Henning, if we went to 18 months? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if we can do that in a shade session. MS. HUBBARD: You can't agree -- you can't make any agreements. MR. KLATZKOW: You can't in here. You're having discussions but you can't agree on anything. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we have to go out there and CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's just my understanding. MR. KLATZKOW: Out in the public. I mean, the broad terms of the agreement -- MS. HUBBARD: Bear in mind, we are in litigation right now. They have sued the county. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have to do anything -- now Page 14 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 that they've sued us, do we have to discuss that as well, that lawsuit, or is that what we've been doing right here? MR. MUDD: Ma'am, from what I could basically get, what Jeff needs is, on the Bert Harris, you've got to make an offer, and what he basically laid out, the particular issues here, he's going to look to the board from the dais to give an offer that he can go back to the Blockers and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you mean an offer of settlement, a financial settlement, or the stuff that we've been talking about now? MR. KLATZKOW: That's an offer. MS. HUBBARD: Same thing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Same thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That's the offer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. I didn't understand that. Thank you. MS. HUBBARD: You know, or not, whatever you decide. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The offer could be that they pound salt. It's whatever you guys want. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we're doing, at least we're coming halfway. You know, we're saying the fines are this amount of-- MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to tell you, I'm very conflicted on this. I'm very conflicted on this because, on the one hand, people shouldn't have to live in these kinds of conditions. On the other hand, we've let it go on for 50 years and didn't care about it. So, you know, I'm like -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So give them another five so we can let it go five more years? MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm just saying. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aren't we already tearing all of that Page 15 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 stuff down and we're not giving anybody any years? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. We've gone in there in other areas and made those people bring their property up to good-standing living conditions so the people don't have to live in squaller. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we done? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jeff, didn't they provide you communications and we put off this closed-door session -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. They gave us a copy of the '65 code claiming that we were under these provisions. They were vested. Jackie and I went through it and had discussions with staff, and there was no difference. MS. HUBBARD: No. MR. KLATZKOW: What they claim the code said and what the code said were two different things. MS. HUBBARD: They also offered $5,000, right, to pay us $5,000? MR. KLATZKOW: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. So we -- we really didn't hear any of the stuff of what they're willing to settle for? MS. HUBBARD: Yeah. We should probably -- we need to convey that. MR. KLATZKOW: It's in your agenda package. MS. HUBBARD: Their letter's in there, but my understanding of it is that they would pay us -- MR. KLATZKOW: The settlement offer is in the agenda package as backup. MS. HUBBARD: $5,000. MR. KLATZKOW: They basically want to stay there until they decide not to. They'll put the money back into the trailer park and they'll pay us like $5,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You'll have to excuse me. You Page 16 — Item #12A (Blocker) November 18, 2008 still have three commissioners here. I really have to go. (Commissioner Coletta left the conference room.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I don't have any questions. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Terri? THE COURT REPORTER: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. We're out of closed session. We're breaking for lunch and we'll be back out there whenever. (The closed attorney-client session concluded at 12:38 p.m.) ***** TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 17 — Item #12A (Blocker) MINUTES Blocker November 18 , 2008 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING L. MOTION AND, IF FILED,DETERMINED .. -;.- IN THE DISTRICT COURTOF OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT �, sr m ti JERRY BLOCKER and KIMBERLEA BLOCKER, ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Case No.2D10-1025 ) COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, constituted as THE BOARD OF ) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and the ) COLLIER COUNTY CODE ) ENFORCEMENT BOARD, ) Respondents. ) Opinion flied November 10,2010. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit for Collier County; sitting In Its appellate capacity. Margaret L. Cooper of Jones, Foster, Johnston &Stubbs, P.A.,West Palm Beach,and Patrick G.White of Porter, Wright, Morris&Arthur, LLP, Naples,for Petitioners. Jacqueline Williams Hubbard,of Office of the Collier County Attorney, Naples,for Respondent Collier County. No appearance for Respondent Collier County Code Enforcement Board. i f PER CURIAM. Denied. i CASANUEVA,C.J., and NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM,JJ.,Concur. i 1 -2- • • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION JERRY AND KIMBERLEA BLOCKER Appellants, • v. Case No.08-66-CA COLLIER COUNTY,a political subdivison of In Re:CEB Cases Nos. the State of Florida,constituted as THE BOARD 2006-16 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and the 2006-p p COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT 200118 8 '^ rti! BOARD, o ' '' co r E -0 .fl Appellees. zv w r FINAL APPEAL ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Appellants' Request for Oral Argument on December 15, 2009. Having heard argument of counsel, reviewed the memoranda of law filed by the parties, reviewed the entire record, and being • fully advised in the premises,the Court finds as follows: 1. This appeal pertains to an April 27,2006 quasi-judicial hearing before the Collier County Code Enforcement Board ('CEB1 on several alleged violations of the Collier County Code of Ordinances by Appellants. 2. The violations were: (1)unlawful and inappropriate development and residential use of industrial-zoned property previously zoned I-C-3; (a) without I Collier County Zoning and Planning review; (b) without an approved Site Development PIan; (c) without valid Collier County building permits; and perpetuating a use inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Immokalee Master Plan. 3. The Appellants' Property consists of three separate parcels with three separate tax folio numbers and operates as one mobile home park with the Appellants,owners as of 2002. The Collier County Code Enforcement Department issued one separate Notice of Violation for each property and three case numbers were assigned (2006-16, 2006-17, and 2006-18). The three properties have been treated the same, as if one subject property. The CEB issued three separate orders for the properties. 4. The Court notes that the applicable standard of review by a circuit court of an administrative agency decision is limited to:(1)whether procedural due process was accorded; (2) whether the essential requirements of law have been I observed; and (3) whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence. The Court is not entitled to reweigh the evidence,to reevaluate the credibility of the evidence, or to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. See Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d. 523 (Fla. 1995). . 2 • 5. The appeal of the CEB orders is not a hearing de novo but is limited to a review of the record created before the CEB. See Fla. Stat. § 162.11. See also City of Deerfield Beach v. Valliant,419 So. 2d 624,626 (Fla. 1982). 6. At the conclusion of the CEB hearing, the Blockers were found to be in violation of the County's zoning regulations by operating a mobile home park in an area designated non-residential. In this case, the CEB decision was rendered only ailer a duly noticed hearing, where testimony was given, and evidence was presented to a neutral quasi-judicial body. 7. The only building permits and applications for building permits produced at the hearing were(1) 1963 permit#4086 for construction of a concrete residence; (2) January 28, 1963 application for permit# 4089 for an addition to a CBS structure; (3)July 19, 1967 permit# 67-759 for an addition for a kitchen and car port; (4)July 31, 1985 permit#1-85-362 for the replacement of a mobile home; (5)July 31, 1985 permit#1-85-363 for the replacbment of a mobile home; and (6) an October 17, 1990 application for a permit for a screen enclosure. 8. Copies of the 1965 and 1970 Collier County Zoning Regulations were presented to the CEB. Mobile homes were not permitted adjacent to any zone higher than R-3. The 1970 Zoning Regulations for Immokalee Area Zoning referred to non-conforming lots and non-conforming uses and provided for non- 3 • . • • • . conformities, including mobile homes, to be discontinued within one year of the effective date of the 1970 ordinance. 9. The 1967 permit issued to add a kitchen and car port to a concrete block structure indicated the zoning was Retail Commercial District-2, ("C-2"), or Commercial Light Industrial District-3, ("C-3"). However,in 1967,"C-2"and"C- 3" excluded mobile homes. ' 10. In 1985, two (2) mobile homes were permitted to replace old ones. However,no permits were presented for the original mobile homes. 11. According to permit evidence presented at the hearing, by 1965 there were only two permitted concrete structures. By the time of the April 27, 2006 hearing, there were thirty-one (31)residential structures, mostly mobile homes, on the lots owned by the Blockers. 12. A non-permitted use under the applicable Collier County Zoning Codes becomes a "non-conforming use." A "non-conforming use" cannot be expanded. 13. At the time of the hearing on the violations, some of the dwellings extended over into the adjacent junkyard easement area. The adjacent property is zoned for junkyard use and immediately west of the mobile homes is an active junkyard facility. 14. The Blockers failed to comply with any of the CEB Orders and . 4 • • • Notices of Violations; and in 2007, Affidavits of Non-Compliance and Requests for Imposition of Fines were issued. • 15. The Court has accepted the CEB's findings of facts and has not substituted its findings for those of the CEB. 16. The Court further finds: (1) the Collier County CBS afforded the parties due process of law; (2) the Collier County CEB's Orders meet the essential requirements of law; and (3) the Orders are supported by competent substantial evidence. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: the orders of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board are affirmed and the Appellant's appeal is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Naples,Collier County,Florida, this O day o3+v �10. The .• • : .1/ ugh D.Hayes Circuit Court Judge State of FL*. mu. County so 111 "i Pt, conformed copies t o: Jacqueline H u b b a r d,E s q. % , d Margaret mss/Esq. { Y C I�'' f§.a true nnd correct Paxricic O.�'%be,Esq. of adiocumer> i corded in fhe.OFFICIAL ovvif r. �„ CaugylNF7N �g�y hand 41(x 9s.... 2/0%Ito c7 aid officio!:�--,r� ' •;toD/kit,S%;("La q :-, QUtns • /i '• - r, D.C.••'J -•.......� . • 5