Backup Documents 09/29/2009 Item #16I
16/
'J
'':If
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 29, 2009
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of June 26, 2008; November 20,2008.
2) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of May 21,2009; June 2,2009.
3) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of September 17, 2008 - unsigned.
4) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of July 9, 2008.
5) East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Studv Public
Participation Master Plan Committee:
Minutes of September 3, 2008; September 8, 2008.
B. Other:
1) Heritage Greens Community Development District:
Notice of assessment and upcoming public hearing dated
July 20, 2009.
16/1Al
'"
June 26, 2008
/
RECEIVED
JUL 2 2 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF
CODEENFORCEMENTBO~ ~~
Naples, Florida Halas v
6 Henning
June 2 , 2008 Coyle
Coletta
LET IT BE REI\1EMBERED, that the Code Enforcelnent Board,
,'Io<iW of COWltY Co~
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 Govermnent COlnplex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Gerald Lefebvre
Larry Dean
Kenneth Kelly (Excused)
Edward Larsen
Robert Kaufman
Richard Kraenbring (Excused)
Lionel L'Esperance
George Ponte
ALSO PRESENT:
Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board
Michelle A1nold, .Code Enforcement Director
Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator
Misc. Corres:
Date: () c; i ;f-:J J rfj
Item:J G~lillA\
P ag e 1
'-
:G~5 to:
......... ~ .. "1
16 r 1" 1 ..
June 26~ 2008
CHAIRlvlAN LEFEB\lRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcelnent
Board meeting to order for June 26,2008.
Notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case
presentation unless additional time is granted by the board.
Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to
five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman.
All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to
observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the
court reporter can record all statements being made.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the 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.
Can I have the roll call.
MS. MARKU: Good morning. Bendisa Marku, Collier County
Code Enforcement Operations Coordinator.
Mr. Edvvard Larsen?
MR. LARSEN: Present.
MS. MARKU: Mr. George Ponte?
MR. PONTE: Here.
MS. MARKU: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre?
. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here.
MS. MARKU: Mr. Kenneth Kelly has an excused absence.
Mr. Larry Dean?
MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Present.
MS. MARKU: Mr. Richard Kraenbring has an excused absence.
Mr. Robeli Kaufman?
PaQ:e 2 '-'
161
\itA 1 ~,
J une _/tl~ 2008
l'v1R. KAUF~1AN: Here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\1RE: Two things. First of all, I'd like to
welcome our new member, Robert Kaufman.
And second of all, this is going to be J\1ichelle Arnold's last
meeting. She's been with code enforcement for 10 years. And I've
had the privilege to be on the board for six of those years and enjoyed
\vorking with her. And if any of the board members would like to
thank her, they can go ahead.
IvIR. PONTE: Well, I certainly want to thank Michelle for
everything she's done. I think her organizational skills are
extraordinary. And she certainly has helped this board and helped me
in a \vay by giving me something to always remember, and that is that
ugly is not illegal.
Thank you, Michelle, for everything.
IvfS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
MR. DEAN: I'm really shocked, because you're a great
inspiration to board people and the cOlTIlTIunity. And can we change
your mind in any way?
MS. ARNOLD: I think it's a done deal.
MR. DEAN: Can I ask you where you're going?
MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to be the Alternate Transportation
Mode Director. So I'm going to go to the Transportation Department
MR. DEAN: Oh, so you won't be --
MS. ARNOLD: -- starting Tuesday. I'm not going to go too far.
I'll still be around.
MR. DEAN: So we can still come by and say hi.
MS. ARNOLD: That's right.
MR. PONTE: If you take the bus.
MS. ARNOLD: That's right, take the bus.
MR. LARSEN: It's been an honor and a privilege to know you
and to serve on this board with you.
Page 3
1., /'...1
, ~,j; ic.
.. \..i J
1 A 1.
June~6, 2008
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Michelle, thank you so much for your
service. Y ou're just incredible. W.e all appreciate it so Illuch.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
And I like the new mustache.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. You're the first one to say
anything.
MS. RAWSON: If I could say something. One of the reasons
that I've been the attorney for this board for so many years is because
of Michelle An101d. She's the finest code enforcement director I've
ever known. And she's so professional and she does such a good job.
It's been such a pleasure to work with her. That's one of the reasons
that I've hung around to represent you guys for so long is because of
my relationship and my very pleasant working relationship and my
respect for Michelle Arnold. So vve wish her well.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you so n1uch.
MR. PONTE: I make a motion we all stand and give her
applause.
(Applause.)
MR. DEAN: I'll second that lllotion.
MS. ARNOLD: I really appreciate it. I was going to hope that
all of the thanks and gratitude was going to stay till the end of the
meeting but -- so I could keep IllY composure throughout the meeting
until the end.
It's been IllY pleasure to vY'ork with all of you and all of the other
prior board lllembers and Jean and our court reporter, who's been a
consistent fixture in these proceedings for over the years that I've been
here for over 10 years. And all of IllY staff, they've been wonderful.
And I hope that you all have recognized the iInprovements that I
have made to the department over the years. And just thank you for
all of your help and dedication to this community, really, because I
think all of the hard work that you all do is why Collier County is as
Page 4
16111\1 h'4
June 26, 2008
beautiful as it is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\lRE: Thanks.
Do \ve have any changes to the agenda?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, \ve do.
We have several stipulations. Item 4.C.2 is a stipulation. It ,vill
become 4.A.1 -- or 4.B.1.
Item 4.C.3 is also stipulation. It will become 4.B.2. And item
4.C.5 is also stipulated. It will become 4.B.3.
We also have another stipulation, item number eight -- 4.C.8 will
become 4.B.4.
And item nine under hearings is going to be continued to next
month's hearing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion to approve the
agenda?
MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda.
MR. PONTE: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Motion is passed.
Approval of the n1inutes of the last month's meeting, May 22nd,
2008. Do I have a motion?
MR. PONTE: I'lllnake a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second?
MR. LARSEN: I second it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
Page 5
~
16 i iJA~, 20~8
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFJVLAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Abstain.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have one abstaining.
We're going to move on to public hearings. Motion. And the first
motion for rehearing will be BCC versus Emma Houston.
MS. ARNOLD: You all have received a letter from Ms. Houston
requesting a rehearing. Ms. Houston is not here today. She has not
Inet the time requirements for a motion for rehearing --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what I was going to ask, okay
MS. ARNOLD: -- and for those reasons, staff is objecting to that
request.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was my first question, if she
met the time requirements.
We also have her further down the list for motion of imposition
of fines also.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. And that's a staff request.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I have any discussion
from the board? Or -- the county objects, correct?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Correct.
MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to deny the motion for
rehearing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: .A.ye.
Page 6
16/ 1 A 1
';6 ;008
J un e k , ~
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: :L\1otion passes.
Okay, the next one will be unopposed motion to dismiss without
prejudice, BCC versus Patriot Square, LLC.
MS. ARNOLD: And that's the county's request. We are just
asking that the existing order that's on the record be dismissed without
prejudice and the item will COIne back. There was an issue with the
notification in that particular case.
MR. LARSEN: I make a motion we approve the county's
request.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
The next one will be a motion for extension of time. BCC versus
Bali and Sandi Chernoff.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. CHERNOFF: I go first?
"--'
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's your request.
MR. CHERNOFF: Okay. This was a -- I've been -- this is lny
third tilne here. I bought a hOlne with illegal structures on it, vvhich I
Page 7
161 j~)~
June 26, 2008
found out \vhen I got violated on an anonyn1ous phone call for an
apartment I built. Litigating -- you know, there's stamp -- there's
reasons I built it. I had a very sick n10ther- in-law and I could not do it
legally, so I did build this and I take full responsibility.
\Ve've already gone through all this.
I've asked for time for the lawsuit. I am suing the previous owner
who built the main thing that I'm being violated for, which is the pole
barn, vyhich is a very big structure that I'm trying to resolve. That's
why I asked for time.
Originally Supervisor Mitchell was there with Code Enforcement
Board, who gave me time as long as I didn't sit on this thing and I
moved forward.
After that, a new supervisor came in and said not on my shift.
You're not getting any more time. And that's when I came in front of
the code board.
You guys granted me six Inonths with my attorney, which she
gave me something to read. I'll read in a second. Gave Ine six months.
I have no control over the time. It's a lawsuit. I can't tell the
judge when to hear the case, I can't tell the judge when to do what.
I'm at the mercy of the court and of you guys.
The six months came. You gave me three months additional,
which originally Mr. Kelly, he's not here today, but he expected it to
take over a year. And at that time he told me come back. As long as
you come back beforehand we shouldn't have a problem granting you
time, again, as long as things 1110ve forward.
I do have an attorney, she's not here today. She has asked me to
read this.
To the IneInbers of Code Enforcement Board, please accept my
apology for being absent from the hearing. I am out of town on a long
scheduled commitlnent \vhich I could not change when Mr. Chernoff
asked Ine to request another appearance.
Even though Mr. Chernoff is prepared to present his argument to
Page 8
1 t. ~
.. \,.i i:
lAl ".
June 26, 2008
the board, I "vant to give the board an update to the status of litigation.
The former owner has admit1ed under oath in deposition to building
the pole ban1 without a pen11it. 'tV e have provided the fom1er owner
with an estimate for demolition, rebuilding of the pole barn, and have
offered to review any bid that he Inight get for the demo and
replacement.
The matter has been noticed for trial, but per requirements of the
court we must mediate first, which my office has attempted to
coordinate in the mediation.
Counsel for the fOffi1er owner filed a notice of \vithdrawal from
the case. \Ve have set the mediation directly with the former owner by
mail for July 24th but have not been able to confirm with the former
owner personally that he will attend. Should he fail to attend, we will
rllove for default and ask the court to proceed to trial for determination
of damages.
We had hoped, because both parties \vere represented by counsel
that clearly saw that as a matter appropriate for settlement, that we
would settle the matter without trial and rneet the board's deadlines. It
is my guess it will not settle and will proceed to trial on the amount of
damages.
Mr. Chernoff is prepared to answer the board's questions and
state his ability to comply with the board's order without payment
from the party that build the nonconfonning structures. Thank you,
Co lleen McAllister.
Again, I've done everything everybody's asked of me. The
structure that I built I take full responsibility for. It's all tied into one.
I do have an engineer working on what I built, which will becolne
legal as -- not an apartment. My in-laws have passed and it won't be
an apartment anymore, it will be a storage unit.
It is not in use. I've invited Mr. Morad out to the property several
tin1es to confirm that I'n1 doing nothing vvrong. I've complied.
I need tin1e. That's what this is about. My hands are tied. I have
Paze 9
'--
16 I it A 1 4
June 26, 2008
a counsel. "\"1 e're not sitting on it, she's Inoving.
Again, like Colleen said, under deposition the owner has
admitted he built it, which basically, you know, he falsified the sale.
I'm not tlying to get my house back to him, I just want to get what is
mine, what I bought.
As far as the apartment, again I'm ready to move on that. I have
an engineer ready. But it's all tied into one now. And that's where I
am. I need more time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator?
lv1R. MORAD: For the record, Ed Morad, Code Enforcement
Investigator.
The county respectfully denies this motion, and for several
reasons, several facts.
As I\.1r.Chemoff has pointed out, he's been responsible, not just
for -- the pole barn wasn't his responsibility. However, the dwelling
unit and the large exercise studio was. And that's what brought
attention to the pole barn, per se, that construction.
This case started March 12th, 2006, well over two years ago.
And the violation, as he pointed out, still exists. There's not been a
penny of fines imposed on this for more than two years.
The respondent has tried to -- in October of 2006 he filed a civil
action against the previous owner. The judge denied the civil action.
The respondent can reduce the width of that pole barn and that
would hence eliminate the encroachment issue, and then he could
proceed with his pennitting process. But he hasn't taken that
opportunity as of yet. And still can take that opportunity.
The most impoliant fact of this whole thing is, as pointed out in
the respondent's second Inotion for extension, nUlnber eight, the board
cautioned that another extension would not be granted. So we hope
that you would keep your word on this.
MR. CHERNOFF: Can I respond to hiln?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure.
Page 10
161
liA 1 ~
June 26~ 2008
MR. CHERNOFF: First of all, the court never told lne that my
action was denied or we wouldn't be here today \vith Colleen. The
'"
lawsuit has continued --
MR. MORAD: This is the document that you gave lue as proof
of filing that civil action against the property o\;vner.
MR. CHERNOFF: Right.
MR. MORAD: Then you also told me in Novelnber that year,
2006, that the judge denied this judgment, and that's what I'm going
on.
MR. CHERNOFF: No, the lawsuit has gone forward. And I
have counsel. She isn't here today, but I have counsel and it has gone
forward and we're close.
MR. MORAD: Correct. You got counsel after attempting to do
this judgment on your ow-n.
MR. CHERNOFF: Right, because things were happening where
I needed counsel. I was being taken advantage of with this. So I had
to get counsel. I couldn't afford counsel. And I'm very lucky Mrs.
McAllister has taken this the way she has. But this lawsuit is still the
same lawsuit. It has never been denied or canceled, it is still ongoing.
MR. MORAD: Once again, I'm just going by your statement,
which I documented in my comments of my case. So I just took you
for your word.
MR. CHERNOFF: You might have heard me wrong, Ed,
because this thing has never ended.
MS. ARNOLD: The county's position is that we object to the
request. And it's mainly because the respondent has the ability to take
action towards cOlnpliance. And \vhat he's asking the board to do is to
\vait for his decision in the courts before cOInpliance is n1ade.
I understand that they're proceeding with that suit and they're
trying to mediate. But that information was presented to the board at
the last hearing. And I'm not sure that they v/ere coming any closer to
con1ing to a settlelnent.
Page 11
:-i''''
lAl --
June 26, 2008
I'm not really sure whether -- I agree \vith hin1, this could take
years. And so its up to the board if you want to wait a year or 1110re
and possibly not get any closer, because he may not be successful in
his trial, or ask him to come into compliance and then settle his suit
outside of these proceedings.
MR. CHERNOFF: If I had the money to do that, Michelle, it
would have been done already. That's why the lawsuit has gone. And
we have gotten closer. We do have on deposition, okay, the former
owner, he has admitted liability. He admitted he built it.
MS. ARNOLD: And Ms. Chemoffs noted -- she noted that at
the last hearing.
MR. CHERNOFF: No, absolutely not. That has happened on
deposition since the last hearing, okay. That's what I'm saying. This
is moving forward, we are gaining ground. Now it's just a matter of
damages, and that's where we're at.
And what I'm asking you for is, you know, please don't cut it off
when it's close.
Again, I don't want to bring up old things, but you have. The guy
that started this whole thing, the anonymous phone call --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't want to rehear the case. I
think you made your point. You're looking to extend the time, and I
think it would be up to the board at this point to Inake a decision if we
want to extend the time or go ahead and not extend the tilne.
And if that were to occur, then you could come back at the time
of imposing the fines when we go to impose the fines and you come
back to us and state that you feel that you need a reduction in fines
because you now have proceeded and were diligent.
So I'lll going to close the public hearing. And do I have any
questions --
MR. DEAN: I have a question.
Mr. Morad, you stated that in six lnonths that you guaranteed
there \vould be nothing after six n10nths. But I'ln reading on the first
Page 12
I lA 1 ~:;
( J
June 26,2008
page, additional tin1e could be granted by discretion of the board.
MR. MORAD: What I was in reference to is the second motion
for the extension that his counsel sublnitted, item number eight. Itfs
stated in there, her \vords, it's stated in there.
MS. ARNOLD: In your order, her Exhibit B, your order states,
the respondent -- motion for extension of time is granted. The
respondents are granted an extension of 90 days. No additional
extension of time shall be granted to the respondent.
IvlR. DEAN: The second part, the nonconfoffi1ing, there's no use
in that building no\v that you know of, they don't use it but for storage
only?
MR. MORAD: My understanding is that there's no one living in
that dwelling unit.
MR. DEAN: But there could -- is an apartment in fact in there?
MR. MORAD: Oh, yes, sir. I have documented pictures. It was
a two-bedroom, full bath, full kitchen dwelling unit with an
screen-enclosed porch.
MR. LARSEN: I'm persuaded by the county's arguments that
there could have been some mitigation by the respondents during the
period that they did receive an extension of time.
And in light of the clear order of the board, dated the 2nd day of
April, 2008 and the testin10ny here, I'd like to make a motion to deny
the second motion for an extension of time by the respondents.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, the lTIotion hasn't been
seconded. So--
Is there any more questions of the board -- from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a lTIotion to approve the
extension and what tin1e frmTIe?
MR. PONTE: I'llll1ake a n1otion to approve. And given the fact
Page 13
16 I t '~Je 26, 2~08
that a court ordered Inediation is set for August 12th, I think we ought
to give it certainly 60 days beyond August 12th or \vhatever that
works out to be, sOlnetime in September, I guess.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I'm not sure with the -- I don't
know if it's going to be rectified then, due to the fact that the -- one of
the attorneys has removed himself from the case.
MR. PONTE: \\1 ell, I'm not too sure exactly what the procedures
are in mediation, whether or not even attorneys have to be present.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what's the tilne fraIne you're
looking?
~. PONTE: Well, I think after the mediation, we have to give
it 30 days, let's say. And this is August --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: September.
MR. PONTE: Yeah, September.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: September meeting?
MR. PONTE: The Septelnber meeting.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. In the event of an
extension, what's the likelihood, if you are the winner of this suit, that
you will actually receive any money?
MR. CHERNOFF: I have done -- when I was doing this on my
own I went on line and found that the previous owner has several
other properties, which n1Y counsel has said we could levy. We can't
take his house, but we can take evelything in his house, his cars, his
trucks, everything that -- clothes on his back. So there is money to be
had. That's through my counsel.
MR. KAUFMAN: My question would be that although they
have resources, what is the likelihood of obtaining those resources? I
guess it's a money issue to get the work done.
So, I mean, could that take another six months or a year or --
what happens at that point if you are found to have \von your case but
the collection is not fOlihcon1ing?
MR. CHERNOFF: I don't know the legal end of it. That's vvhy Ir
Page 14
1
l:i
rA1 ~
June 26, 2008
have counsel. And Jean Inight be able to help you v/ith that, I don't
know".
MS. RAWSON: Ajudgn1ent is a piece of paper that you then
have to enforce. So he would have to go back to court again, or his
attorney would, and try to enforce the judgment with a proceeding
supplemental. It's hard to say ho\v long it would take.
I don't think he's asking you for that long. I think he's asking you
to give him time after the mediation to get in front of the judge.
CHAIRlviAN LEFEBVRE: All right, vve have a motion on the
table. Looking for a second.
MR. DEAN: I'll second that 111otion.
CHAIRlviAN LEFEB\lRE: And all those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONT.E: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRlviAN LEFEBVRE: All those against.
Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The motion passes for extension to
September's meeting. And--
MS. RA'VSON: That would be September the 25th.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: September the 25th.
MR. CHERNOFF: And then we come in front of you again and
go from there?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you very l11uch.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And n1ake sure you bring
docul11entation showing whatever has occurred on hopefully the
August 12th --
MR. CHERNOFF: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- n1eeting.
Page 15
'-'
161 1Al
.
~~'~l
June 26, 2008
MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to have him waive
notice or -- Jean?
MS. RAWSON: He can waive notice but, you know, it's so far
away that I'm sure Bendisa will probably get the notices out anyway.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. You'll receive a letter,
along with your attorney.
MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome.
MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we're going to move to
stipulated agreelnents. The first one, if I'm not mistaken, is BCC
versus Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc.
MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note that Ms.
Houston did come into the room after her particular request was
decided upon, and I didn't know whether or not you wanted to kind of
advise her of that recommendation, or I could have staff do that.
Okay, he's motioning to TIle that he already did. So never mind, I
guess we can proceed with the next case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Again, we're going to proceed to the
stipulations, which is BCC versus Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, code enforcement
supervisor, Jeff Letourneau.
I met with Ephrain Arcy (phonetic), who is the owner of Caribe
Investments, this morning before the board hearing and he agreed to
enter into a stipulated agreement, stipulating basically that the
violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate and
he stipulated to their existence.
And the violations are of Section 1 O.02.06(B)(1 )(a),
1 O.02.06(B)(1) -- hold on one second here. I've got a typo on this
stipulation. Oh, B.l (A), B.l (E) and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i) of Ordinance
Pae:e 16
'--'
:6 ,I. 1 A 1 w4
June 2652008
2004-41 and are described as the nonpennitted relnoval and erection
of separation, fire walls, expanding the space of one unit and reducing
the space of another.
Mr. Arcy agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of 363.84
incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by
obtaining a Collier County building permit, all required inspections
and certificate of occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of
$200 a day will be ilnposed each day any violation remains, or by
obtaining a Collier County den1olition permit, all required inspections
and certificate of completion and restoring the structure to its
originally permitted condition within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine
of $200 a day will be inlposed for each day any violation remains.
I I'd like to point out that he's already got a permit issued for this
violation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A permit to --
MR. LETOURNEAU: To permit the improvements.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not demolish.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct.
MS. ARNOLD: Jeff, you had also cited him for -- he was cited
for 105.1 and 105.7 under the Florida Building Code, 2000 edition. Is
that still applicable?
:rv1R. LETOURNEAU: I only put the land development codes on
the stipulation.
MS. ARNOLD: Should you add those? Because that's what our
case was being brought for.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Hold on one second.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. LETOURNEAU: We're just going to go with the violation
as stated on the stipulated agreelnent. So that would be 10.02.06
(B)(l )(a), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e) and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i) of the Land
Development Code 04-41.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it's not going to include the
Page 1 7
161,lAl
~:;:
June 26, 2008
Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Sections 105.1 and 015.77
MR. LETOURNEAU: No.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: In number two, the violations of Sections
(B)(l)(a), and then it looks like it's repeated (B)(l)(a) again?
MR. LETOURNEAU: That should actually be (B)(l)(e). That
was a typographical error I made right there.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need to have him CaIne back
and initial that at all, or --
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if that's necessary. He received the
packet, and the packet with the statement of violations showed it
correctly with the two additional violations that I was questioning.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. ARNOLD: Those all should have been on the stipulation.
He has the ability to be here and be heard. He signed the stip. You all
have the ability to accept it as stated or amend it. So--
MR. LETOURNEAU: I advised him to stay but he had open
heart surgery recently and he \vasn't even supposed to be here in the
beginning, so he wanted to get out of here.
MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that we accept the county's
proposed stipulation as stated.
MR. PONTE: I second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Page 18
'-'
1611Al
'If
1. ')6 ')OOQ
. un e _ ~ _ 0
The next one will be Bee versus Erika Labra and Isidra Trejo.
(All speakers were duly swan1.)
MS. SORRELS: Good lTIorning. For the record, Azure Sorrells,
Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator.
I spoke with Ms. Labra this morning and we had entered into a
stipulation agreement. The stipulation agreement, she agrees that
there are violations on her property, Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(e) of
Ordinance 2004-41, and Section 104.1.3.5 of Code of Laws and
Ordinances. And are described as improvement of property prior to
building permit and prohibited activities prior to permit issuance.
Ms. Labra agrees to pay operational costs of $303.28 and to abate
all violations by obtaining all necessary building pennits -- excuse me,
obtain all necessary permits, inspections and certificate of conlpletion
within 60 days of this hearing or a $200 a day fine v/ill be imposed for
each day the violation reInains, or she can remove all the fill dirt from
the property, returning the property to its original vacant state within
60 days of this hearing or a $200 a day fine will be imposed for each
day the violation remains.
And the last would be to notify code enforcement within 24
hours of abatement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to that?
MS. LABRA: Yes, I do.
MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that we accept the proposed
stipulation.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. I<AUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Page 19
16J lAl f'i
June 265 2008
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. SORRELS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be BCC versus
Rufina Cruz and Moises Hel11andez.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. KEEGAN: This is Case No. CESD20080001629, Board of
County Con1missioners versus Rufina Cruz and Moises Hernandez.
Violation of Section 1 O.02.06.B.l.E of Ordinance 04-41 as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code.
It's for an unpermitted addition to a mobile home located at 3156
Van Buren Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112.
On the 24th of this D10nth I Inet with MoisesHemandez,who
was the owner of the property, along with his mother, Rufina Cruz.
They entered into a stipulation agreement that they would pay
operational costs in the amount of295.66 incurred in the prosecution
of this case.
The respondents have been issued a demolition pennit,
2008-050891, for the removal of the unpermitted addition. The
addition is removed, and as of yesterday they received their certificate
of completion. So the case is finished.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a lTIotion?
MR. LARSEN: I move to accept the stipulation as so stated by
the county.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second?
MR. PONTE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Ave.
01
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
Page 20
161
rtA1
"
June 26, 2008
IvIR. KAUFlvfAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ave.
.;
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KEEGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be BCC versus
Affordable Whistler's Cove, L rD.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. Q'F ARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Fan~ell, Collier
County Code Enforcelnent Environmental Specialist.
We're here today because a stipulation has been presented and
approved by Affordable -- Whistler's Cove Affordable and the county.
This case originally becalne about because of a proposed unit
development inspection that found that the complex had fallen below
the standards of their site development plan. Therefore, they have
signed a stipulation that says the violations noted in the referenced
Notice of Violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence.
The violations are that of Sections 4.06.05.J.2 and are described
as required landscape. It has fallen below Collier County approved
site plan 97-006 standards.
Therefore, it is agreed that the respondent shall pay operational
costs in the amount of 545.35 within 30 days of this hearing. A11d
they will abate all violations by restoring the required landscape of the
property to the standards set by the Collier County approved site
development plan 95-22.
We've got two different site development plans here -- wait a
minute, I want to make sure we get the right one. 97-006 is the COITect
site development plan nUlnber.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you just lnake sure.
MS. O'FARRELL: We're going to have to Inake sure we change
that on the stipulations.
Page 21
16 I 1 :iA 1 ~'..
.. , J" ~6 )008
une L ,_
CHAIRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: Just cross it out and have him initial
it, please.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah.
So it will be 97-006 with attention paid to required landscape and
native vegetation areas within 90 days of this hearing or a daily
penalty of $150 will be imposed as long as the violation persists.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you agree with --
MR. ZIMl\1ERMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can you state your name for the ,
record and your position within the COlnpany, and do you have the
authority to sign on behalf of the COlnpany.
MR. ZIMl\1ERMAN: I'lll a representative of the owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And your name, please.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Scott Zilnmerman.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you have the authority to sign?
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to this change from
95-22 to 97-00 (sic) for the site development plan?
MR. ZIMMERMAN: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a yes?
MR. ZIMl\1ERMAN: Yes.
MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to look at it, sir?
MR. ZIMl\1ERMAN: It's -- okay, we could look at it.
MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to show him what--
MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sony, I didn't hear the question.
MS. ARNOLD: The change, the site plan change reference.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's the final site plan that was approved.
I'Ill fine with it.
MS. O'FARRELL: I was looking at the statement of violation
that had the correct numbers on it.
They have -- Whistler's Cove has been given three copies of the
site developInent plan \vith the correct nUlnbers on it. I believe his
Page 22
161
1 A 1 . 1
June 26, 2008
landscaper has a copy of it and is attelnpting to \vork franl it today.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Theytre supposed to be here today, Vve'H
see.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. What I'll just have
you -- before you leave, just make sure you initial that little section,
that change.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: I make a nlotion that we approve the proposed
stipulation as so stated with the amendment in section tvvo of therefore
clause, changing it from 95-22 to 97-006.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, we do have two additional
stipulations.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I like to hear that.
MS. ARNOLD: Those are iterns 4.C.6 and 7.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. We'll move on to those
then.
BCC versus Jairne and Darnarys Oliva.
1\1S. \V ALDRON: Oliva.
Page 23
16 I 1~~A 1 II
June 26, 2008
(All speakers v/ere duly S\VOD1.)
MS. WALDRON: We have COlne into a stipulation agreelnent
with Jaime and Damarys Oliva for a violation of Collier County Land
Development Code, as an1ended, Sections 3.05.01.B, described as
vegetation removed over the allowable acreage without obtaining the
proper permits.
They have agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of
460.20 incun"ed in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this
hearing. The respondent must prepare a mitigation plan which meets
the criteria stated in 04-41, as amended, Section 1 O.02.06.E.3. The
mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person ,vho meets or exceeds
the credentials specified in Section 10.02.02.A.3.
The respondent is required to establish a tTIonitoring program that
would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants
used in the mitigation effort over a two-year period with replacement
required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually.
A minimum of two reports will be sublnitted by the respondent.
The mitigation plan must be submitted within 60 days of this hearing
or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until mitigation
plan is submitted.
All plant materials must be installed in accordance with the
mitigation plan within 120 days of acceptance of lnitigation plan or a
daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until plant material is
installed.
And the respondent must notify code enforcement that the
violation has been abated and request the investigator to cOlne out and
perform a site inspection.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to this plan?
MS. OLIVA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is any of this area, does it have
irrigation where you're going to have to replant?
MS. OLIVA: I guess we're going to have to replant.
Page 24
,'- ~.:: 1" An126, 2008
CHAIRJ\1AN LEFEBVI~: But does it have an in-igation
, n
system {
MS. OLIVA: Right. No --
MS. WALDRON: No, I don't believe that they have irrigation.
But we did do the time fran1e so that will still be within the rainy
season.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. So I guess it's pretty
important to get these plants in as soon as possible so they have the
beginning of the rainy season to give it the best chance for them to
survive. Because you are regulated to 80 percent of them must
survive within -- I think it's two years is what you stated?
MS. \"\1 ALDRON: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, very good.
Any questions of the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. LARSEN: Make a motion we accept the proposed
stipulation as so stated.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I have a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
And that would be for the first one.
And the next one?
Page 25
_'1"'~ 1"'_ . _ ~~_",_,_,,'e"'.___' __,_,._",___.""._.__.._..w'_"'~~'"_,_".-"_"_"_',""_'~__
, 1 A lme 26, 2008
IvfS. \\1 ALDRON: Exactly the san1e, different case. The
violations of Collier County Land Developnlent Code as anlended,
Sections 3.05.0 l.B, described as vegetation relTIoved over the
allowable acreage without obtaining the proper permits.
The respondent has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount
of 460.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case \vithin 30 days of
this hearing.
Respondent must prepare mitigation plan which meets the criteria
stated in 04-41, as alnended, Section 10.02.06.B.3. The mitigation
plan shall be prepared by a person \vho meets or exceeds the
credentials specified in Section 1 0.02.02.A.3.
The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program that
would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants
used in the mitigation effort over a two-year period, with replacement
required to maintain the 80 percent Ininimum annually.
A minimum of two reports will be sublnitted by the respondent.
This mitigation plan Inust be submitted within 60 days of this hearing
or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until mitigation
plan is submitted.
All plant materials must be installed in accordance with the
mitigation plan within 120 days of acceptance of n1itigation plan or a
daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until plant material is
installed.
And the respondent must notify code enforcement that the
violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and
perfonn a site inspection.
MS. OLlV A: I agree.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. This is a separate
piece of propeliy; is that correct?
MS. WALDRON: It's two separate folios, yes.
MR. PONTE: I have a question. Because they replicate each
other, how 111uch acreage are \ve talking about here?
Page 26
'-.->
16/
, 1 A tune 26, 2008
l'v1S. \V ALDRON: Vlell, the tv/o properties total is 10 acres. It's
not all going to have to be mitigated.
MR. PONTE: Thank you.
MR. LARSEN: Make a 111otion we accept the proposed
stipulation as so stated.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can I have a vote. All in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. WALDRON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now we're on to public hearings.
BCC versus AMG Propeliies, Inc.
MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Department Case No.
2007 -090454.
The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and
I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. LARSEN: Move to accept the evidence.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Ave.
'"
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: ic\ye.
Page 27
1 A 1 ' ..~
!!
'J
June 26, 2008
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present.
Violation of Ordinances 04-41, Collier County Land
Development Code, as amended, Sections I 0.02.06.B .1.A,
10.02.06.B.l.E.i.
Description of violation: Construction additions remodeling
done without proper pennits.
Location/address where violation exists: 3831 Arnold Avenue,
Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00278360006.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: AMG Properties, Incorporated, co-owner, Jose Garcia, 7301
Southwest 57th Court, Suite 500, South Miami, Florida, 33143.
Property owner: Parts Depot, 148 Rosalie's Court, Coco Plum,
Florida, 33 143, business owner.
Date violation first observed: September 17th, 2007.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October
2nd, 2007.
Date on/by which the violation to be corrected: October 10,
2007.
Date of reinspection: April 4th, 2008.
Results of reinspection: Violation relnains.
At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code
Enforcelnent Investigator Kitchell Snow.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. SNOW: For the record, Supervisor Kitchell Snow.
We appear before you today on a case in our industrial zoned
propeliy that involves building or additions to a structure without
Page 28
16 11 A 1
, ;6 ') ~'08
June _', _U
..
pen11its. This is a violation of Sections 1 O.02.06.B, l.A,
lO.02.06.B.l.E.i.
I have -- would like to sublnit as evidence, evidence packet "lith
some photographs of the property.
CHAIRlv1AN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept --
MR. DEAN: I Inake a n1otion to accept the photos of the
property .
MR. PONTE: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
~v1R. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: .A.ye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. SNOW: The first photograph you're going to see is of the
property as it exists today. I was hoping for member Kelly to be here
for some of the roofing issues, he could probably advise us.
But that is the structure as it is today, that's in 2008, according to
our property appraiser.
The next photograph you're going to see is as this structure was
in 2001.
As you can see -- and clearly see on the top of that there's been
an addition that's been added to that. This is a 2008 photograph. They
probably done SOlTIe work on that roof and lTIade it seen like it's all the
same. But as you can clearly see in the top of that photograph, you
can see the addition clearly where that's been done.
This property was purchased in 1997. And I have talked to the
propeliy ow'ner. And he says it existed \vhen he purchased it. And we
Page 29
16 I lJ~e !6, 2~~8
discussed his options to see \vhat \ve could possibly do to rectify that.
I'll get to that in a minute.
The next photograph you1re going to see is of the property card.
The square footage originally in 1983 was 4,500 square feet. That's
what it was permitted as, that's when their CO was done. It's 4,500
square feet.
And the next one again, that's the property card. The next one is
the original pennit of 4,500 square feet.
There's several more in there, and there's a certificate of
occupancy that's there.
If you see in the yellow highlight again, it's talking -- the original
permit ,vas 4,500 square feet.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Excuse me, Mr. Snow, could you go back
to the former document that you had up on --
MR. SNOW: The property card.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. This property card is dated 1980
something, you said?
MR. SNOW: Eighty-eight.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm looking at the sketch of the building.
I seem to see a little sketch off to the right.
MR. SNOW: That was a canopy, that little -- off to the right.
That's a canopy that was added back then, and it was permitted.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much.
MR. SNOW: The next one you're going to see is the actual
permit itself. Contrary to opinion that a lot of folks try to represent to
the county, we do have a lot of older permits. And this is the older
permit. i\nd in the packet you will see it does have a certificate of
completion.
And the issue here is not that it was permitted 4,500 square feet,
the issue is where is it today?
This is a -- Mr. Garcia, who represents AMG Propeliies, has tried
to find ways that he can COlne into con1pliance. He had an engineer
Page 30
'-'
~ 1 A 1
June 26, 2008
do a survey on the property. This is his engineering appraisal, and the
engineer states it's 5,800 square feet. So 1,300 feet have been added
to this.
I'm going to show some photographs. Not only has there been a
rear structure added, another 1,000 square feet, there's been a
mezzanine. And if you're not familiar with what a mezzanine is, it's
kind of a second story that doesn't go over the whole structure, it's just
a certain part.
That's just his explanation of the propeliy. If you look in the
middle exactly where my finger pointed, it talks about the 5,800
square feet of that property, of the interior of that property -- or of the
warehouse itself.
I did speak to Mr. Garcia as recently as 5/14/08 and told hinl
where we're going to progress and how\ve're going to get there and
that he needed to come into conlpliance.
I want to submit some photographs, and I want these photographs
to -- I'm going to testify that these photographs are an accurate and
true representation of the property as it is today.
This is the interior. This is as you're looking in -- as I'm walking
up in the mezzanine, I walked up on top of the mezzanine and I took a
photograph of actually the structure. And this is looking out on the
mezzanine on the top floor.
This next one is -- and this is one of the issues that we really were
very concerned about, is that when they did the addition to the rear of
that structure, they just slapped those two bealTIS on the top. They
were not originally welded. They have been welded since then and
they -- this is going by Mr. Garcia. I can't get up there to see if they
have been welded, I'nl not a structural inspector, so I don't know. But
originally they were not, they were just tied together.
This is another photograph that represents the SaIne thing up
there.
Again, just to represent, you can kind of see where the old beam,
Paze 31
'--'
161
lAl
11
June 26, 2008
and that's where the nevv bean1 is and where the kne\v structure \vas
stalied. The old bean1 is per code, and the ne\\! one, as you can see,
there's a large difference between those nvo.
Again, the same thing, we're just looking at the beams here. This
is -- looking as you walk in the rear of that structure, right under
where the new structure has been added, this is the second floor on the
mezzanine. This is facing the front. Right below that opening there is
an office space in there and there's folks working there all the time.
And we have no idea whether that's safe or not safe. We have no idea
of that.
I did walk up there and it creaks. But anyway, there is a fairly
large office space. And you'll get a representation here pretty quick of
how large that mezzanine is.
Again, this is going up the stairs to the second floor mezzanine.
This is the window that you saw in the first picture looking out.
We're looking out over the back of the warehouse from the mezzanine.
This is what's inside that mezzanine. And in the rear of that
photograph you can see the window. So you can actually realize how
large that is. That's not just a little attic up there, that's fairly large. I
don't have the -- I don't know what the measurements are of that.
Same thing. That's looking from the window to the back of that
.
mezzanIne.
And finally, we were very concerned about the health, safety of
the individuals that were working there and what we were -- how we
were going to progress. We asked structural to go out and take a look
at this.
This letter is from our structural folks, and that's their opinion on
exactly what was going on the propeIiy. They didn't address the
Inezzanine; they just addressed the addition and the structure in the
back.
And again, our n1ain concern was we are in hurricane season
again, and I'n1 not really sure ifthatrs suitable or can go through any
Pal2:e 32
'-
161
Ai
, .) r ';008
June _0, .:-
. .
type of foul \veather.
And for the record, I did talk to Mr. Garcia, I posted the property
within the appropriate an10unt of tin1e. I called hin1 and explained and
told him he was going to have a hearing, and we were going to have to
be here, that we needed to find a solution to this issue. And he's not
here today, \vhich is disappointing to the county.
I have no further testimony at this time. If you have any
questions, 1'd be happy to answer those.
MR. LARSEN: Yeah, if you can go back to the first two
photographs of the aerial view and just put them side by side so we
can make a comparison, please.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What you're saying is the new
section on the left -- are you saying where --
MR. SNOW: This part right here, sir. See where that line is
right there?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Where it looks lighter in
color, maybe?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is \vhat you're saying is the addition.
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. And I highlighted that for you. But you
can clearly see that when you look on the property appraiser's maps
that there was an addition. You can clearly see on the interior of how
the steel beams are put across the top, that there's a huge difference in
that. And that would never be permitted by the county.
Not only that, but there are steel footers in the back of that
property . We don't even knO\V about encroachlnent. There was a
drainage issue back in -- \vhen it was originally pern1itted. We don't
know anything at this point other than it is not pennitted.
I do have a copy of and I can show you this, the type of pennits
that's been done. The only other pennit since then that has been
pulled is a sign that's been CO'd. There's been nothing else on the
property. The canopy's gone.
P ""
aae .J.J
b
161 lAl
.1
June 26, 2008
1\1R. LARSEN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of board
melnbers?
MR. KAUFMAN: The lighted area in the top, is that
approximately 1,300 square feet?
MR. SNOW: I'm sony, sir?
MR. KAUFMAN: The top area that appears to be a different
color.
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, that's the 1,300 square feet. And for the
record, these photographs are of the same property. They are of the
saIne size. And again; that's just for reference, one from 2001 and one
from 2008. So the structure hasn't changed since then.
And again, 1,300 square feet w'as added SOlne time between when
it was originally CO'd and when the case was opened in 2007.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it looks like there's been a roof
replacement between 2001 and 2008.
MR. SNOW: Again, I don't know what they've done on that.
The whole time in looking at this and going through the years and
trying to figure out exactly what was done on this property, the roof
continually changed. A11d I was very curious about that as to why.
And there's never been any permits pulled for anything on that
property other than just a sign, and that's why it was so curious.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How far back do the GIS pictures
go?
MR. SNOW: 2001. I looked back a little farther and there was
nothing clearly discernible. I felt that this was pretty standard for what
had happened. I was trying to find out exactly when he had it.
I talked to Mr. Garcia, and Mr. Garcia says he purchased it like
that. And as we all know, I explained to Mr. Garcia that he has
avenues, but he is responsible for the propeliy and any additions done
on that property, as we've talked about with cases today.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ri2:ht.
'-'
Pao-e 34
b
1
rlAl
~
,-'4
June 265 2008
Any further questions of the board?
MR. LARSEN: 1'd like to make a motion that vIe find that a
violation does exist.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: I second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Recommendation?
MR. SNOW: The County has recommendations. It will just be a
minute to put them up there.
The county recommends that the -- pay operational costs in the
amount of 502.41 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30
days of the date of the hearing. A11d that A, they obtain permits for all
unpermitted construction remodeling additions on property and get all
inspections through certificate of completion within 120 days of the
date of the hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until such
time as the unpermitted construction remodeling has been permitted,
inspected and COld, or obtain a demo pennit and relnove any
unpermitted construction remodeling additions within 120 days of the
date of the hearing and restore the building to its original pennitted
state or a fine of $200 a day will be ilnposed until such time as the
building is restored to its pennitted state and all unpennitted
construction remodeling additions have been removed. Ren10ve all
construction waste to the appropriate site for such disposal.
Page 35
-
lAl N":4
June 26, 2008
jI
i
B, is cease any activity that is not in cOil1pliance V\lith and in
accordance to the Land Development Code of unincorporated Collier
County.
And C, the respondent n1ust notify the code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement.
And let me add in the 120 days that we probably wouldn't have
been as lenient is we didn't have that letter from structural saying it
didn't appear to be a health and safety issue. And it is going to take
him some time. He's going to probably have to subn1it a site
development plan or at least a site ilnproven1ent plan to find out
exactly where we are. So I think 120 days is sufficient for that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: In number two, is there a time
period to cease any activity that's not in compliance?
MR. SNOW: No, sir. That's just to let hi In know that he's got to
-- we addressed that on the first one. And we don't want anything else
to happen on the property that's illegal, that's the point. No more
unpermitted work on that structure, no more welding any of the beams
in the top without the appropriate permits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion or questions of the
board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the county's position
as read.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second?
MR. LARSEN: I second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: "Aye.
P ag e 36
i 6 I 1.A 1 I?,.
June 26, 2008
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
:MR. SNOW: I thank the board.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Our last hearing will be BCC versus
Dagoberto and Maria Saldana.
MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Department Case No.
CESD20080000885.
F or the record, the respondent is not present.
The respondent and the board was sent a packet of evidence and I
would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinance -- Collier County Land
Development Code 2004-41, as an1ended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a).
Description of violation: Owners of propeliy did not complete
inspections or receive celiificate of occupancy for Pennit No.
20050033512 for Inobile hOlne located on the property and permit has
expired.
Mobile hOlne has been vacant for a long tiIne and has exterior
dalnage caused by the hurricanes.
Page 37
161 lAl .'1
June 26, 2008
Location/address w-here violation exists: 2626 Holly A'venue,
Naples, Florida, 34112.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Dagoberto and Maria Saldana, 2626 Holly Avenue, Naples,
Florida, 34112.
Date violation first observed: February 7th, 2008.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March
4th, 2008. Property, courthouse, posted.
Date onJby which violation to be corrected: April 4th, 2008.
Date of reinspection: April 4th, 2008.
Results of reinspection: Violation remains.
At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code
Enforcen1ent Investigator Joe Mucha.
(Speaker was duly S\\70rn.)
MR. MUCHA: For the record, Investigator Joe Mucha, Property
Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This case initiated on February 7th of this year as a routine patrol
case on Holly Avenue in the East Naples area. At that time I observed
what appeared to be an abandoned mobile home, and it had some
exterior damage. So at that point I elected to open a case and do some
research on the property as, like I stated, it was abandoned,
unoccupied.
When I researched the propeliy, I discovered that there was a
permit from 2005, it's Permit No. 2005033512 that vvas applied for at
the time, but the permit never had any inspections and never received
a certificate of completion or occupancy, and the pennit has since
expired.
A11d I did some research as well to try to locate contact
inforn1ation for the owners, and all my research, the only address I
could find was the actual address of the violation at 2626 Holly
Avenue -- yes, 2626 Holly Avenue.
So I could not find any other contact inforn1ation for the owners.
Page 38
~~~ , ~
Job C i'
i r ~ ,.
l. Ll~ .~
June 26, 2008
So at that tin1e because the property is vacant, I couldn't aiielnpt
personal service, so I sent my first Notice of Violation celiified Inail.
That was returned unclain1ed. So on March 4th, I posted the property,
the Notice of Violation at the property and the coulihouse. Property
still remained in the same condition. Also sent a copy of the Notice of
Violation regular mail.
Made my -- another reinspection on April 4th. Property remained
in the same state. No contact has been made from the owners. Have
yet to be contacted by the owners. Property is not under foreclosure,
and actually the taxes have been paid, so they're paying the taxes on it,
just have no idea where these owners are.
And I'd also just like to submit some photographs so you guys
can get an idea of what's going on at this property.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could I have a Illotion to accept.
MR. DEAN: Motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. MUCHA: This first photograph that you're looking at, this
is just a shot fi.Olll the street, what you would see if you were standing
out on Holly Avenue facing the lllobile home. You can see it's got
quite a bit of llloId on there. This appears to n1e to be hurricane
dan1age. And again, the 1110bile hOlne's not being 111aintained.
Page 39
161 lA~ 1
.tune ~6, 2008
This is just a shot close up of the exterior. Yau can see that the
exterior walls of the 1110bile hOl11e are pretty dalnaged.
This is just to show that the insulation is coming out there.
Another shot of that, I think.
And just again, it's -- there's not even stairs to get into it, so I
don't even know how somebody would even get inside, because
there's no stairs on either side.
So I guess what I'm trying to represent here is that the lnobile
home has been abandoned, it's not being lnaintained. And in fact,
during the course of this case I also opened up a weed case on the
property because the grass was overgrown and the county had to abate
that violation.
So that's where it stands. I've not been contacted by the owners.
It's basically abandoned but the property is not under foreclosure and I
have no idea where the owners are.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Investigator Mucha, you did not gain
access to the interior of the mobile home?
MR. MUCHA: No, sir. No, sir.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: The doors are locked?
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was the permit for in 2005?
MR. MUCHA: For the placement of the mobile home.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2005?
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any aerials of this
showing that there was a mobile hOlne prior?
MR. MUCHA: Unfoliunatelv I do not have that with me.
01
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board?
MR. PONTE: This is in a residential area, is it?
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir.
MR. PONTE: There are children around the area?
MR. MUCHA: I believe so, yes, sir.
Page 40
'--
~ t.~p A 1
.,:~
, - ,- r.'1
June 26, 2008
MR. PONTE: So this, you k110\V, in Iny 11lind looks like an
attractive nuisance that could be of danger to kids playing under it,
even though they may not be able to get in it.
In your -- well, let's see what you're going to say.
MR. MUCHA: Did you \vant my opinion on it --
MR. PONTE: Yes, sir.
MR. MUCHA: Do I think it's an attractive nuisance?
MR. PONTE: Yeah.
MR. MUCHA: Any time that you have an abandoned property
like this, it's definitely. Not only for children but also in this area
there's a lot of hOlneless people and things like that, so --
MR. PONTE: But it is locked.
MR. MUCHA: It is secured. And, you know, I have --
MR. PONTE: My concern was reallyundel11eath. I nlean, is it
sound?
MR. MUCHA: The trailer is tied down and it does appear to be
sound. I mean, it just looked like it was damaged by the hurricane and
maybe at that point abandoned, I don't know.
It's kind of a strange situation, because like I said, the property is
not being foreclosed upon, the taxes are up to date. And the only
address on record is the subject property address, the 2626 Holly
Avenue. Been unable to locate any other information for the owner.
So I'm kind of baffled, you know, because usually I could
understand if it was being foreclosed or something like that. But
everything's up to date on it.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I assume there's no other address in
Collier County for these individuals?
MR. MUCHA: No, sir.
MR. PONTE: Jean, legally, seeing that everything is fine, taxes
are paid, all that sOli of thing, there's no access to it, legally can the
county just take it do\vn?
MS. RAWSON: \Vell, yes, if it's a violation of the code and they
Page 41
161
lAl
i\1
June 26, 2008
don't do anything about it. I Inean, ,ve're going to give them notice~
but apparently they donft answer the certified mail.
Did you send it regular mail as \vell?
MR. MUCHA: Yes, ma'am.
MS. RAWSON: Did that come back?
MR. MUCHA: You know, to be honest with you, I don't know.
Didn't receive it. I know there was kind of a hang-up there with our
mail for a while, actually, a lot of stuff was delayed. So I can't be
certain about that. I know the certified mail was returned unclaimed,
so -- in fact, being out there, there's no mailbox, so I'm assuming that
that there's not a forwarding address --
MS. RAWSON: So the notice was only by posting, right?
MR. MUCHA: Yes, ma'am.
MS. RAWSON: Well, I would say you need to make a
concerted effort to find these people. And if you can't, and if this is a
violation of the code and it looks like an abandoned property, they're
paying the taxes on it because they own the real estate, they own the
land.
So you're not destroying the land, you're just taking down the
damaged mobile home.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, is there a way for us to inquire with
the United States Postal Service as to their current address?
MS. RAWSON: Yes, but I don't think they'll give it to you.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: We can ask, but you're not going to
receIve.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other thing is --
MR. DEAN: The tax assessor.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- if the taxes have been paid, you
can check with the tax assessors and see if there was a check sent to
them. They might have on record a check with a new address. That
luight be one way to check.
MR. KAUFMAN: Did this house ever have electricity?
Page 42
'-
16/1 8 1
l!I<:ti. .Ii t. "-
June 26, 2008
MR. 11UCI-IA: I'n1 not sure, sir. It doesn't appear -- again, when
I got onto the scene, this is what I saw. And it's been abandoned for
some time, so --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The issue we're looking at here is
that it has never received the final CO for it being placed there, which
means we don't know if it's tied down correctly. So there's a lot --
MR. MUCHA: There's never even been any inspection, so --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. So that's the issue we're
looking at. We don't know if it's even secured correctly. It could have
been placed there without being properly secured.
So I guess -- is there any lTIOre questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: How large a folio was this? How many acres
or lot size, approximately?
MR. MUCHA: It's just a normal mobile home lot. It's not a
huge -- unfortunately I don't have that information with me.
MR. LARSEN: I'd like to make a motion, based upon the
testimony of the investigator and the documents submitted into
evidence, that we find that a violation does exist.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Ave.
.,
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFl\1AN: ~Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
And your recon1n1endation?
MR. MUCHA: My recon11nendation is that all operational costs
Page 43
1'" ~,\ ~
~t ~
1 liA 1 t,,'';
1 .(1
June 26, 2008
in the an10unt of$279.33 incurred in the prosecution of this case be
paid within 30 days of this hearing, and for the respondents to abate
all violations by obtaining a pennit, related inspections and certificate
of occupancy for the lllobile hon1e located on the property within 30
days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until
certificate of occupancy is obtained, or by hiring a general contractor
licensed in Collier County to obtain a demolition permit for the
removal of the mobile home and all resulting debris to a site
designated for final disposal.
Licensed contractor must execute delllolition permit through to
an issuance of a certificate of completion within 30 days of this
hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until demolition
permit received certificate of completion.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final
inspection and confirm abatement.
I'll put this up so you guys can look at it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have any questions?
MR. PONTE: Yes, I do. I guess nUInber two answers Iny
question. But I'm not quite sure we can do it. I'm very vague on the
legality of going in and taking -- demolishing the property in 30 days
MR. MUCHA: Actually, sir, I was going to say I'm not
recolllmending that the county abate the violation, I'm just giving the
owner the option. I mean, if --
MR. PONTE: Okay, I see.
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir.
MR. PONTE: If it's 30 days, are we giving you enough tiIne to
check with the tax office to try and track this respondent down?
MR. MUCHA: rfyou would like to extend that time, 1'n1
perfectly fine with that. This has been going on since February, so I
don't see how another 30 additional days would hUIi.
Paae 44
b
16 J f' 1
June 26, 2008
MR. PONTE: I make a 1110tlon to accept it and just give
ourselves -- give the county a little bit 1110re til11e. I'll 111ake it 60 days.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sixty days for both?
:MR. PONTE: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. MUCHA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to lTIOVe on to old
business. Motion for imposition of fines and liens. First one will be
BCC versus Willie L. and Marjorie Davis.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. ARNOLD: This is a request for imposition of fines against
Willie L. and Marjorie Davis. The case was heard by the Code
Enforcement Board on August 23rd, 2007 and the -- a violation was
found. The finding of fact order has been provided to you for your
reVIew.
As of today, we -- they have partial cOlnpliance is our
understanding, that they've got inspections for the site plan. But
what's outstanding is a fence pern1it for the fence around the propeliy.
Therefore, fines have accrued and continue to accrue until the final
abatement.
And we're at this tin1e requesting fines for $200 per day between
the period of February 20th, 2008 tlu.ough May 15th, 2008, 85 days,a
Pao-e 45
b
1611Al ~
June 26, 2008
for a total of $17,000 be imposed. And the operational costs of 578.09
have been paid.
And I believe the respondentf s engineer is here to make a request
for abatement of fine.
MR. BUTLER: For the record, I'm Gary Butler, representing
Willie Davis, the owner of the property.
We did enter into an agreement with the county to complete the
work in six months. It was four months for permitting and two
months for construction. We bUD1ed up an extra two months plus on
the permitting side. We had to go to South Florida, we had to go to
the county . We didn't actually receive our permits until near the end
of March, at which time Willie progressed to do all the work that was
required.
We certified the work complete in mid-May. The landscaping
inspection was done at that point in time. The engineering inspection
was not. I called the county every week trying to find out where that
letter of approval was. And they were waiting for the building permit
800 request to come in. But there's no building so there's no 800
request.
I finally talked to him yesterday. He met me on the site this
morning and signed off on the engineering aspects of the site, so we
should have that letter within the next couple days.
Once we get that letter, we can get the occupational license
transferred to the property, if that's what's required. I've been told
that, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put an occupational
license on a piece of property that has no business. His business is at
his house, his office, and that's where his occupational license has
always been.
And if we need to transfer it to this piece of property -- all he
does is store trucks. He doesn't lease space or anything like that. If
we have to transfer that we will. But we can't do that until \ve get the
~
letter frOlTI engineering.
Page 46
1,fl~1
June 26, 2008
There is no CO. Pali of the thing ~Tas saying getting a celiificate
of occupancy. There is no CO because there is no building.
The fence permit issue got brought up today. As soon as we got
the SDP issued, we asked the fence company to request a permit. You
can't get a permit for a fence until the SDP is issued. They have not
done that. We found out this morning that that permit had never been
issued, so we've been on the phone with them today. That will be
issued in short order.
I'd like to ask for the fees to be waived. I mean, I know 20
wrongs don't make a right. But I've driven through that industrial park
and I can't find one other storage site that has a buffer. They've all got
fences, none of them have buffers.
Willie's site looks great now. I mean, it's better than any of the
developed sites that have buildings on them as far as the landscaping
and everything else. A11d I think the -- that Mr. Snow can confirm
that.
He spent 10,000 plus in fees to the county, including sidewalk
mitigation and right-of-way permits and SDP fees. Obviously none of
the other storage sites have done that. He's probably spent $30,000
improving the site so he can just store his trucks there. All of his
competitors are storing their trucks out in the Estates with no
requirements for buffers or anything else.
So he's done the right thing since day one. And he's done his part
of the job perfectly. We did -- he said 60 days originally he'd get his
work done once the penn its were issued. He got it done in less than
60 days.
So I guess I'lll asking to waive the fees. Two things we need to
do is pick up the fence pennit, which we can provide a copy to code
enforcement. And the second thing is transfer the occupational license.
And \ve're going to find out today if that really needs to be done. I
Inean, I would think it would lnake sense to have the occupational
license where the office is, not -- yes, I've had that COlne up n1any
Page 47
1
1 A 1 '.
June 26, 2008
times~ I'm sorry. And have the occupational license transferred to the
site if necessary. Those are the two outstanding itelns.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, they're still outstanding items,
and typically \vhen there are items that are outstanding, it is not the --
the board typically does not allow the fees to be waived at that point,
until you come into full compliance. And it doesn't sound like you
have, even though you have a few issues to take care of, minor issues.
So it would be my feeling that I would not agree to waiving any
fees at this point until the -- until it comes into full compliance.
l\1R. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I would echo your
comments 100 percent.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other thoughts?
MS. ARNOLD: You do have an option, which, in discussing
- \vith Mr. Butler, that he indicated that he thought that this was going
to corne into compliance next week.
I know that he did attempt to get a final inspection from the
county over a month ago and because of the confusion with the 800
inspection it didn't happen.
You could decide on whether or not you would abate or reduce
the fine with an extension of -- I don't know how llluch time you're
thinking it's going to take you to abate this violation completely.
MR. BUTLER: Willie could go and get the permit today. I think
that's a one-day permit, you walk in and you walk out with the permit.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but you still need to get an inspection.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we continue this until next
Inonth?
MS. ARNOLD: You could do that, or you could n1ake a
decision on any n10dification to the fine contingent upon that
additional tilne. And if they make that time, your fine's abated. If
they don't Inake a fine, the fine gets imposed. You understand what
I'm saying?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: IYfr. Chairn1an, I think I'd be comfortable
Page 48
161 -i-A..rj ~~
Ji. . 1b.ne 26, 2008
in vvaiting till next 1110 nth' s nleeting to see vvhat they truly, actually
accomplish.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I would have to agree with that. But
would you like to put that in a motion?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move to V\Tait till next month's hearing
for us to find out the status of your progress and till we decide whether
or not to abate the fines.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: I will second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye._
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
It's going to be continued until next month.
MS. RAWSON: July 31st.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: July 31st.
Are you going to waive notice for this Illeeting?
MR. SNOW: I'll let hi III know, sir.
Just for the record, the site does look very good. They've done
massive iIllprovelnents on that property from the way it was. Just for
the record.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We can save that for next
month.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you.
MR. SNOW: Thank the board.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: BCC versus EIlln1a Houston.
MS. ARNOLD: This paliicular case was -- rIll sony, you've got
to swear theIll in.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to take a five-minute
Pa2e 49
'-'
l6/1A1 '
June 26, 2008
recess.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement
Board meeting back to order. BCC versus Emma Houston.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on
January 24th, 2008. The finding of fact, order has been provided for
you for your review. A violation was found for two mobile homes on
the property, approximately 18 to 24 inches from the rear property line
in violation of setbacks and both mobile homes having illegal
conversions fron1 single-family units to lllulti-family units without
permits.
Compliance has not yet been met. And we at this thne would
like to have fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between
April 24th, 2008 through May 15th, 2008 for a total of $4,400 be
imposed and the fines continue to accrue.
The operational costs of $333 .13 have been paid. And Ms.
Houston is present as well.
(All speakers were duly swon1.)
MS. HOUSTON: First I'd like to apologize for being late this
morning. I have with me someone to help represent me, and I will let
him do the speaking right now.
MR. HOUSTON: To the board, my name is Joseph Houston, I'm
the son of Emma Houston. We were late for a motion for rehearing.
We're just here to say to the county on the -- we had a letter mailed out
April 21 st, 2008 questioning the decision on the county's -- in
reference to the fines -- or the decision in removing the property.
We had no response from the county in reference to that. Now,
it's quite strange that we had a Inotion for a rehearing on the same date
-- having to do with the same case on the same date they were going to
imposition of fines in reference to the SaIne case. So \ve were unaware
that we were on the docket for both situations today.
However, we were late for the rehearing, but we were given a
Page 50
~
1611Al) )
J une ~6, ~008
letter to the county on April 22nd. \Ve also gave a leLier to the county
on June 12th. It was not so much -- we \vere just asking the questions
why did the county decision vveigh the way it was, being that the fact
that they came to us, wanted us to Inake maj or repairs to the property
and then decided that removal of the property at a later date.
And that was the -- that was in the letter dated April 21 st, 2008.
And obviously we're too late for the motion for the rehearing. So
we're here for the lTIotion of imposition of fines, but they directly --
one affects the other.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think you were here when we had
another case in front of us where you stated that -- I guess, are you
looking to reduce the fines -- but you're not in compliance at this
point. What are you doing to get into c01l1pliance, to come to
compliance?
MR. HOUSTON: Well, this is the nature of everything. We
were under the impression -- obviously we already went through the
phase that you guys said you wanted A, B, C and D done.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct.
MR. HOUSTON: Ms. Houston has looked in sort of avenues
and understands that she might be put into a position financially to
have to remove the property because I think the SDP was just to put in
for it, it's like $4,500.
Now, to understand that, we're just asking the county, why did
the county have Ms. Houston put in four, $5,000 worth of
imprOVelTIents to the property and then suggest to her we want you to
remove the property. It seems like you sOli of put her in a very liable
position, or put the county in a liable position to hey, ,ve want you to
fix this. And then after she fixes it, then you tell her we want you to
relnove it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, in our order it says either/or.
You either obtain all required pern1its for additions to conversion of
and plaCelTIent of both lnobile hOlnes and by retaining all required
Page 51
'-'
1.. ~.. ~ '"
16 J ",.~ iJtuJe 26~ 2008
inspections and certificates of occupancies within 90 days, April 23rd,
2008. In the alteI11ative, which Ineans you either do one or the other.
So I guess the question I have is has I\1s. Houston been working
towards getting the permits and the COs?
MR. HODSTON: The attorney has suggested to us even to go
get an SDP will take over -- quite -- about, six months to even get an
SDP.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's fine. What has been done to
go ahead and get this corrected? You have either/or. rfyou don't
want to take the option of going and getting an SDP, then your
alternative \vould be to demolish the property.
MR. HOUSTON: Okay. From the point which you1ve given us
the time period, there was no way the engineer was going to be able to
get an SDP done in that time period.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But if you've heard SOIne of the
cases, people have worked towards correcting the issue and we've
extended their time periods. We are hard pressed to extend any kind of
time periods if nothing's been done. You have to take some action for
us to take some action.
MR. HOUSTON: Okay. Now we've been given the impression
that that's a workable situation. We're under the impression it's a do or
die situation, whether we get it done or not get it done, she was going
to be pushed into that comer.
However, I wasn't here at that hearing. I'In just obviously
expressing her side of it. She can obviously get up here. I'm just
telling you her position \vas she was not going to be able to get it done
in tilne. So she wasn't going to invest four or 5,000 additional to \vhat
she already did in repairs when she's pushed in the corner to say, hey,
this has got to be done in two or three months and it's not going to be
done and she wastes more 1110ney.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's a couple of things we can do
here. One thing we can do is ilnpose the fines, which \vould n1ean that
Page 52
i1? 1 A 1 fV'
June 26~ 2008
fines start accruing.
The other one is we can push off having the fines start take
effect. It would be -- I don't know vvhat the board's decision would be.
But I would be hard pressed not to impose the fines because nothing's
been done to try to correct the situation, from what I understand.
From what I'm hearing from you, nothing's been done.
When we did impose -- or when we did decide to give 90 days,
she certainly could have came to us and said I don't think 90 days is
going to be enough, or as soon as you realized that that was going to
be the case, to wait until now to come in front of us.
MR. HOUSTON: It wasn't a point of waiting till now to come in
front of you. Obviously you guys put it on the calendar when you
COlne to it. But these letters are not dated just yesterday.
Obviously I know you guys have meetings and don't respond to-
the letters. But just the letter, you know, our suggesting that if we try
to achieve that, that we would be allowed some extension of time. But
it was nothing -- none of the letters that we responded to the county,
nothing got responded back to Mrs. Houston, only to a rehearing.
And we have requested documents from the county as far as the
property is concerned to find out -- to find out -- to support and to be
able to find out what has been done, and we have yet to got those
documents as well.
All these letters have been certified. And it's not like Ms.
Houston is not aware. I think even the county has went and got a
demolition permit. She's pushed in a corner. What she doesn't want to
do is invest her Inoney into a situation -- Inore money into a situation
that is uncurable from the county perspective.
Obviously you've given her a choice, but she wasn't going to
invest the Inoney and was told that the attorney said and the engineer
said it's not going to be done in that significant an10unt of time. So
she didn't want to waste the n10ney in getting it done. And the
probability of it getting done \vithin that tilne is not -- wouldn't have
Page 53
'-
16 I 1 A luneJfJ,2008
happened.
So obviously 1'n1 just here to express some feelings of vvhat her
situation is, and obviously the board can make a decision froll1 there.
MR. PONTE: At this point has she retained any professional
advice? I mean, does she have a contractor or does she have an
attorney? What's--
MR. HOUSTON: I know she has been in touch but I think it
would be hearsay. I'll let her speak directly when it comes to that,
okay?
:MR. PONTE: Okay. lv1s. Houston?
MS. HOUSTON: Yes.
MR. PONTE: At this point have you retained any professional
help in tenns of a contractor or an engineer?
MS. HOUSTON: Yes, I went to Mr. Tyler to start the vvork. He
told me what it was going to cost and what his fee was. And he said
then you really don't have enough time with the time they give you to
do this.
So then I'm in a hard place. But the thing is, at first -- I have
never had this to happen, really. But at first to put this much money
and it's over. And it's not only that, because something happened prior
to the property. I had just put more money in there when they had
something that was done there also.
Then I had to put this Inoney, which drained me, from the storm.
And also the 30,000 that we put in taxes, like with taxes that was put
in there during that same time, all that money came from my account.
And I'm not -- I'm not into real estate, I'n1 just a small, you know,
person, you know, just had a property that was passed on to Ine during
divorce to pay for the other mortgage on the other propeliy that I have.
And this is just like a dOInino effect, when one thing falls, then this is
going to do like that. Because the time frame, I'ln crushed, you know.
MR. PONTE: What amount oftilne did the engineer suggest to
you would be appropriate to cOInplete the job?
Page 54
<"\ ,.
i '\
~U
1 AIle 26, 2008
MS. HOUSTON: Vlith the tilne frame that I 'Ivas standing here
listening to, he told Ine you definitely need more tiIne than that. And
MR. PONTE: Well, that may be, but did he give you an estimate
as to what it would take?
MS. HOUSTON: No, he just told n1e that it vvas Inore than what
they were given. He'd seen it before and they don't have enough time.
And even if I -- even if I was going another step to reconstruct
something, because the people that I have now that are staying there --
I have some people that are staying there over 10 years, you knovv.
MR. HOUSTON: I would interject that I did speak to him
directly. I didn't -- I wouldn't say -- but he told me it would at least
take for the SDP to be even put together and looked at, it would be at
least six months, I think that was his quote.
MR. PONTE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'm a little unclear as to exactly what you're
asking for at this time.
:MR. HOUSTON: Well, just to clarify this again, the letter that
we sent out, we were just asking -- we actually didn't really ask for a
rehearing, we're asking the county to specify why they took the
position of having Ms. Houston put an exorbitant amount of money to
fix the problems which they had made record of and then literally
carne out again telling her this needed to be done after another
tremendous financial situation come up right after she had just put up
five or $6,000 in repairs. And they COIne to her and said well, either
we're going to have to relnove this or you're going to have to do A, B,
C or D. And then put her in the straight that hey, you've got 90 days
to comply when it takes six n10nths to even get an SDP.
So we're like, if you guys want us to remove the building,
obviously that's absolutely fine. But why \vould the county take the
position to have her pay all this n10ney in repairs when sOInething that
Page 55
1i
~ 1 A'1 ~..
1rIne 26, 2008
~,;'I..,
he feels like Inaybe should be t0111 dovvn,
I\1R. SANTAFEMIA: If I may. For the record, John Santafen1ia,
Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist.
Just point of clarification. What I believe Mr. Houston is
referring to is that this case initially started as a property maintenance
case. It came in as a cOlnplaint to me by one of her tenants at this
location. While I was doing the investigation for the minimum
housing end of it, I started discovering permitting issues; there was
some setback violations with the mobile homes, stuff like that, which
is why she's here today.
The -- what I did ,vas I completed the Notice of Violation for the
minimum housing part of the case, the original case, and I created a
new case for the land use permitting issues. There's no site
development plan violation that I've noted in my case.
The Notice of Violation vvas Inailed to her. And in the interim I
was doing the investigation, the research behind the permit issues,
because they take a little longer to do the research.
The original Notice of Violation for the n1inimum housing that
was mailed out was actually returned unclaimed. I updated another
Notice of Violation and I ended up posting that Notice of Violation at
the location of violation. That was done on August 29th of '07.
On September 10th of '07, I had a conversation with Mrs.
Houston on the telephone, and in that conversation I had advised her
not to put any money into repairing the mobile homes because at that
point I was discovering that the mobile homes may have to be
relTIoved. And I did advise her of that, not to do that.
She actually kind of rushed Ine off the phone and asked Ine to
call back and leave all that inforn1ation on her voice mail, which I did.
It's noted in my case.
In the meantime I put that lninilnal housing case on hold until I
resolved the land use pennitting issues, advised her not to do any of
the repairs. If she did theIn, she did theln against Iny advice.
Page 56
~
J1
1 A 1 ic"~
June 26, 2008
MS. HOUSTON: May I say --
CI-IAIH.MAN LEFEBVRE: I don't vlant to rehear the case at this
point.
MS. HOUSTON: I know you don't, but incoITectly it's being
stated. So you can -- if I don't have nothing to say, I can't.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 'Ve're not talking about the
minimum housing.
:MR. SANT AFEMIA: Right, the minimum housing case was not
brought before this board or the special magistrate. That is a case that
is -- it's still open but it's on hold until this gets resolved.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board?
MR. LARSEN : Yeah, I have a question for Mr. Santafemia.
In regard to the violation, has any work been done to fix the
violation?
MR. SANT AFEMIA: Not to my knowledge. Mrs. Houston did
bring in a piece of paper from Tyler Construction that she presented to
the board and myself at her hearing in January, stating that they were
going to work with her to correct these problems. And that's it. To
my knowledge nothing has been done to correct these problems.
There's no permits, there's no -- there's nothing been filed with the
county to correct any of these issues.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I would wonder if the
county attorney's representative feels the necessity to make any
comments on this or not.
MR. WRIGHT: For the record, I'm Jeff Wright, assistant county
attorney. I'lTI happy to answer any questions. I'nI not sure if there's
any paliicular issue that you're focusing on, but that's what I'lTI here
for, if I can help with that.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: It SeelTIS to be sOlnewhat of an issue of
understanding the original board's order, perhaps.
MR. WRIGHT: My understanding of the board's order was it
was optional and it was her choice as to which course of action she
Page 57
161 1lAl
June 26~ 2008
wanted to take.
It seen1S that one of those courses of action is more burdenso111e
to her than the other. But again, it's her call. And ultimately this is a
request of imposition of lien, so we're trying to focus on what the
number should be.
She may have some mitigating factors or information for you to
consider in the request for imposition, but beyond that, I think that that
should be the focus, determining what if any the lien should be.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much.
MR. LARSEN: I just have one more question on the
investigator. Al"e they still, these mobile homes, still occupied as
multi-family units?
I\1R. SANTAFEMIA: To my knowledge, yes, they are.
MR. LARSEN: ..And they do not have proper permits on them?
MR. SANTAFE~1IA: Correct.
MR. LARSEN: I have no further questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. LARSEN: I move that we accept the recommendation of
the county and impose the lien in the amount $4,400.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Ave.
01
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved.
Do you understand \vhat \ve just did? We're in1posing fines, and
Page 58
l' .
'6
1Al
t'.
June 26, 2008
until the items are COITected fines will be collected every day on your
property. So suggestion would be to go ahead and one oftvvo things:
Is go ahead and start your process, if you need to get a site
development plan, whatever it needs to get to come into compliance or
B, to remove the property -- to remove the mobile homes from the
property .
Is that clear?
MS. HOUSTON: So what you're saying, that I am going to be
fined. Even though if I go ahead and do these things, I'm still going to
be fined because I --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you can COllle back to us and
ask to have your fines either reduced --
MS. HOUSTON: And I'm so sorry, can I say one sentence?
This is going to be a sentence --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, this isn't really a tilne to--
MS. HOUSTON: I still have -- you know, I have been in this
area for quite a long time and I have worked for the county a long
thne. But I always think: justice ought to be justice. And because of
this, I have already spent money over that amount. And for the code
enforcement, who has been sworn in, to give the incorrect
information, because the next step is to give me a legal letter saying
stop. I have never received it, and he never did it like --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I asked if you understood what your
options are.
MS. HOUSTON: I understand my option of that, even though it
was not justice done here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you very ll1uch.
Next one will be BCC versus Frank Fernandez.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on March
27th, 2008. Violation was found for vegetation renloved on an
undeveloped property without appropriate pennits. The order has
been provided to you all for your review.
Page 59
161 lAl "4
June 26, 2008
At this tin1e the C0111pliance has not been Inet. Fines have accrued
at a rate of $200 per day fro111 the period of April 27th, 2008 through
May 15th, 2008, for a total of $3,600. And they continue to accrue
because compliance has yet to be Inet.
Additionally, $463.99 for operational costs are being requested
for a total imposition of $4,063 -- $4,400 -- no, sorry, $4,063.99.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Michelle, is there a difficulty with the
respondent's address or notification?
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know whether or not he's received notice
of this particular proceedings, but he vvas present at the hearing.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
(All speakers were duly SWOTI1.)
MS. WALDRON: For the record, as Michelle stated, Mr.
Fernandez \vas at the hearing and ,vas not happy, of course, about
what happened, and basically said -- J en Waldron, Code Enforcement,
for the record.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. He has
not contacted me at all since the hearing, so --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And nothing's been done on the
property?
MS. WALDRON: Nothing's been done on the property. I was
out there on Tuesday and it looks exactly the same as it has.
MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that we accept the county's
recommendation and issue an order imposing a lien in the amount of
$4,063.99.
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
Page 60
161
1 A 1 M
June 26, 2008
CHAlRI\1AN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved.
MS. WALDRON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN_LEFEBVRE: Bee versus Mahir Trading
Corporation.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on
February 28th, 2008 for a ground sign without pennit. A finding of
fact was entered and a violation was found.
The respondent has complied with the board's order. However,
fines accrued at a rate of $150 per day between March 31 st, 2008 and
May 20th, 2008, for a total of $7,500. And the respondent has paid
operational costs in the amount of $439.26.
MR. HART: Hello.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to swear you in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you with them? If you're to
give any kind of testimony, both of you would have to be -- okay.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. HART: My name is Kevin Hart.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And spell --
MR. HART: H-A-R-T.
MR. AHMED: My name is Ali Ahmed. rln from Mahir Trading
Corporation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have the authority to --
MR. AHMED: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need the spelling and
everything?
MR. AHMED: My name is A-H-M-E-D.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir.
MR. AHMED: We just bought that station in 2006 -- in 2007,
Page 61
1611A'i
June 26, 2008
June. And then vve have a gas contract \\lith the Florida gas supplier,
which is Monuf Rashed. Monuf Rashed, his name is M -0- N -U - F,
R-A-S-H-E-D.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We don't need to rehear the case, so
are you looking for reduction in the fines? And if you are, why would
MR. AHMED: Yes. Because of the -- we did the -- whatever is
done, the PBS gas supplier, he came, he say he's going to do it. And
Mr. Kevin Hart, he was doing that sign, SUll0CO sign. And he done --
he, I think, took the permit.
But some little sign, (unintelligible) sign, I think it was not in the
permit. There was something put in there, and then somehow there
was delaying, delaying. We don't know what they're doing. They was
responsible for the sign. And we don't know what they're doing.
They're sending him to correct that.
So then he did or not, and the other guy, the gas supplier, he say,
you know, just ignore it or something like that. So we don't know
was. He just telling us Tuesday morning, say the PBS o\vner tell him
to ignore it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When did you come into
compliance? When was--
MR. HART: When was the sign removed?
MR. AHMED: We picked up the sign on, I think, May --
MS. PATTERSON: May 20th.
MR. HART: May 20th.
MR. AHMED: I think you came in on May 20th, after two days.
And same day we found the probleln, it was May 18th. And then right
away we call Edison Oil, and they caIne and they take the whole sign
out -- Edison Oil Company.
And then after we take the sign out Iny business is really get
down, and vvithout sign vve cannot do anything in there. Last almost
one and a half years we suffering Inuch, n1uch, n1uch. A11d we --
Page 62
lAl1
June 26, 2008
when I bought the business, business was too high, now its -- 2006,
August 22nd.
And then after that, we having lot of problem with the sign, and
after that, after three months \ve having down business, is keep
downing. Last month we did like we used to be do lot of business, but
we, like a -- 60 percent down business, I know, because of the sign.
And we are not doing anything in there right now.
MS. PATTERSON: I think what happened in this case is that
just as Mr. Ahmed is saying, that they did buy the station. I think
there were some issues there prior to his purchasing the station. In my
experience there's been a lot of players in this game here with trying to
get the sign permitted or relTIoved or whatever.
I've talked to a number of different people. Mostly I've talked to
Mr. Hart; He's the contractor trying to get the sign COld.
I would just like to say for the record that the permit for this sign
was a Sunoco ground sign, was issued in January of '07, January 3rd
of'07. The permit expired on July 2nd of'07 because all of the
inspections and certificate of occupancy was not obtained.
I did speak to a number of people, as I said, with regard to this
sign, trying to prompt them to get and move on the sign and get it
taken care of. I think that at one point, as he was talking about, Mr.
Rashed, he was working with a Mr. Rashed from Florida Gas
Suppliers, who was his gas supplier. And he was thinking that Mr.
Rashed was taking care of the situation, when he was not.
When we came before the board the last time, Mr. Ahmed had
someone here acting on his behalf and he signed a stipulated
agreement to say that they agreed to all the tenns and conditions set
forth by the county.
So, you know, bottom line is that they were to come into
cOlTIpliance by relnoving that sign or getting their CO by March 30th
of2008 or the $150 a day fine would be imposed.
I lnade a site reinspection on May 20th of 2008 and it revealed
Page 63
11
k
~ lAl
~;.
f
June 26,2008
that the con'ective action had been taken. The sign was removed at
that tinle. So as we said before, the fine vv'ould -- if the board wishes
to impose the fine, it would run fronl March 31 st to May 20th. That
would be the day that they did come into compliance by removing the
sIgn.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On this imposition of fine, it says
respondent has complied with CEB orders as of February 28th, 2008.
MS. PATTERSON: It should be the 20th.
MS. ARNOLD: The affidavit says May 20th, '08. The inspection
was performed -- I'm not sure what you're refelTing to.
MR. DEAN: Where it says respondent has complied with CEB
orders as of February 28th, '08. Right above recommendations, that
line.
~1S. ARNOLD: Oh, okay, on the executive summary. That's
just how Bendisa writes it. That's the date of the hearing, February
28th, 2008. He is not -- he had not complied on that date, that was the
date of the hearing. The order was February 28th, 2008.
So -- the issue really is your order required obtaining permits, I
believe, to permit the structure -- or permit the sign or remove the
sign. And the sign was removed without a demo permit. And then
didn't -- the investigator wasn't informed of its removal until she did a
site inspection on her own to -- but vv'e are recommending that the
fines be imposed to that May 20th date of her site inspection because
that's the only time that we are aware because of no permit activity
whatsoever that the sign was actually removed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have any lnore questions of the
board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have reconlmendation, or a
motion?
MR. LARSEN: I'd like to Inake a motion. I'd like to move that
we reduce the alTIOunt of the fine frOlTI $7,500 down to $1,500 and
Page 64
161 1 A 1
June 26~ 2008
,
.,
assess the operational costs of$439.26 on top of that, for a total
assessment of $1,939.26 to be posed as a lien.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But the 439.26 has been paid.
MR. LARSEN: Oh, have been paid. So it would just be
reducing the amount of the fines down to $1,500.
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Did you understand what we just did? We reduced the fines.
MR. AHMED: My question is why I have to pay fine, because
we are losing so much business. A11d then it's not my fault to do that
all these things --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The reason -- the reason we reduced
the fines, it was supposed to be corrected in a certain amount of time
which it wasn't. So we reduced the fines to $1,500.
MR. HART: Are you liening the property or can he just pay the
fine?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He can just pay the fine. He can get
\vith Michelle.
MR. AHMED: But is not my fault was --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're done with the public hearing
and you can go ahead and get--
MR. AHMED: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- get in touch vvith Sharon or
Page 65
I lJAe~6, 2~~8
l\1ichelle. Thank you.
~v1S. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case, Bee versus A.L.
Petroleum, Inc.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and Arthur H. Lennox should also be
included on that.
This case was heard by the board on January 24th, 2008. A pole
sign violation, wall sign violation and banner sign violation were
found in violation on that particular date, all without appropriate
permits.
To date not all the violations have been in compliance. The
banners have been corrected, and I'll let the investigator kind of give
you more detail on that. But we are asking at this time that fines at a
rate of $100 per day from the period of April 24th, 2008 through May
15th 2008 for a total of $2, 100 be imposed and continue to accrue
until all violations are abated.
Operational costs in the amount of $573.86 have been paid.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. LENNOX: Arthur Lennox --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And state your name, please.
~1R. BOWER: Tim Bo,ver.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. LelIDox, I ask this to all parties:
Do you have authority to sign for A.L Petroleuln, Inc.?
MR. LENNOX: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. Are you looking for
reduction in fines? We can't really -- you haven't cOlnplied, so I guess
what's --
MR. LENNOX: Yes, we have complied. We made a mistake.
We did not call -- I have the original findings of fact. And the original
findings of fact, we went through the fact that we had bagged our sign,
Ineaning it was a mobile and we put a bag over it, which was illegal.
Page 66
161
1Al ~,4
June 26, 2008
We had put sonle tenlporary things on our canopy that said BP, and
that was illegal.
We also got into a long disseliation at the last 111eeting about 111Y
Subway signs. And I brought out all the old permits that I had
showing that we had permits.
At the end of the meeting there was no discussion on the Subway
signs. And I have right here the findings of the fact that says the pole
signs was altered and three balmers that were on the canopy were
wrong. There \vas nothing else in the findings of fact about Subway
or anything like that.
So I -- Tim here got the permits. I paid my fine. I contested the
fine because I thought you guys said 100 bucks, but I paid it and I
never heard back. I wrote a letter. And Tin1 came in and did all the
work. And in the findings of fact, it says my alternative by removing
all non-permit signs including supporting structures within 90 days,
which is April 23rd, and should a wall sign be removed, removal is to
be included. So we did everything on March 28th. Everything was
gone and done, nicely cleaned up on the signs.
The problem was down here on number five, we're supposed to
notify the code enforcement and we did not. So we were done a
month early with all the, quote, illegal things.
And I thought Tim was going to do it, but he never had the
findings of facts. I never sent them to him. But he did as a -- he knew
that when we were here we had to have it done by April 23rd, and he
was all done in March.
So we continued on our merry way, getting the rest of the signs
done and all the COs and things like that and it takes -- you know, he
comes out of the Tampa area, and he finally got them all done and he
has COs on everything.
But as far as what we had illegal in front of you guys, we were
cleaned up a month early. As far as getting all our ne\v COs done, we
just finished that this \\leek. But I don't see why that's -- you shouldn't
Page 67
1 lA1 III
June 26~ 2008
have to telllne that I have to have a CO in 30 days. As long as I
cleaned up my violations. Yau can tell me to have my building done
in so much time. So I don't see where I should be getting any fines.
And if it was a problem, she's been on my case since I've owned
the facility. She won't even COlne in and see me anymore, but I think
she would have said something.
And then another situation when she finally did call me I think --
no, I called her up to find out what this -- what's this hearing all about.
I thought the hearing -- it didn't say anything ,\Then you told me to
come to this -- I thought the hearing was on the fact that I paid $500
and contested it because I thought it was $100. She said oh, no, you're
in violation of this, this and this.
I said, what violations are we in? She called me back, said, well,
you didn't-get a den10lition pennit.
This is a copy of the penn it that we pulled. This is for our sign.
This is -- I went down to the county yesterday and had it copied. And
it says right here on our deInolition -- our permit, existing sign to be
removed.
And now she's coming and telling me well, we have to have a
demolition permit. Well, this got issued to us, stamped, sealed -- how
are we supposed to know that we're supposed to have a demolition
permit where we already got it on this one?
So I'm not sure what's going on other than the fact that your guys
are coming after me for n10ney all the time and I'ln trying to obey the
rules.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
Mr. Lennox is correct in SOlne things. I would like to say right
off the bat that, just to kind of do a quick scenario here, initially the
case did involve three violations on this propeliy. One of the
violations was a pole sign without a required permit and the sign was
Page 68
'P'" l nlii('.Il allll 1Il.'_
1 1 A J
June 26~ 2008
110t being Inaintained and repaired,
He would not be able to get a permit for a sign of that size, it was
too tall and it \vouldn't comply with today's ordinance, so he would in
fact have to take it down.
So I'd like to go back to the order of the board, which simply
states that Mr. Lennox was to obtain all required building pern1its and
inspections and certificate of occupancy within 90 days. Part of that
required building permit would be a demolition pennit to remove that
sIgn.
That did not happen. That's where that came from.
MR. LENNOX: May I interject for one thing, on just what you
said? It says vvithin -- we have to get all our CDs by 30 days.
Number two says in the alternative, by removing all
nonpermitted signs, including supporting structures, within 90 days.
That's our alternative. And that's exactly what we did. We had them
down before they -- continue reading.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay, let me just say, you are correct, you
did take it down. However, when you took it down, you did not
obtain the demo permit to do so. That's my contention.
MR. LENNOX: I have it right here.
MS. PATTERSON: Also there were three banners attached to
the canopies without the required permits. They did take those down,
that's abated.
There are two wall signs for Subway without required permits.
When we were last before you, the respondent brought up that there
was a permit for those signs. During my research, I found that in fact
there was, but there had been a change made to those, so they did an
alteration on that sign which made the pennit no longer valid. So he
needed a new pennit for the sign.
MR. LENNOX: Can I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, werre not here to argue the
case. Basically \vhat I'ln trying to get at is were there any issues with
Pa2:e 69
<--
1 6 I <1 ~ /1 ~
. 1i ""~'.
T )6 ')00')
.June ~ , ~ (:5
the county where we shouldnft ilnpose the fines. I guess that's \vhat
1'n1 getting at.
I just want to know -- I'm not here to argue the case.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, there is. And I'd like to go to that right
now. Basically my reinspection on April 29th revealed that the
respondent did not follow the recommendation of the board, did not
obtain all required Collier County building pennits, i.e., demolition
permit for the removal of the pole sign.
He did not obtain all required inspections and certificate of
occupancy for the Subyvay ,vall signs on or before the compliance date
of April 23rd.
So those -- that's when he was -- he just had the Sub\vay wall
signs CO'd yesterday, June 25th. His comply date was April 23rd, he's
at June 25th. So in between, those are the tInes that may be imposed
by the board.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we're actually looking between
April 24th and yesterday for fines.
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which would be -- do you have a
calculation on how Inany days that is?
MS. PATTERSON: I do not. Perhaps Bendisa--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because that would be the actual
fine that we're looking at.
MR. LENNOX: Why did your findings of fact give us an
alternative to have everything relnoved within 90 days?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. But part of that alternative is
that you have to get -- let Ine read it. Also part of it is you have to call
code enforcement to notify theIn, that's part of this order.
MR. LENNOX: Well, says either do one or two. And I did
number two.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Even if you did number two, you
still had to notify code enforcelnent to C01l1e out --
Page 70
1 A Ai
11
J1..
June 26, 2008
MR. LE1\TNOX: I agree that I did not give then1 -- I said that.
CHAIRM:AN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any --
MR. LENNOX: But she also adn1its that she was there five days
after the 23rd, which is only five days, and everything was gone.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Except she did say the Subway signs
had been altered and they were not in compliance.
:rvfR. LENNOX: But that's a ne\v permit that we're working on.
We have three permits. We have a wall permit, we have a pole permit
and we have a canopy permit. And we were working on those.
And alls we wanted to do was -- what we were last time was the
violations. We cleaned up the violations. And you didn't make any
rulings on the Subway signs last tilne because Iny old permits were
from '94 and '96, which I brought last time and I have then1 again
today. So the only findings of facts you made last tilne were on the
bags and the canopy signs.
Can Tim say something, please? He's Iny contractor.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure.
:rvfR. BOWER: Art's correct, you know, he was supposed to call.
He told ine to make sure that we cleaned all this up. And we did. We
went out there, we made sure we were out there on 3/28, removed the
bags, we installed the ground sign. We went back a couple times after
that to do some minor adjustments to the ground sign and we were
complete on 4/16. I mean, the sign was complete. The site was
completed.
So apparently I guess it was my -- I should have called Shen)',
okay, but we had -- it was a cOlnmunication issue that we had is what
it was.
And as far as the demolition pennit, I've built 1,000 signs in the
last 10 years. I've never pulled a demolition pennit to take down a
sign, because generally once you take the sign do\vn, you use the san1e
circuit, you tie into it, you have to have an electrical inspection, a
foundation inspection. That would be no different than if you took an
Page 71
'-
161 ^ ",
June.~6~"'2008
air conditioner off the roof and you had to disconnect the electric to
put it back on.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Speak into the 111icrophone, please.
MR. BOWER: Sorry. I've never pulled a delnolition. I -- ask
Sherry that. I've never pulled a demolition permit to remove a sign.
Generally a demolition permit is so you obtain the proper utility
disconnects, you make sure there's no asbestos, you do an asbestos
survey and, you know -- so the workers that are doing the demolition,
you know, are -- but I've never pulled one for that.
As far as notification of her, that's my fault, it's not Art's. I
should have done it. It's a communication deal between us. But the
work was done and it was in compliance. In fact, the last inspection I
got I had to peel the sticker off the Subway permit, the original permit
sticker off, because they were both on there, for the numbers.
MS. PATTERSON: If I may just say one thing. With the demo
permit, the reason the county requires the respondents to get a demo
permit is because just what he said, there could be some health, safety
issues with wiring or structural, you know, problems under there that
we can't see. And that's why the demo permit is -- they ask them to get
that.
However, because the respondent did not call me to let me know
when he did demo it and get the demo permit, I went out a few days
later and found that they had the new sign installed.
Well, Mr. Bower is saying that what they did at that point was
they just hooked up the old electric to the new sign that's in there. So,
you know, I don't know what we could require them to do now at this
point for a delno permit since everything is installed, except for an
after-the- fact demo pennit, if that is what the board wishes to do.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Ms. Patterson a couple questions just
for clarification?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure.
MS. ARNOLD: Sherry, the case that \vas brought before the
Page 72
1 6 I ;1 ,,\1
J-l.. .)' )008
. une _0, ....
board included specific wall signs, correct?
MS. PATTERSON: Con"ect.
MS. ARNOLD: I-Iave those wall signs been re111oved?
MS. PATTERSON: No, they have not.
MS. ARNOLD: Have they been pennitted?
MS. PATTERSON: They have a permitted and they just got
cord yesterday, June 25th.
MS. ARNOLD: So part of the issue is the pole sign, and the pole
sign -- I walked over and saw the plans that were submitted, allegedly,
with the permit application. We don't have -- I don't have that to
verify if that's exactly what was submitted. It does say in there that
the pole sign will be removed.
I mean, the board has the ability to give them that, that they
notify the county and.ifthat's the s.ite plan that was in fact approved
with the permit, that the county was then put on notice that that sign
was going to be relTIoved.
The only issue then would be the wall sign and the CO. of that,
because that was part of the board's order.
MR. LARSEN: I just have one question.
Mr. Lennox, you mentioned before in regard to the investigator
having knowledge of the removal within five days after it occurred.
MR. LENNOX: Yes, she just said she was there.
MR. LARSEN: I understand what she said, I'm just getting back.
You said five days earlier?
MR. LENNOX: The date you had to have this done was April
23rd. She said she was there April 28th. Yet she's trying to say it
wasn't done for 60 days.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. I understand. Thank you very much.
MR. PONTE: Well, I'd like to make a motion. Seems to lTIe that
the respondent is in compliance, and basically what we're turning on is
point number five, is the fact that he didn't notify code enforcement
that he was in cOlnpliance.
Page 73
1 f:~ j1 1 it 1 ·
'" June 26, 2008
MS. ARNOLD: That's incorrect5 sir. He didn't con1ply with
your full order until yesterday.
MR. PONTE: All right. So what you're saying is that the --
without any photos, it's kind of difficult. But the Subway signs were
not --
MS. ARNOLD: The wall signs.
MR. PONTE: Right, the wall signs were not in compliance until
yesterday.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
MR. PONTE: So Vie're only really talking about the wall signs in
consideration. If we're just talking about the wall signs and the fact of
the matter is that the respondent is in compliance, though late, I think
the fines should be reduced to reflect that fact, that the compliance has
been achieved and that the respondent was late in coming into full
compliance. And so I would recommend that the fine be reduced to
$250.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Michelle, is he in full compliance as of
today?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, he's in full compliance as of today,
other than the fact that I mentioned with the demo permit for that pole
SIgn.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other -- is that a motion?
MR. PONTE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is not a second.
Do I hear any other suggestions? Any other Illations?
MR. LARSEN : Well, you know, I'Ill also in agreeInent with Iny
colleague that, you know, a reduction in fine is appropriate. But Iny
concern is that $250 Inay be low for the circuInstances.
My concern is basically whether or not he did it -- he complied in
a tiInely n1anner. There IllUSt be, you know, SOllle acknowledglnent
Page 74
16 I 1 fA 1
June 26, 2008
on their behalf that they did not c0111pletely fulfill the requirements of
the order but they acted in good faith.
So I would n10ve that basically we reduce the fine to an amount
of$750.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I \vould second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Any nays?
(NQ respollseJ) -
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion has been approved. The fine
will be $750.
MR. LENNOX: Okay, how do we appeal it?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean?
MS. RAWSON: In the order it will tell you, you have 30 days to
file an appeal. I'll send you a copy of the order.
MR. LENNOX: Can I just say one more thing. It doesn't say one
thing in the findings of fact about the Subway signs.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The hearing has been closed.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next will be BCC versus
Cynthia Aurelio Markle.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on
January 24th, 2008 for violations of interior remodeling without
permits. The order has been provided for your review. The
respondents have not yet complied with the board's order.
Fines accrued at a rate of $1 00 per day between February 8th,
2008 through May 21 st, 2008 for -- there's a couple different parts of
Pafle 75 ~
1611Al
June 26, 2008
your order here -- for failure to apply for pern1its. And then -- for a
total of $1 0,300.
And additionally, fines accrued from March 23rd to May 21st.
And on your executive summary it says May 20th, but it should say
May 21 st, for failure to get certificate of completions for those
permits, for a total of $6,000 -- I'm sorry, $5,900. That's also an en"or
on your executive summary.
And additionally, operational costs in the amount of $320.05
have yet to be paid. So the county is now requesting that fines in the
amount of$16,520.05 be imposed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have them sworn in, please.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. PAUL: The last time I had a conversation with the owner in
regards to the wall in their garage, her response was if I wasn't going
to pay it out of my own pocket, then she wasn't going to do anything.
So that's where I left it off with her.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And when was that?
MR. PAUL: It was sometime last month I spoke to her. I don't
know the date offhand. But I've been to the site several times and
she's not going to remove this wall or do anything in regards to it.
I told her the fines and she doesn't care. She says the bank will
take it anyways, take the house anyways. The bank has not foreclosed
on her house or anything as such. So the fines will just continue to
accrue.
Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the investigator?
MR. LARSEN: Just to be clear. I mean, there's been no
compliance whatsoever with the prior order of the board?
MR. PAUL: No, there hasn't.
MR. LARSEN: I lnake a motion that we ilnpose an order, or
issue an order imposing a lien in the alllount of $16,520.05 as
reCOlnlllended by the county.
Page 76
n 11FT'lI __., MOl 4_
..y:
"
A 1 r.
~Ul1e 26, 2008
oJ.:,
CHAI~\1AN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\lRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\1RE: Aye.
Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is none. Motion passes.
Any new business?
MS. ARNOLD: No. Just to note on your consent agenda that
three items were forwarded to the county attorney's office for their
consideration.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need a motion for that, to
forward?
MS. ARNOLD: No, when you approve your agenda, it gets
approved. I just wanted to note that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good.
MR. LARSEN: Do we have to read them out on the record?
MS. ARNOLD: If you'd like.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do you want to go ahead and
read it.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The first item is Board of County
Commissioners versus Albert Houston, Sr., which was CEB Case No.
2007 -63.
Another case against Mr. Houston, CEB Case No. 2007-64.
And finally, Board of County ComlTIissioners versus Eduardo
and Maria Rodriguez, CEB Case No. 2007-80.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very lTIuch.
Page 77
r'l''''' . ;;<11.111
16 I 1 'AJlt 26, 2008
Any repolis? COllli11ents?
Next meeting --
MR. PONTE: I'd just like to make one comn1ent. I want to thank
the county attorney's office, and particularly, I guess, Jacqueline
Hubbard, for taking the position they did and keeping us all informed
about the Marshall case, which looks as ifit's coming to a hoped-for
conclusion.
And I certainly thank the county attorney's office and Jacqueline
Hubbard. Because you really did track me down \vhile I was out of
the country and kept on me and make sure I got in to sign all the right
papers. Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, all the board n1embers that were named
have been dismissed from that case. But I think the case continues --
including mys.el:f, I've been dislnissed from it.
MR. PONTE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting will be July 31st,
2008. And do I hear a motion to adjourn?
MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. It's been my pleasure.
MR. PONTE: Ours too.
Page 78
16 r 1 A 1
June 26, 2008
"'
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :35 a.m.
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
Page 79
N!'~1Jer ~, ~Jsv.
TR-ANSeRIPT OF THE l\lliETING OF T'l:-lE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEIYffiNT BOARD
-e CE\VED NAPLES FLORIDA Fiala
R ~ Halas
JUL 2 2 2009 Novelnber 20, 2008 Henning
- C~e
~of~~ Coletta
LET IT BE RE:MEMBERED, that the Code Enforceln
in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein,
met on this date at 9:00 a.nl. in REGULAR SESSION at Community
Development Services, 2800 NorlllIr6rseshoe--Drive, Naples-;Florida,----- ----
vvith the follo\ving people present:
Chairman:
Gerald J. Lefebvre
Richard Kraenbring
Robert Kaufnlan
Lionel L'Esperance
Edward Larsen
Larry Dean
George Ponte
Kelmeth Kelly
ALSO PRESENT:
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor
Jean Rawson, Esquire, AttOTIley for the CEB
Misc. Corres:
oate:..Q.'7 t 'J-3/ 09-
Item #: .J~L ll~ I
Page 1
-;opies to;
Not~bt 2l A01 ~
CHAlRl\1Al\T LEFEBVRE: rd Eke to call the Code Enforcernent
Board of Collier County, Florida to order. Notice: The Respondent
may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional
time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda
item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the
Chairman.
All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to
observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a tin1e so that the
court reporter can record all statelnents being Inade.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will
need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore,
Inay neeG to ensure that a- verbatiIn -record of the proceedings is made,
\vhich record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County, nor the Code
Enforcen1ent Board, shall be responsible for providing this record.
May I have the roll call.
MS. WALDRON: Good mon1ing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Edward Larsen?
J\1R. LARSEN: Present.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. George Ponte?
J\1R. PONTE: Here.
MS. \V ALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly?
J\1R. KELLY: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean?
:MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance?
:rv1R. L'ESPERANCE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Richard Kraenbring?
MR. KRAENBRING: Present.
Page 2
Nove!& !J2~J
..
IvfS. \/1 ALDROl'J: And l\1r. Robert Kauflnan?
lviR. KAUFMAN: Here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any changes to the agenda, please?
MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, investigative
supervisor of Collier County Code Enforcement. We have the
following changes for the agenda.
Under motion for rehearing \ve will be adding BCC versus
Richard and Lisa Kames, CEB case number 2007060801.
And we ,vill be llloving Item 4.C.2, Bee versus Brian and Dara
Gonnan, CEB nUlnber CESD 20080008567 under Item 4.A, motion
for continuance.
-~_H~--CHAiRMAN LEFEBVRE: -Is-that it for the changes?
MS. WALDRON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a illotion for approval?
MR. DEAN: Motion to approve.
MR. PONTE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: I second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Approval of the minutes for October 31, 2008. Do I hear a
motion?
Page 3
Ni,1 L J :0... ~10^ 1
J o\/4n~eJ L- ~ ~ ~
IvlR. DEAN: IVlotion to approve the rninutes.
:tvfR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\lRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
1\1R. LARSEN: Aye.
:MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
- ---eHAlRMAN LEFEBVRE: -Aiiy-iiays? -
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
We're going to stali off with a 1l10tion for rehearing, Richard and
Lisa Kan1es.
Can you please swear the paliies in.
(Speakers were duly swon1.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. KARNES : Yes, sir. Attorney Stephens is walking in right
now.
MS. STEPHENS: Good mOll1ing. I apologize. We were just
across the way trying to sort out the time line details for what occurred
last night.
How are you this Inoming?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good. Can you state your name for
the record, please.
MS. STEPHENS: Sure. Samantha Stephens on behalf of
Richard and Lisa Karnes. I'lll not quite sure how to begin here and
what the Board is looking for.
But, Ms. Capasso, \vauld you 111ind coming to the Inicrophone,
please? Thank you.
Page 4
'-'
16/1Al
NO\7ernber 2Cl~ 2008
CHAlHlv1AN LEFEB\lRE: Vle are going to have -- therefs a
couple of parties that have not been s\yorn in. So, again, if you can
swear thelTI in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. STEPHENS: Thank you. Ms. Capasso and I were just
speaking in the back to try and Inake sure that \ve had a firm grasp of
the timelines in this case. Before cOIning to today's hearing and the
request that was Inade by Mr. Kames, I \vatched the video of the last
Ineeting that took place.
And, I believe, that Ms. Capasso and I are in agreement. What
we saw happen was the Board was discussing it first a violation that
-- had-occurred that was written up by. the building-department:-- But
what happened was during the Ineeting itself, \vhich is why we've
asked for the review today, it kind of took, as we said, or we vvere just
discussing in the back, a left-hand turn and went towards instead of
the violation itself being cured, which was the whole reason why the
meeting was called and that everybody was supposed to be deciding, it
turned to becolning an issue of, "Well, wait a Ininute. We have an
open permit," which was not the issue that was technically before the
Board at that time.
So that is why we have asked for your consideration today and
just deciding whether or not to abate, reduce, Inodify, or whatever you
will, the prosecution costs that were brought up and assessed by the
Board at the last hearing. A11d with the Board's permission I believe
that I can make a quick time line that will help clarify the issues and
show hovv this particular violation as alleged \vas actually cleared up
prior to the hearing or the proceeding that even took place last time in
front of the Board.
If I may?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, are you looking to rehear the
case today?
MS. STEPHENS: No, \ve are not. We are only looking to
Page 5
16/ ...
Novenlber 20, locA 1
establish hO\l1 the Board kind of ,vent off on the \vrong topic and
assessed prosecution costs on a basis of sOlnething that \vas already
resolved. So, I mean, if -- I don't knO\V if you would like to call that a
rehearing. I really don't know the procedural aspect of this. I
apologize.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean.
MS. RAWSON: Are you asking that they abate the costs? Is
that -- because there are no fines, right?
MS. STEPHENS: Con"ect. There are no fines in this case.
MS. RAWSON: This Board doesn't have the authority to abate
the costs. The costs are sOITIething that the County assesses. I don't
think irs~-astronOlnical, but this Board doesn't have that authority.
MS. STEPHENS: Okay. If -- and obviously this is a legal issue
and thank you very lTIuch for addressing me.
MS. RAWSON: You're very welcolne. Jean Rawson, Code
Enforcen1ent Board att0111ey for the Board -- or for the record.
MS. STEPHENS: Thank you. If the Board saw fit to rehear the
issue -- because one of the things that was determined was the fact that
a violation had occurred. That \vas part of the finding.
If the Board were to reverse that finding, would that then ITIean
that the prosecution costs could possibly be reversed?
MS. RAWSON: You know, this Board can't make that decision.
You'd have to ask for a rehearing and ask that they abate their original
order.
You always have the right to abate fines, but this Board can't
abate the costs because that's something that the County assesses
much like the Clerk's office.
MS. STEPHENS: Thank you. So then, I guess, our request
would be to have a rehearing on the issue based upon what Ms.
Rawson has just explained. And, of course, that's with the Board's
peImIssIon.
MR. MORAD: Okay. For the record, senior investigator Ed
Page 6
-16/1Al
November 20, 200S
JViorad. Staff requests that you denYLhe rnotion to rehear the case on
the grounds that there are no grounds.
\Vhen Mr. Karnes submitted his packet for -- subnlittal packet,
we don't agree \vith it that he -- oh, she's saying that a violation didn't
exist. It did exist. Sorry about that.
We don't agree that the Board's decision was contrary to the
evidence or the hearing involved in error in ruling. The facts were
heard. There was a violation. He admitted to the violation. In his
packet he has an e-lnail admitting to the violation.
He got the due process. The violation was found to exist. A
notice was discussed -- a notice of violation was discussed, reviewed
- by-1v1r: Karnes. He-even siglYea-it. He began to conlply with the order
to correct, \vhich was to get a penl1it, to get his inspections and to get
his certificate ofcolnpletion.
When we went before the Board, the reason he was brought
before the Board is that he did not get his certificate of completion.
The Board found that he was in violation. He had a paliial inspection
on his permit that he re-apped, but he never got his certificate of
completion.
He complied with the order of the Board and got his certificate of
completion. And at that time the case was closed and there was no
fines ilnposed at all.
:MR. KRAENBRING: So we're just looking at the operational
costs here?
MS. STEPHENS: Yeah, it is the operational costs at this point.
:MR. KRAENBRlNG: Do we have a sense of\vhat that is in
dollars?
MS. WALDRON: $87.44.
MS. STEPHENS: Correct. That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But we can't do anything with that
as a Board.
MS. STEPHENS: And the reason \vhy I was asking for the
Page 7
~
o\en~~ 2~, ~~ 1
rehearing is because the violation \vas found. A11d I think if the Board
-- and, like I said, 1'n1 not going into the details of it. I think if the
Board listens to the timeline of events on reconsideration you nlay
agree that there was no violation by the tinle the hearing took place
last time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just to let you know that in previous
cases violations have been cOlTected benveen the time that it's
requested be brought to the Board and by the tin1e it's brought to the
Board. Vie have found where there are, in fact, a violation, but it has
been corrected already.
MS. STEPHENS: Well, that was not declared. That's what I'm
saying. Tile last tilDe aroui1d the order frOlTI this Board was that there.---.~._--_.
\vas a violation and it needed to be corrected. In other \vords, it was a
continuing problenl --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. I understand.
MS. STEPHENS: -- because of SOIne confusing aspects with
some pennitting that happened in the case. So I think that if there was
a rehearing on the issue that the ultilnate detennination would be that
there was no violation.
You may still opt to keep the prosecution costs in place. I don't
know what the Board would decide to do. But that's why we've COlDe
today.
~. LARSEN: If I may, Mr. Chainnan.
Ms. Stephens, if I'In correct, what you're taking issue is \vith the
Board's decision dated August 6th, 2008?
MS. STEPHENS: Yes, sir.
~. LARSEN: And it says -- the order of the Board was: Based
upon foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and to the
authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Collier County
Ordinance No. 04-41 it is hereby ordered that the violations of the
Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the land develoPlnent code, as
aInended, Sections 10.02.06 B( 1), et cetera, and the Florida Building
Page 8
.. . -
Novel16lJj locA 1
Code 2004 be corrected in the folloV\Ting rnatieL And \!\7hat you're
saying is they vvere already corrected?
MS. STEPHENS: Con"ect. Thatrs what I'm saying.
MR. LARSEN: And then basically number one is: By
demolishing the screen enclosure upon delllolition peImit
2008040719, including all required inspections and receiving a
certificate of completion and restoring the property to its original
permitted condition within 30 days frolll August 30, 2008?
MS. STEPHENS: Correct. That is \vhat I'm saying.
lvIR. LARSEN: All right.
MS. STEPHENS: That's why I'm saying there is an error of fact
anda[so-iiilhe conclusions of law that were reached by-the-Board.
Because the tinleline established in this case from the docuInents that
vvere actually submitted by both partiesshovv that --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We donft want to get into --
MS. STEPHENS: Oh, I'lll sorry. Yes, that is Iny point.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, you have a question?
MR. KELLY: Gerald, I was wondering if you would allow just
the discussion on that quick time line thing. I think it has relevance to
whether or not we should rehear. If you don't Inind, just to enter into
record the time the penllit was approved, the tinle that the case was
heard, and the tiIne the order was supposed to have been corrected by.
Because the way I see it -- and this was nlY question that I \vas
going to ask. You know, there was a permit. It did receive its final
building on August 21st. They had to cOlnply by August 30th. Well,
that Ineans they're bringing sODlething into compliance.
I\1R. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, if I Inay interject here.
The request is for a motion for rehearing. It seeIns that we're just
about on the precipice of rehearing it right now. I think it's improper.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have to agree with you.
I think her argunlent is two things. Instead of saying that there
was, in fact, a violation, she \\Tanted to say there wasn't a violation
Page 9
II J
Novemb~ R ~oA t
found or there n1ight have been a vlolation~ but it's been corrected
already.
I think "7e have to go either \vith rehearing the case and to
possibly just -- it sounds like a very Ininor change that she would want
in our order. But I think \ve need to take a vote for either rehearing it
or not.
:MR. LARSEN: May I?
Mr. Chairman, lnay I ask one more question of Ms. Stephens?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. And then I'll be closing the
public hearing.
"MR. LARSEN: Excuse me.
-- -CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: ThenI'll close the public hearing.
MR. LARSEN: Thank you.
Ms. Stephens, paragraph four of the order indicates that the
Respondents were ordered to pay all operational costs incurred in the
prosecution of the case in the amount of $87.44 within 30 days.
MS. STEPHENS: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: And you're asking us to abate those prosecution
costs?
MS. STEPHENS: Yes. If the Board finds that the order changes
in its substance to the fact that there was no violation at the tilne the
hearing took place, then, yes, that is what I'm asking.
MR. LARSEN: Do you have any other request for relief, other
than just the abatelnent of those prosecution costs?
MS. STEPHENS : Yes. I'Ill asking that the Board find that there
was no violation and that you do abate the costs based upon the
time line of events. So those would be the two things that I would be
requesting; a finding of no violation at the tilne that the hearing took
place. A11d, yes, the abatement of prosecution costs.
~1R. LARSEN: But are you also arguing that there was no
violation at the time that they were cited?
MS. STEPHENS: No.
Page 10
~, !'~ 1
Ill' ~ · .':.
Noven~~26, 2 !Ot\
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Thank you very nlucb,
CI-LAlRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public
hearing.
Discussion amongst the Board?
J\1R. KELLY: I think that hit it. I think that's the point. The fact
that we've ruled countless tilnes on the fact that a violation did exist,
which is what happened in this case adlnittedly.
I don't think there's a need for a rehearing. I think it vvould
behoove the Respondents, as \vell, to Inaybe make nice \vith County
because I think they can waive costs. I think that's all it really boils
do\vn to.
"'-CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any otl1e-r discussion withthe
Board?
1\1R. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chainnan, I agree.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to deny the
request for rehearing?
MR. KELLY: I'll make a Inotion to deny the request.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. PONTE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The Inotion passes. The hearing has
been denied.
Page 11
161 '~. "
, t"~, " ,~, .;
Novelnber 24, ~ 04
IvfS. STEPHE1~S: Thank you.
CI-IAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. \Vefre going to 1110ve on to
the next one. \vhich is extension of time. BeC versus AMG
7
Properties, Inc., CEB nUlnber 2007090454.
Are the parties here? Is the investigator here; is the Respondent
here?
rv1R. PONTE: Is anyone here?
(Speaker \vas duly swan1.)
MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snovv, Collier County
Code Enforcelnent. I would aSSUlne that this is a request for a
continuance?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Extension oftiriie. . .---.-----.----
MR. SNO\V: Extension oftilne. The issue here is the time has
already eclipsed for the Board's order, so I don't kno\v. The County
requests denial until they get finished what they need to get
con1pleted.
They have a contractor and I would prefer for them to COlne back
and then ask for leniency when the fines are accruing. You could stay
the fines because they are progressing and this is an extensive job.
You could also do that. It's up to the Board's discretion.
But as far as for an extension of time, the time has already
eclipsed. I don't see how we can do that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: \Vhen were they supposed to come
into compliance? What was the date?
While len's looking for that, Mr. Kelly has a question.
l\1R. KELLY: Is this the one over in the industrial park where
the firewalls --
l\1R. SNOW: Yes, sir. No, not the 'firewalls, sir. Where they
Inade the extension in the back.
MR. KELLY: That's all right.
MR. SNOW: They added around -- I think it was 2,000 square
feet without permits. Mr. Garcia is --
Page 12
16/
N overnber 20, loA 1
1v18. \\1 ALDRO]\l: Their con1pJiance date \vas October 24th.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. So about a l11.onth ago.
I\1R. L.ARSEN: Supervisor Snow, did you see the letter
addressed to the Board from a Jose Garcia?
1v1R. SNOV/: I did, sir.
MR. LARSEN: And there's an attachment. It looks like an
e-mail anditreferencesdesignwindspeed.A11d it's from a Mitch Van
Beek.
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: How does that play into this luatter?
MR. SNOW: Well, because it has to be brought up to -- they're
goiilg to go the route- of an affirmative defense. I'IU only assuming --
here that they're going to go the route of the affinnative defense
because the in1provelnents were done prior to 1997.
So they have to go back and look at all that criteria from the 1997
permitting to see what they could do, as far as bringing that up. They
arent going to bring it up to cun'ent standards because it was done.
The County allows them to do that. So they have to figure all that out.
They were looking for permission to do several things. A11d
that's not for us to decide to do. That's up for him and his contractor to
decide what they want to do with that structure.
MR. LARSEN: Thank you. But my question really pertained to
whether or not this is an ongoing matter under the supervision of
either the County Code Enforceluent or some other agency in regard
to the structure being safe.
:MR. SNOW: It's under -- actually under the supervision of this
Board because you issued an order that they were either going to
demo it or get it permitted.
Now, he has a contractor that I've been in contact with and is
going to do this and is going to sublnit for pelmits, but they haven't
done that. That's the reason they're asking for the extension of tilue to
allow more time to do that.
Page 13
ov~6rko,lO~ 1
But, again, they requested the extension past the tinle granted for
October 24th. That's what the whole issue is. Its not -- they're just
asking for an extension of time before the fines start, And that's
already passed for what they asked for.
MR. LARSEN: But the vlork has not been c0111pleted as -_.
MR. SNOVv: No, sir. No vyork has been completed yet.
I\1R. LARSEN: A11d there's still an issue as to the -- whether or
not this was properly constructed and permitted?
MR. SNO'V: I actually received an e-lnail fron1 hiln earlier this
\veek that stated that he wanted Iny pen11ission to start the
construction. I told him I don't give pel111ission to start construction.
So tnat'syotir -- you're the property owner. You. n1ake that decision.
But they are very far along in this plan. They are very far along.
They just haven't stalied construction yet. And they have submitted.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Thank you very Inuch, Supervisor Snow.
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public
hearing.
Discussion of the Board? .
MR. KELLY: I don't really feel comfortable going and changing
our original order. You know, the order stands. Hopefully it's not
going to interfere with anything. Let hiln get it finished and then
come back and request reduction or abatement.
MR. PONTE: I agree.
MR. LARSEN: If the Respondent was here to make an
argument, other than what's stated in his papers, perhaps we could be
persuaded, you know, one way or another. But based upon the
supervisor's testilnony and the infonnation that was provided and the
fact that the Respondent isn't here to elaborate on it, I vvould suggest
Page 14
"61
'J "~,,...
I,: " t, ~
'''-'..) .. 1
Noven1ber 20~ 2Ja .
that Vle deny the application.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other COil1111ents fro111 the
Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a lTIotion to deny?
l'vfR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the Illotion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
Iv1R. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
-~MR-:-tARSEN: AYe~-
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye~
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
rvlR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A11Y nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. SNOW: Thank you, Board.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next motion will be a motion
for continuance. Brian and Dara Gorman, case CESD 20080008567.
(Speaker was duly swon1.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
MR. WHITE: Good m0111ing, Mr. Chainnan, Board melnbers.
My name is Patrick White. I'm with the lawfinn POlier,Wright,
MOITis and Arthur in our Naples office. I'm here today on behalf of
Brian and Dara Gonnan.
We're seeking a motion to continue. I have spoken with your
staff and with the County Attolney's office representative. Neither of
theln have an objection to the motion.
Page 15
16/
f.:,' ,"
:. .~ I
. ''Q '"
1'TO Tel") b- '" -j n jl~\O'"
" \ ~1 c 1 ..-1. __} 0
I believe that the next n1eeting date you have~ January 22 of 109
should give us sufficient tin1e to address what are at this point SOlne
unresolved and unsettled facts regarding property lines, locations of
easements and SOille other cOlnplicating Inatters that I believe we can
. address and hopefully find a way to abate this violation in a tilnely
Inalmer. And I \vould ask your indulgence to do so on behalf of Mr.
and Mrs. Gonnan.
:MI. GOffi1an intended to be here. He called 111e last night and
advised lTIe he was unable to attend today. If you have any questions.
You vvere provided a Illation I hope gave you in a more expanded
\vay the basis for why I believe the Inotion should be granted. But if
you have-any additional infonnatiol1 you'd like frOITI llle or questions I
can answer for you that you \vould like to ask, 1'd be happy to try and
do so. Thank you.
MR. MUSSE: For the record, Jon Musse, Collier County Code
Enforcement. We have no objection to the continuance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have one question. Are there any public
safety or health issues?
MR. MUSSE: No.
MR. LARSEN: I'd like to ask Ms. Waldron. Mr. White is asking
for a 30 day continuance.
l\1R. WHITE: Or to the next hearing, sir.
MR. LARSEN: That was my point. It would probably be in
January.
MS. WALDRON: January 22nd.
MR. LARSEN: I see in Mr. White's papers, paragraph three in
his motion for continuance, that he needs to probably cOlnpile reports
and affidavits to prepare and present and also prepare such experts'
potential testimony prior to the next hearing. So I think that's a
sufficient basis upon which to grant the Inotion for the continuance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other COlTIlnents of the Board?
Page 16
~
..---".. -....
-
16 J" I ~
Noven1ber LO~ 2008 .fl.
MR. KRAENBRlNG: Since I see no objection 1"ro111 the CounlJ~
I would ll1ake a lTIotion that \ve allow the continuance.
11R. LARSEN: I \vould second that ITIotion.
CHAIRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
:MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIR11AN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR~KELL Y: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcon1e.
MS. WALDRON: And we do have a stipulation agreement.
CHAIRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: I was wondering. We can't go
without one meeting not having a stipulation.
We're going to have to alnend the agenda.
1\1R. KELLY: I make a motion to alnend the agenda to put this
in as a stipulated agreement.
1\1R. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
1\1R. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
.rv1R. PONTE: Aye.
Page 1 7
., f ~f. A
,,< 1
~~.., J
N overl1 bel' 20~, 2 J
1\1R. KELLY: Aye.
CKAlRlvfAN LEFEBVRE: I'nl just going to take a couple
minutes to read it over.
MS. WALDRON: I'd like to advise the Board also that there are
two people that would like to speak on this issue.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\TRE: Has everyone had an opportunity to
read it?
MR. KELLY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\1RE: Can I bring the parties up?
MS. WALDRON: Can I get Mr. Gene Mayberry?
MR. MAYBERRY: I would \vaive until after I hear the
COlnlnents.- --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to have the Respondent up
and the investigator.
MR. BALDWIN: There was just a probleln with the cOlnputer to
display the pictures, so I have SOlne copies here.
CfIAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can I have you first sVvorn in.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And are you looking to have that
entered as package?
MR. BALDWIN: I have a composite package here to enter into
the record.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And has the Respondent seen
it?
MR. SLA VICH: No.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please show it to him before we look
at the pictures.
MR. SLA VICH: Okay. A lot of water.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You would like to have that entered
as package --
MR. BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. KELLY: Make a Illation to accept the packet.
Page 18
1 6 r J..A 1
NO\clllber 20, 2008
CI-IAIRMiv\J LEFEB\lRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAJ'\T: Second.
CHAIRlvlAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
:MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
I\1R. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
-CHAIRMAN LEFEB\lRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Was this case before us last month or is this a different case?
MR. BALDWIN: This is a different case on a separate parcel.
There's two different parcels.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Has everyone had an
opportunity to look at the pictures?
:MR. KELLY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
:MR. BALDWIN: Good Inoming. For the record, Patrick
Baldwin -- Investigator Patrick Baldwin with the Collier County Code
Enforcement. This is in reference to departlnent case nUl1lber CESD
20080014496.
Both parties have entered into a stipulation agreement as of this
morning. The Board of County COffilnissioners, Collier County
Florida versus Empire Developers Group, LLC stipulation agreelnent.
Conles now the undersigned, William Slavich, on behalf ofhinlself as
a representative for the Respondent and enters into the stipulation and
agreement with Collier County as the resolution of notice of -- notice
of violation in reference to case number CESD 20080014496 dated
Page 19
.. A J~" ~-O I. 1 A 1
Noven1ber 20" 2008
the 20th day of Novenlber 2008, In consideration of the disposition
and the resolution of the Inatters outlined in said notice of violation of
,vhich a hearing is cun.ently scheduled for, to prolllote efficiency in
the adlninistration of the Code Enforcement process, and to obtain a
quick and expeditious resolutiollof the ll1atters outlined therein the
parties hereto agree as follows:
The violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are
accurate and I stipulate to their existence.
The violations are of the sections of the Florida Building Code
2004 Edition Chapter 1 Pennits, Section 22 through 26, Subsection
105.5.5 and 04-41, the Collier County land develoPlnent code as
anlelided, Sections 4.06.04.A.l.a.vii[a-d] and are described as- .
disturbed land in Vita Tuscana have not be been hydro-seeded and is
now creating dust. Adequate dust control ll1easures shall be employed
by the permittee to prevent cOlllplaints arising frOlTI the unhealthy,
unsafe and danlaging conditions. Failure to utilize adequate dust
control procedures shall be sufficient cause to order cessation of the
work causing such dust and to decline an inspection requests.
Therefore, it is agreed that both parties agree that the Respondent
shall pay the operational costs in the amount of $86.71 that incurred in
the prosecution of this case.
And, two, to abate violations by hydro-seeding all disturbed land
in folio number 00185880006, a total of28.6 acres; grade house pads
to a four to one slope; and level all stockpiled lllaterial "\vithin four
days of this hearing or a fine of $10 per day per acre will be assessed
until the violation is abated based on the nlotion passed by the Board
of Collier County COlnmissioners on 10/28/08.
"B", grade house pads to the four to one slope and level all
stockpiled lllaterial in folio nunlber 00186000005, 18 acres, within
four days of this hearing or a fine of $10 per day per acre will be
assessed until the violation is abated based on the Illation passed by
the Board of Collier County Conlnlissioners on 10/28/08.
Page 20
;-' I lAl
,.
~...,
Novelnber ~;U) 2008
nCI\ if the Respondents fail to abate the violation~ the County
Inay abate the violation and Inay use the assistance of the Collier
County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order.
And, liD", the Respondent lnust notify the Code Enforcelnent
Investigator when the violation is abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confinn abatement.
And it was signed by Willianl Slavich.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
Please state your nanle.
MR. SLA VICH: WillialTI Slavich.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you represent Elnpire
Developers'," correct?
1v1R. SLA VICH: I'm the Inanaging Inelnber of Elnpire
Developers Group, correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to the stipulated
agreement that was just read into the record?
:MR. SLA \rICH: I did with one clarification. That four days is
four business days, not four calendar days.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was going to be something that
I ask, too, being that the weekend is coming up.
:MR. SLA VICH: So picking up our permit by Wednesday was
the understanding that we had in the discussion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you have picked up your pennit?
:MR. SLA VICH: We have not. We closed last night. I have a
letter here. I'd be lnore than happy to read it into the record that we
have the money for the permit and for the infrastructure ilnprovements
per the approved SDP to do sitting in escrow "\vaiting to be drawn
down. I couldn't get it this morning before I ran in here and I couldn't
pick Iny permit up that quick anyway.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A little convenient. Y ou're right here
now.
MR. SLA VICH: I was hoping that we wouldn't be here today,
Page 21
116' I 1 A 1
ovenlber 20, 2008
but \ve ended up a day delay on the closing,
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chain11an, Il1ay I ask a question first?
CHAIR.T\1AN LEFEBVRE: You certainlv can.
"I
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Slavich, you're going to hydro-seed all
disturbed land \vithin four business days. Do you already have the
subcontractor on notice that he's to start the work almost immediately?
1'v1R. SLA VICH: We will put hiln on notice today to stali the
work. Although, it would only be a one percent chance he'd actually
be doing the work. And we actually have hydro-seeded a portion of
the propeliy. Not the roadway, but we have hydro-seeded. And we've
actually been out "\vith Code Enforcenlent a nUlTIber oftinles in the
County.
~1R. LARSEN: Ivfy COl1cenl is over the four days. And basically
we're cOIning into Thanksgiving next week. And I'm just concenled
that it might not be a sufficient anlount of tilTIe for that to actually
occur before you stali incurring --
lvlR. SLA VICH: I have been insured by staff that if I \valk in
here with a check this aftenloon I'll have a pennit by Wednesday.
:MR. LARSEN: By Wednesday of next week?
MR. SLA VICH: Correct. Which is why I asked about the four
business days and not four calendar days.
:MR. LARSEN: Well, all right. But--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that's still-- if you get the
penTIit next Wednesday, that's pretty much the four days.
MR. SLA VICH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you're going to be in violation.
:MR. SLA VICH: Well, I'll be in violation on Thursday if I don't
have my pelTIlit on Wednesday. That was the understanding of the
discussion in the hallway. So four days starts today or does four days
start tOlnorrow?
Because if it stalis today, then we'd ask for five days. If it stalis
tOlTIOlTOW, then "\ve're okay "\vith four days.
Page 22
~-,---"~,.....,,,.~~,,,.,,...~~--~~ .....
J T 1 t-. l~ ~ 1 nAr' 1
'\,)ov~n'1el ~U" _~.U)O
l'vlR, KJ~LL '\t: \VelL. according to this it starts the day of this
hearing.
~vfR. SLA VICH: Then we \vould ask for five days.
:rvIR. KELLY: There's no ination of picking up -- there's no
lTIention of picking up a pennit versus actually doing the "\vork. You
have four days to pick up your penl1it, do your \vork frolll the date of
Iv1R. SLA VICH: Vol ell, if I pick Iny permit up, I don't have to
hydro-seed.
:MR. KELLY: I see what you're saying.
MR. SLA VIeR: Because then I have an approved SDP. The
next date we'll be iI1there digging -- excuse Ine. The next day \vill be
Thanksgiving. No one will be working.
That follovving Monday \ve will be in there grading and putting
sewer, water and everything. We have an approved SDP. All I have
to do is pay Iny transportation ilnpact fees for nlY penllit.
MR. KELLY: There's no mention of a ne"\v SDP. You are
agreeing to hydro-seed land that you're about to tear up. You nlight
want to rethink this one.
:MR. SLA VICH: Then we would need to have -- okay. Then we
would need SOlne new agreement. Because the agreement has always
been if we walk in here, pay our fees, pick our pennit up, then we're in
compliance with the SDP and \ve're not required to hydro-seed.
MR. LARSEN: That's not what your stipulation says.
MR. KELLY : You're agreeing to hydro-seed, regardless of what
else happens. And you're agreeing --
MR. SLAVI CR: I'm not agreeing to do that. That would be
ridiculous.
MR. KELLY: Right. Well--
MR. LARSEN: May I ask a question, Mr. Chainnan, of our
counsel?
Do standard rules apply in regard to the calendar days; and the
Pa2:e 23
'--'
"'._'e"_._,","-_ .," '"
16/ lAl
NO\ie1)1~"..t'I' )(u. )cJj' 8..
~ ~._ l.J _..- _-<' ~ .......-../,
four days \vould start as of to 1110 ITO\V, anl I COITect?
MS. RAWSON: It would.
MR. LARSEN: And they \vould not count \veekends; is that also
cOITect?
MS. RAWSON: Well, no, not usually. We count days. But he
has stipulated that \\Te're talking business days. So Iny order would
reflect business days.
Business days \:vould not include the weekend. It \vould not
include Thanksgiving and it Inay not include Friday.
MR. LARSEN: But because it's under seven days, it would not
include weekends nomlally?
MS. RAWSON: Correct. - --------
MR. LARSEN: Thank you very lTIuch, Ms. Rawson.
So, Mr:Slavich, I believe that the way this stipulation is to be
read fairly to you would be if you enter into this agreement today,
staliing tomorrow you have four business days to hydro-seed your
property, irrespective of whatever penl1its or whatever other
understandings you nlay have had.
Is that your understanding of what the agreelnent is that you
entered into?
MR. SLA VICH: No.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would
suggest that basically we not approve of this stipulation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KELLY: My suggestion would be either take another stab
at it or leave it on as a normal hearing and we'll talk about it then.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Either that or add in there if a pennit
is picked up to go ahead and build, then this would beCOlne null and
void. I mean, I think that might be sonle type of language to vV'ork out.
MR. KRAENBRING: I think ,ve'd like to hear from the
investigator.
MR. BALDWIN: I think I'd like to call up Stan Chrzanowski
Page 24
16 II 1 A 1
NoveIl1ber 20" 2008
here. I-Ie can betier explain the pennit process and the trIne fimYle,
(Speaker ,vas duly swon}.)
11R. CHRZANO'VSKl: I-li I'Ill Stan Chrzano\vski. I'm \vith the
engineering depaliment. My understanding is that if Mr. Slavich pulls
his pelmit that he will be going in there and grading and he won't have
to hydro-seed. The hydro-seeding is only a requirelnent if he doesn't
pull his pennit.
When he pays his impact fee tomon~ow, the WOlnan in -- Flores
in impact fees vvill sign off in a progralll called CD-Plus. And the
people in the intake teanl who have present custody of all the project
files \vill go back to Oile of their, quote, files and pull out the project
file aridf6rward it to engineering review, lTIY departlnent, fora final
approval letter.
Ifhe pays tOlnorrow, we'll probably get the project file on
Monday. I can ask Steve, the person that writes these up, to put it first
on line. I would guess he would probably have his pennit by Tuesday
at the velY latest.
I can't see anything going wrong if he pays his fee tOlnorrow to
where he wouldn't have his permit by Wednesday. If he has his
permit on Wednesday, he can go out there and start tearing up ground
and putting in infrastructure and regrading.
Is that what you want to know?
MR. LARSEN: My only concenl is basically that the stipulation
agreement doesn't provide for that contingency. It only provides that
basically he start -- he, Empire Developers Group, hydro-seed within
four days. Where the understanding was that ifhe pulls his permit he
does not have to hydro-seed, he can go right to the develoPlnent stage.
And that's not reflected in the agreement.
So I don't want hinl to be bound by an agreelnent which doesn't
adequately reflect \vhat the true agreelnent between the County and
Empire Developers is. So it j list takes a nlodification of this
stipulation of agreenlent to reflect what you just testified to.
Page 25
-16 I ~ ^. 1
Noven1ber 20. :2008
lv1R, CrIRZA1~O\VSKI: Right. I agree, [hadn\ read the
agreelnent prior to this. I was only here to tell you about the penl1it
procedure and 'why it takes days to u
11R. KELLY: The reason why werre bringing this up is because
we're a quasi judicial board, al1110st like a court systen1, versus CDS,
which deals \vith pennits and engineering and so fOlih, land
development code issues. You're lnore or less being held to exactly
what's in here as if you were in a court of law.
Although we intertwine vvith COlllillunity Developlnent quite
often because \ve deal with property issues, \ve're not part of thenl.
We only try to enforce the rules of the ordinances of the land
- developll1ent code that have already been established.
So you \vant to be very clear that the language precisely gives
you an out if you decide -- if you're going tovvards picking up a penllit
and following your SDP plans.
MR. SLA VICH: Okay. I mean, that's a nlisunderstanding.
Because the understanding is that if you pick your pennit up, then
you're in -- if you pay your ilnpact fees, excuse nle, and pick your
permit up, then you're in cOlnpliance with your SDP and you would
not be required to hydro-seed.
So we need to amend that agreelnent to say that in the event "\ve
don't pick our permit up by next Wednesday, then \ve would -- I 111ean,
I can't hydro-seed the saIne day. But we would be required to
hydro-seed the entire site, including the roadways and everything.
That is the intent of "\vhat our discussions have been and what we've
been trying to do.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Mr. Chairnlan, I assume that we can do
one of two things. Either we can -- we're not approving the
stipulation. We can continue it on the agenda and allow them an
opportunity -- the County and Respondent an opportunity to alnend
their agreement and bring it back to us this nlolning.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think that's going to table it.
Page 26
161lA.L
Novelnber 20~. 2008
MR_, I<RAEJ~BRIl~G: hiLL Chainl1an~ therels also a Inen1ber of
the COlllil1unity that wanted to speak on this.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\lRE: Yes.
MR. SLA V1CH: Just so you understand, this has been going on
for quiteso111e tiIne. Understand that. There is not a chance--llloney
is sitting down on Fifth Avenue -- that this peDTIit is not getting paid
or the inlpact fees are not getting paid either this afternoon or
tOlTIOrro"\v mODling, unless sOlnebody gets run over that is bringing the
check up here. That \vould be the only way the lTIOney is not cOIning
into Development Services.
MR. LARSEN: \Vell, we hope that doesn't happen.
-------MR-KELLy: Ho\v about -- you knovv, since vverre here and
we're hearing it, how about we add that provision in ourselves and
then just approve the stipulation "\vith the changes?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have to have both parties agree
to it, which it sounds like they are. They have. And then we have the
couple people fro111 the public that would like to --
MS. PETRULLI: If I may, Inay I make a cOilllnent?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I need to have you swonl in.
(Speaker was 'duly sworn.)
MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Supervisor Patti Petrulli with
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MS. PETRULLI: I'd like to make a comment here. In the land
development code I searched and searched. I can find no"\vhere in the
land development code written black and white where it says that
when he is issued the permit it alleviates his responsibility to have the
property hydro-seeded.
One of the purposes of hydro-seeding is to keep the dust
obviously from blowing. And let llle just for -- read this. When fill is
used to bring building lots to desired construction elevations, those
lots shall iInmediately be seeded to prevent erosion, exotic seed
Pal2:e 27
~
-J..6 J .,; .. -
November ;.0, ;dc/11
infestation. All fill areas \vhere lots or stockpiles Inust have erosion
controlled field fencing. Any stockpiling i11 place for 1110re than six
months Inust be sodded or hydro-seeded, Failure to do so \vithin 14
calendar days of notification by the County \vill result in a fine of $10
per day. -This has been going on for 18 lllonths.
In the event that any pOliion of the stockpile is in place for
greater than 18 lllonths, the County will order the fill to be removed
and the land to be revegetated. I understand what I\1r. Slavich is
saying that he is going to probably get the pell11it next week. But my
question is in ll1Y responsibility to the citizens that live next door is: If
he does not hydro-seed, ifhe's -- it's 46 acres. Ifhe's working on 10
acres - at one-tinle, what about the- fest of the property? -
We're going into the dry season. So \vhatever area he's not
working on will not have hydro-seed on. And they're going to have
the sanle problelns that they've been having for the last 18 months.
And in fairness to the residents that sun.ound that area, I have to nlake
that conunent.
:MR. SLA VICH: I have a point of clarification. There is not 46
acres that's cleared.
MS. PETRULLI: It is a total of 46 acres.
MR. SLA VICH: I understand that. But over 20 acres have been
deeded to Southwest -- to South Florida Watef Managelnent for the
flow way and is a preserve. You're not hydro-seeding sOlnething that's
going to be -- that's a flow way in the district.
MS. PETRULLI: But, sir, with all due respect because you did
not do what you were supposed to do when you initially started by
hydro-seeding as soon as you disturbed the land, when you stali
construction you're still leaving portions of that uncovered due to
erosion. We're going to have winds. It's the dry season. So where
does that leave your surrounding neighbors?
MR. SLA VICH: We're not having any stockpile of fill. And this
discussion caIne up at the Board of County Conllnissioners meeting
Page 28
Novcml~:~J 2JgA 1
t\:vo or three weeks ago. \Vhat \ve aQ:reed to do and vvbat \i,relVe already
~ 0 ~
done is gone in and any piles that are out there we graded,
'\Ve graded the, quote, unquote, fill pads that there are SaIne lots f'
that are filled to grade to build. We graded the slope of those do"\vn to
, four to one slope, "\vhich is the requirement and they are hydro-seeded.
Those specific lots Inight not be disturbed, but you're talking
about a 20-acre site that's going to have stonnv/ater, paving, sewer and
everything else. So the entire site is going to be disturbed.
There's also a buffer wall four feet high that needs to be built up
against the preserve to prevent from erosion and water.
MS. PETRULLI: I think for your benefit you need to look at
S01l1e of these photos. I was out there 'Monday. 1vIy investigator was
out there yesterday.
One of the things that the BCC had requested is the stockpiling
be leveled out. There was SOlne that \vas leveled out, but as you will
be able to see by the photos that there are In any , nlany that \vere not
leveled out.
Mr. Slavich, did he do some hydro-seeding? Yes, he did. But
lnost of the hydro-seeding in the slnall area he did did not take. The
only one -- the picture -- the only picture you're going to see where
there's some green is the actual -- where the nlodel hOInesite was
going to be.
So you have a lot of erosion going on out there. And I just
wanted to bring that to your attention.
This here is SOlne of the stockpiling that's going on. Some of
those piles of rocks were leveled out. But as you can see, there's lnany
Inore. W e'lllet you see S011le of the other photos.
There's another exalnple there. I don't k110"\V if you can see it,
gentlemen. I apologize. But it shows you how barren it is out there.
And ifhe's not requested to hydro-seed at all -- I realize he's
going to be "\vorking. I realize it's a construction site. But, at the saIne
,time, what do we do about the erosion going into the dry season?
PaQ:e 29
'-'
16 'I i A 1 ~
November 2 ,,2008
1\1R. LARSEN: Ma\an1, 1 understand your points" The Board \vas
asked to approve a stipulation. Clearly there is no agreenlent betvveen
the County and the Respondent. And I \vould lllove that \ve not
approve the stipulation. And if this goes on for a hearing today, it
goes on for a hearing.
MS. PETRULLI: And I appreciate that. I just wanted to lnake
you aware of the problellls. And Mr. Slavich did, in good faith, sign
that stipulation with us. And "\ve explained to hiITI the stipulation and
he did sign it.
MR. SLA VICH: Is erosion control --
:MR. LARSEN: \Ve can't have a colloquy between you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we're ahnost hearing the case
no\v and we don't want to do that. You came here in front of us
regarding a stipulation. And obviously vve're talking about the
stipulation right now.
Now, I'ln not sure if we should have the -- I guess make a
decision or have the public COlne up first and --
:MR. LARSEN: Well, rather than a stipulation, if we're going to
have a hearing, we should have the hearing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Let's nlake a decision if
we're going to have the hearing or not or stipulate if we're going to
approve the stipulation or deny it.
Do I hear a motion to deny the stipulation?
:MR. LARSEN: I Inove that we deny -- "\ve not approve the
stipulation.
:MR. PONTE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: AU those in favor?
:MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Page 30
16 '1 A 1
1'-JOVe111Der ]tJ 2008
I\1R.1JEAJ'\J: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
Jv1R. KELL ,{: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So do you "\vant to direct
theln to try to COlle up with a --
MR. LARSEN: I don't think that's within our purview to direct
them to reach an agreelnent. If they need lTIOre tilne before we can
bring this on for a hearing, we can Illove to alnend the agenda so that
MR~-KELL y: It's next.
MR. LARSEN: -- 4.C.l is not heard inunediately and that "\ve go
on to the next. And \ve put 4.C.1, Bee versus Elnpire Developers,
down at the bottoln of the hearing list to give them an opportunity to
discuss it further.
If they want to proceed to a hearing now, that's fine with nle, as
well.
rv1R. KRAENBRING: Well, I think you have to ask that of the
County and the Respondent. So are you going to go out and work out
the details to the stipulation or do you want to lnove toward a hearing?
rv1R. SLA VICH: I mean, I'll be more than happy to work that
out. I mean, there isn't a construction site in Collier County that's
putting infrastructure in that's required to hydro-seed while
infrastructure is going in.
But I'll be more than happy to go out and abide by the LDC that's
in place and hydro-seed after if we haven't picked the permit up. As I
said earlier, that's a nloot point. But I understand why we need an
agreelllent.
rv1R. KELLY: 1'd like to be heard, Mr. Chair.
Since we know so lnuch about the case now, when a ne"\v
stipulated agreelnent COlnes back, if it's not very clear 1'nl going to be
Page 31
-.f6/1Al
i -, b ,'')U- ')(0')
;"!O\'enl el ~ ~ ._d ;:)
more likely to push to\vards hearing the details of the case, Because
I'd like to k110\V 1110re about \vhat the SDP states and how that
alleviates them [rOITI having to do any hydro-seeding for the next 18
months.
It's ahTIost like it's restarting the cycle. I'ITI curious to see how that
plays out.
:MR. LARSEN: I believe there's a Inelnber of the audience that
would like to be heard on this matter.
Sir, vve're not at a hearing stage yet.
MR. MAYBERRY: Right. My objection is to --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Vie can't -- when they COll1e back
Vvith a stipulated agreement, then we can hear you at that point. So I
guess that's what we're going to do. We're going to amend the agenda
and you'll con1e back hopefully \vith a stipulated agreen1ent.
MR. SLA VICH: Okay. Perfect.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or rehear the case.
rvrR. LARSEN: I nlake a Ination to amend the agenda itell1.
MR. DEAN: So move.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
:MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
:MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
:MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
MS. WALDRON: Sa we're going to place this iteln last on the
hearings?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. That's correct.
Page 32
1/ ~ lAl
.;", I "
N \',~rn~~r ~o.. o.
1\118. \V.l~LDRON: .L~nd \ve also have another stipulation
agreen1ent.
CHAIRl\/1AN LEFEB\TRE: Okay,
1\118. \V ALDRON: For 4.C.4.
MR. KELLY: I ll1ake a Illation to an1end the agenda.
CHAIR1v1AN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
Jv1R. KRAENBRING: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L1ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.------.-
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIR.MAi'J LEFEBVRE: Next stipulated agreel11ent would be
BCC versus Maricela Nunez.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BALDWIN: This is in reference to case nU111ber
2007080129, Board of County Con1111issioners versus Maricela
Nunez, dealing with a separated guest house constructed without first
obtaining proper Collier County pennits located at 1401 Orange
Street, l1nmokalee, Florida 34142, folio nUlTIber 30682040005.
The Respondent has agreed to enter into a stipulated agreelnent.
Respondent is to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.71
incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by
obtaining a Collier County building permit, inspections and certificate
of conlpletion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per
day "\vill be inlposed until violation is abated or obtaining a Collier
County demolition permit, inspections and celiificate of cOlnpletion
within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day "\vill be
Page 33
ove~b~r ~O 2~gA 1
ilnposed untit violation is abated.
If Respondent fails to abate the violation the County Inay abate
the violation and Inay use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order at the owner's
expense.
Respondent lTIUst notify Code Enforcement \vithin 24 hours of
abateInent of the violation and request investigator to perform a site
inspection to confirn1 cOlnpliance.
CHAIRlv1AN LEFEB\lRE: State your nalne for the record.
MS. NUNEZ: Maricela Nunez.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agreed to this stipulation?
'-----MS.-~TEZ: I do. But I have a concen1 and a question.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. NUNEZ: I purchased that hon1e in 1996. That was 12 years
ago. And it was owner -- owner finance. I had no idea that that
d"\velling was not pennitted.
I also got it financed six years ago through Suncoast Credit
Union. It went right through the chalmels. No one said anything to
Ine until a year ago when Jonathan stepped in.
My question is: Couldn't it be grandfathered in without Ine
having to pay all these -- because I have to hire a contractor to get it
approved. I have to pay all these fees. And I don't think that I should
have to pay for all that.
I Inean, the shed is 20 by 20. It's withstood all these hurricanes
that have gone through the area. I mean, I want to use it for the
appliances, for lawmnowers, for whatever, you know, I need it for.
But I don't -- really I don't have the monies to really pay for all
these fees that is required. That will be required.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It says ~-
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, Inay I ask a question after? Let
Ine hold that one.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It says guest house. Is it a guest
Page 34
NO\iem~l~iJ~ 2iJofA j
house or is it a storage shed?
l\1S, NUNEZ: \V eU~ no\".1 it \vill have to be -- it has been --
actually, I have not rented that home like in t\vo years. I have not
received any lTIOney.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: l-Jo one lives there?
MS. ~TlJ}.,TEZ: No one. Not even in the other d\velling. I have
not rented that house out. It has been a long time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen.
MR. LARSEN: Actually, that was Iny question \vhether or not it
was a guest house or a shed that had yard tools in it.
I would like to ask the Code Enforcell1ent Investigator what his
observation of the unit was.~.------ n
MR. MUSSE: I can show you pictures at your request. I do
have theln.
When I first got there, it was a guest house. There was a
gentlelnan living there. It was poor living conditions. Electrical wires
exposed and --
MR. LARSEN: I would like to see the photographs, please.
MR. MUSSE: I haven't showed it to her, so --
MR. LARSEN: Show the photographs to her.
Mr. Chainnan, are we entering the arena of actually hearing the
case when we see the photographs?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we did see photographs in the
last one.
MR. KELLY: It's a stipulated agreement.
MS. NUNEZ: I also want you to know that when he went to the
house \ve stopped the construction because it ,vas being repaired at
that time. I had hired a gentlenlan to go and do the electrical work.
He did -- had not gone to finish the job, but it was -- as you see it
here, it was never touched. We just left it alone, never had anybody go
back and do any kind of additional work.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You would like to enter this as --
Page 35
16 1 . ' rn
1 ' '0 n rl, A 1
~ovenjber .c::U; 2UU6
l\lIZ.l'vwSSE: Exllibit B-1 through 6. And Exllibit C-l.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a 111otion?
l\1R. KELLY: IVlake a Illation to accept the exhibits.
MR. LARSEN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
:Lv1R. KAUFMAN: Aye.
1v1R. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
:MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
-~ --~-,- MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
I'v1R. LARSEN: Thank you, Ms. Waldron.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, question.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you have any comnlents as to the
setbacks or zoning of this particular structure in that area?
MR. MUSSE: FrOln what I gather, when she tried to get
permitted as a guest house she didn't Ineet the required setbacks. Dave
Hendricks, fonner employee of the County, stated that when she tried
to apply for a variance to obtain a penn it for the guest house -- he
stated that the variance -- there was no way she could get approved for
the variance, but possibly get permitted as a shed.
MR. KRAENBRlNG: Okay.
MS. NUNEZ: The setbacks are there. I have the measurements
here that I did myself.
MR. KRAENBRlNG: Can I ask what your intentions are with
the property; repair it and --
MS. NUNEZ: Well, actually what I -- what I had plalmed and I
still can if it is approved is I want to repair it so that it is strong enough
and -- you know, reasonable enough to keep as a shed. I want to
Page 36
~
16' M<
Novenlber 2~ 10~8 ..
Vi'
vviden the doors so 1 can get a drive-in ta\vn 1110\Ver.
MR. KRAENBRl1\JG: Do you think that 120 days is an adequate
alTIOunt oftiIne?
MS.1\TU1'\TEZ: Actually, because I have been struggling
economically. I'Ill actually right now supporting two households,
which is that and the hOIne I live in. I need a little bit more time than
that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MR. DEAN: I have a problelTI with that. The fact that I think
you're going to use it for a living area. It looks like it's set up --
MS. NUNEZ: No, I won't do that. I teach at Pinecrest. I'ln not
going"to do-anything that is -- that is going to jeopardize Iny job or Iny
reputation or -- you k110\V.
"MR. DEAN: If son1ebody hasn't been in the propeliy for tvvo
years, I think there is a little neglect there. So I worry about it being
rented.
rv1S. NUNEZ: I prolTIise it's not going to happen.
MR. LARSEN : Well, the issue now is whether or not we
approve the stipulation agreement between the County and Ms.
Nunez. And 1'nl inclined to approve the agreenlent. I think the 120
days is fair to the Respondent and --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a couple of issues about
approving this stipulation. One being that it states in the violation that
it's a guest house and she states it is going to be a storage shed. And
our stipulated agreement doesn't state ,vhere -- what it is supposed to
be.
Is it going to be a shed or it's going to be pennitted as a guest
house? So what are we approving? Weare approving it to be a guest
house or a shed, which are two different things.
If it's a shed, it's not going to have the bathroom and all the
facilities. If it's a guest house --
:tv1R. LARSEN: Does that really Inatter? Basically she's going to
Page 37
16 J ,. " ~~
M ~..; 1
1 . ,0 l' "'.. } ( .1
i\!O\clLD\..l ..:.J. __..0.
have to get the pe1111it, inspections, cOlnpletion of 120 days,
ilTespective ofyvhether or not it's a guest house or a shed.
She can do \vhat she likes as long as she's properly pennitted.
She could Inake it into something completely different.
Right now, based upon the photographs, what \ve have clearly is
a property that \vas used for rental purposes. I don't think there is any
denial of that.
But Ms. Nunez, if she can get the penl1its to nlake it into a guest
house, that's fine. You know, if they can get pennits to 111ake it into a
storage shed or some other thing, I think that's a prerogative, as ,veil.
At this point I believe that 120 days is a sufficient alllount of time
for her to one way or another figure out \vhat she wants to do ,vith the
property .
CHAIRMAN LEFEBv~: Any other cOlnments?
MR. DEAN: I just have one more conunent. You're not going to
be renting this out or somebody is not going to be living there?
MS. NUNEZ: V/ell, like I had told in the very beginning, it has
always been -- it used to be an additional -- additional 1110nies for Ine.
So when I talked to Jonathan, then I was in the understanding I cannot
-- I camlot rent that house. So I did exactly what he said that I could
not do.
But Iny concern was -- you know, and what I wished, that I
wanted, was it to be a guest because that's what I had used it for
before. So if it -- if I can use it as a guest, then I would really -- it
would really help me out a lot.
MR. DEAN: Can I just ask one more?
When you say a guest, you have cOlnpany over and let them live
in there?
MS. NUNEZ: Yeah.' Stay in there.
MR. DEAN: The wiring and the plumbing, it's all out of code.
And if you let sOlnebody live there, that's what bothers nle.
MS. NUNEZ: Actually, ,vhen I -- when Jonathan ,vent to the
Page 38
NO\JJ~rto. 2~jll
house, the house \vas not used. But I kne\v this older 111an and he
asked ifhe could live there and I said Yes.
.;
So \vhile he \vas living there, I \vasn1t charging hin1 anything.
And it was under construction. It vvas being \vorked 011, but we
stopped it because Jonathan stepped in.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\1RE: Any other questions?
MS. NUNEZ: He didn't have a place. He was a hOlneless man.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a Ination?
~. LARSEN: I lTIOVe tbat we approve the stipulation
agreement as proposed by the County at this tillie.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
I\1R. KRAENBRING:. Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
MR. DEAN: Nay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Nay.
Motion passes. Stipulated agreelnent.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chainnan, does the reporter need a break?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We'll take five. We'll COlne
back at quarter after.
(A recess was held from 10:04 a.m. until 10:14 a.ln.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I aln going to call the Code
EnforcelTIent meeting back to order.
And our next case is Bee versus Eduardo and A1mette Nodarse.
And it is CEB number 2007020522.
(Speakers were duly S\VOlTI.)
Page 39
--
.161 1" ,); .;,
ovelnber 20~ 2008 A J
MS. \V ALDRON: Okay. This IS in reference to departlnent case
number 2007020522~ Bee versus Eduardo and Annette Nodarse.
For the record, the Respondent and the Board ,vas sent a packet
of evidence and \ve \vould like to enter the packet of evidence as
Exhibit "A'l.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. KELLY: l\10tion to accept the packet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
"MR. KRAE~TBRING: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: AU those ill favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LIESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. K_RAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
I\1R. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. WALDRON: Violation of ordinance 04-41 as amended,
Collier County land develoPlnent code, Section 3.05.01(B).
Description of violation: Property has been n1echanically cleared
in excess of one acre without required pennits.
Location/address where violation exists: 4184 6th Avenue N.E.,
Naples, Florida.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Eduardo and .Annette N odarse, 4184 6th Avenue N .E.,
Naples, Florida 34120.
Date violation first observed: 2-20-2007.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: 5-29-07.
Page 40
}.t. r ~4 t\
NOVenl~'r 2o"io@r~
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: 5-16-07.
-'
Is that right?
MR. LARSEN: That's a problem.
MS. \VALDRON: Date of reinspect ion: 8-1-08.
Result of reinspection: Violation rell1ains.
At this tilne I ,vould like to call Code Enforcement Investigator
Susan O'Farrell.
MS. O'FARRELL: Good 1110ming. For the record, Susan
O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcelnent Investigator and
environmental specialist.
This is in reference to case nunlber 2007020522 with violation of
Sections 3.05.01(B). It is located at 4184 6th Avenue N.E., Naples,
Florida in regards to clearing in excess of one acre without a pennit. '
I would now like to present case evidence "A" or "B" through
"E". Sorry there is so Inany.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have the Respondents seen the
pictures?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, they have.
MR. KELLY: Make a Ination to accept the packet.
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
MS. OfF ARRELL: I would also like to add that Mr. Nodarse has
his daughter as his translator.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do \ve need to swear her in as a
Page 41e'-'
161
lAl
Ni 0' ,','Cl '1- t, 'ClIO) 'J ) (j' CJ Q
1 \. ,,1 1 ,C ~,' \ ~ ~ ()
translator?
1\115, RA\VSON: Yes.
(~1s. ~v1artinez \vas S\VOn1 in to interpret frOITI English to Spanish
and Spanish to English.)
CRAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is the size of the property?
MS. O'FARRELL: I believe it is 2.25. Let Ine see.
MR. KELLY: .28.
MS. a'F ARRELL: 2.28; is that what it says on the aerial?
1\1R. KELLY : Yes.
CHMRMAN LEFEBVRE: How llluch over the one acre has
been cleared roughly?
MS. O'FARRELL: Roughly they have cleared 1.32 acres lninus
the one acre. So we are talking about .32 acres. They have left
uncleared .95 acres.
CHMRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has everyone had a chance to look
at them?
l\1R. KELLY: Yes.
CHMRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you set?
MS. OfF ARRELL: 1'nl ready.
The case was originated by general investigator Michelle
Scavone, who observed on 2-20-2007 the property cleared and spoke
to the owner who stated her husband had cleared -- had cleared the
property so the children could play. She took photos, which are
presented with Exhibit "B".
Staff researched the property and showed that it was cleared .32
acres in excess of one acre without the necessary pennits.
MS. MARTINEZ: I would like to -- he wasn't aware that he
needed --
MS. OfF ARRELL: I'ln sorry. But the presentation of the first
part of the case is for the investigator and then the Respondent is
allowed to --
1v1R. LARSEN : You will have your --
Page 42
.._.~._,_ 'It r'l"'_e__~'"
Nol,l1tkr 20~~81
MS. MPRTINEZ: I thought she was done.
MS,OIFARRELL: No, I'Ill sorry,
The intervie\v \vas sent and signed for by the Respondent on 11ay
29, 2007. The Nodarses \vere given a list of envirolllnental
consultants that they could use in order to prepare their plan for
mitigation. He \vas hired, but not paid his contract fee.
So the acting supervisor, Marlene Serrano and the then Code
Enforcelnent Investigator J en \Valdron worked very closely with the
Nodarses to try and C0111e up \vith a plan. They required -- let's see. It
was ten slash pines and 30 three-gallon saw palmettos. The plan was
then changed again to 40 slash paln1elios instead of -- I'Ill sony. Saw
palmettos instead of the slash pines.- --
When the staff conducted the site visit, they detennined that the
native plants had been not installed and found that seven plants had
been planted and 20 ficus. These are nonnative plants. Originally the
plan was accepted for the ten slash pine and 30 tbTee-gallon saw
pal111ettos.
I was on site and observed no plants that were nOlmative and
County accepted that were installed. And all the nOlulative plants that
were installed were dying or not thriving. Those vvould be on Exhibit
"C".
Exhibit liD" is the aerials that show the property over the last
three years and how it has been cleared with 2008 Inore cleared.
When I was on the property on the July 30th visit, I observed more
destruction to the property.
And, you know, I aln finished presenting Iny case.
MR. LARSEN: I have SOlne questions of Ms. O'Farrell. Mr.
Chairman, may I please?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: How did you calculate it was in excess of one
acre?
MS. O'FARRELL: I had lny staff researcher, ,vho is quite good
Page 43
'-'
Nove!b~r t" 2~tA 1
\vith 111aps. Ail0 he is here to restify5 ifyouid like.
l~is nanle is Investigator Pete Seltzer. And he created a filap that
we can pass around that \ve can sho\\1 it as Exhibit !IF".
MR. LARSEN: \\Thy don't you shovv that to the Respondent and
have your Inan testify.
(Speaker ,vas duly S\VOlTI.)
MR. SELTZER: For the record, envirorunental specialist Pete
Seltzer.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Get closer to the Inicrophone.
:MR. SELTZER: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on one Ininute.
MR. SELTZER: Sure.
11R. KELLY: Make a 111otion to accept Exhibit "F".
.MR. DEAN: Second.,
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
.MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
.MR. LARSEN: Aye.
lv1R. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
.MR. DEAN: Aye.
.MR. PONTE: Aye.
.MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved.
MS. O'FARRELL: These are approxilnate calculations. They
are not exact. And Mr. Seltzer will explain to you how he did it.
Are you ready?
1v1R. SELTZER: Okay. What I did basically to calculate the
acreage is I used the aerials from 2008. And using the GIS Arc map
program, I was able to actually draw out the outlines of the cleared
Page 44
1 6 ,1 A 1 t,
No\'ember ~20,. 2008
sections and generate a feel for the calculated acreage, And doing
sirnple Inath conversions f1'o111 square feet to acres, I vvas able to dravv
out -- calculate out the cleared sections and the sections that renlained.
Like Ms. O'Farrell said, this is just an estilnate. This is not an
exact survey. This \vas done froln the cOlnputer, not at the site. And
it's relying on the data layers that C0111e froIn Collier County. Nothing
luore than that.
And I have had several years of experience doing this for the
State of Florida with the Division of Forestry. I even worked for the
fire departInent doing mapping. I feel fairly cOInfortable with it.
MR. LARSEN: So what's your professional opinion?
MR. SELTZER: My professional opinion is that it's accurate to
only a certain degree. It would not give you a clear estin1ate. Maybe
within a tenth or nearest two-tenths of an acre.
MR. LARSEN: Is it your professional opinion that in excess of
one acre was cleared or not, sir?
:rv1R. SEL TZER: Yes. Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: How ITIuch in excess of one acre was cleared?
MR. SELTZER: I would say, based on Iny knowledge,
anywhere between a quarter and a half. 1'nl not going to be precise. I
want to cover lTIyself on this.
So between 1.25 and 1.5 acres based on the --
MR. LARSEN: Right.
MR. SELTZER: -- estimate that I generated.
MR. LARSEN: But your testilnony has to be clear. Is it in
excess of one acre or not?
MR. SEL TZER: Yes, sir. Without a doubt.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MS. O'FARRELL: We anticipated that question.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you all set with your case?
MS. O'FARRELL: 1'111 ready to turn it over to the Respondent.
MS. MARTINEZ: Basically he did not clear out one acre and a
Page 45
~oJ
,
.~, Ii'
,M
ovel11ber 20" 1008' '7
quarter. There vVas stuff cleared out before \vhen the house '\?vas Inade.
What he cleared out was in the back, not an acre and a quarter.
~1R, L!ESPE~ANCE: Speak into the Inicrophone, please, You
can actually Inove the Inicrophone towards you.
MS. MARTINEZ: Like I said, there was -- I mean, he cleared
out stuff in the back.
And 110t in the front. And he didn't take out any big trees or
anything. The trees that are Inissing are, like, I guess, the cypress.
The taller trees that are Inissing have gradually fallen off with tilne.
And, you know, and he -- the thing \vas, too, he bought two
acres, and nobody told us that ,ve could only have an acre for us to do
vvhatever \ve needed to do with it or he needed to do \vith it.
Also, v{hen he did the contract to the house to get the house built,
he specified he didn't want any big trees taken out. So, I ll1ean, to our
knowledge it was because he had taken ofT SOITIe trees -- the reason
\ve're here is because he had taken off SOlne trees he wasn't supposed
to. But now I see it all taking a turn that he cleared Inore than an acre.
He said that towards the back there was slnaller trees and just
pretty much weeds and stuff. He wasn't aware that \ve needed a
pennit also to clear out anything in the lot.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you look at the aerials between
2007 and 2008 -- I don't know if you have that in front of you.
MS. MARTINEZ: I don't, but we did take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is a distinct difference in the
way the land looks. 2008 it appears to be quite a bit of the property is
cleared and it's pretty stark. It's pretty obvious that a good part of the
land has been cleared at that point.
MR. NODARSE: (In English) Look at that. It's all big tree. It's
over there.
MS . MARTINEZ: All basically he cleared out was the -- I guess,
the slnaller stuff. But he didn't clear out any big trees. And basically
if you can see froln 2007, a lot of trees have been drying up and
Page 46
16 I l~ A 1
NoveInber 20, 2008
~
falling, as well. Like the taller ones.
lYfR. NODARSE: Not only ll1Y land. It's every land around. The
big tree is gray.
CHAIR1v1AN LEFEB\1RE: 1\11r. Kaufn1an, go ahead.
lv1R. KAUFMAN: I see on Exhibit C-l that there's a hoat and
the front part of an I8-wheeler and, I guess, a trailer. Are those -- is
that why the road was put in; to get those vehicles back there?
And is it being used for that purpose?
MS. MARTINEZ: Yes, it is. And everything that he took out of
the lot he didn't burn it, he didn't bury it or anything. It's in the back
and it's living. It's actually there.
IvlR. NODARSE: It's living anyway.
MS. O'FARRELL: I'n1 sorry. But this case is here about the
vegetation relTIOval. If he cleared for the road and for the trucks, you
still need to get a pennit.
I Inight also say that if he transplanted anything in the back, I
didn't see it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
Go ahead. Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY: Susan, do they ever allow people to clear more
than one acre?
F or instance, if I was to go in and get a pelmit and I wanted to
clear an extra half an acre 011 111Y property over the one, that's allowed;
do they allow those?
MS. O'F ARRELL: They would allow you to clear as long as you
had an accessory use. An accessory use would be keeping animals,
building another guest house that was not going to be rented but used
periodically. And then they would get the space for that house -- the
square footage of that propeliy structure, as well as the setback.
But to clear in order to operate a business, unless they got a
variance to the zoning, they vvould not be allovved to do that without a
permit.r
Page 47
,1 II "~
161 i', ,\'
'I ~_,' ..~
~I
,
No"vernber 20, 2008
l'vlI~. KELL '{: Thank you.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairnlan.
CHAIRI\1AN LEFEB\IRE: Yes.
:MR. LARSEN: Ms. O'FaITell, what's the County's response to
the Respondent's contention that the Respondent didn't personally
clear in excess of an acre; that it was partially cleared prior to his
purchase of the property?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the Collier County code states that we
hold the property owner responsible. Also, the property that was
cleared for the house, the driveway, the front yard, the side yards
would have been close to that one acre.
MR. LARSEN: And in respect to the clearing on the back of the
property, that exceeded one acre?
1\18. OfF ARRELL: That's why it's .32, instead of the whole
property or even half of the property.
MR. LARSEN: The County's contention in regard to that area
that has been cleared which is in excess of one acre constitutes, what,
a violation?
MS. O'FARRELL: A violation of the code.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And that's what this Respondent has been
cited for?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
MS. O'FARRELL: It's the .32 of an acre that they're being cited
for.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Do you understand that and what exactly
you're being cited for?
Because there was SOlne question that initially you thought it was
for removing SOlTIe vegetation.
MS. MARTINEZ: That's what we were told at first. That it was
because ,ve had removed some vegetation and they wanted us to put
certain plants in.
Page 48
1611Al
Noven1ber 20, 2008
However~ \ve \vere told to put celiain plants and there \\Tas a
rnisconul1unicatiol1 beiween Iny parents and, I guess, the other ~- I ~
guess investigators they vvere vvorking vI/ith. And they put in the
wrong plants. But it's not like that they \vere not trying to fix the
problem. Because obviously you could tell they've been putting plants
in, but just the \vrong ones.
.Lv1R. LARSEN: I just want to be clear.
MS. MARTI1\TEZ: But yes, yes.
MR. LARSEN: Do you understand \vhy you're here today?
MS. MARTINEZ: Yes.
:tv1R. LARSEN: Did you hear Jv1s. Q'FaITeIl's testilTIOny that it's
because it was in excess of one acre by a certain anlount because that
,vas cleared in the back? And that's 'Nhy the violation is being
presented to the Board today.
MS. MARTINEZ: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: All right. I just want to lnake sure you
understand what --
MS. MARTINEZ: Right.
MR. NODARSE: (In English) I'nl sorry for that.
MR. LARSEN: It's fine.
MS. MARTINEZ: We were not aware that he wouldn't clean
Inore than one acre. I Inean, we figured he bought two acres and __
tw'o acres and sonle, but we weren't aware that he could only use of
his property one acre.
MR. LARSEN: Thank you very llluch, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MS. O'FARRELL: I would like to make a statelnent. The
Nodarses were told several times by Marlene Sen'ano, who also
speaks Spanish, what the violation was. She negotiated with them for
saw palmettos, which would have been the primary plant there and the
ten slash pines, ,vhich would have been the secondary.
So I believe they knew what plants they were supposed to plant.
Page 49
'~MIiI"_"--"',--_.'~-~"'~ ~ .... T _ ._____~~._..._..__.".,"'~_....""....._.__...'______"'"___~'
~.6J, J.Al
No\'~n1ber ~~008
i\l1d also the fact that they planted those queen palms in a straight line
would not have been sOlnething that vvould have been told to theln by
an environnlental investigator or supervisor.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
MS. a'F ARRBLL: So r understand them saying that they didn't
recognize that they had the violation. But then \vhen they were given
Inany opportunities to abate it, they did not.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MR. LARSEN: Make a Illation. I lnove that a violation of
ordinance 04-41 as amended by the County, County land development
code, Section 3.05.01(B) did, in fact, exist.
I\IfR. DEAN: I'll second that Inotion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
lVIR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. A violation has been
found.
MS. O'F ARRBLL: We have a recommendation by the County
that will be passed out by Ms. Waldron.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you say that there was a
mitigation plan prepared previously?
MS. O'F ARRBLL: The lnitigation plan was not prepared by an
environmental consultant. It was negotiated between the investigators
and the supervisor and the N odarses.
Page 50
J.bl
'1
I
, ,_~J'~
Novenlber 20, 2008
I can honestly say 1 \vas not the investigator at the tirne. rln
going by the records that were being kept by those investigators
involved.
l\1R. KAUFMAN: Is this recolnnlendation lllore than the
original agreenlent was for?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, it is.
MR. KELLY: I \vould like to take a stab at it, if you'd like.
MS. O'FARRELL: May I just tnake a statelnent real quick?
No; closed?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MS. O'FARRELL: The Initigation report that -- the 111itigation
- that ,vas approved by the general investigator or the supervisor I think
lllore reflected what the property actually looked like. And I also
believe that it was given in good faith and given with enough tilue to
subtnit it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY: That the CEB order the Respondent to pay all
operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30
days of the date of this hearing in the alnount of $86.43.
Number two, that the Respondent abate all violations by planting
and ensuring 80 percent survival \vithin two years often slash pines
and 30 saw pahnettos or a fine of $50 per day will be incurred for
every day thereafter the violation is not abated.
Number three, if the Respondent fails to abate the violation the
County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the
Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order.
Number four, the Respondent Inust notify Code Enforcetnent
Investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatenlent.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you mention anything about the
plants surviving over a period of tilne?
MR. KELLY: I did. In that case it was 80 percent survival
Page 51
-\
Novenl~2J5 2008 \
\^.rithin t\I\!O years,
MS. OfF ARRELL: Could you please clarify sOlnething for rne,
Mr. Kelly?
I\1R. KELLY: Sure.
MS. O'FARRELL: The Initigation report needs to be sublnitted
within how many days?
:MR. KELLY: I didn't put a Initigation report since that was what
the County had already talked about ,vith the Respondent. l'ln
figuring we can just put that into the order and save thelll the 1110ney
of getting an enviromnental specialist.
MS. O'F ARRELL: Okay. So, I guess, Iny question is that if that
mitigation was negotiated by the County, vV'ould there be a ceItain
nUlnber of days or shall vve just take that part of the reconunendation?
"MR. KELLY: Oh, I apologize. I don't think: I put a tilne fraIne.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
MR. KELLY : Yeah, I didn't. If it pleases the Board, let nle
alnend that motion to include a time fralne of 120 days.
MS. O'FARRELL: For the Initigation negotiation to be
submitted?
.MR. KELLY: To have everything planted and cOlTIpleted.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay.
MS. MARTINEZ: Excuse me. So I need somebody to explain
this to Ine, like, in simpler words.
1v1R. KELLY: Let us get it finished.
MS. MARTINEZ: Okay.
.MR. KELLY: Because we're working out the details and ,ve'll
absolutely explain it to you.
MS. MARTINEZ: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
1v1R. KELLY: Susan, would you be willing to also help them
with how to plant the vegetation?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I will.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 120 days we're at the cusp of going
Page 52
~6 J ~.L i~ 1
November 20,2008
into the dry season. And \vhen these things are planted~ itls going to
be, let's say, hypothetically March or so, \vhich is still very 111uch a dry
season.
MR. KELLY: This is true. If it please the Board, we obviously
can change that tin1e frallle.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. Go for it.
CHAIRIvlAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe six lTIonths, 180 days. And
that \vay they'll be catching the begilming of the \vet season, rainy
season.
MR. KELLY: \Vell, 180 days is still May. It's still dry.
MS. O'FARRELL: I'lll sony. Four months would be March.
Six 1110nths would be May.
MR. DEAN: Still dry.
MS. O'FARRELL: And I \vould go ,vith seven lllonths so that
June is actually -- we'll really be into the wet season.
MR. KELLY: In that case, I'll amend again to include a tiITIe
franle of seven 111onths.
MR. LARSEN: That would be 210 days.
MR. KELLY: 210 days.
MS. O'FARRELL: And that would be for the whole Initigation
and planting?
MR. KELLY: To have everything conlpleted.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: Could you clarify as to exactly what it is that
they are supposed to do in regards to planting?
.rv1R. KELLY: Yes. They're to plant ten slash pines alld 30 saw
palmettos.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
MR. KELLY: And the details of the size can be worked out with
the County's investigator.
MS.O'PARRELL: The original plan was for 30 gallon savv
palmettos and the slash pines \ve could do eight to ten feet tall so that
Page 53
{J!!ilAl
.,.\, ' \
Noven'rbe'r 20, 2008
theyw-ould have a better survivabilhy,
J:\1R. KELLY: Let's put that right in the order then.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
.MR. KELLY: Eight to ten-foot slash pines and 30-gallon saw
pahnettos.
Jean, are you getting all this?
MS. O'FARRELL: 30 three-gallon.
MR. KELLY: 33-gallon?
MS. O'FARRELL: 30-gallon slash pahnetto would be
humungous.
And then the $50 fine. $50 for the \vhole thing?
MR. KELLY: . $50 per day after the 210 days.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does everyone have that?
MR. KELLY: I tried to silnplify it. I don't think it caIne out that
way.
:MR. KRAENBRING: You did a good job.
CHAIR1v1AN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KELLY: Shall I explain it?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You can explain it because I didn't
jot down notes.
.MR. KELLY: Okay. Within seven lnonths you're to plant ten
Page 54
- - .
16". I "'.'
i .'\ 1
Novelnber 20, 200~
slash pine trees eight to 10- foot high, 30 tlu<ee-gallon sa\Jv paln1etios.
It's impoltant that those plants survive at a rate of 80 percent for two
years.
Okay. And then ,vithin 30 days make sure you pay the
operational costs of$86.43.
MS. ~1ARTINEZ: Where do I pay that to?
MR. KELLY: You can talk to Code Enforcelnent. Susan will
help you.
MS. MARTINEZ: Okay.
MR. KELLY: And, also, if you run into a problem somewhere
along the vvay, it's good to comn1unicate back with us.
MS. MARTINEZ: He wants to know -- he ,vants to know the
saw pines could be Inaybe --
MR. NODARSE: (In English) I have a rock -- a rock in Iny line.
MS. MARTINEZ: If they could be a little bit smaller.
MR. KELLY: They have to be eight to ten feet and you're going
to have to talk with Susan about where to plant Thein. What we don't
generally want is theln all in one cluster or one row.
MS. MARTINEZ: Right.
MR. KELLY: She's going to explain how to kind of put theIn in.
MS. MARTINEZ: Okay. That works. That works.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Great. Thank you very much. Have
a good day.
Next hearing will be BCC versus Mencia's Restaurant, Inc., CEB
number CESD 20080014639.
MR. ESPINOZA: Could I be sworn in as translator and
representative also?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Great. Thank you for telling
us.
(Mr. Espinoza was SWOTIl to translate from English to Spanish
and Spanish to English.)
(Speakers w"ere duly swonl.)
Page 55
_~'~_;$il_ .... _.._--~<..<.~-..,.~-,..__ I iI' ~
lfd lAl -.
November 20,2008
I\/[S, \\1 ALDRON: ThIS is reference to depalin1ent case nU111ber
CESD 20080014639, BCC versus Mencials Restaurant. For the
record~ the Respondent and the Board ,vas sent a packet of evidence
and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit flAr'.
CP.AIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a Illation?
Jv1R. KELLY: Motion to accept the packet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KRAENBRING: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
:rv1R. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CI-IAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
rvlR. lCELL Y: Aye.
MS. WALDRON: Violation of ordinance Collier County code
of laws and ordinances, Chapter 22 buildings and building regulations,
Aliicle II, Florida Building Code, as amended, Section 22 through
26[b][104.1.3.5],[106.1.2],Florida building code 2004 edition, Chapter.
1 pennits, Section [105.1J and 04-41, Collier County land
development code, as amended, Section 10.02.06 [B][l][e], and
1 0.02.06[B] [1][ e] [i].
Description of violation: Removal of sections of a firewall
without permits. A DJ booth constructed on the interior of the
structure without permits. A gas stove with a hood and a cooler
installed without permits. Electrical ,vork throughout building
cOlTIpleted without pennits.
Location/address where violation exists: 205 to 209 West Main
Street, lInmokalee, Florida 34142.
Name and address of o,vner/person in charge of violation
Page 56
1,~\61-1et~A23D8
location: Wienciais l~estauranL~ [nc'5 Juan Acevedo, P. O. Box 1648,
hnlnokalee, Florida 34142 as registered agent. Mencia R. Acevedo,
710 Oak Street, Fairlawn, New Jersey 07410. Juan Acevedo, 205
West Main Street, IInmokalee, Florida 34142.
Date violation first observed: Septelnber 19th, 2008.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October
7th, 2008.
Date on/by which violation to be cOITected: October 26th, 2008.
Date of reinspection: October 29, 2008.
Results of reinspection: The violation relTIains.
At this tilne I would like to present the case to Kitchell Snow.
MR. SNOW: Good lTIoming. For the record, Kitchell Snow.
That's spelled K-i-t-c-h-e-l-l S-n-o-w. This concell1S case nUlnber
CESD 20080014639. It's renlodeling additions without pell11its.
Folio of the property in question is 2558060002. Service ,vas
given on 10/7. The property \vas posted and registered Inail was
gIven.
And let Ine first start off by saying this a health and safety issue.
The paralnount issue here is the concenl for the safety . We do have a
packet of photographs ,veld like to sublnit. We can consider it Exhibit
B-1 through 9.
And we also testify that these photographs are a true and accurate
representation of the property as it was at the time of the photographs.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. LARSEN: Has the Respondent seen it?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. I showed Mr. Acevedo the
MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the photos.
lvfR. KRAENBRING: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
Page 57
'-"
1~cllb~2~ 2~08
I'v1R. LARSEN: ~Aye,
l\1R. KRAE1\TBRING: Ave.
"
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\TR_E: Aye.
lv1R. DEAN: Aye.
:MR. PONTE: Aye.
l\1R. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\TRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
What's the date of these photos?
MR. SNOW: They were taken on the 26th.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Of October?
MR. SNOVl: Of Septen1ber, sir.
As you can see, the first photograph you're going to see is -- it's
no fault of the Respondent's. But a vehicle ran thTough the front of
that. And that's initially how all this stalied.
We do nonnal task force Ineetings with Collier County Sheriffs
\vith the cOffilnunity policing and they alelied that this Inight be a
permitting issue. So we went to the property -- myself, Iny investigator
fi.oln lilllnokalee -- \vith the Sheriffs Office, Corporal Mike Taylor,
who will testify as an expert witness here sholily about the health and
safety issue of this property. And then \ve looked and we noticed
several things on the property.
And as you can see throughout, there's just -- they have massive
intrusion of the firewall. It was originally permitted as nvo separate
suites. And I'll submit as evidence the original property card here
shortly.
You see massive electrical work. I didn't even want to go in the
bathrooln it \vas so bad. And that vvasn't -- that's not a health and
safety issue.
The lnain health and safety issue is when the car struck the
original -- the building, there vvas possibility of structural damage.
Page 58
"\ e," '.' c1 A iJ..h
-,
,- ~
,'- ", .,')\ ')
u-k~bC1\~. . .'-
But it lTIoved 3 gas stove and they conTinue to operate.
When I \vent in, I initially told Mr. Acevedo I \vas very, very
concerned about having citizens in this with all these health and safety
issues. And they continue to operate today.
I don't think that ,ve should allo\v them to operate. I don't think
he should be operating until he's got his penl1its and all his inspections
and COso I think it's a severe health and safety issue for this
cOlmnunity .
As you can see by the photographs, I think that clearly states that.
I'd like to sublnit into evidence the property card, which is -- you
already have it. We'll go for Exhibit "e" on that 1 through 4. If you
look on that 'property card --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the Respondent seen this?
MR. SNOW: The -property card, no. I can show it to hiIn.
F or the record, on here if you will look on the --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion.
MR. KELLY: It's already been accepted.
MR. SNOW: On the first page you'll notice the structure that
there is an interior firewall. There's two separate structures. There's
two separate suites in there. In the time -- sometilne when it was built
and today that was -- the intrusion was made in there.
Also, if you look on there, it's got a very comprehensive record
on the property owners. There's only been one pennit on there. I
know there's sometimes a question about SOlne penllits in I1mTIokalee,
but this is a very thorough property card. It has a lot of information on
it.
I don't think any pennits have ever been pulled, other than the
original one. I checked CD Plus. There's been no pennits pulled,
other than one for a fire suppression system in 2003, which was never
COed. It was canceled.
Again, I just have severe reservations about letting this business
operate as it currently is. I don't think it's even renlotely safe for the
Page 59
1~4. ';
NovenJiJe' ,c. \ 2(~8A 1
citizens of Inu11okalee.
1\1R. LARSEN: 1v1r. Chainnan, Inay I ask Investigator Snow
SOlne questions?
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\!RE: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: For the record, Investigator S110\V -- Supervisor
Snow. I'm sorry. I apologize.
The first page you identified as the front of the building after an
autonlobile ran tlu.ough?
MR. SNO\V: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And you've got SOlne wood up there,
which, I guess, is secured in place?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. One of the questions I asked, sir, not to
intenupt you, was I had talked to one of the original contractors. And
he had some reservations about the structure being safe. And we did,
too.
If you look at one of those photographs back by where one of the
condensers is, you see the building is cracked.
MR. LARSEN: Well, we'll get there.
MR. SNOW: I'm sorry.
MR. LARSEN: The second photograph seelns to be SOlne
construction inside with a monitor of SOlTIe sort, a hand truck, and a
couple of speakers. What is that picture?
11R. SNOW: That's a OJ booth, sir.
11R. LARSEN: And after looking at the property card, was that
a permitted addition to --
MR. SNOW: No, sir.
MR. LARSEN: All right.
11R. SNOW: Keep in lnind, sir, this is supposed to be a
restaurant.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So, in your opinion, what is the status
of this DJ booth?
MR. SNOW: That's an illegal addition, sir.
Page 60
J. 6 4J.;\ 1
Gvelnber 20,1008
IvlP,--. LfIlRSEN: All right. (ioing on to the third photograph. It
seelns to be a stand-alone air conditioner of S0111e sort; is that correct?
MR. SNOW: It looks like a condenser to Ine, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And what's the inlportance of this
photograph?
MR. SNO\V: Well, sir, if you look on the top of that, that's the
coiling from around -- that goes through the wall. I don't knovv of
anything they could possibly permit. And they've got electrical
hooked up there S0111e way and I don't -- like I say, there's so lnany
things, as far as electrical, that's going on with the side of that and the
interior of that. We have no way of knowing is that even permittable
as it is.
I\1R. LARSEN: All right. But it's your contention that this is a
violation, as well? ,
MR. SNOW: That's illegal, sir, yes.
MR. LARSEN: Were you lnaking reference to any of the cracks
. in the side of the building?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. If you'll look above that, I'ln not sure
whether that happened because of the intrusion of the vehicle in front
of that property. But structurally that doesn't seem real sound to nle.
I'ln not a structural inspector, but I have grave concerns about this.
MR. LARSEN: Going on to the next photograph, it seems to be
an interior view with a colunul painted black and it looks like a
walk-in box.
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: What's the importance of this photo?
MR. SNOW: Sir, that's an intrusion into the firewall. There's an
intrusion into the firewall in two areas there.
MR. LARSEN : Well, when you say intrusion, you Inean the
firewall was Inoved partially?
MR. SNOW: It was cut.
MR. LARSEN: It was cut?
Page 61
Nov!n~eJ 2o,~o~81
Iv[R, Sl'-!O VI: It \vas cut and allowed intrusion into both suites,
SIr, yes.
MR. LARSEN: So vv'hat is your position in regard to -- is that
allowed; is that not allowed?
MR. SNOW: No, sir. It's never been pennitted to do that. There
are certain instances when you could be allo\ved to l11ake an intrusion,
but it has to be -- you have to have a pennit for it. They call it the
missing wall.
I'lTI sorry, sir?
MR. LARSEN: What's the danger?
:MR. SNOW: lfthe fire is going to go from one suite to the other.
MR. LARSEN: The next photograph is the saIne thing of an
interior with another black COlUl1U1. Is that for the saine purpose?
M_R. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: And that just shows a different perspective on it?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. And probably if you look at that
photograph in the fear you're going to see a cooler again. That's never
been -- there's no pennits for it. It's never been --
MR. LARSEN: You're talking about the two-door cooler in the
back?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: All right. And then the next paragraph--
photograph we seem to have another outside view of electrical
service?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: What's your cOlnplaint about this?
MR. SNOW: Never been pennitted, sir. We don't even know
what the load of that structure is, what's allowed in there, and ,ve need
an electrical.
MR. LARSEN: So there were no electrical permits ever pulled
on this propeliy?
MR. SNOW: Only on the original one, sir. And as you can see,
Paze 62
'-'
.. ""'-- .~ ..~.
1 6 1 i~"
NovelTlber ..::,OJ.&oH 1
there's a lot of additions in there.
MR, LARSEN: So it's the additional electrical service?
MR. SNO\V: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: And the next photograph SeelTIS to be lllore
, conduits?
:MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. -rv1ore conduits, additions, an electrical
added without pelmits.
Iv1R. LARSEN: Next photograph, what's that?
San1e thing; more conduits?
MR. SNOW: SaIne thing, sir. We're follovving a path.
MR. LARSEN: These conduits are -- vvere not pennitted?
MR. SNOW: Added illegally, yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: And then, finally, the last photograph seelllS to
be some wiring. What's that?
'-'
MR. SNO'V: Sir, that's the Inain electrical conling into it. As
you can see, there's discolUlects up there and there's other cOlmections
up there. There actually vvasa vvire hanging down fronl that that
appeared to be -- I don't kno,v \\That it was attached to.
And he told Ine he would pull it down and it was live. I know it
,vas live cOIning on the electric because I sa\v the nleter move. And I
advised him to get away froln it and don't pull it, so --
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have one question. Is that prior or after
the lneter?
MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, sir?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: These photographs --
MR. SNOW: Oh, those are prior to the lneter.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Prior to the Ineter?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I wanted to Inake that clear.
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Now, with the property card there is a schelnatic
on the front first page of the property card. Do you have that in front
Page 63
Nove:~r 1'0. 2!O~ 1
ofvou?
,I
IvfR. SN 0 \'"AT: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. LARSEN: A,U right. No\\!, there evidently is SOl1le 11larking
,vith a line down the ll1iddle vvhich represents that \IV all you ,vere
speaking of; is that correct?
MR. SNOW: That is correct, sir.
I\1R. LARSEN: All right. And is it your contention that that
,vall was the one that was partially relTIoved in the photographs?
l'v1R. SNOV/: That is Iny contention, sir.
MR. LARSEN: And in regard to the pernlitting, tell nle where
the pennitting would be found on this property card if --
MR. SNOW: Sir, if you look on the second page it says two --
parcel nU1l1ber rNo, page two. It's got one original pennit on there.
Nonnally when there are any additions done to these structures
pennits are added. And especially in the older systelll before CD Plus
__ prior to CD Plus, which was in the early '90s, this is ,vhere they
listed all those things on there.
And the reason I bring this up is if you look at the ownership on
one of these pages, it's very clear and concise about the property,
custody of the property going froln one to another.
And I checked for pemlits on this property. I checked in every
system we have available. And there's never been any pennits, other
than this one issued.
And this was a very vague pennit just -- it talks about a
storefront. It talks about -- it doesn't mention anything about any
coolers, anything else.
Our contention is and still renlains that there's been many illegal
additions on this property.
MR. LARSEN: .AJI right. Let Ine ask you a question. Is there
any possibility that some of the non-pennitted additions or some of the
,vi ring might have been grandfathered; they might have pre-existed
the code?
Page 64
161~6vel1;A 120;)8
}",ftT{, Sl"-JO'Vi: \1\1 ell~ the only thing I vvould say ~ sir~ is-\vhen any'
additions are done to the property and you're adding, then the nOl1nal
process would be to bring it up to code. Because, again, we don't
know \vhat the loads are in that. And this is massive, Inassive
reconstruction on the interior.
And I'll bring Corporal Taylor up in a minute. But we all
relnember the fire that took place a few years ago in New] ersey when
all those folks were caught in the nightclub. This is -- when you're
talking about re1110val of fire,valls, that's what that's for is to stop any
fire froIn going over to the next suite.
The occupancy in here, sir, is between 31 and 74. He's had in
excess of 300 people in this place dOCU111ented and the Sheriff can
testify to that. We're talking health and safety. That's -- vve're just --
all we ,vant is this to be legal. \Ve want to protect our citizens.
MR. LARSEN: But it's your position that once they started any
kind of renovations or any kind of changes to the construction of the
building, they vvere supposed to bring everything up to code?
MR. SNOW: Well, they're going to have to bring the electrical
up to code. If they're going to do that, they need a pennit for the stove
up front. The firewall intrusion, that's a permit that's called the missing
wall permit.
The fire department is going to have to go in there and look at all
that, find out is that legal and can they do what they're doing in there.
MR. LARSEN: Have you cOilllnunicated with the fire
department?
MR. SNOW: I have comnlunication with the fire department.
MR. LARSEN: And what's their position?
MR. SNOW: They had no COlmnent at this tilne.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So clearly SOlne of the renovations are
recent because you could tell fraIn, you know, the photographs?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: And it's your position that basically at that point
Page 65
16l1Al
NovenlDer 20,,2008
they should have vv'ent and got pern1its and that \vould have caused an
inquiry as to the other electrical load and the other issues that are --
you're addressing here today?
MR. SNOW: 'VeIl, sir, itls not the County's position to ilnpose
any undue burden on any business or any citizens of the County. But ,-
to answer your question, when we \vould go in and look at something
__ hopefully an inspector would notify code and say, listen, we've got
this going on.
And this is -- I think this is a long rUluling thing. I think these
additions have been going throughout the years and I think they've
been adding and adding and adding. That's ,vhat it looks like to Ine.
It's not just one. It's nlassive. It really is.
MR. LARSEN: Right. But that's your testimony earlier that
basically -- fronl your review of the records nlaintained by the County,
there are no pennits for any of this?
!viR. SNOW: None of it, sir.
- Iv1R. LARSEN: Okay. And you havesonlebody else to testify?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. I'd like to call Corporal Mike Taylor to
the stand, please.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, if I nlay. He will need to be sworn
.
In.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a question of Supervisor Snow.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Great. Go ahead.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Supervisor Snow, have you consulted the
Health Departnlent thus far in your investigation?
MR. SNOW: The Health Department has been out there. They
did get their occupational license for -- to operate as a restaurant.
They haven't been in there since this happened. And, I guess, they're
waiting for pennits or whatever they're going to have to do to fix it up
and then they'll COlTIe. But as far as they're concerned, they're still
operating.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would it be appropriate to also have
Page 66
'-
l~ov!n~eJ 210, !o~ 1
,.
sOlnebady consult the County's structural building departll1ent for any
of these issues \ve've been speaking of this In0111ing?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. We ,vill do that as soon as \ve get -- and,
again, we're just in the process. We're trying to prevent any injuries
froln taking'place and anything.
He does have a contractor. I have been in talks vvith their
contractor, so I'In going to aSSUlne that they're going to talk to
structural before penn its are issued. And when \ve get to our
reCOilllTIendations, we'll discuss SOlne things.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you, Mr. ChainTIan.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can state your nalne for the
record, please.
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Yes, sir. For the record, I'Ill Corporal
Mike Taylor with the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
CORPORAL TAYLOR: What we ,vant to testify to is just the
overcrowding of the -- of the building. If you take a look at the
restaurant, it's about the size of the building that we're in right now.
Yau got to add in four pool tables, a couple of gaming machines.
And on a couple of occasions ,ve went out on -- in Novenlber of last
year we counted out over 380 people in a building that should have 31
to 72.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Today we're not talking about
overcrowding. We're talking specifically about the issues here
regarding the cooler, the DJ booth, and possible structural issues. But
we're not talking about capacity.
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Okay. Well, we were doing the health
and safety for the law enforceInent and that did lead to capacity for us.
Because when we have to go into a facility that's got 400 people in it,
you've got two law enforcelnent deputies that had to go into that
building, it's a great concenl for law enforcelnent. That's why we're
Page 67
Nove~l~r ~(), :~o~ 1
hereto testify no\v.
\IV e had to go in -- on several occasions we had to go into that
building \vith t\vo law enforcen1ent deputies and you got 1:\vo or 300
people in there. And that's what we're here to testify as for the safety
for la\v enforcen1ent when they have to enter that structure with three
or 400 people inside.
CHAIR1\1AN LEFEBVRE: Okay. But today, again, ,ve're not
talking about --
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Well, I know -- as far as the cooler and
the DJ booth, I can testify that it does have the dance floor, the
coolers, and the DJ booth. We have been out on several occasions
with code enforcelnent.
I know we went out with thelll when they have told them that
they have to bring it up to the code. And we've been out vvith the fire
department also. And the fire depalilnent has been out to the building
for the coolers, the dance floor and the DJ booth.
J\1R.LARSEN: I have SOlne questions, Mr. Chainnan.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. LARSEN: Deputy Sheriff, where are you stationed?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: I'In stationed in Iffilnokalee, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Are these personal observations?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Yes, sir, they are.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So you've been actually in the
premises yourself?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Numerous times, yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And you've been in there during the day
and in the evening?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Yes, sir. During the day and in the
evening when they have the crowds. I've been there both tin1es.
MR. LARSEN: All right. And are these -- ,vhat are they
operating actually in there?
Is it a restaurant, is it a bar, is it a nightclub? What are they
Page 68
l' I!J A1
'1'0. 10\l ,1 eJ ') (1 J~, (' ' " "'"
1. '" . -.-i-. _ _M' J ').....". (~
actually doing on the prell1ises?
CORPORAL TA \'LOR: It appears to be a nightclub. If you go
in, they've got a DJ booth, They've got a bunch of people dancing and
they've got a little kitchen area.
,But for the longest, they ,vasn't serving any food. Code-
enforcement got on to then1 about that and now they've got an area set
up to serve food. But lTIOst of the tin1e you go in, it's the DJ, it's
dancing, and a lot of drinking.
MR. LARSEN: And hovv long have you been observing the
conditions at this place?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Ahnost three years now.
MR. LARSEN: All right. Have you seen changes to the interior
over that period of time?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: I can't say that I have, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Well, has a DJ booth been added during that
period of three years?
CORPORAL TA \TLOR: Fronl the tilne I've been going there
I've seen the DJ booth. I can't say the DJ booth has been added since
I've been going to the building.
MR. LARSEN: And this is a routine observation or you've been
called out to the premises?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: It's both. It's routine and we've been
called out to the prelnises.
MR. LARSEN: And has -- and I understand it's a capacity
probleln and that's not before the Board. But when you've been called
out there, has it been because of sOlnebody fronl the nightclub calling
you or SOfie patron of the nightclub calling you or neighbors?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Yes, sir. On numerous tilnes -- if you
look at the stack that I've got right here, that's the tinles that we've
been called out to the nightclub for either fights or sOlnething else
that's occurred inside the restaurant or outside the restaurant or
nightclub or bar.
Page 69
'-'
16/11Al
Novem ber 200 2008
IvlR. L.L~l{SEl"'J: But youive gone into the nightclub on those
occasions? Thatrs the real point.
CORPORAL T A \TLOR: Y es~ sir.
rvIR. LARSEN: You've personally seen this yourself; the
physical conditions of the nightclub?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
:MR. KAUF:MAL'-.I: Question. Do you k110\V whether or not they
have a license to sell liquor or beer or wine?
CORPORAL TAYLOR: They've got a beer and a carryout. No
liquor.
MR. KAUFMAN: During your visits, have you --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's not pali of -- we're getting
beyond the scope of what we're here for.
Any other questions of the Board?
Jy1R.KAUF:rv1Al~: No.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very nluch, Deputy.
MR. SNOW: The County has nothing left to present at this time.
We request the right to cross-exalnine and redirect.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Go ahead, sir.
MR. ESPINOZA: Okay . We're getting back to the violations. I
am the general contractor. He's hired lne to come in.
I mean, he just got this October 7th. I brought it in. As soon as
he got this, he called Ine up. I got Iny architect out there, Rob
Andreas. Rob went out there. We took a look.
There -- we brought a structural engineer in because the firewall
has been -- they have gone in and disturbed that firewall. But it's
nothing that can't be penllitted. \Ve've already put -- I just came
yesterday because vverve been working really fast between the
architect, the structural engineer and the electrical contractor.
There are nUll1erous violations and we're not denying that.
Page 70
o\em!~J 2~~ 1
Unfortunately, v,7hen he bought the property, he bought all the
headaches that came along \vith it All this structural and electrical,
the illajority of it has been done prior to his acquiring the propeliy.
And now that he's the present o\vner, he's going to have to bring
everything up to code and he understand that because l','e explained it
to hinl.
He's more than willing to do ,vhat he has to do to bring this place
up to code. So \ve're presently working on it. We've got our penuit.
I've already subnlitted for pe1111it.
As soon as \ve get that, vve can start going in there. The
structural engineer has already verified that there's plenty of support to
cany the weight of the cOlnproll1ised \vall. There's just not enough for
the upload, so --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: For the what?
MR. ESPINOZA: For the upload, like if a hun"icane came and
tore off the roof. So we need to secure that, but that's nothing that
, can't be accolnplished.
I lnean, but other than that, we're in the process of bringing all
violations up to code.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any idea when you're gOillg to get
permits?
And then once you get permits, how long is it going to take to
cOlnplete the work after penTIits?
IvIR. ESPINOZA: Well, the last time I got a pennit here it took
about almost a Inonth. And I just subnlitted it yesterday. FraIn the
time we get the pennit to the time of cOlnpletion of work is -- I would
say it would be nice to have at least 60 days froln the time that we get
the pemlit.
MS. W ALDR01..J: Mr. Chainnan, can I just ask Jean a question
for clarification at this point?
MS. RAWSON: Sure.
MS. WALDRON: Jean, this gentlelnan was S\\10nl in as just a
Page 71
lAl
NoveI1br ~O, 2008
translator.
IvfR. ESP1NOZA: I said translator and representative.
MS. RA \VSON: Translator and representative.
MS. WALDRON: Okay. \Ve just wanted to clarify that for--
1\15. RAWSON: Well, apparently he's speaking for hiln as his
contractor, too.
MS. WALDRON: Okay. I just ,vanted to clarify that that he was
sworn in for that.
IvlR. LARSEN: Can ,ve have the witness then, Mr. Chairman,
identify himself once again and the nalne of his business?
MR. ESPINOZA: Jesse Espinoza. Leo Construction, general
contractor. '
CHAlRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions?
MR. LARSEN: I have sonle questions, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
"MR. LARSEN: You were stating you're licensed by the--
ivlt'l. ESPINOZA: The State of Florida.
MR. LARSEN: By the State of Florida. Did you have an
opportunity to take a look at these photographs?
MR. ESPINOZA: I've been out to the site.
MR. LARSEN: But the question is: Have you --
MR. ESPINOZA: I saw the photographs, yes.
MR. LARSEN: Are these a true and accurate depiction of what
the current conditions are out there?
MR. ESPINOZA: That is a true and accurate depiction. I mean,
that's what's out there.
MR. LARSEN: Do you lal0'v if any of these conditions were
ever permitted before?
~v1R. ESPINOZA: Going through it with hiln, he didn't realize
that the owner before him did not pelmit the cooler, the -- I guess, it
was the stove or the hood. I can't relnelnber which one it was.
MR. SNOW: It was both.
Page 72
Nl~LJ2~k8 ~
IviP___" ESPIN07A: It ~was botb.
IvfR. SNOW: The stove and the hood.
MR. ESPINOZA: Okay. The stove and the hood. That ,vas
already there when he bought the place. The DJ booths he put in. The
cOlnpromised firev,rall vIas already like that \vhen he bought it, so --
and the electrical. I mean, that electrical is like forget it. I mean, that
thing is old.
MR. LARSEN: So the Respondent is not contending that any of
that was pennitted at any tinle?
MR. ESPINOZA: No, no. He's not saying that -- you know~, I
told him, hey, unfortunately you bought this place. You bought the
headaches that come ,vith it. You know, you \vant to get these guys
off your back, you need to bring it up to code.
~. LARSEN: No,v, is the Respondent open and operating the
facility right no\v?
MR. ESPINOZA: Yeah, he's still in operation.
1\1R. LARSEl'~: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chainnan, I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the Board?
~. SNOW: Mr. Chair, please. I would just like to -- ,ve have
one lTIOre person to testify. Because of the long history that's been
involved in this, I'd like to call Lieutenant Dolan of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it in regard specifically to the
violations?
MR. SNOW: It's concenling the firewall, sir. The intrusion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Hi. For the record, I'In Lieutenant
Mike Dolan, Collier County Sheriffs Office. I'ln the substation
cOlnmander for the Inullokalee district and I've been in that position
for about five years.a
Page 73
'-'
16/1'Al
Novenlber 20,,2008
r can celiif)r to the Board vvith regards to the u specifically to the
fireV\rall. In dealing \vith this bar/lounge for the last three, five years~
up to three years ago the firev/all \vas intact. So '\vhen he's presenting
to you the issue that, gee, I had this place and it caIne to me when I
bought it and the firewall had already been removed, that's not
accurate.
Up to three years ago the fireV\Tall vvas there. There was nothing
but a little door because we had issues \vith our deputies going from
one side of the bar to the other side of the bar.W e' d have to funnel
through that little door.
So if he's presenting to you the fact that he purchased the place
with a firewall that had already been removed, that's not accurate.
That's sOlTIething that has been done since he's been -- I don't k110\V
ho,v long he's o\vned the building, but since he's been operating the
bar.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think it was 2005 he purchased it.
2004 to clarify.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chainnan, may I ask SOlTIe questions?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: Are these your personal observations?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: So you've been in the premises?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. So have you taken a look at the
photographs?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: All right. And is this a true and accurate
depiction of what the conditions are in the premises?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: So when you're talking about that firewall,
you're specifically refelTing to -- these photographs would show an
absence of perhaps in excess of ten feet across the \vall.
Page 74
16'11Al
November 20. 2008
)
LIEUTENANTDOLAl~: That's correct.
IVIR. LARSEN: Okay. And prior to that there vvas a single door?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Single door.
'-'
MR. LARSEN: And it had the regular door jamb around it; it
\vasn't just a -- it was a properly constructed wall?
It vvas a regular vvall; it wasn't just a makeshift ,vall?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: It \vas a solid concrete block wall that
traversed the entire length of the rOOlTI with the exception of one door
entry. And at the tilne that I saw it, there \vas no door attached. It was
just -- the door had been removed to allo\v ingress and egress between
the two halves of the building.
.MR. LARSEN: Okay. Once again, your authority is as a
cOlnmander of the substation?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Yes, sir. 1'111 the conunander of the
lmmokalee substation for the entire area of which this bar is part of.
MR. LARSEN: And that -- and you first becanle the cOlnlnander
of that substation or you first "\\Tete stationed out there when?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: I've been in and out of there for my 27
years with the Sheriffs Office, but I've been the substation
cOlnlnander for the last five years.
MR. LARSEN: That would be approxilnately 2003?
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: Thank you.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chainnan.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
(No response.)
LIEUTENANT DOLAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MR. SNOW: No, sir. The County rests.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Comlnents?
Iv1R. ESPINOZA: Well, just for the record, we're willing to bring
it up to code.
Page 75
" " lAl
!!'Y', '
".,J.. ,U '
'November 20,2008
Cl{AIRlvLAJ~ LEFEB\ll~E: rn1 going to close the public
hearing.
Any discussion fro111 the Board?
MR. KELLY: Make a Ination the violation exists.
CHAIR1\1AN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear- a second?
MR. PONTE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Pick one.
All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
J\1R. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAl~ LEFEBv'RE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
There is -- a violation has been found.
And the recolnlnendation?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. We'd like to pass some of those around.
And I'd like the Board to keep in lnind the severity of the health and
safety issue to the citizens of the l1nlnokalee area and the folks that
may go inside this bar.
This is a little unusual recolnlnendation, but I think it's
appropriate at this tilne for this particular venue. And the penalty is to
ensure that the Respondent understands the severity of the situation
and takes care of the situation as quickly as possible without any
hesitation.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chainnan, I have a question of our
attonley.
Page 76
NO\emte~J 2l~ 1
CI-IAIRlvIA.N LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
IvlR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean~ is it within our purview to issue
such an order to include itelTI nU111ber one as you see on this
recolwnendation?
MS . RAWSON: As long as there's a health and safety issue you
have the right to cease the use of occupancy until the permits are
obtained.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chainnan, I'd like to Inake SOlTIe comments.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely.
MR. LARSEN : Well, the recolluTIendation by the County is that
they cease any use or occupancy on the property until all pelmits have
been obtained with all inspections through a certificate of cOlnpletion
issued. Any use or occupancy not associated with pennitted
inspections shall result in a $1,000 a day fine.
So, essentially, the Collier County Code Enforcement Board is
asking us to approve their recolnlnendation, which says that they can
conduct 110 operation, no business on this premises. N-ow, typically,
that would be very deleterious to the owner of the property because
there would be no income. They wouldn't be able to pay bills. They
wouldn't be able to use their property for which they bought it, which
is a fundamental right.
But in this particular case, in light of the testimony by the Collier
County Sheriffs Office, both the cOlnmander, as well as the Deputy
Sheriff and the code enforcelnent official and the fact that the
Respondent has not denied any of the allegations, nor has contested
that there is a health and safety violation or nUlnerous violations
occurring, I feel very strongly that they should not be allowed to
operate out of this premises until everything is pennitted and
inspected. So I would -- I would strongly urge the Board to approve
this reconnnendation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. The recolmnendation
actually hasn't been read. Do we need to read that?
Page 77
-....--....
16 J 1 A 1
Noven1ber .20, 2008
lvll'{. Sl~O\V: I can, sir. I can read that into the record,
l\1R. KRAE~TBR1NG: Just before you start that, I think the first
sentence of the description of violations is actually bacl<:\vards, It's not
the removal of. It vvould be the restoration of.
MR. SNOW: Well, that's a description of the violation, sir, was
the ren10val of.
MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Thank you very nluch. Appreciate
it.
rv1R. SNOW: This concenlS departlnent case nUlTIber CESD
20080014639. The recomlnendation is the Code Enforcelnent Board
order the Respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the
prosecution of the case in the anlount of $90.43 within 30 days of the
date of the hearing.
And abate all violations by: Cease any use or occupancy on
property until all permits have been obtained with all inspections
through certificate of cOlnpletion issued. Any use or occupancy not
associated with penllitting and inspections shall result in a $1,000 a
day fine.
I would also like to add that the code enforcement can request the
help of the Collier County Sheriffs Office in lnonitoring the property.
And, number two, the Respondent Inust notify the Code
Enforcement Investigator when the violation has been abated in order
to conduct a final inspection to confinn abatement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions, con1111ents?
MR. KELLY: I aln not -- I'm not sure the severity has been
demonstrated. I think that if this building has been operating under its
CUITent capacity for three years and all that happened was a car ran
into the front window and the structural engineer said no probleln with
the existing load, I don't think that we have delnonstrated that it is a --
needs to cease operation tOlTIOlTOW type situation.
We already have got the contractor working diligently. Let's give
hinl sOlne tilne to get that done without any additional hanll.
Page 78
Novls)2o, 2b(J~ A j
IvfR. LARSEl~: 1\11'. Chainl1an, in response~ if I rnay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely.
:r~vfR. LA..RSEN: \Ve haven't had a structural engineer testify.
That vvas basically a contractor eluployed by the owner saying \vhat
the structural engineer told hiln,\vhich -- in light of the fact that they
stated that the wall ,vas removed before the o\vnership by the
Respondent, we had contrary testilnony by the commander of the
substation. I believe it \vould require us to hear directly from the
structural engineer.
My concenl is basically in a flash conditions could change out
there where they could have a number of people utilizing the premises
and electrical or sonlething could cause a fire or cause injury.
So I understand your concern that we are basically telling the
owner of the property that he is not allo,ved to conduct his business.
You know, I feel strongly people should be allowed to operate
businesses, except under the most extrenle circUlnstances. And I think
in this particular case we have the Inost extrenle circull1stances of
people violating the County code rules and regulations.
MR. KELLY: He was reissued a celiificate of occupancy to
conduct his business. The health departlnent refused to shut it down
and the fire depaliment has refused to find a violation.
I just don't think we need to shut down the man's business until
it's tilne. I do agree that ,ve should keep the time very short. But at
the same tinle, I don't think we should cripple him.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have got a question about
fire suppression also. The fire departlnent didn't mention anything
about fire suppression inspections.
MR. SNOW: I'm sorry. I could testify, if I lnay. In 2003 they
applied for that and they didn't get it.
Just for the record, the fire did not -- they had no C01lllTIent. It
doesn't Inean they didn't find a violation, sir. That is not exactly
accurate.
Page 79
1 6 ,. .~f. r I'.. .
1. . :~,"~ .'1
I'" . . . .~,~~',-- ~, t';
oven10er 20, 2uu(5
l\1u--(. lZELL '{: H.iQ:ht. Thev didn1t fIno the need to shut dovvn the
'--" ...J
place either.
IvfR. SNO'\V: \Vell, I don't believe they ever v-,rent to the place,
SIr.
MR. KELLY: Thanks for the clarification.
CHAIRlv1AN LEFEBVRE: Any other cOlnments?
I\1R. KRAENBRING: You say they applied for fire suppression
or fire inspection?
11R. SNO\V: Fire suppression systeln, sir.
11R. KRAENBRlNG: And they \vere denied?
MR. SNOW: No, sir. It \vas withdrawn.
MR. KRAENBRING: The pennit was withdrawn by the --
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. I don't la10\V, sir. It doesn't specify.
IvlR. L'ESPERANCE: This type of facility, is that required?
I\1R. SNO\V: I can't testify to that, sir. I would aSSUlne it is in a
restaurant.
lVIR. L'ESPERAJ"'JCE: I don't have any idea.
MR. SNOW: Again, occupational licenses are issued on -- they
get one zoning celiificate. And it is done yearly. They don't do
zoning inspections every year.
So if they got their occupancy in 2004, which they did, if they
added things or subtracted things, nobody else goes on the propeliy.
That is done by mail. That's not done by inspection.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments from the
Board?
.MR. KELLY: One Inore COlmnent. If the Board is inclined to
accept the recolllinendation from the County, I ,vould like one iteln
added to nUlnber one under the last sentence where it stalis, associated
vvith pennitting and inspections.
Can we add in there associated with construction, pennitting and
inspections? They are going to need to have access to do the work.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chainnan, if there is no other conl1nents, I
Page 80
16/IIAl
- ... I \
\\iould like to ITiake a nlotion,
CHAIRl\;iAJ\! LEFEB\lEE: Go ahead,
l'v1R, LARSEN: In regard to the reC0111nlendation by the Collier
Count) Code Enforcenlent Board in case nUDlber CESD
20080014639, I \vould suggest that \ve accept the reC0l11l11endation of
the Collier County Code Enforcenlent Board with the applicable
changes to paragraph one, \vhich \vould include the \^lord
\!construction" prior to the \vord Hpernlittingl!. So it would read:
Associated \vith construction, penl1itting and inspections shall result in
a $1,000 a day fine.
Additionally, that we add that the Collier County Code
Enforcelnent Board \vill \vork in conjunction \vith the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to insist in 111onitoring the prenlises pending the
pennitting and inspection and all other parts ofthe recommendation be
approved.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
IvIR. L'ESPERANCE: I \vill second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: __All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
:MR. LARSEN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
l\1R. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
:MR. KRAENBRING: Nay.
MR. KELLY: Nay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand vvhat we just
did?
MR. ESPINOZA: So he has to shut down until he gets
everything up to code?
CHAIMIAN LEFEB\TRE: That is absolutely correct.
Paue 81
b
.. ~ -,Jl>j'lc1 A 1
1\/1I,z, SNO\V~ Ibantc you~ doard,
CH~AJR1\'{AN LEFEB\lHJ:.~ \Vould you like to take a little
break?
\Ve'll COll1e back at 25 of
(i\ reGess \vas held fro111 11 :22 a.Ill. until 11:37 a.In;)
MS. 'Xl ALDRON: Can I ask to make one amendlnent?
CHluRMAN LEFEB\TRE: Let Ine call the ll1eeting back to
order.
Call the Ineeting of the Code Enforcenlent Board back to order.
1\15, \,,1 ALDRON: En1pire Developn1ent is \vorking vv'ith County
staff 011 a stipulation agreelnent and have a fevv' things that need to be
finalized. So if \ve could go ahead and go through the in1position of
fines and put thell1 at the very end of the agenda.
MR. LARSEN: So lTIOve.
MR. KELLY: Before we do that, they are nUlnber one.
MS. W ALD RON: They are okay vv'ith the ilnposition of fines.
Vie are talking about the first hearing that they are not ready for yet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The Respondent is sitting --
MR. LARSEN: Make a 1110tion to anlend the agenda.
MR. SLA VIeR: We already can1e to an agreelTIent, unless
sOlnething happened in the last 30 seconds.
MS. FLAGG: They are ready no,\!.
MS. WALDRON: They have reached a stipulation agreelnent.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: \Vhat we are going to do is hear the
stipulated agreement and then we will hear from the public at that
point.
(Speakers were duly swonl.)
MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin
,vith the Collier County Code Enforcenlent. The Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida has reached a stipulation
agreement with Empire Developers Group, LLC. This is in reference
to departnlent case nU111ber CESD 20080014496.
Page 82
'-
\c;\llr/t1\ 1
";-'t"1e sLi,p'11'n--;O'1", wI'eel!' e'll,,~("'r,n ,;,("' {~,il("
1- .,; L ~ldLl t Q"",. -, ~l 1.'- l eQ,U~ C..l..J .l.Ul LU
- '-"
undersigned, Willian, Slavich, on behalf of himself or as a
representative for Respondent and enters into this stipulation and
agreement with Collier County as to the resolutions ofthe notice of
violation inreference case number CESD 20080014496 dated the 20th
day of November 2008. In consideration of the disposition and
resolution ofthe matters outlined in said notices of violation for which
a hearing is cUlTently scheduled for; to promote efficiency in the
administration ofthe code enforcement process; and to obtain a quick
and expeditious resolution ofthe matters outlined therein the parties
hereto agree to as follows: One, the violations noted in the referenced
notice of violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence.
The violations are that of sections ofthe Florida Building Code
2004 Edition, Chapter One Permits, Section 22 tlu-ough 26, subsection
105.5.5 and 04-41, the Collier County land development code, as
amended, Section 4.06.04.A.l.a.vii[a-d] and are described as disturbed
land in Vita TU5cana have not been hydro"seeded and are now
creating dust. Adequate dust control measures shall be employed by
the Respondent to prevent complaints arising from unhealthy, unsafe
or damaging conditions. Failure to utilize adequate dust control
procedures shall be sufficient cause to order cessation ofthe work
causing such dust and to decline an inspection -- and to decline
inspection requests.
Therefore, it is agreed between both parties that the Respondent
shall, one, pay all operational costs in the amount of$86.71 incurred
in the prosecution of this case.
Two, abate all violations by, "A", hydro-seeding disturbed land
in folio number 00185880006, grade house pads to a four to one slope
and level all stockpiled material within four days ofthis hearing,
November 26th, or a fine of $10 per acre, per day will be assessed
until the violation is abated or a plans and plat permit is issued.
If a plans and plat permit is issued and construction work is not
ffles no\V,. the
Page 83
l,i91~)i1s A
ctal'"l"CQ1 h\! l1e~('e1rflu- C:::>"l' '~! CT ~)\jr'\j-i~ D "'l-n -,;' i 'lO-rf;iCl,S ~,~::::;",rol
u ,\..' '__\, JJ ,..j ",' .J 1 JI.,~ _' Uo J.'-\,,,,JJ:--'U ,-U ~ L"b~ . \ , l,' ~C_I.;"U
aU disturbed land withill 14 days. Januarv 1 Stk 2009. or a fine of $10
,.) ~ ..." .! J
per day, per acre win be assessed until hydro-seeding is fmished.
"B", grade house pads to a four to one slope and level a1\
stockpiled material in folio 00186000005 within four days of this
hearing or a fine of $10 per acre, per day will be assessed until the
violation is abated or a plans and plat pernlit is issued.
"C", if the Respondent fails to abate the violations, the County
may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier
County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order.
liD" ~ the Respondent ll1Ust notify the Code Enforcenlent
Investigator when the violation is abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confi1111 abatellJent.
And this vvas signed by Willianl Slavich.
CHAIRJV1AN LEFEBVRE: Ours isn!t signed.
MR. BALDWIN: r believe Ms. Waldron has the original signed
copy.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good.
Questions?
MR. LARSEN: I have a question. Reference has been made to
the use of the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to
enforce the provisions of this order. How do you anticipate their use
Inight be utilized?
MR. BALDWIN: To let us on the property in case there is a
disturbance or people don't \vant to let us on the property.
MR. LARSEN : You don't have the authority to access the
premises without the property owners' permission?
MR. BALDWIN: We do. But if we -- all of a sudden we had
trucks __ hydro-seeding trucks coming onto the property, I don't think
__ they might not feel comfortable ifthe owner is telling them not to
come on the property, unless the Sheriffs Department is available or
on site.
Page 84
.
""1-i.6~11:' , :':~J:1
t\{R. LAIZSE1~: 1 guess I nave. a ouesr],on or '\lS" R2\VSOn, 8n
'-' L
we authorize the Collier Count\' Code Enforcement to utilize the
" . ,/
Collier COUllL'/ Sheriffs Office?
,.I
MS. RAWSON: Yes. \Ve have been doing that a lot lately.
Because if the County has to abate the violation because the
Respondent did not, the County is precluded from getting on private
land, unless they have the authority that comes from the Sheriffs
Department. So, yes, you can do it,
1VIR. LARSEN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the
Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, would this be the proper time
to have the public C0111e up and speak before v.;e --
MS. RA\VSON: Probably.
CHAIRJ\1AN LEFEBVRE: Very good.
IviS. vV' ALDRON: Mr.1v1ayberry.
(Speaker was duly s\YOn1.)
MR. MAYBERRY: Thank you very much. My name is Gene
Mayberry. I'm a resident at Gold Cypress and you can probably
detect a considerable level of frustration.
This Vita Tuscana project abuts aIde Cypress. And this project
has more marrows than any project I have ever witnessed. There was
an early work authorization, as you know, that was authorized in June
of '07 and it expired in October of '07. And there has been substantial
work completed on -- or done on that site without permit, which has
caused a lot of dust, erosion, eyesore and a lot of irritants to the
cOlnmunity of Olde Cypress.
We have had promise after promise to have this site leveled and
hydro-seeded. The first promise came in February ofthis year from
Mr. Slavich to Commissioner Helming and Mr. Ochs and to the
community ofOlde Cypress that ifhe did not have his permits by
Page 85
l6)!"A 1
F'ebruarv -chat the site \vouJd graded and hvdro~seedeci,
J .~ w
In I\!1arch the excuse \vas \ve did not have rains. In June -~ you
k110\V~ it's just one ll1ar after another t113X,
The point that I vvould 111ake -- the first point. I only have tvvo
points; The first point is this is another prolnise. The 1110st recent
pro111ise was to -- I believe you folks about four or five \veeks ago, as
\veU as to the conlnlissioners~ that this site was going to be graded and
hydro-seeded by today's date. There has been no \vork done.
The second point I \vould ll1ake is relative to getting a pen11it and
starting \lVork. And as agreen1ent \lVith State, it is to start vlork. I don't
see work continuing on this site very long Iroll1 the point that there is
over a ll1illioll dollars vlorth of liens against this property. There is
back taxes against this propeliy.
As soon as \lVork starts on this project, it \vill be stopped by
creditors or the people that are seeking their n1oney. And then, as I
understand, we vvould have another year and a half for hinl or ElTIpire
Builders to rectify the situation.
Gentlelnen, enough is enough. \Ve, as citizens of this very proud
town, have had it. And we say enforce the code. The code has been
violated for over a year.
Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the Board?
MR. LARSEN: I have a question of Ms. Waldron.
Ms. Waldron, vve previously issued an order on the 2nd day of
October 2008 in regard to this matter?
MS. WALDRON: There are two separate cases. There are two
separate folios.
1v1R. LARSEN: All right. So the prior order pertained to a
separate lot, a separate parcel of property?
MS. WALDRON: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: It had nothing to do with the parcel of property
that vv'e're here on today, \vhich is a separate aITIount of acreage; is that
Page 86
.p '- ,
..iA....
,lAI~
-J, ...__, J \j C,
f-
\ (~r:_~ C~_~
correct'!
l'AS, \V PxLDRON: Con'eeL
J\1R. MA '{BERRY: I guess I don1t understand that \l\1hat \vas
the order on the 2nd of October?
MS. \VALDR01"-J: This property consists ofnvo parcels. And
\vith those t\vo parcels you have to have nvo separate cases because of
the individual parcels. And only one parcel \vas brought forth to you
at the last hearing.
1\1R. MA \TBERR Y: But that is the parcel that "we are talking
about?
MR. LARSEN: It appears not, sir. And that's \vhy I raised it.
Because you had Inentioned that about prior Board activity. And this
SeelTIS to be a separate piece of property that we are discussing here
today.
MS. VV ALDRON: And if I can clarify. The piece or parcel, I
believe, froln the last hearing that you are talking about will be up for
an iInp0sition of fines hearing today.
J\1R. MAYBERRY: Okay. For clarification, I believe there is
approxilTIately 80 acres in total to be developed under the nan1e of
Vita Tuscana. There's cUITently a parcel of about 40 acres that is -- has
been cleared, except for what is under conservation. .
I think the property that \ve're talking about, and correct nle, Mr.
Slavich, that has been cleared is roughly about 29 acres. And that's
the saIne property that should have been up for discussion on the 2nd
of October.
.MR. SLA VIeR: If I can speak. The first one that \ve went to,
which the imposition of fines will be today, was for one -- it's divided
into two parcels. The first one -- we had a case on the first parcel.
That's \vhat vve started Vv'ith froln the begilu1ing.
There vvas a little bit of a Inisunderstanding from the beginning.
We had -- no\v vve have both parcels. Today \ve are only speaking
about the second parcel. It's is roughly about 26 acres. The other
Page 87
16/
4'll' " ~
Cl \' \ n !ixr ..
(I
parcel is roughly a"uout 18 acres,
CI-IAIRlvlPLN LEFEB \lRE: In the other stipulation you stated in
the first -- in !\A\\ it \vas 28 point s0111ething acres and the --
J\1R. L~ARSEN: Six.
CI-IAlRMAN LEFEB\lRE: And then the other one \vas 18 acres.
l'vfR. SLA VIeR: Correct .. - .
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: NOV\l, the one that is 18 acres is up
for ilnposition of fines. The folio nU111ber is the sanle as "B It.
So I aln a little confused here ,vhy 'we have an in1position of fines
and '\ve also have this pari of the order. I see the san1e folio nUll1bers.
MS. FLAGG: Men1bers of the Board, the Board of County
C0111111issioners heard this case, \Vhen you heard the first parcel
nUlnber and the NOV in the order that was issued on that first parcel,
\vhich is up for ilnposition of fines today, is -- that one did not include
leveling the stockpiles and grading to a four to one slope, which is a
illation that vvas passed by the Board of County COlnn1issioners for
both parcels.
Therefore, in the stipulation agreelnent it includes that first parcel
that you heard the leveling and the grading, but it does not include the
hydro-seeding because the hydro-seeding part for the first NOV is
under impQsition of fines today.
Iv1R. LARSEN: I think this gentlell1an's concern is about the dust
control; is that COITect?
:rvfR. MAYBERRY: It's about the 28 acres.
MR. LARSEN: But your concern is that there is a great deal of
dust --
MR. MAYBERRY: It's not only the dust, sir, but the value of
our property is also being dilninished because the first thing that you
see \vhen you drive into the COllli11unity on the right-hand side -- there
is mounds of dirt. And the first question is: What is that? And that
dust and dirt blo,vs over the propeliies in Olde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: In the stipulated agreement it doesn't
Page 88
"1,'? f. 1 A 1
()', ''''1'''-' hi~":' '; (;' ': i! ~,;
~ \ \...11~,,,,> __, ._1" _,
stipulate the acreageo /~t lea-st I don't see i in's stipulated
agreen1ent~ so ~..~
MR. SLA VIeI-I: I think 'we referred to it as cleared area.- · A
CHAIRMAN LEFEB\7RE: But I would like to -- \ve are basing
it -- the $10 per acre, per day, but \ve donft have an acreage anl0unt.
So I \vant to be very clear that if\ve are in1posing fines it1s going to be
based on an acreage. I 'v ant that acreage in this stipulated agreelnent.
MR. SLA VICH: \11 e'll agree to the cleared acreage on the fine
'--' '--'
alllount. Is that \vhat you1re asking?
You \vant a nUlnber on the exact cleared acreage?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: \^lell, the original stipulated
agreelnent, ifrn1 not 111istaken, said 28.6 acres -- and COITect 111e ifI'ln
vi/rong -- and then 18 acres for the other parcel. The folio nUll1ber
001886000005.
Is that con"ect?
MR. LARSEN: \\1 ell, the stipulation earlier today indicated in
paragraph 2- B that -- grade house pads to a four to one slope and all
stockpiled Inaterial in the folio up to 18 acres vv'ithin four days.
So I assume that's what the Chainnan is refelTing to?
CHAIRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: That's correct.
Iv1R. BALDWIN: Chain11an, if\ve could alleviate the confusion
here with "B". That has already been done by the developer. That
part of the violation has been abated, if we can alleviate SOlne
confusion there \vith folio nU111bers and everything.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have any other paliies that --
MS. WALDRON: Diane Ebert.
(Speaker was duly S\VOD1.)
MS. EBERT: For the record, Diane Ebeli. Mr. Slavich has been
brought to you in August and his case vvas continued because he said
he was going in front of the Bee trying to get reduction in the
transpoliation COA fees that he oV\Tes, which are 409~OOO. He ,vas
going to try and get that cut in half.
Page 89
, A.~.,
_ .~ 0 11 ~I:\_, 1
1" 1'-., '\' ,C', -..' h F'l< . I ) / U ( I (J
. '\\..J ,_'-J-.J.., L '-.- ......._ \..." --.,.. J 0
So you gave hint another 30 days, fie said he \vould be back in
Septen1ber. I-{e ne',ler \vent in front of the Bee in Septe111ber.
October he canle back. l-Ie said he \vould get the \vork done.
If you look at the -- your folder, you \vill see he keeps proll1ising.
He has prolnised this County, he-has ,prolnised the Comn1issioners, he
has proll1ised everyone \vhat he \vould do. This is 18 lllonths.
\Alhen he got his E\V A, it's good for 120 days at the 1110St. At that
point the E\V A should have been voided. And it should have been
hydro-seeded. And as of no\v, Decen1ber 6th, it should be replanted
Vvith 64 trees per acre.
The residents of OIde Cypress have really put up \vith a lot. He
keeps telIing you \vhat he is going to do and yet he still does not --
froIn his original thing \vith the Bee, when they approved his PPL, he
has not even caDle across vvith that.
He does not have the bond nloney. He does not have the lnaney
for transportation. We do not -- the County does not have their
easement in case they need to build a bridge in front of this. Ninety
percent of the executive sunlmary has not even been filled.
He has prolnised us. We had J De Sclunitt, we had several people
out frOlTI the County starting in January pronlising that he \vould do
these things or he is telling thelTI, let's put it that vyray, what he ,vill do.
He has probably prolnised ten tilnes to bring in the lnoney.
He stood in front of the BCC last lTIonth and said, \vell, I didn't
get the loan because Lehnlan Brothers went under. Lelunan Brothers
just went under last Inonth, not last year when you started this project
18 lTIonths ago.
He has -- as far as this, we brought this against hinl. He has so
nlany Ii ellS on his property. He has never paid the people that even
brought in the dirt. And he's telling you -- he can't even pay $9,500
for people who 1110ved the dirt for the benn. And he is going to tell
you he is going to bring in this Inoney.
He has prolllised it so Inany tillles. And, I'nl sony, \ve have seeD
Pa2.e 90
.....
lAl
r-,\i('1~11h,"'" JU" )(\U' (!
"----J , ..... ... U'-....L~. ~ .........\.) 0
nothlngo l'Lno this case \vas brought in lviay and here \ve are aln10st in
Decelnber. jll"l1d they let hinl go on for a long ti1ne 'without
hydro-seeding because it \vas a drought last year.
They kept saying as soon as the rainy season. Rainy season has
C0111e and gone and here \ve are ,again \vith no rainy season. It is just
pure frustration.
And he has back taxes. And this County should allov-l nothing
until your fees are paid. \Ve pay our taxes. He should have to pay all
his things that he o\ves this County. He should get nothing until
everything is paid and he has I1let his cOlnlnitn1ents to this County.
Thank you.
CHAlR1v1AN LEFEB\1RE: Thank you.
Discussion?
MR. KELLY: Make a illotion that vve accept the stipulated
agreelnent.
CHAIR1v1AN LEFEBVRE: Any other discussion?
(t~o response.)
CHAIR1v1AN LEFEBVRE: '^Ie have a Inotion. D'o I hear a
second?
I\1R. KELLY: \Ve lnight have SaIne discussion.
MR. PONTE: I'In thinking about this.
MR. DEAN: I ,,,ill second.
I\1R. PONTE: I'In not ready to --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a Inotion on the table.
:N1R. DEAN: I will second the motion.
N ow you can open it up for discussion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Discussion?
MR. PONTE: 1'nl hesitant to vote for the ilnposition or the going
along with the stipulation agreelnent, but I don't know what the
alternative is. I'In very concerned about the testinlony ,ve just heard.
1\1R. L'ESPERANCE: George, I think \vhat the stipulation
outlines is if \ve don't see action by the Respondent, then \ve are going
Page 91
16J 1Al
o c:rni)er ~U" 2UCiS
to get action by the Counl~;l enforced by "t:l1e Sheriff's Departrnent
AJn I co rrect?
1\1R, B1L\LD \"\TIN : Yes, sir.
CI-IAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: VI ell, \vhat \ve could do is possibly
-- it vvould take care of SOIne of the apprehension of the residents is
shorten the Decenlber 31 st tilne franle. We are giving hiIn four days
MR. PONTE: Yeah. The four days is like one of those prolnises
you can't keep. I can't do anything in four days. I donft kno\v \vhy it's
so short.
MR. LARSEN: \Vell, I ll1ean, the stipulation says hydro-seeding
disturbed land in the folio, right, grade house pads to a four to one
slope and level all stockpiled 111aterial vvithin four days of this hearing,
Novell1ber 26th?
MR. PONTE: That is over 28.6 acres that you're talking about.
You're going to do it in four days?
I\1R. KELLY: They don't plan on doing it. I think they're getting
their pennit.
MR. LARSEN: Or a fine -- and I see the testilllony that we had
earlier from the gentlelnan who testitled as to the protocol for the
permits. Or a fine of$10 per acre.
Now, the number of acres at issue is 18 acres?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 28.6. And 18 acres on the other
folio nUlnber.
MR. LARSEN: Well, let's take the 28.6. That's going to result
in, you know, $280 per day or $2,800 per week. Well--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's for ten days.
MR. LARSEN: And then basically we'll be assessing until the
violation is abated or a plans and plat pennit is issued, okay?
So say he -- the Respondent gets the plans and permit plat pennit.
If it is issued, well, then he can proceed as long as construction \vork
is stalied by Decenlber 31 st.
Page 92
i lA 1
j
, 1 . " _., / ~... /, ..-,
l~,O ,--:':L1L)\~' h\~.i. ",j~J
If the construction \vork is Got started by D eCclnber 3 L st~ the
Respondent agrees to hydro-seed all disturbed areas \vithin 14 days.
That \vould be by JanUal)l 15th5 COITect?
Iv1R. BALD,\VIN: Yes, sir.
l\1R. LARSEN: Or a fine of $1 0 per day \vill accrue. No\v, is
that $10 a day in addition to the other $10 a day; ho\v does that \vork?
IvfR. BALDVIIN: That fine $10 a day \vill be froln that day of--
\vell, it \yould be fronl January 2nd until the County abates the
violation.
1v1R. LARSEN: All right. Per acre ""Till accrue until
hydro-seeding is finished?
J'vfR. BALD\VIN: Yeah.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So are you saying the outside date
before the County \vill take action vviH be January 15th?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So one way or another, the problelTI
has to be resolved by January 15th or the County vvill step in?
MR. BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. PONTE: What is the cOlnpletion date?
J\1R. LARSEN: How long '\Till it take to hydro-seed in your
estin1ation? -
MR. BALDWIN: rIll not an engineer, sir. That question could
probably be better directed tovvards Mr. Slavich over there.
MR. SLA VICH: Four or five days.
NIR. LARSEN: Four or five days?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The issue I have here is the work is
started. I Inean, ,vhat does work started Inean?
MR. PONTE: What is the completion?
CHAI~\1AN LEFEBVRE: f-Ie could dig one hole and say, "I
stalied to \york," and then stop.
MR. LARSEN: Well, let's look at it. It says if a plans and plat
penTIit is issued and construction vvork is not started by Decenlber
Page 93
1 6 Ii r.'~ 1
,,1. -,~ 'v
/"1 c-::]Y.",~:~,~< '(I /'1:\'..
~~ '......" j 1. '_' \:.... 1 _..., \._' _.._' '_) --' t_
31st So It'S a va1id OInt
\Vhat is the County's interpretation oI'\vhat -- you kno\v~ the
COlnlnencelllent of construction v,lork 111eans?
IvlR. KRAE~TBRING: \VeIl, I think \vhen you look at itenl ItD",
he has to notify the County \vhen it is cOlllpleted. That's goingtn
probably be the tin1eline.
You know, I have sYlnpathy for the neighbors. And all we really
can do is issue the order or agree \vith the stipulation. And if the
gentlelnan and C0111pany are not able to financially 111eet their
obligation, ~well, then \vetIl be hearing this again and \ve'Il be inlposing
fines, But I don't think: \ve have any authority outside of this.
lv1R. PONTE: I think there should be a completion date here.
They should agree to a c0111pletion date. It is just open ended. It all
says stali. It never says conlpleted by.
MR. LARSEN: And I think that's \vhat the lady \vas testifYing
about. Basically they could n1ake a nOlninal effoli and it could go on
for, you knov~, an extended period of tin1e without any oversight or
additional County action if they -- I guess, if they basically did SOITIe
CHAlRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a question. For a pennit that
he's going to be pulling for site work, ho\v long is that permit valid
for?
MR. BALDWIN: That's a good question. The plats and plans
penl1it Inay be -- Stan Chrzano\vski is in the back. He could answer
that question a little nlore clear. It's going to depend on how -- the
different inspections and tiInely fashion that they are --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We need to have hinl S\VOnl in.
(Speaker \vas duly swonl.)
MR. CHRZ~~OWSKI: \Ve are in the process of extending that
because of the econOll1Y. \'Ve had a time span, I think, of 18 Inonths
froln the tinle of construction beginning to the end. But \ve're
extending that by another year because V\7e have so n1any projects that
Page 94
16 L if A 1
L ',0',
J OV~1J!)el U,
(J8
are in this saIne situation, r 'Chink that one rnight have been approved
on the last go-round.
CfLLUfu\1AN LEFEB\!RE: Vlhat rnl afraid of is that this does
go to permitting, gets penl1itted, and work starts and stops and he nO\\1
has 18 1110nths or now 28 1110nths or whatever the case 111ay be, 30 -
months, to finish the project under the pelmit. And they are going to
have to suffer through another two and a half years vvhen they have
already --
1v1R. PONTE: Already gone a year and a half.
CHAIRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: Already a year and a half.
So I think if there's something in this order, it should be --
s0111eho\v if V\Te can vvord it or not. Pill not sure if \ve can. If \vork
COl1unences and then stops for a period he will have to -- I don't know
if we can do that.
MR. KRAENBRING: Jean--
:MR. PONTE: Mr. Chainnan, ,vhy can't ,ve just put in a
cOlnpletiol1 date to be cOl11pleted by?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, because he is going to be
filing an SDP.
rvrR. PONTE: Yeah. But he is ,villing to do this in four days.
Just give hilTI 30 days to conlplete it.
:MR. KRAE1\TBRING: I have a question of Jean.
Do we have the authority to supersede this 180 day figure?
MS. RAWSON: No. I don't think so. The only thing I think you
could do is put some kind of a word instead of is not started, like
substantial --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: COlnpletion.
MR. KRAENBRlNG: Progress.
1\1S. RAWSON: SOlnething like that.
MR. LARSEN: Right. But that is subject to interpretation.
MR. PONTE: Substantial is rather --
MS. RA \YSON: It is, but it's better than is not stalied.
Page 95
161 1Al MI
(j \ e J'~} l=', t-:
, (j08
IVIT-z. SLi\ VTCl-I: Is your conceni tile hydro~seeding being
c01l1pleted, sir? Your concern is --
Iv1R_. PONTE: 1v1y concern is that there isn't a c0111pletion date
here,
. I\1R. SL.A. \lICI-{: A cOlnpletion date for the hydro-seeding or for
the infi:astructure?
I\1R. PONTE: To correct the problen1.
11R. SLA VICH: '\Vel!, the probleln, as it stands today, vvithout a
permit is hydro-seeding. r ,viE be 1110re than happy to put a
completion date in there. Just so that you kIl0'V, \ve have already
signed over our cash bond to the County to -- in the event we didn't
hydro-seed, then the 1110ney vvas available for thenl to hydro-seed.
So if you \vant to put a c0I11pletion date for the hydro-seeding, I
don't -- other than \"lithin the next four days, I don't have any issue
with that. I don't believe that you can put a cOll1pletion date of Iny
infrastructure \"lork.
IvIR. PONTE: l.Jo.
MR. SLA VICH: But conlpleting of the hydro-seed -- if you even
want to put in there conlpleted by Decen1ber 31 st, I have no issue with
that, instead of January 15th. If you want to shorten that tilne fralne
up, I'll be more than happy to sign that.
Or, as I had lnentioned earlier, ,verve already signed our cash
bond over -- a release of that -- to the County in the event that ,ve
don't do the hydro-seeding or the grading of the four to one.
I'm not going to really get in and argue about what I'vIrs. Ebeli or
Mr. Mayberry said because there is a lot of differences of opinions and
factual law. But if you want to have that by the end of the year, I have
110 probleln '''lith that. And have that as a completion date. In the
event vve don't do it, then the County call do it \vith our bond Inoney.
MR. PONTE: County's position on that; Decelnber 31 st?
MR. BALDWIN:, I have no objections to that, sir.
MR. LARSEN: I'ln a little unclear about \vhat everybody is
Page 96
,l,Q1J
; "\ l,-_, '~ \.." 1 ~ J
1Al
') ("Q
.' " _,' ,Ju
~ OT~e~< 110- 1-0
'~D~ \..oj /1 b ~ ,
lYfR, SLA VIC1-L The hydro-seeding,
11R, LA1~SE}\I: I understand, But it states in the agreel11ent
evidently '''larked out before, if a plans and plat pennit is issued and
construction \vork is not started by Decen1ber 31st, the Respondent-
agrees to hydro-seed all disturbed areas. I interpret that to rnean if you
got a plans and plat pelTIlit you would not hydro-seed.
:MR. SLA \TIeR: That's correct.
MR. LARSEN: No"\v, you're agreeing to hydro-seed?
:t\1R. SLA VIeR: I'n1 agreeing to hydro-seed if we have not
started construction.
MR. LARSEN: But the question is basically vvhat constitutes
stalting construction.
l\,1R. SL.c\. VICH: Well, you file a notice of -- ne\v notice of
COlllil1encenlent on the job is typically \vhat you -- \vhat is defined as
starting construction. And 'when there is five or six bulldozers and
backhoes on the job, I believe that Tvvould be starting construction~
We can take a picture. And they are going to be out there for the
duration, along \vith two houses under construction.
MR. LARSEN: Right. I think the concern of the residents is that
basically even if you started construction, there's still going to be a
certain alnount of dust floating over their neighborhood.
And if a certain part of the parcel is not going to be used for
cOllstruction during that period of tinle, is it possible to hydro-seed the
part that you were not going to be actively constructing?
:MR. SLA VI CH: We will -- \ve \vill be nlore than happy to abide
by the LDC, which is if your lots are up to grade, which is road height,
which you're not going to tenninate until your road is in, which is the
last thing to go in because you have to put evelything under that first.
That if our lots are graded to road height or ready to start construction
on and we haven't stalied construction on, then \ve \vould hydro-seed
thenl because that \vould be a Ineasure of dust control, yes.
Page 97
16/
1At
0\ ,'lnber :2:
(: (I
)0
\Iv' e had discussIon .~. lorw: discussion about if\ve hvdro-seed G
~ w
acres or six acres or ten acres of the site v\lhiIe yodre \varking on the
other. \,,1 e have a ShOli -- \ve have a schedule that \vefre doing
infrastructure in and to build houses.
- \Ve have signed proposals and perfonnance bonds put in place by
the subcontractors to do that "^lork. So there are going to be a
trenlendous arTIount of people on that site \vorking. And, you kno\v,
as I said, \ve vvi11 go by the LDC. And that's really vJhat dictates to
developers on vvhat you're supposed to do.
MR. LARSEN: Thank you, sir.
I\1R. BALD WIN: Once the pen11it is issued there are other dust
control ll1easures that can take place, as \vell. Once the active pennit
. .
IS gOIng.
I\1R. LARSEN: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chain11an.
MR. KELLY: Let 111e reaffinn the 1110tion alld also add that I
don't think it's our place on the Board to change the LDC. Tfhe gets
the penTIit, that's kind of\vhat -- you're stuck ,vith the LDC.
MR. LARSEN: I agree with that. I think that basically the LDC
is what he has to conlply with. I'm not sure we can put in a separate
interpretation of what \ve believe to be start construction or actively
engaged in the construction process.
And that's Iny concern. Is that basically if we started to do that,
we would be in conflict with other ordinances, rules and regulations.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Can you add in the 28.6
acres for the first folio and 18 acres for the second?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, if I can. But I \vould like to clarifY.
Is it 28.6 acres that have been cleared or is there a portion of that
that is part of the preserve?
. MR. SLA VIeR: The total acreage is around 43 acres, which
\vould be the two. And roughly -- I don't have that exact alnount of
acreage. ButI \vould say it's probably close to 26 or 27 acres that
Paae 98
b
J.Ot'tAl
-
0\ crnu,x < '.) ''':
nave been cleared, l\ snlall portion of'that is t\\70 lakes,
If you took the entire cleared area) 1 \vouldn1t ~~. 11n1 not going ,"- I
\^/ouldn't argue over one or tvvo acres. So you can call it 28 acres if
you \vant to. That's fine,
IvfR. KELLY: Pair enough.
MR. PONTE: Please clarifY for 111e ',vhere Vie are. \fV e have the
Respondent \vho has agreed to a c0111pIetion date of Decel11ber 31 st.
The County has agreed to a cOlnpletion date ofDecen1ber 31st.
Read the anlendnlent -- the proposed an1endlllent. ATe you going
to have a cOlnpletiol1 date?
I\1R. KRAENBRING: I think, George, that \ve should, 111Y
opinion, leave it \vhere it is. If you \vant to add the acreage in --
11R. PONTE: The acreage is not Iny cone-en1. 1\;fy concenl is
c0I11pletion of the project.
MR. KELLY: \^le can't change the land developlnent code.
MR. PONTE: Does the land developlnent code prohibit putting a
date in there?
MR. KELLY: \Ve certainly couldn't --
MR. PONTE: It's not 111Y intention to change the land
developlTIent code.
MR. KELLY: I think the way it is ,vorded -- the way it is-
worded, once you start construction, they alIo"'T you to have banAen
land because you're rUlming over it, destroying it and earth \\larking.
If you were to hydro-seed that area and then dig it up and have to
hydro-seed again and then dig it up, it doesn't ll1ake sense for builders.
So the land development code gives then1 a \vindo,v of tilne in order
to do what they need to do without hydro-seeding.
MR. PONTE: And what is that window?
1v1R. I<ELL Y: Well, unfoltunately, sir, I think it is quite lengthy.
But it is beyond the jurisdiction of our Board. We can't go and
change the code itself.
MR. LARSEN: I don't think Mr. Slavich is agreeing to that.
Paae 99
b
o3e6Jr I~)
lvn~, SLi\VICJ-I: A_greein to?
l\1R. PONTE: Decenlber 31 st conlpletion date,
IvfR. SLA \lICH: \Ve need to clarif)r that r agree to DeCell1ber
31 st cOll1pletion date of the hydro-seed in the event \ve do not pick up
our pennit, yes, sir.
I\1R. PONTE: That's what 1'n1 talking about
MR. SLA \TICH: I \vill be 1110re than happy to agree to that on
the record. \Ve can change the agreeInent if you \vant, sign that.
Iv1R. PONTE: That1s precisely vvhat I \vas talking about.
MR. SLA VICH: Okay.
1V1R. KELLY: In that case, let lne attelnpt to an1end the original
Illation.
I\1S. FLAGG: Novenlber 26th is \vhen he has to hydro-seed by.
MR.KELL Y: Correct. Unless he gets the plans and plat penl1it.
MR. SLA VICH: Unless ,ve haven't stalied construction. I think
the way it said that if Vie have not started cOllstruction by the 31 st,
then 'v",'e 'Vvould have hydro-seeding finished by the 15th.
If you're trying to shorten that tilTIe period up, then what you
might ,vant to say is if we haven't started construction by Decelllber
15th, then we'll have the hydro-seeding by Decelnber 31st. If that
,yorks for you, that is fine with Ine.
MR. LARSEN: Right. That's paragraph 2-A where it states:
Respondent agrees to hydro-seed all disturbed areas within 14 days,
January 15th, 2009.
And what you're saying, sir, is you \vill agree to shorten that froln
January 15th do\vn to Decenlber 31st?
MR. SLA VIeR: Correct.
MR. LARSEN: All right. And that's the only thing you're
agreeing vv'ith; you're not agreeing to do anything \vith regard to tilne
constraints on the construction or once you get your plans and plat
pemlit in regard to hydro-seeding the undisturbed areas or areas other
than what you're actively constructing?
Page 100
161'Al !I
, "'~ ~" "fJ'" C'
, \' c.: 1 i1 ~)~~. 1. ,.,_~ ~ _:: l \) (:)
l\lR, SLi\VTCH: \Vha~~ \ve agreed to is tbat \i/e \vould abide tY'l
~ d
\vhatever is in the LDC and our pern1it.
J\1:S. '\VALDR01\T: Can I just clarify s0I11ething?
I see \vhere you guys are going. But if you look at 2-A in here,
the November 26th date~ that is for ifhe does not pick the pennit up.
Just so \ve are all on the saIne page \vith this.
COITect?
MR. SLA \TICH: Right. The concenl \vas ifvve picked our
pennit up and didn't do anything for six Inonths~ eight 111011ths, if it
gets extended to 18 111onths, whatever. I have 110 interest in paying a
trelnendous alllount of interest on Inaney that's sitting do\vn there not
doing anything. So we are going to put people to work.
And if you want to shorten the tilne fran1e froll1 the 15th do\vn to
hydro-seed it, if \ve don't stali construction, to Decenlber 31 st, I'll be
1110re than happy to agree to that.
MR. KELLY: Okay. A111end nlY initial 1110tion. In part 2-A the
, second date would be changed frOlTI Dece111ber 31 st to Decelnber 15th.
And the Respondent agrees to hydro-seed all disturbed areas within
14 days of that date, bringing it to Decen1ber 31 st. And also we're
adding the alllount of acreage to 28.6 acres.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And 18 on the other one.
MR. KELLY: And 18 on part "B", which has already been
abated anyway.
Larry, do you want to --
MR. DEAN: I will second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: AnYlnore discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear--
f\1R. KRAENBRING: Take a vote.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor?
MR. KAUFI\1AN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Ave.
0'
P ag e 1 0 1
'-
.!LO , 1 A 1
c)\ ,-ltJcr _=~( ~ ; Cit~
Ivil~. Li\I{SEN: Aye.
l\1l~, 1~RAE~TB1U1\fG: Aye.
CI-IAIRlv1AN LEFEB\1RE: Aye,
I\1R. DEAN: Aye.
I\1R, PONTE: Aye.
I\1R. KELLY: Aye.
CflAlRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIR1v1AN LEFEB,\7RE: Motion passes.
MR. SLA VICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one would be a Illation for
inlposition of fines and liens. Bee versus El11pire Developers Group,
LLC. CEB nU111ber --
MR. LARSEN: J\1r. Slavich.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have ilTIposition of fines.
MR. SLA VICH: Okay.
CHAIR.lV'1AJ'.J LEFEBVP~: CEB nUlTIber CESD 20080007919.
Do you know if Ms. Ebert would like to speak on this, too?
MS. \V ALDRON: 1'111 assulning not. She is not here, but--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure if she knevv --
------ --- MS. EBERT: On which parcel?
MS. WALDRON: We'll let you know.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This is on the case that we heard last
1l1onth?
MS. WALDRON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Last l11onth.
I just want to illake sure that we cover our bases.
MS. WALDRON: There are some con~ections 1'111 going to read
through.'
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MS. WALDRON: We have had to change SOlne alnounts. In
reference to code enforcelnent case nUlnber CESD 20080007919. For
Page 102
"
18Jb,JrA'~b
the record~ Lhe Respondent is presenL
On Septelnber 25th, 2008 the Code Enforcen1ent Board issued a
finding of fact conclusion of la\v and order. And that order is
'-' ~
attached for your revieV\T. The R,espondent '.vas found in violation and
the Respondent has not cOlnpJied \vith the Board's orders fro111
Septenlber 25th, 2008.
At this tinle the County is recolmnending iInposing a lien for the
fine at a rate of $180 per day for the period bet\:veen October 10th,
2008 to Novelnber 3rd, 2008 for a total of 24 days in the alllount of
$4,408.43. Operational costs of $88.43 have not been paid.
CHAIR11AN LEFEB\IRE: Okay. It hasn't been c0111plied with.
I didnft notice that before.
If it had been COll1plied vvith5 then we could have a discussion.
But do I hear a n10tion?
MR. LARSEN: Well, Mr. Chainnan, I see that they have an
affidavit of noncompliance by code enforcenlent official Patrick
Baldwin.
Is there any other testilTIOny, evidence by the County in regard to
the noncolnpliance?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He needs to be SW0111 in again.
-,-,---- ---- (Speaker was duly sworn.)-----m
MR. BALD'VIN: Yes. As of yesterday, the property still \vas
not in COll1pliance with the Board's order at the last ll1eeting.
MR. LARSEN: What is -- v{hat do you mean by not in
cOlnpliance?
What was ordered and ,vhat was not--
MR. BALDWIN: All the disturbed land with that folio nUlnber
-- I believe the folio nUlnber is 00186000005. All the disturbed land
in that folio nUlnber should have been hvdro-seeded. It has not been.
"I
MR. LARSEN: All right. When did they have to -- \:vhat date
did they have until to hydro-seed?
I al11 looking at the order. It says October 9th, 2008. Is that
Page 103
'-
16 a,l 'A 1
(y\ bel 20. ~lCC8
curreCL :'
l\1R, BALD\VIN: Yes. ~r
1\1R. LAl=(SEN: And you personally 0 bserved no hydro-seeding?
i\1R. BALDV\1IN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEB'IRE:, Any other questions?
MR. KELLY: I ll1ake a 111otion to ilnpose the fines.
Iv1R. PONTE: Second.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Slavich, do you have anythillg to say?
MR. SLA VICH: Other than I apologize to the Board. I vvasn't at
that meeting. And there v.,ras j list a l11isunderstanding.
\'1 e thought that it \vas starting hydro-seed because ",ve had
stalied by that date. Obviously it was con1pleting hydro-seed. 'XI e are
in violation and vve'Il pay the fine.
CHAIR1\1AN LEFEBVRE: I have a 111otion and a second.
MR. PONTE: I second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
l",1R.KA UF:rv1Ai~ :Ay e.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
:MR. LARSEN: Aye.
lv1R. KRAENBRING: Aye.
..CHAIRMANLEFEBVRE: Aye..-..,u
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
MR. SLA VICH: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: And ifT could add to the County that they push
forward on having the County hydro-seed in response to this tiIne. In
this particular case, it doesn't Inatter \vhat the condition of the penllits
are on the propeliy. He signed an order stating that he ~would
hydro-seed regardless of what he was doing to the property.
I\1R. LARSEN: 1'111 sorry~ Mr. Kelly. Your cOlmnent \vas that
basically the County is to hydro-seed now?
Page 104
l~,L:, ~ ~,(~
l, '. ...._.. ~_ ; .~ ,_/.... L _,-. \j', ...~". .~) \.../ L
staff to decide \vhat to do \vith it.
CI-LAIRMAN LEFEB\ll~E: \Velll nlO'lle on to the next one, Bee
versus Patriot Square, LLC., eEB nUlnber 2007060341.
(Speakers were duly S\VOll1.)
MS, WALDRON: For the record, the Respondent is present. On
August 22nd, 2008 the Code Enforcen1ent Board issued a finding of
fact, conclusion of law and order. And that order is attached for your
revie\v. The Respondent ,vas found in violation and the Respondent
has complied V\Tith the Board's order frolll August 22nd, 2008.
At this tilne the County is recolllil1ending ilnposing a lien for the
fine at a rate of $150 per day for the period bet\veen August 30th,
2008 to Septelnber 8th, 2008 for order itenl nUlnber one for a total of
ten days in the an10unt of $1,500. And $150 per day for the period
between August 30th, 2008 to Septenlber 8th, 2008 for order helll
nUlnber two for a total often days in the aIl10unt of$1,500, totaling
$3,000. Operational costs of $89. 7S have been paid.
MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier
County Code Enforcement. We are here today because of the two
issues, the nVQ itelns on the order.
The Respondent ,vas ordered by the Board to obtain an
after-the-fact denlo permit and all required inspections, including the
CO, on or before August 29th, 2008. The after-the-fact den10 permit
was applied for on August 28th, issued on Septelnber 3rd, and then
finally COed on Septelnber 8th. So they were out of con1pliance there
with that first iten1.
Now, \vhat I would like to say with respect to that is that \ve have
Crystal Hoslnan here. She is with Sign Craft. And we have Justin
Claussen here. He is a representative of Patriot Square. Delmis
Claussen, registered agent's, nephew actually.
And Crystal caIne down on their behalf here to the County to try
to obtain that after-the- fact den10 permit. She ,vent up to the front
l'v1E,lZELL\,T; Tllat\s \vhat In\7 SU9JlestJOn \VO
- ~ ~~
i ri he rid c: I 'Il~' t'n
1 \.____ LI -.. ...1....., 1".-....... ~ J .V-
Page 105
16 ,I 1 A 1
() \'c-:l]~.~! C~J~
-)
r)
o
-".... T ... T - . 1 .", ..... ,'" I < ~
deSK up tnere &EG aSr(Cc1 to get tHe pennlt 1rOJTJ one ot tne pen111ttlng
techs, And there \vas sonle 111iscolll111unication bet\veen the Countv
."
and Sign Craft.
They just didnft understand \vhether they -- ho\v' to issue the
pennit or s0111ething. There\vas just sonle Dlisconmlunication, but I ' '
"Nasn't there. I \vasnft present at that time.
So the saIne day I \vent there -- over to the front counter and
spoke to the people up front and said I don't understand vvhy vve
\vouldn't be issuing an after-the-fact denlo penl1lt. Because what they
\vere doing \vas taking do\vn a huge structure, a huge sign, that had
electrical on it. It had sharp edges and all kinds of stuff on there.
So after that, I \vent and spoke to Alalnar Finnegan. She is
actually the pennitting supervisor for building and revie'\v. And I
asked her to send me an e-nlail stating that they do, in fact, need to get
that after-the- fact delllo pen11it or a delllo pen11it at any tinle to take
down a structure. And I actually have an e-Inail here fro111 her
continuing that.
The second itelll of the order was to reUlove the renlaining
portion of the sign and all the debris associated with that sign. Again,
on or before August 29th, 2008. I Inade a -- I confiruled the reuloval
of all of that actually on Septell1ber 8th, 2008. m ___uu
So the Respondent vvas ordered by the Board also to contact
myself, the investigator, to let rne know that evelything had been
taken care of on the site so that I could go out there and confirm
everything had been done. They did not do that. So that was the
reason why I went by 011 ll1Y regularly scheduled routine visit 011 the
8th actually.
That's pretty much all I have.
CflAJ~\1AN LEFEBVRE: Any questions, com111ents?
:MR. L'ESPERANCE: The Respondents are fully in cOlnpliance
at this date?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes. Yes, they are.
Page] 06
'-
16J lAJ
~\. errl CJ e,~~__ ~ ~.~, c; S;
lvn~. I(ELL: ell. 1 0 uld sav since tbe olJerational cosCsh3.ve
] v'
been paid and it looks like they did diligently try to \\101'k on getJing
the pennit and \\11th the representative here to testify to the fact -- I say
v/e abate the fine of $3,000.
MR. DE.A,N: I \viII- second tbat Inetion.
CHAIRl\1AN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
:MR. KAUFIv1AN: Aye.
1v1R. LfESPERANCE: Aye.
1vfR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRlNG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CiriUIUvljJ~ LEFEBVkE: Any nays'!
(No response.)
CHAIRl\1iu'J LEFEBVRE: rv1otion passes.
You're all set.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case is BCC versus Heribelio
and Antonio Perez, eEB nUlnber CESD 200800002222.-_~
Is the Respondent present?
(No response.)
IvfS. \V ALDRON: The Respondent is not present.
(Speaker was duly S\Y0111.)
MS. WALDRON: On April 24th, 2008 the Code Enforcement
Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. And that
order is attached for your revievv. The Respondent \vas found in
violation and the Respondent has not cOlnplied \vith the Board's orders
fi-omApriI 24th, 2008.
At this tilne the County is recolrunended -- recollunending
iluposing a lien for the fine at a rate of $200 per day for the period
Page 107
I 6 I 1 ~A )
Cf'.,: e' n'"! C \~~ ..__. (J S
1Je~(');O""1" An C-Pe"- ~):; "r' ') 0/; Q
'- ,'_\\\.-\._..Ll--.1-.......'.b.___..........~,---'~_~~......- JU
I... T r,
1 '! U
51h~ 2008 for a total of 75
days in the al110unt 01"$15,363 18, Operational costs of$363.18 have
not been paid.
1\1R. ~4..UFlvl~~: Mr. Chain11an.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. KAUFMAN: I think there's an error at the bottOlTI of the
page \vhere it says August 23rd. I think that should say April, unless
rIll wrong.
1\1S. V\T ALDRON: No. The hearing \vas in April.
CI-rAIRMAN LEFEB\lRE: And they had 120 days, correct?
MS. WALDRON: Yeah. Their cOlnpliance date was August
?2nd.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They had 120 days to C0111e into
compliance. So it was from that date.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
I\1R. KRAEJ\TBRlNG: I 111ake a nlotion that \ve i111pOSe the fine
or lien.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
IV1R. DEAN: Second the 1110tion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
11R. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
.MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I\1otion passes.
Thank you.
Page 108
16/1AJ
\ C ]-11 L; C:l,~ C.l _..' (.~
Tlu", 1': P',,~ n
--- ~_ .... .1...._ '-" ~ A_. \.,- -./
1: ()1 C::,,~~ '11']"11", -::'CJ I le.o' Ui ''''.1': 0,11 /,~ 1, '11-:""11 en t iJ f fi1'e"
' '--. .,lL\." - '-, 1. ,_ . L.: 1 j Cl.u(~ L..l_. ,'..' . _, _< " ' ..),
Bee versus rdark Brecher~ CEB nunlber 2007..06,
(Speakers \vere duly S\VOlTI.)
CHAIRl\1AN- LEFEB\TRE: Okay.
IvfS. \'1 ALD1~ON: 1 believe -- if we vvant to let l\;fs. Brecher
speak since she asked for the reduction.
lvfS. BRECHER: HeIlo.I\1y nan1e is Da\vn Brecher. I have
V\lritten a little note here so I \vouldn't forget anything. So excuse IllY
notes here.
I live at 4830 Cherryvvood Drive. And I thank you for the
oppoliunity to be present today and request a release of fines
associated \vith the" code violations at 111Y residence.
They ,vere caused by actions previously undeliaken and adrnitted
to by Iny husband, IVlark. In January of this year he vvas arrested and
-- for an ulu'elated situation and is currently in NOlth Carolina
a\vaiting his sentencing.
'A/lIen I becanle -- and then when I becalne a\vare of the- situation'
in the 111atter, I constantly worked to resolve the requirements and to
help -- and with the help of nlY atton1ey and fiiends to take care of all
the requirelnents that were done on the violations on this land.
- 1'111 a 1110ther of three boys, 15, 13,9, and I have found it
necessary to retunl to \vork to support Iny faluily. As you can
imagine, the year 2008 has been a 1110st difficult year for 111e. And the
rellloval of fines involving this nlatter would be greatly appreciated.
I'm aware and I'ln willing to pay today any remaining operation,
investigation or permit costs. It's kind of a sunul1ary oflny story.
MR. KRAENBRlNG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Vvhat is the anlount of the fines right
novv'?
MS. WALDRON: The iluposition of fines that you ordered
previously was $77,800. And it did keep OCCUlTing froln that point on.
\\7hat the County has to say right novv is we don't object to getting rid
Page 109
"--'
161,lAl
C) \ I:, }-"-l L~' c~ r .,,__ 1.J .! (,) r _ ~::
"
(j:! (~ ]}f:S
Cl-IAJ1:zI\'1~t\N LEFEB'VRE> Has it been abated?
.t\1S, ,V ALDR01~: Yes~ it has. And 1\lfs. Brecher has "worked
diligently.
IvfP__. LfESPERANCE: W11at are the operational,costs?~
MS. "7 ALDRON: The operational costs have been paid.
Iv1R. KRAEJ\.TBRING: You said it \vas 77,000?
MS. ,V ALDRON: That \vas \vhat vvas ordered fron1 the
inlposition. And there were additional fines that had accrued on top of
that.
1\1R. KRPI-ENBRING: We are in compliance?
MS. '\TV ALDRON: They are in cOll1p1iance.
1v1R. KRAENBRING: The County has no objection?
MS. VV ALDRON: The County has no objection. And Mrs.
Brecher also has another case which she is working very diligently on
also. So \ve have no objection to abating the fines.
I\1R. LARSEl'~: Mr. Chainnan, I \vould Inake a 1110tio11 to abate
the fines.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
lvfR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KRAENBRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
l\1R. LARSEN: Have a nice day.
Page] 10
16/1Al
()\'~e;-r-ll.)e :_:
; (~()
'.' '-, '-
1\ /n~ l( p l\ L:1'-IPq r\
~'- '~..~- '-:.,. ---.-''- '---~ '--'_~J. \ -'-.--' L ---,--_.l
Q. r 1: i 1,~ L-
" ~\.:.-'l..L<-
CH-AIHJ\lli\N LEFEB \7 JZ1:> j~nd any reporis?
Any ne\v business, first of all? Any ne\v business?
0\1'0 response.)
CI-LL\IRI\1AN LEFEBVRE: And we approved the consent
agenda already.
Any reports, COITIlnents?
MS. FLAGG: I vvould just conunent. I had infonned you all, but
Ms. J en \~1 aldron is nO\\1 the lead for the enforcenlent section for both
Code Enforcelnent Board and also the Office of the Special
~1agistrate.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Our next 111eeting \lv-ill be January
22nd,2009.
MR. KELLY: Are we h0111e again or--
~1S; \VALDRON: We are back to Bee again, if you guys
remelnber where that is. If you need directions, let lne la10'V.
MR. DEAN: They are going to let us back in no\v.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I have a illotion to adjoU111?
MR. DEAN: Happy holidays.
MR. KRAENBRING: I will second that.
MR. LARSEN: Motion to adjounl.
MR. KRAENBRING: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
I\1R. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
l'v1R. KRAEJ\ffiRING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
1\1R. DEAN: Aye.
MR. PONTE: Aye.
Page 111
1(> I ho,JLrA,t, ..
_.' , '-.' '" 1. ~,._' ~-'.. __' \.J '~ <...)
~\{F
1<T rl~' -r- T
L~ __~_,!_ I
,\ ,
**>:":*~~
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjoU111ed by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.rn,
COLLIER COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
GERALD J. LEFEBVRE, Chainnan
These nlinutes approved by the Board on
as pre;;:f;"lltcd or as COITectcd.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI
Page 112
Fiala
Halas ,
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
NSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
May 21, 2009
16dA21tfv
May 1~ 2009
RECEIVED
JUL 1 32009
Board of County CommIsaloners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County
of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Karen Homiak
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Misc. Correa:
0*: DGj J ~31 D9
Item~ f 0 IL()A ~
Copies to:
\;n\
Page 1
:cpies to:
16 ~LA2009 1
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the May 21st meeting ofthe
Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLLCALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if the secretary could take the roll call, please.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman is absent.
Commissioner Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here,
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present.
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. thank you.
Item # 3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The addenda to the agenda. We have two items on today's agenda. One is
the Resource Recovery Park. And the other would be the boat dock discussion that we'll have after that.
We also have our consent~nda items which we'll be going to injust a few minutes.
Now, does anybody else have any issues to add, or changes?
(No response.) :
.
Item #4
\'1~;..1
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is June 2nd, and that is
a special meeting, and it will be held in this room at 8:30. It's a Tuesday. And it will be on the new sign
Page 2
161/1tA2
May 21,2009
ordinance that we all should have received recently. It's a simplified version.
We have a working document section which is a section that I would like to suggest we take a page
at a time, like we normally have when we approach these kind of things. So as you're reading, if you focus
on that first working document section, it might be the most useful one for hopefully our meeting. And
then the other sections provide backup as to how that section got to be where it is today.
But that will be on Tuesday, the 2nd. Does everybody -- does anybody know if they're not going to
be here on that day?
Paul and Tor. Okay, we still have a quorum then.
And the meeting after that will be our regular meeting on June 4th, regular Planning Commission
meeting. Does everybody intend on being here on June 4th?
(Nodding heads affirmatively.)
Item #5
APPROV AL OF MINUTES - APRIL 16, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we have the minutes of April 16th, 2009 for approval. Is
there a recommendation to approve, or are there any changes?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MA Y 12,2009
CHAIRMAN STRIAN: Recaps, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners met last week, but they had no land
use items on their agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That says a lot for what's coming up in the future around here.
Item #7
Page 3
-,--"'..._,,, ,,",,^,,",.-.'; "-"_~'I!Ifl' Mf' '11II "'.l:.. _""'___".""""'.......,,,._,",.,
May 21
Jo~! 2 Iff
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's report. Ray, I got a -- I had a notice I wanted you
to put on the screen, if you could.
That's Molly. It's a new member of my family. And I just had to do that. because my wife wanted
to see her dog on -- anyway, she's a Lhasa. We just got her this weekend. She's eight weeks old. Thank
you, SIr.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Isn't that special.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other item I'd like to mention, Muni. Code. The site is cleaned up, it
works great, everything is up to date.
And Mr. Klatzkow, I don't know how you did it after months if not years of asking that it get done
properly, but thank you very much from this commission, as well as I'm sure the public at large. Because
now everybody has an accurate set of codes they can look at. So we sure appreciate what you and your
staff have done.
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got good people working for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sure do, sir, thank you.
The dock memo. I just passed out to everyone from staff a multi-page memo on the dock issue that
we're going to be discussing today. We'll definitely have a break before we discuss the dock issue, so at
that time hopefully we'll have time to review it and get more familiar with what's in the package. It may be
redundant to what we already have, I don't know, but we'll certainly see as time goes on.
And that's the only items I have on the Chairman's report.
Item #8A
PETITION: SV-2009-AR-14140, RED ROOF INN
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll move right into the consent agenda.
First item on our consent agenda today is SV -2009-AR -14140. It's the Red Roof Inn on Davis
Boulevard.
Does anybody have any concerns or changes to the consent item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we're looking for a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Homiak.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signiry by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 4
1 .~ .. ,F)
~" .'
6 I .i*u~, L
May 21,2009
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Item #8B
PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13679, MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second consent item is Petition CU-2008-AR-13679, it's the Messiah
Lutheran Church on Golden Gate Parkway.
Are there any concerns or corrections to that consent item?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Wolfley.
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Item #8C
PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, AVOW HOSPICE, INe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The third and final consent item is PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, Avow
Hospice, Inc., on Whippoorwill Lane. That's another consent item.
Does anybody have any comments or changes needed to that consent item?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Seconded --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Ms. Homiak.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signi -- oh, Mr. Wolfley, go ahead.
Page 5
n lllll __,>'_.""'~_' ""'-"~"~'-"_"'''______-''''_~'"''__''_.~"'_.
"
~"r
May 21, ~oJ A 2
II
.C''j
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was not here for that, so I will not vote.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As I.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley will be abstaining and Mr. Murray will be abstaining.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney will be abstaining. Well, let's hope the rest of the six of
us all agree it's okay.
All those in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six approved, three abstained. Thank you.
Item #9 A
PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13245, COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DEP ARTMENT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us to our tIrst advertised public hearing, which is Petition
CU-2008-AR-13245, Solid Waste Management Department for a resource recovery site north of the
current landfill.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning
Commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just that I received an e-mail from a neighbor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 1 spoke with Dane Atkinson, Project Manager, regarding issues
that I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I received two e-mails from neighbors.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've met with the applicant's representative, Mr. Mulhere, I've got e-mails
from several neighbors that I think we all got. One of them I remember is Scott and Debbie Green. And I
spoke to another landowner out there by the name of Russell Holloway, him and his wife, Nancy. And
anything I discussed with them will be discussed today.
Okay, sir, it's all yours.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Planning Commissioners. For the record, I'm Dan Rodriguez,
your Solid Waste Management Department Director. Thank you for the opportunity to bring the Resource
Recovery Park PUD to you for approval.
Page 6
161
t.~' 1 A L'M
May 21,2009
r1,
f:JI
,.,~
First of all, I'd like to introduce our team of professionals. I'm joined here today by Paul Mattausch,
our Water Department Director. Dane Atkinson, he's our Project Manager for the Resource Recovery Park.
Sue Zimmerman, she's our Real Estate Services Representative. And we also have Bob Mulhere. He is
with R W A, Inc. He's a consultant for PBS&J. Fleet Wolfe and David Deans of PBS&J, they're our
environmental consultants for the project as well. And Bill Mullands and Phil Gramatges are here as well
with the Engineering Section for Public Utilities.
Solid waste management department's vision is to provide best value, responsive services and
compliant services to protect our environment. They preserve valuable landfill air space and plan for the
development of the Resource Recovery Park that builds the needed infrastructure for the future needs of the
community.
The need for a sustainable integrated solid waste management strategy is critical because the county
continues to grow. So does the quantity of solid waste that's generated throughout the county.
As we're all aware, the Collier County landfill provides disposal capacity not only for the
unincorporated areas of the greater Collier County, but also for the City of Naples, Marco Island and
Everglades City. We are guided by the integrated Solid Waste Management strategy, which was
unanimously adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 5th of2006.
Our mission is based on enduring guiding principles, which include environmental and growth
management compliance, air space preservation, operational excellence and best value service. These
enduring guiding principles were also endorsed as a component of that integrated solid waste management
strategy.
Our solid waste management program is anchored at the Collier County Landfill. However, as
we're all familiar, through our participation and guidance during the AUIR process and review, that asset
has a finite capacity. To make this resource last as long as possible for the citizens of Collier County, we
need to find ways to reduce the amount of waste we generate, to reuse the waste, recycle the weight,
process it, as well as to protect our environment by reducing our consumption of natural resources. The
Resource Recovery Park does that for us.
As approved and directed by the board, our integrated solid waste management strategy focused on
both our short-term and our long-term demands to provide effective efficient solid waste management
systems for the next 50 years and beyond.
Our integrated solid waste management strategy is based on four components: Source reduction,
material reuse and recycling diversion, optimizing existing assets and resources, and obtaining additional
facilities.
We take a look at the screen here, this is a chart that shows the solid waste generated for FY 2008.
As you can see from the chart, the majority of the waste that's produced in Collier County is diverted,
recycled or reused.
Collier County has one of the best recycling programs in the State of Florida. We've benchmarked
with many counties: Sarasota, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Orange County. And as you can see from the chart,
we landfill just about 40 some percent of our material. There's still much room for improvement.
Through the use of single-stream recycling in the county, which many of you participate in, we've
seen a tremendous increase of the recycled material that's reused and recycled.
Of the residents in the unincorporated area that have the yellow top containers, 55 percent of the
material, the waste that's put at curbside is recycled. Huge benefit. It saves over 45,000 tons of landfill air
space.
We're all familiar with this chart. This is our AUIR chart that shows the life left in our landfill. It's
approximately 25 years. Every year that we do more for recycling we add on years to the life expectancy of
our landfill.
Page 7
Il'l'I'R_,_,~".,.,_,.,.,,~,,",..",__....."..,......,_;,....~__.._..,__.,._,.._._...~...__."'._'".~."~_.,~__,_.."'"r~~'w.".___"o.,",.".",_".._,__.~_.,..".._._____",_____~____,._
, '. dl
; "-#,f, - ;'. . "
, r'" ',. .. <'
May 21, 201J9j"~ C.
J~
,
As we reviewed with our staff and the understanding of other municipalities and their disposal
capacity, in addition to the beaches in Collier County, our parks and our visitors and residents, one of the
most valuable assets we have is our landfill. The garbage doesn't disappear, it needs to go somewhere. The
county will always need a landfill.
That's why this asset is very valuable. And the Resource Recovery Park will provide the
infrastructure, the facilities where we can recycle, source separate many more materials than we currently
do at our Collier County Landfill.
Now that you understand the context in which the Resource Recovery Park was developed, planned
for by the Board of County Commissioners, I'd like to introduce Bob Mulhere with R W A to provide you
the specifics of the Resource Recovery Park.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob, before you start. let the record show Mr. Eastman is present.
MR. MULHERE: This slide here, it gives you I think a pretty good depiction of the general
location of the facility and the surrounding lands.
Just in terms of orientation, White Lake Boulevard, 1-75, the existing landfill and the proposed
Resource Recovery Park, Collier Boulevard.
This slide here, which should be in your packets, provides a little more specific detail, conceptual --
conditional use conceptual site plan for the proposed Resource Recovery Park showing the preserve areas,
the buffer areas and the Resource Recovery Park use areas. as well as the proposed stormwater
management lakes.
There are several out-parcels that you can see. The two larger out-parcels have access. The smaller
one at the southern part that's completely landlocked within the Resource Recovery Park did not have
access, but the county staff has been working with that landowner over the last several years, and I'm happy
to report to you that as of late yesterday afternoon an agreement was reached for the county to purchase that
parcel. So that will be on the board's June agenda. we hope, June 6th, I think -- June 9th. So that really
eliminates I think a significant operational issue and takes that issue off the table for discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, before you go too much further on that, in the context of your
discussions today, would we then assume that that parcel. by the time you take it to the BCC, will be
assumed to be incorporated into your operations?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. If that gets to the -- if the purchase agreement is approved by the board in
June, assuming we're going to have to come back on your consent agenda, just an assumption on my part,
maybe we won't have to, but if we do have to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, everybody has to come back on consent.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, then it was a good assumption.
Then that means we probably wouldn't get to the board until at the earliest their one July -- their
single meeting in July, I don't know the date, but the middle or latter part of July, which would give us the
time I think then to deal with staff in terms of incorporating that inholder into the plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I brought it up is if you're going through a process now
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't want to have to do it twice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm coming from.
MR. MULHERE: No, you're absolutely right.
And if we need to, we can come back to this for any specific discussions. I'll move through my
presentation.
I think as it's already been said, the intent for the Resource Recovery Park -- and let me say at the
outset that all of the uses that are proposed for this parcel are already going on at the county landfill. But I
Page 8
16 J '
Ma~ 2112~i?
~
think it's critically important to state that what happens by shifting these operations to the north, this piece
that the county owns, that frees up additional capacity within the landfill as we move forward. Because that
space is presently being used for these functions.
So as you can see on this slide, debris recovery, construction, demolition materials, biomass or
horticultural debris processing, gas and leachate management, all of that's presently occurring within the
existing landfill.
Which, by the way, is part of the reason why the TIS only generated 10 additional trips, non-peak
trips, so that was based on additional employees or potential additional employees.
The conditional use application provided an assessment of the amount of parking spaces that might
be used in accordance with the LDC provisions for these facilities, but those -- all of those needs are
already ongoing at the landfill. So we really, we're only talking about the additional -- or additional impacts
associated with potentially some more employees.
And we really won't know what the exact parking relationship is until we go through the site
planning process.
Other functions that will occur on there: Administrative offices, tire processing, white and brown
goods processing, household hazardous waste, and recycling material recover facility.
These are pictures ofthose types of operational facilities. These are examples. Not exactly maybe
the same way that it will be at the Collier County facility, but it gives you an idea of how that would look.
Presently the tire -- the tire processing actually occurs off-site. Once they get enough tires, Waste
Management comes in and takes them off-site. It's potential sometime down the road that Collier County
might do that on-site.
These are just again examples.
Some questions came up during the EAC with respect to the household hazardous waste facility
and the -- in particular as it related to the fact that there are potable -- or there are well sites located, and I
don't know -- is Paul here? Yeah, okay. I don't know if we'll see if there's any questions, but I think we
addressed all those questions at the EAC. I was not present at the EAC, but I think all the questions were
addressed by virtue of the fact that it was recommended for approval.
The requirements through the DEP for containment and other jurisdictional agencies will all be
either met or exceeded. And there really is no risk. These are, as I understand it, deep wells. And I guess
I'm going to -- you know, I'm certainly not the expert here, so if you have specific questions, we have the
experts here to answer those, but I believe that those issues have been addressed.
So why is this being undertaken? I think -- you know, without -- I don't want to be too repetitive.
Obviously the board directed that this occur. But I guess principally when you think about the benefit to
the citizens of Collier County, we're preserving landfill air space by moving these facilities to this other
piece of property that the county owns right adjacent to the landfill.
And we'll be able to divert more material from the landfill, which I think is appropriate from an
ecological perspective, as well as just from having -- extending the life of the landfill.
About a 39-acre wetland impact. From the environmental assessment there were no panthers, bears
or red-cockaded woodpeckers observed on-site. There were two protected species identified on-site: Bald
eagle, no nesting on the site, and the hand fern.
In accordance with the -- this property is zoned agricultural. It falls within the North Belle Meade
overlay and the rural fringe mixed use district sending designation.
And Section 25, there is specifically an allowance within the Growth Management Plan for Section
25 that allows for these uses through a conditional use process.
The entire section falls within the sending area, but Section 2B 1 C8A(2) states that public facilities,
including solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair
Page 9
,_.. 'ill" ;~l',,,,,,i'_"_"''''''''~- _""-'_''''"_'''''=''."",~,.,______",,,,,,._,,,,..,,,,,....,,.,,..,."~_._. ",.,._."."..,.,~"~"_,,....""_...,....,,_~......,___ "
'l
','I' 1""''1\ !.ftI!,_ 1 A, 2
"\ ..., r~j ~ \
D'''' 1''''\
May 21,2009
facilities shall be permitted as a conditional use within Section 25. That was specifically put in at the time
of the adoption of the rural fringe mixed use district.
And that requires that 50 percent of the site be preserved.
Access will be through the landfill. This was an issue that was a significant issue I think at the
public meeting. There was concern because originally there was a proposal to potentially either build a
bridge or build a temporary bridge across 31 st. And I'll go through the site plan if! can, Ray.
In this area right here --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the mic, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry.
Right here, originally there was a proposal to have emergency and administrative access, which
really wasn't -- or access to the administrative facilities. There was a lot of concern about that. And that
concern was not only the part of local residents, but also the transportation department had some concerns
about that as well.
So we just wanted to put clearly on the record that that is no longer part of this proposal. We will
not be building a bridge for any kind of administrative access. We also. though, have to say that under an
emergency situation, a declared emergency. that wouldn't preclude the federal government or some state
agency from coming in and putting in a temporary bridge access to the landfill for emergency debris
removal. We are not going to build a bridge or use 31 st Street for any access to the site. All access will be
through the existing landfill.
I think everyone -- and hopefully everyone agrees that several years ago, probably more than 10
years ago, there was a significant problem with odor associated with the landfill. And over the last 10 years
Collier County has done a really excellent job of using technology to eliminate that. And that technology
will continue to be used, so there will not be an odor issue associated with these uses.
We'll comply with the county's noise ordinance and of course I'm sure we can talk about hours of
operation that will -- so the noise won't occur in inappropriate times.
The county landfill presently operates for public access from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Operationally
it operates from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. And we would propose the same operational hours, Monday
through Saturday, the same operational hours for the Resource Recovery Park.
There was another question about flooding in the area. Some neighbors raised concerns that this
might have a negative impact or could have an impact in that in really significant storm events there was
some flooding in certain areas. We've already had preliminary meetings with the Water Management
District, and the preliminary design that you see is by recommendation of the Water Management District
the location of those lakes emptying into the canal.
As you probably are aware, we can't have any impact on the adjacent neighbors. We have to design
this to take all of our water and hold it in a storm event and then release it in appropriate fashion into the
discharge, the design discharge. So there really will be -- actually. this potentially could have an
improvement, but it certainly won't make anything worse. And if we need more specific information,
questions answered as we move forward, again we'll have the civil engineer answer those questions.
The EAC voted 7- I in favor of the project. The one dissention was -- and this is as it was related to
me, and I did watch the tape of the EAC -- was related to concerns about the wells. Again, we put
testimony, and we have Paul Mattausch here if you need some specific questions answered as it relates to
that. But there is no issue with cross-contamination, as long as it's designed in accordance with the EP
standards, which of course it will be,
This was just a revised concept plan that actually shows buffer areas and has a little bit of detail
there adjacent to 31 st Street and the canal.
So in summary, the Resource Recovery Park is consistent with the BCC policy and their strategic
Page 10
16 I 1 1/1 2 '
May 21,~06!l
direction, specifically as it relates to this. And it will enable the county to better manage solid waste
resource recovery, maximizing landfill capacity, not only today but as emerging technology becomes
available, it will provide the county the opportunity to use that emerging technology, again to maximize __
to defer the maximum amount of materials away from the landfill and hopefully -- you know, things like,
you know, there's new markets opening all the time for recycled materials. And until you have a market,
it's kind of hard to do something with it. But when you find a market, you need to take advantage of that.
I think that concludes my presentation. We do have a number of experts. And I know that there
will be some public testimony as well, and we'd like an opportunity to respond to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly.
Okay, we'll start with questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It may take one of the staff, but who owns the material and the
landfill and the recycled goods?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director.
The county owns the material that's put into the landfill. And it's a shared responsibility with Waste
Management as far as the liabilities, the material in the landfill.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Some years ago we met at a public information meeting at
the Golden Gate Community Center, may have been four or five years ago. You were discussing putting __
instead ofbuming off the methane produced out of the landfill it was going to be converted and used to
generate electricity, put into the grid, et cetera, et cetera. At the time you said FPL was the holdup. What's
the holdup?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, Commissioner, in December 16th of2008 the Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Waste Management to designlbuild a gas energy facility. It's
currently in permitting with the FDEP, the air permit. We expect that to come back from FDEP within the
next two weeks.
And Waste Management has about a 90 percent complete site development plan. As soon as we
get that permit, we'll move forward with -- to CDES, community development, to get our permit to
construct that facility.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, that's very good. So currently you're still burning off the --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- gasses. Okay.
I had some discussions with Mr. Atkinson and, you know, I'm comfortable with the fact that
anything that is going to be put on the ground, let's say, is either going to be on concrete and then even an
overflow, not bladder, but what's the name for that? A containment, a containment --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Secondary containment.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Secondary con -- thank you very much.
And then I asked, well, right now there are -- it looked like even by the pictures you just sort of cut
up the tires. And it looked like an excellent source for insects, rodents, et cetera, et cetera.
Why aren't -- why wouldn't that just be immediately crushed into small pieces that can be sold and
is of value? Just regarding tires. It is an asset that's used in roads, used in other means.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. It depends on what's available in the market. As I said earlier,
one of the requirements that the board directs us to do is to have a best value service. Currently the best
value is to contract with Waste Management. They actually use the tires for fuel at an energy plant. They
actually burn them for fuel.
If there's an opportunity to work with a private vendor that specializes in the processing of rubber to
create material that can be better utilized or reused in some other material, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Like roads or whatever.
Page 11
I'li'''_,--,_~",__<___~_____._",,,,,__".,_,_____
16 ~a;~ 1\~9 ~
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And the household hazardous waste facility, will that be available
on an any-day basis? In other words, I can bring in old batteries and paint and whatever it may be that I
may have, I could bring that in any day?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. Similar to the recycling centers that we have throughout Collier
County. We have four in total. You can bring your hazardous waste, your batteries, your fluorescent bulbs,
your paint. Any ofthe materials that would be hazardous to the environment, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that's at -- you charge by weight, or how is that done?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the residents of Collier County that pay the assessment, their annual
garbage bill, that's a free service. They bring that material.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Great, thanks.
Can you explain what white goods are?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Those are appliances.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Like a stove or a refrigerator.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Stove, refrigerators, washer and dryers.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What do you do with those?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: They're actually recycled. As we're all aware, they have a lot of metals in
them. The n for the refrigerators the freon's extracted and recycled. and then the metal is sent off to be
recycled as well.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. And the C&D and brovv11 goods facility, can you describe
what that is?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. There's several operating in the county already and at the landfill, a very
large one.
What it is, construction and demolition material. Your concrete, your woods, your metals.
And what Waste Management does for the county is they source separate that. They pull those
materials out of the large dumpsters, the large roll-offs, and it's recycled.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: As?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The metals are sent off to a metal recycling facility, the wood is recycled, as is
the other material. Whatever is left that cannot be recycled, for instance, drywall, it's actually sent out of
the county to a landfill that's owned by Waste Management.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Or back to China. Sorry.
That's all I have for now, Chair. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why do they call it air space preservation instead ofland area
preservation?
MR. MULHERE: Because the landfill actually, you know, gets higher and higher and higher and
gets into air space as materials are -- I don't know, is that the highest point in Collier County?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I see that you have a zero odor emissions policy. Why is it that
when I drive to the Planning Commission meetings on 1-75, very often I can smell the facility?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director.
Commissioner, I've been your director for three years and I've not gotten a complaint about the odor
at the landfill that was justifiable. So if there is an odor, we're not made aware of it. Because we have very
strict guidelines, not only for a contractor of Waste Management, but as we all know nine years ago the
Board of County Commissioners with our county manager put some serious mandates. The landfill will
not stink.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I must be the only one who can smell it.
Page 12
16 J 1 A 2
May 21,2009
How is the water retention area protected from runoff from the landfill?
MR. MULHERE: Well, there's no connection. The landfill is south. The water won't go south.
The water will be contained in those lakes and then it will enter in through a discharge into the canal
system.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the water from the landfill that falls on it as rain, where does
that water go?
MR. MULHERE: They have their own --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: As you know, the landfill is a very large facility. It actually has leachate
collection. Leachate is the water material that comes out of the landfill that infiltrates through rain. There's
a very large and comprehensive sophisticated leachate collection system, pumps that pull that water and
send that to the wastewater facility.
There's a separation from the liner to normal runoff that they never come in contact. And there's
redundant systems. They're inspected daily, several times. And by the FDEP permit, to run and operate the
landfill we have to clearly show that we're maintaining that operation.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Where does the leachate go?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Goes to the south wastewater plant for processing.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that doesn't interfere at all with the operation of the reuse of
that water because of the chemicals that might be in the leachate?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, it meets all FDEP requirements for reuse.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, Bob, are there two separate plans here? Look at the end of
your presentation. Like there was a different plan on -- than what's up here now.
MR. MULHERE: It's slightly different. Actually, I don't think it's very different. I just think
there's just some additional information on that plan. I'll show you, we switched a few things. For example,
I want to say that the original plan, the household hazardous waste has been shifted away from this area and
moved further away.
COMMISSIONER CARON: From the well site.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So, I mean -- and then also it shows a little more detail on this buffer
area. I'm sorry, I'm pointing and you can't see that, so I apologize. And I don't have a newer one that I can
put on the visualizer, but it is on your screen. And if you look at the green line and the circle that shows the
detail, that was added. That wasn't on the original plan.
But the big difference is the shifting ofthe household hazardous waste facility.
Oh, thank you. Yeah, you know what I should have figured that out. Yeah, right here.
And that was in response to concerns that were raised at the neighborhood information meeting, as
well as the EAC.
But it's generally the same plan. I mean --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's a good thing. Although -- what is the reason for the
layout as it is? I mean, is there a method to the madness of this layout?
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to let Dan answer that, because I really wasn't part of the planning of
the process as part of this.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Due to the activities at the landfill, as we know, currently your landfill
operates with about 300 to 600 visitors a day. And what we want is the operational facility to be
contiguous to the landfill. That's why a majority of the operations are at the southern border.
But more importantly, it is our policy to be good neighbors. We wanted the buffer that impacted
the majority of the neighbors to the north to be present.
Page 13
-- ~._"--,~,---;-_._--'"'... Joj.__.......""......-,"~,
/1 n ~
1~ I ,,', \ 411'
" l-
ay 21 ,'-20.l009~-
..
, .
3"
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. MULHERE: And also, if! -- I'm sorry, I just wanted to add one thing.
There was I know -- I know there was some discussion. and particularly administrative facilities
were put where they were put as an additional buffer between the residential to the west and the more
intense uses further to the east. So there was that level of discussion.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well. yes. that's where I want to get down to the lower
part, not the preserve area. I understand that.
But let's talk about that. It's nice that you put administration down here to buffer homes to your east
__ I'm sorry. to your west. But are the hazardous waste and the recycle of -- the dirty manufacturing is that
the next least intense operation? So hazardous waste --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. it's all enclosed. The hazardous waste facilities is all enclosed.
And I can show you a picture if you'd like of the Marco Island hazardous waste facility. And that
shows a -- that's the Marco Island hazardous waste collection facility. And as you can see, it's an enclosed
structure. Aesthetically it looks great. But functionally it protects not only the environment but people
from the materials that we collect.
And let me remind the public that the household hazardous waste is anything you'd find in your
garage, whether it's oils, paints, batteries, things like that. Most importantly, those materials are collected
and on a weekly basis they're transported out. So there's never large quantities ofthat material stored
on-site.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. That's what I was trying to get to --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that you were moving the more intense--
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- further away from the neighborhood.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Closer to the landfill to the southern. centrally located, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAfN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Violent storm waste materials, I know that after the
last hurricane we had piles of that material. Is this intended to take this type of material, that part of the
process here?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. I believe there's 72 acres set aside for debris recovery efforts
during a hurricane, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And would there -- do you contemplate that this would be then the
only site, or would you --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: u expect ancillary sites?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, due to the size of Collier County, we need multiple sites, as we witnessed
in Hurricane Wilma.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And your projections are that such violent storm waste materials
can be recycled rapidly after a storm event?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. The direction from the Board of County Commissioners and our
county manager during emergency events is to of course be safe and to get everything back to normal
operating function as soon as possible. So those materials through our contractor would be processed and
shipped out of county.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Another question having to do with population, which of course is
a basis for everything as we project forward. As we all know, the population has basically gone stagnant,
Page 14
!
May 21,20091 A 2
so to speak, in terms of progression. Maybe it's even regressed, I don't know. But have you taken that into
your calculation? Is that part of it? Because as a capital project, when you move forward it's going to be
expensIve.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. That's a very good question. In could just take you back to the chart
here that shows the actual materials collected in Collier County. Remember, there's still 600,000 tons of
material that's collected throughout Collier County. And even with the population decrease, we've seen a
slight reduction of the landfill of about 25, 30 percent, depending on the commodity. Mainly in
construction. However, we still have 348,000 tons that are still processed, recycled and diverted. We still
have to go after another 240,000 tons that's still being buried in the county. And there's tremendous work
that we can do as it relates to the businesses in Collier County that are still putting cardboard, aluminum
cans, plastics into our landfill.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that Pembroke Pines is a recycling center that Waste
Management operates. I've visited it and so I'm familiar with it. And I know that we have contract for
materials that are shipped there.
Will this change impact those contracts and potentially provide us with income above and beyond
what we currently derive, if we derive any?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It has a great potential for that. As I mentioned earlier, the county operates its
solid waste functions as a best value. We currently pay Waste Management through our collection to
collect the recyclables and ship them to the other coast.
If we partner with Waste Management or some other contractor that specializes in waste services to
build a recycling facility like at Pembroke Pines, that would reduce the cost to the county of not having that
transportation cost to the other coast. So the potential is great there.
In could just add, Collier County has one of the lowest assessments in the State of Florida. We
pay roughly about $171 a year for a very high level, twice-a-week collection services. So any
improvements infrastructure that we can build here locally and find markets locally, whether it's here, in
Sarasota, to take those products instead of shipping them to the other coast has a tremendous benefit to us.
And Waste Management has a strong interest in building a facility here, potentially.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How potentially -- close is potentially? Because I'm thinking what
we have right now, as far as I know, we have two items that are shipped to Pembroke Pines, which are
paper, cardboard and plastic recyclable, which goes to China, interestingly enough.
What other items would they be considering?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, we also have metals that are collected in our recycling program as well.
And it's -- you have different plastics, but it's the volume of material that we collect.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The opportunity to collect more volume and process it here locally would save
us money, instead of shipping more volume across to the east coast.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I understand hopefully would save us some money. That of
course is not information you have at your fingertips, correct?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That would be my questions, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, maybe you can answer this. The property to the south,
all of it is owned by Collier County, everything touching the southern boundary of this?
MR. MULHERE: No. No, if you look at the site plan -- well, let me get the site plan. I'll use the
curser.
This area here. Okay. And over here, that's zoned A ago and it's vacant.
Page 15
\---__.."....._____",. "IIlI"~ 1 _,.'P._;,__"'____..._""_,.~_,"'"...,~,.".,,~.,~, "'~".,...,._'_"'''m...___,
~.',"I
I:i H .,.,
, /
I
''''''","
May 21,2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is it sending area also?
MR. MULHERE: Yes -- no, that's not sending. That's -- is it industrial?
MS. ZIMMERMAN: It's agricultural with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you know, we can't have people from the audience commenting.
You have to --
MR. MULHERE: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have everybody to the microphone.
MR. MULHERE: I'll answer that question.
That's got an industrial designation in the Future Land Use Map. It's ago zoned.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The island properties, the 10 acres, what are they being used for
now and what do you know about the future use of those acreages?
MS. ZIMMERMAN: Sue Zimmerman, Collier County Real Property Management.
The property --
MR. MULHERE: Use the curser.
MS. ZIMMERMAN: This parcel is agriculturally zoned vacant. We believe that they have some
animals, goats or something on there. And then this is actually three different property o\Vners. I believe it's
a five-acre parcel here and two and a half acre parcels. They're vacant agricultural.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could they be developed with homes?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, they could be. Each one of those parcels could be developed with
single-family homes. And they have access.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, in the design ofthis, why didn't you run some of the preserve
down the western boundary? I know that lakes look like they're buffers, but lakes take sound across them
pretty slick, so n
MR. MULHERE: Well, there is a buffer. You're not -- there's not a preserve, but there is a
required buffer in there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many feet?
MR. MULHERE: Thirty, I believe.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's --
MR. MULHERE: Twenty.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, why didn't you think of maybe running the
preserve down the western boundary? Maybe not obviously --
MR. MULHERE: Well, I assume that -- you know, there's a limited amount of property that we
can use here. And there's a pretty significant roadway, there's a buffer, there's the lakes, then there's the
setback on the other side. There's a pretty significant distance there. And we have a -- actually a slide that
shows that.
Yeah, and also there's wells there. So they need access to those wells. There's actually -- that's a --
there's a roadway that accesses those wells.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. we have a well in the middle of the preserve, so we could
get there.
Okay, so in other words, by your design you -- because it would be nice to protect that way.
Road access to this, is there only one access drive to the whole waste area? Obviously it splits up
into two --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But everybody would come in that --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- one road along the canal there?
Page 16
16 11kj 2
May 21,2009
MR. MULHERE: Yes -- no, not along the canal. YOlrCarlSee---
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Down around 75. Doesn't everything come in along the--
MR. MULHERE: Here and here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but I'm -- but below that you're along the canal along 75 __
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with just one access at that point, correct?
MR. MULHERE: Correct, yes. Through the existing landfill.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The -- is the use of this only going to be for Collier
County? Is there any intention that this would be used for other communities, stuff brought into it?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually we have a policy that we only take waste from Collier County.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you.
MR. MULHERE: There might be -- I just wanted to make sure to clarifY, though, there could be __
the county could enter into an agreement with a vendor or some private entity to do some sort of
operational thing, but not to take in waste materials from somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But like we heard earlier, they were taking stuff to
Pembroke Pines, we don't want somebody bringing stuff to us. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, a couple of other questions that I had notes from neighbors.
One is this business of the road. Why isn't there a configuration to do some sort of loop road so that trucks
and whatnot don't have to be backing up all day and all night? Or is there in here?
MR. MULHERE: Well, there is in a way sort of a loop road. I mean, you can see these -- excuse
me, these cul-de-sacs here, which will be designed to allow trucks to turn around, right? So they may come
in this way or this way. They may come over here and then, you know, go back out. Eventually it goes
into a singular point of ingress and egress.
And in order for that to be acceptable to the fire district, whom we've met with, we'll need to design
the site with appropriate fire hydrant and fire suppression systems. But they have looked at it and they are
okay with it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So that issue should not affect neighbors.
MR. MULHERE: It should not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Security, what do we do in the county for security on these
sites?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director.
We have perimeter fence that's maintained and managed. We have cameras throughout the facility.
We have card access at the main gates. And throughout the evening the security staff and facilities
manager comes out and tours our facility to ensure that the site is secure. We would have the same type of
security processes there at the Resource Recovery Park.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So in the evening there's somebody on-site all the time doing roving
securi ty?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, the roving security from facilities does come out and patrol. They do.
And we have cameras on-site as well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. But they just come out occasionally. They have other
places that they're --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you don't have somebody on-site, though.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Not all night, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have questions of the applicant at this time?
Page 1 7
"1l.""'IJtl."'___.,.,..;H,'"..,,,,_,.,..,;____,."'K .r "'<r"
1 t' 2 ."'f
May 21, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do. Don't go away, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with where Brad had left ofT on the western property line by
those lakes. You have a 20- foot buffer but you also said there's a road there, which I'm sure isn't going to
have much of a buffer in the middle of the road, otherwise it wouldn't be a road.
MR. MULHERE: No, the buffer's west ofthe road, I believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a problem of widening that strip that is east of the
road? Well, if it's west of the road then you're between the current Golden Gate canal and the road, is that
right?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm trying to read with my failing eyes this little detail here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think we all got the same document, so--
MR. MULHERE: No, I take that back, the landscape buffer is east of the access easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any reason why you could not expand the side that's east of
that roadway to 35 feet, berm it, landscape it and put a sound wall on top of it? And -- let me finish. And
then towards the bottom, if you notice the small lake you have there, and if you look below the lake you've
got a circumference of a half of a quarter circle there. Apparently it's a well zone. Doesn't look like you
can do much in that well zone any. Why wouldn't you make up the difference you need in water
management by running the lake further to the south and continuing that buffer until you reach that corner?
MR. MULHERE: I don't even know if the lake can be within that. You know, I don't n I can't--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. WelL then can you have a butTer there? Then you can continue to
buffer without the lake.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm suggesting -- r was putting a more solid bufTer there. Because your n
it looks like by the aerial one of the greatest populations in the Estates that surrounds you happens to be to
the west of the site more so than any other direction. And I would -- and that seems to be the least buffered
area on this entire site.
MR. MULHERE: I just want to make sure I understand what you asked for. You asked for an
additional 15 feet. So instead of 25 feet, 35 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you put a berm on it.
MR. MULHERE: You asked for a berm and wall or -- berm and wall combination, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, berm and wall combination with whatever landscaping we would
require under a buffer.
MR. MULHERE: Probably a three-foot berm, six-foot wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work.
MR. MULHERE: And landscaping on the outside of the wall, obviously.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: We may--
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, because we're going to have to get this documented, from
what point to what point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The length of the lakes. See where the lake starts up on top? It would be
the full length of those -- the bodies of water will do nothing to protect the people to the west from any
sound or whatever activities go on in there.
I know a 35-foot butTer is a little bigger than we normally experience, but this facility is unique and
a little bit bigger than what people may have experienced in that area. And I think it would be a good
neighbor policy to try to give them as much as possible. So that's why I'm suggesting this.
Page 18
M! 91,I~O~i2 Nf
MR. KLATZKOW: So the northern point of the upper lake, all the way down to the southern--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the way down to the corner of the property, right.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commissioner Strain, to respond -- Dan Rodriguez, your Director.
Absolutely we co1.J.ld entertain those improvements. What I'd like the commission to consider is that
if we could put the additional buffer the 35 feet, whatever you request, and a berm, but if we not put the
wall because of the expense and the impact to the taxpayers and this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think the wall's part ofthe problem that they're going to have
with the noise. The noise is what I think is going to be a driving factor across that water.
We've still got to hear from the residents. Let me hear what they have to say. And if they're
satisfied with a berm and a landscape buffer, then -- I mean, I don't live near there, they do, and I'm more
concerned about their issues.
MR. MULHERE: If I could also add for consideration, there's going to be -- as this is developed,
there's going to be other landscape buffer areas surrounding these development areas too. And I wonder if
we couldn't recapture some of that. You know, if the most important thing is to buffer __
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the most important thing in this project is the perimeter buffers.
MR. MULHERE: That's what I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you do in between your parcels is to me a waste of time. But as
long as the perimeter buffers so the public and residents are most protected, that's where I think the focus
ought to be. We'll come back to that comment then after we hear public comments.
Mr. Rodriguez, on the neighborhood informational meeting the following statement is attributed to
you. It says, Mr. Rodriguez commented that the recycling processing would be located in a closed building
setting, (inside a building). Now, you've got a number of processes here. And you showed us one, the
hazardous waste that's inside a building. All the processes will be inside a building?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, not all processes. What I was referring to was the potential for a MRF of
-- similar to what they have at Pembroke Pines. Those pieces of equipment or machinery would be located
inside.
Some of the materials that are recycled, white goods, tires, horticulture waste, because of the
quantities and because of the size of the equipment and whatnot and for safety reasons they've got to have
plenty of room to move those around and whatnot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand like the piles of debris and all that, and when you offload
trucks, some of it's not going -- that can't. But the actual turning of those items into salable product or
useable product or by-product, the turning of those into something, that's going to be inside a building?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, the systems that require processing more than likely would be inside a
building to protect from the elements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More than likely. Now, I love those words. You sound like an attorney.
No offense, Mr. Klatzkow. You're the only attorney that doesn't
say those kind of things.
That's not what you said in your neighborhood information meeting. You didn't say more than
likely. You said would be located in a closed building.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, I was referring to a material resource recovery facility. That's a facility
that processes aluminum paper, cardboard. Naturally those would have to be in a building to protect from
the elements.
Because of the technology that may come or go, for me to sit and say everything is going to be
enclosed in a building wouldn't be fair, most importantly because the impact to the taxpayers and the cost
of structures, things like that. And that may not be a best value solution. But we will meet every code as it
relates to noise, odor.
Page 19
-~__~____-".n '1111
~'",
lA' ~
May 21, ~09 .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the codes that are made for the urban area don't apply in the same
manner as in the Estates. I've lived out there for 30 years, and you can hear things a lot further in the quiet
of the rural area than you can in the urban area. So I understand you're going to meet our codes, everybody
has to. But the distance and the sound travel will be further from your facility there than if you were in the
heart of Collier County.
You showed a picture of a machine that was recycling tires. How does that -- is that machine
operated with a diesel motor of some kind or a --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. What it is, is a large grinder.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would that be located inside a building?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It depends on the application. It depends on the contractor that we negotiate a
contract with.
Does it need to be? For operational reasons, no. But it depends on the situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm thinking of noise. Imagine ifit's diesel, it's a fairly noisy machine.
Especially if it's going to grind.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, the noise would be no different than what we currently hear at the
landfill. We have four of those grinders working for the last year and a half at the landfill as part of the
reclamation process of 25 years. And I receive no noise complaints.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much closer is the location on this property where you're putting that
-- those grinders than they are on the current landfill; do you know?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It'd probably be about 500 feet from where we're currently operating. We are
right at the northern edge with our grinders and our back hoe equipment and processing systems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're going to have to tlgure out something on that issue of
what should be in a building and what shouldn't, but we'll do more of that as the time -- as we go on.
Hours of operation. You're looking at restricting the hours of operation to the same as the current
landfill, both in operation and in a public land use; is that right?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The pull-through loading and dumping. Bob, as I understand what you
said, when you get down to a cul-de-sac, they're going to be big enough for trucks to turn around, that's
code. So they've got to be big enough for that.
But I think the concern is when you go down that cul-de-sac and you pull into one of those parcels
to drop off your load, are you going to provide -- design each parcel within a loop like a horseshoe within
itself so that a truck could pull in, unload without causing too much backup movement and then pull
forward and move back out again without causing a lot of backup movement?
MR. MULHERE: I mean, I don't know that I can answer that in every case that will be the design.
We're not even that close. Should that be -- that would be the most efficient way to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You would have no problem doing that if it was at all possible; is that
right?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then a stipulation to that effect wouldn't kill you.
There -- apparently you've got some easements going north from where that blue lake is that are
cleared. And they're county property. And apparently they're not fenced off. And as a result of that, they're
being used by A TV race tracks. And A TV's to me are one of the most annoying things ever invented by
man, especially in the Estates.
Is there something that can be done to block that off and provide the peace and quite that people --
what little they can have out there?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commissioner, as we move forward with the site development plan, our
Page 20
1 6 I ..q A 2
'I
If 11'2
c..:r
,...,.
May 21,2009
intention is to have a secured site, and that would eliminate those equipments from getting onto the site,
absolutely.
Now, working with Paul Mattausch, our director, with water as well, to secure those wells.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that -- I've got a lot of questions -- I've got some questions
of staff, but that's enough for you guys right now. So thank you very much.
Any other questions of the applicant before we move on to staff report?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, in the development ofthis, what elevation -- you're
obviously digging a lake, you're obviously going to use the fill on the site. What elevation do you plan to
be the ground elevation of the development?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know. \Vhatever is required by code.
MR. DEANS: Dave Deans with PBS&J. I'm the Civil Engineer, the Garbologist on the project.
That elevation will be established by the stormwater management system when we get into final
design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looking at the LIDAR, it's about 11 feet. Do you think you'll be
bringing it up or -- so in other words you're going to put it at the code minimum?
MR. DEANS: We don't want to spend any more money on fill than we absolutely have to, but we
want to do everything we absolutely have to to make the stormwater management system function
according to code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
And Kay, I guess we'll have staff report.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, I'm a Principal Planner
with Zoning and Land Development Review.
In addition to my presentation, we do have other staff persons here that can address questions that
you may have specific to their area of expertise. We have Corby Schmidt that can address Growth
Management Plan issues, Susan Mason who can address the issues about environmental questions, and
John Podczerwinsky for transportation.
You do have the staff report, which is a document dated last revised 4/15/09. On the first page it
goes into the requested action, noting that the petitioner is seeking approval of three different conditional
uses to allow the operation that they have described to you to occur on the site. You have the geographic
description as to where the property is.
On the next page you do have a purpose and description of the project. Obviously the petitioner has
explained what it is they're proposing to do in much greater detail.
You have a rendition of what is currently the surrounding uses in zoning on the property. And you
have an aerial photograph that hopefully depicts those things as well.
Starting at the bottom of Page 2 is the growth management consistency review. We've addressed
the Future Land Use Element.
Going on to Page 4, there's a transportation element analysis, and then a conservation and coastal
management element.
Staffhas evaluated all the appropriate policies and has deemed this particular petition to be subject
to a finding that it can be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
Going on to Page 7, we do have the analysis for the findings that are required to support a
Page 21
"^Ma;:1, A1~ '1
recommendation of approval. Staff has gone through the different findings that are required. There are
four separate findings. And staff has provided positive information that supports our recommendation of
approval.
There is an analysis -- I'm sorry, a summary of the Environmental Advisory Council's
recommendation on Page 10.
There's information provided about the neighborhood information meeting on Page 10, going on to
Page 11. And on Page
11 is a rendition of the staff conditions.
Weare recommending approval. We have listed at this point nine conditions that would go along
with that recommendation. The first condition identifies the site plan. The second condition puts the
applicant and the public on notice that although we are adopting this conceptual site plan, the final design
will still need to be in compliance with all federal, state and county laws and regulations.
Condition number three does allow, as does the LDC minor changes to the citing of this particular
master -- concept plan.
Condition number four puts it on record that any expansion of the uses beyond what is sought here,
ifthis were to be approved, would then need to seek and get approval of a new conditional use.
Condition number five talks about the accesses that would need to be provided to parcels that are
located within -- commonly referred to on the site plan as out parcels, just to make sure that everyone does
have adequate access.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, just so you know, I think we've all got your recommendations in our
staff report. so we can probably figure those out ourselves. Ifthere's anything that needs to be clarified in
regards to those that might be helpful.
MS. DESELEM: The condition number six can be removed, because the petitioner has now
withdrawn any idea of having that emergency administrative access road.
And it's my understanding that condition number five can be amended to remove the first clause,
quote, if it is judicially determined or otherwise agreed to by the county, then. That portion can be
removed.
All other conditions should remain as they are.
Other than that, that's my presentation. Like I said, we are recommending that it be found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval with conditions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions?
Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kay, I know you stated that they would have to come in for an
additional conditional use if anything changed from the current processing, but there is currently an activity
that goes on and Waste Management people are the ones that perforn1 the activity, as well as some county
people.
If they were to enhance this in any way current --
MS. DESELEM: Excuse me just a moment.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Surely.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's quite all right, I understand.
If they -- in other words, there's an operational going on and that operation, you know, is --
envisions certain activities, how would you know if those activities were to be adjusted, greater quantities,
more frequency, et cetera, what is the tripping point to determine whether or not a new conditional use is
required?
MS. DESELEM: As a general rule nobody in the county goes out to check to make sure that
Page 22
M~f>i !o12
everybody is doing exactly what it says in their conditional use approval. Most commonly it's a code
enforcement issue, we get a complaint and then it's investigated from that standpoint. But we don't have
any, you know, police that goes out there and checks the conditional use. So normally it's a code
enforcement issue that brings something to staffs attention and then we investigate it from there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If they were to seek to modifY a structure, that would just simply
go in for modified site development plan, would it?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, because the site doesn't show any structures, and it doesn't show that extent.
It's more defined by a use within a certain area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. What I'm trying to get at--
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'd just like to make a point of clarification. A site development
plan would be required for any structures placed on the site. That is compared to the conditional use to
make sure it is consistent with the conditional use.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that the tripping point?
MR. BELLOWS: That is the--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was looking for.
So basically there's a potential to enhance operations without going beyond what the operational
idea is at the moment, because I know they anticipate additional opportunities and that would require a
structure and change in operations. So I'm happy now to know that. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you, Ray.
If I may, when Heidi jumped over here and was talking to me, I misspoke. I was under the
impression that we were revising condition five, and it appears that we are not revising condition five. So
it would remain as it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we've got to erase, right?
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, sorry. I hope you didn't put it in ink.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We did, red ink.
MS. DESELEM: Oh, man.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I learned a long time ago only use pencil, Kay.
Okay, Mr. Schiffer, I think you had the next question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, in the -- when you were working through this site plan,
you've put a 200-foot preserve down the eastern side of the property on what looks like Garland Road. And
our plans show that that's buffering land that the county itself owns. Why wouldn't we do the same thing on
the western side? I mean, to me the major flaw in this layout is that the side that really does have people
living on it does not have the protection, I think. I mean, a lake looks pretty, but it certainly doesn't help
with sound and things.
So was there any discussion about actually putting a buffer down that boundary line? A substantial
buffer, not walls and 35 feet.
MS. DESELEM: To my knowledge, no, there was not any discussion along those lines.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But as a planner, do you see that as a concern or an issue or a
good idea, or what?
MS. DESELEM: It seems like it would be, you know, enhancing what buffer we have.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I know it kind of messes up the site plan. But first of all,
they have more area than they thought by that purchase of the property. The leachate thing to me seems
that it would make more sense across that access road anyway closer to the actual landfill mounds. So I
don't think -- I think they have plenty of area on this site to lay it out in many ways, so --
MS. DESELEM: Staff seemed to believe that the way they had it set up as far as the administration
and equipment maintenance facility being a lesser intense use, and the applicant has through this process
Page 23
....... "".__,_"-ft, ...11 '" ~ ____-"',...",~.".,... ""....,,,.......,."""",,,"'.... lIIlI '-IlI~ '.... ~~__.4"__"__"..,.'"..,..___",.......",..,,______.
"
~
~>,;
~,~
II
\,.. c:
May '2 r~ 2009
f/
moved some of the uses around to be more sympathetic to the neighbors to the west so that he didn't have
what could be deemed as a more obnoxious use, if you'll excuse the term.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think an administrative -- first of all, it's not going to be that
large an administrative building that it's going to be the biggest buffer.
I'll wait till they're ready.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed your question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, yes, administration's the least of all of them, but
it's not going to be that big a building where it's that good a buffer. Anyway, I don't think we can count on
a lesser use in a building to be that buffer, so -- anyway, enough said. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: IfI may, Ray clarified that that area shown along the eastern boundary is not
necessarily a buffer, it's part of the preserve.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct and that's --
MS. DESELEM: It could act as a buffer, perhaps, but--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what I would like --
MS. DESELEM: -- it's not a buffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what I'd like to see is the preserve extended do~'ll the
western, similar to that at that dimension. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I've got one. It's on Page 10. I mean, it's not a question in effect you
can do much about. But the fact that the EAC wants to review the SDP, do you know anybody on the EAC
that has the credentials of any of our engineering staff or anybody like that that show qualifications to
review SOPs?
MS. DESELEM: I don't have that knowledge one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if any criteria in the LDC provide guidance to the EAC
under what manner they may review an SDP and under what manner they may decide it is incompatible or
compatible or under what manner they may turn it dO\\<TI or reject it?
I mean, we're asking this applicant as well as any applicant -- and I've had the same position
repeatedly, to send an SDP through a process that has no bearing and no usefulness seems to be a giant
waste of time for any member of the public or any applicant to go through.
So I don't know why staff incorporated that into their recommendations. I assume you felt you had
to because the committee recommended it. But I as one member of this commission will not accept that as
a recommendation and I will be asking that be stricken.
Yes, Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt.
No, we noted that as their request but staffhas not recommended that, nor will I support that
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just -- it gets to be -- there's no regulations, they're no rules by
which it could be reviewed. It doesn't make any sense.
MR. SCHMITT: The SDP, once it's submitted, is a document that's open for review, if anybody
wants to come into community development and review it. Any board member or the public has that
option to come in and sit and look at an SOP. But it's an administrative process. And I have no intent on
bringing the SDP back to the EAC for review.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the processes that we recommend as stipulations today, if they're
upheld by the Board of County Commissioners, then you're obligated to make sure those are incorporated
into the SOP; is that correct?
Page 24
16/1A2
May 21, 2009
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, would you rephrase that again?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any stipulations that we make to the BCC today, as well as any
stipulations they add or accept, once they accept the stipulations, staff is obligated from that point forward
to make sure all those stipulations are incorporated into the SDP when it comes through.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, if that's the appropriate time to adopt or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. DESELEM: -- you know, whatever the case may be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what I'm saying. So any protection to the public doesn't work
at the SDP level, it's got to happen at this level.
So if there are any concerns or any restrictions we want to put through to make sure the SDPs are
right, we better make them today. And that's where the -- I guess where the buck stops is these boards, so--
MS. DESELEM: In may clarify as well, we do have condition number nine that is a reiteration of
the EAC review condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I saw it.
MS. DESELEM: And obviously if you don't want that to go forward, that can be your
recommendation. We take the EAC recommendation, as well as your recommendation forward to the
board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: And I'll make it clear for the record, again when we send a staff report to the
board, I would so note that though they ask for it, there's no requirement and there's no precedence for it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll even be clearer, on the assumption that this would go on the summary
agenda, if we can clear up all the problems, that will not be a stipulation of approval. It will be noted in the
staff report that the EAC requested it. If any board member wants to pull it at that point in time to put it
back in, that's their prerogative. But it will not automatically go.
MR. SCHMITT: Thanks, Jeff, for the clarification. That's an excellent suggestion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it.
Any other questions of staff at this time?
MS. DESELEM: I can clarify.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay?
MS. DESELEM: Mr. Mulhere just reminded me that there was a 7-1 vote to the EAC. Therefore it
cannot go on the summary agenda to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if -- I didn't -- that's something legal department can
determine. I'm not sure -- I didn't know EAC reflected summary or non-summary __
MR. SCHMITT: It doesn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- agenda. I thought it was only--
MS.DESELEM: My understanding is the criteria for the summary agenda, there can't be any board
that does not have a unanimous vote.
MR. MULHERE: I'm pretty sure I was responsible for writing that. Unless there's some wiggle
room in there, I believe it says unanimous recommendation of the EAC and CCPC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, hopefully it will be checked. And ifit doesn't apply, then the
County Attorney can handle it.
Okay, do we have -- that's the last questions of staff. Then we'll move to public speakers.
Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have three speakers. First speaker is Wayne Jenkins.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when you speak, you can come to either podium that's most
convenient to you. We ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes. And state your name for
Page 25
....",_~r_..~" ""_ "'1,'~Jj
;..-----."""'----
:I\~) ~~
May 2 ( 2009-
the record when you first come up. And if it's difficult to spell. then help the court recorder out by spelling
it for her.
MR. JENKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Jenkins. I am a resident of
section 25. And I'm sitting here and I appreciate the questions I've heard today, because it's many of our
concerns.
One big concern I have is that I think in addition to the people to the west you've got people to the
east and north of this within close proximity.
Actually, if you want to know where I live, if it shows, it won't, but the northeast corner that's cut
out, those 40 acres, there's four houses right there. So we're very close to this and very concerned about it.
I'd like to start by saying that there have been some things that I think are very true. The landfill
operation has improved tremendously from what it was a few years ago when we couldn't stand to open our
windows. And I compliment -- I'm not saying that sarcastically, I compliment the people for the job they've
done on it.
At the present time with the mountains we have south of us, the equipment up on top of the hills,
we hear the beepers now. My concern comes to be when this is moved closer -- and I'm not talking about
the landfill hills now, but we still have the same issue with equipment, with beepers -- it gets closer to our
area.
I enjoy being able to open my windows when it's the pleasant time of the year. I don't want to be
forced to keep my house closed up because of the noise that's going to be there continually.
I realize that recycling is a necessary thing. I would first of all question why we're here today. I
fought this issue two times already with both times the county commission agreeing and promising the
residents it would not -- the landfill would not be expanded onto the new acres we're talking about today.
We can playa word semantic game and say it's not a landfill. This is part of the landfill operation. The
public has been promised twice it would not be moved north. We're here again today.
If you recall, after the last rounds of discussions on this, it was opened up to make it an A TV park,
possibly a public golf course, and here we are with a landfill expansion.
I guess at some point I'm going to lose and accept I'm going to live in a dump. And I don't envision
that. I'm a lifetime Collier County-an. I've lived in the present place for over 23 years.
And if this does come to be, which I am opposed to expanding it north, I would ask for the same
considerations you just discussed for the people to the west of us. 200 feet of woods is not going to stop
the noise I'm going to have to live with.
In addition to me as a retired letter carrier, lived in this area, delivered mail in this area, you've got
anywhere from I'm going to estimate conservatively around 300 families and homes to the east and north of
this, within a mile of it.
I guess one of the things that kind of amused me in hearing this, the county had the opportunity
when they created the Growth Management Plan to exempt themselves from totally clearing an area. I don't
have that luxury. I wish I had been able to sit in on this and exempt myself from it, but I don't think my
neighbors would have liked it. And as a neighbor to this, I don't like it.
The biggest concern I have is the sound, as many of you discussed. And I appreciate that -- I do
hope you'll consider some kind of a more barrier for the people that live around it.
So far as the -- I had to laugh, and I know I've got a neighbor that's going to tell you more about it,
the idea that the environmental studies, there's no panthers around, yet I've got a neighbor next to me that
property backs up to the county line that has lost, I believe, three different animals to panthers in the last
three years. So the more we destroy the natural woods, yeah, we're going to lose some.
As a hunter, I have to laugh at the panther issue to start with. It depends on whose favor it's in as to
how we discuss the panther. He's been made a scapegoat and it's terrible the way he's been misused.
Page 26
i N Ii 2
b<,. i. 1
May 21, 2009
But there are wildlife in the area. I have deer in my front yard daily.
I do -- again, I'm saying I'm not in favor of this, but if it does come to it do we need such a large
spread-out facility? Shouldn't it be concentrated more into the middle and the bottom area?
I'm sorry, I could not tell from the other discussion, apparently some parcel has been in negotiating
to be sold from a member of the public. I don't know which one that is. I see a couple of shaded areas, but
I don't know which one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the little yellow one towards the south. Towards the bottom of the
page, the little square yellow one, the smallest square yellow one.
MR. JENKINS: Okay, thank you very much for that.
In summation, I'd just like to finish up by reminding you, this item came up for your discussion two
weeks ago. There were many more residents from the east side of it that were here. Unfortunately we can't
keep taking time off [rom work to come, to have something postponed. Sometimes it's a legal thing. But a
lot more people would be voicing their opinions today if it had been heard when it was supposed to be. And
thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray -- hold on a second, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jenkins, could you wait just a minute?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it's possible for you to do it, if you take the hand mic, could you
point to us on the plan here? See this -- see that -- no, sir, right down there.
MR. JENKINS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just put your -- where you live.
MR. JENKINS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to need -- Ray, would you give him the mic so--
MR. JENKINS: If you see this section that was blocked out, boxed around right here, this is
Jenkins Way that comes down here. Garland Road runs down this way. I'm nervous, I'm sorry. But that's
a 40-acre parcel you're looking at. There's four houses in here. There's another house just to the east of
there. There's another house right on the other side of Jenkins Way. There's numerous houses on the other
side of Garland Road.
I recently had to get with my neighbors to collect money for trying to resurface. It was a private __
we do our own private maintained road back in there. I contacted over 26 families for resurfacing Garland
Road. So there -- 26 may not sound like a big number to you, but 26 people that are going to be adversely
impacted is wrong.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And may I understand, you said you were able to see the hills?
MR. JENKINS: No, I don't physically see them from my place, because right now I'm about a half
a mile from the landfill.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wondered about that when you said that. Now -- and do you hear
the activity going on?
MR. JENKINS: That was my reference, sir. The hills, the height of them, where I don't -- I've got
trees in front of me and neighbors to the south of me, a lot of woods in there. We don't physically see the
landfill unless you drive down to the very south end of Garland Road. But because ofthe height of it and
the machinery working out there covering up the landfill materials, that sound travels. And we hear
beepers beeping now.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's during the day. You--
MR. JENKINS: Yes, sir, during their normal operation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you ever hear anything during the evening?
Page 27
4ll__17- "'WA-.. IIQ .UAAf. _ .... ....... ~.__....,-.""-"..,, .... "-......_'>',.,."..~_,_~,
F
~ :1
.?
L...
May 21, 2009~
t_"
MR. JENKINS: No, I don't. As the gentleman said, I think their landfill operation shuts down
around 5:00 p.m. In the evening there is not that noise.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if this additional place that we're talking about would not to go
forward, you would still continue to hear those beeps?
MR. JENKINS: I would hear them. They're not a big nuisance to me because like I said, they're a
half a mile from me. I can envision what it's going to be like 600 feet from me.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you so much.
MR. JENKINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, want to call our next speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Steve Sistrunk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can use that mic right there, sir, if you'd like. It would save you a trip
over there.
MR. SISTRUNK: For the record, my name is Steve Sistrunk. That's S-I-S-T-R-U-N-K. I live at
2600 Jenkins Way. Mr. Jenkins' neighbor. as a matter of fact.
I'm here to oppose very strong opposition. Number one, we always hear not in my backyard. This
is my backyard. I step over my property line, I am on the n what is proposed the recycle plant.
The land values out there have gone up and down like everywhere else. We all knew the dump was
there when we bought. We were promised, as Mr. Jenkins said, by the county commission that there would
not be expansion. And here we are back with the expansion problem again.
We've learned to live with the dump. The dump has been a very good neighbor to us where it's at
now. They have done a very good job with the smelL they have been very good with the noise regulations.
But now we're creeping in to what is literally my backyard. Through all the process I know with the
state, we are on the rural fringe agricultural overlay, one house per 40 acres.
Does that decrease my value? Yes. Does it enhance our living? Yes. Because we're all out there
because we love the rural environment.
But when it comes time to sell, if we were ever in a financial. we don't have the ability to sell off
part of our property to keep our house, as in the tough economic times come.
Now what we want to do is decrease my property value more because now we're going to have a
dump literally in my backyard. The dump is going to be there. So how much more burden does the county
want to put on us because of what we all agree is a very needed and a very good purpose of having the
recyclable plant?
And the arguments have always been, oh, the recycle, we need to recycle. Yes, we need to recycle,
yes, we need to do all these things. Do we need to do it on such an expanded area of property? Can we not
condense it? Can we not put it on the present facility? Can we dovvTIsize it?
You know, as we've even witnessed today even, the gro\\-1h of the county has definitely got the
brakes put on, and nobody can see the future, but we don't see it as in what we've gone through in the last
10 years is what we're going to be going through the next 10 years.
So maybe, you know, let's do this in a smaller stage. I'm not the type to say okay, you know, we
have a shot at winning this. I don't believe we do. I don't believe we have a shot at stopping the process
here.
What I do hope that you all hold in your decisions is maybe limiting to where we go now. Can we
do it in a smaller scale, can we do it with less impact on us.
The neighborhood that Mr. Jenkins was speaking about with the environmental issues with the
panthers, I don't know who did the environmental study, but they sure didn't come to my backyard. We've
had three goats killed by panthers, confirn1ed by FWC. I mean, we've had all the studies, everything's been,
you know, confirmed that there's been, you know. a panther in the area over the last three years.
Page 28
J.6/1A2
May 21,2009
We've got the red headed woodpecker that has been such a beginning stink, I see him flying around
my backyard every day. You know, I mean, it's not an issue that they say it's not there; it is there.
The gopher turtle issue, in my backyard, gopher turtles, you know what I mean? So I don't know
where the study came from and how it got to say that there is no environmental issues. There are
environmental issues there.
I don't see, you know, how if I wanted to do something I've got to, you know, jump all the hurdles
to prove a lot of environmental issues. It seems like if the county wanted to do something that they do their
study and okay, it's over. It's very hard as a citizen to have to deal with that.
And I'm a firefighter, I know how bureaucracy works, I know how the system works. And it's
frustrating to a lot of us as citizens to see, you know, how -- we perceive that we get trampled on when we
really don't have a say-so.
And like I said, I'm a realist. I understand, you know, that this is a logical place for the expansion,
you know, to put this. But what I really would hope is that you all could maybe slow things down,
condense it and agree to maybe a smaller package for now with maybe in a 20-year plan go further out and
expand it.
The well issue. The county's deep wells -- two feet over my back corner is one of the new county
wells. Very deep, very, you know, protected well, because we're down in the Hawthorne aquifer. We're 25
feet. Now, my well's not protected by any of the depth they have in protection. If there's any type of runoff,
it's in my water system. It's the water we drink, it's the water we shower with. You know, that is a very
major concern for us.
And I know there'll be study after study saying no, it won't affect it. But if you lived there, would
you like to have, you know, the recycle hazardous plant 600 feet, 300 feet, 200 feet, you know, off the back
side of your house where your well is? That's what we're dealing with.
You know, and there's never a hope that we're ever going to have city water. You know, that's a
pipe dream. So it's not a reality to say well, you know, we can do that. It's we are on a well, we will always
be on a well.
A guarantee for preserve. They've done a very good job in designing this. I give them all kinds of
credits for trying to make it neighbor friendly. But as we are -- here again, you know, what guarantee do
we have that, you know, they're going to come in for another conditional use and take over part of the
preserve that is going to be a buffer? You know, there's no guarantees on that. We were guaranteed that
the dump wasn't going to expand. We're here. What guarantee do we have that they're going to say well, in
two years, six months from now they say, oh, we need to do this, this and this and we're going to change the
outlay and now what is preserve land is not preserved.
There's no guarantee that's solid, I understand that. But you all have the ability to at least make it
more concrete, if this does pass, to put the recommendation in that the existing preserve is either expanded
or can never be used as another expansion project to where we don't have to keep facing the same issues
agam.
And with that, I thank you very much for your time. I know some of you all live out in the Estates
and you understand the rural lifestyle that we all have. And that's why we're there.
Please try to protect us. You know, we're a small handful but, you know, to us we're an important
handful. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One comment, sir.
MR. SISTRUNK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The comment you made about the preserves, this particular project came
through as an amendment to the Growth Management Plan a while back. It was that plan that locked in the
percentage of preserves they have to have. They cannot change that. They're right at within one-tenth of the
Page 29
- -"".....~"",'-"---,.....,'--~~"---
16' U~,20~
minimum needed, meaning they couldn't walk into that preserve and put another piece of asphalt down or
another element without going through a much more belabored process than what you see here today. That
would mean a Growth Management Plan change, as well as any other changes that they have to go through
normally.
I'm not saying that can't be done, but that's --
MR. SISTRUNK: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- about as impossible to do as anything we could enforce. So I don't
know of any stronger criteria for that. Nothing we could say today would override that capability --
MR. SISTRUNK: Right, I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so you already have that, at least as far as the preserve go.
MR. SISTRUNK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Before you call the next speaker, Ray, Cherie', are you good until we finish with public speakers
and then we'll take a break? Is that okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one more, right?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The last speaker is Kay Kluever.
MS. KLUEVER: I'm Kay Kluever. K-L-U-E-V-E-R. Not with a C as it sounds like.
I'm a property owner on Garland Road. And I must be getting really old, because the moral code
has certainly changed.
] was raised to believe in God, live by the Golden Rule and believed that a man was only as good as
his word. God is being taken out of our lives for the govermnent. People do not have respect for other
people's property, nor care how they harm them. However, they want to have for themselves what is not
theirs to have.
Lastly, we as property owners were promised by Collier County Commissioners that the landfill
would not be expanded to the north, as we had proven what an environmental disaster it would create.
When we objected at the meeting at the Golden Gate Community Center, Mr. Rodriguez from the
Solid Waste Management Department responded by saying that it was a park.
It is an expansion of the solid waste park. The only difference is what is handled.
We as a neighborhood are totally frustrated, as everything seems to be a done deal. Our words are
not respected. In fact, they're just sloughed oft: as though we had nothing to say about it.
What we are saying is true. We live there, we're educated people, and we know what is going on.
We know how fragile the area is and how it is being destroyed by the county. We are aware that the county
has the ability to go ahead, no matter what, and use whatever they want for whatever they want, no matter
what.
But this is such a travesty. This is wetlands that the wildlife has always claimed to have, just fragile
creatures as the cockaded woodpecker and the panther territory. Yet the plans are to build it up three to
four feet above grade, which will create neighboring properties to be flooded during our rainy season. Oh,
they're planning on an unlined retention pond that is lined up perfectly to overflow into the main canal
when we get our tropical rains and stornlS.
That lake will be contaminated with the runoff from all of the hazardous waste that they are storing
there and will contaminate the canals and the water supply for Collier County. Our well water has already
been ruined by the county's use of injection wells which are already on this same property. It has cost me
thousands of additional dollars to try to get water that's usable. I'm still working on it, as the latest attempt
has not worked.
The neighbors are very much concerned about the noise solution as well. A noise buffer was not
Page 30
16 i 1 A?
May 21, 2009'
considered originally, however, I understand they're talking about planting a stand of trees to block the
noise. That will not do a lot for the noise of the tub grinder. The way we have been told that they're
planning on operating it will certainly take away the peacefulness of the neighborhood.
The Hideout Golf Course is concerned about the disturbance of the noise for their members playing
golf. They pay a lot of the money for the solitude and the getaway from the noise of the city life. They
certainly do not want to be listening to trucks and tub grinders.
This is not a plea for not in my backyard. We as a community of Golden Gate residents.jave
already proved our case to the county commission. We were promised a park, golf course or something.
that could be used for the benefit of the community recreation. We cannot understand why they keep
wanting to go north to this most fragile land. The land to the east is not as fragile as this area and would
serve the purpose better. Roads are already there and you would not have to be putting in a bridge -- which
they have now canceled that, but I wrote this two weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us where you live in relationship to the park?
MS. KLUEVER: Right there about where the 2,400 is on there. That cleared area, I have 25 acres
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.
And that's the last public speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take a break until 10:25 and then we'll resume and then we'll
finish up at that point.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Cherie's rested and she's given us the ability to proceed now. So
with that in mind we left off on public comment, we had our last public comment.
Generally after public comment the applicant can have a time to kind of either rebut or agree that
the public's all right and they don't want to ever proceed again and whatever options they would like. So
Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Just a couple of comments in response to the public comments.
The reference to listed species. Following the protocols of an EIS there are site visits. And the only
intent -- and if I gave any misperception, I'll clear that up right now.
The only intent of my statement was that when the ecologist was on-site, they did not physically see
those listed species that I referenced. It does not mean that this is not panther habitat. It does not mean that
they do not have to mitigate for impacts to panthers. They will have to mitigate for that, as well as any
impacts for wetlands through the jurisdictional process. So I just wanted to clarifY that.
I guess with respect to what I perceive to be the concerns of the residents -- a number of the
residents comments, and also the Planning Commission, with respect to the buffering adjacent to the west
of the project and the south where the lakes are, we'd like to offer -- we'd like to offer that we would
between now and the next meeting go back and redesign this to provide for one of two options: Either a
two -- and the preferred option would be a 200-foot wide preserve area adjacent to that western boundary.
So we would reconfigure the lake, shift the lake over and provide for a 200-foot preserve boundary. That
would increase our preserve areas somewhat.
Also, with gaining that out-parcel, we'll have to reconfigure our acreage, and half of that acreage
would also need to be added to preserve, because 50 percent is the preserve requirement.
The other alternative would be if there were some design limitations when we go back and do this,
we'd like the opportunity also to look at a 35-foot landscape buffer with a berm and wall combination.
That's certainly not our preferred, and I don't think that that's anyone's preference, but we do feel like we
need the option to at least look at that, and then we would come back to you with hopefully the 200-foot
Page 31
~ !' tl__~__.,..~~.;,.,._",_",..,.,...".<,_..,..,....,..,,,,,~___,,._~
Ibl
.: {\?
c j~ .~
May 21,2009
wide preserve area, which would provide a more significant buffer. And I think that there is room to
redesign it in that respect and we feel pretty confident we can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I had a quick question. I mean. Brad does too, but I want to kind of
summarize something so I understand the parameters.
This total project area -- let's forget the two and a quarter acres you just recently purchased.
MR. MULHERE: 341 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever it is. It's 341 acres. Your preserve area right now is half of that,
170.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you've got 170 usable acres.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And out of the 170 usable acres 42 acres ofthat is stormwater
management.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings you down to about 130.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you have utility supply and easements for the water wells, that's
eight acres, so that's about 120. And then you've got -- out of the 120, you have a yard waste and storm
debris processing area that I understand is only being used during emergencies when we have a lot of storm
debris from hurricanes or something like that; is that true?
MR. MULHERE: It's not only being used for that. The majority of that land would be used for that.
There is a -- that is where the yard -- a yard waste and storm debris processing is going to occur. So a
portion of that, I don't know how much acreage, maybe Dan could talk, I don't know ifit's 10,20 acres, but
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to know.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director.
Actually, that will be the area for processing horticulture waste that we currently do at the landfill.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many acres does that take up?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That currently takes up about 10 acres. But as we continue to bring on new
processes, the county may get into composting the material, turning it into useable soil for -- to maybe
possibly give back to the taxpayers.
MR. MULHERE: But it's still very low intensity use. I mean, it's just sort of sitting there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, I just want to understand it.
So let's say if you expand that and the most you do is another 20 acres there, so out of 120 usable
acres you're going to end up with leaving 50 areas of that area for future debris collection from hurricanes.
And that leaves you about 70 active acres that you're using out of 341. Is that a close assumption?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think that's accurate.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I wanted to understand the magnitude of your impact. So out of
341 acres, you're really impacting around 70 acres as intense uses, and the rest are different and varied uses.
Okay, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bob, what I'd like to do is talk you out of your plan B.
mean, these people moved out there in the neighbors (sic) to live in the woods --
MR. MULHERE: You mean the 35-foot?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, and to build a wall, first of all, it's expensive. You
can redesign this site plan. And don't waste time with two options, just put the 200 feet in there and make
Page 32
16/ lAc.-
May 21, 2009
it work, okay? I think you can do it.
MR. MULHERE: It appears to me that we can redesign that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I would move it. And that word, I say leachate. What
is that -- how do you pronounce that properly, you have gas and it's L-E-C-H--
MR. MULHERE: Leachate?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Leachate? I mean, that would be better flipped on the other side
of the road, and stuff like that you can easily lay th~ out. I ,
MR. MULHERE: Okay, we will work on redesigning that and coming back to you in the -- I guess
two weeks, whenever your next regular scheduled meeting is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, you'd want to come back on a consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So we have to be very specific in what we stipulate here today so
that when it comes back on consent we're dealing with it as a consent item, not as a revote.
Mr. Wolfley, and then Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let Mr. Midney go first.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mine is very brief.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What was the two-week postponement for this due to?
MR. MULHERE: It was to allow us an opportunity to negotiate with the end holder to acquire that
-- or come to an agreement to acquire that parcel.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The first thing I did my first year of engineering school, I
happened to have designed and worked for about a year on a technical paper regarding waste recycling.
And I think that this is a good idea because I think that mountain that is currently there is going to
decrease in height due to the fact we're not going to be putting as much refuse there, it's going to be used as
recycled goods.
And with that, ifit's the pleasure of the board here, I would like to make a recommendation--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, we're not even done with--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're not done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to close the public hearing, we have to have discussion, and
then we'll entertain a --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought it were closed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're still in -- the applicant was doing rebuttal.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see.
MR. MULHERE: I really think that -- I don't have anything else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions for the applicant?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, for Mr. Rodriguez.
I want you just to respond to the people who have come here today and feel that promises were not
being kept to them by the county --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. In reference to n
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for this expansion. So I just want you to address that.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
First of all I'd like to say thank you to all the residents that have come out to hear. We truly
appreciate your input. And as being good neighbors and not just saying that as a government saying to be
good neighbors, we look at our relationships with the neighbors at the landfill as a marriage. Every day we
Page 33
... . _...,., "'~'"'''' .. r' ",,,"OW""" .~.. lli."""'_,_~___._",..__,",...._____. ~ lI!: ..,....._.. .... ___...
,J"
, I,'!
~
~
:'"
( T--
May 21,2009
1:;'__,
have to come and work together next to each other, and it's a long-term commitment. As long as the
landfill's there we will always be neighbors. So anything that impacts you negatively, we take it very
seriously, you know, as the Board of County Commissioners did 10 years ago. We will implement the
policies.
As far as the board's intent 10 years ago, I've read the transcripts. It was specific they were not going
to expand the landfill. And that was clearly outlined in the LDC.
The landfill is not moving off of the property to the north. What we're asking to do is -- what the
board has laid down is to develop the property for recycling activities. And at any opportunity you're more
than welcome to come to the landfilL see our operation, see the activity of the Waste Management. They
have a life of site contract with the county. We put very high demands on them. They're required to be
safe. They're required to have no odor and limit the noise so that we stay within policy.
And at any opportunity that you feel that we're not being good neighbors, I encourage you to contact
us. And as you always do, and we encourage that as well, you contact your commissioners, and they're
very responsive. Absolutely. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And the next thing is, there is going to be required off-site mitigation
for you both for wetland impacts and panther impacts. Will those -- will that mitigation happen in Collier
County?
MS. ZIMMERMAN: Sue Zimmerman, Collier County Real Property Management.
At the present time we are investigating doing either banking or purchasing property. We do own
currently property to the east/northeast that we're looking into as a potential mitigation area that we can
work with either Conservation Collier, possibly, or some other agency to do mitigation within the county
itself. Otherwise, we will look to banking, purchasing credits from a mitigation bank.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's important that the mitigation happen in the county. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there was a young lady who spoke to the concern of her well
water. And I know Paul Mattausch is here. I would think that it would be important for her to understand
or for him to tell us whether or not her concern is very serious.
MR. MATT AUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, Director of the Collier County Water
Department.
There was a concern raised about injection wells detrimentally impacting quality of groundwater
and wells in the area.
I laid a pen on the map there. There are only two deep injection wells anywhere in the vicinity.
Those two wells are located at the south end of the south county regional water treatment plant.
The reason for those injection wells is for the deep injection of the concentrate stream from the
reverse osmosis water treatment plant. That water is injected approximately 3,100 feet deep in the ground.
Between the surficial aquifer and the lower Tamiami aquifer, which is where the freshwater exists in
Collier County, there are several aquatards or impervious layers between the surficial aquifer, the
freshwater and where we are injecting the reject water from the reverse osmosis water treatment process.
So the -- that water that we are injecting in no way impacts the freshwater resources there in the
area. And in fact, the Department of Environmental Protection requires us to submit routinely monitoring
of the aquifer immediately above our injection zone to ensure that we have absolutely no impact even on
the brackish aquifers that are located immediately above the injection zone.
So I hope that I answered that question. I \vould be glad to answer any questions regarding the
impacts on groundwater in the area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I thought it was very important for the young lady to
understand that that in no way can impact directly on her water. And she may have other issues that she
Page 34
16/1A2
May 21,2009
needs to attend to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mattausch, I didn't hear the word injection well come up in her
discussion with this panel. I thought she was concerned about the runoff from the proposed facilities,
including -- and I think she mentioned hazardous waste and other things that were happening at the
proposed site that you're talking about, not one a half a mile away.
Her well, having a shallow well, I think she was concerned about water contamination from runoff
from this site getting into the shallow aquifer and contaminating her well, because it's only 25 feet deep.
So were you -- I know you responded to something, but I didn't hear that question raised.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah, the third public speaker raised the issue of the injection wells.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any injection wells on this site?
MR. MATTAUSCH: On--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's on the screen right now, are there any injection wells on that
site?
MR. MATTAUSCH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there -- do you want to explain if there's any possible water
contamination from this site. Can you just --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director.
To have an understanding of a landfill permit, there are very strict regulations. Every quarter FDEP
comes down to our site. Majority of the time it's unannounced, and they do inspections.
Additionally, we provide reports to them quarterly of monitoring wells throughout the facility. In
the perimeter, through the center, around the cells.
This -- the Resource Recovery Park will have the same requirements. We will have the necessary
infrastructure to ensure that we contain any materials that mayor may not spill.
But I can tell you, from our current activities we don't have those issues. We don't have gasoline
spilling on the ground, we don't have oil spilling or paint, things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I concur with that. I use your hazardous facilities, and I can tell you,
your hazardous facilities are impeccable. So I --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And we'll have all the appropriate --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- commend you for that.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- berms. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your monitoring wells, though, in order to get keep the public's concerns
at bay, do you have any monitoring wells along your northeast perimeter property lines?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We do at the landfill, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to be putting in any to monitor this facility?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you use a benchmark to start with?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it the current -- the first day, or is it past years -- what's your
benchmark? When do you set your benchmark, the day you go in and put the monitoring well down before
anything hits the site?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know how -- you had just talked about working with your
neighbors. You might want to get together with the people that spoke and provide them at some time in the
future the benchmark contaminants and then that level that's reached after a year or two in operation or
Page 35
"". - '__"OO~_'W_';J_';'_'-"'_"'''---'''-'_,m
,. /-
~ A 2
t I
--'<"'- --
May 21, 2009
· 1
however often you monitor your wells so that they can rest assured that you're not contributing any further
to any degradation of their water quality.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And as part of an additional measure we work closely with the
Pollution Control Department who actually lays out the protocols for us. Absolutely.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chair. can I--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. MULHERE: Could I just -- is that on? Yeah, okay. Bob Mulhere for the record.
I just wanted to bring to your attention a couple of items that we had a discussion in the back of the
room about with the staff.
We're going to be constrained to not change the existing preserve, because if we did we would be
required to resubmit an EIS and probably go back to the EAC. I'm not sure about that, because I kind of
think the Board of County Commissioners could do that without sending us back there. But that's basically
what the discussion was about.
Having said that, this then will be additional area. But we can add, we just can't change or
reconfigure or reduce the preserve, you follow me? So we're going to have to put another acre and a half of
preserve as a result of acquiring this -- an acre and a quarter preserve as a result of acquiring this two and a
half acre parcel. Which we agreed in talking to staff we could probably accommodate that in this area here.
So some of that will be preserve. The balance of it we'll probably just call a buffer. Still be 200-foot wide,
you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you could call it preserve because you can add to, you just can't take
away, right?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but the problem there is trying to cross it for connection to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. no. your preserve in that location would stop at 31st Street
right-of-way, then start again on the south side --
MR. MULHERE: No, I know. But what I'm saying is we need to put a discharge across the
preserve from the lake, which will be here. to the canal. And from what I'm being told, we couldn't do that
if it was preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you ironed it out as an easement when you created the preserve.
MR. MULHERE: I'm just saying, we may want to just call it a buffer. It won't matter. We won't
add it to our preserve acreage, we won't touch it. It will function the same way, but we'll be able to -- I'm
just saying we have to figure that detail out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. but I think you need to with staff before it gets here because--
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the expressing -- well. I heard specifically the concern that they're
worried about some of these preserves going away in the future. The GMP restricts you to 50 percent.
We're asking you, by adding 200 feet now to probably create more than what you're required to do by the
GMP. We would hate to see you now come back and be able to remove that without -- because it is
effectively inconsistent with the GMP at that point.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm glad you raised that. Because although the GMP is a difficult process
to change, too, I think we're required to put a conservation easement in perpetuity over the preserve area.
So that's even more difficult to change than the compo plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But between now and consent--
MR. MULHERE: I understand, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you need to find a solution to the -- how you're going to -- what you're
going to call that 200 feet.
MR. MULHERE: Agreed.
Page 36
J. 6 'I 1 ~ 2
May 21,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for understanding, Bob, what you're saying is that, you know,
these are conceptual plans. You couldn't vary the preserve boundary in the slightest? In other words, just
come around and chisel off --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think we could do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think you can.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think we can do that.
MS. ARAQUE: Staff agreed that minor changes are not going to be an issue that would require
them to have to go back to EAC.
Sorry, Summer Araque for the record.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because like in the center of the site, I could imagine some ofthat
raising up and keeping you the same area. The intent is not to take your area of development, the intent --
MR. MULHERE: No, I--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is to protect the neighbors --
MR. MULHERE: Actually to add more in this case.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will add more area?
MR. MULHERE: Add more preserve area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but I'm saying, the intent is not to remove developable area,
it's just to reposition preserve.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I know that was the intent, but then we had this discussion. So we'll--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But slightly slivered. Take 10 percent, sliver it around --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we can do it.
I did want to just put on the record that the site plan that I showed you that we had the discussion
about, Commissioner Caron, does show the relocated hazardous waste material site. From the original one
that was in your plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I can't read this.
So this is the new plan?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is the new plan --
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- which we don't have here.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. But we will use that plan when you reconfigure it, and so you
will have it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So just tell me, because I can't read this, still the small lake, closest to
that is still administration.
What's this next box over that goes all the way from the -- what does it say? You can't read it
either.
MR. MULHERE: And I can't read it.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, that's the material recovery facility --
MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah, that we discussed.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- for future recycling.
MR. MULHERE: That didn't change.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: That didn't change.
Page 37
7- 1A2
May 21, 200~
~,
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, yes, it did, because it goes n
MR. MULHERE: All the way up, right, it goes all the way up.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the typical space.
And then the next is still white goods and tires and hazardous waste --
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- right?
And then everything else remains the same.
MR. MULHERE: Everything else was the same, correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, just for the record. you've added that small two and a
half acre site in, but do all the studies cover that? For example, there couldn't be a panther clubhouse on
top of a burial mound there, could there?
MR. MULHERE: No, I think we're okay there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any more questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we will close the public hearing.
And before we entertain a motion. we need to have discussion. And Bob, we may need to get your
comment as we go through some of these items.
I have a list. I can read it if the commission so desires.
The first one would be no permanent access on 31 st Street, but a temporary access only upon a
declared emergency through a FEMA directive.
Number two, staff recommendations would be included, with the exception of number six and
number nine. Number nine has the -- dealing with the EAC SDP and number six is the one Kay said wasn't
necessary anymore.
Number three, they would retain the same hours of operation of the landfill.
Number four, they would include the 2.75-acre site that they -- as part of this project; incorporate
that in for a consent agenda review.
Number five, all recycling processing machinery will be located in closed buildings.
Number six, all individual site designs will incorporate drive-through designs as much as possible
to minimize backups.
Number seven, they will retain a 200-foot preserve buffer along the western edge of the property.
Minimum 200. And that just applies to all the western edge, it doesn't have to be defined as to where it
starts and stops now.
And number eight, they'll modify the site plan pursuant to the real plan that they presented today,
along with the changes made for the consent agenda review.
Now, is there any comments to those?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I wanted to add one. And that's what I was going to do with
my recommendation, if I'm allowed to do so. That in the yard waste and storm debris area, if any
processing or crushing, whatever you do with that waste, could be done on the south end, whereas it would
be piled on the north end and then processed on the south end, that would buffer much of the noise to the
neighbors to the north. That was going to be my only other recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Is it about his remediation, or are you --
Page 38
16/ lAp
May 21,2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish that first.
Bob?
MR. MULHERE: I didn't catch all of that because I was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's suggesting that if you have any processing operation involving the
yard waste, that it stays on the south side of that the site, not to the north.
MR. MULHERE: You mean --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So that the piles that's brought in quite quickly is on the north side
of that 72 acres, and the processing be done on the landfill side.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director.
Where it's applicable, we will move the staging areas for debris to the north side.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right. And the processing to the south side, which would
be closest to the road.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And that's probably the most practical place to locate that operation.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: We did have another question on your one condition, which is I think number
five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish up this one so we get it worded right.
Under the yard waste processing, it will be as much as possible to the south side, but with the
staging to the north side, okay? Does that summarize it? Good.
Now Bob, what were you saying?
MR. MULHERE: On number five, all machinery will be located inside an enclosed building.
We're talking process machinery. Right now there are grinders that operate outside for recycling purposes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is whatever -- and Mr. Rodriguez, it was what you said at the
meeting. And I -- Mr. Rodriguez commented that the recycling processing would be located in a closed
building setting (inside a building.)
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. As it related to the MRF, material recovery facility. Again, I was being
specific to that function. It would not be reasonable to have our grinding machines, our processing
machines housed indoors when they may be temporary due to an event, or if we're recycling white goods.
But the actual processing of the recyclables, turning them into a reusable material, something
different than what they came in as, yes, those would be enclosed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said earlier, though, you could hire a vendor, and some vendors do it
in the open and some vendors do it inside buildings.
What were you referring to when you made that comment?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, it depends on the technology and what they're recycling.
For instance, if you're recycling tires, you have equipment that actually separates the rims from the
tires, then you have another machine that actually chops up the tires, and then you have machines that bails
the tires, things like that, get it ready for transportation.
We may get a vendor that comes in that has a whole new system that does it all at once. You put it
on a conveyor belt, it goes into a big box and it comes out, you know, a big square cube of reusable rubber.
It just depends on the application, the technology. What we don't want to do is limit the opportunity
for the county to take advantage of many of these new emerging technologies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any problem with the incorporating to the greatest
extent possible the design regarding the no -- minimizing backups, doing turnarounds inside all those areas
where you're going to have dropoff points and things like that so we can minimize traffic backup?uMR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. Your recommendations to include access, horseshoe access,
Page 39
I~_~'.."...-~-~-~...._--_..._,-
16 '12
: J:'.';
I '...:4 ]'1 .
May 21,2009
~
things like that, absolutely. It's more advantageous to us. Any time a vehicle backs up, we have a safety
factor involved.
But I need to make perfectly clear that we don't want to water dovm the safety measure of removing
those backup alarms, things like that. Because we have had accidents.
MR. MULHERE: We can design to minimize backing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand what you've clarified. Does everybody else?
Mr. Schiffer, do you have something?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL my question was number five. Because I don't think that's
really reasonable. But are we going to leave it where some of these -- and you might want to specify what
areas can have exterior, what areas can't. I mean, obviously in a storm event there's a lot of machinery all
over the place that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think the way he's defined it is that the processing of the
materials inside buildings, ifthey have a tub grinder or something like that that has to be outside, that's not
the processing of material, that's preparing the material for processing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if we're chipping up a tree or grinding a refrigerator,
that does not have to be indoors?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's what they're saying.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how it technically could be.
I think the backup horns was a big issue because they're sharp and they have a long-distant sound.
And if we can cure that problem to a great extent by this stipulation, that certainly helps.
Anyway, is there any other stipulations or comments from anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion then?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I'd like to recommend to the Planning Commission to
forward Petition CU-08-AR-13245 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval,
subject to the conditions set forth just previously discussed by the Chair.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made by Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Murray.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I want to add is a comment. The fact that this property has been
bought over periods of time for this use, it's inevitable it's going to be used for some connection to the
landfill. The best we can hope to do is for is make sure that whatever use is there, minimize its impacts on
the neighborhood through the designs, through the buffers, through the noise containment. We've tried to
do that today. It's the best opportunity I think we have at this point and so I'm going to be voting in favor.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying, by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 40
l6/1A,:>
May 21, 2009
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Thank you all for attending. In two weeks it comes back on what's called the consent agenda. It's
not a time for debate, it's simply acknowledging that staff got our stipulations correct and the final plan
reflects what we said.
And from there it goes on to the Board of County Commissioners, which I believe is going to be
sometime in July?
MR. MULHERE: We're hoping July, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're hoping July.
And that's where the final vote will be taking place. Ours is a recommendation to them.
And with that, we will move on to the next -- thank you everyone for attending on that issue. Oh,
you have conditional use forms somewhere in your packet, if you can find them. We need to send those on
to Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Where did you find it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the record, everybody, so be careful.
Item # 10
OLD BUSINESS
CAHIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on today's agenda is not a hearing presented by an
applicant, but a discussion of the boat dock extension review criteria.
And to bring everybody up to speed on why we're here on this issue today, a project came through a
while back, I believe it was called the Monte Carlo boat dock request. They had requested an extension in
Vanderbilt Beach.
During our discussion -- there was a lot of discussion, and we found there was some inconsistency
between the way staff was looking at the primary and secondary criteria and the way the County Attorney at
the time indicated to us may apply in other elements of the LDC.
And we've asked staff and the County Attorney's Office to get together, come back and clarify the
issue, as has the Board of County Commissioners. And today's discussion is focused on that clarification,
and that's where we should be focusing our discussion.
So with that, I know we have a memo passed out by Susan Istenes. I guess we'll turn to, I don't
know, Ray or who's handling it for who, or Jeff, and see if you guys have come to a meeting of the minds.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the Zoning Manager. Susan has asked me to
fill in for her today on this item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you pull that mic. a little closer to you, Ray. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Susan asked me to fill in for her today on this item.
Basically we met with the County Attorney's Office to make sure we were clear on the criteria.
And the memorandum reflects the results of those meetings.
Basically the criteria outlined in the LDC, the four out of five primary and the four out of six
secondary criteria is what the Planning Commission and staff should be looking at and making their
Page 41
_'"'_"""'""'~"""",p_,__"'.~~"".""__"_w""",,,,,,""'.".,__,_~,_~_~""'_.."'....
r_"_~ "__it
iff
~.?t
~
r.P'
May 21, 2009
/_,.~
recommendations based on that criteria.
However, if there is an overriding health. safety, welfare issue determined by the Planning
Commission, that can be used and hopefully in relation to one of the criteria to -- if it's different from a staff
recommendation, you can make your own recommendation, based on health and safety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think it WOULD be best to explain to us what you mean by
that by an example. And I know I've heard Mr. Klatzkow use numerous examples as to how one point,
even if it fails to meet the one point, it's so abhorrent maybe we don't want that one, maybe we still
wouldn't see our way to find approval.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well. if you go through the primary criteria, for example, let's see, C says that
whether the proposed dock facility has an inverse (sic) impact on navigation. And I think if you find it's
going to have an adverse impact on navigation. just based on that single criteria alone you could deny the
petition, all right?
There's another one where the proposed dock facility protrudes more than 25 percent to the width.
And if you're saying well, we think that the public safety in this instance requires that you stay within that
25 percent of the waterway boundary, you can deny it on that case.
So going through the criteria, if you believe one of the criteria is such that it impacts the public
health and safety, you can vote against it based on that one criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. KLA TZKOW: If they meet everything else. If it's impacting public health and safety, that's
the end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see now, when we make a negative finding, attached to that negative
finding we have to explain ourselves.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the case of the 25-foot extension in 1 DO-foot waterway, we felt that
that was too much, even though it was only one of the criteria. And we thought there was a public safety
and welfare issue and -- for reason for denial.
How detailed or how acknowledged do we have to know that public safety and welfare issue as
being stated? Is it just a feeling we have or do we have to have some kind of expert proof? Or where are
we with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're going to have testimony, you're going to have a staff report.
You're going to -- I mean, there's a public hearing process. You're going to have a lot of information before
you, and then you make a finding. You may say that, you know, based on what I've heard it's my finding
that this negatively impacts the public health and safety because it intrudes more than 25 percent or it's
impotent to navigation or whatever other issue there might be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Klatzkow, suppose someone well intended considers that a
health, welfare -- health, safety and welfare matters concerns -- are concerned with size of boats in a given
area or number of boats in a total area. Is that justifiable as a basis as a determination made by an
individual, absent any probable evidence that would be presented?
MR. KLATZKOW: Staff and I had that discussion. And one of the problems we had was we really
don't know why we have a 20-foot dock requirement anyway, all right? And my staff went through the
history of this and it goes back decades. And we can't figure out why we even did this.
We're not going to impose our belief on why this was, we're simply going to say that if you think
that increasing the dock more than 20 feet into the waterway in and of itself impacts public health and
safety, you can deny it. If you don't think it impacts public health and safety, then you go by the regular
Page 42
1L.1 l1A2
~~1, 2009
criteria.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't think you $swered the question I asked, but I'll try
once more.
In other words, if someone well intended on the board thought that there were too many boats in a
given area and they thought of that as being a safety issue, would that be grounds?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No. Because everybody's entitled to a dock.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's just a question of20 feet.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's just a question of 20 feet, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's an important factor I think. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybodyelse? We're going to have some public speakers too, so we're
going to get their input before we wrap this up.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeff, I guess the big thing is is the scorecard method. One
thing I did find when looking back, in the recodification this one sentence was dropped in the extension
criteria. And it said that the Planning Commission shall base its decision -- it shall base its decision -- for
approval, approval with conditions or denial on an evaluation of the following primary and secondary
criteria.
So doesn't that essentially say we stay within that criteria?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you stay within the criteria. But what I'm saying is as you're going
through the criteria, all right, if one of them jumps off the page on you impacting public health and safety,
that's in and of itself enough reason to justify your vote for no.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in the scorecard method we would say no to that criteria.
What you're saying, though, is that one criteria could be such a bad no that that would be the reason
why you could overrule --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a positive score on their scorecard.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you would be able to state that that one is --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. An example I give is you've got a 100-foot waterway and you want to
put one out 70 feet, you know. And it's -- you know, it may only impact one of the criteria, but it's enough
for you to say no. It's impotent to navigation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think what probably would make sense, and Ray, you
could look at this is that you know how with a conditional use, like the form we just filled out? Maybe it
would be appropriate for you to prepare some quick form that we use. Because the problem happens is that
we make decisions, they go to the other board, and I think the board -- when it's appealed to the board,
that's the only way it goes there, they really have a hard time figuring out what it is, or they really want to
know why it is that we went the way we went.
And I think some of the confusion is that we've got to come up with a format to deliver our decision
where they can see that.
MR. BELLOWS: I want to make sure I understand. You have the criteria, the primary and the
secondary, and you want that turned in more into like the conditional use application where there's a
checklist for the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Because essentially -- and Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong,
the way it's set up without us revising the code today, it's set up that that checklist is supposed to mean
something, that we're supposed to score exactly that checklist.
We'll come up with a score. Then what Jeff is saying, if something is so out ofline on one of those
Page 43
_.ll'I""
. '__""'___'_"'~'~"m._'.""',""_'''___""~_._~",""_"",,,,, ',"'I'
,
>!
13 I'.'~ /~
1 i\ t':
May 21,2009
, ~
~. :,~ .....
elements, that alone could be reason to deny it and you would note as such, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would ,-"rite dO'-"TI -- ifhe's giving the scorecard, I would just write it down.
Or when we take the vote, state it for the record I am voting against this because.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I would rather we just use like the format we have and just state for
the record. We can be more flexible and more fluid in our statements --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- rather than try to interpret. It might be minimized too much on a piece
of paper, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. But I think -- in other words, but we don't want it to
go to the board and then the board doesn't know why somebody voted denial. I mean, they'd never even
know what our score is, so to speak, unless we state, you know, negative reasons in our--
MR. BELLOWS: As I previously stated the last time we had this discussion, the executive
summary's presented to the board. In this case it would be an appeal of the denial of a boat dock that
reaches the Board of County Commissioners as an appeal.
That clearly goes into the reasons why the Planning Commission had recommended denial. An
appeal is completely different than a land use executive summary where there's just a little section dealing
with the CCPC recommendation. This is an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission, and the
executive summary goes into great detail.
Unfortunately for the Monte Carlo one, it just wasn't enough information provided by the Planning
Commission that gave the Commission enough information to listen to the appeal, and that's why it was
remanded back.
I think the purpose of the clarification we had with the County Attorney's Office is to help provide
the guidelines where the Planning Commission can adequately make those decisions.
And I think the clarification that Jeff just provided, that if you have one overriding concern that you
still want to recommend denial, even though it's only one item that's in disagreement, you can do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, Ijust want to reiterate again, when the staff reviews, it's based on the
criteria. And I'm going to follow up with what Ray said. But the Planning Commission's job is to review
the staff analysis. That's where -- I somewhat use the word -- subjectivity comes into play. It's not adding
additional items for review, it's reviewing the staff analysis and whether the analysis done by staff, you
either agree or disagree with it, then you would comment.
During the appeal process, your comments -- and I'll follow up ifthere's a comment saying through
health, safety and safety welfare we believe -- or due to whatever statement that the -- this is a hazard to
navigation.
In an appeal staff may respond to that, or we may get professional evidence from the applicant to
refute that. We will put that then in the appeal.
So we would note your reasons. And normally it's up to the applicant to then provide evidence to
refute your assessment, unless you got something to back up your position. And that follows up with what
Mr. Murray said.
But normally -- and don't forget, you're one piece of the process. Many of these boat docks go
through the state. The federal government is really the one responsible, from the standpoint of hazards to
navigation. They normally through a general permit type activity defer to the state. The state does review
for those type of entities like hazards to navigation or other type of activities.
That's -- though it's included in ours, it is not something that we evaluate. I don't go out and get a
statement from the Corps of Engineers because they're the ones really responsible or the Coast Guard or as
Page 44
16/1A2 j
May 21,2009
Mr. Murray said at one time we talked about a number of boats. We don't -- there's no concurrency or
anything like that where we evaluate number of boats.
But so you understand the process, you review and -- you review the staff analysis, and then that's
where you basically agree or disagree. And if it goes through an appeal, then we comment on your
comments. We as staff would comment. But normally that's input from the applicant and the appellate
process. Hopefully that made that clear.
I do want to point one thing else -- one other thing, and Mr. Schiffer brought it up, but he did allude
to the fact that at one time there was a discussion about a checklist and not bein!tus~ as a checklist.
We did an exhaustive search ofthe records. We found nothing that we could find where we
discussed that. I know there was some discussion at one time when we talked about boathouses, which was
a different argument and a different discussion, and we talked about view. But we couldn't find anything in
the record where we said this was not a, for lack of a better term, a checklist.
MR. KLATZKOW: I read every transcript that there was between the Board of County
Commissioners and the Planning Commission from the time the recodification on. I couldn't find anything
in any of the transcripts.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have been going back and forth, Joe.
The thing that I thought it was out was when we did the 2006 there's a first hearing and a second
hearing. All's I've seen is the second hearing. I've never seen, you know, the dialogue at the first hearing,
which is when we would have discussed that.
So -- I mean, but that isn't important. Because what -- you know, sending me the second hearing
what it showed is that essentially we were bringing something that was dropped in the recodification
forward anyway, so it wasn't an LDC change, it was just pulling that forward.
I think it's too bad we didn't pull the words I read today along with it, because that would have
eliminated the confusion on the scorecard. Because it essentially is saying that you do use that as a
scorecard.
MR. SCHMITT: Now, if there's something that this body wishes to include, we can certainly
entertain that and look at that for a future LDC cycle, if there's something that you believe -- and I think
Susan alluded to that in her--
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, she gave options.
MR. SCHMITT: -- document as well. There's options that we presented to you.
And also, we could look at how do we make this, if you want to use the word, a better process in
your eyes. Certainly it is somewhat onerous in some field, because if it meets the criteria, could it be
administrative. Then again, this -- the board has empowered you to make the decision on these. And it
depends, we'll take the lead wherever you want to go with this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The funny problem is, you're all talking like the process is broken. I don't
see it broken. I do know that this is a big county and what we do with our Land Development Code applies
to far more areas than just one neighborhood in all of Collier County. But there is one neighborhood that
has continued problems with boat dock issues.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- I can't blame them, they've got a difficult time up there. And for
lack of having a level of service and concurrency element in our waterway up there, I think they're going to
continue to have a good enough big time -- a problematic time.
So instead of looking at trying to fix a county-wide problem that isn't a county-wide problem, we
have an area that has an overlay. Why don't they incorporate in their overlay some specific language to
what they would like to see in dealing with docks in their area. Maybe then the rest of the county can go on
its merry way like they've always been.
Page 45
t"l \~ Pl
Ma; 21: 2JJ12 {Ilf
So I'm just throwing that out as a suggestion. I know some of the neighbors from that area are here.
It's intended as a productive suggestion, not as a criticism. Because as each area in the county evolves, they
have different unique circumstances, and they may not -- we can't -- we're not generic enough across this
whole county to be applied maybe in the same way.
Now, with that in mind I want to ask Mr. Klatzkow for one clarification. You had said that we can
vote based on public safety and welfare on information that we have received during testimony or from
staff or whatever.
Could we also vote based on information we did not receive? Meaning if we did not have enough
information to support a position, would that be a reason to have a concern for public safety and welfare?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: The overriding purpose of this Planning Commission is to protect the public
health and safety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Perfect. Thank you, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: Mark, if I could--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: -- comment on that.
That would be a basis where staff n you would comment that staff conducted its analysis and was
insufficient in providing information. And that could either lead to a denial or to a rehearing or whatever,
yes, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand.
Okay, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just try. Let's just make this a hypothetical. Let's pretend
we have a body of water, there's a centroid, a riparian line is actually going out across in front of another
property. Port of the Isles has these kind of sites. And we have in the past approved them. They come out
pretty far.
If everything passed on this thing except for the fact -- and it's a secondary criteria, even though in
the scope of the dock facilities it's listed as one of the main reasons for this event. If in fact we felt it wasn't
fair to block the view of that site with this guy's dock, would that be reason alone that somebody could not
do that? In other words, he wants to keep going further out. Some of these have gone out in the eighties of
feet to hit the water.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I hate to view criteria, because it is the most subjective criteria we have.
I would say no, that's not a public health or safety issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And which is why I guess it's a secondary criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- if it's okay -- oh, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to make a comment that I think our code is pretty clear.
Because if you look under dock facility extensions, it says that this commission may consider it
appropriate to extend them. Not that we shall. not that n any. It says we may. So I think, you know, we're
arguing over something for nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to hear from the public. Is that okay with everybody at this
point? I don't know how many members of the public wish to speak.
Do we have sign-in sheets, Ray? Twenty-five?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, that's a hot issue.
MR. BELLOWS: Five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five. okay.
Page 46
1.6i1A2 /
May 21,2009
As your name's called, you all know the rules, just please come on up, identifY yourself, and we ask
that you try to limit the five minutes, and we'll certainly entertain your comments.
MR. SCHMITT: Rocky Scofield.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I go before Rocky?
MR. SCHMITT: Rich, you want to go first?
All right, Rich, then Rocky.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Everybody that wishes to testifY on behalf of this item, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
MR. YOVONOVICH: I've never understood that on a legislative matter, but okay.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just because you were walking up first, Richard.
MR. YOVONOVICH: Good morning. For the record, my name's Rich Y ovanovich, and I'm
representing Monte Carlo, not on their specifics of their petition today, obviously since we'll be hearing --
we'll be in front of you at the next Planning Commission meeting. But here to understand what the rules of
the game of that meeting is going to be.
I prepared a pretty extensive document when I represented Monte Carlo in the original appeal. I
don't know if it's been provided to you or not. But I'll basically go through what I argued to the Board of
County Commissioners. And I think what's happening is we're forgetting what the purpose of 5.03.06(C)
of the LDC is, which is the boat dock extension provisions and the 20 feet.
What you start with as a framework of if you live on the water by right we're going to give you a
20- foot boat dock out into the water, you get that as a matter of right. If you want to go beyond that, you
have to meet certain criteria, and then you can go beyond that level of protrusion out into the water.
It is not a variance, it is similar to a conditional use. It is you're asking to do something that you're
allowed to do but go further out into the water in this particular case.
So you don't have to prove hardship. And people keep talking about you've got to have some kind
of a hardship to go more than 20 feet out in the water. No where in the LDC does it say that, and nowhere
in the criteria for that LDC does it say you have to do that.
Mr. Schiffer pointed out some ofthe legislative history. And what ended up happening is originally
we had these criteria back in the early Nineties and through the Nineties that led to a lot of confusion as to
what is the Planning Commission supposed to look like in approving a boat dock extension beyond the 20
feet that's allowed in the code.
So we had the criteria that talked about the primary and the secondary. And you had to pass four
out of the five of the primary and four out of the six of the secondary. And then if you did that you can go
out more than 20 feet.
And that was codified into the Land Development Code. And then we did the recodification
process in 2004, and some stuff was dropped out through that recodification process.
But if you look at the legislative history, it was always the intent that if you -- these criteria were
just that, they were criteria to get an extension beyond the 20 feet that you have as a matter of right.
As a property owner and as a representative of property owners, I have to have the ability to tell my
property owner what they have to do to be able to go beyond 20 feet. And these criteria were established
for that purpose. These criteria are your public health and safety welfare standards. If you meet these
criteria you have satisfied the public health, safety and welfare standard.
Because keep in mind, government cannot adopt a law unless the basis of that the law is to protect
the public health, safety and welfare. So you have a rule that says you can only have 20 feet and you can go
beyond that. That's the law, that's the public health, safety and welfare. So you have these criteria.
We go through, and it's my burden through my representatives, to put in the record how I've
Page 47
.~ ~ 2
':-,'~ r?, " r' IJ to' ~
j ", ., p at ~ Ii
." M~y 21, 20m>
~
satisfied the criteria. Once I've done that, the burden then shifts to others to prove through competent
substantial evidence that I have not satisfied those criteria.
The law says I have to be able to advise my client. It can't be arbitrary, can't be capricious, it can't
be the whim of the Planning Commission.
What I'm hearing today is is that I could satisfy the criteria and that may not be good enough.
Well, that can't be. I mean, I've got to have definition for my client. I've got to be able to explain to
my client what they've got to do to satisfy that. Otherwise your law falls on its face. It's arbitrary, it's
capricious, it's not specific enough. You can't have that.
So certainly those standards were there to identify what you have to prove to get to the level of
going beyond 20 feet.
I don't understand this okay, you can meet the criteria. And I asked the question to the Board of
County Commissioners, ifI satisfy all of them can I still be tumed down? I seem to get the answer, it was
well, you know, if there's some other reason, yes.
Well, I ask the question now, ifI satisfy all five of the primary and all six of the secondary, can I
still be turned down? Based upon the advice you're getting today, and I'm not certain, and I need to know
how this may be -- play out in the future, it certainly can't be the right answer. If I've satisfied four of out of
the five and I've satisfied four out of the six, what additional criteria, so I can tell my client this is what
you've got to look at.
And be objective. Because I need to know the objective standard of health, safety and welfare. If
you want to have some kind of level of service, go out and do a study, adopt a level of service. That seems
to be what I'm hearing in a lot of this part of the county is that they're worried about draft the boats, they're
worried about how many boats are out there. Yet there's no objective standard that's being portrayed or
brought forward.
Until you have that, you can't -- we shouldn't be getting into that area. We need to look at these
criteria, I need to tell my client this is what you've got to satisfy, and once you do that, you get to move
forward. Otherwise, I don't know how to advise a client what they have to do to satisfy the Land
Development Code. And I don't think that was the intent or what the words of the code said. I think you
have to follow -- you have to satisfy four out of five and four out of six, and if you do you get approval, and
if you don't the board or the Planning Commission can deny it and then ultimately the board will decide on
appeal, but it is those criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you created a paper for your position in regards to Monte Carlo
that went before the Board of County Commissioners?
MR. YOVONOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind e-mailing that to the Planning Commission?
MR. YOVONOVICH: I don't mind, but keep in mind, a lot of it's fact specific. But I do give a
legislative history of how we got to where we were in that analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be nice to read it for background.
MR. YOVONOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's public record, I don't --
MR. YOVONOVICH: It is. I'm happy to send it to you, I just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do.
MR. YOVONOVICH: -- wanted you to know there's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to send it to Ray so he can then send it to all of us, that works
better. Then staffs got a record of it as well.
MR. YOVONOVICH: They have it. It was in the appeal that went to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way you want to do it.
Page 48
16-'-1,~?
C.:::J L a ~."':.)"'ll
May 21,2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer, then -- hold on.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, let me ask you a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Mr. Kolflat after that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm starting to get really genned out on this topic, believe me.
And after going back and reading it, I think it is a checklist now. I'm going to support a checklist. I think
everything you said is 100 percent right.
But why do you think it comes before the Planning Commission?
MR. YOVONOVICH: You know, I meant -- I left that out of my presentation. You all -- and Joe
brought it up. You are essentially -- if we were in a court system, you're the trier of fact. You're the jury. I
have the burden to submit a petition. Staff will analyze that petition and I'll go make my case to you.
If someone from the public comes forward and says you know what, it does impact, we are
extending out into a channel, even though my data says something it doesn't. If they can provide you
evidence that my data is incorrect, then you are the trier of fact and you decide whether or not I satisfied the
criteria.
If I don't satisfY the criteria, you should turn me down. But if I satisfY the criteria, you should
approve me. You're the trier of fact. The board has decided for these types of approval, they want you to
be the trier of fact instead of staff being the trier of fact for satisfYing their criteria in the Land Development
Code. That was their process. You're the judge.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So our job in this thing -- and the reason I'm focused on it,
this is the only thing the Planning Commission does that it has final judgment on. But every one that we
overrule gets appealed, so essentially we don't.
The point is that our job solely is to check the homework -- I'm being sarcastic --
MR. YOVONOVICH: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- of the staff and that's our job. If the staff says that the waterway
is 200 feet and we think it's 210, we discuss it. If it's 150, we discuss it. And that's our job.
MR. YOVONOVICH: No, your job -- that's part of it. But if the public comes in and says listen,
I've got this following other evidence on the criteria that contradicts -- and it's got to be competent evidence
-- then it's your job to decide which evidence is the correct evidence.
It's no different than when you make -- you just made this last recommendation on the conditional
use. There were criteria. The applicant submitted information on those criteria. Your staff evaluated that.
You heard public testimony. Did they satisfY the criteria? You made a recommendation of approval, yes,
they satisfied the criteria.
Now in this case instead of making a recommendation for approval you're saying yes, the applicant
has satisfied the criteria and we're going to grant approval, or no, the applicant hasn't satisfied the criteria so
we're going to deny. That's the difference.
And the board for whatever reason decided that you needed to make that decision instead of it being
a stafflevel decision. And I saw that one of the alternatives was to basically turn it into an administrative
process like an SDP.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm really starting to support that for the simple reason that,
you know, something could really bother us, which it has in the past, yet it didn't trigger the scorecard
enough to really make us be able to legitimize a denial. And so why are we even doing it?
I mean, you know, usually view is the issue. Usually a neighbor comes in and says, if you let this
guy come out that far he now has the ability to put a boat cover on it, he now has the ability to put a boat
dock -- I mean, a boathouse ifhe wanted to on it, and -- I mean, so it ends up being a discussion where the
neighbor's upset about view. I mean, the criteria are pretty objective.
Page 49
...... oLA2'
~: l~J 1 0
May'21, ~ '
..
I mean, so I'm really wondering why we're even doing it.
MR. YOVONOVICH: And that's a policy decision for the board to decide. Maybe staff makes the
decision and someone's unhappy with that the appeal would come to you, I don't know. But it's set up right
now for you to make sure I passed each of the steps.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Klatzkow gave an introductory comment about how he
recommend we analyze this.
I gather from your statement is you do not agree with his --
MR. YOVONOVICH: I don't think you can say that I fail one ofthe five criteria on the primary
and turn me down.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're saying that if you create a navigational hazard but if you meet
everything else you get it.
MR. YOVONOVICH: Wbat I'm --
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is that that is preposterous.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, your turn will come. We've just got to --let's take it in order here.
Mr. Kolflat --
MR. YOVONOVICH: Jeff, I would venture to say if we are building our dock into a marked
channel, we would be failing one of the other criteria like interfering with our neighbor's use of their own
dock.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. YOVONOVICH: So we would fail two. we wouldn't fail one. I think your hypothetical, like
they teach us in law school, is to go to the farthest --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, focus on answering --
MR. YOVONOVICH: -- spectrum versus --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n Tor's request--
MR. YOVONOVICH: Okay, I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not JefT. Okay, you're addressing your issues to the Planning
Commission n
MR. YOVONOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and Jeffs going to have an opportunity to rebut and that's the way it will
be.
MR. YOVONOVICH: Mr. Kolflat, I don't think that the hypothetical that was posed to you is a
hypothetical that's real word. If you do go into a marked channel. which is a navigation issue, you will also
be interfering with your neighbor's ability to use those docks, so you'll fail two out of the -- two of the
primary and, therefore, you would fail.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you're saying if it's a hypothetical, what if that hypothetical
comes to fact, true? What is my position? What side should I take as far as taking advice? Do I take
guidance that you're giving me or do I take guidance the County Attorney is giving me?
MR. YOVONOVICH: Well, you know what my answer's going to be, so I don't want -- I don't
want to put Jeff or myself in that position.
What I'm saying to you is, and I --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm in the position, you're not.
MR. YOVONOVICH: -- think I'm right -- what's that?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I said I'm in the position, you're not. I have to make a decision on
which way I should make the analysis.
Page 50
16 I MahA,~9
MR. YOVONOVICH: I think you look at the criteria, and if I'm interfering with navigation, I think
you'll see that I fail one of the others. So you would say I failed two of those criteria in the primary and you
would say I vote against this because it fails the navigation issue and the interference with the neighbor's
dock issue.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, let me give you another hypothetical then. Let's say that the
boat dock I'm planning to put in, I intend to fuel that from a truck that brings gas up to the area with a hose
that's 300 feet long that can run around on the front up to the dock to fuel a tank in the boat, so forth. Is that
a condition that I might see is not in the public welfare?
MR. YOVONOVICH: Well, I didn't realize that one of the criteria when we submit an application
is how --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's not one of the --
MR. YOVONOVICH: -- you're going to fuel it.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- criteria, that's the point. It's not one of the criteria but it
certainly affects the public --
MR. YOVONOVICH: And I would say you probably have the same issue if you have a 20-foot--
if someone's bringing fuel by a truck, you know, to fill it, that's probably, you know, a problem. I don't
know, Mr. Kolflat, but that's -- you know, I've never been asked in application process how do you plan on
putting fuel in the vessel. I've just never been asked that question.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, there are several organizations in this county that deliver
fuel that way and they deliver it both to condominiums and individual homeowners' docks. And that's a
well-used way of delivering fuel.
MR. YOVONOVICH: Well, it could be. And if that needs to be one of the evaluation criteria, you
need to throw that into the mix. But it's not one of the evaluation criteria--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think--
MR. YOVONOVICH: -- that's in front of us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that what we could have here is we could go on all afternoon with
Richard debating with each one of us these particular issues. He's going to have his issues and we're going
to have ours. So we need to move forward and get everybody's concerns on the table. And then at the end
of the day we'll have to walk away with some kind of conclusions.
Jeff, did you want to have anything to say at this point?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No. I mean, I'll stick with my point. If you think that there is an issue here
that involves the public health and safety, you can deny it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd like to make one comment to that effect as far as -- Mr. Kolflat,
the County Attorney's Office is the office that represents this Planning Commission, or vice versa. They
actually advise the Planning Commission.
The applicant's attorneys come in all day long and they'll have all their opinions, and they're very
good legal counsel. But in the end I think it's the County Attorney's Office that has to defend us in our
actions, and that's the criteria that I would suggest we pay more attention to.
So with that in mind, thank you, Richard and --
MR. YOVONOVICH: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll hear the next speaker.
MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Rocky Scofield.
MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield for the record. I also represented Monte Carlo,
but I'm here today just for this discussion.
I'm going to make it short. I'm in agreement with what Rich said. I have just a few comments.
I agree with Commissioners Strain and Caron, I don't believe this system's broke. I think it's been a
Page 51
May 21, Jo~ 2
long time, a lot of thoughts gone into the LDC. We have a set of criteria. It's worked before.
We come before you with the evidence. You look at it. It's hashed out. Members from the public
can speak, and you decide. We have the criteria we go by.
And I think that system works fine and I don't see reasons for change at this time. I mean, we can
micromanage things to death and put more rules and codes on the book, but I don't think it's going to serve
any purpose.
Just a couple of things. The illustration that Mr. Klatzkow said about the one thing proceeding out
more than 25 percent, you know, before we even come here, the county has a rule. When you get a
building permit, you have to prove -- you have to show them first the DEP and the Corps of Engineers
permit. So those already have been attained.
In the DEP, the state permit, they will not give you a permit if you go out more than 25 percent of
the navigable waterway. So that criteria, which is also in the BDE application, that's there too. But that has
to be met or we don't even get a DEP permit. Without a DEP pernlit we don't pull a county building
permi t.
So that is kind of set in stone. So we can't go out way exceeding on the one criteria and say well,
we met all the rest of them so give us a permit, because we'll never get a state permit. So the point there is
moot.
We've put a lot of time and a lot of the clients' money into preparing these applications. And
everything is looked at. And what we bring to you we feel is the real situation. And it's given to you, it's
given to staff. They pore through the criteria, and it comes to you. And I think the system works, and I
don't see any need for change at this time.
If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, just a comment. And I've listened to it now from Richard and I see
the county staff at times nodding their head in agreement with you guys.
I'm sure that when County Attorney Klatzkow used his example of a dock going across the water,
he was trying to show a point. Not physically saying that's how someone would apply for something. The
point simply is that if we feel there's an overriding public safety, health or welfare concern to anything that
comes through this board, I don't care if it's a dock or what it is, we certainly have a right to vote against
that for whatever reasons we want to express. And I think that applies to docks. And I think that was the
intent of what Mr. Klatzkow was trying to use as an example, not to take the example and say, well, this is
impossible to do. I think everybody knows it's impossible to do it, but it's just that kind of impossibility or
any kind of other thing that could come along that would have an absolutely detrimental impact that we
have a right to weigh on. That was the intent, I think. It was a concept, not --
MR. SCOFIELD: And I understand that. I said that but, you know, that's what's been going on.
I've been doing this for many years and the system has worked. You all look at that (sic) situations and
that's what you make your decisions on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the system's fine, and I do think that for areas that have specific
needs beyond the system, that's what we have overlays for, and that should be where we -- hopefully this
may go.
Go ahead, Mr. --
MR. SCHMITT: Can I just ask a question, and I want to follow up, because you said if you fInd
there's a health, safety, welfare. The only thing we as staff would want to know is your reasoning for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: Because ifthey appeal, that's the kind of information we present to the board, and
we present any evidence to the contrary. So that -- and staff doesn't choose sides, all we do is present the
facts, your position, we present to the board any infonnation in regards to either our assessment or the
Page 52
1611A2 ,~
May 21,2009
client's.
So that's the only clarification that I would need and my staff needs in regards to any ruling that we
make.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think this board now with this second one, they've been remanded
back, or there's questions about other ones that have appea!td-flefcJre, we know very clearly in the future we
will have to be much more diligent in the way we describe our concerns. And we will.
So with that, we'll look for the next public speaker. Thank you, Rocky.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, just one last comment.
You know, it always comes up on the drafts of boat. And I was just talking to Rich a minute ago.
The criteria, you know, does not confine the drafts of boats. Now that -- if that wants to get into an
overlay or something in another area to specifics to a community, that's another thing.
But, you know, boat sizes and drafts like I said, you can lay up a 60-foot boat along someone's
property withdrawing who knows how much water. Those are not situations that are, you know, addressed
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, for the sake oftime, I'm certainly not going to debate that with
you, but I want you to know I disagree.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that --
MR. SCOFIELD: I know you do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- who is the next public speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Robbins.
MS. ROBBINS: I would like to cede my time to Bruce Burkhard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard.
MR. BURKHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Burkhard,
and I'm the Zoning Committee Chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
Originally I thought that I would be here talking to you about the conflict between using a checklist
and taking all the authority away from the board. And it seems that as things have progressed, everybody is
pretty happy with the current situation and the fact that we're not going to be using these criteria as a total
checklist, that you folks are going to be able to use your experience and discretion and rule on any specific
extension issue. So I'm pleased with that.
I think, Mark, that you have a great idea as far as adding some criteria for the overlay for our
particular specific area. Because we do have a lot of problems. And it seems that we're sort of a target area
for developers and speculators, and that what happens is that we get people moving into the area, they buy
a somewhat marginal lot, I think we had an example ofthat very recently, and then they try to add value to
the lot by coming here and asking for dock extensions or boathouses or whatever. They add value, they
make money, they run, they leave, and the neighborhood is left with the results. And sometimes bad
results. We end up with excessively long docks.
We had a situation when I first got involved with the neighborhood association, we had a neighbor
that had a very marginal lot and what he did was he came here and he asked for a 60-foot dock extension.
And by God, he got it. And there was no real good reason that he needed it. He claimed that he couldn't
get his boat up and down whenever he wanted to. Well, none of us can, we're dependent on the tides to a
certain extent. And we're also dependent -- even if we tried to get out with a low tide situation, we probably
wouldn't be able to get out through the channel at certain times.
So what I'm saying is that I think that we need to be looking specifically at our area and see if we
can come up with some better criteria or maybe some additional criteria that will help us out in our area so
Page 53
,':'.;
"
. ~
lA2
May 21, 2009
that we minimize and maybe get rid of some of these excessive speculation situations and undesirable
visually (sic) situations as well. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I would hope that -- I know you know your commissioner real
well, and I would hope that maybe if you expressed your concern for the overlay to him and possibly he
gets together with staff to see what it would take, I certainly think this commission would entertain--
thoroughly like to review that idea and see it move forward. I think it would be a benefit to a lot of people,
including those in your area.
When you mix everything in with the county as a whole, it's real hard to find exceptions.
MR. BURKHARD: Oh, I understand. Yeah, I know particularly dO\\-TI in Marco Island and the
Aisles area, that there are real shallow water problems.
And that's not our problem. In most cases we can get our boats in virtually up to the seawalls.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. BURKHARD: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker, B. J. Savard-Boyer.
MS. SA V ARD-BOYER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here simply because it is a boat dock
thing, and for the last 10 years I've been speaking to you about boat docks. And it seems like we keep
going over the same thing, the same thing.
So to put it in the overlay I think is an excellent idea.
And going back to the why 20 feet? In the Vanderbilt area, as you know, I don't know if you all are
aware of the fact that we don't have really deep waters back there. And at one time to get out to Wiggins
Pass, Turkey Bay did quite a zigzag through there. And maybe when it was 20 feet it was for smaller boats
that wouldn't have knee deep water. So going back over the years, maybe that was the reason 20 feet was
it.
Now when someone wants -- why do they need more than a 20-foot dock? For a bigger boat? And
as Bruce said, to add value to their property? Why don't we get into why do they need it? If they need it
because it's shallow up by their seawalL that's ditferent. But why else do they need another five feet, other
than having a five-foot longer boat?
So I think we need to put it into the overlay. And again, thank you again and again and again for all
your time that you put into this. I'm sorry it's always us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I hope that we can see that happen with your overlay. I think
that would be helpful to a lot of people and expedite a lot of processes we have here.
So with that in mind, with that said, any other comments or any other concerns from the Planning
Commission on this particular issue?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I wanted to bring up one thing that I didn't earlier and that is
that the code says boat dock facilities slant boats -- I mean dock facilities slant boat (sic). It limits the boat
to 20 feet as well as it does the dock facilities. So it is carried in the code that the boat length is limited.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schitfer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, could you put that on the overhead a second real quick?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, this isn't a debate. Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And. you know, maybe when they wrote that what they really had
in mind was like a four, five-foot dock parallel with the seawall and then a boat sitting out of that 15 feet.
Nobody envisioned davits and where we've gone from there.
Page 54
- ....
16/1'A2
May 21,2009"-
f~.4
This thing up at the top, see where it says the Planning Commission shall? When I read that, I
realized I may have been wrong. Because what that's really telling me is that I do use those criteria, I shall
base my decision on those criteria, I obviously have the ability to do conditions and stuff. So I think, you
know, that got dropped in the recodification.
But the game -- the fairness -- you know, it's contrary to my position. But the fairness was that if it
was there before, it's got to come forward if it's causing a problem. Because we didn't change the code at
that time, we just reorganized it.
And that's not even saying health, safety and welfare, that's saying the criteria. So I wonder if it
would be smart to put that back in and then we move on with it and we know what this is and what this
isn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I think all that's happened is we have -- we still do this. We still
listen to the criteria, we still weigh it in by the criteria, but as the County Attorney says, we can interject
common sense. That's all he's saying by public health, safety and welfare, what it is is common sense.
And I think the criteria evaluation is subjective enough that the staff may not look at it in one way,
but we may have an issue that's another practical concern that we can interject into it. I don't know why we
would want to change that, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the reason it bothers me the most is because we have
looked at some boat docks and we have what I think injected common sense. You know, the Ben Nelson
one is the one that triggers the most, not the Monte Carlo. And there was problems there. They were going
way out into the water, they were blocking the can -- we did all those things, we said all those things, and it
ended up being -- you know, even after the memo that I had to write, it ended up being something just
ridiculed, bang, you know, 5-0, it's over.
So, you know, let's not play the game anymore, let's just do -- let's just play with it like a checklist.
I think the point Rich is making, right, they have to enter into this process with some expectation of
fairness. And my opinion would be just make it something that staff reviews. If a neighbor has a concern,
they can appeal staff to this board and we can check their homework. Other than that, our hands are
somewhat tied by the scoring.
The draft situation as to the depth, if you read it, it's -- the general depth of the length and type of
draft as the petitioner described. It's not even what's suitable for the neighborhood, it's what he wants. Ifhe
wants the Queen Mary, he puts it in the application, can fit it within his property dimensions, nothing we
can say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think there's plenty we can say, Brad, but I guess it's a
meaning of interpretation. I think the whole panel may just weigh in then.
Does anybody -- what's the consensus of this panel? I'll look to you all, by raise of hands, do we
want to see the code left as it is with the interpretation provided to us by our County Attorney? All those in
favor of that, just raise your hand and say aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those who'd like to see it changed?
Page 55
1'A 2
May 21, 2009
~....~ 0: :>
i'
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I at this point would like it to become something that staff takes
care of solely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd like to see a change.
And Mr. Murray, you would like to see it changed?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure what I want to see, because I've been thinking about
this for a lot of time here, and quite frankly I am concerned that because of this one area that we are going
to go forward and create problems.
Why don't we leave it the way it is? The only question I will raise is what Commissioner Coyle
raised about multiple units. One of the criteria relates to multiple units as opposed to single boat docks.
And should that have its O~TI area? It doesn't comport. You know what I'm referring to?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know what you're referring to, and I don't know where -- I don't
know of an instance where that one's really come up as an issue. It's again back to my -- I really like the
philosophy if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I happen to like your suggestion, and I think that would solve 99.9
percent of the problems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I understand what Commissioner what's his face down there is
saymg.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's his face?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I had a mental problem for a moment. Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That happens to lot to me, too.
Well, I think the consensus is we accept the County Attorney's and the county staffs consensus to
this, with the clarifications we got today, and we move fonvard leaving the language like it is.
If there's a possibility of an overlay, hopefully the Vanderbilt people will approach their
commissioner who then can kind of see something happen through the county staff and maybe something
happen that way. I think that would be good for Vanderbilt Beach area.
With that in mind, we'll move on to the rest of the agenda.
There's no new business listed.
Any other public comment?
With that I'll entertain a motion to -- oh, Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: One issue. Future planning. You all should have gotten or will be receiving your
LDC booklet for the sign code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about that in the beginning.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mentioned to everybody it's going to be 8:30 next Tuesday, June 2nd, so
be about two weeks. And we're going to start with a working document on page by page.
MR. SCHMITT: Everybody got it, hopefully. It should have gone out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by nobody. I'll second it.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 56
16 I MaJ2~2609
,...~
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're done, we're out of here. Thank you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe
Chair at 11 :49 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
p~~:rf:Jr~
M~ STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on {~J I r-l c 1
Presented v' or as corrected
,as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 57
____",._;W;_"*"_"';,__._~,_, "'Il''''''~''______''''''__
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
PT OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE MEETING
OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
June 2, 2009
16 I' 1 " 2 ~
Jdlle 2, 2009
RECEIVED
JUL 1 3 2009
./
Board of County Commissioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
Chairman:
Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron (Absent)
Karen Homiak
Tor Kolf1at (Absent)
Paul Midney (Absent)
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolf1ey
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager
Susan Istenes, Zoning Manager
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item#:
Page 1
=;cpies to:
l' 1 A? f'
r "1une'2: 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 2nd meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission. This is a special meeting, one item on the agenda only, and that's for
the review of the rewritten sign ordinance with the intention of free speech issues to be addressed.
Before we start, would you all please rise to -- not sworn in by the court reporter, but to pledge
allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to do the roll call.
Mr. Vigliotti, you've --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
Mr. Eastman is absent.
Commissioner Kolflat is absent.
Commissioner Schiffer is here.
Commissioner Midney is absent.
Commissioner Caron is absent.
Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti, present.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's you.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's me. I said present.
I'm sorry, Commissioner Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You actually said I was here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I said you were here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was waiting for him to say here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think I'm here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolt1ey?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Present.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob.
Okay. The one issue on today's agenda is the sign ordinance, and it's not a re\vrite of a development
standards as much as it is a -- trying to address the constitutionality issues that were raised a long time ago
in a lawsuit.
And it's my understanding that one of the legal experts of highest regard in the country helped us
rewrite these. And Susan, is that correct?
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director.
Yes. Dan Mandelker, you met him previously, he is a professor at the School of Law, Washington
University in St. Louis, and has very highly regarded credentials in that area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe the county attorney's office worked with him hand-in-hand
to get to where we are today?
MR. WRIGHT: That's correct. For the record, Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney.
We worked hand-in-hand, and also with Catherine and Diana to get through this. And he was real
helpful, but we were there to support him in any way.
C.~AIRMAN STRAIN: And out of that we've got the rewrite with us today. But in the back we
have a matrix, and there's two pages on the -- towards the end of the matrix that I believe are where you
Page 2
16/
1 Jr1A,~9
guys still differ in what the Doctor recommends and what the county attorney's office or staff believe we
can probably still leave in the code or write in a way that both of you just aren't in complete agreement. Is
that a fair statement?
MR. WRIGHT: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I went over that all is because the intent for today's
meeting is not so much to get into the distances, the setbacks and all those kind of issues, but it's purely a
freedom of speech issue, which is more of a legal issue than any of us are probably versed in. And I wanted
to make it right off the get-go that we should be heading in that direction in our discussions today.
And with that, I'll turn everything over to Susan, who I -- and Susan is going to probably moderate
the questions. We'll take -- we'll do what we've done in the past, we'll go through the working document,
and we go through those a few pages at a time and ask questions. Then when we get done with that, I
would like us to address the matrix page. There's two pages at the very end that there's still disagreement
on. And then after that, if there's anything else, we'll just bring it on the table.
But that's kind of the direction I saw today. And if that doesn't have any objections from this panel,
then we'll just move down that path.
And I want to start out also by thanking staff for the layout and the presentation they provided us
with today. It's much better to follow than the last one that we had.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: True.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And working from a working document makes us all understand where
we should be and how the pages are turned. So that's a real good format and we thank you for putting it
back in order like that.
So with that Susan, it's all yours.
MS. ISTENES: Okay, thank you. Good morning. As Commissioner Strain noted, I think my role is
going to be more of an emcee. In other words, I'll take your questions, field your questions. If I can answer
them, I will. But more than likely, I'll be turning it over to this team here who has worked very hard and
very closely for a long time with our consultant, Dan Mandelker.
And our responsibilities today really, as you outlined, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure that the
provisions of the code that are content based are removed and establish a content neutral code. We want to
ensure that commercial and noncommercial speech is lawfully treated and doesn't infringe upon First
Amendment rights.
This was as a result of a lawsuit that was filed against the county that was included in your packet,
so I won't go into that there, but that is essentially why we are here. We are not here to modify the code in
terms of number of signs, square footage area, height, the development standards provisions. Weare really
here to talk about the language of the code and to achieve those objectives of making it more First
Amendment and 14th Amendment friendly.
There are -- I think you understand how the packet is organized. I appreciate you recognizing that. I
know the team worked a long time and worked hard on trying to get that more understandable. Because as
you recognize, we are striking out the entire sign code and readopting it. And so the working document you
have is the document that we are recommending to the Board of County Commissioners and to you as well.
And that's the document we will be reviewing today.
There are a couple of instances where the First Amendment issues aren't addressed, and that we are
looking to you for some guidance and we have put in there for some clarification. And I'll explain those
right now real briefly before we get into it, because I just don't want you to be surprised because it's
different than, like I said, the First Amendment issues that we're dealing with.
The first is on hand-held signs on Pages 2 and 20. This is currently not addressed in the code.
We've had these occurring in our community. We have discussed them with our consultant and with the
Page 3
.w. Ir'IIIiI'I,_~'~_' . _ ~ ..__.~
n
.,;~ A~ ,4
1 "~
une 2, 2009
county attorney's office. There's some freedom of expression issues expressed by our consultant. Weare at
somewhat of an -- I don't want to sayan impasse, but not sure exactly how to handle these, so we thought
we would bring this up for you for your input. along with the county attorney's input as a discussion item
today.
The second is on Page 16, Item 4.D. It has to do with wall signs that are internal to shopping
centers, like, for example, a mall. A few months ago that issue was brought to my attention as an
interpretive issue. Rather than rendering an interpretation, I went ahead and just put my decision into the
code, because otherwise we would be living under my interpretation versus -- until the code was amended,
so I went ahead and put that in. I want to call it to your attention because it is different than the First
Amendment issues.
But it has to do with the difference between a wall sign internal and to a mall, for example, versus
visible to the street. And when we get there, we can talk about it. I'm not prepared to talk about it at the
moment. But I just want to call it to your attention. That's Page 16, Item 4.0, if you'll note that.
A correction I need to make on Page 13. little letter f should be 12 square feet and not 16 square
feet. That got n that was in a previous version and that never got corrected. So if you would correct that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan. I'm sorry, what page was that again?
MS. ISTENES: That is Page 13, little letter f.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it.
MS. ISTENES: And it should be 12 square feet.
And last, Diana just brought this to my attention this morning, it was 5.06.10 on Page 24, C.t. This
is -- I'll call it kind of an economic proposed amendment. Code enforcement -- and the reason I'm calling it
that is because under the current code, if you have an abandoned sign that's conforming for 90 days or
more, then by law after 90 days it has to be removed.
And what we're finding in the community is that with a lot of vacancies in these shopping centers
and things like that, that is becoming more common. And as long as the sign's conforming, at this point in
time we don't see any reason why it needs to be removed after 90 days, so that's kind of what I'll call my
economic relief amendment. And it also makes it a little bit easier for code enforcement to enforce. So it's
to the benefit of the sign O\Nner and the property owner and not really to anybody else from a cost
perspective.
So those are the only differences. Other than that, I would just request if you would, just direct your
questions to me and I will farm them out. And I'm ready to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, A couple quick announcements. Members of the public that are
here, we're going to move through the documents a few pages at a time. The most relevant way for us to
understand your concerns is if you have comments on the pages as we go through them. So I'd rather
operate a little informally today. Ifwe ask for any comments from Pages 1 through 5, for example, and
you've got comments, raise your hand and let me know by doing that. And then after the panel speaks, I'll
ask you to come up and use the microphone and express your concern about the section. That way your
timing and your discussion's relevant to the area we're discussing and we don't get lost in it.
And second of all, I'd like to thank those wonderful ladies up on the fourth floor who have
provided us with a mug of coffee here today. It sure does help us talk faster so Cherie' can type faster. But
thank you, ladies, that was very nice.
Okay, Susan, with that, we'll just move to the tab called working document. And it starts on Page
1, and there's definitions that go to Page 4. So let's work through those first.
Anybody have any questions on the definition sections, Page 1 through 4?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Susan. on animated signs, we're kind of expanding that
Page 4
16/
lA2
June 2, 2009
"i
definition. And one small concern I have is that level four notes that -- the video displays. But wouldn't
essentially all four of those have the potential of having like an LCD display? But is the intent of level four
that there's actually movement in the picture on that? Is --
MS. ISTENES: Yes, that's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, you could have an LCD showing a static --
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and it can be a level one.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. Well, I've got more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad, keep at it, and we'll just move down the line. Pages 1
through 4 is where we're at.
MS. ISTENES: Can I expand on that a little bit?
We actually -- electronic signs, since we're here, and I'll just bring it to your attention, I meant to do
it in the intro, there's going to be some issues with that. And we've been talking with the county attorney's
office. And I think at this point what we're proposing, or at least our last discussions are, with these
electronic signs is to look at grandfathering in existing time and temperature signs. Because we are
removing the phrase time and temperature signs, because that's dictating speech and we can't do that.
But the question of electronic signs has come up both in our discussions with the outside sign folks
and with our consultant. And I think at this point, correct me ifI'm wrong, Jeff, we're inclined to
recommend to you that we just grandfather in existing time and temperature signs and deal with electronic
signs at a future amendment cycle when we have what I would call a -- whenever you get into amending
the sign code, it's always a very critical thing for the community and you always want community
involvement to the extent that I would recommend that the board propose a working committee consisting
of residents, business owners, folks in the sign industry and that sort of thing. And so if we're going to look
at changing our electronic signs in the future, that's how I'd recommend we go. So I think at this point we're
looking at simply grandfathering in existing time and temperature signs and leaving the -- taking out the
level one animated sign reference that we have in this current draft. So I'll just throw that out on the table
for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- for example, the time and temperature, you would try
to make it a level one, but the 15 seconds would be an issue. So you couldn't have a secondhand on it, so to
speak .
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Changeable copy. Why does that have to be done
manually? In other words, we do live in a world where -- and why would we encourage essentially a pretty
ugly sign when there's a lot of good-looking signs available that are electronic?
MS. ISTENES: Again, this is what we have currently. And I think that again goes back to my last
comment that if we're looking to deviate from the standards that we have now, that I think needs to be
fleshed out through what I would call a regular sign amendment cycle with a working interest group to
contemplate that and bring forward a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what we're saying is that essentially the typical gas station
price sign, which is obviously changing, probably 15 seconds is going to be a problem with them. It has to
be done manually still.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Next question is on Page 2, the directory sign. Obviously we
know what those are, that's a list of businesses that are within a thing. But we don't really say that. And I
Page 5
'IIlIr""~__,llJIllIU'" 1lI1li1 W<<Pll'_;'''_''';',,__~~.,~w. till ...
16/
~
:Ii.-I_\
,June 2- 2009
,
~ t'
guess that's your context issue. But, I mean, when you look at the definition of it, it's actually based upon
where it's located. It doesn't really state what's allowed on it or what's not allowed on it, does it? Or would
that be assumed --
MS. ISTENES: That's what we're trying to get away from in addressing these constitutional issues
is -- do you want to add to that, Catherine or Diana? Am I accurate on that?
MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am, that's it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially I could say I have a directory sign, it's at the
beginning, but I could put the logo of n I could put whatever I want on that sign.
MS. ISTENES: That is pretty much how this whole code is going. We are not dictating the types of
speech or the types of information you can put on a sign for the most part. Obviously obscene wording and
issues like that are a different story.
But correct, in the past we've had n for example, we've dictated what you can put on a sign. In
other words, you can put the business name, the shopping center name, that sort of thing. We're getting
away from that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the intent of this sign is to be a directory of the businesses that
are in there, obviously hence the directory sign. But that's not the requirement anymore. You could put the
-- I could call it a directory sign and put whatever I want on it. There's no limitation as to what I can put on
it.
MS. ISTENES: I'll let -- Jeff, if you don't mind.
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, thanks. Again, Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney.
One overarching theme for this revision effort has been get rid of content. We had problems with
content in the lawsuit. And the problem with the content was we had prohibitions in our sign code and
exemptions in our sign code based on content.
So when we met with this professor, everything he said was get rid of content-based distinctions.
And the reason that you want to stay away from content-based distinctions is because if you get in
court and you're before a judge, there's a higher level of scrutiny. You have to have a compelling
government interest for making that distinction.
And in this case we can't make that argument that we have a compelling justification for making
the content-based distinction. You'll see that throughout this.
And a lot of our disagreements with the Professor are where we said well, we realize, for example,
permit numbers on the bottom of the sign, that's a content-based regulation. But we looked at that and we
thought, well, risk-wise it's probably not going to be challenged.
Second of all, I don't believe that speech. It's not a form of expression, it's a government label to
identify the signs. So there's certain areas where we differed from the Doctor, but there's reasons for
differing from the Doctor when it came to those content-based questions.
So I just want to highlight that this is going to come up a lot and the content is what we focused on
getting rid of, content-based distinctions in this whole effort.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think like in this case this is a directory sign. So by that
logic, if we were going to put a stop sign, we don't have to use the word "stop" on it. Because that would--
MS. ISTENES: Traffic control signs are treated differently under the law, that's my understanding
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wasn't serious, so I don't need a serious response.
Okay, let's go to sign n the definition of sign on four. In some of the past things there was actually
some verbiage put at the end. And in going through the history of it, I've been following along, that actually
starts to limit signs in terms of -- and I guess it goes back to the interior of outside malls and stufl.
Why was all that taken off? Or would that be a good place to start to, you know, discuss whether
Page 6
'1,
/!
r,_
lAc
June 2, 2009
signs in courtyards of malls and stuff are actually governed by this regulation?
MS. ISTENES: I guess I'm not clear on your question what--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in the past some of the drafts of this have had some
verbiage. I think -- let me just -- I'm not sure which one came first. But it would say it was added which is
visible from any street, right-of-way, sidewalk, alley or public property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's still language like that in other sections of the code, by the way.
The working document. I highlighted some of that myself.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the intent was there in the past that that would not be
considered a sign. In other words --
MS. ISTENES: I think Catherine understands what you're getting at, so I'll direct it to her.
MS. F ABACHER: For the record, Catherine Fabacher, Zoning Department.
What you saw, Commissioner, was an earlier attempt by the consultant because he wanted to take
out menu signs, and then there was another kind of sign that we wanted to take out, and he said originally
that if we put in the definition of sign that it had to be from a public road or a public right-of-way,
otherwise it wasn't a sign. But staff and the attorney's office talked about that and we thought there were too
many unintended consequences. And we open too much up by saying if you can't be seen, you're not a sign.
So staff has backed off on that. We have put it in that one section for courtyards or interiors of commercial
developments, but other than that we did not want to open up the definition to unintended consequences.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But it did seem -- and obviously if the consultant felt that
way, I kind of agree with him that it is not fair to regulate signs within the courtyards. But I never saw in --
where in here does it show that the courtyard sif,'11s aren't regulated by you?
MS. ISTENES: That was on what I referenced in my opening remarks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That says you can get one additional sign.
MS. ISTENES: That was on Page 16, Item 4.D.
MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Susan.
MS. ISTENES: Did you want to discuss that now or did you want to stick with--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but I think, you know, the concern I had is that made a lot of
sense, that the sign -- I mean, when you look at the general intent of what the sign code does, signs within
somebody's property, not visible from a street or an adjacent property. I wonder why we're controlling that.
And, you know, and Diane and I have had some conversation about this. And in the conversation
it's, for example, if you have a Coastland Mall --
MS. ISTENES: I'm listening.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you have a situation like Coastland Mall, you don't regulate the
signs within that mall area. You take the roof off of it you do. And because you've interpreted exterior signs
to mean inside/outside.
MS. ISTENES: Right. And the change here is to allow the -- not have the signs interior to a mall,
for example, count towards the sign allotment.
Did I restate that correctly, Diana? She says --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, where is that shown?
MS. ISTENES: That is 16.D on--
MS. F ABACHER: Page 16.
MS. ISTENES: Sorry, Page 16.
MS. F ABACHER: 4.0.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I've read that. What that states is that you're allowed
one additional wall sign. Doesn't state that you're not controlling courtyards.
Anyway, we're in the definition section. This topic will come up throughout it.
Page 7
"., ._.""... .' ...... ~ ~__,. I ',"I 'MH!I~"'ll'~"""_e_~"""".,,,.'_,,,"."lI'_;_.' 'IIi'''; ..' ~
161
1 A <Jun~, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Understand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point was is that looking at the consultant's draft, looking
at some of our drafts, it's dropped off. And to me it made sense that we stopped regulating signs that are
totally within private property.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, it was one of those policy issues that, you know, we didn't feel comfortable
making a call on. But practically speaking, I think there was a concern that just because a sign is not visible
from the right-of-way, we were concerned that let's say a big sign that was flapping in the wind posing a
danger would not go through any sort of permitting just because it's not visible from the right-of-way.
In addition, there would be questions of proof as to whether or not it's visible. You know, if a tree's
covering it somebody could argue, well, you can't see it from the right-of-way and what angle do you look
from. And so we figured rather than regulate it within the definition, we'd go within the code and try to
address it there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, both of those are easy to overcome. First of all, any
structure in Florida is going to get a building permit. So the waving in the breeze is not something that the
sign code even has to address. And then we could obviously regulate it where buildings are what's blocking
it, not landscape.
Okay, that's my directory questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Some of these questions are obviously going to come up as
Commissioner Schiffer said later, but I had an issue with directional signs. For instance, where -- and it also
has to do with n well, I did a poor job of marking up today. But if a shopping center runs vertical to a major
street, for instance off of 951, that Doug's Buy-Right, there's most of facility, most of the stores there run
vertically and you can't see them from the street.
And I of course was in there eating breakfast and I got hit up about why can't I have a sign that
shows my restaurant that's down at the end of, you know, a number of different stores, and they're
constantly getting zoning coming in and hitting them up. And I was looking through here trying to locate
why they couldn't put a little directional sign up.
I'm not trying to be a zoning person, but trying to direct them to the right people. Simply the name
of the establishment with an arrow that says they are down at the end.
MS. ISTENES: I'm probably not going to address it because it's not part of what we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand.
MS. ISTENES: But I would be happy to talk with you off-line about that and we could go over
what the code allows and doesn't allow. And then if that's something that you want to recommend to the
board to consider for a future amendment, we're going to take notes to that effect too. And then we would --
we can note that in the executive summary to the board. We would just do that in the separate section so
that they understand that those were issues that were brought up outside of the scope of what we're doing
today.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right. And that's why I couldn't find them here in the
directional end of it.
And also, I -- the -- where there are cars that are parked all over town with names of a company on
it. Great looking cars, that kind of thing. That's not coming up here either; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no. That's not likely.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So. I mean, I'm just saying that -- I'm not saying it's right or
wrong, I just -- something came to mind with that. Is that under the freedom of speech kind of thing?
MS. ISTENES: That -- Diana, I'm going to look to you to address. Not necessarily for the freedom
of speech issue, but I think from the -- for mobile billboards. Are you in agreement with me, Catherine, or
Page 8
161
1A?
June 2, 2009
/.I . _
are you --
MS. F ABACHER: I wanted to ask -- I'd like to ask the County Attorney, because I believe before
my time there was a big problem with this. And there's some history behind it. Am I correct, Jeff
Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ifwe're talking about Strictly Nolan (sic)?
MS. FABACHER: Yes -- Truly Nolan.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not False Nolan.
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess it's not so effective since I got their name wrong.
And they have their antique cars with their name on it they park different places.
Look, it's my position as County Attorney, why pick a fight --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I know.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- it just doesn't matter.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm leading into something, and that is where people have then
trucks with (sic) the back ofthe pickup is loaded with a sign on it that may be an A-frame type of sign, they
may want to fall under the same issue. And that's what I've seen those sitting around, and those now start
causing damage in -- or danger in a storm situation where the cars do not. And again, I started going back
and forth reading this trying to figure out --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dave, in the definitions, is there a section in the defmitions that address
the issue so we can focus the point you're trying to make on some specific language in this ordinance?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I guess possibly not in the definition. But it just moves on,
I'm trying to move forward to a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then when we get to that page --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let's do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- will you be able to -- because if you can show us where the language in
this ordinance is concerning based on the comment you're making, we can probably figure out a way to fix
it. I think that would help.
MS. ISTENES: The definition for mobile billboard is along the lines I think of the issue you're
bringing up, that's on Page 2. You might want to take a look at that. That is actually the whole crux of the
lawsuit as well. So I know the county attorney's office has been working really closely with Dan Mandelker
on that, just to make sure our language is --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Dave's question then relating to that definition, mobile billboard, ifhe
were to ask you can that be a car that's permanently parked somewhere with the signage on the side of it, is
that considered a mobile billboard sign, or does the car actually have to be moving? So I think that may get
his question relevant to the definitional page that we're on.
MR. WRIGHT: I'd say yes, it does fall under the definition of mobile billboard on Page 2. There's
nothing in there that says it specifically has to be moving.
In fact, we've been in touch with City of Naples Attorney Bob Pritt, and he's mentioned that this is
something that they've had problems with. And I think I'm comfortable with this definition covering that
specific concern. But in the event we need to look at this further, we could probably hash it out and work
with the City of Naples and make sure that we got it right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I think where we refer in the document -- there's 32 pages of this
document. Where we refer in the document to mobile billboard, if that reference doesn't -- has the concerns
that you're expressing, then that's when we should -- that would be a good point to bring up at that time and
then we can see if we can resolve it. Because that's where it now lies.
So if there's a semi-truck parked in the field where the side of the whole truck says Eat at Joe's,
Page 9
't;'___'_'_'"~_'~_t""__'_____
6 I
n ~.\
'-\ j ;.\ ;>:.}'
. ;/\ '~.- June 2 2009
,
"'-:,;,A
\-l'~
even though Joe's isn't inside that semi-truck and he's in the middle offield nowhere, this definition will
take care of that. And then where that definition is addressed in the body of the document is the language
on how to regulate it. Is that --
MR. WRIGHT: Absolutely_ I think it's on Page 20. And it's a very clear, concise regulation. Those
are prohibited.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then before you go -- okay, let's wait till we get there.
Anymore questions on definitions from anybody?
David?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- just a small one. And it's back on side. And it just -- JeffW., the
use of the word representation, it says any visual representation. Shouldn't that just be presentation? The
third word in. I mean, what's it representing? I mean, what is n
MS. F ABACHER: Page 4, Jeff. the definition of signs.
MR. WRIGHT: I think that whether we have representation or presentation probably won't have a
lot of substantive difference in it's over in a courtroom. But I'm happy to remove the R-E and make it a
presentation. I see what you're saying, there's a difference in the definition of those two words,
representation and presentation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, representation has the illusion of something else not
there, so, I mean, which doesn't make sense to me. Small point.
MS. ISTENES: I don't have any objection changing it. I don't think the consultant will either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any comments from the public on the first four pages of
definition?
Sir, come on up, state your name for the record and see what you've got to say.
MR. BOYD: Good morning. My name is Michael Boyd. I'm the license holder and president of
Signs And Things.
The only question I have is -- it's referred to on Page 17 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it about a definition?
MR. BOYD: -- but it's not in the definitions. And it's under canopy, quote blade sign. We have a
number of these in some new developments. Mercato, the Collection at Vanderbilt. I'd like to have it put in
the definition.
Because some of those projects do not have a, quote, canopy, but they require a blade sign
projecting from the building, which clients can see from either direction as they're walking down a
sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One of staff want to comment?
MS. ISTENES: Sure.
I think to remain content neutral we could certainly put in the definition under canopy sign
essentially defining it as a sign located underneath the canopy, or similar. I'll look to Diana for wording
later, but I don't have a problem defining that. And that's essentially how we would do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, great thank you.
Okay, we're -- let's go to the next -- we'll begin the actual text of the document. And let's just try to
take a couple pages at a time.
Pages 5 and 6, does anybody have any questions on Pages 5 and 6?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the purpose of intent. And again, I'm going to go back
Page 10
1A2
June 2, 2009
~:.
to the concern about the courtyards. Where in this purpose do we get the reason why we're controlling signs
within private courtyards that certainly aren't visible to the street? In other words, this is definitely a
definition discussing the aesthetic appeal of the county, minimum control. It just seems that this is kind of
the D.N.A. what we should be doing through this whole chapter. And it's surprising me that we're in public
property not essentially affecting the county.
MS. ISTENES: This -- I'll just comment to say this is a general statement so -- regarding the sign
code as a whole, the intent of the sign code.
Where we get into the details are later in the document. I would not recommend that we start
referencing details in here. This is just essentially a statement that says what the sign code is intended to do
in general.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's exactly my point. There's no detail I'm looking
at, I'm just wondering where from this do we get the impression that we can control these private
courtyards? Because this is essentially discussing the county, it wants --
MS. ISTENES: Well, aesthetics is not just something that's visible from the road. But, I mean,
that's a philosophical discussion I think we probably don't want to get into here. So I'm just -- my comment
is essentially this is just a general statement. I'd be happy to address courtyards when we get here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't we--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but we'll come back to the statement when we get there. I'm
fine.
MS. ISTENES: Let me just call your attention, because we're getting into the areas where you see
red. And where you see red, we're referring then back to your matrix two. And these are areas -- and I
wanted to preface just so you have a little bit ofbackf,Jfound. For example, some ofthe issues like permit
numbers and open house signs and official address numbers are actually things that the Board of County
Commissioners had directed us to do. So we just didn't want to kind of blow them off and remove them,
even though the reason they're in red is because our consultant didn't necessarily agree with their inclusion
in the document as he's concerned over again the constitutional free speech issues.
So that's why they're highlighted in red, so you can easily refer back to matrix two, and then we'll
need to have some discussion with you on those issues as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do is get through the document and then we'll just go to
the matrix and we can flip back and solve the matrix one item at a time then, if that works.
MS. ISTENES: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have any more questions on the first two -- pages -- or Pages
5 and 6?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just one more thing.
Up at D, double-face signs, there's a definition. I think someone's going to have to go through here
and boldface definitions. That's one thing that's missing. Should we point out the ones we catch or just--
MS. ISTENES: No, I wrote there we'll boldface the definitions and then we'll go back and do a
search and do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know I raised this question the last time, but I just can't remember
whether -- I don't feel as though we got a satisfactory answer.
In the bottom of Page 6, open-ended signs. Signs may only be displayed on supervised open house
days. I questioned that and I'm still not sure what that really means, supervised. Who supervises it? Does it infer that realtors are involved or that there must be a person in the unit?
MS. ISTENES: Catherine will answer that for you.
Page 11
161
j~ ';\, ?
t ( t <JiII.,;, ..:.,~~)'"
""'~
~
June 2, 2009
MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, I think we worked for a year and a half, I know Joe will tell you, with
Mr. Bill Poteet and Ellie Krier, because we had such a proliferation of these open house signs. So in this
case what it means is you can't have a lock box on a house and then put open house signs around, you had
to actually have realtors showing the house to use the sign is what the intent of that was.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. Does a person who does not use a realtor and still puts an
open house sign up, that's considered supervised? In other words, the owner of the home.
MS. FABACHER: Yeah, he's--
MS. ISTENES: If it was --
MS. F ABACHER: -- showing it.
MS. ISTENES: -- for sale by owner, certainly, I would certainly consider that supervised.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the idea here is to make sure someone's in the unit?
MS. F ABACHER: Right.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm comfortable. Thank you. As long as we understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Pages 5 and 6. Do we have any other questions on those
two pages?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything from the audience?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 7 and 8, there's a lot ofred on 7 and 8. It introduces the open
house signs.
Are there any questions on Pages 7 and 8?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 9 and 10.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, on Page 9, number nine, so just to get this straight, anybody
with a residentially zoned lot, assuming there's no homeoV\-'llers association with further restrictions, would
be allowed to put a two-foot by three-foot sign on their property and write whatever they want, as long as it
isn't commercial?
MS. ISTENES: That is correct. That's a free speech issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that in our code now or is that something --
MS. ISTENES: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're adding that to give anybody -- and the intent ofthat
wasn't for holiday decorations or anything. What if I go out and buy a bigger than that blow-up globe with
Santa in it, am I violating that?
MS. ISTENES: No, you wouldn't be violating that provision.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is holiday decorations and stuff protected? Is it in--
MS. ISTENES: Catherine?
MS. F ABACHER: No, it's been removed because it was content based. And I don't know if they're
actually signs, blow-up Santas.
MS. ISTENES: I don't think--
MS. F ABACHER: I think it's tree speech. It's noncommercial, I believe.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're adding--
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not taking that case.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But wait --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're adding this sign. So what is the -- I mean, since this
Page 12
161
A _~l ,..-
Ii
~~
June 2, 2009
doesn't exist, what is the reason we're doing that, is because the consultant felt everybody with a
residentially zoned lot needs the ability to --
MS. ISTENES: I'm going to ask the Jeffs to explain that, because it does go to constitutional free
speech issue. And I think it's a matter of discriminating between -- but I'll let them --
MR. WRIGHT: This is based on a specific case, a Supreme Court case called the Ladue case. And
it's kind of evolved into where these are called Ladue signs, and you're allowed one per property.
And we went through this decision with the Doctor and he came up with this language. We're
comfortable with it comporting with the Supreme Court decision; that's why we came up with it.
MS. ISTENES: It is actually common in other municipality sign ordinances. I think it was
definitely lacking in ours.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this is allowed as a permanent sign, so go down to the county,
get a structural permit, build it and--
MS. ISTENES: If one's required. In a lot of the signs you'll see -- I mean, an example that comes to
mind for me is when people get the little cardboard signs and they stick watch out for motorcycles, you
know, it's motorcycle season.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Deaf child.
MS. ISTENES: Deaf child or -- yeah. Or some people have Scripture written on small signs in
their yard. I've seen that as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or if you put a sign in your window, Stop The War--
MS. ISTENES: Stop The War, yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- which is really what this comes from. I mean, government shouldn't be
regulating that, that's free speech.
MS. ISTENES: Free speech.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a sign in my driveway that says, Never Mind the Dog, Beware of
Owner. So --
MS. ISTENES: It's your free speech sign. Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good, finally legal.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did see pictures of that dog, Mark, so I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got more hair than the dog has.
Brad, do you have anymore?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm still going.
Okay, I'm past that point.
The mobile billboard thing, if some kids are putting together a float in their driveway, does that
govern that? I mean, it could have noncommercial --
MR. KLATZKOW: There needs to be prosecutorial discretion. It's like you don't cite the little girl
selling lemonade. Technically they might be in violation, but it's a silly thing to do.
When code enforcement actually prosecutes somebody, it's because there's a compelling reason to
do so. We don't prosecute people off of what I would call silly things.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then the other one is 11 down at the bottom. You're
allowed three flags. And then the next statement it says a flag pole not to exceed 30 feet. Is that eliminated
to one flag pole or is that just saying that any of those three flag poles can't be higher than 30 feet?
MS. ISTENES: My understanding is any of them can't be higher than 30 feet. Am I correct on that?
MS. FABACHER: Well, in residential.
MS. ISTENES: In residential, right. Yeah, that's what we're referring to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
Page 13
'---
lA2
June 2, 2009
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, getting back to that issue about Santa, did you take into
consideration that a commercial property may actually also use that as a sign, so to speak, to seek people to
come and purchase things? So does that create an issue for us in any way?
MS. ISTENES: Jeff?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, again, I'd like to think that there would be some discretion. I don't think it
creates an issue for us. I mean, the commercial sign regulations that we have, they would have to comply
with those. And if they put something up there that didn't comply with those, then theoretically we'd have a
code case against them.
I'm not sure specifically what the dimensions of this sign that you're talking about are, but if they
ran afoul of our ordinance, they would be in violation.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And that's fine, because I have no problem as long as the
commercial entity doesn't cause the residential entity to lose something because of its decision. That's the
premise of my question.
So fine, I'm good with that then. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This is going to come up again on Page 20, but I just want to be
clear of this mobile billboard thing. People have cars for sale, like I'm going to go back into the Estates.
There are a lot of construction workers that work in the Estates, they bought lots of toys, and they're
obviously selling their toys these days. That is not legal? For, in other words, an air boat or a car, a truck,
whatever it may be, is that not a legal --
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, that's not a mobile -- I think the Chairman gave the example where you
get yourself a truck and you put on Eat at Joe's and you put it out at the side of the road and Joe's is like two
miles down the road. That's what we're getting at with the mobile billboards. You want to put a for sale
sign on your pickup truck, that's not a mobile billboard.
MS. ISTENES: Right. That wouldn't be considered a mobile billboard under this ordinance. Now,
that may be addressed in other county ordinances, you know, right-of-way issues and things like that, but--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. WelL maybe I should wait until Page 20, but I'm going
to ask it again, even on Page 20, if you've got a truck sitting there and it says Eat at Joe's and there's an
arrow pointing dOVvTI to the commercial establishment, that it's at the end of that and it's a magnetic sign on
the side of a truck, is that legal or not legal? They drive it home every day.
MR. WRIGHT: Under the definition of mobile billboard, I think in that example, the purpose of
the truck is as a truck for transportation, not the display of the sign itself.
What we're trying to get at is those trucks that exist solely for the purpose of advertisement. In the
example that you used, that truck doesn't exist solely for advertisement. You could probably get in it and
drive. So it wouldn't fit the definition of mobile billboard under this ordinance.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So it is allowed.
MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I'm just trying to get clear on it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on Pages 9 and 10. Anybody have any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just one. And Jeff and Jeff, either one of you, the mobile billboard
reference on Page 10, would that now allow us to stop these mobile billboards that caused this whole mess
to our sign code in the first place?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Any questions from the public through Page 10?
Page 14
16 I 1 ~u~e 2, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 11 and 12. Questions on 11 and 12? Brad I look to
you first because you always have questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and actually it is the bottom of 10 because that's the start of
this new section, the small sentence.
I'm not kind of sure what that means. What that means is in a nonresidential district I can have all
the noncommercial signs I want. Do they substitute for an allowable sign?
In other words, ifI'm allowed a wall sign but in lieu of that I put up my favorite quote, does that
remove the ability to do the -- is that what that's saying here, that you can -- you don't have to have only
commercial signs in nonresidential districts; is that what that's saying?
MS. ISTENES: What section are you --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at the bottom of 10 --
MS. ISTENES: Okay, 5.066.04.A?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 04.A, correct.
MS. ISTENES: Noncommercial signs are allowed in all districts and may be substituted for any
sign expressly allowed under this ordinance. And any sign permitted by this ordinance may display a
noncommercial message.
Is that what your concern is?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. ISTENES: And then your specific concern is they can put anything on there?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it does take away from a wall. In other words, in lieu of a
wall sign I chiseled in, you know, no good deed goes unpunished over my doorway--
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that that would remove some of my capabilities of the wall sign.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 11, the -- first of all I think, you know, we're back to
some bolding.
But number two, the intent is not to have moving floodlights, correct? So what you're saying is
non-revolving, yet would I be able to come in and play Philadelphia lawyer and have my sign going -- my
lighting going side to side or up and down, and essentially I'm non-revolving?
MS. ISTENES: As long as there's no motion associated with it, that's my understanding of the
intent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why don't we say that? Because revolving is a circular
motion. And I can think of other motions.
MS. ISTENES: Motionless or something to that effect?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Static is the word I'm thinking.
MS. ISTENES: Static? Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number three, the use of accent lighting. First of all, accent
lighting's defined in the code, which you say in the following language. So what -- can we just bold it and
take out as defined by the Land Development Code?
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Once you bold it, you're telling us that.
MS. ISTENES: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number five, isn't that information that would have been required
Page 15
~-i ~ '14 frA~ 2, 2609
'j I
~
in a building permit anyway? In other words, someone's coming in, he's going to have to have information
from the property owner authorizing him to do that.
MS. ISTENES: Yes, I looked at that myself: thinking that was duplicitous, and I -- no, go ahead,
Diana. Thanks.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Diana Compagnone, Sign Plan Review for the Building Department.
What that's doing is where the property owner of say a strip center or the mall, he is basically
approving the signage for the tenants, and instead of a unified sign plan that we had previously that did not
work. So basically he's policing his own centers. And this way he's aware of what signs are going up. And
ifhe has color restrictions or something that he doesn't want to allow on his center, then he won't sign the
authorization letter.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, this -- in lieu of the permitting process,
you have a process where there's an affidavit that the owner signs stating that this sign's okay.
And when would that come into the process, at the time of permit, or what?
MS. COMPAGNONE: At the time of permit. It's just part of the application.
MS. ISTENES: What we're trying to avoid is somebody coming in and putting up a sign where the
property owner may have further restrictions, for a shopping center, for example, and somebody comes in
independently and pulls a sign that's in conflict with that. then we kind of get in the middle of that. So it's
just putting people on notice that that's required.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good.
How many pages did you say?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just two, 11 through 12 right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, I'm sorry. I just saw one little line.
On number eight you're actually kind of just redefining double-faced signs. In the definition of it it
states what you're stating there; is that right?
MS. ISTENES: Page II, double-faced sign shall be measured by one side only, if both sides
display the same graphics. What's your question on that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is that's also the definition of a double-faced sign. So
what I'm saying, why is that there, just out of -- if you go back to Page 2 and look at double-faced sign, it's
MS. ISTENES: Generally what we're trying to do is not regulate through the definitions. And if
we've done that we ought to take that out of the definition and put that just in the regulations themselves
where they are now, in number eight.
We strive not to regulate through the definitions. It's not always possible, but that's -- but I agree
with you, that is a duplicate.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a double-faced sign, I mean, you're not really regulating it,
you're defining it that it's a sign with the same thing on both sides.
MS. ISTENES: Well, we're putting a definition -- or we're putting a development standard in the
definition and we don't want to do that. It really should stay on Page 1 I. So I would just take your
suggestion a step further and perhaps remove it from the definition, and that would remove the duplication.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: If that's your concern.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's the opposite of my concern. but it solves the same
Page 16
16' 1 A aune2~ 2009
problem, so okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Next two pages will be Pages 13 and 14. Anybody have any
questions on those pages.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew. Why did I know?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess the thing is down on Page B.A, the heights measured
from the nearest public or the private right-of-way -- I'll tell you what, forget that, that makes sense. I
questioned it when I read this, but it's making sense.
Down at G, some ofthe ways these things are described, where for lots of frontage no less than 100
feet but no more than 149.9. I mean, I know what you're trying to say, it's less than 150 feet. So why don't
you use that? Because that does leave a little no man's land of .95 which -- so in other words, in all of these
cases where you're using this fraction, I would just recommend, you know, but less than 150 feet down
below it, but less than 220 feet. Because that's what you're trying to say.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how far do we go on this one, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two pages. We take them two at a time. So it would be 13 and 14.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me come back for 14, let's see if anybody else has a
question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Brad, looks like you're the man.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, the ii. I guess what my question was is, is the ii additional --
you're saying in addition. So essentially you could cancel out what single i is by what happens in ii?
MS. ISTENES: I'd have to contemplate that one a little bit.
Diana, is that something that's jumping off the page for you?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know what I'm saying, Diana? In other words, we're saying
that a ground sign can do this. And then you define a lot size for i. And then you define a lot size for ii.
And I don't think the intent is to build these up, because if that's the case some of them will overlap
in their parameter and you could actually start adding signs.
MS. COMPAGNONE: We didn't change any of that, just for your information. But the first A
through G there are like the overall restrictions for these smaller signs. And then when we go into two ii
and three iii, those are the size limitations for the different lots.
MS. ISTENES: So in other words, the regulations are categorized under each sign, based on the
frontage of the lot, so --
MS. COMP AGNONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the phrase in addition means you also have the
requirement of; is that right?
MS. ISTENES: I think if we took out the word in addition, I think that might--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That might help.
MS. ISTENES: It sounds like you get additional --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Additional signs. That's -- when I read it, I could justify it.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. That makes sense.
MS. F ABACHER: But the point is is the in addition meant that those things have to refer back and
follow the development standards ahead under A through --
MS. ISTENES: Okay, I think Catherine's commenting that in addition means you have to go -- that
Page 1 7
"
r idi .;"'~,
l ~~, k'
jol ll..,.
rI
June 2, 2009
refers back to the A through G development standards. Maybe there's a better word that we could just refer
back to that rather than --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can just circle it and then read it at a different time and just
see if there is a problem there.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else, questions through Page 14'1 Members of the public?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 15 and 16.
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me see. Let's start with 15, number four. Is a -- a tenant
that has more than one unit, is he allowed more than one sign?
MS. ISTENES: Diana?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is four.
MS. COMPAGNONE: If the units are interconnected, then it's really, whether you've got two
units, three units, you've really become n you've combined it and become one unit. So we do treat it that
way, as one combined unit.
And obviously your square footage has increased so your signage size would increase along with
that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your wall length, all that other stuff?
MS. COMP AGNONE: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But I am only allowed one sign. In other words, I can't
come back and say I want n I take three units in a shopping center, I want three smaller signs. Could I
break it up into three anyway?
MS. COMP AGNONE: You can break it up into three as long as you combined it. I'm going to say
we use like an imaginary box that we put in there. And yes, we do count the dead area in between. But it's
where a lot of people will get the three smaller signs and space them out on the unit if they want to that
way.
The code only allows for larger buildings to split their signs up if you have over 25,000 square feet
and a front wall length of 200 lineal feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying, if I did get three units, I did put three
signs, I would be measured from the outside facing the three signs.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Uh-hum.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I would be wasting a lot of sign space with dead space.
Okay, on Page 16, I guess let's go to D. This is -- what you said is you've added this. This is new.
But what you're allowing is one more wall sign, if it's not visible from the street right-of-way and
everything.
And again, it goes back to the concern is that why you have control over signs in there? For
example, let's just take the two shopping centers, Coastal, a mall with a roof, I guess a good example is
Waterside, a mall without a roof. One you control the signs, one you don't.
I mean, I don't think the intent of the sign code is for the view from the air. So in other words, if the
sign is not visible in an outdoor courtyard, why are they still considered a sign?
MS. ISTENES: This was essentially our recommendation to address the issue, but it's open for
discussion as far as I'm concerned. Because this is something -- like I said, this was an interpretive -- an
interpretive issue came to me saying do you regulate the walls internal to the shopping center, similar to
what you pointed out. And the code really just didn't address it.
My feeling, my recommendation, is similar to what you have, to the opinion you've expressed. And
Page 18
16J
lA2 ~.~
June 2, 2009
I guess this was kind of our way just to put in an allowance, because based on feedback we've been getting
from the tenants of those buildings -- am I stating that correctly, essentially? But I'd open it up to the board
for discussion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think from my research in the thing, in the code it says
exterior; I mean, in other words you're controlling the signs that are on the exterior of the building. Isn't that
right, Diane? I mean, the --
MS. ISTENES: Well, it's not clear. That's why in this case we brought this forward. And we had --
again, not wanting to open up this huge can of worms and come into this big discussion, this was sort of
our way to try to address the immediate problem and then look at it kind of in the future.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well--
MS. ISTENES: So that's where we are with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I think we have a problem is that staff interpretation of
the word exterior means inside or outside, not visible on the outside of a building, the exterior of a
building. In other words, a courtyard, I mean, there could be a U-shaped courtyard you look into. So
obviously I think courtyard isn't the absolute word. But there are a lot of courtyards that are concealed
what's going on on the inside. And yet you're still controlling the sign because it's on the exterior -- it's an
exterior space, no roof.
And I think we're going to see a lot more exterior court buildings designed in the future. Yet if you
put the roof over it, you don't control the sign.
So the -- you know, neither of which are visible from the right-of-way or adjacent properties.
The fact that the consultant started fixing the definition of sign, that direction is what kind of
makes me think there might be something we should be doing with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, as a suggestion, why don't we just exempt signs not visible from
the public right-of-way or from adjoining properties? And that way if someone wants to gaudy up and
make the inside of their property look like crap, then let them do it, what do we care? No one can see it.
And that might resolve the whole issue and it's not an issue anymore.
MS. ISTENES: Would you be satisfied if we culled out courtyards? And I don't want to try it on
any constitutional issues, so please stop me if you think I'm going there. Things like courtyards or malls or
internal malls.
I only say that because that's really broad. And without some time to contemplate that, I just -- I'd
rather be a little bit more conservative. And I think that will still address the problems that we've had or the
issues that were brought up, and it broadens what we have here now, if I'm understanding correctly.
In other words -- in other words, say we're not going to regulate it but then cull out those areas that
we wouldn't regulate it, like a mall.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Let me just see if we can get direction from the Planning Commission. Is it
your direction that signs that are not visible to the public, we should not be regulating?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Visible to the public, exterior to the property they're in. I mean, the
public's -- I mean, for example, Coastland Mall, all the signs within the mall are visible to the public. But
it's only the public that decides to go in there. That's the distinction. And J think if you want to go into a
place where there's a lot of signs, so what? You have a right to do it.
And then ifthey want to go into that mall, they want to make solid signs, wall-to-wall, so you walk
down and you're engaged by signs on both sides, who cares? As long as you drive by only Golden Gate
Parkway and 41 and you don't see those signs, what do we care if the public -- I mean, at that point who
cares?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, is that the consensus of the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: J agree with that.
Page 19
. .
"
.'
,:,,'-)
,; j !
June 2, 2009
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's what I think the best solutions for it is exactly what the
consultant was sending us down. He had words in the definition of signs that exempted. And here's what he
said. He said, and I'd like to --
MS. FABACHER: Apologize, Commissioner. We--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what he said. He said, you know, which is visible from any
street, right-of-way, sidewalk, alley, public property.
Wbat I think would be better is, which is visible from any public property, (i.e. street, right-of-way,
sidewalk, alley, et cetera), or adjacent private property. In other words, it's not just running down the street,
it's if I live next door to something I don't particularly want a courtyard opening up towards my property
with essentially the signage of Tokyo in it.
So -- and if we put that in the definition of sign, the reason that's important is because that means
you don't read further, you don't get mixed up in whether you have to follow these regulations or not.
MS. ISTENES: Is that the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a problem with that?
MS. ISTENES: -- consensus of the board?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the same thing that--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah.
MS. ISTENES: I may talk to you later about the exact language you suggested.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can give it. I wrote it for the last meeting.
MS. ISTENES: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on Pages 15 and 16? If not --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait. wait.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? Ifit wasn't the fact we needed a quorum, this could have been held
by Brad by himself.
MR. KLA TZKOW: He's doing a fine job.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you're doing a fine job.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess that's my main focus. I had something on ei, adding a b
that, you know, where does the time and temperature sign show up again? Is that what we're trying to
describe in --
MS. ISTENES: Let me -- hang on a second. And I don't mean to jump back, but I just want to
clarify one thing on our last discussion. Your suggestion is to remove d at the top of Page 16 and address it
in the definition? Before we leave that, I just want to make sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think my -- yeah, if you did put it in the sign definition, D would
not be necessary.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. That's my understanding, I just want to clarify that.
Okay, the next question was -- hang on a second -- time and temperature signs.
Diana, can you answer that?
MS. COMPAGNONE: The time and temperature we were trying to address on Page 13, f.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MS. COMPAGNONE: The -- and on 16 ei, that's where we were trying to address the open signs
without culling them out as open signs, because that was content based.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Say that again, what page? I'm sorry.
MS. COMPAGNONE: 16.
Page 20
161
1 A ') ".~
Oune 2,' 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sixteen, okay.
MS. COMPAGNONE: You asked about ei.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, yeah, that's -- so -- but we're not allowed any animated
activated signs.
So wouldn't that be an animated activated level one? Assun1ing they don't want a secondhand. So
shouldn't we note that?
MS. COMP AGNONE: It's actually a window sign is ei. It's an illuminated window sign. That's
where we tried to compensate for the fact that the open sign was in the exempt section of the sign code that
we currently have. But that's content based. So the consultant said we needed to take the content out of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the other question, five -- and sorry it takes so long, but I
have to remember what these scribbles are up to.
Number five, the menu board. Is the intent there to have only one sign per lane, or could I have two
signs on one lane?
MS. COMP AGNONE: The intent is to have one menu board per lane, per drive-through.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Per lane. And I could have two lanes and both of those could have
menu boards. In have three lanes you're going to have to turn up the volume on the menu board ofthe
adjoining lane.
And then fi, it goes back to the authorization. But I guess here the logic really makes sense,
because this is where the owner limits which tenant in a multi-story building gets the sign rights to the
building.
Okay, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through 16?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 17 and 18. Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 17, 8.C. The permit to get a flag pole has to be put up with a
permit. It's a structure. So it would cover all of those things in C. So shouldn't we just state that the flag
pole has to be permitted? Which maybe we don't even need to state that.
MS. ISTENES: Are you comfortable with that, Diana, or is there some compelling reason that--
all the details in there?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's the thing is you're kind of regulating trade. You're
doing a lot of things in there that the permit really is responsible for, at least the building code requiring
who does what where.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Maybe we can word it differently.
The only thing that I'm getting out of that is that any -- a flag pole that's under 15 foot in height
would --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would have to be permitted.
MS. COMP AGNONE: -- not need to be permitted.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it would by the building code. Any structure has to be
permitted. Any structure -- I mean, I don't want a IS-foot flag pole flying through my house during a
hurricane, you know. I don't want a 10-foot one.
I mean, in other words, I don't -- here's the concern, is that you're actually doing a requirement that
the other code is going to trump anyway.
MS. COMP AGNONE: That's just the way --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's going to require --
MS. COMPAGNONE: -- current code -- I'm sorry. That's the way the current code is written, so
we left it that way.
Page 21
:;
I ,f
n .':::,\ ..
/,.1 '....,.-..' ,
'"jJ! . ,~,
--...." "',Y .-.
",1 i\ t.
June 2~'2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is the -- but again, you're discussing construction here.
So what you're saying here is that any flag pole less than 15 feet does not have to have a structural
permit. And you don't really have the right to say that.
So I just think it should be pennitted per applicable governing codes and get it over with and let
somebody else worry about that.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: J have a question regarding that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Brad, does that also relate to the maximum flag area that the pole
can handle, that part of that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Part of the structural analysis will be the wind resistance of the
flag.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's all in that permit?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember, the building code doesn't want it to fall down. So you
can be assured that it's -- a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to figure out how that happened.
Ten on 18, it says we're in the -- and the concern is we're in the nonresidential -- forget it, I can't
figure out what it is I'm saying there. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else through Page 18?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the audience through Page 18'1
Yes, sir. Gentleman in the back, you want to come up first, then the other gentleman.
Just have to identify yourself for the record.
MR. STEPHENSON: Steve Stephenson with Lykins Sign Tech.
I have a question. On the flag poles in your residential, a permit is not required on a IS-foot or
under. That was also in the residential flag poles. So if you're going to change it in commercial, you're
going to change it in both?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL my point is I think we should just reference the governing
codes. Because the illusion here is that you could read this and say I don't have to get a permit for my
14-foot flag pole.
MR. STEPHENSON: Right. There's an awful lot of flag poles in homeowners that are 15 foot and
under that are not permitted.
MS. ISTENES: We could simply reference where required by Florida Building Code or other
applicable statute, a permit shall be obtained.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would just say governing code.
MS. ISTENES: Governing code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You might have to have a fire plan review in this county.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that alL sir?
MR. STEPHENSON: Ijust want to make sure it's all the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. thank you.
Next gentleman?
MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd.
And if I could briefly go back to Page 16.F, multi-story buildings.
I'd ask the commissioners to please consider, multi-story buildings are being penalized. They can
only have a sign on the top of the building and the ground floor. And the ground floor is then required to --
Page 22
1 lA' '"
6 J Tune 2, 2009
can't exceed 64 square feet. Where typically they could do up to 150 square feet. And under the present
economic conditions, multi-story o\\-ners are having difficulty attracting tenants because they can't do
tenant signage on any floor above the first or the top of the building.
So I'd like to request that you consider allowing them to do the full 150 square feet on the bottom
ground floor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, do you want to--
MS. ISTENES: We're not addressing that in this code revision, we're just simply addressing the
constitutional issues. So we will certainly note it, if the board wants us to note it as a potential for a future
amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're going to be coming back with other rewrites, you
made that comment earlier. And when you do, that would be one to consider. If you form that committee in
which you participate with the public, this gentleman's comments should be included at that time.
Sir, I hope you understand that the purpose of today's meeting, some of those items we cannot get
into.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's really on form. Notice, that's one ofthe other phrases it
uses, in addition. So the point he's missing is that what that really allows is an additional sign on the ground
floor of 64 square feet. It's not reducing the sign, it's allowing him in addition another sign, correct?
MS. COMPAGNONE: The in addition refers to the sign that's at the top of the building. So each
tenant on the first floor units can have a 64 square foot sign and then -- over their unit. And then the big
sign at the top of the building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point I'm making is that the big sign at the top of the
building, and then this is in addition to that you can have this. So again, you know, remember the phrasing
we discussed earlier. I mean here it's clear and I agree --
MS. ISTENES: Understand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with what it's doing. But if you take that back to that other
chapter, it starts to confuse.
MS. ISTENES: Understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to Pages 19 and 20. Does anybody have any questions
on Pages 19 and 20'1
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, number 14, hand-held signs. So this is essentially the
banana sign spinning around for the yogurt shop, which was a talent we haven't seen in Naples yet. But do
we want it?
MS. ISTENES: It is, and that is on the matrix two. Did you want to, Mr. Chairman, wait, you had
indicated earlier, or do you want to talk about that now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order to kind of keep order in regards to how we follow
everything that's happening, Brad, what I was -- and if we have that kind of question with this, when we get
to that matrix, the last two pages, we'll go back, focus on those items and turn back if we need to in the
document.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then at least just let's get through the first 32 pages of the document first.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing in there. Since you're saying that a sign can't -- you can
only have two, they can't be bigger than 16 feet. Do you need the aggregate sign area cannot exceed 32
feet? Because just doing the Boolean logic, if I can't have a sign greater than 16 feet and I'm allowed two of
Page 23
__ .r _.11 'jl;!r>'Oi_""'."~"_(__"~"'_''''''''''''''''''''~'''''''''_'''",i''_W___~...... ""...---..---------,...-,---
161
-'I ' .
.l (June 2, 2009
them, how would I ever cause confusion with the 32 in parenthesis? It's not like I could make one 10 feet
and the other one 22 feet. Because that would violate the 16 feet. I just think you could remove the
aggregate sign area sentence. And then -- does that make sense, Susan? I mean, you know what I'm saying?
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I'm going to contemplate it a little bit while you're going, in preparation for
future discussion on that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I promise, no trick there. It's just Boolean logic.
Okay, the mobile billboard. It's unlawful for any person to display or construct. Since this is
noncommercial, could not we have a factory that builds mobile billboards? Would this limit the ability for
that to exist?
So I end up -- I open up a shop, I sell them to Mian1i and I make them in Collier County. You've
essentially made it illegal for me to construct them.
MS. ISTENES: I don't read it that way. Jeff: are you--
MR. WRIGHT: Well, I had some concerns with construct, too. And this came directly from our
consultant.
I suppose one way of viewing it is mobile billboards are defined as those that are displayed on a
vehicle; principal purpose of the vehicle is the sign itself. So if you're talking about it in a manufacturing
context, you're not really dealing with a sign that's displayed upon a vehicle until it's on the vehicle.
So if you're -- if they're stocked up in a factory, you know, that's -- the construction of them is not
necessarily fitting the definition of a mobile billboard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why would there be a concern on -- you know, I can see in the
-- and again, we use the float. And Jeff is an attorney with common sense. That's not common.
But the concern is somebody -- for example, we could have a company that makes floats and
somebody saying the floats have commercial information on them and you can't have a float company in
Collier County.
But the point is why is construct in there. I guess to sum it up. What is the concern there, you can't
create these things that will ultimately violate the county, or --
MR. WRIGHT: The more I look at it, the more I think there's really not a context where that word
construct is going to help us regulate at all, so I'd say strike "or construct".
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed.
MR. WRIGHT: Unless there's some opposition from the staff. I think it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could we please go over again -- and I don't want to keep
bringing up the name of the company that's on the cars, the antique cars, but what is our issue? Is it
grandfathered? Is it a -- I know we don't want to get into an issue with the company, but what is our stance
on that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why not? The name of the company you're talking about is Truly Nolan,
right?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Truly Nolan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the issue with Truly Nolan?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There is none. I think it's fine. But I just want to make sure, they
are able to do that. And any other company can put an antique car out there, Dave's Car Wash, that's -- that
is not permitted?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Dave's Jatropha Sales.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dave's Tree Sales, yeah. That gives me an allergy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you already answer the question earlier, or--
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what to tell you. I mean, I've got people in technical violation of
Page 24
16 11 A ~une'2oo9
our code every single day. It doesn't mean we start code enforcement actions on them. If something is truly
a public safetylhealth issue or truly offensive to the code, it's one thing. But --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm leading into something else here too.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, you know, if I'm asked to prosecute, would I? Yes. I just -- it just doesn't
strike me as something that the county should be spending resources on.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, okay. So there's a vehicle, a pickup truck -- he mumbles.
There's a pickup truck that has let's say two portable flags out of each one of the holes of a pickup truck that
has a directional Joe's Cafe with arrows on it. Is that a mobile sign -- they drive it home every day, it's got a
Florida flag on it, a U.S. flag on it and it has Cafe Down There. Is that permitted or not? And they drive it
home.
MR. KLATZKOW: Is he parking at his place of business?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Then I'm not so sure I care. Because I can have another guy that has a van,
Joe's Plumbing --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- and he parks it right by his store, and I don't have an issue with that.
The issue I have, and I think the Chairman, you know, gave a good example, is somebody gets a
big truck, Eat At Joe's, big sign, Joe's is two miles down the road. That's now more of a multi-billboard --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On premise is not a problem.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I've seen many of them. And I didn't have a problem with
it, I just -- I read this and it sounded as though it was not permitted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, so it's fine.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Dave, I think what happened with Truly Nolan is that's his real
name, Truly Nolan. It's not so much the name of the company he's promoting. And I think that they had a
problem stopping him from using his name.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, it's part of the character of the community, as far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's all over the country. It's everywhere. I mean, it's not in Collier
County, it's everywhere.
MR. KLATZKOW: Look, cars present the problem. I mean, I've got bumper stickers on cars. I
don't know where you can differentiate --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- between free speech and commercial speech.
Then you have people who are decorating their cars with their company logos to the point that
they're really moving signs. I don't know, it's just not something that we've been prosecuting.
MS. ISTENES: I think one of the issues may be if they're parking their car or displaying a sign on a
car in front of their business on their business site, potentially that could just be a violation of having
signage in excess of code required.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Four square feet.
MS. ISTENES: You know, unless they were using the vehicle for -- with respect to operation of
the business, versus just parking there. But then that gets into are you actually using the vehicle for your
business versus just parking there. So it gets pretty complicated pretty fast.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, now Jeff just said you are prosecuting. You said you are or
are not?
Page 25
(,;:'i
;1
"
"
l
,"\ I
"I l
(,
11.,.',..1
June 2, 2009
'-
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, you're not.
MR. KLA TZKOW: But if asked by the board, yes, we could prosecute.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY : WelL no, no, that wasn't my point. I don't have issue with it. I just
read this as it was not permitted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes, though, the more you bring things up the more other people
watching this show might have issues with it and then we have a prose --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Then I'll shut up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've been beating Truly Nolan to death this morning.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. I'm not, I'm just saying I enjoy them. I n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL then don't point them out.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But it didn't have anything to do with Truly Nolan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? We're still up to Page 20.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me wait. Susan's in conference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, Joe? We need to move on.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, before we go into enforcement, what -- where does the
political sign fall?
MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before we go into the enforcement, where does the political sign
fall in this thing?
MS. ISTENES: Catherine will answer that.
MS. F ABACHER: Thank, you, Susan.
Commissioner, that is going to go under issuing a special temporary use permit, which we have in
Section 5.04.05. We're going to put a lot of the things -- it already talks about temporary sales permits for
coming soon, grand opening. All of those sort of things were too content based to stay in the sign code. So
we hope to cover them and put that information into another section outside of that chapter to hopefully --
no, it's in that chapter. But hopefully to avoid -- that was one of our consultant's suggestions,
recommendations, is that we do kind of n we did that with the model home signs too now. It's under the
standards for model homes. And if they want to attack the whole model home section, I guess we're
vulnerable, but --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, Catherine, that's good. That's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to Pages 21 and 22. Anybody have any questions on
Page 21 and 22?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't. I don't show up again till 30, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you guys got a break.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Moving right along.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- between 22 and 30?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 30. Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is that there's requirements for signs for the
automobile service station in the architectural standards. Should we not pull them out of there and maybe in
that standard just reference the section in the sign code? I kind of like a code where all the sign
requirements are in it, obviously except tor the one Catherine just mentioned, but --
Page 26
16 I 1 A 2Tun~, 2009
MS. ISTENES: If you notice, on the bottom of Page 26, if you haven't already, that sort of ends the
sign code. And then Catherine has pulled out -- what did we call it, the skirt? All of the various sections of
the Land Development Code that have references to sign ordinances, that's -- or signage. That's why you
see the different numbers, 2.03.06 and 3.05.1 0,4.02.26.
The automobile service station location was at a recommendation from our consultant to relocate it
there. He did have some concerns over the wording in there and felt that it was safer, in other words
wouldn't jeopardize the remaining portion of the sign code ifit was located under all the other development
standards for automobile service stations.
My thought is perhaps we could make a cross reference in the sign code itself, but I'd like to
discuss that with the consultant a little bit further.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me -- so the question -- so in other words you've moved
this from the sign into the architectural standards.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wasn't in the architectural standards before? I think it was.
MS. ISTENES: It's under the development standards for automobile service stations, it's not under
the architectural standards. There's a whole section in our code -- there's a whole separate section in our
code dealing with development standards for automobile service stations. Back in '98, I believe, the --
actually earlier than '98 -- '94 the Board of County Commissioners directed a study on automobile service
stations, and gateways to the community.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So anybody who's going to be building a sign for the -- they
would go to, you know, .05.05.05 and in there they would have to honor -- I mean, maybe -- I do think we
should reference somewhere in the --
MS. ISTENES: In the sign code?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. To make sure that somebody doesn't read the sign code and
say, hey, there's nothing different about an automobile station.
MS. ISTENES: I'll speak to the consultant on that. I don't think it will be a problem, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your only question, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on Page 30, C, Item D, under the automobile service stations.
Signage is prohibited above gas pumps. You know that's impossible? I mean, I can -- anywhere you go to
get gas there's signs above the gas pumps. So I don't know if that -- what you mean by that.
But I know that's not probably an object to change today, but I just thought it was interesting that
that's there. I'm going to go stop at BP and they have come in and eat and buy food right up in that little
placard on top of the gas pumps. I think everybody has them.
MS. ISTENES: Well, this is older. This -- but that is -- the commercial message is what's being
restricted. Essentially you may have directions on how to operate the pump. I've been asked that question.
And honestly, I haven't -- I've counted -- I've not counted that as signage, because it's directional operations
to operate the pump.
But when it gets to the commercial signage, you know, hot dogs, two for 50 cents and things like
that, that's considered additional commercial signage over and above, and that's why it's targeted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's not an issue for today--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, can I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I just was curious.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There's also now I've seen it where they have little TV tubes with
advertising on them. So this is going to expand. I mean, so you'd probably need to look at that.
Page 27
r
I
June 2, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 31, questions, anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the most intense page we have is Page 32.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a n no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a question? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Why is it blank?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why was this blank? What are you guys covering up?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be going to the matrix when we get back from break. But
before we go on break, for the 32 pages, I see there's a question from the audience. Sir, come on up.
MR. STEPHENSON: Steve Stephenson. Lykins Sign Tech.
On Page 26, in the permitting process, in the review, the application taking 60 days to get an
answer. It seems like an awfully long time to get an answer for a sign.
MS. ISTENES: That is referring to an appeal.
MR. STEPHENSON: It's in B.
MS. ISTENES: In B. I'm not --
MR. STEPHENSON: It's actually the review.
MS. ISTENES: Is that Page 25 then?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It starts on 25 and continues on 26.
MS. ISTENES: The permit application review and time lengths.
The -- do you want to -- Catherine, do you want to explain why this is added? This -- essentially
the advice from our consultant is that permit applications have to be processed expeditiously or somebody
could make a claim for --
MR. WRIGHT: Prior restraint.
MS. ISTENES: Thank you, prior restraint.
And so this is not currently in our code. And honestly, by policy we -- I don't know what your
policy is for time frames, but this is essentially to address that legal concern.
Do I think it's going to take 60 days to get a sign permit? In 99 percent of the time, no.
MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Joe Schmitt.
Florida Building Code, under any type of permitted activity, specifies 30 days. We have to provide
an answer within 30 days.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say 30 here then?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MR. STEPHENSON: Amen.
MR. SCHMITT: Now, that means we provide an answer. It doesn't mean you get your permit.
And that -- again, that's the Florida Building Code. You can then take action per the code. And
Brad knows what I'm talking about, under the code.
However, that level of service standard is strictly dependent on the staff providing the service. If
the staff isn't there, you may not get an answer in 30 days, so n I mean, but the Florida Building Code is
clear, it's 30 days we have to provide some kind of an answer. Whether we turn the applicant down or we
provide some kind of a sufficiency review or we issue the permit. And in most cases, Diane, it's certainly
less than 30 days.
MR. STEPHENSON: Much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you change this paragraph then to be consistent with the
building code, and that would probably make it all easier for everybody. Is that okay with this panel?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, 30 makes sense.
Page 28
161
lA2
June 2, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
With that, let's take a break till 10:15. When we come back, we'll address the last two pages of the
matrices that are in disagreement with our professional.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Okay, thank you for the break.
We're going to go on to the matrix. In the back of the matrix tab that says decision matrices there
are two pages. The very last two pages that have a series of references that are somewhat in disagreement
between staff and/or county attorney and/or the professional Doctor -- whatever his name is.
MS. FABACHER: Van Mandelker.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Doctor Van.
MS. F ABACHER: Doctor M.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that I'll ask Susan to kind of walk us through each one of those so
that she can get a nod from this commission as to where we would stand on each and any of these at that
point.
MS. ISTENES: Okay, we're working from matrix two, issues for discussion. And at the top of the
page, Page 8 and Page 13 deals with address numbers on residential signs and nonresidential signs.
Our recommendation is to leave this section as is, because staff believes this could be argued as a
life, safety and welfare provision. This essentially allows -- the code requires that the address numbers
appear on the signs currently. And the consultant is suggesting it should be removed because it is content
based.
Our attorneys looked at it. Their recommendation is consistent with our staff recommendation, and
so we need some feedback from you on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consensus from the board. Do we keep it as staff recommendation? And
the word keep in the right-hand column, would that -- this is what that would mean.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would agree with County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody disagree?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 8 and 13 are -- wait a minute. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just had a concern with the reference. You're talking about
Section 5.06.02(B)(1), right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (B)(l)(d).
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (B)(l)(d). That's a double-faced sign. So that's what I'm -- in other
words, we're not referencing that --
MS. ISTENES: Is that a wrong reference; is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think. I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we've just said is that where you have references to
address numbers on residential signs and nonresidential signs, we're recommending you keep that. So
wherever it does appear --
MS. ISTENES: We'll take a look and make sure that reference gets fixed up in the matrix. But yes,
you're correct, Commissioner Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just the wrong ref -- but the intent is that you want
addresses on signs. If building and fire codes require them on buildings I think this to me is a good idea, so
Page 29
--------",~;.......,~--~_..
,'r ~
I ~
, !
,
June 2, 2009
MS. ISTENES: I know this was endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners. In fact, I think
they may have even directed us to do that at some past LDC codes.
CHAIR11AN STRAIN: Okay, the next one, Susan?
MS. ISTENES: Okay. That Section 5.06.02(B)(3), open house signs. This again was actually
something that was worked out in a public forum with the Board of County Commissioners and the board
ofrealtors. It essentially solved the problem with illegal signs in the right-of-way.
The consultant's recommendation is it's content based. We've reviewed it with the county attorney
and it's both staffs consensus that we keep this provision in the new code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is one that came before this board not too long ago that we
debated with the realtors expressing their concerns and we ended up with what we've got today, which is
the recommendation to keep.
Does anybody have any disagreement with that recommendation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like that one's good to go, Susan.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. The next one on the matrix two, Page 9, Section 5.06.02(B)(6), directional
signs within residential developments.
I'm not sure, I think this has sort of been overcome by events, meaning the staff has discussed it.
And we do have a recommendation. And the issue is that we -- that staff felt a need to clarify the maximum
number of signs allowed within a residential development. The current code is silent on the issue. Our
recommendation now is we don't care to regulate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's smart. Because developments can be split up in so many
different ways internally. How would you ever give each development a fair shake?
So basically the reference where it says board decision, you're just going to recommend that --
continue as we are with no recommendation.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the panel object to that as a solution?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: The next one is Page 6 and 11, Section 5.06.04(C)(5), permit numbers on signs.
The consultant felt -- currently you're required to post the permit number, and I believe it's a little
sticky thing that gets plastered on the back, usually on the back of a sign.
The consultant felt it was content based. Regardless of that, that's actually a huge administrative
nightmare if that information isn't on signs when code enforcement is going out, trying to figure out if a
sign is lawfully permitted or not. It doesn't count towards the sign area, the permit number, and so we felt
no reason really to remove it. And we've consulted with the county attorneys and their recommendation is
as well to keep this n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
MS. ISTENES: -- as-is in the current code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. You have a minimum height of the lettering ofa
half-inch, right? Should we set up a maximum height? I mean, what if some idiot got designs at -- and I get
in that idiot mood myself. So what if n should there be a maximum height? I mean, we don't have that high
assign that the code enforcement couldn't read it if it's n I mean --
MS. ISTENES: For permit numbers? We're referring to permit numbers here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
MS. ISTENES: You want a maximum?
Page 30
16/
1A(
..
June 2, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there is no maximum. You're saying a half-inch minimum,
but I wouldn't want somebody to make this huge either. I mean, that would be --
MS. ISTENES: We don't see the need. Do you, Diana, or any comments on that?
MS. COMPAGNONE: I've seen a couple where they've maybe had them an inch. Probably the
tallest I've seen is two. But when you do have a multi-story building and they run them underneath the
channel letter to hide them, because it doesn't need to be visible for the general public, just when we're
looking for it. Sometimes you needto go with a bigger number so that it's seen.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're saying a muIti-story building up on the top floor, that
sign has a number on it visible from the ground where somebody with binoculars trying to pick it up?
MS. COMP AGNONE: That's how I do the inspection, with binoculars.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You know. I fold.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is everybody satisfied with keeping it as we have?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's a good -- Susan, next one?
MS. ISTENES: The electronic signs, I --let me just back up a second here, because I don't have the
notes I thought I had.
I believe at this time, and we've discussed this with the attorney since this was published, I believe,
what we're looking at doing is grandfathering in existing time and temperature signs with a
recommendation to look at electronic signs during a regular sign evaluation code cycle, like I talked about
earlier, and keep what -- the static electronic signs that are permitted now.
Did I restate that correctly? So that is our recommendation at this point.
I think electronic signs open up a whole plethora of issues and regulatory concerns and
requirements. And at this point we're just attempting to address the constitutional issues and not get into
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if I'm not mistaken, the consultant's recommending basically they be
wide open. But that decision will come through further input on this subcommittee that you talked about
possibly forming with, you know, interaction of the community.
MS. ISTENES: Right. And that's at direction of the board. I don't want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MS. ISTENES: --leave you with the impression that I'm -- you know, there's this committee
forming somewhere and sometime we're going to amend the sign code. That obviously is up to the board to
direct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but when we do amend the sign code, and that seems inevitable, the
best way to do it is through a method where we can have interaction with the stakeholders that are involved
in the business as well as the public. First in the sub-committee and then that coming forward as a
recommend -- I think that would be a good move.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
And another reason to kind of promote that too is as a -- you know, when this sign code is
implemented, assuming it passes, there may be things that you notice or the public notices that they don't
care for anymore as a result of this sign code or something that changes. I know we got into the -- we
discussed earlier they can put anything on a sign as far as wording goes, as far as content goes.
So maybe that's not a great example, because that's speech based. But I think the point I'm trying to
make is every time you adopt a new ordinance there's changes in the community that people maybe decide
they don't care for anymore. And so give this -- my point is give this ordinance an opportunity to work and
see what the results are of it, and then come back later and look at amending the sign code, based on that as
well.
Page 31
,I"')
.1<4
1 June 2, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments on this one?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, the code reference I think is incorrect. So is actually
the one before that. What are you actually referencing? Which code section? The one you did reference is
the one in --
MS. ISTENES: How about if I describe it this way: Anywhere the code requires permit numbers to
be on signs --
MS. F ABACHER: There's one in --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at --
MS. ISTENES: -- that's what we're after. Is that--
MS. F ABACHER: We cited the commerciaL not the residential. Page 6 is --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, 5.06.04(C)(7) is the one-half inch lettering, not the
electronic sign. So I want to make sure, what section is that you're actually talking about?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL but I think by what we're -- our consensus is the issue, not the
section. So you can --
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whenever sections fall that have to be corrected based on the consensus
on the issue, that's where it falls. That's how I was perceiving these. That's why I'm not paying too much
attention to the section reference.
MS. ISTENES: I would agree with that. And I apologize if these are misstated.
MS. F ABACHER: And excuse me, if I might also. You know, this was an evolving process. After
we worked so hard on the matrices we met again with the county attorney's office and moved things a little
bit more.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point now is that are electronic signs allowed, which range
from LCD panels to I guess the time and temperature --
MS. ISTENES: Right now under the current code, time and temperature and the open signs.
Am I missing anything, Diana?
MS. COMP AGNONE: No, just the time and temperature.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, time and temperature.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With this passing, what would -- would you not -- remember the
activated signs, the levels and all that? I mean --
MS. ISTENES: Correct, the suggestion is to grandfather in time and temperature. The open signs
have been addressed already. And then we can leave the definitions for activated signs in, but we just won't
have any text to implement them until the bigger issue of electronic signs is potentially addressed in a
future sign code amendment.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the answer is they're not -- even though we have a
definition, all the regulations are silent on activated.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I guess I have to understand something, in may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that mean these people are now still prevented or precluded
from coming and using their equipment here?
MS. ISTENES: Any time and temperature sign that exists now would be -- lawfully permitted time
and temperature sign that exists now would be, quote, grandfathered in. So it could stay until it was
removed or otherwise required to be removed by the code.
Page 32
c,1 t9 ,
f;{ ,9"_:-,
',~J
lA' ..
tine 2, 2009
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe I didn't ask the question correctly. I was referring to the
cause of the change of this code, that particular company. That since this was struck, are they precluded
from coming here and --
MS. ISTENES: Are you -- I think you're asking a different question other than electronic. You're
talking about the mobile billboards, which is --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, except that I see in my mind's eye that there are electronic as
well as those. We're going to see this plethora of variation. That's a little redundant, I think. But we're going
to see variation in type and style and so forth and you're going to see mixture. So I think that has to be
considered. And that's why I'm asking.
Right now you're saying we're going to look at it in the future. We're going to take that up, right?
MS. ISTENES: Right now I'm suggesting that's what be done. Because again, when it comes to
sign codes and expanding the size, area, location, how you display a message, type, that gets in -- that really
should be considered -- my professional recommendation is that really should be considered by a wide
variety of stakeholders, including the general public, businesses. Realtors are typically interested, sign
companies are obviously interested, attorneys are obviously interested. And that's essentially what I'm
advocating as to how you address substantive holistic changes to the development standards of your sign
code.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I heard every word you said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff may have some help with this, Bob, if you want.
MR. KLATZKOW: One approach we could take is simply at this point in time prohibit all
electronic signs, grandfather the ones that are currently existing and then take the issue to the board and
have the public hearings and -- with the thought that down the road we would make the amendment. That's
one approach we could take.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess it's for you to deal with. But I'm just curious then, if they
won a case in the first instance, wouldn't they have the right to be able to run here, or is there some hiatus
that there's --
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue that we had on the case has been taken care of in this code, the
mobile electronic sign. The question now is the static electronic signs, what are we going to do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I hear what you're saying. It's just that it's been stated as
electronic signs and that's where I was going with this. In the matrix it says electronic signs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and actually what I wouldn't mind, if somebody could
actually give me the section, it really --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, we're going -- yeah, you guys are going to have to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine, what is the section that should have referenced?
Because I'm -- so essentially what we're saying is that after this gets adopted you cannot have electronic
signs when --
MS. FABACHER: It's 5.06.04, large F.l, small f.
And also, Commissioner, if you look on Page 20, Jeff -- the county attorneys helped us craft this
language under prohibited signs. And it says, prohibited: Any sign not specifically permitted by this code
shall be prohibited. So if we take any reference out -- I'm going to ask the county attorneys, but it would
seem as though if we took any reference out it would be prohibited under this -- am I right, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: If the intent -- let's just get it -- and I'm asking for direction from the Planning
Commission, okay? My understanding is you'd like us to get together with the stakeholders and sit through
and hammer this out. That's going to take time. That might take a half a year by the time we're done with
this.
Page 33
~s,
, June 2, 2009
The issue is do we want to expressly prohibit electronic signs, grandfather the ones that are there
until we actually get to that point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to be the safest way to approach it until we understand through
a more study (sic) what the best way to implement electronic signs would be. I mean, if we leave it for a
free-for-all, we could get things that we now are forced to grandfather in when we finally do adopt the
ordinance.
So maybe the safest cause is not to allow them, except those that are already existing as
grandfathered. And then I think the staff suggestion is fine. I mean, I don't know if anybody has a concern
over it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. If! may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't have a concern. And I understand what you're saying.
I'm just wondering, my unfortunate mind the way it works. but if I'm that company and I'm
thinking okay, I went to court, they struck the ordinance and now they're prohibiting me once again from
coming in and doing what I should lawfully be able to do. If you're comfortable that that's possible while
we work this out, then I'm fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm comfortable.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm still -- Catherine, what page is the reference you have
on? You said it was 5.06.14, which --
MS. ISTENES: I think she said--
MS. F ABACHER: F 1 f.
MS. ISTENES: Flfunder 5.06.04.
MS. COMPAGNONE: Page 13.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 13? And it is F 1 f.
MS. COMPAGNONE: Should be in red.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that on a pole or ground sign you can
have a level one animated sign; is that right?
MS. ISTENES: We're going to strike that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL what if somebody wanted to do a time and temperature
tomorrow? He wouldn't be able to?
MS. ISTENES: Correct. Well, tomorrow, yes, but if the board adopts this, we're suggesting, and it
sounds like what you're endorsing as well, then they wouldn't afterwards, until further study.
And I -- Jeff, correct me in'm wrong. I mean, under legal issues I think that's usually pretty
reasonable. If a court sees that a county or municipality is undertaking further study to address an issue, that
seems to go a long way with leniency towards --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think we're okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, are you n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, I think there's -- somewhere there's a consequence. But
if I'm the only one that feels that way, it's not going to matter, is it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a holding pattern is all we're suggesting now until more
research gets done.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't want to let this out of the gate without control, because
we'll end up like International Drive in Orlando with these huge, bright n
MR. KLA TZKOW: You can see that from an -- from the industry standpoint they're going to want
Page 34
161
lA2
June 2, 2009
fr~
to move towards electronic signs.
From a county standpoint, it's an aesthetic issue. Do you want to look like, you know, Blade
Runner, where everything's electronic and flashing and everything else. Or do you want to look more, I'll
call it historical, where everything is just -- you know, looks like it was done by hand.
That's an aesthetic issue that's ultimately an issue for the community to decide what they want to
look at. I'm just saying just put a stay on the issue for now until the community tells us this is what we want
to do and get board direction.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One final thought. If we had -- if the Board of County
Commissioners had approved PUDs or commercial enterprises such as banks and so forth that already had
wit11in their plans to put in time and temperature, they're typically the ones that do that, would they be
precluded now from doing that?
MS. ISTENES: I don't believe they would be.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would consider it under grandfather, myself, but I don't know.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the existing signage is obviously grandfathered. The question is if you
have a vested right to put it up, would you be grandfathered? Probably. I don't know that we want to fight
them on it at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I just want to cover the bases so that we're open on it, we're not
trying to do anything inappropriate. I see it as they would be entitled if it's already been in there, but I'm not
the one that makes the decision.
MS. ISTENES: You'd have to look at each case individually. But I would concur with Jeff, more
than likely they would be vested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the advice we've received from the County Attorney's Office and staff
is to put this on hold until further research is available, with the exceptions that they've so noted in time and
temperature and the open house signs are addressed in another area.
Is everybody on this panel now accepting that consensus?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good with me.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Okay, the next is Page 18. It's menu boards.
The consultant's recommendation was to delete from the ordinance again referring to something as
menu board use essentially are dictating what goes on the sign.
The -- our recommendation is to keep them.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There are menu boards that are outside of restaurants and then
there are menu boards at Burger King or whatever. They're all treated the same, correct?
MS. ISTENES: This is referring to the menu boards on a drive-through.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which is -- okay, which is I see it can get wild.
If the others are not included, that's by absolute definition here, or is that by our understanding of
it?
MS. ISTENES: Our understanding is my first gut response. But Diana deals more with that.
I think what you're referring to is if somebody posts a menu in their window outside their entry
door for a restaurant, you know, before you come in you can decide whether you want to come in based on
their menu?
Page 35
16
r;( ~ ~
l\
t_~
June 2, 2009
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Some of them are even outside.
MS. ISTENES: Oh, on a board, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. And Ijust -- I wouldn't want to see those people, if they've
already been authorized, to have a problem.
I wondered, with the statement that is made here, these signs can be eliminated from code coverage
by defining signs to include only those visible from streets and highways.
And yet those can be visible from streets and highways. They may not be obtrusive, but they can be
visible.
I just want to add that to the mix of thought. I agree with you on the gaud, you know, that can be
there. It can become ridiculous.
MS. ISTENES: I don't know that you're regulating people that post a menu on their window. But
there's -- the board signs, typically called a sandwich board, would be allowed in this case.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. That's where I was going. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the menu boards?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we want to nl'lljust ask the question, is it the consensus of the board
to keep staffs recommendation?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yep.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY : Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Susan, we're going to keep --
MS. ISTENES: Okay, the next is on Page 19, it's temporary signs. And I'll expand upon your
matrix here, because we've discussed it since this was published, and I'll just offer a suggestion.
I think the bigger issue here or the bigger -- the issue we were largely concerned with was political
signs and the potential plethora of political signs that could come about in the community if they're not
regulated.
The issue that the consultant had with political signs was largely one of free speech. In other words,
calling a political sign a political sign is essentially dictating what can go on the sign, you know, either the
candidate or the issue. And that was my understanding.
What we'd like to do, and our suggestion is, and in conjunction with the discussions 'with Jeff
Wright on this, obviously we can regulate the time, the place, the size and the number and the manner of
the sign. But what we'd like to do is take the whole political sign section, put it in the special events or
temporary use section. Keep all the standards, because like I said, we're not changing any of the standards.
And then we're going to refer to the sign as one that refers to -- or one that refers to an election or a
referendum and just sort of eliminate the words political sign and references to wording on political signs.
And chime in if I'm missing anything, but that seemed to be adequate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there is a question beyond the referenda and the actual
election and so forth. There can be like these tea parties and things that come about, people wanting to have
an issue addressed outside of a normal cycle of political activity. Are we going to impede that?
MS. ISTENES: Well, they could still use their rights as a resident to post their own little sign on an
issue, like if they supported the tea party issue or whatever. But this is geared mostly to those scheduled
elections and referenda and any decision made by -- essentially by a voter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now this applies --
Page 36
161
1 A 2 June 2 2009
,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's predicated on decision-making --I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were finished, I'm sorry.
So this applies to political signs not on residential properties. Because on residential properties,
you're allowed to have any sign you want that's noncommercial.
MS. ISTENES: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what this would control is political signs at all the street corners,
basically.
MS. ISTENES: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or areas like that.
And ironically those are put up by people who generally are looking for some future favor from the
political candidates. Because I'm not -- very few of them are refused. And if you go to some corners, they're
very prolific.
Why don't we just ban them altogether?
MS. ISTENES: Political signs?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't think that would fly in --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's -- going to a political season, to see all those signs it's just --
they're ridiculous. But I guess we can't get there, huh?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Since they're voted on by politicians.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's going a little beyond--
MS. ISTENES: Essentially all we're trying to do is just eliminate our reference to content-based
signage and keep all the standards the same and just relocate them into the temporary use provisions.
Because they are essentially temporary signs anyway. They're special events temporary use type of --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would -- ifJ may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would the -- because they're temporary use and that would suggest
that there's a temporary period of time that's allocated to it. Those don't comport -- actually, a grand
opening or a coming soon wouldn't necessarily have the same time frame or perhaps no time frame than a
political or shall we sayan election might have.
So how -- if we lump them together, then we'd have to break them apart again to define them.
MS. ISTENES: I will within the category. Because we've broken them -- we've broken various
temporary events down within the overall umbrella of temporary events anyway.
But the point is to try to avoid a content-based regulation. And so we're trying to keep what we
have and not refer to them based on content.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that change seems reasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To expand on that, and I forget, I remember reading it, but what is
the length of time let's say after an election that the sign must come down?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Three days.
MS. ISTENES: Seven days?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Was it seven?
MS. ISTENES: Seven calendar days.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, because certainly the -- and I don't want to say -- the loser
usually leaves them up forever, or for months.
And what do you do? Does the county have to come and pick them up and do they charge the
candidate then?
Page 37
... /.':'
1. i~~ h
.":...1 I
.
;.t"" "
June 2, 2009
MS. F ABACHER: (Shakes head negatively.)
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No? Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- oh, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just a question.
Is there -- how do you control people allowing people to put temporary signs on your property and
stuff?
MS. COMP AGNONE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, in other words, can anybody put a sign on your property?
Specifically campaign signs are the -- how is that controlled? Because you couldn't get the permit or --
MS. ISTENES: Well, are you concerned about residentially, your private property?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MS. ISTENES: Currently the code says political campaign signs or posters within residentially
zoned or used property shall not exceed four square feet in size. And then it gives a setback.
Political signs within residential districts shall require written permission from the property owner.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what section are you reading from? Because this again is --
MS. ISTENES: This is the old code section, 5.06.04(C)(12)(a).
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is the new code the same?
MS. ISTENES: Well, that was why this is on the matrix, because we -- it was somewhat
unresolved before we came here and published the matrix. And so everything would remain the same, we
would just attempt to try to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the matrix doesn't reference the right section. What section
should the matrix be referencing then? Is it 5.06.04(F)(9)?
MS. COMP AGNONE: It's not in there at all. It's not in the working document at all, because we
were going to move it to a separate section of the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get the speaker a little closer to you, Diane.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just looking at the temporary -- okay.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, the reference in there is for temporary signs.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's actually for off-premises. But anyway --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the intent is to not remove the section for political signs from the code
but just to replace it -- resection it and put it under a section of the temporary signs; is that correct?
MS. ISTENES : Yes, except as I'm telling you that, I'm reading that it's already under temporary
signs. So I'm not sure what your intent was, Diana. What your -- you had suggested special events or
temporary use? I'm not sure why --
MS. COMP AGNONE: It's actually in the sign code now. And then -- and we described some
temporary signs where we have a section for temporary uses, and it described it. So we were just going to
take these different events out of the sign code and put them back in the section and combine the section.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Where it should have been.
MS. ISTENES: And so we're kind of focusing our discussion on political. But under our matrix,
we're also identifying all the other sign type that comes under the temporary sign section, (C)(l2).
5.06.04(C)(12).
And your thoughts are to take -- do the same with all of these signs and put under a special events
type section, is that correct, outside of the sign code?
MS. F ABACHER: (Nods head affirmatively.)
MS. COMP AGNONE: The main --
MS. ISTENES: Catherine says yes.
Page 38
/.: ..
i
tA '2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you guys are looking for a consensus from us today.
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I'm confused as to what it is you're all asking for now, so -- you
have a resolution collectively?
MS. ISTENES: Honestly, I think it's more just of an internal organization issue that if you don't --
it doesn't sound like you have an objection to.
We're just trying to make sure we aren't calling signage -- referring to it as content-based type of
signage. That's all we're trying to avoid. So if you're satisfied with us showing you the proposal, I assume
we're going to come back on consent with this. I know we haven't discussed that yet, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: God, I was hoping you wouldn't. But anyway--
MS. ISTENES: Well, we don't have to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- too late. You opened a can of worms now.
MS. ISTENES: Well, it's up for discussion. I did need to ask anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Dave goes on and starts up with Truly Nolan, I wanted -- my only
concern on this was that you're not eliminating regulation for political signs.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was a big issue. Because they should be more regulated and
not less regulated.
David?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Did I hear you say that you were going to move the political signs
to another section other than the sign code? I would have an issue with that. I think it's got to certainly stay
in the sign area. If someone's looking for it. I mean, whether it's double mentioned or something.
MS. ISTENES: We could cross-reference. Would that be acceptable?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Something. I mean, it's a sign. And if someone has an issue with a
political sign, where are they going to look? In the sign code.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you're finished.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm probably just as frustrated, seemingly, as my contemporary is
here.
Temporary signs seem to belong in the sign code. So what was the basis for your not wanting to
put them in the sign code?
MS. ISTENES: Catherine will answer that.
MS. F ABACHER: Because they're content based. I think Jeff Wright mentioned that earlier, you
can't really regulate something by content base unless there's a real compelling reason. And obviously we
don't have that compelling reason. We're using the same language, and we're putting it in the section where
you get the permit.
MS. ISTENES: And I think the objective was to avoid possible litigation against the sign code in
and of itself --
MS. F ABACHER: Exactly.
MS. ISTENES: -- by relocating it to a different section of the code.
MS. FABACHER: Exactly. Because that was the law of the case. We were content-based. So our
consultant advised us to move the content to other places where we could. And of course we would
cross-reference.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you'd have to, actually, I would think.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because of the temporary nature.
Page 39
,< ~1 1~~ 2200~'~
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I guess --I don't know, I'm confused, to be honest with you. I
understand where I think you're going. But you were saying content-based. But an awful lot of the signage
we discussed here is in fact content-based. It's -- I guess -- all right, the term we're using it, content-based.
MS. ISTENES: It's hard to do, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's hard to get your brain around it.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand it clearer now.
And it cannot be -- you feel it cannot be in the sign code because it then is -- it could be argued that
it was some form of limitation on free speech.
MS. ISTENES: That is what we were told. I'll look to Jeffifhe has any comments different from
that.
MR. WRIGHT: I think what needs to be done is these various categories that we're going to spell
out need to be presented to you. Let's say there's four of them, grand opening, political signs, coming soon
and special events. We're not going to clump them all together. Because signs relating to an election are
going to be treated differently from a time frame perspective than opening.
But the trick is crafting language. For example, signs relating to an election is less content-based
than political signs. So we would need to craft those categories in the language.
And I would suggest, I think that we've gotten through most of this, but maybe the next time we
bring this back we'll say all right, here is the temporary signs component of this effort. We have four
categories and here's what we've come up with. We don't have that before you today, but I think that's what
we need to have in order for you to actually make an informed decision.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to make sure that this last -- I'm focused on the right
thing.
The page that we're referring to is actually Page 17, number nine at the bottom. Is that what we're
discussing? Not what's referenced.
MS. F ABACHER: Uh-hum.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that's all we're dealing with here is just these temporary
signs. Which can be for any reason they're limited in size. I mean, somebody could have a temporary sign
just for the heck of it if they want, just to say happy birthday mom or something and get a -- come in, isn't
that right? Again, I'm looking at it in the nonresidential. I'm sure it shows up somewhere in the --
MS. ISTENES: Again, we're not regulating the content. So if somebody honestly wanted to put up
their business sign and say happy birthday mom on it instead of their business name, they could do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there temporary signs in the residential?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
Diana, you want to -- yes is the answer to that. But I'm not sure what the question is going to be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, where is the question.
MS. ISTENES: Where is what?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the section in there that --
MS. ISTENES: The whole section that deals with temporary signs is 5.06.04(C)(12) in the old
code.
MS. F ABACHER: That's in commercial.
MS. COMP AGNONE: For the residential, it's on Page 9, number nine. Those signs that we gave
them, the residentials, parcels six square feet and three foot in height to express their freedom of speech.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where do I get the impression that that's temporary, that I can't
Page 40
161
~nft g~009
~I It.,,:(
.~b if c,""",
make a permanent one?
MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure. I don't think it -- well, I know for a fact it doesn't require a temporary
use permit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. And it's not for a temporary sign, I mean. So what you're
saying is I could go in, get that sign and take it down whenever I want, and thus I make it temporary.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't permit it as -- I mean, as far as you're concerned--
MS. ISTENES: We don't permit it as a temporary sign. I mean, we don't issue a permit as a
temporary sign.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For perpetuity, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a suggestion. Since this one is certainly not ready for the consensus
of any kind, why don't we bring -- Susan, you alluded to the consent agenda, and I'm not sure we are in
disagreement so far on anything -- on all the pages we went through and through all this matrix. So why
don't we look at a consent agenda format and specify which items, and this being so far the only one I think
that needs further clarification before we could sign off on it.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- Jeff, does that work?
MR. WRIGHT: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that's okay with the panel, we'll just defer this temporary use for
further clarification on a consent format.
Go ahead, Catherine.
MS. F ABACHER: I think unless we say when we will continue it to, Mr. Strain, that we'll have to
run another ad, unless you pick a board meeting -- a commission meeting date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's pick it for two days from now, because we've got absolutely
nothing to do on Thursday.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we do it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the board members know, all the rest of the projects have been
continued on Thursday, or they need to be at our meeting. So we're going to show up, continue everything
and go home.
MS. ISTENES: I just would hesitate that we may not have it done by then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- if you can't, that's fine. But I think that--
MS. ISTENES: Actually, I'm kind of confident we can, but I don't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before this meeting's--
MS. ISTENES: I say that and then we run into difficulty.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before this meeting's over we'll get some dates from Susan and Joe and
we'll peg another general meeting. Obviously it won't be the next one we have, because everything that was
going to be on Thursday is continued until then, so we certainly don't want to do it on that Thursday.
MS. ISTENES: Do you want me just to put it on consent and then you can pull it if you have
discussions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For this coming Thursday?
MS. ISTENES: For the next meeting date you decide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, that would be safer. Because I don't know how many of the items
are going to come back on the second Thursday in June. Because the first Thursday in June is -- apparently
there's been a substantial advertising error that's affected every one of the previously agenda'd (sic) topics.
So this week we will have to meet to reconvene.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question is if you didn't have a quorum on that Thursday, this
Page 41
{;.'I ' 1 l!tn2 ;
H i- ~
JlJ \.." . J] .. 2, 2009
Thursday coming, you couldn't even continue it. could you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's going to be -- it has to be continued.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be moot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's moot, probably. But I think we need to show up and--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would show up. But I'm just thinking about what a shame that is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing, could we on Thursday's meeting discuss the
dates? That way -- I don't have my calendar with me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL we've got to discuss them before we close today, unfortunately,
because today's the advertised date. We have to defer another date too, so -- but we could look at it on a
regular Thursday, and then if we haven't got it together by then we can move it forward again, Brad.
Let's move on to the barber poles.
MS. ISTENES: Barber poles. Our recommendation is to pull this out of the sign code and put this
in -- I believe it was the architectural provisions; is that correct, Catherine?
MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ISTENES: In other words, we're not going to call it a sign. This was a board directed item that
was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good idea. Does anybody else have a problem with it? Mr.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're talking about the revolving -- okay. And are you going to
cross-reference it so if someone thinks it's a sign?
MS. ISTENES: I don't think so. We're just not going to call it a sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody okay with that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you got the consensus on that one.
Then we're on to the back of the page, starting up on top with hand-held signs.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Dancing hot dogs, tacos and --
MS. ISTENES: This is something we did introduce. Only because I felt compelled to recognize it
as a professional, knowing that they are out there, they're becoming very prolific and we've gotten a lot of
comments and concerns about them.
Did I come to you with a solution? Yes, but it's open for discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your solution?
MS. ISTENES: Page 22.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's your solution. Okay. I thought you had something else.
MS. ISTENES: No.
Is that the correct reference, Diana.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a misnomer to call it a hand-held sign if you're inside a
hot dog costume, but hey, what do I know?
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, it's actually Page 20. I apologize. Under number 14. It's highlighted in red,
hand-held signs. So that's where we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a stab at it. I don't know ifthere's any suggestions here to do
any better.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Susan, isn't the danger is that the guy spinning the hot dog
Page 42
161
lA2
June 2, 2009
is one thing, but also that's the same as a protester with a sign on a pole. Isn't that the same creature? Is that
a hand-held sign? So if you start regulating one without discussing content, you regulate the other.
MS. ISTENES: Go ahead, Catherine, why don't you add your comment to the record.
MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry. It was our plan not to permit noncommercial signs, like support our
troops or, you know, don't bail out GM. You know, it's personal freedom of speech.
Now, when you're advertising, I think we can issue you a temporary use permit fairly, because it's a
commercial endeavor. But when it's these other -- according to our consultant, when it's these other issues
it's totally freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We're not going to go out and bust somebody for
save our troops.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the definition of sign, are they excluded? Or how would
somebody know I don't have to get a permit to carry a protest sign?
MS. ISTENES: Diana?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you're making the guy get a permit to carry a hot dog sign.
MS. COMPAGNONE: We would be specifying it's just for noncommercial speech -- I mean for
commercial speech. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this is in commercial, therefore --
MS. COMPAGNONE: Save our troops would be noncommercial. They're not -- they are
supporting the troops, but they're not trying to advertise a business or anything.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, remember, this is in noncommercial zones. So in other
words you say it's a commercial sign, but essentially it's restricted by what kind of a district it's in, zoning
district. It's not restricted by what it's doing, right? It's development standards for signs in nonresidential
districts.
So why would I -- you know, carrying a protest sign around a residential street's different than
carrying it in a nonresidential district. So isn't that what you're -- wouldn't that be a hand-held sign? You see
what I'm saying, is I think we really should be clear that the noncommercial sign in the definition of signs is
the best place to stop people from going any further.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I add to that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It just occurs, Joe's Restaurant says save our troops or whatever--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Buy a hot dog.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's making a free speech item a commercial, okay, if you want to
construe it as such. I wouldn't necessarily. But in fact I think the perfect example Joe Schmitt has used, and
I agree with him completely, is Perkins with the flag. I mean, that's advertising. It's certainly the American
flag and we should respect that, but it's advertising. So you've got kind of a quandary there, too, I think
possibly.
I don't know how significant this is as an issue. You folks do. Does it happen a lot? You said it's
increasing, Susan.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I mean, we're seeing both commercial and noncommercial messages. You'll
see the advertisements for restaurants, for example, but you'll also see people holding out signs, apartments
for rent, you know. And then the question is, is that commercial or noncommercial? Likely noncommercial.
The law does, you know, provide different levels of protection for commercial versus
noncommercial speech. So I think -- and I'm not speaking as a lawyer, but I think there's some protection
there and we can distinguish between the two.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a tough one because in our economic times a lot of people
are driven to do things that are a little ofT the wall type of stuff for us. Maybe common in other areas. But
they're just desperately trying to find a way to get some income. And of course our code has not -- you can't
Page 43
.l
n l~ 2 June 2, 2009
really relate to that period of time, it has to relate beyond that fact, right?
MS. ISTENES: No, I -- yes and no.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad you're clear on that. I was just as clear.
MS. ISTENES: The point is, I mean, all of your land development codes are not static. They're
always evolving, because the community is always evolving. And the priorities of the community are
always changing as well.
So yes, you always -- you have to look what's going on today and you definitely have to look what's
going on tomorrow. So maybe 10 years from now people don't want to have hand-held signs, but for now
they're out there and we thought we would just bring it up and see what you all thought about it and what
your recommendation is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the question that staffs trying to ask is we don't have a lot of
regulation on hand-held signs right now. They're offering some minimal regulation as a starting point. Do
we want to go with that for now, or do we want to leave it like it is and do nothing? What's the consensus?
Did you have anymore input. Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, my concern was is regulating the protest sign. Your
answer was it's not part of the code.
But remember the code, because it's in a -- this is a noncommercial part of the code, but it's a
noncommercial zoning district. In other words, it has to do with the zoning of the ground they're standing
on, not the sign. So essentially they would have to get a pennit to have a hand-held sign in a commercial
district, the way this is written.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how would you -- you know, how would you justify
otherwise? And I don't think we want to permit that type of sign.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Maybe we can put something in there that noncommercial messages don't
require a permit, or fix that a little bit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you're back to the content, which is -- you know, you've had
that in there and that's why we're taking it out, because you let somebody do something noncommercially
that they can do commercially.
So anyway, I think the way this is \\TItten in the commercial district you would have to have -- and
is it prohibited in residential?
MS. ISTENES: It's not addressed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the hot dog guy can go walking in and out of the streets in a
residential neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every Halloween they do, so--
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a very problematic issue. I mean, if somebody wants to -- to get back to
the tea party issue, if somebody wants to hold up a sign on the corner of Airport and 41, you know, with
supporting this or not supporting that. we're not going to regulate that.
And I think this really is a problem with the times. I mean, people are in desperate straits right now,
and I don't know that you really want to look at an issue when you're in unique circumstances such as we
are right now.
I don't know that these hand-held signs are going to be an issue two, three years from now. I mean,
I'm hoping that these unsold condos are sold two, three years from now and we won't have people holding
these signs, and the apartments are rented and, you know, the stores are filled with customers.
And with the economic prosperity that will hopefully come back, the issue will be addressed. I
don't know if you want to be punitive on this issue.
MS. ISTENES: I mean, your recommendation could be just don't address it.
Page 44
161
AJ2e 2,'21009
;,~,'" m1
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then ifthe code's silent on it, what does that give us? That
means there's no control at all for it.
And one thing, you know, there's the protest guy on one side, but then there's the guy like you see
in California who's on the corner spinning the sign. I mean, he's not regulated either then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just continuing on that, where I was going with my thinking
when you responded to me, when you first made the statement that they are becoming more prolific, I saw
that as a longer term trend than what we have as a current economic condition. Was I in error in
interpreting your statement?
MS. ISTENES: I think it's subjective. I think, you know -- well, no, not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I would certainly -- given our economic times, and if
you have a minimal amount of control over it, and I agree with Jeff, we're not going to likely see this two
years from now, Lord willing, that we don't have to make more of it than it needs to be. I would be okay
with a minimal, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As recommended by staff so far, you mean?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think so. I think that works for us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see what it hurts. I agree with you, Mr. Murray. It's better than
nothing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the question then becomes is do we really need to permit it? I mean, do
you need to come into CDS to get a permit for a dancing hot dog for a day? Is that something we want to go
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we need a permit for it, but I think if we have a regulation that
restricts the quantity of them in any particular time, that's useable.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the rest of you?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm -- see, because they say 72 square foot is too big for two
hand-held signs. But I don't know how that's interpretable relative to a dancing hot dog. And this is very
difficuIt to really try to see where it can be.
I don't know that it needs to be per se regulated, but if it's not to be regulated, then why have it in
the code? That's where my confusion is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, could staff -- you've witnessed the discussion here today. Could you
come back on the consent -- this would be another item to add to it with a little bit firmer suggestion based
on more input from the County Attorney's Office as to how to resolve this? Because if we're confused and
we send it on to them up ahead of us, it's still going to get more discussion there, so it might be better to
have a better language than what we're looking at.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, this is on the silent issue. If you look at prohibited
signs, number five says that any sign not in conformance with the requirements, and then states the sections
in which we have requirements, and then the nonconforming.
So essentially the thought that if it's silent on it it's not in conformance with the requirements, thus
it's prohibited.
MS. ISTENES: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the hot dog guy is prohibited in a residential, because it is
Page 45
1 "
-1 A2
June 2, 2009
~
silent. In other words, they can't meet the requirements.
MS. ISTENES: If you're going to remove any reference to hand-held signs in the code, then if it's
not in there it's prohibited, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you'll bring that back to us?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next one is the exemption from these regulations.
MS. ISTENES: Okay, sorry, I was just taking notes.
Catherine, are you on that page?
MS. FABACHER: Yes, ma'am. It's on Page 20, Section 5.06.05, exemptions from these
regulations.
I believe Jeff Wright had pointed out earlier that the major problems with our sign code that we got
struck down were that we had all these exemptions by content and all of these prohibitions by content. So
that's why we tried to get rid of all of the names. And the exemptions are only signs that are authorized to
be displayed by law, by governmental order, rule or regulation. Anything that a law requires you to, you
know, post. If they require you to post a no trespassing, if it's a federal -- state statute or something.
And the only other thing is reasonable repairs and maintenance, which we've defined.
MS. ISTENES: What is our concern with that? Why is it in this matrix? I want to be sure the board
understands.
MS. F ABACHER: Matrix.
MS. ISTENES: Diana, do you want to jump in?
MS. COMPAGNONE: Some of the things listed in the current sign code under exempt we can't--
we're having a very hard time addressing because they're so content based.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're only talking about what you're proposing in the current code, right?
And you're only proposing two things.
MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, there were concerns that came up. Today we consider religious
displays, like crosses at churches and whatnot exempt from the code and they're not considered signage.
According to this code you can't say religious displays, because that's content based. So it's something that
we have currently but can't necessarily fit it into this working draft in such a way without the content to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Being discovered.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're in a circle on that one for sure.
MS. COMP AGNONE: That's why we brought it to your attention.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what is it you're trying to ask us? If you've written the new code that
we have in front of us today with the exemptions that are there, you're simply explaining to us how they
mayor may not apply, depending on what comes down in the future. You really can't regulate religious
based items.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But if you don't state--
MS. COMP AGNONE: Like unintending consequences.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if you don't state something, as I interpret it, if you don't state
something in a prescriptive code, it's not allowed.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would cause basically a real problem, I suspect.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why would you consider it a sign? In other words, if
somebody puts a manger scene in front of the church, where does (sic) the concept that this might be a
sign?
Page 46
161
1 AJZe 2, 2009
Maybe that's a good example, Jeff, to get rid of the word representation and say \vith presentation.
Because somebody would argue you're representing the birth.
But why does it get drawn into the sign? Because ifit does get drawn into the sign and it's not
mentioned there it is prohibited. So why would it wind up there to begin with?
MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, you could still do it on the sign, but it would then count as part of
their sign copy. I mean, it really is -- that's why in today's code it's considered exempt. Where if we --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Specific.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Specifically, correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're not allowed to be specific on an issue, because that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we exempt those issues provided by the United States
Constitution?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thanks, Mark. Appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, well, that just falls back on case law and that's what the attorneys
thrive on.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Give us another two --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's that, Jeff?
MS. F ABACHER: I won't have that in two days.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm going to tell you, it's going to be different five years from now, that I can
guarantee you.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Brad, in may, you could have a sign, a commercial property
owner might put out a sign John 3: 16. Now, that's on a commercial property and it's in addition to their
signage. No? Well, that's religious in nature to those who understand that.
And then if a code enforcement officer were to come along or yourself and you say well, wait a
minute, you already have all your sign allocation, now what do you do? I guess that's why you're here.
MS. ISTENES: The difficult -- yes. And you've hit on the difficulty we're having.
I put up there just a sampling of some of the ones that are exempt so you have an idea. And I think
honestly they've sort of evolved over time, based on what people do. They put up memorial plaques, they
put up historical tablets, they put up no trespassing signs, they put up no dumping signs. And so over the
years this list has kind of been added to as those signs that are exempt from the requirements.
Now calling them a no trespassing sign or calling them a no dumping sign is content-based and is
discriminatory and we can't include them. So we're in a bit of a pickle ourselves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, you may have already resolved it. Under exemptions you have A,
signs authorized to be displayed by law or by governmental order, rule or regulation. That covers religious
signs. They're authorized by our constitution. So what do we need to expand on that anymore for?
MS. ISTENES: Are you suggesting that maybe staff could use that provision to look at a sign that
might fall under that category and then make an administrative determination that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. ISTENES: -- it would apply under that case?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And if you had a law question, you'd turn to the County Attorney's
Office and it all gets handled that way.
MS. ISTENES: I'd be willing to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says by law or governmental order, rule or regulation. And I think the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all the other things we have in the country are covered by one of those.
MS. ISTENES: I'd be willing to start doing that and we'll see how it goes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- although well intended, I'm certain, I would -- my
recollection of it is the government shall make no law concerning -- I'm using concerning, it's not the right
Page 47
i..(.
f;'
JuJ2~~9
word -- the establishment of religion or therefore the maintenance of religion, so I think it's silent then,
intentionally silent on the matters of religion. So --
MS. ISTENES: Jeff, are you comfortable with an administration decision under that provision?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nobody cares about a reasonable crucifix. If somebody wants to put up a
1 OO-foot crucifix on their property, that might be an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That happened.
MR. KLATZKOW: I know that happens. I know that happens. So in the everyday world this is not
an issue. In the extraordinary situation, we're going to have to sit dO\\'TI and figure out what we're going to
do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm a practical person, I'd go along with you on that. Let's not
worry about it then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd just as soon we leave the exemptions as staff has recommended them
and let's see how it flies. Everybody okay with that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, fine.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on to the second to the last one. It's prohibited -- well, exemptions
and prohibited. I guess we're now under prohibited signs. Is there any --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Neon, beacon.
MS. ISTENES: Page -- oh, boy, let's see.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Principal there is spelled A-L.
MS. ISTENES: Catherine, do you want to jump in on that and explain that?
MS. F ABACHER: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: I think you can better than me.
MS. F ABACHER: Sure.
MS. ISTENES: Or Diana.
MS. FABACHER: We're not really prohibiting them by their content, we're prohibiting them by
their sign type. A snipe sign is defined up front, and it doesn't have anything to do with the content, it
simply has to do with something that we call that's illegally placed there.
Also you can put permanent signs in the county right-of-ways, but not without a right-of-way
permit. So we feel pretty safe on that one.
Portable signs, that's a type, not content based. And then roof signs.
And then the last one was anything that's not in conformance with the major sections of the sign
code there. You see 5.06.00 to 5.06.05, that's the regular code. And then 5.06.09 is where we're adding the
nonconforming provisions.
Is that what you needed, or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a human directional sign?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I was wondering.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Your dancing hot dog.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if he points, right?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, when he points.
MS. COMP AGNONE: Depends on what kind of dog he is. No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You'd have to defer to the attorneys on that one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, wouldn't this be smart to maybe pull some of this stuff
into the architectural standards? I mean, if we don't allow neon, beacon lights.
MS. ISTENES: We talked about that yesterday. That is a possibility, so --
Page 48
161
1. A 2ne 2~009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be the smartest thing is to take it out as a prohibitive
element. It has nothing to do with signs, has nothing to do with speech. It has to do with pure aesthetics.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you look at that and come back to us--
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on that one?
MS. ISTENES: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's a good approach.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. And the last one, actually we've resolved this. I'm not sure why this is in
here.
If you go to Page 25, the purpose of this was again to recommend -- on recommendation of our
consultant to comply with the timely requirement to consider permits or variances to the sign code in a
timely manner. And we believe we've done that by implementing the 60-day requirement to have a decision
60 days after you all recommend your recommendation -- or give your recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to modify that now to be consistent with the Florida
Building Code that Joe --
MS. ISTENES: That was on the issuance of a permit. Yes, this is for a variance. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you resolved it.
Anybody have any problem with the resolution?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: None.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Susan, I think what this boils down to is there's three areas that are
going to come back on a future date. One will be a discussion of temporary use permits, the other was
hand-held, and the other is a look at the prohibition signs and moving those to the architectural criteria.
MS. ISTENES: That's what my notes say as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that in agreement with everybody on this panel?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine for me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other thing that hasn't been mentioned, or at least I'd like to know
where in the sign ordinance it falls, is this allowance that I feel is dangerous and wrong is in the median
sales that we have popping up sporadically in the county.
Why do we allow median sales and public right-of-ways these people are -- first of all, they're
dangering themselves. I think it's real difficult for the public and the traffic to move forward when you've
got people banging on your windshield wanting to sell you something or asking you to donate. Why do we
allow that and how is that fitting in the sign ordinance?
MS. ISTENES: I think that's in the codes oflaws and ordinances. Are you talking about like the
collection of money?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one of them. I've seen different types.
MS. ISTENES: Roadside sales in and of themselves, like if a vendor pulls off -- are not permitted
in the county. But now I think that I'm listening to your question, I think that has to do -- and I think that's
in the code of laws and ordinances. It's not addressed --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not in the sign code.
MS. ISTENES: -- in the sign code.
MR. KLATZKOW: Susan's right.
Page 49
..' "'."~
" if '~" '"
r\ t:\ ,,~
\Uutiei~ 2009
. ct ,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when they go around carrying a sign for this donation, it's not a
sign issue?
MS. ISTENES: Right. I believe that -- my rec -- I'd have to look into it, but my recollection is that's
all part of the n
MR. KLATZKOW: We had a special-- I don't remember it, Commissioner, but we did a special
ordinance. I know like the boot drive would fall under it that the firemen do for Memorial Day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I thought I'd find out. And this isn't the forum for it.
Now, before we move into any future dates, I'd like to ask, are there any comments from the
audience before we start looking at a date to discuss the three issues remaining?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Susan, I would suggest that we add it to a consent agenda
format the second Thursday in June, pending how many issues we have that day. And the reason I'm saying
that is because we've had this entire week postponed till possibly then, plus whatever would have been on
that date regularly. So I'm not sure that we can fit that day in.
How do we do that at this meeting, knowing that we've got to have a date certain to continue to?
MS. ISTENES: Catherine has a--
MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. I suggest that we do. And if we need to continue it again, Mr. Chair, we
have five weeks on the ad which ran on the 17th of May, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, does that work for everybody? Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was the date again?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing is that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second Thursday.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second meeting.
MS. F ABACHER: 18th, June 18th.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: June 18th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. It would be June 18th would be our second meeting in June.
Mr. Schiffer had the floor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure the consent agenda is the appropriate thing. Because
essentially the consent agenda doesn't give us room to change, debate things. It's just a matter to recollect
whether our wording is what we meant in the actual hearing. So I would rather have another hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just continue it --let's continue further discussion of this till the 18th.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Then we'll add it to the -- now, do we have to have a time certain?
Okay, time certain for 8:30 in the morning on June 18th. It will be the first thing up on the agenda. With the
caveat that if the agenda is overly packed we'll have to announce a further continuance and a new date at
that time. And Joe, I guess we'll have to see what happens with all the continuances.
Now, back to that other issue of the continuances. I was informed this morning that the three items
that we have on today's agenda had an advertising glitch. We apparently used a new company. Something
got messed up in the way the notifications were sent out. And that to be safe, those three items need to be
continued.
So in essence this Thursday we do not have any hearings that will actually be heard. But we have
to convene because it was advertised so that we can announce the continuances and then close the meeting.
So we still need a quorum, everybody needs to show up, but it will be a very, very short meeting.
Is there any -- Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would just suggest to make sure that our commissioner from
Immokalee is notified about that.
Page 50
161
1 A2.2, 2~~9
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Susan or Joe, that would be a good point. Can you call up Paul
Midney and let him notice this circumstance so that -- I hate to see him drive in for just that one thing.
MR. KLATZKOW: I hate to see you guys drive in just to drive away. That sounds kind of silly. I
mean, at the end of the day if you didn't have a quorum, we'd have to continue it anyway.
Mark, if you just show up just to make the public announcement --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd be glad to do that.
MR. SCHMITT: I was going to ask the same thing, do we need a quorum? And 1--
MR. KLATZKOW: You know what? Let's--
MR. SCHMITT: It is a meeting. Even if we don't have a quorum, it would be continued. So it's just
a matter of formally announcing --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'll show up and--
MR. SCHMITT: -- going on the air, announcing a continuance and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's on my agenda. I'll show up at 8:30 in the morning. And
then actually what I'll do is I'll vote on all the subjects myself and say, we're done.
MR. SCHMITT: Is there anything we can debate while you're the only one here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for edification here, we're here now. It may be a special
meeting, but we're aware of that fact. Could we not do that now?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can agree right now to continue to a date certain, and then Mark can
make that announcement Thursday.
MR. SCHMITT: But I think we still have to meet Thursday because it was advertised in the paper
correctly and there was a public notice. It was the notices that went to the surrounding residences that were
not sent out in a timely manner.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we know we're going to continue it.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. But I still have to have someone here. We still have to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To do it officially.
MR. SCHMITT: -- publicly officially continue the meeting on Thursday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a problem. I go right by here every day anyway.
MR. SCHMITT: So it's a matter of yes, you can do that. Those who are listening now certainly are
now aware of it. But I think the legal issue --
MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't we just -- you can make a motion now to continue to a date certain,
whenever date you think is appropriate. And then Mark, Thursday you can make the announcement.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That makes sense.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, we're primarily dealing with the items that were advertised for Thursday,
which is for the conditional uses. Margood --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have three cases on Thursday. One will be the -- the two are involving
the Margood Park on Goodlette and one is involving St. Monica's Church on Immokalee Road.
I guess then we're looking for a motion that we will allow these items to be continued at the -- to
the next time -- next date convenient for the advertising -- meeting the advertising needs for staff.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 51
""'-~~"'""-'---"~""-"'-'"-'''--'''-'''__'_"","___'ill._l!l ~..l1lJ1J'l( .'"
161
\1) ~
JJfut:2, 2009
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
And I'll announce that motion on Thursday's meeting when I get there.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And then please get an e-mail out so that Paul sees it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think everybody on the Planning Commission, especially those
that aren't here, need to be notified not to come in on Thursday. And we'll take care of it that way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, my question was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- how about the general public, is there any way we can notify
them to prevent them from coming in?
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll put it on the website.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the two issues we had weren't very controversial. In fact, just the
opposite. Although there were a lot of questions on them from this panel, I would assume. But I know that
they weren't -- they didn't seem to have that much of a neighborhood informational meeting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Susan, if anybody \\<Tote a letter in or objected, I think make
sure they're notified.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You could also put it on the TV, the county TV.
MR. KLATZKOW: What channel is it on these days?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 97.
MR. KLATZKOW: 97.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If you can see it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They could put a crawler on there and that would provide
information to folks that the Planning Commission meeting has been continued.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's 1.T.'s deal. You can't read the screen, never mind crawler.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For today -- I think we finished our business for today?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- made the motion. Seconded by Commissioner Wolf1ey.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're out of here -- actually we're continued.
Page 52
16 J 1 ~ua 2, 2~09
MS. FABACHER: We're continued to the 18th.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we're out of here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're adjourned for today and continued to the 18th.
*****
Page 53
161 1~2 J
June 2, 2009
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 11 :27 a.m.
COLLIER COUNJ)Y .1
PL.iif\N1N~G. . corMI$I~~N
. l,. vv... ~{ "XV '-, ~
.
MARK STRAIN. Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
corrected
~) '1. () ')
as presented
v
or as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 54
161 !'1A3 ~
September 17, 2008
~-.1~ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
~~~\.. 'l.'l. / CONTRACTOR LICEN.SING BOA~Qa DF/vK-.
~ ..)\VoY>~~ Naples, Flonda Hala~ ~T- .~~/~~/
~~o September 17 2008 Hennlng___
'?) , Coyle ~
Coletta
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Lice lng
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:
Les Dickson
Richard Joslin
Eric Guite'
Lee Horn
Terry Jerulle
Thomas Lykos
Michael Boyd
Glenn Herriman
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Attorney for the CLB
Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney
Michael Ossorio, Zoning & Land Development Review
:~~CJI 09-
Item #:LIQ Tll)A 3
Page ]
.: pies tt)
16/ lA3
September 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to call to order the meeting of
the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board for September 17th,
2008.
Anyone who would like to make an appeal for a decision from
this board needs to have a verbatim record of the proceedings, which
is being taken.
At this time, I'd like to have roll call, starting at my right.
MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle.
MR. HERRIMAN: Glenn Herriman.
MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson.
MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
MR. HORN: Lee Horn.
MR. GUITE': Eric Guite'.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any additions or deletions to the
agenda?
Andy? (Sic.)
MR. JOSLIN: Ian.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ian.
MR. JACKSON: For the record--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got to quit doing that.
MR. JACKSON: -- Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer for
Collier County.
Staff has an addition in new business, Randy Anderson, to
reinstate a canceled Collier County certificate.
And the other addition would be after the public hearings, Sergio
Gonzalez from Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
And that's all for staff.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is Sergio here? Not yet.
MR. JACKSON: Not yet.
MR. OSSORIO: I-Ie's right there. You're looking right at him.
MR. JACKSON: There we go.
Page 2
16 A I'l-;;
I } ".i ~~J
September 17, 2008
J!l
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have an addition. In discussion,
Chairmanship and Vice-Chairmanship of this board.
Anyone else have any additions or deletions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Entertain a motion to accept the
agenda as amended.
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
MR. GUITE': Second, Guite'.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
So done.
Your minutes from last meeting, assuming you've had a chance
to look at them. I need amotion to either amend those or approve
them as written.
(Mr. Boyd enters the boardroom.)
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes as
written. I didn't find any real errors in it.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
Page 3
~.... ....'_.,.
16/1A3
September 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Let the record reflect Mr. Boyd did come in.
Good morning, sir.
MR. BOYD: Morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right off, discussion. Jeffrey Linzer, ~
are you here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, then we'll move on.
Chairmanship. The discussion I wanted to have, having been on
this committee for 20 years and Chairmanship for five years, I don't
think it is conducive to the committee or the continuity of the
committee to just automatically have the Chairmanship sit until he
dies or he's replaced. That happens on other boards, but I don't think
it's good for a board. Whereas our county commission doesn't do that,
I don't think this board should do it either.
So therefore, last week I proposed that since I have just been
appointed to a new three-year term that we discuss procedures for,
which we don't have, procedures for Chairmanshi p and
Vice-Chairmanship on this board.
And I asked the committee members to think about it and come
up with some ideas that we could enter into as a motion and make it a
part of -- what would I call it? Could we make that a part for all future
people, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: You could create a procedure to follow for
replacement of the Chairman. Because the ordinance does provide for
the election of the Chair and Vice-Chair on a periodic basis, so you
could provide that as in your procedure that every year or whatever
you can elect a new Chair.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So what are your ideas? What
did you come up with? Go ahead.
MR. L YKOS: Well, my idea was that our current Chair, Mr.
Dickson, serves through the end of the year, and at our December
Page 4
1 6'/1 Jf!3 ~..,;
September 17,2008
meeting we elect a new Chair and Vice-Chair, with the leadership
succession, Vice-Chair becomes Chair. Then every December we
would elect a new Vice-Chair.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: To take effect January 1st--
MR. L YKOS: At the first meeting of the year in January.
And also, that once a Chair -- once a Chair's term ended, that
that Chair could not -- had to take a year off before becoming
Vice-Chair again.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And Vice-Chair would automatically
become Chair the succeeding year?
MR. L YKOS: Correct.
MR. JOSLIN: You would always have someone then actually
that would be -- in a sense had the experience or the training or the
knowledge to know how to carry on the procedures with that one year
on the board, or however many years they've been on the board, which
would put them in the Chair, which would make sense.
The only question I have for Mr. Dickson is if he's willing to
continue until January.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: After 20 years, that's not very long.
MR. JOSLIN: Then the next question is if the board members
want him to continue on the board until January.
No, I'm only kidding. It would be a pleasure.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How do you all feel about that?
MR. GUITE': Makes sense to me.
MR. HERRIMAN: Good idea.
MR. HORN: I like it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think everyone of you would be
fantastic as a Chair. And if we do that rotation, then we really have -- I
mean, everybody's just -- I mean, they're cutting edge, instead of -- I
mean, some board members now are getting appointed for life. I don't
want that happening here. But that has happened in other places.
So can we put that in the form of a motion? Did you get that to
Page 5
1 r 1'11~ ~
.Il Sepiemb~ B, -1008 /.i
where we could? Do you all want to add anything to it?
MR. JERULLE: You know, I'm -- being new to the board, I'm
asking you with your experience, is one year long enough?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, and especially if you go
Vice-Chair first. Because then every one of us can serve as a board
Chair.
And it's not that much to it. You've got these two guys keeping
you out of trouble and these two over here getting you in trouble. I'm
just kidding.
But -- and especially with the Vice-Chair, if you know that the
very next year you're going to be Chairman, you're really kind of on
your tiptoes to make sure you're ready to step in there.
County Commission does this. And I see great continuity
between year after year, you don't really need to know who the
chairman is because they're all good at doing it.
MR. JOSLIN: I think also it would work, Terry, because they --
I mean, there is a possibility that maybe there will be members on the
board that may not want to be Chair.
In that case then when the motions come up to elect or
renominate another Chairman, that he can decl ine, knowing that he
doesn't want that position. So it leaves a kind of an open door all the
way around.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We discussed issues like you might be
Vice-Chair in the last year of your appointment, but that would just
mean that we would try to get you appointed for another term so you
can move into the Chairmanship.
And of course there's going to be people that leave. We've gone
through that in the last year. So periodically we'll be electing new
Vice-Chairs, because they'll move up.
Okay, are we good for a motion on that?
You got it? You got all your high points?
MR. L YI(OS: I make a motion that we adopt the leadership
Page 6
16/1A3
September 17, 2008
policy that I spelled out earlier, so I don't have to say it again.
MR. JOSLIN: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are we okay with that, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I have a second.
All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So I do have three more
months, which I will gladly serve.
Moving on. Mr. Linzer hasn't come in. Ifhe does, we'll go back.
New business. Gregory Brown, are you present?
MS. EGAN: I'm here representing Mr. Brown.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. If you would, come up to the
podium, please. I'll have you state your name and have you sworn in,
first.
MS. EGAN: My name is Amanda Egan, E-G-A-N.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: First state, if you would, your
relationship or why you're representing Mr. Brown.
MS. EGAN: I'm the corporate -- I'm the person at the office who
maintains the corporate records and also files for licensing and handles
all the administrative end of the business.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, is that acceptable? I don't
Page 7
16/ l'A3
September 17, 2008
have the license holder here.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, I mean, we don't have the license holder
here. She's not an attorney . We don't have any Power of Attorney for
her stating that she can represent him.
I mean, we've got her testimony under oath, but I would -- I have
to say I wouldn't feel real comfortable about her being the
representative in a manner such like this where you're deciding
whether to fine someone or whatever.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why wasn't Mr. Brown here today?
MS. EGAN: They elected me to be the one, because I'm the one
who handles all the recordkeeping and I'm the one who took care of
the fixing of the items that were not in compliance.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If it was my license, I would be here.
MR. JOSLIN: I see the problem where we have a citation here
that we have to act on. And the problem was the contesting of the
violation that was given.
And unfortunately we should be looking at the license holder,
not someone who's a representative.
MS. EGAN: I did kind of try yesterday. I was looking on-line. I
searched all the records I could search to find out what an authorized
representative was, and I could not locate that anywhere. I did attempt
to clarify that I could be the one speaking on his behalf.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I move that we strike this from
hearing it and we refuse to hear it. The fine is still due until at such
time as the license holder decides he wants to come before this board.
MR. HORN: Second, Horn.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion?
MR. JOSLIN: One other thing is if we go to the -- just in
reviewing of this little packet sent in to us, there is quite a severe
penalty for people that don't pay this tine within a period of time and
don't -- if they requested a hearing and they're not here, this fine starts
happening daily.
Page 8
1.6/1A3
September 17, 2008
MS. EGAN: We're not -- it's not our intention to put off paying
the fine. I didn't know that I could not be his representative. Because
I'm the record holder -- I'm the corporate record holder.
MR. JOSLIN: Well, unfortunately I look at it as that the actual
license holder is not here. That's what we're looking at.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think you could have made a simple
phone call to answer that question.
MS. EGAN: I spoke to Mr. Ossorio yesterday. I didn't--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you approve it, Mr. Ossorio?
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor.
I assumed that he was going to be here. I thought maybe there
would be all parties here. I did not know you would only be by
yourself. So I'm assuming that Mr. Brown was going to be present to
give testimony.
MR. L YKOS: Why wouldn't they both come?
MR. OSSORIO: I can't speak to that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can't deal with someone who is not a
license holder. This is a licensing board.
The motion remains that the fine is due until such time as the
owner -- the license holder wants to come before this board. There has
been a second. More discussion?
MR. JOSLIN: One other discussion I have. I f we go to that same
page, I just realized something here that is red. Maybe it means
something. I'm not sure, Mr. Neale, if you can kind of guide us on this.
It says there clearly, if you or your designated representative
show at an administrative hearing that the citation is invalid or the
violation has been corrected prior to appearing, the board may dismiss
the citation, unless the board finds the violation to be irreparable or
irreversible.
MS. EGAN: And that's what I read, and that's why I'm here
today.
Page 9
1611 A3
September 17, 2008
MR. NEALE: The problem is, we have nothing designating her
other than her testimony as representative.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, say like a letter from the license holder or
MR. NEALE: A letter from the license holder saying I hereby
appoint her as my designated representative.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, just so we don't miss anything in the
reading.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's a good point. Thank you.
Mr. Guite'?
MR. GUITE': That was my point.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Dickson, just for the record, the county
would somewhat object to this, because unfortunately that Mr. Brown
was present on the job site, so we would want to question him. So
there would have to be some testimonial from Mr. Brown, due to the
fact that he is requesting a hearing, so we would like to question him.
MR. NEALE: And Mr. Ossorio makes a point. Because even
though it says that if they do have a designated representative, that
designated representative still has to show that the citation was
invalid.
So they have to put up evidence that the citation is invalid in
order for you to find the citation invalid and void it. So Mr. Ossorio
makes a good point, how would that be proven unless we had the
person that was on the job.
So I think the board is acting properly in this matter.
MR. HERRIMAN: Do I read that this is a work compo violation?
MR. JACKSON: That's correct.
MR. HERRIMAN: I'm concerned if we put it off that he's
walking around without any workers' compensation insurance.
MS. EGAN: The problem's been corrected.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, the fine is still due.
And hi, Mr. Garcia?
Page ] 0
16 II l.A 3
September 17, 2008
MR. GONZALEZ: Gonzalez.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The state is -- Gonzalez, I'm sorry.
The state is sitting here. So I'm assuming it has been corrected.
I have a motion, I have a second. Any more discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the vote. All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Tell him to pay the fine; come see us
later if he wants. The fine is due.
Thank you, you're free to go.
MS. EGAN: Thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I think there's -- Jeffrey K.
Linzer is here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Linzer, come on up.
You had some discussion you wanted to address the board about
contracting? You represent Home Depot?
MR. LINZER: Yes, sir. My name's Jeff Linzer with Home
Depot. I'm the plumbing qualifier.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And who is with you?
MR. CASCARDO: My name is Juan Cascardo. I'm also with the
Home Depot. I'm also a qualifier for the Home Depot. Besides that,
we also have Jeff Linzer -- I mean Jeff Masterson. He's a qualifier for
electrical. And Ms. Raquel Swanner, which is the qualifier for the
Page 11
14" lA3
, f\ J
Sep . et 17,2008
general contracting side of the Home Depot.
I qualify the HV AC.
MR. LINZER: And I'm the plumbing qualifier for the State of
Florida for the Home Depot.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, and your purpose coming
before the board?
MR. CASCARDO: We're just basically here to introduce
ourselves, just to let the board know that there are people in the Home
Depot that care about compliance issues, about licensing issues. We're
here on a good -- as far as good faith basis just to let you know about
our job, that we are proactive as far as hiring licensing (sic)
contractors, subcontractors. That we also believe highly in pulling
permits. And that basically we have a compliance division, that
basically they -- their job is to make sure that our contractors -- our
subcontractors are pulling permits. So that's basically why we're here.
We just want to introduce ourselves.
We also want to let the board know that, you know, we have
people throughout the state that are looking -- enforcing the rules and
regulations of the Home Depot.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you are requesting copies of
licenses from your subs and verification of workers' compo insurance?
MR. CASCARDO: We have a complete department that we
regulate, make sure that each one of our subs has active licenses,
workers' compo insurance, liability insurance, and they have to
maintain this active.
We use it through a website that we have and a separate
company called Choice Point, just to make sure.
And by the way, that company also does background checks to
make sure that these service providers don't have any kind of felony or
criminal records in going into the customers' homes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd say you finally got -- or that you
got it right. That's wonderful.
Page 12
16/ 14A3
September 17, 2008
MR. CASCARDO: We're still trying. I mean, it's still a work in
progress. But part of our job is not only to enforce that but also to
present ourselves in front of the board. If you have any issues or
complaints, we're the people that you want to talk to.
We all have business cards. We'd like to drop them off. If you
have any kind of issues or complaints in the near future with the Home
Depot, we're here to help. We're here to make sure that we do it right,
so that's why we're here in front of this board today.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, the guys that might want your
cards, they're the ones if there's a complaint.
MR. CASCARDO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Us up here are your competitors.
MR. LINZER: We understand that. That's why we wanted to
know if there were any questions right now that we can answer, you
know, if anybody had any individual questions that we could answer
at the moment also.
MR. JOSLIN: I have just one: Is that the Home Depot sells a
sundry of products, some of which need permits, some of which don't.
Do you have qualifiers that are going to be painting contractors or
people that are going to permit whatever has to be done for every
phase of anything that you sell to a customer you're going to
subcontract to? That's what you're going to do?
MR. LINZER: Absolutely.
MR. CASCARDO: That's why our compliance seems in place.
We want to make sure that we are pulling permits for anything and
everything that is required.
MR. JOSLIN: And you are aware that the Collier County in
some instances requires permits and the City of Naples also requires
some other permits that you maybe don't have to get through Collier
County.
MR. LINZER: Correct. Yeah, we're familiar with all the
jurisdictions --
Page 13
16111A3
September 17, 2008
MR. JOSLIN: All the jurisdictions --
MR. LINZER: -- that work in the state, yes.
MR. GUITE': I'm one of the service providers, so I know what
these guys are saying. And they do, they make me do a lot of
paperwork just to -- it's almost redundant, but it is good.
MR. CASCARDO: What is the service provider? Who are you
with?
MR. GUITE': I do the ceramic tile.
MR. CASCARDO: Ceramic tile, okay.
MR. GUITE': Yeah, out of the Expo. I work from the Expo.
MR. CASCARDO: All right. Well, he could testify to our --
basically our stringent requirements that we have for the service
providers. And they're getting more stringent, by the way.
MR. L YKOS: Michael, I have a question, and it might apply to
-- I don't know if it has to do with OBPR or local ordinance.
Best of my recollection, the qualifier is responsible for
supervision of the projects. Is Home Depot -- are there systems in
place so that your qualifiers are supervising the work that you hire
out?
MR. CASCARDO: Well, basically what we have, besides
ourselves, which we do go out on job sites, we also have what's called
DSM's, which are District Services Managers. And these people are
trained to go out and also supervise. So we do go out.
We have -- as far as DSM's in the State of Florida, we have I
believe somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe about 50 to ] 00 of
these DSM's. I don't quite know the exact figure but -- and they're
based in different districts throughout the state. And they help us in
this task of supervising.
And if it needs to be escalated, obviously we can jump on a
plane and go anywhere we have to go within the state.
So we're going to leave these cards for you. Should I leave them
with this gentleman over there?
Page 14
161~1~:' 1 A ~
September 1 t ~(
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm glad -- personally, I'm glad you
came by. Because I don't know if you know our history, but we've had
some problems. Not with -- I'm not mentioning Home Depot, but
some of your competitors --
MR. LINZER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- that were contracting jobs and
putting it on revolving charges.
So I'm glad you guys finally got it right. There is a marketplace
for you. And you're really not taking my customers. What you're
taking is the people that would go to the unlicensed contractor.
MR. LINZER: I'd also like to let you know, we're also members
of BOAF, which is the Building Officials Association of Florida, and
CLOAF, which is the Contractors Licensing Officials. And we attend
all the meetings. We're, you know, very involved with all the different
organizations and associations. We go to -- constantly at meetings and
updating ourselves on all the new standards, anything that comes in.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is this a statewide effort, not just store
by store?
MR. LINZER: Statewide.
MR. CASCARDO: Nationally, actually.
MR. LINZER: Nationally.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All stores are involved?
MR. LINZER: Correct. Expo included.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And are you doing everything for all
the products you sell?
MR. LINZER: Anything that needs permitting, yes, sir.
Licensing, yeah. We're a compliance team.
MR. L YKOS: On a different subject, I'd like to see you have a
representative at the Collier Building Industry Association. If you
would consider joining that, I think it would be great for you and great
for our local industry as well.
So if I get one of your cards, I'll make sure you get an
Page I 5
16 II l~fA 3
September 17, 2008
application.
MR. CASCARDO: Okay. Yeah, through e-mail. Our cards have
e-mail addresses, probably the best way to reach us.
MR. MASTERSON: And cell phone numbers. So call us or
e-mail us anytime.
MR. L YKOS: Thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just a little footnote: Home
Depot has done a great job in the last six months. There's been a time
that Home Depot was not a good steward. Couple years ago we had
many complaints. So they've really dropped off.
And we've been communicating with the Atlanta office, I
believe that's where your home base is at?
MR. LINZER: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: And we have got good results from Atlanta.
And I think it's finally about time that Home Depot stood up, and
maybe it's about time that Lowe's comes in and talks to you as well,
see what they're doing.
It's somewhat difficult to find a qualifier of a huge corporation of
that size. And it's good that we have these business cards and now we
know who to call without making four or five phone calls. So it's good
news.
MR. LINZER: We've been going around to almost -- we've been
setting up meetings with most of the counties. We're now pretty much
done with this area and the central area. Now we're going up to the
Panhandle. We want to hit every county to let them know what we've
got in place right now.
MR. JOSLIN: I just have one last question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Get on the mic., please.
MR. JOSLIN: Are the contractors or the license holders for all
the different phases that you're doing that require permits, are these
actually employees of Home Depot?
MR. LINZER: Yes.
Page 16
sePte:~r '17, 2t~ 3
MR. JOSLIN: They are. Under payroll, and you're paid by
Home Depot?
MR. CASCARDO: Yeah, we're all work (sic) for the Home
Depot. It's not like we are renting out our license. We have actually
turned the license over and we are part of the Home Depot team. So
we're not subcontracted by the Home Depot.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I wish you well, gentlemen, thank
you.
MR. LINZER: Thank you. Have a good day.
MR. CASCARDO: Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: As we start moving through the
Chairmanship, it's important to keep them on that microphone. You
wouldn't believe the TV audience that's watching. And the TV can't
hear if they're not on the microphone.
Next one up, Berne Michael Kahle.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not here?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chair, Mr. Kahle was on the last agenda.
He called at the last minute and said he couldn't make it. He wanted to
be put on this next agenda, which is today. Obviously he is not
present.
Due to the fact that he's requested a hearing, I think we should at
least hear testimony to the fact of what occurred out there and have a
finding.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He doesn't have a license.
MR. OSSORIO: No license, no.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No license. What's the discussion?
MR. OSSORIO: Well, in the past we have gone -- in the past
we've -- somebody has requested a hearing and not shown up and
we've actually -- the board has heard testinlony of what really
happened out there, due to the fact that he requested a hearing.
I just don't want to see Mr. Kahle come back in my office next
Page 1 7
1611.\~3
September 17, 2008
month and say, oh, I'm sorry, I missed it, I want to go again.
This is not like a revolving door. You have 10 days to contest it.
He had some circumstances last month that he could not attend. We
granted him permission to go speak at this board this month. So I just
want to make sure that this is the end of the road here.
MR. JOSLIN: Has he paid the fine?
MR. OSSORIO: No.
MR. NEALE: And the board in the past has taken this type of
action where someone has contested a citation, been given proper
notice, hasn't shown up. The board has in the past determined that the
citation was valid and kept it in place. Because really, the action of the
board and citation is really to determine whether they are valid or
invalid. That really is this whole action the board takes.
If the citation's valid, then the board upholds the citation and it
gets put in place. If they do not pay the fine in a certain period of time,
then the county does have the option of fil ing a lien on their real and
personal property with the courts, so -- with the clerk of court, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Kahle, (sic) if you would, state
your name and I'll have you sworn in real quick.
MR. GANGULI: I'm not the respondent, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, I know you're not, but I need that
-- I'm going to get testimony from you.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. GANGULI: Rob Ganguli.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm sorry, I was looking at the wrong
one.
MR. GANGULI: G-A-N-G-U-L-I. Good morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Where did you find him?
MR. GANGULI: The address, sir?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 15th Avenue Southwest?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What was he doing?
Page 1 8
161 1~A3
September 17,2008
MR. GANGULI: Well, I have a little narrative if I can--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sure, go ahead.
MR. GANGULI: The circumstances regarding the issuance of
Citation 4104 as follows.
On July 8th, 2008 I made a field observation at the address 4441
15th Avenue Southwest in Golden Gate Estates of posted Building
Permit No. 2008010178, issued for a detached framed two-story
playroom and garage. Issued to owner/builder Kenneth Keller, with no
contractor information listed.
Upon inspection of the job site, I observed Mr. Berne Michael
Kahle performing PVC plumbing work. And when I asked him, he
also stated he was working on the framed carpentry of the structure.
When I inquired about his licensing information, he was unable
to provide any and stated he was working for the homeowner, Mr.
Keller.
Upon further investigation I discovered that Mr. Keller was not
present anywhere on the job site.
And the three circumstances: Based on the scope of the work I
observed being done, the absence of the owner-builder on the job site
and the criteria specified in the disclosure statement of State Statute
489, Section 103 regarding owner/builder permits, I issued a $300
citation to Mr. Kahle for acting in the capacity of a contractor without
being duly registered or certified.
MR. JOSLIN: Just a quick question for your -- just for the
record. You mentioned he did pve plumbing. What type of plumbing
was he doing? Where you able to --
MR. GANGULI: Well, he was filthy dirty and it was
underground.
MR. JOSLIN: Underground.
MR. GANGULI: As far as the specifics of it, I'm sorry, Mr.
Joslin, I can't tell you.
CHAIRMAN DICI(SON: Good, he's getting into the potable
Page 1 9
16 I .1 A 3
September 17, 2008
system.
MR. JOSLIN: Obviously.
Could it have been a water system, I mean in your opinion?
MR. GANGULI: I wish there was some validity to my opinion.
My best guess would be that it was some type of irrigation, perhaps.
MR. JOSLIN: Irrigation.
MR. L YKOS: Well, I don't like an unlicensed contractor
building a two-story structure unsupervised and unlicensed.
So I make a motion that the citation stands.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MR. BOYD: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. BOYD: Was the job site red tagged? Because this is an
owner/builder permit. Shouldn't the owner/builder hold some
responsibility also?
MR. GANGULI: Well, it's my understanding that the owner of
the property, when there's an owner/builder permit, may not have any
responsibilities other than what's stated in the disclosure statement of
him being -- or providing on-site supervision on the job site.
As far as recourse taken on the owner/builder, Mr. Ossorio?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I might want to add some
testimony. Can I get sworn in, please.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. OSSORIO: Morning. For the record, Mike Ossorio,
Contractor Licensing Supervisor.
Under the Collier County Ordinance 2006-21, it clearly states if
you're unlicensed, there is a red tag that we issue. There was a red tag
issued on the property, and we issue many red tags on any unlicensed
activity job sites.
Typically what happens, the homeowner comes in,
owner/builder permit. This is no exception, the owner did stop by my
Page 20
16 I 1 ~A 3
September 17, 2008
office and elected to go ahead and not have this particular person, Mr.
Kahle, back on the property.
So when Mr. Kahle was not on the property anymore and the
homeowner is under advisement, what he needs to do as an
owner/builder, the red tag has been removed.
So that is what typically happens on any kind of job site, no
matter if it's owner/builder permit or a permitted site by a contractor.
MR. QUITE': Was he contracting with the homeowner to do this
work, or was the homeowner paying his wages and taking out taxes?
MR. OSSORIO: As far as my recollection, the investigator was
on the job site, asked who he was working for, he said he was working
for the homeowner. We're assuming that's what that means.
MR. GANGULI: The specifics of taking out taxes, Mr. Guite', I
didn't ask. He did state that he was working for the homeowner.
MR. GUITE': I was just reading the disclosure statement here in
your packet. The packet is saying that any person working on your
building who is not licensed must work under the direct supervision
and must be employed by you, which means that you must deduct
FICA and withholding tax and provide Workmen's Compo for that
employee.
It almost seems to me that the person who is at fault here is the
homeowner.
MR. GANGULI: Well, I'm thinking that ifhe could substantiate
having withheld all those things from the gentleman's paycheck, it
would be a fairly easy thing to resolve, since he requested the hearing.
MR. GUITE': Because it's my understanding that contracting
without a license is you have to engage in a contract with the
homeowner to do whatever, to do plumbing or do tile or paint or
whatever.
lfhe's just some guy passing through and this guy's paying him
10 bucks an hour to do some work, I mean, it's --
MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely right, Mr. Guite'. We have
Page 2 I
16 /I 1 A 3
September 17, 2008
come across owner/builders who elect to go out and get help and pay
them an hourly wage and also take out insurance. Doesn't happen that
often due to the fact that a lot of insurance carriers and day labor
really don't deal directly with owner/builders and owners.
MR. GUITE': Right.
MR. OSSORIO: I haven't seen that in my tenure here so -- but it
can theoretically happen.
On this particular case, I don't want to misspeak out of turn, but
this owner was paying him something. There was no taxes taken out.
So this is why the citation was brought to you. So with that said.
MR. JOSLIN: One question I have, which goes back to the
permitting factor, I think you're right, I think the owner has some
responsibility, that's for sure. I think it's a double barrel shotgun here.
But through the permitting process with Collier County, do they
still require when a general contractor or an owner/builder contractor
are going to have work performed that needs permitting, do they still
require that there's a list of subcontractors that are given when they
apply for the permit, or do they just -- did they take that away?
MR. OSSORIO: No. When an owner/builder applies for a
building permit, there is no Page 2, as per se. The owner could elect to
do so if they wish to do so. In other words, it's not uncommon that an
owner/builder lists his electrical and plumbing, mechanical contractor
on the building permit itself. But it's not a requirement.
The owner does sign a disclosure statement knowing that yeah,
basically I'm an owner, I'm responsible, I must do all the work or hire
a proper licensed contractor to do the work on my premise.
And they also understand that they can't have a -- they can't sell
it or lease it from 12 months ofC.O.
The state does have a statute to civil infraction that if an
owner/builder or an owner knowingly hires an unlicensed contractor,
you know, there could be some civil penalties up to $5,000. But
unfortunately I have never seen that done and it's pretty hard to justify
Page 22
161 lA3
September 17, 2008
that he knowingly did so.
So that's something that the state does do. They do work on. And
maybe Sergio, Mr. Gonzalez, can talk to you a little bit about if he's
seen that in his tenure as being with the State of Florida as well.
MR. JOSLIN: I remember years ago that, you know, in order to
get a permit from a GC, that they had to list that Page 2. And I don't
think that -- a general contractor is maybe less apt to be prone to not
do it.
But as the owner/builder, I would think that the county or the
City of Naples or any of these jurisdictions would want to have that
Page 2 just to keep an owner/builder more or less under wraps.
MR. OSSORIO: Well, we can. Because if you're asking an
owner to provide a Page 2, and it's really false that the owner could
theoretically do the work himself. The State is pretty clear, they really
don't want to encumber -- they are -- owner/builders are exempt from
the statute. You know, they can do all facets of their own home.
And I know that Monroe County down south of us, you know,
they've tried to restrict owner/builders, make sure they take some
exams, make sure they take a class or two, and that's all been thrown
out. Owner/builders are exempt.
I would like to see an owner provide us with Page 2, electrical,
plumbing, mechanical. Most of them do hire licensed companies, due
to the fact that the owners really can't do the work themselves. But it's
not a requirement. And if you put that restriction on them, somebody
could challenge it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, let's wrap this up.
MR. NEALE: You've got a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We've had a motion and a second. I
mean, he's not even here. I've got lots of other stuff to do.
Call for the vote. All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
Page 23
16 11ft?
September \ 7:'~008
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We're done.
Tell him not to come back here unless he can produce a license.
We don't really have any need to see him.
Michael Zeanchock. Michael, if you'd come up to the front
podium right here, sir.
If I could have you state your name and spell it.
MR. ZEANCHOCK: Michael Zeanchock,
Z-E-A-N-C-H-O-C-K.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I'll have you sworn in, sir.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you're here to qualify a second
entity?
MR. ZEANCHOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Tell us what you're doing and
why.
MR. ZEANCHOCK: First, to qualify a residential concrete
construction company named Matrix Concrete. That company I'm
partners with another person. We strictly do just residential.
M&M Concrete, which I'm here to quality to you today, is a
commercial concrete company which I own. Our main office is in
Pennsylvania. We wish to do some work in this area,
commercial-wise.
Matrix doesn't do any commercial work. M&M is geared up to
do that type of work. So I'm here today to try to get them qualified to
Page 24
161 1~3
September 17, 2008
get into the commercial concrete construction.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wow.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I just want to -- this is a unique
situation. I want to explain it to you, because it took me a few minutes
to figure this out as well.
Matrix is a licensed company in Collier County. They've taken
the test, they've taken the business procedure and they've taken their
concrete form and placing test as well.
They took their test scores to Lee County. And Lee County -- he
went in front of the Lee County Licensing Board and they -- instead of
qualifying Matrix, he qualified M&M.
And now he wants to do work in Collier County under M&M
Concrete. But unfortunately that -- he'll have to qualify two
.
companIes.
And we have never actually seen this before. But it does have --
usually when you qualify one company in Collier, you go to Lee
County with the same test scores and the same business type, same
business name. But this time he elected to change.
So he is going to -- he already has a QB licence or a qualified
business up in Lee County called M&M, but he can't do work in
Collier because he qualifies Matrix in Collier already, so you have to
qualify two companies.
MR. JOSLIN: Is this a state-certified license?
MR. OSSORIO: No, it's a county license holder.
MR. ZEANCHOCK: We hold licenses in Charlotte, Lee, we --
Lee I qualify both entities. Pinellas. And I thought -- well, just to
qualify a second company, she'd asked to till out the application and
go before the board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any complaints against either
company?
MR. OSSORIO: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And what kind of license do you
Page 25
161 1'A3
September 17, 20158
hold?
MR. ZEANCHOCK: Concrete placing and finishing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And that does qualify him for
commercial, correct?
MR. OSSORIO: It does.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything on the credit report,
anybody?
MR. GUITE': I didn't see anything.
MR. L YKOS: Do we have a recommendation from you,
Michael?
MR. OSSORIO: I recommend we approve it. I have no
problems. But it's one of those things that took me for surprise,
unfortunately, that Matrix can't work in Lee County because they're
not qualified in Lee County, but M&M can. So it's almost like the
reverse.
So if he wants to have Matrix, who can do work in Lee County,
to do work in -- am I saying that correctly?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: His packet's clean as a whistle.
I move to approve the second entity.
MR. OSSORIO: It's weird. Lee County has to do some work.
He's going to have to go back to Lee County and go in front of their
board to qualify a second company if he wants to. That's all.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got a motion--
MR. JOSLIN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- and a second.
All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
Page 26
16 J ljA3
September 17, 2008
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
I'm sorry.
Any discussion? I didn't mean to jump that fast.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, all those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
You're done.
Oh, all of your stuff is here, so don't go to Maggie today . You
can go there tomorrow. Wish you well.
MR. ZEANCHOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Randy Anderson, are you here?
Randy, if you would, come up to the podium, sir.
If I can have you state your name and then I'll have you sworn
. .
In, SIr.
MR. ANDERSON: Randy Anderson.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, we're just now getting your
packet, but your certificate was canceled. Probably what, because of
inactivity or something?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and take the lead
on this real quick, bring you up to speed.
Mr. Anderson is a licensed registered electrical contractor, He is
registered with Tallahassee as dormant status. And he's been --
obviously you can see through his packet that he has continued his
Page 27
161 ,1A
September 17, 2008
education.
He does own a company called Bay Electric that has another
qualifier. So he was under the assumption that basically since I
already have one qualifier, I can put my license on dormant, which he
has done so with the state and with our office.
But unfortunately, you probably heard this before, is that the
five-by-seven card, either he didn't get it or that he moved his office or
we just sent it to the wrong address, I'm not sure. But he did not renew
his certificate.
So his State of Florida license is still dormant, active till 2010 --
or 2009, actually. But his county license has been canceled.
Due to the fact that he's had continuing education and he's still
licensed with the state registration, I recommend we approve it back to
dormant status.
MR. JOSLIN: So it's not going to become an active license, it's
going to still remain dormant?
MR. OSSORIO: It's going to remain dormant because --
MR. JOSLIN: -- with Collier, dormant --
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. And when and ifhe comes out of
dormancy, we need a credit report, we'll do that too as well.
MR. JOSLIN: Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON : You want to add anything?
MR. ANDERSON: No, he did very well.
No, the reason I didn't have that is my partner is a lady, her name
is Cheryl Miller, and we are a minority contractor, so I could not carry
my license and hers on the same company, otherwise it would
invalidate her minority status.
So I put mine in dormant and then failed to get the proper
payment to you with the card. And it would have been our error is all I
can figure out. And so I'm asking for it to be reinstated.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We're just talking that $20 annual fee,
aren't we?
Page 28
16 jr 1 A 3
September 17, 2008
MR. OSSORIO: No, he's state registered. He'll have to pay his
back fees, three years worth or two years worth.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But the state's okay.
MR. OSSORIO: The state's fine. The state you have to reregister
every two years. And unfortunate (sic) he's kept up his continuing
education, and so I see no issue with this.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion to approve.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
You set the record this year. I wish you well.
MR. ANDERSON: Have a good day.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You too.
Before we get into public hearings, Sergio, what's your schedule
like?
MR. GONZALEZ: I'm open until whenever.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You want to speak now or you want
to hear the cases?
MR. GONZALEZ: I want to hear the cases.
CHAIRMAN DICI(SON: Okay, very good.
Yeah, we are doing good.
Case No. 2008-11. He just left the room. We're going to deal --
are you going to handle that one, Ian?
Page 29
16 J ',)
I 1L A ')
September 17, 2OU'8 ',"-
MR. JACKSON: I will.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Paul Riddenberger (sic),
Riddenberger Custom Homes.
We started hearing that last month, and what are we going to do?
MR. JACKSON: The case is withdrawn.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The case is withdrawn?
MR. JACKSON: Indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
That was easy.
Case No. 2008-13, Michael McNeal, is that you, d/b/a New
Code Windows and Doors.
And who's going to present that case?
Good morning.
MR. KENNETTE: I am Allen.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm going to have -- would you come
to the podium, yes, sir. Mr. McNeal, is it?
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You want for swear both of them in at
the same time?
MR. NEALE: Mr. Dickson, if I would suggest, since we've got a
new form here, is maybe work off that so everybody could -- because
that also introduces the process for the hearing and everything.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Let me go ahead and get them
sworn.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Gentlemen, for everyone present,
we've got a little new legalese to kind of explain this. And we'll get to
where we do it verbatim like we have in the past. But since this is
new, let me read it to you. This is how the hearing will go.
They are conducted pursuant to the procedures set out in our
Ordinance, Collier County 90-105, as atl1ended, and State Statutes
Chapter 489.
Page 30
1611A3
September 17, 2008
They're quasi-judicial in nature, which means formal Rules of
Evidence do apply --
MR. NEALE: Do not apply.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- but fundamental fairness and due
process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings.
Irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative evidence shall be excluded,
but all other evidence of a type commonly relied on by prudent people
in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible -- in other words,
hearsay -- whether or not such evidence shall be admissible in a trial
in the court of the State of Florida.
Hearsay evidence may be used for supporting or explaining any
evidence, but shall not be sufficient by itself to support a finding
unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in civil
actions in a court.
Rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that they
are now, or hereby may be recognized in civil action.
Explain rules of privilege, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: Basically where someone has privileged
testimony or privileged information, like attorney-client privilege or
something like that where you can assert a privilege where you do not
have to reveal certain information.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very well.
Any member of the Contractor Licensing Board may question
you at any time before the board. Each party of the proceedings shall
have a right to call and examine witnesses, introduce exhibits,
cross-examine the other person's witnesses, to impeach any witness --
in other words, prove them wrong -- regardless of which party called
the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the
party.
The Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson in his absence shall
have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the hearing in
a full, fair, impartial manner and to preserve order and decorum.
Page 3 1
16111JA3
September 17, 2008
The general process of the hearing is for the county to present an
opening statement, which he will do, where it sets out the charges in
general terms.
Here's where we always get off is the opening statement. It sets
out the charges in general terms how it intends to prove them.
And then you, Mr. McNeal, will make your opening statements
setting out in general terms how you're going to defend the charges.
The county then presents their case in chief, calling witnesses,
presenting evidence. Then you can cross-examine these witnesses
after the county has presented them.
Once the county closes its case, then you can put on your
defense, you can call witnesses and do all the things described earlier,
that is, call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits,
cross-examine witnesses, impeach them, regardless of which party
called them, and review all the evidence that the county may have
presented. They also can cross-examine your witnesses.
After you put on your case, the county gets to present or rebut
the respondent's presentation. When the rebuttal is concluded, then
each party gets to present closing statements, with the county getting a
second change to rebut all the respondent's closing arguments.
The board -- then we will close public hearing. Public hearing
means we are finished and we begin our deliberations, but you will
hear those deliberations.
The attorney for the board will give us our charge, more or less
watch over us like a jury does, setting out the parameters for which
they're (sic) base their decisions. During the deliberations we can ask
you additional information or clarification, if we want.
We will have two different tasks that we're going to be doing:
First, whether or not you are guilty of the offenses charged by the
administrative complaint. And a vote is taken on that matter by itself.
Then if you're found guilty, then we have to decide the sanctions
to be imposed. And the county attorney will advise us on those as well
Page 32
~ t. ,! ~ A 3
September 17, 2008
and what to consider. And we'll discuss those and take a vote on that.
After those two things are decided, I, the Chair, will read a
summary of the order issued by the board. The summary will set out
the basic outline of the order but will not be exactly the same language
as the final order. The final order will include full details required
under state law and procedure, of which you will get a copy delivered
to you.
Any questions?
MR. NEALE: Just one point is I think you said that the county
attorney is going to advise the board. It will actually be I will advise
the board, because I'm the board attorney.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I kind of -- the suits. The first
suit, the second suit.
So that you all know, he advises us, the county keeps us out of
trouble, or keeps the county out of trouble.
So with that, any other questions, clarifications?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You always are the only two guys that
wear suits.
MR. NEALE: We get paid to do that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wait till we show up one week all in
suits.
MR. NEALE: Then I'm going to wear a Hawaiian shirt that
week.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, could we have the county's
opening statement.
MR. KENNETTE: Yes, my name is Allen Kennette. I'm from
Contractor Licensing, Compliance Officer.
I'd like to introduce into evidence Case No. 2008-13, Exhibit A,
Board of County Commissioners versus R. Michael McNeal, doing
business as New Code Windows and Doors, Incorporated.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we take Case
Page 33
161 lA3
September 17, 2008
No. 2008-13, Board of Commissioners versus R. Michael McNeal,
d/b/a New Code Windows and Doors into evidence.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I second.
All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Proceed.
MR. KENNETTE: You'll hear testimony today that on August
26th observed New Code Windows and Doors, Incorporated--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do me a favor.
MR. KENNETTE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Pull that mic. to you.
MR. KENNETTE: Is that better?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You okay with that one?
THE COURT REPORTER: Fine.
MR. KENNETTE: Good? Okay.
You'll hear testimony today that on August 26th, 2008, observed
New Code Windows and Doors installing windows at 308 Second
Street South, in the City of Naples.
You will also hear testimony from Thomas Mariannino,
Inspector for the City of Naples, about the posting at the mentioned
above property, Exhibit 5 in the packet, that a stop work order was
posted for no permit.
You will also hear testimony from Thomas Mariannino,
Inspector of the City of Naples, about other violations of New Code's
Windows and Doors not pulling permits before doing work. And also
Page 34
16/~lA~
September 17, 2008
a meeting that was held at the City of Naples with the City Official on
August 2nd, 2008 in these issues of the permits.
Y ou'll also hear testimony that a cease and desist agreement was
signed by the qualifier, R. Michael McNeal, on May 9th, 2008,
Exhibit 13 in the pamphlet, and that Mr. McNeal was informed of the
outcome of any more work being done without permits, violating the
ordinance, of violation 4.2.2 of the Florida Building Code under 489.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. McNeal, opening
statement?
MR. McNEAL: I am responsible for the -- I am the qualifier for
New Code Windows and Doors, and I am responsible for the
permitting process of New Code Windows and Doors.
The violations that are delineated in the exhibit I plead guilty to.
We did do work without permit on the job for the various addresses
that are listed.
And I would like to make a quick response to that comment,
because I think that's a serious comment, and it's required some
serious reorganization of our company to disallow any work to go out
without permits.
We are presently the largest permit puller or I guess you would
say installation of windows and doors in Collier County, to include
Marco Island and the City of Naples.
As a result of some cutbacks that we had with personnel in April
of this year, the workload has been extraordinary to try to catch up
with our permitting process and how we are going to make sure that
the permits are on the job before the job is begun, which is of course
the rule.
It has been made clear to me, as well as by the owner of the
company, that as the -- as of the May 9th meeting with Mr. Kennette
and Mr. Bollenback and Mr. Mariannino at the City of Naples that no
further work would be done without penn its.
We agreed to that. And then we had another permit that was not
Page 35
16/ LA3
September 17, 2008
on the job. That was on Neopolitan Way.
And that was what was the -- the big issue that I think we're
dealing with now is the fact that after all the work that we have done
to resolve this process, that we still had one job go out. And indeed, it
was without the proper permit on the job.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's good for now.
Go ahead, Mr. Kennette.
MR. KENNETTE: Okay, I'd like to call Thomas Mariannino,
Inspector for the City of Naples.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. McNeal, at this point if you
would, I'll just have you sit right there on that front row.
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So are you going to ask him
questions, Mr. Kennette?
You all can use this podium over here.
MR. OSSORIO: I will.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You will? Okay.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. MARIANNINO: M-A-R-I-A-N-N-I-N-O. Thomas
Mariannino, Construction Site Inspector for the City of Naples.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you ever have to spell your name
very often?
MR. MARIANNINO: Quite a bit.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good to have you.
MR. MARIANNINO: Thank you, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr.Mariannino.
MR. MARIANNINO: Good morning, Mike,
MR. OSSORIO: For the record, can you state what your job
entails and how long you've worked for City of Naples.
MR. MARIANNINO: I've been with the City of Naples for
approximately three-and-a-half years. And my job is with the building
department.
Page 36
16/1A3
September 17, 2008
MR. OSSORIO: And what kind of work do you do for the
building department?
MR. MARIANNINO: I'm the construction site and compliance
inspector, but I also issue stop work orders and check on unpermitted
work and unlicensed contractors. I work hand-in-hand with your
person, Allen Kennette, in the city.
MR. OSSORIO: And for the record, I'd like to go ahead and add
him as an expert witness in issuing stop work orders and no building
permit and the custodian of asking the questions is there a building
permit or not a building permit in the City of Naples.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: His license qualifies him as an expert
witness in that area, doesn't it, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He's an expert witness in that field
because of his license?
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. NEALE: You can find him to be an expert witness.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Mariannino, can you explain to the
licensing board -- do you have the Exhibit A in front of you?
MR. MARIANNINO: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: Could you turn to E-5, E-6 and throughout E-8
and explain a little bit about New Code Windows and Mr. McNeal in
referencing how we got to this position. And can you give testimony
due to the fact that you were present of what the building official and
you discussed with the qualifier of New Code and Windows (sic).
MR. MARIANNINO: If I could take it in chronological order.
The first incident that I found was at 1666 Third Street South. I made
an inspection there and I found that half the windows were put in. And
when I called my department to see if there was a perm it issued, there
was none. So at that time I made them secure the property and I issued
a stop work order.
Page 37
16J lAj
September 17, 2008
The second incident was at 2850 Gulfshore Boulevard North,
Unit 403. Again, at that time there was no permit, so I did issue a stop
work order. But basically most of the work was completed.
And I believe that's the incident that a stop and desist order was
issued by Allen.
MR. OSSORIO: Were you present when the cease and desist
order was issued to the qualifier?
MR. MARIANNINO: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay.
MR. MARIANNINO: The third issue, we had a call of an
unlicensed contractor doing work, and when I got there, I noticed a
large slider that was brand new. And when I had asked the
homeowner, he told me New Code had put it in. And this was existing
already when I got there. So we required them to get a permit for that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is E-14?
MR. MARIANNINO: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is E-14 down at the bottom?
MR. MARIANNINO: Yes, 350 Yucca.
MR. OSSORIO: So let me ask you a question, Mr. Mariannino:
So after all these stop work orders and all these, you did -- your
building official, Paul Bollenback, in the City of Naples did bring in
the qualifier, Mr. McNeal and you were present?
MR.MARIANNINO: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: And can you tell the board a little bit what that
meeting -- how that meeting transpired and what was said.
MR. MARIANNINO: We basically went over what we expected
of New Code from that point on, and we reviewed the cases that we
had prior to that. And Mr. McNeal said he would comply from that
point on. And we actually went through what the consequences could
be.
MR. OSSORIO: So you advised Mr. McNeal that if he
continued on the path of not pulling building permits, that the City of
Page 38
16 r 1 A3
September 17, 2008
Naples would have no choice but to make a complaint with the
Contractor Licensing Board?
MR. MARIANNINO: Absolutely. We made it perfectly clear to
him.
MR. OSSORIO: And are you saying that several weeks later
after that meeting you were called out to another address of possible
no building permits of New Code and Windows (sic)?
MR. MARIANNINO: That's correct. Approximately three
weeks later.
MR. OSSORIO: And what address was that?
MR. MARIANNINO: That was 308 Second Street South.
MR. OSSORIO: And that's Exhibit No. E-5.
So I just want to make sure we get this correct. So you had
several meetings. You had one meeting with the qualifier and the city
building departments. And it was explained to him ifhe continued to
work without a building permit we would constitute that willful code
violation?
MR. MARIANNINO: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. McNeal, do you have any
questions of the witness, sir?
MR. McNEAL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does anybody else have any
questions of the witness?
MR. JERULLE: Yeah, I have a question.
On the windows that were installed without a permit, what
happened to those windows? Did --
MR. MARIANNINO: Ultimately there was a permit issued. We
red tagged -- some jobs that were not completed we red tagged. Other
jobs that were completed, we required a permit. And our process is
that we quad the fees, which would be four times the anlount.
MR. JERULLE: So was there an inspection performed on the
Page 39
sep!~blr'7,~A3
windows that were installed without a permit?
MR. MARIANNINO:Ultimately there was. There was a permit
issued, and -- yes.
MR. JERULLE: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: In reality then all of the jobs that you've listed on
here or all of the addresses that you've given us have now been
permitted and inspected and finished?
MR. MARIANNINO: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: And permits have been issued.
MR. MARIANNINO: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Mariannino, if I've got this chronologically
correct, the meeting with Mr. McNeal was held on May 9th?
MR. MARIANNINO: No, the meeting with Mr. McNeal in Paul
Bollenback's office was on August 5th.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else?
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Mariannino, I know who you are and I
know you do a very good job, and I don't want you to take this
question the wrong way.
MR. MARIANNINO: No, sir.
MR. JERULLE: But is there any chance, I mean, as big as the
city is, that other windows could have been installed without you
knowing about it?
MR. MARIANNINO: Absolutely. I can't be everywhere.
MR. JERULLE: Correct.
MR. JOSLIN: Are there any other jobs out there that we know
about now that have been done without a permit?
MR. MARIANNINO: Not to my knowledge. Not in the city.
MR. OSSORIO: You're referencing New Code; am I correct?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: I want to go back to the chronological order, if I
may. Item E-13, which is in our packet, which is the cease and desist
agreement between the building department, Mr. Kennette and Mr.
Page 40
16/1A3
September 17, 2008
McN eal was signed on May 9th, correct?
MR. MARIANNINO: That's correct. And that was on the job at
2850 Gulfshore Boulevard North.
MR. L YKOS: Okay. And then it looks like there were three jobs
after that agreement was signed.
MR. MARIANNINO: Well --
MR. L YKOS: On June 25th there was a stop work order at 350
Yucca. On August--
MR. MARIANNINO: Well, there was no stop work order on
that one. That was already completed. So I don't know when that was
done. That could have been done in April or--
MR. L YKOS: I understand, okay. It was just discovered on June
25th.
MR. MARIANNINO: That's correct.
MR. L YKOS: And then on August 5th, there was a stop work
order posted at 549 Neopolitan Way. And then on August 26th, a stop
work order at 308 Second Street.
MR. MARIANNINO: Yeah, the one on Neopolitan. When we
discovered it, the work had been completed. They were just cleaning
up --
MR. L YKOS: So, in other words you don't know--
MR. MARIANNINO: -- no stop work order was issued --
MR. L YKOS: -- you discovered it on August 5th, you don't
know when the work occurred.
MR. MARIANNINO: I believe it was August 4th that I actually
discovered it, yes.
MR. L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we call Allen Kennette.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: Allen, if you could, turn to the Exhibit A, E-13.
MR. KENNETTE: Okay.
Page 4 1
161 lA3
September 17, 2008
MR. OSSORIO: And can you explain what we're looking at?
This seems to be a cease and desist agreement between you and the
qualifier of New Code?
MR. KENNETTE: Yes, this was a cease and desist out at the
Gulfshore Boulevard, 2850. They were doing Unit No. 403. They had
a contractor do the complete building but they were doing Unit 403 as
a test to show what the doors and windows were going to look like.
Tom had gone out there in the morning and put a stop work
order on it for no building permit, told the gentlemen to wrap it up and
leave that day.
Two hours later he went back by there, they were still there
working. He called me. I arrived on the scene to see what was actually
going on and they were continually doing a closet.
So we got ahold of Mr. McNeal by phone. He arrived at the job
site, said there was a misunderstanding between him and the workers
and that the job should have been stopped and not continued and that
they were going to leave that area.
At that time I had him sign a cease and desist order. He gave me
proper ID because I did not know him at that time. But he did give me
ID showing that he was R. Michael McNeal, the qualifier of New
Code Windows and Doors, which he did sign.
And at that point I informed him that any more violations with --
work without building permits would be a willful code violation of the
Florida Statute 105.5 and our Statute of 4.2.2.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Kennette, can you just read maybe to the
board the, therefore, being fully advised, I do agree?
MR. KENNETTE: It would be three qualiers of the way down
the page, the big bold print: Therefore, being fully advised, I do agree
that I will pull all building permits required by the statutes, and fully
understand that if I continue to work without a building permit in the
future that the contractor licensing department will consider that a
willful code violation and penalties and permit building (sic)
Page 42
16/ lA3
September 17, 2008
privileges will follow.
MR. OSSORIO: Did Mr. McNeal sign that?
MR. KENNETTE: Yes, he did. And it was pointed out to him.
MR. OSSORIO: And after this agreement we do have evidence
that he continued to work with no building permits?
MR. KENNETTE: Yes, he did.
MR. OSSORIO: No other questions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. McNeal, do you have any
questions?
MR. McNEAL: Not of Mr. Kennette, no.
MR. OSSORIO: We have no other witnesses.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a question for the county. Do
we have any of these issues in Collier County?
MR. KENNETTE: To my knowledge, I've stopped at all the job
sites that I've seen New Code Windows and Doors doing, and they do
have permits. I have not found one in the city that I know of that has
been done without a permit. I do make an attempt to stop.
One of them didn't have a permit, but they were doing a repair
job on a window that wasn't sealed properly that had been permitted
before, and that was all.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So none in the county, just the city?
MR. KENNETTE: Nothing in the county.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. McNeal, if you would step
forward to the podium. You can present your case, sir.
MR. McNEAL: On the -- the initial case that was at 2800
Gulfshore Boulevard North, this was a one-window deal that Mr.
Kennette spoke about. And I made the mistake of -- we had -- we were
doing all the solid doors in all of the units in that particular
condominium.
I t was my intent to have a trial -- try it out and see how the doors
were going to go, because we had not tried to -- lrnean, we had not
installed this particular product before.
Page 43
16 J I lA 3
September 17, 2008
It was -- Mr. Mariannino was there in the -- literally in the area
and stopped by and put a stop work order at that time. And we had
discussion. And then, as Mr. Kennette said, he came back about two
hours later and we were still finishing up some work on an exterior
closet. And we stopped that also. Mr. Mariannino was quite verbal
about making sure that that work was stopped. And I understood, got
the guys off the job.
That was my fault. And it was my intention not to supercede the
permitting process but to make it go smoother when we did all the
other jobs.
The stop work order I took very seriously. And I put that in the
-- I called up my office in Fort Myers, which -- and my edict was that
we are not going to do any other work without permits, period.
Very quickly after that, and this was not to my knowledge, but
three more jobs were done without permitting. They were applied for
but there was no permit on-site. One of them was not even applied for.
And they were relatively small jobs, but regardless, they were not
permitted.
At that time I did not know that those jobs were going out until I
got the -- they happened in quick succession. And Mr. Mariannino and
Mr. Kennette called me and I put a stop to it at that time, again saying
we cannot do what we shouldn't be doing. In other words, we need to
have permits for all jobs, regardless of the money of the job,
regardless of the timing, period.
We made a -- after that I think that everybody in the office got
the -- well, I know that everybody in the office got the memo, as you
would say, and all work did not go out without a permit. It had to be
that way.
And there's a spreadsheet that I've created that -- it's simple, if
the installer does not have a permit, the job cannot be installed, period.
That's the way that I phrased it and that's the way that the work is
being done.
Page 44
16 II lA 3
September 17, 2008
Then we had a mistake. And this was the fifth one, the last job
that was on Neopolitan Way. The gal that I have in my office in Fort
Myers had mistakenly put down that the job had been permitted. It
had not been permitted. She had sent the job out with the installers.
And that was in a very visible area of Naples.
And Mr. Mariannino and Mr. Kennette called me and said we've
-- that's the end. We need to get this thing settled and we need to get it
settled right now.
I was -- I was very annoyed. I was very upset. And when I get a
call from Mr. Mariannino, I know it's not a good thing. And that was
where I was at that point in time.
I have taken total control of all of the permitting processes that
go out of Fort Myers. My office is in Naples. This is part of the
problem. I have my office in Naples because we do a significant
amount of work in Naples, Marco Island, City of Naples. And the
main office and the plant that we build windows, we warehouse
windows and doors are in Fort Myers. That's where all the installers
start their day is in Fort Myers and come down -- usually coming
down. Because like I say, most of our job, I'd say 70 to 80 percent, is
in this Collier County area.
After this last situation happened, the owner and myself met and
we met with each of the installers. And their job is on the line. In other
words, if they go out with a job that does not have a permit, they could
lose their position in the company.
If a job is scheduled by the need for getting money, which seems
to be a big deal these days -- I don't mean that in a light way, I mean
that in a serious way. But I don't deal with the money, I deal, frankly,
with the mechanics. I have the responsibility of getting the job out and
making sure the job is done correctly. That's my responsibility.
And the money person, the guy that does the money, is no longer
able to authorize a job without the permit in hand. Physically has to be
in hand.
Page 45
16 / l1A3
September 17, 2008
As an example, and I'll end my remarks right now, I've just done
two jobs in Collier County two days ago that were permitted for
$1,250. Simple window jobs, but they were definitely permitted.
They were commercial jobs, and the permit fees are going to be
more than what the salesman would make. But the issue is having the
permit on the job before the work is done.
We take great pride in what we do. We are the -- we figure the
leaders of the community and set the standards in many of the jobs.
And I don't think there's any inspection that we've had that has been --
failed because of improper work or anything that would be sloppy
installation. It's perfect.
Can I answer anymore questions?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I have a comment.
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, I beat you.
I want to make a comment and then I want to see how you
respond to it. And it's about a three-part comment.
Number one, it's obvious to me that you don't have control. And
the owner is somewhat cavalier about all this by his absence today. So
it kind of tells me if we revoke your license or stop your
permit-pulling privileges, they'll just replace you with another license.
And then I see the city over here, two of their enforcement
officers here. That's the second time in 20 years. So you obviously
have made a lot of people really angry.
And what I'm seeing here is probably just the tip of the iceberg
of how many permits you haven't pulled. And so because of seeing all
those things today, there's a lot of people not happy with New Code
Windows and Doors. And this isn't the first time.
And then we hear this grand statement that oh, you've worked it
out and we had a mistake, but it's never going to happen again. Well,
I'm old enough and wise enough that I bet you it's probably going to
happen again within 30 to 60 days.
Page 46
sePtem~~ 1 ~, k~ 3
So what guarantee can you tell me that it's not going to? And
how can you tell me you have control when the owner lets things go
on like this and then he just sends you out on your own down here to
face this by yourself today?
MR. McNEAL: Okay. I'd like to answer all the questions, or all
the comments, and I'll do it as quickly as possible.
Number one, the owner is not a cavalier owner, and he takes the
work very seriously. The reason he is not here today was that I was
instructed to be here today as the qualifier.
And I had been talking with Mr. Kennette on two or three
different occasions as to how to prepare for my presence today. And
the owner would have gladly been here if he would have needed to be.
Needed to be in terms of what the process was presented to me as.
I haven't been sleeping well because of this. I take this very
seriously. And I'm not blowing smoke. We have documentation of
more than 400 permits that we've pulled in Collier County alone. Then
that doesn't include Marco Island and does not include the City of
Naples.
We do not, and I'll -- I have to say this with every ounce of
energy that I can come up with, but we are not and we have not been
pulling permits -- or doing jobs without having the permits on the job,
period.
We have had to reduce our workforce, which has been a sign of
the times. And it's been difficult to adjust to that. I don't mean that as
an excuse, only as a fact of what has happened as a result of the
economy.
And we still are doing quite a bit of work. If you talk to anybody
when you walk into Collier County, they see me every day. And
likewise, with the City of Naples and with Marco Island. I'm very
visible and I also get to almost every job site. Some I confess I haven't
been able to get to in Fort Myers, just because of the location. But
most of those have been commercial jobs that I've seen the end result
Page 47
16,1A3
September 17, 2008
of, pictures.
I -- I made a mistake initially to generate this whole process
going bad. And my mistake was not even very well explainable. I was
trying to do a door to see what kind of problems we'd have with doing
the door. Well, that sounds pretty suspicious.
Mr. Mariannino and I had a talk about that. And it just sounds,
come on. But then I had 104 doors on the same job that were
permitted within the next two weeks that we had a semi truck trailer
there for the period of maybe five weeks to do the job. I take it very
seriously.
I continue to work very hard to maintain relationships with all
the people in the county, to include the cities and Fort Myers. And I
value that very much in being able to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, you're not answering my
question, you're just blowing more smoke.
MR. McNEAL: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're telling me this can't happen
again?
MR. McNEAL: No, it cannot happen again because we have
three safeguards in Fort Myers that the job will not go out without a
permit, period. There's a job waiting today to go out that I said cannot
go out, it's been approved. City of Naples. I even asked Mr.
Bollenback if we could have it be processed early. He said no, or at
least I haven't heard, and it's not going out today, period. I'm --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you would have no problem ifit
happens again that all permit pulling privileges are pulled?
MR. McNEAL: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: Or possibly your license revoked?
MR. McNEAL: Excuse me?
MR. JOSLIN: Or possibly your license revoked?
MR. McNEAL: Yes. I'm being that dramatic because I
understand the significance of what we're talking about now. I'tTI not
Page 48
16/ltjA:;
September 17, 2008
playing --
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. McNeal, I don't mean to cut you off, but I
think I've heard enough.
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: I just have one question for you real quick. And
of New Code Windows and Doors, Inc., you license -- you are the
license holder for this company?
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: It sounds to me like Mr. Dickson is absolutely
right, that you've lost control of this company. In downsizing or in all
of the comments you've made that because of the economy and what's
going on here, you're still making some pretty major faults with your
company. Enough to bring the City of Naples here that has cited you
many times for the same offense.
Now you're going to have a hard time convincing this board, I
feel, that we're going to not do anything to you at this particular
moment.
I can't understand why you would want to have a contract, you
just said, where you have] 07 or ] 11 doors that are going to go in one
section of a condo, but you still had the thought that you could go in
there and put in a door without a permit?
Now, that's a pretty sizable contract. And I would think that any
good contractor would want to go and get a permit before he touched
the job. What if that door didn't fit?
MR. McNEAL: Well, that was one of the issues. It was all made
to fit and they were -- there are three doors on a condo on that
particular job, and I was very concerned about how the fasteners were
going to work and getting some kind of --
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, but it still required a permit, nevertheless.
MR. McNEAL: That's not -- nonetheless, you're absolutely
correct.
MR. JOSLIN: So what you're saying -- what you're telling this
Page 49
16,..1IA3
September 17, 2008
board is that the count that you're brought up on, the charges you're
brought up on today is that you feel as though you are guilty.
MR. McNEAL: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. I have no further questions.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I have one question.
Mr. McNeal, you mentioned earlier in your statement that the
last time was Neopolitan Way.
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: I was assuming that 308 Second Street South
was after Neapolitan; am I correct?
MR. McNEAL: No.
MR. OSSORIO: No. Okay. What date was the stop work order
issued for Neopolitan Way; do you remember?
MR. JOSLIN: August 5th.
MR. MARIANNINO: May I add a little clarity to this?
MR. McNEAL: August 5, yes.
MR. MARIANNINO: Neopolitan Way, that's the particular job
that was completed, and that was on August 4th. The last job was 308
Second Street.
MR. OSSORIO: So when you had your meetings with your staff
members, Mr. McNeal, referencing the Neopolitan, that was the last
straw. Indeed, a couple weeks later, 308 Second Street popped out and
there was no building permit; am I correct?
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir. I apologize for making the reverse of
that. But you're absolutely correct, that was the last one. And that was
the one that was the mistake that I had referred to earlier. I was not
looking at my notes when I was making the comments.
The fact of the matter is that we have had, as has been pointed
out, five infractions with the City of Naples with no permits on the job
or permits being in partial process but not on the job. And the last one
was on the Second Street, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKS()N: Does anybody else have anything
Page 50
16 I: 'fA ~
September 17, 2mlSo'
else?
MR. JERULLE: Yeah, I have a question.
Y ou're licensed? You're a certified general contractor?
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
MR. JERULLE: And so you've taken the state exam?
MR. McNEAL: Oh, yes.
MR. JERULLE: And you're the license holder for New Code
Windows?
MR. McNEAL: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: The qualifier?
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
MR. JERULLE: And you know through taking the test and
being the qualifier that a permit has to be in hand prior to any work?
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, County, closing arguments?
MR. OSSORIO: Well, I'd like to go ahead and recall Tom
Mariannino, just real quick.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. You can stay there, Mr.
McNeal.
MR. MARIANNINO: Tom Mariannino.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Mariannino, just for the record, when you
-- can you tell us the date you had a meeting with Paul Bollenback and
the qualifier, Mr. McNeal in the city, city department?
MR. MARIANNINO: August 5th.
MR. OSSORIO: And on August 5th, was it kind of unusual that
Mr. McNeal wasn't there and the building official was talking about
New Code and Windows, that the owner of the company wasn't there?
MR. MARIANNINO: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: Did you find that pretty odd that the owner of
the company wasn't present?
Page 5 I
16/1A3
September 17, 2008
MR. MARIANNINO: I did.
MR. OSSORIO: No other questions.
MR. BOYD: I have a question. The Second Street job that was
8/26, was there a permit in process for that --
MR. MARIANNINO: I believe there was.
MR. BOYD: -- at the time?
MR. MARIANNINO: It was in permitting. It was not approved.
Oh, there was no permit? Okay.
There's so many of these, I get confused. Yes, sir.
MR. BOYD: So they hadn't even applied for a permit.
MR. MARIANNINO: No.
MR. BOYD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have any questions of the
witness?
MR. McNEAL: No.
MR. OSSORIO: One other question for Mr. Mariannino.
Maybe you won't be able to answer the question, but how long
does it take to go through the process in the City of Naples for
replacing windows?
MR. MARIANNINO: In that particular case, it's two to three
weeks. And that's the entire process. And that's probably about the
time it takes him to build a window.
MR. OSSORIO: No other questions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Appreciate you
comIng.
Do you have anything else?
MR. OSSORIO: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, closing statement by the
county?
MR. OSSORIO: I do.
Mr. Chairman, you heard testimony through the City of Naples
Building Department, you heard testimony froJn the Collier County
Page 52
16 I I 1,A'
September 17, 2008
Contractor Licensing office. You've heard that our office issued a
notice to Mr. McNeal referencing if he continued to work without a
building permit it would constitute willful code violation.
You heard testimony from Mr. McNeal, who is the qualifier of
the company, stating the fact that he did violate the code, and he
understands it is willful.
So therefore, I believe that he has willfully violated 105 of the
Florida Building Code. And he also violated our section of the
2006-21 Collier County Ordinance 2.2.2, willfully violating the
Florida Building Code. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. McNeal, do you have a closing
statement?
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir. And I'll try to be very brief.
And I would plead with the board to realize that we have had a
huge company develop from nothing in about five years -- actually
about five-and-a-half-years; I've been with the company from the first
day of inception.
We have taken a lot of pride in doing work very well. Obviously
we haven't done as good with the permitting process as we should.
I have taken control. And I don't feel that I've lost control of the
company, as Mr. Joslin said. I think it's that I did not realize at what
point the permits were not going out with the jobs; in other words, the
money that was being pushed to try to get the jobs out the door, I was
not as aware of that as I should. And part of that has to do with the fact
that I was in the Naples office instead of the Fort Myers office.
I've made corrections to all of that with the owner.
By the way, when the August 5 episode occurred, my -- the
owner of the company was also on the phone a number of times with
Mr.Kennette and Mr. Bollenback, and spoke to thelTI directly at that
time, expressing his need to get this problem taken care of, as well as
knowing that I was going to be taking care of it.
We have been talking daily. I talk to hilTI every day, sometimes
Page 53
Jij C'\ H b\ , t
16/ ~ ~n:~~)
September 17, 2008
-- I was up there yesterday in Fort Myers, and feel that I have solved
the problem.
When you asked me before, Mr. Joslin, if I was able to risk my
license and the ability of the company to continue to do work based
upon the word that I'm giving you and say yes, that means a lot to me.
And that is where I am right now.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir.
Do I hear a motion to close public hearing?
MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos.
MR. JOSLIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Have a seat, Mr. McNeal.
First thing we'll do is look at the charges after Mr. Neale gives
us our briefing.
MR. NEALE: With the new format, a lot of what I say here I'm
going to leave out from what I used to say in the past.
But basically the board has to ascertain that this is -- the
principles of fundamental fairness and due process were afforded to
the respondent.
When you're considering this case, you really can only consider
the evidence presented at this hearing today and exclude from your
deliberations any irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative testimony. But
you shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly
relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their
Page 54
,~, 1 A3
September 17, 2008
.
affairs.
Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement other evidence
but it can't be the only basis for your decision.
The standard in a case such as this, where the sanctions available
are those other than those affecting the license is that of a
preponderance of the evidence. Since this is a case against a state
contractor, the only sanctions available, should you find him in
violation, are to remove or restrict his permit-pulling privileges.
The standard in evidence to be weighed solely are as to the
charges set out in the complaint as Ordinance 90-105, Section 4.2.2,
which is willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of
the state, city or Collier County.
In order to support a finding that the respondent's in violation of
this, you must find that the violations were actually committed by the
respondent. The facts must also show to a preponderance of the
evidence the legal conclusion that this respondent was in violation of
those.
This charge is the only one that the board may decide upon, as
it's the only one to which the respondent had the opportunity to
prepare a defense.
Any damages that are found, even though it's not a matter in this
case, must be directly related to these charges.
The decision made by this board shall be stated orally at this
hearing and is effective upon being read by the board.
The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to
this board, the courts and the state construction industry licensing
board as set out in the ordinance, Florida Statutes and Rules, and in
the order itself.
If the board is unable to issue a decision immediately following
the hearing because of the questions of law or other matters of such a
nature that a decision may not be Inade at this hearing, the board may
withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting.
Page 55
11.~.~ n it.~.'l
. 'J1
September 17, 2008
The board shall vote based upon the evidence presented on all
areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation of the administrative
complaint, the board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions
of law in support of the charges set out in the administrative
complaint.
So the board now will consider the first as to whether he was
violation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. The one count we're dealing
with and only one count is 4.2.2, willfully violating applicable
building codes or laws for the state, city or Collier County.
Any discussion or a motion?
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead.
MR. JOSLIN: Unless there's any other discussion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He admitted to it.
MR. JOSLIN: Pretty much that's the way it has to go then.
In the case of2008-13, William -- or R. Michael McNeal, d/b/a
New Code Windows and Doors, License No. CGC-059099, the board
has found that -- I make a motion, I'm sorry, that the plaintiff (sic) be
found guilty of Count 1, 4.2.2, willfully violating the applicable
building codes or laws of the state, the city of Collier County (sic).
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second?
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
Page 56
Ii r, 3
September 17, L06~
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's unanimous.
Now we go to the penalty phase, and again, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: As the board --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: State certified contractor.
MR. NEALE: As the board has found the respondent in
violation, it must decide on the sanctions to be imposed. The sanctions
are set out in the codified ordinance of Collier County at
22-203(B)(1), and the revised ordinance in Section 4.3.5.
The sanctions which may be imposed include only the denial of
issuance of Collier County or city building permits, or requirement
that those permits be issued with specific conditions.
In imposing the sanction, the board shall consider the gravity of
the violation, the impact of the violation on the community and the
citizens of Collier County and the City of Naples, any actions taken by
the violator to correct the violation, any previous violations
committed, and any other evidence presented at the hearing by the
parties that's relevant as to the sanction that's appropriate for the case,
given the nature of this matter.
The board shall also issue a recommended penalty for the State
Construction Industry Licensing Board, and that penalty may include
a recommendation for no further action, recommendation of
suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration, or a fine to be
levied by the state board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And Mr. Ossorio, what's the county's
recommendations?
MR. OSSORIO: The county's recommendation is a -- we do
make a complaint with the Department of Business & Professional
Regulations.
1, ,
Page 57
161: lA3
September 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Say that again?
MR. OSSORIO: We make a recommendation that you forward
this case to the Department.
We also recommend that the penalties be a $5,000 penalty to be
paid to the Board of County Commissioners, and no further action on
suspension of building pulling permit privileges.
I believe we should not pull his building permit privileges. We
should monitor it and see if indeed if it happens again.
MR. JOSLIN: Probation?
MR. OSSORIO: I don't think we can enact for probation, but I
think we're going to forward it to the state, let the state do their
independent investigation through their probable cause panel. And we
should just be able to recommend a $5,000 penalty to be paid to the
Board of County Commissioners.
MR. NEALE: Since he's a state contractor, that's not an available
remedy though.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Pardon me?
MR. NEALE: Since he's a state contractor, that's not an available
remedy.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The fine?
MR. OSSORIO: I'm sorry, it's a penalty. I'm sorry, recommend a
penalty of $5,000 fine.
MR. NEALE: To the state.
MR. OSSORIO: To the state.
MR. NEALE: Recommend to the state that they--
MR. OSSORIO: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: As far as the suspension of his permitting
privileges, can we put some type of a probationary period on him
pulling permits in Collier County? Put restrictions on --
MR. NEALE: Certainly. Yeah, that's -- within the purview of the
board two things that the board may do is either deny the issuance of
permits or require that pennits be issued with specific conditions, and
Page 58
16/ iA3
September 17, 2008
the board can set those conditions within its purview.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What about -- can we do investigative
charges?
MR. NEALE: No. You can recommend to the state that they
impose them, but this board cannot impose them.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We'll never get them back.
MR. L YKOS: Before the board starts to consider penalties, I'd
like to make -- I'd like to express two concerns.
One is that the owner of the company doesn't feel any of these
proceedings are important, whether at the city, meeting with Mr.
Kennette or being here today. If this was me, I wouldn't want anybody
but myself to represent my company. That's number one.
Number two, to me it was conspicuous that all of these problems
are with City of Naples permits.
Now I pull permits in the county and I pull permits in the city.
And I can tell you that when Mr. Bollenback took over the city
building department, it took a lot longer to get permits. Mr.
Bollenback's staff goes over every permit application with a
fine-toothed comb.
Five, 10 years ago, I could get a condominium renovation permit
in five or six days. Now it takes three, four, five weeks.
I've met with Mr. Bollenback. They go over everything with a
fine-toothed comb. They do not take any chances; they represent the
public's best interests extremely well.
Because of the number of employees with the county, it's
actually easier to get a permit in the county now than it is in the city,
and it used to be opposite.
And I just find it conspicuous that the jobs that didn't get permits
were all in the city. To me this isn't about accidentally jobs going out
without permits. All of them in the city? To me there was -- I don't
want to imply there was a decision made to not get city permits, but it
is conspicuous to me that there were five jobs all within the city, and
Page 59
16 It fA 3
September 17, 2008
at least two of those were after the fact.
Somehow the city stumbled upon -- and I don't mean to imply
anything negative against the city, but somehow the city came upon
two projects that were already completed, never had a permit on the
job. And the last one that occurred, there was no permit applied for.
After the agreement was signed -- to me there's just obvious
disregard for the building permit process and for the consequences of
those actions. It's just too obvious. I mean, all in the city? Permits in
the city are a lot tougher than they used to be.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We're in discussion, and I -- the other
thing I do, I was accused this week of being too nice by somebody on
a -- and I usually am. But I always look at the gravity of the violation.
And I look at these windows, not only in high-rises, the danger
that is there. Not just from storms, but a child falling out of one. I look
at on the one story, these impact glass, you guys know how heavy
those are. One of those falling and crushing a child. I look at the
gravity of the violation.
And to be honest with you, I'm in agreement with you, I'm really
quite upset about this.
MR. JOSLIN: And unfortunately we can't do a whole lot to it
other than putting him on a pretty good restriction here in this county
and make the recommendations.
I think you're absolutely right, I mean, this is why I mentioned
the fact that I think he lost control of the company. Maybe it's a fact of
with the times and possibly yes, with the economy changing he
needed to proceed with his job to maybe make cash flow fall and do it
in a quicker manner and not have to wait the two or three weeks for
the permits. But nevertheless, guilt is guilt, no matter how you look at
it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But the city's already worked with
him.
MR. JOSLIN: Exactly.
Page 60
16 J liA3
September 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The city's already given him second
chances, and it didn't work.
MR. JOSLIN: I think everyone's given him as many chances as
probably are going to be given at this moment.
MR. L YKOS: The other issue that Mr. Joslin brought up is all
the owner of the company's got to do is hire a new guy to qualify his
business. And to me that's just even more disregard for the system. I'll
just go hire somebody else.
MR. JOSLIN: And that's a good indication of why the owner
may not be here. There's a possibility that this man could lose his job
and now he's got no qualifier, so he just can go get a new one.
MR. L YKOS: I don't know what we're allowed to do but I think
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, here's what you're allowed to
do.
Read it again, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: You can deny the issuance of Collier County or
city building permits, or require the issuance of permits with specific
conditions. What conditions those can be are fairly broad, so --
MR. L YKOS: Well, that second part doesn't work, because you
actually have to apply for a permit to put conditions on it. And it
seems like they have a history of not applying for permits. So that
doesn't do us any good, does it?
MR. NEALE: One thing this board has done in the past, it may
fit into this purview, a little bit of a shave on it, but -- is this board has
required that contractors advise them of every job they obtain.
MR. L YKOS: Well, that would be trusting them to do the right
thing.
The other concern I have, and I -- I was pretty quiet before. And
there's a lot of things about this that really bother me.
I've done replacelnent sliding glass doors and enclosed lanais
and those kind of things, and sometimes there's engineering that's got
Page 61
16 I 'k f\ ~\
, Jc .4'...1
September 17, 2008
to be done in advance, there are buck inspections that have to be done.
And if you don't have to get engineering, it makes your job cost less to
the homeowner.
If you have a homeowner who's got a tight time frame and you
can do the job without a permit, it makes you more appealing to the
homeowner.
Again, I think that some of these things that have happened have
been business decisions and not accidents. I think these are contrived,
I think they're done intentionally, and I have a sincere concern about
those issues moving forward with this company.
MR. JERULLE: I agree. As a general contractor in this city and
county, I wholeheartedly agree with you, Tom.
A lot of things -- projects may have been done out there that we
haven't found out about. And without inspections, you don't know how
they're installed. And the public is being deceived by hiring this
company and trusting this company to install a window, a hurricane
glass that may not be actually hurricane proof. I have serious
concerns.
MR. L YKOS: And so you guys might not be familiar with how
some of this works.
If you're below 30 feet in a building, you have to have high
impact glass. 30 feet to 60 feet you have to have what's called small
missile impact glass. And then above 60 feet you don't have to have
impact glass.
Well, if a company is not getting permits, they could be more
price competitive if they're putting non-impact or small missile impact
on the lower 30 feet of a building.
I mean, there are so many things where you have to trust the
contractor to do the right thing. And without having the building
department to back up what's supposed to be done, I think that New
Code has created a competitive advantage for thelTIselves by not
pulling permits. Not only the adlninistrative cost for pulling the
Page 62
16 1,
11 t\ 3
September 17, 2008
permit, but on all your things where a company could misrepresent
what needs to be done. I have a big problem with it.
MR. JOSLIN: On the other side of the coin now, I know that
you're on a roll here, but on the other side of the coin, you have to
look at the man's testimony and you have to look at the City of Naples'
testimony that, okay, all the permits we asked, were they all
completed and permitted and now they're done and inspected
correctly.
So on one side of the coin you say he did it wrong without a
permit, but on the other side of the coin you say, okay, it was done,
completed, and it is to code.
MR. JERULLE: But that's after the fact.
MR. JOSLIN: After the fact, right.
MR. JERULLE: That's after the fact. We don't -- I mean, not to
imply that there are problems, but we just don't know. And this is -- as
a board, this is a contractor that's not doing the right thing.
MR. JOSLIN: Exactly.
MR. JERULLE: And I'm just not comfortable moving forward.
MR. McNEAL: May I respond in any way?
MR. JOSLIN: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's bring it to a head. Someone give
me a motion.
MR. JOSLIN: I think there's only one -- while we're still in
discussion, I think there's only one -- either one of two things we're
going to be able to do here to make this motion fly. It's either suspend
his privileges here and recommend it to the board, or we put him on a
real strict probation as far as -- or not probation but restrictions to get
permits here in Collier.
We can't make him go get permits, but we can take his license if
he doesn't.
MR. JERULLE: I have a question. Ifwe do recommend this to
go to the state, how long does that process take?
Page 63
J.6J
lA3
September 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: About three or four years. Right now
-- well, that's not you. But the state board has been running -- prior to
the downturn in the economy, they were running four years behind.
MR. OSSORIO: Well, Mr. Dickson, I would tend to agree with
you, but we heard a case several months ago, and we just heard back
from the construction licensing board and they are taking this
gentleman to their board very quickly.
So two months ago I would have said you're absolutely right,
don't hold your breath, you're not going to be here. But we did hear
confirmation from one of our -- we had a general contr -- if you
remember the general contractor with no insulation seven months ago,
well, that is proceeding to the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
It went through the probable cause panel, the attorney picked it up in
Tallahassee and they're scheduled to the board. So that is working.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, good.
MR. MARIANNINO: I think before somebody makes a motion,
we should consider putting the company on probation, and that if this
happens again then we would restrict his ability to pull a permit in
Collier County immediately.
And at the same time recommend to the State Contractors Board
the maximum fine and investigation fees that they would see fit.
MR. L YKOS: I'd like to pull their permit -- permit pulling
privileges, even for a short time, just to make a statement, especially
to the owner, that this is very serious. And if decisions were made
because they wanted to expedite cash flow, that maybe it's for 30
days, maybe it's for 60 days, they can't pull permits in Collier County.
I think a statement's got to be made. Again, five permits all in
the city? Not a coincidence.
MR. JOSLIN: If it was -- I think you're absolutely right. I think
if it was just a fact of the license holder that's here before us today and
the owner were one in the same person, it would be a different story,
maybe we'd think a little differently.
Pane 64
b
l! I"; """1
,', '~k';: ~
I ~,~ ""."P
September 1 7 ;''20' .,~,
But now that we have a license holder and an owner and the
owner isn't here to really stand up for his own company that he owns,
it's like you, ifit was my company, I'd have been standing tall, no
matter who my license holder was.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Somebody give me a motion, we'll
see which way it goes. We're kind of split.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that we
suspend his permit pulling privileges in Collier County for the next 30
days.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This also includes City of Naples?
MR. JOSLIN: City of Naples, Marco Island.
And that this case be forwarded to the State Licensing Board for
investigation. And recommend a fine be imposed of $5,000. And also
to say that if at any moment if this company, which is New Code
Windows and Doors, Inc., or the license holder of R. Michael McNeal
are found in the City of Naples, Marco Island or Collier County doing
work here, that his license in Collier County is immediately revoked.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can't do that. You can't revoke a
state license.
MR. JOSLIN: No, we can take his compo card, no?
MR. NEALE: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No.
MR. HERRIMAN: No, you can just take away his privileges of
pulling permits --
MR. L YKOS: You can suspend his permit pulling privileges.
MR. JOSLIN: Then I'll amend it to say that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So suspension of permit pulling
privileges.
MR. JOSLIN: 30 days.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: For 30 days?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: $5,000 fine.
Page 65
,"~61 !,A3
September 17, 2008
MR. JOSLIN: Recommended to the state --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Recommend to the state.
Investigative costs?
MR. JOSLIN: And administrative costs.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Of how much?
MR. JOSLIN : We can't set those, can we?
MR. NEALE: No, that has to be proven.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: To the state.
MR. NEALE: You have to put evidence on them. The county
would have the opportunity to put the evidence on --
MR. JOSLIN: The case be forwarded to the state board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Now, what happens after 30 days?
MR. HERRIMAN: We allow him to pull permits again and he'll
be on probation.
MR. JOSLIN: And after the 30-day period, ifhe has not been
found in violation of anything that we've set so far, that his permit
privileges be put on probation for six months.
MR. BOYD: One year.
MR. HERRIMAN: Yeah, one year.
MR. BOYD: One year.
MR. JOSLIN: One year?
MR. BOYD: One year.
MR. JOSLIN: One year.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you agree with this?
MR. JOSLIN: I'll agree with it, yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you got this?
MR. JERULLE: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead, Terry.
MR. JERULLE: If that passes, lnay I ask what his recourse in
the next 30 days is? I mean, he can appeal our decision?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. NEALE: I-Ie can appeal the decision. First appeal is to -- is
Page 66
16 i l1A3
September 17, 2008
a motion for rehearing in front of this board.
MR. JERULLE: Which we won't meet for another --
MR. NEALE: Which will be heard in 30 days.
MR. JERULLE: In 30 days. Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: So what was that, Mr. Neale? I'm sorry, I didn't
catch that. What was that last?
MR. NEALE: Well, if he requests a -- if he appeals, the first line
of appeal is a motion for rehearing with this board. That hearing
would be heard at the -- that motion would be heard at the next board
meeting, which is 30 days from now.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So we want a 30-day suspension.
After the 30 days, his permit pulling privileges will be reinstated.
MR. JOSLIN: And placed on probation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Placed on probation.
MR. JOSLIN: For a year.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: For one year. Probation meaning that
he'll come back before this board; is that correct?
MR. NEALE: The board can set the terms of the probation.
What normally would be is he would operate under the supervision of
staff. If they have any issues at that point, then it will be brought
before the board for further review.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or you can do revocation if there's a
violation during that probation.
MR. NEALE: You could if there's a violation during probation
say that privileges are not suspended but they are revoked.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What do you want?
MR. JOSLIN: I'd like to see them suspended first and then
revoked if there's any other actions taken by him.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: After 30 days.
MR. JOSLIN: After 30 days.
Page 67
",!, k';l~
l 6 J f! j:.l..
: _ L~ ~#
September 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And fine and turn it over to the state.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. HERRIMAN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, now discussion.
MR. JOSLIN: Is 30 days long enough?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't know.
MR. JERULLE: I think that 30 days sets a message -- sends a
message.
MR. JOSLIN: Sixty I think would hurt him too much. Not that
I'm not concerned about being hurt, but I don't want to see the
company have contracts out here somewhere else and can't pay the
bills. But it sends the message.
MR. JERULLE: Do we want to discriminate between the city
and the county, since he has been pulling permits in the county and
hasn't in the city? Do we want to specify one or the other, or do we
want to include --
MR. L YKOS: I think you include the whole county.
MR. JOSLIN: The motion includes the City of Marco, Naples
and Collier.
MR. BOYD: The motion includes --
MR. JOSLIN: All the jurisdictions.
MR. JERULLE: Can he apply for the permits --
MR. L YKOS: So it will sting more --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, one at a time.
MR. GUITE': Can he apply for permits and just not be issued
until after the 30 days?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, he could apply.
MR. JOSLIN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: They're just not going to be issued.
MR. GUITE': Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: They take five or six weeks. They'll
be ready when he's clean.
Page 68
16/
lA3
September 17, 2008
MR. JERULLE: Is that true, Michael, you can apply if you're --
MR. OSSORIO: I would say Mr. Dickson's correct. He can
apply for a building permit, he just can't be issued a building permit.
MR. JOSLIN: Now, that might not be correct. Maybe someone
from the City of Naples can verity that. But I think you have to have a
valid license active in order to begin the process of a permit.
MR. OSSORIO: No, not necessarily. Typically -- and I can't
speak to the City of Naples, I can speak to Collier County, that if
you're inactive, we will let you apply for a building permit but you
can't -- we can't issue it until you become active and current.
MR. JOSLIN: I think we better check that close, because I'm
pretty sure now they have rules that if your license is on hold you can't
get inspections, you can't do anything.
MR. OSSORIO: Oh, you're absolutely right. But you can't get
inspections without having something issued.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm not sure ifhe can be--
MR. NEALE: But, the thing is, this doesn't affect his license at
all.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is not his license.
MR. NEALE: His license is not on hold, his license is still
active. All it does is affect his permit pulling privileges in Collier
County, City of Naples and City of Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And it does not revoke any current
permits.
MR. NEALE: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He can still get inspections on those.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: Well, I don't like the fact that he can apply for
permits. If it takes three weeks to get a permit, that makes this a
one-week penalty. That's no good.
MR. NEALE: Well, no, it does suspend his permit pulling
privileges.
Page 69
16' lA3
September 17, 2008
MR. L YKOS: For 30 days. But the point is, if it takes three
weeks to get a permit, then it really becomes a one-week penalty.
Because one week into the suspension he can go apply for a permit
and the day the suspension's over he can pick up his permit ready for
pick up.
MR. JERULLE: That's -- you're correct, moving forward, you're
correct. But he may have already applied for permits. Well --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's gaps.
MR. JERULLE: -- hopefully he's applied for permits that he will
not be able to pick up in the next 30 days.
MR. NEALE: He could have applications in process that he
could not pick up because of this sanction.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's a 30-day gap there.
More discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON : Everyone clear on the motion? Yeah?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, let's call it for a vote. All those
in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's unanimous.
Mr. McNeal, responding some more legalese here.
R. Michael McNeal is the holder of record, License No.
Pane 70
b
1~11A3
Sept~'t1e~ 17, 2008
~
CGC-059099, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida is the complainant in this matter.
Number three, the board has jurisdiction -- I'm sorry, I skipped
from one to three. The board has jurisdiction of the person of the
respondent and that R. Michael McNeal was here, present at the
hearing and was not represented by counsel at the hearing on this date,
September 17th, 2008.
Number four, all notices required by Collier County Ordinance
No. 90-105 as amended have been properly issued and were
personally delivered.
Number five, the respondent acted in a manner that is in
violation of Collier County ordinances and is the one who committed
the act.
Number six, that the allegations of fact as set forth in the
administrative complaint as to 4.2.2, willfully violating applicable
building codes or laws of the state, City of Collier County (sic) are
found to be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.
Conclusion of law. Alleged and set forth in the administrative
complaint as to the Count 4.2.2 are approved, adopted and
incorporated herein. To wit: The respondent violated Section 4.2.2 of
Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, in the
performance of a contracting business in Collier County by acting in
violation set out in the administrative complaint with particularity.
Order of the board: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusion of law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter
489, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105 as
amended by a vote of eight in favor and zero opposed, a majority of
the board members present, the respondent has been found in violation
as set out above.
Further, it's hereby ordered by a vote of eight in favor and zero
opposed, a majority of the board members present, that the following
disciplinary sanction and related order are hereby inlposed upon the
Page 71
16J 11\3
September 17, 2008
holder of Collier County contractor's -- or State License CGC-059099,
to wit: That permit pulling privileges are suspended for 30 days from
today for the next 30 days. Permit pulling privileges will be on
probation for the next one year after that 30 days. And this will be
turned to the state for their review and action.
MR. NEALE: There needs to be the recommendation to the
state.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Recommendation to the state is a
maximum fine and $1,000 investigative cost for this board.
Okay, are you clear on what we've done?
MR. McNEAL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We were harsh.
MR. McNEAL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We started to be harsher.
MR. McNEAL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We're somewhere in the middle. But
given the gravity of your business, we were quite serious.
MR. McNEAL: I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay? So pass that on to your owner.
Ifhe has Collier County cable, he can watch this tonight on television
and see what happened. So they do a replay.
So we wish you well, we hope you do go forward and there's no
more trouble.
MR. McNEAL: There will be none, and there would have been
none without this reprimand. But I understand the situation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. We wish you well.
MR. McNEAL: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
I'm going to push forward. I know that there's probably some
wanting a break, but I don't see the next case.
MR. OSSORIO: That's right, Mr. Chairman. The next case is
2008-14, Damian Sharp, has been dismissed.
Page 72
161
1 A3
September 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Been dismissed.
So we get to talk to Sergio. Sergio, would you come up here.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, all.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
MR. L YKOS: Morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You want to introduce Sergio?
Gentlemen, thank you from the city.
MR. MARIANNINO: You're welcome. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You want to introduce Sergio?
MR. OSSORIO: I do. Mr. Sergio Gonzalez, MSIT.
Sergio Gonzalez is well known in Miami. He is the Supervisor
or the Regional Manager for the Department of Business &
Professional Regulations. We work close with his office in Fort
Myers.
He's a 17 -year veteran of Miami-Dade Police Department in
Miami. He has a Master's Degree.
And I welcome him here to talk to the board. And if you could,
discuss a little bit about what the State's doing, how the State's doing
in their investigations and how does a local licensing board fit into the
State Licensing Board versus complaints.
MR. GONZALEZ: Okay. I don't know how many of you know
exactly what DBPR is. And I'll give you just a little brief before I go
into that. Because there are some misconceptions.
DBPR is divided into several divisions. Our division is
particularly that of regulation. That means that we actually investigate
licensed and unlicensed claims of wrong-doings.
The unlicensed part of course, we go after them in many ways,
which actually is beneficial to the city as well as the county as well as
us.
The unlicensed, if they advertise, it's $1,000 automatically.
There's no financial harm.
Second, if we have a contract with an unlicensed individual that
Page 73
16 / 1 AS
September 17, 2008
no financial harm's been done, it's $2,500 off the bat.
They can dispute the citation. However, that citation, if
disputable, the fines can go from $5,000 to $10,000 if found guilty.
Flat out. There's no ifs, ands or buts.
Second of all, with the unlicensed person, we go ahead and
submit it to the State Attorney's Office. We have had great success
over the last two years in prosecuting a lot of the unlicensed people.
Some have received a slap on the hand, but some others have
received jail time and restitution to these individuals who they have
taken monies from.
One, I think it was about a year ago, had a gentleman that
decided he was going to go ahead and pull some contracts,
approximately 68 of them. At first it was determined -- somebody
determined that it was a misdemeanor. Well, after we got ahold of it,
we started looking at our administrative code and we started looking at
the emergency executive orders that came out, and 10 and behold, they
all became felonies. From 68 misdemeanors, they went to 68 felonies.
And he was found guilty of all of them. So he's going to be in jail for I
think a little while.
So that's to give you that part of it.
Now, the other part of it. As far as part of the Department of
Business & Professional Regulations and those that we regulate, we
regulate 19 licensees, 19 different types of licenses. Everything from a
vet, construction, electrical, geologists, community association
managers. All these are all within the purview of my office.
My investigators are, as you can tell, are well rounded in these
areas to be able to address these factors.
How does the county come into play? The county assists us
quite a lot, because they are literally the people that are out there for
us. They can see and they a lot of times refer to us unlicensed activity
that we go ahead and act up on.
Collier County's very, very good about doing that. We have
Page 74
16/1/A3
September 17, tb08
other counties that don't have the manpower, so they submit
everybody to us, and we go after them via through advertisement or
through actual contracts.
You had talked about earlier with the owner/builder situation.
The owner/builder situation is, as we were discussing earlier or I heard
back and forth, is that ifhe's there, he's supervising. Ifhe's not there,
he's not supervising.
If the owner is not paying -- is paying this individual and he's
pulling FICA and has Workers' Compensation, no problem. But ifhe's
not, that automatically -- it's an assumption that this person has
entered into a contract either verbal or in writing and is being paid on
the side, and as such constitutes an unlicensed contract. So we take
that into consideration.
Now, with regards to going after the homeowner, it's not likely
in certain aspects. But where it is very, very likely, and we have
several cases that we're developing at this moment where a
homeowner has decided he's going to go ahead and fix up his house,
he pulls an owner/builder's permit. He puts his house up for sale
within three weeks of getting the permit and he sells it within that
time. We obviously will go after him the first time. And chances are
they'll get a slap on the hand.
We follow it through. Let's say as an example now he buys
another place and he does the exact same thing. We again go back to
the process, now we're going after him not just on the administrative
part, now we're going to go after him criminally as well.
The first time we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Our office
will obtain all the information. We compile it, we send it up to the
board -- or actually we send it up to our attorney's office of general
counsel who will review it and determine probable cause, at which
time it's presented.
We were talking about earlier as far -- or as I heard from Mr.
Dickson about the process with the licensing board. And f.'om Mr.
Page 75
'~r'f "R A '7
I !] cf t.\ I",
fM L, :;;: . ". , ~f1, r~1'1/r
--' ::).....;..
September 17, 2008
Ossorio, They have picked up speed on it. So they are bringing them
faster and faster to probable cause.
What helps determine a lot is our speed down here of getting it
to them. To give you a general idea as to why some of these things are
speeding up is our office, when I first took it over about two years ago,
we had a little bit over 500 cases. That meant a little bit over in just
the regulation part, not to count the farm labor and the child labor
cases, which are separate. That meant that each one of my
investigators had approximately 135 cases on their workload.
This is extremely hard to get moving within the 180 days that we
would like it to leave. Because that way, at 180 days that means it can
get up to the board that much faster. That means it can be assessed
probably cause and go in front of the board.
What we have done now is we've been able to bring it down
from the 500-odd caseload that we have to a very manageable
approximately 88 cases in the office.
That means that we can turn around these cases much faster and
they're going up in front of the board. For example, this case will
come into our office, we will get it, we will turn it around and try to
turn it around within three to four months, it's gone. It's going up to
the OGC, which will determine probable cause and immediately put it
on the docket for the probable cause panel -- or the board.
So as you can see, we're trying to speed things up to assist the
counties and the citizens in getting their just desserts. And these
violations to be heard immediately, or as closely as possible to
immediacy.
Can I answer any questions?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're still in Lee County?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. I handle -- my office handles
everything from Sarasota to Naples, l-lighlands County and into
Highlands County. So we handle eight counties. I make sure that I -- I
try, let's put it this way, to make it to as tnany counties as possible,
Page 76
161 lA3
September 17, 2008
either to the building departments, either by phone or physically going
there to meet with the building departments to keep our presence out.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How are you doing -- I met Sergio a
couple of years ago, and he's the best I've ever worked with. In fact, I
recommend you get his card. I hope you brought enough. Good.
But in my trade magazines, I see guys selling their licenses. All
of you have got to be seeing it as well. I've been sending those up to
him for the last couple of years, because it's always got an e-mail and
a phone number for you to call.
What have you been doing and what kind of success have you
had with guys selling licenses?
MR. GONZALEZ: A lot of times, believe it or not, they fess
right up. They do. And we write them a $500 citation right off the bat.
And then of course we keep them on an Excel spreadsheet where we
check them as if anything comes in or we hear anything else or we see
in a trade publication where his number's coming up, we're going to be
calling him. Because the next one is no longer a citation, now it's a full
investigation.
And we will include the previous, because that's our foundation,
if you want to call it, the precedent for continuing on.
I'm sorry, I'm getting away from the microphone. I like to walk
around a lot. This is like very restricting.
But that's what we'll do. And that's what we are doing. We're
passing it on -- anything that is given to me, that's sent to me via my
e-mail or by fax is given over to my unlicensed activity person, if it's
unlicensed.
If it's licensed, I read it and I pass it on to one of my
investigators for them to go ahead and issue a citation. Or if there is
some gravity to it, then we'll go ahead and open an investigation
against the individual. We actually look into all aspects of it to make
sure that this person is being paid in a lot of those cases, the 1099
fonn, which is a no-no.
Page 77
16 I 1 A 3
September 17, 2008
'I"
It's either -- in order for a person to qualify -- just a little
background. In order for a person to qualify a corporation, he has to be
one of two things: He either has to be a member of the board or has to
be an employee -- I mean, not of the board, of the corporation, or an
employee. An employee is not a 1099. An employee means that they
will pull everything, workers' comp., they will pull insurance, they
will pull FICA, they will pull everything, and he gets a check from
that company, not on a 1099.
So I go out and I give a lot of presentations. And one of the
presentations that I do always to contractors is that same thing. A 1099
is not, is not, an employee of a company. He's working as a
subcontractor, and as such that company we'll go after.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
Anybody else?
MR. OSSORIO: Sergio, how is the State Recovery Fund doing?
Do you know anything about that?
MR. GONZALEZ: Not really. And they really -- to be honest
with you, they say it's hands off for us.
MR. JOSLIN: I'd like to ask a quick question. I guess maybe I
shouldn't or not, but I'm going to ask anyway.
MR. GONZALEZ: Go ahead.
MR. JOSLIN: With our licensing board that sits here now, made
up of these nine (sic) people on the board, we're always restricted
when it comes to a state-certified contractor. Is there any reason of
why that happens?
Because the way I see it, after being on this board this many
years, the same laws and rules apply in Collier County as they do in
the State of Florida. So what makes us not be able to penalize or
restrict a state-certified contractor just because he's a state-certified
contractor?
MR. GONZALEZ: And that's why you just said it. Because he's
a state-certified contractor. Were it be a registrant, you have full
Page 78
,c,
SeplrttJ i7:~08
authority over that individual. State statute is what mandates that.
MR. JOSLIN: That's what mandates it.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. And that's --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And there was a move to change that
about -- how many years ago was it?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, there was a House Bill a couple of years
back. The CLOAF, Licensing Official Association sponsored the bill.
And unfortunately we would try to get more jurisdiction with local
boards but it was defeated before it even got to the full Senate due to
the fact that unfortunately the lobbyists, the contractors association,
the LAPUL (phonetic) Association -- I can give you the literature on it
-- they actually stopped it before it even got to revoked.
So we're talking about lobbyists. And unfortunately Sergio has
really nothing to do with it. It's big business construction industry.
And they like to home rule, have Tallahassee do all the work.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Gonzalez, if I could speak as a member of the
Collier Building Industry Association, when we get a difficult market
like this, a lot of our members complain about unlicensed activity and
maybe people working outside of the restrictions of their license. And
a lot of those complaints come to the officers of our association. And
I'll call Michael and let him know when members get really vocal
about some specific issue.
It would be great if we could let our association know the kind
of things that you are accomplishing. Is there a way that we could get
a report or a quarterly letter or something that we can share with our
members and see -- let them know that their officials at the county
level and also at the state level and DBPR is doing its job? It may be
great if we could give that information to our members.
MR. GONZALEZ: We don't really have anything going out like
that, but I would be more than glad to come in to any of your meetings
and speak at your meetings. More than glad to.
As a matter of fact, let tnejust, while we're doing this --let me
Page 79
16 I: I, A -'
September 17, 2008
pass out my card. Just so that I make sure that everybody gets one.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Lykos, there is a monthly report from the
state newsletter, and I'll forward that to you. And also, there is also a
monthly Construction Industry Licensing Board findings and facts.
And that's throughout the state.
So you might get four or five pages of contractors who went in
front of -- when you go to the construction licensing board, they're
going to see I don't know how many, you know, people -- Mr.
Dickson's probably been there before, I'm not sure. But you'll see 34
contractors go one after the other. And then they post that on a web
page. I think Mr. Dickson's given that once before, and I get it
probably once a month. And I'll make sure we forward that to you.
MR. L YKOS: That would be great.
MR. OSSORIO: And also, on the licensing level locally, we
have monthly reports: How much money we generated, how many
citations we issue, how many people renew, how many people have
been canceled, how many fines. And that's on a monthly basis as well,
so that's something I can bring to the board.
I think we did do it a couple of times because the licensing board
was interested, they want to see what we were doing on a monthly --
but we haven't done in awhile. Maybe I'll bring that back.
MR. L YKOS: Ifwe can bring that to our members on a monthly
basis, even a quarterly basis, I think it will make people feel a little bit
better that the unfair competition is being controlled as best as we can.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There is a newsletter.
MR. JOSLIN: Isn't there something in the DBPR web page --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: -- where it lists all the activity or unlicensed work
or activities --
MR. NEALE: You can get the findings of fact on the web page.
MR. JOSLIN: Sure.
MR. GONZALEZ: You just put the person's information in and
Page 80
I' 6 I · l"~ A:
t/... ..
September 17, 2008
you will receive all that information.
Now, Mike was bringing up about the results of the board, the
monthly board. If you all e-mail me, I'll make sure that I include you
in my dispersal for that. I get them -- you know, I get them more or
less at the same time that it's posted on the web. But if you don't have
the time, at least you'll have it on your e-mail and you'll be able to
read it. It's a Word document and I'll be able to give it to you with no
problem.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that's how I met Sergio, is he
came to a Roofing Association meeting and spoke to us and that was
the hot topic was unlicensed contractors. So yeah, you would enjoy
having him.
MR. GONZALEZ: We can assure you that if you give it -- if
you send it to me, okay, be it -- let's say as an example you find
someone out there that's doing unlicensed work or even if it's the
signage on the vehicle is questionable, please send me a picture, the
side of the van or the side of the truck, whatever it might be, a shot of
the tag, and send it to us. I'll research it.
Before I pass it on, I always look at all of it. I don't just pass it
on. Because if I can address it right then and there, I will. If I find of
course that there is some unlicensed activity, it immediately gets sent
to my unlicensed person for them to look into it, acquire a case
number.
And if you do that, I will respond back to you. As a matter of
fact, I'm going to make it a point that when anyone, anyone of you
here or anyone that's in some of the conferences that I give provide me
an e-mail and you send me something, I'm going to make it a point to
show you the follow-up so that you know what is going on, at least
either -- if it's unlicensed, I can give you a case number flat out. I can
talk about those all day long. I fit's -- I'm sorry, an unlicensed.
If it's a licensed, I'm pretty much tight-lipped about it. And
you're not going to pull anything out of me. Aside from the fact that
Page 81
161 lA3
September 17, 2008
yeah, I received it. Because that's the way it has to be, unfortunately.
Or fortunately. Because we do owe fiduciary responsibility to all
licensees in the State of Florida, with one exception. Only one.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Attorneys.
MR. NEALE: We're not regulated by them.
MR. GONZALEZ: No, but we're trying to get them.
MR. NEALE: I know, you keep trying.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yeah, we keep trying, and hard. No,
actually, believe it or not, it's community association managers. We
can talk about them all day long. Statutorily we can talk about them all
day long, which is rather nice.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Their communities do anyway.
MR. GONZALEZ: Anything else, gentlemen?
(No response.)
MR. L YKOS: Thank you for being here. We appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir.
MR. GONZALEZ: It's been a pleasure. Thank you for having
me.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Appreciate it.
I'm just glad to hear that the State's catching up like they are.
Because where that came was remember after Hurricane Andrew in
Miami -- you were a cop then. You probably got some stories from
Andrew to te 11.
MR. GONZALEZ: And then some.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But I had to go before the board in
Miami. It was -- they had the wrong name, but I still had to go over
there. And the county board in Miami, Dade County at the time was
25 or 2,600 cases behind. While we handled three cases today but two
of them were dismissed. Imagine that kind of number. And then the
state was behind as well. So it's good they are catching up.
Anybody else got anything else?
MR. NEALE: One piece of housekeeping is the new form and
Page 82
. L~ 1 .'.~!.'..l A. 3
..... :..J , .
September 17, 2008
format for the hearing order outline, you probably ought to adopt that
as being part of the procedures of the board, if it's the board's pleasure.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: A lot better than what I've had to do
in the past. It's called Hearing Procedures and Order Outline Form as
submitted September 17th, 2008.
I move that that become standard procedure for reading at the
conclusion of all cases before this board.
MR. JOSLIN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Can I get a copy of that?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, we should all have a copy of that.
MR. NEALE: It will be in the minutes, because I gave it to the
clerk, so she'll --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, okay.
Next meeting date is what?
MR. GUITE': 15th.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: October 15th?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure you
understand, it's going to be 609-610 Conference Room. It's not going
to be in the Board of County Comrnissioners' chambers. It's down by
I-Iorseshoe Drive, and it's at 10:30, not 9:00.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Glad you said that.
MR. JACKSON: That's October, Novelnber, December.
MR. NEALE: All three months? Okay.
Page 83
16 , if ^ 2
September 1 1; t5'0~
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 10:30, October 15th.
MR. L YKOS: Then we're back here after that?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, January 1st.
Now, the only thing is, is that I know that from past experience
that the Chairman likes to take off November or December, because
one's Thanksgiving, one's Christmas. So we'll talk about that next
meeting.
MR. L YKOS: Is that the Community Development building?
MR. OSSORIO: Exactly, 609-610.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Where we've met before.
MR. OSSORIO: Where we've met before.
MR. JOSLIN: Right next to the inspections office, just down the
hall.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, motion to adjourn?
MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos.
MR. JOSLIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. HERRIMAN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Have a wonderful day.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :25 a.m.
Page 84
16 I 1 A 3
September 1 7, 2008
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR
LICENSING BOARD
LES DICKSON, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM
Page 85
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle. tv- Board or County Commissioners
Coletta ftL..-. #
MINUTES OF TIlE MEE'llNG OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVEI'()PMEN1' SERVICI;:S ADVISORY C()MMJT'rEE
RECEIVEo16' 1 A 4
JUL 2 2 2009
v/
I
July 9, l008
Naples, Florida, July 9, 2008
LET rr BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 1 :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference
Room #610 in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Center, 2800 N,IIorseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present;
CHAIRMAN: William Varian
Charles Abbott (Absent)
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
David Bryant (Absent)
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn
Dabs Disney (Excused)
David Dunnavant (Excused)
Marco [::spinar
Blair Foley (Excused)
George Hermanson (Excused)
Reed Jarvi
Thomas Masters (Excused)
Robert Mulhcre
Mario Valle
ALSO PR[~SENT: Joe Schmit!, /\dministrator. CDES
Judy Puig. ( ( DFS
lstene:), Dlt\'C!Or. loning & land I kvclopmt"1l1
C:ltl1cl'im~ 1'. LDe ,vI & I
I (
!kidi
Misc, Corres:
Date:Sld.l;<.::; ~L
11em #,jJQIL ~
~ 1'1'
16ttA4 I
July 9,2008
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 1 :07 PM by Chairman William Varian.
A quorum was established,
H. Approval of Agenda
illr. E~pinar mover! to approve tlte Agenda (IS amemied. Second by iUr. Valle.
Carried ufUm;molls!y, 8-0.
III. Approval of Minutes
Clay Brooke/'askedfor clarijicatiOfl regarding Joe Schmitt's stll/ement 011 Page 4
referring to "25 liIlitJ." He ....tated the ~'elltence ....11OIIld read "25 PVDs ,.. since that
was the subject of disclls.~ion. The Minutes will be amemJed to Te.f1ect tlte change.
Mr. i1lfulllere moved to tlpprove the jlJ;/inutes of June 11, 20()8 lIS amended. Second
by Illfr. Valle. Carried unanimously, 8-0.
IV. Staff Announcements/llpdates
A. CDES Update - ,Joe Schmitt
Mr. Schmitt stated he did not have a report. He slated he was going to present an
hxecutive Summary to the RCe recommending an extension of time t(,)1' some Site
Development Plans that could expire under the current rules. lIe asked the
Committee members to notify him If they knmv of an SDP that \vould qualify fIll
an extension.
The COllunittee's letter limiting LDe Amendments was presented to the Bee
Bee but no fimnal action was taken. He \-vill request clarification from the Board
during its July meeting
He pointed out the [executive Summary also contained a request fl.)! a special cycle
dedicated to Sign Ordinances because a recent Court case fbund that portions of
the County's Sign Ordinance was unconstitutional.
The Bee did approve the sale of several of the COUllty's trucks and the proceeds \vil1
he returned to Fund # II]
B. Transportation DJ-vision Nick Casalanguida
Nick C~lsalanguid~l stakd bids will be mailed next month l{if the Santa Barbara
Extension project
The l{lllowing projects arc nearing do:,;c (Hll:
.. hnmok;llcc Road all three
· Col
<II
lanmlod
Oihvcl!Road
;)(
to!' ! il i
plan"
Hee'
1611A4
July 9. 2008
"If
'rhcre was a discussion ofthc proposed lease of Alligator Alley and \-vhether or not
CoHier County could reap any benefit from the excess tolls. It was pointed out the
Florida Statutes directs the money to remain locally, but Governor has expressed his
intention to funnel any monies from the lease to support schools.
C. Public Utilities/Engineering Division Update - Phil Gramatges
Mr. Gramatges stated the Bee approved the 2008 Master Plan on June 24. 200S.
Ile is in the process of preparing the 2008 A UlR.
n. Fire Review lJpdate -I(d Riley
Ed Riley stated while activity levels are down, review times are excellent. His
department lost the services of the individual who conducted the Fire- Sprinkler
Reviews because he left to start his own company.
V. Old Business
A. Impact Fee Study -. Amy Patterson, Impact Fce Manager
Ihe Committee noted there has been n reduction in the impact Fees !()f Water!
Sewer based, in part. on the reduction in population and change of use. A question
was asked if other Impact r'ees that are population-driven be examined to detem1ine
if further reductions would be possible?
Amy Patterson veri lied lhere are 12 Impacl Fees. She stated the methodology for
for WateriSe\ver Impact Fees is different hom the methodology for the remaining
Fees, In 2009, there will be a major review and update of all Impact Fees based on
population and Levels of Service discussed in the AUIR. She stated the Be'C' has
discretion regarding whether or not to adopt an increase. In the past. the Board had
always adopted the maximum legal limit allowed, They may reduce fees or choose
to do nothing. Parks!libraries. transportation and the ('minty jail are currently under
study and will be reviewed fir;.,( for possible reduction of Fees, applicable Levels
of Service will be the main driver concerning \vhctbcr or not \vil! change,
.Joe Schmitt stated Impact Fees arc based on the demand tl.1f essential services.
'l'here vvas a discussion concerning "change of use" and the accepted Fees associated
with original permitted uses of a particular building. /\my Patterson will return at the
next meeting for further discussion,
B. COA Administrative Pnlccdurcs .. Nick Casalanguida
Nidi ('asalanguida stated the policy is being developed and he would present a dran
to the CommiUee at thdr next meeting,
('. l}iscussion of Flnmlplain l\lanagt'fiH'l1t Conunith:ciBCC iVlceting
Clay BnwlH'r stated the rCllS0tl he till' a to be
(l concern ng an crnail \\hich he received
(Jay Brooke)'
\vas to
Chairman Varian stakd Hood PI ('onnniUvc ('hainnan
him to allend a ulceling dS a tcspons\... il DS!\( P !cHef to
incltbi,lI1 01 lei Cf1gIJKlIS Oil [!I;' I" Pi\lt' j k :-;Uted
,.._W;",,""...... "'''''T'''~' " _~_."'.~_"."......."",...~_____~'"
161
1 AU#9 2008 j
meeting \vas "hostile" and it was apparent the mernbers diJ not want him at their
meeting even though they extended the invitation to attend.
Reed .Jarvi stated it was possible the Board did not understand the intent of the letter
\vas to include professional engineers. not necessarily DSAC members, on the FPMC.
The Flood Plain Management Committee members stated they did not need additional
help, so the Board did not appoint anyone.
An email sent by Robert \Viley stated "D,S:,1("s pa.'it perlormance on discussing the
FAiP has heen very poor and negative. " lIe \vas asked by the Committee to provide
examples of this "negativity." He referred to a previous meeting during \\!hich the
r:lood Plain Management topic was deferred to a later date.
('hairman Varian remembered the Agenda for that meeting was very full and the
meeting had been running late. 'fhe FPMC's presentation was deferred in order to
give it the amount of time needed to make a complete presentation,
IV. Staff Announcements/IJpdates
E. Discussion of Sunshine l..aw re: Email Correspondence - County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko cautioned the Committee members to be careful \vith any
communication among two or more members. An email transmission that is sent
and is responded to by t\\/O individuals, or is sent through another individual-- such
as Staff who is lIsed as an instrument t)f communication will create a violation of
the Sunshine La\\is. She recommended that emails should not be sent between
members of the Committee. She stated that, technically. a one-\-vay transmission is
acceptable. If there is infi)rmation to he distributed to Committee members, the
Staff liaison (Judy) can send the transmission. If the emai! is generated by Stan~ as
opposed to heing t()fwarded to the members, it is acceptable.
She clarified personal emails between the members that do not incorporate either
County or land-use matters would not constitute a problem.
D. LDC Amendment Uiscussion - Catherine Fabachcr, l..DC Manager
Sus~m Istem~s, Land Development and Zoning Director, introduced !\!Iark White
\,1/110 was hired by the County as a consultant to review the 1,1)(' process.
rvrr. White gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding lhe approach used to make the
Code easier to read, understand and use. The Non~confonnilics Section has been
draltcd and will be mcludcd as a parI of an Adrninistralive manllal or handbook. lie
slaled the substance of the Regulations is not
is to determine how to strudun.' C
is to make ng
('athCf'int,)
on
dc n nition
-+1.
Brooker
\)m!lli 11
II \) \\'
or" (iine I (jl un
61 lA4
.~
July 9, 2008
There was a discussion concerning the delinition of "merged lots" contained in
Subparagraph C on Page 17.
On page 27, line 40, it was noted the Ordinance was not specified. Which ()rdinance
was being referenced loww was it the mnending Ordinance or the original OrdinullCc?
It was suggested to specify the Ordinances and/or effectivc datc as referenced.
On Page it was suggested changing 50% to 49~/(1 to he consistent with current
FEMA standards.
By consensus, the Non-conformities Section will be reviewed at the August meeting,
BREAK: 2:55 PM
RECONVENEl): 3:09 PM
Catherine Fabachcr, LJ)C Manager, presented the results of the LDR
Subcommittee meeting to the Committee members.
LDe Section
1.04.04
Reduction of
Required
Site J)esign
ct)uirements
4,02.27
Spcdfic
D(~.\;ign
Standards
for the
Immokalec
Commercial
Pro osed Ament/ment
The existing LDe
language does not provide
a dear understanding of
\vhat impacts are accept-
able and can remain in
place in the aller-Take
condition. "rile language
does not identify a dear
process for reaching a
mutually agreeable settle-
ement and idemifying any
ullO\vanccs or deviations
whether due to the actual
Take, or to mitigate or
remedy the impacts of the
Iah\
/\lIow for lity in
requirements fin
aeec feral ion/deceleration
, turn lanes on segment cd
! SR
Discussion
· 3(d); Add "Taking or"
bef()re "acquisition" in the fIrst
sentt'nce
· B. "Post Take Plan"; Add
subparagraph (e) for legal
description
· 2(c): Add "Required' before
"native vegetation" in first
scntence
Recommendatioll
Not dbu..'us.w;d.
Will he revl-tetl
ami presented to
lite 1.1)R
S'ubcommittee at
it5 next meeting.
Remove the word '-do,"
add the words "or
440-leet;
Approved by
[JSA C (IS revised
word
f{lllO\ving the 'no!'" at
end of,emcIH.c
In no), remove t
the ';entt'I1CC to
'shall he (Ol/.\isfcnf with'
LDe Section
4.03.08
Facility and
Service
Improvement
Requirements
4.07.02 .J
Design
Requirements
(Page 1(3)
6.02.02 and
6.02.03
Transportation
LOS
Requirements
6.06.tB
Street
Lights
t 0.02.02
Submittal
I~equin:mcnts
I I j
Propo,'ied Amendment
Scrivener's error to be
Corrected
Add language requiring
all new roadways within
a PUD to be maintain<:,'d
by the developer,
owners. IIOA.
successors and/or
To be consistent with
Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Element
of
the GMP and Adopted
Traffic Impact Study
(TIS) Guidelines and
Procedures
use of the \vord
"subdivision" is
confusing. Nc\v
Language clarilles that
additionallighling is
required for all
developments, not just
residential
subdivisrons.
A PUD i\1onitoring
Report is to
subm at the time a
project is submitted fill'
rCVle\v.
Discunioll
To remain consistent with the
Ordinance listed in Right-of..
Way Handbook
Item 6:
. Remove "All"'
. Add comma at end of
sentence and phrase to read:
", unless otherlvise approved
by the Board (~IC'()unty
Commissioners. "
It was suggested that all
Amendments concerning
"Level or Service" could be
transferred into the
Administrative Section of the
Code of Laws (future process)
nten! to add flexibility to
achieve lighting requirements.
Reed Jarvi questioned the
number of lights required.
.l( and ~\(h) are removed
and remaining subparagraphs
Hrc n.'-kttcrcd
..
161. 1'~4
July 9, 2008
Recommefll[utioll
Approved
Approved
ApprOl'elJ
Approved by
D-S'A C,
7-" Yes "/1 .- "No"
Reed Jan.!
opposed
Approved l~r
f),SA ( '.
7-;j lYes ~~/l- H,rVO"
Reed .larl'i
OPIHJSed
dJ;lngcd 10
@ . Add conmu
nil It" and add
10.02.07
Submittal
Requirements
For
Certificates
of Puhlic
:Facility
Adequacy
(page 113)
To clarify language
regarding when a
Trame Count Waiver
may be requested
changed to "awner/agent"
· Nc\v 3(a): Add phrase
,. except/hI' applications/hI'
projects within DRls " at the
end of the sentence
· Fiscal & Operations Impact:
end second sentence at lhe
word "s!af?e, "
. -,---_._'------'_.,-_. .. -.--.--..--.........
Page 115:
· tJnder (b)(iii): Change the
word "entity" to "entities
16/
h
2068
Itlly
~f,~
.,.~
i
.-.-- .. - .--~... ...-....-............-.....,... "-,....,,.,,~...~
Approved by
DS'A C.
7-" res"IJ - "No"
Reed .Iarvi
opposed
Clay Brooker movelJ to {IPpro..e the Transportatiol1Ameltdments as referenced
above. with the exception (~fLDC Amemlment Number J.(J4.04. Second by ,Tame.f
Boughton. lW'otiml carried. 7-"YesHll-"No." Reed .Iarvi opposed as noted.
~ 1.Dcse;:ii(}h~T Prop,ued Amendmell!~ ~~==~ Di<cussioll
3J)5.07 and ,10 require applicators of E.~lg 120:
3.05.08 I pesticides/herbicides in "" 1..g,(ii); Insert "Any person
preserves, wetlands and who dlrect!.v supen'15'es up to
! Requirement littoral shelf planting 8 persons in the appliCl1fion oj'
I for Removal areas (LSP Alto pesticides/herbicides in the
I of Prohibited maintain certi ficalions chemical", '
I
I Exotic hom the Deparlment of
I V cgetation I Agriculture and
, I Consumer Services 1'01
I these categories: the
i Natural Areas Weed
I
. 1\lanagcmelll and the
Aquatic Plant
_!~agcJ.!.5l,~. ..1 NIanagcl~~!.1.!__._
W' _
10.02.03
Suhmittal
i for Silt.'
Ikn'lopmcnt
Plans
1'0 extend the SDP
approval time limit from
two years to three YCdf';
cdnstnrctiiHl
no[ to exk'nd
11H: llll1\: limit l'n'll1 I}\
month<, In in 11101dl:.
\\
phrase shal!
WitI' alicr SUP
Ii '.l'nii'nn: \vil
'It \,void "
" , ' RL:muvn '" 101
Recommendation
Robert it-llllltere
que.\,tioned
whether or not
thi\' Amendment
was neceSSlIfV as
il duplicate... State
Statute....
It wa,\ suggesfed
to bring before
the August [)SAC
meeting when the
auf/wI' could lw
to
/tpprol'ed as
amended
(Page 127)
t 2.02.04 H. t
Submittal
Requirements
for Plats
(Page 131)
12.02.04
B.3.b
Submittal
Requirements
for I))ats
! (Page 133)
12.02.05
Submittal
Requirements
For
Improvement
Plans
begun. Audition of a
possible (me-year
extension of original
approval may be granted
by County Manager or
designee.
. 1'0 the
requirement to show (he
Preserve setback lines on
tbe final plat.
To allow additional
extensions fl)r
construction period,
'Io
extensions of
construction period l()r
required improvements.
16/
f~a2:e 129:
· The phnlse "upon written
request" \'nlS removed. The
sentence is to n~ad: "A single,
J 2-monllt extension to
complete constructioll may be
granted. '.'
Page 132:
. In the first sentence: add
(in parenthesisj "(or other
setback lhai mighT be approved
tlu'ough deviation by the
Bee) " aHer the word
"setback"
-In the second sentence.
remove "25-t()ot" and add
"required"
1 ,All
,
July 9. 2008
App/'(wed
Robert fHullfere moved to approve the Engineering Amemlmelfls us referenced
above. with the exception (~lLDCAm(!lfllment Number 3.05.07 umI3.05'()8.
\'econd by Neetl1wTi. Carried llftffJ1imou,(v. 8,.0.
Catlwrinc Fabachec
('nt11mlltc'c m ,\
VI.:
Slh: is
Amendment!
,Lila and ckJ"lI1li
LDC Sectioll
3.04.0t -
3.04.04
Species Specific
Requirements,
Penalties for
Violation
(Page 139)
161
1 A4
~
Discussion
-"
Pae:e 153:
In the second sentence,
the phrase "of the
ground" is changed to
"fllltlle ground"
Ilae:e 152:
The capitalization is not
consistent throughout,
Le., .. Baltl E(lgle" and
"Scrub Ja:v"
Comment: Fiscal
impacts are not dear.
Pae:e 151: Comment:
Section [ is not
appropriate for this
portion of the LDC.
Pae:c 154:
Some of the listed plants
neeur so fre()uently they
were to be eliminated,
now the}' arc listed as
"I~an~" and "Less Rare"
Pae:e 144:
Hi": It was suggested the
spedfic date (09/01)
should be removed and
state "rnost reCet1t~F
adopted by FFWCC"
Comment: Remove
n~fcrcrH~cs to "minor
structures".
(Previous) ('omment:
\Vhat is the threshold for
:\ cntenon IS
needed,
July 9, 2008
Recommendation
To be re-wriften
and brougllt back
before tlte LDR
Subcommittee al
its next meeting
..----
PI'() osed Amendmellt
Include criteria for
protection of selected listed
plants.
Correct Scrivener's error in
Section 3J)4.02 regarding
lcttcri ng/numbcring.
I LDe Section
I . ___'_0_-
1.08.02,
, 10.02.06, and
3.05.05
Criteria for
Removal of
Protected
Vegeta tion
(page 155)
3.05.07 AID
Preservation
Standards
(Page 163)
PropoJed Amemlme'!L_
Require a vegetation
removal permit and
provide determining
criteria for rernoval of
vegetation containing nests
or cavity tress of proteded
or listed animal species.
Revise definition of "native
vegetation.' in accordance
with no'\" definition adopted
hv the EAR-based GiviP
.'
mnendlnents and clardy how
the ddinition is interpreted.
16 '~A 4 --
J 1 July 9. 2008 .
Dl\CtI,ssioll
Paec 157:
tInder Vegetation,
protected: Remove
I,hrase "living or"
preceding the word
"dt'ad"
Paec 160:
. lJndcr 2, remove
word "prindpar'
(Previous note) Pag;c 159:
. In the last sentence.
add "and strue/ures "
(Previous note) Page 160:
. 2B: add "and/or"
bef()re U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Paec 164:
. "A" - add the word
.. UIl ilu'orporated"
following the word
Hall"
Puec 165:
. Hem 6: Re: "lcgnlly
clelued" ~-needs to be
defined.
Comment: Item 7 docs
not encourage re-
development as phrased.
COHunent: l'h:movc
words "now ways" and
"wildlife corridors"
( Previous
3 ve lwhitat means a
c()nJm U!1
II
Recommendatioll I
To be re-written
ami brought back I
before LDR
Subcommittee at
its next meeting
To be re-written
amI brought back
before the LDR
Subcommittee at
its next meeting
\e
1611i~4
July'>, 2008
I
i
I
I · "Major" now~ways
I and "wildlife corridors"
have not been defined.
i . Page 169: remove
I "wildlife corridors"
. "Essential Services.' are
I defincd as 1]'\118, Fire and
l' poli~.e -- Comment: Why
._.~~,~l'.eclal treatment'?
Bill t.orcnz, [)irector of Engineering & Environmental Services. stated the GMP
contains a definition of "tlow \vays" which was adopted !{lr the Watershed Management
Plan Interim Standards:
"Contiguous lands having a continual preponderance of wetland or
wet ftlcilitated plant species in a ground elevation through the major
portion of a natural wetland flow way or slue way at least one-foot
lower than the ground at tbe edge of thc natura.! wellaml now way or
31tH: ,"
Marco Espinar stated the "prior development order" contained in Item 7 on page 165
was still a problem, It was agreed. by consensus, the language should be reworded,
It 'was decided by consensus that the (1~nvironmental Amendments would be brought
before the LDR Subcommittee at its next meeting.
VI. New Business
A. Stonmvntcl'/Flood Hamage Prevention Ordinance - Rohert Wiley
Robert Wiley staled the C'ounty's existing Ordinance was updated, as needed, to
confimn to current l"f':Mi\ delinitions. Organizational responsibilities were
restruclUred. The County Manager will appoint a Floodplain Administrator.
He reviewed the draft of the Ordinance which was distributed to the Committee
Members.
By ClmsenSlIS. it was decided the Cummittee \\fill review the draft and clllaillheir
questions and comments diredly to Rohert \\/iley. lie \-vill revise the draft f()r
presentation to the Committee at the August meeting.
B. Discussion n..: n'movnlof Bavid Bryant from DS;\{'
('hnirmall Varian David Bryant missed meetings Without offering any
excuse or reasun II has nul responded 10 attempts to
c\lInnel hinL
Clay Brooker
Ill'ln
;1 lell"r should he senllo
tIed mail him that
remove him memher ufil'~i\(',
rm:m Variat! the, Il,ilson (Judy
II)
n
lor his n..'\,c'
! r
16' 1 A ~y <) 20~
C. Approvals/Pre-Construction Meetings - Stan Chrzanowski/(;eorgc Hermanson
There has been a problem with individuals not setting up pre-construction meetings.
The approved drav,;ings are held by Rudy Moss until the pre-construction meeting.
It was suggested to deter this topic to the August meeting.
I). As-BuiltlRecord I>rawings - Reed .Jarvi
Reed Jarvi stated he has heen instructed that ull of the sheets of a permit set must be
submitted together in order to be considered as part of the record drawings. It would
be particularly difficult to accomplish this if the project was "phased" lie asked Stan
Chrzanowski to clarify.
Stan Chrzanowski stated the complete set of sheets is important to make sure that all
changes are incorporated. He stated the pages that are not part of the record drawings
do not need to be signed and sealed.
VII. Member Comments:
A. Ilistribution of DSAC Member contact list
Chairman Varian stated the dates of individual terms are listed.
Clay Bt'ooker stated he cannot attend the August 6, 2008 meeting.
DSAC Meeting nates:
. August 6, 2008 at 1 :00 PM (time changed from 3:30 PM)
. September 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM
. Octoher 8, 2008 at 3:30 I~M (datc changed from October 1'1)
There being no furthe.- husiness for the good of the County, the meeting was ad,journcd by
order of the Chuimum at 5: 10 PM.
Uf:VI1:LOPMENT SERVIC'ES
ADVISORY C()MIVHTTEE
\Villiam Varian. ('hainmm
'{HlHllltkc un
0&
I Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
MINUT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
EAST OF 951 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES HORIZON
STUDY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MASTER PLAN
COMMITTEE
RECEIVED
JUL 2 2 2009
16/1A~/
September 3, 2008
eoerd of County eommllslonera
Naples, Florida, September 3, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County East of 951 Infrastructure
and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Plan Committee, in and
tor the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
7:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Agricultural Extension
Office, 14700 Immokalee Road, with the following members present:
Chairman: Bill McDaniel
Vice Chair: Lillda Hartman
David Farmer
Thomas Jones
Kenneth Lynch
Timothy Nance
Stephen Price (Absent)
Russell Priddy
Douglas Rankin
Nlichae1 Ramsey
Richard Rice (Excused)
Christian Spilker
Clarence Tcars (Absent)
Mark Teaters
Kris Van Lcngcn (Excused)
AJ..JSO PRESENT: Michad Bosi, Community Planning Redevelopment
Misc. Corres:
Date: fBl ~~ 1 DC)
Item #: llo IL l )A~)
:;cpies to:
IIIIBIdIiIJh.
._--~.-
~
-j 6 f11'~ 5
September 3,2008
l. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill McDaniel at 7:04 PM.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. Roll Call
Michael Bosi called the roll and a quorum was established,
3. Approval of Agenda
Linda lIartman moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Kemteth Lynch. Carried
unanimously, 11-0.
4. Approval of Minutes
Linda Hartman moved to approv~ the 1l1inutesfor the July 21,2008 Jlfeeting as
suhmitted. Second hyDavid Farmer. Carried unanimously, J1-0.
5. Old Business
A. Discussion of Screening Survey Table Results - Charles Mohlke
Copies of the tables \vere distributed to all members.
Charles MohJke reported:
. Each table was accompanied by a zip code map to help ascertain the geographic
areas described by the zip codes and reflected in the findings
. Format and language were improved for easier reading
. Explained how to read the tables and the median scores provided for each table
. Asked Mike Bosi to distribute the conclusions electronically to the members
prior to the next meeting
6. New Business
A. llpdate of the Estates Bridge Study - Nick Casalanguida and Usa Koehler
Nick Casalanguida stated tbe comments made at the meeting \vhcn he madc the initial
presentation were carefully considered, especially the comments concerning the lack of
coordination between variou.s departments within the County. Copies of the Bridge
Study were distributed to the members.
. A public meeting was held on July 2,2008: attendance\vas over 150
. 1500 postcards were mailed to propt.'I1y owners living on every dead-end street in
the study area 1\1,.'0 weeks prior to the public meeting, and ads were placed in the
.Vaples Dai~y IVeH's and the Collier Citizen as well as on the Transportation
Department websitc. 'There was also an intervic\v on a 10<:al TV channel.
. The study was broken down into two segments: evaluation and selection
. Evaluation process was broken down into lour categories:
o Emergency response (Fire, EMS, Sheriff and Forestry)
o Mobility and evacuation (TranSpoltation
c Servic:cEfliciency (School District, Parks, Public Utilities &
Cypre,s Basin)
c' Public Sentiment
<Ill There is one appmvcd bridge location,
which is part of the Boulevard Bndgc with
expected in 20 10
~-
i""'"
..,.IlIel
l.JI
~~
161
lA5
September 3, 2008
. Key issues f(}r the public included emergency response times, better access and
mobility, better access to schools, parks and public utilities
. An added benefIt of building additional bridges is a potential decrease in
homeowners' insurance. The Jnsural1ce Service Organization rating would decrease
ifhomes are located within a 5-mile drive distance from a fire station
. Public concerns: increased traffic 011 dead-end streets; cffect on propcliy values,
and site-specific concerns
. As a result of the public meeting and request by the EMS, a new bridge location
was recommended and seven possible locations for additional bridges were
identified including an emergency access bridge that would be restricted to
emergency vehicles only
Nick Casalanguida asked the Committee to review the Study and dctenninc whether
or not they agreed on the locations suggested.
Ouestions from Committee Members:
A question lvas asked concerningfunding.
Nick Casalanguida answered that application for Federal grant money has been made,
He stated funding is available especially if Collier County can devise a plan to build the
bridges in gruups which can be accomplished by the utilization of"pre-fab" sections.
There are also "opportunity" bridges which could be funded by a combination of the
School District and the County.
When questioned about costs, he stated the cost to complete the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension Project will bc approximately $190M, while widening Everglades Road to
Oilwell Road and building a bridge will cost approximately $93M,
He stated Fire/EMS suggested building a limited access blidge at 8th and 16th in order to
improve response times. \VhiJe a limited ace,ess bridge could serve a need in an isolated
area, the negative is that mobility I~lctor is lost if the public does not have access,
A member questioned whether or not a true cross-section ~fpllhiic opinion could he
obtained in just one public meeting alld suggested holding a second meeting.
Lisa Koehler stated she received comments and phone calls for approximately one
month after the July 2nd meeting. The puhlic could also comment via the '.vcbsitc.
A member asked which was the must traffic trapped area.
Nick CasaJanguida answered it is the area south of (:Yolden Gate Boulevard, ofT of
Desoto and Everglades, He f'urth<.:r stakd a puhlic meeting will held in November to
present tbe J -75 Interchange Justification ReporLfhc goal is to public support
which is critical in obtaining Federal funding.
Another memher questioned l\.helher the residents of the two neighborhoods ajJi'cted.
',i'lta are non, English M/ere encouraged to
IJsa Koehler the 1,vere made to contact every homco\.vner
Study area including use nfthe board,
16/,lA5
September 3, 2008
There being no further business for the goodofthe County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Chair at 8:55 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY EAST OF 951 INFRASTRUCTURE
AND SERVICES HORIZON STUDYPUB1.
PARTlC1P MASTI::llPLANCOkE
WiI
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on. '1- 'J... '1 -\) Y
as presented _~ or as amended ~_._-------
r'l
Fiala ~.. ~.
Halas
Henning=- V / -=
Coyle
Coletta
RECE'VED
JUL 2 2 2009
161 ! V
September 8~ 20J A 5
-
Board of County commlaaloner8
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
EAST OF 951 INFRASTR1JCTURE AND SERVICES HORIZON
STUDY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MASTER PLAN
COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, September 8. 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County East of 951 Infrastructure
and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Plan Committee, in and
for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
7;00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Agricultural Extension
Office, 14700 Immokalee Road, with the following members present:
Chairman: Bill McDaniel
Vice Chair: Linda Hartman
David Farmer
Thomas Jones
Kenneth Lynch
Timothy Nance
Stephen Price (Absent)
Russell Priddy
Douglas Rankin
Michael Ramsey
Richard Rice (Absent)
Christian Spilker (Absent)
Clarence Tears (Absent)
Mark Teatcrs
Kris Van Lengen
ALS() PRI:SEN'f:Micbael
l'\flan3gcr
i, Community Planning
Redevelopment
Mise. Coires:
Dale:
Item #:.._
Copies
Ii.
16 / 1 A 5
September g, 2008
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill McDaniel at 7:07PM.
The Pledge of Allegiance wa'i recited.
2. Roll Call
Michael Bosi called the roll and a quorum ,vas established.
3. Approval of Agenda
Linda Hartman moved to approve the Agenda. SecOIld by KellnethLynch. Carried
unanimolls(v. .9-0.
(7: 1 () PM - Douglas Rankin arrived.)
4. Old Business
A. Discussion of Screening Survey Table Results - Charles Mohlke
Copies of the preliminary findings were distributed to. all members.
Charles Mohlke reported:
. The Preliminary Findings included eight additional pages of narrative that describes
the respective tables which were included in the information distributed at last
week's meeting
. A comparati ve <mal ysis by Postal zip code area was also provided
. Significant differences: Residents living south of Golden Gate Blvd. (34117)
placed greater emphasis on north/south roads while residents living north of Golden
Gate Blvd. (34120) were more c.oncerned ahout east/west roads
A committee member stated the zip l:odc inf()m1ation was important as guidance and felt
it should be included as a reference document.
Mr. Mohlke staled the tables could be configured to compare each oftile zip code arcas.
Another fonnat that could be utilized would group together areas with similar densities.
Chairman McDaniel reminded the Committee members the purpose ofthe Committee
was to obtain opinions from the Community as to their wants and needs for .growth and
development in eastern Collier County
Another member pointed out the Survey was a tool to help the Members make decisions
and recommendations.
J\Ir. Mohlke stated th(j infoffimtion presented in the zip code tables could also be broken
down by precincts which arc based upon TrafIicAnalysis CT AZ").
it was suggested to note in the narrative that the capability
for future Committees.
5. New. Business
A. Review of Public Participation Pro('CSS dnft n:~port lllnd Commiuee action
Cbairman McDaniel stated there '\vas a contradiction on 13 ofthe emal1 ~;cnt
10 the members regarding hnmokalee Overlay.
-
m~"
l6, 1 A5
September 8, 2008
The statement: "A number of tire public expressed dissatisfaction with the idea,
indicating that increased traffic would lead to increased commerce for the/ocal
econom.'l." He suggested the sentence should be re-examined. There was a
discussion of the long-range plans for Route 29 and how those plans would a.ffect
commerce in downtown lmmokalee. The consensus was removing trucktraffic
from the area would be beneficial to merchants and shoppers.
He mentioned his suggestions made at the last meeting: creation of an Oversight
Committee of 3 to 5 members; a Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee [since it
was felt that a "re-do" of the Rural FringeArea was needed], and a derivative of the
Horizon Study Advisory Committee that would be allowed to deal with the Loop Road
and other topics with speciticity. He stated these committees could be created by the
Bee to further assist the Board in utilizing the information gathered by the Horizon
Study Advisory Committee. He reminded the members their "charge" was to poll the
public to ascct1ain the different levels of service the public felt were necessary and to
interpret what was heard from the general public. TIle derivative committee would be
site specific and would hold public meetings on the topics.
Mike Bosi suggested reviewing each of the Position Points as the most appropriate
way to dctcnninc which would be presented to the BCC.
A committee member questioned whether or not the subject of cvacuation~was
addressed in the Position Points and was referred to tIle statement of page 25: "The
public. haS' expreS'sed a need for more consideration of emergency evacuation
routes in future roadway planning. "
Russell Priddy mOl-'ed to recommend that the Board of County Commi~~~'ioners
app1'()1!e creation of three additiollal committees: an Oversight Committeefor the
implementation of the Interactive Growth Model; a Review Committee for the
Rural Fringe Overlayj and a Site-Spec(fic Committee of3 f(J 5 members. Second
by Linda Hartman.
There was discussion cOl1ceming the number of conunittee members and a suggestion
was made to limit the size in order to operate more effectively. Also discussed \vas the
lack of coordination of committees, {t1r example, the Rural Fringe and the Estates
Master Plan.
Chairman McDaniel pointed out the Interactive Growth Model would take into account
all of the different Committees. Part of the responsibilities ofthe proposed Oversight
Committee would be to make sure there is coordination.
It was suggested the County "vas on the cusp of , 'doing sometlling very positive and
productivc" regarding the Rural Fringe Overlay. The concern was that the formation of
the Rcview Committee could possibly serve as adeterrent to the County.
!\'Jike nasi stated property O\vners have contacted him with concern.s that the Rural Fringe
not had the same attentIOn paid to it as other areas.
-.
--
---
.-
b., ".,A
161
1A5
Septcmbcr 8,2008
RU,".wdl Priddy amended hi" motion to remove the recommendation for a Re.view
Committee for the Rural Fringe Overlay and to rec01'llmend only the Oversight
Committee amI the Site-Specific Committee to the BCe. Second by Linda Hartman.
Carried unanimously, 10-0.
It was suggested the Position Points should state they arc Community's opinions and
sensibilities that the Committee has perceived during the course of its public hearings
and are not necessarily endorsed by the Members as individuals.
Re: Water
It was suggested the title should be changed from "water" to "drinking water."
Afler discussion, the Committee decided the title would remain as stated and
accept the Position Point as written.
Re: Transportation
It was suggested a sentence should be added: "For future roads within the RuralI..and
St(!l,vard~'hip Area Overlay, the rural cross-section should be the first cross-section
considered for the road net'vvork. "
The last sentence ofthe second paragraph was amended to read: "Sidewalks are not
considered essential and lighting should be confined to major road intersections,
schools amlpark locations. .,
Under the third paragraph, the first sentence 'was amended to read: "Existing andfuture
arterial and collector roads should have multiple-use pathways." The second sentence
should read: "Pedestrian lanes on local roads are not the public's preference. "
Russell Priddy moved to approve the (TrallsportatiOlI) Position Point as amended.
Second by Linda Hartman. Carried unanimous{~', 10-0.
Rc: Fh-c
It was suggested to add anothc'f sentence: .. Utilize existing ra~'\! 'vvater supply mains
for/ire suppression. i.e., place h.'r'drants on those carrying ,t'ater into the City 0/
l\laples. ."
Public Comment:
A member of the public opposed having hydrants along the way due to the potential
for terrorists to lap into the "vater supply.
Rlu;sell Priddy movefi to apjmwe the (Fire) Positioll Point as amended. Second by
Ul1di; Hartman. Carried ummimous(J-', 10-0.
Rc: EMS
Lint/u llartnum moved to approve the Posifiml Paint us
PridtJ.v. C'arried lO..f}.
Second hy
,-..-
1i~~L~W
IJtiiIh
.l
I!II
1,6 J ~ 1 A5
September 8. 2008
Re: Parks
Douglas Rankin moved to include a Level of Service (Level 3 for Parks). Sec:ond by
Linda Hartman. Carried unanimollsly, 10-0.
(8: 10 PM Afark Teaters arrived,)
Re: General
The first and second paragraphs were accepted as written by consensus of the
Committee.
A suggestion was made to add the phrase, "and various area planned Committees"
to the third paragraph, following the word "area." The point was to stress
communication between the various committees.
Another suggestion was made to add an additional sentence to read: "All
Committees within the East of95] Study Area should communicate with one
another. ,.
There was a discussion concerning upgrading the current drainage system and
whether it was economically feasible to do so.
A suggestion was made that a Regional Surface Water Management Plan, promoted
by the IUral cross-section, should be developed. After discussion, it was not
supported.
On page 25, add the following phrase, "on a regional basis and not on a site-specific
basis" to the end of the third paragraph.
In the rrmrth paragraph, change "infrastmchlre improvements" to "Interactive Growth
Afode! and its maintemmce. "
It "vas suggested to completely remove the last sentence and substitute, .. The Site-
Spec(fic Committee lvill explore \l'herefuture land use and inf1.astructure
improvements should be implemented lvith specificity after public meetings. n
Rus:'t'eli Priddy moveil to approve the (G'eneral) Position Point us untended.
,~'ecoltd by Linda Htlrtman. Carried lmanblwus()r, 11-0.
Rc: Final. Conclusions
It 'vas suggested to add a sentence, "The Committee has been in existence during
high and low growth cycles and had the advantage of that experience."
Cbairrmm McDaniel asked Mike Bosi to modify the Position Points and
versions to the Committee Iv1cmbcrs. He also requested the to
the I and return tJ1eir to Mike.
IIlWr
IIIIIlIllllll.lli
-"---;:,7 -
IOll:llll"
,-
161
1A5
September 8, 2008
Chairman McDaniel further requested a quorum at the September 2Yu meeting and
full Committee attendance at the presentation to the BCC on September 29th.
(NOTE: No motion was made regarding acceptance of the Final Conclusions and
110 consensus was stated.)
6. Committee questions/comments - None
7. Public questions/comments - Nonc
Next Meeting:
Tbe next Committee meeting is scheduled for September 23,2008 at 7:00 PM.
There being no furtber business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Chair at 8:55 PM.
These :Ytinutes were approved by the Board/Committee on
(is presented or as amended .~~.._.__
!1 w'
_;~~li
.I:ij""l
Heritage Greens
Community Development District
5726 Corporation Circle
Ft. Myers, Florida 33905
161 1 B 1
Phone: (239) 694-3310
Fax: (239) 940-6045
July 20, 2009
I.." ..1'11..." ...11..1.1.1..11.111.11"111"" .....1" 1..1.1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3301 TAMIAMI TRL E # 3301
NAPLES FL 34112-4961
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 2009
Board of County COmmis.')loners
NOTICE
Dear Property Owner,
This Notice is issued pursuant to section 197,3632, Florida Statutes, and provides you with information about the Heritage
Greens Community Development District ("District"), its assessments and upcoming public hearing. As you may know, the
District is a special purpose unit of local government located in Collier County, Florida. The Heritage Greens Community
Development District provides certain types of infrastructure and services for the lands within the District including your property.
UpcominQ Public HearinQ
The Board of Supervisors of the District will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 10, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. at the Heritage
Greens Community Center, 2215 Heritage Greens Drive, Naples, Florida, The purpose of the public hearing will be to consider
the adoption of the District's budget and levy the annual operating and maintenance assessments,
The District imposes special assessments on your property, the purpose of which is to fund the District's general administrative
and maintenance budget. The District is responsible for the operation and maintenance of various items which include roads,
sidewalks, preserves, the canal, entry features, drainage and water management improvements, The budget is adopted each
year after consideration by the Board of Supervisors and after a public hearing. This year the District, based upon an agreement
with the Collier County Tax Collector, will be collecting the assessments for operations and maintenance on the Collier County
property tax bill. This operation and maintenance assessment is not a new assessment, but the District is required by Florida
law to notify each owner by mail of an intended increase in the assessment amount from the prior year.
All benefited lands within the District pay these operating and maintenance assessments, including undeveloped and developed
parcels. The unit of measurement for this assessment is on a per unit basis. At the public hearing set forth above, the District
will consider levying an assessment for operation and maintenance against each unit in an amount not to exceed $236.70, This
projected assessment amount is based upon the next fiscal year's anticipated budget. The assessment of $236.70 is an
increase of $71.59 from last year the increase is necessary as the District has had to reassume many maintenance expenses
previously funded by the Heritage Greens Master Association. The District expects that the residents will see a reduction in
operating costs by the Master Association roughly equal to this increase in operating expenses by the District. Therefore the
District increase should be offset by a reduction in dues charged by the Master Association. Your parcel has one (1) unit based
on the District's assessment methodology. The assessment against each parcel is the total of the units in each parcel multiplied
by the assessment per unit. Therefore, the proposed operation and maintenance assessment on your parcel will not exceed
$236.70 for the year. The District expects to collect no more than $124,741.00 in gross revenue as a result of the operation and
maintenance assessment against all parcels.
At this public hearing, in connection with the adoption of the operation and maintenance assessment the Board will also consider
adopting an assessment cap for notice purposes only in the amount of $236.70 per unit. The effect of adopting such a cap for
notice purposes only simply means that the District will not provide mailed notice to you in the future of the annual operation and
maintenance assessment amount provided it is less than or equal to the cap adopted, If in the future the District's proposed
assessments exceed the adopted cap, mailed notice will be provided to all landowners within the Distric~ prior to the public
hearing to the extent required by Florida law. The purpose of adopting an assessment cap for notice purpos~l~educ
the costs to all landowners associated with providing mailed notice. 0It8: [fJ ;;).9 09
ltemt: l T t t
r>:::p!es to
16 f
181
...
You have the right to appear at this public hearing and express any objections, suggestions or comments you may have. You
may also file written objections within twenty days of the date of this Notice at the office of the District Manager, 5726
Corporation Circle, Ft. Myers, Florida 33905, Attention: Calvin Teague. By operation of law, the District's assessments each
year constitute a lien against your property located within the District just as do each year's property taxes. It is important to pay
your assessments because a failure to do so will cause a tax certificate to be issued against the property which may result in loss
of title.
If anyone chooses to appeal any decision of the Board with respect to any matter considered at the public hearing, such person
will need a record of the proceedings and should accordingly ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
includes the testimony and evidence upon which such appeal is based. The public hearing may be continued to a date and time
certain that will be announced at the hearing,
In accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations at this
hearing becau~e of a disability or physical impairment should contact the District's Manager at least seven (7) days prior to the
date of the hearing,
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. We look forward to your
continued interest in the District.
Sincerely,
Heritage Greens Community Development District
Carvin rr'eague
District Manager
.';.J.."S:
, .,