MINUTES OF MEETING

PORT OF THE ISLANDS

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Port of the Islands Community Improvement District was held on Friday, September 23, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. at the Egret Room, 25000 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Richard Gatti Chairman

Dale Lambert Vice Chairman

Norine Dillon Assistant Secretary

Richard Ziko Assistant Secretary

Ted Bissell Assistant Secretary (via telephone)

Also present were:

Ed Goscicki Manager

Dan Cox Attorney

Ron Benson Engineer

Bob Dick Severn Trent Services

Chief Wilson Collier County Fire District

Tom Mack Staff

Christopher Shucart POI Hotel and Marina

Marlene Marchand POI RV Park

Gary Beaumont FCI Homes

Mark Kalmanack

Numerous Residents

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

Mr. Goscicki called the meeting to order and called the roll.

Mr. Goscicki stated for the record, Mr. Bissell was willing to participate by telephone, but due to technical difficulties we are presently unable to dial him in.

Mr. Gatti stated before we get involved with the rest of the agenda, Chief Wilson is in attendance as well as two residents who have concerns with private property. With the Board’s permission, we should address these items first.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion Items

B. Open Items

Mr. Mack stated Chief Wilson is in attendance to address the fire station issue and discuss what it will takeis involved and where we stand.

Chief Wilson stated I believe you are working with 1 ½ acres of property on the north side to build a fire station. We discussed building a temporary station at one point, due to the fact that it may be two to three years before we accumulate enough funds to build a station. I believe we are going to see enough income to move forward on this project with monies from this past budget and next year’s budget. I would rather spend the money on a site development plan process, rather than a temporary station, which cannot start until we do the paperwork required by the County to obtain the properties and move forward with the project of getting the station built.

Mr. Gatti asked once we obtain the properties can we discuss a development plan to design a building?

Chief Wilson responded you have to do a site development plan in order to go through the permit process, once we own the property.

Mr Gatti asked before we do the site development plan, do we have to own the land?

Chief Wilson responded that is correct.

Mr. Lambert asked do you or the County have to own the property or can we own it with some kind type of long-term lease agreement?

Chief Wilson responded the station on Route 41 was donated to us by individuals who lived adjacent to the property. They added a covenant in the deed that if the property was abandoned or no longer used as a fire station, the property will revert back to the original owner.

Mr. Lambert stated there has been discussion of building a training tower in the Naples area.

Chief Wilson stated that is will not going to happen here.

Mr. Lambert asked how can you be sure?

Mr. Benson statedChief Wilson responded you can include covenants and restrictions in the title instrument citing specifications of what can and cannot be done, as long as they are willing to accept those restrictions, even if it is a right to revert to the owner if the property is abandoned or used for some purpose other than a fire station. Those details can be worked out as we move forward. There are also two alternate properties which we are looking at, the one we spoke about north of Route 41 and one located just south of Route 41. I am meeting with the appraiser on Monday to give him final details on exactly which properties we are looking at, and he is going to look at those properties. It is probably going to take five weeks to get the appraisal worked on. From there, it is a matter of choosing the property, and the Board allocating the money, which should be accomplished by year-end. We may be able to ask the property owners to sign the application in order to get the County’s permission to move forward on the site development plan process.

Ms. Dillon stated the sooner we get started on the site plan, the better off we will be in the long term.

Mr. Mack stated we will incur site development plan costs for the station. Once we go through the Board and they accept either lease or ownership of the property, I develop a project number and start putting funds where they are supposed to be, and we will hire someone to handle the entire permitting process.

Mr. Gatti stated if we make a commitment to follow this process, subject to Board and County Commission approval, you can commence the development process. We can summarize this by saying we are critically interested in the project, and take the necessary steps to implement it. If you can start the process at your end, we will make the necessary commitments subject to the Board’s approval. I understood there was a station preempting this on Route 75 and Route 29. What is the status?

Chief Wilson responded nothing will ever preempt this station, as it is a priority. However, we are in the process of trying to build a station at I-75. Those two stations are our highest priorities. This has become a sore subject with the DOT. They are going to offer 12 state troopers 12 patrol cars, at a cost to them between $750,000 and $1 million per annum. We believe if the DOT can afford this, they should be able to come up with funds to build this station.

Mr. Lambert asked is 1 ½ acres sufficient for this project?

Chief Wilson responded the floor plan we propose will be sufficient for the next 20 years.

Mr. Ziko asked do they have basic plans for this, or is every aspect drawn up for the entire property?

Chief Wilson responded when we originally looked at the property, Mr. Benson imposed the big corkscrew fire station being built at Everglades over the property, which looked nice. However, I am not an architect and cannot tell you if it is possible to do this and update it to our design and charge a small fee, or if we have to start completely over.

Mr. Ziko asked will this shorten the time period considerably?

Chief Wilson responded it is possible. If we go with more of the prefab building which we were discussing, it reduces the project cost, makes it functional and gives us time over the next couple of years after the station is up to hard coat the exterior and make it look as nice as the rest of the buildings in this area.

Mr. Gatti asked will the either the Board or Architectural Review Committee have an opportunity to comment or give direction as to the aesthetics of the station?

Chief Wilson responded I cannot answer this question right now.

Ms. Dillon asked can the CID own the property and lease it to the fire station or does the fire station or Collier County have to own the property?

Mr. Cox responded you own all the properties which have stations, but the possibility of the property being reverted to the original owner if used for another purpose exists.

Ms. Dillon asked does it matter if it is donated to the County or CID?

Mr. Cox responded I do not believe this question was ever asked before, and I am not sure how we are going to get an answer.

Ms. Dillon stated it may make a difference to the person donating the property.

Mr. Cox stated as this process moves forward, we can work this out with the County Commission.

Mr. Ziko asked is obtaining ownership of the land the first part of the process?

Mr. Cox responded we can have the land donated to us. However, if it ultimately must go to the fire district, we will donate it to them. However, or, we can retain ownership of the land, if possible, the land can stay under our ownership.

Mr. Gatti asked will approval to proceed on the basis of the Board making a commitment as necessary in order to commence the development plan give you enough direction to get this started?

Chief Wilson responded I will take it forward and see what can be done.

Mr. Goscicki asked will you get back to Mr. Mack on the status if you cannot attend the next meeting?

Chief Wilson responded you know Clair quite well. If possible, clarify with him what needs to be done.

Mr. Gatti stated we should speak to him together since you are not subject to the Sunshine Law.

Mr. Cox stated either way of the ownership issue is acceptable because we are a local government, as well as the Chief’s district and County. Therefore, we can enter an interlocal agreement where we provide the property, and they provide the building and the personnel.

Mr. Gatti stated we should make a decision. The Chief Wilson should follow the direction we discussed, and we will make the necessary commitment you need from us to move forward.

Mr. Shucart asked what was the zoning of the north property?

Mr. Cox responded RT.

Mr. Shucart asked will it have to go through rezoning?

Mr. Cox responded I am not sure whether or not the public facility has a conditional use in the RT.

Mr. Gatti stated publicly facilities can sometimes circumvent the zoning process.

Mr. Cox stated in some land use categories there are conditional uses or special exceptions, which are traditionally considered to be compatible with underlying zoning laws, but may require additional buffering.

Mr. Shucart asked what property was a preference from a functionality standpoint, the south or north property?

Chief Wilson responded the functionality of either property will work for us. Unfortunately, I cannot justify spending $20,000 for the south side.

Mr. Cox stated we will see what the numbers are when the property appraisals come back.

Mr. Gatti asked do we need a motion other than the direction we are giving Chief Wilson?

Mr. Goscicki responded a motion is not necessary since the Board is not taking formal action.

Ms. Marchand asked since I had to leave for a few minutes, what transpired at the beginning of the meeting?

Mr. Goscicki responded this was the first item on the agenda.

Mr. Gatti stated there are a couple of residents in attendance involved in personal property. Neither the Board nor the CID have jurisdiction in these matters, since they meet County requirements.

Ms. Dillon asked are you referring to the home being built into the swale?

Mr. Gatti responded there are two. One is encroaching into the dense 10’ setback required by our covenants, but not the County. The other one is a separate building from the primary residence which is not allowed by our covenant, but meets the County requirements. Do we have jurisdiction?

Mr. Cox responded legislature amended Chapter 190 approximately one year ago to give you standing to enforce restrictive covenants in circuit court, which I do not agree with. I do not believe the Board should get involved in these issues. Are the improvements being made within our drainage easement?

Mr. Gatti responded no.

Mr. Cox stated if your drainage facilities were are impacted, you clearly have the right to object to this.

Mr. Gatti asked are you referring to the one where the big large building is located?

Mr. Benson responded I am not sure which properties you are referring to. We discussed a property last month, in which dirt was placed in our drainage swale.

Mr. Gatti stated we are not referring to that property. There may be a minor impact on the swale, which is within our jurisdiction. However, I will describe each property. One property encroaches into the side yard setback by 1’, giving them 9’ instead of 10’. The other property also encroaches in the 10’ side yard. In addition, they are erecting a separate building from the main building, both of which the side yard requirement and the building itself are against our covenants. As long as they meet County requirements, I do not believe we have any jurisdiction.

Mr. Cox stated we have jurisdiction if it impacts our drainage facilities.

Mr. Gatti asked if it does not affect those, what jurisdiction do we have?

Mr. Cox responded the legislature amended the statute giving standing to enforce restrictive covenants as a district.

Mr. Ziko asked do you know what section of the statute refers to this?

Mr. Cox responded no, but I was opposed to it when it was being discussed, and I believe local governments do not have any place enforcing restrictive covenants. The County makes a clear statement on the building permit application there may be restrictive covenants, but County employees will not enforce them. There is a clear acknowledgement that meeting County standards may not be sufficient, and the property owner is on notice to look at their chain of title to find out if there are restrictive covenants. The counties and cities do not get involved in enforcing them, and I do not think that we should either.

Mr. Lambert stated Mr. Cox sent a letter to one of the parties explaining our easement rights there. Did we ever get a response?

Mr. Benson responded I received a telephone call and spoke to the person relative to the letter. I explained there was an easement and a drainage swale which wereas constructed there. During their construction activities, it appears to have been filled in, and this needs to be fixed. I also told them I will provide them the original drawing showing the location of the swale.

Mr. Lambert stated there is an area where water comes off the street on the west side of the property. Is there a side easement for drainage there?

Mr. Benson responded I will have to look at the plat.

Mr. Lambert stated I believe this may be the case based on the way it sits off the street. However, no one approached the Board with regards to these size easements. Why are we getting involved at this time?

Mr. Gatti responded that is my point exactly. However, there are residents in attendance today who want to address the Board, but it is a moot point since we have no jurisdiction.

Mr. Ziko stated I disagree. I believe we should use every process available to enforce these deed restrictions, whether it be through the CID Board, the Association or a private attorney.

Mr. Lambert there are associations as well as a process to handle this without us getting involved.

Mr. Ziko stated if Statute 190 gives the Board permission, then I am in favor of it. We live down here and want to protect our community.

Mr. Bissell joined the meeting via telephone.

Mr. Gatti asked can you respond to Mr. Ziko’s counter?

Mr. Cox responded the change made to the statute essentially allows you to have standing, which means before you can sue anyone for any reason, you must have a personal stake in the outcome of the case, known as standing. The legislature recognizes implicitly you have an interest in deed restriction enforcement. I do not believe it is a good idea for local governments to get involved in this business. I disagree with it and caution you not to do it.

Ms. Dillon asked why?

Mr. Cox responded the sole purpose of a district is to own, operate and maintain public facilities.

Mr. Gatti stated no one disagrees with you. We are all interested in protecting the community. If there is a swale involved on the west side of the property, it comes into play since it affects our drainage. Other than that, we simply do not have any jurisdiction.

Mr. Dillon asked what entity would handle a situation in which a neighbor was encroaching on your property?

Mr. Cox responded this would be handled by circuit court.

Ms. Dillon asked does it make sense to prevent this before it actually occurs?

Mr. Cox responded there is only one way to stop this if the person does not want to voluntarily do it. You have to get an injunction, and a circuit court judge is the only person who can issue it.

Mr. Ziko stated I do not want to give up our right in the future to address this issue before the Board. By dismissing this, we are setting a precedent, and the next time someone wants to build on sideline clearances, we are not going to have any power to prevent it from happening.

Mr. Cox stated every situation will be distinguished differently, and you will distinguish every situation. Therefore, you are not setting a precedent preventing you from making a different decision in the future. I understand there is a problem, but this Board cannot do anything different that what a neighbor would be able to do. You would have to take this to circuit court and get an injunction.

Mr. Goscicki stated this community has an Homeowners HOAssociation, which does not have a Board. I assume the deed restrictions establish the HOA as having some authority to implement and enforce deed restrictions. We manage approximately 170 communities throughout the state, and one of them deliberately took a formal action of taking on HOA responsibilities to enforce deed restrictions, thereby sitting as both the HOA Board and District Board. It is a nightmare of confusion of responsibilities. I believe Mr. Cox is giving you good advice to focus solely on your CID responsibility of ensuring the infrastructure is maintained to meet the community’s needs. It is not your responsibility to become involved in property disputes between neighbors.

Mr. Gatti stated we had a situation within Phase 1 where a person insisted on encroaching. We put an injunction on it, put some money together, got an attorney and stopped it. Can the Board act as one of the neighbors and use the same process?

Mr. Cox responded yes. However, you have no more authority than the neighbor to tell the person not to do it. You have to take it to a circuit court and get an injunction.

Ms. Dillon asked can we hear from the builder?

Mr. Gatti responded rather than confusing the issue, we should decide what we want to do.

Mr. Bissell asked is thisare you referring to the house you are building which is encroaching onto the swale?

Mr. Cox responded yes.

Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board’s finding?

Mr. Lambert responded I move we act on issues which we are responsible for. The only thing we are concerned about in this particular case is violation of a drainage easement.

Mr. Gatti stated in order to possibly implement Mr. Lambert’s suggestion, we must be absolutely certain we are aeffecting the drainage easement, which is on the west side of one property. The other property is not involved.

Ms. Dillon asked what about the north side?

Mr. Lambert responded the west and north sides of the property are involved.

Mr. Gatti stated this does not affect the side situation.

Mr. Lambert stated I am not concerned about the side.

Mr. Gatti stated that is the main issue.

Mr. Goscicki stated there are two separate issues. The first one is a project which impacts on CID property and drainage easements, and you clearly have an issue with CID infrastructure with regards to your duties to provide adequate drainage to the community. The second one deals with side yard easements, which are not impacting the property but are part of this project. You must decide if you are going to deal with the entire issue or only with what is impacting on CID requirements for drainage maintenance.

Mr. Ziko stated Mr. Gatti brought this application for a building permit to our attention at the beginning of the meeting which says, “Warning of possible deed restrictions. The lands subject to this permit may be subject to deed and other restrictions that may limit or impair the landowner’s rights”. Why were these two properties designed to go against this District’s covenants? Can this Board be authorized to ask residents to conform to the covenants?

Mr. Cox responded you can ask for this, but you cannot enforce it unless you go to court.

Mr. Ziko stated I am in favor of getting the Board involved.

Mr. Goscicki asked is there a reason you would not want the HOA to handle this?

Mr. Ziko responded the more associations which are involved, the better protection we will have. We had a number of violations already, such as the pool being built into the swale, which did not conform to anything, but was overlooked.

Mr. Cox stated this was not overlooked. Those people presented plans to Dr. Benson which showed the drainage was not affected, and satisfied any concerns they had. The Board, which was sitting here, approved it.

Mr. Ziko stated it is a different Board.

Mr. Cox stated it was not overlooked.

Mr. Lambert stated there are several homeowners and condominium associations. Each one has different interests based on the particular type of association which exists. This situation involves single-family homes. The villas and condominiums each have different concerns. Therefore, we should not get involved in making decisions for different associations.

Ms. Dillon asked at what point, as a member of the POI, do you not limit yourself to your own corner of the world?

Mr. Lambert responded when you have a master association for the POI.

Mr. Ziko stated these covenants are recorded in the Collier County Courthouse, and they are legal documents which were violated by people who chose to disregard the law.

Mr. Lambert stated there are avenues to enforce this.

Mr. Ziko stated if the State changed Chapter 190 allowing the Board to be involved, we should take the opportunity to become involved.

Mr. Gatti stated what is your opinion Mr. Bissell?

Mr. Bissell responded I have not heard anything about the sitde setbacks. However, the biggest mistake error I ever made as a Board member was approving the installation of the swimming pool into our swale. Although I believe the Board should enforce the swale issue, I have no thoughts with regards to the sidte setback.

Ms. Dillon asked can the Board decide if they want to get involved in a specific building plan?

Mr. Lambert responded some get chosen, and some do not.

Mr. Bissell asked does the County have approval to build into the swale and encroach on it?

Mr. Cox responded no, and the paperwork indicates this permit does not authorize construction or installation of any structure or utility within any right-of-way, not just county right-of-ways. There is a perpetual easement within the area where the swales are located which was created by the plat, and no one has the right to interfere with the easement.

Mr. Gatti stated the Board agrees we do not want anyone affecting our swale or other areas where we have jurisdiction. However, we must decide if we want to become involved in issues where we do not have jurisdiction, and the only way we can enforce the covenants is to act separately from a Board jurisdiction and take it on as a private matter. Is that correct?

Mr. Cox responded that is correct.

Mr. Bissell asked are you referring to the swale or the setback?

Mr. Gatti responded the swale issue is fixed. We do not want anyone involved in the property where we have jurisdiction.

Mr. Cox stated everyone agreed on the swale, but now we are discussing whether or not the Board should take action on restrictive covenants;. Tthe HOA is as strong an entity as any who clearly has standing to challenge.

Mr. Bissell asked what are the details of the sidte setback issue?

Mr. Cox responded their building apparently encroaches into the side yard setbacks created by the deed restrictions.

Mr. Gatti stated an individual cannot take this to court and ask for an injunction.

Mr. Ziko stated since these people came to the Board to ask for an opinion with regards to the covenants, the Board should let them know we are against this and we have the right to back it up. If they read this permit application, go to the County and find out the covenants are there, why are they going against them? I believe the Board should have the right to deny them. With regards to the swimming pool in the swale, the Board mistakenly approved it, and I do not believe the Board should approve this either.

Mr. Bissell asked are you referring to the setback or the swale?

Ms. Dillon responded the swale is definitely not going to happen.

Mr. Gatti stated the swale is not an issue. One property encroaches in the side yard by 1’ and the second property, which is erecting a separate building, encroaches in the side yard by 3’, which is not allowable in our covenants. Although the covenants are in place and we expect everyone to abide by them, the Board does not have jurisdiction to tell someone they cannot do it.

Mr. Ziko stated we might as well do away with the covenants.

Mr. Lambert stated they are in place for a reason, and you may enforce them if you choose to.

Mr. Ziko stated if the State statutes allow this Board to enforce the covenants, I am in favor of it.

Mr. Cox stated the only way you can enforce this is to take it to court and get an injunction. You do not have regulatory authority, and if you choose to enforce it, you must file a lawsuit.

Mr. Gatti stated what is the Board’s pleasure?

Ms. Dillon responded if they cannot continue building on one property due to the swale impact, their entire plan will probably change. Therefore, we may have to hear from the builder and the owner to find out what their intent is with regards to the swale.

Mr. Gatti stated the swale is not an issue, since we are not going to allow them to do this. We should force the residents to meet the criteria. Buildings cannot encroach in our swale system. The next issue is for the Board to decide whether or not we should take action to enforce the covenants, even though we do not have the jurisdiction to do so.

Mr. Cox stated I do not know why you would want to become involved with this.

Mr. Gatti stated this is not the issue. We must decide if we are willing to raise the money to enforce this. We should not let this happen in the community, since we already have two situations, one worse than the other.

Mr. Lambert asked can Mr. Bissell second a motion?

Mr. Cox responded the opinion of the Attorney Generals is you cannot use a telephone appearance to constitute a quorum, but you can participate.

Mr. Gatti asked can I second a motion as Chairman?

Mr. Cox responded there is no reason you cannot.

Mr. Bissell stated according to Robert’s Rules of Order, you can.

Mr. Cox stated we never formally adopted Robert’s Rules as our rules.

Mr. Lambert stated I move the CID Board does not enforce covenants, since there are other avenues to do so.

Mr. Gatti stated I would like to modify the motion to say the Board does not take the posture of enforcing private issues where we do not have clear jurisdiction.

Mr. Cox stated you are basically trying to say the Board is opposed to anyone violating the restrictive covenants, but you are not going to be the entity filing the lawsuit to enforce those restrictive covenants.

Mr. Gatti stated the Board may choose to pursue it.

Mr. Goscicki stated if you pursue this as a Board, you would have to take action. However, you can exercise the authority to pursue it as individuals.

Mr. Gatti asked what was Mr. Lambert’s original motion?

Mr. Goscicki stated it was basically that the Board chooses not to take jurisdiction over the enforcement of deed restrictions on private property.

Mr. Lambert moved the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District will not take the posture of enforcing covenants where there is no clear jurisdiction and Mr. Gatti seconded the motion.

Mr. Lambert asked are we voting or discussing?

Mr. Ziko responded I do not want to give up the right as a Board to make decisions on this issue, which Chapter 190 states.

Mr. Cox stated you have standing.

Mr. Ziko stated I do not want to make this a precedent.

Mr. Cox stated you are not giving up any rights granted to you. However, you do not want to enforce these particular violations.

Mr. Ziko stated we should make a motion not to have any motions on this issue, and retain our current rights.

Mr. Goscicki stated if you pass this motion, you can reverse it any time later in the meeting. The Board is not setting a precedent which could not be reconsidered. The legislation is in place. The Board is basically setting a policy through this motion, which can be changed at any time.

Mr. Ziko stated I would like to motion we table this item until we find out what the particular builders have to say about the situation.

Mr. Goscicki stated you currently have a motion on the floor which has been seconded and up for discussion.

Mr. Cox stated now we have a motion to table that motion.

On MOTION by Mr. Ziko seconded by Mr. Gatti with all in favor the prior motion was rescinded and tabled until further discussion takes place with the builders.

Mr. Gatti stated you are asking individual builders to comment on what they are doing.

Mr. Ziko stated it is only fair to them to let us know what they intend to do.

Mr. Gatti stated we are not asking the builder to argue their case, but to tell us what they are going to do.

Mr. Lambert stated they should also explain why they did this.

Ms. Dillon stated they should also tell us if they have any alternatives.

Mr. Beaumont stated I have been building in Naples for approximately 20 years, and I built more than 250 houses on Marco Island. When you come over the bridge there is a large sign which says ‘Deed Restriction Community’. We get the Board’s approval before we obtain a permit, and we also verify deed restrictions. I never violated a deed restriction on Marco Island in 12 years. I previously built two houses here. The Young’s and the Cramer’s both have 10’ side yards, and in fact, the plans I was given to build on Mr. Cramer’s property would have violated the setback. However, I modified it to ensure it did not violate the setback.

Mr. Gatti asked which property are you referring to?

Mr. Beaumont responded Mr. Cramer’s property. Their architect and engineer did not know about the 20’ drainage easement.

Mr. Ziko stated it is not a covenant easement, since it is 20’ from water.

Mr. Beaumont stated it was issued as a covenant easement.

Mr. Ziko stated it also belongs to the County.

Mr. Beaumont stated I was not aware of the deed restrictions on the side yard, nor did I research it. According to your deed restrictions, the HOA is supposed to have an Architectural Review Board, and the only person allowed to look at the plans is the declarant, which is POI Inc. I am not sure if they are still in business. However, I accept full responsibility since I am the builder. The site plan shows the rear setback must be 20’ on 31.7 and the pool 20.8. The front yard is correct, but the side yard is large. This is an angled piece of property, and in your deed restrictions it specifically says “on an angled piece of property a variance may be granted by the declarant”, which is POI Inc. The only violation is the side yard, and I am trying to remedy it by asking this Board for a variance based on your deed restrictions which say it is an angled property and in certain situations, the Board will allow a variance on the situation.

Mr. Ziko stated I do not recollect reading that in the covenant.

Mr. Cox stated the HOA Board should be granting that type of variance, not the CID.

Mr. Beaumont stated I send my customers a site plan as soon as it is finished, and pour the slab. The homeowner, Mr. Peters, is totally affected by this, and he brought it to my attention, although he just found out it was a 10’ side yard, and told me it was an error and asked me to fix it. According to the deed restrictions, the only entity who can issue a variance is POI Inc. If they are no longer in business, it probably is assigned to the HOA, who have permission to grant a variance.

Mr. Ziko stated we did not realize the Board had the availability under Chapter 190 to do this until today’s meeting, and this Board cannot give a variance approval.

Mr. Cox stated variances must be issued by the HOA.

Mr. Ziko asked does this pool area violate the 10’ setback in the area where you are going to install the screen?

Mr. Beaumont responded the corner does, but your deed restrictions do not refer to a side yard on the screen enclosure.

Mr. Ziko stated it refers to any structure.

Mr. Beaumont stated no, it says dwelling, unit or building.

Mr. Ziko stated it also refers to driveways.

Mr. Beaumont stated that is correct, but it does not give a side yard for a screen enclosure. I was going to clip the corner, but there is no deed restriction for a screen enclosure. In fact, screen enclosures were supposed to be 15’ from the rear, but was amended to 20’ from the rear.

Mr. Goscicki stated for clarification, this Board does not amend or own these deed restrictions.

Ms. Dillon asked have you or the owner talked to the neighbor directly impacted by this 1’ difference?

Mr. Beaumont responded yes.

Ms. Dillon asked can this be worked out between the two neighbors?

Mr. Beaumont responded the neighbor has no problem with the 9’ setback. His house is 13’ off the property line, creating a 22’ space between the two houses, which is the intent of the ordinance in my opinion.

Ms. Dillon stated if both of you resolved this situation, there is nothing further to discuss.

Mr. Cox stated I believe the homeowner is in violation.

Ms. Dillon stated we discussed not being involved in this.

Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Mack agrees for us to not be involved.

Mr. Beaumont stated the HOA has the legal right to grant us a variance.

Mr. Lambert stated you should discuss this with the HOA instead of the CID.

Mr. Gatti stated you commented there was an error on a previous property you built, and you also mentioned an error on the plat on the two houses you finished which you corrected.

Mr. Beaumont stated when the architect and the engineer gave me the plans, there was an error on them, which I corrected before I started construction on the house.

Mr. Gatti asked what was the error?

Mr. Beaumont responded they had a rear setback of 19’ instead of 20’.