The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 09/26/2013 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Minutes September 26 , 2013 September 26, 2013 _F1LF -,T : RIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COL hl * f.-QUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 101300 Naples, Florida, September 26, 2013 CLERK OF COURTS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code BY_----- ---.�- Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton (Excused) Chris Hudson (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney to Code Enforcement Board Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: September 26, 2013 Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (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 (5) 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 THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman, Chair Gerald Lefebvre, Vice Chair James Lavinski Chris Hudson, Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 22, 2013 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance Lionel L' Esperance Tony Marino Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton Motion for Extension of Time 1. Charles and Denise Booth 2. Lloyd L. Bowein 3. Pacifica Naples LLC B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20 1 200 1 1 992 CEPM20130004926 CES20120016702 CELU20120002563 JAMES L. SUTTLES INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. TWO MOBILE HOMES HOOKED UP BEHIND BUILDINGS, NO PERMITS ON RECORD. PROPERTY IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL. 63865200008 1009 ALACHUA STREET, IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 CE VR20130009048 CINDY YABLONOWSKI INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(d) AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.05.08, SECTION A(6). THE ACCUMULATION OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION UPON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY, WHICH EXOTICS EXIST WITHIN A 200 FOOT RADIUS OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. THE EXOTICS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: BRAZILIAN PEPPER, EAR LEAF ACACIA, AND AIR POTATO. 67183280007 6508 TRAIL BLVD, NAPLES, FL 34108 CASE NO: CESD20130003648 OWNER: JOSE EMILIO MORALES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). UNPERMITTED ELECTRIC, PLUMBING AND ALTERATIONS THROUGHOUT MAIN STRUCTURE. UNPERMITTED SHED WITH UNPERMITTED ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING. FOLIO NO: 40183520001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3745 RANDALL BLVD, NAPLES, FL 34120 4. CASE NO: CESD20120018551 OWNER: KIRKWOOD HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). BATHROOM WITH TOILET, SINK, AND ELECTRIC INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 61580920005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2190 KIRKWOOD AVE, UNIT 2, NAPLES, FL 34112 CASE NO: CESD20130008439 OWNER: HJORDIS REARDON AND ELIZABETH R. HAGAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHEDS. FOLIO NO: 67230840002 VIOLATION 35758960001 ADDRESS: 63 NORTH STREET, NAPLES, FL 34108 6. CASE NO: CESD20130004734 OWNER: WILDWOOD LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 6.06.03(D)(1). STREET LIGHTS NOT IN PROPER WORKING CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 399920008 VIOLATION 35758960001 ADDRESS: 1385 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD, NAPLES, FL 34104 CASE NO: CESD20130006038 OWNER: DUKENS PIERRE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN CRAWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) LANAI ENCLOSED WITHOUT PERMITS. PERMIT BY AFFIDAVIT PRBD20 1 1 1005575 WAS CANCELED BY CONTRACTOR. FOLIO NO: 35758960001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4473 18TH PLACE SW, NAPLES, FL 34116 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens CASE NO: CESD20120018399 4. OWNER: MARIA L. ROJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION VIOLATIONS: 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONVERTED TO A MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 47974400003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3620 14TH ST. N. NAPLES, FL 34103 CASE NO: CEPM20120001592 OWNER: THU -NHUT NGUYEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE V1, SECTIONS 22 -242 & 22- 231(12)(i). AN UNSECURED HOME ON ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 39260480004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 480 8TH STREET NE NAPLES, FL 34120 CASE NO: CELU20100004523 OWNER: SILVER LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND SECTION 10.02.03(B)(5). AN OPEN STORAGE AREA BEING UTILIZED AT SILVER LAKES RV RESORT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS USE FOLIO NO: 73625009662 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1001 SILVER LAKES BLVD. NAPLES, FL 34114 CASE NO: CESD20100007624 OWNER: JUAN H. & ANA PEREZ HUAPILLA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). HOUSE THAT HAS ADDITION ATTACHED TO IT. FOLIO NO: 63854400000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 804 JEFFERSON AVE. W. IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 CASE NO: CESD20130000440 OWNER: REG8 BERKSHIRE COMMONS LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED WALL CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION. FOLIO NO: 23945007103 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7055 RADIO RD. NAPLES, FL 34104 4 6. 10 CASE NO: CESD20110010944 OWNER: DAN R & SUSIE L RICKARD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). BOTTOM OF STILT HOME ENCLOSED ADDING LIVING SPACE WITH A BATHROOM WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY FOLIO NO: BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37221840009 VIOLATION 101 NEW MARKET RD. E. IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 ADDRESS: 261 2ND ST. S.E. NAPLES, FL 34117 CASE NO: CESD20100003739 OWNER: COLLIER REALTY CORPORATION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). COOLER/STORAGE CONSTRUCTED /ATTACHED TO BUILDING PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 63863840004 VIOLATION THE PROPERTY. ADDRESS: 101 NEW MARKET RD. E. IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 CASE NO: CELU20120014618 OWNER: PEE -WEE'S DUMPSTERS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. CONCRETE BLOCKS, BARRELS, BUCKETS, PLYWOOD, HOSES, PLASTIC PIPE, A LARGE STORAGE CONTAINER, MISC. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, BUILDING SUPPLIES, AND A PILE OF BROKEN UP CONCRETE, BRICKS AND ROCKS STORED ON FOLIO NO: THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38280090006 VIOLATION 28614 TH AVE. SE NAPLES, FL 34117 ADDRESS: 721 LOGAN BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 34119 CASE NO: CESD20120009056 OWNER: GRACELYN MOSTACCIO RUE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). A CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND SEVERAL ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS MADE THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 40926160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 28614 TH AVE. SE NAPLES, FL 34117 CASE NO: CESD20120017981 OWNER: CASSIA POVIONES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). DEMOLITION AND REMODEL IN PROGRESS WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38054880002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 30303 9TH ST. SW, NAPLES, FL 34117 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE-- October 24, 2013 12. ADJOURN 6 September 26, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board 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 at 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 Robert's 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 this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing these records. Now let's go to the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'll ask Colonel L'Esperance to lead us. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Kerry, how about roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. UESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? Page 2 September 26, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Chris Hudson and Mr. Robert Ashton have excused absences. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And do we have any changes on the agenda? MS. ADAMS: We do. Under No. 5, public hearings, motions, motion for extension of time, we have one addition. It's from February No. 4 from imposition of fines, Juan H. and Ana Perez Huapilla, Case CESD20100007624. Letter B, stipulations, we have one addition. It's No. 7 from hearings. Case CESD20130006038, Dukens Pierre. Letter C, hearings, No. 3, Case CESD20130003648, Jose Emilio Morales, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Case CESD20130008439, Hjordis Reardon and Elizabeth R. Hagan, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CESD20130004734, Wildwood Lakes Community Associations, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Old Business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines /liens, No. 5, Case CESD20130000440, Reg8 Berkshire Commons, LLC, has been withdrawn. And under Letter C, motion to rescind previously issued order, we have one addition. It's going to be Case CENA20130005058, PNC Bank, NA, and that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That last one is a motion to rescind, and you don't have the paperwork on the board on that. Okay. We'll discuss that when we get to it. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as modified. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 3 September 26, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Approval of the minutes from August 22 hearing's. Any changes? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. That brings us to today's business. Motion for extension of time. The first one we have is? MS. ADAMS: Charles and Denise Booth, Case CESD20120011992. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. BOOTH: Go morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a letter of -- from Charles Booth and Denise. You are Denise? Page 4 September 26, 2013 MS. BOOTH: I am Mariah Booth, their daughter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have permission on their behalf to testify in this case? MS. BOOTH: Yeah. My mom sent me a letter here that's signed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're requesting an extension. I have one, two, three, four questions. MS. BOOTH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I'll give them all to you, and then you can respond as we go along. MS. BOOTH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Question Number 1 is why; question Number 2 is how long of an extension. MS. BOOTH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Number 3 is what has been done since the last hearing, and has the 81.72 costs been paid? MR. SNOW: I can answer that, sir. For the record, Kitchell Snow. Yes, it has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That takes care of that. Now you're down to three questions. MS. BOOTH: Okay. The first one is why. We have been having a difficult time with our contractor. It is a legitimate contractor through the county. And we've been having trouble motivating him to get the job done. Come the beginning of July, at the time Mr. Ford was our county inspector. It is now Mr. Box. Mr. Ford came out to our property in the beginning of July, and we said, we're calling this guy all the time, texting him, whichever means of communication we can get ahold of him, and he's just not getting back with us. So Mr. Ford suggested at that time that we should maybe give them 48 hours to contact us and get some work done, or we Page 5 September 26, 2013 should file a criminal complaint. So that's what -- we had spoken with him and left messages about that, and they were real quick to get back to us at that point in time. So since then our contractors have been a little bit more on the ball. What I have been told, for your second question -- or the second question, I guess, is how long. I would ask six months, if you wouldn't mind. Third question, what has been done? I was told this morning by our contractor that the permit for demo was filed on Monday, and it's in review. I don't know how long the process takes. He said it should be issued today or tomorrow. That's what I know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is the scope of the process to get this thing resolved? Besides a demo permit, is there something else? MS. BOOTH: The previous owner had turned a garage -type structure into a guest home, and -- when we purchased the property. Now we're trying to jump through the hoops to make it right. So we thought we were going to be able to just file or get permits, I guess, for what has already been done and tried to make it right, but then we learned along the way that we are going to have to demo it. I think there's been a little bit of confusion. I don't know if he could speak on that. MR. SNOW: Let me offer some clarity; excuse me, Ms. Booth. MS. BOOTH: That's okay. MR. SNOW: Right after this had happened, we had meetings with the contractor. The contractor was under the opinion that the structure was permitted a guesthouse, which it turned out -- and the building department was involved -- turned out that wasn't the case. This board's ruling was, in true factual, that the garage has been converted, as Ms. Booth just said. Page 6 September 26, 2013 So the problem was that there was some misinformation that was being spread throughout the department, so they didn't know -- the building department didn't know what type of permit to issue or even if a permit was desired. They made that decision it was. It was needed. The contractor we've had several meetings with. We've talked to the Booth family on several occasions. They're trying to work forward. Contractor licensing is on the verge of being involved. As you know, contractor licensing is very strict upon the requirements about helping citizens get the proper results from contractors. So I talked to Ms. Booth this morning. We're in the process of doing that. And they have been diligent in trying to do what they're going to do. I just don't know what the holdup was with the contractor, and we're going to fix that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern originally when I looked at this, it originally was a stipulation. It was a garage conversion. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the stipulation, we granted six months. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, if it's just going to be a demo to take down the conversion -- MR. SNOW: Just a -- it was permitted as a garage, but not as a guesthouse. So, largely, everything inside is going -- is going to remain, but they're going to have to remove some walls and some plumbing fixtures and do some other things. So it's not going to be extensive. I suggested to Ms. Booth this morning, if the board was not in agreement with the six -month time frame, perhaps then give Page 7 September 26, 2013 90 or 120 days, and she can come back and report to you on what the status is just so the board's comfortable with the amount of time that could be given. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I'm more likely to agree with that, because six months to do a demo permit seems to be on the high side of time. MR. SNOW: The board could do 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. No, I understand. Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any chance that this can get an after - the -fact permit? MR. SNOW: They possibly could, but there's going to be impact fees involved, and I think it would -- it's going to be expensive for them. They chose to do the lesser, because it has already been permitted as a garage, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. SNOW: And they want to use it for that. So I think they can move forward with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have no problem with 120 days, which is almost 180 days, just to see what can be done in that time, and -- MS. BOOTH: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- if it's not completed in -- if it's completed in 120 days, we probably won't see you again. MS. BOOTH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If it's not, you can come back and say, this is what's been done. What we see here is really, other than your problems with the contractor, nothing's been done in six months. MS. BOOTH: Yeah, that's what we see, too. Frustration on our part. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it 120 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: to extend the 120 days. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: September 26, 2013 We have a motion and a second Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. BOOTH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hopefully we don't see you soon. MS. BOOTH: I hope so, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The second one is Lloyd L. Bowein, Case CEPM20130004926. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a copy of the letter authorizing her to speak on behalf of her parents? MS. ADAMS: No, I do not. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, she flashed it. MR. SNOW: Ms. Booth? MS. BOOTH: Yes. MR. SNOW: Can we get a copy of your letter, please? MS. BOOTH: Yep. MR. SNOW: We're going to submit it as evidence. MS. BOOTH: No problem. That's fine. MR. SNOW: Before we begin, can we request this be submitted as in evidence? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Motion to accept that as Page 9 September 26, 2013 evidence. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It carries unanimously. Okay. Mr. Bowein. MR. BOWFIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BOWEIN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Looks like you're having a problem with a tenant, and you're well underway to getting everything done? MR. BOWEIN: Okay. The tenant's out. I've managed to get all the garbage out. So the window man was supposed to meet me on Monday. He got tied up. He's meeting me this afternoon. Essentially, the roof s done, the soffit's done, all the wood replacing's done, the exterior painting's done. There's roughly 16 windows, four of which need to be repaired. That's all that's left. The inspection for the soffit, there's a couple of places to be caulked and repainted. That can be taken care of quickly. The reason I'm asking for 60 days is in the event that one or more of the windows need to be replaced and if they're odd sizes, sometimes it takes a while to order them and get them in. But I suspect I should be completed if the windows are Page 10 September 26, 2013 repairable by next week. I'm just asking for 60 days just as a buffer in case we need to order new windows. But other than the four windows, everything else is virtually complete. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the county has no objection? MR. SNOW: No, sir. They've been very diligent. His permits -- he got his permits when he said. He was just waiting on the tenants to do the windows. He's complied, virtually, with everything the board has required him to do. And I just question him if he wanted more than 60 days, because he's on the verge of doing it. I just don't want him to have to come back to the board again and request more time. He's very close to being in compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I get a motion to extend for 60 days? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to extend for 60 days. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. For the record, Kitchell Snow. Sorry. MR. BOWFIN: Thank you. Page 11 September 26, 2013 MS. ADAMS: The third one is Pacifica Naples, LLC, Case CES20120016702. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you identify yourselves on the microphone so we have it on the record. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Sonia Rodriguez, property manager for Mer Soleil. MS. DRAYCOTT: Angela Draycott, regional asset manager with Pacifica. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And why don't we start with -- my first question is, has the $82.58 been paid? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MS. DRAYCOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. And how long of an extension are you asking for? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Ninety days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ninety days? And can you tell us what work has been completed since the last hearing? This, I believe, was a stipulation. MS. DRAYCOTT: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This has to do with a sign? MS. DRAYCOTT: Yeah. We've had quite an issue regarding the sign. As far as we've been able to make it is we do have one vendor that has been able to give us an idea on what we need to do regarding the sign. It's turned out to be a bigger ordeal than we anticipated. And I've actually been trying to reach out to Diane with the signage for myself and her to meet with code enforcement so we can sit down and come to a decision on what would work out best for the property and what we need to do regarding this sign, Page 12 September 26, 2013 because I'm still not clear on a couple things. And I've left her a couple messages, but I have not heard back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Diane? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The sign specialist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. And how say the county? MS. CRAWLEY: Good morning, Colleen Crawley, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county has no objection. They have been in communication with Code Enforcement Board the entire time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're looking for 90 days? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MS. DRAYCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions or comments or motions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion, extension for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 13 September 26, 2013 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. MS. DRAYCOTT: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: And the fourth one will be Juan H. and Ana Perez Huapilla from Imposition of Fines No. 4, Case CESD20100007624. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the letter that we had when we came in on this particular case. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has everybody on the board had a chance to read the letter from Huapilla? MR. MIESZCAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, okay. We're not here to hear the case again, because it's been heard already. MR. WALKER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they're looking for -- this thing had an extension of time for 180 days when it was heard. MR. WALKER: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you give us some background on this? MR. WALKER: Okay. Actually, they've pretty much demoed the whole structure. There was a little confusion in reference to some setback issues. They thought they had an extra three or four feet, which would have allowed them to keep a portion of that, of the demolition, but it was actually explained to them that the whole structure needed to be demoed. They actually are migrants, so they're gone quite a bit of time. I've been dealing with his son on this particular case. Their permit had actually expired, but they had reactivated that permit in order to demo the rest of the structure. Page 14 September 26, 2013 We don't really have a problem with them doing it only because we recognize that there was some discrepancy in their own understanding of what was supposed to be demoed and what was allowed. But they, again, took the steps to re -up their permit, and they will be demoing the remainder of the structure. They actually demoed the largest portion of the structure within, probably, three or four weeks of actually having been heard at the last hearing. So they just actually didn't realize that they needed to follow through with the permit in terms of making sure that it was inspected and so on and so forth. But we've educated them, and they will probably have that done in a pretty short period of time here once they return. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? Okay. Since this is a request for -- originally requested that the fines be imposed, should we want to extend the time, I think 180 days is way too much time, personally, for a demo -- to complete the demo, since most of it's been done already. MR. WALKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know when they're going to be returning. MR. WALKER: I spoke to their son. I would imagine he would probably use his son as much as he could to eradicate the rest of the demo. You know, actually, my supervisor has pretty much probably talked with them more so. She might be able to give you a little more insight as regards to their duration of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Their letter says 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thirty days. MR. WALKER: Right. That would be -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion we give them 45 days MR. WALKER: That would be perfect. Page 15 September 26, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: -- from today's hearing. MR. MIESZCAK: How many days did you say? MR. LEFEBVRE: Forty -five. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to extend this 45 days. After 45 days, this would come back as an imposition of fine again. MR. WALKER: Understood. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Weldon. MR. WALKER: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Under B, stipulations, the first one is CESD20130006038, Dukens Pierre. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see you have a stipulation that's on the screen. MS. CRAWLEY: Yes, sir. Colleen Crawley, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this Page 16 September 26, 2013 hearing. Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you identify yourself to the court stenographer by name. MR. PIERRE: Dukens Pierre. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have heard the stipulation and have agreed to it? MR. PIERRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 17 September 26, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Under B. stipulations, we have another addition. It's going to be No. 1 from hearings, Case CELU20120002563, James L. Suttles. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. You look very familiar. This looks like it was two mobile homes that were hooked up without a permit, was the original. MR. WALKER: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you_ bring us on up to speed on this. MR. WALKER: Okay. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of occupancy within 45 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator Page 18 September 26, 2013 perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; and that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any means -- any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any idea how the extension -- the extent of this; is it just getting permits? MR. WALKER: Actually, he has -- he has a permit. That permit expired. That permit has been re- app'ed. He has one trailer actually removed already. There's one trailer that is basically hooked up and ready to be taken out, but his permit actually expired. He had anticipated on having it completed before this hearing, but he ran into some problems that weekend prior that kind of prevented him from being in that position to abate it before we even came to the hearing. So we just had to bring it forward because of the case, or the nature of the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And 45 days, you think, is -- MR. WALKER: Oh, yes, 45 should be no problem at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments comment from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 19 September 26, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Weldon. MR. WALKER: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. ADAMS: The next one is Letter C from hearings, No. 2, Case CEVR20130009048, Cindy Yablonowski. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll start out with the county. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement. I've spoken this morning with Mr. Torrey Taylor, who is an Attorney representing the lender involved in the foreclosure action on this particular property, so he is not representing the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20130009048 dealing with a violation of accumulation of primitive exotic vegetation upon an unimproved property located at 6508 Trail Boulevard. That property is zoned RSF I. Service was given on July 3, 2013, when the green card was signed by the owner. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits consisting of five photographs that I took on June the 28th, 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen this? MS. CROWLEY: Yes, he has. Page 20 September 26, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. LEFEBVRE: Jean, can I ask a question? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is he technically the respondent? He's not on the -- the bank's not on the deed. Is he more -- is he considered a -- I know he's considered an interested party, but is he considered more of a witness? MS. RAWSON: He is more of a witness, because he does not represent the respondent. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. RAWSON: He is involved in the foreclosure, was my understanding. So, actually, the respondent is not here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So really the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's an interested party. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But I mean, does he need to be -- MS. RAWSON: Well, he's a witness. We can swear him in, and I'll send him a copy of the order, because he's definitely an interested party. But, you know, I'd say the respondent has failed to appear. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to accept the pictures. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 21 September 26, 2013 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. CROWLEY: The first two photographs show the representative view of the lot. This is looking from the east to the west just giving you an idea of -- it's the unimproved lot, it's parallel with Tamiami Trail North, it's along Trail Boulevard and Ridge. The second photograph is taken from the west looking to the east. You can see the Brazilian Pepper Bushes in the background. The third photograph -- the next three photographs are close -ups of the exotic prohibited vegetation. This one shows the Small Earleaf Acacia Trees that have sprouted up in the middle of the property. The fourth is Brazilian Pepper, of which there are numerous bushes. And the last is air potato, which is -- as it does in the rainy season, is growing upright up the trees, the telephone poles and, in this case, a guy wire. Code enforcement received a complaint from a named complainant about exotic vegetation on this undeveloped lot. My site visit revealed on June the 28th the presence of Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, and air potato. There have been four prior exotic vegetation complaints in 1997 and 1999. The previous owner did abate the violation and remove those exotics. A 2002 complaint was closed by Code Enforcement because there was not a named complainant, and it was abated by the current owner's husband in 2009 after a notice of violation was Page 22 September 26, 2013 served. When I did the site visit, there was a for sale sign. I contacted the realtor on the sign, who provided me with a phone number for the owner of the property, Cindy Yablonowski. I then called Ms. Yablonowski and left a voice message indicating what the violation was, that I was going to be doing a notice of violation. I received a return call from Mr. Yablonowski who, himself, purchased the property in 2003 and conveyed title to his wife in 2010. So my contacts directly have only been with Mr. Yablonowski, the previous owner, but he is the husband of the current owner, his wife Cindy. In that first phone call he advised me at that time that the property was in foreclosure and called back to give me the contact that he had been dealing with with EverBank. Mr. Taylor represents a firm who is acting on behalf of EverBank, the lender in this particular case. Mr. Yablonowski indicated that they were not going to be able to abate the violation because of the foreclosure action, because of the finances being an issue, and indicated that he hoped that the bank would address the issue. The matter was referred to our code enforcement team within code enforcement, our foreclosure team. They reached out to the lender. It was not brought into compliance. I did a site visit this morning. The violation remains. I did notify the owners by phone when I was prepping this for hearing just to let them know. I did receive a return call from Mr. Yablonowski who had some questions about the procedure, the process for the particular hearing. He indicated he would be consulting with his attorney for the foreclosure action as to whether or not his wife would be here, and it looks as if she Page 23 September 26, 2013 chose not to be here today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I understand that during foreclosure, until the bank or whoever the lender is owns the property, they're unable to do any of the processes to bring it into compliance. MS. CROWLEY: As far as the county's concerned, unless they use mechanical means to remove the exotics, that's machinery, they would not require a permit. So it's not a question of a permit being required by the lender or somebody on behalf of them unless they were going to be using mechanical means. Because the exotics from this 1.3 -acre -- 1.38 -acre lot have previously been cleared, they're actually pretty small. So it's something that may not require mechanical means. Mr. Yablonowski, when he first called, said we don't own the property. The bank holds it. And I explained to them that under county records the foreclosure action has been filed. There's been no final judgment. There's been no foreclosure sale, and the ownership still rests with Mrs. Yablonowski. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, as an interested party in this whole proceedings, can you identify yourself to the court reporter. MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Good morning. One again, my name's Torrey Taylor. I'm appearing on behalf of the Consuegra Law Firm in Tampa, Florida. We represent EverBank in the foreclosure matter against the Yablonowskis. As was previously stated, the foreclosure case has not finalized yet. We do have the process going. Looks like we had just finished mediation. I believe that resulted in an impasse, though. We have our motion for summary judgment on the docket. So we anticipate this matter being resolved, best guess, within six Page 24 September 26, 2013 months at most. Our only concern is that the fees would be accruing within that time and then, of course, EverBank, once they take title to the property after the foreclosure sale, then they would possibly be responsible for paying off those fines. So EverBank's interest and request is that the fines would be abated until, you know, after that time for the foreclosure sale to take -- to take place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that, and you are correct that the fines stay with the property. So once you foreclosure on it, you own the liens. MR. TAYLOR: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if a lien is imposed at this hearing, whatever it accrues to until it closes -- and, ordinarily, to motivate -- sometimes banks /lending institutions kind of drag their feet, because as long as they're dragging their feet, they're not paying anything. And it's been the policy of the board, really, to not hold your feet to the fire but to make sure it gets abated as soon as possible. MR. TAYLOR: Right, and that's understandable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, first of all, I think this is the first time we had an attorney representing a bank come in front of us, and I applaud that. I mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A step in the right direction. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. TAYLOR: We're working on it. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's excellent, because usually we don't have a representative. We have to go on information that we have in front of us. Taking six months to go ahead and foreclosure and then take care of the problem, I can't really -- I think that's -- we Page 25 September 26, 2013 haven't gotten to that position, or we have to find a violation first, but I can't agree to that. That seems like an excessive amount of time. And I know that banks have gone on properties to take care of litter issues and so forth before they actually have title to the property. So that might have to be looked at. But it's a multiple process here where we find a violation, we give a time to get corrected, and then we impose fines. But before we impose the fines, we can obviously see where the case stands, maybe have you come back, if that's where we go, and have you come back and tell us where you're -- what stage you are in the foreclosure, and then we could push back -- like we gave people extensions of time. MR. TAYLOR: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: We can do a similar type of thing. MR. TAYLOR: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think before we go ahead, let's find out if a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. UESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So a Page 26 September 26, 2013 violation exists. I believe what Gerald was saying is true. And since you don't need a permit -- and I don't think this would be a huge amount of funds to expend to, if you will, cut the grass, which also hasn't been cut. I think that's 15 inches, if I'm not correct? MS. CROWLEY: It's taller than 18 inches. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, 15 inches, I believe, is the code? MS. CROWLEY: No, 18. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eighteen. Okay. It's over 18? MS. CROWLEY: It is this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we can either get it to stop raining or stop growing, one of the two. So we're not talking about a lot of money here. And I understand what was said about how long it would take to do it. Again, the respondent is not here asking for any time. And I know that you have the ability as a lender to go back after this is all said and done and try to extract money, even if it's in foreclosure, from the owner of the property. So -- and that's a lot of the ways that the county does it. We will take care of the violation, and that will show up on the lien, and it comes in as the first item to be paid off when a lien exists and the county is taking care of the problem. Are you working at all with the foreclosure team? MR. TAYLOR: My firm has received emails from the foreclosure team with EverBank, yes. Me, personally, no. But I sit right next to the attorney that does, so yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, ordinarily the foreclosure team would probably give us a recommendation on this to say they have it, they're going to do something about it, and et cetera. MS. CROWLEY: And at this point there's no notes in the Page 27 September 26, 2013 case that they've gotten anything other than the first email came back undeliverable, but then they sent -- re -sent it to a different address, and the email was received. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask another question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you had the ability to go -- EverBank had the ability to go on the property, would they take care of the problem? MR. TAYLOR: Yes, they could. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, have they approached the borrower and said, can you sign a waiver for us to get on the property? MR. TAYLOR: To my knowledge, no, but I know just from experience -- I haven't looked at this particular mortgage, but a lot of mortgages do include a paragraph that has a clause for that, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And since you have the ability to extract these dollars from the lien -- from the borrower after this whole foreclosure process is completed, you would think it would be in their best interest to agree with that even if that paragraph doesn't exist in your mortgage. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, one little question also. If the county mitigated this difficulty, in what time frame would they consider mitigating it? MS. CROWLEY: In all honesty, it's not something that the county would likely abate on its own. MR. UESPERANCE: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: It's not a health/safety issue. And I think, because of financial reasons, it's not something that the county would jump in and abate on its own. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we're trying to find a way of Page 28 September 26, 2013 -- six months being too long. Is there some period of time that we could grant to show good faith on the -- on the county's behalf and as far as good faith on the lender's behalf on this? Would -- 90 days to see what's going on, how the foreclosure is moving forward, et cetera. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, or the bank can go out within 90 days and maybe take care of the problem. But then there's going to be reoccurring -- you're going to have to go out there on a regular basis to at least mow the lawn. So I make a motion for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And that way 90 days will bring you back to Naples if it's not done, when the weather starts to turn and it's even nicer. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd put a dollar amount on that, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ninety days from today's hearing to eradicate the problem or take care of the exotics, or $100 fine a day. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Operational costs to be paid within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What are the operational costs? MS. CROWLEY: $80.86. MR. LEFEBVRE: Operational costs of $80.86 to be paid within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, I don't think you're going to pay the 80.86, because you don't own the property yet, but we'll see how this goes in 90 days. And if in 90 days the issue still is here, I would suggest that you come back or a representative of the lender come back, and we can discuss it further at that time. Now, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 29 September 26, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. So -- MR. TAYLOR: Thank you for your time. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next is No. 4, CESD2012001855I Kirkwood Holdings, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Before I start into the basics of this case, I believe, at the discretion of the board, these gentlemen would like to talk about maybe getting a continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you two identify yourselves. MR. CONA: Yes. Chris Cona. I am an Attorney representing the land -- the owner of the property, Kirkwood Holdings. MR. SLACK: My name's Mark Slack. I'm an Attorney. I represent the tenant who's been in the building since 2006. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 30 September 26, 2013 MR. CONA: The landlord would like to request a continuance of this matter. This had come before the board last month. Actually, I don't think it actually came before the board. It was continued. It was set for a hearing last month. There -- a dispute had arisen between the landlord and the tenant with respect to remedying the code enforcement violation which is an unpermitted bathroom structure. The tenant agreed -- the parties agreed that the tenant would commence to rectify the problem. We had agreed that we would continue this matter, and hopefully during that period of time the matter would be resolved. Some time had passed. The -- my client, the owner of the property, felt like the work was not proceeding as quickly as he would have liked, so he took it upon himself to pull a demo permit, which was applied for beginning of this month; I believe the 6th of September. It's in -- it's been rejected. It's in review, though. They're working towards getting the permit approved and remedying the problem. So we'd request a 30 -day continuance. It's just a demo permit, a demo of an existing fairly small bathroom structure. Assuming we can get the permit issue squared away fairly quickly, it shouldn't take too long to resolve the problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you say 30 days to mitigate the situation, what is it, a sink, a bathtub, electric, whatever? MR. CONA: I believe it's some -- and I believe Mr. Letourneau would have more information on that. I believe it's just a bathroom. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have a picture. I could introduce it as evidence, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Why don't we do that. Page 31 September 26, 2013 That way we see what -- because I don't know if 30 days is sufficient time to pull a permit, et cetera. So why don't we -- First, Mark, would you like to testify? MR. SLACK: Yes, I would. Again, my name is Mark Slack, and I represent the tenant. A little background. Murphy Bed Center, my client has been in that building since 2006. It's an older building. Kirkwood, Mr. Cona's client, purchased the building in April of 2012. And it's of little significance. It's a little bit interesting situation, because at the time my client moved in, the bathroom was already there. It's not really a usable bathroom. It's never functioned. When Mr. Cona's client purchased the property, he became more interested in bringing the building, I guess, up to code, and somehow it came to the board's attention, the county's attention, that there was a bathroom in there that was unpermitted. My client uses that facility as a warehouse and assembly facility, so they actually have people that come in and assemble the Murphy beds in the warehouse which, my understanding, requires a bathroom in order -- if you have people working there. We had reached an agreement -- the tenant and the landlord reached an agreement in early August as to allowing the land -- the tenant to come in and take the appropriate steps to bring it up to code, put a new bathroom in. That agreement was reached August 7th, about that time period. My client has hired a contractor. My client hired an architect. The -- now I just want to bring the board up to speed so they understand clearly what's going on, because there is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant on this matter. The landlord has now claimed in an email to me yesterday from his attorney that they rejected the authorization for us to Page 32 September 26, 2013 proceed even though we are proceeding. And they have applied for a demo permit, but that permit was applied for without my client's consent or actual knowledge. The problem is, is that we believe that there needs to be a bathroom in that facility, because my client uses that facility to assemble, and there are workers in that facility. What makes the problem more complicated is that neither Chris's client nor my client have any idea when the bathroom was installed, who installed it, how long ago it was installed, and for what -- if it has ever been used. We -- it's our position that we want to install the bathroom, and that's what we're doing. So as an interested party, we are concerned about a demo -- we'll be back here again. If they demo what's there, we still don't have an existing bathroom. My client has hired a contractor and has hired an architect and will be submitting plans pursuant to the agreement that we reached back in early August to go ahead and remove whatever we have to remove and replace it with a bathroom that's up to code. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern on all of this -- because I don't want to hear the case now. We haven't gotten there yet -- is if you're asking for 30 days, do you concur with the 30 days, or do you need more time than 30 days? MR. SLACK: We need -- we may need more time to install the bathroom. We don't know what needs to be demoed because the architect that has been hired hasn't told us what plumbing can be used, what plumbing needs to be replaced, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the answer to my question is yes. MR. SLACK: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we grant 120 days. Page 33 September 26, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we do, do you want to see the -- or for continuance, we don't even have to hear it at this time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think it's necessary to see the photos. It's a bathroom. They want it -- it sounds like there's a disconnect. One party wants to take it out. One wants to put it in. I think if we give them 120 days, hopefully they can hammer it out between them, and we won't see them again. MR. UESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. MR. SLACK: Chris and I are working together to try to solve the problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that amenable? MR. CONA: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One hundred and twenty days. We have a motion and a second. This should give you sufficient time to duke it out, whatever needs to be, between the two of you to come up with a solution. Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have 120 days, and hopefully we won't see you again. MR. LEFEBVRE: I left my boxing gloves at home. MS. ADAMS: No. 6, Old business, Letter A, motion for Page 34 September 26, 2013 imposition of fines /liens, No. 1, Case CESD20120018399, Maria L. Rojas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't everybody come up at one time. Looks like it's in compliance, and it's been paid. Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: Sorry, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's okay. Okay. This one looks like it's in compliance, and the operational costs have been paid, and the county's going to recommend that it be abated. So you want to read it in, and we'll go from there. MR. SNOW: I can, sir. The violations of this property concern Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 3620 14th Street North, Naples, Florida, 34103; Folio number is 4797440003. And the description is a single - family dwelling converted to multifamily dwelling without first obtaining Collier County building permits. And the past orders, on March 28, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, a conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4909, Page 3217, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of August 22, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period of July 27, 2013, to August 22, 2013, 27 days, for a total of $6,750. Page 35 September 26, 2013 Order No. 5, operational costs of $80.86 have been paid. The total amount is $6,750. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Just for curiosity's sake, was this demoed, or was this multifamily zoning approved in that area? MR. SNOW: Yes, it was approved in that area, and they got what they needed to do to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Kitchell. MR. SNOW: I thank the board. Have a good day. MS. ADAMS: Next is No. 2, Case CEPM20120001592, Thu -Nhut Nguyen. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: Violations, Collier County Code of Laws Page 36 September 26, 2013 and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -242 and 22- 231(12)(1). Location: 480 8th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 39260480004. Description is unsecured home on estates -zoned property. Past orders: On September 27, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached order of the board, OR4844, Page 268, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 26, 2013. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 3, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between January 26, 2013, and September 26, 20139 244 days, for a total of $36,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 7, operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $36,681.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was an unsecured home on estates -zoned property? MR. BALDWIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it still unsecured? MR. BALDWIN: No. It's boarded up, but they passed their time -- time limit to proceed with replacing the boards and the windows. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't see the -- was it boarded up by them or by the county? MR. BALDWIN: It was boarded up by them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. That's why I don't see that as an item here. Page 37 September 26, 2013 Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is for an unsecured home. They secured it, okay. Is it a separate violation that it's secured now but the plywood should be replaced with windows? MR. BALDWIN: The past order was they would need to get a boarding certificate, which they obtained, and they boarded it. Part of the order, too, was also to submit a plan on when they were going to remodel and finish the rest of the structure. It's still sitting there boarded at this point. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously to impose. MS. ADAMS: Next is No. 3, Case CELU20100004523, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Incorporated. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 38 September 26, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is for the violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 1.04.01(A) and 10.02.03(B)(5). Violation location is 1001 Silver Lakes Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34114; Folio No. 73625009662. Violation description: An open storage area being utilized at Silver Lakes RV Resort without first obtaining a Site Development Plan for this use. Past order: On November 18, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4744, Page 1086, for more information. On September 27, 2012, an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR4844, Page 301, for more information. On February 28, 2013, an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR4895, Page 2418, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 26, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between August 28, 2013, and September 26, 20139 30 days, for the total of $6,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $81.43 have been paid. Total amount to date, $6,000. Page 39 September 26, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. Could you identify yourself to the court reporter. MR. BENNETT: Yes. I'm Conway Bennett, the Property Manager for Silver Lakes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: Dan Malinowski, DMI, the contractor hired to get them into compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The floor is yours. MR. BENNETT: The problem's been we're dealing with two entities. We've been dealing with the county. We finally got permitting from them. From there it went to the state because we had to close a lien on 951. We were in the busy season. We couldn't do it. We've been going back and forth with the state on what changes they want at this point. I can kick that over to Dan here, because he finally got the permit yesterday. MR. MALINOWSKI: We've been diligently working with FDOT to get the permit. We've made five revisions to satisfy the state. The state -- there were some projects coming up that, if it were to have been funded, that we would have had to make some additional changes. Those funds weren't available for this budget. So as of 2:30 yesterday, we were issued a permit to finally get the job done that we need to get done to make the county happy. I would like to ask the board for a 120 -day extension so that we can get the job done, as we do have the permit in hand for -- since yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the scope of the work that needs to be done? MR. MALINOWSKI: We have to put in a temporary drive for emergency vehicles, and we have to put in a 6 -inch water line with a fire hydrant on a dead -end back at their storage facility. Page 40 September 26, 2013 MR. BENNETT: Then we have to landscape after that's all done. The fence is up, but we have to landscape the fence. MR. MALINOWSKI: And although we do have the permit in hand, you know, we're going to have a little bit of time to see if we can get the ground to dry out a little bit, because the lines are buried at between three and four feet. So, you know, we're going to be playing in a lot of water. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Letourneau, what do you have to say on this? MR. LETOURNEAU: I just have a question. The fire hydrant, is the main on the other side of 951; is that the deal? You have to get that -- MR. MALINOWSKI: No. It's on our side of 951. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: But in its proximity to the lane, we have to get the permit, and we're going to have to close the lane down while we're actually doing the tie -in, and we have to start at the tie -in and go into the property. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. The county has no objections. It's not really a health or safety issue at this point, so CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Is that still being used? Item 1 of the original order was that it cease being used. MR. BENNETT: The problem we have is we have a golf course. There is no place to store the golf equipment in the sand and those things, and it's been there since the time it was being done by the developer. To cut every day, I don't know what we would do with that equipment to get it off site and bring it in every day. MR. LAVINSKI: So you never intended to stop using it Page 41 September 26, 2013 even though this said two years ago that you would? MR. BENNETT: Yeah. We had discussed it with them saying that that's what it was and that's what it's always been used for. They said we can continue while we were permitting, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who said that? MR. BENNETT: -- we continued. MR. LAVINSKI: Who said that? MR. BENNETT: The code compliance people when we talked to them. They said it was not a problem as long as we continued with the permitting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? Yeah, what caught my eye on this to begin with was that Ken Kelly had signed the original order on that, and he's been off the board for years. So I knew this has been taking an awful long time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I do have a problem that an entity is not following our order when we're very strict on that. And when we actually say that -- a lot of times we'll tell someone that power has to be turned off, and we ask them directly, do you agree to that at the hearing, and they say yes. So it's very clear what our order is, and it says not to use this structure. And you speaking right now just saying that we violated that, it doesn't really sit well with me. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, this is not a health and safety issue. I move that we grant a 120 -day extension as they requested. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Page 42 September 26, 2013 Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The problem I have also with what was mentioned is that this was a stipulation that was signed November of 2011 that specifically said what was supposed to be done and what wasn't supposed to be done, and there would be a $200 -a -day fine, et cetera et cetera. So I don't know who reported this violation, but if, for instance, it was a neighbor or -- that was complaining about this, for this to go on so long -- and had they been here when the original stipulation was agreed to, they would probably be very unhappy with the granting of this. Any other comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Again, to the fact that our order says that that building wasn't supposed to be used, if that was the case, the stipulated agreement at that time should have been discussed that I plan on using this building for its intended use, so -- MR. BENNETT: That's not a building. It's a lot. MR. MALINOWSKI: There's no building back there, sir. It's just -- it's an open lot, and there used to be RV trailers and boats and everything stored in there. The only thing that's in that facility now is the golf course equipment. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Storage. MR. MALINOWSKI: Everything else from that storage, per se, as the county's looking at it -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It's an open storage area? MR. MALINOWSKI: It's open storage. Everything other than just the stuff to cut the grass is no longer there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 43 September 26, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Those opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have two opposed. And, Tony, you were? MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're an aye. Aye and aye. I guess it comes up to my vote. And because of the time frame on it, I'm opposed also. Let's see if we can come up with something that's -- and it wouldn't bother me so much except the stipulation that was agreed to two years ago that it wouldn't be used for that. Is there any way that some of that equipment can be moved someplace else during the period of time that you need to get this into compliance? Some attempt? MR. BENNETT: We'll try to. I just don't know where we'd put it, that's it, because you use it every day. We use it at 6 o'clock in the morning, and it's greens mowers and rollers and fairway mowers and those type things. MR. LEFEBVRE: So they're out in the open all the time; is that what you're telling me? MR. BENNETT: No. They've got temporary, like, storage trailers that they go in, and that's where they've been for years. MR. LAVINSKI: And those are all permitted? MR. BENNETT: They were, I suspect. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, would the board be more amenable to 90 days instead of 120 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm still opposed to the order that states that they're not supposed to use that site until they come into compliance. That's my issue. Page 44 September 26, 2013 MR. L'ESPERANCE: And yet it's not a health or safety issue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Again, but it's our order, and we're very specific, and twice it's stated, once in the stipulated agreement and also in the order, that they're not supposed to use that property for -- MR. LAVINSKI: And that was two years ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. And no effort's been made to move it, and they're even saying now that there's not going to be really an effort to be moved. So if we had 120 days, they'll be approved, and they would have been violating our order for two -plus years. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It seems that the moving of the equipment back and forth every day would be, perhaps, an unnecessary duress on the business operations. That's my position. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, then they should have moved forward a little bit quicker. It's two years to take this, and whole developments get approved within two years. So it just seems excessive to ask for another 120. MR. MIESZCAK: I guess what I felt is they just got the permit, and they're on their way. So maybe, yeah, they stumbled a bit or something. But in all fairness, I just think that, you know -- to help them out because it's a community, and there's a lot of people involved, and that's how I felt about it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think they have displayed a positive attitude and willingness to proceed, and I think we should assist them in their effort. MR. MALINOWSKI: We have been diligent in working with the state. I mean, we've had to go through five different revisions in order to make the state happy, and then we were in a holding period to see what got funded because there's plans for Page 45 September 26, 2013 951 that, if they would have got their funds, then they would have had to make some additional changes. So we've been working with DOT for a year on this parcel trying to get this permit in hand so that we can get into compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand, and that's not the issue here. The issue that's been brought up is that the stipulation that was signed in November of 2011 specifically said that you wouldn't be doing what you are doing today and you will continue to do until your permit is completed. What does the county have to say? MR. LETOURNEAU: The county says this is the third request for an extension. I agree, though, that it is not a health and safety issue, and I'd like to leave it up to the board to make this decision. We don't object either way, to be honest with you. MR. LAVINSKI: I still think it's a blatant disregard of what they agreed to two years ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have to agree with Mr. Lavinski. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would someone like to make a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: Can I ask one question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MIESZCAK: When you got your permit yesterday, how long did it take you to get that permit? MR. MALINOWSKI: We've been working on the permit since November of last year. MR. MIESZCAK: That's my point. Thank you. MR. UESPERANCE: That shows a good -faith effort to achieve progress, in my opinion. MR. LEFEBVRE: This case was brought in front of us in 2011. MR. MALINOWSKI: Prior to Silver Lakes hiring my Page 46 September 26, 2013 company to do the work, it was to plan review to get the initial -- the initial plans were drafted on 9/28 of 2011, was originally submitted to Collier County to get the Land Development Code to allow this. So, I mean, we have been working on this process for an extended period of time. You know, Collier County, we got everything situated here. Everything was fine. Conway said, hey, we've got the county permit; everything should be good. Then we began the process of dealing with FDOT. And that has been a -- for me, that has been an eye- opening experience -- MR. MIESZCAK: It's a nightmare. MR. MALINOWSKI: -- because they tell you one thing, we redraft all the plans, we resubmit it to them, they say, well, now we want to add this to it, we want to make that change. And like I said, we've made five changes with FDOT in order to get this permit in hand. So we have been working diligently to come into compliance. The original complaint was for storage. There used to be boats, RVs, travel trailers, regular, you know, tow - behind trailers that people pull when they move around, all stored in there. All of that is gone. The only thing that's left in that storage facility is the lawnmowers for the golf course. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask the county, where'd this complaint originally come from? MR. LETOURNEAU: It shows an anonymous complaint. This was back when we were taking those type of complaints. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there any residential dwelling real nearby this? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm going to defer to the area investigator at this time. She knows a lot more about this case than I do, so -- MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. For the record -- Page 47 September 26, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been sworn? MS. PATTERSON: No, I have not. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. I am the investigator on the case. I did go out there today and -- this morning and took some photographs. I'm sorry. I forgot what the question was that you were asking me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there any residential dwellings nearby? Is this causing a problem in that regard? MS. PATTERSON: There are some residential dwellings nearby, but I wouldn't say really close. They're pretty far from there, I would say. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hundred yards? MS. PATTERSON: Yeah, at least. At least that, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: More. MS. PATTERSON: But I do know -- I was out there today. There are some boats still inside that yard. There's some boats, and there's some storage trailers and stuff inside the yard. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the storage trailers have to be there because they're storing the equipment in those storage trailers. MS. PATTERSON: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Boats? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You said that the boats were removed? I know it's raining a lot, but -- MR. BENNETT: Well, they could be bringing them in. They're starting to come back, and we're not there. If it's open, they may put them in there. Then we've got to chase them out again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who's 'they "? Wm__ j September 26, 2013 MR. BENNETT: Owners. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The owners of the residences in MR. BENNETT: In Silver Lakes, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just to be clear, so Silver Lakes is an RV MR. BENNETT: Yeah, resort and golf club. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And that will continue to happen until, I mean, the season. MR. BENNETT: Well, we've been telling them to find other storage this year because we knew we had a problem. We didn't know when the work was going to be done. And we try and keep it out of there so we don't have to try and move it when we're working. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. In an effort to maybe resolve -- maybe if some action can be taken on what's being moved in there now -- MR. LAVINSKI: Well, the intent from two years ago is still there, and that leads me to believe there's not much credibility in what we're thinking is going to happen in the next six months. MR. MIESZCAK: You know, let me just say that what -- when we deal with Collier County things, that's one thing, and permits and all that. But they're also dealing with the state of Florida, so that came into the program here. So that does take a little longer. You're not just dealing with Collier County. You're dealing with the state. So I think that's a delay for them. And I agreed, you know, it's two years ago. It is a long time; it should be done. But I don't want to be cut and dry. If they're in the process of doing something right for that community and it involves a lot of people, you know, what's the impact to the rest of the residents? 0-_ • September 26, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Well, we thought that also on September 279 2012, and on February 28, 2013, and here we are looking for another six months, and that person that originally brought the complaint forward must be probably going to be rolling in their grave before this is resolved. MR. MALINOWSKI: Ninety -day extension is all that we would need, sir, to be in compliance. MR. LAVINSKI: I'm not in the mood for any kind of extension because of this other two -year issue and the fact that you're still using it today and you just said you're going to be using it in the future, and nobody seems to be monitoring or policing that piece of it. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we see a negative attitude on behalf of the respondents at all here. I would like to refashion my motion to make it a 90 -day extension and see how the board feels about that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the other thing, let me just say this before you -- before your motion. Should we impose the fine, you have the ability to go to the county and, knowing their Lthe county commissioners, knowing their schedule, you probably wouldn't get back to the county for 90 days. And I'm sure that if everything was done and finished at that time, they may abate everything. But we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second for 90 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask a question. Should we just modify the agreement, the motion, or -- stating that the -- to take out the section where it says they have to move everything? Because if we're just going to extend our 90 -day agreement, there's going to be a violation from today on, they'll still be in violation of it. MR. UESPERANCE: No, I don't think we should modify Page 50 September 26, 2013 the original -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Order. MR. UESPERANCE: No, I don't think that's within our perview, and Jean is shaking her head, too. I think we should just go for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can't do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, then they're still going to be in violation because they still haven't fulfilled one of the sections of the order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second on that motion? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Three ayes, three nos. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion we impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. Any discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Again, with the provision that if the fine is imposed, you have the ability to go to the county commissioners and get it abated at the time when you have everything completed. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 51 September 26, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? MR. MIESZCAK: Nay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tony? MR. MARINO: Aye, I was an aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, you're an aye. MR. MARINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So then it's imposed. It's imposed 4 -2. Okay. Thank you. Are you okay fingers -wise? Okay. MS. ADAMS: Next is No. 6, Case CESD20110010944, Dan R. and Susie L. Rickard. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location: 261 2nd Street Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37221840009. Description: Bottom of a stilt home enclosed, adding living space, with a bathroom, without Collier County building permits. Past order: On April 25, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4917, Page 3047, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 26, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Page 52 September 26, 2013 Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between August 24, 2013, and September 26, 2013, 34 days, for a total of $6,800. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.86 have been paid. Total amount to date: $6,800. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. RICKARD: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are? MS. RICKARD: Susie Rickard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And what have you to say on this case? MS. RICKARD: Well, I -- we did have it, and it was wrong, and we got the permit for it, which cost me $900. And then we didn't get it finished, and we asked for the extension. And then right after that, I broke my leg, and I am the only income in my family. So I have been out for four months with a broken ankle, and I have major doctor bills and everything. And so we could not complete it. So we went and got another permit to tear it all back down, and we have tore it all back down. We're just waiting to have it inspected now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: Yeah. They stated that they called in the final inspection today. And I spoke to her husband every day for the last -- well, every other day for the last couple weeks. They have been trying to get rid of it. The demo permit should be final today, hopefully. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we do a 30 -day extension, this is just going to disappear? MR. BALDWIN: It should. Page 53 September 26, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it 30 days. MS. RICKARD: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. RICKARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hope your leg feels better. MS. RICKARD: Have a nice day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Good luck with your leg. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You don't have to hop now. We already passed the order. MS. RICKARD: No, I'm still hobbling. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 7, Case CESD20100003739, Collier Realty Corporation. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation is Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 101 New Market Road East, Immokalee, Page 54 September 26, 2013 Florida, 34142; Folio Number is 63863840004. Description: A cooler storage construction attached to building prior to obtaining Collier County building permits. Past order: On August 25, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4718, Page 2029, for more information. On November 29, 2012, an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR4865, Page 2603, for more information. On March 28, 2013, an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR4909, Page 3220, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board's order as of September 26, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period of June 27, 2013, through September 26, 2013, 92 days, for a total of $23,000. Fines continue to accrue. Item No. 5, operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. Total amount to date is $23,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you tell me what's been done? I mean, this thing is very old. MR. WALKER: Actually, the -- yes. The original contractor that was doing the work was Freeman and Freeman. He had run into obstacles with regards to acquiring the necessary monies from them to move forward. The actual property owner is out of state. He has a representative here that was constantly kind of not working with him. So he recused himself from the case. Page 55 September 26, 2013 As a result, they hired a new engineer. The engineer contacted me, indicated a week ago that they were going to submit designs for an SIP to get approval for the attached coolers. As of this date, there has not been any change to the property other than the fact that they have hired a new engineer and they're still waiting to determine whether or not their plans are going to be accepted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This goes way back. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Weldon. MR. WALKER: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. ADAMS: No. 8, Case CELU20120014618, Pee -Wee's Dumpsters, Incorporated. MR. MIESZCAK: Here he comes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Looks like you're making progress. MR. GEORGE: Slowly but surely, yeah. It's a long road to recovery. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to pull the mike Page 56 September 26, 2013 down? MR. LEFEBVRE: Or do we have another microphone, like a hands free? MR. GEORGE: That's fine. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Joe. MR. MUCHA: I think Mr. George had wanted to ask for an extension. MR. GEORGE: Out of all the ones I did, I did get it all into compliance. I mentioned to you I was going to have back surgery, and I did, and it was very severe. I didn't think it was going to be as bad as it was. The only thing is, is about some of the debris that's on the property for storage. Like, I got some cement blocks, PVC pipe, and crushed up concrete that I was using for fill, and I cannot move that at this time. But all the other stuff that I had that wasn't in compliance, it all came into compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it looks like the order that was written -- I don't have the date in front of me -- said concrete blocks. That's still there? MR. GEORGE: Yes. And my question is, you mean I'm not allowed to have concrete blocks on my property and they're stored neat? It's not thrown. It's in the backyard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm just reading the order. MR. GEORGE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Concrete blocks. Barrels? MR. GEORGE: Empty barrels, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're still there? MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Buckets? Page 57 September 26, 2013 MR. GEORGE: Five gallon buckets, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Plywood? MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hoses? MR. GEORGE: No, I don't think the hoses are there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Plastic pipe? MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A large storage container? MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that on the order that we had, every single thing that was written there, except for hoses, is still there? MR. GEORGE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GEORGE: My question is, you mean I live in the Estates, zoned estates, so all the Estates people, you're not allowed to have concrete blocks on your property stored neat? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to rehear the case. MR. GEORGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're asking for what? MR. GEORGE: For an extension to get it removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much of an extension are you looking for? MR. GEORGE: I won't know. I go to the doctors again tomorrow on my condition. Give me 90 days, that's more than adequate, unless my condition is not going to improve, and then I'll notify Michele. MR. VESPERANCE: May I ask a question; is this work that you intend to do yourself or supervise yourself or which one? MR. GEORGE: Yeah. I was planning on building a Page 58 September 26, 2013 garage. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Right. MR. GEORGE: A large garage area, and I'm going to use the block. I use the PVC pipe for irrigation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: This is work you intend to personally do yourself? MR. GEORGE: Yeah. I had a permit to do a large garage. And at the time my condition got bad, I had to let it expire at the time. MR. LEFEBVRE: We had a previous case, several previous cases, and this is in relationship to previous cases -- MR. GEORGE: No. The previous case was about having my containers on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but I think part of the rectifying it would have been building a garage. MR. GEORGE: Garage, that is correct; that's correct. MR. UESPERANCE: You will not be hiring subcontractors, but doing the work yourself? MR. GEORGE: I will hire some subcontractors, yes, yeah, that are licensed to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I remember the last time you were here. I remember you had gone down the middle aisle, and Mr. Lefebvre said, good luck on your surgery. MR. GEORGE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He also said at that time he won't accept any more time because this has been heard about -- I don't know how many times, the same violation. So I just mention that in passing. Okay. Why don't -- if there's anybody who wants to grant an extension of time, let them make a motion at this time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Hearing none, Joe? Page 59 September 26, 2013 MR. MUCHA: Okay. This is -- for the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to Case CELU20120014618, violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Violation location is 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, 34119; Folio number is 38280090006. The description is concrete blocks, barrels, buckets, plywood, hoses, plastic pipe, a large storage container, miscellaneous construction equipment, building supplies, and a pile of broken -up concrete, bricks and rocks stored on the property. Past orders: On February 28, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4895, Page 2440, for more information. On April 25, 2013, an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR4922, Page 2401, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 26, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between August 24, 2013, and September 26, 20135 34 days, for the total of $8,500. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have been paid. Total amount to date is $8,500. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? September 26, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I think we're imposing this because everything is still there. MR. GEORGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you don't know when it's going to be done, as you've testified earlier. So I suggest that you get it in order and go to the county commissioners if you want to get it abated. MR. GEORGE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Number 9, Case CESD20120009056, Gracelyn Mostaccio Rue. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location: 2861 4th Ave. Southeast, Naples Florida, 34117; Folio No. 40926160000. Description: A carport attached to the principal structure Page 61 September 26, 2013 and several electrical and plumbing improvements made throughout the property. Past orders: On May 23, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4931, Page 1685, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 26, 2013. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between August 22, 2013, and September 26, 2013, 36 days, for a total of $7,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $7,280.57. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you identify yourself for the court stenographer. MR. SLABY: Jonathan Slaby, husband of Gracelyn M. Slaby. I know it says Rue, but the county just has never changed the quitclaim deed paperwork. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have her permission to speak on her behalf? MR. SLABY: I owe -- I'm owner of the property as well. There's also been quitclaim deeds done to that as well, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does the county have any problem with that? MR. BALDWIN: No. He's spoken on behalf throughout this whole process. MR. LEFEBVRE: And he's also signed the stipulated agreement. Page 62 September 26, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So first of all, one question, have the operational costs of 80.57 been paid? MR. BALDWIN: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: Mr. Slaby -- MR. SLABY: We've talked about what's going on. I have no objections to whatever they have proposed. I have pulled an electrical permit that had expired. I re -upped it yesterday. I also, rather than re -- rather than reinstating a fence permit that was pulled several years ago that never got inspected, I just pulled a new one. That was done yesterday as well. We also filed the permit for the carport that was in question as well. So all the paperwork has been done. Right now the carport plans are in plan review. They should be done in about five working days. The holdup on that was having to get an engineer and an architect onboard to do a permit by affidavit because it's after the fact. Never pulled the permit to begin with because it was never the intent to add it to the selling price of my house or permanent structure. It basically covers birds, because we are an animal preserve. It would have been intended to be taken down eventually if I ever sold the house, so it -- not that it's an excuse. You know, obviously it needs to be permitted, according to meetings that I've had with people from the structural department. So the process of going through an engineer and architect for affidavit permit was necessary, and that was the holdup. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This goes back to May. MR. SLABY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: About six, seven months ago. The operational costs, 80.57, have not been paid. Page 63 September 26, 2013 MR. SLABY: I wasn't aware that I needed to pay that. We had a case last year, 79, that I did pay -- I didn't -- I wasn't aware that I had to pay it. So I'll pay it as soon as I -- as soon as I get a chance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You signed a stipulation with the 80.57 in it. MR. SLABY: Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't read it completely. You know, last time I was here, Jeff handed me a paper, said he was giving me a 90 -day extension. I just signed it because I didn't want to cause any problems. Didn't really read it. I basically did it out of good faith with Jeff Letourneau. I actually realized yesterday when I went in to pull my permits that I also signed something that was an admission of guilt that I didn't really realize, so it doubled all of my permit fees as well, which was a nice surprise. But, I mean, I paid them, you know, and we got the ball rolling. I just, you know, need to -- basically all the work is done, too. I mean, I was working with the architect and the engineering while they were drawing the plans. I had to come up with the money to cover the expenses for the affidavit but, meanwhile, I was doing the work that the engineer and the architect required. So all the work is done. All the electrical work is done. The fence was put up years ago. So at this point the only thing that really needs to be done is the inspections called in. Because we -- again, because we are an animal preserve, there are a lot of other things that also demanded my attention because of the high profile that we got last year. I had a lot of issues that I had to deal with with FWC and USDA, you know, because everybody wanted to cover their butts after we got into the media attention. So not any disrespect to code enforcement or this board, but they can shut me down. This board can fine me, but they can't Page 64 shut me down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: September 26, 2013 Any comment from the board? Any motion from the board? I make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Passes, 5 -1. Okay. If you want to abate the fine, which I would suggest, wait till you have everything finished and go before the county commissioners, and they can abate it. MR. SLABY: Okay. MS. ADAMS: No. 10, Case CESD20120017981, Cassia Poviones. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Ralph. MR. BOSA: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 3030 39th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 38054880002. Page 65 September 26, 2013 Description of the violation is demolition and remodel in progress without building permits. Past orders: On April 25, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4917, Page 3032, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 26, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following. Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between June 25, 2013, to September 26, 2013, 94 days, for the total of 18,800. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount due to date: $18,881.15. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Quick question, have you been in contact with these folks at all? MR. BOSA: No. It's in the foreclosure process right now. The property is vacant. The bank can't do anything until they receive a certificate of title. So we have been in contact with them. They just say they can't do anything right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. U.�" •i September 26, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Ralph. MR. BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Letter C, motion to rescind previously issued order, Case CENA20130005058, PNC Bank, NA. At the July hearing for imposition of fines for this case there were two orders recorded in error, and the county would like to rescind the imposition of fines order recorded under OR4962, Page 20. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a motion to that effect? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I make a motion to rescind it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Was that a duplicate? MS. ADAMS: One order was waiving the fines, and one order was imposing the fines. The case is compliant, and the operational costs have been paid, so the county would like to keep the one that abated the fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 67 September 26, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So that order is rescinded. Okay. I think that brings us to Jeff. MS. ADAMS: Gentlemen, No. 8, consent agenda, there is a report to be forwarded to the County Attorney's Office. It should be in your packet. MR. MIESZCAK: Right. I have it in front of me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Do you need a motion for that? MR. LAVINSKI: Do you need a motion to send this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, just to have it. I don't think we've had a motion on this in the past. MR. WRIGHT: I just want to make sure I didn't jump ahead of that item on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you for providing the information. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman and board members, I have the last report of Fiscal Year 2013. As you know, the fiscal year ends in just a couple of days from now, so this is our last chance to give you the updated numbers for the fiscal year. All of these numbers are through September 15th of this year. The first set of numbers is the total abatement costs paid by lenders over a period beginning November '08 through September 15th of this year. Total abatement costs paid by lenders is $3.295 million. Total violations abated by lenders, 2,899. During the period of July 2009 through September 15th of 2013, total fines waived by the Board of County Commissioners, Page 68 September 26, 2013 the Code Enforcement Board, and the special magistrate is $13.3 million. During the fiscal year, which is now coming to an end, since October 1st of 2012, $309,000 in abatement costs paid by lenders; 272 code violations abated by lenders; 5,664 code enforcement cases opened; 4,315 educational patrols; 20,000 inspections, give or take; 101 meet - and -greet cleanups and vacant home sweeps combined. During this fiscal year, $4.8 million in fines were waived by the BCC, Code Enforcement Board, and special magistrate. The code enforcement department has received 465 bankruptcy documents during the fiscal year. We've received 7,818 lien search requests. And of those requests, 409 resulted in open code cases. And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. Boy, there was a lot of work this year. MR. WRIGHT: Yeah. Start over next year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I'd like to welcome Kerry to the team. MS. ADAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I understand we have a new board member that will probably be joining us next month. And I had mentioned to Kerry, if she could get together a binder and some dividers so that we don't struggle all over the place to find the cases that are due. In addition, Kerry's going to get us an up -to -date roll of, you know, everybody that's on the board now, name, address, telephone number, email address, etcetera. And I don't really have anything else. If anybody on the board has something else -- MR. MIESCZAK: I'll make a motion to adjourn. September 26, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? you. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:43 a.m. Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on CC -tkL°1' J�, , as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC /COURT REPORTER Page 70