Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/24/2013 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Minutes October 24 , 2013 October 24, 2013 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida October 24, 2013 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Larry Mieszcak James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Absent) Chris Hudson ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB Board Kerry Adams, Administrative Assistant Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 24,2013 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 Lionel L' Esperance Gerald Lefebvre, Vice Chair Tony Marino James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak Chris Hudson,Alternate Robert Ashton 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 26,2013 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time 1. Alfredo Miralles CESD20120003627 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CENA20130011122 OWNER: HIGHLAND PROP OF LEE&COLLIER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D). PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION ON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY(FOLIO 406720007) WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN ABUTTING, IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 406720007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 2. CASE NO: CESD20130007945 OWNER: CARLISLE/WILSON PLAZA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I). THE RESTAURANT IN UNIT#I2 HAS BEEN COMBINED WITH VACANT UNIT#11 WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37221120305 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 50 WILSON BLVD S, UNIT 11,NAPLES, FL 34117 2 3. CASE NO: CEVR20130011044 OWNER: NAPLES NEW HAITIAN CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.06.05(K)(2). FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SHRUBS AT 3 FOOT OVERALL HEIGHT AS SPECIFIED IN SDP 99-108. FOLIO NO: 61838760001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5085 BAYSHORE DR.NAPLES, FL 34112 4. CASE NO: CESD20130011492 OWNER: RAFAEL C.SANTOS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SUBDIVISION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO RENTAL UNITS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS WITHOUT APPLICABLE COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOLIO NO: 22622600002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3705 THOMASSON DR.,NAPLES, FL 34112 5. CASE NO: CEPM20130004781 OWNER: IVY JEAN NEBUS,JUDY ANNE BLAKE,BETTY JO ROBERTSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22-236 AND 242. STRUCTURE WHICH WAS IN A FIRE, VACANT AND UNSECURED. FOLIO NO: 56150680007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2032 PINELAND AVE.NAPLES,FL 34112 6. CASE NO: CEPM20130007368 OWNER: LISA BROWN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS SUNDLEE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231 (12)(B). EXTERIOR SIDING MISSING AROUND DOOR ON EAST SIDE OF DWELLING. FOLIO NO: 62713320002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 834 93RD AVE.N.,NAPLES,FL 34108 7. CASE NO: CEVR20130009509 OWNER: RAQUEL BETANCOURT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED SECTION 3.05.01 (B). ACTIVE CLEARING OF NATIVE VEGETATION ON UNIMPROVED PARCEL FOLIO 41445160001. FOLIO NO: 41445160001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 3 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CEVR20110002999 OWNER: SEAN KING TR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION& PRESERVATION. VEGETATION REMOVAL /LANDFILL REQUIRED. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.01(B). FOLIO NO: 36663400008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4441 5TH AVE NW,NAPLES, FL 34119 2. CASE NO: CESD20120010800 OWNER: YANELIS GIL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). AN INCOMPLETE UNPERMITTED ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE HOME FOLIO NO: 39029080001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4865 46TH ST NE,NAPLES, FL 34120 3. CASE NO: CESD20130003239 OWNER: PATRICIA B ANUCINSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E). REMODELING CONDO TO INCLUDE ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING,AND ENCLOSING OF A LANAI WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 60931760006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 204 BOB 0 LINK WAY, UNIT A,NAPLES, FL 34105 4. CASE NO: CESD20120016883 OWNER: JOSE&SARA LOPEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS. (PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUAPNCY REQUIRED)COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). SCREEN PORCH AT FRONT OF PROPERTY,COVERED PORCH AT REAR OF PROPERTY AND DETACHED STRUCTURE(S)/SHED(S) IN REAR YARD OF PROPERTY ALL BUILT WITHOUT APPLICABLE COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 62093360009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5323 GEORGIA AVENUE,NAPLES, FL 34113 4 5. CASE NO: CESD20120008638 OWNER: PAULA MENDOZA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). AN EXPIRED PERMIT WITH NO INSPECTIONS DONE ON THE INSTALLATION OF THE MOBILE HOME AND A METAL TYPE STAND ALONE CARPORT INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINIG THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FOLIO NO: 00082961866 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2918 IMMOKALEE DR., IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 6. CASE NO: CESD20100007042 OWNER: KIRK N. SANDERS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1,COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B) (1)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I),AND 2.02.03.APPROXIMATELY 12 MOBILE HOMES WERE INSTALLED WITH SEVERAL ADDITIONS ADDED TO THE MOBILE HOMES CONSISTING OF CARPORTS, SCREEN PORCHES, ROOF OVER'S AND LIVING SPACE BELOW FLOOD LEVEL WITH ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 56150200005 AND 56150520002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2280 PINELAND AVE,NAPLES, FL 34112 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- November 22,2013 12. ADJOURN 5 October 24, 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 on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless time is adjusted by the Chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. I'd like to ask Chris to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. I'd like to welcome a new member to the board, Bob Ashton. Welcome aboard. MR. ASHTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And today Chris will be a voting member for today's proceedings, Chris Hudson. And that brings us to roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKL• Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Here. Page 2 October 24, 2013 MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Present. MS. ADAMS: And Tony Marino has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, now we move on to the agenda. Do we have any changes? He says with a smile. MS. ADAMS: I do. Number five, Public Hearings /Motions, Motion for Extension of Time, we have two additions: The first one is number one from imposition of fines, Sean King, Trustee. Case CEVR20110002 -- THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, could you slow down, please? MS. ADAMS: Sorry. Case No. CEVR20110002999. The second is number five from Imposition of Fines, Paula Mendoza, Case CESD2012000863 8. B, Stipulations, we have one addition, it's number two from hearings, Case CESD20130007945, Carlisle /Wilson Plaza, LLC. C, Hearings, number one, Case CENA20130011122, Highland Property of Lee and Collier, has been withdrawn. Number three, Case CEVR20130011044, Naples New Haitian Church of the Nazarene, Incorporated has been withdrawn. Number five, Case CEPM20130004781, Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Anne Blake and Betty Jo Robertson has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I get a motion from the board to accept the agenda as modified? Page 3 October 24, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Which brings us to motions for extension of time. MR. MIESZCAK: Approval of minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, approval of the minutes MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion we approve the minutes MR. HUDSON: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: -- September 26th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. October 24, 2013 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: Motion for extension of time. Number one is Alfredo Morales, Case CESD20120003627. (Investigator Rodriguez was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know if you're appearing as the spokesperson for the -- for Alfredo Morales, because the letter said Maria will be able to collaborate and go into detail for any of the questions. So why don't you start us out and then I'll ask some questions. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Morales had to move property lines because he was encroaching. So he had to go through the county to try to move some of the property lines so that he was able to leave the carport that was enclosed. And that took pretty much all those months that he came last time to get it approved. He just got it approved last month. So now we're working on trying to permit -- permit by affidavit, which should take probably another couple of months before he's able to get the okay with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the current status of the permit is? It's open? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Well, we have to wait for Property Appraisal to record the deed. And I don't know how long that's going to take. They had to do everything from the get -go, record it on the deed to move the property lines, because that's what the county was requiring. Page 5 October 241 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because when I looked back at this, this goes on and on. I mean, we're going back 19 months ago on this case. You can't tell me that in 19 months they couldn't get the property line moved? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: It took him a good four months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That leaves a lot more from the 19. The date the person was given from the violation was 16 months ago. So when did they apply to have the property line moved? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: After we went to court. When we came to hearing is when he applied for the additional space, you know, the property lines to be moved. He didn't do anything before then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was that in 2012 or 2013? When did he go to court? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So from June for seven months he did nothing. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Well, he waited. By the time the contractor filled out the paperwork and went with the county, for driving and coming to Naples on a regular basis trying to see what he needed to do, it took him quite a bit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the contractor shouldn't have, I wouldn't think, anything to do with moving the property line though. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: He did all the paperwork for him, though. He couldn't do it himself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those are my concerns on this as far as extending it. Any comments from the board? October 24, 2013 MR. HUDSON: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman. It looks like forward progress, and we're big on forward progress on this board. And we typically don't give them too much flack when they make a change in decision. It sounds like after this hearing he decided that he wanted to move it back and he wanted to go to the county, and it sounds like equal problem on his part but it sounds like equal problem on the county's part. And I would support a motion for the extension of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much time were you thinking? MR. HUDSON: I'll leave that up to the board. But, I mean, I think the county would be okay with -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question as far as the time is concerned. It says need an extension of time, I will need from 250 to 300 days. Does that mean 300 days or does that mean 50 days? It's in the letter. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The way I read it, it looks like 50. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it for 150 days from today. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second to extend it 150 days from today. You think that would be any problem? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: He should be finished by then. I mean, he's got all the stuff ready. He just needs to wait for the Property Appraisal to do all the transferring over so that he can apply. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. MR. MIESZCAK: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 7 October 24, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: It was converted into living, electrical and plumbing. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. MIESZCAK: What's the safety issue here? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: No one's living in it. It's vacant right now. He doesn't have anybody in the addition. MR. MIESZCAK: I have no problem with the extension, providing nobody moves in there. MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my motion to state that no one is to occupy the unit until all the proper permits are received. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this going to be like a separate apartment in the unit? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: No, it's one big house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, okay. And I'm assuming that the electrical circuit breakers been turned off to that -- INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. UESPERANCE: I call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Maria. MS. ADAMS: The second motion for extension of time is number one from imposition of fines, Sean King Trustee, Case October 24, 2013 CEVR20 1 1 0002999. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Kitchell. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is? SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may refresh the board's memory on this. This was a vacant lot that had vegetation removed. They're in the process of trying to get engineering drawings for a structure they wish to put on. Apparently the structural part of it, the steel they wanted to use requires some form of engineered drawings. I will tell you that once they put that -- get the building permit and construct it, then that eliminates the violation. And that's their intent to do that. And I think that's why they were requesting an extension of time, to allow them the time to put the building up. Then they won't be required to have that and do a mitigation plan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it looks like they're asking for 45 days? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I'm not certain that's going to give them enough time. Investigator Michele Schiavone was -- I'm sorry, Michelle Crowley was the one that had the case and she's had conversation with them and they requested 45 days, but I'm not sure that that's enough time. I know they can always come and ask for more time before the board, but the board gets a little concerned when it gets repetitive and you haven't seen any action, so I don't know if you want to consider a little more. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the fact that they pull a building permit, will that negate the -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. Page 9 October 24, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: So not the actual completion of the building, but once a permit's pulled that will -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, they don't have to completely get it finished but that will show progress toward -- and I'm not sure how far along in the process, whether they've bought it or what they've done. But getting -- installing a structure on that property's going to eliminate the need for that vegetation removal. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what I'm trying to get at is let's just hypothetically say we give them a 90 -day extension. They pull a permit for 45 days. The building's not finished until five months down the road. SUPERVISOR SNOW: They can always come back, sir, and ask for more time. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at is the point of the permit, will that negate -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, so it's the C.O. of the building. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So I don't think 45 days is going to be sufficient to -- I don't know what kind of structure they're trying to construct. The thing that I have a problem with is that this case does go back to the last year, the beginning of last year. I would think they would have known that this -- what kind of structure they were going to put on. So I kind of -- keep on coming back and get extensions -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: I think that's why the request for 45 days, sir, is they knew their time was coming to an end. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, but then they'll probably -- knowing that they're not going to be able to finish this in 45 days, they'll be back in front of us again. So I just have a problem Page 10 October 24, 2013 extending it and extending it and extending it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As I looked at this, and it goes back, May 29th -- it was extended until May 29th. That was a 180 -day extension. When Ken Kelly was the chairman it was extended 180 days there. The other thing that -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: The building part of maintaining it, the environmentalist just informed me, the building permit, that abates it. Getting the building permit and not the C.O. is what it is. I defer to Investigator Jones. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend this, and I probably will not make a motion to extend again, for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion to extend it 60 days. Do we have a second? MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second from Mr. Hudson. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I thank the board. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time, Page 11 October 24, 2013 number five from Imposition of Fines, Paula Mendoza, Case CESD20120008638. (Ms. Mendoza, Mr. Baldemar (translator) and Investigator Rodriguez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Since it's your request to extend this, you go first. MR. BALDEMAR: We got everything approved already. It's just we got a carport that's on there and the drawings that when we purchased the carport are from '07 to '09. They just want us to get an updated drawing. But we can't get ahold of the company. I don't know if they went out of business or what. So that's what we're trying to do. But everything else on the mobile home and the property is done. We got all the permits passed and everything already. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But what you're saying to me is that you don't know if you're going to be able to close this case off because -- MR. BALDEMAR: Well, if we could, I don't know, well, she said we need to try to see if we meet the setbacks first to have the building. But we need the drawing to see if it can be there first is what the county told us. MR. LEFEBVRE: So another engineer cannot look at the current plans of the carport and -- MR. BALDEMAR: Well, we've been trying to get ahold of the ones that we bought it from. If that's what it comes down to, I guess we could do that, get another engineer to redo the drawing and update it to see if it meets the -- I guess it was the 2010 -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Codes. MR. BALDEMAR: Yeah, the codes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Building codes. Page 12 October 24, 2013 MR. BALDEMAR: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then you need a survey too, probably? MR. BALDEMAR: We got the survey already for the property. It has the carport on there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does the survey show an encroachment on the carport on the property line? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: They need another one. They're going to need another survey if they move it, because it's encroaching right now. So the survey that they do have originally doesn't meet the dimension, so he's going to have to resurvey it again. MR. LEFEBVRE: So they're -- are you saying that they're going to have to make some modifications to this carport? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or go through the process that the previous respondent went through -- INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- that moved the property line? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Well, he's not going to be able to move the property line because I don't know if the people behind him are going to allow him to. I don't know if he's going to be able to do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's not an option? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: No. What his problem is that he had the mobile home originally and he had to resurvey it because the original setbacks were incorrect. So he resurveyed it. Now he meets dimensions with the new survey for the mobile home but he's encroaching now on the carport. Trying to get the specs on the carport, of course the company he claims is out of service, so he's either going to have to get an engineer to draw it up and then move it. If he has Page 13 October 24, 2013 enough space to leave it, then he'll be able to, but he'll have to resurvey it again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This case dates back to 2011. I guess it was originally heard in August of -- excuse me, 2012. So we're over a year on this. Are we just starting on this, trying to find the -- INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Well, he was working on the surveyor, when the surveyor came to make sure that the mobile home -- because he had the two issues: The mobile home that was encroaching and the carport that didn't have any permits. So now he's got the mobile home permit going. It's almost done. He just needs the right -of -way, which it's already done. So that will be final. Now he's trying to work on the carport. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But I'll ask you, how much time of an extension do you think you would need? I see you're asking for six months. MR. BALDEMAR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But you have no idea if six months is going to be enough time or not. MR. BALDEMAR: We're hoping that's enough. We're not so sure. We could talk to the engineer, see if he could do the drawing, the one that did the survey for us. But I'm not sure how much time we would need. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you may be limited on what you can and can't do based on how the survey turns out. MR. BALDEMAR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I mean, it could come down that you might have to demolish it. MR. BALDEMAR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? MR. UESPERANCE: I move we grant them their request for an extension for six months. Page 14 October 24, 2013 MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second that to grant 180 days from today. And the -- I believe we've received paperwork that says the operational costs have been paid? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes, they've been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have six months. If you can't get it done in six months, come back to the board before the end of six months and let us know where you are so additional time could be granted so that you don't start accruing fines. MR. BALDEMAR: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you explain that to your mother so she understands it? I mean now, just quickly explain what we just did. MS. MENDOZA: Okay. MR. BALDEMAR: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next is B, Stipulations. Number two from hearings, Case CESD20130007945, Carlisle /Wilson Plaza, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And Mr. Hudson has recused Page 15 October 24, 2013 himself from this case. Jean has the paperwork. Is that correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. (Mr. Greg Carlisle and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Chris. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: We have a stipulation agreement that reads as follows: Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 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 permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number three: All unpermitted space shall be unoccupied and all utilities turned off within 24 hours of this hearing until the building permit or demolition permit has received a certificate of completion/occupancy or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number four: The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And finally, 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: Good morning. Page 16 October 24, 2013 MR. CARLISLE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you identify yourself so the court reporter can put it in the minutes? MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. Greg Carlisle. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are the respondent? MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand everything that was written in the stipulation? MR. CARLISLE: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think you have enough time to get everything done? MR. CARLISLE: We do. Question. In listening to that, we will need to obviously go into the unit in order to correct the violation, if that's understood. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It won't be part of the business operation. I don't know what kind of business it is, but -- MR. CARLISLE: No, no business will be conducted. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a firewall that's been -- MR. CARLISLE: Penetrated? Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you're going to need fire to come in and sign off on it and everything? MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. We brought this to the code's attention. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because fire generally takes longer than building permits. MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir, I'm aware of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ninety days. If it's not done in 90 days, come back before the end of 90 days -- MR. CARLISLE: Chris was very helpful in making me aware of that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Terrific. Can we get a motion Page 17 October 24, 2013 from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve the stipulation as written. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. CARLISLE: Thank you. Have a good day. MS. ADAMS: Next case is number four from hearings, Case CESD20130011492, Rafael C. Santos. (Mr. Santos and Investigator Short were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Mr. Short, you're on. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: One aerial photo from 2013 obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen that? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: He has not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to show it to him? October 24, 2013 Mr. Santos, do you have any objection to those? MR. SANTOS: No, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion from the board to accept the exhibits as -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I also have eight photographs taken by myself on October 23rd, 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you just showed those to the respondent? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since we did it separately, but you did say exhibits, so -- MR. MIESZCAK: Exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's covered. Could you point out on the pictures what we're looking at? I know it's an aerial view. I see a car and a road. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Well, this is the primary Page 19 October 24, 2013 structure here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: And as we go through the photographs, I can give you a better idea. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Great. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: This case originated on August 15th5 2013 as a complaint of a flophouse from the Collier County Sheriffs Office. Investigator Kincaid made a site visit with Corporal Nelson with the Collier County Sheriffs Office the same day and obtained entry consent from the property owner. Investigator Kincaid observed a single- family residence had been divided into multiple rental units. Yesterday, October 23rd, 2013 I observed the home remained in the same unpermitted state. Property owner applied for a building permit on October 21 st, 2013. To date the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Am I looking at separate entrances into the facility? Is that what I'm looking at? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It's kind of difficult to really paint the picture for you. Basically it was a single- family residence that was subdivided into at least eight units. They don't all have access to the rest of the house. It's, you know, all blocked off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How many square feet is the house, do you know off the top of your head? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I do not. MR. SANTOS: 2,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? MR. SANTOS: 2,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 2,000. Okay. What am I looking at right in that shot? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That was -- off the back of the Page 20 October 24, 2013 house there's a like an unpermitted porch type area. During the initial visit there was people living in those areas, using them as dwelling units. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Next picture? MS. ADAMS: That's all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's it, okay. MR. UESPERANCE: Is the home still being used for the purpose you mentioned earlier? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It is. MR. UESPERANCE: Is there an open case by the Sheriffs Department? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: There is no longer an open case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And can you tell me what the zoning is on that structure? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It is zoned for multi - family use, RMF -6. MR. LEFEBVRE: So how many units are allowed on that property? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Today I'm just addressing the permitting aspect, not the land use. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Santos? MR. SANTOS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: take on this. Why don't you give us your MR. SANTOS: It's going to -- I apply for the permit the day he was going to be -- I got the permit for remodeling to put everything in order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You applied for a permit to return the house to what it was or -- MR. SANTOS: To change it. And I apply for a remodeling Page 21 October 24, 2013 to change the house, some parts of the house. And so they told me I got about a six month to finish, but -- or to do some work. That's what they told me. Because a long time ago I did remodeling there. I build two bedrooms. I do an addition. And it took me like about three years to finish it. So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you have a permit at that time? MR. SANTOS: Yeah, I got a permit. And I came like about -- I think about five years ago and I finish that, that whole addition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And Mr. Short? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes, in 2009 he applied for a permit for an addition, and that's not the problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was how many bedrooms? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Two bedrooms. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two bedrooms. How many baths, by the way, are in the house? MR. SANTOS: There were like four bathrooms. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SANTOS: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can say anything. MR. SANTOS: I would like to have time to put everything in order, because I don't want to have problems with the county. The house is bigger. And when the officer came, we had tried to cooperate with him and help in any ways. So that's -- I got a black truck but it was without license. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to repeat that. MR. SANTOS: Yeah. I got a black truck, a truck, and it didn't have a license. And I bought the insurance and the license, Page 22 October 24, 2013 it cost me about $400. And then now I apply -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't understand, a black track? Oh, a truck. Oh. MR. SANTOS: Yeah. I got a car in (sic) the house and it didn't have a plate. It cost me $400 to do that. And then I went to -- the architect draw the plans, it cost money too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I realize that. MR. SANTOS: I'm trying to put everything in order so -- so I don't have problems with the county. So whenever they come and they say why did you put this wall here or why did you put another wall here, I want to have that -- the permits. That's the problem, that the house is big and like about three, four years I used to sell merchandise and I got a lot of merchandise. And I don't want to take it to a storage room. So I would like to have like a place inside of the house where I can put my stuff. But I say, I build a wall but I need to have a permit. That's the reason that the architect draw up the plans. So I don't know if you can give me time. That's all that I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many different people are living in the structure? MR. SANTOS: Okay, there were like about seven people. MR. MIESZCAK: How many? MR. SANTOS: Seven. Seven people living in the house. The day that the officer came, sometimes they -- they are coming to visit. You know, I told them that I just want -- I don't want anybody to come to the house. But that's something that I cannot avoid doing. But I don't know what to say. MR. MIESZCAK: Can I ask you a question? Do you rent the property? MR. SANTOS: Some of the bedrooms. MR. MIESZCAK: Do you rent them by the week? Page 23 October 24, 2013 MR. SANTOS: No, it's by the month. But we have -- MR. MIESZCAK: So basically you have a rooming house. MR. SANTOS: Yeah, that's what I'm trying to -- that's the reason I'm trying to do the remodeling. I don't want to have problems with the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is the -- is there a conditional use for that on that property? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: There is not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the problem that I see is that if we find you in violation, those units -- the reason that we would find you in violation is because it was done without a permit. That means there could be an electrical problem or a plumbing problem and that could be a safety issue. So if we find that you are in violation, in all likelihood we're also going to find that those places need to be vacated, okay. And just to grant, you know, six months to do it, to come into compliance, is kind of secondary to the safety issue. MR. SANTOS: Okay, so what do you want me to do? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have to find out whether you're in violation or not. So I turn to board and ask for comments from the board. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: that a violation does exist. We have a motion and a second Any discussion on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 24 October 24, 2013 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so now the board has decided that there is a violation there. Now, what the remedy is for that violation, obviously we're going to go to the county and ask for them -- see if they have a suggestion. And we can go from there. Eric, do you have a suggestion on this one? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Recommend that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one: Vacating the unpermitted areas of the structure until such a time that the structure is in a permitted state within blank days of -- or a fine of blank dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Obtain all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation has abated. Three: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation, using any method to bring the violation into Page 25 October 24, 2013 compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So to begin with, the units, if the board takes the county's recommendation, they would have to be emptied. So the people that you are renting the units to have to leave. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? And I don't know how long they've been there, and we certainly need to take that into consideration of how much time we give you to vacate the units. So we may want to put a date on the vacating of the units as a separate date on the -- on when that needs to be permitted by. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Right, I have it listed separately there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's to begin with. Because there has -- had been no inspections and whatnot, I'd like to hear from the board on as far as vacating the units is concerned, how many days do you think is proper? MR. HUDSON: I think at least 45, Chairman, for the vacating. You know, we don't know what the situation of the folks renting is or staying there is. So I would suggest 45. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would -- MR. MIESZCAK: He did say they were by the month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I would concur with that. Because the time he goes and notices on them and everything, they're month to month, so 30 days would typically be the normal time frame. So since you started the ball rolling. MR. HUDSON: So $45 a day with a $200 fine? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Forty -five days, not dollars. MR. HUDSON: Forty -five days with a $200 fine. And then the following one with the C.O., I mean, I think Page 26 October 24, 2013 you should do at least six months. So however many days it is, 180 days, or $200 a day. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to second that motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, let me just scribble this down. MR. LEFEBVRE: And operational cost of 81. MR. HUDSON: Yes, operational cost of $81.15. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion to pay the operational cost of $81.15 within 30 days, vacate the units within 45 days or a $200 a day fine thereafter. And six months to complete any building permits that you would get, 180 days, six months, or a $200 a day fine if that is exceeded. Does that sound like your motion? MR. HUDSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SANTOS: Can I say? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. SANTOS: No, you go ahead. Page 27 October 24, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I just want to explain, you have to notify the people that are in those units they have 45 days to vacate the units, to get out of the units. If they're not out of the units in 45 days, you will be assessed $200 a day for every day that they remain. The one thing that probably needs to be added in the motion is the inspection right to see that those units are -- have been vacated. MR. HUDSON: I'll amend my motion, Mr. Chairman, to include that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. UESPERANCE: I'll amend my second, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me just revote on that then with the amended motion. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So in 45 days someone's going to come back, they're going to take a look, make sure they're all empty. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? From today you have six months, 180 days, to go to the county, the architect drawing, permit, whatever needs to be done to come into compliance. Page 28 October 24, 2013 MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There will be no fines unless you violate the 45 days or the six months. And you have the $81.15 court cost that need to be paid within 30 days. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand? MR. SANTOS: Yes. Can I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. SANTOS: The house got six rooms that they were legally built there. Do I have to tell the people living there that they have to leave? Let's say five rooms, because one of them I live. Do I have to tell those five people? That's my question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eric, which -- of all the rooms that are there, are there any legal rooms that are there? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Not that I have observed. It's like a maze going through there. So they don't have free access. None of the rooms have free access to the rest of the home. MR. HUDSON: So none of them are up to code. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: But he just said that he lives there. So if he lives there himself, then it's a single- family residence and it's permitted as that, correct? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: No. With the alterations, no. MR. LEFEBVRE: So he would have to move also? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Correct. MR. SANTOS: Can I say something? Do you remember when you were in the house and I showed you -- you see the two additions that I did, the two new additions that I did in 2009, I think? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. MR. SANTOS: Okay, those are two rooms. Then there are another two rooms and they are near -- you can see that in the Page 29 October 24, 2013 plan. So the house got six rooms, five rooms that I didn't touch. The other room that it was six, it was big, I divide in two. And the problem with the kitchen. So my question is what do I do with the five rooms that they were legal there? Do I have to tell them to leave? That's my question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, according to the officer, he said that they are all illegal, including where you live, because of the modification of the house. Is that correct, Eric? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Correct. In order to access the rooms that he's talking about, the plans don't match up to, you know, how you would access those rooms through a normal hallway. The hallways have been closed off. MR. SANTOS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there anything that could be done so at least he could stay there? MR. HUDSON: I mean, is it a safety hazard for him to stay there? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or is that up to the building department? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I feel comfortable making the statement saying that yes, it is unsafe, with altered electric and plumbing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SANTOS: So what do you want me to do then? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it looks like the house has to be vacated in 45 days. And I would think that at the same time that you're doing that, you're going to have to get your building permit in order. You have a month and a half. Get that done so you can start doing the work so that you can resolve the problem. Page 30 October 24, 2013 MR. SANTOS: But I already have the building permit, the remodeling permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a remodeling permit? MR. SANTOS: I apply in the county, they gave me a remodel -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's been reviewed? MR. SANTOS: Well, they told me they were going to tell me in five days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: The permit's still under review. He applied on Monday, the 21 st. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was drawn up by an architect? MR. SANTOS: Yeah, it was an architect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's good. Because then, I mean, it's possible that you could do a lot of work in 45 days, should the permit get approved, to get the building okayed for habitation. MR. SANTOS: Okay. So in 45 days I have to show -- I have to show that everything is in order so I don't have to vacate the property is what you're telling me? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. That's in 45 days. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: After 45 days, if you don't get everything done you have up to six months from today to get everything done. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you get it done ahead of time then you can -- MR. SANTOS: Because my concern is about the fines. When would the fine start? Page 31 October 24, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the fines -- no fines start for the next 45 days. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In the next 45 days you have to empty -- all the people have to move out. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If they don't move out, then the fines start on the first half. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If the people move out, no fines will start for six months. MR. SANTOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? And hopefully you can get this resolved before six months and move back in or whatever you need to do. MR. SANTOS: Okay. Now, one question that -- if in 45 days I put in order most of the house, or let's say 50 percent of the house so the rooms are ready for people to live, can they keep on living there? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If the permit is approved you have to have -- our concern mostly is electrical because of fire hazards or plumbing. Those are two big inspections that would have to be done. So it looks like you have your work cut out for you to get this done. MR. SANTOS: The problem is that -- I don't want to disobey, but the problem is that I depend on that income. So my question is -- I will try to do everything in 45 days to have everything in order. And then the room that I divide in two, that can be done in less than 45 days. So that's just a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The building permit that you have, that you submitted, probably entails everything. MR. SANTOS: Okay. Page 32 October 24, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they won't approve it, the building department won't approve it until it's all done. In other words, you're not going to get a partial, I can use these two rooms and not these three rooms. Or I could be wrong. I don't know, I'm not in the building department. But that's something that you can discuss with them. MR. SANTOS: Okay. Because the problem is, it's money. That's the problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. SANTOS: So from this day I got 45 days to empty the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. SANTOS: Okay. And then after those 45 days I have to put everything in order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: After that 45 days, if they vacate the house, you have up to six months to put everything in order. MR. SANTOS: Okay. So the house has to be empty so I can put everything in order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SANTOS: Okay. Now, one question. Once I put in order after the six month, I can start renting again according to the -- how they say that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The zoning? MR. SANTOS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's up to what the zoning provisions are. I don't know what the space requirements or what -- is it a conditional use in that area? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It is zoned for multi- family. But once the permit is C.O.'d and, you know, it is approved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be part of what the -- when you apply for the permit, they will approve your permit Page 33 October 24, 2013 once it's completed and then you should get a certificate of occupancy for the units. MR. SANTOS: Okay, that's what I want to do. I want to get rental income and not have to go to the county that they say -- a long time ago they told me that there was no problem about doing any work inside of the property. That's what I heard. Maybe I was wrong. So whatever I did, it was inside, not in the outside. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. SANTOS: Okay. Besides the structure that I put in the back. So at some point I want to put everything in order and start getting rental income. So I don't want to have problems with the county. Because it's like being afraid all the time trying to hide. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. SANTOS: Okay. So I got 45 days to empty the house, yes? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SANTOS: Okay, and after those 45 days, I got six months to put everything in order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: You have six months from today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's from today. MR. SANTOS: Let's say in 10 days they give me the permit and I finish everything in 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good. Then that would be fine. MR. SANTOS: That would be fine, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? And if you have any questions, I'm sure care Eric is available to work with you to get everything done. Thank you very much. MR. SANTOS: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is CEPM20130007368, Lisa Page 34 October 24, 2013 Brown. (Investigator Santafemia was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia, Property Maintenance Specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. This matter is in reference to Case Code CEPM20130007368, dealing with the violation of missing and damaged exterior siding along the east side of the dwelling located at 834 93rd Avenue North. Service for this case was provided on May 21 st, 2013 by the posting of the Notice of Violation at the location of violation and the Collier County Courthouse. I have two photographs I would like to present as exhibits as evidence in this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We got a motion to accept that? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibits. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Page 35 October 24, 2013 MR. SANTAFEMIA: This case was initially opened out of receipt of a complaint by a neighbor on May 20th, 2013. The area investigator actually made the initial investigation and observed the violation. As you can see in the photograph, the exterior wood siding has been damaged and is missing from that side of the building. He, the Investigator Sundlee, prepared the Notice of Violation for the violation stated and had the violation notice sent certified mail and he also posted the property and the courthouse. Also at that time I was actually a foreclosure specialist, so the property is in foreclosure. It currently has a final judgment set against it by Bank of America. It is vacant, unoccupied. My attempts to contact a representative from the bank to resolve this issue were unsuccessful; therefore, the case actually ended up being transferred back to my custody in August of 2013. At that time I made another site visit myself to confirm the violation still remained, which it did. At which point I prepared the case for hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You've been unsuccessful obviously in getting ahold of the bank. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct, and the owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the owner now is the bank, right? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Actually, no. The final judgment, the sale I believe is set for the 30th of this month. Whether that will actually happen or not, I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the 30th of this month is next week, right? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's right around the corner. Okay, does a violation exist, Board? Page 36 October 24, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us? MR. SANTAFEMIA: I do. The county's recommendations are that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operating costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all the violations by: Obtaining any required permits, inspections and certificate of completion and repair the damaged exterior siding of the dwelling within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm the abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation to compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the order, and all costs of abatement shall be Page 37 October 24, 2013 assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anybody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll fill in the blanks. Respondent to pay $81.43 within 30 days, and 60 days to correct the violation or a fine of $150 a day. That should take care of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It does. Okay, do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor -- you have a question? MR. MIESZCAK: I have one question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shoot. MR. MIESZCAK: You're talking about a closing to happen soon maybe? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Well, the property is in foreclosure by Bank of America, and they have -- their final judgment from the court has a sale scheduled -- public sale scheduled for the 30th of this month which is Wednesday or Thursday, I believe. MR. MIESZCAK: So if a person buys it, the problem goes with that person? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. It stays with the property. I would actually -- that's why I'd ask the board to consider a smaller amount of time so -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like seven days, myself. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the reason I put it out 60 days is because— MR. MIESZCAK: Thirty. MR. LEFEBVRE: The reason I stated 60 days is because by the time someone -- if someone does purchase the property, it will take probably two weeks, roughly two weeks to get title to the property, and now you're looking at 21 days, so they're going October 24, 2013 to have roughly 40 days to correct the violation, thereabouts. So that's why I put it at 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This one goes back to May. And it's unoccupied. And I believe the 60 days is reasonable. This should motivate the bank to do something almost immediately once they take care of the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other question, will this be recorded prior to the sale? The other thing, that if someone's purchasing this, they probably will not see this recorded yet. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Being that he's going to be -- the chairman's going to signing probably Monday or Tuesday, it's not even going to be recorded. So they're not even going to know that this case was brought forward until after they purchase the property and do the research and everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If they do what they should do, anybody purchasing it should go to code enforcement and have a search done to see what's outstanding on this piece of property. We want to make sure that there's enough time that the code enforcement inspection will show the fines that are accruing. MR. LEFEBVRE: But when you buy it at the courthouse steps you have 24 hours to come and pay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what I'm saying, to do all that research, the research is probably done on like. So I think 60 days is quite acceptable. The other question is, does cases like this, are they usually sent -- the orders usually sent to the bank too? MR. SANTAFEMIA: I don't believe they are. Bear in mind, though, that the case itself, the code case itself is on record with code enforcement and if somebody calls and Page 39 October 24, 2013 does a lien search for foreclosed property, this will show. And if they'd look at the notes, it's going to show that it went to hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. SANTAFEMIA: And, you know, my notes anyway, as of this afternoon will show whatever you decide to put in the order. So the information will be there if they actually do the research. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I'm just saying if they don't do the research, then they may not catch this. And then once they purchase it and then it gets recorded, now they'll see it and their time frame to correct it -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: No, I understand. I understand exactly what you're saying. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, it's not a health and safety. You can't get into the house or anything. So I think 60 days -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: No, it's secure, it's unoccupied. It's not a safety issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we have a motion, I'll repeat it. Costs, 81.43 to be paid within 30 days. 60 days to resolve the outstanding case or $150 fine per day after that. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. MIESZCAK: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have 6 -1. MS. ADAMS: The next case is CEVR20130009509, ,e October 24, 2013 Raquel Betancourt. (Investigator Jones was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR JONES: Good morning. For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Which is three photos taken on -site. This is an illegal clearing case that we're going to talk about. In responding to a complaints regarding clearing -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you go ahead, can I get a motion from the board to accept the photos? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Responding to a complaint regarding clearing on unimproved parcel Folio No. 41445160001, which is actually located at the corner of Desoto Boulevard and 30th Avenue Southeast, quite a bit a ways out there in the Estates area. While on -site I observed active clearing of native vegetation with mechanical equipment, as you will see in the photos. Page 41 October 24, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see the tracks. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes, yes. And actually in this photo here, there's a gentleman sitting in the bobcat himself. And I spoke with a member of the three -man crew which was out on -site and asked immediately that they stop all clearing activities, which they did. And within minutes the equipment was loaded on the trailers and the crew vacated the location. I documented a violation of clearing without permits and issued an NOV on July 29th, 2013, allowing 30 days to abate the violation. On July 29th I received telephone communication from the owner of the property who lives on the East Coast of Florida, and he stated that they were planning on building a home on this property and the clearing that occurred was actually in preparation of that. And he just really wasn't aware that he couldn't have done that in the first place. So I kind of educated him on the Collier County LDC and things of that nature. And at that point that I became aware that he was intending to build on the property, as you previously heard from Supervisor Kitchell Snow, I offered him the option of abating the violation by obtaining a building permit, because that also acts as a clearing permit. And he was definitely interested in that option, so I gave him two options, which were either to prepare a mitigation plan for code enforcement or obtain his building permit. Now, since that time I haven't had any other further communication with the property owner. I did get his phone number when he initially called. I've tried to call him back but I just haven't been able to reach him. So to date a building permit has not been obtained for the property nor any mitigation plans submitted. But a check of Page 42 October 24, 2013 records yesterday did reveal that a wetlands -- and informal county wetland determination was done for this property. And that's really a preliminary step that's required to gain a building permit. So the informal wetlands determination did show that the property does contain wetlands, and based on that the property owner will then have to go to the state level and obtain an environmental resource permit. Now, if he's intending to do that, quite possibly so, because he's already taken the first step. But I just haven't been able to establish communication with him to really determine what his status is on this property. So that's where we're at today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How large is this property? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Let's see here. I have an aerial. Let me just pull it up here real quick. You know, I don't have the approximate -- I want to say it's probably about upwards of two acres, maybe 1.7 acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's 660 feet deep. How wide; do you know? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, I don't know exactly how wide, you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's 150. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, it's 150 by 660. So, okay, it's 2.3. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, I'll just put an aerial photo on the projector just so you get a grasp of what it really -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now I was under the impression, probably wrongfully so, that you were permitted to do clearing if it was less than an acre; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR JONES: That's correct. But that's with your issuance of a building permit. Typically in Collier County when you have an unimproved parcel like this, you're really not Page 43 October 24, 2013 allowed to clear any native vegetation. Exotics you're -- you know, we encourage you to do that, and obtain the property permits, of course. But in this case they were clearing a lot of both native, exotics. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have been unable to reach the respondent? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, I just was able to establish that initial communication with him but after that I've been unable to speak with him again. But again, he did do the preliminary stuff and get a county wetland determination, kind of in lieu of obtaining his building permit. Not in lieu of but in preparation for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But the letter that was sent out clearly says -- and you sent it registered mail? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you received that he received a notification? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I don't think we received a notification. Basically we just had affidavits that it was mailed and was posted on the property. And in the Notice of Violation itself, it just says mitigation. Because at that point I wasn't aware that he wanted to build on the property. So once he called me I gave him that option. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, my concern was that he may be thinking he's going through the motions now, so, you know -- but once he receives that letter from Collier County saying, you know, what your -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- what the problem is going to be for him, you would think that he would call you back. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, I kind of -- you know, I was anticipating a phone call from him, but it just never 0-- ii October 24, 2013 happened. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you continuing to try to reach him? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, I have one number for him that I obtained when he initially contacted me, but he just won't answer the phone. And actually that's one of those things where it says his voice mailbox is full and he's no longer accepting calls at this time and it hangs up. So it's kind of frustrating. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, from the board, do we find a violation exists or do we have any other comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN- Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And you have a suggestion for us, David? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I do. And that is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $82.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Must submit a restoration plan pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(E)(3) prior to any mitigation activities Page 45 October 24, 2013 within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there any way that we can show that if he applies for a building permit that this goes away? In this motion. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, if you'd like we could add that. Probably be a good idea. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it -- I know he has to go through other steps, but -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: He does. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think that would be very wise to add after where it says code section, just prior to prior, put in there -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- or. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Obtain building permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. INVESTIGATOR JONES: CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: filling in the blanks? (No response.) Okay. Anybody like to take a shot at CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing nobody, I will. Operational cost of $82.00 paid within 30 days, 90 days and a $150 a day fine per day. Okay? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes. Page 46 October 24, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I get a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Number six, old business, A, Motion for Imposition of Fines /Liens, Case No. 2, CESD20120010800, Yanelis Gil. MR. LEFEBVRE: Who's the investigator? (Ms. Gil and Investigator Bosa were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And could you give us your name? MS. GIL: Yanelis Gil. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The respondent. Okay, we're here to impose the fines, so it's your turn first to give us your take on this. MS. GIL: I was just explaining to him about everything that I had personally, that I had some problems that I couldn't finish the addition in the six months that you guys allowed me for. So I'm just asking to see if it's possible to give me a little bit more Page 47 October 24, 2013 time, like six more months, so I can finish everything. Because part of the papers, they're ready I think in the office. So I just need to pay whatever I have to pay for them and continue whatever problems they ask me to finish the addition. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much is left to be finished? MS. GIL: I'm sorry? MR. LEFEBVRE: How much is left to be finished? MS. GIL: I think -- for what I think that we have finished almost 75 percent of what they have asked me. Basically what I need to do is pay for whatever they're asking, that I think is like $2,000 to see what else continues. Because I really have no idea what they're going to ask me for. But I think that we have done already like a 75 percent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you seen the building permit on this, Ralph? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, she did apply for a building permit. She does have to pay it appears impact fees before she can get it issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the building permit has not been issued yet. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, it's not been issued yet, no, as far as I know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there are no inspections that have been done. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No inspections have been done. Originally when this came to us it wasn't completed, it was partial, partial build -out, which didn't have electrical, plumbing or anything like that yet. Their permit was active. I think it might have even expired, if I remember correctly, from that point so-- MS. GIL: I didn't know that it was expired. Because I really had no idea that I had a certain time to pay for the permit. October 24, 2013 I thought it was going to be due in the six months. But the thing is that I have no idea because I was out of the house all day, but somebody came to the house and I don't know if it was something for the taxes, because we're doing addition, and they went and they look at the back of the addition that we're doing. But they didn't let us any business card, they didn't let anything. So I have no idea who was the person. I did assume that it was part of the zoning place. MR. LEFEBVRE: If there was originally a permit that was pulled, wouldn't there be impact fees paid at that time? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes. Before she picks up the permit, there's certain fees she has to pay, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So this was never permitted before. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Never permitted before, right. Once she was issued Notice of Violation, then they went to apply for the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: I thought maybe there was a permit that expired. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Well, they have a certain time to pick up the permit. That one expired also. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question on this, I'm a little confused, is you came before the board and six months was granted. And I'm looking, it looks like in April of 2013. You were here then? MS. GIL: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you say that about 75 percent of the work has now been completed. MS. GIL: For what I think. It's like a 75 percent have been done already. The only thing is that I didn't have the money to pay for the impact fee that they were asking. And I thought.that somebody 0-M. October 24, 2013 was taking care of that. And personally I haven't talked to the person, but somebody was taking care of that. And I think that he told me that part of those $2,000 that I was supposed to pay, I thought it was part of the permits that they was going to give me to continue to finishing the job. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, if I -- MS. GIL: I didn't know that it was going to expire either. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. When I look at this, if the permit has not been -- if you don't have the permit in your hand, to me nothing has been done, not 75 percent, not even one percent. Because you can't really do anything until you have the permit, the electrical, the inspections, etcetera. Now, the physical work on the structure itself you're saying has been done, most of it or a lot of it? MS. GIL: The structure, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In other words, it was built without a permit? MS. GIL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why it was cited. MS. GIL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And there's electrical in there and you're waiting to hear from the permit -- MS. GIL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did you apply for this building permit? MS. GIL: I think it was like four months ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the reason that you haven't picked up the permit is because of money? MS. GIL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Those are my questions. Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the other questions I have, can Page 50 October 24, 2013 these inspections be done without removing some, I don't know if drywall is up or -- will there have to be after - the -fact permits or inspections done? So, I mean, that's the question I have. But I don't know. Well, given another few months to see -- how much time are you requesting? MS. GIL: Six months. MR. HUDSON: Do you have the $2,000 now or the money you need for the impact fees? MS. GIL: I don't have it for now, that's why I'm asking six months. Because before six months I don't want to make you guys lose your time, I don't want to lose my time either. I want to come here in two months. Before six months I'm not going to have the money. In six months I will have the money but not before. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if you have the money in six months, that's only the beginning of the activity to get this thing done. MS. GIL: Okay. And that's what I want to do, I want to continue to finish everything, to finish all the permits, to have everything okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was this case originally brought? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like April. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no, that's when it was brought in front of us. When was it originally opened? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: I don't have that information with me. I do have the information as far as the past orders, that's it. That's all I have with me right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I go back to March of -- well, that's not the beginning. MR. MIESZCAK: March the 28th. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm just trying to figure out how long it took for this to get in front of us. Page 51 October 24, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, what you're seeing right now is nothing is going to happen until you have the $2,000. And you're saying that you probably won't have the $2,000 for six months. MS. GIL: In six months I may have the $2,000, and whatever else they ask me, you know, whatever other permits. But right now I don't have it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: May -- MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. HUDSON: I would like just to point out that a number of us are sticklers for one thing that actually has been accomplished on here, which is the operational costs have been paid. So I'd just like to point that out, that we make a big deal about that and just wanted to put that in as a point that is has been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Ordinarily if operational costs have not been paid, it's an automatic denial and the fine is imposed. So I understand that. MS. GIL: The operation costs, and I'm sorry to interrupt, I just want to make sure, the operation cost is the one that when I came first time, that one I did pay for it. MR. HUDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. GIL: Oh, okay. MR. HUDSON: No, no, no, that's what I was saying. MS. GIL: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I didn't understand. I thought you guys were saying that I didn't pay for it. MR. HUDSON: No, no, no, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the fines that are on the property right now are 4,500, which is a whole bunch more than the $2,000 for the building permit. Page 52 October 24, 2013 And I don't know, if we wait six months and you come back and say well, I just didn't get it yet, I did say that I may have it in six months, but this is just dragging on. Obviously you should have gotten the building permit before you started the addition. MS. GIL: Yes, but I didn't know that. The addition was part of the house already when I purchased the house. Some of that thing was already there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask a question. MS. GIL: And I'm trying to do it -- I want to keep it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask, is this house in foreclosure? MS. GIL: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't want to hear that -- we're here for the imposition of fines, not to rehear the case. I'd like some comments from the board on whether we should or shouldn't do something as far as the date is concerned. I think six months personally is out of the question. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, just from her comments, she said that she may have the money or may not in six months. So that's where I'm trying to come up with a time frame for her. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Mrs. Gil, you were explaining something to me out there as far as why -- maybe you might want to -- MS. GIL: Yeah, unfortunately I do have doctor's papers. I have three kids. One of them two months ago had a heart surgery. It was impossible for me to work because I was in the hospital with him. And the other was asthma two weeks ago, okay, in intensive care. And I'm the only one working in my house, my husband is sick, he doesn't work. I'm the only one taking care of everything. Unfortunately I hadn't -- if I wouldn't be absent so many days from my job, I was going to have the $2,000. But I don't have it because it was more important things in my life like my Page 53 October 24, 2013 kids life than the permits for this house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. GIL: And I can have my -- I can bring any proof that you guys need that what I'm saying is the truth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We know it's the truth. You've been sworn in. So we take everything you say as being the truth. MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm comfortable with some type of extension of time, if the board is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How much of an extension? MR. HUDSON: I mean, five months. If you didn't like six I would say five. MR. UESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm going to have to multiply, it's about 150 days. Let me suggest this: We have a motion and a second to extend 150 days. Before the 150 days expire, if you don't have the money to pick up the permit, maybe at around 120 days, three months or so, if you would -- or four months, come back before the board and say listen, I've put away $1,500, I only need to get another $500 together, and then I guarantee you that the board would certainly extend it and give you enough time to get the money. So with that in mind -- MR. HUDSON: Just to amplify that one more time. What he's saying is just like I made a point about the operational costs being paid, which is a good thing that you did, if you come back before D Day, it's going to be received a lot better by the board. It may not be received at all, but on our part it will be received better. MS. GIL: Okay, thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Just one question. Incomplete, Page 54 October 24, 2013 unpermitted addition. How far is that? What percentage is that again that is done? MS. GIL: I'm not a contractor, but from what I think, it's like a 75 percent. MR. MIESZCAK: Now, is that livable? MS. GIL: I'm sorry? MR. MIESZCAK: Is somebody living there? MS. GIL: We're not living in that. I mean, we're living at the house but we're not living in the part of the addition. As a matter of fact, we have a door that it's in there. It's there because they told me that I'm not allowed to remove the door. So that door hasn't been removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What kind of addition is it, bedrooms? MS. GIL: It's like a game room, like a family room. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second to extend this case 150 days. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you have 150 days to Page 55 October 24, 2013 pull the building permit. Most of the work has been done. Once you get the building permit it will just be a case of calling in for the inspections, hopefully. And again, as Mr. Hudson said, if you can't meet the 150 days and you're getting within a month or so, I suggest that you get ahold of Mr. Bosa, come back to the board and say listen, I've done whatever I've been able to do, I've accumulated X amount of dollars and I need a little bit more time, and I'm sure the board will certainly entertain that motion. MS. GIL: Okay, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Who seconded the motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Lionel. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're up, ma'am. MS. ADAMS: Next case is CESD20130003239, Patricia B. Anucinski. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Kitchell. SUPERVISOR SNOW: This is concerning violations from Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). The location is 204 Bob O Link Way, Unit A, Naples, Florida. The folio was 60931760006. And the description is remodeling a condo to include electrical, plumbing and enclosing of lanai. In past orders, on May 23rd, 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 OR 3491, Page 1654 for more information. Page 56 October 249 2013 The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 14th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order number one and two, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between September 21 st, 2013 and October 14th, 20135 24 days, for a total of $4,800. Previous assessment: Operational cost of $80.50 have been paid. Total amount to date is $4,800. The county is recommending the full abatement of the fines as the property is in compliance and all operational costs have been paid. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the fine. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Kitchell. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. MS. ADAMS: The next case is CESD20120016883, Jose and Sara Lopez. (Ms. Sara Lopez, Mr. Bill Zdravkovic, and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) Page 57 October 24, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: I can explain, if you wish me to do SO. I've been commissioned by Mrs. Lopez, I'm an architect, and I evaluated the problem of the violation. And I evaluated and it's a three -fold violation. The front setback is 25 feet. The current porch is encroaching on that. So it would have to be either removed or brought to the setback. Then we have the main house, which has addition which is basically full structure of two bedroom, two baths, and that is addition that was not permitted. And then we have a third part which is supposedly a portable structure which had kind of increasing growth and went all the way to the property line. However, that itself is kind of -- so my way of remedying the problem is number one, we have to meet the requirement of the setbacks. So we would have to either remove the porch or bring it to 25 -foot setback. The second addition, which is a structure to the main house, is not a rear portion or anything like that. It's a structure. That can be achieved by me producing documents which can be permitted by affidavit. So that can be remedied. It's not within the setbacks or anything like that. It is only because it has not been permitted that it has to be documented. The third structure, which is a portable structure that grew into all the way to the setback, at first I thought perhaps if it's considered as a structure that is portable, we could cut off that 10 feet that's required for the rear setback, which is within the code requirement. However, then someone will have to certify that. I cannot certify that. That is a portable porch not attached to -- you know what I mean? It requires -- so the best recommendation I can make to the clients, and I will after this meeting, is to remove it and then bring another -- because it's October 24, 2013 absolutely impossible to certify it. Nobody will do that. And so either remove it and put another portable structure. So now that's how I define the violations. Now we have to get into the second part which is when I entered this -- when I was asked to -- you know, for them to commission me through Habitat -- Habitat is one of my clients, she was already -- they were already in, as I found from the record, they already are in I don't know how many days, it's not violation, but they have not responded. And that is probably due to the fact that Mrs. Lopez is not really -- doesn't speak English and they really don't clearly understand the situation. However, I'm not here to defend but to explain. So my next thing was after evaluating the problem was to come today and suggest if that's possible to give them an extension of 60 to 90 days so that we can produce, at least document the part that has been -- that is a structure, which has to be documented and permitted by affidavit. And that would clear that. I will give them advice to either remove the front porch or cut it to the setback, and the advice for the rear structure. So that's the conclusion of the case. MR. LEFEBVRE: When were you commissioned? MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: About three weeks ago. Well, actually, what happened was that since Habitat is my client and I've done all the houses for them, generally the people in that area and other areas come to them when they have a problem and then they say Bill, you know, go see if you can help them. And so that's how it is. So this was like about three weeks .m Now, that's all I can tell you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Kincaid? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. Page 59 October 245 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you seen any progress or anything going on out there? Obviously not. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: No, sir, I have not been contacted in the matter at all until I talked to Bill about a week ago concerning the property and exactly what was going on there. And he told me he had made a site visit and had done an assessment what the property owner, at least what he thought needed to be taken care of on the property. But as far as any permitting or anything like that, everything is as it was when the case came before you I think in April of this year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a contract with the respondent? MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Well, at this point in time, you know, I didn't write, you know, a formal contract. I do have -- I've done the survey that puts some money down for me to -- so I feel I'm engaged into the project. So I can -- you know, contract -wise, if that's necessary for the board, will prepare a one -page agreement and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here obviously to rehear the case. The case was heard, it was in violation. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There was so much time that was given to do something. Nothing was done until three weeks ago; is that correct? MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: That is correct, yes. Well, I mean, what was done during that time is that I evaluated the problem, I have surveyed the addition that I think is not in violation of any setbacks but not permitted, which I think that's probably the major issue there. And evaluated and I'll advise the client accordingly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, when I said three weeks October 24, 2013 ago is when you were contacted. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So nothing was done from that three weeks ago all the way back to April. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Physically -- oh, no, you mean any other type of work there? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From April until three weeks ago, nothing was done. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No calls, no nothing. Any calls to you -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to ask questions? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Nothing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you feel comfortable that you can get the permits pulled, the after - the -fact permits and everything done, the structure moved or demolished or moved back to not being encroached. You feel comfortable that that can be obtained within 90 days? MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Well, to prepare -- to document, it won't take more than 30 days. And there is also -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Ninety days. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Yeah. But once you document, then it's going to go to the building department and zoning, et cetera. And as we know, all of the disciplines have to review. So I don't have any control over that in terms of what it takes. I would say that it's conceivable -- and I'd say that then after that the construction will have to -- I mean, demolition, if you will, will take place for the other two, which is I don't think too complex to do. I think the major issue is really the addition that is there. I Page 61 October 24, 2013 mean, that's -- and the process, I cannot guarantee or suggest that it will be ready whenever. I mean, for all of my projects that I do, it goes in and when it's reviewed and approved, et cetera -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at is this -- if we have an order to extend will give the respondent a certain amount of time. And in that time period we expect to have a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of completion. What I'm asking you is, reasonably how long do you think it will take from today to get a certificate of completion or C.O., whichever is needed? MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: I would say 90 days, probably. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to make a motion that we grant an extension for 120 days. I'll give you an -- MR. UESPERANCE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and we have a second from Mr. L'Esperance. Any discussion on the motion? MR. ASHTON: I've got one question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. ASHTON: Are you going to act as like the project manager on this? MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: I'm an architect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I know. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: And as such I will be acting as everything that pertains -- MR. ASHTON: You'll be overseeing to make sure that this MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Absolutely. I mean, I always do -- you know, it's a part of my services. MR. ASHTON: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because obviously you're going to have to get a contractor to come in. Page 62 October 24, 2013 MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Well, here is the thing: To obtain the addition via affidavit of permit, that's paperwork. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. I'm talking about the -- MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Now, the contractor, I will communicate to them. I'm not going to be their general contractor or anything. I will advise them or communicate to them what they need to do. And the daughter speaks English so we'll be able to do that, communicate. And therefore then it's from them. I will not take responsibility to be a contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it has to be owner /builder or a contractor that pulls the permit. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Yeah, the advice will be owner /builder for practical purposes. But I also will explain to them what will require to -- I think the front porch is going to go. It's a framed structure. Husband of son -in -law is the one who does business. That's his business. So he can take it or whatever. The rear part is going to have to be demolished. And so for the addition we don't need the contractor. However, if we have, while the inspections take place, to verify. For example, I already see that documents have to modify some of this addition. Because by requirement your bedroom has to have fire access. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has to have a big window. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: And so there's some minor issues of that which I will adjust in addressing the drawings. They can come back and correct it. And I will inspect that. They we have all the other disciplines. And so essentially that's where we are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we have a motion. You said you could do it in 90 days. The motion is for 120 days. Page 63 October 24, 2013 MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: I appreciate your generosity and I will communicate to the client afterwards -- MR. MIESZCAK: Call for the question. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: -- that you were kind enough to do that. MR. UESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, Lionel? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have 120 days. If for some reason it's not done in 120 days, you need to come back ahead of time. And I don't know how strong the argument can be if nothing has been done. In other words, something -- they need to show some progress. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: I fully understand. I will communicate to the client as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. MR. ZDRAVKOVIC: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case is CESD20100007042, Kirk N. Sanders. MR. PERLOW: Attorney Jeffrey Perlow for Mr. Sanders. (Investigator Ford was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR FORD: For the record, Arthur Ford, October 24, 2013 Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give me one minute. Morning. MR. PERLOW: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you had asked earlier. I thought this was an extension of time in the beginning, so -- MR. PERLOW: Not a problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you let us know what you're up to. MR. PERLOW: Your Honor, the matter is presently pending on appeal before the circuit court. We filed the appeal prior to filing a motion for stay in this matter. We filed a motion for stay on January 2nd, 2013. Because under the rules we have to come before the lower tribunal and seek the stay before we can apply or appeal the state from this tribunal for this circuit court. But the matter is still pending on appeal. On March 26th, I sent a letter to Mr. Wright, asking for a hearing on my motion for a stay. I haven't received a response to that. And it's been my request on this matter to have the motion for stay pending appeal sent down before the tribunal. This if that was granted, there would no need for the fine issue to be heard. If it was denied, perhaps I could request an extension and consider our other options while the matter was pending before the higher court. But the case just hasn't moved, despite my request to file -- despite my request on the stay and the letter to Mr. Wright. So we've kind of been waiting for that to happen, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that at the time that letter was written, I was with the County Attorney's Office. And as we all know, you don't request Page 65 October 24, 2013 hearings through the County Attorney's Office. And I've informed Mr. Perlow at the time that if he wanted to request a hearing, that he needed to request a hearing through the proper channels, not through me. So he's well aware of that, that if he wants to have a hearing on it, he should set that and take the steps to get that done. But I think that in looking at your rules, there is a provision in your rules under Article 11, Section 4 that I think applies to today's proceeding, and that is -- I'll just read this sentence, it's about the fourth or fifth sentence into that Section 4; again, Article 1 1, Section 4. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on one second. MR. WRIGHT: Sure, Article 11 is titled Imposition of Fines, so it's right on target for today's proceeding. Under Section 4, when you're ready, Mr. Chairman. I'll point out, it's right near the bottom of the page. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Got it. MR. WRIGHT: It says: In the event that the violation has not been abated at the time of the hearing on the motion for imposition of fines, the board may determine if daily fines shall continue to accrue or if a stay is appropriate. So I point that out because I think his request for a hearing on a motion for stay could be addressed via that provision. He could present arguments as to why he thinks a stay of the fines is appropriate under that provision. I just thought I'd point that out that even though he submitted a motion and it was never formally set for a hearing, the subject of his motion I believe, and you might want to check with Ms. Rawson, could be brought forth via that rule that I've provided. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jean? MS. RAWSON: I think that rule is pretty clear. You can -1 • • October 24, 2013 hear his argument on a motion to stay the fines and make a decision based on what he tells you, whether or not you want to stay it and hear it later. I mean, you could always hear it later. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff? Mr. Letourneau, what say you on this? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I'd leave it up to your guys' discretion whether or not you want to go forward with anything at this point. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, may I add a couple of points for consideration by the board? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. WRIGHT: This case was originally heard in 2011. It was lost, but the ruling was in favor of the county. It was appealed to the circuit court. After that appeal was filed, Mr. Sanders reached a settlement with the county to have it sent back to the Code Enforcement Board. It came back to the Code Enforcement Board and again the result was in the county's favor. And he requested a rehearing of that. And that motion for rehearing was heard by the board. So the underlined case was brought to this board three times, every time unsuccessfully. Most recently last summer, and that resulted in the appeal that's currently pending. You know, the motion to abate the fines was requested a long time ago and now that we're setting it for hearings this is the first time that we're really hearing him say I'm entitled to a stay. Your rules say specifically filing an appeal shall not stay the board's order. And we want to point to that provision in your rules. That's Article 10, Section 6 in the last sentence of your rules, filing an appeal shall not stay the board's order. So there's been a lot of resources, a lot of board time spent in this case, and I don't think it's appropriate for us to put the breaks on fines. Obviously if the court comes down and says the Page 67 October 24, 2013 ruling was wrong, then all of those fines will go away. If the court comes down and says the ruling was right, then the fines will have been churning the whole time. So our position is that the fines shouldn't be stayed. Presumptively filing an appeal doesn't do it. And unless Mr. Perlow has some reason to compel the board, I haven't heard any yet. And our position would be to request denial. MR. PERLOW: I have to strongly disagree. This isn't the first time the board's heard my request. I filed a motion for stay on this in April. Mr. Wright is the attorney on the case that's on appeal before the circuit court. So I'm not just bringing up my request for a stay before the board now. I filed the motion, I sent a copy to Ms. Rawson, I sent a copy to you, Mr. Chairman, I sent a copy to Mr. Wright. So I requested the stay back in April. It's not -- I'm not coming before the board now and saying can I have a stay. I've asked that this matter be stayed previously. And I filed that request pursuant to the rule. And the rule says while your case is on appeal you have to request the stay before the lower tribunal, which I did. And it has never been sent down. So I haven't brought that up for the first time today. I brought it up pursuant to the rules previously, and it was never heard. It's not something I'm just bringing up at this moment. Mr. Sanders received a notice of the fines a week ago. I did not even receive a copy of that. So now we are here today, a week after my client receives it and I don't receive it, and the fine issue is before the board, when I requested my stay six or seven months ago, never heard anything on it. And I didn't even hear about this hearing except for my client. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So as far as being in compliance or not, I think that becomes obvious to me that it's October 24, 2013 not in compliance; is that correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. We haven't been allowed on the property to verify one way or the other if it's in compliance or not. MR. PERLOW: And if I could bring up another issue as well. The board and the Chairman especially has addressed safety issues, electrical issues, plumbing issues. And I don't think there are any of those issues that would require the immediacy of the board to be concerned about the safety issues. But no, while the case is on appeal, the situation hasn't been rectified or corrected or addressed. And again, that's why I filed the motion for stay earlier so I could bring up those arguments. And again, that was six or seven months ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why wouldn't the county be permitted to see if there are any safety hazards on the property? MR. PERLOW: I don't think there are any safety issues originally brought up in the violations. It was a matter of attachments to the property, decks, extensions. I don't think it was really a plumbing or electrical issue at the beginning. MR. HUDSON: Living space below flood level. MR. MIESZCAK: Question was why don't you let them on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question was, is there some particular reason why the county is not permitted on the property? MR. PERLOW: My client feels the county would treat that as a fishing expedition to look for any and all other violations. He feels it would be putting himself at risk in doing that, based upon everything that's happened in this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And one of the things that happens when these are -- when the imposition is -- if it's imposed, it gives you the ability to go before the county 94 -I � • October 24, 2013 commissioners and plead your case at that point. First is the court and it looks like that's where you had gone. Court sent it back to code enforcement and it's been like a ping pong ball back and forth. MR. PERLOW: No, the court hasn't sent it back to code enforcement. The rules state, the appellate rules state that while your appeal is pending before the circuit court you have to apply for any stay first before the lower tribunal. The lower tribunal addresses the stay issue, before you can address before the higher tribunal. So I filed the motion for stay before this tribunal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What you're asking for, if I understand correctly, is that the fines that are accruing, that are currently accruing, be frozen. Is that correct? MR. PERLOW: I would ask that there be a stay on all fines pending the appeal for the reasons I've submitted in my motion itself, which I don't believe any of the members have had an opportunity to review, because it's not been set before the board. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that whatever those reasons are, that he state them today before the board. He doesn't need to state them via written motion. If he's got a reason to convince the board for a stay, then let's hear it. MR. PERLOW: So the matter hasn't been set before the board, but I'm addressing it anyway today? Is that my understanding? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's a reasonable request. If you're here, we're all here, what are the reasons for the stay? MR. PERLOW: Okay, primarily the law states that a defendant should not have to pay a penalty for noncompliance during the time he is judicially testing the validity of the fines. That's what the case law says. So if my client has a right to appeal this case, which he Page 70 October 24, 2013 does, so if the fines and sanctions are imposed now and if he has to pay the fines and sanctions, or if he has to correct the problem that he doesn't feel he has to correct, how is he being treated fairly on the appeal? That's why the matter is on appeal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me talk to that. The fines are accruing. Nobody has taken a nickel from the client as far as the fines are concerned. And correct me if I'm wrong, if the courts say that the fines are not proper, there will be no fines; is that correct? MR. WRIGHT: That's correct. We would withdraw all orders in the case if the appeal came down in Mr. Sanders' favor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the purpose then is, from what I'm hearing from you, is stop running up the fines on my client in case the court throws it out or the court doesn't agree with us; is that correct? MR. PERLOW: Well, think about it, sir. If the fines are becoming so prohibitive, my client has to start worrying that his appeal, which could take more time, that what if he loses that appeal? Then the fines are way up here. So if the fines are not accruing, at least he has an opportunity to address his rights before the appellate tribunal. If the fines continue to accrue, isn't he put in a position where he has to make the decision? Because what if I lose my appeal? Look at the amount of fines I have to pay. So he doesn't really have his effective right to an appeal if he has to worry about that. That's not fair to him. And that's the reason why stays are granted in appeal cases, so at least he has an opportunity to have his rights heard before the appellate tribunal without these monstrous fines accumulating. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the fines weren't monstrous initially. They're only monstrous because it's dragged on for so long. Page 71 October 24, 2013 MR. PERLOW: And if the motion for stay was heard earlier, seven months ago, perhaps he could have felt differently and could have approached it differently. Maybe we could have come in here with an architect to address the issue. Maybe the situation would have been treated differently by myself and my client if the stay were heard seven months ago. But the fines are accumulating because the appeal is pending and hasn't been heard. And that's out of our control, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So when do you want the -- if you come in -- let's say -- do you want the stay to start today, or do you want to start from when the fines started? MR. PERLOW: We wanted the stay to start from when the fines started accumulating. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you want no fines on this case and if the client is found that he is in violation and our case is upheld, then the fines won't start -- they'll start at the time the case is decided; is that what you're asking? MR. PERLOW: That would be my request. If the board feels that that's not reasonable, they want to start the fines at such and such a date, at least it will stop the fines from accumulating in such a large amount that it will be prohibitive and will affect his decision making. So I understand your point on that, that if you say the fines should stop as of today or the fines should stop as of 90 days ago or 180 days ago, at least we'll have something from which we can make a decision on our side. But with the fines continuing to accumulate, I mean, the fines are going to be so large, it puts him in a very difficult position. MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One second. Have the operational costs been paid? MR. PERLOW: I don't believe so, while the appeal is Page 72 October 24, 2013 pending. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was $81.43. Ordinarily, if those are -- and I said this earlier, if those fines haves not been paid, we don't even hear it any further, we just deny it and impose the fine. MR. PERLOW: The matter -- I would say the matter is pending on appeal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It doesn't -- MR. PERLOW: The cost -- my client is treating it very seriously. All he was doing was pursuing his rights on appeal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't change the subject. The operational costs have not been paid. As far as I'm concerned, as Chairman of this Board, when the operational costs have not been paid, I don't need to find another reason. All I need to do is to ask for a motion to impose, which is what I'm asking for right now. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion. Do I have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 73 October 24, 2013 INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I'll read this into the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Violations: Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.2.6(B)(1)(a); 10.2.6(B)(1)(ei) and 2.2.3. Location: 2280 Pineland Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 5615020005 and 56150520002. Description: Approximately 12 mobile homes were installed with several additions added to the mobile homes consisting of carports, screen porches, roof - overs, living space below flood level with electrical and plumbing without first obtaining required permits. Past orders: July 26th, 2012, Code Enforcement Board issued the finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached Order of the Board OR 4825, Page 910 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 24th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between November 24th, 2012 and October 24th, 2013, 335 days, for the total of $67,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $67,081.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. PERLOW: Did this constitute, if I could ask, a hearing on my motion to stay? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. PERLOW: It did? MS. RAWSON: And I'll send you an order that includes -- Page 74 October 24, 2013 MR. PERLOW: To that effect? MS. RAWSON: -- that includes that it will be both together. MR. PERLOW: All right, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think that wraps it up what we have. MR. MIESZCAK: We don't have a motion, a vote? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no, we have things. Cherie', I know you need a -- MR. MIESZCAK: Did we make a motion to impose a fine? MR. LEFEBVRE: We did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We did. It was quick. Part of the consent agenda, motion to approve the submittal that everybody was given, the collection authorization, I'd like to get a motion to approve that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. That takes care of that. Which brings us to. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have two responses. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are we done with all the cases? Page 75 October 24, 2013 So we have another case. MS. ADAMS: No, we're done. MR. LEFEBVRE: You came in late, so -- MS. MORALES: Because on our way over here on Immokalee Road we did have a fender - bender, so we had to stop and get information real quick. But we made it here as soon as we could. It said the case of Alfredo Morales. MR. HUDSON: That was like the first one. MR. LEFEBVRE: It was the first one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was the extension of -- MS. MORALES: We called and -- we were a little bit late but we were on -- THE COURT REPORTER: I need her on the mic, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, why don't you come up here. And just remind me, I think we granted the extension. MS. ADAMS: 150 days was granted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, okay. So why don't you come up here. MR. MORALES: That's perfect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sorry you had to wait so long. MR. MORALES: On no, I'm sorry that -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, what is your name? MR. MORALES: My name is Alex Morales, I'm my father's son. I'll be representing him. Because he's -- my father is THE COURT REPORTER: Wait a second. (Mr. Morales was duly sworn.) MR. MORALES: My father's going through various stages of Alzheimer's and he's forgetting -- he's gotten to the point that the he's forgetting that he needs -- he's got a push start type of Page 76 October 24, 2013 car, and he's left the car on the whole night on certain nights that he just jumps out of the car. I just got note of this. On top of that, my mom is suffering with Parkinson's disease. And on top of all of that, they're going through a divorce. So yeah, I have my plates like -- I have my business, I have my properties, now I'll have to have his properties separated from her properties, and I'm the ping pong because "you tell your mother this" and, "no, you tell your father" -- so I just got ahold of this. Whatever you guys decide, I'll go back and I'll tell my dad, look, this is what they said, and, you know, I abide by whatever you guys tell me that I have to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just for the record, we granted 150 days. And if you have a problem meeting that date, come back, don't get into any fender benders, and I'm sure that we will address that at that time. But right now you have 150 days before anything happens. MR. MORALES: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The letter that was sent to us -- MR. MORALES: Yes, sir, I have it right here. MR. LEFEBVRE: You don't have to get it. But the letter you sent to us I think said you wanted between 250 and 300 days. MR. MORALES: Well, the thing is that -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So -- MR. MORALES: -- I don't know how long the county -- they take -- and it's not just anything but the permitting department. They take a long time. Because like you say, they have to go through each channel. We've got to go through this, we've got to go through that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the question was the letter said 250 to 300. Well, the number between 250 and 300 is 50. MR. MORALES: Okay. Page 77 October 24, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we did 150. MR. MORALES: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. MORALES: That's fine. If we don't get it by then what you're telling me is just come back -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just come back. MR. MORALES: Okay. It's still in the process or whatever. Perfect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, thank you. I'm sorry you were in an accident today. Watch out for those big trucks that are delivering sand. MR. MORALES: Well, that's what it was. It was one of those trucks that rear ended me. So -- you guys have a good day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You too, thank you. MR. MORALES: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Brings us to Jeff Wright. MR. WRIGHT: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director. And I just have a quick report on some statistics. A lot of these numbers are fresh because we just started a new fiscal year, but I'll just start with the top. During the almost five -year period between November, 2008 and October 20th of 2013, the total abatement costs paid by lenders is $3.3 million. Total violations abated by lenders, 2,928. Amount of fines waived since July, 2009 through October 20th of 2013 is $13.5 million. And that's between the BCC, the Code Enforcement Board and the special magistrate. And so these next set of numbers are -- these are the fresh ones. Since October 1 st, 2013, that's the beginning of the fiscal year'14, total abatement costs paid by lender is $4,300. The October 24, 2013 number of violations abated by lenders is 19. Number of code cases opened during that 20 -day period is 304. Number of educational patrols during that period, 372. The number of code case property inspections is 1,229. Between meet and greets, cleanups and sweeps, we've had 10 during that period, and we have a lot scheduled for the near future. Hopefully you're in the loop on all those communications that go out. But I'm really getting excited about some of the cleanups we have going on, even this weekend. And some sweeps too. In fact, we had our first maritime sweep that we've had in a long time on Haldeman Creek, looking for a simple fix of dock numbers. And so we're out there on the water, on the street too. And the amount of fines waived by the BCC, Code Enforcement Board and special magistrate so far this fiscal year is $210,006. Number of bankruptcy documents received is nine. The number of requests for lien searches is 439. And of those, 43, about 10 percent, resulted in open code cases. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The lien searches go back to when? MR. WRIGHT: As far as I know, they go back to 1997. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Because that's when our system started being dependable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, the total number of lien searches that were made, starting -- MR. WRIGHT: That's this fiscal year, 439. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This month, October? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, fiscal year, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wow. MR. WRIGHT: And I took a look at prior years in number of requests for property lien searches. Last year we had about Page 79 October 24, 2013 7,000 of those. So if you take the 439, we've had about five percent of the year is gone through, multiply that by 20, I think we're on pace for somewhere around 8,600. And that would exceed last year's total of around 7,000. It's a small snapshot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's becoming a standard thing that is required, and we see it at every meeting where had somebody had the inspection they wouldn't be before us. MR. WRIGHT: And I think that it's helpful that 10 percent, that's a good chunk, result in people being aware that there's actually a Code Enforcement issue on the case. So that's all I have. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Very good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We're adjourned. 0-M. October 24, 2013 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:31 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD These minutes approved by the Board on Nn�?f as presented` or as corrected 111`10%ma■ A!1 nm ^n ww FORM 813 ivitMUKANUUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAM FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NA NAME OF BOARD, CO.Slp1CIL, OMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR OMMITTEE MAILING AD 4S �/ ' l THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON � • 1 ��� WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 0 � CITY COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY NkCOU NTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHI VO C RR 07 �_!( MY POSITION IS: --- O ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) ut 1-UKM bb - tl-F-. 1 /2UUU PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S �INTEREST l/ A t �� hereby disclose that on L 40 �+'�— L( 20 L; (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of (; S Ltd' by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Ia Z lt2 Date Filed Signature which NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2