Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/28/2013 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Minutes February 28 , 2013 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 28,2013 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. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman,Chair Lionel L' Esperance Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair Tony Marino James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak Chris Hudson,Alternate 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 24,2013 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time I. Roger&Tammy Macauley CESD20120002439 2. Jenna Holbrook CENA20120002199 3. Juan H. &Ana Perez Huapilla CESD20100007624 4. Silver Lakes Property W Owners Assoc of Collier Cty, Inc. CELU20100004523 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CESD20120012863 OWNER: 2484 55r"TER SW LAND TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I 0.02.06(B)(I)(a)PERMIT 2006053373 FOR"CHANGE EXISTING ADDITION TO DUPLEX" EXPIRED,CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WAS NEVER ISSUED FOLIO NO: 36384960005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2484 55I"TER SW NAPLES, FL 341 16 2. CASE NO: CESD20090016590 OWNER: MARK G. MARTIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS(PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REQUIRED)COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10,02.06(B)(1)(a)AND THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION PART I SCOPE AND APPLICATION,SECTION 105 PERMITS, 105.1 REQUIRED ADDITION FOR PERMIT NUMBER 1999030663 WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY, FENCE ERECTED WITH PERMIT NUMBER 200101 1231 WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY,AND"BUMP OUT"ADDITION WITH NO PERMITS FOLIO NO: 63150360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4834 DEVON CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34112 3. CASE NO: CESD20120011992 OWNER: CHARLES& DENISE BOOTH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.06(B)(I)(a) GARAGE CONVERTED TO A GUEST HOUSE WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS FOLIO NO: 38107160006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2599 66TH ST. SW.NAPLES,FL 34105 4. CASE NO: CELU20120010927 OWNER: DONALD L.STEWART OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A)&2.02.03 MULTIPLE STORAGE CONTAINERS ON THE PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 736200501 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6240 NORTH COLLIER BLVD. NAPLES,Fl,34114 5. CASE NO: CELU20120012758 OWNER: SHELTON B. BOND& DEBORAH G. BOND OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS LAND USE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A)ACCESSORY STRUCTURE(S)ON VACANT PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 421560006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6134 EVERETT ST.NAPLES, FL 34112 6. CASE NO: CESD201 100011130 OWNER: LUKE&JENNIFER J. WERNER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a)AND 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 105.1 REQUIRED FENCING WITH A CANCELLED PERMIT AND AN EXPIRED PERMIT FOR A CONSTRUCTED ANIMAL BARN WITH ELECTRIC FOLIO NO: 38506840008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 441 35TH AVE NE NAPLES, FI,34120 7. CASE NO: CENA20120015339 OWNER: GWENDOLYN GREEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-I85(b)WEEDS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES FOLIO NO: 41044640003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3675 1011 AVE SE NAPLES, FL 34117 8. CASE NO: CESD20120015958 OWNER: KIRK P.& SHEILA A. COLVIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION I0.02.06(B)(I)(a)GARAGE CONVERSION WITHOUT OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 52397320001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 163 SAN SALVADOR ST.NAPLES,FL 34113 9. CASE NO: CEAU201200009042 OWNER: PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTERS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,2010 EDITION,CHAPTER I PERMITS SECTION 105.1 PERMIT 201 1030692 FOR AN 8 FOOT CONCRETE WALL EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING A CO,6 FOOT WOODEN FENCE AND A BLACK CHAIN LINK PERIMETER FENCE INSTALLED WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOLIO NO: 38280090006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 721 LOGAN BLVD. S.NAPLES, FL 34119 10. CASE NO: CESD20120014608 OWNER: PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTERS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,2007 EDITION,CHAPTER 1 SECTION 110.4 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) A DETACHED GARAGE WITH PERMIT 201 1030691 WITHOUT FINAL CO AND A CANOPY ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PERMIT FOLIO NO: 38280090006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 721 LOGAN BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 34119 11. CASE NO: CEPM20120013535 OWNER: PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTERS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(1)AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III,SECTION 130-96(a)A MOTORHOME AND TRAVEL TRAILER WITH PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM WITH SEWAGE PIPE GOING FROM THEM INTO THE GROUND FOLIO NO: 38280090006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 721 LOGAN BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 34119 12. CASE NO: CELU20120014618 OWNER: PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTERS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-4I AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03 CONCRETE BLOCKS, BARRELS, BUCKETS, PLYWOOD, HOSES,PLASTIC PIPE, A LARGE STORAGE CONTAINER, MISC. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, BUILDING SUPPLIES,AND A PILE OF BROKEN UP CONCRETE, BRICKS AND ROCKS STORED ON THE PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 38280090006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 721 LOGAN BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 341 19 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20110005345 OWNER: GRAND CYPRESS COMMUNITIES,INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)REMODEL, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF A FIRE WALL BETWEEN COMMERCIAL UNIT 604 AND 605,PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT FOLIO NO: 76885100984 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3887 MANNIX DR. UNIT 605 NAPLES, FL 34114 2, CASE NO: CESD20110001100 OWNER: STEVEN J.SOKOL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ANDREW KELLY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE IV, EVACUATION, SECTION 22-108 EVACUATION PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY APPROVAL AND NECESSARY PERMITS FOLIO NO: 00756280006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 925 SUNNYGROVE AVE.NAPLES, FL 34114 3. CASE NO: CELU20100021891 OWNER: BQ CONCRETE, LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A)AND 2.02.03 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT FOLIO NO: 37925940001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4790 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34119 4. CASE NO: CESD20I000067I9 OWNER: LESZEK& HENRYKA KLIM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I0,02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) ADDITION BUILT ONTO THE REAR OF THE HOME WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 54670003124 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 370 LEAWOOD CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34104 5. CASE NO: CESD20I20006147 OWNER: JOSSE L. PEREZ(AKA JOSE M. PEREZ)& ISABEL PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.06(B)(I)(a)AN UNPERMITTED WINDOW ADDED TO THE GARAGE ALONG WITH A LARGE HOLE IN THE GARAGE WALL, WITH AN A/C UNIT WITHIN FOLIO NO: 37221090008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 110 WILSON BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 34117 6. CASE NO: CESD201110011822 OWNER: MIRIAM H. MONTES DE OCA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.06(B)(I)(a)TI TREE SHEDS,A SEPARATE GARAGE AND ADDITIONS MADE TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE,SPECIFICALLY A GARAGE,FLORIDA ROOM AND ENCLOSED LANAI HAVE NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 40410840001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4015 201"AVE NE NAPLES, FL 34120 7. CASE NO: CELU20110006574 OWNER: KIRSTIN C. MARTUCCI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, SECTION 126-111(b) LOCAL BUSINESS TAX AND ORDINANCE,04-4I,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 2,02.03 AND 5.02.03(C)NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR KAM CONCRETE,INC.COMPANY EMPLOYEE VEHICLES STORED/PARKED ON ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY AND EMPLOYEES TRAVELING TO AND FROM RESIDENCE PARKING PERSONAL VEHICLES ON-SITE AND PICKING UP COMPANY VEHICLES FOLIO NO: 37493560007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 311 16T"AVE SE NAPLES, FL 34120 8. CASE NO: CESD20110008406 OWNER: KIRSTIN C. MARTUCCI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.06(B)(I)(a), I0.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i)AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,2007 EDITION CHAPTER 1, PERMITS,SECTION 105.1 A 384 SQUARE FOOT SHED ON THE PROPERTY NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED. PERMIT 2009081356 FOR A 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE EXPIRED ON 2/22/10 FOLIO NO: 37493560007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 31 1 16T"AVE SE NAPLES, FL 34120 9. CASE NO: CESD201200I2127 OWNER: GREGORY LYNN THOMPSON& MISTY LOU THOMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(l)(a)A HISTORICALLED PERMITTED STEEL BUILDING IN THE REAR YARD NOW MISSING WALLS AND DOORS AND COMPLETELY ALTERED FROM ITS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED STATE FOLIO NO: 36960760001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 181 23RD STREET SW NAPLES,FI.341 17 10. CASE NO: CESD20120007390 OWNER: PETER SALAZAR LOPEZ& MONICA 0 COARITI DE SALAZAR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION I0.02.06(B)(1)(a) ELECTRICAL ALTERATIONS DONE IN COMMERCIAL UNIT WITHOUT A PERMIT FOLIO NO: 56200000184 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12355 COLLIER BLVD. UNIT 1 NAPLES, FL 341 16 1 I. CASE NO: CESD20120007393 OWNER: PETER SALAZAR LOPEZ& MONICA 0 COARITI DE SALAZAR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) P-TRAP ASSEMBLY FOR BATHROOM SINK WAS DAMAGED IN COMMERCIAL UNIT WITHOUT A PERMIT FOLIO NO: 56200000126 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12355 COLLIER BLVD. UNIT F NAPLES, FL 34116 12. CASE NO: CESD20120007391 OWNER: PETER SALAZAR LOPEZ& MONICA 0 COARITI DE SALAZAR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(l)(a) DOORWAY OF COMMERCIAL UNIT ENCLOSED WITH DRYWALL WITHOUT A PERMIT FOLIO NO: 56200000142 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12355 COLLIER BLVD. UNIT G NAPLES, FL 34116 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order 1. Romona Garcia CEPM20100001331 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS, 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE- March 28,2013 11. ADJOURN February 28, 2013 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, February 28, 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 Larry Mieszcak James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Chris Hudson ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Page 1 February 28, 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 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 the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the board needs a record of the pertainings (sic) pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Can we have the roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Present. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Gerald Lefebvre has an excused absence for today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to approve the minutes from the January 24th hearing? Page 2 February 28, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do we have any change on the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under number four, public hearings/motions, letter A, motions, we have three additions under motion for continuance. The first would be number eight from hearings, Kirk and Sheila Colvin, Case, CESD20120015958. The second will be number four from hearings, Donald Stewart, Case CELU20120010927. The third will be number 13 from hearings, CEI/Kensington, Ltd. CEPM20120009999. Under motion for extension of time we have two additions. Number five will be Michael and Amy Facundo, CESD20100006940. Number six will be number three from imposition of fines, BQ Concrete, LLC, Case CELU20100021891 . Under letter B, stipulations, we have one stipulation, it's number three from hearings, Charles and Denise Booth, Case CESD20120011992. Under letter C, hearings, number one, Case CESD20120012863, 2484 55th Terrace Southwest Land Trust has been withdrawn. Page 3 February 28, 2013 Number five, Case CELU20120012758, Shelton B. Bond and Deborah G. Bond has been withdrawn. And we have an addition of number 13, which is an emergency case, CEI/Kensington, Ltd, Case CEPM20120009999. Under number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines and liens, we have no changes. So that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Everybody find their additions? MR. MIESZCAK: We'll follow you. MR. MARINO: Yeah, we're good. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we accept these changes as presented. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the changes in the agenda. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Okay. Ready for the first one. MS. BAKER: The first one will be under number four, public hearings/motions. Letter A, motions, motion for continuance. First will be Kirk and Sheila Colvin, Case CESD20120015958. And this was number eight from hearings. Page 4 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Good morning. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you give us a little background on this one. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: This is a case of a garage conversion without -- actually converting the garage to living space without first obtaining Collier County building permits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I see that they are requesting an extension for 45 days. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I haven't seen the letter. Is that correct? MS. BAKER: Yes. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Forty-five days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in touch with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, I've had several conversations with the property owner, Mr. Colvin. Last conversation I had with him, it was agreed that he would either try to obtain a permit by affidavit; if not, he would try to -- he would obtain a demolition permit to restore the garage back to its original state. To date nothing has been done. There's been no permit for -- there's nothing for a permit by affidavit or a demo permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I see that he and his wife, I guess, Sheila, are not present this morning. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, he never called me, so he didn't indicate he was going to be here or not, so I never received a phone call. MR. L'ESPERANCE: When was he first noticed for this case? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: This was October 17th I observed the garage conversion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this house occupied? Page 5 February 28, 2013 INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Now it's not. I believe they moved to Orlando, so it's vacant at this time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's on our regular agenda to hear the case today if we don't grant an extension. Which I'm not in favor of granting an extension. They're not here. Have they gotten any permits? Have they done anything on this? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No permits. To date, no permit -- MR. MIESZCAK: I make motion to deny. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No permit by affidavit or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I have a motion to deny. Do I have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case under motion for continuance -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you go on, this case will be heard in its regular order under hearings. MS. BAKER: Next case, number two, Donald Stewart, Case CELU20120010927. And this is number four from hearings. (Investigator Asaro and Rod Ashmore were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, want to give us a little background on this? Page 6 February 28, 2013 INVESTIGATOR ASARO: This is a case in reference to some storage units on a commercial site. I think about three or four units on the site. And basically the property owner right now is attempting to obtain a Site Improvement Plan, in which he's been -- we've been working with Donald Stewart, who's been a pleasure to work with. And we don't have any issues of granting him any additional time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time, sir, are you looking for? MR. ASHMORE: We're asking for 180 days, please, to complete a Site Improvement Plan, as well as other improvements to the property. And for full compliance. THE COURT REPORTER: This is Mr. Ashmore. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. ASHMORE: Representing Mr. Stewart this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have authorization to speak for him? MR. ASHMORE: I do, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What, do you have a letter or MR. ASHMORE: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Does the county feel that 180 days would be sufficient? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: We suggested six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's about 180 days. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It is 180 days, yes. Hello. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we accept the petitioner's request for 180 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in Page 7 February 28, 2013 favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: The next motion for continuance is number three, CEI/Kensington, LTD, CEPM20120009999. And this was number 13, the addition of the emergency case to your agenda. (Investigator Ralph Bosa and Steve Hartsell were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you give us a little background on this one. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Code Enforcement. This is a -- the Saddlebrook Apartments. It has to do with some stairs that are in need of repair, and also some exposed wood. And due to the walls -- you know, some rotting of the wood within the walls of this building. There is a safety issue here, so that's why it was brought today as an emergency case. If the continuance is not granted, I'll present the case and everything. But for the continuance, we object to the continuance, we would like for the board to hear the case. MR. L'ESPERANCE: When was the respondent originally noticed? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Originally noticed? This was back on July 5th of 2012. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, sir? MR. HARTSELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Page 8 February 28, 2013 Hartsell. I'm with Pavese Law Firm. I'm here on behalf of the owner, CEI/Kensington. First with regard to the motion for continuance that I filed is the jurisdictional issue. To the best of my knowledge, the Notice of Hearing hasn't been properly served on the property owner, according to the statutory requirements pursuant to 162(12) of Florida statutes, and the Collier County code, which has adopted those as well. The Notice of Hearing is required to be sent by certified mail. I believe that the Code folks will acknowledge that was not done in this circumstance. In terms of the notice itself, as of yesterday, I think even as of today as you've noticed, this isn't even on the agenda. So in terms of being able to pull it up on the agenda, you can't even tell that this case had been scheduled on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On emergency cases they generally don't appear on the agenda. They're last minute because of a safety issue. MR. HARTSELL: Okay. With regard to the emergency issue, I would submit to the board that this is not a circumstance where there is an imminent life safety issue. As the Code department is well aware, there's a structural engineer that has been out to the site and regularly inspecting the temporary shoring that has been put into place to address the issues that the Code Enforcement has raised. Structural engineer sends a letter to me, I provided that to the Code Enforcement Department as of I believe it was Monday the most recent inspection letter was provided to the department indicating that structural engineers looked at these temporary shoring and says it's perfectly adequate, there is no safety issue that's out there. So we would object to the characterization that this is an emergency. It's not an emergency as the Code Department's noticed. This has been going on since July and it's being addressed. So with regard to the emergency issue, we would submit that the Page 9 February 28, 2013 statutory notice requirements haven't been met and that there's no factual basis sufficient to waive the standard due process requirements there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me interrupt you for one second. Jean, on the notifications, generally isn't it A, B or C? It's not all of the -- in other words, it can be posted at the county, certified mail. Can you give us a little -- MS. RAWSON: Well, it can be certified mail. It can be posted at the courthouse, or it can be posted on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you tell me what was done on notification on this? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Notification for the Notice of Violation was hand delivered to the manager of the property. Notice of-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you right there. Is that sufficient? MS. RAWSON: To the manager of the property, yeah, it's personal service. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: And also the Notice of Hearing, same thing was delivered to the property manager. MR. HARTSELL: With regard to that issue, I understand that Mr. Bosa believes that that's -- that that has been done. I would submit that what has happened is that a Notice of Hearing was dropped off on the desk of a property manager. And the statute doesn't provide for providing notice to the property manager, it provides for notice to the alleged violator, which is the owner of the property. So in this particular instance the -- if there was a hand delivery that was done of the notice, it needed to go to the property owner, not to a management company. That's what the statute provides anyway. MS. RAWSON: Mr. Wright is here, and it looks like he's anxious to speak for the county, so -- Page 10 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Wright? MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney. And in these emergency situations, notice is different. The requirements that he's referring to and that he referred to in his request for continuance, which are, according to his request in Chapter 162.12, they don't apply for emergencies. What applies in emergency situations is 162.06(4), which says that the code inspector here, Mr. Bosa, has reason to believe that the violation presents a serious threat to the public health and safety. He has to make reasonable efforts to notify the violator, and then he can request a hearing. Now, obviously he made reasonable efforts to notify the violator, because he's here represented by counsel. In addition, he just stated that he hand delivered it to somebody who is responsible at that property. So if you find that he's made a reasonable effort to notify the violator in light of this emergency, the standard for notice has been met. The reference that he makes to 162.12, not applicable to emergencies. That's all I have -- and actually I should add, that provision that allows the inspector to bring a hearing in this fashion is in the statute, 162.06(4), it's in our Ordinance 2-2026(5), and it's also in your rules which say, Article 7, Section 5, in emergency situations, the time line set forth in this paragraph -- and they're referring to the normal notice requirements -- can be abbreviated or set aside to address the alleged violation in order to avoid further damage to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Collier County, Florida. So there's three bases. He's doing it right with reference to the statute. It's not applicable in emergencies. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And without hearing the case right now, this is -- we're in the beginning, which is the request for the extension. It appears that the county, in my opinion, and I look to the board for any comments that they may have, has made a reasonable Page 11 February 28, 2013 effort to notify the people at the property, if not the owner, and has adhered to the law. MR. HARTSELL: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, and I don't disagree with Mr. Wright with regard to standard notice. I'd still raise the objection that I don't believe that there's been a factual basis to determine that an emergency exists when as of Monday they've got a structural engineer certifying that the temporary shoring that has been put into place is adequate and serves a purpose of temporarily addressing this. That's where at least for the record I'm asserting that there is no emergency and that I don't believe that there's been a reasonable determination that this was an emergency sufficient that the due process requirements of providing the notice as set forth in the statute can be waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Mr. L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the fact that the basis for continuance -- or the notice was adequate for the initial case to begin and I move that we listen to the county's case about continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I think we've more or less heard that, and what we're looking for now is either a motion to grant or deny -- MR. HUDSON: Motion to deny. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to deny. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. HARTSELL: Mr. Chairman, if I might, that's the first basis that I had with regard to my request for a continuance. I understand that you are -- the consensus is clear to me that you found that there is an emergency. I would like to point out that there are two other bases for requesting the continuance. I think that this will be helpful to you with Page 12 February 28, 2013 regard to moving forward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What are the other two? MR. HARTSELL: As a practical matter, there are two issues to be addressed in the Notice of Violation. There was an issue with regard to repairing the stairs and an issue with regard to repairing ex -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think both of those will be heard during a hearing, should this motion be approved. MR. HARTSELL: And I understand. For the record, if I can get this on the record, your Notice of Hearing only addresses the exterior walls. The violation that's noticed addresses the exterior walls. So I submit to you that this appears to be splitting the violations, which certainly Code Enforcement can bring it forth however they want. But it seems to me that the issue with regard to the stairs is going to have to be addressed at some point in the future as well. So as a practical matter, it would seem to make sense to continue both of them at that time. And then finally, more practically is the fact that permits -- permit applications to address these issues have already been submitted and are under review. So at this point in time we're not sure how long that will take. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That will also come out, if it's heard. We have a motion and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 13 February 28, 2013 So we will hear this. I don't know in what order, Jen. MS. BAKER: It will be number 13 on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sorry to keep you late today, but -- MR. HARTSELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MS. BAKER: The next case will be under motion for extension of time, number one, Roger and Tammy Macauley, Case CESD20120002439. (Investigator McGonagle and Roger Macauley were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. MR. MACAULEY: Good morning, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this is the respondent? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you give us a little background on what this is and we can go from there. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to no C.O. obtained for a garage conversion, a three-car garage and a shingle re-roof. And no permit was obtained for an addition to a single-family home, a wood fence and accessory structures on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So let me see if I understand this. You have some where no C.O. was issued and you have others where no permits were applied for mechanic? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? MR. MACAULEY: Good morning, gentlemen. In my letter that I had sent regarding this matter, my wife and I have been unemployed, and we now have been reemployed. Her country club had remodeled. They were supposed to be back at work Page 14 February 28, 2013 in three months and it ended up being nine months. So we used every bit of money we could to survive. As well as myself. And I've just gone back to work this spring. So I'm asking for some time to regroup and save the money to do -- and I've already started doing some of the stuff. But at least six to nine months or 11 months, whatever you would allow, to save the money to do what I need to do. It's all pretty much spelled out in our letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a couple of questions. Originally when I read through the case, this initially came up in July, July 26th of 2012, if I'm not mistaken? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You weren't unemployed -- MR. MACAULEY: I was unemployed. Right after that I was unemployed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Four months after that. MR. MACAULEY: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was my first point that I wanted to bring up. MR. MACAULEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I'd like to know from your perspective what actually has been done since July of 2012. MR. MACAULEY: Well, I've started, as Michele knows, to take down the fence that we put up in place. I'm trying to sell it. We secured everything that we have, so it's secure. We just couldn't financially do anything with it because my wife had also been diagnosed with a rare blood disorder, life-threatening rare blood disorder. And every dime we had we had to put to medical and/or pay the mortgage so we could keep the house. And the bank is also working with us as well. So our goal is to get everything resolved. And we can't do that without work. And now we both have work and we're just asking for more time. Page 15 February 28, 2013 MR. L'ESPERANCE: The house is being resided in, correct? MR. MACAULEY: Excuse me? MR. L'ESPERANCE: You are residing in the home? MR. MACAULEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You were looking for 10 months, I believe? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: If possible, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I don't know how much the permits would be, after-the-fact permits, plus to have the COs. Have those permits expired? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they'd have to go from the beginning? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I'm not positive. I believe he would be able to just reap those. A couple of those permits are just missing the final inspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I'd like a comment from you as to have they been diligent in working on this? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: He has stayed in contact with me and they have experienced some hardships. They have removed all but a couple of the panels of the wood fence. That's one thing that he was able to do without any money. I do believe that he has done the best that he can with what he had available for himself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Additional comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I understand it's 10 months that he's asking for? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to grant 10 months. Page 16 February 28, 2013 MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have 10 months. MR. MACAULEY: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If for some reason you can't get it done, for whatever reason, in 10 months, why don't you come back prior to that -- MR. MACAULEY: I will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- so that we can address that at that time. MR. MACAULEY: I'll actually want to come back and show progress. I will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number two under motion for extension of time, Jenna Holbrook, Case CENA20120002199. (Investigator Ambach and Jenna Holbrook were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see we have a letter here. It's not dated. Do you have a date on the letter requesting the extension on this? Page 17 February 28, 2013 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I believe not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are the respondent? MS. HOLBROOK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any -- MS. HOLBROOK: I think it was about a month ago I went into the county. I had sent one by email and she said she didn't receive it, so we just did it at the desk. She was present when we did it, the young lady over here. Kim, I think her name is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so about a month ago? MS. HOLBROOK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Say January? MS. HOLBROOK: Something like that. Maybe it was before that. I don't know. She was there, but I don't remember exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you give us a little background on this. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: This case came before you. It was for a garage conversion. And Ms. Holbrook has been working with an engineer, an architect. I did go out per your request to make sure the power was turned off to that unit, and it has been turned off. Right now she's been running into some issues that she would like to explain to you folks today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I did notice in one of the things I'd like you to cover it says that you're waiting for some document from the architect. And if you could explain what document you're looking for. MS. HOLBROOK: Okay. I'll tell you, first of all, I obtained Victor Duchon (phonetic), architect and engineer, and he did all the drawings for the existing structure. He gave me all -- I didn't fully understand how this whole affidavit thing worked. I was depending on these people that I hired to do their job, to do what was necessary. Chris has been very helpful. They gave me the paperwork. I Page 18 February 28, 2013 presented the paperwork. I've got the certificate of occupancy by affidavit, the construction affidavit, building permit by affidavit, and I've also obtained the certificate of completion by affidavit. But the only one that they have refused to sign, for what reason I do not know because he's not here, is the permits by affidavit, this piece of paper, and the structural inspection report. And as to why, I do not know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who hasn't signed it? MS. HOLBROOK: The architect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The architect. MS. HOLBROOK: The other ones have all been sealed and signed. As to why they did not do this, I do not know the answer to that. And that's what I told Chris. I brought him this paperwork four different times with sticky notes saying that it has to be sealed and signed. I do not know why they have chosen not to sign these. So therefore I told Chris, I'm still -- and he was supposed to meet me here this morning. So I'm kind of at the end of the rope. I don't know which direction to go, except to continue to try to get this last piece of paper signed. Unless you have other suggestions. Because I don't know a lot about this whole process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I have no other suggestions other than the way that you're going right now. The only thing that we can do is to give you the extension and you locate your own arm twister or whatever to make them an offer they can't refuse as far as signing it or giving you a reason why they won't sign it that you can rectify. Was this -- I'm trying to remember this case. Was this something that you built or you bought it and it was already -- MS. HOLBROOK: No, I bought the house and I built an extra garage. They came out and did the certification of occupancy and all that. And supposedly the guy that did the conversion, that also did the garage, that was all included. Well, I came out to find out that that was not the case. It never Page 19 February 28, 2013 got -- the inspector didn't inspect the part that was switched over. So I didn't find that out until 23 years later. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: No health or safety issues? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No safety issues. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to entertain a motion to grant a four-month extension. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we grant the four-month extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second it. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. HOLBROOK: Thank you, sir. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number three under extension of time, Juan H. and Ana Perez Huapilla, Case CESD20100007624. (Investigator Walker, Juan Huapilla and Interpreter Maria Delashmed were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Mr. Walker. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Good morning. Page 20 February 28, 2013 This is an extension of time in reference to a case that had an addition attached to the house, and what we would consider like an overhang porch off the side of the house. He was heard. He was supposed to either demo or permit it. He's requesting an extension of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see a letter that was written with no date on it again. Did you receive the letter that's in our package? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes, we did. And we did review it and we're in agreement with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think 11 months for a demo, if that's what's going to occur, seems to be an excessive amount of time to me. Another question I have. Was the $80.29 paid? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, it was not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. INTERPRETER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have your letter. And you're asking for an extension. INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And your intent is to demo the addition? INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're asking for 11 months to demo it? INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can't -- I don't understand why it would take 11 months to demo that. INTERPRETER: I would like to see if you can give me six months. MR. MIESZCAK: I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. Page 21 February 28, 2013 INTERPRETER: Six months. We already come to an understanding for the six months, so I need to fix what I need to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have come to an understanding with whom? INTERPRETER: With the lady, Ms. Perez. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Perez. INTERPRETER: He knows. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: I'm sure he's referring to Cristina Perez, our supervisor. He has actually met with her and discussed demoing the structure. I think she's willing to work with him with that. We also made available to him a cleanup that we have next month that would afford him the opportunity to take his debris and bring it to our dumpsters at no cost to him, which would also kind of maybe expedite it in reference to being able to get it done. So that's pretty much the conversation I'm pretty sure he had with Ms. Perez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have two comments. Number one, the $80.29 was supposed to be paid as I understand it 30 days after this was heard. INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that has not been paid yet. INTERPRETER: The truth, I don't know. I paid some, but -- I had a money order, $114. And one of$25. That was for the permit, supposedly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was the second part of my question. In order to demo it, you need a permit so -- INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- so that probably was money you paid for the permit. INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The $80.29 that I'm referring to is, Page 22 February 28, 2013 for a lack of a better term, the cost of prosecuting this case, the court cost. INTERPRETER: Okay, then I'll pay it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll pay that. Are you in a position to pay that today, or -- INTERPRETER: Today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think Mr. L'Esperance has a suggestion to tie this up. MR. MIESZCAK: Six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To grant the six months. MR. MIESZCAK: Pay operating costs today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And pay the operating cost, the $80.29 today. So if you can pay the $89 (sic), this is what our motion is. If you can pay the $80.29 today, the board will grant you six months extension on this case. And then if you take it down, we won't see you again, hopefully. INTERPRETER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. County, do you have any problem with that? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that's the motion. Can I get a second on the motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 23 February 28, 2013 (No response.) MS. RAWSON: The only problem I have is if he goes and pays it, if somebody would come back and tell me before we leave today, then your order will only say extended for six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. When you pay the $80.29, you'll get a receipt. Somebody needs to provide that to Jean so it can get the official stamp of approval. INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? Okay, thank you. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: Next case is number four under motion for extension of time, Silver Lakes Property W Owners Association of Collier County, Inc., Case CELU20100004523. (Supervisor Kitchell Snow, Investigator Vicki Giguere, Conway Bennett, and Dan Malinowski were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: For the record, Vicki Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Can you give us a little background on this? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Sure. This case is for an outdoor storage area that was created first without permission from the county. They have been working with multiple entities within the county, including the building department, zoning and fire department as well to bring this into compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I did notice in the paperwork that Mr. Snow had asked how much time was needed to do this, but I didn't see a response on the paper. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, sir -- Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. I wanted to talk to the respondents today this morning to make Page 24 February 28, 2013 sure and see if any progress has been made. And 60 days is certainly not enough in the county's opinion. They're going to have to do some stuff with traffic stoppage and things involved with this, because it is right on 951, from talking with them this morning, and they can't really do that until after season. So we would recommend 180 days. There's no health and safety issue here. It's an outside storage area. They're working with the Florida Department of Transportation, they're working with zoning, they're working with the fire department. It's just a little bit more complex and involved than the normal SIP or the normal part of a Site Improvement Plan, because it's pre-existing, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a good advocate with Mr. Snow. MR. BENNETT: We try to stay in communication. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any comments to make? MR. BENNETT: No, it's just a matter of pulling all the pieces together. And we know we can't shut down the lane on 951 during season, so we have probably two or three months just there waiting before we can do the final hookups there. And so the other stuff has to be done subsequent to that. That's why we figure six months should do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to grant the extension for six months? MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MARINO: Are there permits necessary for them to do what they're doing, the closing of the lane and everything else? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I'm sorry, what was the question? MR. MARINO: Are the permits necessary for them to close the lane and everything? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: They have permits on file. Page 25 February 28, 2013 MR. MARINO: They do? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Yes. MR. MALINOWSKI: The permit that's needed to shut the lane down is an FDOT permit. It has been applied for. We've been in communication with FDOT as late as yesterday to find out when they will allow me to shut the lane down. MR. MARINO: That's what I was trying to get to, whether you've already filed the -- MR. MALINOWSKI: All the paperwork for all the permits required for the job have all been applied for. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to grant extension for 180 days. MR. HUDSON: Second. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BENNETT: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next motion for extension of time is number five, Michael and Amy Facundo, Case CESD20100006940. (Investigator Walker and Mr. Facundo were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Good morning again. This particular case is in reference to a house that was under construction that was actually never completed. Currently he's Page 26 February 28, 2013 requesting an extension of time of which the county doesn't have any objections to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So to the best of your knowledge he purchased the house that was partially completed and is finishing the house, is that it? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Actually, it's his house under construction, and he's actually been running into a few roadblocks, if you will, that he could probably best articulate on. But based on our discussion and his continued, how you would say, communication with us, we have no reason to believe that he won't do everything in his power to complete it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning, sir. MR. FACUNDO: Good morning, sir. Mr. Walker and Ms. Perez have been a pleasure to work with and they understand where I'm coming from. One of the challenges that I've had out there, as the small little piece of parcel that I own and trying to build a house, is obviously, you know, we started the construction. And the contractor went belly up. And he built the house within three feet of the setback. That's been resolved. Now, moving forward, and just trying to give you a quick -- one of the challenges is finding the right key people to finish up my drawings and the right contractor. And Immokalee is almost like an island to itself and there's limited resources with regards to professionals, et cetera. And so I finally found the right people that are willing to go out there and look at it. And the plans have been completed. In the letter that I provided there's a permit number. So it's been reviewed. There were minor rejections, more clarification, which I have the packet here. I'm waiting for two N.O.A.'s from my contractor that he's going to get that to me today. And then my plan date to submit is Tuesday of next week when Mrs. Alimar is there locally in the same Page 27 February 28, 2013 facility as the Code Enforcement is. And I'm more than confident that maybe within the week or two that they're going to approve it, I'm going to have a permit, and my contractor is ready immediately to pull the permit and get started. This has been long overdue for me. And so what I am requesting, I think I said nine months for an extension of time so I can finish my house. And that's where I'm at right now. And it's been very challenging to get it going again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because in the letter you had written 12 months. MR. FACUNDO: Did I have 12? Oh, I'm sorry, okay. I don't have the letter in front of me, sir, so I thought I said nine, but maybe I said 12. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What stage is the house in now? Have any of the inspections been done? Or the permit hasn't been pulled. MR. FACUNDO: No, it hasn't. But what happened was I had to do a couple corrections -- actually one, is demo the wall, bring it into conforming. And that's been done, approved, inspected. So that's where we're at now. And so taking what is existing obviously and making that part of the plans we submitted to the county. And that's the stage that we're at. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So in essence it's a brand new house going in. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. It's going to be a brand new house going in. Exactly. MR. MARINO: Is there a roof on it now? MR. FACUNDO: No, sir. MR. MARINO: It's just walls -- MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. MR. MARINO: -- the exterior walls. Page 28 February 28, 2013 MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. Not completely, but say three-quarters of the way. Because we had to demo the wall. And obviously by code or -- I can't put it up until I get the permit, obviously. So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the slab is in. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir, the slab is in, so forth. It's just a matter of obviously getting this approved and then immediately pulling the permit and having the contractor starting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there any safety issues involved in this? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, none whatsoever. Everything is safe. The area is safe, there's no problem. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the citizen a 12-month extension. Would that be adequate? MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to grant 12 months. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. FACUNDO: Thank you very much, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good luck with your house. MS. BAKER: The next extension of time will be number six, which was number three under imposition of fines, BQ Concrete, Page 29 February 28, 2013 LLC, CELU201000201891. MR. ZONAS: Good morning. James Zonas, attorney for BQ Concrete, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you give us a minute, we have paper all over the place. MR. ZONAS: Your Honor, I do have 15 copies that I guess was part of the rules. And Mr. Carney -- MR. MARINO: It's the one with the clip on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that the same one that we have? MR. ZONAS: Yes, that's the same one. (Investigator Bosa was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give us a little background. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Quick background. This is permitted storage that's on a lot and does not have a primary structure. What happened was at one point it was two parcels. The parcel was split. Apparently it was sold. And that accessory structure is there, it doesn't have a primary structure, which is against code to have the accessory structure there. There's no health and safety issue. And he probably can explain a little better detail as far as why he wants the -- more time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ZONAS: Your Honor, there's a divorce that's pending. And the CPA had passed away due to a suicide and took with him the documents per the divorce. So we need nine months. There's -- the property issues have not been determined by the court and they're under a stay from Judge Shenko not to change anything. So the wife's not letting go of the company and the husband is trying to stay in compliance. They did kind of get tricked into buying the place, but they need nine months to put a house on the lot to make it in compliance with Page 30 February 28, 2013 the law. And he is a concrete general contractor, and so we think he can do it without the nine months. That's the outside time of the divorce, finishing up, when they have to recreate the documents. Just providing the documents for the divorce court was almost impossible at this point, but they're getting through it. MR. MARINO: Is this the piece of property on Pine Ridge that he was here for? MR. ZONAS: Yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this property zoned residential? MR. ZONAS: It was in compliance. What had happened is the owner had sold them half the property with the shed on it which was what attracted him, but it turns out that you have to have a house and the shed, so consequently he became outside of compliance. And then he had a divorce filed in 2010, with a stay put on all assets and all the structures, and so he's kind of been wrangling with the divorce court. And then the CPA for the wife had passed on and he took with him most of the documents for the divorce. But the outside time that attorneys are telling me is nine months when they can finally get the divorce resolved. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is this property zoned as? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: This is zoned as residential. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: RSF-1? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's what they're going to build a house -- understanding that it's RSF-1 . MR. ZONAS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not that they're going to be running a business there that -- MR. ZONAS: No. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: And the county has no objections as far as extension of time. Page 31 February 28, 2013 It's not a health and safety issue, and we do periodic checks to make sure nobody's there or anything like that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You think you'd be able to iron this all out in nine months? MR. ZONAS: I do think he can because of his construction contacts. So he's asked to get nine months. He thinks he can do it. If not, Your Honor, I will proceed with another motion and alert the board as to any updates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have no problem granting an extension of time of nine months. Looking for a motion from the board. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to extend nine months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion, do I have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case, moving on to letter B, stipulations, we have one stipulation, which was number three under hearings, Charles and Denise Booth, Case CESD20120011992. Page 32 February 28, 2013 (Investigator Ford and Maria Booth were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you move the mic down so we can hear you? MS. BOOTH: I'm Maria Booth. Bill and Denise Booth are my mom and dad. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have their permission to speak on their behalf? MS. BOOTH: Yes. He has the original letter and I have a copy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. You want to read us the stipulation? INVESTIGATOR FORD: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR FORD: For the record, Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondents shall: Number one, pay operational costs in the amount of$81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: 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. Four: That if the respondent fails to abate the violations, the county may abate the violation using any method necessary to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you understand the stipulation? MS. BOOTH: Yes, I do. Page 33 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you agree with it all? MS. BOOTH: I'm good with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Question. There's no safety issue here? INVESTIGATOR FORD: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a motion to accept the stipulation as written? MR. LAVINSKI: Is it occupied presently? INVESTIGATOR FORD: No, it's not. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BOOTH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case, moving on to letter C, hearings, number two, Case CESD20090016590, Mark G. Martin. (Investigator Giguere was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Good morning. For the record Vicki Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Building and Land Alteration Permits. Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Page 34 February 28, 2013 the 2010 Florida Building Code, Chapter One, Section 105.1 . Description of violation: Addition for Permit No. 1999030663 without certificate of completion/occupancy. Fence erected with Permit No. 2001011231 without certificate of completion/occupancy, and bump-out addition with no permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4834 Devon Circle, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 63150360006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Mark G. Martin, 4834 Devon Circle, Naples, Florida 34112. Date violation first observed: November 30th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: December 3rd, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 2nd, 2013. Date of reinspection: January 3rd, 2013. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Good morning. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have one photo dated November 30th, 2012; two photos dated February 25th, 2013; and two photos dated February 27th, 2013 all taken by myself. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the exhibits. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 35 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I made a site visit to the property on November 30th, 2012 and observed the violations. The property appeared to be vacant at that time and it was found to be in foreclosure, which proper procedure was followed and the lender was contacted. I attempted to contact the owner of the property but was not successful, and at this time the violation remains. This photo here shows the left side of the property when looking from the street. The fence on the left side is part of the fence that is not permitted. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a pool in the backyard? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: There is not. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: This shows the screen enclosure that has the lanai with the sliding glass doors. This permit was pulled in 1999. They passed their two inspections that they needed for it. However, some fees were not paid, and for some reason they were never paid, and so the permit expired. They only need to be paid in order to receive their certificate of completion at this point. This is the bump-out or room extension, if you'd like to call it. It's on the northwest side of the house, which is the right side when you're looking from the street. There is no permit at all on file for this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know what that bump-out is? Is that a bathroom or just living space? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I have had no access to the interior so I don't know exactly what room it's connected to. And that's just a faraway shot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Another picture of the fence? Page 36 February 28, 2013 INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Yeah, that just shows the right side. And behind that fence is where the bump-out is located. MR. MARINO: How large is that bump-out? Could you go back to that picture? Didn't look like it was really that big. MR. MIESZCAK: A foot or two. MR. MARINO: It doesn't make a difference what size it is. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: It's hard to tell when it appeared. It's under the roof line of the house, so there's no way to look at the aerials to tell when it appeared. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably three by three. And you'd had no contact with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: None. We tried to contact the lender, which is OCWEN. However, they didn't offer any help. They don't own the property. It's in lis pendens. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has this been turned over to the foreclosure team? MS. FLAGG: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It has? Okay. Someone like to make a motion that a violation exists? MR. MIESZCAK: You just did. I make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Echo. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 37 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Violation exists. Do you have a suggestion? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I do. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And that the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the 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: Okay. Anybody like to take a shot at this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, I will. I'll fill in the blanks. 80.86 paid within 30 days. Sixty days to comply or a $200 a day fine. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 38 February 28, 2013 MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Colleen? MS. CRAWLEY: Now we're moving on to number six, Case CESD201100011301, Luke and Jennifer J. Werner. (Investigator Short was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.B(1)(A) and 2010 Florida Building Code, Section 105.1 required. Description of violation: Fencing with a canceled permit and an expired permit for a constructed animal barn with electric. Location/address where violation exists: 441 35th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 38506840008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Luke and Jennifer J. Werner, 441 35th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: January 26th, 2011 . Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 29th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 28th, 2012. Date of reinspection: January 8, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Eric. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibit. Page 39 February 28, 2013 One photo taken on February 27th, 2013 by myself. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photo. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: This case originated on January 27th, 2011 . Investigator Asaro observed that Permit No. 2002052015 had expired and that the fence on the property was not permitted. Enforcement was stalled due to a bankruptcy until November 5th, 2012. The Code Enforcement foreclosure team attempted to gain compliance efforts and was unsuccessful. Attempts to contact the property owner has also been unsuccessful. To date the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You said there's electric in the -- MR. MIESZCAK: Electric fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fencing with a canceled permit and constructed animal barn with electric. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I'm sorry, the permit number that I stated is for -- it's an expired permit for the animal barn with electric. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's back from 2002? MR. MIESZCAK: '11 . INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That's correct. Page 40 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So safety may be an issue with that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this property occupied? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It is not. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It is not? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Not occupied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not just the animal barn but the home itself is not occupied? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll entertain a motion to find this in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: Make a motion -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That a violation -- MR. MIESZCAK: -- a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, Eric, do you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. That the Code Enforcement Page 41 February 28, 2013 Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining 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 is abated. Two: The respondents 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: Okay, has the foreclosure team had any comments as to when they think the bank is going to take over this property? Or we just don't know. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: A new lis pendens has not been filed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, it has not. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's not in foreclosure. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: And there was recently -- back in July actually there was an assignment of mortgage filed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typically that's what happens before they file a lis pendens. Has to do with writing off the asset. Okay, you've been unable to get ahold of the respondent. Do we have any discussion or a motion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'll make a motion that we grant them 60 days to comply or $200 a day fine, and the $80.86 paid within 30 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. Page 42 February 28, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number seven, Case CENA20120015339, Gwendolyn Green. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54-185(b). Description of violation: Weeds in excess of 18 inches. Location/address where violation exists: 3675 10th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 41044640003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Gwendolyn Green, 3675 10th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: October 9th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice the violation: October 10th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 31st, 2012. Date of reinspection: January 14th, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. Page 43 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Baldwin, morning. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photographs taken October 9th, 2012 and two photographs taken yesterday, February 27th, 2013. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second to accept the exhibits. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'd like to present the details of the case. On October 9th, 2012 I responded to a complaint by a neighbor. I observed weeds in excess of 18 inches. I then posted the property in the courthouse on October 10th, 2012. The home is occupied by a renter and I have not had any contact with the renter or the homeowner, despite several site visits, door hangers and postings. There is a lis pendens that has been recorded by Secured Income Group, Incorporated. That was recorded on May 2nd, 2012. And as of today, the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jen, could you throw up the previous Page 44 . February 28, 2013 picture, please. Okay. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: That's the photograph I took yesterday. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we have the knowledge as to whether or not this property is receiving electrical service? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, it is. I've been by this property probably 40 to 50 times over the last year for this case and a previous case and there's pretty much always a front on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this zoned RSF-1 ; do you know? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This is Estates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's Estates. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As far as the weeds, I think the ordinance says you have to cut them within 30 or 60 feet around -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, that would be in my recommendation, 30 feet or to the property -- 30 feet surrounding the principal structure or to the property line. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. And it looks like they're in excess of 18 inches. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: It's well above the -- as you can see just to the pictures on the left, some of the weeds over by the trash can are almost as high as the recycling bin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does the owner live in town or -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Per the records it says they live in the house. But in speaking to the Sheriffs Department about this property, there is a renter in the property that has some disorders, and so I don't know what's going on. I have left several, I'm talking probably 13, door hangers on this property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this the only case on this property or is litter -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, litter has already -- you guys have already heard that case from the board a few months ago. Page 45 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion a -- MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- violation exists. And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Must cut weeds, grass or similar non-protected overgrowth in excess of 18 inches in height located upon any improved lot within 30 feet of any residential structure up to lot line within seven days of this hearing or a fine of-- within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be assessed until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'm sorry, I didn't read the last part of the -- I'm sorry, I was just going how to abate the violation. Also, two: The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Page 46 February 28, 2013 investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the 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. How could I forget that, huh? MR. MIESZCAK: That's all right. I make a motion that 30 days, $200, and pay the operation costs, $80.57. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Within 30 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, it was stated. Okay, within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: What's the amount of time a correct the violation? MR. MIESZCAK: Thirty days. MR. LAVINSKI: Isn't that a little on the long side? MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, it is. MR. MARINO: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to modify your motion or you want to stick with it? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, he can modify it. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to suggest going with seven days or a $50 a day fine. MR. MIESZCAK: He amended the motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. MR. MIESZCAK: That's fine. I'll do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He does it. And the second on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. And he agrees. So it should be 80.57 with 30 days -- within seven days and $50 a day fine thereafter. Page 47 February 28, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Take more than seven days to mow that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They only have to mow within 30 feet of the house. MR. MARINO: They can start. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: How much is the fine? Sorry. How much is the fine? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fifty a day. MR. MIESZCAK: 200 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He changed it to 50. MR. MIESZCAK: Oh, I didn't hear that part. Boy, you're real tough. MR. MARINO: Did you say 50 a day? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are we set with that? MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, we're set. MR. LAVINSKI: What are we set with? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's 80.57 within 30 days. Seven days to cut the lawn. And the fine is $50 a day thereafter. Okay? All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. HUDSON: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries 5-1 . Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How about a short break? Page 48 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How are your fingers? THE COURT REPORTER: You want to take a short break? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, why don't we take this opportunity to take 10 minutes, come back here at 27 after. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement meeting back to order. Which brings us to our next case. MS. BAKER: Next case is number eight on the agenda, Case CESD20120015958, Kirk P. and Sheila A. Colvin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was the one that we heard earlier as far as a request for an extension. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Garage conversion without obtaining Collier County building permits. Location/address where violations exists: 163 Salvador Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 52397320001 . Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Kirk P. and Sheila A Colvin, 163 San Salvador Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: October 17th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 30th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 30th, 2012. Date of reinspection: February 7th, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning again. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Good morning. Page 49 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see a proper notification was given. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any comments on this? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I've been in contact with the property owner several times. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have photos on this one? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, I do, so I'll present it. For the record, Investigator Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. At this time I would like to present two photographs dated October 19th, 2012 taken by myself. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibits. All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: On October 17th, 2012 I observed a garage conversion without first obtaining Collier County building permits. After several conversations with Kirk Colvin, property owner, it was agreed that he would attempt to obtain a permit by affidavit or a demolition permit to restore the garage back to its original condition. To date the violation remains and I have not heard from the Page 50 February 28, 2013 property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a short garage, is that what I'm looking at? Kind of a wall right in the beginning of it? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. And what he indicated to me, it's a sewing room for his wife behind there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And did he say he was going to do something about this, or -- INVESTIGATOR ASARO: My last conversation with him was either he was going to obtain a permit by affidavit; if not, he was going to obtain a demolition permit to restore it back to its original condition. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we know why he's not here today? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: He's -- I believe he's employed in Orlando and they relocated. And I think they're actually trying to sell this house. MR. MARINO: Is there anybody living in it now? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, there's no one living in it. MR. MARINO: In the house. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No. As far as I know. As far as what he told me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to make a motion that a violation exists? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll make a motion the violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 51 February 28, 2013 MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy 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 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: Okay, anybody like to take a stab at filling in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll make a motion that the administrative fees be paid a30 days, that respondent be given 90 days to correct the violation or a fine of$200 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 52 February 28, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Tony. MS. BAKER: Next case is number nine on the agenda, Case CEAU20120009042, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is one of several? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. MR. MARINO: One of four. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. (Investigator Michele McGonagle was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Florida Building Code 2010 Edition, Chapter 1, Permit, Section 105.1 . Description of violation: Permit No. 2011030692 for an eight-foot concrete wall expired without obtaining a CO; six-foot wooden fence and a black chain link perimeter fence installed without obtaining Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 38280090006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc., 1029 Airport-Pulling Road North, #C-34, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: July 13th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July 30th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 18th, 2012. Date of reinspection: February 5th, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. Page 53 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning again. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One picture taken by me on June 21st, 2012, and two pictures taken by me on September 20th, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the pictures. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to accept the pictures. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I made a site visit on June 21st, 2012 and the property was posted no trespassing. From the roadway I was able to observe a wood fence beside the garage and a black chain link fence down the sides of the property. I checked CD Plus and City View and found Permit 2011030692 for an eight-foot concrete wall at the rear of the property that was not C.O.'d, and there were no permits for a six-foot wood fence or a chain link fence. On July 19th, 2012, a Notice of Violation was sent certified and first class mail. The owner had -- a certified return receipt was signed on July 30th, 2012. The owner had until August 18th, 2012 to abate Page 54 February 28, 2013 the violations. On August 22nd there were no valid permits for the wall or fences and I had no contact from the property owner. On September 20th, 2012, I made a site visit regarding other complaints and met with the tenant's father Jim and the tenant Tiffany who signed an entry of consent form. They escorted me to the rear of the property where I then observed the concrete wall. The previous tenants have moved and there is now a no trespassing sign that is reposted at the end of the driveway. There are no current permits for the concrete wall, wood fence or chain link fence. As of today I have not had any contact from the property owner, and the violations remain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you said you had other pictures? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: This picture was taken on September 20th when I met with the tenants. It shows the chain link fence on the south side of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a gas tank, propane? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That's one of our other cases, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That's the concrete wall at the rear of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they running a business out of there, do you think? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No. MR. MARINO: Mr. Chairman, isn't this the person that backs up to the Vineyards when we had the people from the Vineyards and he was using it for storage and everything else? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Page 55 February 28, 2013 MR. MARINO: It's the same person, correct? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. MR. MARINO: And there's no storage back there of debris and everything like he had before? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That's another case. MR. MARINO: That's the other case, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think there was also one with moving heavy equipment from time to time. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Right. Some of the violations are there, but they're not nearly what they were before. But there are still violations. MR. MARINO: Yeah, but he never did build a building, or is that another case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so the owner of the property, this is in a corporation name of Pee-Wee Dumpsters, Incorporated? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And do you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. That the Code Page 56 February 28, 2013 Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate completion or occupancy for the wall, wood fence and chain link fence within blank amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: 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: You said you've had a difficult time reaching anybody? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to take a stab at filling in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll take it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion that the respondent pay the $80 within 30 days, that he correct the violation within 30 days or a fine of$100 per day. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 57 February 28, 2013 MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 10, Case CESD20120014608, Pee-Wees Dumpsters, Inc. (Investigator McGonagle was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Florida Building Code 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 110.4 and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Detached garage with Permit No. 2011030691 without final C.O, and a canopy on the property without a permit. Location/address where violation exists: 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 3828009006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc., 1029 Airport Pulling Road North, #C-34, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: September 27th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 27th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 18th, 2012. Date of reinspection: February 5th, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: The following three cases are all from the time that I made the site visit on September 20th and met with the tenant and she had signed the entry of consent form. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we can hear them together but we vote on them separately, is that okay, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. But we have to have three different orders. Page 58 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: At the time of the visit this is when I had also observed a detached garage. And upon further inspection I found Permit No. 2011030691 did not have a final C.O. On September 27th, 2012, a Notice of Violation was sent certified first class mail, posted at the property and at the courthouse. The owner had until on October 18th, 2012 to abate the violations. On October 19th there was no reapplication for the garage permit. Since my initial inspection, I have been unable to access the property. The previous tenants have moved and there is now a no trespassing sign at the end of the driveway. As of today there is no valid permit for the garage and I've had no contact from the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any photos of this? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I do, I'm sorry. I have one photograph that was taken by me on September 20th, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That's the garage. MR. HUDSON: Where's the canopy? Page 59 February 28, 2013 INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: We're not going to address the canopy at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It doesn't look much like a garage, unless you have a real skinny car to go through that door. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Perhaps this is a pump house? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know what it is. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: The permit was listed as construct detached garage with electric. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's a pump house, perhaps. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know what it is. MR. MIESZCAK: There's a mobile home next to it. MR. HUDSON: That's a delivery truck. MR. MIESZCAK: That's a what? MR. HUDSON: It's a delivery truck. MR. MARINO: It's debatable. MR. HUDSON: Very true. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you read the next case, though, you might go along with -- MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I don't get ahead. I've got to do a case at a time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I read them all at one time. The back of this looks like it's -- is that what you consider a canopy? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No, there is actually a canopy, it's a separate canopy. I have a picture, if you'd like to see it. This also was taken on September 20th, 2012 by me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't need anything else. I think this has no permit. And you can call it a garage or whatever you want to call it, it's a structure with no permit. Anybody like to make a motion that a violation exists? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; do we have a Page 60 February 28, 2013 second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And do you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81 .43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion within blank amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: 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: Do you know whether or not this is in lis pendens? Page 61 February 28, 2013 INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: It is not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is not, okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose a fine, $81 .43, to be paid in 30 days; 60 days and $150 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 11, Case CEPM20120013535, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc. (Investigator McGonagle was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, buildings and building regulations, Article 6, property maintenance code, Section 22-231(1), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 130, Article 3, Section 130-96(a). Description of violation: A motor home and travel trailer with people living in them with sewage pipes going from them into the ground. Location/address where violation exists: 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 38280090006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc., 1029 Airport Pulling Road Page 62 February 28, 2013 North, number C-34, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: September 20th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 27th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 7th, 2012. Date of reinspection: October 19th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Eight photographs taken by me on September 20th, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second to accept. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: These photos were taken by me on September 20th, 2012 at the time of my visit with the tenant. I observed a motor home under a large carport with a sewage pipe running from it into the ground, an electric cord running from it into an electric box. I could hear a dog barking inside the motor home and something electric was running in the motor home. I also observed a travel trailer on the property with the sewage line coming from it into the ground and electric running from it into a Page 63 February 28, 2013 nearby building. On September 27th, 2012, a Notice of Violation was sent certified and first class mail and posted at the property and courthouse. The owner had until October 7th to abate the violations. I have not had any contact from the property owner and unable to access the property again. As of today the owner has still not contacted me to verify compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you've had no contact whatsoever? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It looks like, Chris, that you are right, that is a delivery truck. That was the yellow one. This is almost flaunting what they were doing in the eyes of folks. Anybody like to make a motion a violation exists? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And you have a suggestion, I'm sure. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. That the Code Page 64 February 28, 2013 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: Number one, must cease using recreational vehicles for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes and disconnect the vehicles from any unimproved water and sanitary sewer system within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: 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: Thank you. MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shoot. MR. MARINO: You said there's no one living in the house, correct, and there's a no trespassing sign? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: As far as I know there is no one living in the house. But I can't even approach the front of the house because the no trespass sign is at the end of the driveway. MR. MARINO: There were people living in the motor home back in October? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. And that's behind the house and you can't view that from either neighboring property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you notice any registered vehicles on the property from the road? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Not at the time of my last visit, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Prior to that you did? Page 65 February 28, 2013 INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: When the tenants were living there I did. And since -- when they told me that they were moving out, I believe it was in October that they moved, there have been no other vehicles visible from the roadway. MR. MARINO: The first picture showed a red vehicle in the driveway. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to put that photo up again, the first one? MS. BAKER: The first case? MR. MARINO: The first case. MR. HUDSON: It was a different address though, wasn't it? MS. BAKER: No. MR. MARINO: No, she was in front of his house. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That was from September 20th. That would have been a tenant's vehicle. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, never mind. Well, it looks like they have several major problems there, especially with them not appearing here today and no response to you whatsoever. Anybody like to take a stab at this? I'm concerned with the people living in the trailer possibly. There's water to the trailer I guess from a well that's out in the Estates on Logan. Logan would be considered the Estates, so they probably have a well to provide water. A sewer that's probably a health and safety -- I'm sure that's not -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: It's hard to say whether that actually goes into a septic or not. I can't verify where it's actually going. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Ralph looks like he wants to say something. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I was just informed that the neighbor to this property is here and they said there is now someone living in the main structure. Page 66 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists and to pay operating costs of$81 .15 within 30 days, and seven days to correct the problem or a $200 a day fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have one more Pee-Wee. MS. BAKER: The next case is number 12, CELU20120014618, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc. (Investigator McGonagle was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: Concrete blocks, barrels, buckets, plywood, hoses, plastic pipe and a large storage container, miscellaneous construction equipment, building supplies and a pile of broken concrete, bricks and rocks stored on the property. Location/address where violation exists: 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 382800900006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc., 1029 Airport Pulling Road Page 67 February 28, 2013 North, number C-34, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: September 27th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 27th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 18th, 2012. Date of reinspection: October 19th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Eight photographs taken by me on September 20th, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photographs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Again, these photos were taken on September 20th, 2012 at the time that I met with the tenant. I observed a motor home under a large -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you give us a little blow-by-blow on the pictures as we see them so I -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is that top picture showing? Page 68 February 28, 2013 MR. HUDSON: Concrete blocks in the back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, around the perimeter of that building? MR. HUDSON: Yeah, you can see if you look in the distance, there's some concrete blocks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, got it. Concrete debris. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That's the pile of the concrete debris, the bricks and rocks. The top one was the stack of concrete block. This is on the south side of the property. It shows the large storage container. Right to the right of that is some sort of a recreational trailer, one of the enclosed type trailers, a ladder, plywood, some barrels, containers with other big plastic containers inside them. MR. MARINO: Where that trailer is, is that the part of the property that backs up to the Vineyards; do you know? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What size is this property; do you recall? MR. MIESZCAK: I've seen this before. No canopy. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I have all my paperwork on one case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm guessing it's two and three-quarters, or -- is it possible it's five acres? MR. MARINO: You know, the first pictures that we saw last year they took from the front. It was a very large piece of property; it had all storage in the back, there was some equipment on the property also at that time. It's got to be at least three acres, I bet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The reason I ask the question is a neighbor was a lot closer, if it's 180 feet wide rather than -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: It's 2.14 acres. Page 69 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So about 250 feet wide. MR. HUDSON: Was there anything in those drums, those plastic drums? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I don't know. MR. HUDSON: Because those look like chlorine containers, so I was just -- I mean, they could be any type container, but presumably in that setup they're used for chlorine. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That could be. I'm not sure what's in them. And that picture there on the top, it shows the miscellaneous construction type equipment. You can see office chairs. To the -- behind that building there's also that large plastic container, propane tank or whatever it is. MR. MARINO: That's not propane, that looks like a fiberglass tank. Do you have an idea what that stainless steel piece is that's sitting there where that step stool is? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: It looks like it's some sort of a portable trailer. I classify that as miscellaneous construction type equipment because I don't know exactly what it's used for. MR. MARINO: That little stainless steel -- the one on the side of the little storage area, that stainless steel where the step ladder is. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: This one? MR. MARINO: Yeah. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: It appears to be some sort of a portable -- MR. MARINO: It's got wheels on it or something? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. MR. HUDSON: Looks like a mobile cooking station. MR. MARINO: Looks like some kind of a -- okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A lawn chair with wheels. Page 70 February 28, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Looks like a casket. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That's just a shot from further back. This is actually right beside where the motor home is at, looking to the south of the property. That's the concrete wall. That's the wall that backs up to the Vineyards. You can -- this picture isn't very good because of the way that the shadows are right there, but also in that corner there are a bunch of bicycles and just other miscellaneous metal and things piled back there in that corner. MR. MARINO: Like a junk yard. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: And again, since my initial inspection I have had no contact from the property owners verifying whether the violation has been abated, and I've not been able to access the property to re-inspect. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And I'm sure you have a suggestion for us. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs Page 71 February 28, 2013 in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Properly storing all unauthorized material in an enclosed structure or removed from the property within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: 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: Okay, anybody have any comments from the board? MR. MARINO: I have a question. It might not have anything to do -- how does someone obtain entry to the property when there's a no trespassing sign, especially if you're -- Jean, is that one for you? Why can't she? I mean, being a county employee, why can't she go on the property? MS. RAWSON: Well, she can probably tell you why she can't. I don't think she's authorized to go past no trespassing signs as her job as a code enforcement officer. But you can ask her. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: And she's correct. And I could go back there if I obtained an inspection warrant. But at this point it wasn't necessary because I already had entry of consent from the tenants where I was able to observe the violations. And part of that Notice of Violation is for the property owner to contact me to verify that they have abated the violations. And I have had no contact from them verifying that they did abate the violation. So as far as I'm concerned a violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the Sheriff would have access if you need. Page 72 February 28, 2013 MR. MARINO: I'm sorry I didn't ask you the question directly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anybody like to take a stab at this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, I will. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion that we impose a fine, $80.57, to be paid within 30 days, and the time of 60 days to abate all -- and $150 a day. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Discussion on the motion? I'd like to say that I would like to see a higher fine on this, personally. MR. LAVINSKI: What was the amount of time? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty days. MR. LAVINSKI: Sixty. MR. MIESZCAK: I guess the amount of fine didn't bother me because he's got four fines on each case, and that's multiple. So that's why. I think he's going to be $600 a day as it is. So that's why 150 -- what would you like to make it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 250. I think that we need to get their attention somehow. Obviously the past hasn't helped. I think the respondent needs a wake-up call on this. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I'll respect the influence of the Chairman and make it $250 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: A question about the timing on this. This respondent has had since September the 27th already. I wonder if 60 days might be a little long. Just a question, sir. MR. MARINO: Thirty and 250. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to adjust the time, or you want to stick with that? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll adjust the time, 30 days at $250. Very Page 73 February 28, 2013 good. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the second seconds that. So we have 80.57 to be paid within 30 days, $250 a day fine thereafter and 30 days to -- MR. MIESZCAK: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- bring everything into compliance. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Good job. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: That's twice. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 13, CEI/Kensington, Ltd., Case CEPM20120009999. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The emergency case. (Investigator Bosa was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Buildings Regulations, Article 6, Property Maintenance Code Section 22-231(12)(f) and Section 22-231(12)(b). Description of violation: Metal stairs that are rusted through, creating a hazardous condition, and holes in the ceiling with rotted Page 74 February 28, 2013 wood exposed due to water damage. Location/address where violation exists: 8695 Saddlebrook Circle, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio 298120307. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: CEI/Kensington LTD, care of Colonial Equities, Inc., 5055 Keller Springs Road, Suite 400, Addison, Texas, 75001. Date violation first observed: July 3rd, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July 5th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 25th, 2012. Date of reinspection: January 7th, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning again. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Good morning again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I assume that you have some exhibits for us? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir, I do. For the record, Ralph Bosa for Code Enforcement. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have nine photos dated July 3rd, 2012 taken by myself, and I have four photos dated February 21st, 2013, the most recent photos, taken by Investigator Box, which I was present at the time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those photos? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, he has. I showed him this -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those photos? MR. HARTSELL: No, Mr. Chairman. And for the record, Steve Hartsell again with Pavese Law Firm on behalf of the applicant. To the extent that we can perhaps expedite this aspect of the hearing, the applicant isn't disputing -- without waiving the jurisdictional issues that I've already raised, the applicant's not Page 75 February 28, 2013 disputing that there are violations out there that need to be repaired. As I mentioned, and Mr. Bosa and I have both discussed this, we've got building applications applied for for all eight buildings. These violations relate to three particular buildings. The applicant is, to the extent that they can get the first -- make these three buildings the first buildings that are reviewed by the building department so that we can get those permits issued, we're more than happy to do our best to get that expedited and work with the county to that extent. So in terms of the violations themselves, we're not asking that Code Enforcement demonstrate that there are violations that exist out there. As I said, we've already applied for the permits to fix those. We just recognize that we can't get them fixed until the permits get issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we're going to go through our process, naturally. But you've been unable to reach a stipulation with the county? MR. HARTSELL: I don't believe Mr. Bosa had that authority at this stage. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, we could, but he wanted a continuance. That's what his letter meant, for continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. That was denied. But even after that, as far as the stipulation on this case now. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, there was no indication he wanted any stipulation. But it can be offered. I can offer him a stipulation; I have that authority to do -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that what you'd like to do? MR. HARTSELL: Certainly we can stipulate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you -- MR. MIESZCAK: Could I ask one question before you go? When was the permit applied for? MR. HARTSELL: February 22nd. Page 76 February 28, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you, sir. MR. HARTSELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think you could go out in the hall and see what you can iron out and come back in -- MR. HARTSELL: Five minutes? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whatever it takes. MR. HARTSELL: Certainly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hear the next case and then we'll slot you in as soon as you come back. MR. HARTSELL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jen, we might as well take the next case. MS. BAKER: Yeah, we'll be moving under number five, old business, letter A, Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens. First case is Case CESD20110005345, Grand Cypress Communities, Inc. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(i). Violation location: 3887 Mannix Drive, Unit 605, Naples, Florida, 34114. Folio No. 76885100984. Violation description: Remodel, including the removal of a fire wall between the commercial unit 604 and 605 prior to the issuance of a Collier County building permit. Past order: On August 23rd, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4832, Page 1955, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board Page 77 February 28, 2013 orders as of January 25th, 2013. The fines and cost 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 December 21st, 2012 and January 25th, 2013, for 36 days, for the total amount of $7,200. Order item number five, operational costs of 82.86 have been paid. Total amount to date: $7,200. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those -- MR. MIESZCAK: I have a discussion, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MIESZCAK: You know, it just amazes me, I've been on this board about eight years, and here we have somebody that takes down a wall in a building of that size that maybe could collapse part of a building. And how long did that go on? I don't know. But what was pulled before the last one and at the last minute things were done. And I just don't understand how that went so fast. As you know, it was pulled right before our last meeting. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. MIESZCAK: But here's a gentleman that took down a wall in a major building that could have collapsed it and yet he had to put it back up. And how long did he have it like that? That's a sad, sad thing. I mean, there's somebody that should be watched. Because he's opening another store, who knows he's not doing the same thing. Now he's in Naples. So I just wonder about a person like that that just defies law totally. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion to abate Page 78 February 28, 2013 and a second. All those in favor? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. MIESZCAK: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, 5-1 . Passes. MS. BAKER: Next case is number two under imposition, Case CESD20110001100, Steven J. Sokol. (Investigator Kelly and Steven Sokol were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR KELLY: Good morning. For the record, Andrew Kelly, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation -- this is for case -- the violation is Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 4, Excavation, Section 22-108. Location of violation is 925 Sunnygrove Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34114. Folio No. is 00756280006. Description of violation: Is excavation prior to obtaining Collier County approval and necessary permits. Past orders: On March 22nd, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact/conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR Book 4784a Page 1851 for more information. An extension of time was granted on September 27th, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4844, Page 287 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 19th, 2013. Page 79 February 28, 2013 The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Orders item one and two, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 26th, 2013 through February 19th, 2013, 25 days, for the total of$2,500. Order Item number five, operational costs of$82 have been paid. Total amount to date, $2,500. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs paid. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate the fine. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. Sorry we didn't give you a chance to speak but I think -- MR. SOKOL: I'm fine with that, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you'll enjoy it. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. CRAWLEY: Next case is number four, Case CESD20100006719, Leszek and Henryka Klim. (Supervisor Kitchell Snow and Leszek Klim and Interpreter Peter Banski were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which case is this? MS. CRAWLEY: Number four. SUPERVISOR SNOW: The board is familiar with this case. For the record, Kitchell Snow, Code Enforcement. Page 80 February 28, 2013 This concerns violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 102 -- I'm sorry, 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). The location is 370 Leawood Circle, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio is 54670003124. Description is addition built on the rear of the home without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. Past orders: On August 25th, 2011, 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 violations. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4718a Page 1671, for more information. An extension of time was granted on March 22nd, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4784, Page 1817, for more information. An additional extension of time was granted on October 25th, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4853, Page 1148, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 4th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Orders item number one and two, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between January 25th, 2013 and February 4th, 2013, 11 days, for a total of$2,200. Order item number five is operational costs of$80.57 have been paid. Total amount to date is $2,200. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs paid. Do we have a motion to abate? MR. MARINO: Make a motion to abate. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 81 February 28, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We thank the board. MR. LESZEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number five, Case CESD20120006147, Josse L. Perez and Isabel Perez. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement. Violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 37221090008. The violation description: An unpermitted window added to the garage, along with a large hole in the garage wall with an AC unit within. Past order: On November 29th, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4865, Page 2623, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 28th, 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 January 30th, 2013 and February 28th, 2013, 30 days, Page 82 February 28, 2013 for the total amount of$6,000. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $6,080.86. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case is number six, Case CESD20110011822, Miriam H. Montes De Oca. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. A violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 4015 20th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 40410840001 . Violation description: Three sheds, a separate garage and additions made to the residential structure, specifically a garage, Florida room and enclosed lanai, have no valid Collier County Page 83 February 28, 2013 building permits. Past order: On July 26th, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board 4825, Page 907, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement orders as of January 29th, 2013. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$250 per day for the period between November 24th, 2012 to January 29th, 2013, totaling 67 days, for the total amount of$16,750. Order Item number five, operational costs of$80.29 have been paid. Total amount to date: $16,750. The county recommends full abatement of the fines as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case is Case CELU20110006574, Kirstin C. Page 84 February 28, 2013 Martucci. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you want to -- they're back from their hall visit. MS. BAKER: It's up to you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hear this one. It probably won't take long. And then we'll hear Ralph and company. (Investigator Davis and Al Martucci were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: For the record, Investigator James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance, Section 126-111(b), Local Business Tax, and Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 2.02.03a and 5.02.03(c). The location of the violation is 311 16th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 37493560007. Description of the violation is no valid Collier County occupational license for KAM Concrete, Inc. Company and employee vehicles are stored and parked on Estates zoned property and employees are traveling to and from residence parking personal vehicles on-site and picking up company vehicles. The past order: On November 18th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744, Page 1118, for more information. An extension of time was granted on April 26th, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4795, Page 88, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 28th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and three, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between a27, 2013 to February 28th, 2013, 33 days, for the Page 85 February 28, 2013 total of$3,300. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number two and four, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the period between January 27th, 2013 to February 28th, 2013, 33 days, for the total of$8,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of$81 .43 have been paid, for a total amount to date $11,550. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARTUCCI: Sir, may I explain? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MARTUCCI: We went a couple of months to get all the money together and we hired Blair as our civil engineer back in June or July to get the process rolling. And in September -- because we met with the board a couple times. In September we had a gentleman approach us, Andrew Saloon (phonetic), and was interested in purchasing the property that we purchased and maybe trading us. So we were kind of hoping that we'd be able to trade with him with something with, you know, power, electric and a fence already so we didn't have to go through the whole process of clearing and saving a little bit of money. So we went three or four months on that and then he got with us back in January and said that they do want to trade. Well, the piece of property they wanted to trade with us was not worth it. So then I went back to Mr. Blair here and we have paid him the money and we have got the process rolling. But that's why it's taken so long, because we were kind of hoping to be able to trade out that property and not have to go through the whole process of clearing and developing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we're not here at this time to rehear the case. The case -- it's still not in compliance. You do have an option after, if we should find you -- if we should find to impose the fine, you can go to the county probably when you have this thing more in hand and resolved and ask them for relief, okay? Page 86 February 28, 2013 Did I explain that okay, Diane? MS. FLAGG: Yes, you did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Okay, any motion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'd like to make a motion that we impose the fine. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, you do have an option going forward, you understand? MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, the Martuccis have another case. Do you want to take that before we -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BAKER: -- take the other one? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BAKER: It's number eight, Case CESD20110008406, Kirstin C. Martucci. (Investigator Davis and Mr. Martucci were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and Page 87 February 28, 2013 Florida Building Code 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1 . Location: 311 16th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 37493560007. Description of the violation: A 384-square foot shed on the property. No valid Collier County building permit has been issued. Permit No. 2009081356 for a six-foot chain link fence expired on February 22nd, 2010. Past orders: On November 18th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744a Page 1115 for more information. An extension of time was granted on April 26th, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4795a Page 90 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 28th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between a27th, 2013 to February 28th, 2013, for 33 days, for the total of$4,950. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$81 .15 have been paid. Total amount to date: $4,950. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARTUCCI: The fence, we opted not to put it up. That's why we didn't go through with it, the permit. The shed, we were going to move it over to the commercial property as soon as we get it developed. So that's kind of why it hasn't gone any further. Because we've been with the -- we had Chris as a case investigator. And the only -- we did go for some kind of permit or something for it. But they said the only thing that was wrong with it is Page 88 February 28, 2013 I was 10 feet or 12 feet. I didn't have enough footage from the canal to the back of the shed was the main problem. But I said instead of getting a truck out there and moving it are we okay, because we're going to try to go ahead and move it. That's why we had the extension, we were going to move it with the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Just like the other case, should we find -- should we impose this, you can go to the county and I'm sure they'll be glad to listen to you. MR. MARTUCCI: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, get a motion from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion a fine does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to impose? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fines. Sony. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: Thank you. MR. MARTUCCI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tell me you reached an agreement. MR. HARTSELL: Mr. Chairman, well, we've reached agreement, but we're unable to stipulate. In essence, again, reserving the jurisdictional issues, the applicant is willing to stipulate to a Page 89 February 28, 2013 finding that the violations exist. What we're asking for is 90 to 120 days to fix the three buildings where the violations exist from the time that the permits are issued. Mr. Bosa doesn't really have the authority to stipulate to that. Apparently the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The board does. MR. HARTSELL: -- board does. So basically what we're asking is for -- you know, it's outside our purview to determine when the permits get issued. But from the time the permits are issued, if we could have 90 to 120 days to abate the violations, then that would work. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we -- MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, can we present the case so the board has an idea? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was just going there. We'll hear the case and we'll go through it. Okay, Ralph. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: For the record again, Ralph Bosa for Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Nine photos dated July 3rd, 2012 taken by myself, and four photos dated February 21st, 2013 taken by Investigator Box, who was -- and I was there present also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you've seen the photos? MR. HARTSELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. And do -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- we have a second? And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 90 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: With your okay, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hold off on the photos, do a brief presentation and then go back to the photos -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: -- and present each one. On July 2nd, 2012 I received a call from Fire Inspector Mike Bays of the Golden Gate Fire Department, who wanted me to meet with him at Saddlebrook Apartments to report several violations within the property. Inspector Bays did show me the stairs and several buildings that lead to the second floor that were severely rusted through and also missing sheetrock on the outside part of the building where you could see the exposed wood and it was rotting and mold and things like that due to water damage. I'd like to go to the pictures and show you what I'm talking about. Here in these stairs here you can see those stairs are metal. It's pretty decent thick metal and you could tell it's been going on for a while. You can even see the light coming through the top stairs there. All that is metal there that's rusted through. Same thing here. It's some tripping hazards, metal that's just protruding from the stairs itself. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Approximately what age are these structures? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: These structures, if I remember Page 91 February 28, 2013 correctly, is in the Nineties. It was built in the Nineties. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Same thing with this, a lot of rust. You can see paint chipping off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They look like they're slanted from left to right. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Slanted? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unless it's my eyes. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: I think it might be the way the picture's taken. MR. HUDSON: Yeah, I think it's the camera. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yeah, it's the camera. In this picture here, you can see all the water damage, all the sheetrock is gone and everything. It's kind of hard to see but inside the wood has mold in it. And also, it's been like that for so long it has vegetative growth coming out of the wood. MR. MARINO: Is that an exterior wall of a room there, like a -- what are we looking at? MR. MIESZCAK: Looks like an under -- MR. MARINO: Was that the overhang? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Overhang. MR. MARINO: That's the overhang? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: That's the overhang. Yeah, that's the landing to the second floor with the stairs. Here we see -- this is actually taken from -- it's kind of a weird angle. Yeah, so you can see the wood, mold, the water damage in there. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What are we looking at? Is this a wall or overhang again? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: It's an overhang again. It's just the way the picture is. It's got a -- MR. MARINO: Is that an overhang or is it a closet? There's a Page 92 February 28, 2013 light in it. Storage area, shed of some -- MR. HARTSELL: It's an overhang. MR. MARINO: There's a light in it. But it doesn't look -- looks like an enclosed -- what would have been an enclosed building, a room or something. Do you see it? You didn't see it? MR. LAVINSKI: They're going to put it back up. MR. MARINO: There's a lightbulb in there. See that lightbulb? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, that's not electrical. I have no idea what that is, but it wasn't electrical. MR. MARINO: That's not a lightbulb? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, sir. That white thing in there, no, it's not. Looks like some kind of piping or something, some PVC piping or something. MR. MARINO: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: I have no idea. MR. MARINO: My eyes this morning. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: This is the exterior part also. The same thing, more rotting wood and -- This is the stairs here, creating a tripping hazard. Some of the metal is peeled back from the -- at the edge of the stairs. And this one here, these are probably the worst stairs as far as rotting through. You can see all the light where it's coming through where all the rust has just eaten up the stairs. And these next series of photos are just the most recent photos showing that the violations are still there. No change at all. Same thing. The only difference is they did expose the wood more so the wood can dry up a little more, so -- Continuing with my presentation here. I gave them a Notice of Violation on July 5th, 2012 to the property management company, advising them of the violations that existed. Page 93 February 28, 2013 On July 13th, we even went a step further and I met with Myron Jacobs who is a chief structural engineer and Tim Stick, a building inspector for the county. We also met with managing and maintenance personnel at Saddlebrook Apartments in regards to the violations of the property. That way we were all in agreement that a violation did exist and we did make sure that there was, you know, no misunderstanding as far as what was needed and health and safety issues on this property. On July 19th, I started receiving -- one of the first reports I received from an engineering firm stating that they were putting up temporary shorings because -- it's kind of hard to see in the pictures and stuff, but you can tell that the stairs at the landing there was also kind of disconnecting from the building itself and started cracking. And this was confirmed by the chief building -- the chief structural engineer. So there was just -- so he needed shorings to keep these stairs from falling apart. They did put -- stabilize buildings one, two, three and five. We did receive periodic engineering reports saying that they did inspect them and were keeping the shorings up. On August 23rd a permit was applied for, but the permit was rejected to have some of these problems fixed. And from then on no corrections were ever made on the permit and we resubmitted for this on December 12th, 2012. So from August 23rd to December 12th, 2012 the permit was still in reject status. Nothing was done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know why they were rejected? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, sir. They -- probably mistakes on the plans or something. I'm not sure, I couldn't tell you what. But still to this day it's still rejected status. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are those staircases the only access to certain apartments? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, they have a second set of stairs Page 94 February 28, 2013 on the other side of the building south. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they are in better shape? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: They're in a little better shape, yeah. They are starting to rust through too. They pretty much look the same. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they a safety hazard; do you know? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, they are. I consider them a safety hazard. There's a community with several buildings and children running around; that was my concern with that, so -- Also, on the 21st -- the reason why I brought this as an emergency hearing, I considered it a life safety issue because they were trying to make compliance efforts, but then in January I noticed that two lien searches were done which indicates that they were trying to sell the property. And another indicator was that we met with the prospective buyers of this -- of the property who wanted to buy the property. So I wanted to bring the case here as soon as possible because I don't want these violations to be passed onto another property owner. Plus extending the time. The clock would start all over again, we would have to reissue the Notice of Violation and go through this whole process again. We did give them ample time to try to come into compliance. We did work with them. Kept in -- numerous correspondence from Mr. Hartsell and from, you know, property managers and things like that saying they were trying to come into compliance but it was just the violations were still there. As of February 22nd, eight permits were issued to have the stairs fixed, which -- and I indicated February 21st was the day the property manager received -- you know, I dropped off the Notice of Hearing. The next day eight permits were not issued but in -- were applied for. They're in apply status right now. So I think that's pretty much it. Page 95 February 28, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Did I hear that right, you said they were applied for? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, applied for. They're being reviewed right now. MR. MIESZCAK: They don't have a permit? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No permit. They don't have it in hand, no. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay, thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Right now they're being reviewed and it usually takes -- they have on hold of five days right off the bat, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I think we better understand what's going on there now. Can you give us your take on the matter? MR. HARTSELL: Mr. Chairman, yes, sir. To the extent that there are questions in terms of the purchase, the owners have been forthright about the fact that there's a purchase. They've been forthright with the purchaser about what the violations are. That's actually a significant part of the reason why the delay has occurred. Back in October, November, the purchaser was discussing the possible purchase. And for the reasons that Mr. Bosa has pointed out, when you've got a prospective purchaser and you've got violations that are occurring, the question is who's better to apply for the permits, a new owner or the existing owner. Unfortunately it's taken this four or five-month period of time before the new purchaser or prospective purchase is at a place where they're prepared to move forward on it. They had to get an assignment of housing density, housing bonus rights approved by the county which took place -- as I understand it took place two days ago. So there were a number of steps that had to be taken care of. Yes, Mr. Bosa's correct, February 21st when the Notice of Hearing came forward, the owner said fine, we'll put the permit applications in. It may or may not create some problems for the Page 96 February 28, 2013 perspective purchaser with regard to having building permit applications pending at the time or being issued. But frankly, it was my recommendation that you get those permit applications and get them reviewed. So where we are right now is all eight of the buildings have permit applications under review. As soon as those are issued, the repairs -- that the owners are prepared to begin their repairs right away. What they're asking for is essentially an opportunity to have, say, 90 to 120 days from the issuance of the permits in order to take care of those repairs. To the extent that we've got eight buildings under review, what they're willing to do is whatever they can do in order to make sure that these three buildings, I believe it's 8625, 8635 and 8645 Saddlebrook, have those three buildings be the first ones that are reviewed and approved by the building department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just to explain our process, the next thing we're going to find, whether a violation exists or not. If it doesn't exist, it's over. If it does exist, then we go into the remedy, et cetera. The concern I have obviously is the safety issue. I'm not the lightest person in the world, although I was heavier, but I'd be afraid to walk up those stairs. And you probably would also. MR. HARTSELL: I will say, and Mr. Bosa has been very forthright in pointing out that from July 16th we've had an engineer go out and -- I mean, the shoring, there was temporary shoring done. Because again, without a permit you can't make the improvements. So they went out and they did temporary shoring and they had a structural engineer inspect that. And we have provided periodic reports from that structural engineer as late as this week demonstrating that structurally they are still sound. But it's temporary, and there's no question about that. A permanent solution needs to be implemented. Page 97 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Bosa -- INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- do you want to comment on whatever you received back from the structural engineer? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes. On the structural engineers, I mean, I have several reports here. I have one here dated, you might want to see, December 19th, 2012. Shows the shorings, the temporary fix on the report. If you want to see that one. MR. HARTSELL: I would for the record like to at least submit copies of a number of those reports, beginning from July 16th all the way through February 22nd, indicating that structurally the temporary shoring is adequate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If we take those reports, you won't get them back. You have other copies of them? MR. HARTSELL: I have other copies. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine. We'll just show them on the overhead. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the new documentary evidence, photos and letters. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 98 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. HUDSON: While we're waiting to see the documents, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, you know, at this current time I'm sort of leaning towards there's a violation here. I just think that if anyone else on the board concurs, that when we go to figure out the recommendation that there's some significant time added on. Because two of these reports indicate they are working at length, and I don't know what the conversation was in the hallway with why we don't have a stipulation in front of us, but at this time I'm seeing that there's a violation and I just think that when we go to do the order, I hope there's some significant time for folks who clearly attended and clearly went out of their way to communicate with the Code Enforcement. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Before -- are you going to show those on the overhead? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. I'm showing here February 22nd, 2013 engineering services group report. And you can see on the bottom, the conclusion of the engineering report. These repairs are meant to be temporary, as weather conditions with age continue to deteriorate certain portions of the structures. So that shows that the more time we wait the worse it's going to get. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That says 30 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And the date of this document is? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: February 22nd, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. HUDSON: Then I'd like to retract my last statement. Maybe more time is inaccurate, based on seeing this report. MR. HARTSELL: If I may explain. Recognizing the engineer has said these need to be inspected every 30 days, and we acknowledge that they are temporary. I mean, the point being, they have provided temporary shoring while we're waiting for the permits Page 99 February 28, 2013 to be issued. So they are addressing that. There's no question that it's only temporary. But some time will be necessary in order to actually implement the repairs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I think there's a lot to be discussed, should we find you in violation, as to what needs to continue, the 30-day inspections, et cetera, et cetera. But the first order of business would be does a violation exist. MR. HUDSON: I think a violation exists, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a motion? MR. HUDSON: That's a motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, a violation exists now. How do we put the baby back together? Mr. Bosa, you have some suggestion, I'm sure? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir, I do have a recommendation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then we will go to the respondent to see if he has any comments on that and whatever else we come up with. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes sir. Page 100 February 28, 2013 Recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$82.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy to fix the exterior stairs and walls within blank amount of days of the hearing or a fine of blank amount 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: Okay. My first concern obviously is safety. So the -- whatever we come up with, I think the 30-day reinspection from a licensed structural engineer should occur every 30a during the period of time that is granted to take care of this situation, this violation. That's number one. Counselor, do you have any comment on that portion first? MR. HARTSELL: No, that would be perfectly acceptable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't know what's going to happen as far as the sale of this property or not, but we certainly don't want the clock to start again on this because of safety reasons. MR. MARINO: You know, looking at the pictures, that's not a quick fix situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. The structural engineers I'm sure have some suggestion on whatever they've done so far to deem them safe. They are licensed in the State of Florida, so I would suspect that they're doing what is proper. I can't overrule them. MR. MIESZCAK: Let me ask one question. When do you think Page 101 February 28, 2013 there might be permits? They're applied for. So you can't -- MR. HARTSELL: It's a little bit difficult to say, but I think that probably four to eight weeks is a reasonable time within which to expect that the permits for each of the buildings would be issued. We'll do our best to get those expedited. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is the county's feeling on that estimate of time? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: It could be a long time before they get those permits. Right now it's still on an inspection -- it's on a hold right now until everybody reviews it. There's, you know, reviews, there's corrections, everything. It's just -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Why is the process on hold again? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: They have a five-day hold on it while everybody looks at the -- what they have to look at and see what can be approved, not approved or things like that. MR. MARINO: How do they intend on repairing it? Are you replacing the steps? Are those steps being torn out and new ones being put in? My main concern is the steps, the deterioration of the steps. I mean, how are they going to fix them? I don't think you just go in there and weld some pieces on there and fix them. MR. MARTUCCI: I don't believe that that was the suggestion. With me today is Scott Bigham, who is the project manager, and he can address that. One thing perhaps that I might throw out, because I understand your struggle, how long is it before the permits are actually issued. Not that I am looking forward to coming back before you, but one possibility might be to say in 60 days we come back before you to give you a status report in order to determine whether the permits have been issued. And if so, how -- you know, how much we have been able to repair. And at that point in time you could essentially make the determination as to what's reasonable or not reasonable, and then at Page 102 February 28, 2013 least you've got a status update in terms of whether the county was actually able to get the permits issued and whether the applicant has functioned. I understand that's a question in everybody's mind. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Diane, do you have a comment? MS. FLAGG: In light of the life safety issue here, the Code Enforcement office will work with them to expedite these permits through to address the life safety issues. So if you've set an order with a very short time frame and if for some unusual reason the permits held them up, they can always come back for a continuance of that, which is the other option. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to go with the inspection time, 30 days. It has to be inspected again on March 22nd, correct? Is this what I'm reading? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. So I have no problem with 30 days increment. MR. HUDSON: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. What's being done about the actual folks living in the residences? Have they been notified or are they aware of sort of the situation those steps are in? I mean, you said that there's one other set of steps going in and out but, I mean, in the event of an emergency or, you know, hurricane season's around the corner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How about in the event of somebody moving in or out and carrying something very heavy. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, it does pose a safety issue, yeah. They do have another set of stairs they can use. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But that's in poor condition as well. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Some of them, yeah, pretty rusted. You know, they're getting to that condition also. MR. HUDSON: Are all the units occupied? I mean, do you have people moving in, moving out? I mean, are they going to be carrying couches, safes -- Page 103 February 28, 2013 INVESTIGATOR BOSA: From my inspections I did see people, you know, around in the community. Yeah, there's quite a few people there. MR. MARINO: And all tenants can come down or go up from both set of steps? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes. Yeah. So that was inspected by the fire inspector, which he has to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the fire inspector taken a look at the work that's been done to shore these up? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir, he has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has he deemed them to be safe at this time? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: As far as the shorings, holding that up, yes. He still doesn't believe -- he's still -- you know, the stairs are not safe. So the stairs are not safe and the rotting wood. And that has to be done as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I grant you that it should be done as quickly as possible. I mean, the alternative is to say so can't use the stairs so you stay in the apartment forever or don't go back into the apartment. There's got to be something in between to resolve the situation. I think Code Enforcement working directly with the county to get the permits expedited goes a long way. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Have we approached the possibility of condemnation of these stairs, or not? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: That would be up to the building inspector to be able to determine that. They would have to meet certain criteria. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I guess what bothers me about this, shoring up the stairs, a set of stairs that's not safe to walk on to begin with, based on what (sic) your pictures, with metal hanging off the edge, it doesn't make sense to me that since July 5th, nothing has been done, even if masking tape were put on something. I think something Page 104 February 28, 2013 should have been done to alleviate the trip hazards of people's shoe just catching on the edge of these steps. Whether they fall down or not is another separate issue. It looks like you've shored them up and we're great. But what about the surface? The pictures you just showed me are deplorable. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, the reason why we gave them so much time is because they were making compliance efforts, number one. Number two, I was in contact with the chief building official and the chief structural official, and after conferring with them I said can I give them 30 more days or have an engineering report? So this wasn't just one decision on myself, it was, you know, also the fire inspector too who would confer with to give them more time. MR. MARINO: How are they being shored up? We haven't seen a picture of how they're actually being shored up. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: I do have what you took into evidence, engineering report here from December 19th, 2012 with a picture on the bottom showing the shorings. MR. MARINO: What -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sure some plywood -- MR. MARINO: -- I'm trying to look at is if somebody just comes along -- you know, I used to be in the building business -- somebody just comes along and decides they're just going to knock these out maliciously or vandalism, just knock them out and then we have a problem. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: So you can see the shorings there, what's holding it. And that's -- as far as holding up the landing, that's what it's doing. But it's not doing anything, like you said, for the stairs themselves as they're rusting through. MR. MARINO: Exactly. That's my point. Where are they being shored up? The stairs are not being stored up -- INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, because -- Page 105 February 28, 2013 MR. MARINO: -- the landings are. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: I'll show you were -- you might be able to see where -- you can see just a little. But you can't see on the pictures, it's very hard to see. It would even have to be a structural engineer to even pick up on this really fairly quick. But the separation of the stairs right there in that location, you can see they're separating from the main beams. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like they need someone, either a welder to go in there and tack some metal on there to make it safer, or some plywood anchored in there somehow so that you don't step on a step and go through the rotted material. MR. MARINO: You need new steps. You need a whole new -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, well obviously. No, I'm talking about on a temporary basis. I think that Chris, your recommen -- excuse me, your recommendation for 30 days and come back and see what's going on is probably the way to go. At that time we'll find out when the building permits can be issued. The structural engineer says we should be okay for 30 days. I'm not happy with it but I don't see much of an alternative around it. MR. HUDSON: And Mr. Chairman, I would just add that, I mean, I hope that these folks are notified, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Absolutely. MR. HUDSON: They may not have any clue that there's a condition. I mean, obviously they're going to notice because of shorings, but, I mean -- but they walk up and down these stairs every day, maybe they're sort of like well, it's the way it is. But maybe someone needs to notify them that hey, you know, take the good set of stairs, don't take the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can make that part of the order as to a flier should be passed out to every owner or every occupant there. Page 106 February 28, 2013 You have some discussion? MR. HARTSELL: Yes, the project manager, Scott Bigham? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has he been sworn? MR. BIGHAM: No. (Mr. Bigham was duly sworn.) MR. BIGHAM: Thank you, I appreciate the time here. I just wanted to just address a couple of the comments. One was obviously we discussed the engineer inspections, which we've been continuing to do every 30 days throughout this project. So his goal has been to go out there and inspect these staircases and landing situations and to ensure via certified letter that they do have structural integrity. So he is doing those inspections. I'm fully aware of the pictures that we're seeing and we're looking forward to making those improvements very quickly. As far as the repairs go, we've kind of been stuck in that little gray area where we want to go in there and do the repairs but we can't do the repairs without the permits. Mr. Bosa made the comment about back in August where we submitted a permit application to the county. That was a repair permit for addressing a lot of these things. And that permit was essentially rejected. And their comment that came back to us was that we are not going to submit -- or allow you to have a permit for these specific situations because we want you to address more than that on other buildings and everything. Which is why we then had to go back with our engineer and work on doing full property plans that we now currently have in review with the county. So we've made the attempt to do these. Our residents are obviously fully aware of the situations there. We have -- the shoring posts that you guys have been looking at, they're engineered shoring posts. They're above and beyond a typical four-by-four type post that's been put in place. So we are -- we're trying to do everything we Page 107 February 28, 2013 possibly can to make sure that one, that we provide obviously the safety for our residents and for our project, as well as moving the whole process along. So I just wanted to make sure it was very clear that we, you know, would like nothing better than to start this tomorrow if we were able to get some type of assistance from the county to get our permits back into our hands. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How confident are you that someone won't step through one of those steps? MR. BIGHAM: I mean, I'm confident. That's why I have a third-party engineer. If-- you know, our group has taken that effort obviously to bring on this person as part of our project and we've continued it every 30 days. His letter, you know, the way it says there, it says reevaluate it every 30 days. That's really -- you know, his license and name is obviously on our project, so he wants to make sure that from his standpoint that we are keeping up with those evaluations. So he has his protection as well as ours and our residents and mine, which is why he includes it in his letter and we're happy to continue to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you done anything, as Mr. Hudson has mentioned, to notify the residents of what's going on? MR. BIGHAM: I can't speak as far as the property manager goes. I can't tell you 100 percent sure if an official letter has gone out. But I will speak to the property as far as doing something like that. I'm sure that they are fully aware of what's been going on. They've been seeing the inspections, the work that's been going on over this period, so -- but we'll do whatever efforts, you know, that are necessary. From a timing standpoint, the only thing I'd like to add there is -- as you mentioned the repairs are not simple. We currently have two forms of egress for these buildings. So as we're doing stair repairs, Page 108 February 28, 2013 you have the time constraint to work on one situation, you have to obviously close off that staircase. So we -- you know, it prevents us from going into a building, if it was a typical, you know, exterior siding or repair or something like that, we could go in there with a massive crew and knock out the whole thing. But here we have to break up all of our building to make sure that we provide the proper egress. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have at least two staircases for each unit? MR. BIGHAM: Yes, sir, we do. But we obviously don't want to have one down more than we need to, but we definitely can't take two down. So when you have two and three-story structures, you have to do this very systematically and it takes a little bit more time than usual. MR. HUDSON: How many units are there in the buildings? MR. BIGHAM: There is 188 in the total property, I believe. And per building, I want to say -- roughly I believe 18. I believe it's six per breezeway section. But I can double check on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they all in this condition or just some of them? MR. BIGHAM: No, just some of them. Although we are making improvements to the entire project. So we're going, again, above and beyond what our current situation is. Is there any other -- MR. LAVINSKI: I guess what still bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is this letter from the engineer is strictly talking about showing up, not talking about people walking up and down those stairs. And, you know, when you walk downstairs, look at any risers and you'll see scuff marks, which tells me your heel goes up against it or your toe goes in it. And these pictures show there's holes. I think something ought to be done like yesterday on pieces like that. Page 109 February 28, 2013 Whether they fall down or not, yeah, that's important, but in 30 days 30 people could fall down those stars. MR. HARTSELL: And with all due respect, we have permits applied for in order to make the repairs on the stairs, the risers, the exterior walls. The purpose is to address all of those issues, it's not just the shoring. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: I wanted to clarify, just to make sure that you know, the permits were applied for the day after the Notice of Hearing was given. I just want to put that on the record, if I hadn't mentioned it before, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. It's a motivational tool. We're all about compliance. We found the respondent in violation, and now we're trying to come up with something in writing that will give enough safety to the people who live in those units without having a long leash on this thing. I think the 30 days that Mr. Mieszcak has stated to come back at that time and see where we are as far as Code Enforcement helping you to speed up the situation as far as repairs are concerned. And certainly to notify the tenants, as Mr. Hudson had mentioned, I think that should be part of the order. I would also -- I would like for you to talk to the engineer to address Mr. Lavinski's comment about what can be done on the individual steps on a temporary basis, whether it's put some plywood on there or, you know, anchor it in a certain way so that you don't step through it or you don't trip on any empty metal. I think that's -- I don't know how much farther we could go in one month to get everything done. Tony, you had a comment? MR. MARINO: I'm just confused by it. Their intention is to replace the entire stairwell, correct? You're not just going to be repairing steps -- MS. BAKER: Mr. Marino, can you speak into your microphone, Page 110 February 28, 2013 please? MR. MARINO: I'm sorry. Your intention is to replace the entire stairwell and landings; is that correct? I said your intention is to repair -- not repair but replace the landings in the stairwells? MR. BIGHAM: The way the plans are submitted right now by the engineer, the engineer is going to be very involved in the project, so he's going to be doing an evaluation of every individual stair and landing situation as we expose it. So the way the plans are drawn up right now is, is that he wants us to go ahead and remove drywall, soffits, so he can fully see the structural members that are behind these things. From that point he's going to be making an on-site direction as far as how each one's going to be addressed. MR. MARINO: Yeah, but repairing that or looking at that is not looking at, like you said here, the threads, the steps itself where they are rotted, you can see through it. Repairing that is not going to take care of the actual stairs. MR. BIGHAM: That is why I'm going to rely on my third-party engineer. You know, it's his job to tell me what can be repaired versus replaced and, you know, we're going to follow his recommendation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we also go forward with the letter that's in front of us, and not only the risers, but the steps themselves to be included in the inspection process? Temporary to whether blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, retain portion of these. The temporary shoring, if another sentence or a comma, shoring and stair risers, if you will, can be inspected also to meet minimum safety standards? MR. BIGHAM: We can have that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's see if we can craft something right now. Otherwise we'll be here till the stairs fall down. Page 111 February 28, 2013 I would like to use -- Ralph, can you put your proposal up and we can add some things to it. Okay, the first part, the $80.29, I don't think that's a big deal. Obtaining and require Collier County permits, you're going to have code enforcement helping you to get that done. You've applied. The 30 days that Mr. Mieszcak has suggested, I would put in there the 30 days. MR. HUDSON: I would -- Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. HUDSON: I would do it 30 days from today. Did it say March 22nd down there in the handwriting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, it says it on the letter. MR. HUDSON: Yeah, I would do it 30 days from today. Because the time, just to be fair to them, when they actually get the letter from their engineer may not be spot on the date. So, I mean, just be aware. You don't want to have to give them, even if it's a day or two extra. I mean, the letter may not come spot on, depending on what the engineer's got going on in his world. MR. MIESZCAK: It did say 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the letter did say 30 days, but I'm sure we're benevolent enough of an organization to not hold them to the letter of the law if it's a date one way or the other, as long as the stairs are safe. The per day fine imposed, if that's violated, I solicit that from the board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, what is the maximum, please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $1,000 a day. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. I suggest a fine of$1,000 per day for the board to consider. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Hopefully that won't be a concern because you'll be in -- you'll have this all handled. Page 112 February 28, 2013 MR. HARTSELL: I'm a little bit confused. The 30 days that I thought you were speaking to was with regard to having an engineer's reinspection done within 30 days from today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. That's not to abate all of this. That's correct. MR. HARTSELL: Okay. I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was -- you said you'd be glad to come back and discuss it. MR. HARTSELL: Right. I guess my question was in which case why is it necessary to have a fine imposed? We'll be back in 30a, at which point in time if there's been a permit issued, you'll have an opportunity then to be able to assess. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, we do -- you guys found a violation, you have to order a time for them to come into complete compliance. So a has to be something in this order saying that we understand the engineering letter, but they have to have a time to come into compliance, get the permits, the inspections, the C.O. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. You said that you thought 120 days you could become (sic) into complete compliance? MR. HARTSELL: We were hoping that within 90 to 120 days of the issuance of the permit we could come into compliance. And that's what we would request. MR. HUDSON: I think because the director said that they were going to be work -- the county would be willing to work with these folks, I think -- you know, I mean, I'll listen to you guys, but I can't go with 120. I can go with 60. MR. MARINO: I agree with that also. Because now you're coming into 120 days. Now we're into the bad weather season and that's going to create problems and everything else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we can do 60 days and the respondent can come back at that point and request additional time. You know, this is what's been done since we first heard the case; we're Page 113 February 28, 2013 making progress; the plans have been issued or whatever and we need an additional whatever time, and the board will certainly entertain that at that time. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I also have a question for Ms. Rawson. I'm not sure that they can do $1,000 a day fine. MS. RAWSON: No, I think 500 is all you can do. And I'm confused about your order. You want them to completely come into compliance within 60 days but first you want in 30 days there's a reinspection and then do you want to order them to come back next month, is that true too? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. MARINO: I'd like to see the letter at least, the 30-day reinspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the letter that we reviewed with the structural engineer saying everything is okay for 30 days. MS. RAWSON: So provide that to the board, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To the board at that time. And maybe at that time we'll be able to come up with some additional time past the 60 days. MR. HARTSELL: That is 60 days from the issuance of the permit we have to -- MS. BAKER: No, no. MR. HARTSELL: -- complete the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can't go by that because I don't know when the permit's going to be issued, obviously. But we can adjust that time going forward. MR. MIESZCAK: I think we'd be comfortable once you have a permit. I think that's part of the problem. You don't get a permit for six months we're just hanging up here. So we have to close it. MR. HARTSELL: But we have applied for the permits. I mean Page 114 February 28, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, I know, but, you know, you -- MR. HARTSELL: It's out of our hands now, that's the problem that we're having is -- MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I guess I think of July, August, September. You had a lot of time to apply. Here it is February, you applied. So I think of that time frame, you know, and when. There's a reason why you didn't get the permit, for some reason. Right? Wasn't that -- INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes. The permit -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Never overlook the power of our director to get things moving. MR. HARTSELL: We will certainly rely upon her persuasion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would like to add another paragraph in here that addresses Mr. Hudson's concern that some notification should go out to the residents letting them know that a safety hazard does exist, that you're working on it, and whatever else needs to be in that letter. I don't want to craft the letter for you, but you know what we're looking for. MR. HARTSELL: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we do recognize the need to make the improvements. I've questioned, under the circumstances and given the pictures that you've seen, what purpose a letter to all of the residents -- I mean, that just seems like an unnecessary step to say your steps are rusted and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think it would take that much effort to get a flier out. It doesn't have to be a letter addressed to everyone. Something that you'd, you know, slide under everybody's door that lives there. MR. MARINO: It's 188 copies of paper. Excuse me, is this a community where there are young children? MS. FLAGG: Yes. MR. MARINO: Young families? What are the tenants in these buildings? At what age are they? Page 115 February 28, 2013 MR. HARTSELL: I don't think it's restricted at all. So you can imagine families. MR. MARINO: So you got young families -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think these families -- MR. MARINO: -- with maybe young kids. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- deserve notice. I think these families deserve notice. There are older people, I'm sure, there are younger people and children, I'm sure. I think they pay rent and they need a fair notice as to the status of the homes and the buildings that they're renting. I think it's a fair -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think a flier is certainly within the realm of what should be done. MR. MARINO: It might make them feel better knowing that something is being done, besides just seeing these steel poles that are supposed to be structures, so -- MR. HARTSELL: And I agree with that. Just again, since the failure to do this apparently is going to subject the property owner to a fine, what exactly -- I mean, what's the standard in terms of what they have to do as far as the notice? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A flier letting the folks know there that a safety hazard exists, that you're working on it and that they should be extra careful going up and down the stairs. MR. HARTSELL: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: And they're not going to do anything about the risers and treads for the next 120 days, which is ludicrous. MR. HUDSON: I mean, I think some of it is just, you know, depending -- no matter how you craft the letter, another intent of the letter is not just to notify the folks. It's another internal accountability metric that I think the board will agree as something that needs to happen here. Because as my fellow board member just mentioned, nothing is going to be done about the steps with any certainty or any timeframe. So I think that the extra internal accountability measure Page 116 February 28, 2013 that is this letter, whether it just says we're going to provide maintenance on these stairs or on this whatever, I mean, I think that -- I think you guys should be okay with that. MR. HARTSELL: As long as the board is okay with that, that's what I'm trying to make sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the board is okay with that. Next thing. Your project manager said that you would get ahold of the folks that are working on resolving the situation, the temporary situation, to see what can be done to make the risers themselves a little safer, whether there's some plywood they can put on, whatever it is. And you probably could put that in a flier also. Does that speak to your issue? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, as long as something is being done, not just sending out a memo saying that we're going to do this in 30 days, or 90 days. By the looks of those pictures, something needs to be done, period. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Absolutely. MR. LAVINSKI: You know, yesterday. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So Mr. Chairman, the amount of the fine per day? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I suggest the amount of$500. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Is that a motion? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: My motion, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have to -- I want to go through the whole thing before. So $500, we have nods on that. Sixty days is the overall length. You'll come back within 30 days. MS. BAKER: Sixty days from today for compliance? Page 117 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. And 30 days he'll come back, should they need additional time, based on how we're making out with the building permits, et cetera. Can be adjusted at that time, if need be. MS. BAKER: You wanted the engineer's report to be brought back to you -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MS. BAKER: -- on the agenda for the next hearing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BAKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have no problem with that? MR. HARTSELL: I don't have any problem providing it. Honestly, given the short time frames to come back before the board in 30 days in order to show you the letter doesn't seem to me to be all that necessary. I hope that we get a permit issued before the 60 days, I'm thinking maybe 60 days -- provide the 30-day letter but come back to you in 60 days and give you the status report. Because if the permit were issued today, I'm not sure that all the repairs could be done in that 60 days, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It would be mostly in 30 days a progress report on what's going on. And given the -- if this had just started recently, it would be one things. But as has been pointed out, this started in July. That's why we're being as strict as we are. Okay, so the items are some sort of a flier notice to the residents, $500, 60 days, $82.29 within 30 days, as far as the costs, operational costs. MS. BAKER: Do you have a time frame for the notice to the residents? Are you putting a time and dollar amount on that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fliers, how long do you think it would take to put together a flier? Shouldn't take more than a couple of days. How about we give you seven days to do that. I got a nod Page 118 February 28, 2013 from them. Seven days for the fliers. Is that okay with you, Chris? MR. HUDSON: Yeah. And I don't think you need a dollar amount on the flier, do you? Because, I mean, if they're back in 30 days and they made no progress and they haven't done that, I don't think this board's going to be very amenable. Does there have to be a dollar amount attached to a flier? I mean, general information was the purpose there, not necessarily to create another fixed cost if they don't do it. Because if they come back and don't do it, we're all going to know they didn't do it. MS. BAKER: Ms. Rawson, do you have any comments on that? MS. RAWSON: Well, usually you give them some reason to come back, and that usually is a fine that will get them back. If that's the first thing you put on there, notify the tenants within seven days, and then the second thing you put on there is that the -- you want the reinspection letter from the licensed structural engineer provided to the board at the next hearing, you could also maybe also have a report on the fliers at the next hearing. Otherwise you're going to have to fine them for everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That works. MR. HUDSON: That works. Combine them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think we covered the bases as well as we can cover them. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jen, anything else we need to cover? MS. BAKER: I think that's all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's unfortunate it's a safety hazard. Otherwise it would be a lot easier to work out. We hope nobody gets hurt. And the last thing we want to see is, you know, see you in 30 days with bandages because you tripped on the stairs. So that's my motion. Can I get a second on it? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 119 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One opposed. MR. LAVINSKI: Opposed based on the fact that this order is not addressing today's issue of the flapping metal on the risers and on the treads. So I vote no. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chair, I know you guys were talking strictly about the stairs, but there was also the other issue of the walls. Is that included in the 60 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In the 60 days, yes. MS. BAKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. We'll see you next month. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number nine under imposition, Case CESD20120012127, Gregory Lynn Thompson and Misty Lou Thompson. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location is: 181 23rd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 36960760001 . Violation description: Historically permitted steel building in the rear yard now missing walls and doors and completely altered from its originally permitted use. Past order: On November 29th, 2012 the Code Enforcement Page 120 February 28, 2013 Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4865, Page 2607, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 28th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order items number one and two, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between January 30th, 2013 to February 28th, 2013, totaling 30 days, for the total amount of$6,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $6,080.57. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fines. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next is number 10, Case CESD20120007390, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica 0 Coariti De Salazar. (Investigator Bosa and Octavia Sarmiento were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I believe that they may be asking Page 121 February 28, 2013 for an extension request, so if you'd like to hear from them first. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Chairman and members of the board, good afternoon. I'm pleased to report that these three cases of a commercial building, the second floor, we went around, we finally submitted the permits. One of the permits already approved. I understand we're going to be paying for the permit probably today or tomorrow. The other two permits are steel and rejection (sic). I have hired another engineer due to the fact that the county requested some affidavits on some of the other parts that has to do with electricity and the structure. They look like simple things but when it's commercial, the process of having the permitting and approve takes a little while longer. And we have requested more time in order to get this all taken care of. So I'm happy to report that one of the three cases is already soon to be C.O.'d. We'll pay for the permit. It's going to be I think ready status right now. And the other two, we already hired an engineer that will be doing the affidavits and the rest of the corrections on this request. So we do need more time. Commercial permits don't take five days, they take a minimum of 15 days review. Every time you have a correction, you have to work on it, you have to prepare all the plans, everything you need and then resubmit it. From the time that you resubmit takes 15 working days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the electrical service turned on in these units? MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, they is (sic). Actually, the things that they have the violations on, they were small. But when you have a commercial case, it's like a small Pandora box that when you open -- this is an old building from 1982. So it will be things that have to be up to code now, and that's what takes a little longer to get it all done. Page 122 February 28, 2013 Now I have another engineer involved and we'll take care of the other two permits. But it does take a little longer, because you never know how many rejections you're going to be working with. So I do need a little bit more time to get -- take everything -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much is a little bit more time? MR. SARMIENTO: To be on the safe side I would like to have 180 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Little bit of time? That's six months. MR. SARMIENTO: Like I said, with commercial, permits takes a little bit longer than normal. Every review takes 15 days. Even it could be a small thing. Like I said, from the three permits that we submitted this year, we submitted on January, I believe. And one of them is all taken care of and the other two, it's the same building, the same floor, it's just a different unit. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it safe to say there are obviously no people living in this building? MR. SARMIENTO: There's not -- this is an office building. And there's no hassles, no any problem whatsoever, just we have to comply with the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there tenants in the building? MR. MIESZCAK: Is it vacant? MR. SARMIENTO: Some of them are vacant, some of them already been rented out. There's no hassle. We have been in contact with the county, the building department, with the Code Enforcement. There were prior meetings before about this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What does the county say? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: We have no objection as far as extension of time. Obviously not the 180 days, that's a little too much. But it was minor work that was done. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, it was like maybe a light fixture put in or something like that. Page 123 February 28, 2013 So I leave it to the board if you want to give more time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What do you think is realistic time-wise? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Time-wise? I would say about 60 days tops. MR. MIESZCAK: What about the operational costs? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: They were paid today. For all three cases involved with this were paid today. MR. MIESZCAK: Paid today. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: He did give me a receipt. MR. SARMIENTO: I'm sorry I did not pay it. I thought it was already paid. Otherwise I would already have paid for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have no problem with the 60-day extension. MR. MARINO: I don't have any. MR. MIESZCAK: Fine by me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we grant the 60-day extension. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you to the court. Page 124 February 28, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you can't make it in 60 days, you - MR. SARMIENTO: We'll try to get the engineer, twist his ear or something. MS. RAWSON: This is for all three cases? MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, let's -- can we call all the cases and we'll do a motion for each one? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. BAKER: The next one will be number 11, Case CESD20120007393, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica 0 Coariti de Salazar. (Investigator Bosa and Octavia Sarmiento were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And Item number five, you're going to read that or -- you might as well. MS. BAKER: You can just make the motion for the extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we grant a 60-day extension on this case. MR. MIESZCAK: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Costs have been paid for all three of these? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes. Page 125 February 28, 2013 MS. BAKER: Then the next one is number 12, Case CESD20120007391, Peter Salazar Lopez and Monica 0 Coariti de Salazar. (Investigator Bosa and Octavia Sarmiento were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to extend 60 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. MR. MARINO: Make a motion we extend -- are you making the motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, you just did. MR. MARINO: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SARMIENTO: Last note, I'd like to say, the 93, the ending of 93 is the one for the plumbing. That's already taken care of. That's already been approved. MR. MIESZCAK: Good man. Thank you. MR. SARMIENTO: Well, thank you for the court. Thanks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you for hanging in here as long as you did. MR. MIESZCAK: To his advantage. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Do we have to rescind something? Page 126 February 28, 2013 MS. BAKER: Yes, the next item will be letter C, motion to rescind previously issued order for Romona Garcia, Case CEPM20100001331 . The county is asking to rescind this order as since we brought this to hearing, we've subsequently had the structure deemed a dangerous structure and the county would like to demo that structure. So there were more violations than what was originally done, so we'd like to rescind the order and we'll bring it back for a new hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to rescind. MS. RAWSON: Both orders, right? There were two. There was an original order and then there was an imposition of fines order. We're rescinding them both? MS. BAKER: If they were both, yes. And we did get an inspection warrant, that's how we found all the issues. We got an inspection warrant, did the inspection with the building department. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to rescind both. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Which brings us to -- MR. MIESZCAK: Our lady in the corner. MS. RAWSON: Well, I have one question before we leave the Page 127 February 28, 2013 agenda. Did Mr. Haupilla pay his costs? MS. BAKER: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Okay, thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Good. MR. MARINO: But you can't leave yet. MS. RAWSON: I'm not leaving. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we're up to reports. MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. MS. FLAGG: Just as a recap, in 2012 and in the midst of the nation's foreclosure crisis, the Code Enforcement Department implemented a Blight Prevention Program. One aspect of the program was to develop key contacts with the banks. Since November, 2008 banks have paid $3.1 million to abate code violations. They have abated 2,779 violations. The majority of this money spent by the banks and the violations abated were prior to them owning the property, or taking title to the property. In addition, another aspect of the Blight Prevention Program was that the Code Enforcement Department worked with the Board of County Commissioners to execute a resolution that outlines the process for waiving fines. The resolution was executed by the Board and as a result since July, 2009 $10,574,000 in fines have been waived. For the week of February 11th through 17th, there were 92 code cases opened. 342 property inspections completed that week. For that week, 59 cases were closed with voluntary compliance. The number of community events, which are the cleanup events, vacant home sweeps and meet and greets were 32 for the week. In addition, the number of lien searches was 129 for the week and 2,789 year to date. And the number that had open code cases as a result of those lien searches were six, and 87 year to date. Page 128 February 28, 2013 And just as a final note, most of you probably know I will be retiring after 32 years serving Collier County at the end of June. So the position has been advertised and interviews are scheduled to commence. MR. MARINO: Are we going to cry or are we going to congratulate you? MR. MIESZCAK: Send money. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Where's the party going to go be? MS. FLAGG: I don't -- this is just February. I gave six months advance notice. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did the board agree with that? MR. MIESZCAK: I don't think we voted on it. MR. MARINO: I didn't see there were any motions to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We only gave her 180 days. Our next meeting is the 28th. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: The Pope is gone. Officially gone. MR. MIESZCAK: No, he's not. He's still there. He just doesn't have the title. Motion to adjourn. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. Page 129 February 28, 2013 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:46 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Air ' 11 BER ' A U MAN, Chairman These min es approved by the Board on rThq,y, not.ilas presented or as corrected Page 130