Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/25/2013 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Minutes April 25 , 2013 April 25, 2013 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 25, 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 James Blake Larry Mieszcak James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Chris Hudson (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 25,2013 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 James Blake Chris Hudson,Alternate 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 28,2013 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time 1. Raymond M. Stonebridge&Christine M. Stonebridge CESD20120001674 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CEN20130001762 OWNER: RANDOLPH PACKING CO. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTYCODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT ARTICLE IV,NOISE SECTION 54-92 SOUND LEVELS NOISE EXCEEDING COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 54-92 FOLIO NO: 38054160007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2560 39TH ST. SW.NAPLES, FL 34117 2. CASE NO: CENA20120017641 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES,LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(d)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 26169500865 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2889 COCO LAKES PLACE NAPLES,FL 34105 3. CASE NO: CENA20120017642 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES,LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(d)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 26169500221 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2888 COCO LAKES DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34105 4. CASE NO: CENA20120017643 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES,LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(d)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 26169500289 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2870 COCO LAKES DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34105 5. CASE NO: CENA20120017639 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES,LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(d)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 26169501084 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2931 COCO LAKES DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34105 6. CASE NO: CENA20120012782 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES,LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(d)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 26169501848 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2943 COCO LAKES DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34105 7. CASE NO: CENA20120017644 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES,LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(d)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 26169500661 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2859 COCO LAKES DRIVE NAPLES,FL 34105 8. CASE NO: CESD20110010944 OWNER: DAN R& SUSIE L RICKARD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i)BOTTOM OF STILT HOME ENCLOSED ADDING LIVING SPACE WITH A BATHROOM WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 37221840009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 261 2ND ST. S.E.NAPLES,FL 34117 9. CASE NO: CESD20130001070 OWNER: 1336 HIGHLANDS DR. LAND TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)& 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS MADE TO THE REAR BEDROOM AND THE REAR EXTERIOR WALL FOLIO NO: 29782160003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1336 HIGHLANDS DR.NAPLES, FL 34103 10. CASE NO: CESD20120002127 OWNER: SERAFIN ORDAZ HERNANDEZ&SARA DE LA ROSA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)NEW WINDOWS INSTALLED,NEW FRONT DOOR INSTALLED.AN OPENING WAS CREATED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NEW FRENCH DOORS.ALSO A PERMITTED DOOR OPENING WAS BOARDED OVER,THE SOFFIT WAS REPLACED. PLYWOOD FLOORING REPLACED THROUGHOUT HOUSE AND INTERIOR FRAMING WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH NEW 2X4'S ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOLIO NO: 00070440001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3200 WESTCLOX ST. IMMOKALEE,FL 11. CASE NO: CESD20130001795 OWNER: VOILA II,LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.13(F)FAILURE TO SUBMIT ANNUAL PUD MONITORING REPORT FOLIO NO: 203280009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 12. CASE NO: CESD20120012418 OWNER: NEW PLAN FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC CIO EPROPERTY TAX DEPT 124 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION—NO PERMITS-SPRINKLER HEADS COVERED FOLIO NO: 34520001005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12709 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES,FL 34113 13. CASEO: CESD20120017981 OWNER: CASSIA POVIONES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)DEMOLITION AND REMODEL IN PROGRESS WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 38054880002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3030 39TH ST. S.W.NAPLES,FL 34117 14. CASE NO: CESD20120017461 OWNER: FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)& 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i)UNPERMITTED ADDITIONS TO THE HOME TO INCLUDE WINDOWS,DOORS AND A METAL ROOF FOLIO NO: 36963480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2080 GOLDEN GATE Blvd W.NAPLES,FL34120 15. CASE NO: CESD20130001797 OWNER: LIBERTY BANK F S B OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.13(F)FAILURE TO SUBMIT ANNUAL PUD MONITORING REPORT FOLIO NO: 37221120208 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 16. CASE NO: CESD20120005392 OWNER: JOHN W. BEX& BETTY JOAN BEX OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)REPLACED EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING,DOORS, WINDOWS AND A REROOF ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOLIO NO: 30731040008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1305 PEACH ST. IMMOKALEE,FL 34142 17. CASE NO: CESD20120004933 OWNER: IRVIN M&BEVERLY JACKSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)& 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i)NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOR ENCLOSED BOTTOM FLOOR OF A STILT HOME ADDING LIVING SPACE WITH A BATHROOM AND AN ADDITION OF A GAME ROOM,DEN AND BATHROOM FOLIO NO: 40680520009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3210 4TH AVE NE NAPLES,FL 34120 18. CASE NO: CESD20120016883 OWNER: JOSE&SARA LOPEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) SCREEN PORCH AT FRONT OF PROPERTY, COVERED PORCH AT REAR OF PROPERTY AND DETACHED STRUCTURE/SHED IN REAR YARD OF PROPERTY ALL BUILT WITHOUT APPLICABLE COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOLIO NO: 62093360009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5323 GEORGIA AVE.NAPLES, FL 34113 19. CASE NO: CELU20130003963 OWNER: JORGE A. HERRERA& MYRIAM HERRERA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03 AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 126,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 126-111(b)PROPERTY IS BEING USED FOR WEEKLY RENTALS/TRANSIENT LODGING AND ONLINE ADVERTISMENTS FOR WEEKLY RATES FOLIO NO: 65321520000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 469 GOLFVIEW DR.NAPLES,FL 34110 20. CASE NO: CESD20120009629 OWNER: JON P MAHONEY&ROBIN K WELLMAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)&CODES OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY, CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI(6), SECTION 22-231(1)NO PERMITS OBTAINED FOR SEPTIC DRAINAGE SYSTEM BUILT AND CONNECTED TO A DAMAGED SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT IS NOT APPROVED BY COLLIER COUNTY OR THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPT. FOLIO NO: 37448000004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1467 16TH ST NE NAPLES,FL 34120 21. CASE NO: CESD20120010474 OWNER: FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ&OLGA DOMINGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)A MOBILE HOME PLACED ON A VACANT LOT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT, INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOLIO NO: 00067120004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2776 STATE ST. IMMOKALEE,FL 34142 22. CASE NO: CENA20130000305 OWNER: KELLY CONDON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(d)PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EARLEAF ACACIA,JAVA PLUM AND AUSTRALIAN PINE FOLIO NO: 6078360000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: MYRTLE COVE ACRES BLOCK E LOT 8 23. CASE NO: CESD20120016523 OWNER: WILLIAM J. SWANSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO THE GARAGE AREA OF THE HOME IN WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER STATED IS A BEDROOM WITH NO MEANS OF EGRESS FOLIO NO: 38968640008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2811 54TH AVE NE NAPLES,FL 34120 24. CASE NO: CENA20120017930 OWNER: RODRIGUEZ LLANEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCE,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181 LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO;A SHED IN DISREPAIR,REFUSE,TIRES,ASSORTED METALS, WOODS AND PLASTICS,ETC. FOLIO NO: 41223560001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3580 18TH AVE SE NAPLES,FL 34117 25. CASE NO: CESD20120008638 OWNER: PAULA MENDOZA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AN EXPIRED PERMIT WITH NO INSPECTIONS DONE ON THE INSTALLATION OF THE MOBILE HOME AND A METAL TYPE STAND ALONE CARPORT INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOLIO NO: 00082961866 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2918 IMMOKALEE DR. IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. 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 CHAPTER 130M 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 2. CASE NO: CELU20120014618 OWNER: PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTERS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03 CONCRETE BLOCKS,BARRELS,BUCKETS,PLYWOOD,HOSES,PLASTIC PIPE, A LARGE STORAGE CONTAINER,MISCELLANEOUS 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 34119 3. CASE NO: CEAU201200009042 OWNER: PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTERS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,2010 EDITION, CHAPTER 1,PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 PERMIT 2011030692 FOR AN 8 FOOT CONCRETE WALL EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION;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 4. CASE NO: CESD20100002858 OWNER: ROBERT GRIFFIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOR THE HOUSE BUILT ON PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 37543240002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 591 10TH AVE N.W.NAPLES,FL 34120 5. CASE NO: CESD20110000038 OWNER: OLGA CANOVA&REBECCA M.RIOS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)ENCLOSED PORCH,ADDITIONS AND SHED FOLIO NO: 63856880000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 511 JEFFERSON AVE. W.IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 6. CASE NO: CESD20100016684 OWNER: JOSEPH R&BETTY J FAIRCLOTH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AN UNPERMITTED MOBILE BEING UTILIZED AS A STORAGE UNIT FOLIO NO: 98360008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1066 SANCTUARY RD NAPLES,FL 34120 7. CASE NO: CESD20110003049 OWNER: 2461 GGE,LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,2007 EDITION,CHAPTER 1, PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 GARAGE CONVERSION, LARGE STRUCTURE AND FENCE ON THE PROPERTY WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 40622180009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2461 4TH AVE NE NAPLES,FL 34120 8. CASE NO: CESD20110005108 OWNER: CARLOS RAMOS 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)ONE STORAGE STRUCTURE WITH NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT AND SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION FOLIO NO: 00755320006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11141 LAASKO LANE NAPLES,FL 34114 9. CASE NO: CESD20120015571 OWNER: RENE WILLIAM SHARPE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED HOME WITHOUT COMPLETED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY FOLIO NO: 39020880006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5220 40TH STREET NE NAPLES,FL 34120 10. CASE NO: CEPM20130000548 OWNER: BRENT R.PARKER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231(1)AND SECTION 22-231(2)NO HOT AND COLD WATER SUPPLY TO OCCUPIED DWELLINGS FOLIO NO: 24533040005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 85 7TH STREET BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 1. Domenic P. Tosto a/k/a Domenic Tosto, Tr. &Joanne M. Tosto Tr. of the Fam. Liv. Tr. 2005010592 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Code Enforcement Board Workshop 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-May 23,2013 11. ADJOURN April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak at any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order of 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 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. Okay, roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Blake? MR. BLAKE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak. MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Present. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chris Hudson? Page 2 April 25, 2013 MR. HUDSON: Present. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, looks like we're all here today. And the chairman asks, are there any changes to the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. Under number four, public hearings/motions, we don't have any additions for motions. Under B, stipulations, we have eight stipulations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could I interrupt you one second? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Number 21, I thought that was a request for Wellman. MS. BAKER: They have stipulated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, that's now a stipulation? MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: The first stipulation will be number 10 from hearings, Sarafin Hernandez and Sara De La Rosa, Case CESD20120002127. The second stipulation will be number nine from hearings, 1336 Highlands Drive Land Trust, CESD20130001070. The third stipulation will be number eight from hearings, Dan R. and Susie L. Rickard, Case CESD 20110010944. The fourth stipulation will be number one from hearings, Randolph Packing Company, Case CEN20130001762. The fifth stipulation will be number 17 from hearings, Irvin M. and Beverly Jackson, Case CESD20120004933. The sixth stipulation will be number 23 from hearings, William J. Swanson, Case CESD20120016523. The seventh stipulation will be number 20 from hearings, Jon P. Mahoney and Robin K. Wellman, Case CESD20120009629. The eighth stipulation will be number 12 from hearings, New Page 3 April 25, 2013 Plan Florida Holdings, LLC, Case CESD20120012418. Under letter C, hearings, number 15, Case CESD20130001797, Liberty Bank FSB, has been withdrawn. Number 16, Case CESD20120005392, John W. Bex and Betty Joan Bex, has been withdrawn. Number 24, Case CENA20120017930, Rodriguez Llanez, has been withdrawn. Under number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, number 5, Case CESD20110000038, Olga Canova and Rebecca Rios, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes that I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, can I get a motion from the Board to accept the agenda as modified? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. MR. MARINO: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and the second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, all those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Approval of the minutes from the last meeting. I'd like to have a motion from the board to accept those. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion for the meeting minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. Page 4 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I abstain, so that will be a 6-1, since I wasn't here then. MR. MIESZCAK: We did miss you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, you didn't miss me? Oh, you did miss me. I guess we're up to continuance. Do we have any continuances? MS. BAKER: No continuances. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: And this will be motion for extension of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Raymond M. Stonebridge and Christine M. Stonebridge, Case CESD20120001674. (Christine Stonebridge and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. You're requesting an extension of time on this particular case? MS. STONEBRIDGE: Yes, I am. We have made great progress. We've got one of the permits finaled out. Five more of them we got final inspection yesterday. It's not showing on the on-line yet, but they were signed off yesterday. And I have one more structure that I need to move, it's too close to the property. And I've just -- we've gotten to a point of time and money. So we've got the new permit for that to be able to move it, and that was issued yesterday. It's actually in for review, so I just Page 5 April 25, 2013 need more time to be able to afford to finish that project. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I have a couple of-- quick question: Was the $80.86 paid? MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, okay. And you're asking for 90 more days. 120 days was originally granted, and you're asking for an additional 90 days? MS. STONEBRIDGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think you need 90 days since the permit's already been issued? MS. STONEBRIDGE: Yeah. I need money. I don't have the money right now to finish the whole project at once, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand originally -- my memory sometimes going back that far -- was it a fence that was the culprit in this problem. MS. STONEBRIDGE: No, we had multiple things that we had to get permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it was a fence and -- MS. STONEBRIDGE: Yes, and the other five permits that I mentioned. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. STONEBRIDGE: Or six permits, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Investigator? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: We have no objections to a time extension. She had several permits she had to work on. She has been in contact with me on a regular basis since we were here last time, so CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I make a motion to approve a 90-day extension. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. Page 6 April 25, 2013 All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Moving on to stipulations. The first stipulation is number 10 from hearings, Serafin Hernandez and Sara De La Rosa. Case CESD20120002127. (All speakers were duly sworn. Interpreter is Liliana Carrendier. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the record, could you state your name and address? INTERPRETER: My name is Liliana Carrendier. I'm the court interpreter. My address is 600 South Barclay Drive, Marco Island, Florida, 34145. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the respondents? MR. HERNANDEZ: My name is Sarafin Ordaz Hernandez. INTERPRETER: My name is Sarafin Ordaz Hernandez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? INTERPRETER: I am Sara De La Rosa. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Good morning. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$81 .43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Page 7 April 25, 2013 Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits, obtaining all -- or a demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. INTERPRETER: It's okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You understand what was said, and you agree to it? INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion from the board or any discussion? MR. LEFEVBRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 8 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Maria. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation is number nine from hearings, 1336 Highlands Drive Land Trust, Case CESD20130001070. (Investigator Giannone was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see the respondent is not here right now, so -- INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Yes, sir, we had a stipulation agreement signed by Matthew Pikus, one of the owners of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to read the stipulation? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: It's agreed upon the parties, the respondent shall pay additional -- operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, certificate of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all the costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is there any in your opinion safety problem with the alterations that were made? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: No, sir. Page 9 April 25, 2013 MR. MARINO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MARINO: What was the amount of the operational cost you read? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 80.29. MR. MARINO: It's 80.57 on the screen. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: I believe it was changed at our meeting the other day to $80.29, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you want to -- MS. BAKER: We'll cross it off and initial. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any comments from the board or any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion -- MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 10 April 25, 2013 MS. BAKER: The next stipulation is number eight from hearings, Dan R. and Susie L. Rickard, Case CESD20110010944. (Dan and Susie Rickard and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Patrick Baldwin. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 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 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the record, could you both give us your name and address on the record? MR. RICKARD: Dan Rickard, 261 Second Street Southeast. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. RICKARD: Susie Rickard, 261 Second Street Southeast, Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you've heard what the stipulation is and you've signed off on that? MS. RICKARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you'll be able to make that time Page 11 April 25, 2013 frame? MS. RICKARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I just have one question. There's not a safety issue here, is there? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: There's no one living in it now. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Is the intent to get it permitted or demo it? MS. RICKARD: We have -- we've got the permit and we're building it to fix it. MR. LAVINSKI: So you intend to complete it then? MS. RICKARD: Yes, we do. MR. LAVINSKI: All right, motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next stipulation is number one from hearings, Page 12 April 25, 2013 Case CEN20130001762, Randolph Packing Company. (Angelo Carmignani and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$81 . 15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number two: Abate all violations by: Respondent must pay a fine of$100 and lower the decibel sound level to be in accordance with the sound levels and time constraints pursuant to Table 1 of the Collier County Code of Laws, 54-92.B.1, and must confine sound levels of all live music and/or amplified music to be pursuant to the Code of Laws, Section 54-91 .F.2, and must not exceed the sound levels, and Table 1 and 2 of Section 51 -- excuse me, 54-91 .B.1 and 2 immediately following this hearing. 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. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you understand the agreement that you agreed to? MR. CARMIGNANI: Yes, I do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Couple of questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Questions from the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: It says $100. Is that a day? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, it's a one-time fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: And immediately, what do you -- I mean, I'd like to see a time. Immediately? Two days after the hearing or right after this hearing? Page 13 April 25, 2013 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Right after this hearing, yes. Because it is a noise -- it was a noise issue. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the question I have, let's say they don't abide by this and we fine them $100 and then it happens again and again and again. Is this a one-time fine? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It's a one-time fine for now. If it does happen again, we would come back here. I would bring the case back in front of you again and it would be the next fine stated within the ordinance. MR. LEFEBVRE: What kind of business is this? Is this actually a meat-packing business? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, sir, it's the Porky's Restaurant over off 951 . CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So is this a music -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: They do have live music there on the weekends. We spoke with the complainant over the last month or so and he's very happy with what's been going on now. All the decibel levels have been lowered, so we have no issues. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe he's playing a different type of music so it's not -- okay, any other questions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. Page 14 April 25, 2013 MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation is number 17 from hearings, Irvin M. and Beverly Jackson, Case CESD20120004933. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. Code Enforcement Board Investigator Patrick Baldwin. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation, using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As I understand it, this is a stilt home that was closed in on the bottom? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it occupied? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No. Page 15 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not occupied. Is there electrical done there down on the bottom? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Mr. Jackson is going through all the permits right now. The permit is being inspected currently. The electrical has been inspected. But Mr. Jackson could probably speak more to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand the stipulation that you've agreed to? MR. JACKSON: Yes, I understand it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have no problem getting everything done in 120 days? MR. JACKSON: I'm working on it. Shouldn't have a problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. Page 16 April 25, 2013 MS. BAKER: The next stipulation is number 23 from hearings, William J. Swanson, Case CESD20120016523. (Mr. Swanson and Investigator Short were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Eric. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Eric Short. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$80 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 120 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 violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, is the conversion occupied at this time? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It is not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions of the county from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Eric, is there any progress been made to date on this? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: He has applied for a permit by affidavit, and it is issued. MR. LAVINSKI: It is issued? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. Page 17 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Awaiting inspections, I assume? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand the stipulation agreement that you signed? MR. SWANSON: Yes, sir, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you feel that 120 days is sufficient time to resolve the situation? MR. SWANSON: Plenty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Accept a motion from the board. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation is number 20 from hearings, Jon P. Mahoney and Robin K. Wellman. CESD20120009629. (Mr. Mahoney, Ms. Wellman and Investigator Davis were duly sworn.) Page 18 April 25, 2013 INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: Good morning. For the record, Jim Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number two: Abate all violations by: One: Obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy and either restore the structure to a permitted condition consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Florida Building Code or remove the structure within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed for each day that any violation continues. Number three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Number four: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand this is a septic system that had an extension put on it? INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: Yes, sir, it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I'm assuming that there was an extension put on there because there was a problem with the original septic system? INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if it was removed, we'd have another problem. INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: That's correct. Page 19 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, just wanted to find out about that. Good morning. MR. MAHONEY: Good morning. MS. WELLMAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you state your name for the record? MR. MAHONEY: Jon Mahoney. MS. WELLMAN: Robin Wellman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you live at the address that's listed? MS. WELLMAN: Yes. MR. MAHONEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a question: What do you intend to do to rectify this situation? MR. MAHONEY: It's really already been rectified. I just delayed in having the inspections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's more or less done? MR. MAHONEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the 90 days shouldn't be a problem? MR. MAHONEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I have a question. Prior to this meeting we received a request for a continuance on this same case dated April 18th. INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: And now we have a stipulation that's not dated. Which comes first? INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: We received a letter asking for a continuance when we met this morning. And I've looked at their permit. The permit had expired, yet all the work is done. And I Page 20 April 25, 2013 explained to Mr. Mahoney that we need to go down and rectify the permit and go ahead and get that final inspection. So he agreed to sign the stipulation based on that. But originally the continuance I think was just a matter of, you know, it's already done, can we get a continuance to make sure we can get this permit back up to date and get that final inspection. MR. LAVINSKI: So we're going to forget the continuance request and just address the stipulation? INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: Yes, sir, if that pleases the court. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I'm going to get Mr. Mahoney's name on there right now and the date for today -- not at the top, though, right here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 21 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation agreement is number 12 from hearings, New Plan Florida Holdings, LLC. Case CESD20120002418. (Mr. Borkhard Bruessow and Investigator Kincaid were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone so that it's recorded properly? MR. BRUESSOW: Yes. My name is Borkhard Bruessow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you live at -- MR. BRUESSOW: I live in Naples. Yeah, 34110 Naples. Bougainvillea. Zip (sic) 614 Bougainvillea Court. North Naples. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Good morning. For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$81 .43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. On the violation status, the initials, it says description of conditions, it says that the Page 22 April 25, 2013 sprinkler heads were covered. Is that still the case right now? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a safety problem? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, it is, sir. We have Lieutenant Michael Cruz from the Fire Department here. If you all would like to inquire into that further, he can testify to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd appreciate that. (Michael Cruz was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. LIEUTENANT CRUZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I noticed on the charging documents that the sprinkler heads were covered. Can you tell us a little bit about that? LIEUTENANT CRUZ: Initially on the inspection I had noticed a sprinkler head inside of a wall. And then it looks like they built out a wall that kind of jogged away from the sprinkler heads after the fact. And it's still a violation of NFPA 13. It's within four inches of a wall for the remainder of the heads. So there is a fire code violation, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think this is a safety violation? LIEUTENANT CRUZ: Most definitely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why I'm a little concerned with the 120 days as a part of the stipulation. Do you believe 120 days would put anybody at risk, given the situation? LIEUTENANT CRUZ: The space is vacant at this present time. I still think there is a hazard, yes. Electrical fires could happen and then you're not going to have the proper coverage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this one sprinkler head or many? LIEUTENANT CRUZ: Probably about three to four in a branch line. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 23 April 25, 2013 LIEUTENANT CRUZ: Out of probably like would you say 15 heads? MR. BRUESSOW: Yeah, probably. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions from the board? MR. MARINO: What type of building is it? LIEUTENANT CRUZ: It's the Mercantile at the K-Mart Shopping Plaza, Triangle Plaza, if you're familiar with it, on the corner of 951 and the East Trail. MR. MARINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, well, let's talk to the respondent. Good morning. MR. BRUESSOW: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are the sprinkler heads still covered as of today? MR. BRUESSOW: Yes. The situation is the violation, the code violation we agreed to is in an empty unit in Freedom Square Shopping Center. It's on 951 and West 41 in East Naples. This unit where it's happened is an empty unit, it's a vacant unit, nobody is in there, nobody goes in there. And I looked up the violation by myself. So far I remember, one of the sprinkler heads is built in a drywall. But the guys, whoever did it, it was one of the former tenants who built this illegally. We did not. They covered one sprinkler head with drywall and they cut off some drywall to make the sprinkler head work. And it might be working, but I agree with what the gentleman said, it is not code, it is not standard, we have to fix this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How do you intend to fix it? You're going to remove that illegal wall? MR. BRUESSOW: In our consideration, we met with a contractor and with a gentleman from fire department, by next week and he will exactly explain why the -- in the unit what exactly the best Page 24 April 25, 2013 for us is to do right now. I think for us in technical sense, it's the easiest way to remove the inside drywalls the former tenants built in our consideration now illegally. Most likely it's the most efficient way to bring it to code and it's probably the most easiest way to take the inside driver out where -- while it's not so far as I know it's not all fire sprinkler, it's part wise in some fire sprinkler. And it's probably the easiest technically to take the driver out, and it's always -- for us it's actually good if the unit is empty. It's easier to rent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Even though the unit is not occupied, I'm sure there are other units adjacent to that. And so whether that particular unit is unoccupied or not doesn't concern me as much as the violation. 120 days personally I find to be too long on a safety violation that could result in a fire, et cetera. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if this was done in a much shorter time frame. MR. BRUESSOW: Can I say one more sentence -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. BRUESSOW: -- to explain the whole situation? As I said, this is in a shopping center. This particular unit where we have the violation, the code violation, is next to an empty former K-Mart. The K-Mart is empty for approximately two years and right now we don't see any activity or any tenants to move in. The big empty K-Mart is on one side of the unit and another two empty units, former medical spaces -- no, I say that wrong. Wrong. One more empty unit on the left-hand side is next to it. This particular unit is let's say in the center from two empty units. There's no occupancy on the left-hand side and none on the right-hand side and the unit is empty too. It might be a little different than somebody occupied the next -- the unit next to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 25 April 25, 2013 MR. MARINO: How long is this wall? Is it the entire length of the store or the unit? MR. BRUESSOW: How long the wall is? MR. MARINO: Yeah. Does it have to be taken out? MR. BRUESSOW: No, it's not the entire -- the wall goes not through the entire unit. It's only part of it. It starts probably, by my remembrance, I would say 25 feet from the -- approximately, this is really approximately -- 25 feet from the -- or less, 20 feet from the beginning -- from the entrance of the store, and it stops maybe the same distance from the back of the store. MR. MARINO: Floor to ceiling? MR. BRUESSOW: Pardon me? MR. MARINO: It's a floor to ceiling wall? MR. BRUESSOW: The ceiling is pretty much -- MR. MARINO: No, is the wall a floor to ceiling wall? LIEUTENANT CRUZ: Correct. The unit's about 2,550 square feet. The wall that's in question is about three-quarters of that unit. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the board's privilege, we wanted to give 120 days because of the vacancy on the right and the left. And it's been in existence in there in the same condition for a few years. But we could lower that to 60 days if that would make the Chairman more comfortable. That's what the fire would say, 30 to 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I probably would be more comfortable. I mean, we're talking about getting a demo permit and pulling the wall out. That shouldn't take three months. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, we didn't know that at the beginning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I under -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: They hadn't made a decision about whether they wanted to keep it and permit it or remove it. So we can adjust the stipulation and make it 60 days. Page 26 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we approve the stipulation with changing it to 60 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for 60 days. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I will ask you, even though the public hearing is actually closed, but do you have a problem with 60 days? MR. BRUESSOW: I mean, right now we are not 100 percent sure if the easiest for us and the cheapest for us or the most reasonable for us to take the drywall out or after the meeting with the gentleman find maybe another solution. To speak for my company, for us, we don't see immediately fire hazard because of the unoccupancy. We would like to ask for this 120 days, if possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The only thing the 60 days will do, it will probably move this along quicker. You'll probably make a decision quicker this way. And we do have a motion and a second on the 60 days. Yes? MS. BAKER: If he doesn't agree to the 60 days, we need to bring it to a hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. BAKER: We can't do a stipulation agreement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. So it's changed. MS. BAKER: Unless he agrees to the 60 days. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: At the current time there are no permits existing for this tenant build-out at all. So we're not just talking about modifying or permitting the one wall. The gentleman basically has two options here: He can either permit the existing structure, like a permit by affidavit, and obtain a permit for an Page 27 April 25, 2013 alteration to the fire suppressant system, or get a demolition permit and remove all of the partitions. It's kind of a black-and-white, either/or. I don't know that he would have the option of modifying one partition, and I guess he could modify the one or submit a plan and -- you know, where the alterations were on there. But it's basically permitting this thing from scratch. I mean, there are no permits on record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So a demo permit to remove the walls would be the quickest way of doing this. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir, it would, and the least expensive, probably. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you agree to the 60 days? MR. BRUESSOW: But still I would like to speak, before I agree for 60 days, with the property management what alternative we have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, unless you agree to the 60 days, we're going to have to bring this case back. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Sir, let me -- let's go ahead outside and talk about it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, why don't you go out and we'll bring you back when -- MR. MIESZCAK: Can I just ask one question before you go out the door? This abuts to K-Mart, I'm sure. Is that true? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir, the end of K-Mart. MR. MIESZCAK: So who in fact owns the building? This man's just a lessor, right? SUPERVISOR SNOW: No, he's the representative of the property owner. MR. MIESZCAK: Of the whole thing? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. Of the entire building. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. Page 28 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this originally was from August of last year, so we're closing in on a year on this. So why don't you go outside and see what you can come up with and then come back. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do I have to rescind my motion then? MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll rescind my motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Why? MR. LEFEBVRE: Because we have to move on. MR. MIESZCAK: If he doesn't sign these -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can't change it unless the respondent agrees to it. MS. RAWSON: Right. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation was number -- we actually have two additions on stipulations, so we'll have to modify the agenda. Number nine will be number 25 from hearings, Paula Mendoza, Case CESD20120008638. And number 10 will be number 21 from hearings, Francisco Dominguez and Olga Dominguez. Case CESD20120010474. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to amend the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 29 April 25, 2013 MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: So the next case is Paula Mendoza. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which case number? MS. BAKER: Number 25. (Paula Mendoza, Vladimir Mendoza, Investigator Rodriguez and Interpreter Carrendier were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And if you would, everybody can give your name for the record. INTERPRETER: My name is Liliana Carrendier. MS. MENDOZA: Paula Mendoza. MR. MENDOZA: Vladimir Mendoza. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Good morning, Maria. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of$250 will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Page 30 April 25, 2013 Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maria, I have a question. Just for the board. This was a mobile home that was placed on a piece of property without a permit? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I see the permit expired? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And this was June of 2012, about a year ago. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: No, the permit expired back in 2000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No the violation -- INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Oh, violation, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- was June 7th, 2012. Okay. Okay, good morning. Any questions from the county by the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to ask the respondents if they understood the stipulation. INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if they will be able to complete the request of the stipulation in 60 days. MR. MENDOZA: Is that enough time? We'd have to pull permits on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you move the microphone over so we can hear you. MR. MENDOZA: Is that enough time? We've never pulled permits or anything. We don't know if 60 days will be enough. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What do you intend to do? I mean, to remove the -- is that the gist of this? Is the mobile home on a piece of property that was not permitted? Page 31 April 25, 2013 MR. MENDOZA: No, we wanted to get permits and have it there. It's been there for 15 years or so. I don't know if 60 days is enough time to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The 60 days is what you have already agreed to. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that the county's feeling, that that is enough time? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: They're probably going to need a little bit more time, but I explained to them that if they did that we could bring it back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you, Maria. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand what Maria said, that if you can't get it done in 60 days that you -- before the 60 days is completed, you can come back and say we applied for the permit, it's going to take another month or whatever it is. MR. MENDOZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. MENDOZA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, seeing no questions from the board -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation as stated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the stipulation as stated. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 32 April 25, 2013 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation is number 21 from hearings, Francisco Dominguez and Olga Dominguez Case CESD20120010474. (Francisco and Olga Dominguez, Interpreter Carrendier and Investigator Rodriguez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maria, sound similar to the previous? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: It is. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Must obtain all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent shall notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation, using any methods to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. INTERPRETER: Yeah, I accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you give us your name on the Page 33 April 25, 2013 microphone so we have it? MR. DOMINGUEZ: Francisco Dominguez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question to the county. This one is 180 days for a mobile home on a lot. Why such a difference? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: He has pulled a permit to sit the mobile home on that lot. His problem is that he has to get a septic tank, and his septic tank is going to cost him $6,000. So he's trying to gather the money in order to apply for a septic tank permit. INTERPRETER: Is 8,000. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: And it's vacant, there's no one living in the mobile home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was my next question. Thank you. Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, six months. You'll get the septic in and it will all be done. MS. BAKER: And then Mr. Chair, if we could move back to Page 34 April 25, 2013 New Plan Florida Holdings, LLC. THE COURT REPORTER: Just to remind you that you're still under oath. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Kincaid? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The respondent has agreed to accept the 60-day time frame on the stipulation agreement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And Gerald, you want to repeat your motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement with the change to 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: Moving on to letter C, hearings. The next six cases will be presented together; however, we'll read each -- I'll go through and read each statement of violation. The investigator will present the same testimony for all six cases together. And then we'll have to do six separate orders. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we'll do six separate motions. MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. Page 35 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: So the first case, Case CENA20120017641 . It's in reference to violation of ordinance, Collier County Code of Laws and ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54-185(d). Description of violation: Presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation, including but not limited to Brazilian Pepper, Ear Leaf Acacia, Air Potato, within 200 feet of an improved property. Location/address where violation exists: 2889 Coco Lakes Place, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 26169500865. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Koresh Properties, LLC, 9931 Treasure Cay Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida, 34135. Date violation first observed: November 28th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 3rd, 2013. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 3rd, 2013. Date of reinspection: March 5th, 2013. Results of reinspection: That the violation remains. The next case -- all of the information on the statement of violation is the same for all of the cases except for the address and folio information, so I'll read the case number and folio information for each one so we don't have to read the statement for everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just ask one question. Is it possible that they may be different exotics on different lots, or they're all the same? MS. BAKER: They're all the same. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you agree with that? MR. GOHARI: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: They're different lots. MS. BAKER: They're different lots, same vegetation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GOHARI: Jay says forget it. Page 36 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay MS. BAKER: The next case is CENA20120017642. Location/address where violation exists: 2888 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 26169500221 . The next case, Koresh Properties, LLC, Case CENA20120017643. Location/address where violation exists: 2870 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 26169500289. Next case, Koresh Properties, LLC. Case CENA20120017639. Location/address where violation exists: 2931 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 26169501084. Next case, Koresh Properties, LLC, Case CENA20120012782. Location/address where violation exists: 2943 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 26169501848. Next case, Koresh Properties, LLC, Case CENA20120017644. Location/address where violation exists: 2859 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 2616950661 . And that's the last case. (Mr. Mark Gohari and Investigator Jones were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR JONES: Good morning. For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibit. The respondent is not aware of this exhibit. And what it is, it's just an aerial photograph of the properties, just so we can give you guys a general idea of what we're speaking of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show it to the respondent to make sure he has no objection. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion from -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the aerial picture. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. Page 37 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the exhibit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any other -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there any other photos? INVESTIGATOR JONES: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: So in this photo you can see there are -- Colleen, could you turn it the other way, maybe? There are six separate unimproved parcels. And in an initial site inspection responding to a complaint, during that initial inspection it revealed that there are as you can see six unimproved parcels that lie within 200 feet of an improved parcel. And all of these six unimproved parcels contain Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation. And that's basically what we're here for today. The respondent was given a Notice of Violation, allowed 30 days for abatement. Abatement did not happen, and it was then prepped for a CEB hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was in February, right? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: February 3rd. They were supposed to be corrected on February 3rd. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Violation -- Page 38 April 25, 2013 INVESTIGATOR JONES: Violation was issued January 3rd, given 30 days for abatement, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Originally November 28th is when the violation was first observed. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other things from your perspective? INVESTIGATOR JONES: It's pretty cut-and-dry, you know. Standard issue. The exotics exist on the unimproved parcels. They appear to be young growth exotics. Not that it makes a difference, you know. Probably one to two years old. Ranging from Ear Leaf Acacia to Brazilian Pepper seemed to be the most common ones here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions of the county? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Mr. Chair, do we need, so we don't get hung up on details, to get that Item number five on each of the statements changed from November, 2013 to 2012? Each one says that the violation was first observed in 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, it's a scrivener's error. MS. FLAGG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That will be corrected. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have there been other violations within this development? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I'm the environmental specialist. As far as I'm aware, I mean, it's just this is as far as environmental violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: But was there other cases before? MS. BAKER: Yes. INVESTIGATOR JONES: I do believe there was, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is a second violation then? MR. LEFEBVRE: Not for this, correct? MS. CRAWLEY: Not for this violation. This is the first time for Page 39 April 25, 2013 this violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning, sir. MR. GOHARI: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like -- why don't you give us your explanation of what's going on. MR. GOHARI: First of all, the neighbors, they don't like weed clean, because back behind that is not beautiful houses. We ask, let me clear it, fill dirt and grass and put fence. The county didn't agree. The reason took this time, because we negotiate with code enforcement for we remove all vegetable (sic). Because we are going build finally probably within next year. And they said they cannot do it. If they let me remove all of them finally we have to and fill dirt it, put grass, the inspector, his boss came with me, Mr. Andrew, he said he love it. And this gentleman, the same. Everybody, our neighbors, they love it. We remove it and fill dirt, cost more to me, probably $60,000. But is good for neighbors, for everything. If you give time and we go for permit and we build the houses. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: I mean, it's just -- the violation's the violation. A complaint came in, we responded to it accordingly. And personal opinion, I mean, if they were removed can you see the surrounding development easier? Did it act as a buffer? Well, it probably did. But a complaint came in regarding these properties, they contain exotics within 200 feet of improved properties, and that's what it is. MR. GOHARI: Complaint is not from neighbors. All neighbors, they don't like we touch it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It doesn't matter where the complaint comes from, it's either a violation or it's not a violation. MR. GOHARI: But anyway, some people probably they don't like a person -- yes. Page 40 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. And as he said, it probably gives a certain amount of privacy. However, those aren't the plants that are permitted in Collier County. What's been done -- since you had agreed I guess to remediate the situation by the beginning of February, what's been done since that? MR. GOHARI: They told us -- we negotiate with code enforcement about probably they find a solution, give the permit for remove everything. And the reason it took until this time, because we were under negotiation to have permit for clearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tony? MR. MARINO: Question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MARINO: Am I under the understanding that he stated that he's willing to cut everything down and sod it -- MR. GOHARI: Yes. MR. MARINO: -- and he was turned down? MR. GOHARI: I am ready. INVESTIGATOR JONES: I'm not aware of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who did you speak with in code enforcement who said you couldn't do it? MR. GOHARI: Mr. -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Okay, can I kind of go into depth about this just a little bit? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Basically as you can see, all these lots have not been developed yet, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. INVESTIGATOR JONES: So I know Mr. Gohari has had some communication with perhaps our engineering department within the county to work out some type of plan to where he could go in and like he said, just level it, put sod down and wait for a house to be built. Page 41 April 25, 2013 And as you know, to clear prohibited exotic vegetation on an unimproved lot with mechanical equipment right now you need to obtain a vegetation removal permit. So he may have tried -- trying to be working around that permit obtainal (sic) based on the fact that a house is going to go there anyway. But whether that's still in the workings now or not, the case was prepped for CEB because the violation remained. You know, we -- that's why we're here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Isn't it possible to go in and -- I know we had a case in front of Olde Cypress where they had gone in and cleared the land for development and then they had to stabilize it with plant and -- planting grass. Would that be the same option here? INVESTIGATOR JONES: If he obtained a building permit for the lot. With a building permit you can clear up to an acre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, this was a parcel and they cleared the whole -- you know, it's in front of Olde Cypress that borders Immokalee Road. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Did they obtain a vegetation removal permit, probably? MR. LEFEBVRE: More than likely. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: And they cleared the land and then the land sat vacant for quite some time. And they came in and they had to plant grass. Could that option be possible here? INVESTIGATOR JONES: It could. Hinging on a vegetation removal permit stipulation, the stipulations in that permit as -- once it's issued. Yeah, I mean, if it's 100 percent prohibited exotics in there and he uses mechanical equipment to remove them and he does it within the bounds of the RP, of course, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So he could clear -- because it looks like it wouldn't be just only the lots that are pointed out, but at the southern Page 42 April 25, 2013 part of the property it would probably be all those lots, correct? MR. GOHARI: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And he did clear those -- if I'm not mistaken, he did clear these lots one other time, a couple of years ago, probably. MR. GOHARI: Yes, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And that -- there was another violation that was brought and he was in violation. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if he went and again cleared it all and just planted seeds, grass, he could do that, with a vegetation permit? INVESTIGATOR JONES: He could. But if there's native vegetation still existing on these lots, say there's, you know, a 60-year-old slash pine tree, he may not be allowed to clear it with that vegetation removal permit. He can clear just the prohibited exotic vegetation. MR. LEFEBVRE: So without a building permit -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Correct. The building permit would allow him to clear what he wants, you know, up to an acre, of course. Even these don't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: These lots are not over an acre. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, they're not. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Well, with the vegetation removal permit there may be a stipulation in there, you know, the native vegetation remains but you can clear the prohibited exotics. And there may be some native stuff, you know, Saw Palmetto, things like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, the question is, if he does clear just the exotics, can he plant grass there, I mean, or will it not grow because of the canopy? INVESTIGATOR JONES: That's kind of a natural resources question. But -- go ahead. Page 43 April 25, 2013 MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BOSA: I just wanted to make the board aware that we did meet with Mr. Gohari yesterday. We were trying to sign the stipulation agreement because he is aware of the violations there and everything, but we reached an impasse as far as time allowed. I was able to offer him 180 days to come into compliance. He said he needed a year to come into compliance. So that's why I told him, well, you're going to have to present that to the board as far as that. He does have a letter, a nicely written that his son has sent, and he wanted to present that as evidence to the board. MR. LAVINSKI: I have one question. The -- if he goes ahead and eradicates all six of these lots, what's going to happen to all the rest of that? Are they still going to be in violation with invasive (sic)? He doesn't own the whole thing, or does he? But we only cited six lots. INVESTIGATOR JONES: We only cited six lots because those are the lots that are within the 200-foot radius of a neighboring improved property. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So we're still going to have a whole bunch of invasive (sic). INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah. You know, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But probably the best that, my two cents worth of advice, is if you're doing something do it for everything that you're going to build on. MR. GOHARI: That is the best. Even in the county they have this agreement together. One day they say we're going to let you clear, the next day they say no. The reason it took this long time, we didn't forget, we negotiate with them for permit to go clear it and make it beautiful and put fence with other neighbors. Page 44 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You said you have a letter that you wanted to share with the board? MS. BAKER: We have it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have it? You want to put it on the overhead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it an exhibit? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We need to accept this exhibit. Anybody have any -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibit. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. This is a letter from -- MR. LEFEBVRE: His son. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay, any questions from the board? (No response.) MR. LAVINSKI: Just after looking at this, if we're not going to do the whole neighborhood then I don't think his request for 12 months is unreasonable. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, I understand where you're Page 45 April 25, 2013 coming from. I mean, they do spread rather easily and just by doing specific lots -- MR. MARINO: Is he understanding that they are willing to do the whole neighborhood? MR. GOHARI: It's the best way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're asking for 12 months. And the questions from the board are for 12 months what's going to be done? Are you going to do just these six lots or are you going to do everything? MR. GOHARI: No, no, we are negotiating now with somebody in Washington D.C., they come be joint venture. We are going -- finally they feel market is moving. Probably we go permit and clear it for build the houses. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah I don't think that we can come to an agreement based on what somebody may or may not be doing from Washington D.C. MR. GOHARI: Okay, we have problem with the neighbor. The neighbors, they don't want we clear only few lots, and back of the property is not face all neighbors. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it needs to come into compliance one way or the other. Either you're going to do the six lots or you're going to do the six lots and all the other lots. And has been pointed out by the board, if you're going to do the whole thing, then an extension of time would probably be something that would be granted. But if you're only going to do the six lots -- MR. GOHARI: No, no, I am ready do all of them if the board let me clear it, fill dirt it and put the sod and fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- MR. GOHARI: That cost more, but is better for everywhere. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if that -- Ralph? MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six months for the six lots, does it Page 46 April 25, 2013 all have to be done at one time? In other words, I'd like to see some progress. I don't want to wait till day 364 and find out that nothing's been done and the only thing we've done is lost a year. MR. BOSA: Yeah, we're looking for the six lots to be done within, you know, the time frame that you give him here. Like I said, just the six lots, whatever he does everywhere else, it's -- we have not received any complaints on that or anything. So like I said, I offered him six months at first. And I even told him he can come back and ask for more time if he needed it. So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that that's probably the best road to ride is that you can come back -- MR. GOHARI: No, board cannot help. Because in the county they had this agreement, two group. One group they said yes, is good idea. The same said -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know who you're referring to. MR. GOHARI: -- we have to go clear it, everything. Board doesn't have authority to tell county let me go clear it, fill dirt it, sod it and fence it and make it beautiful neighborhood? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The only thing we can do is to act on what the ordinance says. And the ordinance says that you need to get a vegetation removal permit. MR. GOHARI: We did two years ago, or 18 months ago. They come back very fast. $25,000 cost. For what reason we have to pay each 18 months this? It's reasonable? Let I finish it one time -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm not going to comment on what's reasonable or not reasonable, I don't know. MR. GOHARI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But what needs to be done is to show. You can start on these. And if you need more time you can come back at a time when you know -- MR. GOHARI: These kind vegetation across the street of the county building, million of them. All county has that. Only few Page 47 April 25, 2013 pieces to this property is going to kill the people? Is poison? Only -- that is not -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What the ordinance says is if you have these plants and it's within 200 feet of a developed lot, that's what needs to be cleared. That's why they're -- you don't find -- MR. GOHARI: I don't have any problem. I am ready to clear all of them, not only six. It's 21 lots. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you sign a stipu -- I don't want to do the negotiating here but a stipulation saying that you'll clear everything within one year? MR. GOHARI: Yes, sir, within one year. MS. RAWSON: We can't really do that under this case number. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. MS. RAWSON: Because we only got six cases. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. MARINO: He's looking for six months, is that what -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's looking for one year. MR. LEFEBVRE: One year for six lots. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I'll close the public hearing and we can discuss this amongst ourselves. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: I just don't think the six months is going to prove anything. If we be realistic and look at that aerial and see, there's probably twice as much still there after we make this gentleman do it in six months. MR. GOHARI: Thank you, yes. I say the same. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? MR. HUDSON: Chairman, I have a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. HUDSON: I wholeheartedly agree with my board member colleague. If you look at that aerial, it's -- if you put it back on the Page 48 April 25, 2013 screen. Can we have it back on the screen? I mean, look to the houses to the right side there. I mean, those are all improved properties. Who owns the stuff behind it, who owns the stuff to the north? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Well, we didn't -- you know, we didn't receive complaints on those pieces. MR. HUDSON: I understand you didn't. I'm just pointing out that, I mean, come look at the property I rent. I mean, the pepper hedge comes from everywhere. You knock one down, it comes right back. And, I mean, I think the board member has a particularly valid point, if you just look at this aerial. MR. MARINO: What is the size of this lot, the property? What is the acreage of the property? How much area are we talking about property? MR. GOHARI: Is about 6,500 square feet per -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Per lot. MR. GOHARI: Per lot. MR. MARINO: Per lot. MR. GOHARI: It's one lot. MR. BOSA: Chairman, just so we're clear on this, the other areas are not in violation. The exotics are growing specifically on these lots here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The property is not 200 feet from an improved lot, that's why it's not in violation, that's why it hasn't been reported. We have the six violations that are in front of us right now and those are what we have to deal with. MR. MARINO: I agree with that. That's what I think we ought to move forward with. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to make a motion, Tony? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion to give him the six months to clear the six -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We have to find a violation first. Page 49 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Can we read the -- MR. MARINO: I make a motion there is a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion, do we have a second? 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, violation exists. Tony? MR. MARINO: I make a motion we extend -- give him the six months to clear six lots. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Sure. Allow me to read my recommendation and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. INVESTIGATOR JONES: -- we'll just fill it in accordingly. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Must obtain any necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank Page 50 April 25, 2013 dollars a day until abated. Two: The prohibited exotic vegetation base stump must be treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. When the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains within blank days -- I'm sorry, within blank days, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed. And finally, 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, thank you. INVESTIGATOR JONES: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Tony? MR. MARINO: Now each one of these is separate, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to vote on them separately but they're all identical, so whatever you come up with we'll use on the other five cases. MR. MARINO: I make a motion that it be approved for 60 days with a fine of$100 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sixty days or 180 days? MR. MARINO: 180 days. Six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, okay. And that's the $100 is the -- on our list of-- MR. LAVINSKI: The recommended. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The recommended. MR. MARINO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a second on that motion? Page 51 April 25, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion -- MS. RAWSON: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Based on the recommendation from staff, there are two separate parts of it. And each of the separate parts, as I understood his recommendation, carries a fine with it. So are you giving us a motion with the two separate parts or is it all encompassing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't understand your -- MS. RAWSON: Well, the second thing he recommended to you was that they treat it with an approved herbicide within so many days or so much fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Is that on this violation here? MS. RAWSON: Well -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yeah, they coincide. I mean, once you remove it -- according to the LDC, it says that as well. Once you remove it, then you are to treat the base stump to prevent regrowth. MS. RAWSON: Why don't you put your recommendation on the screen. MS. BAKER: It is. MR. MARINO: It is now. MS. RAWSON: Isn't that a letter? INVESTIGATOR JONES: No, that's the recommendation. MS. RAWSON: Okay. I should put my glasses on. MR. MIESZCAK: It wasn't there before. You're okay. MR. MARINO: Oh, I see what Jean is talking about. There are two. MS. RAWSON: I just want to get the orders right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The board would like compliance one way or another. If you're going to be putting houses up there, it Page 52 April 25, 2013 probably will resolve that situation going forward. But for now, the -- unless you're going to be out there with a chain saw cutting those down, the people who are going to be removing it probably know what the ordinance says, and they will do accordingly. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: But just to make it clear, 180 days for the first part for number one or a $100 fine, and then number two, 180 days and $100 fine. I think that would be -- that's what you're looking for? MR. MARINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As we said during the meeting, if after a period of time you find that you can't do it in that time frame, you can come back to the board and ask for an extension. The only thing we ask is that you come back before the end of the 180 days. MR. GOHARI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. LEFEBVRE: And just to be clear, that it's $100 and 180 days for each violation. Page 53 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not $100 for all six of them, it's per violation. MS. BAKER: Right. We need to go through each case -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We will, we will. MS. BAKER: -- and make a violation -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And on top of that. So it would help that after a period of time, if you're looking for an extension, that you can show that something has been done, that you pulled a permit, et cetera, et cetera, to get this resolved. To come back in five and a half months and say I'm still working on it and nothing's been done, the board wouldn't look at that with bright eyes. So we have a motion, second, and we voted on this particular case. Why don't we move to the next case. MS. BAKER: The next one is CENA20120017642, Koresh Properties, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And can we use the same motion on that one as well? What do we need a do to -- MS. BAKER: Make a motion -- someone needs to make a motion that a violation exists. MR. MARINO: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have -- MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 54 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: And then you can make a motion for the same recommendation as previously. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to make a motion to use the same, Tony? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we use the same as the previous case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Moves us to the next case. MS. BAKER: And the operational costs are the same on -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BAKER: -- each case? So the next case is CENA2012001643, Koresh Properties, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a motion that a violation exists? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion the violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; do we have a second? Page 55 April 25, 2013 MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Would you like to make a motion, Tony? MR. MARINO: Same as the previous one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to treat this the same way as the previous case. Do we have a second on that? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And all those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Next case? MS. BAKER: Next case, CENA-20120017639, Koresh Page 56 April 25, 2013 Properties, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Tony? MR. MARINO: I make a motion the length of time and the fine stays as the previous three. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 57 April 25, 2013 MS. BAKER: Next case, CENA20120012782, Koresh Properties, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Tony? MR. MARINO: Make a motion that the fines and length of time is the same as the previous ones. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; do we -- MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 58 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Last case, CENA20120017644, Koresh Properties, LLC. MR. MARINO: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MARINO: Make a motion the fines and the time remain the same as the previous. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 59 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, that finishes this case. MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. MR. GOHARI: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chair, we'd like to move to case number 18, because we still have the interpreter here as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And then we'll take a break for the court reporter. MS. BAKER: That would be great. So the next case is number 18, Case CESD20120016883, Jose and Sara Lopez. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to change the agenda. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. (Jose Lopez, Sara Abreo, Interpreter Liliana Carrendier and Investigator Kincaid were duly sworn.) 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). Page 60 April 25, 2013 Description of violation: Screen porch at front of property, covered porch at rear of property and detached structure/shed in rear yard of property all built without applicable Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 5323 Georgia Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 62093360009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jose and Sara Lopez, 5323 Georgia Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: November 14th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given notice the violation: December 4th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 1st, 2013. Date of reinspection: January 2nd, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we -- Mr. Kincaid? Could you state your name on the microphone? INTERPRETER: Liliana Carrendier. MS. ABREO: Sara Abreo. INTERPRETER: A-B-R-E-O. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says Sarah Lopez. INTERPRETER: That was when I was married. Now that's my married name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. For this case I'd like to introduce into evidence four photographs: One picture taken on December 4th, 2012 showing the screen porch at the front of the property, and three aerial photographs taken from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website from years 2005, 2007 and 2009, and showing the development of the property from the original permitted structure through the addition of unpermitted improvements. Page 61 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen these pictures? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: No, sir, she has not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show them to her and see if she has any objection to those. MR. MIESZCAK: Does she have any objection? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objections to those? INTERPRETER: No. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The details of the case: On November 7th, 2012, code enforcement received a complaint about a shed being rented out as living quarters with no permit and other possible unpermitted structures at 5323 Georgia Avenue. A site visit was conducted and the complaint was discussed with the resident of the property on November 14th, 2012. The resident states that she rents the property and that the shed in the rear yard is used only as her children's play area during daytime hours. Page 62 April 25, 2013 Research of the property reveals that the shed, a screen porch at the front and a covered porch at the rear of the property have all been added without applicable Collier County permits. Required notices have been posted. As of April 24th, 2013, no permits have been applied for to correct the violation. If I could explain the pictures. In the first picture from the roadway in front of the house you can see the screen porch. The second piece of evidence is a 2005 aerial photograph from the Collier County Property Appraiser. As you can see -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you point out the house on that photo? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir, I can. This would be the existing structure. As you can see -- it shows the existing structure, which would be this area right here. As you can see, there's no porch on the house. There's an automobile parked here. And there's basically nothing in the backyard at that point in time. And we move on to the next picture, which would be the 2000 photograph, aerial photograph, the Property Appraiser's. You can see there's been the addition of the front porch. There's also a large concreted area here, which is flat with concrete. That particular part, just adding concrete would not require permits, since there's no vertical structure. We move on to 2009. You can see what was the existing structure, which would have gone right across here, this large edition here has been added. Once again we can see the screen porch here. Also, in the back right here, from this area over to here down and back is a large shed that's been added. So we have multiple additions of attached and detached structures onto the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there electric in the addition -- the Page 63 April 25, 2013 shed? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I have not been in it to verify whether that would be so. I believe that there is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd ask about sewer, but you probably wouldn't know that either. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I would not, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. Anything else? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: No, sir, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you listened to the Code Enforcement Officer? INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what have you to say? INTERPRETER: That shed, I bought it in Home Depot and I just put it right there. I have the papers where I bought it. And it doesn't have -- I bought that shed in Home Depot in the store center. I have the receipts. It has no power. The only thing I did is I put a grill on the side. That's where I do my cooking, my grilling. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the porch in the front and the rear? INTERPRETER: The porch in the back, if you ask me to, I will have it removed. The one in the front, I did it a long, long time ago. I did not know that I needed a permit. But on that one, yes, I will require time to get a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Just about that shed -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The shed, the main shed in question here is not -- it is a site built, stick built shed. This is not a bought shed from Home Depot or Lowe's that would be hauled onto the property. This was actually built on site. Page 64 April 25, 2013 INTERPRETER: No, I have the receipts where I bought it. MR. MIESZCAK: You have the receipts? INTERPRETER: Not with me, but I can bring them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you should have brought them with you for this. This is what the case -- INTERPRETER: I didn't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any motions from the board, or question? MR. MARINO: Is it a metal shed or is it a wood shed? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: There are both. And regardless of whether it would be metal or whether it would be site built, they would both require permitting. MR. LAVINSKI: James, in your opinion, just looking at this structure, is it possible it came from Home Depot? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The one I'm referring to did not come from Home Depot. I have 35 years in the building business, I'm also a licensed State of Florida structural building inspector, and I can guarantee you that this did not come from Home Depot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The wood might have come from Home Depot. INTERPRETER: I would request for you to please to come to my house and I will you the papers where I bought it and how much -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Make a motion. INTERPRETER: -- I paid for it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there is a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second, Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 65 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, do you have you recommendation? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. 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: Number one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates 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 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. Any questions of the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Somebody like to take this on? MR. LEFEBVRE: What were the operational costs once again? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $80.86. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. I guess one other question I have: Is this structure currently being lived in? Page 66 April 25, 2013 INTERPRETER: No, nobody. All I got there is just stuff It's a storage space. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, so the shed in back, there's no one living in there. The house -- is someone living -- INTERPRETER: Myself and my 17-year-old son. MR. LEFEBVRE: Respondent to pay $80.86 within 30 days of this hearing. INTERPRETER: Where do I need to pay that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The officer will talk to you outside and let you know exactly where to go. MR. LEFEBVRE: And within 150 days of this hearing will need to have either building permits or demo permits and have all the work completed or a fine of$150 a day will be imposed. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. INTERPRETER: So you give me 150 days to get all my permits? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let us vote on it first and then we'll see if it passes. We have a motion and a second by the person who looks down. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Yes, 150 days to get the permits. And inspections. INTERPRETER: So how long is 150 days? Page 67 April 25, 2013 MR. MARINO: Five months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, generally the months are around 30 days so about five months. INTERPRETER: Can you give me a little bit more time? Because I'm alone. It's my son and me only. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this is what has passed. This is what it is. And if it's not done in 150 days, there will be a $150 a day fine. Should you not have enough time, you can come back you the board and request more time. INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the board will ask you what you've done so far. INTERPRETER: So for the permit, do I need to go -- where? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Kincaid will help you, point you in the right direction. INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Officer. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to recess. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to take -- let's see, be back here 55. We're going to take time for the court reporter to have blood go back into her hands. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. MS. BAKER: The next case on the agenda is number 11, Case CESD20130001795, Viola II, LLC. (Investigator Jones was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.13(F). Description of violation: Failure to submit annual PUD Page 68 April 25, 2013 monitoring report. Location/address where violation exists: Folio 203280009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Viola II, LLC, 404 Citation Point, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: February 5th, 2013. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: February 26th, 2013. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 21st, 2013. Date of reinspection: March 22nd, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Good morning. For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. That pretty much sums it up. Initial inspection revealed PUD monitoring report had not been submitted. A Notice of Violation was then subsequently issued to property owner. Compliance has still not been met regarding that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you had any conversations with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR JONES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Where's my PUD expert here? Mr. Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Do you know if this is the first required PUD on an annual update? INVESTIGATOR JONES: This is an annual update for this. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. I'll make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 69 April 25, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR JONES: I do. And that is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One: Respondent must submit two complete copies of the planned unit development annual monitoring report form, one of three traffic counting operations, and one executed affidavit within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until 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. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I make a motion that the operational costs of 80.57 be paid in 30 days. And where this is a 30-day update, it's not rocket science, so I go along with the 30 days or a fine of $100 per day. Page 70 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Dave. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 13 on the agenda, Case CESD20120017981, Cassia Poviones. (Investigator Davis was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference of violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Demolition and remodel in progress without building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3030 39th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 38054880002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Cassia Poviones, 3030 39th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: December 5th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: February 26th, 2013. Page 71 April 25, 2013 Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 12th, 2013. Date of reinspection: March 131st, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: For the record, Investigator James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photo. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: On November 4th, 2012 during a vacant home sweep, I found a semi-demolished home with new building materials on the property. Case research showed no permits were applied for to rebuild the property. On February 6th, 2013 the property went into foreclosure. An LP was filed by Bank of America and as of today there's been no contact by the current owner and the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? Page 72 April 25, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81 .15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One: Obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank a day will be imposed for each day that any violations continue. 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. Page 73 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was there ever a building permit on this? INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: There was an original building permit for the original structure. It was a -- it was a home that became dilapidated and was falling down. The initial case back in 2010, they took the roof down, they brought it down to the concrete and still had one wall left. But then when we did the vacant home sweep, we seen the new construction materials on-site and seen new parts of the walls being built. You know, since that initial visit that I had on the property, there has been no activity from that point up till now. But like I said, the new material still exists. But now it's gone into foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have had no communication with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have one short question. Are there any safety issues? Is there a pool, is there any danger for neighborhood children to injure themselves? INVESTIGATOR DAVIS: I witnessed no safety issues. I will tell you that Bank of America has responded with our foreclosure team. They've cleaned up litter, things with nails sticking out of wood, those kinds of things. They've already cleaned those things up. There's just certain things they can't do until they get the certificate of title. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have anybody who would like to fill in the blanks on the recommendation? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll give it a shot. I make a motion that the operational costs be paid within 30 days. And that where it's in foreclosure, I'd like to say that this should be resolved within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day be imposed. Page 74 April 25, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case, number 14, Case CESD20120017461, Federal National Mortgage Association. (Investigator Ambach 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) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Unpermitted additions to the home to include windows, doors and a metal roof. Location/address where violation exists: 2080 Golden Gate Boulevard West, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 36963480003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Federal National Mortgage Association, care of C.T. Corporation System, 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida, 33324. Date violation first observed: November 26th, 2012. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 27th, 2012. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 27th, Page 75 April 25, 2013 2012. Date of reinspection: April 5th, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. For the reported, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph taken by myself on November 26th, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: This case was open per lien search request and two voided permits were observed; the first for an expired aluminum roof and the second for new doors and windows. My research confirmed both permits dated back to 2001 and expired without receiving all required inspections and certificates of completion. Since the property was bank owned, the case was forwarded to our foreclosure specialist. The foreclosure specialist was in direct contact with the bank's representative who was working on abatement. However, due to not being able to secure a contractor to Page 76 April 25, 2013 sign off on the roof permit, the bank was unable to abate the violations. The case was then transferred back to me and prepared for today's hearing. As of this morning, the 25th, the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: This property, was it under contract at one point? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The original permits were pulled in 2000 by the homeowner. He didn't do any inspections. Reap was done on both permits in 2001 . Again, no inspections ever called in. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the property was under contract and that buyer for the property did a lien search and that's how -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good for them, by the way. All right, do we have any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion to find them in violation? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 77 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And your recommendation is? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81 .15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of the date of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violations are abated. That 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: Have you ever been in contact with the bank? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The bank representative was in contact with our foreclosure specialist on several occasions. They had contractors go out. I was in contact with two. They were trying desperately to get these -- looking into getting the situation taken care of. One of them dropped off and the second person was probably a month and a half ago, and I never heard back from that person either. According to the notes from the foreclosure specialist the issue was with the roof and no one was willing to sign off on that. And they've done nothing since then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm surprised that the bank isn't here today, actually. Okay, we have a violation. Would somebody like to fill in the Page 78 April 25, 2013 blanks? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like the respondent pay $81 .15, all operational costs, 60 days and $200 a day fine. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. 81 .15 is within 30 days. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case is number 19, Case CELU20130003963, Jorge A. Herrera and Myriam Herrera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand we have quite a few speakers on this? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir, we have 11 speakers. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (Jorge and Myriam Herrera and Investigator Condomina were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 .04.01(A) and Section 2.02.03 and Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 126, Article 4, Section 126-111(b). Page 79 April 25, 2013 Description of violation: Property is being used for weekly rentals, transient lodging and on-line advertisement for weekly rates. Location/address where violation exists: 469 Golfview Drive, Naples, Florida, 34110. Folio 65321520000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jorge A. Herrera and Myriam Herrera, 469 Golfview Drive, Naples, Florida, 34110. Date violation first observed: January 7th, 2013. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 9th, 2013. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 8th, 2013. Date of reinspection: March 18th, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Morning, Danny. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Morning. For the record, Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Homeaway.com website documents advertising this home from back in January. Eight pages. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes, they have. MS. HERRERA: Yes, we have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection? MS. HERRERA: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Also I have three photographs dated January 9th, 2013, February 11th, 2013, and March 18th, 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have they seen those photographs? MS. HERRERA: Yes, we have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any objection? MR. HERRERA: No objection. Page 80 April 25, 2013 MS. HERRERA: No. 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. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: This case came in as a complaint from a neighbor originally in January regarding renting out home by the week. During my first visit I did not see anyone at the home, but the complainant informed me of several families renting out the home in the last month. I researched on-line and found the website Homeaway.com which showed a map of the location of this home and whose contact had the first name as the property owner, Jorge, and which advertised weekly and monthly rates. I sent an email using the website in which I wrote: I am Danny Condomina with Collier County Code Enforcement. Please contact me regarding weekly rentals. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: May I ask you the zoning on that land right now? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: RSF-3. Residential Page 81 April 25, 2013 single-family. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: I received a call from Myriam Mattice (phonetic) within a couple of days. I informed her of the complaint. During this phone call she admitted to renting out the home for two weeks. I informed her that this type of use regarding the weekly rentals, transient lodging, is not allowed in this zoning district. I informed her she will be receiving a Notice of Violation. The compliance date was set for February 8th, 2013. While posting the notice at the property, I made contact with two people renting the property. The gentleman informed me he was from Chicago and they were staying there for another four or five days. On February 11th I researched for the advertisements and found they were removed. I visited the property where I observed two vehicles with Pennsylvania license plates. I observed a group of two men, one woman and two children during my visit. This was not the same group I observed during prior visit. I spoke to a gentleman who said they booked and paid for this rental a year ago and they will be down until March 8th. In order to come into compliance, the owners had renters sign a six-month lease that at that time I closed the case for abatement because I received a copy of the lease with a renter named Elaine Dugan. In March I received a new complaint regarding new renters. On March 18th, I spoke with occupants on-site. Occupant informed me that they are renting out the property for a week, Wednesday to Wednesday. Last name is Baptiste and they are a family of four from Massachusetts. Mrs. Baptiste informed me they are in no relation to the owner or prior guest. Mrs. Baptiste stated they rented the property from the Homeaway.com website a few months ago. I prepped this case for a hearing for recurring violations. Since prepping the case for hearing I have been in contact with Mrs. Mattice Page 82 April 25, 2013 who admits to having several families on the property through April for personal reasons. Yesterday I visited the property, observed two vehicles in the driveway and I spoke with occupants and they said they are down from Germany. The family they have rented this home -- they stated that they have rented this home before. Throughout this case I have received several calls and emails from concerned neighbors on this issue. As of today, violation remains. MS. PARDO: Before we continue, can I please -- I think I need to correct -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you hang on one second til they finish all the exhibits so we get a chance to see them? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: This is from day one when I researched the website, and this is where I emailed them from, this Homeaway.com website. And then these are the different vehicles during my visits where I actually made contact with the different occupants or renters. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, could you both give us your names on the mic so that they can record that? MS. PARDO: Myriam Martiz Pardo. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell Matiz? MS. PARDO: M-A-T-I-Z. MR. HERRERA: Jorge Herrera. I prefer to be called Jorge, please. And my wife is Carolina Matiz, not Carolina Herrera. MS. PARDO: I think there are some documents where it says Myriam Matiz. Probably they need -- excuse me, Herrera. They need to be corrected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see that. Okay. MS. PARDO: Okay. We're here today because you had given us the opportunity to hear us. You gave us a Notice of Violation in Page 83 April 25, 2013 January of this year. And we have never denied that we rented the house seasonal. We did a lot of research prior to making this decision. Our neighbors are aware that our house remains empty for a year before we started doing a seasonal rental. We have the house here. I think that you have heard this on many occasions before, not because we wanted, but because we couldn't sell it. The house, the market -- we left Naples back in 2008 for a job that we got -- opportunity that we got in Atlanta. And we tried to sell the property and nothing was selling, and even less, renting. You know, someone will come to you and say yes, I want to rent your house for $900. So we kept it empty for a very long time trying to do something and it didn't work. So we opt for the seasonal rental. And we did our research. I'm a civil engineer, I did work here in Collier County for several years working with the Land Development Code. And we -- when we read the Notice of Violation, we couldn't really understand how there was a prohibition of renting our house seasonal based on the code sections that had been cited. You know, you have to go into many different parts and there's not really something what tells you plain and clear you cannot do this. I think our house still is a single-family home. It doesn't meet any other definition of hotel or any other definition that is in the code. You're using the Land Development Code to tell us that we're doing something that is not permitted. But even though we -- when we got the Notice of Violation, we, as the -- Danny Condomina said, we stopped the advertisement, we took it down and we started following what you have told us that we needed to do in the Notice of Violation. But one of the things that you needed us to do was to stop renting the house. And we had contracts, legal contracts. And those were plain and clear. Those were not ambiguous. We had already made a commitment to rent the house. We had money from the people that Page 84 April 25, 2013 had rented the house. And those, I have the contracts. We didn't sign any contracts after the Notice of Violation was received. All the contracts that we had were prior to that date. We tried to cancel those contracts. And for that we used the services of an attorney, because we -- first we didn't understand really how we were doing something that it was not permitted. And second, these contracts were signed. The thing that she told us is you need to give them -- and her name is Kara Cannizzaro. You need to give them similar accommodations. Well, similar accommodations we couldn't give for the money that they were giving us. So we couldn't cancel those contracts. We could be subject to a lawsuit if we didn't comply with that. And in the process of trying to get those contracts canceled was when we requested one of our renters to sign a contract for a year. And since we couldn't cancel those other contracts, we had to continue renting. Every time that the -- I'm sorry, you're not an inspector, you are -- INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Right now I'm a training coordinator. MS. PARDO: Investigator. Sorry. Every time that you called me, I always answer the phone. If I didn't answer immediately it was because either I was traveling and, you know, busy with my own job. We wanted to let you know that we still don't think that we're violating the code. It is an interpretation that you have. We have here a letter from our attorney that -- previous cases have been brought to other cities using similar interpretations of the code, land development. And there's specific cases where the court had -- has ruled against the city. There's also a law that it was brought -- it was issued by Florida State in June, 2011 where it prohibits the cities to prohibit short rental or seasonal rental when there's not a prior regulation, clear regulation Page 85 April 25, 2013 of what it was. I could read it. I don't know if it's -- if that -- it will be okay with the court that I read the letter that we -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can't comment on those. We can only adhere to what the Land Development Code says. Jean, am I correct on that? MS. RAWSON: You can't comment on the letter, is that what you saying? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no, we can't -- if the letter says that the Land Development Code is not correct, I can't comment on that, I can only -- MS. RAWSON: That's going to be a legal interpretation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. PARDO: Well, I think it's important, if you allow me to read it, is because I think what we were hoping for the court to understand, where we were. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, read it. MS. PARDO: Okay. Says you -- it's a letter issued by Cannizzaro Law Firm of Miromar, Florida. The letter is for Jorge Herrera and Carolina Matiz. And it says: You have asked me to review the county code of ordinances, including county land development regulations to determine whether and to what extent the county regulates vacation rental/short term rental uses within the county limits -- and please forgive my reading, as I'll try to do it as best as I can -- and if so, to analyze the apparent basis of such interpretation and enforcement efforts. A quote, unquote, vacation rental is defined by the State of Florida as a unit or dwelling unit that is rented to guests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days, or one calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to guests. This is Florida Statute Section 509.242(I)(c). And she continues to evaluate the Notice of Violation. Says: Page 86 April 25, 2013 Collier County recent code enforcement actions, based on my review of the code enforcement public records, it appears the county has taken the position that single-family homes may not be used for transient lodging/weekly rentals. Furthermore, they take the position in such records of notices of violation that, quote, properties shall not be rented for less than six months or it will be considered transient lodging, end of quote. Moreover, notices of violation require that all Internet/on-line advertising be removed. Then she goes into analyzing the Florida law. Prohibit vague and ambiguous laws. Despite the county's position, Florida law actually prohibits the government from functioning in, quote, after-the-fact fashion, end of quote. In other words, Florida law prevents local government from manufacturing laws that do not exist. Long-standing Florida case law provides that property owners are entitled to rely upon the clear and unequivocal language of the municipal ordinances. And she gives us a series of cases that have been ruled before. In cases such as this, the court will interpret the code provisions as it issues the case in the regulation. MR. MARINO: How many pages is this letter? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many more pages do you have? MS. PARDO: I have two. If someone could read it a little faster than me. MR. MARINO: Why couldn't they put it up -- MR. MIESZCAK: Why couldn't you put it on the -- MR. MARINO: -- on the screen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Put it up on the screen. MR. MARINO: Put it up on the screen. Because you can't interpret the way she's saying everything. MS. RAWSON: Yes, it's going to have to be an exhibit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have an extra copy that? Page 87 April 25, 2013 Because we're going to keep that. MR. HERRERA: Yes, we do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me just ask a question. We're not talking about the use, we're talking about a local business tax required, correct? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: We're talking about the use and a business tax receipt required. MS. PARDO: We have been paying taxes all this time. We are registered with the county and the state and we always pay the taxes. MR. MIESZCAK: I don't get it. They're registered -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to put that on the -- MS. BAKER: You have to accept it as -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to put that on the picture. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the exhibit and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MIESZCAK: Is this Page 1 or 2? MS. BAKER: This is Page 2. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. MRS. ORPHAN: Page 2. I had finished reading Page 1 . And Page 88 April 25, 2013 we're going to let everybody read it and -- MR. MARINO: Mr. Chairman, if we're talking about just a local business tax that somebody else brought up, why are we going through all of this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is from their attorney. I would think that if their attorney wanted to testify, they should have shown up today, number one. Number two, we have heard cases like this in the past. The -- our local laws are the local laws that if somebody wants to fight them, they have to do that in a different venue. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Can I -- is that a zoning violation determination done by the zoning department? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We heard a case that was the same as this. Ray Bellows came in here and said there are lists of what the accepted uses for the property are. And if this was not one of them, then it was not one of them. It's not everything, it's what they say in the list on that zoning. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Tells you what's permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. It doesn't say what's not permitted, just what is permitted. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, could I ask a question? MS. RAWSON: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What weight should we give this particular letter and statement? MS. RAWSON: Well, I haven't read the whole thing, but it seems to me that the attorney is arguing that the statute or the law is vague. And you can't make that determination. You know, unfortunately I think a lot of them are vague. But she's saying it's vague and then she's got cases in there that are saying, you know, if it's vague then it's arbitrary and whatever. I remember an identical case to this, so we've been through this. We've had the County Attorney testify his interpretation, if you can all Page 89 April 25, 2013 recall what he said. And I think she's saying that the law is vague. And I don't think you can make a decision about whether it is or isn't. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this considered hearsay, or does it not matter? MS. RAWSON: Well, it's credible hearsay. And we can take hearsay. And so you can put whatever weight to the attorney's letter that you wish, which you probably don't have the power to make any decisions about whether or not a law is or isn't vague. You only have the power to make a decision about whether or not under our code a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: Right. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this the last page? MR. HERRERA: No, there is another one. MR. MIESZCAK: How many pages? MR. HERRERA: Three. MS. PARDO: Just three. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is an eye test for me. I can't read it either. MS. PARDO: For me too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we both had detached retinas, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MS. PARDO: What we were trying to say to the court is that we have been -- to the board is we have been trying to do everything that is in our power to follow what was given to us in the Notice of Violation. We didn't cancel the contracts because we had also a problem with that. If he had canceled those contracts we would be in a legal situation with them too. Again, we didn't sign any other contracts, we -- I want to reiterate that we have been doing everything that we can. It is not our intention to do -- continue renting. Page 90 April 25, 2013 There's -- we have informed Danny Condomina that there's only the last family. They are leaving April 30th; is our last rental. And we're going to follow -- we're going to do year rentals, the annual rentals. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, I see you arrived. Did you want to -- MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and board members. For the record, I'm Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney. And I just came here to answer any questions that the board might have. She's presented some legal arguments. My preference would be to have that attorney here. Before coming down I called her office twice just to give her the latest of what was going on here. She could pull it up on her computer. I was not able to reach her. But I just wanted to highlight a couple of points, if I could. As you've pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the section of the LDC that they're accused of violating relates to what uses are allowed in this district. And under the LDC definition of hotel, a home is being used as a hotel when the owner is offering transient lodging accommodations, normally on a daily rate, to the general public. Now, we also have the six-month kind of a rule of thumb. That's what drives the tourist tax. Any time you're renting your property for less than six months, it's a transient tourist tax that you have to pay. And so when you put those provisions together, we've always taken the position that six months or less is a transient dwelling. And when you're offering at a daily rate -- and I'm not -- I don't have the details of their contracts, but -- weekly rates. Then arguably they're offering their property as a hotel. So I just wanted to point out that transient lodging is not allowed, as you've pointed out. And to me this is a fairly straightforward case of the legal land use. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I do have one question. You said the Page 91 April 25, 2013 end of April is the end of all the rentals. MS. PARDO: Yes. MR. HERRERA: Transient rentals. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Transient. You can rent it for six months or more or on a yearly basis. We understand that. MR. WRIGHT: And another thing, I'm not sure how many contracts are involved or how many other families might live in the same particular house. I don't know. MS. PARDO: No, it's just our house. It's my husband's and I. MR. WRIGHT: So when I hear contracts in the plural, I'm not sure how that would apply to this season, if there's just one family living there. MS. PARDO: No, we have always admitted that we had different families living there for a week or two or a month. MR. WRIGHT: And that also goes to the definition of dwelling. You know, in a single-family zoning you're allowed to have dwellings, but a dwelling is defined as an establishment for no more than one family. Right away they're -- I think that they're admitting that it's possible that more than one family could be there at the property at the same time. MS. PARDO: No, just one family at a time. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: At a time. MS. PARDO: At a time, yes. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. So I'm not sure how you would have simultaneous contracts if you're just -- MRS. ORPHAN: I understand. MS. PARDO: The reason why we brought up the argument and the chairman mention that had you -- our intention was not to be here with an attorney. We're not trying to continue with the rental, the seasonal rentals. That's the reason why there's no attorney here. But we wanted the board to hear what we had been going through. It was not like a black-and-white straight path. Page 92 April 25, 2013 MR. HERRERA: It's kind of confusing. MS. PARDO: It is. It is -- again is not clear. You said it, you need to go to Destination Resort Hotel to find the six-month limitation. Then you need to go to hotel. But the hotel definition is not a single-family either. It's not clear, it's not plain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MARINO: Are you saying as of next Wednesday there will be nobody living in the house? MR. HERRERA: That's correct. MS. PARDO: It would be -- MR. HERRERA: No short-term rentals. MS. PARDO: -- as soon as we get a renter for a year or more than six months. MR. MARINO: But your contract's over as of Wednesday? MR. HERRERA: That's correct. MS. PARDO: Yeah, that's the end. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation does exist. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have a bunch of speakers I think we should hear first. MS. BAKER: You may want to make the motion. I'm not sure if the speakers are in opposition or for the case, but they may want to waive their right to speak. You may want to ask that question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion that a violation exists. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 93 April 25, 2013 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, a violation exists. MS. BAKER: Can we pose the question to the speakers? Is there anyone who would still like to speak on this topic? UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Stand up. We're going to bring you up one at a time, those folks who want to speak. MS. RAWSON: There are 11 of them. MS. BAKER: Right. MS. RAWSON: So, you know, we have to kind of adhere to some sort of time limit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, three minutes per speaker. MS. BAKER: So the first speaker will be Angela Duval. And the second speaker will be Penny Fro. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: She's not here. She had to leave. MS. BAKER: Penny Fro is not here, so the next speaker after Ms. Duval will be Louise Hoy. MR. MIESZCAK: Stand in line. MS. BAKER: If you could just get up and stand behind Ms. Duval, please. MS. DUVAL: Good morning. I would like to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to swear everybody who wants to speak right now, okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Come forward and stand in line to speak. Page 94 April 25, 2013 (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jen, you want to keep track of the time, or -- MS. BAKER: Yes, Chair. MS. DUVAL: My name is Maria Angelique Duval. I go by Angela. My husband and I are business owners in Collier County. We employ 90 people locally. We're very familiar with business laws and we're very familiar with residential laws, being builders. I live at 421 Golfview Drive. Moved here to from the east coast in 1997. Live in unit three, Palm River. We currently have two homes that were purchased for a very lucrative business transaction and that is renting out by the week, by the weekend within a very small radius, within a block. I have two homes that are being rented out to transients that are in and out of the neighborhood. If you look at the crime records over the past five years, with the recession, our crime in our immediate neighborhood has increased 100 percent. We've had five robberies on one day, we had five or six on another day. We have a lot of people in and out of that neighborhood. At one time I let -- in 1997 through about 2000, 2001 if you saw a car come down our street on Golfview, it was amazing. Now we have people in and out. Granted, they rent the property, they have people come stay for a week. Those people have people that come visit them. They're in and out of the neighborhood. It poses a threat for our children that are waiting for school buses, transient neighborhood for businesses purposes is not what our neighborhood was established for 35 years ago. It's had integrity and stability, and those of us that live there want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood by having a minimum of six-month rental, if not a year. If they're renting a hotel, they need to purchase it in a business area that's zoned for business. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, next? Page 95 April 25, 2013 MS. BAKER: Next speaker, Louise Hoy. And after Ms. Hoy will be Charles Nevaril. MS. HOY: I'm Louise Hoy, a resident of Palm River, very close to this property. And I'm in agreement with the board that they are in violation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Charles Nevaril. You will be followed by Troy Corbin. MR. NEVARIL: My name is Charles Nevaril. N-E-V-A-R-I-L. I'm the president of the Palm River Homeowners Association. And as such, I want to urge you to support your code enforcement people. And I think you have already. And for that I thank you. We don't have any objection to renters in Palm River or in RSF-3 communities for that matter. What we object to is the transient nature, the vacation renters. Because they are here for vacation, they tend to be noisy at late hours. To spread the cost they typically overfill homes. Whether it's the case in this case, we are not absolutely certain. Since they feel no responsibility for the property, it typically is neglected. There may be a place for transient rental, vacation party. There is no place for transient rental vacation party housing in an RSF-3 community, although there may be in other areas. So thank you very much for the vote that you've had so far. We appreciate that and hope that you'll continue by rendering a violation and penalty that is appropriate. MS. BAKER: Next speaker is Troy Corbin to will be followed by Francis Hoy. MR. CORBIN: For the record, my name is Troy Corbin. I live in Orlando, Florida. My parents are the immediate neighbors of the folks that are in question. Just to give you a brief history lesson, this did not start in January Page 96 April 25, 2013 of 2013. This has been an ongoing problem since 2010. My parents have reported this numerous times to various County Code Enforcement Board officials and it is only at this time, nearly two and a half years later, that we're getting to this point. My parents have lived at this house since 1978. In 33 years they've never made a single complaint to code enforcement or made a single phone call to the police department. Over the last four months, just in 2013, my parents have called the Code Enforcement Board (sic) probably in excess of 20 times. There are at least six different families, and I would say extended families that have been utilizing this property. They have also made at least four phone calls to Collier County Sheriffs Department for noise complaints. This has been nothing more than an off-site landlord that has advertised this on every vacation rental site known to man, from VRBO to Craig's List, and invited who knows who to come into a neighborhood that has been established for 30 odd years. The -- they have been subjected to numerous phone calls and complaints from the residents of Palm River and they have just essentially thumbed their nose and used this as their off-site way of making money to pay their mortgage or whatever. And as you'll see, you're going to see a number of folks march up here that's going to tell you this has been going on for a good bid bit of time. And the appropriate actions seem been taken and it appears that these folks have agreed to do that. But we see that when you rent a house for $1,500 a week, if you're only going to violate them a few dollars, it's still in their best interest to do that. There's no penalty for doing what we're asking. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next speaker is Francis Hoy, and after that will be Charles Nevaril. I believe he already spoke. Page 97 April 25, 2013 MR. HOY: I'm Francis Hoy, 587 Palm River Boulevard. I am a board member. I just want to agree what was said in the past that this has been an ongoing problem. We had the same problem in another home, and it looks to me as if you are -- our code enforcement people have been doing well on this. But it just keeps going on. It looks like you're going to bring it to an end now. We'd like to see this stopped in our community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Ken Corbin. MR. MIESZCAK: He passes. MS. BAKER: And will be followed by Scott Zumstein. MR. CORBIN: I'm Kenneth Corbin. I live next door, 475 Golfview Drive. I have complained to these people. They say they haven't rented but to only one family. That is absolutely not true. There's four and five families there at any given time with different license plates from different states at the same time. And what they're saying, they knew this was a violation and they continued to do it. And they will continue to do it again if there's not something posted against it, a fine, and I would request that. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next speaker is Scott Zumstein who will be followed by Ken Oehler. MR. ZUMSTEIN: I'm Scott Zumstein. I'm one of the neighbors on the street. And I agree with the Corbins living next door to them that this has been an ongoing problem for the last three years. And finally thanks to Danny, who has taken a great initiative since the beginning of January to make sure that this hasn't happened -- or is going to continue to happen, we really appreciate that. One of the problems that we have here is that between Illinois, Page 98 April 25, 2013 Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Canada, Colorado and Germany, here we are, you know, another 90 days later and we're still doing the same thing. And the owners put out a six-month lease to stop the original case that came out, and that was put out on the 8th of February. Well, they presented a six-month lease to the county. Well, then all of a sudden after that six-month lease and those people from Pennsylvania were there for three weeks, Massachusetts, Canada, Colorado and Germany all of a sudden show up. Is this by a fluke that this lease has just disappeared and these people have all signed up a year in advance? They just didn't decide that then. So is this six-month lease a fraud presented to the county to buy more time or not? So the mentality of this renter and ownership that's going on here is a disgrace to the neighborhood. The trash is out front. I could give you pictures. Here's a whole portfolio of every car, every day that new cars have shown up, trash cans overflowing with beer cans. Nobody cares. The owners don't care, the renters don't care. And all this has been presented to Danny and we've filled him in on all that. And not just beer cans laying, you know, on a sidewalk next to a can, but beer cans thrown across Mr. Corbin's yard. The partying that goes on, the rental mentality that goes on at midnight, 1 :00. Everyone wants to vacation, have a good time, right, but not in a neighborhood. That's not the place for it. You do it where those areas are specifically designed for. You know, he babysits grandchildren. They're two and three years old. These people are in bed at 9:00 at night, 10:00 at night. They don't need the pool splashing, beer drinking, swearing goings on next door to them. They really don't. So we appreciate whatever you can do to make sure this stops. And I know this is at the end. You know, here we are, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Canada, Colorado, Germany, they got Page 99 April 25, 2013 their $1,500 a week, they got their six grand a month. It's the end of month four. It's nice money. Nice money. But everyone else here isn't getting that, we're just being disrespected and they're putting it in their pockets. So maybe you could straighten that out for us and we appreciate it. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next speaker is Ken Oler and he will be followed by Brooke Sykes. MR. OEHLER: Thank you. My name is Ken Oehler. I live in the neighborhood. And I would encourage you to continue your finding of a violation. Because if you change your finding, virtually everybody in the county gets to do this. And that's the way I usually look at violations, and that's how I taught my kids. If you get to break the law or if you get to do something wrong then everybody gets to do it and we can't have that. Submission of a six-month lease to come into compliance with the county code, knowing that there are going to be four more people coming in in a few weeks to me is evidence of fraud. And if the board says well, that's okay, then the board is condoning fraud in order to get by the rules. This practice effectively lowers property values. We have a brand new resident in the neighborhood a door or two down from this. I'm sure they wouldn't have bought this house had they known this is a party house where fraternity boys yell and scream in the middle of the night. We have an 87-year-old woman who lives next door to a former party house where she has had to go to the people screaming at 2:00 in the morning obscenities and jumping in the pool, saying please, quiet down. And that's just two houses in this neighborhood. The owners have promised that from this point forward they're going to have nothing but six-month or 12-month leases. Is that just another ruse? Is the next six-month lease going to be followed by Page 100 April 25, 2013 eight more weekly rentals? The board needs to make sure that this stops. Because like I said, if you say this is okay, everybody gets to do it. On your streets too. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next speaker will be Brooke Sykes. And she will be followed by Patrece Remmel. MS. SYKES: Hi. My name is Brooke Sykes and I live directly next door to these guys right here. And we've only been in seven weeks. If we would have known that there would be renters in and out like this, we wouldn't have bought the house. We really like Palm River. We have two small children, a four-year old and an 18-month-old. And it's kind of scary to me, you know, to not know who's next door and who, you know, might be looking at your kids and things like that. So I just ask that you please -- you know, that we get this under wraps and it can't happen in the future. Thank you. MS. BAKER: The last speaker is Patrece Remmel. MS. REMMEL: My name is Patrece Remmel. I live at 451 Golfview Drive. And I would like to submit to you that I saw the for rent sign out in the front yard of this rental home. And I have a co-worker whose daughter is looking for a rental place for her family. She called the number on the sign and was told the monthly rental for that home would be $1,900 and they strongly discouraged -- they did not encourage her to rent the home long-term. So I know the owners have had the opportunity to rent the home long-term and have not taken it. I would also like to submit that they did say they had a six-month rental and obviously that did not happen. So they have lied. Not only to the court but to all of us in their neighborhood. Now, I am sorry, but I have to pay my own taxes. I'm a single person, I own my own home. I have to abide by all the other laws in this county. And I feel very strongly that it is your responsibility to Page 101 April 25, 2013 uphold the law and abide by the law in the manner that it was intended. This is a small community, it's single-family homes, and there are families that want to be protected. We have had two murders in our neighborhood and an untold number of burglaries. I've lived in this neighborhood for 13 years, this is the first year we've ever had this trouble. So it's time for us to put our foot down, and that's why you see so many people here from my neighborhood. We want this transient rental to stop and we want punishment, please, so we make an example and show people we aren't going to put up with this in our neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, with that I'd like to close the public meeting. Any comments? MR. HERRERA: Excuse me. Can we speak for three more minutes? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I would also like to after that, Chairman. I would also like to have a comment when they're finished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, you had your chance. We limited everybody to three minutes. They're the respondents. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: But we've all recycled. THE COURT REPORTER: I need to have him on the mic if he's going to speak. MR. MIESZCAK: We closed the public -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We closed. You have three minutes. MR. HERRERA: Thank you, sir. MS. PARDO: The neighbors have brought up in several -- I think we have never said that we were not renting seasonally house. We were. We have always admitted that. Page 102 April 25, 2013 When we received the Notice of Violation, we requested, like we said already, the services of an attorney to help us with canceling the contracts. We have here copies of all the contracts. All of them have dates. They had been signed before we received a Notice of Violation. And we requested the renter that we had for the month of February, Eileen and Duane, to help us since they were already in the house, if they were willing to stay for six months and help us. Because they were already in the house, we could not get them out. So they did sign the contract for six months. In the meantime we were in the process of talking with the attorney to get all these other contracts canceled. Which we couldn't. And they in March 1st sent us this note to let us know that they -- and we have the postage of the mail that said that they couldn't stay for the six months. And we already knew and we have already told you we couldn't cancel the other contracts. That's why they seen the people coming. If we didn't continue -- we didn't sign any new contracts. I think we demonstrated that we're willing to follow what you were asking from us. But we needed also to protect ourselves from other legal actions that could be taken against us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay, public meeting is closed. Any comments from the board? I have a couple. I'll wait till the end. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One of the things I wanted to mention, it's obvious that the county has enacted these codes for the same reason that all of the folks that are here that have testified have testified to. They do not want that particular type of use in a residential neighborhood. So -- and a second thing, the -- a first violation is a first violation. Second violations are severe. To answer your -- since we did find this in violation, anything that would happen subsequent to this Page 103 April 25, 2013 meeting would be treated as a subsequent violation, and those penalties are more than doubled. So with that, I'd like to know what your recommendation is, Danny. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81 .15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violation by: One: Seizing all unpermitted lodging activities, including advertisements associated with this residential single-family zoned property within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank will be imposed for each day the violation occurs. 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. From what I understand from the respondents, they are going to abate within seven days. MR. MIESZCAK: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If that's correct. So that kind of fills out one of the day's requirement that you have listed. Would anybody like to fill in the rest? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The cost will be paid, $81 .15, within 30 days. This will be accomplished within seven days, as they've already volunteered to do. If not, there will be a $200 per day fine imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think $200 a day is too low. I think what we should do -- Page 104 April 25, 2013 MR. L'ESPERANCE: What do you suggest? MR. LEFEBVRE: I would suggest we impose $500 a day. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I will accept that amendment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a friendly amendment at 500 a day. Any discussion on that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: If they do rent it out again, what is the potential penalty for recurring? MS. RAWSON: Well, it would be a recurring -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A maximum amount. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Repeat. MS. RAWSON: Well, it would be a recurring violation. I think it's twice as much, isn't it, 1,000? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: It would be a repeat. MS. BAKER: It would be a repeat violation. It can be up to $1,000 per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion, and do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second by Tony. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 105 April 25, 2013 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, so you understand, and it shouldn't affect you, because you are going to discontinue on Wednesday anyhow. MS. PARDO: Yes. One question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: These would be six-month rentals. You know what the law is. MR. HERRERA: Correct, we do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PARDO: There's -- in the stipulation there's that I need to inform Danny Condomina that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That you're in compliance. MS. PARDO: How do -- yeah, that we are abiding. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that you should meet him out in the hall and let him know what your intentions are. . MS. PARDO: And when we get our new renter for either six months or a year, how do we -- MR. MIESZCAK: That's another issue. MR. HERRERA: We have to speak with him. He'll be able to -- MS. PARDO: Do we need to inform the county every time that we're renting the house? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He'll be able to point you in the right direction. When you rent for six months, you know, whether there's -- it should be only one family that you're renting it to for six months, not that I sign a lease for six months and then five months into the lease somebody else comes into it, et cetera. Okay? MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing is I think from your testify you stated that you do not have any further leases past the end of this month. MR. HERRERA: That's correct. Page 106 April 25, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: That's why we've giving you the seven days. So if anything happens that you -- let's say next month you get someone in there and it's less than the six months, that's going to be a problem. So I think -- MS. PARDO: No, we're not -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- just by your -- hold on, I'm not finished. MS. PARDO: I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: Your admission is stating that the leases are through the end of this month. So I think that is stating that you have no further leases. MS. PARDO: No, we don't. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I don't think it will need a site visit, correct? I mean, do we need a site visit to -- INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: I'll make a site visit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Danny, they can talk to you outside and they can give you the notification and you can point them in the right direction to go for whatever they need for a rental six months or longer. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. And thank all of you folks for coming today. MR. LEFEBVRE: You want to just take a two-minute break so MS. BAKER: The next case -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give them two minutes. MR. MARINO: I got to leave in about 11 minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Jen. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 22, Case CENA20130000305, Kelly Condon. (Investigator Jones was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 6, Page 107 April 25, 2013 Section 54-185(d), presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation including but not limited to Brazilian Pepper, Ear Leaf Acacia, Java Plum and Australian Pine. Location/address where violation exists: Myrtle Cove Acres, Block E, Lot 8. Folio 6078360000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Kelly Condon, 312 South Wind Court, apartment 102, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408. Date violation first observed: January 14th, 2013. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 16th, 2013. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 16th, 2013. Date of reinspection: March 1st, 2013. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Good afternoon. For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibit. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. THE COURT: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 108 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: This is a photo of the unimproved parcel. Folio number 6078360000. In this photo you can see Ear Leaf Acacia as well as Brazilian Pepper located within 200 feet of an improved property. Notice of Violation was issued to property owner allowing 30 days for abatement. I've been unable to establish communication with the property owner to this date. And a reinspection revealed that the violation remains and brought it to the board today. MR. MIESZCAK: Can I ask one silly question? Which one is the Brazilian Pepper? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Let me take a look here. MR. MIESZCAK: I've seen a lot of photos but I've never figured out which one is which. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All that stuff on the right. MR. MIESZCAK: You mean that beautiful bush right there? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Jen, you did a good job. She pointed it out. I don't know how because they all look the same. But yeah, it's in the lower right-hand corner. And then just in the background there's Ear Leaf Acacia. And then the bigger one, that's Australian Pine. MR. MIESZCAK: Back there on the left too? INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes. Which is also a prohibited exotic. Those are mature trees. MR. MARINO: I've been wanting to ask that question for the past couple of years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you got your chance. Do we have a motion from the board that a violation exists? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Page 109 April 25, 2013 All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion, Danny? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not Danny. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes, I do. Recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81 .15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One: Must obtain any necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing, or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated. Two: The prohibited exotic vegetation base stump must be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied when the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains within blank days or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed. And finally, 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 also use the assistance of the Collier County Page 110 April 25, 2013 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 want to fill in the blanks? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll fill in the blanks. $81 .15 within 30 days, and then 90 days or $100 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second it. MR. LEFEBVRE: For both items. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second from Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Thank you. (At which time, Mr. Marino exits the boardroom.) MS. BAKER: Next case, moving to number five, old business, letter A, motion for impositions of fines/liens. Number one, Case CEPM20120013535, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc. (Mr. George and Investigator McGonagle were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chair, we may want to listen to the respondent first because he may have a request for extension. Page 111 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Chris, you'll be a voting member now. I think Tony had to leave. MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: To accommodate him better, could he maybe come -- if he could come -- MR. GEORGE: Yeah, I'm supposed to have major back surgery in a week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. GEORGE: Yeah, I'd just like to request an extension, as the first time I met Michele on the violations. One was basically the fence that I had a while ago. And I did pull the permit for it on the property line. It went on the back of the Vineyards. And meanwhile I was doing the fence, I had the permit to do chain link, block with lights, et cetera. And I put it down the property line too. And I thought that was with my fence permit that I pulled the permit for and they said it wasn't. I didn't call in the C.O. at the proper time. I meanwhile went down to the county and pulled the permit to refinish my fence and do it the way I wanted to do it, and they said I've got to pull another C.O. on it again, on the fence. Is that correct, Michele? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much time are you requesting as far as an extension? MR. GEORGE: Oh, on the fence? I can call in for C.O. tomorrow. MR. LEFEBVRE: What case are you talking about? Which one? We have three cases here. Did you jump ahead to case 904, the last case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jen, which case? MS. BAKER: The case we're on right now is the property maintenance case for the travel trailer with people living in them. That's the first case. Page 112 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the one ending in 535? MR. GEORGE: Oh, okay. Yeah, that -- MS. BAKER: 13535. MR. GEORGE: Oh, we'll go through that one case? MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. GEORGE: Okay. I had my future brother-in-law coming down, he was helping me out with business because of my back condition, that I have to do surgery. But it didn't work out so he's leaving. So I talked to Michele and I said I'll call her and she could come by and do an inspection and there's nobody in there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michele, have you been sworn? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle. I did talk to Mr. George earlier and he did clarify there was a travel trailer and a motor home on the property that were both being lived in. He stated that the travel trailer has been removed from the property and that they had -- his friends had moved out of the motor home. I've not been able to gain access to the property. This is the first time that I've been able to meet with Mr. George to verify that the violation has been abated. He has agreed to let me go on the property. It is still posted no trespassing. So we're going to meet out at the property so that I can verify that no one is living in the motor home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So as far as an extension on this, I have one question. Has the $81 .15 been paid? MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It has been paid, okay. And how much -- you don't need much time, if all you need to do is -- MR. GEORGE: No, within the week. Seven days is fine. Page 113 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you need a seven-day extension on this one. Okay, why don't we take care of this one before we go to the next one. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a comment. Mr. George has had one other case on his property with the neighbors behind and so forth with noise and so forth running his business. So I just want to make sure that we don't have him in front of us on a recurring basis. MR. GEORGE: No, that was -- right, that was having the dumpsters and so forth. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, dumpsters and moving concrete and everything. MR. GEORGE: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I wasn't here in February, but I just want to make sure that this isn't a recurring issue. We don't want to keep seeing you. I know it was a couple years ago that you were here. MR. GEORGE: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I just want to make sure that everything's taken care of MR. GEORGE: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, let's take care of this one first. So would someone like to make a motion for an extension of time? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it seven days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if it's done, it's done. Otherwise it comes back to us at our next meeting. MR. MIESZCAK: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 114 April 25, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Takes cares of the first one. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: May I clarify? Is that seven days from -- because his initial compliance date was March 7th, so is that -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Seven days from -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: -- seven days from today? MR. LEFEBVRE: Today. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: From the hearing date. MS. BAKER: Next case is Case CELU20120014618, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Inc., and this has to deal with concrete blocks, barrels, buckets, storage container, et cetera, stored on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GEORGE: What it is is mostly construction. I got a lot of cement blocks, I was going to do the cement pillars that I collected over the year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you asking for an extension on this as well? MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My first -- has 80.57 been paid? MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: How long an extension? MR. GEORGE: On the new fence part? I don't know about my Page 115 April 25, 2013 surgery, how I'm turnout (sic) going to be, you know, a week from now. If you can give me 180 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is to pick up -- MR. GEORGE: No, I'll be using that debris and so forth when I'm building my fence and the pillars on it with the construction -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Buckets? MR. GEORGE: I mean, I don't know what type of buckets. I've got 55-gallon empty containers that I collect aluminum in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Large storage container. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is very similar to the case we had a couple years ago where you -- and some board members weren't on the board back then, but we had a case in front of us where you were running your business basically from your property. What I do not want to happen again is that exact same thing. The people behind you in the Vineyards, I remember their faces when I made the recommendation what should be done, and I remember specifically where we were, we were at Horseshoe Drive. And I certainly do not want to see that happen again. I think 180 days is way too long. This is very, very close to what the previous case was, and I can't agree to that. I don't know how long the materials have been there and I -- MR. GEORGE: I'm not allowed to have construction block, cement block on property in Golden Gate Estates? I'm not allowed to have -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I mean, you -- MR. GEORGE: That's what I'm asking. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have a building permit to build that fence? MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: You do? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The plastic pipe? MR. GEORGE: Plastic pipe PVC that I'll run electric line, Page 116 April 25, 2013 maybe possibly in it, water lines in it. You're not allowed to keep the plastic pipe? I -- you know, if that's the case in Golden Gate Estates -- and I'm not blaming Michele, she's a very nice lady. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like it's litter to the folks who made the complaint. So whatever can be done to clean it up -- MR. GEORGE: I've got all my pipes stacked in a rack, the different sizes. I've got electric PV pipes stacked in a rack. I've got 55 empty gallon containers stacked by the cement wall fence there that I'll keep copper and aluminum and then I recycle it. What I was asking, in Golden Gate Estates, which my area is zoned, I know there's a lot of properties that got construction vehicles, they have cement blocks, they have wood, plywood, two-by-fours, PVC pipe on their property. Mine's all neat. My neighbors on the left side or right side do not complain. You haven't heard no more about the Vineyards complaining. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's just your past history, so that's what I want to make sure that it doesn't -- MR. GEORGE: I understand that. But am I allowed to have cement block on property? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sure you are. It's just when you put it all together it looks like it was -- MR. GEORGE: Okay, I understand. Yeah, it will be a lot neater than that after it's all done. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. FLAGG: II just want to remind the board, this is not a finding of fact hearing, he's already been found in violation. This is an imposition of fines hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. FLAGG: If-- depending on the board's decision, if you choose to impose, then he also has the opportunity to go to the Board of County Commissioners to seek a waiver of the fines once Page 117 April 25, 2013 compliance is achieved. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't want to go into the case but when was the permit pulled for the fence; do you know? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I'm sorry? MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the permit pulled for the fence? Because it's good for six months. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: He just recently got the fence permit. Because of this case, it was issued on, I want to say, April 4th. Yes, April 4th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're looking for an extension of time and if you don't get -- MR. GEORGE: Six months would be fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know six months would be. Can you pick a number a little bit lower? That seems to a problem. Three months? MR. GEORGE: Okay, three months. MR. LEFEBVRE: You know what, I'll even go a little bit more. I would agree to 120 days. MR. GEORGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you want to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to I guess extend our order for another 120 days from today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. Page 118 April 25, 2013 MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, that's number two. We are up to? MS. BAKER: Next case, CEAU20120009042, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters. This is dealing with the fence. MR. MIESZCAK: Pee-Wee, you have a lot of stuff here. MR. LEFEBVRE: The materials that are from this previous case you're going to use to complete this. MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So let's make it the same. I mean, I think that would be -- in all fairness, let's make it the same and that's it. MR. GEORGE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 120 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion for extension of-- MR. LEFEBVRE: 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- 120 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: From today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Lionel. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 119 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MIESZCAK: Pee-Wee, you're a nice guy, we don't want to see you again. MS. BAKER: Next case is number four, Case CESD20100002858, Robert Griffin. MR. LEFEBVRE: Good luck with your surgery. MR. GEORGE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. MR. GEORGE: Yes, I've got to have major spinal surgery. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We gave the doctors 120 days too. MR. GEORGE: Maybe I'll grow a little this time. MR. MIESZCAK: Wait, I found another Pee-Wee. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Chris? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. Violations Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 591 10th Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida. Folio number 37543240002. Description: No Collier County permits for the house built on the property. Past orders: On January 19th, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4760, Page 536, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 25th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the period between January 20th, 2013 and April 25th, 2013. I believe there's an error on that. Should be 2012, January 20th. Page 120 April 25, 2013 MS. BAKER: No. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Oh, no, I'm sorry. My mistake. January 20th, 2013 and April 25th, 2013, 96 days, for the total amount of$24,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $24,080.86. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (Ms. Cindy Jones was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone so we can hear you? MS. JONES: I'm Cindy Jones. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this is your property? MS. JONES: No. I am here because Rob, he works for East Naples Fire and he was required to be on the truck today, so I'm representing him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a letter to that effect? MS. JONES: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you related to him? MS. JONES: I'm his wife. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That will do. Okay. Sorry. MS. JONES: Unfortunately I wasn't aware of the $24,000 fine. He was requesting an extension of the permit. He's not finished. He called in his final -- no, he called in his electric, framing and installation at the end of last year. His last inspection was December 31st. And he's now ready for -- to hang the drywall. He's finishing up his rough plumbing and is wanting to call it in in two weeks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The operational costs have not been paid, that's $80.86. We generally don't do anything with cases unless that's been paid. MS. JONES: Okay. I can pay it today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That might be helpful if you're asking for an extension and the board so desires. Page 121 April 25, 2013 Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I have a couple questions. When was this case heard? Was it heard on January 19th, 2012? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because on the Affidavit of Noncompliance it says that on October 27th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board held a hearing. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Oh, I'm sorry. This case was heard on the 19th of January, 2012. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you see where I'm -- am I looking at the right thing? Affidavit of Noncompliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, it says done and ordered the 24th of day of January, 2012. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, right here, this one. Do you see what I'm talking about? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. This goes back to 2011 . MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that a typo, or -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It was a typo, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I just want to make sure that we're -- we have all the dates correct. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, have you been on top of this case at all? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I've been monitoring it for 365 days and nothing has been done. Well, let me back up. I haven't received any phone calls, any messages, any correspondence whatsoever with Mr. Griffin since that hearing date. He had five inspections since our last meeting. Two most recent were December, the end of December. And there's been nothing since then. Total of five since -- in the 365 days. He has nine inspections left on his permit to get a certificate of completion. Now, when I met with him this morning, he said he had to get a Page 122 April 25, 2013 fence permit because there were some issues with some folks stealing from his property so he puts a little bit of money into that and to put the driveway in. He had some other things that he was working on. But the nine inspections continue to exist today. Now, this permit expires in six weeks. And I reiterated that to him this morning. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What are his options when it comes to extending the permit? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: He would be able to extend that permit if he had another successful -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Inspection. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: -- inspection. Correct. As long as he has one every six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, from my perspective, if this is going ahead and things are being done, there is no excuse for not being in contact with the code enforcement investigator. And if the 80.86 gets paid today, if it's the board's wishes, I would support giving an extension. But knowing that, at that time we want to see progress. MR. LEFEBVRE: How long do you think it will be before it's finished? I know it's been 15, 16 months now, but how long? MS. JONES: Well, he's requesting a year. I'll be happy till the end of the year. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the reason? Why is this taking so long? MS. JONES: Well, he was sick last year. The reason -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You sound just as frustrated as us. MS. JONES: I am. I didn't know I was going to be here. He's going to get it done. That's all I can say right now. I'm his wife now and he's going to finish it. That's all I can tell you. I've been brought into all this. I didn't know there was a $24,000 due. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, it's not due yet. MS. JONES: Oh. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, we -- the process is if we impose it, Page 123 April 25, 2013 then yes. If we can give you an extension and then the clock starts from today. Now, it doesn't bode well that the operational costs have not been paid. MS. JONES: Well, I didn't -- I'll pay that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I know it's not you, but I'm just saying that typically the operational costs are paid and they're showing -- the person is showing progress, then we take that into consideration. We're looking at no operational costs being paid and no progress in the past four months. So that's kind of where we're -- MS. JONES: I understand. I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: You saw the process of the previous people, it moved along pretty quickly. MS. JONES: I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that's why we're sort of sitting here trying to figure out what to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, since -- the clock is ticking on six weeks? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Correct. Give or take a few days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we give an extension to just past the six weeks, like eight weeks, two months, 60 days, we'll find out if an inspection -- if the board so desires, if an inspection is done and if the permit can be extended. And if it can be extended, I'm sure that the construction would not be completed in 60 days. And you come back and say they pulled the permit, the last -- the inspection and we're going towards getting it completed. And maybe he could be here to answer directly, since he's doing the work, I guess? MS. JONES: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be most helpful. So I would suggest rather than imposing it right now that we give them 60 days. And after 60 days, if no inspections have been called in, your building permit's no good. MS. JONES: I understand. Page 124 April 25, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: How far off-- do you have any idea how far off he is from the next inspection? MS. JONES: He said he would be calling in his -- he only needs a rough plumbing and he's ready to hang drywall in two weeks. He's calling in for the inspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So 60 days should be plenty of time. MS. JONES: Yes. And then from there we're going to -- it's going to get -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Done? MS. JONES: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, is that a motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, it was from me. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you have 60 days. We're not imposing the $24,000. That's a little motivation for your husband to get going. MS. JONES: It will get done. MR. MIESZCAK: I bet that motivates you. MS. JONES: Yes, it does. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Please pay the operational costs today, as Page 125 April 25, 2013 we discussed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. If you could. And Chris could go with you and -- MS. JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're probably not going to keep on extending it, extending it. Because as it is now, as it is now, we gave you -- or your husband 365 days. Well, we're three months past that 365 days. So we've already given you an extension. Plus we're giving you another 60 days. So you have five months extension from that -- that's the way I look at it and that's probably how the board's going to look at it. So just to let you know, we need to have progress on this. MS. JONES: There will be. (At which time, Mr. Lavinski exits the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Next -- we just lost another member. Mr. Lavinski had to go whatever. MS. BAKER: Next case is number six, Case CESD20100016684, Joseph R. and Betty J. Faircloth. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff', this is Rios? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: This is Faircloth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Got it. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The violation location is 1066 Sanctuary Road, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio number 98360008. The violation description is an unpermitted mobile home being utilized as a storage unit. Past order: On April 26th, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board Page 126 April 25, 2013 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 4795, Page 102, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 8th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between August 25th, 2012 and April 8th, 2013, totaling 227 days for the total amount of$34,050. Order item number five, operational costs of $80.29 have been paid. Total amount to date: $34,050. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. I'll second it. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Jeff. MS. BAKER: Next case is number seven, Case CESD20110003049, 2461 GGE, LLC. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 127 April 25, 2013 Violation: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and the Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105. 1 . The violation location is 2461 Fourth Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 40622180009. Violation description: Garage conversion, large structure and fence on the property with no valid Collier County building permits. The past order: On November 18th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744, Page 1127, for more information. An extension of time was granted on April 26th, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4795, Page 92, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement orders as of March 22nd, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order items number one and two, fines at the eight rate of$100 per day for the period between October 24th, 2012 and March 22nd, 2013, 150 days, for the total amount of$15,000. Order Item number five, operational costs of$81 .15 have been paid. Total amount to date: $15,000. 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: We have a motion. Do we have a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second it. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 128 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case is number eight, Case CESD20110005108, Carlos Ramos. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again, hopefully for the last time today, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(i). The violation location: 11141 Laasko Lane, Florida, 34114. Folio No. 00755320006. Violation description: One storage structure with no Collier County permit and single-family home without issuance of certificate of occupancy/completion. Past orders: On May 24th, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4806, Page 3396, for more information. An extension of time was granted on September 27th, 2012. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4844, Page 307, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 27th, 2013. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$150 per day for the Page 129 April 25, 2013 period between March 23rd, 2013 and March 27th, 2013, five days, for a total amount of$750. Order item number five, operational costs of$80.86 have been paid. Total amount to date: $750. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. BAKER: Next case, number nine, Case CESD20120015571, Rene William Sharpe. (Mr. Sharpe and Investigator Short were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Sharpe may be asking for an extension as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So why don't we let Mr. Sharpe go first. MR. SHARPE: Yeah. Your Honor, I -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Closer to the microphone, please. MR. SHARPE: Okay. I purchase the property last year. Since that I'm a specialist with U.S. Army for National Guard. I was Page 130 April 25, 2013 deployed. I returned last month. And I proceed again to try to get contractors to shared (phonetic) in the period I was out of here. My fiancée hired a couple of people. Naturally they took the money for copies and stuff like that and no work was done. I find out last week that there was a fine on the property. The contractor they send there actually tried to make me an offer on the house. And when we shared (phonetic), he actually spoke to Officer Short. And then I talk to him, he was really helpful to explain me what's going on. Since that I was able to renew the permits. I got the permits right now with me, when the house is sustained to be able to complete it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you paid the operational costs of$80.50? MR. SHARPE: I wasn't aware of that thing. I can pay that today. My check is in my car. If not, sometime tomorrow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, it would have to be paid today in order for us to grant you an extension. MR. SHARPE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you need? MR. SHARPE: Probably till the end of the year, six months. MR. LEFEBVRE: What stage of completion is this house currently? MR. SHARPE: The house was never completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it -- what is it right now? What stage is it? MR. SHARPE: Basically the roofs all need to have work. It was vandalized, you know. So windows are gone, the water equipment was stolen from there and stuff like that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The permits that you pulled are for the roof? Page 131 April 25, 2013 MR. SHARPE: I have permits for everything, the construction permits. Really, the property never got the certificate of occupancy, so that was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. SHARPE: The person that sold it to me, I just found out last week that he was in contact with Officer Short. They never told me that there was a problem with that before so I fully not aware. I came aware last week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eric, do you have any comment? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: The county has no objection to the extension of time. He has -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there any hazard or danger safety issue with the house? Is there broken glass on the property? What's the condition of it? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: The structure's not secured. It's basically just the shell with a roof. I don't see any safety issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion for an extension? MR. SHARPE: I was to ask the board if I can for -- there was a fine imposed. Is any way I can get that waived when I complete it, or MR. LEFEBVRE: A what? MR. SHARPE: -- something like that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The imposition. That's what (sic) we're here, okay? To be honest with you, if you didn't show up today and we just heard the testimony from the county, we would have imposed that fine. If we give you an extension and you do everything that you're supposed to by that time that we're going to give you, if we give you an extension, then the fine will not be imposed. MR. SHARPE: Okay, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to extend the time for 180 Page 132 April 25, 2013 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Six months. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have six months. If you can't finish it in six months, come back before the end of six months and let us know what's been done. And if you need more time, how much time do you need. Okay? MR. SHARPE: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, just one last reminder for Mr. Sharp. You must pay the operational costs -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- today. MR. SHARPE: Okay. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 10, Case CEPM20130000548, Brent R. Parker. (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is the violation of Collier County Code of Laws and ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-231(1) and Section 22-231(2). The violation location is 85 Seventh Street, Bonita Springs, Page 133 April 25, 2013 34134. Folio number is 24533040005. Description is no hot and cold water supplied to occupied dwellings. Past orders: On January 24th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4883, Page 3231, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 25th, 2013. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of$500 per day for the period between January 28th, 2013 and April 25th, 2013, 88 days, for a total of$44,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $44,080.86. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You probably know my next question. Is the building occupied? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: It is still occupied by one of the dwell -- one of the units is occupied. We've been out there. The folks say that they're trying to relocate. I think it's a money issue. And we've also been in contact with the County Attorney's Office to see what we can legally do. So we're trying to work -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we know what options we have? MR. LEFEBVRE: Impose the fine. MR. MIESZCAK: Yes, impose a fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose the fines. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 134 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you been in touch with the owner at all? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: We haven't been able to establish communication with them. I've heard rumors, but I don't want to speculate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Very good. Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next item that we have is motion to amend previously issued order. It's number one, Domenic P. Tosto, also known as Domenic Tosto Trust, and Joanne M. Tosto Trust. 2005010592. The county is requesting that we amend this order to include the verbiage that the county may go in and abate this violation. It's one of our older orders that did not have that stated in it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see it was signed by Michelle Arnold. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure if many people remember this case. Has there been any forward movement on this? MS. BAKER: Unfortunately Mr. Tosto was here and wanted to give the board an update, but he has since left. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would have looked forward to that, because it's probably the most unique case I've seen in my 11 years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, someone want to make a motion to amend the order? Page 135 April 25, 2013 MR. LEFEBVRE: What are we looking to amend? MS. BAKER: We're looking to put the statement in that the county may go in and abate the violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: You know, I'd really like to have Mr. Tosto here, because it is such a unique case. And unfortunately he isn't. There's probably at least three members, if not four, that have not heard this case. And to go in and remove the structures -- I mean, this is like their little baby. And they've been trying more than likely diligently to get this corrected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this the one that's on the island? MR. LEFEBVRE: It is. It's on -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, I remember. MS. BAKER: Cape Romano. MR. MIESZCAK: I remember the island. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, so there's three of us that at least remember it. So it's kind of unique. I'd like to hear what they had to say before we amend it or not. MR. MIESZCAK: Wasn't that a safety issue also, with the building like it was and people using it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They were using it if it got stuck on the island in a storm. So it had some good besides the bad. They used it for shelter. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess the question is, we don't know, has there been any progress made? Does anyone know. MS. FLAGG: There has been no progress made. And this amendment to the order was requested by the environmental staff with the county, because they're looking to see if they -- this house in the violation is bringing down their hazard rating, which is impacting the entire county. So they're asking that there be some options, and they're looking for some grants. So the first step is to first have the board amend the order to allow the county to abate. That's not saying that the county will go in tomorrow and abate, but it will open up Page 136 April 25, 2013 some options for some hazardous grants. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make that motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to amend the order. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. BLAKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One nay. MS. RAWSON: It's a motion to amend, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Amend. MR. MIESZCAK: Right. MS. RAWSON: So I'll do two orders: One or your motion to amend and one, the amended order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BAKER: Did you all want to take a break before the workshop? Did you need a break, Cherie'? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, let me ask a question. The workshop, what issues do we have? MS. BAKER: That's up to you. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I'm thinking, you know, maybe next month. It might be a smaller -- we had a long meeting day with 11 people talking. MS. BAKER: We did continue it from last month. MR. MIESZCAK: I know. I'd like to make a motion we do it May 23rd. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I have an appointment at 2: 15 I have to Page 137 April 25, 2013 go to and I have other stuff to do. MR. MIESZCAK: I didn't realize -- I mean, I can stay here all day but these guys, you know, they got jobs. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I read through it all. We might as well -- I have a few questions and changes I want to make. Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion to do it May 23rd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. BAKER: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think we even need a motion for this. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay, motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we still have a report. MR. MIESZCAK: Sorry. You're all right, guy. I rescind my motion. Well, nobody seconded, so it's all right. MS. FLAGG: Okay, just really briefly. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, we like you, Carol (sic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carol? MR. MIESZCAK: I know, Ms. Flagg. But I said Carol. MS. FLAGG: The total abatement cost paid by the banks to abate code violations in Collier County is 3.1, almost $3.2 million as of April 14th. The banks have abated 2,819 violations. The piece of information that you all also are very interested in, since July, 2009, even though you impose fines, as you saw today, you abate fines when they're in compliance here, as well as the special magistrate abates fines if they're in compliance when they come to that hearing. If they're not in compliance, they still have another option to go to the Board of County Commissioners and have the fines abated, because the goal is compliance. So since July, 2009, $11,726,000 in fines have been abated, meaning waived. Page 138 April 25, 2013 Just this year, since October 1st, so we're in fiscal year 13, abatement costs by the banks is $210,400. The number of cases opened is 3,331 . The number of educational patrols, which is where the investigator goes out, identifies the violation, does a meet-and-greet, knock-and-talk with a community member and advises them what the issues are, that's 1,924. The number of code case property inspections is 11,046. The number of meet-and-greet events when the code enforcement investigators with their district supervisor go out and introduce themselves to the community members, provide brochures and information material, that's 29 times, 29 events. The number of cleanup events, which is when the investigators, the members of the community task force teams, joined by the Sheriffs Office and public utilities, and they have an all-day event usually on a Saturday to accommodate the community members where they can get rid of all their litter, debris and basically abate their violations without it costing them anything, they've had 14 different meet-and-greet events around the community since October. Vacant home sweeps, they have done seven. Just this year the amount of fines that have been waived is 3,272,000. The number of property lien search requests, which you saw one of those today where a potential buyer contacted code enforcement to tell them if there were any code cases open on that property, since October they have done 4,091 lien searches, and of those 4,000 lien searches, 121 came back where they told the buyer there are open code cases on this so that the buyer wouldn't buy a piece of property not knowing that there was an issue on the property. As you know, we also issue free recreational and garage sale permits and we've issued 1,617 of those. The average time from complaint by a community member to the initial inspection by the investigator is two days. And as you noted today, Investigator Danny Condomina was recently promoted to the training coordinator for the department. Page 139 April 25, 2013 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anything from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: By the way, Diane's first name is not Carol. MR. MIESZCAK: I'm sorry, I apologize. I was going to go over and say I was sorry, but you didn't give me a chance. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:55 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD e z RO :ERT .R FMAN, Vice Chairman Al These minutes approve by the Board on nietki 03 , DD13 as presented or as corrected Page 140