The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 01/23/2014CODE ENFORCEMENT M inutes January 23, 2014 January 23, 2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, January 23, 2014 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 Kaufinan Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton Chris Hudson (Alternate) Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Alternate) Tony Marino (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Wright, Code Enforcement Director Teresa Tooley, Administrative Assistant Jean Rawson, Attorney to the CEB Board Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 23, 2014 Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman, Chair Gerald Lefebvre, Vice Chair James Lavinski Chris Hudson, Alternate Lisa Chapman Bushnell, Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. November 22, 2013 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance Lionel L' Esperance Tony Marino Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton 2. Motion for Extension of Time CASE NO: CESD20120015628 OWNER: FABRICIO FERNANDEZ AND ALLISON J. FERNANDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 0441 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) UNPERMITTED SHED /CABANA TYPE STRUCTURE IN THE BACKYARD AT THIS LOCATION FOLIO NO: 36457240005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 547232 ND AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34116 CASE NO: CEPM20130004926 OWNER: LLOYD L. BOWEIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(c) AND (i), SECTION 22- 228(1) AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND (e) SOFFITS AND ROOF IN NEED OF MAINTENANCE. WINDOWS ARE SCREWED SHUT AND NOT OPERABLE. FOLIO NO: 62842560005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 584 105TH AVE. N. NAPLES, FL 34108 CASE NO: CESD20120002439 OWNER: ROGER AND TAMMY MACAULEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130, ARTICLE III, SECTION 130- 96(a), 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.1 AND ORDINANCE 04 -41, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND (13)(1)(e)(i). NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR GARAGE CONVERSION, CBS 3 -CAR GARAGE, SHINGLE RE -ROOF. AN 8 X 38 ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WOODEN FENCE, AND THREE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WERE ADDED WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41933010003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6161 SPANISH OAKS LANE, NAPLES, FL 34119 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS CASE NO: CESD20130014309 OWNER: JOHN F. RICE AND PHYLLIS A RICE REV TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) . UNPERMITTED ROOM /OFFICE WITH ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING. FOLIO NO: 281680003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4573 EXCHANGE AVE, NAPLES, FL 34104 2. CASE NO: CESD20130014515 OWNER: ROBERT A. AND BEVERLY J. HEMPHILL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). ENCLOSED REAR LANAI CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 55851360009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 222 1ST STREET, BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 CASE NO: CESD20130014562 OWNER: ROBERT A. AND BEVERLY J. HEMPHILL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 0441, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). METAL 8 X 8 SHEDS WITH UNPERMITTED PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL FACILITIES FOR LAUNDRY AND OTHER USES. FOLIO NO: 55851360009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 222 1ST STREET, BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 4. CASE NO: CEAU20130014521 OWNER: ROBERT A. AND BEVERLY J. HEMPHILL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2010 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. WOOD FENCE INSTALLED WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 55851360009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 222 1ST STREET, BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 CASE NO: CESD20130003068 OWNER: KENNETH ALAN BLAKE AND DOROTHY R. BLAKE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SCREEN ROOM WHICH WAS CONVERTED INTO A FULLY ENCLOSED LIVING SPACE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 45847720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1391 11TH STREET SW, NAPLES, FL 34117 8. CASE NO: CEPM20130003067 OWNER: KENNETH ALAN BLAKE AND DOROTHY R. BLAKE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(c). ONE WINDOW PANE BROKEN IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. MISSING ROOF SHINGLES IN FRONT AND REAR OF HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 45847720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1391 11TH ST SW, NAPLES, FL 34117 CASE NO: CENA20130010827 OWNER: ORANGE BLOSSOM NAPLES, LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(d). THE ACCUMULATION OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION ON AN UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WHEN THE EXOTICS ARE LOCATED WITHIN A 200 - FOOT RADIUS OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY LOCATED IN A RECORDED OR UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION. FOLIO NO: 237280004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6619 YARBERRY LANE, NAPLES, FL 34109 CASE NO: CEPM20130016356 OWNER: KIMA WATT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(19)(c). INFESTATION OF BEES CREATING A NUISANCE. FOLIO NO: 62411800002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 854 109TH AVE N, NAPLES, FL 34108 CASE NO: CESD20130010737 OWNER: DANIEL PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 105.1 AND THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B) (1)( a). A FENCE AND POOL ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY, FOLIO NO: 81270880008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2555 BECCA AVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 10. 12. 13 CASE NO: CESD20130008710 OWNER: ALFRED DIAZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 0441, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). AN UNPERMITTED ROOM ADDITION THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN 2004 AND 2005. FOLIO NO: 29280440005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2648 VAN BUREN AVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 CASE NO: CENA20130012491 OWNER: JOHN L. COWAN TRUSTEE, JOHN L. COWAN TRUST UTD 6/2/95 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(d) AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.08(A)(6). PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER AND EAR LEAF ACACIA, ON UNIMPROVED LOT NOT ZONED AG OR ESTATES, WITHIN A 200 FOOT RADIUS OF AN ABUTTING IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 247360008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: TAYLOR ROAD, NO SITE ADDRESS CASE NO: CEPM20130013496 OWNER: EDWARD SLASIENSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(c). ROOF IS IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 29781000009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1100 HIGHLANDS DR, NAPLES, FL 34103 CASE NO: CELU20130009380 OWNER: KRS NAPLES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 0441, AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. RENTING STORAGE UNITS WITHIN KEY ROYAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. FOLIO NO: 00194721509 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8270 IMMOKALEE RD, NAPLES, FL 34119 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20120017874 OWNER: DELIA T. KETROW OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A DECK AND BOTTOM PILINGS ENCLOSED INTO LIVING SPACE WITH ELECTRIC. FOLIO NO: 1211080009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2 PLANTATION DR. EVERGLADES CITY, FL 34139 2. CASE NO: CESD20120003571 OWNER: PROPERTIES OF S & O, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 0441 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A SMALL CONCRETE PAD POURED AND A BRAND NEW WATER HEATER INSTALLED AND PLACED ON PAD WITH NEW PVC PIPING LEADING FROM IT AND INTO THE OUTSIDE ELECTRICAL PANEL BOX. A NEW HAND SINK INSTALLED WITH NEW PVC PLUMBING PIPING. A SCREEN ENCLOSURE WITH A METAL ROOF BUILT TO ENCLOSE SINK AND ICE MACHINE, A FENCE BUILT AROUND THE OUTSIDE ICE MACHINE AND ENCLOSURE. ALL IMPROVEMENTS DONE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS, AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED. FOLIO NO: 25580760007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 106 SOUTH 3RD ST, IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 CASE NO: CESD20130001216 OWNER: STEVE T & PENNY L CHRISTENSEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 0441 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) & 10.02.06(13)(1)(e)(i). A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE WHICH HAS BEEN ALTERED TO BECOME TWO SEPARATE LIVING AREAS, UPPER AND LOWER (DUPLEX) AND NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 24471240006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 33 IT ST. BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 4. CASE NO: CES20120016702 OWNER: PACIFICA NAPLES, LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN CRAWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 5.06.11(A)(]). CHANGED NAME ON SIGN FROM HERITAGE APTS TO MER SOLEIL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS AND INSPECTION. FOLIO NO: 35830040001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4250 HERITAGE CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 34116 5. 6. 8. CASE NO: CESD20100002858 OWNER: ROBERT M. 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 FOLIO NO: PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 37543240002 VIOLATION 1336 TRAIL TERRACE DR. NAPLES, FL 34103 ADDRESS: 591 10TH AVE N.W. NAPLES, FL 34120 CASE NO: CEVR20120017538 OWNER: HUNTINGTON LAKES RES ASSOC, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 91 -102, SECTION 3.5.7.2.5. REQUIRED LITTORAL PLANTS ARE ABSENT FROM THE LAKE. FOLIO NO: 51070000128 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS CASE NO: CESD20130000332 OWNER: JASON T. BRICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 0441 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS MADE TO THE GARAGE FOLIO NO: 77412120006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1336 TRAIL TERRACE DR. NAPLES, FL 34103 CASE NO: CEPM20130007368 OWNER: FEDERAL NAT MRTG ASSOC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(B). EXTERIOR SIDING MISSING AROUND DOOR ON EAST SIDE OF DWELLING. FOLIO NO: 62713320002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 834 93RD AVE. N., NAPLES, FL 34108 CASE NO: CEVR20130009048 OWNER: CINDY YABLONOWSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(d) AND ORDINANCE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 3.05.08, A (6). THE ACCUMULATION OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION UPON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY, WHICH EXOTICS EXIST WITHIN A 200 FOOT RADIUS OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. THE EXOTICS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: BRAZILIAN PEPPER, EAR LEAF ACACIA, AND AIR POTATO. FOLIO NO: 67183280007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6508 TRAIL BLVD, NAPLES, FL 34108 10 111 12 13. 14. CASE NO: CESD20130001292 OWNER: CHRISTOPHER S. ESENBERG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 0441 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). ADDITIONS/ ALTERATIONS MADE TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 47871280009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3315 GUILFORD RD. NAPLES, FL 34112 CASE NO: CELU20100021891 OWNER: B Q CONCRETE LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN CRAWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND SECTION 2.02.03. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. FOLIO NO: 37925940001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4790 PINE RIDGE RD. NAPLES, FL 34119 CASE NO: CESD20110014160 OWNER: MARTHA MENDEZ -CRUZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). PERMIT NUMBER 2009020960 EXPIRED WITH NO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 39778000002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3525 47' AVE. NE. NAPLES, FL 34120 CASE NO: CEOCC20120012976 OWNER: KEVIN P. & DARCEY BRINKOFF OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.02.03(A), (C), AND (J). OPERATING A BUSINESS WITHOUT A VALID BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT FOR THIS LOCATION; PEOPLE OTHER THAN OCCUPANTS OF THE DWELLING ARE OPERATING BUSINESS, VEHICLES AND EMPLOYEES TRAVELING TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38287200006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4891 PALMETTO WOODS DR. NAPLES, FL 34119 CASE NO: CESD20130005543 OWNER: EVERGLADES RANCH LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS 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). CONVERTED GARAGE, CARPORT, AND SHED INTO LIVING QUARTERS. FOLIO NO: 413000008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2740 NEWMAN DR, NAPLES, FL 34114 15. CASE NO: CELU20130005539 OWNER: EVERGLADES RANCH LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 0441 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. MULTIPLE UNITS HAVE BEEN RENTED TO TENANTS. FOLIO NO: 413000008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2740 NEWMAN DR, NAPLES, FL 34114 16. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC, GINA RADENKOVICH & ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/ IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE /PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 105806 TH ST. NAPLES, FL 34108 17. CASE NO: CESD20130000440 OWNER: REG8 BERKSHIRE COMMONS LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED WALL CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION. FOLIO NO: 23945007103 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7055 RADIO RD. NAPLES, FL 34104 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 27, 2014 12. ADJOURN 10 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentations unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak at any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that a 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. And if everybody could stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's have a roll call this morning. MS. TOOLEY: Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. TOOLEY: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. TOOLEY: James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. TOOLEY: Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Present. MS. TOOLEY: Lisa Chapman Bushnell? MS. BUSHNELL: Here. MS. TOOLEY: Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. Page 2 January 23, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: Tony Marino? (No response.) MS. TOOLEY: Is absent? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I received -- this is Jeff Wright, for the record. I received a call -- a voice mail this morning on my voice mail from Mr. Marino saying he would not be in attendance today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's an excused absence. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. TOOLEY: MR. ASHTON: Robert Ashton? Present. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's go through any changes in the agenda, and then we'll go for the approval of the minutes. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we start, there's one thing. For the board, you have a stack of papers in front of you. The stack that we have here is the page that you're familiar with under the imposition of fines that you normally see. So when we hear the imposition of fines, you can just slide these into those cases when we get to them. Okay, Teresa. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. The first case under hearings for John F. Rice and Phyllis A. Rice is now a stipulation, and that's Case No. CESD20130014309. The fifth case and the six case for Kenneth Alan Blake and Dorothy R. Blake are now withdrawn. The first case number for that was CESD20130003068, and their second case was Page 3 January 23, 2014 CEPM201 30003067. Case No. 11 was also withdrawn. That was for John L. Cowan, trustee, John L. Cowan Trust, Case No. CENA20130012491. Case No. 13 for KRS Naples, LLC, was also withdrawn. The case number for that is CELU20130009380. And we have a 14th case that's been added as an emergency case. And I don't have his case information right in front of me, but you should have that before you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that Charles Brown? MS. TOOLEY: It is, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: CEPM20140001070. MS. TOOLEY: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman. The first case under imposition of fines for Delia T. Ketrow has been changed to an extension -of -time request. That's Case No. CESD20120017874. Case No. 13 has also been withdrawn under imposition of fines. That's for Kevin P. and Darcey Brinkoff. Case number was CEOCC20120012976. And then we had also some -- also last - minute stipulations, and I'll go over those right now. Alfred Diaz is now a stipulation. That's Case No. CESD20130008710. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you could give us the case number, it's easier to find first. MS. TOOLEY: Yeah, I just -- I got them last minute right at nine, so I've just got to look that up really quick for you. MR. UESPERANCE: No. 10. MS. TOOLEY: Number 10? MR. UESPERANCE: Yes. MS. TOOLEY: Thank you. The next case is for Robert A. and Beverly J. Hemphill. Page 4 January 23, 2014 The case number was CEAU20130014521, and that's No. 2 (sic) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: --under hearings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Case No. 3 is also the same party. Is that also a stip? MS. TOOLEY: It's just that one case number that I have right here before me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: Possibly the next one could be. Okay. The next one is also for Robert A. and Beverly J. Hemphill, and that was Case No. CESD20130014515, and that's case No. 2. And this is also for Robert A. and Beverly J. Hemphill, Case No. CESD20130014562, and those are all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If I could get a motion from the board to approve the agenda as modified. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the agenda as modified. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 5 January 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Which brings us to the approval of the minutes. We're from so long ago, I forgot them already. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the November minutes. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And I'd like to introduce our newest member, Lisa Bushnell, who's sitting at the end. And this is our last meeting for Chris Hudson. So we have a bookend change, actually, right now. MR. LEFEBVRE: And will Chris be voting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The alternates will not be voting. I think we have a full -- oh, no. We have Tony missing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So Chris will be voting on this. He's the senior alternate for this meeting. Okay. I guess we're ready to begin when you're ready, Teresa. The first one will be a motion for the extension of time. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. The first one on the agenda for January 23, 2014 motion of extension of time is Fabricio Fernandez and Allison J. Fernandez, Case No. CESD20120015628. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you identify yourselves on the microphone for the benefit of the court reporter. MR. OCTAVIO: This is Mr. Fernandez. My name is Octavio. I'm permit consultant assisting Mr. Fernandez on his case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? And you are? MR. OCTAVIO: This is the owner, Mr. Fernandez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He can say it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. I'm Fabricio Fernandez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you understand English? MR. FERNANDEZ: A little. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Un poquito. Okay. All right. Since you're the one that is requesting the extension of time, why don't you -- MR. OCTAVIO: Well, we brought a carte -- a letter. I haven't had a chance to talk to the guys over there. This case, I know, has been over a little bit. He has shown before that he had quite a bit of problems and operations, getting better, and so on. Today we brought the plans signed and sealed by the architect and the affidavit. We didn't have a chance to submit it today. We only missing the site plan. And the surveyor's working on the survey. So in the next couple of days we'll be able to submit, physically, the permit for this long overdue permit for the porch, cabana, whichever you want to call it. Page 7 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have notes on this one. This originally was held in March 2013, so almost a year ago. MR. OCTAVIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And at that time a 120 -day extension was granted by the board. After that, when that extension ran out, another extension was granted in July of 2013 for another 120 days. MR. OCTAVIO: That's right. I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: At that time I remember specifically that Mr. Lefebvre said -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that that's the end of the extensions. You know, you just can't keep on going down the road on this. MR. OCTAVIO: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we need to see what progress has been made in order to rightfully decide whether another extension is to be made. I don't want to look at the plans and whatnot. You can just tell us. MR. OCTAVIO: Well, we do have the signed and sealed plans, set, ready to go. We do have the affidavit, because that's an after - the -fact structure that is on his property. The only thing that's holding me back right now to submit the permit is the surveyor -- was yesterday -- is coming back on Saturday. By Monday we should be able to have the survey, and I'll do the site plan, and everything will be submitted for permitting next week. Tuesday, perhaps. And the permit will be submitted. It takes five days, maybe two weeks to be finally approved and CO'ed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What happened from March to July and then from July -- MR. OCTAVIO: Well, I don't have all the facts, but I understand from his wife and him that he went through different stages, including his accident on his back, and he was operated. January 23, 2014 Three times apparently. I don't have all the facts, but I do know that he's sent paperwork to the Court about all these unfortunate situations that he had on his health. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we have the letter on the request for the extension of time. Has the $80.57 been paid? Which may not be $80.57 anymore, I understand. But for those -- listen, the costs involved in doing the cases have increased from the last time we had the meeting. MS. TOOLEY: I don't have that information right in front of me, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you paid the -- MR. OCTAVIO: He said that he has. Apparently he has the receipt. Do you have it? MR. MIESZCAK: How can we not know? MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: We would not have granted extensions if it wasn't paid. MR. MIESZCAK: Then, but now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sometimes we grant it if it's paid that day, so I don't know whether, at the end of the day -- Joe, do you know whether the $80.57 has been paid? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha. I do not. MR. OCTAVIO: If any fees are missing or not paid yet, we'll be happy to go -- getting out of here to do so, but apparently he did say -- I have a receipt here for $80.57 paid 4/15/2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Then it's been paid. Okay, that answers the question. Very good. Okay. Questions and comments from the board? Chris, do you have something? I know you're -- Page 9 January 23, 2014 MR. HUDSON: Since it's my last meeting and all. I think that -- I think that this board is always gracious and humble, and I think that they're here, and they look like they're going to get through to next week, and I also know that this board will hold them to that. And so on my end I'm going to be voting for the extension. MR. OCTAVIO: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: What period of time would you be looking for? Because it's been 60 days since his letter was written. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would 14 days be sufficient for your timeline? MR. OCTAVIO: I believe so, sir. Thirty days would be more sure but, like I say, next Monday it will be in. If there's any rejections from the county, we might take another week of re- fixing whatever they ask us on the plan. But within two weeks we should be able to get everything approved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So 120 days is not required. Since you're doing this by affidavit -- MR. OCTAVIO: I think 30 days should be quite enough to get that CO. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion for 30 days. MR. OCTAVIO: That would be appreciated. MR. MIESZCAK: Next meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to grant an extension of time for 30, or till the next meeting. That's about 30 days. I don't have my calendar in front of me. MR. OCTAVIO: I think -- thanking the Court for your assistance and help. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wait. We didn't vote on it yet. Page 10 January 23, 2014 And, hopefully -- well, let's call the vote right now. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Hopefully -- MR. OCTAVIO: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- we won't see you again. MR. OCTAVIO: Hopefully not, sir. Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: February 27th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: February 27th is the date, by the way. MS. TOOLEY: The second case for time extension, Case No. CEPM20130004926, Lloyd L. Bowein. MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. HUDSON: Unfortunately, I have to recuse myself from this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You fill out the necessary paperwork with Jean and -- (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You may want to grab the microphone or whatever wound up on the floor behind you. Okay. I see you're requesting a 60 -day extension. I'm Page 11 January 23, 2014 familiar with this case from the last time it was before us. You've made progress. MR. BOWFIN: Everything's actually done. Instead of repairing the windows, I got a good deal at Home Depot and replaced them size for size, but I found out subsequent they needed a permit. So I've already got the permit application, and as soon as the Collier County website works, I'll find a glazing contractor to sign on it, look at it, verify that it's okay, and I'll probably get the permit this week. It's a walk - through, and it should be done, I would say, within a week or two. If you could do, I would say -- I'm going to be out of the country for February, so if you do, like, 45 days, that gives me some time in case there's a delay, because I'm leaving in a week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We like to work on increments of 30 days, so your letter requesting 60 days would more likely. MR. BOWEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. It's 60 days from the date of this letter, which is November 22nd. We're at 60 days now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if we have a motion, we can do it from -- 60 days from today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which would be 120 days from his letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOWEIN: Well, at the time I did that letter I thought it would be done by now. I didn't -- and it was done. It was done. It didn't come to my attention till last -- I think a couple weeks ago or three weeks ago that Joe informed me -- he had looked at it. The work was done. He couldn't find a permit. That's when I was informed I needed the permit. So as soon as he informed me -- I've got the sketches. I've Page 12 January 23, 2014 got the wind loads. I've got the specs from the Florida.org website. All I need is a glazing contractor. And it's a walk - through permit; should be able to get it inspected and be done. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just find it hard to believe that a Home Depot contractor wouldn't know that a permit were needed. MR. BOWEIN: Well, I didn't see -- it's just it was for -- size for size. There was no structural thing done. Apparently, to replace the glass and not remove the frame I wouldn't have needed a permit, but because I've replaced the frame -- and keep in mind these are not impact windows. There's already shutters there. So I didn't realize -- and I was a general contractor. I did concrete masonry. I didn't do windows, and I didn't think replacing them size for size -- because there's no structure, there's no engineering drawings needed, nothing of that nature. That's the reason I didn't think a permit was needed. And it was far superior than repairing the existing windows. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant a 60 -day extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a motion to grant the 60 -day. Do I have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Just one comment first. Joe (sic), do you have any problem with an extension? MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry; John. MR. SANTAFEMIA: -- Collier County Code Enforcement property maintenance specialist. The county has no objection to the extension. I believe his Page 13 January 23, 2014 original extension was granted. The windows were originally screwed shut, I believe, and he couldn't get access. The tenants weren't giving him access to the property. That was the original extension. Subsequently, in December he found out from myself that if he replaced the entire window, he needed permits. But we don't have any objection to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. BOWEIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Third case under extension of time, Case No. CESD20120002439, owners Roger and Tammy Macauley. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the one that was under MS. TOOLEY: Motion for extension of time. It's No. 3. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Number 3. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. DUNBAR: Good morning. Page 14 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you give us a little -- MR. DUNBAR: My name is Robert Dunbar. I'm a subsequent owner of the property to Roger and Tammy Macauley. I purchased the property through a foreclosure sale. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DUNBAR: And I believe the date on that was the middle or end of October. Upon purchasing the property, realized there were violations that existed. The intention for what I was doing was to flip the property, not have to fix it up. Flip it to somebody that wanted to renovate the whole thing, do whatever they were going to do. Two weeks after we got a certificate of sale, about four days after we got the certificate of title, we got a contract from somebody who wanted to purchase the property. Their intention to purchase the property was to make modifications in the existing structure that's there and build their dream home back in the back of the property. Great. Everything's fine. Contract going to close in 20 days. We get ready to close, we get probably four or five days outside of closing, and my attorney calls me, who's the trustee of our trust, and he says, we have an issue. I said, what's the issue? The issue is there is an unsatisfied mortgage that exists on the property record for the property. We tried everything we could try. Done everything they could do. Ended up taking until probably the 12th of January to get it satisfied, closed, everything was taken care of. It was just a matter of the paperwork not having been recorded. That being said, knowing the 28th of September -- or December was the deadline by the order of the board -- we filed a request, I believe it was around the 21 st, to get an extension of time. We had an affidavit from the buyer, Mr. Komninos, with his Page 15 January 23, 2014 intentions. He's totally aware of the violations that exist. I believe that affidavit was notarized. The closing has taken place. We are completely out of the property now, but we were the owners during this time. Unfortunately, I don't know where Mr. Komninos is. He knew about this meeting. He knew exactly what he was supposed to do. I know they've already started working on the property. Have you been to the property yourself, or do you know if anybody's been there? MR. MUCHA: I haven't been there recently. MR. DUNBAR: I drove by the other day. There's dumpsters out front. I know they're working on the property. And, from what I understand, he had his plans, his contractor, everybody ready to go the minute we closed. I don't have any further information to give you on his side right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a garage conversion without a permit? MR. MUCHA: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the garage is going to be turned back into living -- into a garage? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha. I was advised that they're actually going to be tearing down all the buildings on the property and rebuilding from there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But we don't know if there's a permit that's been pulled for the demo? MR. MUCHA: I'm not sure at this point. I think, like he said, they're just getting started over there, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question of Jean. Jean, the respondent's no longer the owner of the property. Page 16 January 23, 2014 MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, technically, he doesn't have a right to come in and ask -- MS. RAWSON: He doesn't have standing anymore. Apparently the property is already closed, and there is a new owner whose name is -- MR. DUNBAR: Mr. Komninos. MS. RAWSON: -- Komninos. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we would need -- we would either have to -- we would need to have him in front of us. MS. RAWSON: You would. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So I think -- being what's been stated in the testimony here, I think we should have either the county withdraw the case or extend this until next month and see if Mr. Komninos can be here. MR. MUCHA: I have no problem with withdrawing it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree. MS. BUSHNELL: Agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because we've had cases like this before where there's been a change in ownership and we've not had the new owners here, and we've withdrawn the case. Mr. Wright, do you -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you concur? MR. WRIGHT: I'm comfortable with that. I would note that he -- I believe he submitted something -- the new, the new owner submitted something. I'm not sure if this request -- I see there's two memos in your packet, two notices. One's from Mr. Ketchum and one from the buyer, the new owner. It seems to me that this request made it on your agenda, and it could -- in my view I don't have any problem with you ruling on the actual extension request, but I'll defer to you on whether to rule on the extension request or just have us withdraw. Page 17 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I mean, it would be easy enough -- he's not here requesting an extension. If he can't testify and he's not here, we would just ordinarily deny the request for an extension of time. So -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We do have a letter from him -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- saying that he's looking for an extension. MR. DUNBAR: I believe that letter's notarized. MR. LEFEBVRE: It is, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You know, if we knew that a building permit was pulled or, excuse me, a demo permit was pulled, we'd have no problem whatsoever. It wouldn't even be a case. So why don't we just withdraw it, bring it back on the next meeting, if that's okay with everybody, and that will resolve the situation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have contact information for the new owner? MR. MUCHA: I can get it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, if you can -- if you have the information, maybe -- MR. DUNBAR: I've got his phone number. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. Maybe by next month we can seek -- in fact, if there is a permit pulled -- to get this corrected, and we may not have to see this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the county's withdrawing this? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DUNBAR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 18 January 23, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: The fourth case under extension of time is for Delia T. Ketrow for Case No. CESD20120017874, and that came from No. 1 under motion for imposition of fines. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I see that this was an unpermitted improvement including the deck and bottom pilings enclosed into living space with electric. Why don't you let us know what you're requesting and why. We should not be hearing the imposition of fines portion. MR. KEITH DAVIS: My name's Keith Davis, and this is -- MS. KETROW: Delia Ketrow. MR. KEITH DAVIS: -- Delia Ketrow. We put an enclosure underneath the mobile home. It's already been taken down, and we just didn't get the -- MS. KETROW: Demo. MR. KEITH DAVIS: -- demolition permit for that. And we're just asking for an extension of time. I'm on disability, and she's currently not working. And we live in Everglades City. And for -- we're going through some financial hardships right now, but we are confident that we'll be able to come up with the money for the demolition permit. Everything has been removed and taken down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You signed a stipulation -- this goes back to January of 2012. That's two years ago -- to take that out. Seems like an awful long time. MS. KETROW: I already signed the demolition. MR. KEITH DAVIS: She applied for the demolition, but the demolition permit ran out by the time we had it taken down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When was the demolition permit applied for? MR. KEITH DAVIS: Do you know? We don't know right Page 19 January 23, 2014 now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? Has the -- have the $63.38 been paid? MR. LOPEZ: Not as of yet, sir. For the record, Stephen Lopez, Collier County. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It has not been paid? MR. SUMMERS: Not as of yet, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's been our long- standing that if the stipulation -- if the fines have not been paid, the court costs, if you will, that we do not entertain any motions to extend the time or abate a fine, so -- MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, we have information. Go ahead. MS. TOOLEY: We received a check this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KEITH DAVIS: Yeah. We paid this morning for that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, good. Excellent. MR. MIESZCAK: That's a good thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a good sign. MR. KEITH DAVIS: We'd like to get this cleared up. I know it's been a long time, but we've been going through some hard times financially. The gentleman has pictures of before and after. It was just a small enclosure, and now there's lattice to put up there instead. MR. MIESZCAK: How much time do we need? MR. KEITH DAVIS: Sixty days. MS. KETROW: Ninety days. MR. KEITH DAVIS: Ninety days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we let the county give us their thoughts on this. MR. LOPEZ: Yes. The original demolition permit was issued or entered on January 10, 2013, so they did apply for one; Page 20 January 23, 2014 it just expired. They didn't follow through with the inspections or certification. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was the work done and just the permit expired because the final wasn't done or -- MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir. No inspections or a certificate was issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've been to the location? MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the work has been completed? MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's -- we're waiting for -- we need the time for the paperwork to clear. MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's it. Do you have any problem with granting a 60 -day extension on this? MR. LOPEZ: The county has no objection. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion for 90 days. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second for 90 days. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 21 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have three months, 90 days. It should be plenty of time. MS. KETROW: Thank you, sir. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is under stipulations for John F. and Phyllis A. Rice Revocable Trust, Case No. CESD20130014309. MR. LAVINSKI: What number is that case? MR. UESPERANCE: Number 1. MS. TOOLEY: That came from Case No. 1. MR. MIESZCAK: I got No. 1. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you could -- we don't look them up by the long number. If you give us the case number -- MS. TOOLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- we don't even need the other. MS. TOOLEY: Where it came from originally; no problem. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Teresa, you may want to turn it around; otherwise, we'll have to lay down. There we go. MS. TOOLEY: Do you need me to zoom in on that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you could identify yourself. You're John Rice? MR. RICE: John Rice. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, John. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be easier if he sat down? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would it be easier for you to sit down? MR. RICE: No. It's better standing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you -- you want to read the stipulation into the record, and then -- Page 22 January 23, 2014 MR. BOX: For the record, my name is Investigator Heinz Box, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or 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 the 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 owner of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You've agreed to that stipulation; you understand it? MR. RICE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think the 120 days is sufficient time for you to get everything done? MR. RICE: Plenty; thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 23 January 23, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Good luck, Mr. Rice. MR. RICE: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The second stipulation is from Case No. 2 under hearings, Robert A. and Beverly J. Hemphill, Case No. CESD20130014515. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have, among other things -- Jeff, the screens are not all working. Or is it just yours? MR. MIESZCAK: I don't know. MR. UESPERANCE: We have one that's not working. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One, okay. Two. MR. LEFEBVRE: Over here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have two. MR. MIESZCAK: We'll share. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you pay your taxes this year? MR. MIESZCAK: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have three cases. You're Mr. Hemphill? Why don't we swear everybody in, and we'll go from there. Everybody's sworn in. Okay. So we could probably hear them all together, and then we will vote on them separately, okay. Page 24 January 23, 2014 So the first one we're hearing is -- ends in what last two digits? MR. UESPERANCE: Fifteen. MR. MIESZCAK: Fifteen. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a stipulation. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to read that into the record, and we can go from there. MS. McGONAGLE: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay 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, 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 to 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 owners. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was an enclosed lanai without any permits. You've heard the stipulation. You have agreed to that? MR. HEMPHILL: I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have sufficient time, 120 days, to get this done? MR. HEMPHILL: We believe more than enough time. Page 25 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. HUDSON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. That takes care of Case No. 1, which moves us to the case that ends in MS. McGONAGLE: Sixty -two. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have a stipulation that you can read into the record on this as well? MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've got to be sworn in again. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the swearing in wears off after each case. MS. McGONAGLE: For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 26 January 23, 2014 Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay 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, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 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; 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. I notice this one is 90 days rather than 120 on the other? MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any particular reason? MS. McGONAGLE: There's not as much involved with this one, so we didn't feel that as much time was needed. The shed itself is permitted. It's just the electric and plumbing going to the shed that are not permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand the stipulation as it was written? MR. HEMPHILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: for you to resolve the situation? MR. HEMPHILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: comments from the board? And 90 days is sufficient time Okay. Any motions or Page 27 January 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We're two thirds of the way done. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is CEAU20130014521, and that's No. 4 under hearings. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. McGONAGLE: Again, for the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator Page 28 January 23, 2014 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. This is the fence, and we're down to 30 days on this one. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because this is even easier than the last one. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And do you understand the stipulation as written? MR. HEMPHILL: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And do you think 30 days is sufficient time? MR. HEMPHILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 29 January 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. TOOLEY: The next case under stipulations is for Alfred Diaz. That was No. 10 under hearings. Case number is CESD20130008710. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to identify yourself. MR. DIAZ: Alfred Diaz. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Alfred. And Mr. Bach -- or Mr. Short, I'm sorry. MR. SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay all operational costs in the amount of $79.73 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 or 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 visit/inspection to confirm compliance; Four, 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 Page 30 January 23, 2014 property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This looks like it was a room addition without a permit; is that correct? MR. DIAZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you've heard the -- and signed the stipulation agreement? MR. DIAZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And do you have any problem resolving the situation in 120 days? MR. DIAZ: I'm hopeful that it will be fixed right away. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If it's not, you come back to the board, if we agree on the 120 days, and we can discuss it at that time. MR. DIAZ: Yeah. I inherited this problem. I inherited the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. HUDSON: Motion to approve. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 31 January 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have 120 days. Good luck. MR. DIAZ: All right. MR. SHORT: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: We also had an additional stipulation that was not a part of the approval in the beginning there, if you'd like to go forward with that one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we need to modify the agenda then. Which one is it? MS. TOOLEY: That's case No. 9 from under hearings for Danielle Perez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I get a motion to amend the agenda? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to amend. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to amend the agenda. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Number 9? MS. TOOLEY: Yes. Case number was CESD20130010737 for Daniel Perez. Page 32 January 23, 2014 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Eric? MR. SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion or 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, 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. Mr. Perez, do you have any problem in completing this work within 120 days? MR. PEREZ: No. Actually, it's already completed, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Already done. MR. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motions from the board? MR. HUDSON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Page 33 January 23, 2014 All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: Thank you. MR. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The first case to be heard under regular hearings is going to be Case No. 7 for Orange Blossom Naples, LLC, Case No. CENA20130010827. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Specialist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Michaelle. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. This is in reference to case number as described dealing with the violation of the accumulation of prohibited exotic vegetation on an unimproved property when the exotics are located within a 200 -foot radius of an improved residentially zoned property. The property is located at 6619 Yarberry Lane; Folio No. 237280004. Posting of the notice of violation on the property and at the county courthouse was perfected on August the 9th, 2013, and Page 34 January 23, 2014 certified mail service was obtained on August the 16th, 2013. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photographs taken by me on August the 8th, 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I get a motion to accept the photographs? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion. And a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I thought you had a second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We had a quiet second. Now we have a louder second. MR. MIESZCAK: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. CROWLEY: Code Enforcement received a complaint from an adjacent homeowner about exotic vegetation on this previously developed but now unimproved lot. A small house had formerly existed on the site but was removed in approximately 2004, according to the aerials. Page 35 January 23, 2014 My site visit on August the 8th revealed the presence of Brazilian pepper growing over from the subject property and through the complainant's ficus hedge into his rear yard and extending approximately eight feet into the complainant's property. Can you go back to the first one, please. The first photograph -- this was taken from the complainant's yard. That's his trampoline in the front -- in the foreground, and behind it is his ficus hedge with the Brazilian pepper branches growing over and through the ficus hedge from the Yarberry property. The second photograph is from a different angle on the same property, again showing the extent of the Brazilian pepper coming through the hedge. The third shot is taken from the right -of -way of Yarberry Lane, which would be on the eastern end of the property. The complaint was about the western end in Mill Run. And this is where the house used to be, and there's Brazilian pepper and earleaf acacia on this property. On September 3rd I received a call from Mr. Ron Davidson, who identified himself as the business manager for the corporate owner of the property. Now, he was the representative within the United States. He had just received the notice of violation, requested a two -week extension. I agreed. He asked for me to give him a list of contractors to call, and I advised him that the Collier County Ethics Ordinance prohibited me from giving any kind of short list but I did, however, obtain from contractors licensing a complete list of all licensed contractors in three categories; landscapers, tree trimmers, and excavators and forwarded that to him via email on September the 13th. On September 17th I returned a call from the representative Page 36 January 23, 2014 for the owner, Mr. Davidson, who thanked me for the list of contractors, asked if I'd be available to meet anybody on site. I agreed that I would be able to. On September 27th I left a message inquiring about the status of hiring the contractor. I did not receive a return call. A reinspection on October the 1 st revealed no work had begun and that the complainant's ficus hedge has started to turn brown. I went back again today, and it's almost half brown. Mr. Davidson called me on October the 8th. He stated that he had called 20 contractors and that only one had called him back. He, again, requested a short list of suggested contractors and, again, I was unable to provide that. I advised him that the complainant had inquired why nothing was happening to correct the problem. Again, I called Mr. Davidson on October 21 st. He advised he was going to call 10 more contractors. We discussed that the case was not making any progress and that action needed to be taken; otherwise, I was going to escalate it to hearing. On October 31 st, Mr. Davidson had called to say that he had gotten one quote, and he asked me how many trees -- exotics trees existed on the property, and I explained that because of the density on the western end of the property, there was -- it was impossible to give an exact count but that the quote he had described for me I indicated, was not out of the realm of reasonableness. He asked at that time if it wouldn't be cheaper to just clear the entire parcel, and I explained that county codes would require that he either obtain a building permit for construction of a property, a residence on the property, or would need a vegetation removal permit. Nothing happened until November the 7th when I did Page 37 January 23, 2014 receive a call from a contractor who had apparently been requested to give a bid. He wanted to make sure that he was including everything, so we discussed the issue. On November 18th, the contractor advised that he had never heard whether he had been hired, and he did not have a contract. On December 16th, code enforcement was advised that abatement was apparently imminent; however, reinspection on January the 6th showed that nothing had begun. I did a reinspection this morning. There's been no work. Nothing has begun. The exotic vegetation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion that a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation for us, Michaelle? MS. CROWLEY: I do. I recommend that the Code Enforcement Board order 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 removing all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation that exists within a Page 38 January 23, 2014 200 -foot radius of any abutting improved property. When prohibited exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide, and a visual tracer die shall be applied. 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: So the last time you've heard from the representative was in December? MS. CROWLEY: That is correct. However, on January 9th I was informed that a particular contractor might have been hired, so I called that contractor. In fact, I actually met him on site on January the 9th. Again, we kind of discussed the situation. I actually took him on the other side of the property through -- with his permission, through the complainant's backyard to show him that if he were going to start, to please start on the western end rather than the unimproved side on Yarberry. And I know that that's -- that contractor did come to the Growth Management Division the following day and met with environmental services staff to inquire about whether an exotic vegetation removal permit would be needed. He was given additional information about, you know, methods to be used, herbicides to use; however, no work has started. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It might be more cost effective to remove the vegetation than pay any fines that may accrue on this property. And it's certainly not fair to the adjacent Page 39 January 23, 2014 homeowner for this vegetation to be growing into their yard. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to take a stab? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that the respondent pay the $80.57 within 30 days, that the violation be removed or abated in 30 days, or a fine of $100 per day be assessed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Lavinski, I agree with everything but the $100 a day. I feel that -- being that the complainant, his bushes are going to be dead or are probably on their way, the fine should be substantially more. I think somewhere around $300 would be a better number to get this person moving. MR. LAVINSKI: I would amend my motion to go with the $300 - per -day fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Michaelle. Page 40 January 23, 2014 MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is Case No. 8 for Kima Watt, Case No. CEPM20130016356. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, Property Maintenance and Housing Inspector for Collier County, John Santafemia. This matter is in reference to Code Case No. CEPM20130016356 relative to the violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article IV, Section 22 -231, Subsection 19(c). Description of the violation is infestation of bees creating a nuisance. Location of violation is 854 109th Avenue North, Naples, Florida, 34108; Folio Number is 62411800002. Service was given on November 14, 2013, by posting a location violation at the Collier County Courthouse in addition to certified and first -class mailing. At this time I would like to present evidence in the form of photographs. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photographs. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photographs. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 41 January 23, 2014 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SANTAFEMIA: This first photograph is a -- just a photo of the dwelling itself in Naples Park. The second photograph is -- I've tried to outline where the beehive was. This part right in here, the white strip, that is the molding around a doorway, which would be here, and there's a space between the siding and the door frame, the door molding, that the bees have been able to enter into the side of the structure, and that's been going on for some time. This case was actually originally opened in -- November 17th. I made a site inspection, and I noted that the bees were swarming in and out of the side of the building. At that time the neighbor was actually outside. That was the complainant. He was concerned about the safety of his children that were playing in that area. I completed a notice of violation for the case, for the violation, and it was mailed, and the property was posted. Subsequent visits to the property reveal that the violation was never abated. And I never heard back from the property owner until, actually, yesterday. Yesterday she did call me. We finally made contact. She was trying to get an extension of time for this hearing, but it was too late for her. But she says she's been trying to deal with it on her own; however, that is not the type of situation that you can deal with without hiring a professional contractor. Those bees are going to be very difficult to eradicate Page 42 January 23, 2014 because they can't -- a professional won't even be able to reach the hive itself. So she's never going to be able to do it herself. MR. MIESZCAK: Let me ask a question. Is the home occupied? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. It's a vacant structure right now. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. SANTAFEMIA: It is secure. MR. UESPERANCE: What type of bees are we speaking of? MR. MIESZCAK: Have we seen honey? That's what I was going to ask. MR. SANTAFEMIA: I hesitate to get real close, but they look like honey bees. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you didn't interview the bees themselves? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Well, they pleaded the Fifth. MR. LEFEBVRE: You didn't post the door, did you? MR. MIESZCAK: Let me just say this -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: Not that door. MR. MIESZCAK: If they're yellow jackets, the contractor might have to go in. For bees, all it is, is a beekeeper going over there and taking that hive out in, like, five minutes. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yeah, but I would imagine that would be difficult since the hive is actually in between the inner and outer walls. MR. MIESZCAK: But the beekeeper has the ability to relocate that hive by bringing a queen bee with a hive, and it takes them all out. MR. UESPERANCE: It doesn't take long. MR. MIESZCAK: I've done this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've had two cases of this in my development. And there's a beekeeper who is in Everglades Page 43 January 23, 2014 City who is relatively inexpensive. I don't remember his name. But they came, and they took care of the bees. So she needs to just find the right person and have this thing resolved. And I can't blame the neighbor for being concerned. I don't -- they could be Africanized bees, you know; you don't know. They could be very aggressive. MR. SANTAFEMIA: I hesitated to get too close. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it doesn't -- let's start out with does a violation exist? MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have more -- MR. MIESZCAK: I just have one quick one. You could really help that lady, probably directing her to a beekeeper, and solve her problem rather than having a contractor come in tear her house apart. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Well, as my previous investigator mentioned, you know, I'm not allowed to make recommendations of contractors, specific services like that -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll send her a postcard. MR. SANTAFEMIA: -- but, you know -- and I didn't tell her she had to hire a contractor to take the wall apart. I just, you know -- MR. MIESZCAK: I just think she doesn't -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: -- told her she's going to have to hire a professional to do it. MR. MIESZCAK: Right. She just doesn't know what to do, and she probably needs a little help. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's find out if a violation exists first. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion that a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Page 44 January 23, 2014 All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. A violation exists. Do you have a recommendation? MR. SANTAFEMIA: County recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by retaining the services of a licensed pest control company and have the beehive either removed or exterminated within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to take a shot at making a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I make a motion that the Page 45 January 23, 2014 respondent pay the $79.72 within 30 days, that the bees be eradicated within seven days, or a fine of $100 day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, I would like to -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: If I may interject. MR. MIESZCAK: -- amend the motion. MR. SANTAFEMIA: If I just may interject before you vote on any motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. SANTAFEMIA: In my conversation with her yesterday, she did indicate that she has an elderly sick father in Michigan, and she was actually going out of town today and was not sure how long she would be out of town. So I'm not sure seven days would actually work for her, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I would just like to say that I don't think that's a safety issue, and there's bees everywhere. I mean, they have a hive here and there, and you don't even know about it, and they don't bother anybody. So if this lady just found out about it or didn't really know what to do about it, I certainly think 60 days is fine. As to how long that beehive's been there, who knows; but I'm for 60 days. MR. LAVINSKI: I wouldn't think -- that 60 days is not acceptable for my motion. I'm concerned about the Africanization of these bees or someone walking by who happens to be allergic to bees. I don't think the 60 days is anywheres near acceptable. MR. MIESZCAK: This house looked a little rural. Is it really in a -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: Naples Park. MR. MIESZCAK: Pardon? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Naples Park. Page 46 January 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: That's pretty populated. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would you accept a 30 -day deadline, perhaps? MR. LAVINSKI: Reluctantly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's what I like to see; compromise. Any other comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: I've got one question. How long have these bees been there, and how long has she know it? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Well, I got the case turned over to me in -- November 6th. Actually -- I'm sorry. November 7th was my first contact with the property and witnessing the violation myself. My first conversation with her was yesterday. And she did indicate to me that she thought she had taken care of it herself. She said she was going there to exterminate them. I don't know how. I didn't get into the details, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does she live locally? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Port Charlotte. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: All it takes is a phone call to a beekeeper. I would stretch my imagination to 15 days, not 30. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second for $79.72 paid in 30 days, $100 -a -day fine, and 15 days that it needs to be abated by. MR. LAVINSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 47 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. MIESZCAK: I oppose. MR. HUDSON: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have two opposed. We have 1, 2, 3 -- 5. It passes, 5 -2. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you get the nays? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: Fine amount? Did he mention a fine amount? I didn't hear a fine amount mentioned. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One hundred dollars a day. Do you have the neighs documented? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) MS. TOOLEY: The next case is No. 12 for Edward Slasienski, Case No. CEPM20130013496. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Again, for the record, John Santafemia. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia, Property Maintenance and Housing Inspector for Collier County. This matter is in reference to Code Case No. CEPM20130013496 relative to the violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article IV, Section 22 -231, Subsection 12(c). Description of violation is roof in disrepair. Violation location is 1100 Highlands Drive, Naples, Florida; Folio Number is 29781000009. Service was given on October 1, 2013, by posting the location at the Collier County Courthouse in addition to certified January 23, 2014 and first -class mailing. At this time I'd liked to present evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I get a motion to accept the photographs? MR. HUDSON: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SANTAFEMIA: On September 26 I received a complaint from a fellow officer about a case with some property maintenance issues. I completed a site visit on that date and noted that the west side of the roof structure -- I tried to highlight it on this photograph. It's a little difficult to see. But there's some soffit -- some fascia damage, and it looks like it's actually started to deteriorate into the plywood sheets that actually make up the roof -- base of the roof. I completed a notice of violation for the case, and I attempted to get personal service and meet with the property Page 49 January 23, 2014 owner who lives here in town. He actually refused to come to the door. He was home, and he just asked that we leave the notice posted on his door, which I did. I also posted the courthouse and the property location where the violation was just to be sure that he did get it. On subsequent reinspections of the property, I noted that the violation was never abated; therefore, I prepared the case for the Code Enforcement Board hearing. Site visit yesterday revealed that the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm looking at the picture. Is that brown -- just below your left arrow, is that part of the thing hanging down, or is that vegetation? Yeah. MR. SANTAFEMIA: This is part of the soffit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Does anyone live there? From what you can tell, does anyone live there? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. It's a vacant duplex. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. We have a motion and a second Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 50 January 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation for us? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yes. County recommendations are that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondents -- the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required permits, inspections, and certificate of completion, and repair the roof of the structure in accordance with the property maintenance and housing code within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection and 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 the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments or motions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'll make a motion. My motion is $79.72 paid within 30 days, $100 -a -day fine after 120 days -- it needs to be abated by 120 days. And I make it 120 days because someone will have to get a contractor. First we need to get the attention of the owner, then a contractor, and whatever permits are required, et cetera. That's my motion. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any comments on the motion? Page 51 January 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is Case No. 14. That's the emergency case. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have had contact with the property owner. He is on his way. Apparently his car broke down. We want to hold this case so you can hear it later and proceed. It's up to the boards. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we accept a motion from someone to amend the agenda, putting this off until MR. ASHTON: I make a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to amend the agenda. We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 52 January 23, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: This will be pushed to the back of the imposition of fines; is that correct? MR. SNOW: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to be clear on where it's going to be in the agenda. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. If he doesn't show up by then, then we'll proceed. Thank you. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case on the agenda is under imposition of fines, Properties of S &O Incorporated, Case No. CESD20120003571, and that was Case No. 2. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is where we have the missing sheet for -- MS. TOOLEY: I have the sheets. I'm going to provide them to you on the overhead because of the last- minute changes to them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I have a batch of sheets. MS. TOOLEY: Just to ensure that you have all -- everyone has all of them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: I'll put it on the overhead for you. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Page 53 January 23, 2014 Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20120003571. Violation of ordinance 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 106 South 3rd Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. 25580760007. Description: A small concrete pad poured and a brand new water heater installed and placed on the pad with new PVC piping leading from it and into an outside electrical panel box; a new hand sink installed with new PVC plumbing piping; a screen enclosure with a metal roof built to enclose the sink and ice machine; a fence built around the outside ice machine and enclosure. All improvements done without first obtaining the authorization of the required permits, inspections, and certificate of occupancy as required by the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended. Past orders: On May 23, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4931, Page 1644, for more information. On August 22, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4962, Page 795, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 23, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day incurred for the period between November 21, 2013, and January 23, 2014, 64 days, for a total of $12,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $80.86 have been Page 54 January 23, 2014 paid. Operational costs for the imposition of fines hearing of $64.08. Total amount to date is $12,864.08. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this is the modification on the operational costs. This is the first one we're seeing. MR. WMGHT: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it went from 80.29 to -- what was the number again? MS. PEREZ: $64.08. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty -four was the increase. MS. TOOLEY: The first -- the $80 one, that's for the first hearing -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. TOOLEY: -- and this is a separate hearing. That's a separate fee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the second hearing. Okay. Now I understand. MS. TOOLEY: They're being charged for these hearing packets where previously they were not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And have you had any contact with the respondent? MS. PEREZ: There has been contact, and there has been progress. When they were granted the extension, it was granted until November -- November 20, 2013. They did apply for that permit on November 11th, and it was ready for issuance on December 16, but they didn't pick it up until just on January 15. So they have 13 inspections that have to be called in and required. So we posted the notice and, you know, we advised them that they had the option of coming in and seeing if, you know, Page 55 January 23, 2014 you guys would grant them an additional extension, but they didn't make the attempt to be here, and they didn't give us anything in writing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose the fine and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is Case No. 3 for Steve T. and Penny L. Christensen, Case No. CESD20130001216 -- (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation of Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Page 56 January 23, 2014 Location: 33 First Street, Bonita Springs, Florida, 34134; Folio Number 24471240006. Description: A two -story single - family structure which has been altered to become two separate living areas, upper and lower duplex, and no Collier County building permit obtained. Past order: On May 23, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4931, Page 1680, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 17, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between November 20, 2013, and January 17, 20145 59 days, for the total of $14,750. Previously assessed operational costs of $80.29 have been paid. Total amount to date: $14,750. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there additional costs on this one as well? MS. TOOLEY: If you don't see the additional costs added, that's because they were in compliance prior to the hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. CHRISTENSEN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like you have everything in hand. It's completed. MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes. I appeared here last May and was under stipulation, and I had Don Cahill -- and I believe it was Mr. L'Esperance had excused himself from the vote because of a relationship there or something. I hired Don Cahill, and he thought this would be cleared up Page 57 January 23, 2014 today and that there wouldn't be a hearing and scheduled himself -- he's out of town, is what I received. So I'm here as a building owner speaking relatively uninformed and ignorant. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me help you out. Ordinarily, if you've paid your operational costs and the property is in compliance, we have a long- standing that we generally abate that. So I -- before you go on, maybe we can resolve this even -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. MIESZCAK: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the violation. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're free; done. MR. LEFEBVRE: You do not have to pay a fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to say anything else? MR. MIESZCAK: Call the guy out of town; tell him you did a good job. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't fix what ain't broke. MR. CHRISTENSEN: For the record -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CHRISTENSEN: -- it took an extensive amount of Page 58 January 23, 2014 effort to accomplish what I did, okay, and time and money. And I'm glad that we are now on the same page. It was unfortunate. I purchased that as a duplex, but having contractors in there, they can tell that the building has never had the interior stairway. And I signed a paper a long time ago when this first came up that said that the structure was modified. And I just want to -- for the record, I never modified -- I never modified that building. And the contractor could see from the structure -- when you get -- tear the ceiling down -- and you had to get up in there -- you can see it's never been -- I never modified it, is what I want to say. And I signed that thing and said, yeah, I did modify it, like you read. I didn't. I bought it that way. And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem. It's taken care of The -- you just saved yourself almost $15,000 because we abated the fines. MR. CHRISTENSEN: Yes, I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We appreciate that you brought the property into compliance. That's what the Code Enforcement Board and department is for, for compliance. MR. CHRISTENSEN: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Have a good day. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is for Pacifica Naples, LLC, Case No. CES20120016702. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CRAWLEY: Good morning. If it pleases the board, I believe she would like to request an extension of time, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. DREYCOTT: My name is Angela Dreycott. I'm the Page 59 January 23, 2014 Regional Asset Manager that represents Pacifica Naples. We actually have a contractor in place, and the contract is going to be getting signed today to take care of this sign issue that I know that we've had for quite some time. There's definitely no excuse on the delays. I do apologize on the delays on our part. We've kind of been back and forth whether we were going to do a sign variance or whether we were going to hire a contractor to do the work, and we did have to collect a few bids due to the amount. This is going to cost us nine grand to do this. And, yes, it should have been done beforehand. So we do have the proposal, and this is getting signed by the owner, Deepak, today, and a check will be processed. So if we could get 30 days, I think that would be more than sufficient to get it through the permitting process once the check is given to this vendor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: County have any problem with that? MS. CRAWLEY: For the record, Colleen Crawley, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county has no objection. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. You stated 30 days to get through the permitting process. Are you going to put a new sign up, or are you just going to permit your current -- MS. DREYCOTT: Well, the proposal that I have here -- we have a vendor that's going to be taking care of everything that needs to be done. So they're going to be filing the permitting. They're going to be -- as far as I'm gathering from the work that they're going to be done (sic) -- this has been handled a lot through my project manager -- is they're going to be replacing some of the letterings to meet the specific qualifications going through the permitting process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jean, do you have a Page 60 January 23, 2014 suggestion on the best way to do this? Just extend this or -- MS. RAWSON: She's requesting an extension of time, so you need to rule on that. In terms of the number of days, that's up to you guys -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RAWSON: -- and ladies. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Gerald, do you have any comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we already extended it. I'm not sure if 30 days is going to be enough. I mean, if there's going to be permitting and so forth and -- I don't know if, physically, the sign's going to be changed. From your testimony, it doesn't seem like you're clear on that either. MS. DREYCOTT: This is -- you know, I'm the regional manager, but I don't have anything to do with the sign portion. This is something we assigned to our project manager to handle. So this is something that -- I've been with them, and I've been with the owner -- that we need to get resolved. The information that I have at hand is that this contract's going to be signed today. We're going to accept a vendor. They're going to be getting the check. They're going to be going through the permitting process and getting everything taken care of I know -- as far as getting the permit filed and expecting that to take place within the next 30 days, as far as how long it's going to take for this entire process -- MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I'm saying. We grant extensions so you can finish the process not go through part of the process, because you'll just be back in front of us in 30 days saying, hey, I have the permit, and we're working on it. That's not what we want. We want to have completion so we can close the case and move forward. I'd be in favor of granting 60 days. Originally I wasn't Page 61 January 23, 2014 because I don't like to keep on giving -- MS. DREYCOTT: I definitely understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- extensions, extensions, extensions. But I can tell you right now I probably will not grant another -- I will not be one to say you can have another extension. MS. DREYCOTT: And I understand, and I appreciate it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would make a motion for 60 days. MR. HUDSON: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to extend this 60 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Did I hear right, the operational costs have been paid? MS. CRAWLEY: Yes, they have. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Granted. Sixty days. MS. DREYCOTT: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: That kind of case, Mr. Chairman, did that show that the second operational costs have not been paid? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we extended it, so that probably -- we're going to -- in other words, it doesn't come due now. And if it's in compliance, then the second operational costs Page 62 January 23, 2014 probably would not be apropos. Is that correct, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I would say the county has incurred that cost already, and she came in here at the last minute. One clarification -- and maybe Ms. Rawson can help out. I'm wondering if that extension that was just granted was an extension on today's hearing to impose the fine, or is it an extension on their compliance date, which has already come and gone? And I think it's not the right time to be asking for that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it's an extension on the imposition of fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. That's what I was hoping. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, let me ask you, since this is new to me, the 60 -- is there going to be another operational cost for them to come back in front of us again? MR. WRIGHT: I think the way that we've decided to handle these is if they bring it into compliance prior to the next hearing, we're not going to charge them for that. If they don't bring it into compliance, you'll see a charge similar to the one that was incurred for today's hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: And would it be broken down to, like, 64.43 for the hearing on today's date and then another 64.43 for the next hearing or -- I mean, how -- MS. TOOLEY: I can do that, depending on how you prefer to see it. If it's easier for you to categorize it in your mind under a certain way, I can do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, a lot of times when you have a case that comes into compliance, they don't have to come back, since it's in compliance. This is a different situation. But that's why there's no other additional charge imposed. Page 63 January 23, 2014 MR. WRIGHT: Yeah. And to answer Mr. Lefebvre's question, we can put that charge together and call it lien - related costs, or we can break it -- by hearing date, break it up. However you prefer. MS. RAWSON: The one you entered a while ago, I think your order said that the operational costs had been paid; however, additional operational costs for the hearing today have not been paid, and you added that in with the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other question would be, should we have the respondents pay the operational costs now? MR. WRIGHT: Well, we would always encourage them to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about a letter to them informing of that just so there's -- clarifying it. MR. WRIGHT: Sure. MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't you just add in the motion from now on that we need them to do that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I think that would be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Okay. We're going to take a five- minute break. It's been requested by some of the old people here that need to take a quick break. So -- and certainly we'll blame it on you, that your fingers need to be rested. So we'll take -- come back in, let's say, seven minutes; at 10:40. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. And speaking about orders, did you get my order for a cup of coffee? Okay. Next case is? Page 64 January 23, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: Case No. 5, Robert M. Griffin. Case No. CESD20100002858. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 591 10th Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 37543240002. Description: No Collier County permits for the house built on the property. Past orders: On January 19, 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, OR4760, Page 536, for more information. On April 25, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4917, Page 3016, for more information. On July 25, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4953, Page 2499, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 23, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between November 23, 2013, and January 23, 2014, 61 days, for the total of $15,250. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs for the imposition -of -fines hearing of $64.43. Previously assessed operational costs of $80.86 have been paid. Page 65 January 23, 2014 Total amount to date, $15,314.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Good morning. MR. GRIFFIN: Happy New Year, everybody. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Happy New Year. MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah, and I'd like to congratulate your newest board member as well. For the record, my name is Rob Griffin, and I stood before you, Mr. Chairman and your board, back in the end of July, and at that time I brought forth some photographs of the job that is permitted with the building department, and at that time I showed you pictures that we were hanging drywall, and you granted me -- we had a discussion, and I was moving in the direction of getting finals from the building department. And since then -- I'm not really sure where the confusion is. Is -- since your last direction to me, we have received three finals already. I've received final A/C, final electric, and final low voltage, and I'm getting ready -- so that should leave me probably, I think, with three more inspections, which would be final plumbing, final building and shutters inspections. So we are really excited about the progress we've made with the house. So that's pretty much where we're at. We're hopefully going to bring this thing to a close very shortly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. When I look at the -- this case, the first thing that jumps out at me, that it was signed by Ken Kelly. He was the chairman. He was the chairman, then Gerald Lefebvre was the chairman, then I was the chairman, so this case goes way back to January of 2012. MR. GRIFFIN: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we gave a 60 -day extension in April of 2013, and then another 120 -day extension in November. It seems like it's going on and on and on. Page 66 January 23, 2014 MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. But as you -- you know, as you have given me direction, I've completed work towards completing all the tasks. We're in the final phases now in bringing this job to a close, and I'm excited about it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What does the county have to say? MR. AMBACH: Just for -- to give you a little bit of background. There were three inspections that were passed. We have two partials and one final. Two partials were for final mechanical, final electric -- partial on those -- and a final TV /telephone line. That passed. That was a full. There are at least eight or nine inspections that need to be completed before this project is done, including what Mr. Griffin stated, plus final plumbing, final electric, right -of -way engineering, site drainage, landscaping requirements, and final septic. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there's a lot of stuff -- MR. AMBACH: Quite a bit, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- left un -- MR. GRIFFIN: Well, I think that sounds -- as far as the building department goes, I have to get final plumbing, shutters, and final site, and I have to get the right -of -way, which I've already had them out because I've added a culvert, and we're talking about the topping that they're going to put on it, so that's -- we're on the downhill. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. GRIFFIN: And last time I was here, you know, we were hanging drywall. Since then we've put in cabinets, we've tiled, we've put in air conditioners, so it's not like I haven't done anything. And so I'm hoping to be out of there shortly, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we go -- it goes all the Page 67 January 23, 2014 way back to 2012. A house built without any permits is -- MR. GRIFFIN: Well, that's going to be another charge, really, I don't think that we're going to address in this forum, is that this house has had a permit even before I became involved in the code enforcement phase, so -- but I'm going to go ahead, and we're going to finish this, then we're going to go back and see what happened back then to see why I'm even in this forum, because I'm not really sure, because I'm in compliance with the building department. I did the inspections and passed the inspections, and moving forward. And this is a custom home, and I'm the builder. So it does take time. But it's not that I'm not doing anything. We're moving ahead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we granted a motion for extension of time twice; once in April and once in July. MR. GRIFFIN: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So ordinarily when we grant an extension, as Mr. Lefebvre said on a previous case, we grant an extension so that everything can come into compliance during that extension period so that the respondent doesn't have to come back before the board again. So the first extension that was granted in April -- gave it to April. We figured it would be done by then, but it wasn't. Then you came back and you made your case, and we granted an additional 120 days that took it to November. November comes; it's still not done. We're here in January; it's still not done. And I don't know how long it would take to do those other inspections, but I'm willing to bet it probably will be more than 120 days. But let me hear from the board what they have to say. MR. GRIFFIN: Can I comment on that one time? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. ff- •: January 23, 2014 MR. GRIFFIN: Yeah. Last time I was here was the end of July, and the charge from you and the board was to -- hey, we need -- you know, we need to move this house along and start getting finals, and that's where we're at. And I have completed some of the major finals that need to be done. I don't think it's going to take me much longer to be done, I really don't, because I'm really ready to call in for final plumbing probably within the next two weeks. Already doing some landscaping work to get ready for final and have the culvert pipe ready for the right -of -way. So it should be coming in soon. We're real close, and we're excited and we're happy. And just to let you know that I am the builder. I'm building a custom home, okay, and it takes time. And I'm the one that's doing the work, but it's not that I'm not doing anything. And I brought pictures here. I wasn't really sure -- I don't think you were here last meeting, but, you know, I brought pictures in, and there's been a lot of progress made. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to rehear the case again. But any comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. ASHTON: MR. GRIFFIN: MR. ASHTON: MR. GRIFFIN: the permit originally started back in 2010. MR. ASHTON: You are the contractor? Yes, sir. When was this home started? The home was started in -- I actually pulled in 2002, then I withdrew it, and then I got And you're a builder, and you don't know MR. GRIFFIN: No, I'm not a builder. I'm an Page 69 January 23, 2014 owner /builder. I'm not a contractor. MR. ASHTON: Owner /builder. And you've been on this home for this long, and you still are going after permits and inspections? MR. GRIFFIN: No. I do have -- that's what I don't understand. That's another reason I'm -- I have a building permit. I've always had a building permit, and part of the building permits are different phases as you do the construction. So it's not like -- MR. ASHTON: Right. MR. GRIFFIN: And the charge here from the board, oh, you don't have a permit for the house. Excuse me. I do have a permit for the house. MR. ASHTON: Let me ask -- MR. GRIFFIN: There's different processes that you go through as you build a house, and I've almost completed all those processes. So I'm not really -- I don't understand. MR. ASHTON: Did he start out with a building permit? When he started this project, did he have a building permit? MR. AMBACH: He did in 2002. That permit expired -- MR. ASHTON: Right. MR. AMBACH: -- because, clearly, the inspections were never done. That permit's been reap'ed for twice since 2002. MR. GRIFFIN: The last time it was reap'ed was 2010, and the -- prior to that -- which hasn't come out -- is that there were some right -of -way issues out there, because there was some land acquisitions, and that's one of the reasons that I originally withdrew the building permit, because they were going to bring through Vanderbilt Beach extension, which there was three possibilities of that happening. So I really wasn't going to build the house at that time. So there's a lot of factors, really. And I don't know that we Page 70 January 23, 2014 need to take the time in this forum to go over that. But, regardless, I do have a building permit. I've had a building permit, I'm building the house, and we're almost done. That's where we're at. MR. HUDSON: When are your next inspections? MR. GRIFFIN: I'm guessing, I'm guessing -- I've ordered some -- I got some cabinets, but I don't like them -- for the vanities in my bathroom. So I've reordered some cabinets that are coming. I'm hoping probably in two weeks to get the final plumbing; I'm guessing in two weeks I'll be ready for final plumbing. Then I probably need about another 30 days for the site; somewhere in there. And right -of -way, I had Mark -- Mr. Berchum (phonetic) came out from right -of -way, and we had a meeting about -- I have to alter the site plan for that and another culvert, because I want to put another access into the house. That's it. But I already have all the material. It's just a matter of bringing it in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Typically this hearing today would be the time where we impose the fines, or you're coming to us sounding like you want an extension. You've been kind of going around it. But how much time are you looking for this time for everything? MR. GRIFFIN: I would probably say -- you gave me 120 days, and we were hanging drywall, and to bringing it to final was big, really. I could probably -- to be safe for everybody, probably 90 days, be done. But I still -- but I still -- and for the record, I still want to -- I still want to say this for the record, is the time your legal counsel put me in violation for not having a building permit, I did have a building permit. But that's not really, I don't think, going to be discussed in this forum, because if that would have been researched and correct, I wouldn't even Page 71 January 23, 2014 be here today. I'd be dealing only with the building department getting my inspections, as I have been doing -- and we wouldn't even be here today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know what the paperwork says that's in front of me. This one was signed by Ken Kelly, that you had no building permit. That was January 24, 2012. MR. GRIFFIN: I remember that. I was -- I remember that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A permit that expires is no permit. A permit that doesn't have a CO is still in violation if you haven't met the dates. So I don't really care about your cabinets or anything else. The only thing we're looking for is compliance. MR. GRIFFIN: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's why we granted the 120 days at the last hearing and, obviously, you thought at that last hearing -- the last time you were in front of us was July. Really hot outside. It's really cold outside now. It shows you that not only -- the seasons have changed. We're into another six months where we granted 120 days the last time, which ran out in November. Instead of applying for an extension, we're back here in January imposing the fines. So I don't know what stage you're in right now. The only thing I do know is it's not done and, according to the county, there are many, many inspections that have not been completed. So that's a problem. MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion to impose the fine as stated. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. I will say this: You get the problem resolved, and you have another recourse to go to the County Commission. If, I would say, everything is done, they may abate the fines. Page 72 January 23, 2014 But let me call the question. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: (Abstains.) MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. HUDSON: Nay. MR. MIESZCAK: I opposed. MR. HUDSON: Okay. It carries, 5 to -- 6 -1. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. HUDSON: Chairman, was that recorded as 6 -1 or 5 -2? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you vote? MR. HUDSON: I voted opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. 5 -2. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And, Mr. Chairman, just let the record show that I was recused for that vote. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Oh, then it's -- then it was a vote of -- instead of seven people, there were six people, so it was 4 -2 -1. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask a question. If someone recuses, could the other -- can an alternate then vote on the case? MS. RAWSON: On that particular one, sure. I don't know any reason why not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, he did vote. MR. HUDSON: But you still had another alternate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right, we still have another alternate. MS. RAWSON: For that particular one case, I think, sure, that would be permissible. Page 73 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So should we redo the vote? MR. MIESZCAK: It's all done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or it's all done? MS. RAWSON: Well, it's probably all done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RAWSON: But in the future, yeah, let her get her feet wet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Soto say. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. The next case is Case No. 6, Huntington Lakes, Case No. CEVR20120017538. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. JONES: Violations: Collier County Ordinance 91 -102, Section 3.5.7.2.5. Location: There's no specific site address. The Folio Number is 51070000128. Description: Required littoral plants are absent from lake. Past orders: On June 27, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR 4942, Page 3824, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 22, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $150 per day for the period between December 25, 2013, and January 22, 2014, which is 28 days, for the total of $4,350. Previously assessed operational costs of $80.86 have been paid. Page 74 January 23, 2014 Total amount to date is $4,350. Code Enforcement would like to request that the fines be abated for this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to abate. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the fines. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: MR. JONES: Thank you. Opposed? Carries unanimously. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is for Jason T. Brick, Case No. CESD20130000332. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Brick requests to speak to the board before we read this, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Brick. MR. BRICK: All right. I've been through quite -- this is my first house. I bought it. The back, there was a separate garage that had been converted prior to me buying the house that was said to be rentable. A year later I found out that it wasn't and started the Page 75 January 23, 2014 progress of changing that. I hired Hagan Engineering, Michelle Stephens, and she was taking care of it. And I thought it would be done quickly, and she ended up getting pregnant and having a baby, and my paperwork got pushed to the side. Needless to say that that last time I got called in, Renald had contacted Hagan Engineering asking why it was taking so long, so I was given an extension. I got all the paperwork signed and sealed, everything done. Went to turn it in, and I had mentioned to Renald that I was going to sell the house. And he's like, well, then you need a GC to turn in the paperwork. So I hired the Monarca Construction Group, general contractors, to turn in my paperwork. When they went to turn it in, they were told that I also needed more copies. So I had the three stamped and sealed copies. I now needed four copies and also a land survey. So it's been taking -- financially, it's been hard to do. I now have a land surveyor who actually came out yesterday and is finishing today, Bill McCready, and I should have all the paperwork done. I know you've already given me an extension, but I think in, like, 60 days everything could be done and CO'ed, I believe, because everything's done at the property. It's just getting the land survey before I can turn in the rest of the paperwork. MR. SNOW: Keep in mind, gentlemen, this home is vacant. It's a garage conversion. It's a permit by affidavit, and he's very close to getting done what he needs to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the county recommends? MR. SNOW: The county supports whatever the board wants to do, but he's very close. MR. HUDSON: I'll make a motion for an extension of time of 60 days, Mr. Chairman. Page 76 January 23, 2014 MR. ASHTON: I'll second it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll agree to that motion, but the property cannot be sold between now and when -- MR. BRICK: Before. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the property is brought into compliance. MR. BRICK: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, if that would be -- MR. HUDSON: I'll amend my motion to include that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the second has amended as well. Okay. So you have 60 days to get everything all said and done. Hopefully we won't see you back. MR. BRICK: I hope so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: We need a vote. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is for Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No. CEPM20130007368. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the Page 77 January 23, 2014 affirmative.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. LAVINSKI: Is this the Lisa Brown case? MR. MIESZCAK: It's part of a -- MS. TOOLEY: Yes, it is. It's No. 8. It changed ownership very recently. MR. LAVINSKI: Who's the respondent here, the bank or Lisa? MS. TOOLEY: It is the bank. MR. SNOW: The bank. MR. LEFEBVRE: The bank took possession between when we heard the case originally and now. MR. SNOW: That is correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we try to withdraw this and see if you can get in touch with the bank? MR. SNOW: We can. That may be a good idea. I believe the case notes indicate that we have been doing that all the time. I was reading the case notes earlier this morning. They haven't indicated that they're willing, at this point, to do anything, but we can -- we can extend it for another 30 days and see if we can gain compliance. We can do that. It's vacant. MR. LEFEBVRE: That might be the best way of -- MR. SNOW: Okay. We can withdraw then. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before imposing it and having the bank MR. SNOW: Give them an opportunity. We can do that, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: When did they take possession? MR. SNOW: I have at the beginning -- or late last year. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So, I mean, we're less -- roughly a month into them taking possession. Page 78 January 23, 2014 MR. SNOW: A little bit more, but you know how that goes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a case where they didn't do a -- Lisa Brown, did she know that this was in violation when she purchased the property; do you know? MR. SNOW: Case notes did not indicate that, and I know that it was a vacant home, and that was the main issue with this board's concern. There were sliding doors that were broken. It wasn't being maintained, and we were trying to -- again, we can work with the bank to try to get -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. That's probably hard to mistake when you're purchasing property. MR. SNOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's why we always request that a code enforcement inspection be done prior to someone purchasing a property. MR. SNOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cases like this. MR. SNOW: But we'll bring it back for you. We'll see you next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SNOW: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the case is withdrawn? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just so it's on the record. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is Case No. 9, for Cindy Yablonoswki, Case No. CEVR20130009048. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CROWLEY: For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54 -185, Section D, and Page 79 January 23, 2014 Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.08, A(6). Location: 6508 Trail Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34108; Folio No. 67183280007. Description: The accumulation of prohibited exotic vegetation upon unimproved property, which exotics exist within a 200 -foot radius of unimproved property. The exotics include, but are not limited to, Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, and air potato. Past orders: On September 26, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4973, Page 2009, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 23, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between December 26, 2013, and January 23, 2014, 29 days, for a total of $2,900. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. Operational costs for the imposition of fines hearing of 63 dollars and -- correction -- $63.03. Total amount to date: $3,043.89. Just for the edification of the board, this one was one where a representative from the bank actually appeared at that hearing, indicated that they thought they would be able to bring the property into compliance. They have not. The foreclosure case remains still in lis pendens. There's been no order. There's been no transfer of ownership; however, January 23, 2014 it does not appear as if the bank is willing or able to do anything at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's still owned by Cindy Yablonowski? MS. CROWLEY: Mrs. Yablonowski, that is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The bank probably can't do it until the -- MS. CROWLEY: I have never spoken to her. I've spoken to her husband, who previously was a co -owner of the property, and he indicated to me in our phone conversations that because of the foreclosure they didn't have the -- either the finances or the interest in bringing it into compliance. And I will note that the county just recently abated the weeds violation, so a county contractor did that. But this leaves this code case with the exotics. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that additional cost has not been -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Different case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Different case? MS. CROWLEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to impose and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Mm January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is Christopher S. Esenberg, Case No. CESD20130001292. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike for the record. MR. ESENBERG: Christopher Esenberg. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Eric. MR. SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe Mr. Esenberg would like to request an extension of time, if you'd like to hear him first. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ESENBERG: I went to the building department and got all the -- everything that they needed, but then they required that I get an engineer, have the property engineered. So then I hired an engineer, but he's -- I hired him about four months ago, and they're finally getting to it right now. And he said he needs about another 30 days, and then I'll get my permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're quite a ways away from being completed on this, if you -- MR. ESENBERG: Yeah, but I -- maybe about six months would be good, I think. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be a permit by affidavit? MR. ESENBERG: Yes. Page 82 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was a stipulation that was entered into in June for six months. So what happened in June? July? MR. ESENBERG: I went to the building department, and they said now you have to have the property engineered, and it has to be a permit by affidavit. So then I hired the engineer, I had an architect, you know, and then it's just -- it's taken forever, so -- but now they said that -- that engineer was here earlier with me today, and then he had some other appointments, but he said, give me another 30 days, and he'll be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then after that's done -- MR. ESENBERG: Then to do the work. I mean, it's not too much work that has to be done on the house, so -- and -- but I figured maybe about six months would be good, safe. MR. SHORT: Mr. Chair, if I may, Mr. Rick Adelli (phonetic), I believe his name was -- MR. ESENBERG: Yes. MR. SHORT: -- his engineer was here earlier and did admit to me that Mr. Esenberg had retained him four months prior to today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd make a motion we grant 120 days. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to grant the 120 days. Before we vote on it, I just want to explain -- well, let's vote on it. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 83 January 23, 2014 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. A hundred and 20 days. If you see, before 120 days expires, that you're not going to make the time, come back before the board and let us know the progress that has been made between now and then. And then if progress has been made, the board will probably favorably look at granting another extension. But rather than just putting six months and then waiting another six months, it seems to be not in the cards right now. So -- MR. ESENBERG: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you have 120 days from today. MR. ESENBERG: All right. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Hopefully you can impress upon your architect/engineer and so forth that -- MR. ESENBERG: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- not to sit there for four months and not have anything done. MR. ESENBERG: Yeah. It's hard just having the house sitting there, you know, and not being able to do anything with it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Again -- Mr. Kaufman's mentioned this many times -- I do not like to keep on extending, extending, extending. MR. ESENBERG: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, again, I probably won't look favorably upon an extension past this 120 days. MR. ESENBERG: Okay. MR. SHORT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Eric. �,i- l-H January 23, 2014 Next case? MS. TOOLEY: The next case is for BQ Concrete, LLC, Case No. CELU200100021891. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, again. MS. CRAWLEY: Good morning. If you'd like, I believe they're going to request an extension of time. MR. QUARRELS: Yes. Good morning. I'm Buddy Quarrels, and this case was going on for a couple years. I've been going through a divorce. And I finally got a divorce last month. It's been a big battle, and I've been asking for extension and extension because I really couldn't do anything. Everything was frozen. So I just got a divorce last month, and I've been talking to a building official, you know, to build a piece of property -- something on my property, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this one goes -- this goes back to March of 2011. MR. QUARRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's three years ago. MR. QUARRELS: Yep, three years ago. That's how long I've been going through a divorce. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says an accessory was on the property without a principal structure. So what was on the property? MR. QUARRELS: I have a warehouse there now. When I first bought the property -- they didn't say anything about it at all when I bought the property. I had to build it all on it. That's why I bought it. And about probably -- I don't know exactly when. After I bought it, I got a notice on my fence that I had to build something Page 85 January 23, 2014 on it. And at the time I was going through the divorce. So everything was kind of -- I couldn't do anything at all. So now that my divorce is free, I can go ahead and do some things. MR. SUMMERS: All our assets were frozen, all our bank accounts. MR. QUARRELS: This is Bill, my manager. MR. SUMMERS: I'm the chief financial officer for BQ Concrete. We had to just go through the courts just to pay payroll. MR. QUARRELS: It's been a battle. MR. SUMMERS: To buy a piece of wood -- we had to go through the courts to do anything. But anything outside the realm of work we weren't -- we could not touch any funds for anything. They wouldn't allow us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So now we're at a point where MR. SUMMERS: The divorce is final. We have access -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. You're going to build a principal structure on the property to come into compliance or -- MR. SUMMERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- or you're going to remove the accessory? MR. SUMMERS: We're going to build a principal. MR. QUARRELS: Yeah, I don't want to move it. It's 4,000 square feet. It's big, because all my stuff is in there -- you know, all my stuff from my house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we're starting at square one to build a principal property that will probably take how long? A year? MR. SUMMERS: Probably a year. Mm January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that extends this from 2011 to 2015. MR. SUMMERS: Six months will be fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you going to be owner /builder? MR. QUARRELS: Yeah, I'm a GC, too, so we can do it pretty fast. I couldn't do it at the time. I was -- I mean, I couldn't. I couldn't do anything at all. I mean, I was going through a divorce for three years, and it was tough. It wasn't easy. MR. LEFEBVRE: Where are you in the stage of building this house? Do you have plans already? What do you -- MR. QUARRELS: Yeah, we have plans. I've been talking to the building official. I talked to Mike over there. He's going to help me through it. And she knows a little bit about that, too. So I've been talking to code enforcement. MR. SUMMERS: The structure's already there. We're actually going to convert part of this building into a dwelling. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. QUARRELS: That's quicker. MR. SUMMERS: Yeah, which makes it much quicker for US. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any comment, Colleen? MS. CRAWLEY: For the record, Colleen Crawley, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county has no objection. The only -- like you said, it did start March 24, 2011. A shorter time frame, if you grant an extension, and possibly if you -- the board chooses updates so you know the progress of what the status of the permit while it's in -- before it gets its certificate of completion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. We've done this in the past when we do an extension, and I don't know whether we are or not yet. But we requested -- for instance, when the building Page 87 January 23, 2014 permits are pulled, what inspections go on, for code enforcement to take a look at that so we know something is on, especially given the length of this case. MR. HUDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. HUDSON: Can I motion for a six -month extension, to pay the operational costs for the imposition of fines hearing today and, you know, a monthly update? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. MS. CRAWLEY: Chair, I'm sorry. To -- the operational costs for the imposition of fines hearing I don't believe would qualify if he's requesting an extension. MR. HUDSON: Excellent. MR. MIESZCAK: If there was one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You mean the 64.78? MS. CRAWLEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This hearing today. MS. CRAWLEY: Correct. But if he is granted an extension, then that amount would not apply. That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I kind of disagree with that. Jeff, what's your thought on that? MR. WRIGHT: Well, like I said before, the cost has been incurred for today's hearing by the taxpayers, generally, so we think it's appropriate for that to be incurred by the violator. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. MR. WRIGHT: For today's hearing. Now, if they bring it into compliance for the next compliance date, then we wouldn't charge them for that subsequent hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. _- .. January 23, 2014 MR. QUARRELS: That's fine. MR. HUDSON: Then I stand with my original motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, 6 -1. So you have to pay an additional within 30 days; I'm assuming, Chris, $64.78? MR. HUDSON: That's correct, Chairman. MR. SUMMERS: Where do we pay that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just give me a check. I'll put it in my pocket. No. MR. MIESZCAK: Don't say that. MR. QUARRELS: Well, thank you so much, guys. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Check with Colleen. She'll tell you where to bring the check, et cetera. MR. QUARRELS: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is Martha Mendez -Cruz, Case No. CESD20110014160. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BOSA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. O- • January 23, 2014 MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. The respondent would like to speak first in regards to this case. MS. MENDEZ -CRUZ: Yes. I've been before you three times. You have given me an extension through November to finish my mother's home because of the cost of the right -of -way. I had to install two culverts, so it was about 7,000 -- 6,000- something dollars. Before my extension of time was over, I did do the culverts, but when I went to ask for the inspection, something happened in the permit that -- the inspection before that had been site drainage, and it didn't extend my permit for some reason. I was out of the country in December. I tried to resolve it over the phone; I couldn't. As soon as I got back on, I think, January 3rd or 4th, I went to the county. The gentleman there told me that it was a mistake, that they were going to extend it so that I could ask for my right -of -way permit and, subsequently, I would be finished, and I could get my CO. He forgot to do it. On January 7th, I think it is, I called back. He remembered me. He fixed it. The next day we got our right -of -way permit. But I am still -- I need to pass a final inspection; although, two- and -a -half years ago we did get a final, but they could not sign off on it until all the inspections on the permit were complete, including the right -of -way. Well, when the right -of -way permit was signed off on the 8th or the 9th -- I can't remember exactly -- somehow that didn't get extended either. So I really didn't know about the hearing today. So I had to come back into town. I'm going to the county now. I've already talked to the final inspector. He's going to do the inspection Monday or Tuesday, but I need to go back there and get it extended again because it didn't go through. But I'm Page 90 January 23, 2014 done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you think 30 days would be enough time to get everything resolved? MS. MENDEZ -CRUZ: I'm going to do it before then because I'm leaving the country on the seventh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. County? MR. BOSI: Just to give you a quick history here. Before her building permit would be CO'ed, she had to get the right -of -way permit, certificate of completion, which she did a few weeks ago. Most of the inspections have passed for the building permit, and I think she just owes a lot of fees -- like, the final and some fees and stuff like that. She's, like, near. She sees the light there. It's almost done. The only thing I see here is the operational costs -- she says she paid the operational costs. I think the check was returned back from the bank. So she said she would take care of that today. She didn't know about that. MS. MENDEZ -CRUZ: I'd like to clarify something. Someone else paid the operational fee for me, because I was out of the country. I was coming back -- because this home is for my mother. And apparently the check went back to them, and I never knew anything. I've already been here three times, and no one ever said that. They just find that out. But I'm going right now, as soon as I leave here, and I'll take care of any fees that are incurred on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My way of thinking, the fees should probably be the $80.86. That was in the past, for your returned check, and $65.48 for today. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. MS. MENDEZ -CRUZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gerald? Page 91 January 23, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: I was going to say, for this close, and if it was the county's mistake, should we withdraw this case until next month? MR. BOSI: We could withdraw it. I mean, she is pretty close to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But she wouldn't be incurred (sic) the $65.48, correct? MR. BOSA: I don't believe the county has any objection with withdrawing it until next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask Jeff. MR. WRIGHT: Withdraw it. And if she comes back and it's not in compliance, we'll seek to get that $64 -- MR. LEFEBVRE: That way she won't incur that cost, she can pay the $80.86 -- she can pay that cost today. And, you know, it sounds like there was a little bit of a mix up with the county, and we shouldn't really penalize her for that. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the county is withdrawing the case. Hopefully it will all be done. You'll pay the $80.86 today, and we won't see you back again. MS. MENDEZ -CRUZ: Okay. I will not be in the country within 30 days, so hopefully I'll be able to get it taken care of today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, doubly, we won't be able to see you. MS. MENDEZ -CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: But we just saved you the $65 -. MS. MENDEZ -CRUZ: Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I do want to thank you all for being so patient. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have a great day. Page 92 January 23, 2014 MS. MENDEZ -CRUZ: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Did we vote on that? MR. UESPERANCE: No, they withdrew it. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is for Everglades Ranch, LLC, Case No. CESD20130005543. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DAVIS: For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe Mr. Ortega is here to ask for an extension. MR. ORTEGA: I am. Good morning, members of the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. ORTEGA: Familiar faces, new faces. I'm kind of nervous. I haven't been here in a while. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We were thinking about having everybody recuse themselves, but then you wouldn't have anybody to vote. MR. ORTEGA: I'm here on behalf of Lynn Switzer, who could not make it because, obviously, her father passed away. And I do have a power of attorney. What we're requesting is an extension of time. There's multiple violations on this property, of which the largest one, which occurred this week, was abated. This was where she had multiple tenants in a structure. And, obviously, that was taken care of this week, and we do have the CO for that. There's another violation which is an attachment to the existing building where she's at. This property is kind of unique. There's actually two single - family residences on this property. The property that -- the portion that we're talking about right now is an addition that was added to the existing structure where she lives. Page 93 January 23, 2014 A week ago yesterday I met with her on site. She was trying to preserve it. When I informed her of what has to happen in order for her to bring it into compliance, she basically stated she couldn't afford it. She just paid almost $15,000 between the county and myself to abate this first violation. So she has a good intention, obviously, to abate the violations at the property. She wanted 30 days, an extension for this property -- excuse me, 90 days. I recommend 120, and if she needs more time, we can always come back before the board. And the problem that we have here is not that she can't do it, physically. It is that, because the property's under an LLC, she cannot do it. So it has to be done by a contractor. So now in order to do the demolition, she has to hire a contractor in order to get it done. And, obviously, she's somewhat defunded at the moment. So our request, again, is for 120 days in order to abate the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you handling this for her? MR. ORTEGA: I am. I was handling the design, the permitting, all those aspects. With regards to the code enforcement aspect, we became involved as of yesterday when we found out that her dad passed away and she couldn't make it, but we will be handling the case, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From the county? MR. DAVIS: There are multiple violations, a lot more than we had brought to hearing. And from the very beginning the owner has done everything possible to get rid of all the violations. She's worked with us along the way. She's kept me in the loop. Page 94 January 23, 2014 Like Mr. Ortego said, the biggest part of this particular case, they have a CO for it. And she's done really well as far as that's concerned. And she's been very good for the people that she has out there working for her. So the county has no objection whatsoever as far as granting that extension if the board agrees to it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to grant 150 days. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to grant the 150 days. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. The operational costs, the addition -- MR. LEFEBVRE: To be paid within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's -- $63.38 will be paid within 30 days. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is also for Everglades Ranch, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He had to make another entrance. MR. DAVIS: He can stay, but I don't think it would be Page 95 January 23, 2014 necessary. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DAVID: For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Location: 2740 Newman Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114; Folio Number 413000008. Description: Multiple units have been rented to tenants. The past orders: On July 25, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4953, Page 2492, for more information. And, actually, as of this morning, we became aware that this particular violation has been abated. I verified it with the owner. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between November 23, 2013, and January 23, 2014, 62 days, for the total of $15,500. Previously assessed operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. Operational costs for the imposition -of -fines hearings of $63.38, for a total amount to date of $15,563.38. The county requests that the fines be waived due to the abatement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The $63.38 will be dropped since it was abated prior to this hearing. We've got this down, Jeff. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Chairman; by a hair, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. Page 96 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to abate the fine. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is for Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Radenkovich, and Aleksandar H. Radenkovich, Case No. CESD20120013716. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. McGONAGLE: For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. The respondent would like to address the board to request an extension of time. MS. VUKOVIC: We applied for planning -- for actually rezoning of this property, because when it was purchased, it was purchased as a duplex. And they still need -- we are in communication with them. They sent us the email and correspondence, but that variance takes a long time. And we paid the $5,000 obligation fee. We're just waiting for them to grant this variance. And that's basically Page 97 January 23, 2014 where we're standing. MS. McGONAGLE: I would also like to note that they have been very cooperative. They've done everything that they can. They're just held up with a variance at this point. They can't do anything until the variance is approved. There was an insufficiency letter sent to them. The corrections were resubmitted within a matter of a couple of weeks. So they've done everything that they can do on their end. At this point it's just in that variance process. She also did give me a check this morning for the hearing costs for today, so all hearing costs are up to date, so she's just requesting an extension to allow for that variance to go through. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The zoning on this is what, the original zoning? RSF 1 ? MS. McGONAGLE: I believe it's RSF6. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: RSF6. So that would include a duplex. MS. VUKOVIC: Duplex. MS. McGONAGLE: There was some sort of issue -- I just inherited this case at the beginning of November, so I haven't really checked as far as exactly what the variance was for. But it's my understanding it's something to do with the lot size, so -- because of the duplex and the square footage of the lot, but they do need to finish the variance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know whether this is an administrative variance or a -- MS. McGONAGLE: It's not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. McGONAGLE: It's waiting for legal review right now. It had gone for legal review; it was rejected. The corrections were resubmitted, and now it's back with legal review. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are they giving you any January 23, 2014 indication when they are going to be finished with their paperwork, if you will? MS. VUKOVIC: They sent an email and, basically, they said they're working on it. And I think they're diligent about it. They actually have an expediting board, I believe, they have at the code enforcement to -- and, again, you know, it's up to them rather than up to me. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion we extend 120 days. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to extend the 120 days. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. One hundred twenty days. MS. VUKOVIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If for some reason it doesn't get done in that time frame, come back before the end of the 120 days. MS. VUKOVIC: We appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is for Reg8, Berkshire Commons, LLC, Case No. CESD20130000440. Page 99 January 23, 2014 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is Case No. CESD20130000440. Violation was of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location was 7055 Radio Road, Naples, 34104; Folio Number was 239 -- or is 23945007103. Description of the violation is an unpermitted wall constructed at this location. Past orders: On May 23, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4931, Page 1694, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 25, 2013. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $150 per day for the period between August 22, 2013, and November 25, 2013, 96 days, for a total of $14,400. Previously assessed operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. Total amount to date is $14,400. And the county is recommending abatement of fines due to compliance. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. MR. HUDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? Page 100 January 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. The last case is going to be the emergency case, and the respondent has signed a stipulation for that. That was for Charles D. Brown, Case CEPM20140001070. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to put the stip on the -- (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be easier if the respondent -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to sit down? MR. LEFEBVRE: -- maybe sat down here? And we have a mike -- do we have a mike, a wireless mike? There's another mike hanging on the wall. See if that works. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That way you're both on the same side. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. SANTAFEMIA: John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance and Housing Inspector. Page 101 January 23, 2014 I met with Mr. Brown, and he has agreed to the terms of the stipulated agreement, which state that -- the agreement between the parties, the respondent shall pay the 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 restoring electricity and water to the dwelling within 24 hours of the scheduled hearing today, or a fine of $500 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. 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 methods to provide the violation - 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: What is the time frame on that? I can't -- my eyes. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Twenty -four hours. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Twenty -four hours, okay. Okay. Mr. Brown, you agree to the stipulation? Do you think 24 hours is stuff time to get this done? MR. BROWN: I'm fixing to sell the piece of property today or -- it should be -- the thing should go through today, and I'll get the money for it, and I'll get the stuff turned back on again. I'm hoping it's enough time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess, would you agree to an inspection -- set up the inspection today for tomorrow? Because it says the respondent has 24 hours to notify. That would be Page 102 January 23, 2014 now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, close of business tomorrow at the latest. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because, otherwise, if he calls you tomorrow and you go the following day -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which is Saturday. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- he's really one day not in compliance. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yeah, this is an Immokalee property, so I can have one of the investigators in Immokalee that has -- Mondo, is that his name? MR. BROWN: Yeah. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yeah. He's got a friend that's helping him out with this that's been in touch with Ed Morad out in Immokalee, who's actually -- he's here tomorrow, so I'll ask Cristina Perez -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm just saying that if you don't go out tomorrow, the next day will be Monday, which now -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: Well, actually, I'm working Saturday, so I was planning on checking it Saturday, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Would be Saturday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So by 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon an inspector will stop by, and hopefully everything will be turned on and we're done. Okay. All those in favor of the stipulation as written? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 103 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess that brings us to reports, or -- we're done with all the cases now; is that correct? MS. TOOLEY: All the cases are done, yes, sir. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WRIGHT: This morning we emailed you a PDF with our report in it. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions in that report. And if you'll allow, I have a couple numbers I just want to hit on from that report. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. As you know, we capture a five -year number -- it's a little over five years now that we've been tracking this number -- and it is the total abatement costs that have been paid by lenders. And, obviously, there's some lenders that are paying abatement costs that don't cross our desks. We don't capture every single abatement by a lender, but these are the ones that we have been involved in. And total abatement costs paid by lenders in the last five years and a couple of months is $3.3 million. During that same period of time, over 3,000 code violations were abated by lenders. During the past, just shy of five years, from July 2009 to today, over $14 million in fines have been waived by the County Commissioners and this board and the special magistrate combined. Now, for Fiscal Year ' 14, so far we've captured $42,000 in Page 104 January 23, 2014 abatement costs paid by lenders. The number of cases -- code cases that we have opened is 2,792 so far in the fiscal year. That started on October 1 st of last year. Number of educational patrols during this fiscal year is 2,590. Number of code -case inspections, 7,516. And between the -- we're really trying to hit the community events hard. We're getting involved in HOAs. We're trying to have a presence there and tell the HOAs out there that if they would like a representative of our department to come and give them the rundown on how code works, we're available to do that kind of thing. So -- and our numbers are showing -- reflect that, that we're hitting it hard. So far we've had, between meet and greets and cleanup events and vacant -home sweeps combined, about 77 different events, and that's in this fiscal year as well. Property lien searches continue to be pretty robust; 2,358 during the fiscal year so far, and in the one week reporting period between the 13th of this month and the 19th of this month, we've had 152 property lien - search requests. Also payoff requests, 174 so far in the fiscal year. And when people do those lien searches -- again, we've had 2,300 of them in the fiscal year -- 223 of those resulted in open code cases. So around 10 percent of those yield something code related. Number of permits issued, garage sale and RV permits so far in the fiscal year, 689. And collectively among code enforcement, DAS, public utilities, and the Sheriffs Office and parks, we have processed -- the department has processed 1,594 citations. So that's a little snapshot of some data. And like I said, if Page 105 January 23, 2014 you have any questions when you get that report, or now, I'm happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. One of the last things I'd like to mention today is I'd like to thank Chris -- MR. HUDSON: Could I actually ask a question real quick MR. ASHTON: Chris has got a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. HUDSON: -- about the report? It's actually interesting. Can you explain why the elected official portion under "complaint reported by" is only indicated by elected official and not broken down to whether or not it's county, municipal, or state? MR. WRIGHT: Well, the anonymous complaints policy, they specify that if you'd like to make an anonymous complaint, and it's one of those code can't take -- generally, we can't take any unless it's a health/safety concern -- we direct them through their commissioner. So we should say -- MR. HUDSON: Commission. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, exactly. That would be more accurate. MR. HUDSON: That's actually what I was looking for. I wanted to -- so it's the County Commission? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. MR. HUDSON: That's all. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because it's a county ordinance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. They voted on that. That was changed about a year ago. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I want to thank Chris. This is his last meeting. He's going on to bigger events; is that correct? Page 106 January 23, 2014 MR. HUDSON: Going to go get to work. Got to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, that's great. And Chris has been great. He's been here for almost every single meeting we've had, and we appreciate his service. So thank you, Chris. MR. HUDSON: If you'll indulge me, I just -- I really -- first of all, I want to thank the board members for, A. sort of helping me hit the ground and run, you know. I think Gerald's had to beat it into me a couple times, and I know Chairman Kaufman has, and Mr. Kelly before that. So I just appreciate everybody on this board and your commitment. I definitely want to thank the professional staff. You guys are rock stars, and the code enforcement investigators do an outstanding job, and it's not an easy job. And I just want to leave you with this. You know, one of the biggest take -aways from this process and the ability to sit up here -- which I thank the County Commission for, but -- is that the community's very different all across the board, and everybody has different needs and different circumstances. And I just hope that -- as we get new members and you guys go forward, that you continue to remember that and evaluate the cases in the true and honest way you do every time, and I just want to thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Chris. MR. ASHTON: Thanks, Chris. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I think that's about it, so I think we need a motion from -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on. MR. LAVINSKI: One question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, a motion to adjourn, I think, should come from Chris. Page 107 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. You had something? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I have a question probably for Jeff. This board seems to pass out extensions on fines, and as my learned colleague, Mr. Lefebvre, said this morning, well, that's the county's fault, so we should abate or extend the time. Is there -- and we only hear that from the respondent. Is there any way that those cases can be handled differently so that we don't take that hearsay as -- I can't imagine that many errors are made up where you live on Horseshoe Drive. MR. WRIGHT: Sure, sure. And a lot of times when somebody comes up with something, we can't immediately refute it one way or the other. So my view on that would be if you're uncomfortable whether or not it's certain, the statement that they're making is certain, then it could be continued to round up that information so there is certainty and you can make a decision based on not vague but certainty. MR. LAVINSKI: We had four or five this morning. And like I say, Mr. Lefebvre says, okay, it was the county's fault. Who knows that's the county's fault? Let's see whether it is or not. And I doubt very highly that the county's making that many errors in the processing of the permits. That's an easy escape. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. And, you know, perception; I don't walk in their shoes, so I'm not really sure what they're dealing with. What they may see as a county error might just be a misunderstanding. So every one of these probably has their own story that, if you're not comfortable voting based on it, then you could probably, I think -- and Ms. Rawson, I would check with her, but you could probably continue it and say, staff, verify that, and we would come back with that verification. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One last thing I'd like to Page 108 January 23, 2014 mention before we adjourn. I notice -- and it's been getting more and more prevalent, is the imposition of fines used to be you had an imposition of fines, we voted to abate it or not to abate it, to impose it or whatever, and that was it. Now we see, I would say, a majority of the imposition of fines where somebody is asking for an extension, which actually violates our rules, because the extensions are to be submitted -- what is it, three days prior, I believe -- three days prior to the meeting. And I don't know any way of policing that or maybe trying to reduce that so that when we listen to it, it doesn't hit us cold. When you ask for an extension of time, we have the reason that's documented in a letter or whatnot in the package that we receive, but that seems to have been changed not by us but by the actions of the respondents. MR. WRIGHT: Yeah. I -- you know, the extension -of -time requests -- a lot of times our threshold will be if it's on your agenda and in your packet, we want you to decide whether or not to grant that extension. If it hasn't yet made it to print, then we can work with them and put it on the next meeting, for example, but we don't want you -all preparing for the meeting, studying that item like you do and then have us just show up and say, yeah, that's not going forward. So if it's on your agenda, it's been printed, and it's part of it and they're submitting the request past the deadline, we defer to you, and so that may be why you're seeing some of these requests that -- you know, if we got a different direction, we could probably handle those differently. We're happy to continue those if we have the appropriate direction. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It just -- it bothers me a little bit that it's violating our rules. MR. WRIGHT: The deadline to submit such a request? Page 109 January 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: It's true. It's not complying with your rules. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Chris, you're on? MR. HUDSON: Motion to adjourn. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn -- second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:56 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD BERT /"UFMAN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on a c��4., as presented or as corrected Page 110 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE AME NAM OF B RD,C N COMMISSI N, UTHO TY,OR COMMITT E L z RAv c�( �tCY t G-e e �d cr MAILINCI,ADIRE5S THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON '9 /Inw h an `I br WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY (, -,w^� / v"•'`y 4J CO ❑CITY �CbUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON 1l IC11H))V�TEOCCURRED �, n/` Z3 . ) 4 MY POSITION IS: '7 /7 ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST r 1.414a,,o_ /. I, e/ , hereby disclose that on vr ,20 , : (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) Qinured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, ; inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ; inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of he/(�j t) libtllitP -mil k / ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: CC s..0 2 of V o& 0 2 F S S R O(v ,/ AA , Cr F />'Y Z.--.21 ---1 q me , ,C.:4-- Date Filed • - 1e NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OF ICERS LAST N E FIRST NAME—MIpD�.E NAME p NAME OF B`OW),I IL,C I�GN U H MMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY j� r I,�,s art 1 G NAME OF POLITICAL(�UU8D�IVI�SION: ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY DATE ON WHI VOTE OCCU R D ` ` C ll91*(.•14-it / MY POSITION IS: (/ ❑ ELECTIVE 21APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained(including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST e> I, C. "l' '-) ( r ' hereby disclose that on h'" / 20 (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: C ( ` k eV 3 72...)/( (.. / Date Filed S•• NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2