Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/27/2014 Code Enforcement Board Minutes February 27 , 2014 February 27, 2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida February 27, 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 Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre Robert Ashton James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Larry Mieszcak Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Alternate) Tony Marino (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney to the CEB Board Jeffrey Wright, Code Enforcement Director Teresa Tooley, Administrative Assistant Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 27,2014 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 Lionel L' Esperance Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair Tony Marino James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 23,2014 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20120006666 OWNER: REAL EST HOLDINGS OF TIENDA MEXICANA INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A SCREEN ENCLOSURE WITH A SINK, OPEN FREEZERS WITH ELECTRIC AND UPRIGHT DOOR REFRIGERATION COOLERS WITH ELECTRIC AND A COUNTER SPACE ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE ALL INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.ALSO(4)EXPIRED PERMITS 2011020704,2011020699, 2004110460,920013727. FOLIO NO: 00131360004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 217 N 15TH ST, IMMOKALEE,FL 34142 2. CASE NO: CESD20120000189 OWNER: JORGE G.RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).GARAGE AND CBS GUEST HOUSE WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT(S). FOLIO NO: 40579120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1165 EVERGLADES BLVD N,NAPLES,FL 34120 3. CASE NO: CESD20120017503 OWNER: SARAH WEEKS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I). SHED/CARPORT STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41343480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2830 26TH AVE SE,NAPLES,FL 34117 4. CASE NO: CESD20130000293 OWNER: KELLY S.JONES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).4 SHEDS AND A CARPORT THAT ARE UNPERMITTED ON THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 39331800005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 420 22ND ST NE,NAPLES, FL 34120 2 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CESD20130005831 OWNER: GUERRERO,EVA A OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A SMALL TYPE POLE BARN WITH A METAL ROOF WITH NO ELECTRIC ALSO AN ADDITION ATTACHED TO THE MOBILE HOME WITH ELECTRIC ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT. FOLIO NO: 30730960008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1301 PEACH ST,IMMOKALEE,FL 34142 2. CASE NO: CEVR20130008873 OWNER: PETRUZZI,WILLIAM ANTHONY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(d).PROHIBITED COLLIER COUNTY EXOTIC VEGETATION ON THIS UNIMPROVED LOT INCLUDING AUSTRALIAN PINE AND BRAZILIAN PEPPER. FOLIO NO: 61840400003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5025 BAYSHORE DR,NAPLES,FL 34112 3. CASE NO: CESD20120002670 OWNER: AGUILLON,ALFONSO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). TWO ADDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE FIRST ADDITION IS A THREE FIXTURE BATHROOM/UTILITY ROOM WITH INTERIOR ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING UPGRADES. THE SECOND ADDITION IS A STORAGE ROOM TYPE STRUCTURE WITH NO ELECTRIC.ALSO IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS A DETACHED GARAGE/STORAGE TYPE STRUCTURE ALL WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FOLIO NO: 30733360003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1319 APPLE ST, IMMOKALEE,FL 34142 3 4. CASE NO: CESD20130010194 OWNER: PNC BANK,N.A.,SUCCESSOR BY MERGER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 22-108.AREA IN REAR OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH GREATER THAN 3 FEET BELOW THE EXISTING GRADE AND CLEARED OF VEGETATION,FORMING A POND, WITHOUT A REQUIRED EXCAVATION PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 39951760004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3245 37th AVE NE,NAPLES,FL 34120 5. CASE NO: CELU20130014576 OWNER: 925 CYPRESS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03,PROHIBITED USES,&THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS& ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 126, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 126-111(B)(TAXATION).NO COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT FOR MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL USE OF PROPERTY. ALSO ALLOWING TRANSIENT LODGING(LESS THAN SIX MONTHS)ON THIS RMF-6 PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 48170680008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2829 SHOREVIEW DR,NAPLES,FL 34112 6. CASE NO: CELU20120015005 OWNER: BENARROCH,ALBERT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A). COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE BUSINESS BEING CONDUCTED WITHOUT A VALID BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AND ANY OTHER REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY AUTHORIZATION. FOLIO NO: 750680709 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2390 JAMES RD,NAPLES,FL 34114 7. CASE NO: CEROW20130001764 OWNER: DOUGLAS L.ALDRIDGE SR. &CAROLYN J.ALDRIDGE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY, DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A).TWO DRIVEWAYS ENTERING THE PROPERTY WITH DAMAGED/COLLAPSED DRAINAGE CULVERT PIPES. FOLIO NO: 95160007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 725 SANCTUARY RD,NAPLES,FL 34120 4 8. CASE NO: CESD20130008592 OWNER: RAMOS,BENITO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS:COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). REPAIRS TO THE ROOF, STUCCO APPLICATION TO THE WOOD STRUCTURE,AND AN EXPIRED PERMIT TO ENCLOSE THE LOWER PART OF THE STILT HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 39654080007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1750 47th AVE NE,NAPLES,FL 34120 9. CASE NO: CESD20130011211 OWNER: RAFAEL BARRIOS,TOMAS B.AVILA REYES,&RICARDO ABRIL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A),THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1.A SHED,FENCE,AND TWO ALUMINUM STRUCTURES BUILT IN THE REAR YARD WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37347080002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1281 25th ST SW,NAPLES,FL 34117 10. CASE NO: CEPM20130003067 OWNER: KENNETH ALAN BLAKE&DOROTHY R. BLAKE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS:COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING STANDARDS. COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(C).MISSING ROOF SHINGLES FRONT AND REAR OF HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 45847720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1391 11TH ST SW,NAPLES,FL 34117 11. CASE NO: CESD20130003068 OWNER: KENNETH ALAN BLAKE&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 COLIIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 45847720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1391 11TH ST SW,NAPLES,FL 34117 5 12. CASE NO: CESD20120018551 OWNER: KIRKWOOD HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).BATHROOM WITH TOILET, SINK,AND ELECTRIC INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 61580920005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2190 KIRKWOOD AVE,UNIT:2,NAPLES,FL 34112 13. CASE NO: CELU20130015799 OWNER: SANDRA SAGE&CARLA SAGE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03 AND SEC. 1.04.01(A). CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CH. 130,ARTICLES III, SEC. 130-96(A).THE STORAGE OF SEVERAL RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS ON THIS PROPERTY NOT IDENTIFIED AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IS ALSO BEING USED FOR LIVING PURPOSES. FOLIO NO: 209160709 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3123 RAVENNA AVE,NAPLES,FL 34120 14. CASE NO: CESD20130012048 OWNER: JOSE S.& MARIA E.GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).A MOBILE HOME REPLACEMENT AND MOBILE HOME SET UP WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED. FOLIO NO: 00055720005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1017 RAULERSON RD,IMMOKALEE,FL 34143 15. CASE NO: CESD20130004849 OWNER: ABBOTT REVOCABLE TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).ENCLOSED LANAI WITHOUT PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 32420000920 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6600 BEACH RESORT DR APT 2,NAPLES,FL 34114 6 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion For Imposition Of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20120006666 OWNER: REAL EST HOLDINGS OF TIENDA MEXICANA INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A SCREEN ENCLOSURE WITH A SINK,OPEN FREEZERS WITH ELECTRIC AND UPRIGHT DOOR REFRIGERATION COOLERS WITH ELECTRIC AND A COUNTER SPACE ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE ALL INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.ALSO(4)EXPIRED PERMITS 2011020704,2011020699, 2004110460,920013727. FOLIO NO: 00131360004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 217 N 15TH ST, IMMOKALEE,FL 34142 2. CASE NO: CESD20120000189 OWNER: JORGE G.RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).GARAGE AND CBS GUEST HOUSE WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT(S). FOLIO NO: 40579120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1165 EVERGLADES BLVD N,NAPLES,FL 34120 3. CASE NO: CESD20120017503 OWNER: SARAH WEEKS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). SHED/CARPORT STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41343480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2830 26TH AVE SE,NAPLES,FL 34117 4. CASE NO: CESD20130000293 OWNER: KELLY S.JONES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).4 SHEDS AND A CARPORT THAT ARE UNPERMITTED ON THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 39331800005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 420 22ND ST NE,NAPLES,FL 34120 7 5. CASE NO: CESD20130007945 OWNER: CARLISLE/WILSON PLAZA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).THE RESTAURANT IN UNIT# 12 HAS BEEN COMBINED WITH VACANT UNIT#11 WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37221120305 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 50 WILSON BLVD S,UNIT: 11,NAPLES,FL 34117 6. 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 47TH AVE NE,NAPLES,FL 34120 7. CASE NO: CESD20120011992 OWNER: CHARLES&DENISE BOOTH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).GARAGE CONVERTED TO GUEST HOUSE WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38107160006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2599 66TH ST SW,NAPLES,FL 34105 8. CASE NO: CEVR20130009509 OWNER: RAQUEL BETANCOURT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.01(B). ACTIVE CLEARING OF NATIVE VEGETATION ON UNIMPROVED PARCEL FOLIO 41445160001. FOLIO NO: 41445160001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 9. CASE NO: CESD20120002199 OWNER: JENNA HOLBROOK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).GARAGE CONVERTED TO A LIVING SPACE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37012120006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 560 15TH ST SW,NAPLES,FL 34117 8 10. CASE NO: 2007100236 OWNER: ANTHONY DINORCIA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I),AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).NUMEROUS UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES, INCLUDING OFFICE CANOPY STRUCTURES, SILOS,AND BUILDINGS. FOLIO NO: 274560004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3963 DOMESTIC AVE NAPLES,FL 34104 11. CASE NO: CELU20100022151 OWNER: ANTHONY DINORCIA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.03(B)(5). SWALES ON SIDES AND REAR OF PROPERTY FILLED IN,VIOLATING OF SDP 2004 AR5054 FOLIO NO: 274560004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3963 DOMESTIC AVE NAPLES,FL 34104 12. CASE NO: CENA20120000290 OWNER: WESTOK INTERNATIONAL CORP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D). COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION LOCATED UPON AN UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WITHIN A 200 FOOT RADIUS OF IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 68640001003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 13. 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 14. CASE NO: CENA20120017643 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D).PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO,WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 26169500289 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2870 COCO LAKES DR,NAPLES,FL 34105 9 15. CASE NO: CENA20120012782 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D). PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO,WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 26169501848 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2943 COCO LAKES DR,NAPLES,FL 34105 16. CASE NO: CENA20120017642 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D).PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO, WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 26169500221 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2888 COCO LAKES DR,NAPLES,FL 34105 17. CASE NO: CENA20120017644 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D).PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO,WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 26169500661 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2859 COCO LAKES DR,NAPLES,FL 34105 18. CASE NO: CENA20120017641 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D).PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO, WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 26169500865 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2889 COCO LAKES PL,NAPLES,FL 34105 10 19. CASE NO: CENA20120017639 OWNER: KORESH PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D). PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,EAR LEAF ACACIA,AND AIR POTATO, WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 26169501084 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2931 COCO LAKES DR,NAPLES,FL 34105 20. CASE NO: CEVR20110002999 OWNER: SEAN KING TR. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: VEGETATION REMOVAL,PROTECTION&PRESERVATION.VEGETATION REMOVAL/ LANDFILL REQUIRED. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.01(B).PROPERTY WAS PARTIALLY CLEARED OF VEGETATION WITHOUT A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 36663400008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4441 5TH AVE NW,NAPLES,FL 34119 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- March 27,2014 12. ADJOURN 11 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Teresa, might as well begin. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Notice that the respondent will be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. I want you all to remember that because we're going to have a test later on. Okay. Why don't we have a roll call, Teresa? MS. TOOLEY: Robert Kaufman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. TOOLEY: Gerald Lefebre. (No response.) MS. TOOLEY: James Lavinski. MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. TOOLEY: Robert Ashton. MR. ASHTON: Present. MS. TOOLEY: Lionel L'Esperance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. TOOLEY: Tony Marino has an excused absence. Larry Mieszcak. Page 2 February 27, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. TOOLEY: Lisa Bushnell. MS. BUSHNELL: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Are we all voting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Today all members, we're voting so, Lisa, you'll be a full member today. For some reason it was left off the agenda, the Pledge. I'd like everybody to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance led to us today by Bob Ashton. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think we have a few changes on the agenda. MS. TOOLEY: Under Number 5 with hearings, motions, motion for extension of time, Case Number 3 will be heard under Institution of Fines only. And we have a new addition in the fifth case, Case Number 8, from under motion of imposition of fines, Code Case Number CEVR20130009509 for Raquel Betancourt. Under B, Stipulations, we have Case Number 1 from under Hearings, Eva Guierrero, Case Number CESD20130005831 . Second Stipulation is Case Number 3, Alfonso Aguillon, Case Number CESD20120002670. Third Stipulation is Case Number 5, 925 Cypress LLC, Case Number CELU2013 00145 76. The fourth Stipulation is Case Number 15, Abbot Revocable Trust, Case Number CESD20130004849. The next Stipulation is Case Number 13 for Sandra and Carla Sage. Case Number is CELU20130015799. Sixth Stipulation is for Jose and Maria Garcia, Case Number CESD20130012048, and that was Case Number 14 on the agenda. Page 3 February 27, 2014 And those are all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Show that Gerald Lefebre is present. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Make sure you show that he's late but he's here. We'll take -- MS. TOOLEY: Actually, I do -- I'm sorry. I do have another change to the agenda. I have a couple of minor changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You also have one withdrawn. MS. TOOLEY: I had a withdrawn case, yes. For Case Number 2, the Case Number will be CENA instead of CEVR for William Anthony Petruzzi. Case Number 8 was withdrawn. And Case Number 9, the respondent's name is Rafael Barrios Montero. Montero was left out of that. And those are all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I have a motion to accept the agenda as amended? MR. MIESZCAK: motion to accept the agenda. MR. LEFEBRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay. The minutes. We have those. Page 4 February 27, 2014 Everybody receive the minutes? Anybody have any changes in the minutes? Hearing none, all those in favor approving the minutes, say aye. Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay. Which brings us to the motion for extension of time. MS. TOOLEY: The first case is Case Number CESD20120006666, real estate holdings of Tienda Mexicana, Incorporated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like you're it. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I'm it. The contract -- THE COURT REPORTER: Would you identify yourself for the record, please? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. (Maria Rodriguez was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: The contractor came in and did a -- asking for an extension of time. He does have two of the permits in apply status although they're rejected right now. But he still has some that he hasn't reapplied for, so he's asking for an extension of either 45 to 60 days. Page 5 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is this commercial property? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was started in June, about eight months ago. They have the permits or they don't have the permits? MS. RODRIGUEZ: They have two of the permits but they still have one remaining that they haven't applied for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you familiar with what they've done since June other than we gave them 120 days, the board did, in -- initially in May and then we gave an additional 60 days in January? Where are we now? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He's applied for the office space that they put into the store because it's a store. So, that's under review. And two of the coolers are under review. What he hasn't applied for is one of the permits that was rejected. He needs to reapply for that. And the hood, he took off, so that alleviates two of the permits that weren't -- that he doesn't have to do anymore. And -- but he still has to do another one for the gas pipeline. So, he's got two he still has to re-ap and two that he needs to -- I guess the reviews need to be finished, and I don't know when that's going to be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It appears that this is just going on and on. These were two months ago supposed to be done and we're nowheres near completion on this. Does the county have any comments on that? MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have no objection as to -- you know, what your ruling will be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: It's basically not a safety issue anyway, right? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. Page 6 February 27, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: So, I have no problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? Any motions from the board? Okay. I'll make a motion then. I make a motion that we extend it for 45 days. And, as Mr. Lefebre likes to say, we won't look very favorably on extending it again. This will be the third one and there's three strikes and you're out as far as extension after extension after extension. So, 45 days is my motion. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we have a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Case Number 2 is CESD20120000189, Jorge Rodriguez. (Tony Asaro was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ASARO: Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Tony. MR. ASARO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to give us a little background on this? MR. ASARO: Yes. I just spoke to the property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez, and also with Mr. Lockhart, with their engineer, with Page 7 February 27, 2014 Lockhart Engineering. According to our records, the county records, all the permits have been issued. The garage has been CO'd and at this time they're moving forward to obtain the CO for the guesthouse. And at this time the county doesn't have any problems granting them an extension of time at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This one was heard in the past and we gave them one year, as I gleaned from the package. Is the guesthouse occupied? MR. ASARO: I don't believe so, but I'll have Mr. Lockhart come up and he can explain to you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASARO: The last time I was at the property, I -- I -- I didn't -- I didn't see it occupied, but I haven't been out there in -- I think the last time was three weeks. (Robert Lockhart was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LOCKHART: Good morning. Robert Lockhart with Lockhart Engineering. To answer the question directly, the guesthouse -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you go on, is the respondent here? MR. LOCKHART: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, I just wondered why they haven't come up. Okay. Do you have the permission of the respondent to comment on this case? MR. LOCKHART: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOCKHART: To answer your question regarding the guesthouse being occupied, no, there are no interior walls, there are no windows. Right now they're working on a minor repair of the roof. Page 8 February 27, 2014 The project actually started, or my involvement, roughly, two years ago. It involved the guesthouse and the garage. And, frankly, a lot of delays occurred in getting the permits because of the confusion in the Building Department, but that's another story. Get to the point, they have the garage CO'd. I believe it was September 24th of last year. And they're working on, as I said, the roof with the intention of continuing. Hopefully, they'll be calling for an inspection in the next month or so for the roof and then again continuing thereon after that. The owner does have a problem in the sense that he is looking for work and he's found work, but it's out of the State and he's going to be gone for three months, from April till probably, you know, June or July. So, that's possibly going to inhibit the quickness for him to be able to do this as he is an owner/builder. However, a one-year extension is what we're requesting -- they're requesting, and it is the, you know, intent to finish work, get a CO within one year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The original order gave them a year. MR. LOCKHART: And as I stated, there were numerous problems in getting a permit from the Building Department, and I don't really want to get into that, but it's, you know, a confusion that they had in the way that we had to get the permit issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we hear these cases all the time -- MR. LOCKHART: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- okay? So, it's -- it's not unusual to see -- this one was a garage and a CBS guesthouse with no valid permit. That's what -- what the Code Enforcement write up was on it Page 9 February 27, 2014 back when it was originally heard a year ago. Now, to ask for another year, to me personally, seems to be way too long. I -- other than having a garage CO'd, what's been done on the other parcel? MR. LOCKHART: Well, as I stated, the plans initially -- well, let me back up and get to the very beginning. When the owners purchased the property, there were three structures, a main residence which was occupied, and, of course, that's what they're occupied now. There was a guesthouse that was permitted and a garage that was permitted. The prior owner walked away, the property went into foreclosure and he didn't complete either of them. As I stated, the guesthouse had -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One second. You said the guesthouse was permitted? MR. LOCKHART: Permitted back in 2012. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But no CO. MR. LOCKHART: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the -- and the garage was the same thing. MR. LOCKHART: Right. By the prior owner, they were permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOCKHART: Okay. He walked away from the property. When they bought it, they inherited these problems. I got involved, and the initial thing, they wanted to make revisions to the guesthouse. The garage had some minor items that had to be finished, but the guesthouse was the main issue, that they wanted to make revisions. I went into the Building Department and spoke with one of the plan reviewers. He gave a direction to follow to get the permit Page 10 February 27, 2014 reopened. I tried to do that. The front counter rejected it, said, no, the permit's expired. You have to have a new permit issued. We wanted to make the revisions. Initially I was just told to just resubmit the original permit. When the original permit is reissued then I can submit for revision. Again, this is where some of the confusion started that takes time. I think at this point the code was not even involved and no time extension was -- was even on the docket. However, when they tried to go in for a plan revision, once again the county says, no, you need to have the original plans extended, the original permit extended, and then with an extension you can get a CO. Then that worked on the garage. We continued. We got the garage CO'd. The guesthouse went through a process where it had to have a septic -- septic system revision and numerous revisions with the Building Department regarding the old code versus the new code because the building code changed between 2010 and the current code. So, it took six, eight months to get the plans approved. When they finally were approved, which was last -- actually it was issued -- the permit was issued January 16th, but it was approved last year. It had taken time for them to get the money to pay for the permit because they've had some problems with their daughter, medical expenses, you know, financial problems, but they are working and they've been diligently working. I've been diligently working, trying to get this issue with the Building Department. But in the -- in the process of, you know, working through getting a permit, this is when the one year apparently came up. Page 11 February 27, 2014 And, again, I can get into more of a detail chronological but, as you can see, it's been a hefty project for a single family home extension for a guesthouse. And if you have any other questions? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask the county again to comment on this case. MR. ASARO: Well, I -- you know, I spoke to Mrs. Rodriguez and I can understand the -- the setbacks because she's been -- her and her husband have been addressing the medical issues involving their daughter and some financial issues. Basically, I wanted to have Mr. Lockhart come up because he can tell you the entire story of what he -- of the permitting process that he's been trying to assist them with. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it the county's opinion that the owners do have the intent to go through with this project? MR. ASARO: I believe they do, yeah. I talked to them -- I've talked to them extensively and I believe they are -- they're going to -- they're trying to. They inherited somebody else's problems and, unfortunately, they didn't -- when they bought the house, purchased the house, they -- they didn't know basically what they were getting involved with. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, since the structure is not occupied, I'd like to submit a motion that his extension be granted as requested. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One year? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to extend one year. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Do we have any comments on the motion? MR. LEFEBRE: I think a year is -- is quite a bit, a long time. I Page 12 February 27, 2014 think it's too long. Since this case was opened or heard September of 2000, I think that to give someone two plus years to correct it, the 28 months is way too long. MR. MIESZCAK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: I -- I just feel that, you know, somebody buys a property, goes with the land, any problem. And when you buy a foreclosure, you don't really know all the problems it's going to have. And -- and it looks to me like it's been diligent, but it's been time consuming. And the man does have a stack of paperwork. So, that's why I -- I don't really have a problem with a year. It's not a safety issue and that's the most important thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One of the comments I'll make is, what -- what we've done in the past is grant a particular amount of time with a review by Code Enforcement at that time to see that progress is being made, and if progress is being made, then grant another one. If no progress is being made, then it would come back before the board, if-- if that's amenable to the board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you have a countermotion or an amended motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to amend it, granting six months with a review, probably a quarterly review, to see what's going on with the property, and if it's not completed in six months, to come back and the board, based on what's happened as far as progress is concerned, they would -- we would entertain a motion to extend or not extend at that time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I will second your amended motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: I would also stipulate that the guesthouse has to Page 13 February 27, 2014 be unoccupied at that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LAVINSKI: It's not built out. It's not framed in. MR. ASHTON: Yeah, I know. It's still -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the guesthouse will remain -- if that's part of your motion, that the guesthouse will remain unoccupied until it's CO'd? MR. L'ESPERANCE: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, a second, amended and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. So, see, you have six months and a review in three months with Code Enforcement, and then to see the progress that's being made. Hopefully, it will be done in six months. But if it's not and you have progress, I don't think the board would have any problem giving additional time to complete it. Okay? MR. LOCKHART: As you know, the building permit requires an inspection, a passed inspection, within six months after issuance and thereafter every six months. That's the maximum time. So, I mean, theoretically, somebody could be building a house for four years; however, that's not their intent. They want to get this behind them, get a CO. And, again, there's no interior walls, there's no heating, no air conditioning, no windows, no ceilings, nobody's going to be in there. Page 14 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOCKHART: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. ASARO: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Case Number 4 is for Kelly Jones, Case Number CESD20130000293. (Patrick Baldwin and Kelly Sue Jones were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Code Enforcement Investigator. MS. JONES: My name is the Kelly Sue Jones. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're requesting an extension? MS. JONES: I am, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you give us a little background and we'll go from there? MS. JONES: In December of 2012, I purchased a home, my first home. I was very proud of that as a single mom. In January of 2013, I was visited by Code Enforcement, whereas they informed me that I was in violation with five buildings, which was a surprise to me since I hired people with legal knowledge to make sure I did not have any issues. I had to educate myself on the process since I -- I do not know anything about owning a home. So, I had to find out what I had to do. And since I had spent all my money to buy the house, I did not have a lot of liquidity to take care of the issues right away. So, I've been working on the issues with Patrick and quite a few people. I think I had 35 people consulted. So, I've been working with quite a few people, and I've been slowly taking care of each. I had one building removed, one moved, and I've taken care of all the issues. And we've just submitted to the Building Department and, I guess, we're waiting on you guys to inspect? Page 15 February 27, 2014 MR. BALDWIN: Yeah. The plans are in right now. They're being reviewed. And once they're reviewed, she'll -- she'll pay the fee and then they'll be inspected by the Building Department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, you -- you think you can get everything resolved in 60 days? MS. JONES: I -- I don't know the process of this, I mean, how long it takes. That would be -- MR. BALDWIN: A former building official, Gary Harrison, is working with her right now and he's very familiar with the process. And did he say 60 days will be sufficient? MS. JONES: He said whatever -- that would be sufficient, yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I make a motion to grant 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you make it 90? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. I make a motion for 90. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for a 90-day extension and, hopefully, that's it. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? It carries. MS. JONES: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is, Case Number CEVR20130009509, Raquel Betancourt. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What case number is this, under what category? Page 16 February 27, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: It's Number 5 in a motion for extension of time and it was from Case Number 8 under -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Eight under what? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Under Imposition of Fines, Number 8; right? (David Jones and Octavio Sarmiento, Jr. were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. SARMIENTO: Octavio Sarmiento, Jr. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. You -- you're looking -- MR. SARMIENTO: Good morning, sir. How are you today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I am fine. And you? MR. SARMIENTO: I'm doing all right. I'm on a case here with you guys, so always good to see you guys. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, you're -- you're requesting an extension of time? MR. SARMIENTO: Yes. This is another client of mine, Ms. Betancourt. She apologizes she couldn't come today, had a dental procedure, and that we're kind of having trouble with that. We already sent a letter that David has in his hands. Probably you got a letter from her. We submitted the permits for a new home on this empty lot, and when we submitted it, I thought the -- the case was going to be over with, but when I spoke to David and the authorities from Code Enforcement, the issue will be over with when the permit will be issued. So, we right now have a -- a rejection. The architect was on vacation for two weeks, so we are going to be submitting the correction next week, maybe Tuesday, the latest. So, in another -- I'll say, another 15 to 20 days, tops, we should Page 17 February 27, 2014 be able to be granted the permit for the new single family residence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I -- I have two questions; number one, the -- I have -- I have that, Gerald. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The unpaid operational -- first of all, do you have the -- the authority to speak for -- MR. SARMIENTO: On behalf of Mr. (sic) Raquel Betancourt? Yes. I'm a permanent consultant. I'm her agent right now -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SARMIENTO: -- on this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have said that on the record, so we have that. MR. SARMIENTO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The previously assessed unpaid operational costs of $82. MR. SARMIENTO: I already paid that a couple days ago. MR. JONES: They have been paid, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, you're looking for an extension of how long? MR. SARMIENTO: I will say within -- I think the most, 30 days, I think we should be able to get the permit issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thirty days -- MR. SARMIENTO: I will -- I will feel more comfortable with more, but -- MR. JONES: Yeah, that's -- that's fine. I mean, they're actively trying to get the building permit and it just happened to have been rejected, so they just need to get it straightened out. MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion for a 45-day extension. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. MR. SARMIENTO: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for an extension of 45 days. Page 18 February 27, 2014 All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? It carries unanimously. MR. SARMIENTO: Thanks a lot. Nice seeing you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You, too. MR. SARMIENTO: Bye-bye. MS. TOOLEY: The next case is the first stipulation. It's Case Number 1 from under Hearings, Eva Guerrero, Case Number CESD20130005831 . CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. We swear in every time. It wears off after one case. (Maria Rodriquez was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. RODRIQUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriquez, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just check with our attorney. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Am I correct that we need to swear everybody in and identify on each case? MS. RAWSON: We do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Because each case is a different record. Each case is a different order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$63.88 Page 19 February 27, 2014 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 250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Must turn off utilities for all unpermitted living space within 24 hours of this hearing and remain unoccupied until the building permit or demolition permit has received a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have one question of Jeff. On these cases that are stipulations, there's only the one charge for court costs, if you will. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. There wouldn't be multiple. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If it was heard again, then we have the second one. MR. WRIGHT: That's right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: And it would reflect today's cost. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? Any motions from the board? Hearing none, I'll make a motion that we approve the stipulation as written. Page 20 February 27, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The second stipulation is Alfonso Aguillon, Case Number CESD20120002670. (Maria Rodriguez was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$63.58 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and Certificate of Completion/Occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Page 21 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I did notice on this case the date of the violation that it was first observed, February 23rd, 2012, so it's two years old. Hopefully, the stipulation will do the trick and -- and everything will be resolved. MS. RODRIGUEZ: She has her final inspection today, so if everything goes good, she can CO it, hopefully, some time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Terrific. Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulation. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion by Mr. Lefebre, a second by Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: The third stipulation is for -- excuse me -- 925 Cypress, LLC, Case Number CELU20130014576. (Jeff Letourneau was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. That's L-e-t-o-u-r-n-e-a-u. Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. LETOURNEAU: Therefore, it is agreed between the Page 22 February 27, 2014 parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $63.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County business tax receipt for the rental use of the property and ceasing all transient rental use of the property or cease all rental use of the property within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed for each day any violation continues. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request an 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 Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, do you have any concern of them getting the permit? MR. LETOURNEAU: At this time, it's up to the fire department to really determine what is going to be needed in this. It -- it's kind of complicated. It was built back in the sixties and I'm not sure if the fire department is going to make them upgrade it or just let them keep what they have at this point. I did tell the owner if they have to upgrade it, that, you know, make a -- a note to Teresa to come back here before the code board and ask for an extension. They already had paid the operational costs, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept by Mr. Page 23 February 27, 2014 Lavinski and a second by Mr. Lefebre. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Fourth stipulation is for Abbott Revocable Trust. The Case Number is CESD20130004849. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which case was this? MS. TOOLEY: That's Case Number 15. (James Davis and Gregory K. Abbott were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DAVIS: For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. ABBOTT: For the record, Gregory K. Abbott. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're the trust. MR. ABBOTT: Abbott Revocable Trust. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a stipulation for us? MR. DAVIS: I do, sir. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$64.04 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two, abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or a demolition permit, inspections and/or Certificates of Completion/Occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Page 24 February 27, 2014 Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And, Number 4, 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: Mr. Abbott, do you agree to that? MR. ABBOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem making the -- MR. ABBOTT: No problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- six months? MR. LEFEBRE: I have a couple questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a question? MR. LEFEBRE: This is within Falling Waters? Is that correct? MR. ABBOTT: Yes, sir. Falling Waters Beach Resort I. I'm the vice-president of the board. I've been there for nine years as the board vice-president. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. And this is the lanai -- the lanai that's enclosed? MR. ABBOTT: That's correct. MR. LEFEBRE: It's a -- that's a limited common area; correct? MR. ABBOTT: That's correct. MR. LEFEBRE: Do you have the ability through the association to enclose the lanai? MR. ABBOTT: Will you restate that question? MR. LEFEBRE: Do you have the ability within the documents to close in the lanai? MR. ABBOTT: I don't know, sir. All I know is I was told by a sergeant on the fire department about four years ago when he came in to inspect the sprinkler heads on our lanai, I asked him about Page 25 February 27, 2014 enclosing the lanai, putting sliders on the lanai. I said, "Do I need a permit? Do I need to put sprinklers on there?" He said, no, you don't, Mr. Abbott. At that time I didn't do it. I -- I proceeded last year, I believe, to -- to enclose the lanai. They are sliders. You can get out if there is a fire. And this is -- I believe, this is a new -- relatively new law that is in effect. People have come to me now as the vice-president, and they asked me, I want to enclose my lanai. I said, "You have to get sprinklers period." MR. LEFEBRE: Where -- where I'm going at with this is we had a case several years ago, and I don't know who else was on the board with this case, but it was in Sapphire Lakes, I think it was, and it was a spa that was put out, put in the ground in a lanai. MR. ABBOTT: I -- I -- MR. LEFEBRE: But let me just -- MR. ABBOTT: We don't allow that. Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: Exactly. But we -- we actually noticed the association, not the owner -- MR. ABBOTT: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: -- to fix the problem. So, Jean, I -- I was going to ask you -- MR. ABBOTT: I was turned in by -- by another contractor because he didn't get the job. MR. LEFEBRE: If it's a limited common area, who is responsible for that area? MS. RAWSON: I think probably the association. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: So, wouldn't the association have to approve any addition to the lanai? Page 26 February 27, 2014 MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I'm sure they have those kinds of committees. MR. ABBOTT: In -- in that document -- MR. LEFEBRE: I don't want to throw a wrench in, but I want to notice the proper person because we did have this case and, again -- previous case where it was on the lanai and we noticed the association, not the individual homeowner. MR. ABBOTT: Since this has happened, we are now making the residents do this before they put the windows in, in our Phase I association. MR. LEFEBRE: Right. Okay. MR. ABBOTT: I wasn't aware of the law. I know I was probably stupid all this time. MR. LEFEBRE: Well, there's two things. There's the law, but then there's also your -- your condo documents. MR. ABBOTT: Right. Right. MR. LEFEBRE: Obviously, it's two layers that you have to go through. MR. ABBOTT: Right. MR. LEFEBRE: And, you know, I'm not sure what the association states. But usually with a limited common area, it will state what you can do and what you can't do with that limited common area and whose responsibility it is. So, the question that I want to go back to is, do we have the proper person noticed on this case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think he has two hats actually. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He is the vice-president of the association -- MR. ABBOTT: That's correct. Page 27 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and it's your property. MR. ABBOTT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, you may have to argue with yourself as to what it is. MR. ABBOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have six months to argue it and resolve the situation. MR. ABBOTT: I want to resolve the situation because this is the first -- this is new to me. And, as I said, the fire inspector told me four years ago, no, we don't need it because you can slide them open and you can get out. You're not changing the structure as per se if you're closing it in. And we did not close it in. You can open them up. You can slit the screen and you can jump out, if God willing, and -- and hope you land upright. MS. RAWSON: I don't know who else we would notice. He's -- as Mr. Kaufman said, he wears both hats. MR. MIESZCAK: Let me just ask one thing that sticks on my mind. Don't you not have to get approval from your association to do what you're doing? MR. ABBOTT: Yes, you do and you don't. It depends now -- the contractors now are asking the association a word before. They've got the message from us that we want to know. We -- we have -- I approved -- I disapproved one request from a homeowner about a month and a half ago because they were going to do the exact same thing I was going to do. The contractor submitted everything and I noticed on -- on the thing there was nothing about fire sprinklers or anything. I contracted -- contacted the management company. I said, I'm not approving this, and I contacted the rest of the board and they didn't approve it. Page 28 February 27, 2014 Now, she has gone ahead and hired Wayne Automatic to put in a fire sprinkler system. MR. LEFEBRE: So, are you going to be installing a sprinkler system? MR. ABBOTT: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. So, you're going to keep it -- you're going to go and get a permit versus -- MR. ABBOTT: It's being permitted right now as we speak. Wayne permitted -- tried to get a permit last week on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, six months should give you ample time to get it permitted, CO'd, done, whether it be you, personally, as the trustee, or if the board needs to approve it, you change your hats, get everybody on the board to approve it and you're done. So -- MR. ABBOTT: I won't approve it. I'll let somebody else on the board approve it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can recuse yourself. MR. ABBOTT: Right. Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? MR. LEFEBRE: I have -- I still want to go back. Should we also add the association to this case? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBRE: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: Abbott Trust is only his unit, right? MR. ABBOTT: That's correct. MS. RAWSON: What's the name of the association? MR. ABBOTT: Falling Waters Beach Resort I. MS. RAWSON: Okay. I think it's on the deed. MR. ABBOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you can modify the stipulation to -- to show that addition? Page 29 February 27, 2014 MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBRE: Would they have to -- well, now the other question is, would they have to agree to the stipulation? MR. MIESZCAK: Yes, they do. MS. RAWSON: He can sign it in two places if he has the authority to act on behalf of the association. MR. ABBOTT: I would have to bring it to my board before -- MR. LEFEBRE: Absolutely. MR. ABBOTT: -- I sign any documents. MR. LEFEBRE: Right, because it's his individual property. MR. ABBOTT: And the man -- MR. LEFEBRE: And you'd be having conflicts, you know. MR. ABBOTT: Yeah. MR. LEFEBRE: You want a disinterested party to approve it. MR. ABBOTT: We are correcting the problem as -- as I stand before you now. MR. LEFEBRE: Right. I -- I don't -- I don't doubt that you're going to correct the problem. MR. ABBOTT: You have a contractor come in. He doesn't tell the person you need sprinklers. He just said, yeah, it will cost you so much money, Mr. Abbott, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It was done. Another contractor came in to service somebody else and this -- this resident told, Mr. Abbott had them put in, he didn't get a permit. Well, Mr. Davis showed up at my door a couple days later and said, "Somebody turned you in for putting windows in." CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're all about compliance and I have no doubt that this is going to comply one way or the other. MR. ABBOTT: It will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIS: I need to -- I need to add something if I -- if we're going to add the association, we're going to have to have a statement that they're going to waive their -- or -- Page 30 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Notice. MR. DAVIS: -- their just notice. MS. RAWSON: Yeah, and their right to be here. MR. DAVIS: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we do that off line? Get it done. If there's a problem with that, then just bring it back. Is that okay, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Well, maybe if he'd just say right now on the record that he waives any objection to notice with respect to the association. I think that would be sufficient to go forward. MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. LEFEBRE: But does he have the -- MR. ASHTON: The authority. MR. WRIGHT: I think he said he would, so -- MR. ABBOTT: Before I waive anything before the association, I would have to ask our attorneys if it's my right to do that, sir, my legal right. MR. MIESZCAK: I don't think so. MR. WRIGHT: Well, if that's the case, it doesn't seem like he should be acting on behalf of the association. MS. RAWSON: Probably not. MR. LEFEBRE: Right. As I said, he should be -- I think there should be a disinterested party to sign the stipulated agreement because it's his actual -- it's his own property. MR. ABBOTT: I'm a resident. MR. WRIGHT: So, he's basically saying now that he doesn't have the authority to act on behalf of the association. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. Then -- then in that case, unfortunately, we'd have to have you come back and -- or have somebody else sign that from the association and -- and you sign it as far as the stipulation. Page 31 February 27, 2014 MR. WRIGHT: Continue it till next month. Maybe that will give the respondent enough time to get the necessary approvals? MR. LEFEBRE: And either that or have the association or association attorney or someone representing the association to be here, too. I -- I don't want to open a can of worms, but I want to make sure that we're properly noticing everybody. MS. RAWSON: And if everything is properly signed by both Mr. Abbott and the association and it's a different stipulation, they wouldn't have to be here because the Code Enforcement inspector can, you know, give it to us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Lavinski. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I have one question. How is the tax assessor treating this enclosure? Are you adding square foot to your unit? MR. ABBOTT: No. We added no square footage. As a matter of fact, we took away some, sir. We took away from the screening here about -- we took away two feet from the lanai all the way down. We've taken away. We have not added square footage. MR. LAVINSKI: It sounds like you're adding air conditioned square footage. MR. ABBOTT: No. It's not air conditioned. I did not run air conditioned ducts out there, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So, removing the other set of doors that lead out to -- MR. ABBOTT: I have -- I have not removed the other set of doors. They are in place. They are slid open. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. And you're not going to remove them. MR. ABBOTT: No, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. That's -- might be how you're getting Page 32 February 27, 2014 around the additional air conditioning square footage, okay, because you did not remove the interior doors. MR. ABBOTT: That's correct. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, do we have a motion to make? MR. LEFEBRE: Make a motion to continue this to the next -- next month or next hearing. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And what day is that just so we notice while he's here? MS. RAWSON: For clarity, you know, because I'd have to then do a motion to continue, you know, maybe the -- Mr. Wright and his crew will just withdraw it and then we'll hear it next week -- I mean, next month. MR. WRIGHT: We'd be -- we would be agreeable to that. Teresa and I were just discussing that, that would probably be the cleanest way to do it. MS. RAWSON: It would. MR. LEFEBRE: I -- I make -- I would remove my motion from the table. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: So, the next meeting will be the 27th of March. MR. ABBOTT: 27th of March. What do I have to do for that meeting, sir? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Show up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you get together with -- with the officer and -- MR. ABBOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- he may be able to resolve it out that you don't have to show up here. Page 33 February 27, 2014 MR. ABBOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. ABBOTT: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: So, withdrawn. So, that case was withdrawn? I couldn't hear what you said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. That's correct. MS. TOOLEY: This stipulation is for Sandra and Carla Sage. That was Case Number 13. The case number for this is CELU20130015799. (Christopher Ambach and Carla Sage were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: First name is Christopher, last name is Ambach, A-m-b-a-c-h, Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. SAGE: Carla Sage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Chris, you have a stipulation on this? MR. AMBACH: I do, sir. For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$64.34 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by, number one, cease and desist use of agricultural zoned property as storage for recreational vehicles and trailers not owned by the property owner/occupants and remove to a place intended for such storage use within 30 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two, cease using recreational vehicle for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes within seven days of the date of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Page 34 February 27, 2014 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. MS. SAGE: Can I have a moment to speak? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Absolutely. MS. SAGE: Okay. Twenty minutes, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have five, but the Chairman might be -- MS. SAGE: Stretch it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- helpful and give you more time. MS. SAGE: Okay. I live in an ag zoned area that has recently, over the past few years, allowed an agricultural landscaping company come in, Mainscape, across the street from me, that has made their property commercial and has increased the traffic flow for our neighborhood and that's amongst many other things besides the traffic flow and -- and people showing up for work at 5:00 o'clock in the morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you one second. MS. SAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They can't make something commercial. It's zoned or not zoned for what the use is. MS. SAGE: They changed it from residential to commercial. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They can't change it. The county can change it. MS. SAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, you're saying that the county Page 35 February 27, 2014 changed it. MS. SAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SAGE: Okay. So, amongst having everything changed around me, our security has changed from our residential neighborhood to having numerous break-ins to the point that Mainscape has been broken into three times since they've been there. Our neighbors have been broken into. My house has been broken into. My pump house has been broken into. The reason why I have a travel trailer on the back of my property, you know, it's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Take your time. We're not going anywhere. MS. SAGE: I feel like I live in an unsafe area now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the Sheriff? MS. SAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they say? MS. SAGE: They come out when -- when they get calls. But we have officers out there all the time because Mainscape is very vulnerable. They had over $30,000 worth of equipment stolen a year and a half ago. Our neighbors had thousands of dollars worth of items stolen out of their house. The reason why I have my uncle in the back is because I have a son that has ADD/ADHD, dyslexia and a neurological processing disorder, and I can't have guns around him, but I have protection in the back. I have our property up for sale because I intend on leaving the area. It's -- it's zoned to be either sold commercially or whatever, but having Mainscape has ruined my chances of selling it residentially. Page 36 February 27, 2014 It's gone. But I feel like I need my uncle there for protection. The boats, as far as the boats, I don't have a problem with asking them to leave. I've only let them stay there because they've become -- like for one. The one boat that's been there for almost 13 years, I believe the owner passed away this summer, so the boat will become mine. And as far as upholding to the $200 a day for whatever, I can have moved off. I agreed to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, you -- MS. SAGE: But I would like to keep the trailer there for security because the county can't provide enough. They can't. And I feel like my residential neighborhood has been destroyed. The road is going to become even more publicized when they make it an access road from Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension to Immokalee Road and increase the traffic by 2000 percent to our residential neighborhood again. And it's not just me that's threatened out there. It's everybody that -- that was there to live in a residential, quiet neighborhood. So, I want some form of protection and I think I should be allowed that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have anything else that you want to bring before the board? MS. SAGE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. From what I understand what you've agreed to is to vacate the trailer in the back in seven days. MS. SAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And can that be done? MS. SAGE: I'm going to attempt to ask him to leave -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SAGE: -- within seven days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And as far as the other Page 37 February 27, 2014 vehicles there, that's 30 days. MS. SAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think that -- that can be accomplished in 30 days? MS. SAGE: Not for the boat that I believe that the owner is deceased. It may take longer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SAGE: Because I will have to take the time to have it put in my name and so forth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you discussed this with Chris? MS. SAGE: Yes. MR. AMBACH: We -- we did discuss this, yeah. MS. SAGE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: She agreed to the 30 days and the seven days, so -- in the hallway before we came up here. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. I usually don't do this, but I'd like to see the stipulation agreement modified. Well, when we -- before I say that, is there any immediate harm with the uncle being in the trailer, whatever it is, right now? MR. AMBACH: I -- MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. I think seven days is a little bit short. I would be -- I'd like to see 30 days and 60 days to remove all the boats or any other items that are on the property that are -- are not allowed. I don't know if we can meet that or if that stipulated agreement can be changed and then come back in front of us. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, is there a possibility of amending his motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's only -- the stipulation either has to be agreed to or we change it. We have the authority to make it anything we want. Page 38 February 27, 2014 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Sure. I would suggest that your suggestion for amendment of this stipulation for the trailer be perhaps a little more extended until she sells her property. MR. LEFEBRE: Yeah. I don't want to leave it open ended with MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we make it six months perhaps? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is -- is there any health and safety in regard to the trailer? MR. AMBACH: Well, it's an RV type trailer, travel trailer, and it is hooked up to utilities out there, so I -- I -- you know, there are no permits on file that for -- I have nowhere -- I have no idea where the wastewater is going. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. AMBACH: That could be -- that would be my one concern. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SAGE: I did everything as safely as we possibly could. And my children's father owns Emergency One Electric. He put the electric in the back because security has been an issue since my mother sold the property to Mainscape. My children's father put in the -- I mean, on the electric. And as far as the septic goes, it is, according to health hazards, safe due to there is a -- a pipe that runs it to my septic tank. There is no over-pour-age. There is no waste going into the ground. Being a mother, I wouldn't know all that, especially with the chemicals across the street. They would already be -- MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. I don't want to see six months because then we'll be in the hurricane and everything, but I can see extending it a little more than 30 days. I'd also like to maybe see -- how about -- would you agree to 90 days to have the trailer removed and, let's say, 90 -- let's keep it consistent, 90 days for the boat? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Lionel? Page 39 February 27, 2014 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. So, I make a motion to amend it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. Why don't you just change your motion and we can make this easier. Lionel? MR. LEFEBRE: I made the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, you made the original motion? MR. LEFEBRE: Yeah, the original. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry. Then change your number. MR. LEFEBRE: I know I was late but don't -- you know. I'd like to amend the stipulated agreement, if it's agreed upon with the respondent, to make it 90 days to have your uncle removed, or have him moved, and also 90 days to have all the boats removed. Now, I probably will not extend the 90-day period, if you come back before us, for having him move out. If the boats are an issue, that one boat's an issue, because the person is deceased, then that might -- you might be able to come in front of us and we can see what we can do. But I'd like to amend it and it's upon our board to make that decision, final decision. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Mr. Ashton. Any discussion on the motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd just like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I guess I'm for it, but I -- I do worry about the -- the discharge of sewer and saying that a pipe is in there. Is that safe for our ground? Not -- probably not. And we don't know how well it is and there's no permitting. It Page 40 February 27, 2014 was residential and now it's half commercial. So, as we can see what's happening, her property will eventually be commercial. It's probably more valuable commercial than it is residential. So, that's changing. So, how long somebody stays there and keeps it residential is not probably a good thing if it's going to be used for putting boats, RVs and anything else on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, is it possible for you to take a look at the -- the sewer pipe that goes from the trailer to -- MR. AMBACH: I'm not a professional in that field. All I know is there are no permits pulled through the Health Department and through Collier County to hook up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Our concern is an immediate problem rather than a long-term permit, et cetera. You probably can't put an RV vehicle there anyhow. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, there's a -- there is no such thing as a permit to do that. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it possible to find out from our Building Department that an immediate health hazard does not exist or does exist? MR. WRIGHT: I would say it might be a Health Department -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. WRIGHT: -- issue, but -- and as far as the -- the Building Department will probably rely on the building codes. And I know that there's tie down requirements, the propane tanks have to be tied down, and that's obviously a safety concern during hurricane season. But we can find out the information -- or have the appropriate agency go up there and take a look. As Chris pointed out, that's not really our area of expertise, but we can get the right person to -- to address it. Page 41 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I appreciate that. And -- and what we -- after we vote on this, if it's approved, you'll have to go out and -- and re-sign this to reflect the 90 days rather than what you have there now. MR. WRIGHT: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. LEFEBRE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay. So, you'll go out and redo it, et cetera. MR. AMBACH: Okay. And just -- we said 90 and 90; correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ninety and 90 is correct. MR. AMBACH: Okay. Thank you. MS. SAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, you'd better run out there and make sure that -- MR. AMBACH: The respondent doesn't leave. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that she doesn't leave. You can let her leave, but make sure she signs it first. MR. AMBACH: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: The sixth stipulation is for Jose and Maria Garcia, Case Number CESD20130012048. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's case number what from -- MS. TOOLEY: That's Number 14 or it was Number 14. (Steven Lopez-Silvero was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 42 February 27, 2014 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: L-o-p-e-z hyphen S-i-l-v-e-r-o. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have another mobile home deal here. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you read the stipulation into the record and we can go from there? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $64.34 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections and Certificate of Completion/Occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed till the violation is abated. Must turn off-- must turn off utilities for the unpermitted dwelling within 24 hours of this hearing and remain unoccupied until all required Collier County building permit or a demolition permit has received a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24-hour 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 by using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a mobile home, not an RV? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. A mobile home. Page 43 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's zoned properly for a mobile home to be there? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. A mobile home zone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? Is the -- is it occupied right now? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is not occupied. So, the 24 hours probably meets that -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- as far as the -- as far as it being occupied. 120 days to get it done. See any problem with that? That's what they agreed to. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. No problem with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? Any motions from the board? MR. LEFEBRE: Motion to approve. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any comments on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. Page 44 February 27, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: The next case is Case Number 2 under C, Hearings. They've stipulated. The case number is CENA20130008873 for William Anthony Petruzzi. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's case number? MS. TOOLEY: Case Number 2 under Hearings. (Jeff Letourneau was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount $63.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by removing all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation, including but not limited to, Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper, within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. When prohibited, exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and visual tracers dye shall be applied. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of this 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. This is because it's adjacent to an occupied or -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. It's -- it's actually in between Page 45 February 27, 2014 two residential occupied properties -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- right on Bay Shore Drive. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And this was from June 21st of last year. MR. LETOURNEAU: There was some other issues involved with the right-of-way and whether or not the county had removed it illegally. It's been kind of resolved at this point, so as of this morning, I would say 75 percent of the exotics have -- have been removed. That was a -- it's just a huge amount and what's left is the really, really tall Australian Pines, and they're going to be kind of difficult to get and get rid of at this point so that's why I gave them so much time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time was that? MR. LETOURNEAU: 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve the stipulation as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second by Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thanks, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Case Number 4 is Case Number Page 46 February 27, 2014 CESD20130010194, PNC Bank, NA, successor by merger. (Michaelle Crowley was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CROWLEY: Michaelle, M-i-c-h-a-e-1-1-e, Crowley, C-r-o-w-l-e-y. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hi, Michaelle. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CESD20130010194, dealing with the violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Section 22-108 involving an area in the rear of the property excavated to a depth greater than three feet below the existing grade and cleared of vegetation forming a lake or a pond without the required excavation permit located at 3245 37th Avenue Northeast, Naples, 34120, Folio Number 39951760004. Proof of Service was received on August 12th, 2013. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, two photos of the lake, one with a boat visible, and three aerial map photos showing the evolution of the lake excavation. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept -- and a second from Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 47 February 27, 2014 Carries unanimously. Thank you. Picture time. MS. CROWLEY: This is a view of the lake. That's the boat that had been partially submerged. It has now been removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michaelle, was the property owned by somebody, they did this and then the bank foreclosed and that's how it's PNC Bank? MS. CROWLEY: Absolutely, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Marijuana plants. MS. CROWLEY: Yeah. This is a deeper view of the lakes from the -- would be the west side of the property looking across the lake into the -- the cypress area which represents the -- the native vegetation that still remains. MS. TOOLEY: Okay? MS. CROWLEY: Yes. And then do the first one. This is a 2006 aerial that shows the property at the time. Okay. You can -- you can barely see the lake in the back behind what is -- used to be a Quonset hut. It's no longer there. And then 2007 is where the large lake in the rear now appears. The original small pond has now been covered where the building is and then the rear lake and then -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That lake goes into the adjacent property on both sides? MS. CROWLEY: It does. It appears to be. Although it's much -- it appears to be smaller in the 2013 aerial as represented in this paragraph, but yet it still remains. MR. LEFEBRE: Is that from growth possibly? MS. CROWLEY: I'm sorry? MR. LEFEBRE: It parents smaller in 2013. Is -- is it possibly because of growth along the banks of the lake? Page 48 February 27, 2014 MS. CROWLEY: It could be there's just less water during the rainy season. It just -- normally they take the aerials and then in this location in February -- MR. LEFEBRE: Right. MS. CROWLEY: -- of the year, so it's still kind of the dry season. But it is significantly smaller than it had been in the -- in 2007. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the bank on this? MS. CROWLEY: Tried to. Hasn't really helped. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did they take this property over? MS. CROWLEY: The previous case was opened in March -- excuse me -- May of 2013 against the borrower in -- when that -- when the complaint came in. It was discovered that the -- the clearing had taken place. The area cleared and excavated is .186 to .9 acres, which is under the maximum allowable clearing of one acre, which would be allowed under a building permit. The excavation occurred without a permit and, according to engineering services of Growth Management Division Growth, an after-the-fact excavation permit is a viable option. So, that's what was given in the Notice of Violation. At the time the property was in foreclosure of the initial notice and a Final Judgment of Foreclosure had been issued to PNC Bank. Thereafter, in July of 2013, the bank received a Certificate of Title so that they became the owner of the property. And at that time was when I opened this case, closed the old one, and did a new Notice of Violation to PNC Bank. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, you haven't heard anything from them whatsoever. MS. CROWLEY: Oh, no. I have. Page 49 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. MS. CROWLEY: Quite a bit. Since July of 2013, various contractors have been on site to determine the extent of the violation and to present bids to the lender/owner. I had personally met with three different contractors, either on site or in the office, and have spoken over the phone with an additional seven contractors and mortgage servicers, all operating on behalf of the bank. Provided -- I provided background information, what they needed to do, contact information, to who in the county issues permits, et cetera. The lender did remove a significant amount of litter that had existed on the property, including the boat that had been partially submerged in the lake. They also graded and filled in a small depression that had existed behind the house where an above-ground pool used to be. So, they were taking some steps to preserve the property. I think it probably came down to money as far as what it would cost to abate this violation. However, the interesting thing is, is that one of those contractors did submit a partial application for an excavation permit and paid the after-the-fact fees of$1600 to the county. They actually paid it on line to Code Enforcement, and -- which was a surprise, and it had to be transferred then over to the permitting department. So, the money is there. They just never followed through. They never got the permit. I was in touch with the contractor, with the servicer for the bank. The money remains in the system. They did not complete the permit. They didn't submit the documents. They didn't submit what was needed for the permit to even be issued and for the inspection to take place. Page 50 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, you have a contact -- a name of a person at the bank who would generally handle these type of cases. MS. CROWLEY: Not at the -- my -- my contacts have been with the servicer. Safeguard Properties had been -- White Stone Properties is a client of Safeguard's and that was primarily who my dealings have been with, that servicer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I suggest that we either find them in violation or not and then proceed after that. MR. LEFEBRE: I make a motion we find that there is a violation. MR. LAVINSKI: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay. So, there is a violation -- MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and -- MS. CROWLEY: My recommendation would be that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$63.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by obtaining an after-the-fact excavation permit and pass all required inspections to receive a Certificate of Completion or restore the area to its previous grade and condition before any excavation occurred, including the restoration of Page 51 February 27, 2014 native vegetation, within blank days, or a fine of blank dollars per day shall be imposed. Two, that the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate it 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, money doesn't appear to be a factor in this case. It's just to get somebody to move to do something. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree with that. MS. CROWLEY: Well, you have to pay the contractor to do the paperwork. You know, they have to do the addressing checklist, which hasn't even been submitted for the permit. So, it's not just the money. There would be some additional funds to be expended. But I was just as surprised as anybody that they just dropped the ball after going that far. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Well, I -- I would think that the bank probably, if they need a loan, they would take care of them. But I would think they have the sufficient funds to -- to take care of this. What we generally do on banks to get them to move off the -- to move, is we generally look at a -- or relatively short date on this. If it was a homeowner, it might be a different situation with money, et cetera, et cetera. But with the bank and -- and the ease of which this appears to be, I don't know. What does the board feel as far as the -- the amount of days to rectify the situation? MR. MIESZCAK: Thirty days? Page 52 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: What you call -- what did you quote now? How many days did you put on there? You didn't put any? MS. CROWLEY: I did. I said blank. MR. LEFEBRE: Blank, good. Well, we've done seven days and 14 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's a little short, I would think. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd say 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thirty days is fine. MR. LAVINSKI: And $300 per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much per day? MR. LAVINSKI: 300. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: That should get their attention. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think so. Any -- any comments on that motion? Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second by Mr. Ashton. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments on that? All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. So, let's fill in the blanks. Thirty days and $300 per day after that. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. Page 53 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes. We're going to do a finger check. How are your fingers doing? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're fine? Okay. We can go a little further. We have other needs here on the board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, after the next case, could we have a little -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear. Did you -- did you also make a motion to impose the sixty-three forty-four, the operational costs? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's paid within 30 days as well. MS. TOOLEY: Yes. Okay. The next case, Case Number 6, Case Number CELU 20120015005, respondent, Albert Benarroch. (James Davis and Martin Pinckney were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DAVIS: For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. PINCKNEY: And for the record, Martin Pinckney of American Engineering representing Albert Benarroch. P-i-n-c-k-n-e-y. MR. BENARROCH: Albert Benarroch. MR. DAVIS: Okay? For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CELU20120015005 dealing Page 54 February 27, 2014 with the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 1 .04.01(A). Commercial landscape business is being conducted without a valid business tax receipt and any other required Collier County authorization located at 2390 James Road, Naples, Florida, 34114, Folio Number 750680709. Service was given on October 31st, 2013. I'd now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, seven photos, taken by Investigator James Seabasty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photos? And do you have any problem with them? MR. PINCKNEY: I haven't seen -- do you have -- have you seen them? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show -- show them the photos. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I also have one question for our attorney. MR. PINCKNEY: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would you consider this board being the proper venue or would the Contractor's Licensing Board or maybe the Magistrate be a more proper venue for this particular issue? MS. RAWSON: Well, the Code Enforcement officials brought this case here, so they probably have some good reason, so that's a better question probably for Mr. Wright. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we hear the case and then figure it out. We don't know what it's about. MR. WRIGHT: I agree. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Back on your crutches, Lionel. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Well, I am on my crutches. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the photos. MR. ASHTON: Second. Page 55 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the photos. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. DAVIS: Okay. An on-site inspection revealed that there were landscaping equipment on the site as well as landscaping materials such as mulch and other chemicals, several private automobiles. In checking with Occupational Licensing, the proper owner -- the property owner does not have an occupational license for Affordable Lawn Care, but it is only valid -- they do have an occupation license, but it's only valid for his Marco Island address. The case was sent to permitting for determination. We received a verification that there is a code violation on this property from the Zoning Department. I believe -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me -- let me stop you one second. So, this is which location that I'm looking at here? MR. DAVIS: 2390 James Road, Naples. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIS: A pre-application meeting was held on February 19th, 2013. At that time they were waiting on the engineer/architect to submit the plans, and currently they continued to wait on that plan for the pre-application, since that pre-application meeting. Page 56 February 27, 2014 Without the engineering plans, they can't determine whether it's going to be a Site Development Plan or a Site Improvement Plan. So, we can't move forward until it's resolved. But the last action on this case has been February 19th, 2013. As of today, the violation remains, speaking to the Building Department. Also the process would have to start all over again. So, in other words, they would have to go back to that pre-application and have another pre-application meeting because of the time frame. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is the zoning at this location? MR. DAVIS: Agricultural. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any comments on the individual pictures that we're seeing? MR. DAVIS: These were taken by Investigator Seabasty. I haven't been able to go onto the property. Throughout the day there's a gate with a chain around it and locked, so I can't go on there and ask to see anything. These are just ones that he had -- he had taken during that time, you see, back from 2012. So, I can't verify anything that's been changed since that point because I've had no access to the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, do you have any comment as far as the -- the zoning in that particular location, what's permitted and not permitted? MR. WRIGHT: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Permitted, I mean. MR. WRIGHT: -- I was looking at the statement of violation and the request for hearing. I think in a nutshell this is -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Jim. I think this is a business tax receipt case. MR. PINCKNEY: I don't -- that's news to us -- MR. BENARROCH: It is to me. Page 57 February 27, 2014 MR. PINCKNEY: -- if I might interject at this point because that can't -- in the first place, to one of the points which you -- the -- brought up was about because of time frame, you have to start over. Well, we had a second pre-application meeting. I believe it was in November. I've got the date here somewhere. So, that should extend the time frame as far as that is concerned. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on one second. Did you receive the -- I don't know if you can see this from where you are -- the regular Notice of Violation? MR. PINCKNEY: The owner received it. MR. BENARROCH: This? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. And it says that the business is being conducted without a valid business tax receipt? MR. PINCKNEY: That is not our understanding. My understanding of the issue -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's not -- that -- that wasn't the question. Does that -- is that what it says on yours? Number two under Statement of Violation, Request for Hearing. MR. PINCKNEY: Get the other one out. MR. BENARROCH: I don't know. I don't think I have it. I have it right here. MR. PINCKNEY: Yes, it says that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, that's what the case is. And we can go back and forth about what goes on. I just want to make sure that that's what you were notified, what the violation is. MR. PINCKNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We seem to have a conference. MR. PINCKNEY: Well, that -- that issue, it does say that on the notice, but in the pre-application meaning that was discussed, he does Page 58 February 27, 2014 have a business tax receipt in his location in Marco. That's where his office is. He runs his business out of the location in Marco. And he has a business tax receipt for that location. And my understanding in the discussion we had in the pre-application meeting was that an additional one was not required for this site address. The -- the -- the violation, the way it was discussed in the pre-application meeting was that he wasn't zoned for the operation. MR. DAVIS: That's -- that's part of the determination was that they would need to get -- obtain a business tax receipt for the landscape business for that location. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For that location. MR. DAVIS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff. MR. WRIGHT: And all related county authorizations. So, to me, the cleanest -- analyzing this case, the cleanest violation is the business tax receipt. Well, that's very objective whether or not they've gotten it, but there are also requirements that they need to make -- to -- to operate a business at this location as they pointed out. So, I don't -- as far as the contractor licensing question goes, I -- I don't see that that's necessary. You know, if there's a contractor licensing component, we'll get it over to them. But there is enough here for a code case on its own. MR. MIESZCAK: If you're licensed in Location A, are you also licensed in Location B? MR. WRIGHT: Well, that's -- that's -- MR. MIESZCAK: That's licensed. I'll get to the tax receipt, the second question. MR. WRIGHT: Yeah. I -- I mean, that's kind of a loaded question. I don't want to -- don't want to answer it inaccurately because there's some nuance there. Page 59 February 27, 2014 For example, your principal place of business versus a satellite location might affect the analysis there, so I don't want to lead you astray with the wrong answer. Generally speaking, in order to do business here, you have to have a business tax receipt here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have to have a business tax receipt at each location? MR. WRIGHT: No. Just generally in Collier County, you have to have authorization to do business in Collier County. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But for the particular location. MR. WRIGHT: I -- I'm not sure. I -- I think it's general to the -- countywide, but I'm not sure if there's a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I -- I know that, for instance, I have a license and they -- when I applied for the license, they wanted to know my address to see if that particular type of business that I run in my residential area is applicable, but it's only for that particular piece of property. They look it up in the books when you first go into Horseshoe to the left is where they look -- MR. WRIGHT: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that up. MR. WRIGHT: Actually, that makes sense because there's a zoning review component and they've got to make sure that whatever you are saying you're going to do is authorized under the zoning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then a secondary question would be -- and not for us but, you know, if you are violating some restriction that you have as far as an HOA document or a condo document or what you're doing, that's a different scenario. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. Can I be sworn in, please? (Kitchell Snow was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 60 February 27, 2014 MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Just to clarify, it says, no person shall engage in any -- or manage any business, profession or occupation anywhere in Collier County, including within municipalities for which local business tax receipt is required unless otherwise required for business tax receipt. The Tax Collector in Collier County -- a separate shall be -- business tax receipt shall be required for each geographic location. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's my question. MR. SNOW: Okay. So, each one has to have a business tax receipt. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, so I understand that better and the board can understand that better, do you have a business tax receipt for that location? MR. BENARROCH: No. Because they -- no, because they told us we didn't need one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I -- I can't comment on who told you what but -- MR. BENARROCH: Well, I have -- I have his name here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, no. MR. BENARROCH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Someone can say, it's okay you murder that person because I said so, but, you know, that doesn't mean that -- that you can murder somebody. MR. BENARROCH: That was at the meeting that we had. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- MR. BENARROCH: I mean, we have seven licenses now. I mean, getting more and more ain't going to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just -- well, the -- the concern that would -- that you would have and what I had when I applied for mine is whether they permit it or not. MR. BENARROCH: Yes. Page 61 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That crosses another line. MR. PINCKNEY: A bit of background so we know why this thing has drawn on -- gone on so long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. PINCKNEY: He was told he had to have a Site Development Plan or Site Improvement Plan because he was operating a landscape/maintenance business on this property. The property is zoned agricultural. He has a nursery there that he raises plants in his business. This is Affordable Landscaping. If you drive the streets, you've seen his blue trucks everywhere. Any rate -- so, he has the nursery there which is a right of use in -- a use of right and -- in agriculture. He was operating -- his landscape trucks come there and -- and are dispatched from there to go do their work during the day. He was not aware until a violation was filed by somebody that didn't like the trucks running up and down the road apparently, that he couldn't operate his landscape business on agricultural land. So, we had a pre-application meeting. There were a number of issues discussed and after that meeting -- that first pre-application meeting, we had a survey done on the property. We had an environmental consultant. These were all the things that the staff in the meetings said we needed to have to address. Had an environment consultant look at it because there's a piece of property on the west end that's vegetated and is a little bit wet, kind of a swale in there. We also -- he also got an agricultural exemption from -- for fire. So, we gathered the information, we got a report from the environmental consultant. We -- I requested additional steps. What was our next step and somehow the e-mail communication got lost. But at any rate, so we requested a second pre-application Page 62 February 27, 2014 meeting, which I believe was in -- was it November? And, so, at that time the issue was still we resolved most things except for the -- this little vegetative strip on the west end. So, staffs in the environmental department said that we had to more or less prove that it had been previously cleared or we'd have to have a preserve. Well, a preserve, that little thing on this piece of property seemed like an owner's requirement for him to have to do. We had aerial photographs that show it had been previously disturbed for agriculture use. But they didn't go back far enough. So, we were -- we're trying to research that. Eventually the staff acknowledged and said, you don't have to do that, you just have to get an after-the-fact agricultural clearing permit. Apparently it was prior to 1980, long before he owned the property. I don't know why he would have to do that, but that's -- I guess that's what the rules are because he wasn't responsible for clearing it. It's just -- just there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me -- let me make this easy. The only thing that's before us is the valid business tax receipt. MR. PINCKNEY: Well, that's the only thing before you, but they're saying in order to get that, he has to do the Site Development Plan and there's a lot involved -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you applied -- have you applied for a business tax receipt? MR. BENARROCH: No, because they told us we didn't need one. MR. PINCKNEY: At the application meeting we were told by -- you know, that we didn't have to have it because he already had one for his business. MR. BENARROCH: Well, we don't -- the only thing we do there is we grow our plants. We don't have no customers, we don't Page 63 February 27, 2014 have nobody going there. Just we go there in the morning and pick up our trucks, we leave, come back at night and shut the gate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. I -- I understand that. And -- and what Mr. Snow read into the record was that for each location -- MR. BENARROCH: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you have to have a business tax receipt. All the rest that you're talking about we're not hearing here today. MR. BENARROCH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. BENARROCH: But what I'm saying is in November they told us we didn't need one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I -- I understand what you're saying and -- MR. BENARROCH: I'll be more than happy to go -- MR. PINCKNEY: Just give him enough time to get that, bearing in mind that in order to get that, he's going to have to complete the Site Development Plan process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know what -- what he has to do to get that business tax receipt or not at this point. Ralph, you had a comment? (Ralph Bosa was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. Actually, he is part -- part correct is that he needs that Site Improvement Plan or Site Development Plan completed before he can get that tax receipt done, so -- so, once he gets that done, then we can review that. Like he said, it won't be a problem once he get approved through CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's a general time frame that -- that has to take place? Page 64 February 27, 2014 MR. BOSA: And that's -- that's why he reached this point, because he did have some time, he had almost a year, and the pre-application expired. Nothing was done until we gave him a call and say, hey, your application expired. You haven't done anything. But we already met. I was in that meeting. A bunch of us met and everything. We told him what was required to be done. And for something like that, I'm -- I'm guessing -- I would have to guess a couple months, a few months at least. Unless you have more -- sir, more information than I do as far as what's required, what -- what -- what they're asking you to complete. MR. PINCKNEY: Well, we've done much of what needs to be submitted, but the county takes weeks and weeks to review Site Improvement Plans, particularly now. They're really covered with work. I don't think two months would be enough time. I think you need four. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. MR. BOSA: There is a tedious process. It does -- there is quite a few people that we met with that has a lot of hands in the pot here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The whole purpose is to -- to get compliance. If it takes four months to get compliance, it takes four months. Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBRE: I have a comment. What you're noticing them for violation is a business tax receipt and you're saying that, number one, a violation of Collier County Land Development, Code 4-41, as amended. And if you look at that, that has nothing -- no statement at all regarding the business tax. And it's the page, Development Code 1 .04.01 generally. I don't see any relevancy between what you're noticing them and the business tax receipt. Page 65 February 27, 2014 And -- and the respondent went into great detail to talk about having to get the property, a Site Development or Site Improvement Plan, which is no -- doesn't have a relevancy to what -- why we're here. I understand that's a process you have to get that, the Site Development Plan or Site Improvement Plan first to get the business tax receipt. But I -- I don't see how you're noticing the correct violation. Nowhere here does it say anything about business tax. Is there any other LDC code that states specifically business -- business tax receipt? MR. BOSA: No. Like I said, any -- as we recited here, any other required Collier County authorization. So, this falls under the Site Improvement Plan or Site Development Plan, and the business tax receipt falls within those -- those same guidelines. He can't operate unless he has all those -- all those components altogether. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's your -- any other required -- MR. BOSA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- portion of the description of violation. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. MR. SNOW: And it's important to know that originally -- originally they are -- he was cited by the -- the investigator for buildings that were built on the property without the permitting. MR. LEFEBRE: Well, we're not here to hear that. MR. SNOW: Right. And I -- what I'm saying is that's part of what went into this and then we -- we took those off and I reissued that Notice of Violation because they were allowed to have those on agriculture. MR. PINCKNEY: They're just pole barns. They weren't Page 66 February 27, 2014 buildings. MR. SNOW: Right. MR. BENARROCH: With no electric and no water. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I -- I understand. So, it looks like to resolve everything to get everything that the county is asking for, if you were given four months, it shouldn't be a problem to get everything resolved and we wouldn't see you back here again? MR. PINCKNEY: I believe that to be correct. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make that motion, 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebre. MR. LEFEBRE: Well, a Site Development Plan in my experience, it takes a lot longer than -- than four months. I think four months would be -- unless it's a Site Improvement Plan. And this isn't something that would have to be done administratively if I'm not mistaken. It probably would have to go in front of the Planning Commission. MR. PINCKNEY: No. It would be strictly a staff review, the way it's been presented. MR. LEFEBRE: Is there already a Site Development Plan on this property? MR. PINCKNEY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we -- as King David said, to cut the baby up, why don't we make it six months, and at six months it's not done, then come back before and we'll entertain a motion to extend it further? MR. PINCKNEY: It seems very reasonable. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, we have to find a violation first. MR. LEFEBRE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, we have a motion to find a violation exists. Page 67 February 27, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Now, go again with your motion. Was it Lionel? MR. LAVINSKI: It wasn't Lionel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or was it you, James? MR. LAVINSKI: It was me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. James. MR. MIESZCAK: See what he says here. MR. SNOW: Would you like me to read my recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. SNOW: All right. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $64.04 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtain a zoning certificate from Growth Management Division allowing the landscape business to operate at this location, including a valid Collier County business tax receipt, or cease all landscaping operations from this location within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars a day will be imposed for each day any violation continues. Number two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Page 68 February 27, 2014 If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method for bringing 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. Now, Mr. Lavinski, do you have a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. I make a motion that the -- the administrative costs of sixty-four oh four be paid in 30 days. Because this came in on a valid complaint, I'd like to say that it has to be abated in 120 days or a fine of$200 per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? It fails for the lack of a second. Would you like to adjust your days? I have a feeling that if you do, we'll get a second. MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would anybody else like to make a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: And the gentlemen did ask for four months, stated by the gentleman over there. Four months is fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's just what -- MR. LAVINSKI: Is that 120 days? MR. MIESZCAK: No. MR. LAVINSKI: Yes, it is. MR. MIESZCAK: 120 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. MR. LEFEBRE: So, we have -- do you want to second that motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to second -- Page 69 February 27, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: No. I just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- Mr. Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. I'll second the motion. MR. MIESZCAK: I apologize. I thought -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's an exercise in arithmetic. MR. MIESZCAK: I was still thinking about six months down there. Sony. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, we have a motion. Let me repeat it. Administrative costs of sixty-four oh four to be paid within 30 days, 120 days to abate the violation or a fine of$200 a day. That's your motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the second. MR. MIESZCAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's not -- it's not six months. It's four months. But after four months, if you have a problem, as Mr. Lefebre pointed out, which is a possibility, come back and we'll adjust accordingly. MR. PINCKNEY: Thank you very much. MR. BENARROCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 70 February 27, 2014 Okay. We're going to take a ten-minute break -- eleven-minute break. We're in recess. (A recess was had from 10:49 a.m. until 11 :04 a.m.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to session, which brings us to? MS. TOOLEY: Case Number 12 is stipulated, so we'd like to move that forward if we can. The respondent is present. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: What's that? What's wrong? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Case Number 12 is a stipulation. Kirkwood Holdings? MS. TOOLEY: Yes. Case Number CESD20120018551, Kirkwood Holdings, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, would you read us the stipulation and we'll go from there. (Jeff Letourneau and Kevin Thomas were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. THOMAS: Kevin Thomas, Managing Member of Kirkwood Holdings, LLC. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount $63.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and Certificates of Completion/Occupancy within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request an investigator perform a site Page 71 February 27, 2014 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. MR. LETOURNEAU: I do believe Mr. Thomas might have a few words to say. MR. THOMAS: When was the compliance date originally -- after the extension, when was the compliance date, sir? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe the original compliance date after the extension -- the extension was granted till January 24th, 2013. MR. THOMAS: And -- January 24th. And what was warned at that compliance schedule? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't have the minutes from the original hearing. MR. THOMAS: Was there a stipulation? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't believe so. I'm not -- I'm not sure about that though. MR. THOMAS: Protocol would stipulate a $200 -- a fine -- $200 day fine? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. Usually on -- on a permitted issue on something like this, it would be a $200 a day fine, yes, sir. MR. THOMAS: Here's a new one for you. How come I'm not being charged? MR. LETOURNEAU: Excuse me? MR. THOMAS: If I was supposed to have it done on January 22nd? MR. LETOURNEAU: 24th. MR. THOMAS: January 24th. It's now 30 days later -- Page 72 February 27, 2014 MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. MR. THOMAS: -- or 32 days, whatever it is. If that property was supposed to be in compliance by a certain date and it was not in compliance by the certain date, there should be fines assessed against the property. MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't believe it was ever heard. I believe that whatever parties came in here on that day, the board agreed to a continuance for four months, and I don't think any monetary fines were assessed at that point. That's why there wasn't any Affidavit of Noncompliance done. There wasn't an order of board to -- I -- I don't believe, to have the violation taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If there was a continuance, what we generally do is we don't start assigning a per diem fine until after it's back before the board going forward. MR. THOMAS: And shouldn't then the fines start as of today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They would if we don't have an agreement. Do you have an agreement? MR. LETOURNEAU: I read the agreement just prior to our conversation here and I said give them seven days or $200 a day fine. MR. LEFEBRE: Has this case been heard before is what my question is? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't -- it's been before the board before, but I don't believe it was heard. I -- I didn't look at the minutes. It just -- it was an odd situation. I wasn't here at that time. I got the case handed to me after the -- the previous hearing. It just -- I've got the actual -- MR. LEFEBRE: Because we don't -- MR. LETOURNEAU: -- order right here. MR. LEFEBRE: -- give continuances usually for four months. MR. THOMAS: Pardon me, sir? Page 73 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: We usually don't give continuances for four months. MR. THOMAS: That's one of my problems. MR. LEFEBRE: Well, it shouldn't be a problem because you're actually in better shape now. MR. THOMAS: No. MR. LEFEBRE: Do you want fines being assessed to you -- MR. THOMAS: Yes. MR. LEFEBRE: -- starting as of-- MR. THOMAS: Yes. MR. LEFEBRE: -- last month? MR. THOMAS: I want whatever the county deems necessary. Here's the challenge and this is a new one for you. MR. LEFEBRE: Well, maybe not. MR. THOMAS: Sir, it's my obligation as a business owner and developer in Collier County to have strict adherence to the county code, which I do, and I have many buildings. And this particular case started when I called on myself because I have a tenant. I have a tenant that is noncompliant to the requirements of the lease, which includes compliancy to the Collier County code. They do not have an occupational license. That's a separate matter that we're dealing with, and insurance and non-county related items, but most importantly there was an unpermitted bathroom built. This tenant has been in occupancy for approximately 11 and a half years in violation of county ordinances. I had to compel them through a court order and multiple extensions and delays to get the occupational license, the insurance, et cetera. As it relates to the bathroom, as a property owner and business owner in that Gateway Triangle that we're trying to rebuild -- excuse me -- I believe that an unpermitted bathroom that is not sound on a 1974 building is a public safety hazard. Page 74 February 27, 2014 You've got lead pipes, you've got no water backflow as required, you've got water coming directly from the city directly to the toilet and there's no backflow prevention -- prevention, which is required. It's a four year old requirement. Proper drainage and proper ventilation, none of those exists. Then the unpermitted wood structure itself, that Jeff has a photograph of, has open walls, nails, you know, very bad exposure for public safety, health and risk using that facility in a commercial operation. The tenant is Murphy Bed Centers. That's the warehouse where they manufacture the beds. So, I've been trying to get that tenant into compliance and/or depart that lease. Because there are no monitory damages associated with their violations, the Court -- you know, the Circuit Court continues the argument so they can drag their heels and filibuster to use the -- that challenge as a way to keep extending a noncompliant lease. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, why don't I suggest then that you withdraw the agreement, the stipulation that you have -- MR. LEFEBRE: I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and let the board rule on does a violation exist and what we intend to do on it. MR. LETOURNEAU: That -- that's fair. I mean -- MR. LEFEBRE: Or this stipulated agreement, we can go the opposite way than the previous one where instead of giving them -- I think you want -- well, how many days now? MS. RAWSON: Seven. MR. LETOURNEAU: I had 30 on there and he -- you know, we kind of worked it down to seven at this point. I didn't -- I didn't know. MR. LEFEBRE: What would be gained by hearing the case? He wants the shortest time frame possible so then he can go to the Circuit Court and say that they're in violation, there's a monetary fine that I'm Page 75 February 27, 2014 going to be assessed as the owner, and I think that's what you're trying to gain. MR. THOMAS: That's number one and, number two, post the discussion with Jeffrey -- he's very good by the way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He tells us that. MR. THOMAS: But now these citizens are supporting it. The -- because the bathroom is removed, waiting for a fire inspection, don't hold your breath, and once the fire inspection is done, the business owner, we believe, is in violation of their occupational license and we might be able to seek remedies by revoking their occupational license. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me -- let me just say. The reason I -- I say get rid of the stipulation is, this way we will find that you are or they are in violation, which you can then take to the Court. MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then the remedy for that violation, the board will determine. But right now -- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth -- if you agreed to a stipulation, I think that might sour your opportunity to MR. THOMAS: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- get things resolved. MR. LEFEBRE: We can hear it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- MR. MIESZCAK: Can I ask one quick question though? You said for eleven and a half years the tenant's been there; right? MR. THOMAS: Uh-huh. MR. MIESZCAK: Why are you renewing the lease? MR. THOMAS: I purchased the property two years ago and it came with an estoppel of continuance of a -- of an extended lease. So, it was not my choice to renew it. I -- it's the luggage I'm burdened Page 76 February 27, 2014 with the purchase. MR. MIESZCAK: And the lease goes on forever? MR. THOMAS: For another five years. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, why don't we ask this question first and then -- would you like to withdraw your agreement on the stipulation? MR. THOMAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: The county has no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, the stipulation is now gone and now we are going to hear the case. MR. LEFEBRE: Well, would we go back to our other cases first and then hear it, this case, or do you want to move this case up? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we -- why don't we modify the agenda and move this case up since everybody is standing here already. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to modify the agenda. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. We can hear this case now. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Here we go. This is in reference to Case Number CESD20120018551 dealing Page 77 February 27, 2014 with the violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 0441 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). The violation description, a bathroom with toilet, sink and electric installed without Collier County building permit, located at 2190 Kirkwood Avenue, Unit 2, Naples, Florida, 34112, Folio Number 61580920005. Service was given on April 24th, 2013. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. Three pictures taken by former Investigator Scavone on January 23rd, 2013 and one picture taken by myself on January 25th, 2014. Mr. Thomas has seen these pictures. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hang on one second. Before we do that, do we have to -- Jean, do we have to re-swear everybody else in since the stipulation? MS. RAWSON: No. They are -- they're still testifying in the same case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good. Okay. We have a motion to accept the -- the photos. And a second? Do we have a second on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second by Mr. Lavinski. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Page 78 February 27, 2014 Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: All right. The first three pictures were taken by Investigator Scavone approximately a year ago. I can see kind of a haphazard bathroom type facility that was built. No -- no Collier County permits. There's a third picture right there and then -- yeah. That picture -- well, that last blue picture right there was taken by me two days ago. Yeah. That one right there, showing that the bathroom is no longer there. Okay? All right. The details of the case are on December 18th, 2012, we received a complaint about an unpermitted bathroom addition being built in this unit. On January 23rd, 2013, former Investigator Scavone was allowed access into the unit and observed the bathroom shown on the first three pictures. After research and speaking with the property owner, Kevin Thomas, it was determined that the tenants alluded had installed the bathroom without a permit. A Demolition Permit PRBD20130922186 was applied for on September 6th, 2013, but it wasn't issued until February 21st, 2014. The case went before the Code Enforcement Board -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you -- can you do those two dates again? They applied for it when? MR. LETOURNEAU: On September 6th, 2013 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- but it wasn't issued until February 21st, 2014 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Got it. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- mysteriously after I had posted the hearing notice for this particular -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably no mystery. Page 79 February 27, 2014 MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. The case went before the Code Enforcement Board on September 26th, 2013 and the continuance was granted until January 24th, 2013. As of February 26th, 2014, the bathroom is removed but the demolition permit has been not been final. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When they -- did they notify Code Enforcement to come out and -- and view that it's been completed? MR. LETOURNEAU: Nobody ever notified me of anything. I -- I spoke to you maybe and I -- I was under the assumption that there had been fines from the previous case. I had really looked into it before. Remember, I said that there were -- had been a previous hearing and it was coming up and I had an re-inspection. I think it was on the 24th and I -- I said I was rescheduling it for another hearing? MR. THOMAS: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I thought it was going to be an imposition, but I was mistaken. It was actually just a continuance, that we had to -- we had to reschedule it for the original hearing, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, what you're saying is, that the last part of all of the motions that we generally do say that you need to notify Code Enforcement when the case has been resolved, when the final inspection to ensure compliance. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have the actual order for the motion to continue and it doesn't really say -- it doesn't really say anything about notifying Code Enforcement at this time. I -- I'm not really sure what was said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How do you know that it's been done or not if you don't have that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, a recheck was put for the day after this motion was up. I checked to see if the permit had been CO'd, and it was still in apply status at that point, so that's when I scheduled it come before the hearing at that time. Page 80 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, the -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Nobody ever -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- demo permit was never CO'd. MR. LETOURNEAU: The demo permit was never even issued at that point on -- on January 24th. It wasn't issued until February 21st after I had posted the hearing notice on the building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. So, obviously a violation did exist after the January date until you -- you got notification that the demo permit was done -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and that was February. MR. LETOURNEAU: It was issued. I didn't say it was done. It's issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: It still needs three fire inspections to be completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. So, it's not done. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's not done. It's only issued at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, we need to find if a violation exists then. Do you want to say anything right now? MR. THOMAS: I want to defend Kirkwood Holdings' position as to why it experienced a tardiness in the strict adherence to the required performance. Due to an ongoing litigation with Murphy Bed Centers, the tenant, they, in writing through their counsel, have restricted access, not allowing us and refusing access to the building by not providing a key and not providing written permission or anybody to walk in with us to support access. Without access -- excuse me -- we didn't want to burden the additional expense and time of continuing the permit process and Page 81 February 27, 2014 obtaining all of the legal rights to repair if we did not have access. Then after the notification from the county, that if you do not get this done in the short window, only then -- and I don't have the dates accurately, but they'll -- the documents will speak for themselves. Only upon demand from the county that fines would ensue did then the attorney for the defendant allow us to have access and provide a key, which we then immediately responded to, to the next day or the day after, with the application of the permit employing the contractor, getting the work done, doing our best effort to get the project done. The day before this trial, we had the -- because the developer has a good relationship with the county, we did get a plumbing inspection and a demolition inspection, but not the fire inspections. So, we did our diligent effort to comply. But the delay is strictly because of the Murphy access delay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, the -- the permits were all applied for by Kirkwood, not by the, if you will pardon the expression, the resident of the property. MR. THOMAS: The tenant, correct. The tenant did agree that it was their responsibility and they would move forward and apply for it early last year before the September application by Kirkwood, but they never performed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry. One last thing, sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. THOMAS: When we had this hearing for an extension, we did not -- we, Kirkwood Holdings, through Chris Cohen, the attorney, did not ask for an extension. We wanted to get it done on time. Then, the tenant through its counsel, Mark Slack, who was not a party to the case -- a tenant does not make them a party if they're not notified and they're not included in your notice. So, an unrelated party walked up and asked for a four months Page 82 February 27, 2014 extension, which is kind of a tortious interference of the relationship between the landlord -- you know, the property owner and the county, and asked for an extension to allow them to delay the time. And in the county's courtesy, they offered an extension to a non-related party, which has caused us damage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And when I iron this all out, it comes down to does a violation exist since the demo permit has not been finalized and that is part of the original order. MR. LETOURNEAU: No, there was not an original order. MR. LEFEBRE: This is -- there was no order. MR. LETOURNEAU: No. It was a continuance. I'm saying that the violation -- the county is saying the violation still exists because there was a bathroom, they pulled -- they applied for a demolition permit to have the bathroom removed and it doesn't have a Certificate of Completion on it yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to make a motion on this? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'm still a little confused, that if we had an illegal bathroom to begin, which was a violation, now the illegal bathroom is gone, we don't have a violation. If I walked in there today, I wouldn't see a toilet and a bathroom and a sink, which is the violation, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Also part of that is the demo permit has to be completed, otherwise the violation still exists. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm saying that the required inspections all the way through to the fire have not been completed safety-wise, and according to the ordinance, a Certificate of Completion needs to be obtained. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, even though the sink and the -- and the toilet are gone, the paperwork -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 83 February 27, 2014 MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, the fire department has to come out there and do their inspections to make this compliant. That's our contention. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: I make a motion that a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Okay. Carries unanimously. A violation exists. Do you have a recommendation for us, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $63.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you for one second. It will be sixty-three forty-four plus today's hearing. MR. LETOURNEAU: That -- that is today's hearing. Was I supposed to add on the continuance? I don't know if-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what they generally do. I just mentioned that. You may want to check on that. MS. RAWSON: I think it's just sixty-three forty-four today. If we come back to impose fines, then we add more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 84 February 27, 2014 MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. By obtaining a Collier County building or demolition permit, all required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy/Completion within blank days of this hearing or a final 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. So, now if I understand this correctly, we need to come up with sixty-three forty-four, X amount of days to have this completed or a fine of-- MR. LETOURNEAU: X amount of dollars. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- X amount of dollars. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: Pay the sixty-three forty-four in operational costs within 30 days. A $200 a day fine after 30 days will be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? Any comments from the board? I'll second the motion. MR. LETOURNEAU: Hold on. What about the amount of days -- you said 30 days to pay the fine? Is there -- is there any amount of days to get -- MR. LEFEBRE: 30 days. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBRE: Sorry. I might have misspoken. Thirty days to Page 85 February 27, 2014 correct the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I say one more thing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: We had -- we had done the stip for seven and he was willing to do that -- okay. All right. I'm just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. We can't act as the Court -- MR. LETOURNEAU: All right. I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- for whatever reasons. But this should resolve the situation one way or the other. Okay? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. You're correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay. So, now it's up to you. If-- you're the one that has to pull the demo permit and -- and -- and you don't, or you don't finish it, the fines will accrue at $200 a day. MR. THOMAS: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: He's happy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN'.., I see -- I see the smirk. Very good. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS: Thank yoga for your time, gentlemen. MS. TOOLEY: Next is Case Number 7. The Case Number is Page 86 February 27, 2014 CEROW20130001764, Douglas L. Aldridge, Sr. and Carolyn J. Aldridge. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to sit down? We have a microphone that can reach the seats. MR. ALDRIDGE: No, that's fine. Thanks. (James Davis and Douglas L. Aldridge, Sr. were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DAVIS: For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. ALDRIDGE: Doug Aldridge. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you present the case? MR. DAVIS: For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CEROW20130001764 dealing with the violation of right-of-way permits, Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 110, Roads and Bridges, Article II, construction and right-of-way, Division I generally, Section 110-31(A) dealing with two driveways entering the property with damaged or collapsed drainage culvert pipes located at 725 Sanctuary Road, Naples, Florida, 34120, Folio Number 95160007. Service was given on July 17th, 2013. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, three photos taken by Investigator Eric Short. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photos? MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to the photos? MR. ALDRIDGE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. Page 87 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. DAVIS: I observed two driveways entered in the property with damaged culvert pipes. I observed a City View Permit Number PRROW20130203941 was issued on February 21st, 2013. The last activity on the permit was February 27th, 2013. The property owner has installed one of the two culvert pipes that needs replacing; however, the other pipe is in failure and needs to be removed or replaced. After talking to the Building Department, this particular permit will not be allowed to extend past the March 3rd, 2014 expiration date. As of today the violation remains and I believe Mr. Aldridge would like an extension of time to be able to work with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you go back to the first photo? That's the third photo and this photo are the same culvert pipe? MR. DAVIS: I believe so. MS. TOOLEY: There's another shot here, too. MR. DAVIS: Well, it was a closeup, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I could understand that one being damaged, but the other one looks good. Page 88 February 27, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Is that the one that was replaced? MR. MIESZCAK: Both of them have to be replaced. Can you put -- MS. TOOLEY: This one? MR. DAVIS: Yeah. This -- put this one up here. On the opposite side -- I'm just a blue collar guy. Okay. Mr. Aldridge actually has this -- this one hasn't been inspected yet, but he's already replaced this one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIS: And, I mean, it looks very good. There's -- there's -- there's no restriction of any flow through there. Unfortunately on the other side is the pipe that he still needs to get a new pipe for and that -- and the only reason he was able to get this one done, and he did this one first, was because that's the one that collapsed and started to restrict the water flow from coming through. So, he did that first. That's the amount of finances he had to do that. Now, this was brought to him from the county. The county recognized that the -- as they're inspecting the culverts, that these have -- had collapsed or had obstructions. So, once he got involved, he got his permits. He's going to explain to you financially why, you know, he's having a difficult time getting both of them done, but I can tell you that it hasn't restricted the water flow. But it still needs replaced according to the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ALDRIDGE: Jim, let me correct you on the -- the photos there. That photo is the second driveway to the west. The first driveway is further back to the east and that's the one that has been replaced. MR. LEFEBRE: Further off in the distance. Further in the distance -- MR. ALDRIDGE: Yes. Page 89 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: -- is the one that's been replaced. MR. ALDRIDGE: Right. Right. Correct. MR. MIESZCAK: That's the one that's been replaced? Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: That one's been replaced? MR. DAVIS: That's the one that's been replaced. MR. ALDRIDGE: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. DAVIS: That's correct. MR. ALDRIDGE: But it appears that that photo was taken before I put the new pipe in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would hope so. MR. DAVIS: That's correct. That's correct. MR. ALDRIDGE: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's the -- MR. MIESZCAK: That's also a violation. MR. ALDRIDGE: And that's the old pipe and I replaced it once I got enough money to do it. I live on social security, me and my wife, and that's it. That's the only thing we've got coming in is social security. That's not much money. So, from day one when I agreed that I would put the pipes in, because to begin with I didn't agree that it was my responsibility; however, they showed me an ordinance that said, yeah, it's your -- okay. So, I accepted that responsibility. And I told them the first day, I don't know how long it will take me to do it because I don't have the money. If I had the money, all of it would already be done, finished, completed. But I don't have any money. So, I did the best I could to save up money and bought one pipe. Got it installed. I'm currently trying to save enough money to replace the second pipe. Those pipes cost $500 apiece which, maybe it's not a lot of money to some people, but it's a lot of money to me. And that's the Page 90 February 27, 2014 reason the work hasn't been finished. It's due to a lack of money. So, Jim, has been really nice to me, trying to help me all he could. But after a point, what can you do? He -- his boss told me that they couldn't extend me any more time and that I needed to come before the board. So, that's why I'm here, asking for more time to get this completed. Now, I know your question is going to be how long is it going to take you? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we get there, we have to find out if a violation exists and then we can go to how much time, et cetera, et cetera. MR. ALDRIDGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? So, anybody want to make a motion if a violation exists or not? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second a violation exists. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay. Now, how much time do you think you would need to get this -- it's -- it's not so much the time that you need. It sounds like the county permit sunsets in -- in March 2nd or something. Is that what you said? MR. DAVIS: March 3rd. Page 91 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: March 3rd. And then you'd have to pull another permit. MR. DAVIS: He's going to have to pull another permit at that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, the other pipe, is it restricting water a lot, a little? MR. DAVIS: It is not. It is not restricting it. But it's collapsing but it's not restricting the water flow. This one here that he replaced, you can see, pretty much collapsed. That -- that's the main part of it that was restricting the water flow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me ask the question. How much do they charge to pull a permit to do this? MR. ALDRIDGE: The original permit cost me $200. My sentiments exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I'll tell you if it was me, I would -- I would give you -- since the other one's not causing any problems, I'd give you a year to resolve the situation since it's not causing any problems. MR. LEFEBRE: Let's hear the investigator's recommendation -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LEFEBRE: -- and then that way we can -- MR. DAVIS: I mean, I would -- my recommendation -- or you want me to read my recommendation? MR. LEFEBRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here you go. MR. ASHTON: Yes. MR. DAVIS: Didn't mean to bring any levity to anything. MR. LAVINSKI: Levity is good. MR. DAVIS: All right. Recommendation that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount $64.04 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 Page 92 February 27, 2014 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County right-of-way permits, inspections and Certificate of Completion to repair the collapsed drainage culvert pipe within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, we're back -- back to -- MR. LEFEBRE: What's the operational cost again? MR. DAVIS: Sixty-four oh four. MR. LEFEBRE: All right. I make a motion that operational costs in the amount of sixty-four oh four be paid within 30 days. You'll have 360 days to correct the violation or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second that motion. MR. ALDRIDGE: That's your decision, I'll have to live with it, but that $64 comes right out of my fund for fixing the thing. You can understand that, right? MR. ASHTON: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let me -- let's vote on this motion and then we'll talk. MR. ALDRIDGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 93 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. After one year, if that pipe still isn't restricting water and you want to come back here and ask for more time, we'll be here. MR. ALDRIDGE: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: We typically ask that the organizational costs are paid within one month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you need more time for the operational cost, we can extend that as well. MR. LEFEBRE: Well -- MR. MIESZCAK: With the county. MR. LEFEBRE: But -- but hold on a minute. If he comes in front of us in a year from now and operational costs have not been paid, typically we do not extend past one year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Let me -- Jean, you're shaking her head. MS. RAWSON: Well, we could -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I watched the Magistrate extend the time for -- MS. RAWSON: Operational costs? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Many times. MS. RAWSON: Really? MR. MIESZCAK: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Well, we always put it for 30 days -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- but, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. Page 94 February 27, 2014 MS. RAWSON: -- he's asking for more time because it's going to come out of his repairing costs. I mean, I don't know of any legal reason why you can't. But we're not really in control of the operational costs and we don't have the right to waive them. So, you're saying you have the right to extend the time for payment. Well, maybe you do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if we're treated the same as the Magistrate is, I see that happen all the time. MS. RAWSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- MR. LEFEBRE: We already took a vote and everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll leave it. Thirty days for the administrative costs. It will cause less confusion. Again, after one year, if-- if you haven't gotten the funds together to get it done and you need to come back and request additional time or whatever, that's up to you. MR. ALDRIDGE: Well, fair enough. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. ALDRIDGE: Well, thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you very much. MR. ALDRIDGE: Thank you. Thank you, Jim. MS. TOOLEY: Number 9, Case Number CESD20130011211, Rafael Barrios Montero, Thomas B. Avila Reyes and Ricardo Abril. (Chris Ambach was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: State your name for the record. MR. AMBACH: Again, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement for the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: This is in reference to Case Number CESD20130011211, dealing with a violation of the Collier County Page 95 February 27, 2014 Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), the 2010 Florida Building Code, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 . Violation, a shed, fence and two aluminum structures in the rear yard built first without obtaining all required Collier County permits, located at 1281 25th Street Southwest, Folio Number 37347080002. Service was given on October 4th, 2013. I'd now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits; three photographs taken by myself on May 3rd, 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept and a second by Mr. Ashton. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: This case was opened due to a complaint with regard to an unpermitted fence, shed and two aluminum structures in the rear yard built without permits. And meeting with the property owner and explaining the permitting issues, he started the process of obtaining all required Collier County building permits. In October, I observed the fence permit that had been pulled had expired. In November 2013, I observed the permits for the aluminum Page 96 February 27, 2014 structures and shed had been applied for, however, rejected. I spoke with the owner who requested additional time to make corrections and resubmit. In January 2014, I observed no changes in status. I prepared the case for hearing at that time. I met with the property owner a few days ago on the 24th, and we discussed the case. I'm going to ad-lib at this point. The way this case started was I had one owner who is one of the original owners on the case we're hearing today. He sold the property and added himself on with two other folks. So, I had to close the original case out. That's why you're going to see different dates; May, October. Well, you know, why -- why do we have photographs from May when I served notice in October? The same owner, but he had added two other folks on, so I had to re -- reserve legal notice so everything was correct and legal. I explained everything to the owner and his daughter about the permits. They understood. They started the process. The fence permit expired. Nothing was done. I called several times. I didn't receive any phone calls back. The same with the aluminum structures. They -- they started that process as well. It was rejected in November and nothing has been done to date. So, on the 24th, I met with one of the owners and his father and, basically, what happened was they gave $2,000 to an architect who promised them the world and has not come through at this point. So, they've obtained another architect, but now they have to find a GC. He was supposed to be here today to sign the stipulation agreement. I went over that with him in the field. He said it was an option for him and -- and all that, and I am surprised he's not here today. But the bottom line is, I explained there's another avenue for him Page 97 February 27, 2014 to take and I can meet with him. As far as a contractor's licensing is concerned, if he wanted to pursue that separately from this case with regard to his money being taken, but he understands that this needs to be done and he is trying hard to -- to take care of it. He just only -- he has 50 percent of what he needs. He needs the GC and he needs a permit by affidavit completed. And that's where he's stuck at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBRE: Have we ever seen this case before, this property before? MR. AMBACH: I'm sorry? MR. LEFEBRE: Have we ever seen this case or this property before? MR. AMBACH: No, not this one. No. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. MR. AMBACH: It's beautiful. It really is beautiful. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motion from the board? I'd make a motion that the -- a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay. You have a suggestion for us, Chris? Page 98 February 27, 2014 MR. AMBACH: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all -- all operations costs in the amount of $64.64 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, number one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and Certificate of Occupancy/Completion within blank days of the date of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And, number two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Real quick, to answer your question. As I was reading this, I remembered this case was -- was pulled. It was on the docket originally and one of the permits was -- was reapplied for, so we pulled it from the docket because it looked like he was going to comply. So, that may be why you remembered maybe the address coming upor -- MR. LEFEBRE: I don't know. The pictures look familiar, but obviously from -- MR. AMBACH: Sure. MR. LEFEBRE: -- mixing them up with some other case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you say he is being diligent in -- in doing this, so we should probably take that into consideration. MR. AMBACH: I -- I would think so. I think that would be a good idea. Page 99 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, in -- in the amount of time we would give him to resolve this. Any comments from the board? Any motions from the board? MR. LEFEBRE: I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBRE: I make a motion. It seems like I'm making motions today. Operational costs in the amounts of sixty-four sixty-four to be paid within 30 days, 90 days to correct all violations on the property or $150 a day fine. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thanks, Chris. MR. AMBACH: Great. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Number 10, Case Number CEPM20130003067, Kenneth Alan Blake and Dorothy R. Blake. (James Davis was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DAVIS: James Davis. For the record, Investigator James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CEPM20130003067, dealing with violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Page 100 February 27, 2014 Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(12)(C), missing roof shingles in front and rear of the house located at 1391 11th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117, Folio Number 45847720003. Service was given on March 1st, 2013. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, one photo. MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept the photo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the photo. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. DAVIS: In response to the complaint, the site visit revealed that there are missing roof shingles throughout the roof. The home is now currently occupied and as of today, the roof remains in violation and no permits have been applied for by the owner to fix the roof. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion that a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that a violation exists and a second. All those in favor? Page 101 February 27, 2014 Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us? MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $64.04 -- MS. TOOLEY: Yes. MR. DAVIS: -- incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections and Certificates of Completion and Occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars a day will be imposed for each day any violations continue. Two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm the 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 try to fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'll take this one. Motion is made to have the sixty-four oh four paid within 30 days. And you said this was occupied; right? Page 102 February 27, 2014 MR. DAVIS: It is now. At the time that the original violation was cited, it was a vacant foreclosed home, but it's sold since then. Now it's -- now it's occupied. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like the violation to be corrected in 60 days or a fine of$200 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. We have two folks sitting here. No sense having you wait. We can move you up. MR. LAVINSKI: Blake is up again, the same -- MR. MIESZCAK: The same. We've got another -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh. We'll get to that then. Think about that going forward. MR. LEFEBRE: Maybe after this case. MS. TOOLEY: Number 11 is Case Number CESD20130003068. Kenneth Alan Blake and Dorothy R. Blake. (James Davis was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DAVIS: I do. For the record, Investigator James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 103 February 27, 2014 This is in reference to Case Number CESD20130003068, dealing with the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). Did witness a screen room which was converted into a fully enclosed living space and a garage conversion without the required Collier County permits, located at 1391 11th Street Southwest, Naples Florida, 34117, Folio Number 45847720003. Service was given on May 17th, 2013. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, three photos taken by Investigator Condomina. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. DAVIS: In response to a complaint, I researched the property permits, finding permit 92-11291, which was for the screen room with truss roof, rear addition and alteration. There was no Certificate of Completion or Occupancy or inspections in the file. The rear addition is in violation. There are no active permits for the garage conversion, and as of today, the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this -- probably has other violations as to the one and the -- and the junk that's in front of house? MR. DAVIS: Well, with the new owners -- with the new Page 104 February 27, 2014 owners, all that is gone. The lawn has been cleaned up. They've been able to clean up the lawn. They've been able to -- they got rid of the couch and stuff like that that was out there. At the time of the violation, it was a vacant home. They had vagrants living in the -- in the home. That's why the neighbor called. But further research, as it was a foreclosure and vacant, found that the permits were missing for the -- the -- not only the rear addition but the garage conversion itself as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motion from the board to find out if a violation exists? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Who did the -- do you know who did the additional of the garage there? Was that done before these people took it? MR. DAVIS: It was -- all the violations were before the new owners took it. They bought it as is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And was this picked up on the inspection that Code Enforcement does on folks that are buying houses? MR. DAVIS: No. That's a lien search. They didn't -- they didn't Page 105 February 27, 2014 do a lien search for this. This was while it was vacant, while it was a foreclosed home before the bank sold it. Basically, what happened was there were vagrants living in the home, and so the neighbor called and told us that there were numerous violations, that you see the way it looked at the time -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. DAVIS: -- that they wanted it cleaned up, the neighbor did. So, when Investigator Condomina came to -- to that property, he noticed that there were other things. Doing our due diligence, a research of the home, noticed there were -- the garage conversion and the screen room on the back were both unpermitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIS: And, so, we added that to the case for the bank as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And -- and for the bank. MR. DAVIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the bank has since sold this house? MR. DAVIS: As is to the new owners, Mr. and Mrs. Blake. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, they were aware of these -- they weren't aware of these deficiencies before they bought it? MR. DAVIS: No. They did not do the lien search. They bought it as is from the bank. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, so, that's a commercial to make sure people do a lien search, et cetera, before they purchase something. Okay. Great. Yes. MR. LEFEBRE: A case is opened when the bank owned it, but since the case was not heard, there was nothing on file in county records. Is that correct? MR. DAVIS: Outside of the violations in our records. Page 106 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: Right. MR. DAVIS: Violation was served. MR. LEFEBRE: Right, but there was nothing publicly recorded. MR. DAVIS: Publicly recorded, so if they did a lien search, they would find the violations, but there was no liens. You're -- you're correct in saying there's no liens. MR. LEFEBRE: There were nothing on public records that you -- if you did a title search that would show up that it was a violation or MR. DAVIS: I -- Teresa, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but when they do the lien search, I believe if there's code violation on that property, that will be a part of that lien search. MS. TOOLEY: Yeah. Open -- open code violations show the liens were just -- MR. LEFEBRE: And a lien search through the county, but not through a title company; correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But the title company's going to look at it and see the structure itself and the additions, that it was not part of the original, so the title search would certainly pick it up. MS. TOOLEY: A lot of title companies request lien searches through the county. MR. DAVIS: Yeah. That's what I was going to add, that the title company has to request that -- that search from the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a suggestion for us? MR. DAVIS: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in an amount of $64.04 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, inspections and Certificates of Completion and Occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars a day will Page 107 February 27, 2014 be imposed for each day any violations continue. The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. That 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 Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with these people that are -- that own it now? MR. DAVIS: I -- I expected that they were going to be here today to tell you the truth, and I just talked to him -- I talk to them weekly. I know what issues they're going through. They -- they intended to come today and I'm not sure why they're not here to ask for an extension. What kind of question would you have? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I just -- the question is of the county. Have they been cooperative in -- in their dealings with you? MR. DAVIS: They've been cooperative with me. What -- what's lacking is they poured all their money into the house, not knowing that it was going to cost this much money. So, they -- the first -- the first time they were notified of the violation, once we knew there was a new owner, I actually went out and gave them the new violation with their name on it. That way that we would be able to work with them and they would have that. They -- right away they hired a contractor. He was supposed to do engineering drawings, but the amount of money that it was going to cost, they didn't have the money. They poured it all into their home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, they're probably going to go after this as an affidavit. Page 108 February 27, 2014 MR. DAVIS: They -- they -- that's what they -- they're going to try to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Anybody want to try to fill in the blanks? Hearing none, I'll try. Since they have been somewhat active in -- in resolving this situation, I give them 90 days, sixty-four oh four to be paid within 30 days, and $250 a day thereafter. And -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBRE: Kind of over now, but did they mention to you what they were looking for an extension of time? Did they tell you, well, we'd like to have -- MR. DAVIS: They -- I can -- I can tell you, sir, they're -- they're looking for -- and we're -- we're talking about a long time before this letter would be taken care of. The wife has a brain aneurysm, so, I mean, they're just -- all their money is going into medical expenses right now, and they're going to try and come here and get a very large extension. They said it's going to take them a year or so to get it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they need to come back then and be here to request an extension before the 90 days elapses, and if you could take that message to them, we'd -- Page 109 February 27, 2014 MR. DAVIS: I'll be talking to them today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Also, I think it -- in a way we should talk about a safety issue. They live in a home that's not permitted? How do we know about electric? So, it would be nice if they can do that first, something like that. MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. MR. DAVIS: Is that it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's it. Now, the two gentlemen that are here, which case is yours? We'll modify the agenda to move yours up to the next. MR. DINORCIA: Appreciate that. MR. LEFEBRE: Since you're the only one here. MR. DINORCIA: Anthony Dinorcia. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which case is it? Teresa will find it. MS. TOOLEY: I'm looking for it, yeah. It's towards the end in Imposition of Fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: It's case number -- it's Item Numbers 10 and 11 on the agenda. So, do you want to hear the first one first? Number 10? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. TOOLEY: 2000 -- the Case Number is 2007100236, and it's for Anthony Dinorcia, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (Kitchell Snow and Anthony Dinorcia were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: I do so swear. For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 110 February 27, 2014 Just to remind, this is an imposition of fines. This is a violation of Ordinance 04-41 of the Land Development Code -- I'm sorry -- Collier County Land Development Code as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). And the Location is 3963 Domestic Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio was 274560004. And the description is numerous unpermitted structures, including office, canopy structures, silos and buildings. And the past order is on March 22nd, 2012. The Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, a conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and was ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4784, and Page 1804 for more information. On July 26th, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board granted the extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4825, and Page 889 for more information. On January 4th -- 24th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, 4883, and Page 35 -- 3354 for more information. On June 27th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4942, and Page 3 829 for more information. On July 25th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4953, and Page 2508 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Page 111 February 27, 2014 Board orders as of February 27th, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Number 1 and 2. Fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between January 27, 2014 and February 27th, 2014, 37 days, for a total of$7,400. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed and paid operational costs total eighty-one fifteen. Operational costs for a total -- hearing to total is sixty-six fourteen. And total amount to date is $7,466.14. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This -- if I'm not mistaken, I've been going back, this was signed by Ken Kelly. It was in April 2012, April 4th, and that was stipulation that was at that time. So, this has been -- there have been numerous extensions, et cetera, on this. Is that correct? MR. SNOW: That is correct, sir. I believe Mr. Dinorcia has a statement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DINORCIA: Yes. We finally -- it took a long time. As I recall our engineer saying that it was like peeling an onion. We kept digging through it and it took forever to get the STPI, which we did get it in October. We have the landscaping approval and we have the STPI. We hired Mario Lamendola. I don't know if any of you folks know, but Mario was sick and he died the very first week of January. We notified Mr. Box that we were hiring another architect for the structural part to redesign -- to finish the design so that we'd go in for permit. We're finally ready to go in for permit and that's the only thing missing right now. We have obtained CO for a couple of the buildings. As a matter of fact, a couple of them was CO'd in '96, but we had to dig through that and we finally found it. The main building is CO'd. We have had the fire department there inspecting, we have had OSHA inspection, we have had EPA inspection. We meet all those Page 112 February 27, 2014 requirements, so there's no danger; however, we are in default in getting the approval. We just retained a -- a general contractor to get somebody to finish the plans from Mario. We got them from Mario on the 17th finally from his office. They had to shut down his office and give us whatever he had done because we had given him a retainer and he was working on the plans. He did draw some of the plans, but he never sealed them, so Mr. Whalen here has got another -- architects to finish up, so hopefully we can go in and get them very soon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the board? Mr. Snow, do you have anything to -- MR. SNOW: Well, sir, the county's here to impose. We would acquiesce to anything the -- the board desires to do. I believe there has been some diligence on -- on compliance. They did get the SIP approval, as Mr. Dinorcia has said, in October 2013. There are -- appear to be some mitigating circumstances. They still have some work to do from the approval part. Once the SIP or STP is approved, there still is probably some work involved and is going to be some work involved in this. Then he's going to have to permit these structures. There's four structures in the back. The one structure in the front, he is correct, is -- is approved. It's permitted. And a long -- he's got a long -- I guess, manufacturing structure is also approved. The three canopies on the side, remember, they were large canopies on the side, one canopy in the back and a couple silos have to be permitted and approved and then we go -- are going to go from there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have any safety concerns on this? MR. SNOW: Sir, any -- any time -- in my opinion, any time Page 113 February 27, 2014 there's an unpermitted structure, there's a propensity for safety. I -- I can't attest to that. As -- as Investigator Ambach spoke, we can't attest to that. We're not expert, but any time there's an unpermitted structure, I have concerns. MR. DINORCIA: I have had OSHA inspections that were stringent. And I don't have any violations, so I would think we're pretty safe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any idea -- I mean, we are, as a board, mostly concerned -- actually, more than mostly -- about compliance. MR. DINORCIA: No, we understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this goes so far back that -- MR. DINORCIA: I spent about $30,000 in engineering fees, but the problem is it took forever for the engineer, because every time we went in to the county, he found something that needed to be changed. The original proposal from the engineering company was like for $1500, and I paid him like $22,000 so far because of the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how long do you think from today is it going to take? MR. DINORCIA: I would prefer if-- Mr. Whalen is the general contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to swear him in? (Mike Whalen was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WHALEN: My name is Mike Whalen with New Era Construction. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are the GC? MR. WHALEN: Yes. Tony hired me a couple weeks ago to get involved with his Code Enforcement issues, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And my question to Mr. Norcia -- Dinorcia is, how long do you think it will take to get everything resolved being whatever progress has been made up to date? Page 114 February 27, 2014 MR. WHALEN: Well, I've been on the job for two weeks and, as he says, there's a lot of layers to this. This is a very complicated situation, a lot of moving parts. With the unfortunate death of his architect, we're actually starting over. I've consulted with another consultant, Tatiana Gust -- she's a former county employee -- to help me dissect the right avenue with the -- our architect, that we want to draw the right -- spend the right amount of money to draw the right plans to do the right thing. It's -- it's a difficult situation. To answer your question, we're starting over. We're going to have to draw the plans, which is a couple months. We'll have to get permitting approval, which is a month or six weeks, and then we're going to have to build it, which is two to three months. Six months to a year, truly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: What are you building? MR. DINORCIA: I don't know -- we're really not building anything. We're just -- well, the swale has to be widened according to the engineer. Other than that, I think we have to build a sidewalk, which originally I put up a bond for the sidewalk in the front. Now they want the sidewalk again, which we have to build a sidewalk, which is no big deal. The rest of it is the canopies. We have to remove these stationary bolts and put a pin in it. That's very little. And we have to clear the -- all around the property, which we already cleared a lot of it. So, there's really no building per se. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're not here to rehear the case. And I'll tell you right now, a year is to me out of the question. Six months is out of the question. MR. DINORCIA: Well, it's the procedures that it takes to get a Page 115 February 27, 2014 permit and everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that, but -- we're going back -- I don't know when it was first noticed, but I just went back to MR. DINORCIA: Well, we -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- two years ago. MR. DINORCIA: Yeah, but we did obtain some of the permits that we could get without the STPI. When we got the STPI, it took forever and a lot of money, which -- MR. LEFEBRE: I've seen 20-story high rises go up in two years. MR. DINORCIA: Oh, I agree. I have worked on them. MR. LEFEBRE: And this is -- this is two years now. I -- I cannot see extending it more than 120 days. I just can't. I mean, it's been extended, extended, extended. I mean, it's been extended one, two, three -- at least four times. MR. SNOW: If the board would like -- Mr. Lefebre, if the board would like, I can give a report at the end of 30 days from them. If you are considering an extension, I could come back and report to the board or Investigator Box and give you an extension, if you're considering. MR. LEFEBRE: I mean, we've never -- we haven't asked for that since because I -- I just think that this is just -- MR. SNOW: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: It's really unreasonable that -- that we've been here four -- at least four times. Really need to have some kind of resolution today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. WHALEN: If I may, unfortunate death of his architect really hurt. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. MR. WHALEN: He's starting -- he's starting over. MR. LEFEBRE: But that just happened in January. Page 116 February 27, 2014 MR. WHALEN: Yes. MR. LEFEBRE: So, what happened from -- from when we heard the case -- MR. WHALEN: His -- his office -- the -- the -- Mario's office just gave, as I understand it, Tuesday all the documents, rounded them all up and gave them to me. I got them on Tuesday afternoon. MR. LEFEBRE: I understand that, but -- MR. DINORCIA: But we hired him immediately, as soon as we got the STPI. That was in October. Mario supposedly during the holidays and whatnot was not doing well. MR. LEFEBRE: I understand. MR. WHALEN: That's the way -- I think the 2nd day of January. We couldn't get whatever he had done, which we had given him a retainer, until the 17th of this month. That's where we are. MR. LEFEBRE: I fully understand that. But what -- what I'm saying is, I look back to the -- the March 12th hearing, which we gave -- we gave you 120 days. And that's two years ago. I mean, we're -- we're at two years. And -- and, yes, I understand the architect passed away in January. It's just -- there's just a lot of time that has lapsed between -- between when you received your Site Development Plan or your Site Improvement Plan, from -- from the time that we ruled to your Site Development Plan. And I work in land quite a bit. And I know that to get a Site Development Plan for a major development takes a year. MR. WHALEN: Unfortunately, because of the drainage, because of the sidewalk that we didn't need first -- I don't know. Look, I'm not an engineer. I just try to run a business. I hired Davidson Engineering. I just told you. We had an agreement for X amount of money. It cost eight times, ten times as Page 117 February 27, 2014 much, and that much more time. MR. LEFEBRE: I understand. I make a motion that we once again extend it 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: With -- with a review -- MR. LEFEBRE: 30 days from today. MR. WHALEN: I can do that, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you'll be able to update -- in other words, something has got to happen in the next 30 days. MR. DINORCIA: Well, I -- that's why I hired a general contractor because he can stay on it. Obviously, I've got to try to run a business to stay in business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. And -- and I understand the architect passed away. MR. DINORCIA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But instead of hiring another architect, you hired a GC, so I -- MR. DINORCIA: Well, I only got the papers from Mario. I didn't know how -- how far they were on the 17th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are those papers valid? Do you have to go and hire another architect? MR. DINORCIA: Yeah. They're not sealed. MR. WHALEN: Correct. I was interpreting some of Mario's stuff. Some of it can be used but some of it has got to be taken forward a little bit. It's -- it's complicated trying to -- trying to handle the STPI, what it's telling us to do and what -- what the setback requirements -- there are some structures that might have to get removed and demoed. We're -- Tatiana and I are working through that, as we speak, actually. Since he's hired me, we've been on it every day. MR. SNOW: If I may, Tatiana Gust is a former building manager down at the county. She's an engineer. I know Tatiana. She's very persistent about what she does and I Page 118 February 27, 2014 think that's a -- a good hire for them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, in 30 days the motion passes -- First of all, do we have a second on the motion? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. If the motion passes, you're included in that for a 30-day review of the -- of the progress that's been made. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. You're denying the County's motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. SNOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One no. Mr. Lavinski. Okay. MR. DINORCIA: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. We have another one, this same property. One had to do with the buildings, one had to do with the SIP, SDP. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. TOOLEY: Item Number 11, Case Number CELU20100022151 and that's for Anthony Dinorcia, LLC. (Kitchell Snow, Anthony Dinorcia and Mike Whalen were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a different situation here. This has to do with the swales being filled? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. It has to do with the STP, obtaining the Page 119 February 27, 2014 STP for the property. Do we need to read it? It's -- if they're going to extend it? You're going to offer the same stipulation as we did the last one. MR. LEFEBRE: Not saying that we're going to. MR. SNOW: Okay. All right. Let me read it then. The violations of Ordinance 04-41 in the Collier County Land Development Code as amended, Section 10.02.03(B)(5), and the location is 3963 Domestic Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio number is 274560004. And the swales in the rear of the property failed in violation of Site Development Plan 2004 AR5 -- AR5054. And orders on March 22nd, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances in order to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4784, Page 1807, for more information. On July 26, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4825, and Page 887, for more information. On January 24th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4883, and Page 3352, for more information. On June 27th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4942, and Page 3827, for more information. On July 25th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4953, and Page 5 -- 2506, Page 120 February 27, 2014 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 27, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as following: Order Number 1 and 2. Fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014, and February 27th, 2014, 37 days, for a total of$7,400. Fines continue to accrue. Previous assessed and paid operational costs total $80.57. Operational costs for today's hearing total $65.84. The total amount to date is $7,465.84. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This has to do with the swales. MR. DINORCIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is not as complicated -- MR. DINORCIA: Sony? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This doesn't appear to me to be as complicated as the previous case, so why don't you -- MR. DINORCIA: Well, it is complicated because we had -- the new STP is telling me to enlarge the swale in the front versus doing the swale all around the property. The new STP shows that we don't have to put the swale in, but we have to enlarge the front swale, which we will do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, according to the finding of facts that happened on March 22nd, 2012, it simply said, swales on sides and rear of property filled, in violation of STP, whatever. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. If I may, in 2004, the STP was issued because of the improvements after that period of time required a new SIP -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. SNOW: -- and STP, and those provisions have -- once it's submitted and the -- and the county figures out what they're going to do on the property, those provisions are going to be added and that's Page 121 February 27, 2014 where the complexity lies, because what was previously agreed to in that time in 2004 was null and void because of the building that was -- was made on the property. So, it changed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, my question is, do the swales in the rear and the side need to be filled or not? MR. SNOW: The STP needs to be -- what the STP was approved, they're going to have to change the swales and -- and adapt to what was approved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, they've already been approved. MR. SNOW: The STP has been approved but work has not been completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. The STP is approved and the STP said the swales should be filled or not be filled? MR. SNOW: They need to make adjustments to the swales, sir. I haven't read the final STP, what was submitted before. All I know is the plan that is approved, that they approved, they have to make adjustments to some things on the property that have to do with the swales. MR. LEFEBRE: So, the original STP was in 2004, but then they got another one, an amended STP -- MR. SNOW: Yes. MR. LEFEBRE: -- for a Site Improvement Plan -- MR. SNOW: Yes. MR. LEFEBRE: -- in October 2013. MR. SNOW: And that was where there was some confusion. MR. LEFEBRE: Right. MR. SNOW: There would have to be a new STPI or an SIP because of what was existing. So, they had to resubmit everything. MR. LEFEBRE: So -- so, now they're going to file the new STP. MR. SNOW: That is correct, sir. Page 122 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: That was in October 2013. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the new STP says to do what with the swales? MR. SNOW: Make adjustments to the swales, Mr. Dinorcia. MR. DINORCIA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DINORCIA: The swales, we don't have to -- we just got to clean up all around the property and expand the front swale. The front swale needs to be widened. I think it's two and a half feet -- four feet. MR. WHALEN: Four feet, yes. MR. DINORCIA: Four feet, something like that. MR. LEFEBRE: To compensate for the loss of the swales around -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LEFEBRE: -- of the building. Okay. And -- and what is holding you back from doing that right now. MR. DINORCIA: Getting permits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And to get a permit to adjust the -- a swale should take approximately how long do you think? MR. DINORCIA: Well, doesn't that all go together with the buildings and so on? I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is -- this is a separate case, a separate issue. MR. DINORCIA: Okay. So, we can apply for permit for the swale then. MR. SNOW: Yes, you can. I gave him, just so you -- I had a meeting with the engineers yesterday and that's part of the -- of the thing. Since their engineer had been ill and passed away, there was a meeting that they had with the Engineering Department to set up and define what exactly they needed to do and what are the requirements Page 123 February 27, 2014 to do that. Unfortunately, the engineer didn't follow up with that. I gave them the engineer's number. They have the contact information. They'll do that. I would -- I can report on the same time frame of-- of when I come back in 30 days, give you the status of this one also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would expect the swales to be taken care of by -- in 30 days. MR. DINORCIA: Well, it can't be done in 30 days, so -- MR. LEFEBRE: Why not? MR. DINORCIA: Well, there's quite a bit of work. I mean, it's got to be done -- MR. LEFEBRE: That's what we've been hearing the past four times. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's right. MR. DINORCIA: Say it again? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That -- I mean, this goes on and on and on. Now you know what needs to be done, I would assume that a swale has to be taken care of with a -- a bobcat or whatever. And I can't -- I mean, we do a whole -- MR. DINORCIA: No. I -- I don't know. I don't know. MR. WHALEN: I believe the work can be done in 60 days for sure. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. I make a motion that we extend it for 60 days, okay? What I did not mention in the last case is that there were new operational costs. And I don't know if we can go back to the last case, but I'd like to include in this case operational costs for today's hearing, total sixty-five eighty-four. I want to see that paid within 30 days -- MR. DINORCIA: Okay. Page 124 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: -- along with the other case. MR. DINORCIA: Okay. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. Whatever that fee was. It was -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty-six fourteen. MR. LEFEBRE: Yes. Sixty-six fourteen. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. MR. LEFEBRE: And reporting within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. The same. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One opposed, Mr. Lavinski. Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBRE: 120 days for the building, the other case. I'm right here. 120 days for the other case and 60 days for this case. The operational code -- costs for both are to be paid within 30 days, and 30 days with an update on your progress. And I could tell you right now. I will be with Mr. Lavinski in 60 days from now, with not granting an extension for swales in 120 days. Page 125 February 27, 2014 I can tell you right now you will not from me get another extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DINORCIA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Number 12, Case Number CE -- well, actually we -- we skipped one, so I'm going to go back to that, Case Number 3. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Approximately -- I don't know. Do you want to take lunch or do you want to continue until we're done? What -- ask the board. MS. TOOLEY: We have 20 cases, so -- MR. LEFEBRE: How many? MS. TOOLEY: We have -- we have 20 altogether for Imposition of Fines remaining. We have 12 to 20, so we've got a -- and then one more on top of that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Fifteen more minutes that I can stay on this, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 15 more minutes what? MR. L'ESPERANCE: A doctor's appointment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, you'll be done. MR. LEFEBRE: Well, actually, six of the cases -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. They're at the end. MR. MIESZCAK: Let's continue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll see how far we get now. The next case? MS. TOOLEY: Okay. Next is Number 3. The Case Number is CESD20120017503, Sarah Weeks. MR. LEFEBRE: This is an actual case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. This is a motion for fines. (Ralph Bosa was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, B-o-s-a, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 126 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ralph. MR. BOSA: Some reference to Violations Ordinance 04-41 as amended to the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06, Subsection (B)(1)(A), and 10.02.06, Subsection (B)(E)(I). Location of 2830 26th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. The Folio Number of 41343480003. Description of the violation is a shed/carport structure without Collier County building permits. Past orders are May 23rd, 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 in order to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4931, Page 1691 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 26th, 2014. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between November 20th, 2013, February 26, 2014, a total of 99 days, for a total amount of$19,800. Previously assessed and paid, operational costs total $81 .72. Total amount to date, 19,800. The county -- the county's recommending that the fines be waived as the property is in compliance and all operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motion from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? Aye. Page 127 February 27, 2014 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. BOSA: Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. We actually do have additional cases, so -- because we have to go back to Number 5. I didn't realize that because we had skipped quite a few cases, more than I thought. So, I'm not sure if you want to take a break or you want to just continue through? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, why don't we stay until Lionel has to leave anyway. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next case is? MS. TOOLEY: Number 5. Case Number CESD20130007945, Carlisle/Wilson Plaza, LLC. (Chris Ambach was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation of Ordinance 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). Location, 50 Wilson Boulevard South, Unit 11, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio Number 37221120305. Description, a restaurant in Unit Number 11 -- excuse me -- the restaurant in Unit 12 has been combined with vacant Unit 11 without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. Page 128 February 27, 2014 Past orders. On October 24, 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 in order to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4982, Page 2972, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 17th, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Previously assessed in unpaid operational costs of$81 .15. Total amount to date, $81.15. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it looks like they haven't paid the operational costs? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That they would have paid the eighty-one fifteen, they could save the -- the other now because that's been our habit of-- if you don't pay operational costs, we impose the fine even though they're in compliance. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose a fine. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. Page 129 February 27, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: What was the total amount? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The total amount of the fine -- MS. TOOLEY: Operational costs. MR. ASHTON: Just the operation? MR. AMBACH: Just the operation, eight-one fifteen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What was the other cost? MS. TOOLEY: There are no other costs. They were in compliance, so there is no costs for today and there were no fines because they were in compliance with our compliance due date. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: Next is Number 6, Case Number CESD20110014160, Martha Mendez-Cruz. (Ralph Bosa was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a Violation Ordinance 04-41, Collier County Land Development Code as amended, Section 10.02.06, Subsection (B)(1)(A). Location, 3525 47th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio Number 39778000002. The description of the violation is Permit Number 2009020960, expired with no Certificate of Completion/Occupancy. On February 23rd, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances in order to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4772, Page 1323, for more information. On August 23rd, 2012 the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See attached order of the board, OR4832, Page 1948, for more Page 130 February 27, 2014 information. On January 24th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4883, Page 3362, for more information. On June 27th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See attached order of the board, OR4942, Page 3822, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 28th, 2014. The fine and costs to date are described as the following: Order 1 and 2 -- Order Item 1 and 2. Fines at the rate of$200 -- $250 per day for the period between November 21st, 2013 and January 28th, 2014, totals 69 days, the total amount of$17,250. Previously assessed in unpaid operational costs total $80.86. Total amount to date $17,330.86. MR. MIESZCAK: Can that be an oversight, somebody not paying the operational cost? MS. TOOLEY: That was the one where the check bounced. MR. BOSA: Yeah. This is the one where the check bounced the last time she was here, and I told her the check had bounced. She says, "I'm going over there right now and get it paid." Apparently she never did. I called her Tuesday, I called her Wednesday and no response. It's unfortunate, just that little bit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll tell you what I'd like to do with this then, tell us she can either give us a check for -- give us -- give the county a check for 17,250 or immediately bring the check for $81 down and just hold this until that happens. MR. LEFEBRE: Can we do that? MS. TOOLEY: So, you want to continue it till -- Page 131 February 27, 2014 MS. RAWSON: Yeah. We -- no, you can't really do that as an order. They can -- they can withdraw it or you can assess $80.86. MR. MIESZCAK: Then they've got to chase her for $80 and she's not paying. MS. RAWSON: Well, it becomes a lien on her property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I mean, it -- it -- if you don't pay your operational costs, we don't even hear it here. We've never done that. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I would request that the county withdraw it, send that message out to the respondent, say, if you would like to save yourself a few dollars, I suggest that you bring a check down immediately. MR. BOSA: We have no objection. MR. LEFEBRE: Can we do that? How do we -- how have we extended it multiple times without receiving -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This may be the extra. MR. LEFEBRE: Is that the last hearing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: She had originally paid her operational costs -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. Exactly. MS. TOOLEY: -- and that check bounced, so that was -- MR. LEFEBRE: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. She's been in front of us four -- like different times for extensions. MS. TOOLEY: The last time she said she was going to pay it or MR. BOSA: Yes. The last time she said she was going to pay it. She was on her way from here. MR. LEFEBRE: Did she pay operational costs at some point? Page 132 February 27, 2014 MR. BOSA: Not that I'm aware of, no. MS. TOOLEY: We accepted payment for it, but later to realized that the payment didn't go through. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion to impose a fine. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. I mean, obviously that she can go to the County Commissioners, and I'm sure they'll take care of this, but this will certainly get her attention. We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Next is Number 7, Case Number CESD20120011992, Charles and Denise Booth. (Kitchell Snow was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. This has to do with violations of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). The location is 2599 66th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio is 38107160006. And the description is a garage converted to a guesthouse without required permits. Past orders, on February 28th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Page 133 February 27, 2014 Board issued a finding of fact and a conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4917, and Page 3077 for more information. On September 26th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order to the board, OR4973, and Page 2027, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 18th, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1 and 2. Fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between January 25th, 2014 and February 18th, 2014, 25 days, for a total of $5,000. Previously assessed operational costs paid and the total of eighty-one seventy-two. The total amount to date is $5,000. The county is recommending the fines be waived because the property is in compliance and all operations costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does that include the sixty-three forty-four? MR. SNOW: We did not bring that forward because it's -- this is just an imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Second? MR. LEFEBRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? Aye. Page 134 February 27, 2014 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. I was also informed that was because they're in compliance. MS. TOOLEY: Yes. They -- they ruled all operational costs for imposition of fines -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: -- unless they're in compliance prior to the hearing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And, Mr. Chairman, that does it for myself CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have to let the person with his crutches -- with his twisted knee, hobble out, right. (Lionel L'Esperance was excused from the meeting.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: Do you want to continue? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Let the record show that Mr. Lionel has to depart. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. Next is Number 9, Case Number CESD20120002199, Jenna Holbrook. (Chris Ambach was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations Ordinance 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(b)(1)(A). Location, 560 15th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio Number 37012120006. Page 135 February 27, 2014 Description, garage converted to a living space without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. Past orders, on September 27th, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and was ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4844, Page 282, for more information. On February 28th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order to the board, OR4895, Page 2422, for more information. On July 25th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4953, Page 2504, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 26th, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item Number 1 and 3, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 26th, 2014, 36 days for the total of$5,400. Previously assessed and paid, operational costs total $80.29. The total amount to date, $5,400. The county is recommending that the fines be waived as the property is in compliance and all operational costs have been paid. MR. LEFEBRE: Motion to abate the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Bob Ashton. All those in favor? Aye. Page 136 February 27, 2014 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you, Chris. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think we have six that are together. We can hear them at one time and then each one we'll have to vote on separately. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Do we have other cases? MS. TOOLEY: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know. MS. TOOLEY: We do. We have three other cases. We have prior to that and one following it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You tell me what's next. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. Next is Number 12. It's Case Number CENA20120000290, Westok International Corp. MR. JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. (David Jones was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) I do. I got ahead of myself. Okay. Violations, Collier County Ordinance is 54-185(D). Location, there's no site address. The Folio Number is 68640001003. Description, Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation located upon an unimproved property within a 200-foot radios of an approved property. Past orders. On April 26th, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. Page 137 February 27, 2014 The Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and was ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4795, Page 320, for more information. The property is not in compliance with Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 27th, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items 1 and 3, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between June 26th, 2012 and February 27, 2014, which is 612 days, for the total of $61,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Items 2 and 4, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between June 26th, 2012 and February 27, 2012, 612 days, for the total of$61,200. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed in unpaid operational costs total $80.29. Operational costs for today's hearing totals $63.14. Total amount to date, $122,543.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBRE: Why so long to bring this for imposition? MR. JONES: Well, our department was kind of working with other departments to try to figure out an appropriate angle to maybe Page 138 February 27, 2014 get in touch with Westok or try to get them to in some way or some shape abate the violation to some extent. And it's just taken this much time to kind of get all our ducks in a row and see where we were at, and where we're at is the company, the corporation, has been dissolved and there's nobody that's really receiving any of our, you know, attempts to correct this. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MR. JONES: That's where we're at. Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Very good. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Next is Number 13, Case Number CEPM20130007368, Federal National Mortgage Association. (Kitchell Snow was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. If the board will remember that this is the one that the bank had taken property and we were requested to go back and see if we could contact the bank again and see if they could take care of the violations. The bank is -- doesn't want to do anything. They want to sell the property as is and that's why we're here. The violations are Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Codes, Section 22-231(12)(B). The location is 834 93rd Ave. North, Naples, Florida, 34108. The Folio is 62713320002. And the description is exterior siding missing around door on east side of dwelling. The order is on October 24, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and a inclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation in the referenced ordinances in order to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4982, and Page 2954, for more information. Page 139 February 27, 2014 The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board order as of February 27, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as following: Order Number 1 and 2. Fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between December 24th, 2013, and February 27th, 2014, 66 days, totaling $9,900. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed and unpaid operational costs of eighty-one forty-three. Operational costs for today's hearing are $62.54. The total amount to date is $10,000 -- $10,043.97. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose a fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's a motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MS. TOOLEY: Next are the Koresh Properties. There were six of those. Some of them came into compliance in different days, so the Executive Summary is a little bit different for each of them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TOOLEY: Would you like me to just go over each of the case numbers first? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have all the case numbers. Why don't we just start at the beginning and go through them. Page 140 February 27, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Read fast. MS. TOOLEY: All right. Number 14 is Case Number CENA20120017643, Koresh Properties, LLC. (David Jones was duly sworn and indicated in the alternative.) MR. JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-193(D). Location, 2870 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio, 26169500289. Description, presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation, including but not limited to Brazilian Pepper, Ear Leaf Acacia and Air Potato, within 200 feet of an approved property. Past orders, on April 25th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued the findings of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and was ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4917, Page 3010, for more information. On November 22nd, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5002, Page 993, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 26, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item Number 1, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 26th, 2014, 36 days, for the total of $3,600. Order Item 2, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 26th, 2014, 36 days, for the Page 141 February 27, 2014 total of $3,600. Previously assessed and paid, operational costs total $80.29. Total amount to date $7,200. The county is recommending that the fines be waived as the property is in compliance and all operational costs have been paid. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MS. TOOLEY: Number 15 is Case Number CENA20120012782, Koresh Properties, LLC. (David Jones was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 43-185(D). Location, 2943 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 26169501848. Description, presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation, including but not limited to Brazilian Pepper, Ear Leaf Acacia and Air Potato, within a 200-foot radius of an approved property. Past orders. On April 25th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced Page 142 February 27, 2014 ordinances and was ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4917, Page 3054, for more information. On November 22nd, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of board, OR5002, Page 1013, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 26th, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item Number 1, fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 26th, 2014 for the total of$3,600. Order Item 2, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 26, 2014 for the total of $3600. Previous -- previously assessed and paid operational costs total $80.29. The total amount to date, $7,200. The county is requesting that the fines be abated as the operational costs have been paid and -- and the violation abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion from the board? MR. ASHTON: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to abate. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Page 143 February 27, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: Item Number 16 is Case Number CENA20120017642, Koresh Properties, LLC. MR. JONES: This case has the same fine accrual. Is -- is -- can you vote on it or should I read through it again? It's the same -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have to read through it. MR. JONES: Okay. Sure. MR. LEFEBRE: He's got to be sworn. (David Jones was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-185(D). Location, 2888 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 26169500221 . Description, presence of Collier County prohibited exotics vegetation, including but not limited to Brazilian Pepper, Ear Leaf Acacia and Air Potato, within a 200-foot radius of an approved property. Past orders. On April 25th, 2013, Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and was ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4917, Page 3006, for more information. On November 22nd, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5002, Page 995, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 26th, 2014. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Page 144 February 27, 2014 Item Number 1, fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 26th, 2014, for the total of $3600. Order Item Number 2, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 26th, 2014, for the total of$3600. Previously assessed and paid operational costs total $80.29. Total amount to date $7,200. The county would like to request abatement of the fines due to the fact the operational costs have been paid on the violation. MR. MIESZCAK: I have a question. MR. JONES: Yes, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Why is my paperwork different than what he's been reading? MR. LAVINSKI: Right. Mine, too. MR. MIESZCAK: I mean, you -- you said the property's in compliance as of February 26. This says the property's not in compliance as of February 27. MR. LAVINSKI: We -- we have -- MS. TOOLEY: The paperwork that you received in addition to your packets -- MR. MIESZCAK: Where is that? MS. TOOLEY: -- has the -- they were in your places -- MR. MIESZCAK: Every one of these? MS. TOOLEY: -- prior to the hearing. MR. MIESZCAK: All right. I'm sorry. Maybe I missed it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's a whole bunch of them in there. MR. MIESZCAK: A bunch of affidavits. MR. LAVINSKI: We've got affidavits. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I don't have -- MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I don't either. We've got a bunch of affidavits, but it doesn't talk about those dates and numbers. Page 145 February 27, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: I can put it on the overhead for you if you'd like. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, that's okay. Does somebody else have what we have? Do we all have the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have -- I have the same numbers that you have, so they're off by a day. But they're -- MR. MIESZCAK: But I don't see -- this was on my desk when I came in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask this. On all the Koresh Properties, are they all in compliance now? MR. JONES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, it -- the -- whether it's -- MS. TOOLEY: They're all in compliance now, yeah. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. Well, what's up with the numbers? I'm just wondering why they're different. MS. TOOLEY: Three of them came into compliance yesterday. You should have had the Executive Summaries. MR. MIESZCAK: They're last with -- MS. TOOLEY: I didn't make copies for Jean and I had thought that they were also included in your packets. So, if they're not there, I apologize. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah. I have one here, Affidavit of Compliance. Okay. That's fine. I just want to make sure we're on the same -- MR. JONES: Sure. Understood. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, David, shoot. MR. JONES: We -- didn't you want to announce the next one in line or -- MS. TOOLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you guys want to -- you didn't quite abate the violations on the last one I read. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate that fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion. Do we have a Page 146 February 27, 2014 second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thanks. MR. MIESZCAK: I didn't mean to interrupt. MS. TOOLEY: Number 17, Case Number CENA20120017644, Koresh Properties, LLC. (David Jones was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-185(D). Location, 2859 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. 26169500661 . Description, presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation, including but not limited to Brazilian Pepper, Ear Leaf Acacia and Air Potato, within 200 feet of an improved property. Past orders. On April 25th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and was ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4917, Page 3050, for more information. On November 22nd, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. Page 147 February 27, 2014 See the attached order of the board, OR5002, Page 1001, for more information. The property is in compliance with Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 14th, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 14th, 2014, for the total of$2,400. Order Item 2, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 14th, 2014 for the total of $2,400. Previously assessed and paid operational costs total $80.29. The total amount to date $4,800. The county would like to request that the fines be abated. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Number 18 is Case Number CENA20120017641, Koresh Properties, LLC. (David Jones was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: For the record, Davis Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. Two more to go and that's -- then we'll be done here. Violations, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Page 148 February 27, 2014 Chapter 54 dash -- Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-185(D). Location, 2889 Coco Lakes Place, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 26169500865. Description, presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation, including, but not limited to Brazilian Pepper, Ear Leaf Acacia and Air Potato, within 200 feet of an approved property. Past orders. On April 25th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued 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, OR4919, Page 3262, for more information. On November 22nd, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5002, Page 1011, for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 7th, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item Number 1, fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 7th, 2014 for the total of $1,700. Order Item 2, fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 7th, 2014 for the total of $1,700. Previously assessed and paid operational costs total $80.29. Total amount to date, $3,400. The county would like to request that the fines be abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have we got a motion from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion -- MR. ASHTON: Second. Page 149 February 27, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. TOOLEY: Number 19 is Case Number CENA20120017639, Koresh Properties, LLC. (David Jones was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-185(D). Location, 2931 Coco Lakes Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio, 26169501084. Description, presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation, including but not limited to Brazilian Pepper, Ear Leaf Acacia and Air Potato, within 200 feet of an approved property. The past orders, on April 25th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued 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, OR4917, Page 3058, for more information. On November 22nd, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5002, Page 111, for more information. The property is in compliance with Code Enforcement Board Orders as of February 7th, 2014. Page 150 February 27, 2014 The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 7th, 2014 for a total of$1,700. Order Item Number 2, fines at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 22nd, 2014 and February 7th, 2014, for a total of$1,700. Previously assessed and paid operational costs total $80.29. Total amount to date, $3,400. The county would like to request abatement of the fines. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MR. JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, David. MS. TOOLEY: Next is Number 20, Case Number CEVR20110002999, Sean King Trust. (Michaelle Crowley was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CROWLEY: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. MS. CROWLEY: For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a violation of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Page 151 February 27, 2014 Development Code as amended, Section 3.05.01(B). Location, 4441 Fifth Avenue Northwest, Naples, 34119. Folio, 3663400008. The property was partially cleared of vegetation without a Collier County permit. Past orders. On March 22nd, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4784, 1819, for more information. On November 29, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4865, Page 2615, for more information. On June 27th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4942, Page 3841, for more information. On October 24th, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4982, Page 2960, for more information. This property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 21, 2014. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items 1 or 2 and 3. Fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between December 24th, 2013 and January 21, 2014, 29 days, total $4,350. Previously assessed and paid operational costs total $81 .13. Total amount to date, 4,350. The county is recommending that the fines be waived as the Page 152 February 27, 2014 property is in compliance and all operational costs have been paid. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to waive the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Which brings us to new business. MR. LEFEBRE: I want to bring something up. The Kirkwood Holdings, LLC, the respondent, Mr. Thomas, stated that there was a case heard prior, and in our package that we received this morning, in fact there is a thing here that says that we heard an order to continue -- an order on motion to continue on September 26th, 2013, and it was signed by Mr. Kaufman on the 3rd of October, 2013. So, the question I have was -- was this case heard at a -- at a prior date? And if it was, why are we hearing this case again? MS. RAWSON: If you continued it, then it wasn't heard. MR. LEFEBRE: Order on motion to continue. MS. RAWSON: If that's the only order that was issued, then the case was never presented to you. MR. LEFEBRE: Okay. So, it would be a motion to extend otherwise. MS. TOOLEY: You never found it in violation basically. Page 153 February 27, 2014 MR. LEFEBRE: All right. Wow! We gave 120 days for that? Typically we don't do that, continue 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't believe we have any new business. Reports. Jeff Wright said that he had to go to a meeting this afternoon. That's why he's not here. He would e-mail us the report that showed, you know, last month and year-to-date numbers as far as the Code Enforcement fines and, et cetera. So, that takes care of that. The next meeting date is March 27th. Anybody have any comments? MR. MIESZCAK: Comment? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: I want to apologize, Teresa. That was up here what you said. MS. TOOLEY: Oh, was it? MR. MIESZCAK: But it's an affidavit sitting here. When I sit down, I don't know it's going to be part of my agenda. So, a lot of times, things sit up here. I'm looking for that to be in addition to the agenda. And if it's going to replace something in there, we probably should have, I don't know, maybe brought it up that we have replacement paper for what's in our agenda. That's what I got confused about, so -- but you didn't -- you did what you were supposed to do, so -- MS. TOOLEY: Try. MR. MIESZCAK: -- seem to get it right, so I'm sorry. I make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, Hold it. Did we decide to do anything with this request forward cases to county's attorney? Page 154 February 27, 2014 MS. TOOLEY: The foreclosure memorandum. No, you didn't touch on that, so -- MR. LAVINSKI: So, we should touch on that. MS. TOOLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we need a motion for that? MS. RAWSON: No. I don't think so. Usually they just tell you which ones they're -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. We have a list. MR. MIESZCAK: Got a list. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. RAWSON: I don't remember that you ever voted to have them -- MR. LEFEBRE: I don't think so. MR. MIESZCAK: I don't remember. MS. RAWSON: I think it's kind of an FYI. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just part of the information. MS. TOOLEY: Thank you. You do -- you do make a motion on that? I'm -- I'm not a hundred percent certain because I obviously don't have as much experience. MR. MIESZCAK: I thought we did. MS. TOOLEY: Jeff is generally here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll tell you what. I'll take a -- Anybody want to give me a motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I make a motion we forward that to the County Attorney. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, County Attorney. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a second. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 155 February 27, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Carries unanimously. So -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- in case we need it, it's there. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBRE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :15 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD , Aori I T O B ' Mgt UFMAN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on .- _ - o a- , as presented or as corrected Page 156