Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/22/2014 Code Enforcement Board Minutes May 22 , 2014 May 22, 2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, May 22, 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, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney to the Board Jeffrey Wright, Code Enforcement Director Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: MAY 22,2014 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 U Esperance Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 24,2014 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS I0.02.06(B)(I)(A), I0.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND I0.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I).OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES,FL B. Stipulations 7 C. Hearings I. CASE NO: CEPM20140002563 OWNER: C R& H W BENFIELD LIVING TRUST 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(1),(9),&(11).SHOWER AND TOILET IN MASTER BEDROOM NOT DRAINING PROPERLY,GUEST BATH SINK WITHOUT HOT WATER SUPPLY,KITCHEN OUTLETS MISSING SAFETY COVERS, ELECTRIC OVEN NOT INSTALLED PROPERLY CAUSING A POWER SURGE. FOLIO NO: 38100800004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2735 70TH ST SW,NAPLES, FL 2. CASE NO: CESD20140000682 OWNER: SUZETTE CARRIERO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).CONVERTED THE GARAGE INTO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT A VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 36313880004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2348 51ST ST SW,NAPLES,FL 3. CASE NO: CEPM20140003908 OWNER: MTS DEVELOPMENT LLC 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 SUB-SECTIONS:(I),(12)(N),(12)(P),AND(20). SCREEN PORCH ROOF IN DISREPAIR AND LEAKING RAIN WATER,SEPTIC SYSTEM BACKING UP INTO DWELLING, INTERIOR BATHROOM WALLS SUSTAINED WATER DAMAGE,NO SMOKE DETECTORS FOLIO NO: 41825120001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5245 HICKORY WOOD DR,NAPLES,FL 4. CASE NO: CEVR20140004242 OWNER: MADISON MEADOWS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C). PRESENCE OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BRAZILIAN PEPPER AND EAR LEAF ACACIA 1■ A CONSERVATION/WATER MANAGEMENT AREA OF THE MADISON MEADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD).THE OWNER IS GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EXOTICS MAINTENANCE IN PLAT BOOK 19.PG 14. FOLIO NO: 56320000103 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 3 5. CASE NO: CEVR20130010777 OWNER: IVY E. PEDEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C). PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION. FOLIO NO: 38339680008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5781 DOGWOOD WAY,NAPLES, FL 6. CASE NO: CEPM20140005152 OWNER: MAN NYON KIM 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(15)AND SECTION 22-242. UNSECURE DWELLING CREATING A NUISANCE AND PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL NOT BEING UNMAINTAINED CREATING AN UNHEALTHY CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 41827840004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 51 1 l CORAL WOOD DR,NAPLES, FL 7. CASE NO: CESD20140001210 OWNER: PINE RIDGE LIVINGSTON,LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR Michaelle Crowley VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.13(F). FAILURE TO FILE REQUIRED ANNUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD) MONITORING REPORT FOR CAMBRIDGE SQUARE PUD. FOLIO NO: 38451000003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3375 PINE RIDGE RD,NAPLES,FL 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CEPM20130003067 OWNER: KENNETH ALAN& DOROTHY R BLAKE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI,PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE,SECTION 22- 231(12)(C). MISSING ROOF SHINGLES IN FRONT AND REAR OF HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 45847720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1391 I ITHI ST SW,NAPLES,FL 4 2. CASE NO: CEPM20130011590 OWNER: MARK J& AMY K CHIEFFO 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- 23I(12)(I),(12)(N),AND(20). INOPERABLE WINDOWS,SCREENS AND DOOR OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN DISREPAIR AND NO SMOKE DETECTORS. FOLIO NO: 65420400005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 478 CYPRESS WAY E,NAPLES,FL 3. 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 4. CASE NO: CEPM20130018872 OWNER: BRENT R. PARKER 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(1 1),AND(I).NO WATER AND/OR ELECTRIC SERVICE BEING PROVIDED TO AN OCCUPIED RENTAL DWELLING. FOLIO NO: 24533040005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 85 7TH ST, BONITA SPRINGS, FL 5. CASE NO: CESD20120003627 OWNER: ALFREDO MIRALLES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B) (I)(A).A CARPORT THAT WAS ENCLOSED AND CONVERTED INTO LIVING AND AN ATTACHED LAUNDRY ROOM WITH ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING,REPLACED WINDOWS AND DOORS ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOLIO NO: 35540080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 108 WHITE WAY,IMMOKALEE,FL 5 6. CASE NO: CESD20120008638 OWNER: PAULA MENDOZA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN EXPIRED PERMIT WITH NO INSPECTIONS DONE ON THE INSTALLATION OF THE MOBILE HOME AND A METAL TYPE STAND ALONE CARPORT INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FOLIO NO: 82961866 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2918 IMMOKA LEE DRIVE W LOT 4. IMMOKALEE, FL 7. CASE NO: CELU20I00022151 OWNER: ANTHONY DINORCIA SR.,LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 04-41,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.03(B)(5). SWALES ON SIDES AND REAR OF PROPERTY FILLED IN VIOLATING SDP 2004 AR5054. FOLIO NO: 274560004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3963 DOMESTIC AVE,NAPLES, FL 8. CASE NO: CESD20120006666 OWNER: REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS OF TIENDA MEXICANA INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(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, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ALSO(4)EXPIRED PERMITS 201 1020704,201 1020699,204110460,920013727. FOLIO NO: 00131360004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 217 N 15TH ST, IMMOKALEE, FL 13. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order 1. CASE NO: CELU20100004523 OWNER: SILVER LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.03(B)(5).AN OPEN STORAGE AREA BEING UTILIZED AT SILVER LAKES RV RESORT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS USE. FOLIO NO: 73625009662 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1001 SILVER LAKES BLVD,NAPLES, FL 6 D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order I. 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 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—JUNE 20,2014 12. ADJOURN 7 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. If you have a cell phone, if you'd silence it, it would be helpful. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe 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. Let's start out with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Lisa Chapman Bushnell? MS. BUSHNELL: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. Page 2 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you could all rise for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I guess next is our changes to the agenda. MS. ADAMS: Okay. Number 5, public hearings, C, hearings, No. 1, Case CEPM20140002563, C R & H W Benfield Living Trust, has been withdrawn. Number 2, Case CESD20140000682, Suzette Carriero, has been withdrawn. Number 3, Case CEPM20140003908, MTS Development, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CEPM20140005152, Man Nyon Kim, has been withdrawn. Number 7, Case CESD20140001210, Pine Ridge Livingston, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 6, old business, Letter C, motion to rescind previously issued order, No. 1, Case CELU20100004523, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Incorporated, has been withdrawn. And we have two additions under Letter C, motion to rescind previously issued order. The first addition is Case CEPM20100003098, Palm Lake, LLC; the second addition is Case CESD20100004059, Palm Lake, LLC, and that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a motion to accept the agenda as changed? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 3 May 22, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Jeff, I didn't recognize you before with your glasses on. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I guess we're up to our approval of the minutes. Anybody have any changes to the minutes? If not, I'll accept a motion to -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the minutes of April 24th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. And do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. ADAMS: The first case, motion for extension of time, Case CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Page 4 May 22, 2014 Radenkovich, and Aleksandar Radenkovich. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BOX: Good morning. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you -- since the respondent is not present, can you give us a little background on this? MR. BOX: This was a case that originally started as a property maintenance issue at 10580 6th Street, Unit B, that had to do with infestation. And it evolved into an issue that had to do with a permitting complaint where five units were inside of one building. The case started in 2012. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see there were several extensions granted. MR. BOX: Yes, that's correct. I'm looking at them right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There was a one-year extension granted on May 23, 2013. MR. BOX: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Among the others. And I see in their letter that they have here that they're requesting an extension for five additional months. MR. BOX: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a zoning problem? MR. BOX: As far as I -- as far as I've read into this case -- because I was just recently assigned to this area, Naples Park -- it looks like they've made application for zoning issues, and it looks like it was rejected back in April of 2013. And since that time, there's not really been too much gone on. Now, recently I received a phone call from a gentleman that's representing the family in trying to get the application through, all right, that told me that they're working diligently on it to try and, you know, get this issue abated, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think they were working diligently Page 5 May 22, 2014 on it in May of 2013 as well. MR. BOX: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is going on and on and on. And I know it's very, very difficult to get zoning changed. MR. BOX: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the current zoning? MR. BOX: For that area, I believe it's RSF2. MR. LEFEBVRE: Two. And they're trying to get? MR. BOX: They're trying to get a variance for the -- to have that building converted to -- I believe it's an RFS -- RSF6, 5 or 6, to accommodate that building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm reading the letter. It says the planning department is advised that this will be placed on the agenda for a fall meeting. I would expect them, if they wanted an extension, to be here today to argue their case. MR. BOX: I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to deny. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BOX: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case from Letter C, hearings, No. 4, Page 6 May 22, 2014 Case CEVR20140004242, Madison Meadows Property Owners Association, Incorporated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you do me a favor, Kerry, when you read the cases, tell us the tab at the end, and it will make life much easier for everybody just to go to it. MS. ADAMS: It's Tab 5. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement environmental specialist. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20140004242 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C), the presence of prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited to, Brazilian Pepper and Ear Leaf Acacia in a conservation/water management area of the Madison Meadows planned unit development; Folio No. 56320000103, Naples, Florida, 34110. The parcel has no site address. Service was given on March 17 and 18th, 2014, by posting the notice of violation on the property and at the Collier County Courthouse. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: The first is an aerial image from the property appraiser's website showing the specific area that we're talking about. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you mention all of the different exhibits, and we'll vote on -- MS. CROWLEY: Oh, and then four are photographs showing mature Ear Leaf Acacia Trees and Brazilian Peppers. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos and aerial. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to Page 7 May 22, 2014 accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. CROWLEY: This first photograph shows the Madison Meadows PUD. It's -- the houses that you can see, with the exception of the one in the bottom left, is not part of the PUD, but the highlighted area in yellow is the conservation/water management area. The other four -- this photograph shows -- well, the top, that's an ear leaf acacia large one, approximately 30 feet tall within the conservation area, and that would be on the northeast corner of the lot. The next one is another mature ear leaf acacia, and that's on the southeast corner of the conservation area. And then the next two are just Brazilian peppers representative of bushes that are scattered throughout the entire conservation area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the association? MS. CROWLEY: The association no longer exists. That's the problem. I'll get into that in my case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: Code enforcement received a complaint from one of the adjacent property owners about the Brazilian Pepper extending outside of the conservation area over a fence into the other -- one of the other homes. And my site inspection on March the 7th, 2014, revealed the Page 8 May 22, 2014 presence of the Brazilian Pepper and the Ear Leaf Acacia. This is an approximately 1.4 acre conservation area. Research determined that the Madison Meadows PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1991, and the responsibility for removal of exotic vegetation from the conservation area went in perpetuity to the owner of the conservation area. The last known address for the owner, Madison Meadows Property Owners Association, is 15 8th Street, Suite A, Bonita Springs. I created a notice of violation for the exotic vegetation violation, mailed it on March 15, 2014, and the certified mail to that address to the association as the owner was returned unclaimed, unable to forward, return to sender. The developer of Madison Meadows was James Goldie. There are 16 single-family lots and one water management/conservation area within the PUD. A previous code case involving the same conservation area and a similar violation was heard by this board in 2002. During the process of abating that previous violation, Mr. Goldie created the Madison -- who was -- he was the developer. He created the Madison Meadows Homeowners Association and conveyed his ownership interest in the conservation area via quitclaim deed to the association. At the time, and for several years thereafter, Mr. Goldie was both the registered agent and the president of the property owners association known as Madison Meadows. And his mailing address and his principal address are the only known -- are the last known addresses for the owner in the records of both of the tax collector, the property appraiser, and the Division of Corporations Sunbiz. When I sent both the notices of violation and the notices of hearing to that entity at what turns out to be Mr. Goldie's business address, he declined the receipt of the certified mail, but he Page 9 May 22, 2014 acknowledged receiving a regular mail copy of it and then, through his attorney, sent a letter indicating he no longer had any interest in the property and that I should look to the responsible party. Right now the division of corporations' records indicate that the property owners association voluntarily dissolved in 2008, and there is actually no entity that currently exists, but they still own the property. Because it's a conservation area, there's no taxes on it, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's sort of worthless, the property, for anybody -- MS. CROWLEY: Pretty much, except for the people who are part of the association -- MR. ASHTON: Live there. MS. CROWLEY: -- but because of the violation, I'm not able to just close the case because the violation does exist. I submitted the case for hearing. And as of May 20th, the violation remains. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it possible that the remaining owners of the property in the subdivision bear some type of responsibility even though there's no association in existence? MS. CROWLEY: With only 16 lots, they don't have any dues. They don't have any assessments. They have no reserve fund. And of the 16 lots, I believe only three of them are owned by people who actually were -- present when the quitclaim deed conveyed interest from the developer to the homeowners association. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are all the lots in that PUD -- do they all have homes on them? MS. CROWLEY: Yes, they're all developed, not all of the lots abut the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you speak to the county attorney on this at all to see -- since there's no owner or anything, technically, did you Page 10 May 22, 2014 talk to them at all to see what direction to go? MS. CROWLEY: I did not. It's happened previously. We had another case involving exotics where the same issue is with -- the actual entity doesn't have -- there's no assets. They don't actually exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm afraid, if we -- MS. CROWLEY: It was heard by this board as well. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we do rule against them and have a fine, the county will end up abating it, attaching it to the property. They pay no taxes. The property's worthless, and there's no entity really to go after. So I'm wondering if there's another way of handling this. I'm wondering if we should have this withdrawn and maybe talk to the county attorney and see if there's a direction to go in. MR. WRIGHT: Jeff-- just a couple thoughts on that. These cases, you know, the statutes and our ordinance lay out how we're supposed to process the case and who we're supposed to name as the responsible party, and we followed that. Now, what we've considered on the other cases that -- similar cases where the HOA is dissolved is, technically, once you have a lien, you can convert it to a judgment. And Ms. Rawson might have something to say about this, but the statutes basically say you can convert a code enforcement lien to a judgment. And I'm not aware of us ever doing that, but it's something that we've considered in these situations, because once you convert it to a judgment, you can go after the officers of that dissolved entity. So that's one thing. And the other thing is I'm not sure how the declarations for this particular subdivision read, but there might be something in there that, as a matter of title, this lien would end up encumbering all properties within the HOA. I just don't know how their decs read. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, that's why, if a county attorney looks at Page 11 May 22, 2014 it, they might be able to look at the documents that have been recorded, and it might say that that conservation area reverts back to the association or to the owners of the lots, so they can read that language and see what it says. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we do that, let's find out if a violation exists and then how we handle it. So anybody want to make a motion as to whether a violation exists? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So a violation exists. Now, as King David said, how do we cut the baby. I guess I'm in favor of assigning a per day fine until it's resolved. I don't know who that's going to be sent to, but ultimately, the county is going to have to step up and decide what they're going to do with it. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: I think I -- I agree with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to take a shot at -- or do you have a suggestion for us, Michaelle? MS. CROWLEY: I do. Page 12 May 22, 2014 My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$63.74 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by removing all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation that exists within the conservation/water management area for Madison Meadows. When prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved herbicide, and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. Second, that the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Board investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to take a shot at the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that the operational costs of 63.74 be paid within the 30 days, that the violation be abated within 60 days, or a fine of$100 per day be assessed. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is a repeat violation, too, it says right at the very top. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you suggesting that the fine be increased? MR. LEFEBVRE: If that's the -- if being a repeat violation -- and that's from 2002; is that correct? MS. CROWLEY: The case was opened in 2000. It went to this Page 13 May 22, 2014 board in 2002, correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: I was on then, but I can't remember back that long ago. So being a repeat violation and the individual, Mr. Goldie, at the time, knew that the -- there was a violation, I feel that it should be higher. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll agree. I just overlooked that in our notes that -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Change the $100 a day to $200 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add that we'll work with the County Attorney's Office to make sure that this is properly handled going forward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It would be a good teaching moment for the board if-- whatever's resolved, if they can let the board know so we know how to treat these in the future. MR. WRIGHT: Will do. Page 14 May 22, 2014 MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Michaelle. MS. ADAMS: Next case is No. 5, Case CEVR20130010777, Ivy Peden. It's Tab 6. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20130010777 dealing with violation, Collier County Land Development Code 3.05.08(C), which is Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation located on improved property located at 5781 Dogwood Way; Folio 38339680008. Service was given on October 2, 2013. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, which consists of four photographs. I have shown the respondent the photographs. She's aware that I'd like to put them on the projector. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photographs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on one second. Do you have any objection to those photographs? MS. PEDEN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to accept them. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 15 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. JONES: Okay. The first photo is a photo of the air potato, which is one of the 12 species of prohibited exotics in the county, which was the primary concern of the complainant. The next photo is the removal effort by the property owner. She has completely removed all the air potato. The next photo is an aerial photo of the property. And the rear of the property contains mature exotics, quite a dense stand of mature exotics, which is depicted in the next photo. And to go into the case, on August 2 I responded to a complaint regarding excessive amounts of air potato located at 5781 Dogwood Way, which was creeping onto a neighboring property. While on site, I did observe large amounts of air potato, which you saw in the photo in the front portion of the property at 5781 Dogwood Way. As a side-note, due to the aggressive growth habits of air potato during the rainy season, which it was, when I initially responded to the complaint, it appeared more appropriate to issue an NOV requiring removal of the air potato and all other prohibited exotics on the property at the onset of the dry season. This would allow the singular effort of the property owner -- she was working on it herself. It would allow her removal effort to be more effective. So an NOV was subsequently issued on October 2nd requiring the removal of all prohibited exotics on the property in perpetuity. By December, the property owner had removed all the air potato in the front portion of her property thereby alleviating the primary concern of the complainants of the air potato encroaching onto a neighboring property. Conversation with the complainant indicated they were satisfied with the results at that time. Unfortunately, the property was improved Page 16 May 22, 2014 in 1993, which, of course, requires removal of all prohibited exotics on the entire parcel in perpetuity, and that's in order to conform to the current Land Development Code requirements. The rear portion of the property contains dense stands of prohibited exotics, including mature Ear Leaf Acacia, Melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper. And the property owner has not ceased working toward abatement since the NOV issuance; however, due to the large number of the mature exotics, it's been a daunting task for her. And, therefore, the case has been brought to the Code Enforcement Board for determination at this point. We've had the case open for quite a while. I've been working with her. We've just reached a point where we need to go to that next level and perhaps request a determination from the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you move the microphone down a little bit. And why don't you give us your pearls of wisdom on this case. MS. PEDEN: Pearls of wisdom. Gee, I plead ignorance, basically, on what the air potato was. My research showed that it was not -- didn't become an exotic until 1999, and so when I first started seeing these little things growing, you know, I just thought they were pretty plants, and then they would die out in the winter and come back. And so as they were growing on me, I was kind of a little surprised, you know, but I didn't really know what to do with it. And being a single mother and kind of focusing on just, you know, staying ahead of-- you know, on top of life, it was not a major concern until I got a complaint, and then, you know, I was called by David, and he shared with me, you know, all the goodies that needed to be taken care of, so my focus has been rearranged. But it's still quite a bit more than I can, you know, handle on a little bit of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the respondent has been Page 17 May 22, 2014 working on this issue? MR. JONES: Yeah. And I'd just like to restate that the complaint's primary concern of the air potato, as you can see in the photo, the respondent corrected that issue entirely. It's just a matter of conforming with the rest of her property, especially in the rear portion of her property it's pretty thick with exotics. It's going to be a -- it's going to be a big job for her to get it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two things. The first thing we have to find, whether or not a violation exists or not, and then we can come up with a remedy, I believe. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much land in back do you think is full of exotics? MR. JONES: I would say -- Kerry, would you mind putting up that aerial one more time. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the total size of the property? MR. JONES: Total size of the property -- Ivy. MS. PEDEN: 2.7. MR. JONES: 2.6 or 7. Okay, 2.7 acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So about half of that. MR. JONES: Yeah, maybe even perhaps a little more than half. Pretty much right immediately to the rear of the house it begins. MR. LEFEBVRE: Looks like there's a lake there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a pond there in the middle? MS. PEDEN: Yes, sir. MR. JONES: Yeah, there is a small pond. MS. PEDEN: Yes, sir. MR. JONES: And it's -- you know, that would, perhaps, even make the removal effort more difficult because you have to go around the pond somehow, and we're going work with her -- I'm going to work with her to figure out the best avenue to get this done. She may need to get a VRP in the future. We don't know that yet. But it is probably, more than half of the property's pretty dense. Page 18 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to find out whether a violation exists or not before we get into details of how to resolve a situation. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion the violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second the violation exists. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. A violation exists. Let me ask the respondent. If you had another year to work on this, do you think you could make a dent in what's -- what the problem is? MS. PEDEN: I could make a dent. I don't promise that I know I could get it all done, but I'd really work hard to do what I could. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, typically what we generally do here is you're working towards compliance. And if a long period of time would be granted and you come to the end of that period of time where it's not completed but you have been working on it, I'm sure the board would certainly entertain a motion to extend it even further. MS. PEDEN: I would appreciate that, because the main issue, I guess, is the financial end of it, you know, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You need to sell that wood. No. Page 19 May 22, 2014 MS. PEDEN: Firewood maybe, you know; I don't know. But, anyway, I have some options, I think. But I need the time to figure it all out, please. Pretty please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a suggestion, Dave? MR. JONES: I do. The recommendation is 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 -- must obtain any necessary permits, inspections, and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated. The prohibited exotic vegetation base/stump must be treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved herbicide, and a visual tracer dye shall be applied when the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains within blank days, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed. Finally, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to try to start on the -- fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: One question I have, first, hopefully, is the -- are all the adjacent properties exotic-free? MR. JONES: I would say no. I would say a lot of the adjacent properties are pretty similar to her property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you put that map up again, the Page 20 May 22, 2014 picture. MR. MIESZCAK: That's a good question. I was thinking the same thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because if you take it off of one and it's next door, it's an endless fight. So the properties that I see in the back of just about all the homes on that street and the -- on the top there are several lots there. It doesn't look like they've been built on -- they all have similar vegetation? MR. JONES: I can tell you that her exotics were so dense I, literally, could not walk to the rear of her property. But I also think it's reasonable to assume --judging by the aerial and the contrast in vegetation, it's pretty reasonable to assume it's similar in adjacent properties, especially in the back of adjacent properties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. JONES: And it's -- you know, as you stated, it's going to be a constant removal effort. A lot of this stuff is that way, but it's a lot easier to pull saplings up from the ground than it is to let it grow up again the way it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would anybody like to take a shot at this? If not, I will. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd make a motion that administrative costs of 64.04 be paid within 30 days, and on Phase 2 and Phase 3, I'd like to see it remediated within 360 days, or a fine of$50 a day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I can agree to second that with one stipulation, that maybe we have an update quarterly, every three months. Would you like to see that? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I would agree to a quarterly update. I think it's reasonable. Page 21 May 22, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: And I know in the rainy season there's probably not going to be much that's going to be able to be done, but -- so you'll have a little bit of a reprieve that you can take a break, but I think after that you're going to need to start cleaning that up in order to -- so I agree to second with that change. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. ASHTON: I have one. If she cleans her property and there's exotics on the other, if she gets it cleaned and then they start encroaching back on her property, is she going to be responsible, or are you going to go after the surrounding properties? MR. JONES: If we did receive another complaint from the encroachment, she would be responsible as the property owner. It's her responsibility to maintain her property exotic-free. MR. ASHTON: But are you going to go after the ones around that have the exotics also? MR. JONES: If code enforcement received complaints on those properties, we would research it to determine if there was a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I would suspect that if my property is being taken over by adjacent properties' exotics, then I would be the one who would file a complaint with code enforcement. But in the meantime, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 22 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. One of the things I'd like to mention, the court costs, if you will, 64.04, you should pay that so that if you can't get all the exotics removed in a year, when you come back here that's not hanging over the case. MS. PEDEN: I will take care of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we wish you a lot of luck. And if you need some support from code enforcement, I'm sure Dave will be out there with his pick and shovel to help you out. MR. JONES: I'll help her on weekends. MS. PEDEN: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. PEDEN: What specifically does remediated mean? Like, does it have to be, like, all gone, or I'm just working towards it, or what does that mean? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they're not going to be all gone unless you're working towards it, so it's kind of a play on words. MS. PEDEN: Okay. But within that time that I was given. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typically what the board does, if somebody is working on resolving the situation, we will certainly entertain a motion to extend the time, not forever, but to give you an opportunity to get it all done. MS. PEDEN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Dave. MS. ADAMS: Next case is from No. 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines, liens, No. 1, Case CEPM20130003067, Kenneth Alan and Dorothy R. Blake. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tab? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nine. MS. ADAMS: Tab 9, I'm sorry. Page 23 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm going to get Kerry used to saying that. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a hearing to impose or not impose the fines that were heard on a previous case. Let me just check. Have the assessed operational costs been paid? MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa. No, they have not, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Just so you know, typically, when those costs have not been paid, we won't entertain a motion to do anything but impose the fine. MS. BLAKE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you state your case on this. MS. BLAKE: Are you speaking to the $64? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BLAKE: I can pay that today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, okay. MR. ASHTON: Two of them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the 62.54 for the hearing for today, so that would be a total of 126.58. MS. BLAKE: No, I can't do that. I can only pay one of them today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you let us know what -- what's going on with this. MS. BLAKE: Well, we bought the house out of foreclosure, and the title company said that there was a violation. Squatters had been living in the house. We bought the house cash and thought we had had enough to bring it back to living standards. I mean, we had to replace the well and everything to make it livable, and that took all the proceeds that we had from the sale of our property in Maryland. So when it came to the violations, we didn't realize how Page 24 May 22, 2014 expensive it was going to be, and our funds were depleted, you know, except for living expenses. Ken just started working full time about a month-and-a-half ago, and I had a seasonal part-time job, which they've since let me go. So financially we haven't really been able to tackle this. But we do love the home. We do want to bring it to code. We plan on staying there. It's our legacy to our kids, since we own it free and clear; we want to pass it on, and we don't want to pass on headaches when we, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Move someplace else. MS. BLAKE: We do want to go and get it taken care of. But, just financially, we can't do it right now. He was a roofer in Maryland, so he is able to take care of the roof himself, so that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm looking at the case here. It says, missing roof shingles in the front and rear of the house. Is that the only violation, Ralph? MR. BOSA: No, sir. There's -- we also have another open case, which has already been heard by the code -- by the board. It has to do with a converted lanai in the back, a converted lanai. The lanai's been converted into a room without permits or anything like that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Our problem still is with the operational costs that have not been paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: When did you purchase this home? MS. BLAKE: January 2013, but we didn't actually physically move here til' April of that year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to deny. MR. MIESZCAK: You have to. Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. Page 25 May 22, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to impose, sorry. Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to impose and a second. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. What you can do -- and I would seriously recommend that you pay the operational costs, and then you can go to the County Commissioners -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Once it's paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- once it's paid and say, hey, I -- we're working on this. We'll have it done, whatever, or maybe even you have it done. And if you go to the County Commissioners, say it's all been done, operational costs have been paid, in all likelihood they may just abate the fine in its entirety. But that, again, is up to you. MS. BLAKE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So thank you. MS. BLAKE: Thank you. MR. BOSA: Do you want me to read the imposition or just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We imposed it. Read it into the record, yes. MR. BOSA: Read it into the record, okay, thank you. This is in reference to violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, buildings and building regulations, Page 26 May 22, 2014 Article VI, property maintenance code, Section 22-231, Subsection 12, Subsection C. Location is 1391 11th Street Southwest, Naples Florida; Folio No. 45847720003. Violation is missing roof shingles in front and rear of the home. Past orders: On February 27, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5018, Page 3613 for more information. The violation has not been abated as of May 22, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between April 19, 2014, to May 22, 2014, for a total of 24 days, for a total fine amount of$4,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.04 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $62.54. Total amount to date: $4,926.58. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Ralph. MR. BOSA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We voted on that, to impose the fine. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The next case is No. 2, Case CEPM20130011590, Mark J. and Amy K. Chieffo, Tab 10. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Steve, you want to read that into the record? MR. ATHEY: Yes, sir. For the record, Steven Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, buildings and building regulations, Article VI, property maintenance code, Section 22-231(12)(I), (12)(N), and (20). Location: 478 Cypress Way East, Naples, Florida; Folio Page 27 May 22, 2014 65420400005. Description: Inoperable windows, screens, and door of accessory structure in disrepair, and no smoke detectors. Past orders: On March 27, 2014, 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 violations. See the attached order of the board, OR5025, Page 145, for more information. The violation has been abated as of April 2, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for the period between April 18, 2014, to April 28, 2014, 11 days, for a total fine amount of$2,750. Previously assessed operational costs of$63.44 have been paid. Total amount to date: $2,750. 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. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to abate. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Take your choice. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Steve. Page 28 May 22, 2014 MR. ATHEY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Case CESD20120018551, Kirkwood Holdings, LLC, Tab 11. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The violation location is 2190 Kirkwood Avenue, Unit 2, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 61580920005. The violation description is a bathroom with toilet, sink, and electric installed without first obtaining a Collier County building permit. Past orders: On September 26, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR4973, Page 2005, for more information. On February 27, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5018, Pages 3609, for more information. The violation has been abated as of March 19, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Previously assessed operational costs of$63.44 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.14. Total amount to date, $126.58. The county is recommending that the operational costs are imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose. Page 29 May 22, 2014 All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Jeff. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Case CEPM20130018872, Brent R. Parker. Tab 12. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kerry, excuse me one second. Jeff, one quick question. Does the respondent know that they make this go away by paying that, or have you been in touch with them? MR. LETOURNEAU: I haven't been in touch with the respondent. I did post the property and talk to the renters that were there that actually put the toilet in, and there is some history between the property owner and the renters. I don't know if the property owner wants to pay it. There's, I think, a civil matter going on also, so I'm not really sure what his deal is. I know he knows about it, though. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is the Murphy Bed place, right? MR. LETOURNEAU: It is, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ATHEY: For the record, Steven Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 30 May 22, 2014 Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance, Chapter 2, buildings and building regulation, Article VI, property maintenance code, Section 22-231 (11) and (1). Location: 85 7th Street, Bonita Springs, Florida; Folio 24533040005. Description: No water and/or electric being provided to an occupied rental dwelling. Past orders: On March 27, 2014, 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, OR5025, Page 139, for more information. The violation has been abated as of April 3, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Previously assessed operational costs of$64.64 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $62.54. Total amount to date: $127.18. The county is recommending that the operational costs are imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thanks, Steve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Quick question. Would we be imposing the operational costs for today since they're not asking for any kind of extension or anything? MS. ADAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was the preparation for today's hearing that counts. MS. ADAMS: That we have to bring it for fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 31 May 22, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. ATHEY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5, Case CESD20120003627, Alfredo Miralles, Tab 13. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 108 White Way, Immokalee, Florida; Folio 3554008005 (sic). • Description: A carport that was enclosed and converted into living and an attached laundry room with electric and plumbing, replaced windows and doors, all constructed without first obtaining authorization of the required permit, inspections, and certificates of occupancy as required by Collier County's Land Development Code. Past orders: On May 23, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4931, Page 1665, for more information. On October 24, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4982, Page 2952, for more information. Page 32 May 22, 2014 The violation has been partially abated as of May 27, 2013. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Order Item 1, fines have accrued at the rate of$250 per day for the period between March 24, 2014, to May 22, 2014, 60 days, for a total fine amount of 15,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs: $80.86 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $64.34. Total amount to date: $15,145.20. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question as to partially. It reminds me of being partially pregnant or not. It either has been -- it is a violation and it has been abated, or it hasn't been abated. MS. RODRIGUEZ: It has not been abated. The only thing they abated was they disconnected or turned off the breaker for the electrical non-permitted section of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6, Case CESD20120008638, Paula Mendoza. It's Tab 14. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 33 May 22, 2014 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Mendoza is asking for a continuance today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a letter to that effect or just -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: You do. MS. ADAMS: We just got it this morning, gentlemen. Did you want me to put it on the overhead? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Please. MR. MIESZCAK: Please. MR. LEFEBVRE: It doesn't ask for -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Specific time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. On your letter you're asking for an extension, a continuance, for how long? MR. MENDOZA: My name is a Budmore (phonetic) Mendoza, and my mother's the one that wrote the letter. I don't know if we can get either a continuance or an extension for it for maybe a month or two. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: A year ago. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Mendoza just recently found out that the mobile home permit that she had applied for wasn't finale because they needed a permit for the right-of-way. They were under the impression that the county had replaced the right-of-way and that they didn't need it, but they do need it. So at this point he's asking for 30 days' continuance, at least till next month, and hopefully they'll be able to either figure out if the county pulled a permit for the right-of-way or if they need to pull a permit for the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county's recommendation as far as granting an extension. MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have no objection. Page 34 May 22, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the carport been permitted? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Not yet. MR. LEFEBVRE: So nothing's been permitted? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The carport still remains. He's supposed to go over to the building permitting today because he needs to figure out whether or not he's encroaching or not. I don't know if he is or not. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, this doesn't sound like it's going to be taken care of in 30 days. Because if the carport doesn't have a permit, wouldn't they need an after-the-fact permit? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I believe they're going to remove it. MR. MENDOZA: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're going to remove it? MR. MENDOZA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So a demo permit would be what would be needed. MR. MENDOZA: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: For the mobile home, all they need to get -- all the inspections have been done? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So all you need is to correct the right-of-way issue? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you thought you could have this done in 30 or 60 days? MR. MENDOZA: We're hoping. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MENDOZA: I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you going to remove the structure? MR. MENDOZA: Yeah. If it's encroaching on anything, we're going to just remove it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me ask this. If we -- if Page 35 May 22, 2014 we continue this for 60 days -- MR. MENDOZA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you think you'd have a very good opportunity to take care of this. You still have one -- $63.74 for today's hearing to be paid. Do you have any problem paying that today? MR. MENDOZA: No, sir, that's fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that -- we can either extend it or continue it, right? MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we continue it, I just want to -- MS. RAWSON: The fines continue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fines continue to accrue. MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I'd like to make a motion to continue this for 90 days with the operational costs being paid today in the amount of-- for today's hearing of$63.74. MR. MENDOZA: That's fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have 90 days -- Page 36 May 22, 2014 MR. MENDOZA: Ninety days, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to get it all done, and hopefully that should be sufficient time to take care of it. MR. MENDOZA: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I'm sure Maria will show you where to drop off your $63.74. MR. MENDOZA: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 7, Case CELU20100022151, Anthony Dinorcia, Sr., LLC. It's Tab 15. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BOX: Good morning. MR. DINORCIA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you read the case, and we'll go from there. MR. BOX: Certainly. For the record, my name's Heinz Box, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is regarding Case No. CELU20100022151. The violation: It's a violation of Ordinance 04-41 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.03(B)(5). Location is 3963 Domestic Avenue, Naples, Florida; folio number's 274560004. The description of the violation are swales on the side and rear of the property were filled violating SDP 2004 AR5054. Past orders: On March 22, 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, OR4785, Page 1807, for more information. On July 26, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board granted an Page 37 May 22, 2014 extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4825, Page 887, for more information. On January 24, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4883, Page 3352, for more information. On June 27, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4942, Page 3827, for more information. On July 25, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4953, Page 2506, for more information. On February 27, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5018, Page 3639, for more information. As of this date, May 22nd, the violation's not been abated. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines at the rate of$200 a day between the period of April 29 of 2014 and May 22nd of 2014, 24 days, for a total of$4,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs in the amount of$80.57 have been paid. Previously -- previously assessed operational costs in the amount of$65.84 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing total $66.44. And the total amount due to date is $4,932.28. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. DINORCIA: Good morning. Anthony Dinorcia. The various extensions were granted because we had to get variances on the parking and also on the drainage system, and we finally got the SDP approval. In October we hired a landscape architect, which we finally got plans, and it's being done right now. We hired a general contractor, and we also hired a landscape contractor. But it's probably going to take a little bit longer to get it finished. But we're working on it. Page 38 May 22, 2014 The front part is all done. The swale had to be all dug out. The front of the building had to be redone, so we're working on it right now. MR. LEFEBVRE: I've been on this board for 11 years. I've never seen a past order paragraph this long, and the investigator here struggled to even get through it. I feel that an extension is not warranted. It's just been going on way too long. Again, it's over -- it's close to three years now, and I just feel that's too long to move a swale. I mean, we can, as I said, I think, in previous times, you can build a high-rise in less time and have people moved in and live there, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I specifically recall the last time you were before us, we had two case. One case, I believe, from memory, that we extended six months, if that's -- I think that's correct. MR. DINORCIA: No, four months. We're working on that, too. We've got the engineers working on it. We've got the general contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. And we extended that one, but on this particular case with the swales, wasn't -- there was no reason that could have -- it couldn't have been started immediately and have this resolved. This was not waiting for the SDP on this. MR. DINORCIA: We had to get the landscape architect to redesign all the landscaping in the swale. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. In addition, the previously assessed operational costs of$65.84 have not been paid. MR. DINORCIA: Oh, I could pay that today. I'm sorry if we missed that. I'm sorry. It's just an overlook. But the $64 I could pay it today or whatever. But we had to wait for the landscape architect, and we are working on it but, unfortunately, it couldn't be done in two months. MR. LEFEBVRE: To get your SDP changed -- MR. DINORCIA: Took us three years. Page 39 May 22, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: But I didn't finish. To get it changed, wouldn't you need to know where the new swales are going to be? MR. DINORCIA: No, because we had to get a variance because we're only doing it -- we had to -- we had to make the front part larger. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. DINORCIA: And then just do the side and little bit in the back instead of doing the other side, because it was physically impossible to get over to the other side. So we had to get a variance on that, we had to get a variance on parking, and that's how long it took for Davidson Engineering to work on it. We paid over $20,000 in engineering costs and architectural costs. The other problem we ran into, we had given Mario La Mendola the job to redesign some of the next -- the next venture that we have to take care of, but the landscape architect took a couple of months to get that done, and I can't help that. We also are working -- struggling with this business for five years. We've been losing money. We're finally turning it, but it's been tough for five years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think the board has been -- has gone overboard -- MR. DINORCIA: Well, I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- with this based on all the different extensions, extensions. When I look back here to see who signed the original order, I think it was Ken Kelly -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, two chairs ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- who -- right, two chairmen ago. MR. DINORCIA: The variances take so long. I don't know what to say about that. You know, Davidson Engineering started with $1,500 and ended up almost charging us, I think, $15,000 or something like that because of all the time that it took. MR. WHALEN: If I may. Page 40 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Could you move -- identify yourself and -- MR. WHALEN: My name is Mike Whalen with New Era Construction. Tony got ahold of me and retained my services in February of this year. Since I've been on board, he's taken great steps and moved very forward on two of these violations; one we're here today for and the other one's unpermitted buildings. Tony's a local business with 22, 23 employees that he's working every day. And it's difficult -- if you saw the property, he has a lot of inventory all over the place. The SDP that was approved in October by the county, we're working on -- it's a very difficult situation with all the buildings that are unpermitted that are there, the location of where the new swales are going to be located, and the new landscaping. We also -- you know, the struggle here with Tony that he's not -- you know, it's difficult to come up with these dollars while you're trying to grow a business that has been in a recession for a couple years. I can tell you that since February, we've -- we have a landscape architect. We have an approved SDP with a landscape architect. We've hired a consultant, Tatiana Gust with Elite Engineering Consulting Services. We've been to the county regarding fire issues, a multitude of issues. We went through three -- we've spoken to three engineers that we finally got on board a couple weeks ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me interject a second. We're not here to discuss the other case or all the ramifications of the other case. MR. WHALEN: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This case was sort of simple, as I recall, in February. You had swales to put in. MR. WHALEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the amount of time that was Page 41 May 22, 2014 granted to do that was a reasonable amount of time to do the swales. MR. WHALEN: Yes. We have made progress. The drainage ditch up front, he's probably 50 percent done. He's paying this as he goes. I'm trying to explain to you that there's been great movement since February on this project. If he had another two months, I very well think that he will be able to get this one issue done. And it's really monetary. It's really him being able to pay $8,000 for new plantings. He's doing the drainage work and the easy labor work with his own people on Saturdays and Sundays, but now he's got to cut a check to somebody for $8,000. It's just -- it's difficult. So I believe if we can get 60 days, he should have this one remedied, as I've been on board since February. And I just wanted to say that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I applaud you for moving it forward since February, but he's known about this prior to October -- when he was noticed prior to October 2011. So we're going on three years. So to say that there's been progress made since February -- and I know you could only be accountable for when you were retained -- but I just am hard-pressed to have this -- just keep on kicking this can down the road. And you can see how many times we did. And to say that -- he knew this expense was going to be coming at some point, and it's now three years down the -- almost three years down the road. So, again, I reiterate that I will not vote in favor of extending this. It's just been too long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was going to ask Heinz, do you have any comments on this as far as the progress? MR. BOX: We'll defer to the board on this as far as the actual progress on it goes. I haven't been in that area probably for about a month now, but, you know, at the last site visit that I did, I didn't see Page 42 May 22, 2014 anything, okay, as far as the actual progress, physical progress that I've seen, as far as the, you know, the plantings and that type of thing that they're talking about right now. So I haven't seen it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have the swales been dug out, did you see, at that time? MR. BOX: No. MR. WHALEN: If I may, we met with Jeff Monday to have a discussion about it. I can -- believe Mr. Box probably was there a day or two before he did it. It was three or four weeks ago when he did it, so -- the timing of everything. But Jeff can surely say that the front was newly dug out. MR. WRIGHT: Yeah. They have a -- I would say a pretty involved swale. It's not just a grassy swale. They're using some of what looked like their stone products or some sort of decorative stone to -- MR. WHALEN: Retaining wall, yes. MR. WRIGHT: Retaining wall, so it looks like it's quite a project, quite an undertaking. And I did meet with them, and I did -- I felt their sincerity and their ability to get it done just over an extended period of time. They provided me with an estimate that their engineer gave them. And I think the problems are, they're looking at it as a whole, all the stuff that they have to do on this property, not specific necessarily to the swales, and that's what this breakdown of costs was, somewhere -- I think it was $360,000. So I saw that, and I -- the only thing I really want to point out -- I don't necessarily want to influence your decision, but I want to point out that -- and I explained this to these gentlemen when I met with them -- whether or not they get 60 days today, that number that Mr. Box provided you, 4,000 whatever it was, will continue to run all the way through that 60-day period. So -- and I said to Mr. Dinorcia that regardless of whether you Page 43 May 22, 2014 get more time today at this hearing, the number's not going to change. And if you don't get the job done, then it will be imposed at the higher amount. In other words, the fines are continuing to run regardless of whether the continuance is granted. And -- so Mr. Dinorcia's response was he'd prefer not to have the lien gumming up the title right now. He understood that the fines would keep running, but the lien being imposed would affect some sort of a bank financing arrangement. So, anyways, I did say that I would put that on the record that I met with them, and I did sense that they were sincere about it. I got a three-dimensional sense of what they're dealing with, and I think everything that they're saying is true. But, again, whether or not a continuance is granted, I don't think it really, ultimately, matters as far as the amount of the lien and what will ultimately be imposed. So, again, we'll defer to you on the decision. MR. WHALEN: One thing -- excuse me. One of the issues is one of these -- a couple of these unpermitted structures is in an area where we need to create a grassy vegetation area. So it's sort of complicating the matter of where we're going to put the new structures. We need to move them first to put the new landscape requirements per the new SDP, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Are structures stand-alone or are they attached to the building? MR. WHALEN: They're stand-alone. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So you can possibly move them or build other structures, correct? MR. WHALEN: Well, they're actually large carports, if you will. They're shade structures. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MR. WHALEN: Okay. Twenty-four-foot by 40-foot long, three of them next to each other. Page 44 May 22, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: So you put, like, a pad down. MR. WHALEN: Yes. We'd have to -- we have set -- they're in the setback also. So we're dealing with setback issues. We've spoke -- we talked about a variance and other issues that probably won't make it, but we have to come up with the dollars and the plan to go in for permitting next when we report to you on the other violation that we're moving these structures, creating our new plan for where to put the new vegetation that's required per the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how confident are you that this could be resolved in 60 days? MR. WHALEN: The swale issue can be resolved in 60 days. I believe with the funds that are coming -- you know, coming out of the business -- and we're halfway through it. I believe that will -- that should cover it. MR. MIESZCAK: I'm happy with 60 days' extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other discussion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I can't feel very comfortable. I think all -- if we don't impose this, all we're going to see in 60 days is two more lines added here by Kerry or whoever. You know, we've already had five extensions. I'm sure that somewhere in one of those I may have heard a piece of this story before. So I can't support an extension on this. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to impose and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I have to disagree with that because, you know, if I spend three years working on something, you're talking about two more months. It's not going to cost the county a dollar, and there's no safety issue. Yes, it's been a long time, Page 45 May 22, 2014 I agree with you. But, you know what, we're that close. We're talking two months. MR. LEFEBVRE: We've been that close for -- MR. MIESZCAK: I've been on this board for nine years -- eight-and-a-half years, you know, and I've heard a lot of cases. And this is typical when they run into problems, and there are a lot of problems in the county with swales and these people with the Brazilian pine stuff. It's hard to handle a lot of things. This isn't just a small swale that the man had two months ago. This is a lot bigger. So that's how I feel. That's all I want to say. MR. LAVINSKI: And I still, in the back of my mind, as my learned colleague here said, there's always an avenue to go to the county board if this thing ever gets done and completed and off the record. They have an option to go to the Board of Commissioners to get the fines abated. MR. MIESZCAK: I think one of the things that sticks in my mind is the fact that the man is going to have a lien on the property. He might not get a loan anymore. It might just go defunct. So if I can go 60 days, a little longer, that's how I feel. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. Again, we've heard this. MR. MIESZCAK: I've heard that the last time, I agree with you. MR. LEFEBVRE: We've heard it multiple times, and there's a point -- MR. DINORCIA: May I say something, please? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MR. MIESZCAK: Sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately, we've been hearing this for multiple times. And, again, you can move heaven and earth in three years, and that's what basically we're looking at here. I just don't understand the complications. MR. MIESZCAK: And I understand he employs 20 people. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand that -- Page 46 May 22, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- but he's known this expense is going to be coming for three years now, and it should have been budgeted or should have been moved along faster. And I just can't -- I just can't see it being held up any longer. I'm sure he has time frames he has to do. He has to get things done in his business, and I'm sure that if he finished a job, he wouldn't wait three years for a check to be paid for the job. So I don't expect to wait three years for a swale to be fixed. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree. MR. DINORCIA: Can I say something, please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The public hearing is closed, but go ahead and say something. MR. DINORCIA: Okay. If there's a lien filed, I will be in violation on my stipulation agreement with the bank, so that means you're shutting me down. And, unfortunately, a lot of it was getting variances for the parking lot and the side. Davidson Engineering worked on it. We paid him. It's not that I haven't been doing anything about it. And we did start, as soon as we got the landscape architect plans, to start doing the swale and the landscaping. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if you don't perform in your business, you don't get paid. So if Davidson Engineering was taking too long, they shouldn't get paid. I mean, this world, you have to perform. And I don't feel that three years -- it's way too long. And I understand you may violate your agreement, but you just -- we need to put your feet to the fire because it's been three years and there's been fire and, unfortunately -- MR. DINORCIA: I request 60 days; we'll have it done, so it's up to you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I heard words that I think I can get it done. The previous respondent and said I hope I can get it done. Those Page 47 May 22, 2014 words -- MR. DINORCIA: Well, I have the contractor here. He's responsible. MR. LEFEBVRE: Those words, to me, just are a sign of weakness. And I'll try. Those just -- there's not a sense of confidence, and I just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let me -- a couple of comments. You've started this swale; is that correct? MR. DINORCIA: Yes, we did the main swale in the front. We had a swale there that -- years ago when I had to go to water management, it took a year almost to get an approval. We put the swale in, but in order not to have a swale on the east coast (sic), we had to open that up and build a retaining wall because, otherwise, we would be up against the building. So it's like Mr. Wright said, it's not just a little swale. It's a pretty complex job that we already did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My question is: You started it? MR. DINORCIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Heinz, you didn't see any -- MR. BOX: The last time I was out there to do the posting for the notice of hearing, I didn't notice any activity. Something I'd like to add to this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. BOX: These swales we're talking about are not in the front of the property; they're at the rear and either side of the property. That's what we're talking about. That's what he was -- what the violation is. MR. WHALEN: If I may. What the SDP tells us to do is what we need to do. They've re-routed the swales, and in the front of the property there was an area of water retention. This new swale in the Page 48 May 22, 2014 front creates a bigger water retention area. It also mandates to have about seven or eight new plantings of new three-inch caliper oaks and some Fakahatchee grass. It's really -- the next phase of where we're at, is moving these structures, putting the proper plant material in, and just paying the bill. My only question -- my only statement to you when I say "I'll try," I can do the work, okay, but he's got to pay for it, and I can't speak for his money. So I surely understand -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, he's standing next to you. Can you speak for your money? MR. DINORCIA: I can pay -- I can have it done in two months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DINORCIA: My cash flow is -- it's been very tough. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm a little confused, though. If you said you started it and the inspect -- the -- when was it started? Let's ask. MR. WHALEN: About three weeks ago. I'll betcha he was there the week -- he started on a weekend. He finished the second weekend. He was probably there during the week before he started. Jeff can surely say that he saw some dirt in the front that was -- at least he can say that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not the front. It's the rear and the side. MR. WRIGHT: Right. And I think it's all interconnected, because they have to do the front in order to accommodate the rear and side. And what I witnessed, for what it's worth, it was in the front. And it was probably, I would say, about a hole as big as this square, maybe a rectangular shape. Probably about eight feet deep with retaining walls of different colored stones along the side. So it's quite an undertaking, but not necessarily in compliance with the order. MR. WHALEN: Correct. MR. LAVINSKI: Can we call a vote? Page 49 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Okay. We have a motion and a second to impose. All those in favor. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. MIESZCAK: I oppose. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Oppose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have your option to go to the County Commissioner now and ask them to hold off on the lien; that would be your case. I would suggest, though, that you pay the operational costs that are due today and that were not paid at the previous meeting. I think it comes out to 132.28. MR. DINORCIA: Yeah, we'll get that paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8, Case CESD20120006666, Real Estate Holdings of Tienda Mexicana, Incorporated. That will be Tab 16. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me -- are you okay, James, for another -- for a break, or Lionel? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm okay. MR. MIESZCAK: We're almost done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You okay? We're just about done. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. The contractor for La Tienda Mexicana is here requesting an extension of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have authorization to speak for the respondent? MR. ABUEQAB: Yes, sir. Page 50 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did they give you a piece of paper? MR. ABUEQAB: No, but Ms. Maria has been in contact with us, and she is aware of it, that I'm -- I am authorized. And, in fact, I started the permit process, and I just -- I haven't got the -- I haven't got the permit issued yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This one is another -- goes back a year ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: Two. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm just looking on the -- from the past order of May 23rd, but it goes back and back and back. Also, the operational costs of 63.74 have not been paid, and todays are 64.64. So I just want to note that. Why don't you read the case, and we'll go from there. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 217 North 15th Street, Immokalee, Florida; Folio 0013136004. Description: 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 permits, inspections, and certificate of occupancy as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. Also, four expired permits: 2011020704, 2011020699, 204110460, 920013727. Past orders: On May 23, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4931, Page 1669, for more information. On November 22, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an Page 51 May 22, 2014 extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5002, Page 999, for more information. On February 27, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5018, Page 3649, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of May 22, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for the period between April 14, 2014, to May 22 2014, 39 days, for a total fine amount of$9,750. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$81 .15 have been paid. Previously assessed operational costs of$63.74 have not been paid. Operational costs of today's hearing is $64.64. Total amount due to date: $9,878.38. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Are you in a position to pay the operational costs that were not paid at the last -- the 63.74 and today's $64.64? MR. ABUEQAB: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you tell us -- MR. ABUEQAB: My name is Nazar Abueqab, A-b-u-e-q-a-b. Most of these fines was issued way before we bought the store. We bought the store in 2011. I'm the contractor, and my brother owns the business. This business was burned in 2001 or 2002. It was re-permitted to have the store the way it is. Most of these violations or these permits was issued back in two thousand -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Twelve. MR. ABUEQAB: -- eleven -- and 1992 and 2004, 2011. So we had nothing to do with the old permits. The previous owner had these issues before, and we came into a problem when we bought the business from him. There was nothing Page 52 May 22, 2014 when -- we did the title work, there was nothing that came up as far as this is concerned, so we walked into the problem. We didn't know nothing about it. As far as the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did you purchase this? MR. ABUEQAB: 2011. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you purchased it in 2011? MR. ABUEQAB: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In 2012 you knew you had a problem? MR. ABUEQAB: Yes, but the problems that we had is from the previous owner, not from the stuff that we did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you purchased the property, you purchase the problem. MR. ASHTON: No, no. We didn't purchase the property. We purchased the business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, okay. MR. ABUEQAB: So this is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you weren't the property owner? MR. ABUEQAB: No, not the property owner, no. But, I mean, any violation's going to go back on our business, because that's what the land -- I mean, the owner of the business saying we have to pay. So that's why we're here now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me make the -- you purchased the property when? MR. ABUEQAB: We didn't purchase the property. We purchased the business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You never purchased the property? MR. ABUEQAB: No, sir. No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then you're not here representing the property owner. MR. ABUEQAB: No, sir. I'm representing the business owner. Page 53 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who's the property owner? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He lives in Miami, and he was informed that there was a court hearing today, but the only person that came was Nazar. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't think that -- whether he has authorization as the business -- from the business to discuss what we're doing here, we have the wrong person here. The other person was notified. I think this is not going well for the person who owns the property who is not here with these violations. I don't believe that -- contractor or not, we have a problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, in your lease, does it state that you're responsible for any violations that are on the property? MR. ABUEQAB: I have -- I didn't read the lease. I really can't say. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So we have the wrong person, then, standing in front of us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ABUEQAB: But, I mean, what I wanted to say is most of these violations have been since 1992 or -- all this one (sic) since 1992. They just found out about it. We tried to get permits for certain things in the business. They -- we spend enough money on that to get it corrected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: These -- let me interrupt you. All of these problems do not belong to you. They belong to the property owner. Am I correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So your discussion about what the problems are, when they were, is not appropriate at this time. It would be appropriate for the person who owns the property. That's how -- all of the violations are assessed against the property owner, not the business that's there. Page 54 May 22, 2014 MR. ABUEQAB: But, I mean, any violation -- if there's any violation against the business, it's going to affect our business and then MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not against the business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not against the business. MR. ABUEQAB: It wouldn't cause us to shut down or nothing like that, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. If you look at the title on the page here, it shows you who this is with, and it's with the Holdings of Tienda Mexicana, Incorporated, which is not you. MR. ABUEQAB: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which is not the people who hired you. MR. ABUEQAB: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this is the person who probably needs to be here today to argue their case of more time or whatever to get it done. MR. LEFEBVRE: The question -- a few questions I have is on previous extensions, who came in front of us? MR. ABUEQAB: Me. MR. LEFEBVRE: He did. MR. ASHTON: He did. MR. LEFEBVRE: How long has the current owner owned the property for? MR. ABUEQAB: The current -- the property? I have no idea. I mean, obviously they've been here since 1992, I mean, what I see from the permit. The oldest violation is 1992. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the other question I have is, if you're not the owner, how can you pull permits to do work on the property? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He's the contractor. MR. ABUEQAB: I'm the contractor. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what I'm saying is, don't you have Page 55 May 22, 2014 to get permission of the owner -- from the owner to pull permits? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, he does have permission of the owner. MR. ABUEQAB: I do have permission from the owner to pull the permit, yes. The owner -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Not the owner -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The owner of the property or the owner of business? MR. ABUEQAB: Both. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Both. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And when you were here before -- let me interrupt you one second, just to follow on what Gerald has said. We assumed or somebody told us that you were representing the respondent. MR. ABUEQAB: Which is Tienda Mexicana, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. So I agree with Gerald; how did we ever grant extensions when the property owner was never here, or was the property owner here at some time? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He was present -- both of them were present. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ah. Okay. So that makes sense now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Who's paying the bill for this repair work? MR. ABUEQAB: Obviously, here we are paying everything. MR. LEFEBVRE: Who's "we"? MR. ABUEQAB: La Tienda Mexicana. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Which is the store. MR. ABUEQAB: Which is the store, the business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The owner of the property? MR. ABUEQAB: The owner of the business. MS. RODRIGUEZ: The owner of the business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 56 May 22, 2014 MR. ABUEQAB: I mean, we spent -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who's on first? MR. LEFEBVRE: So -- MR. ABUEQAB: I mean, I wouldn't mind paying. We need to get this resolved, you know what I mean? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. And -- MR. ABUEQAB: One of the issues that's here, it's a plug-in cooler that you have -- you don't have to have permits for. The other issue is coolers that's been permitted before, you know, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But you're the contractor who's been hired by the business, not by the owner of the property. MR. ABUEQAB: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the problem with us hearing this testimony. As a suggestion -- I don't know how this would fly. How far is this away from being finished? MR. ABUEQAB: Not far at all. Just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not far at all is not -- MR. ABUEQAB: The work is done. The only issue we have right now is the county inspector that issues the permits is refusing to issue a permit that's been issued back in 2001, 2002, and that's -- I mean, that's -- the thing is - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But if he refused to do it then, is something going to happen soon? MR. ABUEQAB: He denies the permit on something that has been issued before a long time ago, and now he wants me to update all the records, but I told him this issue's been addressed back in the days. Back then it was permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. But you know when you get into a disagreement with the county who ultimately is going to decide. MR. ABUEQAB: Oh, they won, definitely, yeah. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Page 57 May 22, 2014 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What should we do at this juncture? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think up until this point, apparently, he did represent or maybe the owner of the property was here with him when you granted those other extensions. That was, you know, permissible. Today he's here asking for an extension, but I'm not sure he's representing the owner of the property today. MR. ABUEQAB: I had his authorization last time he was here, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But he was here with you. MR. ABUEQAB: Yeah. But, I mean, he allowed me to be here. I'm here because he allowed me to be here last time and now. MR. LEFEBVRE: But he was here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just see if we can -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, please, can I hear you? What's your recommendation? MS. RAWSON: Well, if he tells you that he has the authority -- and I think he's already told you he does not, but I think if he tells you he has the authority of the owner of the property to be here and ask for the extension, then you have to consider that. But I think that question's already been posed to him, and I think he doesn't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion to impose the fine. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Fuentes, which is the owner of the property, lives in Miami. And he's well aware that Nazar was coming to speak in his behalf because, ultimately, they gave the store all the problems, and he said he wasn't going to do anything about it, that the store needed to finish whatever needed to be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm leaning towards coming back next month. Maybe it will all be fixed, and maybe the owner of the property would be here. Page 58 May 22, 2014 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe there was some confusion on that, but I don't think that would hurt anything to come back. Any -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: May we place this on next month's agenda, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I would agree with that. Jeff, do you have any comment on it? MR. WRIGHT: Well -- and this is something that maybe Jean should opine on, but it seemed to me that the hearing could go forward with him as just a citizen witness. And I just offer that as an option. MS. RAWSON: You could go forward with the hearing on the motion for -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're not here to hear the case. We're here to either impose the fine or not. MS. RAWSON: Well, no, but he's also appeared before you asking for an extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I don't see that anyplace in the package. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think he just did it orally. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, well, that's a violation in itself. MR. ASHTON: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I'm leaning towards what Lionel had -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Withdraw this case until next hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next, yeah. MS. RAWSON: That's up to the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I'm sure that we could make them an offer that they can't refuse. MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: See? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think it would be cleaner that way. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you want that? Page 59 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It would be cleaner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, please. MR. ABUEQAB: With a letter from Mr. Fuentes would allow -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We would like to either see him or a letter authorizing somebody or, even better, everything is fixed and completed, okay, prior to next month. Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the county is going to withdraw it now and put it on the agenda for our next meeting, which is June 27th or 20th. MR. MIESZCAK: 20th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 20th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or just have all the inspections done, and the case will go away. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: That would be the better -- and pay the operational costs. MR. ABUEQAB: Pay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Today you'll pay the two. MR. ABUEQAB: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter C, motion to rescind previously issued order. Case CEPM20100003098, Palm Lake, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is -- Hi, Jeff. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm going to let Mr. Wright start off this proceeding, and then if I need to pipe in, I will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we go from one Jeff to another. Page 60 May 22, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Exactly, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: These are fairly routine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on one second. Do we need to swear Jeff Wright in, seeing as he's an attorney? MR. LEFEBVRE: But he's not representing. MS. RAWSON: Well, I would swear him in just because we swear everybody in. MR. MIESZCAK: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WRIGHT: This case, we're looking to rescind two finding-of-fact orders. The case is a mobile home park right here next to the old appraiser's building on 41 . It was recently foreclosed and picked up by a new buyer. We've had several meetings with the new buyer prior to their acquisition and even yesterday talked to them. They seem very sincere about fixing up the park and, especially, they've hired a landscape architect, and they're making some improvements to the facade. It's not a pretty site when you drive by there today, but I think that there's some opportunity there for low-hanging fruit to make it look good pretty quick with some improvements to the face. So they're making strides. And when we look at the history of the case, the liens have been wiped out. So what we're left with, are these two finding-of-fact orders, and there's some question whether or not those orders got wiped out, too. And when we look at the contents of the order and the -- at the time, we don't believe that the orders were comprehensive or detailed enough to give notice to this new buyer of what he needs to fix. The orders are very general, saying there are several permitting violations on the property. And, Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong or Page 61 May 22, 2014 whatever detail I might be missing, but the orders were general. And we -- if we were to do this exercise today of checking out violations at this park, we'd do it differently. We wouldn't do a general order covering just general permitting issues. We'd specify by unit number what's wrong, whether there's a hanging soffit at Unit No. 4, that type of thing, so whoever the property owner is knows what they need to do to fix the problem. Right now the underlying orders are vague. And, in addition, since those orders were entered, there's been a statutory change in the mobile home park regulation, the statutes, and it basically says, if you're going after a mobile home park, you can go after the park owner, but if you're going after a mobile home unit, you're supposed to go after the unit owner. That's what the law says currently. So we ran into this problem in this case, and we have several others, one that's on appeal, the Sanders case, where they're making this argument that you can't come after the park owner and tell me I have to fix individual units. So we felt, all right, we have a new buyer, we have a wiped-out lien, we have a defective order. I think what we should do is approach the Code Enforcement Board and request that they rescind that defective order and start over with the new buyer, especially in light of their sincerity so far. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this the mobile park that is just down -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right behind the old property appraiser building. MR. LETOURNEAU: Just west of Airport. MR. WRIGHT: You might be able to see it from here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is -- they had, I recall electrical problems. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Open electrical, and every unit there Page 62 May 22, 2014 had additions that were all unpermitted. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. And the previous owner really didn't do anything, to be honest with you, and it was a long court battle. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Abandoned cars. MR. LEFEBVRE: The bank had ahold of it for a long time, yeah. The new owners have already cleaned up all of the -- I've closed the previous litter case. They had abandoned cars. They got rid of all that stuff and they're working on fixing everything at this point. So if we go forward on the property maintenance or the site development, like Jeff said, I would go down there personally with the property maintenance investigator, and we would go unit by unit with a case on each unit at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they occupied? MR. LETOURNEAU: They are, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think the case is vague at all, because I remember this case specifically where they had pictures of the panels saying this is the panel that needs to be fixed, this is -- wires hanging out, that the panel was loose coming off the wall or off the -- whatever fence, whatever was holding up the panel. The specific units was -- it was -- we had pictures spelling out which units they were. I mean, it didn't just say 15 carports illegally built, so it was specific. So, I mean -- and I know there's no fines, from what you're saying, attached, but what is the -- what's the benefit for keeping the -- keeping the case as-is, and what's the -- I mean, what are the pluses and minuses? I guess I'm not really understanding why it has to be wiped clean. MR. WRIGHT: Well, first of all, the finding of facts right now, there's a number of ways that jurisdictions address these, whether or not a new owner takes it and the fines start going the minute they take Page 63 May 22, 2014 title based on this order we're trying to rescind or whether or not we would have to go back and impose a lien against them or whether the fines would run retroactively and they'd take the property with the million dollars worth of fines that have accrued and were wiped out in foreclosure. So there's some question about what is the current value of that finding of fact. What's the current charges that have accrued under that finding of fact? And I guess that we would say from the moment that you took title a month ago to the present at whatever the dollar amount is. So right now you owe us $6,000, just for example. And the underlying order is the problem. The underlying order -- and I realize that you may have seen photos and heard detailed testimony, but the order itself-- and I was just going to pull it up to read exactly what I'm talking about. But the order itself is general in nature. It doesn't say Unit X has a problem described as Y. Unit Z -- you know, it doesn't specify which units have which problems. So when somebody goes out there and says, okay, I'm going to diligently address every single thing in this order, and they look at the order, and it says there's a bunch of permitting problems on the property. And then they call us and say, well, what do I need to do in order to comply with this order? We say, well, fix all the permitting problems. We think it's better to get a fresh start with them. And we think that if there really are property maintenance issues, which there are a ton of, then we could pretty quickly get the lien back up against the right people, the individual unit owners. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you saying that, starting square one, that if you have Unit 1 has an illegal structure attached to the unit, that would be one case, and another case could be trash in their front yard. That's a separate case. And -- Page 64 May 22, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you would do it that way rather than for the whole park and the notice to the owner. This would be notices to the individual unit. MR. WRIGHT: Exactly. And I would expect that there's some units that are owned by, for example, the new owner, who might have seven of those units. So I wouldn't expect 50 cases coming to you. It might be one owner owns a handful and the other owns a handful. And, really, the concern is the potential defectiveness of the order. We're going after the park, not the units, and that could be a problem down the road. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you said that the law changed that now it should be attached to the particular unit, and you can go after the owner of the unit. Why would that be effective on a previous -- an order that was made prior to that law? MR. WRIGHT: Well, now, this law -- I think it's Chapter 723 in the statutes -- it has pretty tough language in it that we want to avoid a fight with. And the language is something along the lines of no local government lien shall encumber a mobile home park unit without first serving the unit owner. There's strong language in the statute that says that, and we figured we could avoid a fight and serve the right people. MR. LEFEBVRE: But when was that language put into the statute? MR. WRIGHT: I think it was July of 2011 . MR. LEFEBVRE: So after this -- MR. WRIGHT: Yep. And we made the argument with the previous owners of Palm Lake Mobile Home Park that, hey, our order predated that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So we don't -- you can't plan ahead. I mean, that's like saying I'm driving down the road, there's a posted speed limit saying 55 miles an hour, but a mile down the road it's 45, Page 65 May 22, 2014 I'm going to slow down when it says -- it doesn't make sense. MR. WRIGHT: The way I say it is the benefit of keeping it the way it is is not very big, because there's a potential that they would sue us and say, it's a defective order. You're gumming up our title. We're the new guys. We're fixing things. Why are you getting in our way? Would you please work with us? There's some detriment to that, and there's also the risk of the existing orders being -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Am I understanding correctly that you can go after both? The owner of the park -- I remember the electric meters being open and there were kids playing there. That would be the park owner. MR. WRIGHT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then the individual owners that had illegal structures on their property, the original -- when this was heard by the board several years ago, that was all piled on, if you will, the owner of the park, because that's who was the owner of the property. Now, the individual unit owners there, do they own the units, or are they just renting them? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, that's hard to say. I haven't really combed through the ownership. I would say that a lot of them are probably individually owned, and some are owned by the new owners. I don't know yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That ought to complicate things. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have to -- I've got to really dig in. MR. LEFEBVRE: From what I can remember is that they owned the actual units, rented a space. And if they defaulted on the space, the owner of the mobile home park took ownership -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Acquired, the -- yeah, I do -- you would be correct about that, yes, and I do believe there's quite a few that still own the mobile homes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But that's how some of the -- and I Page 66 May 22, 2014 remember it was a handful that the park owner owned the actual units. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. They kind of like foreclosed on them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, exactly. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Wright? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it would be easier to rescind these and start from square one. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to rescind. MR. MIESZCAK: Better control. MS. RAWSON: I have one question. Jeff, are you asking that we rescind also the order imposing fines in each case or just the finding-of-fact order? MR. WRIGHT: The order imposing fines, the lien, has been wiped out in foreclosure. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: And they have a judgment for title purposes that said that lien, those liens, cannot be enforced against this property. They're foreclosed as a matter of law. So that, to me, operates as a release, and we can no longer use that lien. Those liens are gone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this isn't worth the paper it's written on, then, really? MR. WRIGHT: Well -- no. But also, you know, these liens encumber all real property and personal property owned by Palm Lake, LLC, so they might have a hotel somewhere in the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if-- the liens were rescinded, but do the liens start again once they take ownership? MR. WRIGHT: Well, the way -- the liens were, I mean, rescinded -- they were released. They were foreclosed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. WRIGHT: So what we've been doing, if a new owner takes it over, the board's policy is -- has the effect of waiving all the Page 67 May 22, 2014 pre-acquisition fines and giving you a 30-day window, and then the fines kick in right away and -- based on the lien that's been recorded. So, you know, this is one of those things that we kind of take case by case, and a lot of title considerations come into play. Sometimes they're trying to sell the property right away and, ultimately, when we encounter the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a motion on the table. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I call the question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Need a second, need a second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He seconded it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those -- now, we're voting on both of these. MR. MIESZCAK: What's the motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion is to rescind CEPM20100003098 and 20100004059. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. They're rescinded. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which brings us to, the other one. MS. ADAMS: The next case under Letter D, motion to amend a Page 68 May 22, 2014 previously issued order, Case CEVR20130009509, Raquel Betancourt. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. JONES: Good morning, again. For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. JONES: This is a case that was brought before the board several months back. The property owner has come into compliance with everything. They've obtained a building permit and that -- they originally cleared, okay. They obtained a building permit on the 13th of March, and that kind of abated the -- it did abate the violation; it allows them to clear up to an acre. So in the order -- there was a provision in the order requiring an inspection and certificate of completion/occupancy in order to abate the violation. That's really -- it's not really required for this instance because they did obtain the building permit. So if you would allow me, I've revised the original order, and I could just read it to you, and you could see if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you do that. MR. JONES: Okay. The respondent is ordered to submit a restoration plan pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.06(E)(3) or obtain all applicable Collier County building permits within 90 days or pay a fine of$150 per day for each day until the violation is abated. The respondent is ordered to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case in the amount of$82 within 30 days. All operational costs have been paid, up to date, including today's -- todays operational costs. Everything's been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you've been in contact with them? MR. JONES: Yes, yes. Page 69 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you're asking us to rescind the old order? MR. JONES: Well, the old order, I'm just asking you to strike out a certain number of words in that original order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So amend it? MR. JONES: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: You gave -- we gave 90 days, until January 22, 2014. MR. JONES: And then they came in after that requesting an extension, which you did approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. JONES: The extension was till April 15th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And they pulled a building permit in March. MR. JONES: Prior. Correct, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to amend. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to amend. Make a motion to amend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 70 May 22, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. JONES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That brings us to reports. Jeff, you're on. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. I just have a -- some quick numbers to share with you. We're coming up on the five-year mark of tracking our fines that have been waived, and it looks like July will be the five-year mark. And it looks like we're on pace to hit the $17 million mark for the last five years, so that's ongoing. We just had, I think, six releases at the last board meeting, and they're releasing a lot of fines. I think it was something like a ratio of a million dollars waived and $44,000 collected in the month of April. We also have -- we're on pace, as I mentioned in previous meetings, from over 10,000 cases opened during the fiscal year, and also we almost have a one-to-one ratio of our education patrols, so we're looking just a little bit under our case opening rate, but it looks like about 10,000 education patrols during the fiscal year. These are projected based on what we have so far. We're on pace for 25,000 property inspections and 10,000 lien searches, and the lien searches is something I've highlighted in previous meetings. We're still doing about 40 of those a day, and so you can imagine the churn that comes in and at every one of those there's a person paying $25 for the service. So it's something that keeps us plenty busy, and I think it's a very helpful service to the public to let them know what liens are encumbering the property, and it all ties into what we take to the board for these releases. So those lien searches are a key component of our business these days. Also, we're -- season -- we're kind of turning the page on the tourist season and looking at the summertime and, obviously, we have hurricane preparation. We're working with the stormwater group on Page 71 May 22, 2014 culvert maintenance. We have 57 cases opened this calendar year on culvert maintenance issues, and we're working with them. They have the technical expertise, but we're trying to get some of the tertiary systems cleaned up and brought up to more modern improvements. So that's going well. And, obviously, nuisance abatement, you'll start seeing lawns growing quicker, and we expect to get a lot of complaints, and probably a lot of cases will be coming before you relating to nuisance abatement. Other than that, we're just humming along. You know, we've had some issues with the sign enforcement, and we're just -- we're staying on that. We've recently -- we're going to be bringing something to the board requesting that they update their signs for special events, and that's something, occasionally you'll see a case before you on. But the signs for special events -- we were approving special events with signage that were -- it was unlimited the number of signs you could have for a special event. So once it was permitted, basically you could specify 100 signs that they would have. And you multiple that by 50 events, you've got a problem. So we've kind of tightened that up, and we're proposing to limit it to a certain radius of the event itself and a limited number of signs. So that's going forward to the Board of County Commissioners very soon. And also, the commercial use of the right-of-way, that's something that's ongoing. We expect that enforcement to continue as we go forward. That's a snapshot of what we're doing. Happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I want to thank Teresa and Kerry for our tab comments on the package. And we're going to improve that even in the next meeting. It's so much easier to find the Page 72 May 22, 2014 cases when you say tab; we're right there. And if anything comes in after, it just becomes the next number. So Jeff probably doesn't know what I'm talking about, but as long as you and I do, Kerry, we're okay. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I know that they're very diligent. They do a great job behind the scenes, and I appreciate you recognizing that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Jim, I have one question for Jeff. Of these fines that the BBC (sic) are waiving or eliminating, are they based on abatement or other issues? MR. WRIGHT: Well, it's usually -- we have to prepare an executive summary for every single one of these releases. And I may have said this before, but they all have their own story. Some of them will have a death in the family, for example. But they -- you start with the presumptive rule that if you're a new buyer, you get a 30-day window, and the fines start after that. Now, oftentimes, we'll get somebody who says, well, the underlying Code Enforcement Board order gave me 180 days, so why would I only have a 30-day window to fix this big problem, and takes them, let's just say, 100 days to fix it. So it's within the timeline that the Code Enforcement Board set but it's after the 30-day window, so then we maybe will consider that, and give them a break on it. So we do -- it's more of an art than a science, but we do start with the rule. And then if there's any exceptions, newly acquired, recently foreclosed, especially a large amount of expenditures and work, we'll consider all of that. We also consider the underlying appraised value of the property. We're not going to recommend a release for a hundred grand if the property's worth $8,000. We'll recommend release for a smaller, more reasonable amount. So we look at all the facts. And, ultimately, we have to stand behind our recommendations. We have to explain ourselves. Why Page 73 May 22, 2014 would we ever want to recommend this to the board? Well, we have to explain ourselves. So we'll have that explanation at each of the executive summaries. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The next meeting is June 20th. And before we adjourn, I want to thank Tony Marino for his time on the board. He's resigned from the board effective today, I guess. And we wish him well. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. MS. RAWSON: And can I caution you that the 20th is a Friday CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. RAWSON: -- so that you're here on the right day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we'll be here on the 20th. You won't be here. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll be in Sacramento, California. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, he's going to be -- and if you're going to be here on the 19th, you're going to have a long wait. Gerald is about to become a father again -- MR. ASHTON: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- so he may have to sleep here, because you're not getting much sleep at home. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 74 May 22, 2014 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD O BER 'IM MAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on (D(c/a c,1 , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 75