Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/24/2014 Code Enforcement Board Minutes July 24 , 2014 July 24, 2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, July 24, 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 Robert Ashton Larry Mieszcak (Excused) Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,.FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 24,2014 Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY(20)MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman,Chair Lionel L'Esperance Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. JUNE 20,2014 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1 .........._............... Motion for Extension of Time I. CASE NO: CELU20120015005 OWNER: ALBERT.BENARROCH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I.04.01(A).COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE BUSINESS BEING CONDUCTED WITHOUT A VALID BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AND ANY OTHER REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY AUTHORIZATION. FOLIO NO: 750680709 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2390 JAMES RD,NAPLES, FL 2. CASE NO: CELU20100021891 OWNER: B Q CONCRETE LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03 AND SECTION 1.04.01(A).ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. FOLIO NO: 37925940001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4790 PINE RIDGE RD,NAPLES,FL 3. CASE NO: CESD20130012048 OWNER: JOSE S.&MARIA E.GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I).A MOBILE HOME REPLACEMENT AND MOBILE HOME SET UP WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERIVIIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED. FOLIO NO: 55720005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1017 RAULERSON RD,IMMOKALEE, FL 2 B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20130018722 OWNER: 925 CYPRESS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPER.MITTED DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 48170680008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2829 SHOREVIEW DR,'NAPLES,FL 2. CASE NO: CEROW20140005480 OWNER: KEITO HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY,DIVISION I GENERALLY,SECTION 110-32.OFFENDING MATERIAL IN THE ROW (CULVERT/DRAINAGE PIPE,CATCH BASIN AND GRATE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR) FOLIO NO: 62263080009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5362 TRAMMELL ST,NAPLES,FI, 3. CASE NO: CESD20140000248 OWNER: CHRISTOPHER ESENBERG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).EXPIRED PERMIT FOR A POOL AND A PERMIT FOR.A POOL ENCLOSURE WITH NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 47871360000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3301 GUILFORD RD,NAPLES,FL 3 4. CASE NO: CEVR20140000223 OWNER: CASA DE VIDA HOMEOWNERS ASSN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR M1CHA ELLE CROWI,EY 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 JAVA PLUM AND EAR LEAF ACACIA IN CONSERVATION/DRAINAGE EASEMENT TRACT C OF THE CASA DE VIDA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD). FOLIO NO: 25700000068 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPI,ES,FL 5. CASE NO: CELU20140001165 OWNER: HELEN VALENT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03. SEMI TRUCKS AND TRAILERS IN THE YARD. FOLIO NO: 36660480005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6810 VANDERBILT BEACH RD,NAPLES.FL 6. CASE NO: CESD20140000219 OWNER: FAIRHOMES SILVER LININGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 26681800001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4112 COCONUT CIRCLE SOUTH,NAPLES.FL 6. OLD BUSINESS. A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: 2007100236 OWNER: ANTHONY D1NORCIA SR LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I 0.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I),SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND SECTION I 0.02.06(B)(1)(A). NUMEROUS UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES,INCLUDING OFFICE CANOPY STRUCTURES, SILOS, BUILDINGS. FOLIO NO: 274560004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3963 DOMESTIC AVE,NAPLES,FL 4 2. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH&ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX, VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(8)(1)(A), I 0.02.06(B)(1) E)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(1).OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/ IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST NAPLES,FL 3. CASE.NO: CESD20130008710 OWNER: ALFRED DIAZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A).AN UNPERMITTED ROOM ADDITION THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN 2004 AND 2005. FOLIO NO: 29280440005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2648 VAN BUREN AVE,NAPLES,FL 4. CASE NO: CESD20130012048 OWNER: JOSE S.&MARIA E.GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(1).A MOBILE HOME REPLACEMENT AND MOBILE HOME SET UP WITHOUT FIRST 0I3TAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PER.MIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED. FOLIO NO: 55720005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1017 RAULERSON RD, IMMOKALEE,FL 5. CASE NO: CESD20130005831 OWNER: EVA A.GUERRERO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A SMAIA,TYPE POLE BARN vvrai A METAL ROOF WITH NO ELECTRIC. ALSO AN ADDITION ATTACHED TO THE MOBILE HOME WITH ELECTRIC ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41,AS AMENDED. FOLIO NO: 30730960008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1301 PEACH ST, IMMOKA LEE,FL 5 6. CASE NC): CELU20120015005 OWNER: ALBERT BENARROCH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A).COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE BUSINESS BEING CONDUCTED WITHOUT A VALID BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AND ANY OTHER REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY AUTHORIZATION, FOLIO NO: 750680709 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2390 JAMES RD,NAPLES,FL 7. CASE NO: CESD20130000332 OWNER: JASON T. BRICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 04-41,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A).UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS MADE TO THE GARAGE. FOLIO NO: 77412120006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1336 TRAII.,TERRACE DRIVE, NAPLES,FL 8. CASE NO: CESD20110000425 OWNER: ELIDIA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES DAVIS VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 04-41,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)(I)(A). PERMIT 2004062889 EXPIRED ON 7/23/05.NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED. FOLIO NO: 37807200005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1275 18TH AVENUE N.E.,NAPLES,FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order E. Special Hearing 6 1. CASE NO: 2002120972(CEB 2004-72) OWNER: JAMES C. MARSHALL AND SHERRY M.MARSHALL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: SECTION 104.5.1.4 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,AS AMENDED BY COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 02-01,AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(D)OF ORDINANCE 91-102,AS AMENDED,CODIFIED AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. NUMEROUS WOODEN SHEDS BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION OF COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS.ALSO,A HOUSE THAT WAS SEMI-BUILT UNDER PERMIT #86-2791, WHICH HAS EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING ALL THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 37590120007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 820 20TH AVE NW,NAPLES,FL 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- AUGUST 28,2014 12. ADJOURN 7 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak at any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless 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 includes testimony and evidence which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. If you'd all stand for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you have cell phones and they ring, we're going to ask you to come up here and answer on the microphone, either that or turn them off now. Why don't we have roll call to begin with, Kerry. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. Page 2 July 24, 2014 MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Larry Miesczak has an excused absence, and Ms. Lisa Chapman Bushnell is absent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we go through the changes on the agenda. MS. ADAMS: Number 5, public hearings, motions, A, motion for continuance, we have one addition. It's No. 2 from hearings. Case CEROW20140005480, Keito Holdings, LLC. It's Tab 5. Motion for extension of time, we have two additions. The first one is No. 5 from imposition of fines. Case CESD20130005831, Eva A. Guerrero. It's Tab 14. The second addition is No. 1 from imposition of fines, Case 2007100236, Anthony Dinorcia, Sr., LLC. It's Tab 10. Letter B, stipulations, we have three additions. The first is No. 3 from hearings, Case CESD20140000248, Christopher Esenberg. That's Tab 6. The second is No. 1 from hearings, Case CESD20130018722, 925 Cypress, LLC. It's Tab 4. The third is No. 6 from hearings, CESD20140000219, Fairhomes Silver Linings, LLC. It's Tab 9. Letter C, hearings, No. 4, Case CEVR20140000223, Casa de Vida Homeowners Association, has been withdrawn. It's Tab 7. Number 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 7, Case CESD20130000332, Jason T. Brick, has been withdrawn. That's Tab 16. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda as modified? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And seconded. All those in favor? Page 3 July 24, 2014 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, okay. Which brings us to our first -- oh, the approval of the minutes. You'll give those to me later on. Anybody have any changes in the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, I'll sign those before I leave today. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes unanimously. And we're up to the motion for continuance. MS. ADAMS: Case CEROW20140005480, Keito Holdings, LLC. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Page 4 July 24, 2014 MR. KINCAID: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see we have a letter here asking for a continuance on this. MR. KINCAID: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you give us a little quick background? MR. KINCAID: It's just a standard right-of-way case. No health, safety, welfare issues, Your Honor. They're just asking for -- evidently the representative of the company had to be out of town and wants to be represented by an attorney and asked for an extension or a rescheduling of the case. THE COURT REPORTER: Can I get your name? MR. KINCAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any problem with continuing this? MR. KINCAID: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's in the right-of-way, by the way? MR. KINCAID: It's just a -- there's several issues. There was an issue with a collapsed pipe and a drainage basin, catch basin. It's just gotten old enough to where it's fallen apart. Just has to be redone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Tis the season for drainage issues. Anybody want to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue it till the next hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to continue to the next meeting. The date of the next meeting is August -- Page 5 July 24, 2014 MS. ADAMS: August 28th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- 28th. Okay. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, James. MR. KINCAID: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The first motion for extension of time is Case CELU20120015005, Albert Benarroch. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BENARROCH: Good morning. On May 8th -- Albert Benarroch. On May 8th we turned in all of our documents and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just before -- did we get everybody sworn? Okay. MR. BENARROCH: Sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A little lax on it. I forgot. MR. BENARROCH: On May 8th we turned in all of the documents for the site improvement plans, and then on June 24th they gave us -- they sent us a letter asking us for more documents. So our extension wasn't (sic) until June 27th, so we're looking for another extension until we can provide them with all this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long of an extension do you think you need? Page 6 July 24, 2014 MR. BENARROCH: I would say 60 days would be good enough. My engineer, he had a death in the family; that's why he's not here right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIS: For the record, James Davis, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have no objection to an extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sixty days will do it? MR. BENARROCH: If that's okay with you, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the paperwork been submitted back to the county? MR. BENARROCH: Yes. All the paperwork, all the fees have been paid, but not the -- they have some more comments that we have to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But, I mean, those comments, have they been responded to, sent back to the county? MR. BENARROCH: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: They have. When was that done? MR. BENARROCH: No, no, no. The comments are being done as we speak right now. All the stuff that they want new, we're giving it to them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this going to require a public hearing? MR. BENARROCH: I don't think so. MR. LEFEBVRE: No? For a site -- SIP? Jeff, do you know if-- MR. WRIGHT: I don't believe so. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So it's more administrative than anything else? MR. DAVIS: It is, sir. MR. BENARROCH: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In 60 days, or prior to 60 days, if it's not done, then I'd suggest that you come back ahead of-- MR. BENARROCH: Yes, sir. Page 7 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to extend 60 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to extend this 60 days. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, just a reminder, the operational costs are due for today's hearing as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh. Before you go, the operational costs for that are due today. Any problem with that? MR. BENARROCH: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you see -- outside and arrange for that. MR. BENARROCH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Next case? MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time is Case CELU20100021891, BQ Concrete, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. SUMMERS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name is? MR. SUMMERS: Bill Summers. I'm the general manager for Page 8 July 24, 2014 BQ Concrete Construction. The owner has a viral infection; that's why he couldn't make it today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a letter requesting an extension on this? I see there's a piece of paper that basically says nothing. MR. SUMMERS: If I may, we were here, and we got an extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. SUMMERS: But because of his divorce and other matters, personal issues, we've had to sell the property, and the new owners are here. And we close on it at the end of the month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. And I see an amendment to the sales contract that says there are two parties that will be attending this meeting. That's -- MR. SUMMERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's all the information that we have. And why don't the two parties -- are they sworn? MR. CANTANASI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we -- (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And, for the record, could you give us both your names. MR. CANTANASI: Anton Cantanasi (phonetic), and I'm the purchaser. This is my assistant, Barb Cornell (phonetic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Our concern mostly on cases where there's a violation that exists and a property is sold, that the person who is purchasing the property sometimes doesn't realize that, and when they -- when you buy the property, you buy the problem, basically. It's -- the problem goes with the property. MR. SUMMERS: That's what happened to us when we bought, your honor. We didn't know. Page 9 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're aware of the problem with the property? MR. CANTANASI: Somewhat, somewhat. We understand there's some time constraints and there's no extensions granted, so we just wanted to clarify some issues, that fines are not going to be imposed on us after closing, which is scheduled for the 30th of this month. Those are the concerns we have. We will have to proceed with the building. You know, once we purchase it, we have to improve the property with the residential building, the home, and that we have -- we've got to have adequate time to get permitting and construct that building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: See, this is my concern. If I own a property and I have a problem with the property and I sell that property to Gerald, then Gerald has it, and the fines are not paid. That's what you have here. And then Gerald keeps it for a month, and he sells it back to me, and he doesn't pay the fines either. So that's a concern that I have. Jeff, do you have any comments on that? MR. WRIGHT: No. It's also a concern, obviously, when there's a conveyance. But it seems to me that we have the parties before us. I'm happy to see that. And we don't have any objection to the request. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you done your due diligence on the property yet? MR. CANTANASI: That's what we're in the process of doing right now, and we didn't want to incur too many expense before coming, you know, in front of the board to find out what our options are as far as fines and the building, being able to keep the building on the property and give us time to get the permitting and to get the home constructed. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Page 10 July 24, 2014 MS. DAVIDSON: For the record, Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. I spoke with the buyer's agent, they have gone over, and I believe he is aware of the violations. What has been relayed to me is they have actually met with a builder already and have started working on plans to build a house on this property. So, essentially, the new buyer would just like an extension of time so he has enough -- sufficient amount of time to build the home that he's, you know, making plans for right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And, typically, it takes a while to build a home, so how much of an extension are you looking for? MR. CANTANASI: Well, we're looking for 120 days for the permitting process, you know, to design plans and get permitting, and then -- we're not sure what the time, you know, to construct the home. I guess it depends on what we're able to build on the property itself. But whatever the reasonable period of time is to build a house, you know. When we get the building confirmed, you know, the floor plan and the time frame, I guess we'll have to appear before you again to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To get another extension to finish the -- houses take a year. MR. CANTANASI: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. We estimate a year, you know. The first 120 days is going to be for permitting, and the remainder of the time to construct the home. But we're concerned about the fines that are, you know, present right now. You know, we don't want to incur those fines. And the other issue is that, you know, there's a building on an unimproved property, and we know that's an issue; that's why we have to build a home. We don't want to be in a position where we have to take that building down because we're -- you know, there's a time limit to construct the home and, you know, we can't build -- construct a home within that time frame. Page 11 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But it says here on the contract that you're going to buy it this month. MR. CANTANASI: That's correct. We close on the 30th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that gives you one week to find out all the answers that you need to know. MR. CANTANASI: Well, this is most important here, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if an extension is granted, you have no problem in purchasing it next week? MR. CANTANASI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I so move we extend the request. MR. CANTANASI: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Say that again. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I so move that we grant the extension for the -- the request for the extension. You said 120 days? MR. CANTANASI: That's correct. MR. ASHTON: That's just for permitting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's for permitting. MR. ASHTON: That's for permitting. MR. CANTANASI: It's a year total to -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: We probably shouldn't go any further than that initially. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, because we don't know whether it's going to be sold or not sold or whatever. We have a motion to extend it for 120 days. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) Page 12 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A hundred and twenty days should give you the opportunity to, obviously, pull the permits. And after you pull the permits and you're ready to roll, I would suggest that you come back here and -- for the board to extend it for a period of time until you get a CO on the property. MR. CANTANASI: Yes, we intend on doing that. But one of our main concerns is the fines. They're supposed to be imposed on the property. I mean, the 30th comes, is that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If we grant 120-day extension, if I'm not mistaken, that will take care of the fines issue? MR. WRIGHT: One alternative you might consider, the underlying order in this case, the original order that you entered, gave 360 days to get everything done. And you could -- foreseeably, you could enter a similar order since they're on the same starting line, so to speak, and give them the same amount of time. In other words, an amended order that captures the same time frames starting today. That's just a suggestion. It would require you to, I guess, wipe out your prior order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, my concern is that next week comes -- we can do that. Next week comes and a fly hits the ointment, and they don't buy it. That's my concern. So Mr. L'Esperance's motion would take that into consideration, and at least we wouldn't be a year down the road to find out the purchase never happened, et cetera. So I'm more inclined to agree with that motion that's on the table right now for 120 days. Not a big deal to come back and request, and you'll know at that time, after your plans have been approved, et cetera. MR. CANTANASI: Absolutely. MR. WRIGHT: I don't have any problem. And to answer your original question, if the order is worded properly, those fines would not start for 120 days. They would start from scratch. Page 13 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jean, no problem? MS. RAWSON: No problem. Don't forget about the costs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Today the operational costs need to be paid. What are the operational costs on this? I don't see it on the paperwork. MS. ADAMS: $69.44. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $69.44. So if you'll go with Colleen and resolve that issue. MR. SUMMERS: Who's Colleen? Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll vote on the motion. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. So you'll take care of the fees? MR. SUMMERS: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we'll see you in 120 days, unless you happen to be able to build a whole house in 120 days. MR. SUMMERS: Anything's possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I sort of doubt that, but that's all right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: A question I have. This is an accessory unit. I wanted to ask this question before they left, but -- before a vote. This is an accessory building. At what point does it become conforming and the violation goes away? Is it at the time of permitting or CO? Page 14 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: CO. MR. ASHTON: CO. MR. LEFEBVRE: CO. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The motion for extension of time is Case CESD20130012048, Jose S. and Maria E. Garcia. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name for the record. MR. GARCIA: My name is Angelo Garcia. I'm translating for my mother, Maria Garcia. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I see this is a replacement of a mobile home. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you swear him in as an interpreter? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. You might want to swear him in as a translator as well. (The interpreter was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of his ability.) (The speaker was duly sworn through the interpreter and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I read the letter. Just one comment on the letter. You're replacing a mobile home. MR. GARCIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it says, the process is said to take up to two more months; therefore, we're asking for an extension of eight months. MR. GARCIA: We're actually asking for about 120 days, give or take. We're kind of hoping that my father will come down within those 120 days, because he's in Texas. He's in Houston. He moves with his company. And he only comes down every -- maybe every 90 days or so, if that. Page 15 July 24, 2014 So when he does come down, he does plan to go purchase the mobile home and get everything done, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So right now you're in a position of what has to be done and when do you think it can be done? What physically has to be done to come into compliance? MR. GARCIA: We have to get -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you better start interpreting. MR. GARCIA: Okay. We've been approved by the bank to purchase the new home, a mobile home, but right now what we have to do is get all these permits, get them out of the way and get them done so that we don't face anymore obstacles. (Conversation in Spanish.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now from the county. Do you have any comments for us? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning, sir. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county has no objection on the extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a question. The operational costs, 64.34, have they been paid? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir, as of yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's paid. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Excuse me. The 22nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And today, the operational costs are $63.14, which need to be paid as well. Any comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: I didn't -- I've got a question. In here you said it's going to take the company eight months to set up a mobile home? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I think they're just wanting a bigger time gap, but I say within 120 days. MR. ASHTON: I was going to say, that's a long time to set up a mobile, eight months. Page 16 July 24, 2014 MR. GARCIA: Ifs been an ongoing process. So I know we've been at it with them for about -- (Conservation in Spanish.) MR. GARCIA: We've been doing this for about three months now trying to get everything worked out, get all the kinks worked out, all the permitting, and previous fines and previous violations. We're trying to get everything in order right now. So I think he's just asking for eight months so that -- so that we have a good time frame to get everything done. MR. ASHTON: But right now you're asking for a 120-day extension. MR. GARCIA: Hundred and twenty days is fine, yes. MR. ASHTON: I'll make a motion for a 120-day extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion for a 120-day extension of time. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a second. Before we vote on the motion, probably we need the $63.14 for the operational costs for today. Maybe you can meet after here, this meeting, and arrange for that. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with that? MR. GARCIA: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 17 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. And by the way, if you -- after 120 days you're getting close and you don't have it done, come back and let us know, you know, the mobile home is on a truck, it's on the way here, or whatever it is so that we can grant you whatever time you need to get it there. MR. GARCIA: Okay. Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time is from imposition of fines, No. 5, Case CESD20130005831, Eva A. Guerrero. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you state your name for the record. MS. GUERRERO: Eva Guerrero. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Everybody's been sworn. I see that you're requesting additional time. MS. GUERRERO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much additional time do you need? MS. GUERRERO: Just 90 days, because I'm trying to keep, like, the floor -- I did the demo on it, and I'm trying to get, like, to keep the floor, like, the deck. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The operational costs have been paid. The operational costs, by the way, for today's hearing is $62.84. So what has been done is the existing floor has been removed, and you're ready to put in a new floor? MS. GUERRERO: No. I removed the demo. I did -- like, it was a whole closed-in, and I removed all of that. I'm just trying to keep, like, the deck on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Maria? Page 18 July 24, 2014 MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. She did get a demo permit, and she did demo the addition that was added onto the trailer. And she wants to keep the deck, so she has to get a permit for the deck, and that's why she's requesting the 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: But we have no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you've been in contact? Communication is open? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to extend 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to extend for 90 days. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. You have 90 days. If you can't get it done in 90 days, come back before 90 days has elapsed. MS. GUERRERO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And don't forget about the $62.84. I feel like a tax collector here. But that's due also. Page 19 July 24, 2014 MS. GUERRERO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time is from imposition of fines No. 1, Case 2007100236, Anthony Dinorcia, Sr., LLC. It's Tab 10. MR. FLOOD: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would everybody identify themselves on the mic. MR. FLOOD: Peter Flood, your honor. I'm appearing -- attorney on behalf of Mr. Dinorcia. I was just retained on July 15th, so -- one of the reasons for requesting a short extension of this, the 30 days, is that I've just become engrossed in this whole transaction for the last 10 days, been working with contractors, engineers, and so forth. I talked to Mr. Kitchell. There's been some partial compliance in regards to what's gone on with the property. Currently, we're at a point where we're trying to determine in regards to the structures in the back, through engineering, whether it's feasible to have them reengineered and have those brought into compliance in accordance with code, either have them reengineered or a new building put in, determining what the cost effectiveness is of that. I talked to Mr. Dinorcia, who's conveyed to me that the engineer's going to have his proposal over tomorrow with his study. So what we're asking for today is just -- I know this has been a long time. The goal is compliance. I understand that. I think tomorrow and next week we're having a couple meetings with the engineering firm. We're going to have a better grasp on what direction we're going to go here. So what I'm asking for, for the board today, is -- he is complying Page 20 July 24, 2014 with some of the things that have occurred. I think Mr. Kitchell will testify to that, that the landscaping in front of the building's all been taken care of in the ditch. So we're going to have to make some hard decisions next week what direction to go in in regards to this from the building perspective of the noncompliance issues in accordance with the code from a cost -- So Mr. Whalen here, who's here, is the contractor that will most likely be doing the work. And once we determine what direction we're going to go, we're going to have a preapp meeting with county, just sit down whether or not -- see if they will accept the reengineering of the building versus putting in a whole new structure. To put in a whole new structure, you're talking a substantial amount of money. Again, I know it's been a long time. I'm just getting involved in this. I've worked with Mr. Wright before. I've worked with Kitchell before. And basically I try and do what I say I'm going to do, and I'm just asking for a 30-day continuance to get this thing under control and get this thing either going in the right direction or -- you know, the alternative is to -- if we cannot get a cost-effective resolution to this matter, it's going to -- the other -- the other option's not good and, you know, basically either he'll have to shut down, move, or determine what's going to happen with that, go out of business, so -- We don't want to do that. There's people's lives involved; you know, a lot of employees and so forth, and he's trying. I know Mr. Dinorcia. I've known him a long period of time. I'm sure -- he's standing here. I've scolded him in regards to what's gone on here. We really need to get this done. I know how these guys operate. And as I said early, the goal is compliance, and we have to bring it into compliance. Unfortunately, economics and so forth has kind of curtailed some of his action in getting this resolved immediately, but I'm on board Page 21 July 24, 2014 now, and I'd like to come back in 30 days, and hopefully we'll have a reengineered plan, have applied for our permits, and move on with this. And that would be the cost-effective approach. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what you're saying is, if I can quote Nancy Pelosi, we need to find out what it is before we do it; so in 30 days you may know what you're going to do, and then it's going to take whatever time it takes to do it; is that correct? MR. FLOOD: Here's the goal. This is a straightforward business decision. Do we go ahead and do the reengineering of the building, which is quite -- way less than putting in a new structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. FLOOD: That's the decision we've got to make. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me find out from the county. Mr. Snow, what say you? MR. SNOW: Sir, for the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. I think this board has been extremely lenient with this particular case. We have worked with Mr. Flood on a number of occasions, and Mr. Flood is good to his word. To allow another 30 days with a continuance is not going to stop the fines. They're still going to accrue. And they could bring it back and report it to the board that -- what the status is and satisfy some of the board's needs. I know some of the board members were not in favor of another extension, and it was very -- it was demonstratively demonstrated that that was the case. But Mr. Flood is online, and they have come into compliance with the -- if you remember, there was two parts to this case. There was a Site Development Plan and in concurrence with the Site Development Plan, permitting for four structures on the property had to be done. They're in -- or on the verge of coming into compliance with the Page 22 July 24, 2014 site plan. They've done what they needed to do, and the next step, like Mr. Flood suggested, is determining what they're going to do with those four structures on there. The county will not object to anything this board wants to do either way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: Okay. The operational costs from last meeting been paid? MR. SNOW: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In other words, the 81 .15 has been paid? MR. SNOW: The 66.14 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 66.14 has been paid. For today is $66.74. MR. SNOW: Has not been paid yet. MR. FLOOD: We'll pay those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My concern on this is when you look at the extensions, I've never seen -- and I've been on the board for almost eight years. I've never seen that. And I know at the last meeting we said, if you're going to come back here again and ask for another extension, we're not going to give it to you, okay. You're not just asking for an extension to have the work done. You're asking for an extension to find out how much time you need to have the work done. This can go on for another year. And that's absolutely, in my perspective, untenable. How long -- I mean, what you're asking to do now, why wasn't it done a year ago? Six months ago? MR. FLOOD: You know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FLOOD: -- I'm just getting involved in this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Page 23 July 24, 2014 MR. FLOOD: When I get involved in something, I get my teeth into it. I'll get it resolved. What I just represented to you is, in fact, what I've done since I've been involved in this. We'll have that engineering report tomorrow. In 30 days we'll -- all I want to do is come back to the board and say that, you know, we've filed our permits for our building, bring our building into compliance. It's not that he doesn't want to comply. It's a substantial amount of monies. We're in a position now where we believe in the next -- after the next 30 days coming back in front of you, we'll either have this totally resolved and on the right track -- we understand there's fines and costs. I understand all that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My -- MR. FLOOD: The issue becomes -- the issue becomes, in regards to this -- and I've never been involved in one like this, to be honest with you, to the extent that -- the time frame. Now, some of the time frame -- I'm reading some of the material in regards to the site plan taking extensive time to get into the county. That's neither here nor there. I don't want to argue about stuff that happened in the past. I'm trying to resolve going forward what we can do here. I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The best-case scenario is you -- at tomorrow's meeting you get everything that you want to get done, how long would it take after that? MR. FLOOD: What I'm going to do after tomorrow -- I'm going to tell you right forward after tomorrow. We're going to get the proposal from the engineering firm. If the engineering's firm said the buildings can be reengineered, I'm going to have the preapp meeting with the county immediately. What we're going to do is apply for our permits, whatever permits we've got to do based on that engineering report and so forth. Page 24 July 24, 2014 So hopefully by the time we come back -- if it can be reengineered, hopefully by the time I come back in the next 30 days we'll have our stuff submitted, have our bid. I'm putting it in. He'll give me his time frame to complete it, and we'll be on our way to finally resolving this. That's my goal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you get everything that falls the right way, let me ask, how long will it take to complete the work that needs to be done? MR. WHALEN: The work would probably take 60 to 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, in essence, what you're asking for now is 30 days to find out. If everything falls the right way, another 90 days. And during that period of time, the fines are accruing. My questions revert back to -- revert to what I said before, why wasn't all of this stuff done before? But that's in the past. So let's get the comments from the board. MR. FLOOD: Mr. Kaufman, can I address that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. FLOOD: My understanding in talking to Mr. Dinorcia and the engineering firm we've been in negotiations with and so forth, there was concern about the structural integrity of the building. And to redo all the buildings and replace all the buildings based on what's there would be a substantial amount of money, and that would take, essentially, a long period of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that, but when -- didn't you know about this a year ago? MR. FLOOD: No, no. I wasn't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know. I'm not talking to you. I'm talking about the situation. Wasn't this known a year ago? Or two years ago? MR. DINORCIA: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Page 25 July 24, 2014 MR. DINORCIA: We had hired -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you go into the mic. MR. DINORCIA: We had hired Mario LaMendola to do the plans and, unfortunately, he passed away. Also, we spent about $35,000 to take care of the site plan that took two years to get it permitted, and that's all done now. And we just didn't have the money to go ahead with the rest of it. I'm going to be honest. We just -- you know, it's been a tough five years. Finally business is turning, but it's been a tough five years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: I think we've just heard this -- you know, some of this stuff over and over, and we don't -- there seems to be no incentive to make any progress here, so I'd like to make a motion to deny the request for the extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Anymore discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes one, two, three, four to one. Obviously, as we said the last time, we denied the motion. Well, this is a denial of the motion for an extension of time. The case will be heard later this morning. Page 26 July 24, 2014 MR. SNOW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the motion to extend this will be heard -- was heard now. That's been denied, but we're going to hear the case later this morning, probably in about, I don't know, half hour or so, maybe. Okay. MR. SNOW: We'll hear -- Mr. Chair, what we'll hear is the motion to -- for imposition of fines. We aren't rehearing the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. SNOW: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The first stipulation is Case CESD20140000248 Christopher Esenberg. It's Tab 6. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Eric? MR. SHORT: All right. I have a stipulation. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs in the amount of$62.84 incurred in prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three, the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, the respondent shall -- if the respondent -- 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 provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you understand the stipulation that you've agreed to? Page 27 July 24, 2014 MR. ESENBERG: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have no problem in getting this done in 90 days? MR. ESENBERG: No, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept as written. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SHORT: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The second stipulation is Case CESD20130018722, 925 Cypress, LLC. It's Tab 4. MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Before I get into the stipulation, I'd like to point out that the gentleman that signed this stipulation has produced documentation that he is a part owner and also the legal representative of 925 Cypress, LLC, so -- and we've dealt with him numerous times in the past and other situations. Page 28 July 24, 2014 Okay. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$64.04 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, which he already has; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are they going to remove the enclosure, or are they going to get it permitted? MR. LETOURNEAU: They have to -- they have to move it because it doesn't meet setbacks, so he's been in touch with planning and the building department, and they're trying to figure out exactly what it needs, if he just needs a normal building permit or a Site Improvement Plan at this time. But we felt, either way, 90 days would be fair, even if he had to get a Site Improvement Plan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just wondered if 90 days was sufficient time. Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Page 29 July 24, 2014 All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is Case CESD20140000219, Fairhomes Silver Linings, LLC, Tab 9. MR. FORD: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. FORD: For the record, Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$63.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this Page 30 July 24, 2014 agreement. All costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Saad? MR. SAAD: Yes. I've spoken to Mr. Ford a number of times about this issue. This is a situation where my client, who's normally very diligent when they purchase properties at auction, let this one slip through the cracks. They've already engaged the contractor. They have paid him half the deposit. The contractor has gone to the building department, has pulled the first of three required permits. They're going to demo the unpermitted structures and bring the property into compliance. And they're okay with 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SAAD: Mr. Chair, I should -- should I put my name on the record? I didn't do that. It's Sam Saad, attorney for Fairhomes Silver Linings. Page 31 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SAAD: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5 from hearings, Case CELU20140001165, Helen Valent, Tab 8. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. DAVIDSON: Good morning. For the record, Colleen Davidson, Collier County code enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20140001165, dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03, semi-trucks and trailers in the yard, located at 6810 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 36660480005. Service was given on January 29, 2014. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photos dated January 16, 2014, and two photos dated July 23, 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Taken by? MS. DAVIDSON: By myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to accept the -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 32 July 24, 2014 MS. DAVIDSON: While conducting a site visit January 16, 2014 I spoke with the renter who explained that the tractor trailers are the property owner's friends. Ms. Valent thought there was a conditional use for the property -- after extensive research and a violation determination from the zoning department that states conditional use was not approved for this Estates zoned property. In addition, this zoning district doesn't permit nonresidents to store semitrailers on the property. As of today, violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a big piece of property? MS. DAVIDSON: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's out in the Estates? MS. DAVIDSON: It is. It's right off of Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's right next to the funeral home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So either 1.14 or 1.64 acres or whatever. But the zoning says you can't do it. MS. DAVIDSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What is the -- now, is this house rented and these are friends of the renters? MS. DAVIDSON: From what the renter told me, they're friends of the owner. I've never had any contact with the owner. I've only had contact with the renter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have notified the owner? MS. DAVIDSON: We have notified the owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No response? MS. DAVIDSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion a violation exists. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Page 33 July 24, 2014 All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. A violation exists. Do you have a suggestion for us now, Colleen? MS. DAVIDSON: I do. The Code Enforcement Board orders that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of$63.74 in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Must cease all prohibited use of Estates-zoned property within blank days, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One quick question. Was this picked up by a patrol, or was this reported by a neighbor? MS. DAVIDSON: This was a complaint. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And, basically, to clear this violation, someone needs to hop in the trucks and drive them off. MS. DAVIDSON: Correct. Page 34 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that shouldn't take very long. Anybody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'll take a shot at it. I make a motion that operational costs of$63.74 be paid within the 30 days; that the violation be abated within 15 days or a fine of $100 per day be imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree with your 15 days, but I think $100 a day would be -- is a little bit low. MR. ASHTON: Yeah, I agree. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll amend the motion to the fine per day to $200 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CIAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So $200 a day parking fee would be -- would be the result if they don't move it by then. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1. Case 2007100236, Anthony Dinorcia, Sr., LLC, Tab 10. MR. SNOW: They left. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Page 35 July 24, 2014 Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm assuming that Mr. Dinorcia left? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you have a chance to speak with him before he left? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? MR. SNOW: They were -- it was strictly a monetary concern, and they were moving forward. And we're going to try to come into compliance as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. They have other means available, just like their previous case they had that was heard at the same time as this one. There were two different dates that were given. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So comments from the board? From my perspective -- I mean, if you look at this, date after date after date after date was missed, asked for an extension. And I'm sure if they had come into compliance, the fines that were accruing would have been abated, and yet the things that they're asking for now on this are things that should have been done a year ago. We're not talking about you have to open this up to see what's inside. It was there the whole time. So I think that the board handled the request for an extension of time properly, and here we are. MR. SNOW: I've never heard this board -- I've appeared before this board for eight years, and I've never heard the board give -- grant this much time, and there were some extenuating circumstances, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll quote from a famous philosopher who sits to my right who said, you could build a high-rise in less time than this was taking. Don't come back and ask for any additional time, and that was agreed to by the respondent. So that's unfortunate, but they'll get it done, and everything will Page 36 July 24, 2014 be fine. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a comment. I've been on this board 12 years, and I've never seen this before. So I make a motion that we impose the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SNOW: To the board, you want me to read it into the record? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. SNOW: For the record, it's violation of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). The location is 3963 Domestic Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34104. The folio is 274560004, and description of the violation is the number of unpermitted structures, including office, canopy structures, silos, and buildings. Past orders: On March 22, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, a conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR78 and Page 37 July 24, 2014 Page 1804, for more information. On July 26, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board granted the extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4825, Page 889, 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 and Page 3354, 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 and Page 3829, for more information. On July 25, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted the extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4953, Page 2508, for more information. On February 27, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the order of the board, OR5018 and Page 3641, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of July 24, 2014. The fines and costs to date as follows: Fines accrued at the rate of $200 per day between the period of June 28, 2014, and July 24, 2014, 27 days, for a total fine amount of$5,400. Fines continue to accrue. Previous operational costs of 81.15 have been paid. Previously assessed operational costs of 66.14 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are 67.74. And the total amount to date is $5,532.88. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You know, for a case that's been going on for this length of time and the fines are -- $5,400 is a substantial amount of money, but I've seen a lot larger fines accrue, because all the extensions of time have kept it down. MR. SNOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's unfortunate, but that's the way Page 38 July 24, 2014 it is. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Case CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Radenkovich, and Aleksandar H. Radenkovich. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me check. Are your fingers okay? Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. VUKOVIC: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name for the record. MS. VUKOVIC: Twenty-seven letters, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, and Georgina Radenkovich and Aleksandar Radenkovich, who passed away. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, if you were a famous movie star and had to give your autograph, it would take you a long time. Okay. Why don't we begin. This is a case where the fines have been accruing, and -- MR. SNOW: If I may, Mr. Chair. The respondent has been out of the country. They commute back and forth between Europe and the United States. If you recall correctly, this was a -- alterations to a single-family home, but they want to do a variance with it. They want to have a variance to make it multifamily. They've been in the process all this time since the last meeting. The county's had this. There have been rejections of passing. Finally, they got everything approved, including the -- from -- Page 39 July 24, 2014 approval from the Board of County Commissioners. Now it has to go to hearing through the Planning Commission. So they have not been able to do anything because it's been in that holding process until it's heard, and then they're going to decide are they allowed to do that or are they not allowed to do that, and based upon that, they're going to be able to move forward. I explained to the respondent the proper thing to do is submit a letter to this board prior to appearing before a hearing to request more time because of extenuating circumstances. She's aware of that. She's aware of the process in the future, and she's going to handle it that way. We're here today to impose fines because we have not had any contact with her. They've been out of the country, but they're back now. We were looking at keeping a record of what was happening on the property, and they do have that final approval and will need a schedule -- has been scheduled for hearing within the last -- just the last 15 days. So we're almost at that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this going to Mark Strain, or is it going to the whole planning committee? MR. SNOW: I'm not sure where, on looking at it, but it has been approved for hearing. So I think because it's not an administrative variance, it's going to have to go before the planning committee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if it goes before -- I'm just trying to think of time frames of-- if we want to extend this out. It's going to go before them probably before September 1st, I'm guessing? MR. SNOW: I would assume so, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And, hopefully, they make a decision, and at that point is this is an extensive alteration that needs to be done, or is this -- or I should ask the respondent. How long do you think, once everything is approved, it's going to take to accomplish the work? MS. VUKOVIC: The property was purchased as duplex, and -- Page 40 July 24, 2014 you know, in 2008. So it's been two years since I paid for planning department, for their fees and everything, because I was under impression, it's a duplex, and that's how it says in the Collier County records as well. In my opinion, I wish that was resolved earlier. How long it's going to take to repair, probably I would say a month or two. But the way -- how the property is structured and built initially, it's built like a duplex. It have two driveways. It have two units. And it just came to my attention, like, two years ago when there was a complaint, and there is a discrepancy between Collier County appraiser's site and how it was sold and presented to me when I was buying, and that's when I found out. As soon as we found out, we gave, I believe, up to, like, $2,000 for application, plus for the advertising another thousand, for another thousand, so it's been a process. So I'm happy to comply and to do whatever it takes, but the only difference is it sits on the lot of 10,000 square feet and, for the duplex, it's necessary 12,000 square feet. So that's -- 200 (sic) square feet is the difference what we have to comply. And we are hoping -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're looking for an administrative variance, basically? MS. VUKOVIC: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what it comes down to. MR. SNOW: And we're unsure what process they want to go through. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So once that's done, it shouldn't take a long time to do it. MS. VUKOVIC: I hope so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I would be amenable to extending this out for, I don't know -- MR. LEFEBVRE: One hundred twenty days. Page 41 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe even more, because the planning board -- yeah, 180, six months. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman -- MS. VUKOVIC: I appreciate it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- if that's a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we have a motion to extend this out 180 days, and a second by Mr. L'Esperance. MR. ASHTON: Excuse me, Chairman. The operational -- the last operational costs have not been paid. MR. SNOW: She did pay that; I'm sorry. If I would have read this into the record -- she did pay them today. She didn't pay today's, but she's paid up. MR. ASHTON: The other. Okay. MR. SNOW: Oh, she said today's, too. Okay. She paid -- I was just informed she paid everything. So she's up to date. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, hopefully, this motion will pass -- and let me call the motion first. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. VUKOVIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So now you have six months. MS. VUKOVIC: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That should be enough time for the planning board to do whatever they need to do and for you to get it Page 42 July 24, 2014 going, hopefully. MS. VUKOVIC: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If it's not done in six months, come back ahead of time, and we'll -- MS. VUKOVIC: Certainly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Gentlemen, is the six months from May 24th, or is it going to be from today's date, the hearing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From today. MR. ASHTON: Today's date. MR. SNOW: Okay. So -- we'll go -- thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3 from imposition of fines, Case CESD20130008710, Alfred Diaz. It's Tab 12. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 2648 Van Buren Avenue, Naples, Florida; Folio 29280440005. Description is an unpermitted room addition that was constructed between 2004 and 2005. Past orders: On January 23, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5014, Page 3062, for more information. The violation has been abated as of June 23, 2014. The fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period of May 24, 2014, to June 23, 2014, 31 days, for a total fine amount of$6,200. Page 43 July 24, 2014 Previously assessed operational costs of$79.73 have been paid. Total amount to date: $6,200. The county is recommending that the fines be waived, as the property is in compliance and all operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to -- MR. ASHTON: Motion to waive. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Eric. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8 from imposition of fines. Case CESD20110000425, Elidia Garcia. Tab 17. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location of the violation: 1275 18th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 3780720005. Violation description is Permit No. 2004062889 expired on July 23, 2005. No certificate of occupancy was issued. Past orders: On February 23, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board Page 44 July 24, 2014 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, OR4772, Page 1317, for more information. On March 28, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR4909, Page 3205, for more information. On April 24, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR5039, Page 3248, for more information. The violation has been abated as of June 23, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$150 per day for the period between March 29, 2014, to June 23, 2014, total of 87 days, for a total fine amount of$13,050. Previously assessed operational costs of$144.60 have been paid. Total amount to date: $13,050. The county is recommending that the fines be waived, as the property is in compliance and all operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. And I'll second it. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. Page 45 July 24, 2014 MR. ASHTON: No, one opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, one opposed. MR. ASHTON: One opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question on that last case, actually. I realize it's over, but for educational purposes. When you have a property and it's not CO'ed, does that mean they're not paying any taxes on that property? MR. WRIGHT: It could be -- I think that they're independent factors. You could be paying your taxes or not regardless of what -- the status of the structure on the property. You could have vacant land that your taxes are delinquent on. So I think that they're unrelated, really. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I -- and here's my point on this, and all the other -- if I was going to build a house and I let this string out for two years and four months, is what this is, and it has no CO on it, I don't think the tax folks tax the structure. And what's happening is -- not on this one. This is done. But they get free tax -- tax-free parcel of property during this period of time. They do what they're supposed to do; it gets abated. I would like to find out if that's the case. Do they only tax properties that have CO's on them? It's hard to tax it if it's not CO'ed. MR. WRIGHT: And I think it's specifically the improvements because, obviously, the tax would continue to run regardless of whether there's an improvement. But the improvement component of it, when does the tax kick in on the improvement portion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If I have a vacant piece of property and I build a house on that property and it's not CO'ed, how do they tax me on a house that's not there yet? It's not there until it's CO'ed. I know it's there, but -- MR. WRIGHT: We can check that. I think, preliminarily, that the answer would be that improved does not hit the tax rolls until it is Page 46 July 24, 2014 CO'ed. I'm not positive, but we'll verify that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if that's the case, in the future I think we need to take some of these things into consideration on what we do. So it would be good if you can get back to us with an answer on that. We can go from there. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Letter E, special hearing, Case 2002120972 (CEB 2004-72), James C. Marshall and Sherry M. Marshall. MR. WRIGHT: I can handle this one, Mr. Chairman. This is, obviously, somebody else's motion. So I can't be the movant or speak for the movant, but what he has requested are, I believe, three things. One is a continuance, one is a request for production of certain documents, and the other is subpoena procedures. And to address the big one, the continuance request, he is requesting a continuance until the Second DCA is done reviewing his case on appeal, and we think that that's too indefinite to agree to. We're willing to agree to a continuance for a month, put it on the next agenda, but to put it out indefinitely is not acceptable from our -- our position. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I read -- I've read this case now three times. And what I read on the court, it was appealed, and then it was appealed to the appellate court, and they have heard it, and they're done. The case is done according to what's written in the package that we have. So from what I see on this case, all that's left was the judge said that we must hear, as far as a reduction in the fines, the gravity, the corrected action that the respondent has, previous violation, and cost to correct. Those were the directions from the Court. And I know this was put off from last month to this month. I Page 47 July 24, 2014 personally don't see any reason to postpone it anymore. It's been going on since 2003, I believe; August 21st, 2003. That's 11 years ago. So I'm not in favor of granting that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Also, the last page of the package that was sitting on our dais here, it says District Court of Appeal Second district dated 10th of July, and it says, the lower -- it says the filing fee is owed, and in another page it says the filing fee is -- petitioner shall forward the required $300 filing fee. Has that been done? I mean, because it's an incomplete package that was submitted for whatever he's asking for to the Second District in Lakeland, Court of Appeals. So, I mean, we can't even confirm that he has everything submitted to the appeals court in Lakeland. So I'm extremely frustrated on this case being that he had ample opportunity to present his case or do whatever he wanted to do in front of us. He had last month, he has this month. I don't know where we go from here, but I'd like to have some kind of resolution to this. And the Second District Court has told us that they've resolved it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're here. We're ready to hear the case. The respondent has seen fit not to show up. We can hear the case now, or we can turn down the request for continuance and hear the argument that the Court asked us to hear about, which was, as I stated before, the gravity -- correct action, et cetera, et cetera. Is that what you understand, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Well, before this hearing I talked to the County Attorney's Office just to make sure that we're all on the same page as far as level of comfort relating to this request, and I think I'd be more comfortable if we put it off for one month. In the interim -- and I've been intimately involved in this case over the years, too, and I think that it would be as far as I'm -- considering the jeopardy of the county Page 48 July 24, 2014 and potential resource drain down the road, I think it would be more efficient to put this off one month and, in the interim, provide Mr. Marshall with whatever he has requested that's valid. For example, he's requested, what are the subpoena procedures for witnesses? We can send that to him between now and the hearing and make sure he has that. But I just think that as we go forward today, we may be looking at a longer road than may be necessary to resolve this. MR. LEFEBVRE: What is the -- this filing here with the District Court of Appeals, what is this? What is he asking? MR. WRIGHT: Well, what's interesting about that, the little that I do know is when you file an appeal to the Second DCA -- and Ms. Rawson can chime in if I'm wrong, but you basically are -- you start with a notice, a simple notice. And you don't articulate what your arguments are at that point. So he had a ruling in his favor, as the chairman pointed out, from Judge Monaco, I believe, and he is apparently appealing that order that was rendered in his favor, really. It was remanded back here to reconsider his plea. So he's appealing that, but we don't know the substance of the appeal. So -- and whether or not he's paid his bill at the Second DCA, I don't know that that really is a consideration that we have to focus on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have some questions before -- number one, were -- was anything paid by this respondent over the years? MR. WRIGHT: It's been a long stretch. I'm not aware of anything being paid in relation to compensation in these cases. I'm not 100 percent sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because I don't see any place that I've read where the fines -- the Court did say you're not hearing the case again. That's been decided, and that's done. The fines were Page 49 July 24, 2014 assessed, and I don't know whether they're accruing now or not. Jean, do you know from your reading of this -- MS. RAWSON: I think they're still accruing. MR. WRIGHT: As far as I know, they are. And the interesting part of this, I believe that the lien that he's trying to have reduced is the very same lien that's the subject of an ongoing foreclosure action against Mr. Marshall. A lot of moving parts. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I did see that. So that property is being foreclosed? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, by the county on a Code Enforcement lien, the very lien that he's trying to have reduced. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Jean, do you have any comments on our -- MS. RAWSON: Well, it looks like the last order of the Court basically said he needs to give them an appendix and a complete copy of the Circuit Court opinion and attachments. It doesn't say anything about whether or not he paid the filing fee in this latest order of July 18th. You know, I don't know whether he did or not. I can't tell. He's asking for a continuance, not that he'll show up next month anyway but, you know, in an abundance of caution, if he's going to do what the Court told him to do, he has to do it within the next 30 days. So I don't think it's going to hurt anything if we move it till the next agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Who supplied this paperwork to us? Who was the one that gave this? MS. TOOLEY: It was mailed directly from the courts to our office. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see there's a certificate of service that's unsigned. MS. ADAMS: We actually received a signed copy of that after that was put in your packet. Page 50 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: What are we going to gain by continuing it? Because the district court might not have a rendering or a ruling by then, correct? MR. WRIGHT: I'd be surprised -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know who to look at here. I don't know if the county attorney should be here to explain this to us. I mean, I know -- I know I was brought in on a couple of occasions to talk about this particular case years ago. And I think maybe the county attorney should have been here to maybe discuss this in a little more detail. But I don't see any resolution to this, and it's on and on and on. It's the ultimate in gamesmanship in how to prolong the case. This case has been around almost as long as I have been on this board. I think it's 2003. I came on in May 2002. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: August 21, 2003, is the original case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: The District Court of Appeal gave him 10 days from July 18th to supplement the appendix to the petition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, but as Mr. Lefebvre has stated, this is the ultimate in gaming. So I don't pay the fee, and now I go back to the Court, and they don't respond because I haven't paid the fee, and it goes on and on and on. I don't know whether or not this would be -- would cloud the issue or not. But if we were to hear the case now and come to a decision, then he could appeal that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we have to follow the judge's order. And by hearing the case, it doesn't say -- it doesn't say in the order -- I'd have to read it again. Does it say in the judge's order that he has to be present? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Page 51 July 24, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: But -- maybe we should just hear the case and -- I mean, it just -- this is absurd, beyond absurd. I mean, I remember back when he was on the phone, we couldn't really understand him and so forth and so on. And he hasn't availed himself to come down here, except one time, and I happened not to be at the meeting in September 2009, September 27th, but it just seems like it's been way too long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what's before us now is to grant the continuance or not. That's what's before us. If we grant the continuance for a month or two months -- I won't be here next month actually, not that that matters -- but -- and I was part of the original -- I'm in the verbatims on this particular case, actually; I do recall it -- or we hear it, or we don't grant the continuance and we hear it. And, unfortunately, that -- he's not present to provide us this information. And you would think in 11 years you'd have ample opportunity to do this. So I'll do the pleasure of the board. Mr. L'Esperance, do you have any comments? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think, again, with an abundance of caution, as has been expressed a couple of times, with as long as this has taken thus far, an additional 30 days will not hurt. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: I guess I, bottom line, feel 30 -- giving 30 days is not going to gain us anything, so I would not be in favor of the extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Ashton? MR. ASHTON: From what I've -- I mean, all of you have been on the board longer than me, and it looks like this case has been dragging out, dragging out. So if we give him another 30 days, he's just going to drag it out more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: I don't think we should give him the extension. Page 52 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree with Mr. Lavinski. I don't think 30 days is going to make a difference, but, then again -- you know, due process here has been granted in many different venues time and time and time again. He's not here to argue, so unfortunately -- I mean, it would be pretty cut and dry. I'm trying to read through the judge's ruling to see if it says anything about him having to be here. But if he can't argue the case, then it's kind of hard to make a decision. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it's no different than any other case that we hear. You show up or you don't show up. And if you don't show up, the case goes on. It was advertised. It was sent out. MS. RAWSON: He says right in his motion that he will not be here on today's date. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What happens if we get a letter from him next month saying he won't be there then? So I agree with the majority of the board that we hear the case now and let the chips fall where they may, whatever happens. And it may cloud the issues some, but it probably will give a response to the respondent of-- that the board is serious about hearing the case. And if you want -- now, if we hear this case, it can go either in favor or against. If it goes against, then you go back to the imposition -- imposition of fines; is that correct, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: The fines have already been imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They've been imposed, but to file a lien. MR. LEFEBVRE: Already been filed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The lien's been filed? MR. WRIGHT: The lien's been filed. It's growing. It's being foreclosed on. It's ripe. Page 53 July 24, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if it's been filed and the county has taken it to foreclosure, obviously, the county thinks that they wouldn't have taken that step if they didn't think this was a bonified situation to do that with. So I ask the board, would anybody like to make a motion whether to grant a continuance or not? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we hear the case, and this is based on the judge's order. He had the opportunity last month to be here. We pushed it off to this month. And this could go on forever and ever. And so let's follow the judge's orders, and let's hear the case, and then we can send maybe our decision up to the judge, and he can see that we did hear the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we have a motion to deny the continuance and a second; is that correct, Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Lavinski, okay. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it carries 4-1. Okay. Now, I don't know who would be presenting this case Page 54 July 24, 2014 from the county's perspective. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I would -- I just want to point out what the order says from the Court. And Kevin is here from the County Attorney's Office. I appreciate him showing up for this one. There are several factors that the judge has ordered you to consider as a board, and it says that your decision shall address each of those factors. Before it says that, it says the Marshalls will address the CEB relating to all those factors. So nowhere in the judge's order does it put any burden on the county to do anything. And if I'm wrong, Kevin can jump in here. So this is -- it's on Mr. Marshall to present those factors. That's what the order says. Mr. Marshall -- or the Marshalls will address with the CEB the following factors. They're not here to do that. Now, your decision has to address each of those factors. So I would suggest, noting that he's not here, that you go right ahead and address those factors, and we're happy to answer any questions you have relating to them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. On the bottom of the -- at Page 6 -- 4 of 6 on the package that was granted to us, it says, the Marshalls will address the CEB board -- CEB board -- the following factors of these specific factors should be -- to mitigate the fines imposed. What -- unless I'm mistaken, they're asking for a reduction in the fines. It was heard before -- that the fines were not abated. He went back to the courts and said, well, now I want to hear a reduction in them. The county said that an abatement was a reduction to zero, but the Court sided with him and said, no, reduction can be a separate issue. Okay. It says, the CEB's decision shall address each factor with the specific findings: One, the gravity of the violation. Actions taken by the Marshalls to correct the violation. And I'd like to ask right now, Page 55 July 24, 2014 is anybody aware of anything that's been done to correct the violation? MR. WRIGHT: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No? Well, that -- that's an easy one to answer. Whether the previous violation committed by the Marshalls -- whether there were previous violations committed by the Marshalls. Cost to the Marshalls to correct the violations and the reasonable time necessary to correct. Well, I can certainly talk to the last item; 11 years is probably sufficient time. The gravity of the violation is -- I believe this was no CO. MR. WRIGHT: It's an unpermitted structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He believed that, if I had a permit, that was it. But a permit, as was pointed out in the verbatims going through here when Ken Kelly was the acting chair at the time, was the permit's not valid until it's -- you get a CO, a certificate that it's completed. It's just a permit. Anybody can go in and apply for the permit, but until it's CO'ed, it's not done. So from the request from the judge, who is Monaco, I think -- I was wondering when I read through this the first three times exactly what is he asking for? And he's asking for -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is a reduction in the fines. And the judge is saying, when you consider a reduction in the fines, consider these items that I have just read. Okay. So having said all of that, comments from the board? Do you think, not hearing any testimony from the Marshalls, that a reduction in fines is applicable? MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You don't think so. MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 56 July 24, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll list out point by point. The gravity of violation. It's been an unpermitted -- or un-CO'ed or not CO'ed for -- since 1986, I think was when this was originally built. So the gravity of the violation, I think there's gravity there. Actions to correct the violations. Nothing's been done. Whether there were previous violations committed by the Marshalls, I don't know if there were. And that's really irrelevant. We're bringing them -- we're bringing them in front for just this particular case. The cost to the Marshalls to correct the violation. There's been, from what I can see -- there hasn't been anything spent. The reasonable time to correct the violations. Wow. He has more than ample time. Probably could build a pyramid in Egypt at the time -- back 5-, 6,000 years ago whatever, in the time it took for him to correct this problem. He had more than enough time. The value of the real estate compared to amount in fines/liens. More than likely, the liens are probably much greater that what the property's worth. Any hardships the fines/liens would cost to the Marshalls. Well, again, we hear about hardships all the time, and we grant extensions and so forth. And this is going on 11 years, so I think he would have ample time to get his finances together to correct this problem. The time and cost incurred by Code Enforcement to have the violation corrected. Again, this has been going on for plenty of time, and we should start to correct this problem. Any equitable factors which would make the request mitigation appropriate. I don't see any, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And one last thing I'd like to mention is that the County Commissioners had their opportunity when this was done to overrule the board and abate, and they chose not to. So that's another thing. I go with -- and that's the Board of Commissioners and the county attorney, I would add. Page 57 July 24, 2014 So as far as -- would anybody like to make a motion specifically in regard to the reduction of fines to the Marshalls? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny a reduction in fines -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- in this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: I just have one quick comment. I would ask that the written order contain an articulation of each of the nine factors as reflected in today's hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Will this be sent to the Second District Court, also, of Appeals? Will this record -- will, like, a record of our discussion be sent to Judge Monaco? MR. WRIGHT: I don't plan on sending that record to Judge Monaco, but it might be that somebody arranges that to happen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In the beginning of the -- of today's Page 58 July 24, 2014 meeting I read, "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 a verbatim record of proceedings are made, which record includes," blah blah, blah -- "appeal is to be based -- "and neither Collier County" -- this is the point -- "neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record." Does that sound okay to you, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That's what it says. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I always like those. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, unlike -- that probably refers to the respondent. What I'm trying to say is, if he's trying -- what I'm trying to say is, show the Court that we, in fact, did hear this case. We gave him an opportunity to be here last month, and we gave him an opportunity to be here this month. He wasn't here. So here is what we decided. So we fulfilled what we were asked to do. So I'd just like that to be conveyed, is what I'm trying to get at. So if he's trying to appeal this on whatever grounds, we heard the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That is correct. Okay. Moving on. We are on -- up to new business? Do we have any new business? MS. ADAMS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Reports? Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Okay. This is in numbers for you, monthly update. Since July 2009 -- we're still in July, so this is still roughly a five-year period -- fines waived totally among the boards and the Board of County Commissioners, approaching $19 million. It's possible you waived some fines today, in July, so that number could breach the 19 million mark yet this month. In addition, we really have a robust caseload, opening a lot of cases this year. On pace for fiscal year will be well above 10,000 by Page 59 July 24, 2014 my math. Same with the education patrol visits. We're at 7,100 so far in the fiscal year with a couple months left. Property inspections and contacts, 21,000 so far in the fiscal year. That's a huge number. We're proud of that. Shows that we're working. Meet-and-greet events, we hit 100, according to the most recent report for the fiscal year. And I also wanted to point out lien searches. We're at 6,893 for the fiscal year. That could even get close to 10,000 as well at $25 a pop, and they help all sides of the transaction, so that's a real positive thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then they keep them out of these hearing rooms -- MR. WRIGHT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- which is terrific. That was the concern we had today with somebody in -- except the purchaser was here, but they had the same problem. The person who originally purchased the property -- it was prior to lien searches -- bought it, and there was a problem with the property. Now he's selling it to another individual who has the same concern that they're inheriting the violation, but they're aware of it, and they testified to that, and that's fine. I'm glad to see that the action taken to do these reviews is working out so well. Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next meeting is August 28th. I will be floating around the Caribbean on August 28th with my kids and my grandkids, so you'll have to patch out the Band-Aids without me. And if there's nothing else -- any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Meeting is adjourned. Page 60 July 24, 2014 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:38 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD f r RO :ER aYAI FMAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on 0 2./a8/ , A- , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 61