Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/25/2014 Code Enforcement Board Minutes September 25 , 2014 September 25, 2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, September 25, 2014 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Tony Marino Larry Mieszcak Lisa Chapman Bushnell Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) Robert Ashton (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Wright, Code Enforcement Director Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: September 25,2014 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 Tony Marino 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 28,2014 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20130016171 OWNER: SONIA J LANDESTOY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).ROOM ADDED TO REAR OF MAIN STRUCTURE.ALTERATIONS MADE TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SUCH AS,BUT NOT LIMITED TO WINDOWS,DOOR, SECOND STORY PORCH-ALL OF WHICH WERE COMPLETED PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41830440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4960 CORAL WOOD DR,NAPLES,FL B. Stipulations 2 C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CEV20140013488 OWNER: DAVID&ZENAIDA FALATO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL CLARK VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130 STORAGE AND USE OF VEHICLE CONTROL ORDINANCE,ARTICLES III,CHAPTER 130, SECTIONS 130-97(2) AND 130-97(3). TWO TRAILERS NOT STRUCTURALLY OR VEGETATIVELY SCREENED AND VIEWABLE FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE STREET SERVING THE LOT. FOLIO NO: 77210960002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 130 2ND ST,NAPLES,FL 2. CASE NO: CESD20130008765 OWNER: ANIMAL AID INC&TAMERA GIBSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).SHED WITH EXPIRED PERMIT NUMBER 20070401016 DOES NOT HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 37283760004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 780 2ND ST NE,NAPLES,FL 3. 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 1 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,FL 4. CASE NO: CESD20130008592 OWNER: BENITO RAMOS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RAPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).REPAIRS TO THE ROOF, STUCCO APPLICATION TO THE WOOD STRUCTURE,AND AN EXPIRED PERMIT TO ENCLOSE THE LOWER PART OF THE STILT HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 39654080007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1750 47TH AVE NE,NAPLES,FL 3 5. CASE NO: CESD20140007746 OWNER: CWALT INC ASSET-BACKED CT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A)AND 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1,PART 1, SECTION 105.1. TIKI HUT ON PROPERTY WITH NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. CONVERSIONS/ALTERATIONS MADE TO GARAGE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS.PERMIT 2003022259 FOR A CHAIN LINK FENCE NEVER RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 38341320000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5681 DOGWOOD WAY,NAPLES,FL 6. CASE NO: CESD20140012494 OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-236 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS IN POOR CONDITION AND AN UNPERMITTED TWO-STORY STORAGE STRUCTURE IN POOR CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 74413200009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3417 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES,FL 7. CASE NO: CESD20130005795 OWNER: DANIEL&MELODY KLEIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).POOL PERMIT 2008010924 EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 41825400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5281 CHERRY WOOD DR,NAPLES,FL 8. CASE NO: CELU20140005789 OWNER: ELIO& MARLENE M MILLET OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 1.04.01(A) AND 2.02.03.RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY HAS BEEN MONITORED FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AND IN THAT TIME MULTIPLE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN PLACED FOR SALE(ONE AT A TIME)ON RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38390280007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5555 LANCEWOOD WAY,NAPLES,FL 4 9. CASE NO: CEV20140007868 OWNER: GEORGE I WILLIAMS EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,ARTICLE III,CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130-95.UNLICENSED VEHICLES ON THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 39206600000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 171 14TH ST SE,NAPLES,FL 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20130016171 OWNER: SONIA J LANDESTOY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).ROOM ADDED TO REAR OF MAIN STRUCTURE.ALTERATIONS MADE TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SUCH AS,BUT NOT LIMITED TO WINDOWS,DOOR, SECOND STORY PORCH-ALL OF WHICI I WERE COMPLETED PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41830440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4960 CORAL WOOD DR,NAPLES,FL 2. CASE NO: CEVR20130000933 OWNER: JAMES W&JUDY K ARCHER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.08(C). COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,BRAZILIAN PEPPER ON PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 45905720000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1520 21ST ST SW,NAPLES, FL 3. 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 5 4. CASE NO: CESD20120015571 OWNER: GERI BRADLEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED HOME WITHOUT COMPLETED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 39020880006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5220 40TH ST NE,NAPLES,FL 5. CASE NO: CESD20120002477 OWNER: JOSE MARTINEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPERMITTED ADDITION ATTACHED TO THE REAR ADDITION AND AN UNPERMITTED SHED BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATES OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.ALSO A REAR ADDITION THAT WAS PERMITTED BUT PERMIT HAS EXPIRED-PERMIT NUMBER 960014426-WITHOUT THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 35540040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1155 W MAIN ST,IMMOKALEE,FL 6. CASE NO: CESD20130006171 OWNER: IRIS LABRIE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).PERMIT PRBD20120101674 EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 55901120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 266 6TH ST W,BONITA SPRINGS,FL 7. CASE NO: CESD20130019399 OWNER: DOROTHY K GILL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE II,SECTION 22-26(B)(104.5.1.4.4).TWO UNPERMITTED SHEDS ON RIGHT SIDE OF PROPERTY, POSSIBLE GARAGE CONVERSION AND ATTIC CONVERSION TO SMALL APARTMENTS AND THE STAIRCASE MOVED TO RIGHT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM REAR OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 36455080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5009 31ST AVE SW,NAPLES,FL 6 8. CASE NO: CESD20120015319 OWNER: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA RENTALS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL CLARK VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).PERMIT NUMBER 20120203549 FOR INTERIOR REMODELING UNIT B EXPIRED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT.ALSO INTERIOR REMODELING OF UNIT A BEING CONDUCTED WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING FOR COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 48783840002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8085 BAYSHORE DR,NAPLES,FL 9. CASE NO: CESD20120008638 OWNER: MENDOZA,PAULA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN EXPIRED PERMIT WITH NO INSPECTIONS DONE ON THE INSTALLATION OF THE MOBILE HOME AND A METAL TYPE STAND ALONE CARPORT INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FOLIO NO: 82961866 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2918 IMMOKALEE DR,IMMOKALEE,FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 1. CASE NO: CEPM20110002247 OWNER: ALLEN W FULLER&BARBARA A DAVIS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL CLARK VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-243 AND SECTION 22-231(12)(1). MISSING AND BROKEN WINDOWS,MISSING AND/OR UNSECURED EXTERIOR DOORS,HOLES IN THE WALLS,NO OPERATIONAL SINKS,TUB/SHOWER OR TOILETS. FOLIO NO: 730160003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 267 PRICE STREET,NAPLES,FL 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- October 23,2014 12. ADJOURN 7 September 25, 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 on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither the Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. I'd like everybody to stand and do the Pledge of Allegiance. Tony, you want to kick it off for us? (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Before we begin, anybody who has a cell phone may want to turn it off so that you're not embarrassed when it rings and I make you come up here and answer it over the microphone. Why don't we have the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Larry Miesczak? MR. MEISZCAK: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Lisa Chapman Bushnell? MS. BUSHNELL: Here. Page 2 September 25, 2014 MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance and Mr. Robert Ashton both have excused absences. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That means that, Lisa, you'll be a full voting member today. Okay. Do we have any changes on the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Number 5, public hearings, motions, motion for extension of time. Number 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20130016171, Sonia J. Landestoy, has been withdrawn. We have an addition under motion for extension of time. It's from Imposition of Fines No. 4; it's Tab 14, Case CESD20120015571, Geri Bradley. Letter B, stipulations, we have two additions. The first is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CESD20130008765, Animal Aid, Incorporated, and Tamera Gibson. The second is No. 4 from hearings, Tab 5, Case CESD20130008592, Benito Ramos. Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Tab 2, Case CEV20140013488, David and Zenaida Falato, has been withdrawn. Number 7, Tab 8, Case CESD20130005795, Daniel and Melody Klein, has been withdrawn. Number 8, Tab 9, Case CELU20140005789, Elio and Marlene M. Millet has been withdrawn. Number 9, Tab 10, Case CEV20140007868, George I. Williams Estate, has been withdrawn. No. 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 2, Tab 12, Case CEVR20130000933, James W. and Judy K. Archer, has been withdrawn. Page 3 September 25, 2014 And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we have a motion to accept the changes as modified? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the changes as modified. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I understand that we want to move one of the cases out of the order because someone has to be someplace. MS. ADAMS: Yes, sir. The first case will be from No. 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 7, Tab 17, Case CESD20130019399, Dorothy K. Gill. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that will -- I need a motion to accept the change. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the change. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion -- MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 4 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Which brings us to the approval of the minutes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve the minutes. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (Abstains.) MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And I abstain. I was not at the last meeting. It passes. Okay. Now, the first case that we had for the motion for extension of time, the case is still here. It's just the withdrawal is on the request to grant an extension? So that moves us, I guess, to the next case. MS. ADAMS: Yes, that will be Tab 17. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The one that was moved up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 5 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mic. MS. GILL: Dorothy Gill. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Joe. MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we begin. This is an imposition of fines we're at. MR. MUCHA: Yes. I think Ms. Gill wants to make a request. MS. GILL: Yeah. I just wanted to request an extension just for 30 days, or less is fine. My dad has been very ill for the last year, and these last six months have been really bad. And just -- he's my number one priority. But he is now in physical therapy outpatient, and he's doing much better. I just wanted to see if I could get another 30 days, and we'll go ahead and take care of that issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the -- it said the violation has not been abated. That has not changed; is that correct, Joe? MR. MUCHA: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it says the operational costs of 64.34 have not been paid. MR. MUCHA: They were just paid this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The operational costs for today's hearing are 62.91 . Okay. Have you made any effort to do anything on this particular case? MS. GILL: I think this particular one is regarding the sheds on the property. MR. MUCHA: Sheds, garage conversion, and the apartment on the top. Page 6 September 25, 2014 MS. GILL: Yeah. The apartment on top is -- it's empty. It's -- the house was built by my parents, and my parents built apartments in the house. And my dad said that he received a permit for both rooms, but he didn't, from what I understand. I haven't found any. And my parents put the house in my name when I was younger. I didn't know anything. So now I'm trying to take care of everything. But the garage conversion, it's a garage now. It's not been -- you know, he turned it into an apartment, but I turned it back into a garage. The other space was built in the house as well. It's like an attic space, and that also is no longer used as a room for an apartment, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you had an opportunity to -- MR. MUCHA: I personally haven't been out there. I'm here on behalf of the investigator, so I'd have to defer to him, and he's not here. MS. GILL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This has been carried over for a while. Do you think 30 days will be sufficient time for you to get everything done -- MS. GILL: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and inspected? MS. GILL: Well, the two rooms, that's already been taken care of. So that's -- you know, and Joe Giannone, who's the investigator, he's already seen that they've been put back to the way they were. And they're basically used as storage. So -- but, I mean, he can verify that, of course, but I can show that to him. That's no problem. The sheds, they're sheds that my dad had put on the property when they first built the house, and I guess they want us to -- from what I remember, to attach it to the house or to move them or demolish them, so we're going to get the permit to do whatever we need to do with those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think you can do Page 7 September 25, 2014 that in 30 days? MS. GILL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the county you're speaking with. MS. GILL: Oh, yeah. Well, I was born here, so I know. I've lived here my whole life, so, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments, questions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Do you want to handle this as an extension or a continuance? MR. MUCHA: I would prefer to continue it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. GILL: They had said there was fines for the -- like, per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The fines on the property right now are $6,800. MS. GILL: Sixty-eight hundred? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. The fines from -- you were given until August 23rd to rectify the situation. MS. GILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And from that day till today was 34 days at $200 a day which, if you do the arithmetic, comes out to $6,800. MS. GILL: I didn't know it was $200 a day. I didn't even know what it was, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sort of a motivational tool to have whoever it is get it done as soon as possible. MS. GILL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: By doing a continuation, the fines would -- continuance, the fines would continue to accrue. Typically, if you have everything done when you come back next month, if we do a continuance to next month, we can review it and see what we can do Page 8 September 25, 2014 about what's there. MS. GILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have -- that answers your question, Mr. Lavinski -- MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- as far as a continuance. Anybody have comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: The way it sounds, there hasn't been anything that's been done to try to correct this yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The shed. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I'm talking about. Do you -- MS. GILL: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you plan on keeping the sheds there? MS. GILL: No, I don't plan to. MR. LEFEBVRE: You plan to demolish them? MS. GILL: Yeah, demolish them or -- I mean, if we can -- if it's easier to move them, that's one thing. If it's easier to demolish them, whatever. Because it's just me and my fiancee who can take care of this. We don't -- you know what I mean? It's a -- MR. MARINO: What type of sheds are they, metal or wood? MS. GILL: Metal and wood, I believe. MR. LEFEBVRE: How big are they? MS. GILL: There's one little one that was with -- it was, like, actually brought in with the with the blueprints, and then my dad brought in another one, like with -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it for 45 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to do a continuance or an extension? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, sorry. Continuance for 45 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Page 9 September 25, 2014 That means our next meeting next month, you still have 15 days past that. MS. GILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you would come back two months from now. MS. GILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So not in November -- not in October, not in November. You'd be back in December. Do we have a meeting in December? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't. That means it would be pushed till January. MS. GILL: But the fines would continue until then, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: She'll be back in -- potentially in November, 45 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, okay. So the fines will continue because the violation has not been abated, okay. MS. GILL: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to grant 45 days -- MS. GILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- before you come back, and we have a second. Any other discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just, please, I can only impress upon you that you need to get with the investigator as soon as possible to find out what you need to do to get this taken care of. You're probably going to need a demo permit. So go ahead, if you need demo or move, find out what you have to do right away, because 45 days will come up quickly. MS. GILL: Okay. Is there a way that I can somehow get those fines taken off? Page 10 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you talk to Joe after the meeting -- MS. GILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and he'll explain the situation. MS. GILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. GILL: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. GILL: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time is Case CESD20120015571. It's Tab 14, Geri Bradley. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ralph, I'm looking at the case here. Why don't you give us a brief overview. MR. BOSA: Sure. Good morning. For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. I did speak with the owner yesterday. As I was speaking with them, the inspectors were in the house making their final inspections. There's some minor changes they have to make. They failed a couple inspections. Very minor. For example, a GFI outlet behind the Page 11 September 25, 2014 fridge, so he just has to change it over and then call in an inspection again. So all the minor repairs he has to do might take a few minutes to repair, but it will take a couple days before the inspector goes back out there. So talking to him, he says he should have it done by next week tops. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was a home that was completed without a CO? MR. BOSA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This goes back to January of'13. MR. BOSA: Correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which is a year and a half plus ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But it was a different respondent back then? MR. BOSA: Correct. They purchased -- you know, they purchased whatever was there like that, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They were aware of the violations when they purchased the property? MR. BOSA: I don't think they were. I don't think they were, so CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a good advertisement for having a code inspection prior to purchasing a property. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Definitely, Jeff. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we grant a 30-day continuance. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Page 12 September 25, 2014 MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. The --just a quick note. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The operational costs for today's hearing are 66.27. Those are imposed, so the respondent should be made aware of that. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. I'll call him this morning and let him know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The first stipulation is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CESD20130008765, Animal Aid, Incorporated, and Tamera Gibson. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seeing that the respondent is not here, why don't you read the stipulation into the record. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, code enforcement investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: 1, pay operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of Page 13 September 25, 2014 completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; 3, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the stipulation -- MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- as written, and it is seconded by Larry. It's easier that way. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 14 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 4 from hearings, Tab 5, Case CESD20130008592, Benito Ramos. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read the stipulation into the record. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. For the record, again, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties the respondent shall: 1, pay the operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Respondent must notify Collier County Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm curious as to why -- 180 days is a long time to get a permit and whatnot of a roof repair and stucco. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. This is one -- another situation where they purchased the home and the violation was there already. The owner did not know. They did have a permit back in 2005 to convert the stilt house and enclose it. Page 15 September 25, 2014 The owner has been trying to, you know, renew -- the permit's still active. He's had a few inspections, but he has more to do because there's a roof, there was modification to that, so he has to get a permit for that as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is not a permit from 2005. This is another permit? MR. BOSA: Another permit. But he first has to finish the 2005 permit before he can get another permit for the roof. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 2005 permit is still active? MR. BOSA: It's still active. He had to re-open that permit and, as the new owner, call in inspections and everything for this property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was my question as far as the 180 days is concerned. Do you understand the -- what you've agreed to in this stipulation? MS. TADADA: Yes, I do. THE COURT REPORTER: Can I get your name, please. MS. TADADA: Diana Tadada (phonetic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what's your relationship with Benito Ramos? MS. TADADA: He is my father. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have his permission for you to appear here on his behalf and sign the stipulation? MS. TADADA: Yes, I do. He was here. He just had to leave for work. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think six months is enough to get everything done? MS. TADADA: Yes, I do. Page 16 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So hopefully we can see you today, and then we won't see you anymore unless we run into you in Costco or something. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. TADADA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to come up here and answer the phone on the microphone? You need to turn that off. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Tab 4, Case CEROW20140005480, Keito Holdings, LLC. MS. JASINSKI: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name for the record. MS. JASINSKI: Christine Jasinski (phonetic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And your relationship as far as the Keito Holdings? MS. JASINSKI: I'm the managing director. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 17 September 25, 2014 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a regular hearing now; is that correct? MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you present. MR. KINCAID: Good morning. For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CEROW20140005480. It's dealing with a violation of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, Chapter 110, Article II, Division 1, generally, Section 110-32, offending material in right-of-way, culvert drainage pipe, catch basin, and grate in a state of disrepair located at 5362 Trammell Street, Naples, Florida, 34113; folio is 62263080009. Service was given on April 18, 2014. And I would like to present evidence in the following exhibits: Two pictures taken by me on March 19, 2014, three pictures taken by me on September 23, 2014, and a copy of the notice of roadway violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the respondent seen the photographs? MR. KINCAID: No, she has not, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show her the photographs before we vote to accept or reject. MR. MIESZCAK: Is there three photos? MR. KINCAID: There's actually five photos and one document from the transportation department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those photos? MS. JASINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MEISZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. Page 18 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Mr. Lefebvre had a question before we hear the case. In the beginning of the package we have an order of the board. It's a little confusing that this order was signed in August. MR. KINCAID: The case came before the board in August, and there was a letter written that requested that it be continued for -- till the next hearing because of their desire to bring an attorney to the hearing. I do have a copy of that letter here if you do not have one in your folder. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just wanted to -- MS. JASINSKI: I never requested to bring an attorney. I think the first hearing was scheduled at a time that I had already booked a trip out of country to visit family, so I did request a later hearing for that purpose. I've never suggested bringing an attorney into the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we start with the photos. You can explain these as we go along. MR. KINCAID: This is just a photo of the first site visit that I made. It shows the end of the culvert pipe going underneath the driveway. This is a picture of the yard drain; would be between the driveway Page 19 September 25, 2014 and the property adjacent to it. It's just a regular -- just culvert-type drain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is -- you have a neighborhood where you have swales and connect all the properties to the swale, you have culverts, then you have pipes that go under driveways? MR. KINCAID: Right. And this particular property would have this drainage grate in place of a swale, so the piping would be done underground, rather, in place of the swale. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Those pictures were from March? MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir, March 19th, I believe. This is a picture taken on the 23rd, day before yesterday. It shows a picture of the repair that I believe the owner of the property did to the drainage grate that was not permitted. So there are actually some repairs that have been done, but they were not done under the required permit that had to be issued by the transportation department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they weren't inspected either? MR. KINCAID: They were not inspected. That is a picture of the -- where the covered pipe is crushed. They actually cut the pipe back and put some concrete around it. That also was not done with a permit or has not been inspected. That's just a general overview looking across the driveway. So if I were to point out the grate, that would be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The top. MR. KINCAID: -- at the top where that dark spot is, and then the repair to the pipe would be just to this side of the photograph. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KINCAID: And this document is from the transportation department. It is the notice of right-of-way violation, and on the top -- it doesn't show it -- it doesn't show it in color, but the top part, the Page 20 September 25, 2014 culvert pipe, this is the area that designates what the violation is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KINCAID: So the details of the case, code enforcement received this complaint from the transportation department on March 18, 2014. The applicable NOV was posted at the property and courthouse on April the 8th. On May the 6th, code enforcement received an email from a person representing the property owner stating the repairs were complete. A meeting between code enforcement, the transportation department, and a contractor representing the property owner on May 15th determined the repairs to be incomplete, and applicable permits and inspections needed to be obtained. As of September 25, 2014, the property remains in violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have anything else at this time? MR. KINCAID: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. JASINSKI: Good morning. I guess it's time to state my case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. JASINSKI: I received, as representative of the owners, a copy of this violation. It basically said there was a violation in the right-of-way, and it enclosed the two pictures of both the culvert ends and then also of this, I would call it, catch basin that had just a makeshift cover over it. In fact, it was a rusted out bottom of a baby crib. I contacted Mr. Kincaid immediately after receiving this and said, I can understand the catch basin being a problem with this old rusted-out baby crib part on top of it as being a safety concern. But I have gone to the neighborhood, and this application where the culvert ends just -- and terminates with grass around it is very common in that Page 21 September 25, 2014 neighborhood. And, quite frankly, I couldn't figure out what was being asked of me. So I -- he basically communicated to me that the -- it was sort of a new procedure in the county, and right-of-way issues were being moved to his department, and he didn't really know -- he couldn't exactly answer my questions as to what it is that they wanted me to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who is the "he"? MS. JASINSKI: Mr. Kincaid. And then -- so he suggested I contact the Department of Transportation. I've contacted the Department of Transportation on numerous times. They never return any phone calls. I could see, obviously, that the catch basin was a safety concern, so I sent my workers there to literally take up and throw away and dispose of this old baby cage, or baby crib part, and I purchased a heavy duty industrial type of drain cover, which was shown in the pictures. We set that on top of the concrete and put, you know, a little concrete around it to keep it in place. Again, I couldn't get any answer as to what the issue might be with the end of the culvert pipe. You know, it's not for lack of trying. I have talked to many concrete contractors. I've talked to general contractors. I've gone to Collier County to try to get an answer. They won't allow me to pull a permit because the property is owned by an LLC. So, you know, they say you have to hire a contractor. And it's just -- it's just, unfortunately, this huge administrative loophole. Meanwhile, I have rectified the problem that was obvious and put in a proper drain cover on top of this catch basin. I did have my people clean out around the end of the culvert drain and put some concrete around there to, you know, keep it free of debris going into the end of the drain. I think -- and I notified Mr. Kincaid that we did all of that. And I Page 22 September 25, 2014 think we're here because, obviously, Mr. Kincaid feels as though I should have gotten a permit. And I would have been happy to get a permit except the -- you know, the system is just so darn complicated. You know, it's -- if I knew what was asked of me, if I could get answers of the -- answers, then I would know what kind of contractor I need to get. And, you know, quite frankly, it's a complicated process. I have respect for the system. But a lot of the contractors out there are like, what do they want here? What do they want here? What do they want here? And they've gone to Collier County and asked those questions as well, and they haven't been able to get the answers either. So I'm kind of in a tight spot because they won't give me -- it's like they want me to go through the process of getting a permit, but I can't get a permit as an owner because the property's owned in the name of an LLC. And without getting the permit, they won't tell you what you -- they want you to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is your position at -- you are not a member of the LLC? MS. JASINSKI: I'm the managing member, and I have ownership interest as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they're saying that you can't get a building permit because it's an LLC? MS. JASINSKI: Yes. MR. KINCAID: That is correct. That is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, do you have any comment on that? MR. WRIGHT: I mean, I would defer to the building department, and I trust that Jim has done the same. So that's really their expertise, and we kind of stay away from the specific permitting requirements. But I think that's consistent with the requirements that apply here. She's -- as a corporate entity, she would have to hire a Page 23 September 25, 2014 contractor rather than do it yourself But there might be other options. I'd say if she has any questions, we're happy to sit down with her and walk through every single one of them to make sure she has certainty as to what's going to be required for compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I -- you said that there was a meeting at one point with -- MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir. The code enforcement met -- and I'll back up a little bit, if I could, please. I did discuss the case with her. And code enforcement has supplied the notice of violation from the transportation department with their pictures. And as far as being able to determine what the repairs need to be, code enforcement doesn't determine that. All we do is address the violation. The violation says there's a right-of-way violation, and it mentions three issues. That's what I addressed. I recommended to the lady that if she had -- needed further information, that she needed to contact the right-of-way department, talk to them as to the exact nature of how they need it to be repaired. I have a copy of her letter in front of me -- to address the previous issue -- that states, this is to advise you that I am the sole representative of the entity owning 5362 Trammell. I cannot attend this hearing, as I will be out of the country. I also do not have adequate time to find an attorney to represent me at the hearing, as I am within hours of receipt of this notice. So the request was to come back here with legal representation, I mean, from her letter. I also have copies of all the emails that I sent to her where it was explained to her in no uncertain terms that there had to be a right-of-way permit issued. Also on the right-of-way notice violation it clearly states at the bottom that all work within the county right-of-way has to be permitted, period. There is no -- there are no exceptions from code enforcement. Page 24 September 25, 2014 Once we get these cases, they have to be permitted, no exception. MS. JASINSKI: I think that letter represents the fact that I would be there, and the suggestion of an attorney is that I don't have -- I was literally leaving the country, and I didn't have any time to find somebody there -- to be there on my behalf, okay. And it's not that I need to involve an attorney in this kind of matter. I mean, the fact of the matter is is I have -- I have worked diligently trying to figure out how to get to the -- what it is that they want us to do. I have contacted many different people in Collier County, including the right-of-way folks, at Mr. Kincaid's suggestion. I was in there to try to get a building permit myself so I could get to the bottom of it and figure out what it is they wanted, and they won't issue it to me because the property's owned in an LLC. And so it's not for the fact that we haven't done anything. The reality is is I have corrected the serious safety violation, and I have cleaned out the bottom end of the culvert drain, and water is flowing through there adequately. The issue here is Mr. Kincaid is upset at the fact that I have not obtained a permit. And if obtaining the permit was a more fluid and easy process, then I would have absolutely -- and, in fact, I went to the head of the building department and I said, here's the problem. I said, I want to fix this, and I want to do what's right. But, unfortunately, the administrative process to get a permit is so laborious. I said, what will happen to me if I just go ahead and effect the repairs that I think, from my professional background and experience, would be -- what will happen to me if I do that without a permit, and he says, you'll probably get a slap on the wrist. So "slap me on the wrist" is basically how I feel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I think what we have here is a situation where it's not a violation that has been ignored. It's just the process. And providing the cure for the violation has somewhat Page 25 September 25, 2014 strayed, for whatever reason, bureaucracy, unreturned telephone calls, or whatnot. And I think the remedy probably would be to resolve this without fines or anything else but just to get it done so that the building department -- or the -- MR. MARINO: The Department of Transportation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the Department of Transportation provides what is required. Maybe a meeting would do that. And if you could resolve the questions that are outstanding by them, this all goes away. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. It sounds like a bunch of mishandled information or whatever. But I'd like to see, possibly, code enforcement working with that transportation department to help this lady find out what it is and what person needs to pull that permit. So I'd like to see this withdrawn and worked out with her and that department. MR. KINCAID: We met on site with Mr. Ramiro Ponce from the transportation department, and the representative -- a contractor, licensed contractor in Collier County that was there on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Ponce examined the work. The culvert pipe that goes under the driveway, the contractor was told that it was broken, that it needed to be repaired, that the yard drain that had been repaired did not meet current code, and the pipe repair on the end, he didn't comment. And so the contractor was referred to Mark Burtchin at the transportation department for any clarification on whether or not the repair work that was in place would or would not be accepted. I got a phone call from her contractor about two or three days later that said he had been in contact with Mr. Burtchin and there was going to be some acceptance of the work that was in place, but a Page 26 September 25, 2014 permit would still be required to -- and inspections would be required to abate the violation. So at that point we were never contacted again by that contractor. When we came to the hearing the last time, the day -- a day or two before -- I have the email to Mr. Mark Burchin requesting an update or whatever on the situation and was it appropriate to continue with this case into the CEB hearing. And the request -- the answer that I got was that it needed to go to hearing to be resolved. MR. MEISZCAK: Mr. Chairman? MR. KINCAID: So I think we've made an effort to explain. If the respondent didn't wish to be at the site to have the stuff explained to her, she certainly didn't sent a representative. MS. JASINSKI: It's not that I didn't wish to be at the site. I've never -- I wasn't even aware of that meeting on the site. A prospective contractor was trying to figure out what it is that he needed to do. I mean, isn't it natural that you, as an owner, go to a contractor and say, here I have this issue, can you give me a quote, or what do we need to do? And he was trying to get to the bottom of it. And I -- I mean, I've never -- why is it that I as an owner have tried to get answers for a long time from various people in Collier County and I cannot get those answers? MR. MIESZCAK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to ask -- or make a statement. Our job is if a violation exists; that's our job to enforce that. As far as somebody getting a permit, that's not our job. There's no way we go out there and get the permit for the person. That's up to that person to decide how to get the permit. Our job is mainly, like I just said, is there a violation? Does it exist? And that's how I feel. Page 27 September 25, 2014 Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. MIESZCAK: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Before we continue, we have another person that needs to be sworn. Kitchell? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: Sir, just for the fact, we identified that there's a violation on the property, a contractor was contacted and put on site for -- to abate the violation. Corrections were made without permits on the property, so clearly someone knew something had to be done, with no permit. I think the violation -- notice of violation and the explanations given have been sufficient for the violation to be abated, and there's been plenty of time in between time. So the county feels there's a violation, and we've -- will continue to work with the respondent, but that's why we're here, because what was done was not the way it should have been. MS. JASINSKI: Is the issue with what was done, or is the issue with the fact that I didn't get a permit? MR. SNOW: We can't answer that because it hasn't been inspected. We don't know that what was done was what was supposed to be done nor was it done in the correct manner. That's why permits are issued and why inspections are required on the property, to make sure that it's up to code and meets the standards of code. We can't allow unpermitted or uninspected work, because when you're talking about the drainage and swales, that's a health and safety issue. It needs to be addressed, and that's why we're here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: I would agree, and I'll support the motion. But Page 28 September 25, 2014 I'd like just to ask if, Jeff, someone could help -- try to help this lady out to get through the process. MR. WRIGHT: I'll make sure. I'll give her my business card. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? MR. MARINO: Is the drainage system running properly now? Is it clear? Water's running through it, everything else? MR. MEISZCAK: Don't know. MS. JASINSKI: It's in better condition that it's probably been in 20 years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: After all the rain, I did notice in the picture there were no puddles and whatnot there. So it appears to be functioning somewhat based on the pictures that we saw. MS. JASINSKI: It also has -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: However, we don't know because it hasn't been inspected. MR. MARINO: It hasn't been inspected. MS. JASINSKI: It also has adequate coverage to address the safety concerns of that, you know, makeshift -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand your comment on there. But until it's inspected by the county, we can't say that it is or it isn't. I mean, you can say you had the heavy grate put on there, et cetera -- and it looks like it is; however, they need to inspect it. So we're going to vote whether a violation exists, and then we'll tackle what comes next after. All those in favor of the motion? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 29 September 25, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries. So you're in violation. Now, what can be done to fix it? Number one, Jeff has said that he will work with you to resolve the situation with the other portion of the county to make sure the communications is there. And I'm sure that we should come up with sufficient time to give you to have a permit pulled and have it inspected properly and have this whole issue go away. So, anybody like to take a shot at the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have a motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a suggestion? MR. KINCAID: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County transportation operations department permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy necessary to repair/replace culvert/drainage pipe, catch basin and grate, and return right-of-way to a permitted state within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars 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 Page 30 September 25, 2014 assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to take a shot at the -- fill in the blanks? If not, I will; $65.43 to be paid within 30 days, 90 days to resolve everything. After the 90 days, $200-a-day fine would be imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion; we have a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So hopefully you can get this all resolved and go forward. And now that we're coming out of rainy season, it should be easier to work on. Thank you. MS. JASINSKI: Thank you. MR. KINCAID: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. ADAMS: Next case is No. 5, Tab 6, Case CESD20140007746, CWALT, Incorporated. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Joe. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140007746 dealing with Page 31 September 25, 2014 a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and also of the 2010 Florida Building Code, Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 105.1. Description of the violation is an unpermitted tiki hut, an unpermitted garage conversion, and an expired fence permit located at 5681 Dogwood Way, Naples, 34116. The folio number is 3841320000. Service was given on April 24, 2014. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. I have eight photographs taken on December 5, 2013, by Investigator Vicky Giguere. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the eight photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Now, you said these photos were taken in December of'f 13? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. I will get to that. This case originated from Case CESD20130017898 and was -- that previous case was closed due to a change of ownership. So we were in the middle of that case. The ownership -- I believe the bank foreclosed on the property, so we had to start a whole new case. Page 32 September 25, 2014 If you can see in this picture here, the top picture, to the left you can see the tiki hut there, the unpermitted tiki hut. Also, you can see the chain link fence that -- it had a permit at one point, but it's expired now. And also to the right is the garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the fence had a permit, but it was never CO'ed? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: Okay. And I guess the bottom -- I mean, the top photo showing, just basically, it's a stand-alone garage. That's what it was permitted as, but if you see in the bottom picture, they converted the garage to living space. That's like a kitchenette in there. There is -- yeah, part of the kitchen, and I think that was a door leading to the bathroom, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How did you get the interior photos? MR. MUCHA: Let me get to that. Back on December 5th, we had gotten a complaint, and we had met with the previous owner, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Wonderan (phonetic). And -- we had gotten a complaint at the time from one of the neighbors about these possible conversions and structures without permits. So at that point, you know, he informed us, saying, I'm losing the property, so he kind of had nothing to lose. He took us back there. He showed us everything that had been done. And, basically, at this point we've been working with the bank, you know. They're aware of the violations. It's just one of those things where they haven't gotten around to correcting it as of today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the power been shut down? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. It's a vacant property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has it started growing mold? MR. MUCHA: I haven't been in there since December 2013, so I couldn't tell you. It's possible. Page 33 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: And this is bank owned? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the bank is? CWALT? MR. MUCHA: CWALT. Yeah, it's Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, yeah. They're the ones that send me my mortgage payment (sic), too. Okay. Well, based on the photographs, does a violation exist? Do we have a motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion a violation does exist. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second, Lisa, that a violation exists. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, Joe? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir, I do, that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by: 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or Page 34 September 25, 2014 demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until a violation is abated; 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when their violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection and confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the bank? MR. MUCHA: I -- Investigator Giguere has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have they been forthcoming as far as trying to help to resolve the situation? MR. MUCHA: I mean, they've made promises that they're looking for a contractor, you know, but this has been one of those things where we were kind of-- you know, we've been working with them for months now, and it just seemed like it was kind of dragging on, you know, so we felt appropriate to bring it the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this house for sale at all? MR. MUCHA: That I'm not sure of, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because what I wouldn't want to happen is for someone to buy it and not know there's a case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You know, this could be -- you haven't been in it -- that there's -- and ordinarily this is the case after this long summer, kind of wet, mold, the house may have to be torn down. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, that's a separate -- this is a separate garage, right? MR. MUCHA: Yes, this is, but there is a main house on the Page 35 September 25, 2014 property, so it's the same issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. The no A/C has a way of doing that. Anybody like to take a stab at filling in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll give it a shot. Make a motion that the operational costs of 65.01 be paid within 30 days, that the violation be corrected within 30 days or a fine of$300 per day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6, Tab 7, Case CESD20140012494, Lynne V. Cadenhead. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SHORT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Eric. Page 36 September 25, 2014 MR. SHORT: For the record, Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140012494 regarding violations of the Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-236, and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), a primary structure with unpermitted alterations in poor condition and an unpermitted two-story storage structure in poor condition located at 3417 Cherokee Street, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio number is 74413200009. Service was given on July 22, 2014. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Four photographs taken by myself on June 23, 2014, and one document from the Collier County deputy chief building official declaring the structures to be dangerous. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I have a motion to accept the documentation? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: This case originated on June 23, 2014. Page 37 September 25, 2014 My initial site visit revealed two structures combined into one in poor condition. Research on the property also revealed that the primary structure was originally permitted and received a certificate of completion slash -- or, I'm sorry, certificate of occupancy; however, the two-story structure never received a certificate of completion or occupancy. Since the two structures are attached, they're currently both in an unpermitted state. On July 18th, I received the dangerous building determination from the Collier County deputy chief building official. Robert Cadenhead has been in contact on a few occasions. To date, no permits have been applied for, and the violation does remain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You said you have contacted the respondent? MR. SHORT: There was actually a -- the gentleman that I have been in contact with is Robert Cadenhead. There was a dissolution of marriage. I'm not sure what the relationship is now. The public records indicate -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When? MR. SHORT: He's not associated with the property, according to the public records. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's not. MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's the one that you were in contact with. Lynne is the one who's listed on the -- MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- records? Okay. Well, it's obvious from the pictures that -- it looks like a violation exists. Would anybody like to make a motion to that effect? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion a violation does exist. Page 38 September 25, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Do you have a suggestion for us, Eric? MR. SHORT: The county recommends that the code enforcement board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspection and certificate of completion or occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is this property available for somebody to get into somehow, or is it fenced or --- Page 39 September 25, 2014 MR. SHORT: The structure is unsecure. It's not secure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's unsecure, which makes it a safety hazard based on the affidavit that you have also. MR. SHORT: Absolutely, especially with the determination from the chief-- deputy chief building official. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we should consider that a short-time leash, if you will, to have this addressed. Anybody like to take a shot at a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Should there be anything in this order stating that -- the building's unsecured, you said. So should there be anything in this order stating that it should be boarded up? MR. SHORT: If you look at the top part of order, I mean, I'm sorry -- do you have a copy of the ordinance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SHORT: Number one on the ordinance it says, within 15 days of the final determination by the Code Enforcement Board or special magistrate that a hazardous condition exists, then the housing official shall, in order -- in ordering the repair or demolition of dangerous buildings, be guided by the following. If you jump all the way down to C, if the building is unoccupied and is deemed that a demolition is not feasible -- which, you know, if the county is to abate this violation, it's probably not feasible for the county to demolish the structure. So what we'll do at that point is -- if I'll continue reading, the building should be secured in accordance with the section of this ordinance regulating the boarding of vacant buildings or dwellings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has -- you have -- have you been in the structure? MR. SHORT: Not inside the structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you seen any evidence that somebody's been in the structure? Page 40 September 25, 2014 MR. SHORT: There's some vandalism to some of the doors you could see in some of the photographs. MR. LEFEBVRE: The first line of this ordinance says, if the owner fails to repair the house condition within 30 days of service of notice that a hazardous condition exists, or within 15 days of final determination by Code Enforcement Board. Has that -- when was that letter sent out to the respondent? MR. SHORT: The notice of violation was served on July 22, 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the affidavit, as far as it being an unsafe -- date on that? MR. SHORT: July 18th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that was way past 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, basically, if-- we probably should tie our days in with what this states because, otherwise, there would be a conflict. MR. SHORT: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion -- if you put that -- the suggestion back up. I'd like to make a motion that the 64.17 operational costs be paid within 30 days and that -- within 15 days of this hearing and a fine of $400 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 41 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Eric. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, old business, A, motion for impossession of fines/liens, No. 1, Tab 11, Case CESD20130016171, Sonia J. Landestoy. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. DAVIDSON: Good morning. For the record, Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 4960 Coral Wood Drive, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 41830440006. Description: Room added to rear of main structure, alterations to accessory structure such as, but not limited to, window, doors, secondary porch, all of which were completed prior to obtaining Collier County building permits. Past order. On April 24, 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, OR5039, Page 3255, for more information. The violation has been abated as of September 23, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between August 23, 2014, to September 23, 2014, 32 days, for a total fine amount of$6,400. Page 42 September 25, 2014 Previously assessed operational costs of$63.44 have been paid. Total amount to date: $6,400. The county is recommending fines be waived as the property is in compliance, and all operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The last time -- I wasn't here last meeting, but the meeting before that I had asked a question of the county regarding taxes. It's almost -- if I understand things properly, that it's an incentive to not get a building permit, and if you get away with it, that's fine; and if you get caught, you fix it, and then the county recommends full abatement, so that period of time where you should have been paying taxes on the addition, house, whatever, go unpaid. So my question to the county is, when are taxes commenced? Is it on a CO? Is it on an inspection? When? MR. WRIGHT: And I talked with the appraiser's office on this one, and they are obligated to look at every property every five years, so that's one way that they can catch improvements. Another way is they have a live feed on COs. So the new projects, there's a pretty tight way of catching all the improvements that have a permit associated with them. As far as those ones, maybe if somebody's gaming the system, like you said, they should be caught at least every five years, and hopefully sooner than that with code enforcement, but that's the way that they do it, and it's as of the 1st of each calendar year they make the assessment whether or not a structure's going to be taxed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So in this particular case we have a situation where somebody did a whole bunch of additions, changes that were not permitted, and they were -- it was found out that they did that. Had they not been found out, they would have managed to go five years. And if the changes were made in the interior, it's possible they never will be picked up. So I find it strange that on these cases we always abate fully the Page 43 September 25, 2014 fines rather than taking into consideration that period of time where no taxes were paid on that premise. Is there any particular reason why the county always recommends to fully abate the fines? I know these are hard questions. I apologize, but -- MR. WRIGHT: I don't know of any particular reason, but I know that over -- the evolution of the policy in the county has been to forgive accrued fines and focus on compliance, so that's probably the main reason that I could point to is that we have been leaning on the side of waiving fines and collecting all of the hard costs that we've gotten and encouraging people to get out there and fix the problems. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I wanted to make sure I brought that up, because this particular case is -- fits that situation. Okay. Anybody like to take a stab -- I see that the 63.44 have been paid, according to -- not to our writing, but subsequent to the package we received, and there's an additional operational cost for today of 62.91. Has that been included in the -- MS. ADAMS: That's only if fines are imposed. If we recommend a waiver of fines, if the fines are abated, then the additional operational costs are not assessed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Even though we've heard the case? MS. ADAMS: That's correct. MR. MIESZCAK: Mr. Chair, it would be interesting if this board, down the road somewhere, didn't agree with the county on abatement. It's never happened, I've been here 10 years. And I don't know what that -- it kind of tells us how to vote, and that's why I wonder why it's even brought to us if that's the county's wish. So I don't like voting on something that I have to vote one way and not the other. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you don't. If we wanted to, we could say -- the county recommends full abatement, and we could say Page 44 September 25, 2014 we'll abate 3,000 or the 6,800. We can do what the board wants to do, and then the county can, naturally, overrule this, which happens quite often, when they get forwarded to the county, to the Board of Commissioners. MR. MIESZCAK: Because I'm glad you brought that up. It was a point well taken, and I appreciate that. And good sight on you, thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: As Mr. Henning said Tuesday, it's all right to say no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: It depends on who you're talking to maybe. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to make a motion, then, that we abate $3,000 of this fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to abate 3,000. If that is the case, Jeff, then the additional -- I don't want to be a nitpicker, but the additional 62.91 would come into play; is that correct? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to second that motion? I'll second the motion just for discussion purposes. MS. DAVIDSON: Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. DAVIDSON: I apologize. Wouldn't the remaining balance be $3,400, if you had 6,400? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. I haven't done the arithmetic, but whatever it comes out to be, yes. Yeah, 3,000 would come down to 3,400. Any comments from the board as far as not following the -- what we've been doing for years as far as full abatement? MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree on the premise, but I think $3,000 is Page 45 September 25, 2014 excessive, or a number somewhere around there, I think, is excessive. I think it should be much lower than that. MR. MARINO: Fifteen hundred. MR. LEFEBVRE: They did abate the problem. Be it that it took them an extra month, but I think it's -- I think it's an excessive number. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What number do you think would be in line? Maybe we can talk to the motion maker. MR. MEISZCAK: You can amend the motion, if you'd like, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know if I -- can I amend the motion? I'm not one of the first or second. MS. NICOLA: I don't think so, no. And I would like to just interject a little bit. And I'm new to this, so I apologize. I am concerned a little bit about setting a precedent of making a unilateral decision not to abate when that's been kind of the policy and procedure to abate when they come into compliance, because I think there has to be some reasoning behind it. I don't think the taxability can really be a reason unless there was some indication from the county that perhaps this property would have been taxed higher with the additional structure, and then perhaps there's a reason to say, well, because they've avoided taxes for this entire period, then maybe we should assess some sort of monetary, you know, assessment against them. But simply imposing a fine, for me, personally, as a lawyer, I think it sets a precedent. And moving forward, when we're looking at all of these -- and there's going to be lots and lots and lots of them coming up for months to come and years to come, we're going to be in the situation a lot where they're going to come in and ask for this to be completely abated, and we're going to have to find some reasoning to assess it. Page 46 September 25, 2014 So I'm just concerned about imposing a unilateral assessment without some sound reasoning as to why we would do it in this particular case versus others because, as far as I understand, this is the first time this is happening. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I make a suggestion for -- Jeff, I hate to put this on you -- to talk to either Nick Casalanguida or the commissioners themselves and voice our concern about this situation going forward. I mean, I understand at the beginning of the year we added the additional operational costs as something that had not been done for years and years, but that was changed because it was the right thing to do. And maybe something needs to be discussed with the county as far as the question that we've brought up. MR. WRIGHT: One thing -- certainly, I can do that, and I will follow up with Mr. Casalanguida to make sure maybe the policy needs to evolve further. But I have to point out that within your rules there is a section -- this came into play in the Marshall case where it came back to us on appeal, and we had to enumerate all of the factors that you are obliged to consider when you have a request for a lien imposition in front of you. So I think for -- and I don't want to advise you or anything, but this is where I'd be comfortable is if you stuck with those factors, and then these equitable considerations, they may play into some of those factors. But, ultimately, if it gets to a lien and you've followed your duty and checked off all those checks, then the Board of County Commissioners can address some of those, maybe -- have a little bit more room as far as criteria that you're bound by. The board's not bound by those same exact criteria. When somebody comes and says, I want my lien lowered or whatever, they have more flexibility. You are -- you have in your rules -- let's see -- I can't -- I don't have my reading glasses on, but a handful Page 47 September 25, 2014 -- I think it's eight or nine specific things that you consider, and I think you'll be safe considering those and sticking with those. And to the extent that equitable considerations play into those factors, then I think that you're in a good comfortable space. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I would withdraw my second, and we can do what we need to do. But I wanted to bring this before the board because it almost -- for someone to game the system, it's so easy. MR. LAVINSKI: I think we should have that discussion for a different time, and we should look at this case and move on with this case and then talk outside of this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm for that. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the second's been removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. So we need a motion on this. MR. LAVINSKI: You still have my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, but I removed the second, so your motion dies. I had seconded -- MR. LAVINSKI: What if you get another second? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Go ahead. Any other second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I remove my second, even though I agree with you, but I would like to do something going forward, and maybe the best action is not to take the stand on this particular case before we do all our homework. MR. MIESZCAK: I would like that. I would like to make a motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to abate. Do we have a second? MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second from Lisa. Page 48 September 25, 2014 All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have them raise their hands. All those in favor? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: (Raises hand.) MR. LEFEBVRE: (Raises hand.) MR. MIESZCAK: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. MARINO: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (Raises hand.) MR. LAVINSKI: (Raises hand.) It dies. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're making my job very difficult. That's why I get paid the big bucks, I know. I think I'm going to change my vote just so that we can move on. This is going to wind up, I believe, before the County Commissioners. I read their consent -- consent agenda from their last meeting where there were tons of these cases where they're just dismissed one after the other after the other, all the fines. So -- and, ultimately, that's probably what would happen with this one going forward anyhow. But I did want to bring it up, and I didn't want to be hypocritical by not supporting the motion on the subject that I had brought up. So let's call for the vote again. All those in favor? Page 49 September 25, 2014 MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you bring a motion back? MS. NICOLA: Can you bring a motion back that's already passed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Or not. MS. NICOLA: I don't think so. Once it's already passed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Or not passed. MS. NICOLA: Once it's not passed? MR. LEFEBVRE: The motion failed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it was a new motion that was introduced by -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I want to be procedurally correct on this. MS. NICOLA: I actually don't know the answer to that question. I mean, personally, I would say I can't see why not. If it passed, I would say no, but if it failed, I can't see why you couldn't bring it back as another -- as a new motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it wasn't brought -- MR. LAVINSKI: You didn't bring it back as a new motion yet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. NICOLA: Is that the question, is whether you can bring it back as a new motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: The question is, the way it was brought back, there wasn't a new motion; there wasn't a second. There was just a revote. Do we need to have a motion? Page 50 September 25, 2014 MS. NICOLA: I think you have to have a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There was a motion. Larry made the motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: It died because it was 3-3. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, then he did it again. It was a tie, and then he brought it -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Did he bring it? MR. MIESZCAK: It was a tie. MS. NICOLA: I didn't -- if he says he brought it -- I didn't catch that. But if you brought back the motion, then I think that's proper, yes. MR. MIESZCAK: It was a tie and we revoted. MR. MARINO: Yeah, but was there a motion brought back and then we revoted? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's make this easy. Do we have a motion on this case? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to abate. MR. MEISZCAK: I make a motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to abate. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a brand new motion, and we have a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 51 September 25, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to be clear that there was an actual motion. Because it died, so there was no motion on the table, and he asked for a revote. You can't revote on a -- not a motion. MS. NICOLA: Correct. I thought that he had actually made a new motion and -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I did not hear it. MS. NICOLA: I think that's the proper way to do it, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought there was a new motion. But, okay, it's resolved now. Which brings us to -- MS. ADAMS: Next case is No. 3, Tab 13, Case CELU20140001165, Helen Valent. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name for the record. MR. LESTER: Don Lester. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are? MR. LESTER: I'm a representative of the owner, Helen Valent, and I'm duly authorized, and I have a copy of the sworn power of attorney that's notarized. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. DAVIDSON: For the record, Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe he wanted to address the board, so if we would like to do that before I read this into the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LESTER: Yeah. It's just pretty simple. This property has had large trucks parked on it for years and years and years. And as far as everybody thought, that was fine, and it was permitted because it was originally built as a -- the owner believed as a commercial property. Page 52 September 25, 2014 I'll agree that that owner's perception might not be as accurate as she thought it was, and that's taken a great deal of research. And from what I understand, some of the records of the county's gone and lost, and that's a long story. The bottom line is, there's three pieces of equipment that the county does not feel should belong there. It's difficult to move them because they were really used as storage rather than trailers to haul up and down the road. So when you pack things in them, you pack it for storage. You don't pack it for transportation. We are planning to acquire a property within the next week. Frankly, it's been in the works for three months to acquire the property, and things get delayed. When the property's acquired, the three trucks are going to be moved, and they'll be moved to the site which is a commercial site. No issue. This has been going on for a good many months this year. The county's been very cooperative. Investigators have been cooperative. Mr. Mucha's been cooperative. We've been in contact. Bottom line, we'd like to continue, or whatever the right word is, today to allow a few more days for this -- these machines to be moved, at which time they won't be on the property. But there is no homes whatsoever within miles of this property except across the road, and they can't be seen. And so the only thing there's near by is a cemetery. And I confess, we must have disturbed those folks that reside in the cemetery. This is located on Vanderbilt Beach Road just east of the cemetery about a mile this side of 951 . It's the only single-family home on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road in probably a 4-mile stretch, maybe more. So the cemetery is the only obvious complainer, because nobody else can see. And these trucks have been here for a long time. Now, in fairness, so that this board can kind of visualize, what Page 53 September 25, 2014 happened is in the winter, when we had the great storms up north that paralyzed the country with snow for a long time, you'll recall, two trucks who were friends of the owner came and parked for about a month, big, 40-, 53-foot Semi Reefer trucks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me interrupt you for one second. I have one question before we go on. MR. LESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have the operational costs on this been paid? MS. DAVIDSON: He stopped by and paid them this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was my question. Go ahead. MR. LESTER: Good point. But in fairness, seeing those two monster trucks parked in the front yard for a month would get a lot of attention, shall we say. It happened. I'm sorry. Nobody thought it was a violation, but as it turned out, it might have been. But it was an eyesore. And that only happened because of this massive snow and the trucks couldn't move, and they've never been back and they won't be back. But we've got these other trucks that have been -- trailers that have been parked there for years, and that kind of brought it to a focus. So we're going to move them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're saying that within a month it will be done? MR. LESTER: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: If I can just comment. I live near by, and I've been driving by there, and I see these trucks. They're very obvious. They're in the backyard. They're very obviously being able to be seen from the street. It doesn't matter if there's a neighbor that lives there or adjoining house, but they're there. They're very much in the open. There's no kind of way to block it or anything, and you even said that Page 54 September 25, 2014 it's a single-family house which, obviously, it is. So with that being said, I really feel that we should -- if we're going to continue this, it should be no more than 30 days, and I'm of the belief that the fines should be imposed in 30 days if these vehicles are not moved within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make that as a motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. MR. LESTER: Let's get it out of there in 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So thirty days. MR. LESTER: Okay. We're paid up on costs at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a continuance, which means that in 30 days the fine will not be 9,600. It will be 9,600 plus the additional $200 a day going forward for the remainder of the time. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LESTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good luck. MR. LESTER: Have a good day, gentlemen, lady. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5, Tab 15, Case CESD20120002477, Jose Martinez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I should ask, how are the fingers Page 55 September 25, 2014 doing? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're okay? (The interpreter, Cristina Perez, was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of her ability.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name for the record in the microphone. MR. MARTINEZ: Jose Martinez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. The property owner would like to have a few words. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PEREZ: He says, what happened is I have been calling in the inspections about the permit number. And so it tells him that the permit number doesn't exist. He did advise me of that this morning. The permit was issues September 18th. We tried calling, and there was a hold on the permit inspection. So I was trying to communicate with the permit tech that works out in the Immokalee office, which is where he lives, and she's trying -- he has to get a notice of commencement for his permit, which he has to get at the Clerk's Office here. So he's going to, you know, try to see if he can get that done today. And the other document that's holding up his permit, she's going to try to resolve it. She says that if all goes well, by next week he should have a CO on his permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to extend for -- motion to continue. I've got to get out of that extend. Motion to continue for 30 days. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to Page 56 September 25, 2014 continue for 30 days, the next meeting. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any comment before -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see this does go back to past orders of November of'f 13, so it's been a while. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Does he understand what we just did? MR. MARTINEZ: Okay. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6, Tab 16, Case CESD20130006171, Iris Labrie. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. McGONAGLE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seems to be very few people who've shown up today. Okay. Do you want to read through this? My -- one question that I have to ask every time is, have the operational costs been paid? MS. McGONAGLE: No. Page 57 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, code enforcement. Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 266 Sixth Street West, Bonita Springs, Florida; Folio 55901120005. Description: Permit PRBD20120101674 expired without obtaining a certificate of completion. Past order: On March 27, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5025, Page 168, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of September 25, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$150 per day for the period between May 27, 2014, to September 25, 2014, 122 days, for a total fine amount of$18,300. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$63.74 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing: $62.49. Total amount to date: $18,426.23. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent at all? MS. McGONAGLE: She has emailed a few different times, and last month we were going to bring it to hearing. She requested an extension of time. She was in the hospital. We withdrew it from the agenda. I have not heard from her myself since then. She has been in contact with the hearing office, but she didn't come to the hearing today. This has been an ongoing issue since before 2013. Page 58 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What was the permit that expired for? MS. McGONAGLE: It's for a boathouse, a concrete boathouse. There's only an electrical inspection remaining, and this has been for over a year now. MR. LEFEBVRE: This was a house and then a separate boathouse if I remember. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, it actually looked pretty nice. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I remember this case. I remember the pictures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, considering that the violation has not been abated and that the operational costs have not been paid, anybody like to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose and a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Michele. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8, Tab 18, Case Page 59 September 25, 2014 CESD20120015319, Southwest Florida Rentals, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name for the record. MR. MANSOUR: Brian Mansour. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is an imposition of fines hearing. Why don't you let us know what's -- what you want to do. MR. MANSOUR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been before the board here a few times. I'm the property owner that had the issue where work was done on the property. It was then determined by the county that I exceeded my FEMA allocation for costs. I had to tear down the property. We did get a demo permit. We tore the property down in time to meet the last deadline, but we weren't able to locate the sanitary sewer lead to cap it off, and that's an ongoing situation. From what I hear from my contractor yesterday, he was able to locate it, cap it. He called for inspection. That's supposed to be inspected tomorrow. But the property has been demoed as of two months ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. CLARK: Good morning. For the record, Michael Clark, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Michael. Why don't you give us a little rundown. MR. CLARK: Well, basically, this has been an ongoing issue since 2012, and we'd like to basically get -- put this to rest today. Basically, they -- Dennis Daniels, actually, is from our locator department, was out there a month ago. He'd been out there several times to locate the sewer cap for them. And, basically, it's -- once again, it's everything at the 11th hour. And August 20th he was out there, he located it. They were Page 60 September 25, 2014 digging in the wrong spot, and that's the reason why it hasn't been abated. Instead of digging in the area that's marked for Collier County, they were digging a water line actually marked off by the City of Naples. And so there's been two -- and the first part that they were digging at, they were digging right next to the sewer cap, and that's how -- why Dennis Daniels had to go out there a second time and had to locate it for them again. And this was just Monday. They were out there on Sunday, August 21st, and Dennis Daniels, of our locator department, was out there on August 22nd to locate it. And that's actually about the second or third time, according to his records. So, basically, that's where we are now. So they did locate the sewer cap, but the reason why it's not been abated yet, because they were digging in the wrong spot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So does it look like this is all going to be resolved shortly? MR. CLARK: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Yes, sir? MR. MANSOUR: I would like to respond to Mr. Clark. I've got emails back from right after we demoed between myself and my contractor asking him if he's located the sewer line. When it was -- when it was tagged by Dennis back the third or fourth week in July, it was off And Dennis did tell me that, because I talked to him directly what he came back to do it just a couple weeks ago. It was off by a couple feet, and because there was no cleanout shown on the property, we had to hand shovel. And if he was off two feet with his mark, he came back a couple weeks ago, and he said -- he told me he used a radar type of thing to determine exactly where it was based on that. Page 61 September 25, 2014 I did have a laborer out there digging, and he dug in the wrong spot here a couple weeks ago, but I got the main contractor to come back again and dig in the exact spot that Dennis located. We did find it, and we capped it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're requesting what, then? MR. MANSOUR: I don't know. I certainly -- you know, I've got -- the property now is worth 50 percent of what I've got into it because I had to tear it down. I'm asking if I can somehow not be charged for the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: We can't abate until the fine -- we can't do anything with the fine until the issue is abated. MR. MANSOUR: So maybe tomorrow when we get the inspection? Did you check to see if he called it in? He said he called it in yesterday. MR. CLARK: He left me a voice mail saying that -- I got it this morning, but I have yet to verify that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Rich? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: The county has no objection to a continuance with the fines still running, maybe 30 days. Is that good, till the next hearing? But I just want to point out from previous conversations today, that it looks like there was once a change going as far as total abatement on these things, so I just wanted him to realize that if he does get a continuance, there's no guarantee at this point that I think that everything's going to be waived at that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I would suggest, if we make a motion and it's accepted for a continuance, that you show up here next month and ask for whatever you want to ask for at that time. MR. MANSOUR: Okay. Does it count that -- I mean, we did do the demo. It's just the location -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We certainly are about compliance. Page 62 September 25, 2014 Anybody like to make a motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion, then, that we grant the 30-day continuance on this. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So next month you'll be back, and hopefully everything will be done. MR. MANSOUR: Okay. Is it possible to put in that motion that, if it is done, that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hear it at that time. MR. MANSOUR: Okay. All right. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case is No. 9, Tab 19, Case CESD2012000863 8, Paula Mendoza. (The interpreter, Cristina Perez, was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of her ability.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your full name for the record. MS. MENDOZA: Paula Mendoza. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. She would like to make a Page 63 September 25, 2014 statement? MS. PEREZ: She says that she wishes to apologize, for you to forgive her and give her more time to resolve her problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a case that is well over a year old. What has been done? MS. PEREZ: She says, "It has cost me a lot of money. I'm a single mother." CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A lot of money for -- what work has been done? MS. PEREZ: She said apart from the remaining issues, she says that she has -- she has resolved the mobile home issue and the right-of-way issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What were the other issues that needed to be resolved? MS. RODRIGUEZ: She had an expired permit for the mobile home that was placed on that piece of property. That was never finaled and CO'ed, and she had to final it. She went through quite a bit because she was encroaching, so she actually had to move the trailer. And then -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what's -- I don't understand. Is there anything outstanding now? It says -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: She has a carport that was also installed without a permit, which now she has to move forward because it's encroaching because the trailer had to be moved. So she's got pretty much everything done except the permit is in. She has to wait for that permit to be issued and then move the carport, and that will final that. MR. MIESZCAK: How long? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you think it will take to resolve this -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: I'm thinking she should have at least 60 days in order to final it, because if she moves it -- it is a big carport -- she Page 64 September 25, 2014 still needs another survey. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a carport -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's a big carport. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- with concrete footings, et cetera, et cetera? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, the concrete's already there. She's just going to move the carport forward, then tie it back down, but because it's so big, she's going to need a 10-day spot survey. So she's going to have to hire a surveyor. They're going to have to come out, survey it, make sure that she's not encroaching in order for her to leave it where it's going to be placed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we continue for 90 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: With the understanding that it's been going on long enough, that I would not continue it another time. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I'm hoping this is it. MR. MIESZCAK: Me, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Tell her we are discussing granting an additional 90 days, three months. Is that sufficient time to get everything done that she needs to get done? MS. PEREZ: She says that she hopes so, because the county has requested items of her four different times, and she goes back to the engineer, who she's hired to, you know, get her documents from, and she's already invested about $1,000 just in the permitting process, the documents that she's been receiving. So she hopes that with the last resubmittal, you know, that will be sufficient. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One clarification on the motion. This is not a continuance. This is a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Continuance, continuance. Page 65 September 25, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, a continuance. Okay. MS. PEREZ: So I just explained to her the continuance -- continued, the fines continue daily. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. Once the violation has been abated, she can request for the fines to be reduced or eliminated. MS. MENDOZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. MENDOZA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next item on the agenda, Letter D, motion to amend previously issued order, Case CEPM20110002247, Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. You look familiar. MR. CLARK: Good morning. Basically I'm just here to -- for that property, 267 Price Street, the property owner, it just recently changed ownership from Nationstar to the property owner. And, basically, she's made significant progress of trying to abate the violation, so we've been working with her trying to get it corrected. So she couldn't pull any permits because the property wasn't in her name, but now that it's changed ownership, she should be able to Page 66 September 25, 2014 do so now. And she has requested additional time. She has been in contact with my department. So that's where we are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I had a note on here that said the county abated $1,700? MR. LEFEBVRE: For abatement? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. So when this gets all said and done, the $1,700, I'm assuming, would be paid back to the county. MS. ADAMS: Well, what the county is asking for at this point is there was an error on the imposition of fines order. The order stated that it was in compliance when, technically, it was only partially complaint. The county boarded it, but they haven't gotten their permits and inspections. So the fines are still accruing on that part. So the imposition of fines order has an error on it, so we'd like to have that corrected. That's why we're requesting it to be amended. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But as far as the county abatement costs of boarding it or whatnot, that will be paid back to the county? MS. ADAMS: Yes. That's included in the lien. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The property has already been liened. We're requesting an amendment to the order. This was on the agenda last month. It was withdrawn. We needed to get some more information. The property owners have been noticed that the county made an -- is making a motion to amend this order, so they are aware that this is coming before you today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're looking for a motion to -- MS. ADAMS: To amend the imposition of fines order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make that motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: What are we removing, once again, please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're modifying the imposition of Page 67 September 25, 2014 fines order because there was an error in it. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not totally in compliance, which I understand. Is there any reduction in fines or anything being removed because it was boarded up? MS. ADAMS: No. It's just that the part -- on Part 2 that is still not compliant, so the fines are still accruing on Part 2. The fines stopped on Part 1, and the county did have boarding costs involved, but that would be part of the lien. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. In the calculations, it says Orders No. 1 and 3 at a rate of$500 a day. Orders 2 and 4 at a rate of$500 per day. So that's going to be amended, too, correct? So items -- Order Item No. 1, that's going to be removed? MS. ADAMS: Well, no. They did accrue fines up until the county boarded it, so that -- the fines stopped when the county boarded it. Part 2, the fines are still accruing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ADAMS: But if you notice, it says that it was brought -- it was brought to the board's attention of property and compliance with the order dated of February 25th. In fact, it was just partially compliant. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Regarding the boarding? MS. ADAMS: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: It took care of a couple of the items, but not complete. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. ADAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did we have a motion? MR. MEISZCAK: Motion to amend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to amend. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 68 September 25, 2014 MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. NICOLA: I just have a point of clarification. Kerry, I want to make sure that what we're -- are we now saying in this order that where the board had previously entered an order that the property was in compliance that we're now going to enter an order that says that it's not in compliance? MS. ADAMS: Well, actually, it should state that it was in compliance with Part 1 since the county boarded it. MS. NICOLA: Right. MS. ADAMS: And then it should also state that fines are continuing to accrue on Part 2. MS. NICOLA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I do see that Jeff has escaped. MS. ADAMS: Yes. He had to leave, but he said if you would like a report, he'd be happy to email that to you. MR. MIESZCAK: And Mitchell. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's see where we are on our agenda. I think we're done. MR. MIESZCAK: Happy Birthday, Doris; 92. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whose birthday? Page 69 September 25, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Doris. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. She's 92? MR. MIESZCAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: God bless her. MR. LEFEBVRE: Happy Birthday to my son. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Happy Birthday to Gerald's son who's two today. Any other birthdays? Jeff, it's not your birthday, is it? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, not yet. Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All in favor? MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:52 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Page 70 011° September 25, 2014 IttillrAfi ' O RT`► • OM AN, CHAIRMAN These minutes ap r ved by the Board on 1 0/ 2--->la 0 1 4- as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER Page 71