Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/23/2014 Code Enforcement Board Minutes October 23 , 2014 October 23, 2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida October 23, 2014 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell Tony Marino (Excused) Larry Mieszcak Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynn Nicola, Attorney for the Board Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: OCTOBER 23, 2014 Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman,Chair 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. SEPTEMBER 25,2014 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A.Motions Motions for Re-hearing 1. CASE NO: CEROW20140009627 OWNER: DAVID&ZENAIDA FALATO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL CLARK VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110, ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II,CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT-OF-WAY, SECTION 110-31(A). UNPERMITTED AND DAMAGED CULVERT. FOLIO NO: 77210960002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 130 2ND ST,NAPLES,FL 1 Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CEOCC20140009738 OWNER: RICHARD ADAMS-MERCER&JAMES SIMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 126,ARTICLE IV,SECTION 126-111(B)AND SECTION 126-114(C).NO BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT DISPLAYED OR OBTAINED FOR BUSINESS(TheSnugg.com). FOLIO NO: 271080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3427 EXCHANGE AVE,UNIT: 1,NAPLES,FL 2. CASE NO: CEOCC20140011314 OWNER: RICHARD ADAMS-MERCER&JAMES SIMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 126,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 126-111(B)AND SECTION 126-114(C).NO BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT DISPLAYED OR OBTAINED FOR BUSINESS. FOLIO NO: 271080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3427 EXCHANGE AVE, UNIT: 3,NAPLES, FL 3. CASE NO: CEOCC20140011337 OWNER: RICHARD ADAMS-MERCER&JAMES SIMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 126,ARTICLE IV,SECTION 126-111(B)AND SECTION 126-114(C).NO BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT DISPLAYED OR OBTAINED FOR BUSINESS(Frankfort Auto Sales). FOLIO NO: 271080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3427 EXCHANGE AVE,UNIT: 5,NAPLES,FL 2 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20100006940 OWNER: MICHAEL&AMY FACUNDO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 22,BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE II,FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(B)(104.5.1.4.4).EXPIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 63860280007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 318 WASHINGTON AVE,IMMOKALEE,FL 2. CASE NO: CESD20140000219 OWNER: FAIRHOMES SILVER LININGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 26681800001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4112 COCONUT CIR S,NAPLES,FL 3. CASE NO: CESD20130008321 OWNER: ANTONIO LOUISSAINT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPERMITTED ADDITION BEING USED AS LIVING SPACE WITH A THREE FIXTURE BATHROOM TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING.ALSO INSTALLED NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS.ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 134120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 610 S 5TH ST,NAPLES,FL 3 B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20140009530 OWNER: WAYNE MANSUETO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).OBSERVED AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME THAT HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED AND A NEW MOBILE HOME SET UP ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING THE REQUIRED BUILDING PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 1134803101 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 217 SWAIN ST,COPELAND,FL 2. CASE NO: CELU20140008250 OWNER: JERILYN NEUHAUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL CLARK VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 1.04.01(A)AND 2.02.03.RECREATIONAL VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT STORED AT LOCATION NOT APPROVED FOR SUCH USE. FOLIO NO: 52501800003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 365 CAPRI BLVD,NAPLES, FL 3. CASE NO: CELU20140012712 OWNER: PEDRO BAIGORRIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03. SELLING VEHICLES WHICH ARE UNLICENSED AND NOT REGISTERED TO THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 35742520004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2197 45TH ST SW,NAPLES,FL 4 4. CASE NO: CESD20140007263 OWNER: DAVE&KRISTY DESMARAIS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).BATHROOM REMODEL AND REMOVAL AND ADDITION OF WALLS WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 65322560001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 603 CYPRESS WAY E,NAPLES,FL 5. CASE NO: CEVR20140015399 OWNER: GCP INVESTMENTS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED,CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.06.01(D)(1).OVERGROWN HEDGES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY,BLOCKING VIEW OF TRAFFIC. FOLIO NO: 35643360004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2343 41ST TER SW,NAPLES,FL 6. CASE NO: CEOCC20140009738 OWNER: RICHARD ADAMS-MERCER&JAMES SIMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 126,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 126-111(B)AND SECTION 126-114(C).NO BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT DISPLAYED OR OBTAINED FOR BUSINESS(TheSnugg.com). FOLIO NO: 271080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3427 EXCHANGE AVE,UNIT: 1,NAPLES,FL 7. CASE NO: CEOCC20140011314 OWNER: RICHARD ADAMS-MERCER&JAMES SIMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 126,ARTICLE IV,SECTION 126-111(B)AND SECTION 126-114(C).NO BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT DISPLAYED OR OBTAINED FOR BUSINESS. FOLIO NO: 271080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3427 EXCHANGE AVE,UNIT: 3,NAPLES,FL 8. CASE NO: CEOCC20140011337 OWNER: RICHARD ADAMS-MERCER&JAMES SIMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 126,ARTICLE IV,SECTION 126-111(B)AND SECTION 126-114(C).NO BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT DISPLAYED OR OBTAINED FOR BUSINESS(Frankfort Auto Sales). FOLIO NO: 271080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3427 EXCHANGE AVE,UNIT: 5,NAPLES,FL 5 9. CASE NO: CEV20140015659 OWNER: ELDER&MARIE ROCHE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,ARTICLE III,CHAPTER 130, SECTIONS 130-95 AND 130-97(2).UNLICENSED/INOPERABLE VEHICLE(S)INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO A COMMERCIAL BOX TRUCK PARKED/STORED ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62261720002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5377 BROWARD ST,NAPLES,FL 10. CASE NO: CELU20140015709 OWNER: ELDER&MARIE ROCHE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03. PROHIBITED OUTSIDE STORAGE ON RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62261720002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5377 BROWARD ST,NAPLES,FL 11. CASE NO: CESD20140018277 OWNER: BLACK RIVER ROCK,LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)AND 3.05.01(B).AN UNDEVELOPED PARCEL OF 1.3 ACRES HAS BEEN CLEARED OF VEGETATION WITHOUT REQUIRED BUILDING OR OTHER PERMIT; 54 LOADS OF FILL DIRT/ROCK HAVE BEEN GRADED AND/OR PLACED ON SITE WITHOUT ANY BUILDING PERMIT OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION. FOLIO NO: 726724107 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES,FL 12. CASE NO: CEVR20140016015 OWNER: NATURE POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 85-71 SECTION 6.06(C).PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION. FOLIO NO: 63770000458 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES,FL 13. CASE NO: CENA20140017179 OWNER: MARGARITA VAZQUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(A)AND(D).PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,BRAZILIAN PEPPER,LOCATED ON UNIMPROVED,RESIDENTIALLY-ZONED LOT,WITHIN 200 FOOT RADIUS OF IMPROVED,RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY,AND THE ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS,GRASS,OR OTHER SIMILAR NON-PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT. FOLIO NO: 80445013203 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7594 CORDOBA CIR,NAPLES,FL 6 14. CASE NO: CESD20140012087 OWNER: RAMIRO E.&MARTHA R.LLERENA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATIONS PERMITS(PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REQUIRED)COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION, 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).ALTERATIONS TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT APPLICABLE COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT(S)(INSTALLATION OF KITCHEN AREA WITH NEW PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC). FOLIO NO: 62090200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11263 TAMIAMI TRAIL E,UNIT: D,NAPLES,FL 15. CASE NO: CESD20140015264 OWNER: KATHLEEN SORBARA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 90 NATURAL RESOURCES,ARTICLE II WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,DIVISION 2 PERMITS, SECTION 90-41 F(8).OBSERVED DRAINAGE OVERFLOW PIPE WHICH DIRECTLY DRAINS TO OTHER LAND OWNERS PROPERTY.OBSERVED IMPERVIOUS FOUNDATION ON ENTIRE REAR YARD. FOLIO NO: 24022040008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 55 BURNING TREE DR,NAPLES,FL 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CEROW20140009627 OWNER: DAVID&ZENAIDA FALATO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL CLARK VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110,ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II,CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT-OF-WAY,SECTION 110-31(A). UNPERMITTED AND DAMAGED CULVERT. FOLIO NO: 77210960002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 130 2ND ST,NAPLES,FL 2. CASE NO: CESD20100006940 OWNER: MICHAEL&AMY FACUNDO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 22,BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE II,FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,SECTION 22-26(B)(104.5.1.4.4).EXPIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 63860280007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 318 WASHINGTON AVE,IMMOKALEE,FL 7 3. CASE NO: CESD20130001292 OWNER: CHRISTOPHER S.ESENBERG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS MADE TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 47871280009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3315 GUILFORD RD,NAPLES,FL 4. CASE NO: CELU20120015005 OWNER: ALBERT BENARROCH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A). COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE BUSINESS BEING CONDUCTED WITHOUT A VALID BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AND ANY OTHER REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY AUTHORIZATION. FOLIO NO: 750680709 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2390 JAMES RD,NAPLES,FL 5. CASE NO: CESD20120002439 OWNER: KONSTANTINE E.&MERRILL L.KOMNINOS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III, SECTION 130-96(A);2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.1 AND ORDINANCE 04-41,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,AS AMENDED SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR GARAGE CONVERSION,CBS 3-CAR GARAGE,OR SHINGLE RE-ROOF.AN 8X38 ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME,WOODEN FENCE,AND THREE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WERE ADDED WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41933010003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6161 SPANISH OAKS LN,NAPLES,FL 6. CASE NO: CEPM20140005585 OWNER: ELI WALLEN&DANNIE DEVOL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI,PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE,SECTION 22- 231,SUB-SECTION(12)(N).WOODEN FENCE IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 62766360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 707 94TH AVE N,NAPLES,FL 8 7. CASE NO: CESD20130008321 OWNER: ANTONIO LOUISSAINT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPERMITTED ADDITION BEING USED AS LIVING SPACE WITH A THREE FIXTURE BATHROOM TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING.ALSO INSTALLED NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS.ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 134120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 610 S 5TH ST,IMMOKALEE,FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE—NOVEMBER 21,2014 12. ADJOURN 9 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. We'll get Jeff to sit down. Anybody who has a cell phone, take this opportunity to let it vibrate and not ring. I did that this morning so I won't embarrass myself. 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 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. Could I have roll call -- we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance and then we'll go to roll call. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Roll call? MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Lisa Chapman Bushnell? MS. BUSHNELL: Here. Page 2 October 23, 2014 MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance and Mr. Tony Marino both have excused absences. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that means that Lisa, you're a full voting member of the board this morning. And let's go to the agenda with the changes. MS. ADAMS: Number Five, Public Hearings. Motions. A, motions. Motion for Rehearing, Number One, Tab One, Case CEROW201400009627, David and Zenaida Falato has been withdrawn. Motion for continuance, we have one addition, it's number three from hearings, Tab 10, Case CELU20140012712, Pedro Baigorria. Letter C, Hearings, Number Four, Tab 11, Case CESD20140007263, Dave and Kristy Desmarais has been withdrawn. Number 12, Tab 19, Case CEVR20140016015, Nature Point Homeowners Association, Incorporated has been withdrawn. Number 13, Tab 20, Case CENA20140017179, Margarita Vazquez has been withdrawn. Number 15, Tab 22, Case CESD20140015264, Kathleen Sorbara has been withdrawn. Number 6, Old Business, A, Motion for Imposition for fines/liens, Number One, Tab 23, Case CEROW20140009627, David Zenaida Falato has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to accept the agenda as modified? Page 3 October 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, the minutes from September 25th. Anybody have any changes, additions, corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 4 October 23, 2014 Okay. MS. ADAMS: First case, Motion for Continuance, Number One, Tab Two, Case CEOCC2014000973 8, Richard Adams-Mercer and James Simpson. (Investigator Pulse was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, can you identify yourself on the mic. MR. PETTIT: Yes. Good morning, board members. My name is Mike Pettit, I'm an attorney and I represent the respondents and property owners Richard Adams-Mercer and James Simpson. It's our motion for continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was the -- if I'm not mistaken, there are three cases on this? MR. PETTIT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And those are for the three business owners that are part of the property? MR. PETTIT: Yeah, just as by way of brief background, there were three businesses operating in this building. None of them were able to get a business tax receipt because of permitting issues with the building. My clients began working on those permitting issues even before they received a Notice of Violation. They've expended $9,000 to date trying to get those resolved. Have not been able to do so. And in conference with code enforcement officials, we're just going to vacate the building. The building may be sold. We're obviously mindful of our obligations under Chapter 162 to give any new owner notice of these issues. At this point in time, and I've given information to the Code Enforcement Investigator Ms. Pulse, one business has in fact moved. The business that my clients have, they're in the process Page 5 October 23, 2014 of moving and I've provided a letter of intent for their new lease to code enforcement. A third business we have just concluded an agreement, that has not been reduced to writing, to have that business move also. Our plan is to have everybody out by or before November 14th, at which time my idea would be to have Ms. Pulse come to the property and investigate to confirm that the building is vacant. And it's my understanding that would abate the violations that exist and are before you. I should say alleged violations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the 60 days would bring us -- there's no meeting, no board meeting in December, so in essence it would put it 'til the end of January. What say the county? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: We feel that they've been working trying to resolve this problem. They've hired professionals. They're now utilizing the services of Attorney Pettit. We know that with the permitting issues, firewall, there's a possible safety issue. But otherwise we have no problems with the continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. On this, this is going to be for all three orders. We'll vote on each one individually, but they are all related to this one. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to discuss this from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, anybody like to make a motion? This would be for a continuance of 60 days, which would actually put it into the January meeting, which I would assume would give ample time to resolve the issues of the tenants. Page 6 October 23, 2014 MR. PETTIT: Absolutely. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make the motion 60-day extension. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. This is on the first case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this an extension or a continuance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance. MR. LEFEBVRE: As the motion was stated, it was extension, so I just wanted to make sure it's a continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance. All those in favor. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. That's the first case. MS. ADAMS: The second case is CEOCC20140011314. It's Tab Three. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Exactly the same case. Anybody like to make a motion on this one? MR. MIESZCAK: Make a motion for -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You did such a good job, why don't you do it again? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion for continuance -- Page 7 October 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: -- 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And since you've done so well on the first two cases, would you like to take a shot at the third one? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion for a 60-day continuance. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just read the case number into the record. This would be CEOCC20140009738; is that correct, Kerry? MS. ADAMS: That was the first one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, then this one is 20140011337? MS. ADAMS: Yes, that's the third case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that's this case that we have a motion before us. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. . Page 8 October 23, 2014 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Counsel. MR. PETTIT: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, we have two other changes to the agenda. Did you want me to put that on the record now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. ADAMS: Number Nine, Tab 16, CEV20140015659 Elder and Marie Roche has been withdrawn. And Number 10, Tab 17, Case CELU20140015709, Elder and Marie Roche has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we get a motion from the board to modify the agenda? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to modify. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to modify the agenda. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 9 October 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Kerry. MS. ADAMS: The next Motion for Continuance is Case CELU20140012712, it's Tab 10, Pedro Baigorria. (Investigator Davidson was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the respondent here today? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: For the record, Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. The respondent is not here today. He provided travel documentation that he's out of the country. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this is a violation, if I'm reading this correctly, about selling unlicensed and unregistered vehicles on a piece of property? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they are requesting a -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Continuance, because he's out of the country. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did they request a continuance? I don't see any letter or anything in our -- oh, that was one that was -- let me have a minute to read it. Okay. What does the county -- INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: The county has no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they still selling? According to the case here, is this still an active case where vehicles are being sold? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: They're not selling vehicles, but there are still unlicensed vehicles on the property. Page 10 October 23, 2014 There's no more selling of vehicles as of right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if he's out of the country, unless he's selling them wherever he went, I can understand that. Okay, any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: This case has been going on since June, end of June. I think that's a long time to have unlicensed vehicles on the property without having them removed. I would be -- not be in favor of continuing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I feel the same way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we deny the continuance. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to deny the motion. All those if favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So we will be hearing this one in the normal agenda. Under what tab? MS. ADAMS: For next month -- oh -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, today. Page 11 October 23, 2014 MS. ADAMS: I'm sorry, under tab 10, sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so when we do the hearings we'll hear that under tab 10. MS. ADAMS: The next case, Motion for Extension of Time, Number One, Case CESD20100006940, Michael and Amy Facundo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's tab 5? MS. ADAMS: Tab 5, I'm sorry. (Mr. Facundo, Mrs. Facundo, Mr. Padilla and Supervisor Perez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I was just reading the -- we have a letter in our package we got this morning from the Immokalee CRA, an addition. If I'm not mistaken, this goes back a long way. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir, it does. It wasn't anything deliberately that we did. Unfortunately we inherited a problem that was done by a previous contractor that really truly put us in a very financial hole, if you will, which we've been slowly climbing out. And unfortunately what happened this summer, we were doing -- we're making very good progress. I don't know if you guys have the picture on -- from 10/15/14? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have the pictures. MR. FACUNDO: And so it's all closed in, the interior's done. We have trades working now. But what prolonged the project was the enormous amount of rain that we received during the summer. Which I provided to you a U.S. Climate Data report that shows the, you know, expected rainfall that occurred. In speaking with the contractor, we are asking for another 90-day extension to do the interior. We have trades right now working getting everything done, and we expect to get a C.O. Page 12 October 23, 2014 And I provided a GANTT chart in part of your packet, sir, which says when we think we're going to have a C.O. And you're looking at certificate of occupancy possibly, you know, maybe sooner than that, but I just gave myself some contingency dates, which will be probably in January of 113 (sic) is when we expect to get everything completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I was looking at in August there was a request for a 60-day extension from August 24th. So you thought it would be done then. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir, it was -- yes, sir. So I wanted to update as time went on. That's the reason behind the other time extension I had requested for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know there's somebody on the board who says on a lot of these cases, if we grant you -- and he's sitting to my right -- if we grant you time, that it's very difficult in the future after the time has been granted, to request -- to grant another extension. And I'm looking at this and I don't know when it goes back to. Yeah, 2011, several years ago. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- and I realize that in the summertime here it rains a lot. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But how confident are you that you won't be back before us in 90 days asking for another extension? MR. FACUNDO: You want to address that? MR. PADILLO: A 90-day period will be more than enough to finish the trades that are in the interior of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does that include the inspections? MR. PADILLO: Yes. All inspections, the C.O., everything. Page 13 October 23, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: State your name for the record, please. MR. PADILLO: Manuel Padillo, I'm the GC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: County? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Code Enforcement. The windows, the doors are installed, they're secured. You know, the site is -- when no one's there everything is secured. That's something that we've monitored, the weeds, little, we haven't had any issues with, you know, those issues for it to be a blighted construction site. And most importantly for us, you know, it is a secured structure at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Nobody living on the property now? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions from the board, or motions? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, just another question. Can you help me understand how the interior doesn't seem to be making any progress? That shouldn't be affected by rain, I wouldn't think. MR. FACUNDO: No, sir, the timing -- you're correct, it's dried in. The interior was done a couple months back, but we wanted to do the exterior to secure the exterior so that -- you know, because part of the code enforcement mission is for the welfare, life safety of the public. And so the contractor and I, he thought it was best to just go ahead and secure it. And while that was going on simultaneously he went ahead and did hands-on of the interior. Which we're ready now. We have trades going in probably today or tomorrow to start doing the plumbing, the electrical, the HVAC. And they called in for inspections on those things. So it didn't sit there not unworked. It was progress work Page 14 October 23, 2014 being done during the process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem that no air conditioning being on during this period of the year caused any mold or anything, or do you think you have a hand up on that? MR. FACUNDO: We have a hand up, sir. We -- the outside obviously the contractor can speak to it, it's been sealed secure. We put vapor barrier. Again, from the outside it looks like a finished houses. The interior's already been constructed. As I said, trades are in there now as we speak. Either today or tomorrow, I should say. Which again, you know, time line to do that kind of work I don't think is going to take -- you know, it's not going to take much time to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so 30, 60, January, February. So prior to February you believe this house would be completed? MR. PADILLO: One hundred percent, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: With a CO? MR. PADILLO: With a CO, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board or any motions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion we extend 90 days. And I'm sure after that we won't do any more, so that's probably the final. Because it's going on a long time. But I think 90 days, and you're giving us that 100 percent guarantee. Good luck. MR. LAVINSKI: That's a continuance? MS. ADAMS: An extension of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's an extension of time. MR. ASHTON: Extension of time. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, they're asking for a continuance. MR. FACUNDO: Or a continuance. You know, at this Page 15 October 23, 2014 point -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Fine keeps on running with a continuance. MR. FACUNDO: Yeah, that was my ignorance. I didn't know the difference between extension and continuance, obviously. But listen, I'm at your mercy. I want to get my house done. So, you know, whatever you guys allow me to do -- to have, I'm going to do it and take. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to see a continuance, not an extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. LAVINSKI: Is that your motion? MR. MIESZCAK: No, but I'll change my motion to extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From extension to continuance. MR. MIESZCAK: From extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To continuance. MR. MIESZCAK: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And just before we vote on it, I just want to explain the difference. One of them, the fines would keep on accruing with a continuance. With an extension they wouldn't start until after the 90-day period. However, the board has been very generous in the past when a project of this nature has been completed that -- MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- those fines can be abated. So I'm not saying they will be, but it's a strong possibility. MR. FACUNDO: I hope so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion Page 16 October 23, 2014 and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. FACUNDO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So hopefully by February everything should be done. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Great, thank you. MR. FACUNDO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is CESD20140000219, Tab Six, Fairhomes Silver Linings, LLC. (Mr. Sam Saad, Hunter Felkanor and Investigator Ford were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just so you know, you don't have to raise your hand to be sworn in, since you're an attorney. For some strange reason they believe attorneys tell the truth all the time, so -- MR. SAAD: I think what they mean is that attorneys swear a lot. Thank you all for hearing us today. We're here asking for an extension of time. I was here a couple months ago asking on a stipulation to get the work done to bring this house into compliance. We had engaged a contractor. And we would be done by now, except we had an issue with a tenant who is not Page 17 October 23, 2014 allowing us access. Mr. Felkanor is the property manager. He went over there and worked it out, and they moved the tenant to a different property. And work has commenced. And to date all of the work regarding the shed and the lanai has been complete. The permits were applied for. The work has been complete and the inspections have been done. At this point we have engaged an engineer to do a permit by affidavit. And our goal is once we have this permit by affidavit done, we're going to go to American Engineering for drawings for the remodel, get the required permits, completely remodel the house and apply for the CO. And at this point, based on the contractor's estimates, it's 10 days to two weeks for each engineer, another 10 days for permits, and then approximately three to four weeks for construction. And so we're here today asking for an additional 60 days, which will take us out to December 22nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It will actually take you out to the end of January, because the board doesn't meet in December. County? INVESTIGATOR FORD: For the record, Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Seems like 60 days might be a short period for a remodel. And how busy engineers I'm sure are now CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's actually 90 days because there's no meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right. So I make a motion to continue for 90 days. Page 18 October 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. SAAD: Continue or for an extension of time? MR. LEFEBVRE: Continue. MR. SAAD: So the fines are going to continue? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. SAAD: We're being told by our contractor that he'll be done within 60 days and so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I mean, as you saw cases before, there's been issues with different items, so we'll give you a little bit more time, a little leeway there. MR. SAAD: Okay. At this point we've been working with this contractor trying to get everything done, so we'll take what we can get. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My only question is have the operational costs been paid? MS. ADAMS: They have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was my question. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Mr. Alford (sic). All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. Page 19 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case is CESD20130008321, Tab 7, Antonio Louissaint. (Ms. Jesula Francois, Antonio Louissant and Investigator Rodriguez were duly sworn.) (Jesula Francois was duly sworn as interpreter.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you both state your name on the microphone for the record. MS. FRANCOIS: Jesula Francois. MR. LOUISSAINT: Tonio Louissaint. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have your letter requesting an extension. This was an unpermitted addition that was being used as living space, three fixture bathroom, et cetera. Is anybody living in that space now? MS. FRANCOIS: No, at this time no one living in it. It been closed for at least like seven months since the guy had came and closed the electricity on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. In reviewing the case I looked, it said 180 days was given. Six months was given on this one which ran out September 23rd. During that period of time what was done? MS. FRANCOIS: I got the permit done and I had to pay the blueprint. And I had the receipt, I paid 3,000 -- over $3,700 for it. And I showed the lady at the county what I had paid for it. And I told her that I wouldn't have the $1,500 to go pay the permit at the county fee, because they charged me another 1,500, which I didn't think it was going to be that much, I thought it was going to be like four, 500. But it was 1,500, which I don't have it tonight. Page 20 October 23, 2014 Because I got to put two checks together to get the 1,500. Because he only get like Social Security check. I got to put the October check together and the November check, and we get one check on the 1st. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What we see sometimes is people have enough money to put an extension in on the house but not enough money to pay for the permits. It's like the horse and the cart, which comes first. But be that what it is, from the county? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez. They did apply for the permit and it is in ready status. It is a permit by affidavit, so as soon as she can pay for the $1,500 that is owed, the fees that are owed, she just has to call in the inspections and it should be finished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're requesting? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 90 days. Comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: You said -- MR. MIESZCAK: We still have an operational cost? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, 64.04, was that paid? MS. FRANCOIS: It's going to be paid today. I have the money order. She did tell me I have to make sure I pay. I have the money order right here. As soon as I get out of here, I have to go pay the 64.04 to the county, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because generally if that's not paid it's unlikely that the board would grant any extension of time or continuance. So that's going to be paid today? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Page 21 October 23, 2014 MS. FRANCOIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next question? MR. ASHTON: You said you have to get November's check and you'll have the money for the 1,500? MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah, I'm going to put the October check together and the November check. Because he gets 760, then that will be like 1,500. And I'll pay the thing at the county, the 1,500 at the county. MR. ASHTON: And you're saying that they're ready for inspec-- as soon as they get the permit they can be inspected? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: As soon as they get the permit. It's permit by affidavit so they just have to call in the final and they'll go in, inspect it, make sure everything meets whatever the architect put on the plans, and then they should be good to go. MR. LAVINSKI: So this is basically a done deal just waiting for the permitting process? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: For her to pay for the fees, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So would anybody from the board like to make a motion either for a continuance or an extension of time or denial? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that we continue this for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 22 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. What we've done is given you 90 days to continue this. So the fines would continue to accrue until this is all resolved, which I think meets your needs for now. MS. FRANCOIS: Thank you very much, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: We have one other change to the agenda. We have a letter -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry, you're only permitted two to -- go ahead. MS. ADAMS: Sony. Letter B, Stipulations, Number One, Tab Eight, Case CESD201240009530, Wayne Mansueto. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a stip now? MS. ADAMS: Stipulation, yes. (Mr. Mansueto and Investigator Lopez-Silvero were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the change to the agenda. Let's do our housekeeping first. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the change. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 23 October 23, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And then we are hearing this particular case, CESD20140009530 now. Okay. Everybody's been sworn in and we're up to date. Okay. Why don't you read us the stipulation and we'll take comments after this from the respondent. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request 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. Do you have any comments on this stipulation? Page 24 October 23, 2014 MR. MANSUETO: Hopefully at 11 :00 today I'll know whether I get the permit to take care of this problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So in all likelihood it won't take four months to get the permit -- MR. MANSUETO: I got a meeting with the guy today at 11 :00 to determine whether they're going to issue me the permits that I've been trying to obtain. So I'll know at 11 :00 today whether I'm going to be able to get these permits and then go on forth from -- you know, for the inspections and stuff that are required. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if you're not granted the -- MR. MANSUETO: Then I pull the trailer out and I'm homeless. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MANSUETO: Simple as that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All right. Any comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: Do you think you'll have a problem getting the permits? MR. MANSUETO: Well, they're telling me -- I got all this paperwork and stuff here for them today. And they're telling me that because it was a travel trailer, even though it's 12 foot wide, after they told me I could put this trailer in there, now they're telling me that they can't. So that's what the meeting's about today, to determine whether they're going to okay it and permit it or not. That's not on me, it's in the permitting department. So they're going to determine whether I'm homeless or not today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are there different specifications from a travel trailer and a normal -- Page 25 October 23, 2014 MR. MANSUETO: That's what I don't understand. See, I contacted them -- this is a 12-foot wide trailer. Therefore it's not -- but the title says travel trailer on it, which I've got here. And they told me because it's 12 foot wide and it was a park model, which I had to have a police escort to bring it home, you know, you don't travel up and down the road with it. But that's where the discrepancy is coming in. They told me I could do this and get the permits and then after the fact now they're telling me I can't. So I have a meeting -- I've been through five different people already. I have a meeting today at 11 :00. Steven, do you remember what his name was? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Mr. John Walsh, the County -- MR. MANSUETO: Mr. John Walsh. To find if they're going to let me put it in there. And that's what all this paperwork's about. MR. LAVINSKI: So it doesn't make sense to approve the stipulation if by this afternoon it may not apply. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, you've got to deal with now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, because the other part of the stipulations is it will have to be removed. MR. MANSUETO: Well, that's not a problem. I can pull it right out of there. I'm hoping I don't. MR. LEFEBVRE: But this might give you time too that -- is this an older model? I'm just asking -- MR. MANSUETO: I can look at the title and see what year it is. MR. LEFEBVRE: Probably more detail than what I'm trying to get into. But what I'm trying to get at is if it's possible to get in touch with the manufacturer -- MR. MANSUETO: '81 . Page 26 October 23, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: '81, okay. I was going to say, get in touch with the manufacturer to see if they have specifications for that to see if the county would approve those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it also would give you enough time to fight the battle, should you need to get somebody else involved to go to -- who are you going to see to get the okay? MR. MANSUETO: What was it, John? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Mr. john Walsh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And he is? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: The building official, county building official. MR. LEFEBVRE: It may give you time to put another -- MR. MANSUETO: No, I can't afford to, though. So if they tell me no, I'm homeless. It comes out, I'm homeless. That's exactly what it boils down to. I've been there 20 years and now I won't have a place to live because they told me I could do what I did. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you get that in writing? MR. MANSUETO: Yeah, that's the problem, did it over the phone. MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion to approve the stipulation. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 27 October 23, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Good luck today. MS. ADAMS: Next case is Number Two, Tab Nine, Case CELU20140008250, Jerilyn Neuhaus. (John Rogers, Jerilyn Neuhaus and Investigator Clark were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Good morning. For the record, Michael Clark, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michael, one second. Could you state your name on the mic so we can continue. MS. NEUHAUS: Jeri Neuhaus. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can pull that down or -- MR. ROGERS: This is Jeri Neuhaus beside me and I'm John Rogers. We're partners. The citation's in her name, but I became involved once I found out we were getting cited. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Michael? INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Okay. This case is in reference to CELU20140008250, dealing with the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 .04.01(A), Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03, recreational vehicle stored in a location not approved for such use. Located at 365 Capri Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 52501800003. Service was given on June 11th, 2014. Proof of service Page 28 October 23, 2014 signed NOV by Jerilyn Neuhaus. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are those all the exhibits? INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve county's exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold up. Have you seen the -- MR. ROGERS: Photographs? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: Yes, we have. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve all the exhibits. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: What we have here is this was a complaint that came in about the recreational vehicles being stored at the property. Did a site visit. I spoke with Ms. Neuhaus about the Page 29 October 23, 2014 reported violation. She respectfully disagreed about this being a violation, so subsequent inspections were made and today the violations still remain. This property is a C-3 zoning which does not allow for outside storage of anything. And basically what they're -- the only storage that's allowed, outside storage, is C-5. And basically that's where we are at an impasse at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Where is this located? INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Isles of Capri. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's in the Isles of Capri. Is it in part of an HOA or -- INVESTIGATOR CLARK: No, basically it's a C-3 zoning within a residential district. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see that a motion for continuance was granted in September. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Yes. Actually, she was going to be out of town. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Your turn. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, and thank you. And thank you, Michael. This has been interesting and respectful. We've had a good time with this and I hope you find it interesting here in just a minute. This really all started in April when Michael first came out to the property. And I think it's important that you know a little bit of the history to see why we respectfully disagree. The real estate office has been there and been in business in since 1979. We've also had the neighboring business since 1975. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you just go back a second. You said the real estate business has been there -- Page 30 October 23, 2014 MR. ROGERS: Since 1979. MR. KAUFMAN: In other words, the boat on the trailer is parked in the parking lot of-- MR. ROGERS: I'm sorry, yes, sir. The business that is there -- and I have photographs which I'll enter now, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You might as well do that also. Have you seen those? INVESTIGATOR CLARK: I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to accept the respondent's photographs. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. ROGERS: The first one, and thank you, we've been dealing with this since April, so we just think everybody knows where we are in this process. But that's the real estate office in the top center of the picture there. The trailers that are at issue are not visible in this photograph, but if you see the trees just to the right of the building, there are actually a few trailers underneath that. The next picture will show -- that's 2014, by the way. Page 31 October 23, 2014 This is 2002, which you can see it on the bottom of the page, if you need to. You can clearly see where the trailers were stored in 2002. The trees have just grown up since that time. What I was saying before is we've been in busi-- the business has been there since 1979. Next door we have another business that's been there since 1975. We have never been cited or been in front of a Code Enforcement Board or Code Enforcement Magistrate. I only say that so that you understand we are good corporate citizens, we're good stewards of the Isles of Capri and we care very deeply about the Isles of Capri. When this issue first came up in April and Michael came down, Ms. Neuhaus was involved, and we have previously submitted 15 copies for the record of the numerous emails that went back and forth between April and the date we were cited. And it started off with you have a trailer property -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The emails went back and forth between? MR. ROGERS: Michael and Ms. Neuhaus. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, gotcha. MR. ROGERS: And I believe you all have copies. You don't have to read it all. I'm sworn, I promise I'll give you an honest synopsis and we can go to it if we need to. It started off with you have some trailers there and we don't think it's appropriate. And Ms. Neuhaus responds, no, we've been doing this forever and it's okay and we've talked about it with the county. Then it turned into well, I think you need to screen it; the county suggesting that we need to put up a seven-foot fence. Ms. Neuhaus informed me of that; we agreed, we said absolutely, no problem. The split rail fence which you saw in the county's photograph is getting old anyway. Page 32 October 23, 2014 So we went back and forth for more than a month over the location of the fence, the height of the fence, submitted a drawing to the county to do the fence. Once we submitted the drawing, the next email was we're coming down and citing you. So the idea of the fence just died on the vine, even though we were fully prepared to do it. I think it died on the vine because of some confusion, which is evident in the emails you have. We've cleared that up as we stand here today. But I do want to point it out for you because I want the record to be clear. It is obvious in the emails that there was a misunderstanding about these trailers. Because at one point it talks about well, if you're renting them you need to get a business tax receipt and you're not allowed to display them for rental purposes. I want to be absolutely clear, we don't rent trailer space, we don't collect money for the trailers being stored on the property, and the trailers are not permanently stored on the property. Let me explain to you what we do and have done for almost 25 years now, and show you why we believe it's allowed under the current code. We were at -- now it's down to approximately 60 properties, houses on the island. And if you're familiar with Isles of Capri -- and condos, houses and condos. As you know, very small lots, and trailers are not allowed in the driveway, in the side yard, you've got to get it to the backyard and in a great many of these it's not even possible. Trailers aren't allowed in any of the condominium areas. So for our -- not tenants, but for our property owners we have, when they have the condition that a tenant comes in whether it's for a day, a week, a month, for season or annually, we have stored between one and Page 33 October 23, 2014 seven trailers in the back of the property under the trees that you saw there on a rotating basis. They're all fully licensed, they're not dilapidated, they don't have flat tires. And we have put them there during the tenants' residency of a property that we manage. Now clearly we all know that the real estate license -- and by the way, the real estate office is fully licensed, it's allowed to be there pursuant to your code. What comes up here is whether or not we're allowed as an accessory use or an incidental use to have the trailer storage. When Michael cited us -- and first let me point out how confusing it was still. The issue of the -- the issue of that we're renting or displaying trailers finally dies out. They realize that we're not in that business, because we're not. The issue of the fencing dies out. But we're going to be cited -- they come down on June 4th and cite us under the residential section. So we're cited on June 4th that you can't store it in a residential area. We have a very nice discussion about it. Michael agrees, that doesn't apply, and that citation goes away. A week later we're cited -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You probably want to state for the record that it's commercially zoned. MR. ROGERS: It's commercially zoned, exactly. C-3 zoning. And I think their big argument's going to be you can only store and display in C-5 which we don't think that's what we're doing. Anyway, he cites us with the current citation on June the 11th. We have many, many discussions in the ensuing months and we've agreed to disagree and bring it to you. We believe, and it's kind of interesting, that if you go to the citation and you go to the code section that they cite us under, and you go to B-1, accessory uses, the first one clearly states: Uses Page 34 October 23, 2014 and structures that are accessory and incidental to the uses permitted as of right in the C-3 district. Here's what's really interesting about this. There are three accessory uses under B. One, two, and three. We're arguing under number one. If you look at number two, it refers you to a specific code section. If you look at number three, it refers you to a specific code section. But under number one, it's just this blanket uses that are accessory and incidental to what's permitted there. Well, we're permitted to be in real estate pursuant to the code section. And when you go to the real estate section, as it's defined in here, it tells that you that you are in sales, management, rental, you know, all the things you would associate with real estate and the things that have been going on in this building since 1979. Well, since it doesn't refer us to another section, where do you go to fully understand uses that are accessory and incidental to? Only place I could go was to Black's Law Dictionary to try to find the definition of accessory to and incidental to. To us it's pretty clear that aiding or contributing in a secondary way or assisting in or contributing to is pretty clear. That contributing to our ability to rent the properties that we manage and to temporarily house licensed trailers on our property where they can't do it is accessory and incidental to the real estate management business which we're in and have been in for almost 30 years at the property. There is no other code section that it sends you to. So basically, lady and gentlemen, it sort of comes down to you guys. We're doing something that we really can do. Should we put up a fence and make it a little neater? We'd be happy to. But we don't believe we're in violation of the code section. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a question -- go Page 35 October 23, 2014 ahead, Mike, you had something to say. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Well, again, as he referred to, he has a law dictionary. That's not his only dictionary, okay. You couldn't use a law dictionary to define a medical term either. So, you know, I mean, I respect his legal research, and this is why we have some profound differences. And as prior to the start of this hearing, I did provide him a copy of the code section of what -- from our county code, Collier County's code, not Black's Law, that basically that states clearly, and it's highlighted, and I allowed him to read the section that states that this district is intended to permit wholesaling type of uses and land uses that are associated with them the need for outdoor storage and equipment and merchandise. It's prohibited. Only in C-5. I have a copy of C-3, C-4 as well as C-5. I did allow him to read all three sections, so basically he is aware. Again, that's a law dictionary; that is not a zoning dictionary. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question, and maybe I shouldn't even ask it, but I will anyhow. This whole complaint started with somebody, is it a neighbor that complained or -- INVESTIGATOR CLARK: It is a resident that I think that lives part-time on the island. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they live near the property or they drive by the property? INVESTIGATOR CLARK: He's the property owner and I think his residence is out of state. But I know he's there a portion of the year. I don't know how long. MR. ROGERS: I can answer, Mr. Chairman, if you want to know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, please. Page 36 October 23, 2014 MR. ROGERS: It's quite interesting. He is part-time. He actually lives just around the corner from me. He was cited because he had a trailer, and he got very upset and he drove the entire island, and I think Michael knows this. He drove the entire island, wrote them all down and handed it in as a blanket complaint. And took pictures with it. Because he was upset one day that something had happened on his property. His only complaint we've ever received. And he was disgruntled because he was cited. It's that old let me throw this back at you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So then a fence that would obscure the sight of it is not -- that wouldn't particularly make the person happy. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kitchell? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: Gentlemen -- Ladies and Gentlemen, this is strictly -- when you're talking about outside storage, it's only allowed in C-5 and industrial. That's all. It's never allowed, it's Conditional Use, period. I would like to ask the respondent just a couple questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Just -- MR. ROGERS: Sure, go ahead. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Do you own any of those boats, recreational vehicles? MR. ROGERS: Do I what? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Do you personally own any of those boats? MR. ROGERS: No, sir. Page 37 October 23, 2014 SUPERVISOR SNOW: So they're owned by someone else and they're stored on your property. MR. ROGERS: They're stored there for people who are renting, yes. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: And if I may, just to finish the last thing, we are not filing a code enforcement complaint. We've made this clear to Michael. But I want to show you the last two photos that I have to just bolster our argument as to what's been going on on the Isles of Capri. This building, the yellow is our real estate office. The large building you see right here is an indoor boat storage, you know, lifts and whatnot. That's what they rent. They aren't space inside their building. If you look across the street to that piece of property which is C-3 and owned by the people who own the large building there, you can see all the trailers stored, incidental to and accessory to the people for whom they're renting the boat slips right in the building. And we're just around the corner from that. And the other picture was just a blow-up in case you couldn't see for sure that in fact trailers were stored there just as they are on our property, and that's also C-3. With regard to Michael's point I have read, he is correct, the C-3, the C-4 and the C-5 section. But what we were cited under specifically, the section that they have and the citation and the C-3 zoning specifically allows under B-1 uses that are accessory and incidental to uses that are legally permitted. And real estate office, sales management and rentals, is legally permitted. So the question is, are we -- is this incidental to our staying in business? And we put it in front of you is we agreed when we talked outside, we just have to bring the discussion to you folks Page 38 October 23, 2014 and lay it out there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, would you like to comment on this a little bit? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I just think what he's suggesting, that storage is somehow integrally related to real estate, it would throw our system out of whack. It would set a bad precedent. I don't think that -- you know, while I sympathize with his situation, it's always -- it's possible that there's other violations of this nature in the area, but ultimately I think it would set a bad president to say storage is allowed in this zoning district, because it's not. And that's our position. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: In addition to that, it's not incidental use because it's a real estate office for office. If ti -- it's not the same as -- something incident would be like I stated to him earlier, would be a gas station with a carwash. Either a carwash on the side, hand wash, carwash, or an automatic carwash. That's incidental. Or a restaurant that basically that sells beer and wine. But you would have to sit down. You couldn't go to Pizza Hut and order a beverage, alcohol beverage and leave. You would have to be dining in. Those are incidental uses. And so to his points, that again, you know, I profoundly disagree. MR. ROGERS: I think if you read the C-5 code section that they're referring to for storage, it talks about the selling and retailing and displaying and storage of things outside of your property, clearly like a Home Depot or a U-Haul or place like that. It's talking about if you're going to merchandise this stuff and store it on your property and sell it, you have to be in C-5. And I think this is different. Ms. Neuhaus had something to add. MS. NEUHAUS: I'd like to clarify why this is incidental. Page 39 October 23, 2014 We have people who want to rent a home from us, including the gentleman who -- we've stored trailers for the gentleman who filed a complaint when we had a renter for him. And we've had people cancel or not keep their reservations because they couldn't bring their boat or trailer, because we didn't have any room. I can only do -- I've always adhered to what Diane Flagg, the former head of Code Enforcement, told me seven years ago, which is as long as it's behind the footprint of your building, so I can make everybody behind that -- so I can fit about six or seven trailers back there. But I've had people cancel bookings and reservations because they had no place to put their trailer. That's incidental to my business. We're a boating and fishing community and the bulk of my renters who rent seasonally and who rent annually are boaters. If they can't have a trailer in the community somewhere, then it does affect my business. I'm not leasing them space, I'm not leasing a trailer, I'm just providing them with a space to store it. And I'm happy to conceal it. I've offered to conceal it, I have a plan to conceal it, I just didn't move forward with permitting because I thought it was going to be a waste of time if I was going to be cited. I could definitely conceal it. I could put a seven-foot wall around it, I could put a tarp over it, if that means it's enclosed and it wouldn't be outdoor. I'm willing to do that. But it is very incidental to my business and will impact it. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's almost like saying I own a real estate business, I have a building and I want to run a moving company or have a U-Haul truck, rent U-Haul trucks. It's almost the similar thing. I mean, you could associate real estate with a lot of different things, but I just don't see how this is incidental to your Page 40 October 23, 2014 business. And usually, like Michael has stated, that something incidental is usually when it refers to the business that's there. And I understand you have a business there, but I just don't see the connection between the storing of trailers and having a real estate office. I just don't see it. MR. MIESZCAK: Can I ask one thing about definition of storage? Are we talking about a week, a day, a month? Is that part of the issue? MR. ROGERS: To us it is, because we really think they're just parked there temporarily. It turns over very regularly. In fact, the two pictures Michael brought in, you can see that they're different from his earlier photos. You can see that they're different trailers, different boats in there at the time. It could turn over every week. MR. MIESZCAK: What's the longest? MR. ROGERS: Oh, well, there is a seasonal. You could have a seasonal tenant in there, or you could have an annual tenant. But most of those you try to push away because they take up the space. But we have had an annual tenant store there. We can change that, but we have had that. Because people rent -- you know, there's just no storage down there. MR. LAVINSKI: I would kind of agree with Mr. Lefebvre that I think it's a stretch of my imagination to relate how storing a boat trailer could be related to my rental business. And putting a seven-foot fence around a code violation doesn't make the violation go away. So I don't think that's any kind of an answer to this. I just think as the investigator said, it's a violation of C-3, period. MR. ROGERS: Just to clarify, they asked us to put the Page 41 October 23, 2014 fence initially, if you read the email. We didn't come up with that idea. The county said please fence it so we said sure. I just wanted you to not think we were trying to mask anything. We were trying to comply with what we were asked to do by the county in April. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: To respond to what he just stated, basically Ms. Neuhaus and I spoke about that, and she did refer that Diane Flagg, the previous code enforcement director, did state it. So for consistency purposes and respecting the experience of the former department head, I said, well if that's allowed then you talk to planning and they allow it, then that's fine. But that turned out not to be the case. So basically that argument as well is negated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily, my thought on this, if there was a complaint from a neighbor that, you know, it's unsightly to me, I don't want to see trailers parked there, that's one thing. This is a completely -- someone who doesn't see it, it's a violation of that particular code. Jeff, you want to testify? Swear him in. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. There's a reason that the county implemented more than one commercial district, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, et cetera. They were trying to separate the uses of certain commercial districts. And it was purposely left out of C-1 through C-4 that outside storage of anything was not allowed. Because it was, you know, probably next to a residential area, closer to where people were living. C-5 was specifically made so you could have outside Page 42 October 23, 2014 storage. I mean, it's bottom line right there. I agree with the Director, it would set a bad precedent if we allowed any kind of storage other than C-5 or above. That's all I have to say. MR. LEFEBVRE: But they would be allowed to build a building and store it within a building. Like what's the boat storage across the street, what zoning is that; do you know? MR. ROGERS: C-3. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure, to be honest with you. You would be allowed to have storage inside a structure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Great, okay. MR. ROGERS: We have only C-3 -- we have only the commercial island, you know, on Capri. That's all C-3. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's C-3. So where that inside boat storage is C-3 also? MR. ROGERS: The large one, yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So they could build a structure and store the trailers within the structure. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. And I want to point out, the seven-foot fence does come also from C-5. That's a -- if you have an unimproved C-5 lot, you could do storage there, as long as you had an opaque seven-foot fence around the property. I think that's probably where I'm thinking where Ms. Flagg probably came up with that idea in the beginning. But I don't see any remedy for a C-3, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're saying that your comment, Gerald, is that if they built the building you could put the trailers inside. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what my -- I mean, if it's allowed within that C-3 use, yes, that's what I would -- Page 43 October 23, 2014 INVESTIGATOR CLARK: And that would be a determination that zoning department will make that determination. And if they allow it, then that's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's like building, if you will, a detached garage, is that -- INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Right. Because then at that point it would be an accessory, like a house and a shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you could build one of those without any electricity, without any plumbing. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Well, again, it depends on, you know, if they meet the setback requirements and the zoning requirement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: If they meet that, then that should be fine. But if not, then no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) MR. ASHTON: I think it's a C-3 and it's not allowed, and that's how I feel. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree. MR. ROGERS: Could I ask one thing that we tried to get clarification on earlier? And Jeff didn't know the answer, and maybe Mr. Wright knows the answer. In the same -- and I'm just bringing this up before you vote, because as I said at the beginning, I think Michael will agree, we've never been argumentative, we're trying to be good neighbors, we're trying to work this out and stay in business. But in the same zoning in -- in your zoning under C-3, number 92 reads: Any use which was permissible under the prior general retail commercial, GRC zoning, as identified in the Page 44 October 23, 2014 ordinance adopted October 8th, 1974, and which was lawfully existing prior to the adoption of this code. I'm assuming this code means the current code, not this '74 code. The reason I bring this up is since we have been there since '75, we may have -- I didn't have time to do the -- find out when this code was adopted, but it may -- there may be an opening for us. What I'm saying to you -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You mean is it grandfathered. MR. ROGERS: -- we may be grandfathered, and we haven't had time to do that research. And Jeff didn't know when this code was officially adopted. If we're going to lose, I would request maybe you would consider just knocking it down, continuing us, we'll do this research. If we're wrong we'll come back, we'll say we're wrong, we'll move the trailers, we'll pay our operating cost and shake hands and go away. But I think we may have something under this section as well, which just came up this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, who is the -- he's testified before us in the past, our local zoning czar, if you will? MR. WRIGHT: Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ray. Is it possible to -- he probably knows the history -- to get an answer on the respondent's question? MR. WRIGHT: Specifically to that subsection 92? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Yeah, I'd be happy to look into that with Ray and with the respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're to the point, since we're hearing this, that we either find the respondent is in violation or they're not in violation. But in this particular case I would like to see a way of getting that answered before we go Page 45 October 23, 2014 forward with finding them in violation or not. Because they may, if it's grandfathered, not be in violation, I don't know. None of us here seem to know that. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Has there been any -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wait, there's an old person next to you who may know. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Sorry, another old person. I'm sorry, I already swore in. Kitchell Snow, for the record. Sir, I did some research just before I came up, and I overheard that question. And although the business may have been in there since 19, 20 years, I looked on the aerials, there's no evidence of outside storage from the mid Eighties on. So I think it probably would be relevant to get Mr. Bellows' opinion on if it is some grandfather use. But it's certainly not before 1985 any storage, and there's nothing would indicate there is a boat (sic), I don't know. But the aerials aren't indicating anything on the property other than the structure used for the real estate business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: I would just add that I think that we've proven our case. He has raised a suggestion that a certain zoning code might apply to grandfather them. I don't think that that suggestion is sufficient as a defense to the case that we've brought to you. However, I'm more than willing, starting right now, to work with them, get in touch with Ray Bellows, come up with a reasonable solution. I'm not sure that this area was ever in the general retail commercial zoning district; I just don't know offhand. MR. ROGERS: And that's all I'm saying is we don't -- and if the answer is no, as I said, we will -- Michael and I will shake hands and go away. Page 46 October 23, 2014 MR. WRIGHT: That's the thing that jumps out to me is that GRC zoning, general retail commercial, seems like an odd zoning designation for this area, especially going back 30, 40 years. But I would be happy to work with him. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing that I have it let's say the office was not a conforming use. Then I could see you can go and find out if the code back in '75 was conforming or not. But this is an accessory use, so they would have to prove that that use was on the property or they were using it as that use back in '75. So how are you going to prove that? MR. WRIGHT: I think that really what I would look at, probably focus on with Ray Bellows, is first of all has this area ever been under the GRC zoning category, first of all. And if so, it might be that there's a permitted use for boat storage in that zoning code. If that's the case, they have a defense. But at this -- MR. ROGERS: And my point was I don't know either. But if we lose and we are correct on that, even if it's a two percent chance, that really seems like we've got to unwind all of this. That's all I was saying. Before we lose and if we do lose, we'll be the best losers you've ever seen. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at is you have to prove that you had that use -- MR. ROGERS: Sure, I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- on that property -- MR. ROGERS: Photographs, affidavit, whatever. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- back in '75. MR. ROGERS: Fully understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation does exist. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second a violation does exist. Page 47 October 23, 2014 I have a question for Jeff on the process. You're going to work off-line to see how this falls, which will make the respondent happy one way or the other. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Should we find a violation exists, and we have a motion before us to that effect, going forward if you find out something that is contrary to that, you will bring that back and we can -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Vacate the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- vacate the order. MR. WRIGHT: We will rescind the order and they'll be, you know, scot-free. MR. ROGERS: Fair enough. MR. WRIGHT: My first question to Ray is going to be has this area ever been in the GRC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. WRIGHT: And that may be answered with one email. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second before us. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you're going to work off-line; hopefully we make everybody happy. Thank you, Michael. Page 48 October 23, 2014 INVESTIGATOR CLARK: Thank you. Okay, the recommendation. The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $62.49 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, must cease and remove all unauthorized storage of vehicles and equipment from the property to a designated area for such use within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Excuse me, they're not done yet. MR. ROGERS: Sony. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Turn the elevators off. MR. ROGERS: Sony. We apologize. MR. LEFEBVRE: You don't get off that easy. MR. ROGERS: We started working off-line already. See how cooperative we are? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No hiding. MR. ROGERS: Apologize. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we got up to 62.49 paid within 30 days. You want to read back, since they were out of the room? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's just repeat it from start. Because they stepped out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, no problem. This is the recommendation from Collier County. MR. ROGERS: Sure. INVESTIGATOR CLARK: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the Page 49 October 23, 2014 amount of$62.49 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One: Must cease and remove all unauthorized storage of vehicles and equipment from the property to a designated area for such use within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when a violation has been abated in order to conduct the 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 provision of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a couple of quick comments. As far as the amount of time given the respondents -- I do that for a motion from the board -- hopefully we should provide enough time in case those trailers need to be moved from the property, that they're given ample time to make other arrangements. That's comment number one. And -- actually that is my only comment. Anybody like to make a motion from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The operational cost of$62.49 be paid within 30 days of this hearing; 270 days of this hearing or a fine of$150 per day. And the reason for 270 days is if in fact it is not -- ifs going to take some time for you to figure out if it's allowed or not, if it is not allowed. And the other option may be to possibly build a Page 50 October 23, 2014 structure, if that's possible, I'll give you that time to look into -- MR. ROGERS: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- investigating that to do that. So that's why I would recommend 270 days. MR. ROGERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a second? MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Lisa. MR. LAVINSKI: Just a comment? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: As far as the number of days, I wonder if it might make sense to, if the motion maker would agree, to let these trailers be there until the particular rental lease that applies to that trailer ends. In the meantime, no additional trailers to go on that property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, a couple things on the 270 days. What I'm thinking is that will take them through season, which is probably the larger bulk of your business is during season. MR. ROGERS: That's correct. That's how we interpreted it. And we prefer the 270, if possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: It would get you through season, so it wouldn't inconvenience any people. And to try to figure out, well, this boat is for this property and this lease and to try to police that would be next to impossible. MR. ROGERS: And we're typically empty in the summer months, so we just won't take anymore. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't want to micromanage to that degree, because I think that would be too much to ask of the investigator. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, if there's only six there, I don't think it's that big a deal. But I think it's important to stop doing it Page 51 October 23, 2014 today. MR. LEFEBVRE: No further -- MR. LAVINSKI: Right, no further trailers stored. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would agree to amend my motion to state that no additional or new trailers may be stored on the property. Would that be hard to police, I mean, go down and figure out which ones are registered? INVESTIGATOR CLARK: No, absolutely not. I mean, I have my current photos, so obviously if the area looks different I'll know, because I'm usually out there a lot anyway. MR. LAVINSKI: You know, if these are registered trailers, they should have a serial number somewhere, so -- MR. ROGERS: They all are tagged, yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. You could easily track that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me go to the second of the motion, if you agree to the changes that Mr. Lefebvre just made. MS. BUSHNELL: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So now we have a motion and a second. MR. ROGERS: May we make one comment? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let us vote on it and then your comments. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 52 October 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. One comment from me on this is hopefully Jeff will be able to get you an answer probably within a few days, and that may resolve the whole issue one way or the other. Your comment now. MR. ROGERS: I'll leave it alone. I'm sorry, sir, you were -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What I would going to say is hopefully you can get an answer in the next few days and then if you need to build something you can start working towards that avenue. Because if it's -- if it has to be related to your business then you may want to make that investment to have it instead of moving your office and so forth. MR. ROGERS: Oh, no. MS. NEUHAUS: No, that's the best location on the island. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right there tells me that it might be worth looking into some kind of structure for storing these, if that's the route you have to go. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you very much. MS. NEUHAUS: Can we really leave now? MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not going to come after you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want a break? How are your fingers? MR. LAVINSKI: Maybe we can do one more or so, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're in the middle, right? Why don't we take a five-minute break or eight-minute break, whatever, and we'll be back here at 10:30. How's that? (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Page 53 October 23, 2014 Enforcement Board back to session. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number three from hearings, tab 10, Case CELU20140012712, Pedro Baigorria. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the respondent here? No, okay. (Investigator Davidson was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20140012712, dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03, selling vehicles which are unlicensed and not registered to any resident at the property. Located at 2197 45th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 35742520004. Service was given on July 8, 2014. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photos taken on June 25th, 2014. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 54 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: On June 25th, 2014, I observed unlicensed vehicles on the property for sale. The vehicles that did have tags were researched and found not to be valid. Some vehicles have been removed, but as of today violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the vehicles that are in the picture, those three that we saw and then two, those are the vehicles? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: They have been removed. There are new -- one of them has been removed and then more have shown up throughout the day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They multiply. INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this was from a complaint from -- INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a neighbor. INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: It just has a complainant's name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this in a residential area? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Yes, in Golden Gate City. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And have you had the opportunity to speak with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: We have spoken with the respondent, and he did -- that's why he submitted the request for continuance, because he went out of the country. But we have spoken to him many times and this isn't the first time I've been at his property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 55 October 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: This started in June. His ticket going out of the country is dated October the 14th, 2014. So he knew this was coming. He didn't fly out of town until a week ago, knowing that all this was on the agenda. Make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation for us? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: 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 abate all violations by: One: Must cease the prohibited use of displaying unlicensed vehicles for sale from a residentially zoned property within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the Page 56 October 23, 2014 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. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to take a shot at the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll take a shot at it. I make a motion that the 65.01 in administrative costs be paid within 30 days. And I know our guidelines say three (sic) days, but I'd like to make a motion that the vehicles be removed in 15 days or a fine of$100 a day be implemented. MR. LEFEBVRE: When does the respondent return? MR. LAVINSKI: According to this ticket, 11/6. MR. LEFEBVRE: 11/6, and today's the 23rd. It's -- he's going to have a day from when he gets back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give a suggestion on 30 days. 30 and 30? MR. LAVINSKI: I change my motion to 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second that motion. MR. MIESZCAK: I don't agree, but okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to say something? MR. MIESZCAK: I mean, why give him all this time? I mean, that's a ticket. How do you know he left? I mean, who knows what he's doing? He's been notified he was wrong and then he goes and buys a ticket and leaves. You're being awful nice to him, I think. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion before Page 57 October 23, 2014 us and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One opposed. Rest of the board is an aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Always a good cop, bad cop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, and I don't disagree with you, by the way. It's just practicality. I don't want to have somebody say you didn't give me enough time and appeal it based on that. This is plenty of time. MS. ADAMS: Next case is Number Five, Case CEVR20140015399, Tab 12, GCP Investments, LLC. (Investigator Davidson was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you keeping the respondents away from us, is that -- INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20140015399 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Chapter 4, Section 4.06.01(D)(1), overgrown hedges in the right-of-way blocking view of traffic. Located at 2343 41st Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 35643360004. Page 58 October 23, 2014 Service was given on August 7th, 2014. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photos taken on August 7th, 2014, and one aerial photo of the property. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept photos. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: On August 7th, observed overgrown hedges in the right-of-way, blocking view of traffic. There has been no contact with the property owners and as of today the violation remains. That's the hedges. MR. LEFEBVRE: That large amount of bushes, hedges, trees in the back, is that acceptable? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the overhang over the road. I guess that's the -- INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Correct, that's the overhang over the road. The tree is back far enough. It is the hedges that are overgrown in the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that that needs to be 14 feet above the roadway. I think -- Page 59 October 23, 2014 INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: According to the ordinance, the visibility level, it cannot be between 30 inches and eight feet. It has to be below 30 inches or above eight feet. And that's the corner of the intersection. MR. LEFEBVRE: As you can see, the other side there's nothing there. INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Correct. MR. LAVINSKI: So we're basically talking about those three ficus hedges there, approximately three? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Approximately. They've started to grow into each other. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've been unable to contact the respondent? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Posted it at the courthouse and INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Certified mail. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about at the house itself? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nobody home? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: There is nobody living there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, do the people live out of town? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: It's owned by an investment company. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The address is Raven Way of the investment company. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to make a motion? Page 60 October 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And Colleen, you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$66.27 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One: Maintain vegetation located within the sight distance triangle to the specifications outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 4.06.01(D)(1) within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement Page 61 October 23, 2014 shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion that the 66.27 be paid in 30 days. Where this is a right-of-way violation and potential safety issue, that it be corrected within three days or a fine of $200 a day be imposed. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Colleen. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number 11, Tab 18, Case CESD20140018277, Black River Rock, LLC. (Investigator Crowley was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Michaelle. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement, Environmental Specialist. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140018277 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 3.05.01(B), Page 62 October 23, 2014 the clearing of vegetation from an undeveloped 1.3-acre parcel without required building permit or vegetation clearing permit, and the dumping of 55 loads of fill dirt and/or rock to partially grade the parcel. Folio No. 00726724107. Naples, Florida, 34113. The parcel has no site address. This parcel is along Collier Boulevard between the Eagle Creek residential community and the Eagle Creek Shopping Plaza. If you're familiar with the parcel, it's the one just next to the Dunkin' Donuts. Service was given on September 15th, 2014 by posting the Notice of Violation on the property and at the courthouse, and the green card for certified mail was signed by the registered agent for the owner on September 18th, 2014. I would now like to present case evidence of the following exhibits: One aerial image from the Property Appraiser's website showing the area in question as it appeared in January of 2014, and five photographs showing the complete removal of vegetation taken by me on September 12th, 2014. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 63 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: This is the photograph from the Property Appraiser's website. It's that green parcel right there in the middle. To orients yourself, the Dunkin' Donuts is at the very top of the picture. Eagle Creek is down below at the left-hand corner. This case originated through an inquiry by an officer of an Eagle Creek homeowners association wondering what was going on on this parcel that was adjacent to them, and they inquired of Commissioner Fiala about had anything been approved for that location. This became an AIMS issue. The planning department determined that there was no development order or application pending and the transportation department determined that there was no connection to the road construction activity nearby. Messages left by the growth management staff or representatives of the new owner went unanswered. The issue came to Code Enforcement on September the 12th and I immediately went to the location. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this zoned commercially at all? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: It's actually zoned PUD. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. Oh, A swimming pool. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: When I arrived there was an individual on site working a track hoe and was spreading out fill dirt and rock who stated that he had a contract to deliver 300 dump truck loads of fill and that 52 loads had already been dropped off and that three would be there within minutes. Those three loads of fill did arrive and were placed at my suggestion to block the access onto the parcel from the access Page 64 October 23, 2014 entrance drive from -- into the Eagle Creek Shopping Plaza, just to kind of keep everybody away, since I had already verified that there were no permits. So these photographs show what I observed upon arrival. This shows some of the vegetative debris. The individual on site told me that more loads had been removed of the cut vegetation and that they were presumably en route to the landfill to dump that off. That's the track hoe he was operating. This is a view looking towards the Dunkin' Donuts, showing the removal of all vegetation. This is again across the lot looking toward Eagle Creek, and that's my stop work order in the front. So I did post a stop work order immediately, and all work stopped at that time, and nothing has happened other than the rental company came and retrieved their track hoe that had been leased by the owner of the property. The vegetative debris is still in piles because the individual on the track hoe who owns the company who was hauling in the 300 loads had been spending the last day and a half spending the piles around. So they changed the grade and elevated the property somewhat above the water. You can see the standing water. A manhole had been uncovered by the grader and the driver indicated that they believed that that line went up to the CVS on the corner. So they may have impeded some additional lines that had already been there that had permits. Immediately to the west this undeveloped parcel abuts a marked preserve area belonging to Lowe's Home Improvement. The standing water confirms the determination by County Engineer Mr. McKenna that this parcel may involve substantial stormwater management issues. So it's not just a question of Page 65 October 23, 2014 removing the things, it has to be done in a right way that it's not going to interfere or interrupt those adjacent parcels that use that for runoff from the water retention. Late in the afternoon of September 12th, after posting the stop work order, I did receive a full message from a Charlie Thomas who said he had been informed that I had red-tagged a job and that he had worked in the past with the new owner of that property. He indicated that they had, his words, removed exotics only. He said that he would pass on my information on the required permits and that someone would contact me on Monday. However, a week passed before I received any contact from anybody. And at that time it was also with Mr. Thomas. By that time I had already prepared and served the notice of violation, and I did verify using the Clerk of Court documents that Black River Rock, LLC purchased the parcel on August the 21st, 2014. So they came on and cleared the property within about three weeks of becoming the owners of the property. On September 19th I received another call from Mr. Thomas. He stated that Black River Rock had hired an engineer to prepare a site plan application for the county that should be available and submitted within 60 days. He also indicated that their engineer reported that there had previously been a sales center for Eagle Creek on that location, and also again said that he probably -- he thought that there probably wasn't much vegetation besides exotics. I pointed out that the Collier County ordinances require even if it's exotic vegetation, if he uses heavy machinery equipment to do it, it requires a permit. He agreed. He said that he had told them that they could only do hand removal. But that's not what occurred. Page 66 October 23, 2014 Nothing has occurred to bring this property into compliance. Eventually I did receive a package containing a lot of documents from an original site development plan from 1991, but that involved different parcels inside the Shoppes at Eagle Creek Shopping Plaza. County staff reviewed those documents with me and the official records on file and concluded that this parcel in question was originally part of a 1991 site development plan, 91-34. Several subsequent modifications took place, including the separation of the '91 site development to create two individual parcels. That second parcel become the Lowe's Home Improvement store. Their Lowe's site improvement plan was approved in 2008, but it did not include this parcel because that had already been sold off to an independent entity in 2004. Since the original approved site development plan has long expired, there are no current development rights associated with this folio number, and as of this morning at 7:45 there is no vegetation removal permit application on file either. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you spoke with them, did you indicate that you were bringing it -- INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- before the board? And then they said they would be here or not be here? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Didn't say one way or the other. He indicated that they would -- my last communication was on October the 13th, after I prepared the case for a hearing, and I did let him know by return email that it had been prepped for a hearing and would be going today. He indicated that they would get in the vegetation removal permit application as soon as it was completed. He mentioned Page 67 October 23, 2014 that it had to go to North Carolina. But the packet that I received had come from the North Carolina corporate offices of the owner of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Curious question I have is, any contractor who would show up there with heavy equipment to do what they did, you would think would be on top of getting a permit or not. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: I asked the contractor that same question. His response was is that -- and he had some information with him, because he had it on his phone, that he gave me the name of a real estate office that had been working with him to secure his services and that he said when he arrived on scene his first question is where's the permit for it. And he was told that the representative from the real estate company had it in his truck and he then proceeded on that assurance that they had a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there any charges filed with the contractors licensing board? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Unfortunately that -- I referred it to them. They just -- that individual is not the general contractor, so they did not pursue anything against the man who was dumping the landfill. I can't prove -- I don't know who removed it. He did not. The gentleman who was bringing in the fill was not the one who cleared it. That was done by somebody else. I have not been given information of who did that work. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: This Black River Rock, you spoke to a representative from that company? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Well, see, that was another issue I had, that I -- out of the blue I received a phone message Page 68 October 23, 2014 and I returned the call and he said I've worked with this company before. When he was promising me this packet was going to be delivered, I also asked for him to send me something that would -- from the corporate offices that said he was representing them, that I had the right to speak with him about it, that he could represent it. Nothing like that was forthcoming other than just emails and phone calls. MR. LEFEBVRE: Any idea what this Black River Rock is? Is it like a restaurant chain or -- INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: The only -- no, they're just -- they're an investor. The only information that he provided was that there's apparently deed restrictions on the original Shoppes at Eagle Creek that there cannot be another bank. And since Wells Fargo is already there on an opposite corner, that this parcel would not be a bank. Other than that, when I asked what was it going to be, I was not given an answer. That it would be something consistent with a site plan that had been approved. And that's why they sent the documents. That's why I wanted to recite for the board their realliance upon a 1991 development order that expired a long time ago, since no construction ever took place on this parcel. And it had been sold at least twice since that time to outside entities. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let's find out if a violation exists. Any comments from the board? Or motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion that a violation does exist. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 69 October 23, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And do you have a suggestion for us, Michaelle? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$68.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you. It's 65.85; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Sorry, $68.85. It is 65, sorry. I typo'd. 65.85. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Within 30 days. And abate all violations within blank days or a fine of blank per day shall be imposed. And that abatement shall require: One: Apply for and obtain all required building permits, clearing permits and/or vegetation removal permits for the removal of native and non-native vegetation from the site or remove all grading and fill materials from the site and restore the parcel to a permitted state, including restoring all vegetation via a mitigation plan submitted and approved for Collier County ordinance. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Page 70 October 23, 2014 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 services of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on the -- I think this is sort of outrageous that you would do this and then at some point it comes before the board and they get their permits and get the back of their hand slapped. This is just outrageous to do this. And I would think that safety would even be involved in this. He made a mudhole out of the place, that has no fence around it that somebody could wander in there or drive in there. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Actually, within the first 24 hours it became a dumping site. The contractor who was there on September 12th when I arrived told me that -- because I could see five large tires were dumped in the corner. I didn't bring a picture of those. And he indicated that those had been dropped off overnight after somebody had -- they had cleared it, so somebody thought well, I'm just going to drop it here. The only consolation was you could see where they got stuck and they had to get towed out by somebody, so -- But Collier staff tried to reach out to the owner of record through the Property Appraiser's Office and that's when they discovered after speaking with them that it had recently been sold. And when their attempts to reach out to that entity went unanswered, then that's when it came over to code enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This has actually gone before the -- not the BCC, but it's gone through one of the commissioners -- INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and worked its way. Page 71 October 23, 2014 INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: It has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to take a shot at this? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have just a couple questions. They can get a clearing permit without a building permit, correct, for this property? Or no? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: I would actually let that determination, leave that up to the other end of the building, growth management building. The answer is probably yes. Maybe not the entire parcel. MR. LEFEBVRE: They could probably clear but they can't fill, correct -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- without a building permit. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Correct. As you can see on even the original plans for the shopping plaza, it references this as a stormwater drainage detention area. So at some point there would have had to been engineering, there would have been had to been -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The whole thing with the site plan. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Correct. So that the county would know that it was done in the right way. The contractor who was, when I was talking to him -- and he was very helpful -- and he said he thought that, well maybe this was going to be a staging area for all those pipes that had been sitting on Collier Boulevard for the road construction. But the transportation department determined very quickly that that was not the case. So nobody really knows what they're going to do or what their plan was, but it was not done the right way. Page 72 October 23, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: This property, is it zoned commercially? I'm trying to determine what would it take to put a building on this, what processes do they have to go through. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: They would have to file a site development plan at the very least. At the very least. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it's zoned commercially already. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's part of a PUD. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, it's not -- the PUD's expired. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: But I think on the zoning map it still shows as PUD zoning. MR. LEFEBVRE: You said the PUD was from '91 . INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Correct. And that property got sold off several times, but its zoning classification didn't change. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to determine -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Ifs not zoned residential, I know that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's -- maybe this is asking too much information, but let's say it's 200,000 square feet that the PUD -- you could put retail in there, okay, and everything else is built out. The PUD expired. And it was let's say 5,000 square feet left to be built and this parcel is the last parcel. Can someone come in and say I'm going to build 5,000 square feet as that PUD and then all I need is a site plan, or do they have to go back and physically get approval for 5,000 square feet for that parcel? That's what I'm trying -- INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: To be honest, I do not know. That would be a decision for the planning and zoning division. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because I'm trying to determine how much time. Because if the county comes in and says well, I want Page 73 October 23, 2014 to develop this to a whatever store, restaurant, whatever the case is, what's the process there. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: The first -- they can file for a vegetation removal permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: But what would that cover? Would that cover also filling in all the bringing in 55 trucks of-- INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: We would have to have -- they would have to submit the engineering and they would have to satisfy our county engineer that what was there and what was going to be done would meet the needs of both the South Florida Water Management District, would meet the needs of the adjacent properties, also would protect the preserve that Lowe's spent a good deal of money and time and effort in maintaining; you know, installing and maintaining. So it's just to protect all the properties. What could actually be built, I don't know. I can't answer that; I'm not qualified to answer that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess the other question would be I would assume that the whole 1 .3 acres has been filled, substantially filled. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Yes. You can see the wall at Eagle Creek -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I saw it. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: -- is completely visible. There is some scrubby vegetation right along Collier Boulevard. But it just looks like, you know, the weeds that grow up when seeds land. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily when you're going to do something of this nature adjacent to a residential, it's posted, you have time for the residents of that residential area to testify I don't want a gas station, I want a whatever it is. Page 74 October 23, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: That was done in '91 when a PUD was -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But that's expired. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So now you're at a point where they're going to build here and nothing said to the residents there. The residents had trees there and now there are no trees there and they're going to build something that may or may not make them happy. We'll leave it at that. And I thought that that was -- that's part of the whole process with the site development plan and notifying the adjacent property owners, et cetera, et cetera. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: I know the original call to the Commissioner's office came from somebody within that development saying what's going on here. And I believe also noticing that there were no permit boards posted. There is some silt fencing around the end where it approaches Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Like plastic stuff? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: Yeah. You know, the short kind, what we call silt fence. Looking at it, it almost looks to me like it was installed by the contractor who was working on the road, you know, that they just wanted to make sure that nothing washed -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Onto the property. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: -- onto the property. So I don't even know that this owner was responsible for that. It may have been the contractor working on the road project, just as a safety measure. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation that the 65.85 be paid within 30 days. All violations abated within 60 days or a fine of$250 a day. Page 75 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second, Lisa. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Should there be some sort of concern for immediate remediation of potential stormwater runoff from that property onto adjacent folks, rather than giving them 60 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, unfortunately that's all going to take time for an engineer to come in and take a look at it and see what they did and ultimately what their plans were for the property. The reason I'm doing 60 days -- I know it's not going to be correct doing 60 days. The reason I'm doing 60 days is to put some fire under their feet to have this looked at and then they could come back in front of us saying this is what we plan on doing in that 60 or less days, hopefully. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would recommend that you reduce that to 30, because 60 is automatically 90, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Exactly. Okay, I'll reduce it down to 30 days, as long as the second agrees. MS. BUSHNELL: Second agrees. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second agrees, okay. So it would be 30 days. MR. LAVINSKI: And you have a stop work order, so we're ensured this is not going to get worse other than potential runoff? Okay. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: And in all fairness, when you look at the aerial photograph, and I had did go back to previous years, and in about 2002 it does look like somebody cleared the middle part of it. Whether there was a sales trailer that Page 76 October 23, 2014 ever sat there, it didn't show up in the aerials, I can't confirm that. But there was still a pretty significant perimeter of presumably native vegetation, although the center had been cleared. And in all fairness the center of this was probably all Brazilian pepper. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was there a permit pulled back then to clear it, or was it maybe done by hand? INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: It was never done by this entity, they -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No, I know. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: --just bought it in August. MR. LEFEBVRE: But was it was done by hand is what I'm saying so they didn't need a permit. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: No, it was bigger than that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You mentioned earlier something about pipes going through there? Or maybe I misunderstood. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: As I'm there and looking at the site and I see this raised concrete square approximately four-by-four, which is protruding above the dirt and I said what is that, and that's when he said oh, we think that's a manhole cover and we scoped it and we think it goes to the CVS pharmacy which is about, I'm terrible at distances, but maybe 200 yards away or, I don't know, 100 yards away at the corner. So they didn't even know, but they thought that's where it went. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then CUTS wasn't notified to mark the property either. INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: No, I don't believe that that would be the case. There were little yellow fla-- there were marker flags all over the place, but again, it could be easily attributed to the road construction. Page 77 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have a motion, unless you want to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No, I have further questions, but it's pretty irrelevant. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Manhole cover, or was it a grate for water overflow? I mean, because that would be -- if it was a grate for water overflow, then that would mean that it was set up as wetlands, and if the wetlands fill up too much then that is used as overflow and goes into some kind of other -- INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: The contractor on the track hoe, he referred to it as a manhole cover. To be honest with you, I wouldn't know the difference if I saw it, I just -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, a manhole cover is -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: -- knew that there was something unearthed because it was protruding about 12 inches above the ground. MR. LEFEBVRE: Manhole cover is circular, and it will say Severn or something to that effect, whereas -- I mean, a grate where -- INVESTIGATOR CRAWLEY: I didn't look that closely at it, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: Call for the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 78 October 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Michaelle. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: It was 30 days, wasn't it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thirty days, that's correct. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number 14, tab 21 . Case CESD201400012087, Ramiro E. and Martha R. Llerena. (Investigator Kincaid was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, James. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Good morning, sir, how are you today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Jim Kincaid. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140012087. It's dealing with a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Alterations to a commercial property without applicable Collier County permits; the installation of a kitchen area with new plumbing and electric. Located at 11263 Tamiami Trail East, unit D, Naples, Florida. Folio is 6209020007. Service was given on June 24th, 2014. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three pictures that were taken by me on June 19th, 2014, and one document from the East Naples Fire Department. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and a second -- MR. ASHTON: Second. Page 79 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to accept. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So this goes back to June. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. The pictures are just pictures of the kitchen area. Also I think there's a photo in there of the electric that was put in. And then there's also a sink I think was put on the wall. The complaint came from the East Naples Fire Department. There was some type of permit pulled on this unit for a business, and the permit was for -- pretty much for shelving and rack storage. So basically the inspection from the fire department would have been an inspection as to the height of the shelving versus whether or not the sprinkler heads were blocked or whether the spray of the sprinkler inspect -- the heads were impeded somehow by the height of the shelving. And when the inspection for that permit -- this is my understanding of the case. When the inspection for that permit was made, the fire department inspector from East Naples observed that this kitchen area had been added in addition to the shelving. So the issue was that they exceeded the scope of the permit. And that's kind of the history of where the case started. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you put the first photo Page 80 October 23, 2014 back up? And I see a sink right next to an electric panel. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The electric panel is on the other wall. And there's been conduit added to it that runs down the wall. And you can see it running through the backsplash right above the kitchen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the photo I'm looking at. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I may be wrong, but I didn't think you could have a panel that close to water. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I would just leave that up to the electrical part. I don't have any expertise in that area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: But there are some issues on electric in the vicinity of water. I know it has to be protected by GFI circuits and maybe even more stringent stuff than that, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Anyway, I received the complaint from the East Naples Fire Department stating their new kitchen, plumbing and electric had been added to the commercial property located at 11263 Tamiami Trail East, unit D, without applicable Collier County permits. Site visit on June 19th, 2014 confirmed the violation and a notice of violation was posted at the property and the courthouse on June 24th, 2014. The case has been discussed with the property owner. The code enforcement got a call from the Sbarro Company, which is a contractor, and stated that they would be applying for permit on or before August 19th, 2014. And as of October 22nd, 2014 there's been no permit activity to abate the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussions from the board? Page 81 October 23, 2014 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does a violation exist? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion a violation does exist. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, Jim? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: 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: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy 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 Page 82 October 23, 2014 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, this is a commercial -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- establishment. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What was it, a restaurant? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: It's -- this particular unit has something to do with health food drinks, I believe. Some type of -- it's not a full-blown restaurant. I think you can just go in and they mix these drinks up by hand or however, I don't know if it's powdered or what. And you just -- there were some tables there and maybe, I don't know, originally maybe junk food or whatever. I don't know what. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The reason I ask, is because it appears that this is a safety concern of ours. So I just want to make note of that when we come up with the imposition. Anybody like to take a shot at it? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll give it a shot. Make a motion that the $64.17 be paid in 30 days and that the violation be abated within 60 days or a fine of$200 a day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you do that, I would -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to amend it to 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what I was going to say. Because of the safety. And 60 days right now this time of year would really make it 90 days. And the respondent isn't here. MR. LAVINSKI: I would agree to 30 days, modification of my motion. Page 83 October 23, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Jim. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Number Six, old business, A, Motion for Imposition of fines/liens. Number three, Tab 25, Case CESD20130001292, Christopher S. Esenberg. (Mr. Esenberg and Investigator Short were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short. I believe Mr. Esenberg would like to ask for a continuance. MR. ESENBERG: Yes, sir. I was having a really hard time with the engineering. And now it's done, now I have the plans done for it. So it's really close to getting the permit. And the only thing I'm short right now is just getting the energy calculations he said, and I should have that next week. So I just got this yesterday, the plans now to go in for permitting. So sorry it took so long here, but I've been pulling my hair out trying to get this completed, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you think this can be completed by our next meeting? MR. ESENBERG: Yes, uh-huh, I do. Page 84 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Question I have. The 143.38 has been paid. Today's is 63.74; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That has also been paid. The 63.74 has been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It has been paid, okay. Because it says on our thing that it hadn't been. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Those operational costs were paid this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Today's costs are still out there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anybody -- MR. LAVINSKI: What were you looking for, 30 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, for continuance. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll make a motion we have a 30-day continuance on this issue. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for 30 days. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. That means that the fines will continue. Hopefully you'll have this all taken care of by next month, okay? Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Four, Tab 26, Case Page 85 October 23, 2014 CELU20120015005, Albert Benarroch. (Mr. Martin Pinckney and Investigator Bosa were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Morning, Ralph. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Morning. For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe that Mr. Benarroch's engineer here would like to ask for a continuance on this case, and he has a few words to say. MR. PINCKNEY: For the record, Martin Pinckney, American Engineer. I'm Mr. Benarroch's Engineer for the Site Improvement Plan. I don't know how much of this you need to refresh your memory, but -- so just ask whatever you want to know. But basically he has to get a Site Improvement Plan approved before he can get a zoning certificate before he can get his business tax receipt for this specific location. I think the mistake that we made was the last time I was here at a hearing we requested for an extension and we didn't ask for enough time. Even as long as I've been doing this kind of work in Collier County, it surprised me how long it's taken with submittals and getting comments back, emails, phone calls to address the comments, looking at alternate ways to satisfy what the requirements were being asked for. And so in fact it was actually a point where the planner changed at the county. Where we stand right now is everything that they've asked for has been provided except they want a recorded easement where his gravel driveway goes into the property. We got an affidavit, sworn affidavit from the adjacent property owner where a little corner of his gravel drive goes across that property. We got a sworn affidavit from that property owner but that did not satisfy the reviewer. So we have -- he has engaged an attorney to Page 86 October 23, 2014 get the easement description recorded. Once that's recorded, then it will be the recorded -- copy of the recorded document to be provided to the growth management and then they should grant the Site Improvement Plan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This goes back to February. What was done from February to July when the extension was granted? MR. PINCKNEY: Well, we prepared the required submittals for the Site Improvement Plan and submitted that. And then you have to wait a substantial amount of time for getting comments back. The comments were not necessarily something that you could just simply do, I mean, because of the kind of odd nature of this particular issue. But at any rate, we submitted the what we thought would satisfy the requirements. We got additional comments back. And then -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did those comments go in? We're talking about, you know, basically six months before you came back to request more time. It started February 27th. On July 24th an extension of time. July to now is what, July, August, September, October. That's three months. MR. PINCKNEY: The submittal for the SIP was made April 24th. We didn't get replies back 'til June the 24th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So from the time it was first -- before it came to the board until the SIP was initiated was three months. MR. PINCKNEY: Not to when it was initiated we had pre-application meetings, but there were surveys that had to be done and other things that were required to be submitted. He had to get a certificate from the state for an exemption for fire review, because it was an agricultural land. There's a number of things Page 87 October 23, 2014 that had to happen. So then we got the June 24th non-sufficiency letter. We worked on complying with those. And August 13th was resubmitted and then we got a September the 17th additional non-sufficiency letter. And those -- that requirement, there was -- after that 17th of September there was a series of emails back and forth of what it is that you would actually accept to satisfy the outstanding comments. There's a whole series of emails where the planner was saying, you know, I'm contacting the various people to get -- it was a new planner -- to get their input to make sure I give you the correct answers. So then we finally got to the point where it's either you do this or you do this. And so that's where we are right now with an attorney that is preparing to submit the easement to be recorded. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ralph, question. Just to refresh my memory, I can't remember what I did yesterday, must less in February. This was -- just in summary fashion, this was a commercial landscaping business that was established at some point in time prior to February. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know approximately when the respondent was notified that they have a violation, they're running a business without a valid business tax receipt? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. The case was opened back in 2012, was when it was opened. Activity on the planning application didn't start until about a year later. That's when -- after it all started. But then we still took it to hearing on February 27th, 2014. And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this has been going on for Page 88 October 23, 2014 several years. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Several years, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the reason that this is now on the imposition of fines is because it's been going on and on. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There is nothing that I received or I don't think that the county has received requesting a continuance on that; am I correct? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Correct, sir, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So here we are at the time when we're going to impose the fine or not impose the fine, unless I'm mistaken. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: He is correct with the dates as far as recent, you know, back this year. The last activity on that planning application was back in September, but that's after years of-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From what I'm hearing now, I would seriously doubt that this thing is going to be concluded before the end of the year. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir, definitely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: And this business is still operating? Because that was part of the order, if you didn't get a license, to cease doing business. MR. PINCKNEY: As far as I know he's still operating there, yes. I beg your indulgence, he asked me two days to come here. His wife is having a biopsy done this morning and so I -- you know, I told him I'd come before you because he couldn't make it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we appreciate that. And I understand the position that you're in and you have a lot of Page 89 October 23, 2014 documentation as far as dates and what's required, et cetera. But he's still running a business two years later without a tax receipt. Does that mean he's not paying any taxes? Is that what the tax receipt -- MR. PINCKNEY: No, that's like a -- INVESTIGATOR BOSA: A business tax receipt like -- MR. PINCKNEY: $30 or something like that is all it costs. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: But he does still have to report. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Still has to report, okay. MR. PINCKNEY: But he thought he -- he wasn't trying to do anything. I mean, like I said, I don't know how much of the history you want to know. He thought he was perfectly legal until the complaint was filed. Because his office, his business offices on Marco, he has a business tax receipt. This is where his crews come in in the morning, he has a nursery there, which is permitted under the code, and his crews come in, park their cars, get in their trucks and go to maintaining the yards. But he's been doing this for years. He didn't know that it was a violation until he got cited. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm assuming this was reported by a neighbor at one time? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Let me see here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, 2012 is the report. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yeah, 2012. It could have been CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anonymous. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Probably anonymous. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, you want to -- SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I do. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Page 90 October 23, 2014 Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. And this is one of the privileges of being in Code Enforcement for 14 years, I remember a lot of stuff. So I'm going to say back in 2004 we had the same issue come up with the same property owner at the same place. And I don't know if it went to a hearing or not, but we made him apply for a Site Development Plan at that point, 2004. And back then our policy was once they applied for it we would close the case out. So I find it highly doubtful this gentleman didn't know he wasn't in compliance when this new complaint came up. So I just wanted to point that out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Jeff. MR. PINCKNEY: I wasn't involved at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. Well, we are positioned for the board to either -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose the fine. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 91 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. They can still appeal this to the County Commissioners, whatever. Thank you for -- INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Mr. Chairman, also the operational costs for today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, yes. 63.75 is the operational cost for today. MR. PINCKNEY: He has within 30 days to pay that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, that's correct. MR. PINCKNEY: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case is Number Five, Tab 27, Case CESD20120002439, Konstantine E. and Merrill L. Komninos. MR. MIESZCAK: Can I have an explanation of the two names? MR. KOMNINOS: I am Konstantine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Would you state your name for the record. MR. KOMNINOS: Sure. Good morning, my name is Konstantine Komninos. I'm the home owner. And Merrill Komninos is my spouse. (Mr. and Mrs. Komninos and Investigator Mucha were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As they used to say on the radio, this is another oldie but goody, I see. We're back to 2012 on this one. Okay. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe Mr. Komninos wants to request a continuance. If you guys kind of remember, he took over the property earlier this year, I think, what, February? Page 92 October 23, 2014 MR. KOMNINOS: In February. We closed very late January, yes. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: And he's had several permitting issues that he's had to correct. And he's got four active permits going right now -- actually, no, three. One has been finaled. The roof violation has been corrected. But there's one that all the inspections are completed, there's just some fees that need to be paid. MR. KOMNINOS: Which I wasn't aware, Joe, until this morning, yeah. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: The demo per -- you said the demo's complete, you've -- MR. KOMNINOS: Demo's complete. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: --just got to get the final inspection on that. And then there's one permit that's ongoing with inspections, and that is the -- that's the detached three-car garage? MR. KOMNINOS: Correct. We purchased the property and closed in in late January. We immediately hired a general contractor, went through the process of finding out exactly what the violations were, started to remediate them. In the process, though, of remodeling the main house, we came up with some unexpected issues, including mold, the roof, and also a failed septic system. So it took probably an extra three months to get that all processed. We finished the main residence. We had all the final inspections done. Then we moved on to the three-car garage. I've hired an architect, we've put the plan together, went to permitting, pulled all my permits. I would say we're probably realistically halfway through. We've done the framing, the rough-in electrical, we've done the masonry. We're probably Page 93 October 23, 2014 halfway through, and then that three-garage (sic) will no longer be an open permit for a three-car garage. It's going to be used as a one-bedroom game room indoor living space. And we're about halfway through that. We've taken down some of the structures that were on the setbacks. They just have to come out and do the final inspections on that. There's one that's remaining, and I'll be honest, I'm keeping it up because I'm using it as temporary storage for the materials and the stuff that we have going on for the garage. Because we don't have any other garage space on the property, we've converted it now to living space. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So when do you think you will be completed on this project? You want to take a guess? MR. KOMNINOS: Yeah, I'll take a guess, Mr. Kaufman. I think we're -- I'm calling in -- we had rough-in mechanical plumbing and electrical completed yesterday. So I'll be calling in the framing inspection today. I hope they can come out by tomorrow, which then allows me to start putting in the insulation, start closing up the walls, flooring. I would realistically say another 45, 60 days. Because sometimes, you know, I'm also the -- I'm acting as owner/builder on this particular one. My contractor was a fair contractor. I wasn't enamored by what he was doing so -- plus he was immensely expensive. So GC -- subs don't always show up when they tell you they're going to show up. So I'm being optimistic in saying 30 days; realistically it's more going be like 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty days to us, you've been here, which would be really 90 days. MR. KOMNINOS: Correct, sir, I understand that. Now Page 94 October 23, 2014 after hearing everyone else prior to mine. MR. MIESZCAK: Can I ask one question? When you purchased the property, you were aware of the violations? MR. KOMNINOS: I was aware of the majority of them. I wasn't aware of the extent of some of the violations and what they entailed. Case in point, when there was a -- I think he had a 10-foot extension that was impeding the side setback. When we started to tear down that extension and remediate that issue, we found mold, both in the roof and in the adjoining walls. So yes, I was aware of that violation, I wasn't aware of the extent of the damage though the rest of the house had suffered, because he put it up illegally and it was hodgepodge construction. So it cost me a lot more time and a lot more money and energy than I had originally anticipated. MR. MIESZCAK: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, what is the pleasure of the board? You're asking for a continuance on this? MR. KOMNINOS: I'm not 100 percent sure, Mr. Kaufman. A continuance would mean that the fines keep running or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The fines would continue to run and it would be scheduled to come back here at the end of the period of time that the continuance is. MR. KOMNINOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And at that time -- MR. KOMNINOS: If I've remediated everything? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In all likelihood, it's been the board's pleasure most of the time to abate a lot of it if it's all done. So am I speaking out of turn or -- MR. ASHTON: I'll make a motion that we give him a -- I'm Page 95 October 23, 2014 going to give him a 120-day extension because he's having problems with subcontractors. And I know sometimes they don't show up and it could put him behind, so I give him a continuance for 120 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Continuance or extension? MR. ASHTON: Continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you had done ahead of time, it would be in your best interest to before 120 days to contact code enforcement, et cetera, et cetera. MR. KOMNINOS: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second on that motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for a continuance of 120 days. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Carries with one dissention. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Six, Tab 28, Case CEPM20140005585, Eli Wallen and Danny Devol. SUPERVISOR SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, and Page 96 October 23, 2014 congratulations at the same time. SUPERVISOR SANTAFEMIA: Thank you. (Supervisor Santafemia was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SANTAFEMIA: This case is in reference to CEB case number CEPM20140005585, Board of County Commissioners versus Eli Wallen and Danny Devol. Violations are Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article 6, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(12)(N). Location violation is 707 94th Avenue North, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 6276636006. Description of violation: Is wooden fence in disrepair. On August 26th, 2014 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board 5078-3527. The violation has not been abated as of October 23rd, 2014, today. Fines and costs to abate are as follows: The fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between September 28th, 2014 to October 23rd, 2014, 26 days, for a total fine amount of$2,600. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational cost of$63.57 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are $62.91. Total amount to date is $2,726.48. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. ASHTON: Second. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Take a pick. All those in favor? Page 97 October 23, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. One quick question, John. Has anybody been in contact with them? SUPERVISOR SANTAFEMIA: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I mean, this is just accruing and accruing on a fence, which is -- SUPERVISOR SANTAFEMIA: And I've tried repeated attempts at getting ahold of somebody on this property and have gotten zero response. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. This is one we heard. Okay. So we've heard all the cases. Jeff has skipped out on us. I wanted to thank Theresa for the outstanding work she did on the tabs. Very, very easy for us to follow the process. I've asked Theresa to see if she can locate some different color stock when she does them, because it's easier for us to put the stuff in the binders when you're looking for a color. If they're all white, you have to go through every page, so we'll see if we can get an improvement on that. MR. MIESZCAK: We should go through every page. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, the consent agenda, is that granted, the motion to forward the cases to the County Attorney's Office? Page 98 October 23, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we need a motion for that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we need a motion or -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to forward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll do a motion anyway, what the heck. Motion to -- we have the motion. And we have a second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. Okay, takes cares of that. Now, if I'm not mistaken, I need to sign this. And the next meeting, is that on a Friday? MS. ADAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we should let everybody know that the next meeting is going to be on a Friday. MR. MIESZCAK: Friday when? MR. ASHTON: The 20th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next month. MR. MIESZCAK: I know next month. I'll make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to adjourn. Let's adjourn. Page 99 October 23, 2014 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :39 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD BE Arty AN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on 11/2k VI 4- as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 100