Loading...
CEB Minutes 11/21/2014 Code Enforcement Board Minutes November 21 , 2014 November 21, 2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, November 21, 2014 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Tony Marino Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Teresa Tooley, Code Enforcement Tamara Lynne Nicola, CEB Attorney Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: NOVEMBER 21,2014 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 I,avinski Larry Mieszcak Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell,Alternate Tony Marino 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. OCTOBER 23,2014 hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20130005831 OWNER: EVA A.GUERRERO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A SMALL TYPE POLE BARN WITH A METAL ROOF WITH NO ELECTRIC. ALSO AN ADDITION ATTACHED TO THE MOBILE HOME WITH ELECTRIC,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS)AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT 04-41,AS AMENDED. FOLIO NO: 30730960008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1301 PEACH ST, IMMOKALEE,FL 2. CASE NO: CELU20100021891 OWNER: COBRA INVESTMENTS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. FOLIO NO: 37925940001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4790 PINE RIDGE RD,NAPLES,FL 2 B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20140003770 OWNER: EUROWEST PROPERTIES FL LLP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A).NO BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 62645640009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 594 98TH AVE N,NAPLES,FL • 2. CASE NO: CEROW20140007406 OWNER: GUILLERMO GODOY JR&MARIA C.GODOY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110-32(1).THE CULVERT/DRAINAGE PIPE HAS FAILED;THAT IS,IT HAS COLLAPSED OR RUSTED THROUGH. FOLIO NO: 98480001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 974 SANCTUARY RD,NAPLES,FL 3. CASE NO: CESD20140017012 OWNER: SUNTRUST BANK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A). EXPIRED BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 62780720004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 778 100TH AVE N,NAPLES,FL 3 4. CASE NO: CEROW20140002814 OWNER: JULIO SOTO&PATRICIA P.SOTO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A).NO PERMIT FOR DAMAGED CULVERT THAT REQUIRES REPLACEMENT. FOLIO NO: 762560008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11230 TRINITY PL,NAPLES,FL 5. CASE NO: CESD20120018259 OWNER: GILVERTO GENDEJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). DEMOLITION PERMIT HAS EXPIRED FOR REMOVAL OF UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS WITHOUT HAVING RECEIVED REQUIRED INSPECT IONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED. FOLIO NO: 63859120000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 325 NEW MARKET RD W,IMMOKALEE,FL 6. CASE NO: CESD20140006223 OWNER: HENRY PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).VACANT UNFINISHED HOME WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 39895880008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2665 OIL WELL RD,NAPLES,FL 7. CASE NO: CESD20140003286 OWNER: CIRILO MARQUEZ GONZALEZ&AUGUSTIN G. MARQUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E). PORCH AND ROOM ADDITION ADDED TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHOUT PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 35880720009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1931 40TH TER SW,NAPLES,FL 8. CASE NO: CEPM20140020730 OWNER: DEBORAH L.HUTTLIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,ARTICLE VI,CHAPTER 22, SECTION 22-242.LEFT SIDE ENTRY DOOR IN STATE OF DISREPAIR-BOTTOM OF DOOR MISSING. FOLIO NO: 54950880009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11 PEBBLE BEACH BLVD,NAPLES,FL 4 9. CASE NO: CESD20140010232 OWNER: MANSOLILLO IRA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER I,PART 1, SECTION 105.1. COMPLETE REMODELING OF THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME AND GARAGE BEING CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE INCLUDING PLUMBING, ELECTRIC AND STRUCTURAL WORK AS WELL AS A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37161440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 120 7TH ST SW,NAPLES,FL 10. CASE NO: CESD20140009723 OWNER: ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ& GEORGINA RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.1. A POOL AND SEVERAL SHED TYPE STRUCTURES BUILT ON THE PROPERTY WITI-TOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 39269720008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1461 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E,NAPLES,FL 11. CASE NO: CEAU20140007748 OWNER: JESUS R.ORTEGA&MARIA E. ORTEGA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPI-I BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,PART 1,SECTION 105.1. A PERMITTED FLORIDA ROOM ALTERED TO MAKE TWO SEPARATE APARTMENTS WITH KITCHEN AND BATH IN EACH UNIT AND A SHED WITH ELECTRIC ADDED TO THE PROPERTY ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY AND AN EXPIRED FENCE PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 45965200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2110 21ST ST SW,NAPLES,FL 12. CASE NO: CESD20140009863 OWNER: LEONARD P.OPI'IE&CAROLYN S.OPPIE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER I,PART 1, SECTION 105.1.THREE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND A FENCE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY ZONING APPROVALS AND COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 37540040001 s VIOLATION ADDRESS: 830 10TH AVE NW,NAPLES,FL 5 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20140004100 OWNER: LESLIE J. &LOIS R. HARVEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).CONVERTED DUPLEX INTO QUADPLEX WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 35647520002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4311 GOLDEN GATE PKWY,NAPLES,FL 2. CASE NO: CEPM20140003389 OWNER: LESLIE J. & LOIS R. IIARVEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI,PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231, SUBSECTIONS(1),(3),(11), (12)(C),(I2)(D),(12)(I),(12)(K),(12)(N),(12)(P),(19),AND(20). NO COUNTER WORKSPACE IN KITCHEN,NO WATER PRESSURE IN THE SHOWER,TOILET BACKS UP INTO UNIT,NO HOT WATER,UNSAFE ELECTRICAL WIRING,FASCIA IN DISREPAIR,NUMEROUS INOPERABLE AND BROKEN WINDOWS,ENTRY DOOR HARDWARE IN DISREPAIR,ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN DISREPAIR,INTERIOR WALLS NEED PAINTING,LITTER AND DEBRIS SCATTERED ABOUT PROPERTY,MOLD OBSERVED INSIDE A/C UNIT AND NO SMOKE DETECTORS FOUND. FOLIO NO: 35647520002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4311 GOLDEN GATE PKWY,NAPLES,FL 3. CASE NO: CESD20120000189 OWNER: JORGE G.RODRIGUEZ&SUCET RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 04-41, AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).GARAGE AND CBS GUEST HOUSE WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40579120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1 165 EVERGLADES BLVD N,NAPLES, FL 4. CASE NO: CEPM20140011631 OWNER: R T BERGER SR REV TRUST EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS&ORDINANCES,ARTICLE VI.PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE,SECTION 22-228,GENERAL PROVISIONS, SUBSECTION(1).THE OWNERS OF THIS GOLF COURSE(FORMALLY EVERGREEN GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB) HAVE FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED DRAINAGE SYSTEM(SPECIFICALLY DITCHES#1 &#2,AND LAKE#4 AS OUTLINED IN THE LAKEWOOD OUTFALL&SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM AGREEMENT OR 2732 PG 3156)CAUSING A DANGEROUS FLOODING CONDITION IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. FOLIO NO: 54000160006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4710 LAKEWOOD BLVD,NAPLES,FL 6 5. CASE NO: CESD20130005831 OWNER: EVA A. GUERRERO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A SMALL TYPE POLE BARN WITH A METAL ROOF WITH NO ELECTRIC. ALSO AN ADDITION ATTACHED TO THE MOBILE HOME WITH ELECTRIC,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTION(S)AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT 04-41,AS AMENDED. FOLIO NO: 30730960008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1301 PEACH ST, IMMOKALEE,FL 6. CASE NO: CESD20120015571 OWNER: GERI BRADLEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A).A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED HOME WITHOUT COMPLETED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT(S),INSPECTION(S),AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY FOLIO NO: 39020880006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5220 40TH ST NE,NAPLES,FL 7. CASE NO: CESD20130018722 OWNER: 925 CYPRESS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPERMITTED DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 48170680008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2829 SHOREVIEW DR,NAPLES,FL 8. CASE NO: CESD20130014804 OWNER: ANTONE C. MENDES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(13)(1)(A)AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110,SECTION 110-31(A).UNPERMITTED FENCING,REFRIGERATED STRUCTURE,AND OTHER OFFENDING MATERIAL IN THE COLLIER COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. FOLIO NO: 51690680009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2260 TAMIAMI TRL E,NAPLES,FL 7 9. CASE NO: CEPM20140008527 OWNER: GAIL A. PANDOLFE 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, SUBSECTION(15).PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL NOT BEING MAINTAINED CREATING AN UNHEALTHY CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 62572280008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 604 110TH AVE N,NAPLES,FL 10. CASE NO: CELU20140001165 OWNER: HELEN VALENT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. SEMI TRUCKS AND TRAILERS IN THE YARD. FOLIO NO: 36660480005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6810 VANDERBILT BEACH RD,NAPLES,FL 11. CASE NO: CESD20140007746 OWNER: CWALT INC ASSET-BACKED CT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINTE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,PART 1, SECTION 105.1. 1.TIKI HUT ON PROPERTY WITH NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS, CONVERSIONS/ALTERATIONS MADE TO GARAGE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. PERMIT 2003022259 FOR A CHAIN LINK FENCE NEVER RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY FOLIO NO: 38341320000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5681 DOGWOOD WAY,NAPLES,FL 12. CASE NO: CESD20140005957 OWNER: YISLEN DE LA 0 &ROESMEL RUA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I),AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). BUILDING A REAR DOCK WITHOUT THE PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36451600007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2883 50TH TER SW,NAPLES, FL 8 13. CASE NO: CESD20120002477 OWNER: JOSE MARTINEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPERMITTED ADDITION ATTACHED TO THE REAR ADDITION AND AN UNPERMITTED SHED BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.ALSO A REAR ADDITION THAT WAS PERMITTED BUT PERMIT HAS EXPIRED-PERMIT NUMBER 960014426-WITHOUT THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 35540040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1155 W MAIN ST, IMMOKALEE,FL 14. CASE NO: CELU20130015799 OWNER: SANDRA SAGE& CARLA SAGE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03 AND 1.04.01(A)AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III, SECTION 130-96(A).THE STORAGE OF SEVERAL RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS ON THIS PROPERTY NOT IDENTIFIED AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IS ALSO BEING USED FOR LIVING PURPOSES. FOLIO NO: 209160709 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3123 RAVENNA AVE,NAPLES,FL 15. CASE NO: CESD20120015319 OWNER: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA RENTALS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A).PERMIT NUMBER 20120203549 FOR INTERIOR REMODELING UNIT B EXPIRED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT.ALSO INTERIOR REMODELING OF UNIT A BEING CONDUCTED WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING FOR COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 48783840002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8085 BAYSHORE DR,NAPLES, FL 16. CASE NO: CESD20140000248 OWNER: CHRISTOPHER ESENBERG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHIRLEY GARCIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). EXPIRED PERMIT FOR A POOL AND PERMIT FOR A POOL ENCLOSURE WITH NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 47871360000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3301 GUILFORD RD,NAPLES,FL 9 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order 1. CASE NO: CEROW20140009627 OWNER: DAVID FALATO&ZENAIDA FALATO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW 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 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—JANUARY 22,2015 12. ADJOURN 10 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. We'll start by having everybody turn off their cell phones and the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning, Ms. Tooley. Could you call the roll. 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: Lisa Chapman Bushnell? MS. BUSHNELL: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence, and Tony Marino is absent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That means, Lisa, you're a full voting member this morning. And let me approve the minutes out of order so that I don't forget. Anybody have any changes to the minutes from the last meeting? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor? Page 2 November 21, 2014 MR. MARINO: (Absent.) MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Changes to the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Number 5, public hearings, motions, A, motion for continuance. We have one addition. It's No. 7 from imposition of fines, Tab 21, Case CESD20130018722, 925 Cypress, LLC. Letter B, stipulations, we have two additions. The first is No. 1 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CESD20140003770, Eurowest Properties Florida, LLP. The second stipulation is No. 5 from hearings, Tab 7, Case CESD20120018259, Gilverto Gendejas. Letter C, hearings, No. 2, Tab 4, Case CEROW20140007406, Guillermo Godoy, Jr., and Maria C. Godoy, has been withdrawn. Number 3, Tab 5, Case CESD20140017012, SunTrust Bank, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Tab 8, Case CESD20140006223, Henry Perez, has been withdrawn. Number 7, Tab 9, Case CESD20140003286, Cirilo Marquez Gonzalez and Augustin G. Marquez, has been withdrawn. Number 10, Tab 12, Case CESD20140009723, Antonio Rodriguez and Georgina Rodriguez, has been withdrawn. Page 3 November 21, 2014 Number 11, Tab 13, Case CEAU20140007748, Jesus R. Ortega and Marie E. Ortega, has been withdrawn. Number 12, Tab 14, Case CESD20140009863, Leonard P. Oppie and Carolyn S. Oppie, has been withdrawn. Number 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 12, Tab 26, Case CESD20140005957, Yislen de la 0 and Roesmel Rua, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to accept the agenda as modified? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Lisa, you're still a voting member. And let the record reflect that Mr. Marino is here. Okay. Let us begin. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The first case, motion for continuance, Imposition of Fines No. 7, Tab 21, Case CESD20130018722, 925 Cypress, LLC. Page 4 November 21, 2014 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Jeff MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see you're standing up there by yourself, so why don't you tell us what's going on. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe Mr. Kaplan has run into some lengthy roadblocks in trying to get this situation under control. I think the county has probably told him a couple different scenarios, and they finally came up with getting a Site Improvement Plan for the property to move this dumpster over. At this point the county has no objections to any kind of extension or continuance. We believe he's going to get it taken care of, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the request is for? MR. LAVINSKI: Ninety days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is 90 days to move a dumpster? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, yeah. It's a dumpster enclosure and the dumpster. He's got a Site Improvement Plan applied for. I think he's got to go through a few meetings first before he can get moving on this thing, and then I think, once the county gives him the okay, he can probably move pretty rapidly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) MR. LAVINSKI: I'd make a motion to continue for 90 days. MR. MEISCZAK: I'll second the motion. Page 5 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion for a continuance for 90 days. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case, motion for extension of time, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20130005831, Eva A. Guerrero. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike so that -- MS. GUERRERO: Eva Guerrero. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see that you're requesting an extension. MS. GUERRERO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And my first question is, has the 63.88 been paid? Page 6 November 21, 2014 MS. RODRIGUEZ: It has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It has been paid, okay. You're asking for 90 days. This was a stipulation -- this goes way back. On April 22nd of 2013, there was time granted at that time. What has been done since the last meeting that you were at to get this thing resolved? MS. GUERRERO: I have it almost all done. I just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you move the mike down. Thank you. MS. GUERRERO: It's almost all completed. It was just from everything that was rejected at the first time. I only have, like, two more things to go. It's, like, almost all completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two more inspections; is that it? MS. GUERRERO: (Nods head.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: She applied for a permit. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. She did apply for a permit. They rejected it. She's with the engineer trying to correct whatever the rejections were for. And as soon as she can get it -- it's a permit by affidavit, so it should go pretty quick after she gets it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because this one seems to be going on and on and on, and -- go ahead, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: The case started, actually, on April 22, 2013, but she did not come in front of us until February 27, 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So April of 2013 is when it first -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Started. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- started. How much time are you requesting? MS. GUERRERO: Ninety days. Page 7 November 21 , 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ninety days. MS. RODRIGUEZ: She did demo the addition that was attached to the mobile home. This is only -- she's permitting the pole barn towards the back. I mean, there's no electric or anything in it, so it's not like it's for a health and safety issue, but she is trying to -- she did -- she ran into some obstacles with the engineer at the beginning, but I think she's got it now. So hopefully she'll have it at least issued by next week, I'm hoping. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if it's issued by next week, then it could be okayed in 30 days instead of 90 days. I would be -- I know there was a partial -- the affidavit of compliance, there was a partial for the work that was done, and the noncompliance is still the one that is pending. Do you think there's any chance that you can get this done sooner? I don't want to put any pressure on you, but the sooner the better. It just seems that it goes on and on. MS. GUERRERO: Yes, I can try. I mean, I have to wait for paperwork myself. MR. MIESZCAK: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: In light of our meeting that's not in December, I would recommend 60 days, and by that time it should be done, and next meeting we should resolve it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to grant you a continuance. Is that what you're saying, a continuance -- MR. MIESZCAK: Yes, continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- for 60 days? Hopefully you'll have everything done by then and we won't see you -- MS. GUERRERO: Yes. Page 8 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- next year. MS. GUERRERO: I hope. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. GUERRERO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time is No. 2, Tab 2, Case CELU20100021891, Cobra Investments, LLC. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to recuse myself. An employer of mine retains Mr. Tannassee as a sprinkler contractor -- subcontractor for him, so I'm going to recuse myself from this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you've provided the necessary paperwork to the attorney? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're all set there. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 9 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. TANNASSEE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are requesting a continuance. Actually not. You're requesting, if I'm not mistaken, to be sure that no fines will be imposed. MR. TANNASSEE: Well, a continuance as well. We started the permit process to get the plans designed, and we're close to having them completed for permitting. I retained Tatiana -- she's a private provider -- to handle the permit process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the court costs been paid on this? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes. MS. ADAMS: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. They weren't paid within 30 days, if I'm not mistaken. MS. ADAMS: I don't know the date that they were paid, but I do show that the previously assessed operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. TANNASSEE: BQ Concrete was supposed to pay that; they didn't. So when we found out about it, we paid it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This case goes back to 2011. Let me give you my two cents' worth on this case. As I recall from the past, this property was being marketed -- it was in violation. It was being marketed for around $400,000. It was sold. You purchased it, I think, in the neighborhood of 185- to 190,000, something like that, because there was a lien on the property, and you were going to dispose of the lien. Had those fines accrued from then to now, the fines would have been over 195,000. So it almost looks like that was the deduction that was made for purchasing the property. Page 10 November 21, 2014 You're -- again, this thing goes way back. I mean, when I look at this thing and I see that Ken Kelly signed the original order and he's been gone from the board for several years -- I think this goes back to 2011. B&Q Concrete was the owner at that time. MR. TANNASSEE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they came before the board and said that they would resolve the situation. Then they came before the board and asked for an extension of time and another extension of time, and then they sold it, and you were aware of the lien that was on the -- from code enforcement? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So far the fines have accrued to nothing because the board has granted all of that time from 2011 to now. And we're starting from square one. You have the same violation on the property, if I'm not mistaken; is that correct? MR. TANNASSEE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're asking for, you just said, a continuance. I don't have that request in here, but -- MR. TANNASSEE: When we met with you, we expected -- from the beginning of, you know, construction to design plans, permitting, we expected to construct a home. It would take a year. We contracted to get the plans designed by an architect. We have the plans completed. We're waiting on energy calculations. Tatiana -- I can let her speak. She's handling the permitting for the home -- we're 120 days into it -- to get plans designed and submitted for permitting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This case was heard before, so we're not going to rehear the case. MR. TANNASSEE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My -- when did you purchase Page 11 November 21, 2014 the property? When did you -- MR. TANNASSEE: I believe it closed the end of October. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Of this -- MR. TANNASSEE: Of two thousand -- yes, of this year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Last month, you're saying? MR. TANNASSEE: About a month and a half, I believe it was. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Those are my concerns on that, this thing goes on and on without resolution. And if you -- you have benefited by the lien -- by the possible lien by code enforcement on the property; that's been an advantage, based on the prices that were -- the property transferred to you. And we're -- again, no fines. We're back to square one. When I read this -- and I see on the letter that was written by Barbara Corneal -- MR. TANNASSEE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that you wanted this case to come before the board to, and I quote, be sure that no fines will be imposed. MR. TANNASSEE: She was supposed to ask for a continuance as well. This is supposed to be -- we're supposed to come before you to continue this 90 days to get this constructed, you know, within -- each 90 days until the year to get the house constructed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, let me just answer the part that was written. The continuance, obviously, was not here. To be sure that no fines would be imposed, I would think that's a step too far. And that's my personal opinion. I'd like to hear from the board what their thoughts on that are. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree with that statement. Page 12 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me see what the county has to say. Joe? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, supervisor of code enforcement. The county doesn't have any objection to a continuance. I believe that Mr. -- is it -- MR. TANNASSEE: Tannassee. MR. MUCHA: -- Tannassee is going to take care of this. I think they just didn't realize that it was going to be a little -- take a little bit longer than they anticipated. The county wouldn't have an issue with continuing it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You obviously knew that this thing was in violation when you bought the property? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes, I came before you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So when I look at this, my first thought is to the taxpayers of Collier County, that they have helped you with this property to get the price that you got, so -- I don't know how long this is going to go on. You're starting from square one. MR. TANNASSEE: I am. There were no plans. We started everything, but Tatiana can explain. MS. GUST: Can I? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Why don't you move the mike over so we can hear you. MS. GUST: For the record, my name is Tatiana Gust. I'm with a private company that processes permitting, and I've been helping Mr. Tannassee to get the correct plans to submit for permitting. We are 90 percent complete right now, and we're also requesting shop drawings for the construction. The way that the industry's going right now, it's taking us longer lead times to Page 13 November 21 , 2014 obtain those documents to be able to submit for permitting. Shop drawings right now are between four to six weeks before we can get them, and we need those in order to submit for permitting. So Mr. Tannassee, when he approached me, he said, I have a year to complete this. And I said, okay, we probably have enough time within the year time frame. And we are in the process of permitting. If I'm not able to get the shop drawings ready, I will submit and request a deferral submittal to the Collier County to obtain at least a foundation and start the process for construction while those shop drawings are completed. I believe we can get that permit within two weeks through Collier County if I have all the documentation that we need. But because of the industry, it's taking a little bit longer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As I recall, this violation was a -- for lack of a better term, a garage that was put on a piece of property without a primary structure? MS. GUST: I believe the property was split while that structure was in (sic) this property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's the violation? MS. GUST: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you pull a permit, Joe, does that -- I think that kind of resolves the situation when a permit is pulled. MR. MUCHA: Once the permit's finalized, that will resolve the situation, once a primary structure's on there, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you would be asking for a continuance of how long? MR. TANNASSEE: Well, we expect the construction of the home to take six months, and that's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not the construction of the Page 14 November 21, 2014 home. All you need to do is to have an approved permit, if I'm not mistaken; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: I believe it has to be -- the primary structure needs to be built and finaled. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It has to be CO'ed -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- for this violation to -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm assuming that you knew all of this when you purchased the property? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: So what are we looking for, a six-month extension? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, in six months you'll be back here because the house won't be done. MR. ASHTON: Right. MS. GUST: It's going to be a year. MR. TANNASSEE: One year. MR. MIESZCAK: We're guessing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I would have felt more comfortable if a continuance was requested in writing so that we could go through that. But this thing goes, again, back to 2011. MR. TANNASSEE: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's just been on and on. There's nothing to stop you now from selling the property to somebody else and they appear before us, and then it just continues down the path. MR. TANNASSEE: Well, we have construction drawings Page 15 November 21, 2014 90 percent complete, and we expect -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We heard those stories from B&Q Concrete. MR. TANNASSEE: I have copies here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why they were granted. They came here with a roll, as I recall, of prints showing that we're doing that, so the board gave B&Q Concrete, the previous owner, a year. Then it came back after a year, and we gave them another year. And then I think it was granted; that's why there are no fines on the property going forward to today. So now -- we are here now with a request, in essence, I'm thinking, for one year -- MR. TANNASSEE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- so that you would be able to finish the project at that time. Any other comments from the board? MR. MARINO: You know, for the record, I think we're calling it B&Q. Does it make a difference the actual company is BQ? Does that make a difference? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they don't own it anymore. It's now owned by Cobra Investments, I assume. MR. TANNASSEE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just -- that's when the case started. Mr. Marino, it started in 2011 . They had this -- they came before the board, et cetera. You remember. I have no problem with extending this if this actually is going to do it. I do have a problem with the language in the letter, because I would not -- after a continuance is granted, I would not be in favor of not fining you if you don't make that date. MR. TANNASSEE: I understand. CIAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I don't know how the rest Page 16 November 21, 2014 of the board feels. But I certainly wouldn't put that in an order that says no fines will be imposed. That's an open book. MS. BUSHNELL: I agree. MR. ASHTON: Could we give him -- Mr. Chairman, could we give him a one-year extension that they have to have a building permit within 60 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You know, I was thinking of doing a stopgap to make sure that progress is actually going on, that a -- after three months or six months, that a site visit is done by code enforcement to see that there's work that's being done. If the property is in the same position that it is today, then it should be prepared to be heard again. MR. ASHTON: So that way we know -- this way we know that he's actually going ahead with it, not just sitting on it and hoping to sell it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. So -- MR. MIESZCAK: Is that a motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- how many days would you put in that motion? MR. ASHTON: Could he do it in 30? Could he get a permit in 30 days? MR. MUCHA: I would think 90 to be safe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: I still -- I'd rather go with 60 days for a permit. He's got to be in for permitting within 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? MR. MARINO: If the county feels it's going to take 90 days, why go to 60 and then he's going to be back here again. MR. ASHTON: It's going to take 90 days to get a permit? MR. MIESZCAK: I think we're giving this file long Page 17 November 21, 2014 enough. MR. ASHTON: Right. MR. MIESZCAK: We have to make a decision. MR. MUCHA: Tatiana, what do you think? MS. GUST: I believe we can obtain a building permit within 60 days. CIAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So in 60 days -- if this motion is seconded and approved, at 60 days code enforcement will check with you, if you have a permit. Okay. That would be part one of what we're doing. Part two, I would recommend that -- not only having the permit, but after, say, six months, 180 days, that code enforcement visits the property to see that work is actually being done on the site, progress, and then, ultimately, finished within 360 days. And we'll put in the minutes that unless there's some extraordinary circumstances, it won't be extended anymore. Now, how much -- the first -- if we do 60 days, if it's not done after 60 days, the fine would be -- I think our chart shows on the permits $200 a day. Is that agreeable? MR. ASHTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $200 a day. They'll check it in 180 days to make sure progress is going on and then, ultimately, it's completed before next Christmas, actually before Thanksgiving, 360 days. MR. MUCHA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MUCHA: I mean, are you amending the original order? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this is a request for a continuance, I'm assuming. MR. MUCHA: The fines are already running per day. Page 18 November 21, 2014 That's why I'm asking. CHARMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, you're correct. It is a continuance. So the fines would continue to run. MR. MUCHA: I mean, I have no problem with, you know, checking for the permit issuance after 60 days and the 180 days site visit, things like that, but I don't know if we can actually amend the original order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. MR. MIESZCAK: Doesn't a continuance solve that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What are the fines actually today? I thought it was -- MR. MUCHA: I believe it's 250 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. But how many days? I thought it was -- MR. LAVINSKI: One hundred fifty -- yeah, which order are we working -- MR. MUCHA: It would actually start tomorrow. Today was the compliance date. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, that's what I thought. So the fines right now are zero. MR. MUCHA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the number that we just -- we're not amending the order. We're actually imposing a new order. MR. MUCHA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: I'm a little confused. Is this case -- I've been dealing with this case for several years myself, so I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you get older, your memory seems to -- MR. MUCHA: I am getting older, too. Page 19 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Isn't that right, Phil (sic)? Tammie, do you have any suggestions on this? MS. NICOLA: I don't think you can amend an order retroactively. I think that the order that's in place stays in place, and if you want to continue it and allow the fines to accrue, we can address it later. But I don't think we can go back retroactively and amend it. I mean, we have options when he complies of what we want to do with the fines that are accruing, but I don't think we can go back and amend the prior orders. It's too late. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Is a continuance -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, in that case, if that is going to be the fact, then the fines would continue for 60 days. Return, we have an active building permit. We could abate those fines at that time and do another continuance going forward. MR. MUCHA: So you want to come back -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or we could impose them. What? MR. MUCHA: You want to come back in two months then? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MUCHA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion maker, would you agree to that, 60 days? MR. ASIITON: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We do need a dollar figure on that; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: I think it's already been established, the 250 a day. CIIAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was the other order. The other order -- now, if we continue the other order for 60 days -- Page 20 November 21, 2014 MR. ASHTON: The fines will continue -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continue. MR. ASHTON: -- but then we can rescind the fines if he's got the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. Okay. We'll continue that order -- MR. MUCHA: For 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- for 60 days. MR. ASHTON: Sixty days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we'll see what progress has been made at that point. Okay. Do you understand what we're talking about? MR. TANNASSEE: I believe so. The fines are accruing right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They will start -- there are no fines right now. MR. TANNASSEE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The fines that were on the original order are $150 a day. Those fines will continue to accrue for 60 days. At that time you'll be back here hopefully with a permit, and we can see that work has been done, and we'll handle it at that time. If nothing has been done, we can impose the fine at that time. MR. TANNASSEE: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then the fines will continue from then, okay. So let me restate the motion since it sounds a little confusing; that we will continue this case, a continuance, which means the fines will continue to accrue at $150 a day for 60 days, and at that time the case will be brought back with code enforcement being able to verify that a permit has been pulled and Page 21 November 21, 2014 work is continuing, and we will hear it at that point. MR. MUCHA: Sounds good. MR. MIESZCAK: Quick question. The fine is 150 as it is, or was it 250? MS. NICOLA: It's 150. MR. MUCHA: It's 150, I apologize. MR. MIESZCAK: I heard 250, so -- MR. MUCHA: I was thinking of a permitting case but, yeah, this was a land use case. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you're okay. We'll see you in February? MR. MIESZCAK: February. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: February. Okay. Thank you. MR. TANNASSEE: Thank you. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case under B, stipulations, No. 1, Page 22 November 21 , 2014 Tab 3, Case CESD20140003770, Eurowest Properties Florida, LLP. MR. BOX: Good morning. MR. MIESZCAK: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I just have one quick question before you begin on the stipulation. MR. BOX: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says, description of violation, no building permit. MR. BOX: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Building permit for what'? MR. BOX: That was for a kitchen that was added to a residential property without permits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I'm assuming that the renter was the one that -- MR. BOX: Yes. The house was lived in by two people, one family and then a single man, and he was the one that contacted us -- or contacted Investigator Sundlee back in February of this year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to go through the stipulation? MR. BOX: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I assume that the gentleman couldn't stay? MR. BOX: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOX: I'll read it here. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $76.90 incurred in the prosecution of this case within Page 23 November 21, 2014 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining any and all Collier County building permits through inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days or pay a fine in the amount of $200 per day that the violation remains unabated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance, and 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. A couple of quickies. Number one, There's no safety hazard involved in this now? MR. BOX: No. There's -- one thing that was mentioned in the actual report that was submitted by Investigator Sundlee was there were two issues here. The first one was the fact that there was a kitchen, unpermitted kitchen, and the second was a pool that had a canceled permit. Both those issues have been addressed with the owner of the property who has since renewed a permit for the demolition of the kitchen, to remove that, and they're in the process of getting a permit for the pool. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation as read. MR. ASIITON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to approve the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. Page 24 November 21 , 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASIITON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. BOX: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 5 from hearings, Tab 7, Case CESD20120018259, Gilverto Gendejas. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Weldon. MR. WALKER: Good morning, sir. How are you today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have a stipulation on this. This was a demolition permit that expired. MR. WALKER: That's correct. It was a screened enclosure that was actually demoed completely. I guess the contractor failed to call in the final inspection. I guess there's some disagreement between the actual business owner and the contractor with regards to unresolved issues, so the contractor didn't call in the final inspection. And right now they have actually -- the owner of the building has pretty much took control and said okay, this is what we're going to do. So he's pretty much moved forward to do that and provided me with a signed stipulation agreement to confirm that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. You want to read that into the record? Page 25 November 21, 2014 MR. WALKER: Yes. 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 permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And 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 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. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Take your choice. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEB VRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 26 November 21, 2014 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Weldon. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: We have one more stipulation that was added to the agenda. It's No. 4 from hearings, Tab 6, Case CEROW20140002814, Julio Soto and Patricia P. Soto. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CI-IAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eric, you want to give us a little background to start with? MR. SHORT: For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a right-of-way case that was a damaged culvert that Page 27 November 21, 2014 has since been repaired; however, the permitting didn't go all the way through. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you read the stipulation into the record. MR. SHORT: It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County right-of-way permits and inspections through final approval and/or remove all offending materials from the right-of-way or any activity not permitted with a valid Collier County right-of-way permit within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Soto, you heard what was read in? MR. SOTO: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you agree to that'? MR. SOTO: I agree to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem with the 120 days? MR. SOTO: No. Page 28 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve the stipulation as read. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve the stip. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. SOTO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8 from hearings Tab 10, Case CEPM20140020730, Deborah L. Huttlin. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. KINCAID: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, James. Why don't you give us a little background on this. MR. KINCAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20140020730 dealing with a violation of Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, Article VI, Chapter 22, Section Page 29 November 21 , 2014 22-242, an unsecured property located at 11 Pebble Beach Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34113, and the folio is 54950880009. Service was given on October 16, 2014. I would like to enter two exhibits as evidence: One picture taken by me on October 15, 2014; one picture taken by me on November 20, 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Since the respondents are not here, we'll take a motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEB VR E: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. KINCAID: The details on the case, I received a complaint from the Lely Homeowner Association about an unsecured property located at 11 Pebble Beach Boulevard. A site visit was made on October 15, 2014. I observed the bottom panel of the left side entry door was missing. On October 16, 2014, the applicable notice of violation was posted at the property and the courthouse. There's been no contact with the property owner. And as of Page 30 November 21, 2014 November 20, 2014, the violation remains. The county is convinced or believes that the -- there are vagrants that are going in and out of this house. And I realize that's a small area at bottom of the door, but I think -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They may be short. MR. KINCAID: It's short, but I think I can get through there, and I know other people, especially children, can get through there. And because of the positioning of that piece of wood, on routine patrol, some days it's out, some days it's leaned in the hole, some days it's pushed in, and it just appears that there's activity ongoing there pretty much on a daily basis. So that's kind of the issue here that we believe that, although it doesn't look like -- you know, there's no doors broken down or anything like that, we do believe that the property is being used by people other than those that would be authorized to be there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has this been reported to the sheriff? MR. KINCAID: I think the sheriff is aware that it's there. I mean, we have had issues with the property before. I researched the property before this morning when I -- before we came to the board meeting here, and the final judgment was filed by Bank of America yesterday. So I'm hoping that this will resolve itself quickly. But just because it was filed doesn't necessarily mean that, but hopefully it will progress and be sold to a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, maybe we can motivate the bank to resolve the situation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you do me a favor and put back the previous picture'? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like a door for alligators to get in and out rather than dogs. MR. LEFEBVRE: The doorknob looks really new, so I'm Page 31 November 21, 2014 wondering if someone changed it. I was trying to see if-- the previous picture, if it was an old doorknob or new one, but it looks pretty new. So maybe the bank did go in and try to secure it prior to -- the final judgment, they have to wait for the certificate of title, which takes a couple weeks. So, I mean -- hey, Bank of America's not the fastest moving bank. MR. MARINO: They should still reinforce that hole. They should cover it with a piece of sheet metal or a piece of plywood. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, I understand; I understand. But the lock looks fairly new, so -- did you notice if the front door lock was new, too? MR. KINCAID: I don't think anything has been changed on it. There is a company maintaining it -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KINCAID: -- but I do not believe anything has been done on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: These people live out of state? MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, no. No problem. I'm just trying to -- I make a motion that there is a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 32 November 21, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. A violation exists. And you have a suggestion for us? MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, number one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy necessary to repair/replace broken or missing doors, windows, or other openings, and secure property within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two, or obtain a Collier County building certificate -- a boarding certificate and board the structure to required specifications within blank days of this hearing, and obtain all required Collier County 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 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 33 November 21 , 2014 shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has this been given to the task force that handles foreclosed properties? MR. KINCAID: I believe there was a previous case on the -- on this property, and it was sent, I know, to the banks, to the bank that had the lis pendens filed on it. I think the lis pendens was filed in 2012, if I'm not mistaken. But within the last six months, plus or minus, there was another case on it that was eventually closed. I'm not aware of all of the details, but -- I don't know as per a task force -- we kind of handle that a little bit different now than we used to, but I know the banks have been notified that the violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My concern mostly is that it's an unsecured structure that is being entered by kids. It's a safety hazard. So whatever we come up with should be fast and substantial to motivate the bank to do something soon. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a phone number on the front door or anything of this house that says -- MR. KINCAID: There is for a servicer, but the servicer has changed. We started with this case a couple years back, and we had one servicer, and then we started getting complaints again, and we investigated it, and there was a new servicer. And it just -- it kind of just goes from servicer to servicer, and it's maintained for a while, then it's not maintained and it's maintained and it's not. So it's just kind of an ongoing issue, and it's in an area of the county where the property owners are very conscious of their property values and the appearance of their community, and so it is kind of a -- it's kind of a trouble spot, you know, anytime that we have this. Page 34 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My thought is that no matter what we do, the county's going to wind up abating this problem because you probably won't hear back from the bank quickly enough to resolve the situation. Would somebody like to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: The bank probably won't go on the property to secure this, just a thought, until they actually have title to the property. Could they -- could someone just come and board this without a permit, or does it need -- would it need a permit'? MR. KIN LAID: It would not necessarily have to have a permit to repair it -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KINCAID: -- because it's not a structural repair. So it would -- if it was repaired, it would be a fairly simple repair, and the county would probably just repair the door, not choose to board the property completely, since it's the only issue right now where entrance can be made. Once that was repaired, that would solve the entry problem unless it was broken into again. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if a new door had to be installed, then you would need a permit for a new door, correct? MR. KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It will probably just be boarded in such a way that the county can unscrew the board. MR. KINCAID: I believe under the current building code, if they just changed the door -- if they change door for door of a like door, it would not require a permit to change the door. I believe, however, if the -- any part of the framing for the door or any of the bucking requirements of the door, if that were altered, then it would, at that time, require a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think this is a bank's concern Page 35 November 21, 2014 to take care of this, if not, the county will take care of it. So would anybody like to take a shot at this motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I'm a little concerned about that first one. Is that waiting for a permit just to replace the door, the Item 1? MR. KINCAID: Item 1 is just to repair or replace just the door. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. And Item 2 is boarding the whole house or just the door? MR. KINCAID: They would -- that would depend. They could board, I think, just the door, but then, the order, if they choose to go that direction, the county could go back at any time and bring it back because it was entered again. So my guess is, if they were going to board it, they would board it and be on the safe side and board the entire property, but I think the county would allow just the one point of entry to be boarded. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unless you found that they were now using some other means to enter the house. MR. KINCAID: Correct, right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would anybody like to take a shot? I'll do it if-- MR. LAVINSKI: Well, it's still a little confusing to me. You know, I'll give a shot at it. But the -- I'd like to see the -- make a motion that the 65.01 be paid in 30 days and that the Item 1 be done in 30 days or a $250 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would suggest that the 30 days be a lot shorter. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I was looking at Item 2 to be three days or a fine of$250 a day. That's the boarding of the door. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: If they're going to replace the door or Page 36 November 21, 2014 need a permit, I'd like to see the 30 days or -- what'd I say, 30? Okay -- 30 days and 250 a day, but on the second item, just boarding that hole in three days or a fine of $250 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with that. Okay. We have a motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those -- yes? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think three days is short because they won't even have this order in three days by the time you get it signed and everything, and it is a bank, an entity. MS. NICOLA: It's not going to be possible for me to get these orders done in three days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. It's not like -- MS. NICOLA: I wish I could, but there's no way. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no. Number 2 is three days. MR. LAVINSKI: My goal was trying to get it done before the upcoming holiday so we're not having a Thanksgiving dinner served in that house. MS. NICOLA: We'll have it done by next week, but I just -- you know, today's Friday and, you know -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm saying is Bank of America, it's a large entity. I understand -- I mean, I don't think three days or 15 days is going to matter. It's probably not going to be done in that period. But I guess the other question is, if it's not done in three days, how quickly can the county get out there to board it up? MR. KINCAID: It would have to be sent for bid. So I think it's -- once the bids are sent, I think they have -- is it seven days to respond? MS. ADAMS: It will probably take about two weeks. Page 37 November 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kitchell, you have a comment on this? MR. SNOW: I do. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow. Gentlemen, you could place your order as within three days of receipt of the notice if you were concerned when it was mailed, so that might solve that issue. And normally the bid process is going to take about 10 days for them to respond. We send it out. It takes about 10 days. So I think our time is, the quicker we get the order from you to do it the faster we can get done. So the order, if you were thinking about doing, you could say -- if you wanted a short time frame, you could say 24 hours within receipt of the notice. Once you mail it, they receive it, we have evidence, then we can move forward. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just voiced my opinion, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's up to the motion maker. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, either way -- I'd be willing to leave Item 1 the way it was, leave the payment of the 65.01 and, on Item 2, make that, as Mr. Kitchell said, 24 hours after receipt of notice. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Any comments on the motion? MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MARINO: How long will it take to get the notice out and everything and then for them to serve it and can get them to receive it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it sounds, from Tammie, Page 38 November 21, 2014 that you said you'd have that next week. MS. NICOLA: As quickly as I can get my staff on it. You know, I'm planning on going back to my office this afternoon to try and get these orders drafted. So I'm hopeful that by Monday or Tuesday we'll have good drafts and ready to go. That's the plan. The plan is to get everything done before the Thanksgiving holiday, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but then Thanksgiving they get notice -- MS. NICOLA: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: They may not get notice until the following week. MR. MARINO: The people who are going to get noted (sic) aren't even here, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the bank. And in all likelihood what's going to happen is the county is going to board that hole. That's what's going to happen. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the order is better at three days from today than 24 hours after notice. MR. LAVINSKI: Is that what the majority, you know -- MR. MIESZCAK: I don't think we've ever done hours before. MS. NICOLA: I can expedite this. Let me make it easy. I can expedite this particular order. I mean, I usually do them all as a group package, but if what we're looking for is to say we want this order expedited and we want this one done today, I can get this one done today. That will make it easy. Bob, if you can come this afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can't make it for two weeks, but -- yes. MS. NICOLA: I can get it done today. Page 39 November 21 , 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: All right. Once again, let's take Item 2 back to three days or $250 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does the second agree? MR. MARINO: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any more discussion on this'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anything from the troublemaker here? No, okay. All those in favor'? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN : Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. KINCAID: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 9, Tab 11, Case CESD20140010232, Mansolillo Ira, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hi, Ralph. MR. BOSA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name for the record, both gentlemen. Page 40 November 21 , 2014 MR. MANSOLILLO: Anthony Mansolillo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. JONATHAN: And Michael Jonathan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And, Mr. Mansolillo, if I pronounced that correctly -- MR. MANSOLILLO: Good enough. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Close enough -- you're the respondent. And generally this person with tubes of prints is probably a contractor. MR. MANSOLILLO: Engineer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: An engineer, okay. I didn't see his train, but what the heck. Okay. MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. Before I begin, 1 did speak with the engineer this morning, and they're requesting a continuance on this. Maybe he can explain a little better as far as why -- why they want to continue, continue the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're requesting a continuance. We're not going to hear the case at this second. We want to hear what you have to say first. MR. JONATHAN: Yeah. We have some new construction drawings that are going to be submitted soon, and next week there's going to be a change of the registered agent so that the owner does receive the notices in a timely manner, and also the engineer of record on the job is going to be changed. So the continuance will give us enough time to put that package together and get it into the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you could, just give us a little overview. It looks like it was remodeling of the interior of a home. Page 41 November 21, 2014 MR. JONATHAN: Yeah. And it was a little confusing because, as busy as they are, we've had a hard time contacting the code compliance officer. Originally in the complaint they said that the interior of the detached garage was never permitted to go to living space. So we dug up at the county. We found the signed county documents that all the inspections were passed in '99. Then it was related to us that actually there were new plans submitted that they had rejection letters on and also needed a final roof inspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You don't have to get into detail. MR. JONATHAN:: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you're looking for a continuance of what duration? MR. JONATHAN: Sixty days would do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty days will bring you to the point that you would be able to -- MR. JONATHAN: Well, everything will be submitted to Collier County Review Department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And then the work has been done so this would be -- MR. MANSOLILLO: No, no. MR. JONATHAN: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The work has not been done? MR. JONATHAN: The work was halted by a stop work order from them. See, the house was one of the foreclosures. And when it was open, some vagrants went in and tore the whole inside out. So they're going to be putting back in partition walls and the electrical system. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So 60 days is what you're requesting as a continuance? Page 42 November 21, 2014 MR. JONATHAN: To get the permit to do the work, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ralph, any problems from the county'? MR. BOSA: The permits right now are on reject status. Like he said, they're working on trying to get them CO'ed and everything. Technically, the permit is still valid until January. They have till January to respond and everything. But the reason why I brought it to hearing is because it was kind of stagnant from September all the way till now, and I didn't receive any correspondence from them. I think, sir, it was your son who called me yesterday and told me that you would be here. MR. MARINO: Yeah. MR. BOSA: So the county doesn't have any objection as far as granting a continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MANSOLILLO: I was just going to say, it's not because I wanted to ignore them. In September I was diagnosed with mesothelioma in my left lung from Agent Orange in Vietnam. And I went to Petersburg Hospital, then after that I went to the Harvard Clinic up in Boston where they're doing studies on this thing, and then I went to the hospital in Miami. So it's been kind of a round and round. And I don't intend -- when I bought this property from the bank, it was all gutted and so on. There were fines on it. The day I bought it, I went down and settled the fines. Before I started the permits, I went down and sat with this wonderful lady down there for a half a day, told me what to do. She was the one, in fact, who told me -- she says, yeah, that garage is permitted. She was the one who got it all out for me. The county staff has been marvelous down there. I just haven't Page 43 November 21 , 2014 been available, but I'm available now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's great. So you really have till January anyhow. What I would suggest, that we extend it till February just in case. There's always a last-minute. So you're requesting a continuance of-- 90 days probably would be in the best interest. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: I think that ought to do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: The violation, is it for not having permits; is that what it is? MR. BOSA: Correct. This case originated from contractor licensing, and they got us involved, you know. The place was completely gutted and stuff. So my concern to ask was -- put it on the record -- there's nobody living at this structure at all? MR. JONATHAN: No. MR. MANSOLILLO: No. MR. BOSA: I just wanted to put that on the record there's nobody living there. MR. LEFEBVRE: So once they get the permits, then they'll be in compliance? MR. BOSA: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we don't have to -- it's not that they have to get a CO on the property. They just have to get permits. MR. BOSA: The permits have been applied for. They're in reject status right now. Once he gets the corrections done, they'll re-open them again, and then he'll have another three or six months, whatever they would give him, to complete the CO process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Simply, if the board grants 90 days and the permits have been approved, we won't see these gentlemen back here? Page 44 November 21, 2014 MR. BOSA: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to extend for 90 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for a continuance of 90 days. That means the fines accrue unless it's done, and then -- okay. MR. MANSOLILLO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The motion was to extend? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Extend, excuse me. No fines. Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MANSOLILLO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From one Vietnam vet to another, thanks for your service. MR. MANSOLILLO: Same to you, sir. MR. BOSA: The 65.43 for today's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has that been paid? MR. JONATHAN: I don't think. Page 45 November 21 , 2014 MR. MANSOLILLO: I don't have a bill for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Court costs for today. MR. MANSOLILLO: I don't have a bill -- I didn't know about it. Oh, wait a minute. There is a -- there is a $65 thing in here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you and Ralph have a little pow wow outside and agree -- MR. MANSOLILLO: Yeah. If it is, I'll be glad to go pay it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, so you're going to assess the 65.43 for today's hearing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. ADAMS: Okay. And that will be due within 30 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The next case is from No. 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number 1, Tab 15, Case CESD20140004100, Leslie J. and Lois R. Harvey. Mr. Chairman, they do have two cases. I don't know if you want me to just name both of those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we'll vote on them separately, but we'll hear the cases together. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The second one is No. 2, Tab 16, Case CEPM20140003389, Leslie J. and Lois R. Harvey. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My first question -- everybody sworn? THE COURT REPORTER: No (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on Page 46 November 21, 2014 the mike so -- MR. HARVEY: Leslie J. Harvey. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I have one question. The operational costs, 63.57, have they been paid? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMMAN: Let me tell you our long-standing rule. If the operational costs have not been paid, we don't entertain any motions for anything. We just impose the fine. Okay? MR. HARVEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the 63.57 -- I assume that you have something that you'd like to ask the board. MR. HARVEY: Yeah. You want me to pay it right now'? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Today before you leave. MR. HARVEY: Yeah, that's no problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Joe, you're -- you'll take care of showing him where to take care of that? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You are requesting what now? MR. HARVEY: An extension. I've had medical problems, in and out of the hospital for the last year and a half. I usually handle all the maintenance on this building. I didn't know anything about fines or violations or anything like that. And I understand -- I haven't spoken to them, but the realtor told me that there's an investor that wants to buy that property. He has numerous properties in the county. The big thing that I'm concerned about is this is a four -- I've got four rentals, and there -- a violation came back that this is a duplex and I'm in violation because there was four rentals. I took a couple of pictures and it shows -- I've had this Page 47 November 21, 2014 property about 15 years, 13, 15 years, something like that -- that the meter panels look like the original ones that were put in there in '65. And that's my real concern, because the -- to sell this property, the man wants -- the investor wants the four-family. If it goes to a two-family, a duplex, well, of course, that's going to drop the price down. And there's other bills that have to be taken care of on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand, but we're not here at this point -- MR. HARVEY: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to hear this case. MR. HARVEY: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This case was heard, and this goes back to -- the re-inspection was performed in October of this year, but I notice that the original order was signed, it looks like, in September for this case. So let me hear what the county has to say. Joe? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Supervisor Joe Mucha, code enforcement. Today is the first day that -- to my knowledge that we've ever heard from Mr. Harvey. We've sent several notices and things like that to his address of record, and they all were returned to us. Never a phone call, so this is my first day meeting him, speaking to him. So, you know, I know he wanted to ask for a continuance, but, you know, at this point -- I mean, nobody's in the building, so it's not harming anybody at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it sounds like this is going to go as an argument back to the county, it's a quad. It's not zoned for that or whatever, and this is going to go on and on and Page 48 November 21, 2014 on, from my experience on how these things wind up being resolved. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess -- I don't want to hear the case, but is there a possibility that this could be a quad on this property, or does zoning not allow it? MR. MUCHA: To be honest with you, I haven't looked that far into it. I'm here presenting on behalf of the investigator today, so we'd have to go back and look into it further, and I'd be happy to do that with Mr. Harvey. I mean, I can't say, just as you stated, that, you know, he should have been here or somebody should have been here back in September to make that argument, but I'll be happy to look further into it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I want to resolve this today. I don't want to wait another -- I mean, this -- MR. MUCHA: As far as I can see, all indications are that this thing was illegally converted, but I'll be happy to look at whatever evidence he has. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have no idea when it was illegally converted. He says he's owned it for -- MR. MUCHA: It's an old building. This building was probably built in the '60s, so it could have been -- how long have you owned it, Mr. Harvey? MR. HARVEY: About 13, 15 years. MR. MUCHA: So it could have been done in between -- MR. HARVEY: '66, I believe it was built. MR. MARINO: How many meters are on the building? MR. HARVEY: Four. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think that -- who is it, FP&L? Page 49 November 21, 2014 MR. MUCHA: FP&L. I don't think they -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They don't care. You can tell them to put 10 meters on if you want to pay for them. That's fine. MR. MUCHA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That really shouldn't have anything to do with this. MR. LEFEBVRE: What are you looking for -- why are you looking for a continuance? What are you looking -- are you just looking to sell'? MR. HARVEY: I never met with the investor, but they want the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: But they want it as a four-plex. MR. HARVEY: Four -- exactly, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But if we get a continuance, you sell it, they know there's a potential violation, they buy it, now we're going to have to deal with a new owner. MR. HARVEY: It's not going to be -- they want it as a four-plex. MR. LEFEBVRE: But do they know there's a case on it? MR. HARVEY: Yes. And there's windows that have to be replaced there. Their intention is to do the whole joint. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what I'm trying to get at, if they know there's a violation on the property and that there's potentially not the ability to have a four-plex, why would they still be interested in it? MR. HARVEY: As far as I know, they believe it's a four-plex. That's what the problem is. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the problem is, then they're not aware of this case. MR. HARVEY: Oh, yeah. They should be aware of it now, because I already spoke to the realtor. Page 5() November 21, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: But what I'm trying to get at is they would not still be interested in it if there's a question of it not being a four-plex. MR. HARVEY: Then -- if it goes, then it's going to be a duplex. Then, of course, the price will come down. They're still interested in buying it because it's a decent-size piece of property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask this question. If it's not legal to make it a four-plex and the people that are -- who are talking to a realtor -- we know how that works -- don't buy it, then what? What are you going to do? MR. HARVEY: I'm going to do anything I can to sell it. I just want to get rid of it now. And it will go as a duplex at the reduced rate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's a problem. Now MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a problem giving a continuance and having the property sold. I've been on this board for 12 years. Back in, like, 2004 I remember a case where a property was sold that had a violation, the people did not know that there was a violation -- that they did not know there was a violation on the property, and we had to start from square one, and we actually told the person not to sell the property on top of it. So I have a problem giving a continuance so you can just have the luxury of selling the property. So I would not be -- I'd be opposed to a continuance. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. It sounds like if we don't impose the fines, we could possibly -- this property could possibly pass on to someone with those defects, and it may never get resolved from a two to a four. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. And I'm not confident that these buyers know that there is a violation, this particular violation. Page 51 November 21, 2014 I make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. What you can do from here is you can still do your negotiating. And the total amount that's due to date is 61 .26. The fines will continue to accrue. They can figure that into their figure of buying it. If you can get it okayed for a four-plex and they want to buy it, you have a difference here now of $6,000, give or take when it can be purchased. So it's not the end of the world -- or you can go to the county commissioners, and if they see fit, they could modify this, but that's how we stand right now. MR. HARVEY: Even showing you the pictures of the old -- the meter panel that's there, the existing one? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Meters don't mean anything. Just because there are four meters -- you could have six meters in there. It doesn't change the underlying zoning. That's what counts. So I'm sure that Joe would be glad to take a look with you to see, but the case is really done. Page 52 November 21, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: The case -- the time to be here would have been in August to speak about the meters and everything, but now we're way past that. MR. HARVEY: But I sent them a letter -- and here's the receipt -- that I wouldn't be able to make it, because I was under medical treatment. I'm going through this thing for, like, four years, colon cancer. I'm taking all the chemo, doing the whole deal. I still have the remnants of the chemo with my hands being numb, my feet being numb. So I can't do any work at that place. I was the guy that took care of the whole deal. So it's not like I'm trying to avoid. And I'm not disputing that the grass wasn't cut and some other things that are wrong. The big thing is from four-plex down to a duplex there -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's the only violation that we voted on. There's nothing to do with your grass or your windows or anything else. MR. HARVEY: I understand that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was -- converted duplex into a quad-plex without proper permits. So maybe you can work with the Joe or John. John? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement. My case is actually for property maintenance issues on that property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, that's the second case. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the second case -- I think we'll just hear that one. We voted on this one. Now let's hear this a little bit before we make a determination on this case. MR. SANTAFEMIA: This case actually came to my Page 53 November 21, 2014 attention by a complaint filed by one of the tenants of this building. And when I went and did the minimum housing inspection for that complaint, I noted, besides the many housing issues/violations that I noted, it appeared that it had been converted from a duplex to a four-plex. At that time that's when I got with Joe Mucha, and he assigned that part of the investigation to one of his investigators to research the permitting aspect of it, and her conclusion was, at that time, that it had been converted. Both cases were heard at the same hearing, and the orders were both issued at the same date. So Mr. Harvey came in this morning, obviously got the notice of hearing for this hearing, which is the first time I've ever met the gentleman or spoken to him. I don't believe Investigator Davidson had actually spoken to him prior to today. She's not here either. So we told him that he could come up and ask whatever he needed to ask, but that the case was already heard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Harvey said he sent a letter. Did you ever receive a letter? MR. SANTAFEMIA: I'm not aware of any letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Mucha, did you ever receive a letter? MR. MUCHA: (Shakes head.) MR. HARVEY: I have the receipt here over on Goodlette, the post office. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a receipt for? MR. HARVEY: Yes, for mailing the letter at the airport -- at the post office. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that a certified return receipt? MR. HARVEY: No, it's not. No, it's not. And I know I made a mistake when I did that, but that was sent out on 8/21 . CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. There is another name. Page 54 November 21, 2014 Lois, is that your -- MR. HARVEY: Wife. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your wife. Was she aware of any of this? MR. HARVEY: No. She -- she doesn't even know where the building is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You sure that's not my wife'? No. MR. HARVEY: Oh, man. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This violation is a lot of the -- no water pressure, shower, toilet backs up, et cetera. These items here are still as stated in the violation? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yes, as far as I know. The structure is secured. It's unoccupied. It has been for quite some time now. And, like I said, we've never had any access back into the building to verify that anything's been done as far as the property maintenance side of it. The tenant who made the complaint has moved on long ago. So I really had -- and today was the first time the owner has actually got in touch with us, so -- CI IAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any photos of this? MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not hearing the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we are, because it's a separate case. Well, yeah. So those were presented at the case. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yes, they were entered as evidence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman, the operational costs, were they -- that hasn't been paid either. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. They haven't been paid. MR. SANTAFEMIA: The ops costs on this, on my case, Page 55 November 21, 2014 have also not been paid. I will also say that a lot of what needs to be done to correct the violations in my case, typically, will wait until the permitting issue gets resolved because, you know, I don't want to have him -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fix something that -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: Fix something up that he's not allowed to have anyway. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Okay. Any comments from the board'? MR. LEFEBVRE: Does a violation still exist? MR. MIESZCAK: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we know that a violation exists. This is for -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor'? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSIINELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a discussion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to discuss it? MR. LEFEBVRE: The question is, is there still a violation when it's unoccupied? Page 56 November 21, 2014 MR. SANTAFEMIA: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: Yes, it is. I know that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: They're required to have running water and everything else. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Now, the urgency of it is a lot less obvious if there's nobody living there as far as the housing end of it is concerned, but these are still -- the board found these violations that existed, and they need to be corrected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HARVEY: There's no running water. That's been turned off. MR. MIESZCAK: That's required. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's required, but that's -- okay. We have a motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you. MR. HARVEY: Thank you. MR. MUCHA: Should we read these into the record? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Well, yeah, we need that and the number on the case. Page 57 November 21, 2014 MR. MUCHA: Okay. I'll read mine first. This is Case No. CESD20140004100. Violation of Ordinance 04-41 , as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Violation location is 4311 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples; Folio No. 35647520002. Description is a converted duplex into a quad-plex without proper permits. Past orders: On August 28, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of facts, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5078, Page 3515, for more information. Violation has not been abated as of November 21, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $150 per day for the period between October 13, 2014, to November 21, 2014, 40 days for a total fine amount of $6,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of 63.57 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, 62.49. Total amount to date: $6,126.06. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. John? MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2, Tab 16, Case CEPM20 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: John has to read his case into the record. MS. ADAMS: Right. I thought you wanted me to announce it, though. I'm just announcing the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: CEPM20140003389, Leslie J. and Lois R. Harvey. Page 58 November 21, 2014 MR. SANTAFEMIA: Violation in this case is violation of Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, Chapter 22, building and building regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231, Subsections (1), (3), (11), (12)(C), (12)(D), (12)(I), (12)(K), (12)(N), (12)(P), (19), and (20). Location of violation is 4311 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 35647520002. Description of violation -- violations are no counter workspace in kitchen, no water pressure in shower, toilet backs up into unit, no hot water, unsafe electric wiring, facia in disrepair, numerous inoperable and broken windows, entry door hardward in disrepair, accessory structure in disrepair, interior walls need painting, litter and debris scattered about property, mold observed inside A/C unit, and no smoke detectors found. Past order: On August 28, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. Order recorded was OR5078, Page 3512. Violation has not been abated as of November 21, 2014.. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between September 28, 2014, to November 21, 2014,. for a total of 55 days for a total fine amount of $4,000 (sic). Fines continue to accrue. Previous assessed operational costs of $65.49 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $62.91 . Total amount to date is $11,128.40. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we hear the next case, Page 59 November 21, 2014 we're going to take a seven-minute break. MS. ADAMS: Okay. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to meeting. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Tab 17, Case CESD20120000189, George D. Rodriguez and Sucet Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your names on the mike so -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: Sucet Rodriguez. MR. LOCKHART: Robert Lockhart. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see somebody with papers and somebody without papers. Can we figure that out'? MS. RODRIGUEZ: We got this. I'm just here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is an imposition of fines, and I'm assuming that you are here to ask for something. MR. LOCKHART: Request a continuance, six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Fines haven't been paid, I mean, the previous operational. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, they have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They have been paid. MR. ASHTON: Oh, they have been? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: We've got two sheets, sir. MR. ASHTON: Oh, I missed it. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN KAUF'VIAN: Okay. If you'd give us just a quick background. MR. LOCKHART: Sure. We were here before you on February 27th. At that time it was a request for a continuance. We requested a one-year, and it came back after vote that it was Page 60 November 21, 2014 180 days, to August 26th. The case was to be reviewed, I guess, within three months by the code enforcement to make sure that the permit was pulled and that construction was ongoing to complete the work on the guesthouse. We have done that, or the work was ongoing. The last inspection was, I guess, May 15th before I got noticed by the owner that they tried to get a loan at the bank and -- to continue construction. They ran out of funds that they were using for themselves, and the bank had a problem because there was a code case. I tried to resolve this with Jeff Wright. Got him to write a letter to the bank stating that there was no lien on the property, that it was just notice of a code case, that he could not remove the code case, which is what the title company for the bank wanted. So we're not able to get the loan, but there were other arrangements that were worked out. The permit is still valid. They did have an inspection this week, Monday -- Tuesday of this week. And with the permit being valid, we just want to continue to work and finish the construction. Again, six months should finish. The exterior has been completed. The windows are in. The doors are in. The interior framing's done, the electric, the A/C. It just needs to be continually worked on to get the CO. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six months? MR. LOCKHART: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If all those things have been done, what takes so long to go another six months? You said the A/C, the electrical, plumbing? MR. LOCKHART: Well, the framing is in. The drywall's not done. There's, again -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So then the final electric, A/C, Page 61 November 21, 2014 et cetera, is not done? MR. LOCKHART: Right, right, right. MR. ASHTON: All the rough-in. MR. LOCKHART: I mean, with a valid permit, you could pull it up, and you can see the inspections have been ongoing from February, then we're here (sic). I guess they started in March doing the work and inspections. But it's been ongoing till they ran into a hiccup with trying to get more money, and they couldn't do it through a bank, so they, again, got some investor to assist them in the final funding and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This case has been going on for two years. MR. LOCKHART: Right. Well, it's my understanding that it should have been brought -- and this is what -- I'm a little confused. Jeff Wright said, well, you'll be able to go back before the board in August or September and ask for another six months, and we never heard anything. The respondent didn't hear anything. 1 was in touch trying to make sure that the permit was maintained open and valid and inspections were ongoing. They need to do something however they could, you know, to get a passing inspection, keep it going. And the next thing you know, they got notice here of imposition of fines. I was under the assumption that we would be back before here before you-all August 26th, but somehow we weren't. So, again, I'm -- that's basically where I'm at. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. County? MR. ASARO: We don't -- the county doesn't have -- has no problem with granting them an extension. I've talked to Mrs. Rodriguez, and they've had some financial setbacks, some issues that -- now they're bringing Page 62 November 21, 2014 everything up to speed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is that this started -- I mean, the case was brought here -- as a matter of fact, I signed it October 4, 2012. That was over two years ago when we heard it. So the violation predates that. This is just going on and on and on. And when you get to the imposition of fines, at that point in time, to have another request for another extension and, especially, another six-month extension seems to be, to me, out of line. What say the board? MR. MIESZCAK: When you say "continuance" and "extension," are you talking about continuance if, in fact, you were going to do it? Is that the right wording? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance, the fines continue to accrue. MR. MIESZCAK: So not extension, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. MIESZCAK: I just want to say -- MR. LEFEBVRE: How big's the house? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Eight hundred sixty square feet. It's a guesthouse. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's a guesthouse. Six months, I think, is totally unreasonable to finish a 860-square-foot home or guest home. I think it's just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, from the position it's in now, it's all roughed in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Exactly, that's what I'm saying. From the current -- in the current state that it's in, I think six months is way too long. In fact, you do have funding to do this and get this wrapped up. I'd be more inclined to four months. Page 63 November 21, 2014 MS. RODRIGUEZ: I mean, we're doing this by owner. My dad is doing most of the work. So, I mean, that's what I'm looking at. MR. LEFEBVRE: I've told people this many a times; you can build a high-rise in 18 months, and this is an 860-square-foot home. And I think there's issues, but to go two-and-a-half years to build an 860-square-foot guest home is just unacceptable. MS. RODRIGUEZ: We went a year with permitting issues, trying to get the plans done. That was, like, a whole year. First of all, we got the house not even knowing that there was, like, things already implemented, and then code enforcement comes to our house, and we're like, uh, what's going on? That was the first thing. And then last year, the beginning of this year, we started with money we had, and everything was great. We did not know that having open permits and asking for an equity line of credit, they weren't going to give it to us because we had a potential lien on the house. So that's what -- we would have finished the house by now if the bank would have gave us the loan, but we couldn't. Now, this past Tuesday, we finally got a closing with a private investor that we found. So I just think, give or take when you look for people -- I'm just telling you by experience -- I mean, I don't know about construction. From the past time, like, everything we've done, it takes time to look for people. Like, if my dad doesn't know how to do it, he looks for someone else. You know what I'm saying? It takes time, and I think four months is not enough. I think six months sounds reasonable. I don't know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask a couple of quick Page 64 November 21, 2014 questions. Again, this goes back -- I don't know when the initial violation was. But, again, this was signed in October of 2012. What preceded the October 2012? Did you -- when did you purchase this property'? MS. RODRIGUEZ: October, November 2012. November -- October 2012, I guess. That same month. Right when we purchased, we had code enforcement knocking on our doors. We're like, okay, what's going on? We had no clue that there was issues going on in the guesthouse from the prior owners. The gazebo wasn't CO'ed; the garage back there wasn't CO'ed. We took care of that immediately because we weren't aware of that. Like, we've been -- we've been doing things. We would have finished this in six months, but we had that bank issue. We weren't aware that if-- once we started the construction, there was a potential lien, and the banks wouldn't go through with the loan. MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I'd like to say one thing. We run into this. And I've been on this board almost 10 years. When somebody purchases a property, and if there is a violation on their property, they bought it, and it goes with the land. So you inherited that problem. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Right. MR. MIESZCAK: And it is unfortunate that sellers do get away with that. And that's why, a few cases you already heard, why we do what we do. In this case I'm willing to do six months final. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I have no problem with six months, because I know when you run into that problem because you inherited something you bought, it's too bad that -- a lot of Page 65 November 21 , 2014 people out there don't realize you can go to code enforcement before you purchase a property, and they'll give you a quick fix for $25. They check out things. And you'll find out if there's a lien or what's going on with the property, and I think that's healthy. A lot of people don't do it, but they should. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you buy this through a realtor? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did they tell you that you could do a lien search on the property? They didn't give you the brochure? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I can tell you as a realtor, and so could all of us that are realtors on the board, let you know that that's a requirement now. When you purchase a home -- and it was the requirement in 2012 that the lien search was to be done. The board of realtors partnered with Collier County to develop a brochure stating that, and that's the best $25 anybody can spend. The problem that I have with granting six more months is the same that Mr. Lefebvre has, that six more months to do 800 square feet is not six months. It's two-and-a-half years. And that's my comment on it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I made a motion for four months. Do I have a second? MS. BUSHNELL: I'll second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second for four months. Do you have anything else to add to that; any comments on the motion? Page 66 November 21, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. MIESZCAK: You know, it's like I said, as long as we've been on this board, people have bought property in Collier County and they were unaware of the garage was over too far or whatever violation it was. And at the time they didn't have that up until, I think, 2012 where you had that notice that code provides if there's any problem with the property. So it was fairly new, and I think it was 2012. You might be right. Yes, the realtor should have done something there. And if we could help somebody in that case -- and I know there, Gerald, that, you know, two-and-a-half years is a long time, but the point is they inherited something that stepped back. It probably cost them a year to get things done. And so that's why, for four months as opposed to six, two months, I don't see a problem with six months. MR. LEFEBVRE: The thing I have is -- purchasing a property is one thing, but they've owned it for over two years now, and that's -- it's not like they just took ownership to it. If they just took ownership, we're at six months later, I would understand that. It's two years now. So it's not just recently that they purchased it, or sometimes people come in front of us and they've owned the property for a month or two. I would understand that. But this case has been going on. We've heard it over two years ago, again, as Mr. Kaufman stated, that it's been going on a lot longer than that. So I can't agree to -- MR. MIESZCAK: I just have -- last comment. I just have to say, because they inherited something they weren't aware of and they purchased the property, that's a setback in itself. And like she said, the code enforcement showed up at their Page 67 November 21, 2014 door because they knew there was a problem already. So ifs just unfortunate. And we're talking a couple of months. It doesn't seem -- I mean, we're going an extra two-month mile to give them that chance. And if we have to hear it again, they'll understand what we're doing. But I just think, for a couple months, it doesn't make that big a deal, and it will certainly help them, I'm sure. MR. LAVINSKI: No, I agree that the four months is probably the way to go. Unless we have some incentive to get on this and get it done after two-and-a-half years, we're going to be here in six months going over this again, so I support the four months. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the other thing is, the issues have been resolved that they were talking about, the financing issues, the permitting issues. Everything's been resolved. Now there's no reason why it should be slowed up, period. I mean, they should have been lining up contractors to finish this project up while -- they should be working -- they should have been working in conjunction with getting financing and everything, and that should all be lined up knowing that this case is outstanding. So that's why there's -- there should not be any further issues. MS. RODRIGUEZ: We were, but it's not -- it doesn't take us -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We're done hearing from the public. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My comment is this: I think the board is being benevolent. We could impose the fine right now. So by granting four months, that is going the extra mile to look out for the county. And after four months, hopefully it will be done and we won't see you again. But if it's not done, you'll be back here, and we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Page 68 November 21 , 2014 Hopefully we won't have to cross the bridge. But that's my two cents' worth. MR. LAVINSKI: Can we call the vote? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. MIESZCAK: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have one opposition. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4. It's Tab 18, Case CEPM20140011631, RT Berger, Sr., Revocable Trust Estate. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Before I get into the actual imposition, I'd like to read an email we received from one of the citizens that was affected by this violation. As you know, it was the backed up drain from the golf course that we saw or heard maybe a couple months ago. And I quote, to all involved, words cannot express our gratitude for all the time and effort on the county -- excuse me -- on the Charity Court drain project. To anyone who took a call, forwarded or answered an email, drove to the property, walked the property, assessed the problem, took pictures, drove a truck, dug a ditch, voted on the issue, we are sincerely thankful for your Page 69 November 21, 2014 help. Please let us know if there's anything we can do in the future to show the appreciation we taxpayers have for the teamwork Collier County has shown us. So I just wanted to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's basically what code enforcement is all about. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nice letter. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. The violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-228, general provisions, subsection (1). Violation location: 4710 Lakewood Boulevard, Naples, Florida; Folio 54000160006. Description of the violation: The owners of this golf course, formerly Evergreens Golf and Country Club, have failed to maintain the required drainage system, specifically Ditches 1 and 2 and Lake 4, as outlined in the Lakewood Outfall and Surface Water Drainage System Agreement, OR2732, Page 3156, causing a dangerous flooding condition in the surrounding area. Past order: On August 28, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5078, Page 3546, for more information. The violation has been abated as of September 3, 2014. Fines have -- fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $250 per day for the period between August 30, 2014, to September 3, 2014, five days, for a total fine amount of $1 ,250. Previously assessed operational costs of$63.29 have not Page 70 November 21 , 2014 been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing: $63.75. Abatement costs in the amount of $2,431 .86 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $3,808.90. CIAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So their violation was abated by the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. All those in favor'? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask you a question. Is this going to be a reoccurring problem'? MR. LETOURNEAU: You know, 10 years down the road, most likely, yeah. I think the county really went in there and did a good job. They cleaned that big tree that was blocking that drainage entryway, and then they just dug the whole ditch all the way down to the lake. And then they found another problem that was actually the Lakewood Association problem, which they've come in and fixed also. Page 71 November 21 , 2014 So I don't anticipate any issues for quite some time. But, you know, weeds will grow up. Hopefully this golf course will get bought up and taken care of in the meantime. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has anyone been proactive and maybe looked at other swales and drainage ditches and so forth on this property to see if there's any other violations? MR. LETOURNEAU: We have not looked into that. I mean, we've been cutting the grass on the course the last couple years due to other cases, nuisance abatement cases, but we haven't really proactively looked at any drainage ditches. MR. LEFEBVRE: It might just be a good idea to try to be proactive. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's a good idea. I do think that other drainage on that golf course does come into county drainage, so -- and we're maintaining them on a yearly basis, so hopefully if something -- a problem occurs down there, we'll see it before it gets out of control like this one did. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6, Tab 20, Case CESD20120015571 , Geri Bradley. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BRADLEY: Geri Bradley. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Eric. Good morning. Could you state your name on the mike so that we -- MS. BRADLEY: Geri Bradley. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I assume that since you're standing there that you probably would like to ask the board for some sort of consideration? Page 72 November 21, 2014 MS. BRADLEY: Yes. We actually have been in front of the board a couplQ different times for extensions on the home that we bought. It was a 2006 home that we purchased about a year and four months ago, and we actually have completed it. I'm happy to say that this week we got our CO, so hopefully we'll be in there before Thanksgiving. And I'd just like to ask the board, if there were any fines, to waive those fines. We did -- when we purchased the home, we hit the ground running and we got inspection after inspection, and we're finished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see $144.91 have been paid; today's hearing, 66.27, need to be paid; and the total fines to date are $28,333.80. Any comments from the board? MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think you may have a revised version. MR. LAVINSKI: You're reading from a different list than I have. MS. BUSHNELL: In our packet we had two pages. CHARMAN KAUFMAN: Oh. MR. LAVINSKI: Earth to Bob. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My fines are -- MR. MIESZCAK: Have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was the addendum to it. Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKL Is this one of those cases where we should have some sort of a partial abatement, or what's the board's feeling on that? Page 73 November 21, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Well -- so you bought this house partially completed then? MS. BRADLEY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Through, like, foreclosure or something'? MS. BRADLEY: Actually we bought it off of Craig's List. The guy had it listed, and the trusses were rotted. The only thing that was really salvageable was the concrete shell. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has -- you don't really need to go out there and inspect it because it's been CO'ed, correct? MR. SHORT: Correct. It has -- it received the CO on the 17th. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you're looking for an abatement is what you're basically looking for? MS. BRADLEY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: When did you purchase it again? MS. BRADLEY: July 2013. MR. LEFEBVRE: And this case was opened in January -- or actually the order -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: January 24th. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- January 24, 2013. So, basically, what you're coming in front of us for is you're asking for an abatement of the fine? MS. BRADLEY: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think this would be a case of assessing some kind of fine because they didn't live in it. It was a new construction. They completed it. If anything, they made it -- made the neighborhood look better than looking at a blighted house. So I make a motion to -- if we abate the fines, then the operational costs for today would not be paid -- wouldn't have to be paid, correct? Page 74 November 21, 2014 MS. ADAMS: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: They seem like they did everything they had to do. They came in front of us to get extensions or continuances. I make a motion to abate the fine. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. MS. BRADLEY: I'd like to take the time to thank the board so much. I mean, you guys have been so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't thank us until we vote on it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Not yet. We have to vote on it, but it sounds like everyone seconded it, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I want to comment on Mr. Lavinski's comment. 1 agree that there are cases where full abatement doesn't seem proper to the taxpayers of Collier County because somehow the money that was on the fines is related to the cost of purchasing a property, et cetera, et cetera. In this case, however -- that would be a good thing to start at some point in the future but probably not with this case. So I go along with the abatement. And all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 75 November 21 , 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Congratulations. MS. BRADLEY: Thank you so much. MR. MARINO: Happy Thanksgiving. MS. BRADLEY: Yep. Same to you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll be over for dinner. What time? MS. BRADLEY: About two. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have a great day. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8, Tab 22, Case CESD20130014804, Antone C. Mendes. MR. MENDES: I think Eric just stepped out with him. Oh, he's back. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MENDES: I am Antone Mendes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which tab number'? MS. ADAMS: It's Tab 22, and there's a revised sheet in there for you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you state your name for the record on the mike. MR. MENDES: Antone Mendes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was an original case for unpermitted fencing for a refrigerated structure; am I correct? MR. MENDES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MENDES: And a slab and something that my -- it's a restaurant. You-all recall when the tenants did unauthorized work. Unfortunately, you know, I let them -- you know, talking to them, letting them try and get things resolved. I've been here Page 76 November 21 , 2014 before to ask for a continuance and everything. They weren't doing the work. Then this past month, when I was -- you know, hopefully not to come back here today, tried to have them to get things done. They didn't. They brought people on the property that weren't -- didn't have, you know, proper licensing, permitting and all that kind of stuff. I told them they couldn't be there, and then I just took -- not to waste anybody's time, and their -- you know, my time, took matters into my own hands and started getting things done. Most of this stuff has been abated, the problems. I have -- there's one permit on file right now that's been through fire review. They're just waiting for it to go through the review process. I was hoping to have that done before this meeting, but they said the review wouldn't be done till the 24th, I believe. And it's just for them to come out and inspect the property that everything's been taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Eric, have you been to the property recently'? MR. SHORT: I have. And as Mr. Mendes stated, everything's been removed. The only thing holding this up for, you know, completion and full abatement is that the refrigerated structure, it has been removed, but we need to have mechanical go in there and make sure everything's been properly disconnected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board'? MR. MENDES: I mean, I don't know if the board can do anything but, you know, I was hoping -- that's on the 24th. I mean, I know you have to have them go review it, but I was hoping not to have to come back, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, there is no -- Page 77 November 21, 2014 MR. MENDES: I do what I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There is no meeting in December, so if we would grant a continuance on this, it would be until January. MR. LEFEBVRE: So on the 24th, you'll potentially have your certificate of completion? MR. MENDES: I talked to Renald Paul in there, and he told me that it's in review, and it should be the 24th when it comes out. MR. LEFEBVRE: When it comes out. Then you get an inspection done. MR. MENDES: Yeah. And they're supposed to come out, look at it, and hopefully everything is fine because -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You get a certificate of completion at that point. MR. MENDES: Exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the difference between the order that we had in our package and the order given to us today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably the court costs have been paid. MS. ADAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: They were paid -- they were paid before. MS. BUSHNELL: Yep. MR. MENDES: Like I said, once I took it out of my tenants' control and tried to take it on my own because I wanted to get this taken care of-- it is my responsibility. I understand I'm the property owner, so -- once I took over, I think that Eric can testify that it's been done quickly. MR. LEFEBVRE: You won't have to go back out. Once you get the certificate of completion, you see that in the file -- MR. SHORT: Correct, yeah. Once I see that there's been a Page 78 November 21, 2014 certificate of completion -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to continue to our next meeting, which will be in January. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: January 22nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second; Lisa. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSIINELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CIIAIR_MAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. ,MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MENDES: All right. Thanks for your support. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have a good day. MR. SHORT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMMAN: I have a question on this case before everybody disappears. The fines that are on -- this was not an abatement, so this will have to come back. MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it will come back as something that's been completely done, and then at that time the fines can or cannot be abated. Okay, thank you. Thank you. MR. SHORT: Thank you. Page 79 November 21, 2014 MR. MENDES: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 9, Tab 23, case CEPM20140008527, Gail A. Pandolfe. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, John. MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case is in reference to CEPM20140008527. The violations of Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, Chapter 22, building and building regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(15). Location of violation is 604 110th Avenue North, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 62572280008. Description of violation is private swimming pool not being maintained creating an unhealthy condition. On August 28, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. The order was recorded: OR5078, Page 3530. Violation has been abated as of October 9, 2014. Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for a period -- for the period between September 5, 2014, to October 9, 2014, for 35 days, for a total fine amount of S8,750. Previous assessed operational cost of$63.29 have not been paid. Operational cost for this hearing today is $63.75. Abatement cost in the amount of $1,657 has not been paid. Total amount to date is $10,535.04. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in touch with Page 80 November 21, 2014 the respondent at all'? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. There has not been any contact with this property owner. It's -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. MR. SANTAFEMIA: -- a foreclosure. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case No. 10, Tab 24, Case CELU20140001165, Helen Valent. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state -- MS. VALENT: Ilelen Valent. MR. LESTER: Tom Lester. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Lester, are you -- MR. LESTER: I'm here to talk to you today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And why don't you -- MR. LESTER: Ms. Valent came to present herself in front Page 81 November 21 , 2014 of you and answer any questions you had, but basically I'm -- I think I can speak to the issue. It's real simple. We had a real estate closing; you would understand. It was delayed; you would understand. They switched banks; you would understand. The new bank is closing next week. It will make everything go away, and we're done. That's as short as I can make it. We're asking for your corporation and continuance so that these two trucks can -- two trailers can be moved, and one truck, and it should be done in the next few days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why weren't they done before? MR. LESTER: Because there was a closing that was supposed to take place that was not -- did not occur on time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What does the closing have to do with moving two trucks? MR. LESTER: It provides the -- it provides the funds to be able to purchase another piece of property to put the trucks on that's zoned for commercial. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Were the operational costs -- is this one that was paid recently? MS. ADAMS: It was paid yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Were you in front of us back a couple months ago? MR. LESTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And back then you gave us your word that you would have the trucks removed. MR. LESTER: Sir, you're exactly correct. And I -- all I can tell you is there's a contract that was signed by buyer and seller and bank, and they didn't close. And it was dated October 2nd Page 82 November 21, 2014 with a 72-hour closing time, which was really -- that's how one could say it's going to happen, and it didn't, unfortunately. And so the seller said, enough, and gave a cease and desist, and we reissued a contract. It's been accepted, and a new bank has come forward and agreed to close next week, and the funds will be paid. And there's the money to buy the property where the trucks will be located. MR. LAVINSKI: And there was no ability in the meantime to rent a piece of property to move these to get them out of the neighborhood? MR. LESTER: No, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: What if the closing never happened? Would the trucks be there next year this time'? MR. LESTER: No, sir. The trucks will not be there next time, the next hearing you have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why? MR. LESTER: Well, this -- too much has gone on with this transaction for it not to close. And the bank has already approved it. They opened an escrow account and the line credit on it yesterday to close next Tuesday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: See, that wasn't the question, though. What he asked was -- MR. LESTER: He asked what happens. I'm saying that it can't fail because there's a closing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me finish -- let me finish. What he said was -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- if it doesn't close, will those trucks be there next year at this time? And you said no. MR. LESTER: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So he said why, or I said why. Why won't they be there then versus now if the real estate Page 83 November 21 , 2014 transaction doesn't happen? MR. LESTER: I understand your point. The answer is there's other transactions that will enable it to be completed so we won't be here next -- this time next year, as you said. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just don't believe this story. I make a motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second it. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LESTER: Do you want to read that in or -- MR. MUCIHA: Yes, sir. For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor of Code Enforcement, Case No. CELU20140001165, violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Location is 6810 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples; Folio 36660480005. Description of the violation is semi-trucks and trailers in the yard. Past orders: On July 24, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The Page 84 November 21, 2014 respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5067, Page 3720, for more information. On September 25, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR5087, Page 1735, for more information. Violation has not been abated as of November 21, 2014. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period between August 9, 2014, to November 21, 2014, 105 days, for a total fine amount of $21,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$126.65 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing: $64.17. Total amount to date is $21,064. 17. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have your ability to go to the County Commissioners after your real estate transaction is done, I would assume, and say we're in compliance now; is there anything that you can do? But it's out of our hands at this point. MR. LESTER: Okay. Go to the County Commissioner in what format? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe can help you with that outside. Okay. Thank you. MS. VALENT: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 11, Tab 25, Case CESD20140007746, CWalt, Incorporated Asset-Backed CT. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is involving Case No. Page 85 November 21 , 2014 CESD20140007746, violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and the 2010 Florida Building Code, Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 105.1. 1. Location: 5681 Dogwood Way, Naples; Folio No. 38341320000. Description is a tiki hut on the property with no Collier County building permits, conversion/alteration made to a garage without first obtaining permits. Permit 2003022259 for a chain link fence that never received a certificate of completion. Past orders: On September 25, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, 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, OR5086, Page 2269, for more information. Violations have not been abated as of November 21 , 20] 4. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$300 per day for the period between October 26, 2014, to November 21, 2014, 27 days, for a total fine amount of$8,100. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of 65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, 62.49. Total amount to date: $8,227.50. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. Take your choice. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. Page 86 November 21, 2014 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 13, Tab 27, Case CESD20120002477, Jose Martinez. (Ralph Bosa, the Interpreter herein, was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you tell the board why you're standing before us now. MR. MARTINEZ: My name is Jose Martinez. THE INTERPRETER: And he's the owner of the property. He says he has everything all fixed and everything's been paid for. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Martinez did final his permit for his addition to the house. He went over two days, but as his defense, he thought he was finished because it was a permit by affidavit. When they did the final inspection on the building, it turned out that he needed a 10-day spot survey. By the time he went to the engineer, got the survey done, and then turned it to the building, it was two days over. So he went over two days. So he's here asking to see if they could waive the fines. Page 87 November 21 , 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the request is to abate the fine; is that correct? THE INTERPRETER: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: No. We're all in compliance. Everything's been paid. I'll make a motion that we abate the fine. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the fine. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 14, Tab 28, Case CELU20130015799, Sandra Sage and Carla Sage. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You may want to bring that microphone down a little lower for you. There you go. You're here to request'? MS. SAGE: I'm here to request another extension to move Page 88 November 21, 2014 the two boats that have been a pain in my butt since I've attempted to comply with your requests to move the boats and the recreational vehicles, which have been moved, most of them. An extension to maybe January. My mom is coming in December, a couple weeks before Christmas, and she has a bigger truck to help me move the one boat. But I went to use her Dodge truck, and I tore her water pump up, so that didn't get moved. And, of course, I got a broken down truck. But all the fines that were imposed and everything and so forth, I don't have a problem paying for them, but I get $1 ,088 a month. I have $288 a month to live off of. So when I paid the first fines back in June for the first time that I was here, after removing the recreational boats and everything, it caused my car insurance to cancel, and everything's kind of like backlogged. But I've gotten some things straightened out, and I plan on being able to go to work full-time in January, and I have no problem with paying everything and having the boats totally gone, because I don't want to deal with this stuff anymore. I just want it to go all away. I want to comply. I don't want to ever have to see anybody from the county ever have to come out there anymore again except for, you know, they -- the people next door just sold the house, again, and I got another landscaping company moving in again, so they're going to be back out, and they are going to see the boats. And the neighbor next door still keeps calling on me, but I just want it to go all away. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ralph? MR. BOSH: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. I did talk to Ms. Sage about this. I'll leave it up to the board Page 89 November 21, 2014 whether to impose the fines or not or to continue this. What I have a hard time understanding is these boats do not belong to her, and she says she can't get these boats off. And I've explained to her, why not call the owner. Maybe the owner can get these boats off, but this has been going on for a while. And I can't, you know, agree with -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whose boats are they? MS. SAGE: The one boat became part mine because the family gave me part of it when the gentleman died, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you move your part out? MS. SAGE: I tried to with the truck that I tore up. And the other one has the busted axles on the back end and, of course, I don't have the money to do it. But the man that kept it there and his wife, he passed away over the summer, too, and his wife said that when she gets here after Christmas and after finalizing everything about -- with him being buried and everything, that she would be more than willing to come and help me arrange for the boat to be moved. She doesn't have a problem with it. But the only reason why I ever put the boats there was, is they used to be on my mom's property that she sold to the malicious next-door neighbor. I only did it because, out of-- out of the kindness of my own heart, and I knew all these people. So I was like, just keep them here until you guys can move them. It's taken longer than others, a couple of the guys have died; actually three. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I shouldn't park my boat at your property? MS. SAGE: No, you shouldn't. No one should really park anything. And, in actuality, I tried to sell my house a couple weeks ago and been in a mess with that. I've suffered from salmonella poisoning, so it wouldn't be good for anything to be Page 90 November 21, 2014 out there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All these have to be is towed off the property? MR. BOSA: That's correct, just remove them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I mean, if these people -- are these boats worth anything'? MS. SAGE: Maybe a little bit. Not a whole lot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: An ad in Craig's list or something to come take them away. It's yours. MS. SAGE: Well, I can't. I can't tow the one boat because the guy still owns part of it, and he lives in Michigan. But he said that he'd be willing -- more than willing to send the -- some of the family members of the guy that died to come down and help me move the boat after I told him that I blew the truck up. And the other one, the lady said that she would help. I don't have the funds to do. I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. The fines probably are greater than the boats are worth. That's why I suggest maybe just having somebody remove them from the property. A certified letter to the person that owns it, this boat will be removed and donated, or whatever words you want to put on there, effective such and such a date if you haven't removed it, end of case. And then if they don't remove it, then you have some advertising, Craig List or whatnot, which is free, take the boat; it's yours, you know, something to that effect. That's my -- that's what I would do, personally, but -- MS. SAGE: If you had a truck, I'd ask you to come help me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I got rid of my truck. Everybody borrowed it, and the only one that didn't use it was me. Page 91 November 21, 2014 Any comments from the -- Tony, you have a truck'? MR. LAVINSKI: Joe (sic), are you still getting complaints from neighbors on this issue? MR. BOSA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ralph. MR. LAVINSKI: Ralph, sorry. MS. SAGE: You will be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: What size are these boats? MS. SAGE: One is a 24-footer, 24 feet long. It's a pretty big boat. And other one is about 18 to -- 18 to 20 feet. And those are the only little straggling objects that are causing a pain in my life that I have left. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have the previously assessed operational costs been paid, the 127.26? MS. ADAMS: No, they have not. MR. BOSA: No, it has not. MS. SAGE: I'm broke. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, ordinarily, when the operational costs have not been paid, we impose, and then you can go to the county and have them abate the fine or whatever. In the meantime, work on getting ahold of whoever owns these boats and have them remove it or donate them. I think that would be the solution that I would look for. Any other comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose the fine. All those in favor? Oh wait. Second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second from Lisa'? Page 92 November 21, 2014 MS. BUSHNELL: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries -- okay. One dissenting. MR. BOSA: I'll read it into the record whenever you're ready, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Read it in now. MR. BOSA: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 , as amended, Section 2.02.03 and 1 .04.01(A), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 1.30, Article III, Section 130-96(A). Locations is 3123 Ravenna Avenue, Naples, Florida; folio number of 209160709. Description of violation is the storage of several recreational vehicles and trailers on this property not identified as the property owner's and not an allowable use for the agricultural zoning district where the property is located, also, recreational vehicles also being used for living purposes. Past orders: On February 27, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5018, Page 3605, for more information. Page 93 November 21 , 2014 On June 20, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5058, Page 2039, for more information. On August 28, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the board, OR5078, Page 3553, for more information. The violation has been partially abated as of May 29, 2014. That will be the recreational part of it, recreational vehicle use. And fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between October 2, 2014, to November 21, 2014, for 25 days, for the total fine amount of $5,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $64.34 have been paid, previously assessed operational costs of $127.26 have not been paid, and the operational costs for today's hearing, $66.27. The total amount due to date: 5,193.53. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Is there any way that the county could assist in seeing if they could find somebody that would have a truck big enough to help this young lady remove the boats, once she gets -- once she takes care of a certified letter to the owner for -- MR. BOSA: I can't make any recommendations, but I can, like, give her some guidance as far as how to proceed. Like you said, sir, probably sending a letter to the owner, you have to move this within a certain amount of time, because it is her property, and this is somebody else's property. I mean, they should be responsible to move this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. And, obviously, the fine is not going to be paid because of the financial situation, so that would help resolve the blight. MR. BOSA: And I'll assist her with that. If she does come Page 94 November 21, 2014 into compliance, then I'll assist her with how to proceed with presenting in front of the board, the County Commission, and having that reduced in some way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you. I know that the financial burden is too much for you to take care of, so maybe there's a way around that and to go before the county commissioners. I'm sure they will be -- would listen to your request. MS. SAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 15, Tab 29, Case CESD2012001531.9, Southwest Florida Rentals, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike. MR. MANSOUR: Yes. Brian Mansour. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you represent Southwest Florida Rentals, LLC? MR. MANSOUR: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I assume that you have something that you would like to request. MR. MANSOUR: Yes. Last time I was here I was waiting for a final C of 0 on a demo permit that we had outstanding. It was called in the day before the last hearing. We finally got the inspection the day after the hearing. And last time at the hearing you had mentioned to come back when we had the final CO. So that's where I'm at. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this has been abated'? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. HI may, just for your information and consideration, the gravity of violation, just for a refresher, Page 95 November 21, 2014 was a health and safety issue. It was the remodel of a duplex. That was both A and B. The action taken is they received a demo permit that was issued on 5/29/14 and CO'ed 10/1/14, there's been nine previous violations on the property since 2009 related to property maintenance, nuisance abatement, and vehicles. There's no structures on the property. They're totally removed. There's nothing on the property any longer related to this violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you're asking for an abatement, if I'm not mistaken'? MR. MANSOUR: Yes, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have all the operational costs been paid'? MR. SNOW: No, sir, they have not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The operational costs, it looks like there's 65.43 left, or today's hearing is 66.49. MR. SNOW: Both of them, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if we abate -- if we abate today -- if we abate it today -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The second one wouldn't be imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MR. MANSOUR: Could I say something? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MANSOUR: My officer previous to Sherry was Michael Clark. I had a conversation with him after the last hearing, because I had sent in a check for $80.29 that was not applied or that was not -- according to my records, was not cashed. So I asked him to look into that, and he said he would, Page 96 November 21, 2014 but then I never heard from him. Then I found out that he left. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you check into that? MR. SNOW: I can check into that. But if it's not been cashed, I would assume that -- if it were me and that was my money and it was an extended period of time it was not cashed, then I would certainly cancel that check and issue another one in this situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MANSOUR: Excuse me, though. But I was waiting for him to respond. I've got emails for the last month asking him every five, six, seven days what the status is on my case. I never heard from anybody, and then I received a note. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. But in the meantime, the big issue is the $17,132 we're about to abate. MR. MANSOUR: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 65.43 will be worked out one way or another, either the check will be found or whatever, whatever it is. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's a check for $80, and there's no amounts here that are $80. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. So -- MR. SNOW: I don't understand where that amount came from, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you work that off- line. MR. SNOW: We'll find something, yes, sir. MR. ASHTON: Write a check today. Can you write a check today for the 65.43? MR. MANSOUR: Not a check, but I've got $60 cash. MR. SNOW: We don't take that. Page 97 November 21, 2014 MR. MANSOUR: I can get it -- I can get a check later today. I don't have one with me. MR. MIESZCAK: Pay it today, and I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think we can be a little generous since there is a check outstanding. That will be worked out with Kitchell. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. SNOW: We'll get a refund if it was issued. Mr. Chair, we can get a refund for that. If he pays it today, we'll see if we can find it. If it's not available, then -- and it's not been cashed -- I don't think it's going to influence what the board does today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate as long as Kitchell works it out. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASIITON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: With the understanding that the 65.43 be paid. Page 98 November 21 , 2014 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One way or the other. MR. SNOW: Today, that is correct. MR. MANSOUR: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 16, Tab 30, Case CESD20140000248, Christopher Esenberg. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you state your name on the mike. MR. ESENBERG: It's Chris Esenberg. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are requesting? MR. ESENBERG: A completion date probably about three months. I hired -- I'm building a swimming pool, and the cage was overbuilt -- I mean, it was over the setback by 9 inches. And on the survey -- I hired a pool fellow, the cage company, and on the survey it shows that the -- it looks like the cage is right on the -- I mean, the fence -- the property fence line is right on the lot line, and they must have went off that, and it was over by 9 inches too far. And so now I'm -- I'm dealing with Ray Bellows for a variance. And then it's a pretrial -- excuse me. They couldn't set it up until -- because they're so backlogged -- to the middle of-- or towards the third week in December. So it should be done pretty fast here. And then the -- once the variance is done, I'll have a final, then, on the swimming pool. MR. SNOW: If I may offer some clarity to the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SNOW: This was a construction of a pool without the permits. They got a permit. When they went to get a final, it was Page 99 November 21, 2014 found out it was 9 inches over inclusive -- intruding in the setback. This requires a variance. It's not going to be an administrative variance. He's going to have to do -- he's got the preapp meeting. He's done that. And I believe Mr. Esenberg -- I can't speak for him, but I believe he's asking the board for a continuance today. My request would be that -- he's just had the preapp meeting in the middle of December, then he's going to have to do his submittal, and it's going to have to go before the Planning Commission. So it's going to take some time. It's not going to be an administrative variance. It's not going to go before the hearing examiner. So it's going to take a little bit of time, so please consider that in anything that you wish to do today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You think 120 days will do it? MR. SNOW: I don't think so. It might be a little bit longer than that because the county's very, very busy now, and he's not even going to get in his preapp until the middle of December. And once he does his preapp, then he does his submittal, and there could possibly be rejections so -- and then going to have to go before the Planning Commission. So I think that could be a start, but I don't think it will be done. I just want the board to know it's going to take some time, and maybe we give him -- or maybe the board wishes to give him 120 days that he could bring back and give a status, because some of the activity hasn't been as quickly accomplished as we would have liked, so I think that will be fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: 1 make a motion to grant a continuance for 180 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. Page 100 November 21, 2014 MR. ESENBERG: One other thing, too. You're saying something about the permit for the pool. What do you mean by that? There was no -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we're not discussing that. And Mr. Lefebvre is asking to grant you six months. MR. ESENBERG: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So any comments on the motion'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So six months; hopefully you'll have everything done. If not, come back and we'll cross that bridge, as they say, when it comes up. MR. ESENBERG: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MS. ADAMS: The last case, Letter C, motion to rescind previously issued order, Case CEROW20140009627, David Falato and Zenaida Falato. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was an unpermitted culvert. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the Page 101 November 21, 2014 affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. What this was was a damaged culvert. I don't know where the unpermitted came in. It's an old, old culvert. For us to prove whether or not it had a permit, I don't think we actually brought into play that. The original investigator that did the case is no longer with the county. What happened, we had a complaint about a damaged culvert. The investigator met out there with the supervisor from the right-of-way department. The supervisor determined, yes, it is a violation. The gentleman didn't fix it. We brought it into the Code Enforcement Board, found it was in violation, then the owner had a manager from the right-of-way department come out later with the investigator, and the manager overturned the original determination and said that it wasn't a violation and didn't need to be fixed at this time, so that's why we don't believe it ever was a violation. At this point we're asking for a rescission. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could I get a motion to rescind? MR. ASHTON: Motion to rescind. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to rescind. All those in favor'? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 102 November 21, 2014 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Are we out of-- MR. LAVINSKI: Are we out of work? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not quite. MR. VIIESZCAK: Mr. Wright will be in in a moment'? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKL What have we got left? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The consent agenda, the request to forward the cases to the County Attorney's Office, do we have to vote on that? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. MS. TOOLEY: There were none this month. MR. LAVINSKI: There's none? MS. TOOLEY: I did not submit an executive summary. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can vote on the -- MR. LAVINSKI: Would you just let Jeff know that I did look that up in our rules and regs, and that is a voteable item by the board, has to be approved by the board to go to the county attorney. In the past, we've done it a couple of ways, but it is in our rules that the board approved the sending of that. MS. TOOLEY: Okay. Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Thanks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The -- there are several members on the board whose term expires, and you'll get back to those board members, let them know what the procedure is to Page 103 November 21, 2014 reenlist, if you will? MS. TOOLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tell Jeff that if he misses one more meeting, we're going to throw him off the board. MR. MIESZCAK: I have a question of our attorney. I have just one question. MS. NICOLA: Sure. MR. MIESZCAK: Is it okay that we use code enforcement people to interpret? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was asked earlier. MR. MIESZCAK: I know, and I'm asking it again because -- do you ever see a problem with anything like that? I mean, there could be. MS. NICOLA: I've asked that question myself because I'm in court a lot, and oftentimes people will come in with friends or family members who are interpreting, and the Court accepts it as long as they, you know, swear and affirm that they will interpret. MR. MIESZCAK: But my point is, when we have a code enforcement officer doing it and we're reviewing the case, it's like, whose side is who on. MS. NICOLA: Well, I think an interpreter is a neutral. So unless he's taking a position in the case, unless he was the officer who went out and investigated the complaint, I don't really see a difficulty with it. I mean -- MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. I'm glad. I just wanted a clarification. MS. NICOLA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And just to clarify, Jeff came to me before the meeting and let me know that that was -- if it was okay with the board, and I said it was. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah. I really didn't have no problem Page 104 November 21, 2014 with it. Years ago I thought that somebody said they were misrepresented by the person doing the interpretation. So, I mean, that could happen. If it did, we would rectify that, I'm sure, right? MS. NICOLA: Right. I mean, the person could bring their own interpreter. And if they don't come with an interpreter, then they would have the opportunity, if somebody was willing to interpret for them, you know, even though they're working for the board. I mean, I think that that would be up to the individual to get their own interpreter. I think it's nice that one of the investigators volunteered to do it for them. MR. MIESZCAK: I do, too. MS. NICOLA: Yeah. MR. MIESZCAK: I just want to make sure an investigator couldn't be held accountable for what he's saying or if he misunderstood, that's all. MR. LAVINSKI: Or be paid. MS. NICOLA: I guess -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'm not insinuating being paid. I'm just saying that -- MS. NICOLA: A person could say, you know, I object to what happened because the interpreter didn't reasonably interpret what I said. But it's all recorded, so it would be easy enough to have it transcribed to determine -- you know, you could have an independent interpreter review whether the interpretation was valid. You know, I just -- if you trust the investigators, that they're going to do the right thing, I don't think it's a problem. MR. MEISCZAK: That's a good point. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, Happy Holidays to everybody. And we will see you all next year. Page 105 November 21, 2014 MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn. We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :40 a.m. •DE ORCEME■ BOARD •B '` T- A VP% N, CHAIRMAN ATTEST r DWIGHT E 'BROCK, CLERK I& 40, J est asfia;G{airma1,'s signature only. x These minutes approved by the Board on I - 3 - , as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 106 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE v , 6.ep A(..,T) c� �✓�2e£.mom "G' MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON �r'C WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY J(J C. COUNTY Dun( ehtl COUNTY ['OTHER LOCAL AGENCY AtP■pLe c �� a NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED_ [" MY POSITION IS: r`//"L `f ❑ ELECTIVE ,APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county,city,or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal(other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre,one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). • ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disdose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting;and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I,6,CA 3', 4£C. Yt 4 ,hereby disclose that on Aft)✓Lyy1i3 a ( ,20 Y : (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) ❑ inured to my special private gain or loss; Y inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, _ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: � -� �', u� �'►'1 u `-b 6 Ye'A P A)S s u -c ti 1N 44C/kJ '[Avt,I A S'_5.e t�+� Cam: € s' e, -,.�1 - VL'r —,-7-/. ',%.0-1--S C 6'-As*f -fit C%G. LA. c ‘-› 16'9 11A1 �. ifhl)-14.e,‘,2 21 Date Filed / Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF.1/2000 PAGE 2