Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/26/2015 CEB MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2015 February 26, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, February 26, 2015 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Alternate) Sue Curley (Alternate) Ronald Kezeske James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) Tony Marino ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynn Nicola, Attorney for the Board Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 26,2015 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 Ronald Kezeske Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair James Lavinski Lionel L' Esperance Robert Ashton Tony Marino Lisa Chapman Bushnell,Alternate Sue Curley,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. JANUARY 22,2015 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER.COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(1).OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES,FL B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20140022932 OWNER: JP MORGAN ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE IX,COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(Bx1)(A), (E)AND(I).ALTERATIONS,ADDITIONS,INCLUDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING COMPLETED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS.THESE ADDITIONS HAVE ALSO CREATED SEPARATE LIVING AREAS WITH NO ACCESS TO MAIN STRUCTURE LIVING AREA. FOLIO NO: 63404640003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4584 W ALHAMBRA CIR,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CELU20140020649 OWNER: MCARTHUR WILLIAMS&BARBARA J WILLIAMS LARRY S TOLLET&KELLY J TOLLET OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER.COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.04 (A)AND 2.02.03.BAKER TOWING OCCUPYING AND OPERATING BUSINESS FROM THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY OBTAINING A BUSINESS TAX RECIEPT. FOLIO NO: 00240880006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5840 YAHL ST,NAPLES 2 3. CASE NO: CESD20140020715 OWNER: MIRIAM R JEWELL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(I)(A)AND 10.02.06(BXI)(E)(I).CONVERTED THE GARAGE INTO A THEA I ER ROOM WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 80640001528 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6596 GLEN ARBOR WAY,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20140021849 OWNER: FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR.DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE IX COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(i)(A). PERMIT 2007060198 FOR POOL AND PERMIT 2007031231 FOR FENCE NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 24021600009 VIOLATION , ADDRESS: 151 BURNING TREE DR,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD20140009560 OWNER: NAFDOF22 LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SEC HON 10.02.06 (BX1)(A).EXPIRED PERMIT FOR GARAGE CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE. FOLIO NO: 36812840008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 171 29TH ST SW,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CEVR20140007649 OWNER: PIOTR&JOANNA BANSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.05.08(C).COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION ON PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38280080003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 731 LOGAN BLVD S,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20140013696 OWNER: ELVIN VEGA LEBRON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1XE).UNPERMITTTED STRUCTURE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 35771560006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1772 41 ST TER SW,NAPLES 3 8. CASE NO: CESD20140006549 OWNER: TIMOTHY J&DONNA A O'MALLEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1XA).UNPERMITTTED BATHROOM REMODELING AT THIS RESIDENCE. FOLIO NO: 61280240001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1290 GOLDFINCH WAY,NAPLES 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(BX I)(A), 10.02.06(BX I XE),AND 10.02.0603X I XEXI).OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES,FL 2. CASE NO: GESD20130005831 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 3. CASE NO: CELU20100021891. OWNER: KENNETH R TANNASSEE SR 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 4 4. CASE NO: CESD20130008321 OWNER: ANTONIO LOUISSAINT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPER.MITTED ADDITION BEING USED AS LIVING SPACE WITH A THREE FIXTURE BATHROOM TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING. ALSO INSTALLED NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING TILE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTION(S)AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 00134120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 610 S 5TH ST,IMMOKALEE,FL 34142 5. CASE NO: CESD20140000219 OWNER: FAIRHOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(E)(1).IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 26681800001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4112 COCONUT CIRCLE SOUTH,NAPLES,FL 6. CASE NO: CESD201.20008638 OWNER: PAULA MENDOZA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(BX1XA).AN EXPIRED PERMIT WITH NO INSPECTIONS DONE ON THE INSTALLATION OF THE MOBILE HOME AND A METAL TYPE STAND ALONE CARPORT INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FOLIO NO: 82961866 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2918 IMMOKALEE DR,IMMOKALEE,FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 5 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Imposition of Fines discussion B. Nuisance Abatement Board discussion 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- MARCH 26,2015 12. ADJOURN 6 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentations, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And at this time I'd like to have everybody stand for our pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For all of us tech wizards out there that have cell phones, it might be a good idea to turn your ringer off at this time. Otherwise when it rings just bring it up here and we'll answer it for you. Why don't we start with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Kezeske? Page 2 February 26, 2015 MR. KEZESKE: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Lisa Chapman Bushnell? MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, since Mr. L'Esperance will not be here, Lisa is the Senior Alternate, so she will be a full voting member of the Board this morning. And I'd like to welcome our newest member, Ron Kezeske. Did I pronounce your last name right? MR. KEZESKE: Without the last N. Kezeske. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kezeske. So we have a Kezeske and a Lavinski. You're not related, are you? MR. KEZESKE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Number five, Public Hearings/Motions, A, Motion for Extension of Time, we have one addition. It's from Imposition of Fines number 3, tab 11. Case CELU20100021891, Kenneth R. Tannassee, Sr. Letter B, Stipulations, we have two additions. The first is number three from hearings, tab three, Case CESD20140020715, Miriam R. Jewell. The second is number six from Hearings, tab six, Case CEVR20140007649, Piotr and Joanna Banski. Page 3 February 26, 2015 Letter C, Hearings, number one, tab one, Case CESD20140022932, JP Morgan Alternative Loan Trust has been withdrawn. Number two, tab two, Case CELU20140020649, McArthur Williams, Barbara J. Williams, Larry S. Toilet and Kelly J. Toilet has been withdrawn. Number four, tab four, Case CESD20140021849, Fifth/Third Mortgage, has been withdrawn. Number five, tab five, Case CESD20140009560, NAFDOF22, LLC has been withdrawn. Number seven, tab 7, Case CESD20140013696, Elvin Vega Lebron, has been withdrawn. Number six, Old Business, letter B, Motion for Reduction of Fines, we have one addition. It's from Imposition of Fines number five, tab 13, Case CESD20140000219, Fairhomes Pearl Properties, LLC. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a change in the agenda for one of the items at the end for discussion on the lien, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director. Under Item 7.A, the discussion was scheduled for imposition of fines. We are proposing to combine that with the discussion next month of your rules, if the board would allow it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody have a problem on the board with that? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve it with those modifications. Page 4 February 26, 2015 MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, with all the withdrawals we're almost to the point of making a motion to adjourn, but we have a little business in between. The approval of the minutes. Everybody have a chance to review the minutes? Any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, accept a motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 5 February 26, 2015 MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Which brings us to the hearings for today. MS. ADAMS: The first motion for Extension of Time is number one from tab 9, Case CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Radenkovich and Aleksandar H. Radenkovich. (Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic and Investigator Box were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. VUKOVIC: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've requested an extension of time on this? MS. VUKOVIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a copy of the letter that you wrote which was written on February 4th. The fines had started to accrue on January 21st. Okay, so why don't you let us know a little bit about what you -- MS. VUKOVIC: Well, this case started in 2012. And finally we received -- because it was a zoning issue, and we finally received the appointment with the Zoning Committee in April, I believe 9th of 2015, so that's what we waiting, because I couldn't do nothing in between until that zoning. And we fill out the application in 2012. So hopefully that's going to be the time when it's all said and done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have a -- it's coming to the courts or the commissioners to okay your zoning -- MS. VUKOVIC: Correct. Page 6 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- in the April meeting? MS. VUKOVIC: That's what they inform me, April 9, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Heinz, any discussion on that? INVESTIGATOR BOX: No. They've pretty much been up to date with the hearing process. Although one of the entries that I have shows that the last entry was made to verify a -- it's called verify hearing schedule, and that was done on March 5th of 2014. And I haven't heard anything since. So it is up for review. We don't dispute that at all, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this hearing is going to be in -- MS. VUKOVIC: Zoning department, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And have you received any letter from them stating that they're going to hear it in April? MS. VUKOVIC: Yes. That's what they informed us, basically. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And have you shared that information with Investigator Heinz? MS. VUKOVIC: Yes. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. From the board, any comments, questions, suggestion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm just wondering why it's taken so long. It's taken three years to get to where we are. And in April you're going to be in front of the Planning Commission, and then from there isn't -- the board has to then vote on the zoning; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we're looking at probably May at the Page 7 February 26, 2015 earliest before the commissioners actually hear or approve the case. This is just going on. And I'm kind of baffled why it would take three years to get to this point. That's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What was the nature of the violation? MS. VUKOVIC: I have no answer why it's taking so long. And I keep coming to see you guys, and I really enjoy it, but I don't understand because at the time when we receive the complaint we realize the property which we purchased and actually one of the people who is the owner, he passed away, actually, in the meantime. So when I purchased it as a duplex, and in Collier County records still states it's a duplex, all the deeds were saying it's a duplex. But in the zoning department it says it's not a duplex. And it had the two driveways. And I actually provide the satellite images showing this was what I bought and this is what it is. But one of the tenants complain about something and they called me and they said oh, by the way, this is not a duplex. So it was really like for me, it was a -- because I bought it a couple years prior. So what happens, immediately when she did that, I said I bought it as a duplex, it's investment property for me and my Godmother, that's what she lives off. And I figured okay, let me fill out the application, I believe it was $5,000 at that time, and we started the procedure. However, I think the planning department is very busy and zoning, and we -- I keep coming asking for extension, and in the meantime, you know, I have no answer on your question, but it just took so long. And I hope it's coming to an end, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it sounds as though, as Mr. Lefebvre just said, that it's not going to end in April. Page 8 February 26, 2015 Hopefully that you'll get your okay in April. MS. VUKOVIC: I hope so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would that end this case? INVESTIGATOR BOX: As far as I know, yes. I was told that the hearing examiner's involved with this, it's a pretty complex case, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion we extend for six months. But if this doesn't come to fruition by then, then we have to make a decision to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, that would bring it to August. So hopefully if you get the right decision -- MS. VUKOVIC: I hope so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- then you wouldn't come back here again. If you get the wrong decision, I don't know what the next process on your part would be. MS. VUKOVIC: I will have to find out exactly from them. But I will tell you, for me personally this caused so much hardship because what happens, like whatever your decision is, every single property that I buy or sell, actually it has a stigma about this property. Have nothing to do with the like 10 others I'm buying and selling. Basically they see oh, you have these fines pending, and they put a lien on every of my closings. So it makes it much more difficult than $5,000 of whatever I need to do to be up to zoning. And I hear you, but again, there is a certain procedure I have to follow as well, and that's pretty much it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do Page 9 February 26, 2015 we have a second to the motion? MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second on the motion. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have six months. Hopefully April comes, they hear it, you get what you need and everybody's happy. MS. VUKOVIC: I hope so. Thank God. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. MS. VUKOVIC: Thank you. Have a great morning. MS. ADAMS: Next motion for Extension of Time is from Imposition of Fines number three, tab 11, Case CELU20100021891, Kenneth R. Tannassee, Sr. MR. LEFEBVRE: And Mr. Chair, I'm going to recuse myself. An individual that I work for hires Mr. Tannassee as subcontractor, so I'm going to step aside. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You'll give the paperwork to Tammy? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, I will. Page 10 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (Kenneth Tannassee, Tatiana Gust and Investigator Mucha were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you give the board a couple minutes to review the letter that we have requesting this. It should be in your package, tab 11 on the top. Okay, why don't you -- since you're requesting the extension of time, why don't you present your story. MR. TANNASSEE: We purchased the property the latter part of last year. There was some code violations with the improved property. A storage building, storage facility on the residential piece of property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Were you aware of that at the time you purchased it? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes, we were. We met before you before we purchased the property, part of our due diligence, to discuss, you know, the procedure going forth to purchase the property. And after closing we met before the board again to ask for the necessary time to get a permit, which I think you granted us for 60 days and you imposed fines of$150 a day. We did acquire a permit. We sent the information to the code enforcement. We forwarded so they could see we have acquired the permit and we're working on breaking ground next week. So we wanted to -- we're asking, you know, to stop the fines and to give us an extension of time to construct the home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Joe, what have you to say on this? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. The county has no objection to an extension like he Page 11 February 26, 2015 mentioned. They have a building permit issued now as of January 27th to construct a single-family home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I remember this case, and this case goes back to the time when I think Ken Kelly was the chair of the board, back to 2011. And what it is appeared to me has happened is that respondent came before the board back in 2011 and asked for time to build a single-family structure to come into compliance. The board granted a year. Nothing happened. Came back again, asked for another year. Nothing happened. The property was being marketed, I don't know the exact numbers, but let's -- round figures, it was being marketed at that time for sale for around $480,000, somewhere in that neighborhood. And because it had a code violation on it that probably presented a problem to the owner of the property. The owner of the property finally did sell it to the new owners for I think, as memory serves me, for about $188,000. So it was like $200,000 less than the original offer because of the violation that was on the property. To abate the fines now would in essence have the taxpayers of Collier County paying for this transaction and would open the doors, I believe, to anybody else who has a code violation to sell the property to somebody, have them sell it back to them in the future or resolve the situation and eliminate all the fines. I'm not here to -- we only care about compliance. Well, from 2011 I remember going back a ways, there was a comment from one of the board members saying you could build a high-rise on the property in that period of time. There was no zoning issue. And even after the new people have purchased the property, they have been in violation even after given time. So I am -- I'm personally unwilling to grant an extension on this. Page 12 February 26, 2015 Any comments from the Board? MR. ASHTON: No, I agree with you, Jim. I mean, this is what I've brought up before about -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Put the mic closer to you. MR. ASHTON: Sorry about that. I agree with you. Like I said before, I mean, I brought it up a couple meetings ago about these fines, people walk away from it. You know, and there's a lot of work. We have inspectors spending their time, the county spending time and they're getting away scot-free. You know, it's like I'll do this and I won't have to pay any fines. And I agree, we cannot -- like I said, this goes back to 2011. It should have been resolved before this. MS. CURLEY: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Please. MS. CURLEY: I think it's a little irrelevant to compare the listing price to the sales price, because that's a variable that someone can set at their discretion. So unless he has an apprais-- I mean, to suggest that he got the property at half price and therefore he should have a higher fine just seems a little bit unfair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this is not a higher fine, this is a -- since the respondent purchased the property he is in violation. This property from 2011, from March 24th of 2011 until November 22nd of 2014, there were no fines. Everything was waived. Time was granted. This is from November 22nd, '14. You purchased the property when? MR. TANNASSEE: I believe October of last year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You bought it in October of last year. October of 2014? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And when you came before the Board you said that you were going to have -- you have Page 13 February 26, 2015 a building permit on this? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes, we have plans. We've acquired the permit. We just -- MS. GUST: Can I? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. GUST: I just want to -- for the record Tatiana Gust. I want -- Mr. Tannassee came in front of the board on July 7th before they bought property and explained to you, and I have the minutes here, that the house will take about a year to construct. And you acknowledged that, and you -- even it was back and forth saying that it will take that amount of time. But at the time you didn't feel comfortable giving an extension of one year, given the previous experience with the previous owners. So at that time you granted 120 days extensions to obtain the permit only and advised that we can request an extension for the construction of the house at that time. 120 days were completed on November 20th. At the time we couldn't obtain full building drawings to -- I'm assisting Mr. Tannassee with the permitting process, and didn't have enough information or completed drawings to submit for permit at that time. So in that meeting we came in front of you and I asked you with Mr. Tannassee to give 60 days to obtain the permit. And we obtained the permit in that time frame. And that's why we're in here today, to ask you for a construction time without the imposing of the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KEZESKE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. KEZESKE: If we grant an extension here, that wouldn't eliminate or abate the current fines, that would just stop Page 14 February 26, 2015 the accrual of fines, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. If we did a continuance, the fines would continue. That is correct. MR. KEZESKE: Rather than giving a year extension, I would be leaning towards -- and maybe I should make a motion, if everybody's good for it, is I would make a motion for 90 days, but I would like to see a notice of commencement on the property within that 90 days. That would show us further progress. Giving a year I think would delay the process. But if we continue to see progress, we can deal with the currently accrued fines once the property's brought into compliance. But my concern is, is that we've given huge amounts of time saying it does take time to build a house, and rather maybe we just need to manage the progress here and make sure that continued progress continues. So motion to give 90 days extension, but we want to see a notice of commencement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: He said extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not extension, you're asking for a continuance. MR. KEZESKE: Correct. Yes, we need to see the progress. MR. LAVINSKI: But we need to leave the fines in place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they will continue to accrue. That's what the continuance does. MR. KEZESKE: Correct. Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second on that motion? MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second from Lisa. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I think it's important that we keep our eye Page 15 February 26, 2015 on this thing, because I can't support the request for a year, because we've already gone through three years and we're going to be here this time next year. So I would lean toward the continuance that we have on the agenda right now rather than as a requested time to build that single-family home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern on this is this: In 2011 the respondent came before the board and said exactly what this respondent is saying now, only he has a building permit now. Yes, Joe. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Remember, that guy, though, had a whole divorce situation that was going on and that's why he kept asking for the year, because he was going through like a really messy divorce and that's why he kept asking for time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand that. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: At least this guy's got the permit in hand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was my point. Because we are at the same point now with the same work that needs to be done to build a house, the only difference is we have a building permit. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I agree with Ron that that might be a solution as we have asked many people in the past to come back on a regular basis to report the progress that's going on on the property, and I think that maybe 90 days would be sufficient time to do that. In 90 days do you think you're going to be starting the construction? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes. MS. GUST: Yeah, construction is going to start. We already have crews in the field, they're installing the silt fence for Page 16 February 26, 2015 construction. They lay out the stakes. We are in the process for construction. We can give you instructions reports at that time what level we are for the construction. And it will take more than 90 days to construct the whole house, though. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Probably 90 days will get you your commencement, as Ron has mentioned. And we can review it at that time. My suggestion is that prior to the 90 days that you provide some information to code enforcement to show the progress, and rather than waiting until it expires, the 90 days, to do it ahead of time. MR. TANNAS SEE: Well, we've kept up with sending -- forwarding all correspondences with code enforcement during the permit processing in the Building Department. And we asked this and they forward the correspondences as well to let them know when we had any issues with corrections and anything we needed during the permit process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I do remember the last letter that you wrote where you wanted the Code Enforcement Board to ensure that no fines would be imposed. And I think we said at that time that that was not the case. Whether they're imposed or not is a board activity. Certainly if the house -- if the violation is abated, that would be taken into consideration. Okay, any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 17 February 26, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. MR. TANNASSEE: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next item from B, Stipulations, number three, tab three. Case CESD20140020715, Miriam R. Jewell. (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like we have a garage conversion. You want to read the stipulation into the record? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140020715. I met with the owner, Miriam Jewell, on February 23rd, and we reached an agreement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$66.27 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certification of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the Page 18 February 26, 2015 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. And just to put on the record, there is a permit application that has been submitted for a permit by affidavit. It's still going through the review process. So I'm pretty confident the 90 days will hold true. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is this occupied, this space? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, sir, it's a standalone garage that was converted into a theater. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: It was very well done, but just without a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I'll accept a motion to accept the stipulation as written then. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 19 February 26, 2015 MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Joe. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is number six, tab six, Case CEVR20140007649, Piotr and Joanna Banski. (Investigator Much was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, you look familiar. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. This is in reference to Case number CEVR20140007649. I met with owner Piotr Banski on behalf of himself and his wife, Joanna, back on February 23rd. We reached an agreement. I'll go through it. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by: A, must obtain any necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation. The prohibited exotic vegetation base stump must be treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied when the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains. This order of the board shall be completed within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Page 20 February 26, 2015 Three: 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. Just to put it out there, Mr. Banski's actually removed I would say about 90 percent of the exotics on the property, and he actually removed the -- it was Brazilian pepper that was complained about that was on the back side of his property. He removed that right away, but because he has an Estates zoned lot there's so much on there that -- he's a working guy doing it himself. So we just wanted to give him a little time. But he's taken care of the issue that was actually complained about, but because of the ordinance he has to remove everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did he think that 120 days was going to be sufficient time? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 21 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Joe. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case is number eight, tab eight, Case CESD20140006549, Timothy J. and Donna A. O'Malley. (Investigator Pulse was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140006549, dealing with the violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 9, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended. Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). It's unpermitted bathroom remodeling at this residence. Located at 1290 Goldfinch Way, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio 61280240001. Service was given on April 23rd, 2014. I would like to now present the case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photographs taken by Investigator Rob Ganguli on April 11th, 2014. One photo taken by me on April 30th, 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, can we get a motion to accept the photos? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. Page 22 February 26, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Okay, our department received a complaint for a bathroom remodel without permits in which we referred to contractor licensing to investigate for a possible unlicensed contractor. There was at that time an active permit for kitchen remodeling and living room remodel which was obtained by a contractor Neiman Homes, LLC. It did not include bathroom remodel. Investigator Ganguli inspected the work going on and confirmed there is a bathroom remodel had begun. The owner was advised a permit would be required and a stop work order was issued. On April 24th, 2014 a revision was added to the current permit for the remodel of interior bathroom and closet. At this time the permit is expired and no passing inspections have been completed. Contact has been made to Neiman Homes to advise a permit Page 23 February 26, 2015 expiring. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have spoken with the respondent? Not the respondent, you spoke with the contractor. Has anybody had an opportunity to speak with the owner of the property? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: I don't have contact information for them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not in the county records who owns the property? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Mr. and Mrs. O'Malley. However, I do not have contact information for them, phone number or anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the notification was sent out to -- on the violation was sent to the O'Malleys. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Property was posted? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, sir. Actually, Mr. O'Malley signed for the Notice of Violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is he an out-of-state person or a local person? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: His address of record is 1290 Goldfinch Way, Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did the contractor have a contact -- a phone number for him? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That seems strange to me if somebody's working on my house that I don't know how to get ahold of them. How do they expect to get paid? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. ASHTON: Second. Page 24 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion a violation exists and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, sir. Recommendation 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 within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Page 25 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, one quickie question. The pictures that you showed us, they were taken by contractor licensing and one by you; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you receive permission from the contractor to enter the premise to take a picture? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: No, Investigator Ganguli did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He did? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And he received that permission from the contractor rather than the homeowner. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: No, he spoke directly to the homeowner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, so there has been some kind -- INVESTIGATOR PULSE: There was contact in the beginning when a violation was confirmed and a stop work order was issued. And then a revision was added to the existing permit for the bathroom remodel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that picture that you showed was taken on -- that you took was on February 10th? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: On April 11th Investigator Ganguli took the actual inside photos of the bathroom remodel. I took the outside of the home photo on April 30th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, because it says the date of reinspection is February 10th? Unless I'm missing something there. Is that -- INVESTIGATOR PULSE: That's when the -- I'm not sure. Is that on the statement of violation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: That's when I last reinspected. Page 26 February 26, 2015 The permit is still expired. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this an unpermitted bathroom remodel? Because it was at one point permitted and the permit has expired. Should it be that the permit has expired? The violation's actually a permit has expired. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not an unpermitted bathroom, because the bathroom has been permitted. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: That was the actual complaint that came into our office, unpermitted -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Initially. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: -- bathroom remodel. Urn-hum. And the owner was spoken to by Investigator Ganguli that a permit would be required and he issued a stop work order at that time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but they went back in and got the bathroom added in to the permit as part of the permit, along with a closet. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So technically the bathroom, it was permitted. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: They obtained a permit for it. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the permit has expired. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: It has expired. And actually it expired in October -- was beginning to expire. I think it actually did expire and a 90-day extension was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So there was no inspections done on any of the work at all. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: None. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because even if there was an inspection Page 27 February 26, 2015 done on a kitchen work, that would keep the permit active, even though the bathroom wasn't completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: There's been no inspections -- there's been four inspections, but they all failed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the property in the same condition that I see on that bottom picture here with the walls, no sheet rock, et cetera? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: I have not been inside. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: The owner was not very cooperative in the beginning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, well, maybe he'll be more cooperative in the future. Why don't you give us -- he's asking for -- 65.01 is the -- INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Operational cost. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- operational cost. Do you have any other -- INVESTIGATOR PULSE: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So basically if they went and got this re-permitted, then the violation would go away. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Right. We've been monitoring. I mean, they got the revision, they added the bathroom, we've been monitoring for the inspections and completion, and the permits expired. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anybody want to take a shot at the motion on this? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll give it a shot. I make a motion that the 65.01 admin cost be paid within 30 days; that we give 120 days or a fine of$200 a day. Page 28 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. ASHTON: Don't you think 120 days is a little bit long? I mean -- I mean, he's had the permit, he knows it's expired, so -- MR. LAVINSKI: Well, the 120 days requires the completion and inspections, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I don't think so. What that would be, if I went back and re-upped the permit, then they'd be in compliance and then the normal -- so Mr. Ashton's comment is. MR. LAVINSKI: Apropos? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Apropos, yes. It's also copacetic. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make the 120 60. Does that suffice? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: We do have in our recommendation that it includes obtaining the permit, inspections and certificate of completion. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, that's what I'm reading here. That's why I wanted to go with the 120. MR. LEFEBVRE: The problem I have is it says unpermitted bathroom remodeling at this residence. It's not unpermitted, because they added it into the permit. So for me the statement of violation or description of violation is inaccurate because they actually did put it into the permit. It should be -- it's an expired permit. And to get -- now the recommendation should reflect -- it should reflect that it's a expired permit. And by getting a permit active, being active, the violation would go away, which this recommendation doesn't state. So there's -- for me right now, I'm kind of-- this needs to be cleaned up. Page 29 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, would you like to say something? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I would. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I think that the unpermitted started when the case started. It was the basic complaint that there wasn't a permit for the bathroom. There was a permit for the other stuff Contractor Licensing contacted the owner, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, and they went and got the permit. That's been established. I just think that we didn't change the verbiage in between when the case started and we should have. It should have stated that it was an expired permit that we're bringing at this point. However, due to the fact that this gentleman did get a permit and then allowed it to expire with -- what did you say, four failed inspections? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: -- we would request that the board order him to complete this permit in a given time. So that's why we added the certificate of completion with our recommendation. Theoretically you're right, if he did get the extension on this permit, he would be in compliance at that point. However, we have brought cases before where it was the same situation where they continuously play the game of letting it expire and we just want to make sure that he follows through this time and gets it. Now, it's up to the board's discretion whether or not they want to do that, but that's our recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But we just -- this violation should have been changed. And what I'm saying is we're finding Page 30 February 26, 2015 that there's a violation, but it's not the violation that's stated here. That's my -- SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It's still violating the ordinance that we've cited right here, because they've allowed it to expire. Did we cite the 10.02.06? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: If we read in here -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think what you're driving at is an expired permit is no permit. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: If you read down to the bottom here, it said first obtaining the authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Code. They might have obtained it but they didn't get the required inspections or the certificate of occupancy for this particular permit. And I believe that it's in your power to compel them to follow through and get this permit taken care of. Because we don't want to come back here six months down the road with another expired permit if this guy doesn't follow through. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My major concern right now is that the owner of the property has not done anything to ameliorate the situation. Hasn't been in contact with code enforcement, hasn't gotten a CO on the building permit, let it expire. And if I'm not mistaken, what is the difference between an expired building permit and no building permit? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Technically nothing, really, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Tammy, do you have any comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: But we're not talking about an expired permit, we're talking about -- Page 31 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. MS. NICOLA: I think that maybe what the order should say is that the violation initially was presented as an unpermitted bathroom remodel, but at the hearing the discussion included that it was in fact originally permitted but that the permit had expired. I just think we can include that in the body of the order to make it clear. Because I think it should be clear. I think that the way that it's written, it sounds like there never was a permit when there was. MR. LEFEBVRE: There originally wasn't a permit for the bathroom, but it was added in -- MS. NICOLA: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- to the permit for the kitchen. MS. NICOLA: But where we're at now is that there was a permit that's expired. So I think for clarification, I think we can include that in the order and we'll be fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a motion? No, I'm only kidding. MS. NICOLA: I don't think I can do that, but I can assist, if that's possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm only kidding. So we have a motion and we have a second. And let me restate the motion. That the respondent be fined the 65 -- not fined, the administrative costs of$65.01 to be paid within 30 days. So far, so good. That the fine, I'll do that first, is $200 a day until the situation is abated. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So to narrow this down now, what needs to be done to abate the situation, and that's the verbiage that we are discussing right now. Page 32 February 26, 2015 And that's either 60 days to make sure you pull the permit or reactivate the permit, or, if I understand you correctly, 120 days to have the whole thing done. MR. LAVINSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We could probably make both of those part of the motion, and that would resolve the discussion that we're having right now. MR. LEFEBVRE: But we can't compel someone to do more than what is required by the law. So if they're not in violation after 60 days by pulling a permit we can't compel them to -- because once you get the permit, you have six months to get all your inspections and get it -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it says that you can do an inspection, you can do an electrical inspection, that extends it six months. Then you can do a plumbing inspection, it extends it another six months, you can do a drywall inspection. You could drag this out forever, or close to forever. So what we have here is what is the board requesting of the respondent, given the fact that the respondent has been very uncooperative? So if you want to have in your motion that he has to have the whole thing done in 120 days, that's the board's prerogative. Or if you want to make sure, this talks to Mr. Lefebvre's comment, that he has to at least pull a building permit or re-up the building permit, if you will, and he's been -- he could be given 60 days to do that. So it's up to the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then should we add some language? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the language that Tammy suggested is a description of what's happened there. So -- MS. NICOLA: Right. MR. KEZESKE: What were they provided notice of? What did the homeowner receive as far as -- are they -- I guess what's Page 33 February 26, 2015 the correct way to say this. Are they aware that -- what have they been explained? Have they been told you're in violation because the permits expired and you have something that's no longer permitted? Or -- I'm looking through the paperwork here and I'm seeing the -- what was sent to them on the 23rd of-- May 14? Was that the notice that they were currently -- SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: That's the section that was cited from the Land Development Code, and also the verbiage is included in that. That's what I read about they must obtain the permit, get the inspections and get the certificate of occupancy. So they were provided that notice right there. MR. KEZESKE: Mr. Chairman, with that said, I would lean more towards the 120 and $200 a day, based on the fact that they've already been given notice that they need to address not only the permit but completion of the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And to the motion maker, that was your original motion? MR. LAVINSKI: That's the original idea of my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the second? Mr. Ashton, would you go along with -- MR. ASHTON: As long as the 120 days is for completion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the order will reflect that. So in review, it's 120 days, $200 a day fine after that. The court costs, if you will, are $65.01 to be paid within 30 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that's the motion, that's the second. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? Page 34 February 26, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Can I make a slight statement also? Mr. Lefebvre definitely had a very good question there. And I'll try to make sure that in the future the violation will reflect on the statement of violation at the time of the hearing so we won't have any more confusion like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from number six, Old Business. A, Motion for Impositions of Fines/Liens. Number two, tab 10, Case CESD20130005831, Eva A. Guerrero. (Ms. Eva Guerrero and Investigator Rodriguez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. GUERRERO: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this is the stage where the fine is being imposed because the violation has not been abated. And you're before us now to request something. Tell us what that is. MS. GUERRERO: Just requesting like five more days just Page 35 February 26, 2015 to finish. I just turned in -- I finally completed everything. I demoed what I was really originally getting the permits for. And then I just called in for inspection yesterday. So it should be done by Friday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Marie Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. She has completed. The only thing that needs to be done is inspected for the demolition, which she is scheduled for Friday. So she's requesting a little bit more time as a continuance, because of course this is a continuance, so that she can final this last permit and the violation will be abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not necessarily be -- the violation will be abated, but not necessarily the fine. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That will probably be -- it seems like the right process to follow now would be to grant a one-month continuance, and at that time you could come back and request whatever you want to request. MS. GUERRERO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That will give you the five days that you need to get it done and the board looks more favorably on cases that have been abated and where the operational costs have been paid. And today's operational costs are 65.84, which you probably would need to pay before the next meeting next month. MS. GUERRERO: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue the case 'til Page 36 February 26, 2015 next month, and also pay the operational cost prior to next month in the amount of$65.84. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We'll see you next month. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number four, tab 12, Case CESD20130008321, Antonio Louissaint. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you both say your name into the microphone so we can have it. MR. LOUISSAINT: Antonio Louissaint. MS. FRANCOIS: Drucilla Francois. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are? MS. FRANCOIS: The daughter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The daughter. Okay. Very good. MS. FRANCOIS: And I been doing all the paperwork and -- because he don't read and write, I been doing all the Page 37 February 26, 2015 paperworks for him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have everybody sworn? (Drucilla Francois, Antonio Louissaint and Investigator Rodriguez were duly sworn.) (Drucilla Francois was duly sworn to interpret the testimony from English to Creole.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. FRANCOIS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you tell us a little bit about the case so we can go forward from here. MS. FRANCOIS: Well, basically I thought everything was done. I was just going to come here today and, you know, get all the liens and all the fee waived because I did everything. I've been very compliant. I pass all my inspection. And then I had to get a certification of elevation. And they told me that the certification of elevation did not pass this morning at 9: 15, that I need to re-cap the bathroom. Which I will have no problem doing, but I would need more time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Re-cap? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: She did a permit by affidavit for the addition -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: -- for living square footage that she added to the house. She did permit by affidavit. She got the permit. The inspections were all passed. They were requiring an elevation certificate and a 10-day spot survey, which she did both. But when they reviewed the elevation certificate, it did not meet the elevation. She is below the road, the crown of the road, she's below it. So now she either has to either raise it or convert it into storage, one or the other. Which at this point I don't know which Page 38 February 26, 2015 would be more -- less costly for her, because she's already paid this outrageous amount of money for the permit by affidavit. So we thought we were going to be finished but we're not. So now she has to figure out if she has to demo the bathroom and convert it into storage, she'll need to do a demolition permit to demo the restroom and the shower, whatever else she has in there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So basically you need more time to get everything resolved. MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah, I need more time. And then I don't want to demo it, because, you know, I'll just put a cap in the bathroom and not use it, if that's possible, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's not up to the board. What we're trying to do is to talk about the violation and whatever we can do to help you come into compliance. MS. FRANCOIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if you need more time to do it and it sounds, Maria, that that's the case here, I don't know how much more time you would need. Do you have any idea? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion we continue for 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- motion and a second to continue for 120 days. That means you have an additional four months to get things resolved. If you can't get it resolved in four months, come back before four months and request whatever you want to request again, whether it's more time or whatever. But whatever we can do to help you resolve your situation, we're more than happy to do. MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah, and I've been in compliance and doing everything that you guys asked me to do with no problem. Page 39 February 26, 2015 I just, you know, didn't know if this was going to, you know, come up today that I needed to take care of this, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why we're granting 120 days, no discussion, whatnot. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So four months. Hopefully you'll get everything done, whatever needs to be done. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number five, tab 13, Case CESD20140000219, Fairhomes Pearl Properties, LLC. (Andrew Ventura and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We trust attorneys. I don't know why, but we just follow the rules. We have one on the board, you know, so -- MR. MARINO: Sam's all right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we are at the imposition of fines, so you're up first. MR. SAAD: So we are here today to request abatement of fines for this property. I want to give you all a little bit of history. I hope a copy of Page 40 February 26, 2015 my motion was in your packet. Essentially this property had two violations. We purchased the property at a foreclosure sale and so we inherited the problem. We came in once the -- we were made aware of the violations. We went in to apply for demolition permits and moved fairly quickly to begin remedying the problem, although we had a number of stumbling blocks. The first one was that we had a tenant in the property who would not grant us access, and so we had to work with him over a couple of months to get him into a new property before we could even begin the demolition. Once the demolition began, again, moving as quickly as possible, but typical we had problems with our contractor, we had problems getting through the permitting process. The permitting process -- not necessarily blaming the county for this, our contractor was not the most diligent in getting all the documents exactly the way the permit techs wanted it, so we had to deal with that. And then our contractor was not very expeditious in getting his work done. We had in fact found him spearfishing in the Keys and had to get him to come back here and keep working on the project. So we came in, we asked for an extension of time on October 6th, that was the first time I was before you, and you granted that. And we continued to work on it. And finally when we got all the permits, we got the work done as quickly as possible. And in the interim we had to come back for our motion for continuance. We came back for an extension, you granted a continuance, and on December 29th we finally got everything signed and sealed, all permits issued. And today we're here requesting that the fines be abated. We've already paid all of the costs, and, you know, just typical Page 41 February 26, 2015 simple problems, but it was never our intention to delay or hinder the process. From the beginning our goal was to get this property into compliance, as soon as we were made aware of the violations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the $72.34 been paid also? MR. SAAD: Yes -- I'm sorry, wait, wait. The $72.34 from today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As of today. MR. SAAD: We were told that if you abated the fines that that would not be due. Otherwise we'll pay it today. SUPERVISOR SNOW: That is correct. Verbatim he's right on spot. I think they were diligent in doing what they were doing. The last permit was issued in December and in a very short time frame they got it C.O.'d. And once they understood the seriousness of the board and the board's opinion in this matter, they moved very quickly to abate the violation. So the county will acquiesce to whatever the board decides to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One question I have. At the time the property was purchased on the courthouse steps, were you aware of the violation that existed? MR. SAAD: I'll ask Andrew Ventura, he works for the management company, to answer that. MR. VENTURA: No, we were not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The reason I ask that question is I'm a member of the Naples Board of Realtors, and that's one of the things that we try to let all the potential buyers of properties know, that there's a process to go through to see if there are any liens on the property. This may seem to be one that falls through the cracks because it's purchased at the courthouse steps and we'll probably make a recommendation somewhere along the line that that be discussed or at least mentioned when the property Page 42 February 26, 2015 is sold on the courthouse steps. MR. SAAD: And Chairman, as you know, I also deal with a lot of real estate here in Collier County. And given that some thoughts were more of a policy discussion than a part of this hearing, but one of the things that I had thought of was if it was possible for code enforcement to go and check prior to the sale and post something on their website. That was an idea that I had I was going to discuss with code at some point. MR. LAVINSKI: Sam, if someone did their due diligence prior to that courthouse purchase, wouldn't they have seen that? MR. SAAD: It's difficult because, you know, unless you are -- if you are just an investor trying to purchase property, you might not know the code very well. And it's very difficult to get a -- if it's a contract for the purchase and sale, it says right in the contract that the buyer can get code inspections, and they call code and they request a review of the record and they actually get somebody to go out there and do a code inspection. But when you do it on the courthouse steps you don't have access to the property. So in this case the problems were all interior. So there was an improperly built bathroom in one of their piece, I believe. MR. LEFEBVRE: But there wasn't an open code case on it. MR. SAAD: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: It wasn't open. So if you did a code search, just a search, or you did a title search -- MR. SAAD: Oh, yeah. You guys go to the code website, I believe, and check for open permits prior to going to the courthouse. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But if you did a title search and there was a case against it, then you would see that there was an order. But in this particular case it was not brought to anyone's Page 43 February 26, 2015 attention -- MR. VENTURA: There was nothing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, there was nothing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any other discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to abate the fine. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. VENTURA: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: Next case is number six, tab 14, case CESD20120008638, Paula Mendoza. (Baltimore Mendoza, Paula Mendoza and Investigator Rodriguez were duly sworn.) (Baltimore Mendoza was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you Page 44 February 26, 2015 state your name on the microphone so we can hear it. MR. MENDOZA: Baltimore Mendoza, her son. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and -- MR. MENDOZA: Paula Mendoza. MS. MENDOZA: Paula Mendoza. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this is the portion as we mentioned in the past for the imposition of fines. If you have some new information or request, it's your turn to make that request now. MR. MENDOZA: Everything on the house, everything that was needed to be done, everything I think we got done already. It started with the mobile home and then it went to a shed. And then I think we got everything moved to where it needed to be and everything. I think everything got done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Maria? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: They're requesting for their fines to be waived. They have completed everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is now -- INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: It's abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has been abated. So the "has not been" is old news? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Right. No, it's abated. He abated in December. MS. ADAMS: There should be a revision on your desk at tab 14. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Got you. Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to abate. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the fine. Page 45 February 26, 2015 All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CHAPMAN BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. MENDOZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you for working and getting it done. MR. MENDOZA: Thank you. You have a good day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You too. MS. ADAMS: The next item is from number seven, New Business, letter B, Nuisance Abatement Board Discussion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the first nuisance is -- oh, Kitchell. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm only kidding. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Basically I think just to give you a brief introduction, this board can serve as a Nuisance Abatement Board, although we haven't done that in quite some time. The object or intent of the Nuisance Abatement Board is criminal activity or alleged criminal activity received by the Sheriffs Department with more than two complaints in a six-month period related to specific activity. Now, what would happen is you would go before the Code Page 46 February 26, 2015 Enforcement Board. The Code Enforcement Board would be adjourned and you would initiate the Nuisance Abatement Board. This is part of the function that you can do. Although we haven't done it, I personally have done nuisance abatement notices of violation when I was in Immokalee and it works. We work closely with the Sheriffs Office. They receive the complaints. Again, more than two complaints in a six-month period related to specific activity. Once that's initiated a notice is issued. They have to contact the Sheriffs Office or Code Enforcement within 14 days of that notice and reasonably try to abate the violations, which will be noticed. For instance, if there was alleged prostitution going on or alleged drug activity and they had high hedges, the notice could request for them to cut down the hedges. So when the Sheriff or enforcement authority is going by they could see what's happening on the property. So it's a little bit different than what you're used to. It's a little bit different than permitting. These are specifically designed to abate a public nuisance. A public nuisance -- I was doing some research yesterday. A public nuisance is something that's going to affect more than one person. It's a community issue. And that's what this is for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For instance, a house that was not secured where kids are hanging out in the house, that's normally a code violation that -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: That's not a public -- as far as a Nuisance Abatement Board, that is correct. And I believe you got the documentation which outlines those five things. They're very specific criterion that is established for the Nuisance Abatement Board. So I'll turn it over to the board, if you have any questions. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it could be the same person Page 47 February 26, 2015 complaining in a two-month period, or does it have to be two separate complaints, separate individuals? SUPERVISOR SNOW: No, sir, it doesn't. It suggests that any citizen, official or officer can make a complaint. It doesn't specify is it only separate complaints. It just says it has to be more than two complaints in a six-month period. Now, another criterion in this is the statute is very definitive on, it doesn't say that you can have one for prostitution, one for stolen goods. I think it -- the process would say it has to be one of those criterion, the five criteria to define this have to exceed that more than two complaints in a six-month period. Which is three complaints or more. So we -- the Sheriff would receive them, somebody would call in or I would talk to the Sheriffs Office or another listening official or citizen would say, listen, we believe that drug activity is taken on this place (sic). They take the complaint. The Sheriff comes to us after they receive that third complaint and say listen, we believe this place is a public nuisance. We would issue a notice, we'd issue order to correct, be very specific, and they would comply or not comply. The moment that they don't comply after we make a reasonable effort, they come before you and appear before you as a Nuisance Abatement Board, not the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the Code Enforcement Board would adjourn -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and we would open up -- not unlike is done with the County Commissioners and the different hats that they wear. They close it, open up a new -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: I think that's an eloquent way of putting it. That is just another function of this board. Page 48 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, is it -- the details in our -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: They are in the Code Enforcement consolidated ordinance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it's a good time to send out an additional copy of that, I think, because we're going to have our rules discussion next month, so the timing on this is very good. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I would anticipate. I'm sorry -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No, go ahead. SUPERVISOR SNOW: -- Mr. Lefebvre. I would anticipate. I know in East Naples we have one that is pending, a notice is going to be issued. So this is something that I believe is definitely going to happen. It's not one of those things that may be something that you're going to be moving forward toward. I think the director of Code Enforcement, I can't speak for Mr. Wright, but one of his things when we discussed the management meetings, he wants to use every enforcement means possible to protect the community. And this is a very good program. Again, I've issued notices before. And it's -- we can get very creative, the Sheriff can get very creative on the recommendations that they want. For instance, if there was drug activity in a house, we could request that all the tenants have a background check before they're allowed to live on the premises. Again, the criterion for this is very specific. It's not -- it has to do with drug activity, it has to do with gang activity, it has to do with stolen property. And the drug activity can't be just usage, it has to be the manufacture, sale or distribution. So it's very specific on those issues. And again, that has to come from the Sheriffs Office. Code Page 49 February 26, 2015 Enforcement's part of this and you're part of this once they bring it to us we issue the notice, because it's a civil remedy, it's not a criminal remedy. This is for if property or property owners are not taking responsibility for things that are happening on their property. And let's say they arrest the tenant for distribution and they just move somebody in and it just continues. This is a civil ability to correct or cause property owners to be responsible for what's happening on the property, which everybody knows this board does 365 days a year every time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So these will all revolve around property owners. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And by the way, part of the rules on this is this board would find that there's a public nuisance either with a business or on a premise. The board can order the premise vacated for a year or as the board so would fit to do. That's one of the remedies, strong remedies. The language in your ordinance is very definitive about what you can do. MR. LEFEBVRE: How are these cases being resolved currently? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Up to this point I know that the ones that I've issued, that they came into compliance, they abided by what the order was said. I think the one we had up in Immokalee had to do with there was alleged prostitution taking place so we had them cut the hedge, we had them install outside lighting so that anytime the Sheriff would drive by that they could see what's happening on the property. The lights would be activated by motion sensor so any time anybody was outside, they could see. And that abated them. The one currently we're working on is alleged drug activity. And I don't want to discuss it because it's not going to be heard, Page 50 February 26, 2015 but it's alleged drug activity. So it's a little bit sensitive because there are some Sheriff issues that we have to -- we have to be considerate of before we can move forward. MR. LEFEBVRE: If there's an investigation going on, we don't want to compromise that. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Exactly right. So what would happen is we would issue that notice. It's just like a normal violation, what you see in your packet. And it would have the orders to correct on there. Now, we would present,just like we always would, the evidence. We would -- I'm sure we would include the complaints for -- that was offer you some history on the background exactly that would happen, any complaints, offer some photographs of the property and then it would just -- when we do our recommendation, we could make a recommendation and the board would follow up as it sees fit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has there been any discussion with the Sheriffs Department for them to assign an officer or deputy to this type of division, maybe? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, the community policing officers, I work with -- every district has community policing officers. And I work specifically with Corporal Nelson. Corporal Nelson has appeared before this board on many occasions. So he's the one that I work with. But I think it's because they are independent entities, I think each district is going to have their representative community policing officer. So -- and I know Commander Williams is one of the legal authorities for the Collier County Sheriffs Office. And I know that Corporal Nelson has been in fact discussing with Commander Williams their options. And I think they're in -- I can't speak for the Sheriffs Office, but I know from talking to Corporal Nelson, Page 51 February 26, 2015 they're in favor of this. I think it's a good remedy for them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The logistics on this. When you have a case that's going to come before the board and we'll call it the Collier County Nuisance Board -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Nuisance Abatement Board, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nuisance Abatement Board. Unless you talk to my wife and she'll just call me a nuisance, but -- it will come as another tab and another item on our agenda, or does it have to be completely separate? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I think that's something that Kerry can address. MS. ADAMS: It would be a separate agenda altogether. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A separate agenda, and we'll be notified just as we are now that there's going to be one or two or no cases for the Nuisance Abatement Board. MS. ADAMS: Right. It would be on the same day as our regular hearing, and then you would get attached with your regular agenda -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right, after the adjournment of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board we could open up and probably have a disclaimer read in the beginning of it just like we do now with this board. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I would think that's the process. Again, Ed Morad who's been with the department for 25 years I think has experienced the Nuisance Abatement Board. But I think Mr. Lefebvre has been on the board the longest. I've been here nine years and we haven't done it. I have issued notices related to nuisance abatement related to this part of the ordinance, but we haven't enacted that. And I think we want to get back toward that to give other options for officials within the Page 52 February 26, 2015 community to keep our community safe. And I think that's the overall purpose for this. When criminal activity is happening on a property and related to these five criteria and the owner is not taking responsibility, that's what this section or that's what this process appearing before the Nuisance Abatement Board defined as a public nuisance is for. I think your ordinance is very definitive. I would encourage you to read it. I have provided, and Ms. Adams indicated that she had sent that to you, two documents for you. One, it's really outlining the process and the other is the bullet point. So it is not a complex process. It is a fairly easy process to do. You would -- it's the same thing that you do here, you would listen to the nature of the violation and make a ruling on does a public nuisance exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: How quickly would a case come in front of us? What I'm worried about, like you said, is compromising a police investigation. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, it's not -- sir, it's not going to -- it won't move forward until we get those complaints from them. Once we get those complaints from them, that's when we move forward. I have one right now, the one I was speaking of, I'm waiting for the complaints to come in from the Sheriffs. And once we do that, then we are not going to compromise there. And that's -- on their end they're working -- talking to Commander Williams and his authority to make sure that they aren't going to do that. And once we get that, then that's going to be the evidence. Obviously that's going to have to be presented to suggest that we meet the criteria for establishing a public nuisance. Page 53 February 26, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Kitchell, I have one question. I think over the years you've seen that more than one of us on this board is somewhat concerned about the fact that the county is spending a lot of money chasing this stuff. And we sit up here and abate these fines, which we're working on, by the way. But anyway, on Page 4 it says the cost shall be assessed, which the county attorney or the sheriff has incurred in the preparation, investigation and presentation of this case. Now, they're not going to come before us and say it's $65.01, are they? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, I think -- this is the thing. There was a ruling a number of years ago in the Florida Statute that says that only certain costs can be imposed on a respondent based upon -- I think it's based upon the paying of taxes. We all know that -- because years ago imposition -- when we would do the fines, the operational costs would be five or $600, because they would be billed for all that. Now, that's gone down. I'm not sure if it's going to be applicable to this. Because it's very specific in the ordinance what we can do. And that's going to be on an operation side, so we'll get to that. But as far as your fines or anything you want to hold anybody to, it's specific on the amount of fines, it's specific on -- it's not specific on the amount of time or what the criteria would be to abate the violation, so this board can get very creative on the remedies for these things. As far as the fines are concerned, that's -- the county always acquiesced to what this board would desire. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'm not so much concerned about the fines, because that was kind of-- raised its head last Tuesday at the -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, we can look at -- sir, we'll Page 54 February 26, 2015 look at that and answer your question is that -- is it going to be feasible for all the time the county spends, including the time for MR. LAVINSKI: Right. SUPERVISOR SNOW: -- the attorneys and everything else for them to be -- for that to be billed. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. Because if this paragraph here on Page 4 is just motherhood, then we probably ought to get it out of there so we don't get in that brouha (sic) again. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We can look at that, sir. But the reason I included it in there, because it does specifically say that that's part of this Nuisance Abatement Board that they -- all the time that the entities spend in the county bringing this to appear before you is billable time. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. And I think that's what we're looking for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One of the items on our agenda which tails into what Mr. Lavinski said is the imposition of fines discussion that we have postponed until next month's hearing. MR. LAVINSKI: Next month, right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we will be discussing that as well, the amount of fines and the abatements and that type of information. SUPERVISOR SNOW: If you look on Page 1 on the identified violations of the Nuisance Abatement Board, the scope and applicability, it cleared prostitute, lewd and lascivious acts, manufacture, sale or distribution of a controlled substance, gang activity, stolen property. And there's specific criteria for a pain management and things that happen as a result of-- on a pain management facility related to if there were any robberies, if there were any sale of substances. And I don't think we've ever gone Page 55 February 26, 2015 there, but that's part of it. But ifs very specific on that criterion. For instance, if just because somebody had drugs in their possession, that doesn't meet the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm a little surprised that you don't have noise on there. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, sir, we have parameters within the civil action. We have a very definitive noise ordinance and you have noise investigators within this county. I think there's six of them currently. And I think we're going to -- the Investigative Manager, Mr. Letourneau, wishes to increase that to about 10. During season we run quite a few cases and they're very active, and usually we never know where we're going to end up with those. We could end up in the middle of an orange field measuring how loud a pump is out there. So it's very diverse. But we can address those things. We address that part of it civilly. This is just another part that allows us to address alleged -- now, they don't have to be arrests, all they have to be is complaints. More than two in a six-month period in a civil venue. That's the main criterion. It's the same process that you all have done since I've been here. The notice has to be issued, we have to give them reasonable time to comply, we have to define what they need to do. If they don't do it, they appear before you and we seek a remedy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sure we'll be discussing it in greater detail as the cases hit the board. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir, I will be bringing one before this board personally. Page 56 February 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: All this for no additional increase in salary. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not getting a raise? I didn't realize that. Okay, do we have any other new business from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I guess I was within three minutes of what I thought we'd end. MR. MARINO: You're ahead of schedule. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't have Larry Dean to make the motion for adjournment. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion we adjourn. MR. ASHTON: I'll second. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. ***** Page 57 February 26, 2015 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:28 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE NFO e EMEN BOARD ;be Or' an, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on 3 -2c -- ( , as presented (V or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 58