Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/26/2015 March 26, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, March 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 James Lavinski Lisa Chapman Bushnell Lionel L'Esperance Robert Ashton Sue Curley Ronald Kezeske Gerald Lefebvre (excused) Tony Marino (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney for the Board Jeffrey Wright, Code Enforcement Director Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, AGENDA Date: March 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 TIIE 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. FEBRUARY 26,2015 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20140009469 OWNER: GEFFTER R GONCALVES&ANA MARIA GONCALVES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).PERMIT FOR SHED/CHICKEN COOP NOT PERMITTED. FOLIO NO: 37747480008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 531 1 8TH AVE NE,NAPLES 2. 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 B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20140019519 OWNER: STEPHEN SHANE CLARY&CHRISTOPHER JASON CLARY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03.AN UNPERMITTED SECONDARY MOBILE HOME WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS. FOLIO NO: 110480002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 18960 IMMOKALEE RD,IMMOKALEE 2 2. CASE NO: CESD20140017973 OWNER: GEORGE CALDERON&CRISTINA CALDERON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A). AN ADDITION/STORAGE ROOM WITH ELECTRIC ATTACHED TO PRIMARY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY. FOLIO NO: 00061560000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4725 VIREO LN,IMMOKALEE 3. CASE NO: CESD20150001640 OWNER: PINE RIDGE HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(I)(A). UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO THE LOWER ASPECT OF THE HOME. FOLIO NO: 37995000007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 930 39TH ST SW,NAPLES 4. 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 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1,PART 2,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 7T"ST SW,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD20140025741 OWNER: STEVEN R CUIFFO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A MOBILE HOME TYPE STRUCTURE WAS ADDED TO THE PROPERTY BETWEEN 2012 AND 2013 WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 436720006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 308 MORGAN RD,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CESD20150001847 OWNER: YASIEL RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(I)(A).UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO SUPPORT A MARIJUANA GROW OPERATION FOLIO NO: 37345920009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1120 27TH1 ST SW,NAPLES 3 7. CASE NO: CESD20140021849 OWNER: GEORGE J SORBARA&JENNIFER TARVIN SORBARA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE 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 FOR FENCE NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 24021600009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 151 BURNING TREE DR,NAPLES 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20140009469 OWNER: GEFFTER R GONCALVES&ANA MARIA GONCALVES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.06(B)(1)(A). PERMIT FOR SHED/CHICKEN COOP NOT PERMITTED. FOLIO NO: 37747480008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 531 I8TH AVE NE,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CELU20140009469 OWNER: FRANK Cl VALE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01 (A) AND SECTION 2.02.03. ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY BEING UTILIZED AS MULTI-FAMILY BY RENTING THE GUEST HOUSE AND OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. FOLIO NO: 38051800001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3800 29TH AVE SW,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20140009530 OWNER: WAYNE MANSUETO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.03(B)(1)(A).EXISTING MOBILE HOME THAT HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED AND A NEW MOBILE HOME SETUP IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY. FOLIO NO: 01134803101 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 217 SWAIN ST,COPELAND 4 4. CASE NO: CEROW20140002816 OWNER: SAMMY R GOBER&JO ANN GOBER&STANLEY R GOBER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110,SECTION 110-31 (A).A DAMAGED/FAILED CULVERT PIPE. FOLIO NO: 00761280004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11380 TRINITY PL,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CENA20140022780 OWNER: TARPON IV LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D).COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC SPECIES INCLUDING,BUT NO LIMITED TO JAVA PLUM. FOLIO NO: 76210840000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CESD20130005831 OWNER: EVA A GUERRERO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.06(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 7. CASE NO: CEPM20140020730 OWNER: R13SIID 2013-1 TRUST 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 8. CASE NO: CESD20100006940 OWNER: MICHAEL FACUNDO&AMY FACUNDO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,BUILDINGS AND BUILDINGS REGULATIONS,ARTICLE II,FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,SECTION 22-26(B)(104.5.1.4.4).EXPIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 63860280007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 318 WASHINGTON AVE,IMMOKALEE 5 9. CASE NO: CEI'M20140011205 OWNER: BRENT R I'ARKER 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 SUB-SECTION(12)(I).BROKEN WINDOWS ON E/S UNIT OF DUPLEX. FOLIO NO: 24533040005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 85 7TH ST,BONITA SHORES 10. CASE NO: CEROW20130001764 OWNER: DOUGLAS L.ALDRIDGE SR.&CAROLYN J.ALDRIDGE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CI!AFTER 110 ROADS BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION 1 GENERALLY,SECTION 110-31(A).TWO DRIVEWAYS ENTERING THE PROPERTY WITH DAMAGED/COLLAPSEDDRAINAGE CULVERT PIPES. FOLIO NO: 95160007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 725 SANCTUARY RD,NAPLES 11. CASE NO: CES1)20120002439 OWNER: KONSTANTINE KOMNINOS&MERRILL KOMNINOS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III, SECTION 130-96(A);2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,SECTION 110.1 AND ORDINANCE 04-41,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,AS AMENDED SECTIONS I0.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND I0.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I). NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR GARAGE CONVERSION,CBS 3-CAR GARAGE,OR SHINGLE RE-ROOF.AN 8X38 ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME,WOODEN FENCE,AND THREE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WERE ADDED WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41933010003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6161 SPANISH OAKS LN,NAPLES 12. CASE NO: CESI)20130018722 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 6 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order D. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Imposition of Fines discussion B. Elections C. Rules& Regulations Review 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- April 23,2015 12. ADJOURN 7 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order. I'd like everybody to stand for the pledge. Colonel L'Esperance will lead us. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Notice: That the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak at any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And I'd like to have the roll call next. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Kezeske? MR. KEZESKE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Lisa Chapman Bushnell? Page 2 March 26, 2015 MS. BUSHNELL: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre has an excused absence, and Mr. Tony Marino has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That means that both Lisa and Sue will be voting members of the Board at this meeting. Do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Yes. Number 5, public hearings, motions, A, motion for continuance, we have one addition. It's from imposition of fines, No. 8, Tab 15, Case CESD20100006940, Michael and Amy Facundo. Letter B, stipulations, we have three additions. The first is No. 6 from hearings, Tab 6, Case CESD20150001847, Yasiel Rodriguez; the second is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20140017973, George Calderon and Cristina Calderon; the third is No. 4 from hearings, Tab 4, Case CESD20140010232, Mansolillo, IRA, LLC; and we have one more stipulation. It will be No. 7 from hearings, Tab 7, Case CESD20140021849, George J. Sorbara and Jennifer Tarvin Sorbara. Number 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 11, Tab 18, Case CESD20120002439, Konstantine Komninos and Merrill Komninos, has been withdrawn; and No. 12, Tab 19, Case CESD20130018722, 925 Cypress, LLC, will be taken out of order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to hear that before we hear the stips or -- MS. ADAMS: If you're okay with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Okay. You need a motion to amend the agenda? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Page 3 March 26, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Why don't we go to the approval of the minutes. Does anybody have any changes on the minutes from the last meeting? 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? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We're doing okay so far. Page 4 March 26, 2015 MS. ADAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: Okay. So the first case will be from imposition of fines, No. 12, Tab 19, Case CESD20130018722, 925 Cypress, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe, before we get going, Mr. Kaplin would like to say a few words before I enter the executive summary into the order. MR. KAPLIN: Me first, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: You want me to go first, sir? MR. KAPLIN: Sure, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. The violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The violation location is 2829 Shoreview Drive, Naples, Florida; Folio 48170680008. The violation description: An unpermitted dumpster enclosure on the southeast side of the property. Past orders: On July 24, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5067, Page 3712, for more information. On November 24, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the Board, OR5107, Page 2780, for more information. The violation has been abated as of February 20, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between October 23, 2014, to February 20, 2015; 121 days for a total fine amount of$12,100. Page 5 March 26, 2015 Previously assessed operational costs of$64.04 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $65.43. Total amount to date: $12,165.43. The gravity of the violation was normal, and I'd like to say that Mr. Kaplin did work diligently to abate the violation. There was a lot of roadblocks he had to overcome, including a permit issued in error at one point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are requesting? MR. KAPLIN: I am requesting the fine be abated, if that's the right word. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is. MR. KAPLIN: Let me give you a little background, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the Board. This process has been a long and strange trip, in the immortal words of Jerry Garcia. We started the process way back when we bought the building. About a year later we were notified that the dumpster that had been there had never been permitted, unbeknownst to us, of course. We came around to Collier County to request actually what we should do as far as moving the dumpster, and we were told at that time that it would be a process, permitting, 12 sets of plans, the whole nine yards. We commissioned a contractor -- excuse me. We met with the county on five occasions: Chris Scott, county building department; Mr. Letourneau on several occasions and his staff, who have been very helpful to us, and we came to the idea that we would move the dumpster pad itself to the other side of the property. We were told we needed a general contractor to do that. We hired a general contractor last June of 2014 before any of the fines were imposed. Our general contractor submitted a full set of architectural plans, Page 6 March 26, 2015 including a gate plan, a pad plan, and you are much more familiar with this than I am. Engineering alone cost us $1,700. We submitted the plans in duplicate, actually 12 sets of plans. Mr. Scott came back to us and said, okay, I'm not so sure this is going to work. We need to go to the short set of plans, which is the second set of plans, which is much more scaled down. So after spending all the money, we went to a scaled-down plan. We submitted the scaled-down plan in August after meeting with Mr. Scott. He accepted the plan. In October -- August, September, October. In October we received a permit. We commissioned the general contractor to build the dumpster enclosure for $8,600, a little expensive. We started the process. We were granted the permit by Mr. Scott. We moved the dumpster pad -- we removed the dumpster pad from where it was, started the installation process on the other side of the property. Four weeks into the -- excuse me -- six weeks. I'm just doing quick math, folks. End of November, first week of December I get a phone call, right, seven weeks into the process. Mr. Kaplin, we have a problem. What do you mean we have a problem? The building permit that we issued you and we approved is no longer valid. We made a mistake. This has been a year and a half. And I understand mistakes are made. Okay. What do you want me to do, Mr. Scott? Stop. So we stopped. I met with Mr. Scott, Waste Management, everybody else involved in the process. We came to a different resolution. We wound up going back to the resolution we initially proposed, which was putting larger cans on site. It was approved by Page 7 March 26, 2015 everybody. Unfortunately, the general contractor said to me, you've got to pay me. So I'm out of pocket $6,400 to the general contractor, which is nonrefundable because he went so far in the process. The problem's been resolved. Everybody's happy as far as the county is concerned. The owner's out 6,400 bucks, but we did everything we were asked to do in permitting. We spent the 1,700 in engineering, so we've spent a lot of money on this all to come full circle. But the good news is that the matter has been abated, and Mr. Letourneau's staff has been excellent in working with us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Any comments from the Board? Any motions from the Board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we abate the fines as levied as long as today's costs are paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If we abate it, then those costs don't MR. L'ESPERANCE: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to abate, and we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. Page 8 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MR. KAPLIN: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. Thank you, Mr. Letourneau. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next time we do a seminar on bureaucracy, we'll get you as the guest speaker. MR. KAPLIN: Anything you say, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for taking me out of order. MS. ADAMS: The next case is motion for continuance. It's from imposition of fines, No. 8, Tab 15, Case CESD20100006940, Michael and Amy Facundo. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WALKER: Good morning. For the record, Weldon Walker, Jr. MR. FACUNDO: Good morning. Michael and Amy Facundo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You are requesting a continuance on this, I believe? MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FACUNDO: May I give a quick explanation -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Absolutely. MR. FACUNDO: -- of where we're at, the progress? What I'm asking for -- if I can get a continuance for April the 26th. We're within two WEEKS of getting a CO. There's some pictures that were sent. I have some here, if the Board would like to see the progress. Page 9 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Have you seen the pictures? MR. WALKER: Yes, I have, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FACUNDO: And so we're within -- we walked the house, and we have countertops, kitchen equipment, trim; we have electricity, water. Right now, as we speak, the plumber is doing their plumbing fixtures. They will be done today. And the reason why we haven't poured the driveway was there was a little bit of confusion with the county. They wanted to do a culvert, but finally, after a week and a half, two weeks, we had an on-site meeting. He realized and said, yeah, that's not practical. There's not any drainage there. And so now that we've got it resolved and the elevation is ready, then we're going to -- the contractor is expected to do that probably starting tomorrow and pour early next week. And then after that, we should be able to call for a CO. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the Board? And how say the county? MR. WALKER: We're absolutely fine with that idea, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I mean, this case goes back to 2010. If it was a tree, you could have planted an acorn and grown a big tree by now. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. But, Mr. Chairman, I think -- we are very grateful, you know, that the government understands it's nothing that we did deliberately other than it was done to us. And I'm not trying to play the victim, sir, but we've worked so hard, and it's been very stressful to try to climb out of the hole to get where we're at. And we're vested people there that are involved in the community, and we want to stay there with most of them who want to get out, because we believe in the community, and we want to make a difference. Page 10 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The -- our focus is always on getting compliance. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if you want to continuance to the next meeting, which is in April -- MR. FACUNDO: I'm going to try my hardest, sir, to get it -- humanly possible to get my CO within two weeks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments or motions from the Board? MR. KEZESKE: I actually have a question. This was originally for an expired permit; am I reading this right? What is the actual violation right now? MR. WALKER: The actual violation originally, if you care for me to respond. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. WALKER: It was an expired permit. There was issues that had occurred with the actual contractor that he had at the time that kind of walked away from that job and that permit. Since then, of course, he's got an active permit, and he's almost completed the construction of his house. MR. KEZESKE: Mr. Chairman, if the original violation was for an expired permit and the permit's been updated, wouldn't that abate the violation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe they don't have a CO yet. MR. KEZESKE: Is that a -- MR. WALKER: Yes, the CO is a requirement. MR. KEZESKE: It's a requirement to abate the violation? MR. WALKER: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. KEZESKE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we're not hearing the case now. Page 11 March 26, 2015 I mean, the case was heard. It's done. What we're doing here is, the motion is -- the applicant is asking for an extension to the next meeting. And at the next meeting, hopefully everything will be done. And I have a feeling that they possibly would ask for some sort of abatement at that time. MR. FACUNDO: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to continue for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that takes you from April to May. MR. FACUNDO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So hopefully everything works out by then, and we will see you in May if this passes. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. FACUNDO: Thank you very much. MR. WALKER: Thank you. MS. FACUNDO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case, motion for extension of time, No. 1, Page 12 March 26, 2015 Tab 8, Case CESD20140009469, Geffter R. Goncalves and Anna Maria Goncalves. MR. GONCALVES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the microphone so we can all -- MR. GONCALVES: Yes, sir. I'm Geffter Rodriguez Goncalves. I live at 531 18th Avenue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you let us know what you're asking for at this time. MR. GONCALVES: Yes, sir. I'm asking for an extension of time to get the barn in the back permitted. I'm working on it. It's the season right now. I have a lot of work going on. I cannot stop everything I'm doing, you know, to try to get this done, because I have family. I have mortgage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question. Have the fines been paid on this one? MR. ASARO: No, it has not. MR. GONCALVES: It hasn't (sic) paid, because I never received a bill. I didn't know where to pay, but I'll pay it right now. Paying is not a problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because it's been our custom on the Board that if those fees are not paid, we don't entertain any motions to do anything other than impose the fine. So that's one of the items; they need to be paid today. MR. GONCALVES: I'll pay right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This thing started in August. We're close to a year to have a chicken coop permitted. MR. GONCALVES: Sir, it's not as easy as it sounds like, right now. This thing had started about seven years ago before I bought the property, okay? I just bought the property one year ago. I was sold the property. I didn't know about a violation in the Page 13 March 26, 2015 property. I'm the victim here right now. I'm getting -- I'm getting a loss of about -- it's a huge construction for me. It's really a pretty big barn, I call, you know. And it's just unbelievable. It's 20 feet from the property line. It's a wild lot. I tried to locate the owner of the next-door lot. Couldn't locate him. I tried to buy, like, 10 feet from the lot so I could meet the setback and put a permit on the construction. I couldn't do that. And now I have time-line to do this stuff. I mean, it's just unbelievable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When were you notified that you had a code violation? MR. GONCALVES: One month after I bought the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that would be when? MR. GONCALVES: That would be May of last year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're one year into it? MR. GONCALVES: We are one year into it, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How much time are you looking for? MR. GONCALVES: I asked for four months because I already started to take some walls down so I can leave just an open barn and, you know, try to move to meet the setback; then I can apply for a permit, because they won't give me a permit if I don't meet the setback. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the way it works. What is -- you're saying the reason that you did not pay the court costs that were listed was because you were never notified? MR. GONCALVES: I never received a bill for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GONCALVES: I thought I needed to receive a bill for that. I received this in the same day I got -- the post office came. The gentleman there, he came; three people came to give me the notice of this, but I haven't received a bill to pay the $63, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And why don't you tell us -- Page 14 March 26, 2015 were you one of the three people? MR. ASARO: Yes. I served him the notice of hearing, and I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you explain to him what it was? MR. ASARO: Yes. And we talked about his permitting issues, that he needs a little bit more time to permit the shed because of the setbacks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you also tell him that he needed to pay the operational costs within 30 days? MR. ASARO: No, I didn't discuss that with him. I believe he was notified by mail. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Do you feel there's anything being done on this, or is it just sitting there? MR. ASARO: Well, I inherited the case, so I haven't followed it from when it started. But talking to Mr. Goncalves, he basically was telling me that -- I didn't know the history of it -- that he purchased the property with these issues. He seems to want to correct it. It's up to the Board's discretion whether you would like to give him the four months to help him correct it. I think, talking to him, he seems to want to do the right thing and correct the violation and get the permits to keep the shed or the chicken coop -- whatever they -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why four months? MR. GONCALVES: It's the season right now, sir. Last night I got home 2 o'clock in the morning; I'm working hard. I have a mortgage to pay, like I explained. I have two kids, you know. I'm by myself here; I have no parents here. It's just me and my wife and my two kids. And I cannot stop my whole life to try to get this done. I have to pull a permit to demo if I need to demo. If I need to try to move it, I Page 15 March 26, 2015 have to -- I need help, and I don't understand why I have a timeline to do something that is not bothering anybody, you know. I'm trying to meet the -- I don't want to have this violation, believe me. I'm trying to do everything to get this fixed. But it's just like, I don't want to stop my whole life and working and don't pay my bills just to try to move a shed that it's only -- you know, that is next to a wild lot. My neighbors, they don't even believe that this is happening to me, you understand? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this case was already heard in the past. What's to make me feel that in four months there's going to be any change? I mean, you could come back here in four months and say, it's busy. I'm working. I don't have time to do this. I need another extension. MR. GONCALVES: There already has been a change. I said I already start working on it since the first day. I'm tearing the walls down. You can go over there and see it anytime. It's there, you know. I'm working on it. I don't have a reason to lie here. I'm a grown-up man. I don't have a reason to lie here, you understand? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been to the location? MR. ASARO: Yes, when I -- when I served him the imposition of fines. And he did tell me he did start working on it, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you observe the work that was being done? MR. ASARO: From where -- from where I was sitting -- where I was at on his property, it appeared that he did start some type of work. MR. KEZESKE: How big of a structure are we talking about? MR. ASARO: It's about 30 feet long by 25 feet wide. MR. KEZESKE: So this is a significant sized shed? MR. ASARO: It's good sized. MR. GONCALVES: Yes. And that's what got me thinking, that Page 16 March 26, 2015 seven years ago when this started getting built from the original owner, he pulled a permit, okay. And all of a sudden, from what I heard through Code Enforcement Board, he canceled the permit. Doesn't that pull up a red flag? So this property went through Wells Fargo, went through another investor who has a lot of money, and then I buy the property, and I have to deal with the issues that they started. This should have been solved seven years ago, and I'm having to pay for their mistake in the back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is why NABOR, the Naples Board of Realtors, has come up with a request of all agents that when they sell property, that they recommend to the prospective buyer that they do a code look at it to see. Now, when you did a title search, they should have shown this thing -- its location on the property was off. We have an expert on that here. MR. GONCALVES: Exactly. MS. BUSHNELL: I have a question as well. Is there a demo permit active? MR. GONCALVES: No, it's no permit. MS. BUSHNELL: But you're demo'ing the structure? MR. GONCALVES: No, there is no permit. MS. BUSHNELL: But you're in the process of demo'ing the structure? MR. GONCALVES: I'm in the process of either demo'ing or moving. I'm going to try to move it first so I don't lose all the money that this -- MS. BUSHNELL: But to move it -- you have to demo it in order to move it. MR. GONCALVES: I have to demo some walls to leave it like an open barn so I can move 10 feet, because it's 20 feet off from the Page 17 March 26, 2015 property line. So I need to meet only another 10 feet so I can apply for a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You realize that you need a permit to do a demo? MS. BUSHNELL: To do what you're doing, I believe you need a permit, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct, as far as I know. MR. ASARO: If he's going to demo the entire structure. If he's going to -- if he's going to keep it, I think he would have to just obtain a building permit. He has intentions of keeping it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, either way, a permit needs to be pulled before any work is begun. MR. ASARO: Either way, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Notice of commencement, et cetera, et cetera. MR. GONCALVES: Exactly. That's another thing. I don't know if a permit have to be pulled for me to break down -- this is just a regular -- this is just like a shed, you know. But I understand your -- what you're saying, sir. But on the other hand, you know, I am not a millionaire here. There are a lot of millionaires in Naples; I'm not one of them. So I'm just a regular guy. I don't drive a Maserati. I just drive a regular truck. And it's just a certain amount I can afford. I cannot afford to keep, you know -- I'm already paying for something that's not my fault right here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It becomes your concern once you purchase the property. All the -- once somebody sells you a property, or anybody else, any violations on that property go with the new owner because the county has no way of collecting anything from somebody who is now gone. So that's the answer to that point that you're making. MR. GONCALVES: Okay. Another thing. That's true, I agree with you, sir, but the property went through three hands before mine. Page 18 March 26, 2015 Why they weren't solved? Why didn't the Code Enforcement push them to solve the situation? They had a meeting with the investor who bought the property, and they said, you cannot sell the property with this problem, and he still pushed the property on my back. And he made $100,000 on it, and I'm sitting here now with a loss of at least $15,000 with that construction in the back. And I have timelines to do it. I have to get it done. Nobody looked at my financial situation. I mean, let's be realistic, you know. It's not that easy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the individual four months' continuance as long as we have the situation where we, as a county, could, perhaps, advise him and stay with him and be sure that he's making progress on a monthly basis. MS. CURLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. I will state this: We have to make sure that permits -- that there's not another violation going on now. So I'd like you to make that part of your motion, if you can -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I will do so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that all permits to do whatever you're going to be doing there are pulled, so -- and that the court costs, if you will, are paid today before you leave. Any other -- we have a second. Any other -- does the second agree with the -- MS. CURLEY: I agree. Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? Page 19 March 26, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Carries unanimously. You have four months. You need to get the correct permits to do whatever you're going to be doing. I suggest that you work with Code Enforcement to find out exactly what you need to do, and hopefully everything will be done when -- and you'd have to come back here, because this is a continuance, which means that the fines continue to accrue at this time. So if you get it all done, then you can come back at that time and ask for whatever you want to ask for, you know, to abate the fines or whatever you have. Okay. MR. GONCALVES: Okay, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASARO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time is from Tab 13. It's Case CESD20130005831, Eva A. Guerrero. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 20 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a request, but there's nobody here to request it, and it's in -- the violation has been abated? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the costs have been paid as far as the previous operational costs. MS. RODRIGUEZ: It has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So is it a motion for continuance, or is this a motion to do something else? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, she actually wanted to continue it because she wanted to be here to see if they would waive the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: She wasn't -- she had to work. She couldn't get off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think she'll be available at the next meeting? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to make a motion from the Board to extend this a month? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to continue 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To the next meeting? MR. LAVINSKI: Till the next meeting. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. Page 21 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter B, stipulations, No. 6 from hearings, Tab 6, Case CESD20150001847, Yasiel Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Eric. MR. SHORT: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. 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; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 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. I see this was a grow house at one time and, generally, the pictures that we've seen on past grow houses are extensive electrical and plumbing and a whole bunch of demolition to take out the walls, et cetera. Do you think that 60 days is going to be sufficient time to grant them to have this done? MR. SHORT: Mr. Rodriguez actually got a little bit ahead of Page 22 March 26, 2015 himself. Before obtaining the permits, he's done a lot of work and kind of put everything back together. He's in the process of obtaining a permit now, and 60 days should be plenty of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'm a little confused. We have unpermitted alterations to support a grow house. Does that mean if he corrects the violations, he then can have the grow house? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Depends what he's growing. MR. SHORT: Maybe if he was growing roses, he'd be okay. But, no, he's restoring the home to its originally permitted condition. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's like asking you, do you still beat your wife? MR. SHORT: I doubt the county would approve those alterations. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion then to accept the stipulation as read. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the stipulation as written. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 23 March 26, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20140017973, George Calderon and Christina Calderon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can't tell you how well these tabs work out for finding things. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're up. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational cost in the amount of$64.59 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 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir, could you state your name on the microphone? You could bring it down a little bit. There you go. Page 24 March 26, 2015 MR. CALDERON: My name is George Calderon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you understand everything that was written in this agreement? You'll be able to do that? MR. CALDERON: The only thing I see here is that I would like to see if I could have more time than 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The stipulation would need to be rewritten, then, to change any time frame. MS. RODRIGUEZ: He explained this morning that he needed a little bit more time, but when he signed it Wednesday -- Tuesday, he said that four months was enough; but now he's asking for more time, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What additional time would you need? MR. CALDERON: I would like to ask for six months. Money is very scarce for me, and I'm in a -- I am a -- I'm not working. My wife is the only one working, and she has her own bills to pay. And, like I say, it is hard for me, because everything that I have to do to get this done is going to take money. And six months might be enough for me to get what -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you saying six months in addition to the four months, or a total of six months? MR. CALDERON: I'm going to try to get it done within six months, if I can. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Total, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Total. Is that what you understand? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Total, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What needs to be done here? It looks like an additional storage room with electric was attached to the Page 25 March 26, 2015 primary structure. What needs to be done? Just the inspections? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He needs to -- well, actually, he has all the engineering done, and he got a survey. I think he's just spent whatever little bit of money he had trying to get all the paperwork done to get it permitted. Now he has to probably get enough money to submit for the permit. But it's an addition to the house that was never permitted, so he's got to go through the whole permitting with the inspections and CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you made -- George? I do better on first names. Have you made George aware of exactly what needs to be done as far as the work that's involved, permits, et cetera? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, he's aware. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. ASHTON: He only needs to get a permit? Everything is done, and it's just the permit? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Pretty much. I don't know if the engineer went through the whole -- if he needs to fix anything that's already done. It's block, so it's not -- and it doesn't have any framing yet, so -- and I don't even know if he's going to frame it because it's more of a storage room than anything else. MR. CALDERON: It's just a storage room. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The concern I have is the electricity without inspections, et cetera; you know, safety. You understand that. Is the electric that's in the storage room on its own circuit breaker? MR. CALDERON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because I would recommend, if I was writing this stipulation up, that the circuit breaker be turned off until everything is inspected and it's done because of possible fire, et cetera. Page 26 March 26, 2015 So any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we need to possibly go out in the hall and do some additions/changes as far as what is being requested, six months rather than four months, et cetera? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, could we have this approved as a stipulation for six months, assuming that we are going to see a change from four months to six months, or do we need to have them make the change first before we go that far? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It needs to be changed, signed, and then come back before the Board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So why don't you meet outside, take care of whatever needs to be taken care of, and I'm sure that the Board probably won't have any problem approving the six months instead of the four months. MS. NICOLA: Mr. Chairman, couldn't we just have the stipulation that's been signed by all parties simply amended and initialed? I mean, that's what we normally would do with a stipulation that we submitted to the Court, would be to just simply change the 120 to 160 and have -- I'm sorry -- 180, and have them -- Mr. Wright and Mr. Calderon initial it, and then if the Board approved, I mean, I could attach the stipulation to the order like I normally do. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll make it my motion, if that's possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hang on. But it has to come back to the Board for approval. MS. NICOLA: Correct, but that would just be, you know, my comment on that to make things easier. We wouldn't have to do another full stipulation. We could have them initial it and bring it back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they can go out in the hall, Page 27 March 26, 2015 initial it, and then bring it back here. And there's one addition to it, and that's to turn the circuit breaker off. Jeff, do you have any comments on that? MR. WRIGHT: No, that sounds like a plan. We'll do it right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you can go out there, do your thing, come back. It will only take two seconds when you come back in with the scratch changes on it. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The next stipulation is No. 4 from hearings, Tab 4, Case CESD20140010232, Mansolillio, IRA, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think we can do this with Jeff out of the room? I'm only kidding. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your full name on the microphone for us. MR. MANSOLILLO: Anthony Mansolillo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. JONATHAN: Michael Jonathan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And, Ralph, you're going to read the stip? MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall 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 permit, inspections, certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of$250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site Page 28 March 26, 2015 inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you understand the stipulation? MR. MANSOLILLO: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem taking care of it? MR. MANSOLILLO: No. I didn't expect the permitting to take this long. When we were here last time, I said, you know, our permit's -- application's already in. It should take maybe 30 days. It was approved on the 18th of March. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you were in Maine in a little town, it may take -- but with all the building that's going on -- MR. MANSOLILLO: I understand completely. It was my lack of knowledge. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem. Okay. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 29 March 26, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. MANSOLILLO: Thank you. MR. BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 7 from hearings, Tab 7, Case CESD20140021849, George J. Sorbara and Jennifer Tarvin Sorbara. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike. MR. SORBARA: George Sorbara. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And do you want to read the stipulation? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Without your glasses. MS. PULSE: I wouldn't be able to do that. Good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, No. 1, pay operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator Page 30 March 26, 2015 perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir, I assume that you agree with everything that was written here? MR. SORBARA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have no problem making the time. MR. SORBARA: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Has anything happened in the last five months? MR. SORBARA: Yes. The work is completed, and I told Delisa (sic) that I'd be calling the inspections in no later than Monday, Tuesday of next week. MR. LAVINSKI: So everything is done. Just waiting for the final inspections? MS. PULSE: Yes. He provided me a letter from the engineer that he has been working with that they're working on the situation. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So 30 days is going to do it? MR. SORBARA: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. Motion to accept the stip as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. Page 31 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. PULSE: Thank you. MR. SORBARA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20140019519, Stephen Shane Clary and Christopher Jason Clary. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Good morning, Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a hearing, not a stipulation? MR. SHORT: This is a hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That means that you're up. MR. SHORT: I'm ready. For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140019519 regarding violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), an unpermitted secondary mobile home with utility connections and a recreational vehicle with utility connections located at 18960 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 110480002. Service was given on October 2, 2014. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One 2014 aerial photograph Page 32 March 26, 2015 obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website and two photos taken by myself on October 1, 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you -- did you see the photos? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, sir. MR. STEPHEN CLARY: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with them? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: No, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the photos. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: This case originated as a public complaint on October 1, 2014. That same day, I made contact with Tina Clary, who resided in the primary mobile home. I obtained entry consent, and Tina escorted me to the rear of the property where I observed a secondary mobile home and a recreational vehicle with utility connections. Tina admitted that both the mobile home and RV were occupied. Page 33 March 26, 2015 On November 3rd I received a call from Chris Clary. Chris advised that he would like to split the property in order to permit the secondary mobile home. Supervisory staff agreed to allow; until the beginning of February. To date, the violation does remain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. When you say utility connections, you're talking about -- MR. SHORT: They had water/sewer and electrical. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there's one septic on this property that's serving both -- MR. SHORT: There was actually one main septic and then two unpermitted septic systems. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the electric county meters are there. MR. SHORT: There's one meter; however -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the whole property? MR. SHORT: For the whole property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the zoning there is? MR. SHORT: Ag with a mobile home overlay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: May I speak, sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Christopher Jason Clary. This -- we have pulled -- I mean, the permits date back some time, but we was in the process of splitting the land. We did have a septic tank installed, which was permitted and complete. We had -- the impact fees were paid. And as I told Mr. Short, life -- I mean, we just -- stuff has happened; divorce, death right before Christmas; our father chocked to death. There have just been a lot of financial problems. We haven't been able to resolve it. You know, the place has been there since the '60s. It was the Page 34 March 26, 2015 original firehouse in the '60s in Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, and we've owned it since -- you know, since then, since my father took it over. And like, I mean -- we've asked Mr. Short if we could have some more time. I guess they're asking for 60 days, I think to either -- get it all up to date. But I would like to ask -- request some more time, or if we are going to have to -- I mean we have disconnected -- there is no power or anybody living in this residence anymore. So like I was talking to him, I don't know if we need to remove it, if we can just disconnect it. It is agricultural. You know, I do have six dogs, and they're kind of staying -- it's fenced in, and they're living kind of in and out there, you know, as I've gone through the divorce and the life issues that I'm going through at this point in my life. But, you know, they don't need power and water. I mean, they need water, but they don't need to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The dogs don't watch TV or anything? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Oh, I'm sure they'd like to, sir, but -- you know, like I said, this place has been this way since the '60s. And the -- you know, it's 660 by 660. On one side has two homes, and on the other side is the permitted septic that -- it's not up to date. It needs to be -- it needs, like, a $150 reinstatement fee to reinstate the permitting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have 10 acres? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 660 by 660? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're going to split it to 660 by 330 or something? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, into five-acre increments. But like I say, you know, I mean -- we've ran into -- our father choked Page 35 March 26, 2015 to death, and then my partner in business died two days before Christmas; divorce. I mean, it's just like, you know -- and I'm actually going to go into a rehab, alcohol rehab today as I leave here, providing there's a bed, so that's why I'd like to request some time, you know, so I can go into this rehab, get some help for myself, get through this. And my brother is going to take care -- kind of feed my dogs. But, you know, the place will be shut down. It is shut down. And just kind of leave at -- I don't know, that's why I'm -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you said you need 60 days to get everything in order, you think? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Well, that's what they've requested us to -- that's what Mr. Short has asked us, and we asked for some more time. I don't really know what you guys are requesting. I mean, do we need to tear it -- should we just drag it out of there? Can we have a contractor come in, disconnect, and leave it there as a barn, an agricultural? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Obviously, we don't know what's on the property. Have you discussed what their options are on the property with them? MR. SHORT: Just briefly. Other than that November date, there's really been no contact until we got the notice of hearing. Just to be clear, I did offer a stipulation agreement for 60 days. They thought they needed maybe a little more time, and that's why we decided to go to a hearing. I am more than willing to discuss the possible options, and that permit application process will outline those options. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, how much more time do you think you need to get this in order? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Well, I mean, I'm going to -- like I said, I'm going to try to turn myself into a rehab when I leave here today. I mean, and that could be 30 days, 60 days, I don't know. Page 36 March 26, 2015 You know, I mean, as far as -- the original violation was -- is set on -- to disconnect, disconnect power, disconnect water. Since then, that has been done. So it's just a structure sitting there, you know, I mean, serving as a doghouse. At this point it is agricultural. And like I told -- asked Mr. Short, I said, when I can financially afford it, I would like to move it from -- because I can't afford a new home at this point in my life, but I do have the permitting and the impact fees paid on the other five, but we still have to -- I have to get it split. Of course, the taxes have got to be up to date, and I'd like to pull it over there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me re-ask the question, which should start with a number. How many days do you think, in addition to what you had discussed with Mr. Short, would you think you'd need to do it, to get everything done, taking care of your personal problems and -- MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: I would say a year. Now, I could possibly, you know, borrow -- once I get myself together, you know, a few months, and I could get it split, borrow some money towards my land and get the thing put over there, permitted, set up, legit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Before we go any further, this discussion can take place after. We have to find out whether or not you're in violation or not. Would anybody like to make a motion from the Board whether a violation exists or not? MR. ASHTON: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. Page 37 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, we can talk about what needs to be done to remedy the situation. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Okay, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If there was no violation, we'd say goodbye, and we don't have to hear the rest of it. The parcels in the back of the property -- can you put up that aerial view again? Just kind of give us a -- so you have one electric meter right now at the primary location. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the electric that feeds the secondary -- a secondary and the RV -- I don't know whether it's hooked up or not -- that's been shut down? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Correct. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I understand that part. You have also put a septic, which has been permitted and approved, on the back portion of this property? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Correct, as a whole, but we haven't split it. I mean, at that stage in our life, it was going to be as a whole. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: But now since my father has passed, me and my brother are splitting the property. So one side is legit, which is okay, that they're not having a problem with; my side is unfinished. Page 38 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One question. When you split this, if you split it front to back, do you have road frontage there somehow to both pieces of property? Just curious. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes. Well, there has to be two accesses on the properties. Now, on the back, there's -- we have Immokalee Road, which has -- it has a semi-access -- it was for the fire station -- which would be the main, and it would be -- me and my brother are in agreement, because there's Lilac Lane, which is the back, for the both of us to have access to the back, but they will not permit us to put another culvert in off of Immokalee Road, so we would both have to use one entrance in the front and in the back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So right now to me, off the top of my head, it seems that what you need to do or what you're asking to do and what I understand from you, is to split the property into two five-acre parcels. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which, if I'm not mistaken -- and I'll defer to my experts on my right here -- is no big deal. You can split 10 acres easily, correct? Shouldn't take any time, just some money. MS. CURLEY: Survey. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. CURLEY: And you make sure you have access, or you're not going to get a loan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why I asked that question. MS. CURLEY: So your brother needs to be part of this transaction. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So to get it split is not a big deal. Now, once it's split, do we still have a violation? MR. SHORT: We do. The secondary mobile home was never permitted to be in place. Page 39 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's an ag zoned property. MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And getting that done takes a little time or a lot of time? You have to say something. I don't expect you to be an expert on it but -- MR. SHORT: It would also depend on how he plans to split the property, a divider north and south or east and west. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Pardon me. That's the only way it can be split, north and south is the way it's laid out out there. MR. SHORT: So it appears that the mobile home would have to be moved to the other side of the property, which may -- it will take additional time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And not only that, then the septic is sitting on the wrong piece of property; is that correct? MR. SHORT: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that correct? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Correct, that's on the other five. This -- the secondary mobile home, you know, that has had -- like I said, that septic has been there since the '60s. We did not do it. The original fire station that owned the property in the '60s had installed it. Now, you know, one of our friends got mad and made a phone call, and this is kind of where we're at with it, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why can't that piece of property be split front to back with a driveway going down to access the back piece alongside the front piece? That way you wouldn't have to move the property -- the vehicle in the back or the -- whatever you want to call it. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: It's very well possible. I'd have to do my homework on that, sir. The RV in the back, I mean, that was just plugged in with an extension cord. My partner in business was staying there. He died two Page 40 March 26, 2015 days before Christmas, so it's been disconnected. I'm going to sell it or do something with it. I don't know. I don't want it no more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But you're going to keep the 10 acres. You're going to have half; your brother's going to have half? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I understand that portion. My thought -- and I welcome comments from the Board -- is that I understand that 60 days probably wouldn't be sufficient time. And Mr. Short has agreed to work with you to explain some of your options along with additional time. I think one year may be going too far down the track, but maybe six months; and if you can't get it done in six months, you can always come back to the Board and ask for additional time should you have something to report. I mean, if it's exactly the way it is now six months from now, the Board probably wouldn't look favorably on granting any additional time. So any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I have one, Mr. Chairman. Eric, what -- can you tell me what the gist of the public complaint was? Did they -- is this a rowdy issue every Saturday night? Is it just there's three structures on a piece of land or -- you get any feeling as to what the complaint was -- MR. SHORT: When I say "public complaint," I mean it was one member of the public. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, okay. MR. SHORT: He briefly touched on that subject a little bit. They were friends at one time; there was some disconnection. It was a one-time complaint, to answer your question. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So it's not like an ongoing nuisance issue every Saturday night shooting shotguns and all that stuff that goes on out there? MR. SHORT: No, sir. Page 41 March 26, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I think under the circumstances I'd like to make a motion that we extend it for 120 days, that the operational costs be paid within the 30 days, or a fine of$200 a day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I would second that, but I would like to provide a little bit more time because of the need to pull the permit to move the vehicle, RV, or whatever. MR. SHORT: Mr. Chair, would you like to hear the county's recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I would. MR. SHORT: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy for the secondary mobile home within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 2, disconnect any and all utility hookups and cease using the recreational vehicle for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three, 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 Page 42 March 26, 2015 bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One of the things I would like to add to that is that the mobile home in the rear of the property remain unoccupied until this is resolved. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, sir. MR. SHORT: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, let me go back. You were filling in the blanks on this. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. Yeah. My motion, then, would be that the 65.43 be paid within 30 days, that Item No. 2 would go 180 days or a fine of$100 per day, or -- no, No. 1. Item No. 2 would have to be remedied within 10 days, or a fine of$100 per day be imposed. How's that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It sounds good to me. I'll second it. The Item 2 on there, that's the utilities being disconnected, the electric, et cetera. You said that's already done. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that 10 days should be a moot point. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A hundred eighty days is six months. I think that's more than fair. You should be able to hopefully get your ducks in a row, if you will. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments on the motion, which is seconded? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: I have one more thing to say. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're done for now until we vote on this. Page 43 March 26, 2015 Okay. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's carried unanimously. Now. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Now, it may -- like he had said, the secondary mobile home may very well be okay. We may -- I don't know if we need to get an inspector to come out and inspect, you know, if that's what they're going to do or -- you know, he's assured me that the camper has got to go, period, because it's not tagged. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have six months to hang out with Eric and resolve -- resolve all the issues that are there. Hopefully that's enough, and hopefully you can get started on resolving the issues so that should you not have enough time in 180 days, that you could come back and ask for additional time by showing that you have actually done something to resolve the situation. MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Okay, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Everybody happy? MR. CHRISTOPHER CLARY: Yes, sir. MR. STEPHEN CLARY: Thank you. Yes, thank you. MS. ADAMS: I think we're ready to come back to the stipulation for Mr. Calderon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which tab is that? MS. ADAMS: That is Tab 2. Page 44 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Gotcha. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Do you want me to read it all over again? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Why don't you just read the changes that are in there. You've already read it into the record, and we'll go from there. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. So we did change it to 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated, and we added the No. 5, electricity to remain off until No. 2 has been completed, or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, George. MR. CALDERON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand everything that's going on? MR. CALDERON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that gives you sufficient time to resolve everything, hopefully? MR. CALDERON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the Board or discussion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the amended stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 45 March 26, 2015 MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Maria. Thanks, George. MR. CALDERON: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case, Number 3, Tab 3, Case CESD20150001640, Pine Ridge Holdings, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name for the record on the microphone, please. MR. KAY: Stuart Kay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: Before we get started, I'd like to establish the relationship with Mr. Kay and the property owner. MR. KAY: I brokered this property for the owner a couple of months ago. We recently closed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're the broker? MR. KAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a written agreement that you can represent him here? MR. KAY: I do not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a problem. MR. KAY: If it's required, I can send an email, and I can get it written, and I can present you -- we can defer and go to the next person, and I'll have a written email back momentarily. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm afraid it is required. MR. KAY: Not a problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tammy, you have a problem with that? Page 46 March 26, 2015 MS. NICOLA: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: No. MR. KAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we'll suspend this for the time being. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The next case will be Tab No. 5, Tab 5, Case CESD20140025741, Steven R. Cuiffo. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SHORT: Mr. Chair, if we could, again, establish the relationship. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Your name on the mic, please. MR. RICCARDELLI: Robert Riccardelli. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are? MR. RICCARDELLI: I work for J.C. Kaczynski Engineering, and I'm here as a representative to Mr. Cuiffo. He is in Iraq. He's in the service, and he's not able to make it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You heard our previous case. See, we have no way of knowing that you're speaking for them unless we have some sort of a -- MR. SHORT: I do have a letter of intent from Kaczynski Engineering, not from Mr. Riccardelli specifically, but he is an engineer for Kaczynski Engineering. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: The owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Kaczynski, do they have a document that ties them to the owner of the property? MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you check it out with our attorney, and -- MR. WRIGHT: I'll bring the letter to her. Page 47 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to take a five-minute break while this is going on? Okay. We're going to take a five-minute break -- make it seven minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Okay. After deliberation with the attorney -- MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- have we come to an understanding? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, I believe so. And please correct me if I'm wrong, Counsel. We've decided that we don't have an authorization from the respondent for him to act on the respondent's behalf. We do have a hearing -- the respondent's not here -- and he can provide testimony, whatever testimony he wants to provide. Let's keep it clean that way. And, obviously, if the respondent has due-process concerns as a result of this, he can pursue those separately. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Because this is a hearing, we could find that the respondent is in violation or is not in violation, and that would take us down different paths, obviously. MR. WRIGHT: We obviously -- we're mindful of the fact that he's in Iraq, so we want to facilitate the hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. Good morning, Eric. MR. SHORT: For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short. Do we need to be re-sworn? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SHORT: All right. For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140025741 regarding Page 48 March 26, 2015 violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A mobile home type structure was added to the property between 2012 and 2013 with no Collier County permits, located at 308 Morgan Road, Naples, Florida, 34114; Folio 436720006. Service was given on January 8, 2015. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One aerial photograph showing the comparison of 2012 and 2013 obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website, and a most recent aerial photograph obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photographs? Has the -- I won't call you the respondent. Has the gentleman to my right seen this? MR. SHORT: He has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He has. Do you have any problem with that? MR. RICCARDELLI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to accept the exhibits. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. Page 49 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SHORT: This case originated as a complaint for septic issues from the mobile home type structure. Collier County Pollution Control and the Florida Department of Health addressed that issue; however, further investigation revealed that the mobile home type structure was added to the property between 2012 and 2013 without Collier County permits. On January 16, 2015, I received a letter of intent from Kaczynski Engineering. To date, no permits have been applied for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you make that picture a little bit bigger. The yellow that's in the picture from 2013, that shows the additional structure; is that what I'm looking at? MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the horizontal yellow line indicates what? In other words, the structure -- MR. RICCARDELLI: It's the driveway. MR. ASHTON: It's the driveway. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the driveway, okay. So that whole section there. MR. RICCARDELLI: The little square box to the south of it is the trailer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Next picture. A close-up. MR. SHORT: And that's the most recent aerial photograph that shows the mobile home type structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. MR. SHORT: All right. Just to clarify a little bit, I did talk to the Page 50 March 26, 2015 property owner. He called me yesterday from overseas, and he advised that, unfortunately, he is out of town. He's kind of putting it in someone else's hands. I don't want to get into the billing or anything, but says he's paid a retainer to have this engineering firm to help him correct this violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you go back to the first picture. So I see there was no mobile home there in 2012, and there is one there in 2013; is that what I'm looking at? MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And there was no permit for that? MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So based on that, we need to decide, unless you have something else to add to that that would interest us in relation to that, whether a violation exists or not? MR. RICCARDELLI: The violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, let's have somebody make a motion to that effect for the record. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that the violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 51 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. That was the easy part. Now, we get into -- why don't you let us know what you're working on. MR. RICCARDELLI: Yeah. The only real problem we're having is just time, the scope of the work with the septic with not knowing exactly how to handle the trailer on this size of piece of property with a guest house and the fact that the original installer is in Orlando and has been difficult to get in touch with. We don't expect to have any problems getting it permitted through permit by affidavit, but we just need a little bit more time and whatever amount of time you would allow us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How large is the total piece of property? MR. RICCARDELLI: I don't know exactly acreage-wise, but it's a pretty significant piece of property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea? More than an acre? MR. SHORT: Oh, definitely more than an acre. MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes, sir. MR. SHORT: More than five. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: More than five acres. Okay. So you're going trying to get a permit by affidavit to show that it is -- MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes, sir. We have all our surveying done, and we have all our engineering done. We're just waiting on the septic company to give us their engineering, and we're waiting on the original installer to get back to us on his affidavits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long do you think you would need to get everything done? MR. RICCARDELLI: Hindsight always being 20/20, I'd like to Page 52 March 26, 2015 ask for as much time as possible that you'd grant me but, obviously -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Start out with a number. MR. RICCARDELLI: Three months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's a number. Okay. MR. KEZESKE: Is this being added as a guesthouse? Is that how this is being brought on the property? MR. RICCARDELLI: The problem with the property is there's a main house and there's already a guesthouse, so there's a square-footage issue. And we haven't got enough of the permit together yet to find out how they want us to handle it as far as if we have to split the lot or not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because that trailer has not been permitted to be on the property; is that correct? MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes, sir. MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that would need to be done also. MR. RICCARDELLI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that part of your scope of work? MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one. When is the respondent due back from Iraq? Do we have any idea? MR. SHORT: I have no idea. MR. LAVINSKI: Do we know what his position is in this situation? MR. SHORT: When I talked to him yesterday, he was more than willing to do whatever he needed to do with the advisement of his engineer. MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes, sir. And I might add that he has bent Page 53 March 26, 2015 over backwards to take care of this problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has he been gone in Iraq a long time? Generally, the tour over there is nine to 12 months max. MR. RICCARDELLI: Approximately two months he's been gone. And the way I understand it, he's kind of-- I don't know exactly what he does, but he was on call and waiting for, you know, a text message to tell him he was going two months ago. So I don't know if he comes back or doesn't or if he's some kind of special-force guy or, you know, what's going on exactly. But he has done a really good job of communicating wherever he is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily, on situations like this, I -- since it's probably unoccupied right now? MR. RICCARDELLI: It is occupied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, it is occupied. That's a problem because of safety and health. MR. RICCARDELLI: Not to interrupt, but all the septic work has been done, so it is a legal septic situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, my concern is electric mostly. MR. RICCARDELLI: And that also -- right now -- and that's part of the process that's taking so long -- we're trying to get three separate meters installed, which is a whole other thing with FP&L, getting them out there and taking care of, it but we have retained an electrician, and as soon as he gets the go-ahead from FP&L, he's going to go out there and put the meters in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is he also in a position to check the house to make sure there are no fire hazards with the exiting wiring in the structure? MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes. And that will also go through our office through the permit-by-affidavit process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Personally, I have no Page 54 March 26, 2015 problem with three months, if that would fit the bill. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Well, under the circumstances, I'd make a motion that we extend this for 120 days -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: -- so long as the respondent is in Iraq on official business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eric, do you have a suggestion for us? We'll start with that, and then go from there. MR. SHORT: The county recommends 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: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The only thing I would add to that is that when the electrician comes to do his work, that he inspects the whole house to make sure that there are no glaring problems that could cause a fire. MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes, sir. I just also wanted to add that I'm also a state-certified residential contractor, and the permit by affidavit will go through my company. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 55 March 26, 2015 MR. RICCARDELLI: So I'll be the one that is handling that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to -- on your -- MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'll restate my motion, then, that the 65.04 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh one. MR. LAVINSKI: -- .01 be paid within 30 days, that the deficiencies be corrected within 120 days, or a fine of$200 per day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. If you don't get everything done within 120 days, come back and MR. RICCARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- we'll look after the gentleman in Iraq. MR. RICCARDELLI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 56 March 26, 2015 I see Mr. Kay is back in our audience. MS. ADAMS: We're just waiting to see if he has the proper documentation now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tammy, you have it? MS. NICOLA: I have it, yes. I reviewed it, and I had him email it to me. I'm satisfied with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: So we'll go back to Tab 3, then, Pine Ridge Holdings. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Again, could you state your name on the mike. MR. KAY: Stuart Kay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Stuart Kay, okay. Thank you. Okay, Eric. I've seen a lot of you today, by the way. MR. SHORT: For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20150001640 regarding violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), unpermitted alterations to the lower aspect of the home located at 930 39th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 37995000007. Service was given on January 29, 2015. I would like to present evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs taken by myself on January 29, 2015, and a copy of the front elevation from the original permit, Permit No. 19 -- 19831298. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent's representative seen those photos? Have you seen the photos? MR. SHORT: He has not. MR. KAY: No, but I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show them to him Page 57 March 26, 2015 and then -- MR. KAY: I accept them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- we'll ask you if you have any problem for us to see them. Any problem with us viewing those photos? MR. KAY: No. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the exhibits. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: This case originated as a complaint on September 8, 2014, for several property maintenance issues. Further investigation revealed that the lower aspect of the home had been altered to support a multifamily use. On December 22, 2014, a change in ownership was recorded. Service given to the new owners on January 29, 2015. After no compliance efforts were made, this case was prepared for a hearing on March 4, 2015. On March 18, 2015, Investigator Ambach was on site and observed two males performing work on the home. I responded and Page 58 March 26, 2015 obtained entry consent from Mr. Kay. Upon entry, I observed several unpermitted electric, plumbing, structural, and HVAC alterations, and a stop work order was posted at that time. Mr. Kay stated that he was an agent for the owner and that they have retained a design professional to do a permit by affidavit. Now, this morning I did confirm that a permit by affidavit has been submitted. The fees have been paid. It's ready for issuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Kay? MR. KAY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. KAY: The owner mixed up the letter that went out. Everything went out exactly as he said. There was a problem with the stair, and the stair was removed. The owner thought that that was the issue; didn't realize there was this other issue going on. When they closed, they knew there were some issues. They hired Reliable Permitting to get the place taken care of. There's a number of things that have to happen in order to submit the permit, the survey, the plot plan, all kinds of things that took a little bit of time. He didn't respond because he didn't realize this had to do with the whole home. It was just the stair issue, because that was another issue that the owner was made aware of; didn't realize there were two issues going on. So he missed that. So the permit is in. The work is going to be done. And I guess I would ask if we could continue this hearing for a 90-day period while the work gets completed and CO'ed and taken care of properly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is the buyer aware that -- first of all, let me ask, what's the zoning there? MR. SHORT: It's estates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Estates. MR. SHORT: Single -- Page 59 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Single-family. MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this type of build-out is -- if permitted -- MR. SHORT: Would be a mother-in-law type area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The buyer, was he aware that a violation existed? I guess it was built out somewhat before he purchased it. It was unpermitted work that was done prior to him purchasing the property. MR. KAY: He was aware of a stair violation, but he was not aware of other violations, to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd ask if he was given the sign-off on the code -- Jeff s gone -- the brochure that's given out by the NABOR as far as inspections for code violations, et cetera. So he was aware of that. MS. CURLEY: Well, the title -- he said the title agency hired Reliable Permitting to work on the permitting issues post-closing, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He knew about it. Okay. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're looking for 90 days to get everything buttoned down? MR. KAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to let me know whether a violation exists here or not to begin with? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I make a motion a violation does exist. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. Page 60 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. A violation exists. And you have a suggestion for us, Eric? MR. SHORT: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think 90 days will be sufficient time to get everything done? MR. KAY: I think so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion, fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll give a shot at it. I move that the operational costs of 65.43 be paid within 30 days, Page 61 March 26, 2015 that the violation be corrected within 120 days, or a fine of$200 per day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KEZESKE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have more than enough time now, right? MR. KAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 2, Tab 9, Case CELU20140009469, Frank Civale. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Civale, excuse me. Why don't you tell us what you're looking for here. MR. CIVALE: I got this letter in the mail. Code Enforcement thinks I'm renting out my guesthouse. I have a friend living there. I don't know what the problem is. Page 62 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This case was heard, so we're not here to rehear it. But it was found on January 22nd that you were found in violation at that time. Notice, how was that handled on this case? MS. ADAMS: Certified mail was sent on March 11, 2015. Property and courthouse were both posted on March 11, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CIVALE: I never received a letter. This is the first one I had. I got this last week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the certified letter, do we get a return receipt on that? MS. ADAMS: We either get the signed card back or we get the mail returned to us that it wasn't deliverable. But the ordinance requires us to send it within 10 days of the hearing. It doesn't require that anything is received. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As far as we know, that was submitted? MS. ADAMS: It was, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I don't know why you didn't get it, but -- MR. CIVALE: I'm not getting the mail. In my area where I live, I notice -- because I get the -- my VA delivers my medication every month whenever they deliver, and I notice some of the kids, they go into the mailboxes and they move things to different houses. It's not a regular mailman that delivers in my area. They hire a regular person to do so many streets. So I never got it. This is the first thing I got last week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Eric? MR. SHORT: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you have the original case on this, Eric? Page 63 March 26, 2015 MR. SHORT: I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you go through that a little bit. MR. SHORT: The original case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. In other words, since the respondent said he never was aware of any of this, how were you notified, et cetera? MR. SHORT: The case originated as a complaint from one of the tenants in the rear of the property, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One of the tenants on his property? MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The one that you're not renting to? MR. CIVALE: What's the person's name? MR. SHORT: I don't have that information available. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: You know, after there was a finding of fact and a violation was documented, I never received contact from Mr. Civale saying that the violation had been taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: Today is the first contact I've had. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But you had a complaint from a tenant? MR. SHORT: Correct, originally. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: About? His complaint was? MR. SHORT: It started off as property maintenance issues. It was a female tenant. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: Multiple issues going on. When the property maintenance investigator was out there, he said, well, hold on a minute. If you're a tenant, you shouldn't be doing this to begin with. This property is zoned for single-family use. You're using it as Page 64 March 26, 2015 multifamily, and the case went from there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CIVALE: Let me explain something; make it a little more clear. The woman you're talking about, she told me she was a disabled veteran. I never collected any rent from her. I let her stay 11 months. And finally I -- to get rid of her, I had -- Judge Carr issued me a -- what the heck was it again? MS. NICOLA: Eviction. MR. CIVALE: Beg your pardon. MS. NICOLA: Eviction? MR. CIVALE: Yeah. I got the eviction from Judge Carr. So the only reason I let her stay there for free is because she told me she was a disabled veteran. I'm a disabled veteran myself, and that's the only reason I let her stay. So I didn't collect any money from this woman. If that's -- I'm trying to make the determination, because he used the word "tenant," which you might think that means money is being collected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have somebody living there that is not family. That's illegal; am I correct, Tammy? Single-family house. MS. NICOLA: You have somebody living there with you that's not family; is that illegal? I don't believe that's illegal. I mean, people come and live with people all the time. I don't think it's illegal. I mean, does it create a tenancy? It probably does. MR. CIVALE: You want to talk about illegal, let's talk about the Bible. Everybody's related. So let's throw that thing right out. That's nonsense. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's if you believe in the Bible. MR. CIVALE: People live with their girlfriends all the time. So having people live with you isn't illegal. MR. KEZESKE: Eric, this also says that there was accessory Page 65 March 26, 2015 structures as well. If I'm remembering correctly, wasn't there, like, some conversions made or something along in the back? There just seems to be more of an issue than the guesthouse, and I seem to remember this. MR. SHORT: Well, for this case in particular, there were multiple structures on the property. The issue was not the permitting of the structures or whether conversions were made within those structures. It was simply the land use, using a single-family zoned property as multifamily. MS. BUSHNELL: But this person was living in the guesthouse? MR. CIVALE: I beg your pardon? MS. BUSHNELL: This lady was living in your guesthouse? MR. CIVALE: Yes. MS. BUSHNELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to rehear the case. The case was heard. The respondent was found in violation. The operational costs have not been paid. We're here to impose the fine or not. So, anybody want to make a motion? MS. CURLEY: I just have one question, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: Is anyone living in these guesthouses now? MR. CIVALE: In the guesthouse, a friend of mine. MS. CURLEY: Okay. MR. SHORT: Mr. Civale, I mean, it's completely up to you if you would like to invite me to the property to confirm, maybe speak with your tenants that the violation is no longer taking place, I can do an affidavit of compliance, and these fines will stop today. MR. CIVALE: Fine. Give me your phone number. MR. SHORT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you want to put this on Page 66 March 26, 2015 hold till our next meeting? Or do you want to withdraw it; how's that? MR. WRIGHT: I don't see why we would withdraw this. We're here for a hearing. And if he wants to have more time, then he can, you know, ask for it, but right now it's an imposition, and there's a standard to meet. I don't think that he's made the arguments to reduce the fine or any of those things that we would look for at an imposition hearing. But, ultimately, if you want to, I hate to say, kick the can down the road, you have that authority. But I think our position would be go forward with this lien hearing, and whatever your result is of that hearing we will live with. MR. LAVINSKI: I would agree. I'd have to put faith in the fact that we already heard this case. Eric presented it. We found that there was a violation. I'd like to let that stand on its credibility. I'd make a motion to impose the fine. MS. CURLEY: I'd second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: Mr. Chair, I'd like to -- MS. NICOLA: I'd like to comment, if I can. I'm concerned a little Page 67 March 26, 2015 bit as an attorney about the due process issue. I mean -- and I think where it concerns me is regardless of whether the provision in the law says that you do or do not have to receive a certified receipt back, it concerns me that if we send out a certified mailing, we should either have that mailing back, or we should have a receipt that shows that he actually signed for it or somebody signed for it. That's my concern here as a lawyer, because I wouldn't just take him at his word. I'd want to have some kind of documentation that shows that, in fact, the certified mailer came back or that the receipt came back. That's just kind of my two cents on this. That worries me a little bit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Just to clarify, I think that we have met the statutory standard. So as far as -- and I haven't heard a defense to that, so I think that we've proven notice. I would hate to have every applicant come up here and -- every respondent come up here and say, yeah, the kids are ripping off the mail, and then we'd never be able to move forward on cases. So I think that we've established that we've served him properly. I'm not sure what happened after that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Your recourse, by the way, is to go before the County Commissioners and state your case, and they can abate this. They can do whatever they feel is the right thing to do. MR. CIVALE: I'll say it right now. The guy on the side of you said there was a -- you heard this court case. I wasn't present. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You don't have to be present to be -- for this to go forward. MR. CIVALE: I don't? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Is that correct? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. We have it all the time. You have a right to be here and a right to not be here. Page 68 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. So -- MR. CIVALE: But don't I have to be notified? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because if you use a little logic -- so if I don't want to be found guilty of anything, I don't show up. MR. CIVALE: But I still have to be notified. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And as far as the county is concerned -- we are not the county. We are trying to hear the case. We try to get compliance and whatnot. The county has the rules on notification; they have met those rules. And if you have a problem with that, then I suggest that you go forward to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. CIVALE: Isn't this the Board of County Commissioners? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, it's not. MR. CIVALE: It's not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. We don't get paid. They do. MS. CURLEY: We're residents just like you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: We're volunteers. MR. CIVALE: Okay. So what's the next step? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eric will discuss that with you out in the hall, how's that? MR. CIVALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: Mr. Chair, if I may read the executive summary into the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. SHORT: All right. Regarding past orders of the January -- on January 22, 2015, 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, Book OR5121, Page 1474, for more information. Page 69 March 26, 2015 The violation has not been abated as of March 26, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between February 22, 2015, to March 26, 2015, 33 days, for a total fine amount of$6,600. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.59 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $63.33. Total amount due -- or total amount to date: $7,627.92. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. CIVALE: That's it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's it. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Tab 10, Case CESD20140009530, Wayne Mansueto. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20140009530. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.03, Subsections (B)(1)(a). Location: 217 Swain Street in Copeland, Florida; Folio No. 01134803101. Descriptions: Existing mobile home that had been demolished and a new mobile home set up on improved residential property without first obtaining the authorization of the required permits, inspections, and a certificate of occupancy as required by Collier County. Past orders: October 23, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to Page 70 March 26, 2015 correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5092, Page 3964, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of March 26, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period between February 21, 2015, to March 26, 2015, 34 days, for a total fine of$6,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previous assessed operational costs of$65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing of$64.17. Total amount to date: $6,929.18. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, Board members. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Tab 11, Case CEROW20140002816, Sammy R. Gober, Joanne Gober, and Stanley R. Gober. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 71 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Ralph. MR. BOSA: Good morning. For the record, again, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEROW20140002816 dealing with the violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 110, Section 110-31(A). Location of 11380 Trinity Place, Naples, Florida with a folio number of 00761280004. Description of the violation is damaged/failed culvert pipe. Past orders: On January 22, 2015, 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 violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5118, Page 2296, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of March 26, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period between February 22, 2015, to March 26, 2015, a total of 33 days for a total fine amount of$6,600. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.43 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.33, for the total amount to date, $6,728.76. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One quick question. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with these folks at all? MR. BOSA: I did at the beginning. Their permit is valid. They just had it -- they submitted it, and they have it in hand, but they never contacted me. They just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the repair been done? MR. BOSA: It's being -- a contractor's working on it right now. Page 72 March 26, 2015 It looks like they just started last week, actually, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Had they shown up here today to argue this, it could have gone in a different fashion. MR. BOSA: Totally agree, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. MS. BUSHNELL: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose. Do we have a second? MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5, Tab 12, Case CENA20140022780, Tarpon IV, LLC. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CENA20140022780 dealing with a violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter Page 73 March 26, 2015 54, Articles VI, Section 54-185, Subsection D. Violation location is Folio No. 76210840000. Violation description is presence of Collier County prohibited exotic species, including but not limited to java plum. Past orders: On January 22, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued findings 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, OR5118, Page 2300, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of March 26, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between February 22, 2015, to March 26, 2015, for 33 days, for a total fine amount of$3,300. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $62.91. Total amount to date: $3,427.92. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent at all? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. They have not been in contact with us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I wonder sometimes when you have an LLC -- this is -- do they own any property that you can lien? Do they own this property? I guess so; that's -- okay. Anybody like to make a motion? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to impose the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 74 March 26, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 7, Tab 14, Case CEPM20140020730, RBSHD 2013-1 Trust. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ODUM: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the Board's purpose, this is the revised tab that was on your desk when we showed up. Okay. MR. ODUM: Good morning. For the record, Michael Odum, Collier County Code Enforcement. Just wanted to establish this gentlemen's relationship to the owner first before we get started. He also has a statement and some things; he wants to go first. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. HAINS: Good morning. I'm Gary Haim. I'm the realtor for the bank. I have an email if you want to look at it. MS. NICOLA: Yes, thank you. Can you forward this to me. I'll give you my card after the hearing. MR. HAINS: Sure. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. MR. HAWS: Thank you. I'm the realtor for the bank. They took it over, I think, in early -- early this year. I got the assignment maybe about a month ago. Page 75 March 26, 2015 I wasn't aware of the violation. I've talked to Jim, the other inspector on it. It's a side door. It will be fixed next week; not a problem. I learned of it last week when the notice was put on the door for the hearing. It's not an issue for us to take care of it. I've paid the operational costs already; that got paid last week when we found out that this was in violation. The home is under contract to a buyer right now as well and is closing, I believe, the end of April. So at this time I'm just looking for a 30-day extension, and it will probably be done next week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have the boarding costs -- MR. HAINS: I'm sorry. What's that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The $450 boarding costs, have they been paid? MR. HAINS: It's 515; yes, that's been paid. MR. ODUM: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We had 450 on our list. MR. HAINS: I think there was probably -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tax. MR. HAINS: -- something else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whatever. MR. ODUM: Excuse me. In total, it was 515.01; that included the operational costs of the last hearing. So that was as of yesterday, yes. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. What did you say the closing date is for the upcoming buyer? MR. HAINS: I believe it's the end of April. MS. CURLEY: Do you know the date? MR. HAINS: I think it's the 30th, is what they're looking for. MS. CURLEY: We really don't want to extend this past the date of closing. We don't want to turn this over to somebody else. We've Page 76 March 26, 2015 already heard this from the pre-foreclosed. MR. HAINS: No, it will be done before. No, that's not a concern. MS. BUSHNELL: So done and back before our next meeting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MS. CURLEY: Just some history on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The violation has not been abated. If we extend it for 30 days, you will be back here and -- you have the -- since the bank owns it, you're the representative of the bank? MR. HAINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then at that time you can say that it has been abated, and we can go from there. MR. HAINS: Yeah. It's an easy quick fix. We'll take care of it. Not a problem at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because the total amount to date is almost $24,000 for a missing bottom portion of a door. Okay. I have no problem with extending this -- doing a continuance where the fines would continue to accrue for 30 days. Anybody have any comments on that? MR. LAVINSKI: What happens if it goes to closure, and they don't fix it? MS. CURLEY: The comment is, is it won't close because this is a standing fine, and so it's going to get in the way of this ending. MR. HAINS: Correct. MS. CURLEY: So if this -- and they're going to need to clear this. So to extend it 30 creates a hardship for everyone down the line, not including him. MR. HAINS: Ma'am, if I may? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thirty days is before the closing date. MR. HAINS: Yeah, April 30th. Page 77 March 26, 2015 MS. CURLEY: But you still need time to get the documentation of record and clear it. There's a timeline, and -- MR. HAINS: I'm planning on getting it corrected next week, so whatever timeframe -- MS. CURLEY: So give him less time -- MR. HAINS: This is fine. MS. CURLEY: -- so it clears quicker. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to make a motion to that effect? MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There you go. MS. CURLEY: Let's give him 20 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you'd like to grant a continuance of 20 days? MS. CURLEY: A continuance for 20 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because we don't meet in 20 days. That's a little problem. MS. BUSHNELL: Right. It's 30 days. Are we better imposing the fine? Would it be easier to impose the fine? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When is our next meeting date? MS. ADAMS: April 23rd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 23rd will give him seven days to resolve it. MS. BUSHNELL: And if we don't impose the fine and we continue it, he comes back for next meeting, if we abate it -- MS. CURLEY: The new owners don't get to move in. MS. BUSHNELL: They may have to extend the closing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Our next meeting is the 23rd, so that between the 23rd and 30th is seven days. MR. HAINS: It will be completed. It's -- I mean, like you said, it's a little door, and you put a piece of plywood in, and it's done. Page 78 March 26, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: You amend your motion to be the 23rd? MS. CURLEY: Sure. MS. BUSHNELL: He'll be back in front of us by next meeting. MR. L'ESPERANCE: He'll be back in front of us then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to grant a continuance to the next meeting. MR. HAINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. ODUM: Would you like me to read this into the record? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. ODUM: I'd also just like to add this is a very small problem, and I believe, after talking to this gentlemen, it will be fixed, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You could put a heck of a patch for $23,000 on a door. MR. ODUM: Thank you. Page 79 March 26, 2015 MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 9, Tab 16, Case CEPM20140011205, Brent R. Parker. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. PARKER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the mike. MR. PARKER: Brent Parker. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, John. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. This case is in reference to CEB Case No. CEPM20140011205, violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code Section 22-231, Subsection 12(i). Location of violation is 85 Seventh Street, Bonita Shores, Florida; Folio No. 24533040005. Description of violation is broken windows on the east side of unit of duplex. Past order: On August 28, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law. 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 3517, for more information. On January 22, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5121, Page 1482, for further information. The violation has been abated as of February 25, 2015. Fines and costs to abate (sic) are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$50 per day for the period between September 28, 2014, to February 25, 2015, 171 days, for a total fine amount of$8,550. Previous assessed operational costs of$63.29 have been paid. Page 80 March 26, 2015 Boarding costs of$1,434 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $65.43. Total amount to date is $10,049.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the violation has been abated by the county? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. The county Boarded up the windows, but Mr. Parker has actually fixed the windows. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And how much was the Boarding cost? MR. SANTAFEMIA: $1,434. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we go to Mr. Parker. MR. PARKER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. PARKER: I guess at this point what I would be asking is to waive all fines and fees. I've complied with the violation as I understand it. Once I received notice, I took care of it within roughly 30 days. The previous notices went -- I was not noticed of anything because I think I explained to you that I was in prison, so I couldn't have been noticed of anything. But upon me being noticed, I complied with the violation. So the hard costs, as you would call it, someone made a decision to spend $1,400 to do that; and I don't necessarily say that was a bad decision, although it was expensive. And I think replacing the glass was $100. So why that got done, I don't know. But, anyway, that's how it came out. Again, I think it was early January when I was first noticed of this violation. I got it taken (sic) care of as quickly as I could. I don't have a lot of money, but I was able to get that taken care of. I was also able to take care of your operational costs for that. I would ask that you waive the fines and the fees that have Page 81 March 26, 2015 occurred (sic) to date if at all possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the $1,434 has been paid by the taxpayers of Collier County to Board it. MR. PARKER: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I can flatly tell you that that would never be abated, that 1,434. As a matter of fact, when they impose the fines, that's the first thing that they collect is money that's outlaid by the county to correct a problem, so -- MR. PARKER: I kind of assumed that, but I had to ask. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It doesn't hurt. MR. PARKER: Seeing as I don't have that kind of money in my pocket, I needed to ask that question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I just wanted to explain that that's -- the property is now -- it is -- the violation has been abated? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The boarding is down; the windows are in? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Comments from the Board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Well, we still have the outstanding cost of the boarding, so how should that be approached? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Is there a time frame we can give him to satisfy that fine? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Yes, we can. MR. PARKER: I don't mind -- I have every intent of paying it, but my ability to pay anything right now -- I don't even have a home to live in right now. I can't even afford the deposit for electric so I can move into the other side. So you need to -- at least I would hope you'd give me some time to get back on my feet and get going here. Business hasn't been quite as good as I expected it, and season's Page 82 March 26, 2015 just about over. So I expect going through summer is going to be more difficult for me to get money than it has been in the past three or four months, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm just -- I'm not making a motion, but I'm just discussing this. Giving you enough time to pay the $1,434 boarding cost is one thing. The total amount of the fine minus the boarding cost is 8,600 or something like that. So how much time do you think you would need to come up with today's hearing, which is $65.43, plus the 1,434? MR. PARKER: The 65.43, I'm going to pay that today. MS. BUSHNELL: If we abate the fine, though, would he be charged that, as long as he's paying the other fee? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's debatable since it's not all done. MR. PARKER: My biggest concern right now -- I understand you guys want your money and it's county money, but I also know that the tax collector would like his money, too. And so my biggest concern is making sure the property taxes -- or this whole thing is moot if it's not paid. So I need to take care of that first. And I'm sorry, but that's the truth. MS. BUSHNELL: How much time do you think you need to come up with the $1,400? MR. PARKER: If the phone rang, it's possible that within a week I could have your money. If the phone doesn't ring, then I can't tell you, and it has certainly slowed down, let's put it that way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's your phone number? I'll call you. MS. CURLEY: What do you do? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think -- and I know this is a guess -- that in three months you would have enough money together? MR. PARKER: Would you give me three months, and if we Page 83 March 26, 2015 have to come back and give me some more time -- I'm going to say the odds are not favorable, because I've got $2,200 in tax, taxes, property taxes; I've got $3,000 in electrician that helped get the thing up so I could get rental from it, get some income from that, that he's obligated. You guys want $1,400, so -- and the money's just dribbling in. It's not -- I don't have a big wagon full of it. So I'm going to say three months would be optimistic at best but, certainly, it's not impossible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BUSHNELL: You can make some progress, make payments. MR. PARKER: Yeah, I could certainly do so. I could do that. Would that be helpful? MS. BUSHNELL: It would be helpful. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't -- we do a motion possibility. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to make a motion that we abate all except the 1,432 in unpaid Collier County already expenses, today's operating costs of 65.43 not be waived, and that the respondent has 180 days in which to settle this issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The operational costs of$65.43 will be paid within 30 days; is that what you said? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. MR. PARKER: I want to swing by and pay it today. MS. CURLEY: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you'd have six months to pay the $1,434, and the remainder of the fine, the $8,600, or whatever the arithmetic shows, would be waived. MR. PARKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. PARKER: All right. Well, I appreciate that help. I'll make Page 84 March 26, 2015 every effort to get it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's the motion. MS. BUSHNELL: And we have a second. MS. CURLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second on the motion. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. PARKER: Thank you. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 10, Tab 17, Case CEROW20130001764, Douglas L. Aldridge, Sr., and Carolyn J. Aldridge. MR. ALDRIDGE: I don't see anybody else. I guess I'm it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is your name Aldridge? MS. CURLEY: Yeah, I hope so. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SHORT: For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 85 March 26, 2015 This is in reference to violations of right-of-way permits, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 110, road and bridges, Article II, construction in the right-of-way, Division 1, generally, Section 110-31(A), two driveways entering the property with damaged/collapsed drainage culvert pipes. Location is 725 Sanctuary Road, Naples, Florida; Folio 95160007. Description: Estates zoned property being -- it's the wrong description on the summary. Anyways, past orders: On February 27, 2014 -- all right. 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 ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, Book OR5018, Page 3617, for more information. The violation has been abated as of March 23, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between February 23, 2015, to March 26, 2015, 29 days, for a total fine amount of$2,900. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.04 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are $63.33. Total amount to date are $2,963.33. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Aldridge, do you have anything to say about this, or would you like to request something? MR. ALDRIDGE: Well, I would like to request that the fines be waived. My explanation for why I didn't complete it on time, first thing is, you guys gave me a year when I was here before to get this done. I received a letter to that effect. Well, somehow or other, I filed that letter in the wrong place, but I had it in my mind that that letter gave me until March, the end of March, 22nd or '3rd. Well, as it turns out, that wasn't true. It only gave Page 86 March 26, 2015 me to February. So my permit was expired, and I was working on it, trying to get the job done. And I got a letter from Eric, or whomever, that stated that I was working in the right-of-way without a permit. Well, I hustled down to Horseshoe Drive and got the permit extended and went ahead and finished the work. But, you know, they said I still need to come down and talk to you guys about the fines. And that's what I'm doing. I'm asking that you waive those fines, because the reason I gave for not being able to do it to start with was that I live on a fixed income and, therefore, didn't have the money to run out and put culverts in. So you gave me the year, which I was appreciative of, and I saved my money and saved my money and finally got enough money to buy the materials. Thought I could do it. So I thought I was doing good, but it so happened I ran out of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ALDRIDGE: And that's what happened. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to make a motion? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion we abate the fine. MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate it. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 87 March 26, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You're done. MR. ALDRIDGE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next item on the agenda is No. 7, new business, A, imposition of fines discussion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One of the things that was brought up during the year on the imposition of fines, we find ourselves sometimes -- and I don't know how to resolve this. I just want to throw out there for maybe a workshop at some point in time -- that we're faced with somebody might have fines of$25,000 because they did something wrong and they let it drag on and on and on. And when they finally got around to fixing the situation, they come back to the Board and ask for the fines to be abated and, more likely than not, we abate all $25,000 of the fine. So it has been brought up by the Board on numerous occasions, is there any way of looking at that and saying, you know, you were in violation. Maybe $25,000 is too much, but maybe $500 or $1,000, or whatever it is, might be more appropriate. So I bring that up. And I understand this is a difficult thing, and it's not going to be resolved here today, that's for sure. But do you have any comments on that? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm looking at Article 10, Section 1 of your rules -- and I would defer to counsel on any fine-tuning here. But in Article 10, Section 1 of your rules -- and I have it as Page 8 of the most recent rules. I'm not sure if you have that -- but it spells out -- it sort of sets up the system for you to be fair based on the circumstances. And if somebody comes before you in the situation that you described, 25,000 has accrued and they want to get that reduced, you have discretion in coming up with a number that you think is fair. And in doing so, there's several factors that the rules outline that you would Page 88 March 26, 2015 consider. And over the years, this stuff, you know, sometimes it gets considered, sometimes it's air tight, sometimes it's not. But I just want to highlight that, that you have those factors to consider aimed at being fair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. I'm aware of that. And it may be opening up a can of worms, because if you say, well, I think $1,500 is fair, and you have another case with a similar circumstance and you say, you know, $2,500 is fair, I think you open yourself up to -- you really open up a can of worms when you get involved in that. And I don't know if there's a way of listing the circumstances, how long did it take the situation to be resolved, et cetera, et cetera, but that was brought up. I don't know how to resolve it. I bring it -- I know Mr. Lavinski had some comments on that as well. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. I kind of have been kicking this around, and I thought that the -- what might seem fair is to establish three categories of violation, a low level, a medium level, and a high level, and then say that, okay, an abatement of a low level still warrants a $1,000 fine, an abatement a medium level still warrants a $2,000, and an abatement of remodeling a whole house and having maybe substandard living conditions, once it's abated, still requires a $5,000 level of fine. So I think that would keep us out of the gray area of being impartial in changing our mind. As I look over here, as our fine guidelines say, we could establish those abatement guidelines in the same manner, and that would be fair. Here again, weeds in a yard probably is not worth $5,000, but it might be worth 1,000 to the county for all the work they've done above the $65.04 that we keep charging for expenses. So I think we, amongst us in a workshop, could easily establish that, yeah, as I suggested, low, medium, and high level, 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000. And then we could, within that, if there is any discretion, Page 89 March 26, 2015 look at -- like, we've had cases come before us with fines and this is the sixth continuance, that certainly may earn itself more than $5,000. But I think we could establish those kind of guidelines within our own bylaws. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What you have right now -- I'll give you the absolute craziest case. I have a piece of property. I don't pull any permits. I build a house on the property. I'm notified that I am in violation for doing that and -- if I'm caught. Now, how would I be caught? The aerial photographs are taken, I think, every five years, so there's a good chance I won't be caught at all. So you kind of intent -- there's an incentive to not pull permits on some -- especially miscellaneous things. I'm giving you a whole house as a bad example, but an example nonetheless. So at that time, I go through all of the -- and, now, let's say three years have passed, and I come back, I have now been cited, and I come before the Board, I pull all the permits, everything's done, and I pay my fine of X amount of dollars. Well, for the first three years I paid no taxes on that structure either. So in some degree, by the way we handle the abatement process, incentivizes people for violating the law, or the codes. So I just throw that out as an example. Tammy, do you have any -- do you want to hit me in the head with a frying pan? MS. NICOLA: I have lots and lots of thoughts. I think that the Board has a lot of discretion, and I think it's written into the rules the discretion that the Board has. And I think that we have people that come before the Board with very subjective problems, which is what the Board is intended to do is to review each individual case and to decide the gravity of the violation. I think that if you take something that's purely subjective and you make an objective standard, you could have a problem with that, Page 90 March 26, 2015 because some of these people have inherited problems, some known, some unknown. And if you make that an objective standard, you know, like taking a misdemeanor -- I'm going to just make an example of a criminal case. Misdemeanor, felony, three strikes you're out. That's how these people are going to be treated. And I just don't think that this Board works that way. I think that you end up -- I think that you can adjust the fine based on the individual circumstances, which is what you do. And I mean, I think you certainly can amendment the bylaws to make those additional considerations, but I think it's going to open up a whole different set of problems, because then you're going to have a guy, you know, who inherits a chicken coop who says, I don't have enough money, and you say, well, the chicken coop is in the medium range, so we're going to have to give you a $5,000 fine. Now we've got a rule that says you have to give it to him. And he can't pay it, so he loses his house. That's not what we want. We don't want that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. We are in the business of compliance; there's no question about that. It's just that there are some -- with us it's all or nothing, either the fine is abated or it's not. And the question that's been brought to the floor is, is there some place in between that can be addressed? And I don't know the answer, and I realize it makes things a little bit more complicated. I don't know what they do in other areas of Florida, for that matter. MS. NICOLA: Well, there is, though. MS. BUSHNELL: They're saying we can do that; we just haven't been doing it. MS. NICOLA: You can do that. It's written into the rules. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know that. I understand that. MS. BUSHNELL: So we have to have that discussion. MS. CURLEY: So, as a team -- now, you've, like, brought up some subjects that maybe I hadn't thought through before, but the Page 91 March 26, 2015 information is -- I agree, important. I would have a different view if the person that built that house and then sold it to somebody who walked up and said, I didn't know; I would completely look at the fining process different than if, you know, Mr. Smith, you know, did it illegally. There's just so many different scenarios. So I think, as a team, when we make a motion -- and we couldn't even use -- there wasn't even one here today that would have been close to somebody who we would have thought should have been fined more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- you had a comment, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that, of course you have the authority to pick the fine that you think's fair, and that's what these rules are set up -- and when I look at, like the counsel has said, the gravity of the violation, that could -- in there, you could kind of think that this is small, medium, or large size, but it does fall under that category. I agree that we shouldn't be tying it to a specific number, because you will have all sorts -- but that puts more work on you. Unfortunately, you don't have a schedule to just circle and say it's three grand. You have to deliberate and go through those factors and find out what you think is fair. And if there's a rational basis, then nobody out there can say you're treating me differently than somebody else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To put this in a little bundle and tie a little ribbon on the top -- I'd almost recommend that at some point in the future -- I don't propose to do anything today. Even though we have the authority based on our rules to do it, I think that we all need to be together in saying what we're going to do if we're going to do anything at all. And I think that certainly Tammy should be involved, and you as well, Jeff, in a roundtable discussion on this where you don't just do it Page 92 March 26, 2015 in a half hour, come up with some either hard rules or soft rules or -- I agree. I mean, you don't cut your grass, we shouldn't be able to take your house. I mean, that -- that doesn't make -- that's not what we're here for. We're here to protect the citizens of Collier County. The cost that's outlayed by the county to fix problems, whether it be boarding up a house or a green pool, you still need to pay those costs, and there's no question about that. So I would like to see -- I don't know when we would do it -- something in the future, a roundtable discussion after one of our meetings on one of our slow days to do that. The other question I have is on -- since I've been on the Board, I would say eight or nine years, we have always said, if you don't pay your court costs, if you will, that's the end. We don't hear anything more. I come before you, I didn't pay my $64.03 or whatever, but I want a continuance, I want this, I want that. Are you willing to pay those court costs today? No. Then it's been the Board's pleasure, if you will, on those type of cases, that it doesn't go any further. We just vote on the case. Is that something that -- it's not in the rules. Is that something that should be put in the rules or not put in the rules? I know, Tammy, you had a concern with that. MS. NICOLA: Well, I mean, as I said before, I think we're dealing with people with subjective issues. I mean, if you have somebody who comes in and says, I've got five cents, I honestly can't pay them, it's different than somebody who just simply is avoiding it and not doing it. I think it's discretionary again. I mean, you can have in your mind that that's the policy. Like you say, Bob, when they come up here, you say, we normally don't do this, and we're not going to do this. Under certain circumstances you might say I'm willing to consider it. I mean, that's what the Board is for is to make that determination. Page 93 March 26, 2015 And I just think that you don't want to have hard and fast rules like that. I think there are sometimes certain considerations that have to be made for people because people have an issue going on with them that they're explaining to us. When you have people come in and explain it to you, then you consider it. Maybe you don't, you know, but that's -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think we have to keep in mind that we are quasijudicial and, therefore, we have flexibility. And we have a different -- we have a different standard to live to than if we were judicial, and I just think we have to be careful which paths we go down, really. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. And the reason I bring that up is because that's what has been done in the past. Jeff, you're sitting here. You've been here probably the longest of anybody. You've noticed that if the court costs, if you will, are not paid, the Boards -- and not since I've been chairman, but prior to me, they didn't hear the case. They didn't go forward on the -- MR. LETOURNEAU: It's been that way since 2000. That's when I first got here in Code Enforcement, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why I'm bringing it up now. Since it goes on, do we stop it, do we continue it, do we take each case into consideration? I don't know what the answer is, and that's why I brought it up. MS. NICOLA: I think you take each case into consideration. That's just my personal opinion, you know. And I think that's what you guys have been doing. I mean, for the most part, that's what you've been doing. I mean, like the guy that was here today, I'll pay it today. I think he'll pay it today. I mean, you guys -- you guys are judging people and their character and whether you believe them and, you know, that's quasijudicial, as you say. MR. ASHTON: Could we ask -- when they come up, if it wasn't Page 94 March 26, 2015 paid, can we ask them, why wasn't it paid before we even hear the case? MS. NICOLA: Sure, absolutely. Yeah. MR. ASHTON: That might be another way. Ask them, you know, why isn't it paid. If the guy says, well, I don't think I should pay it, well, then, we don't have to hear your case or -- MS. BUSHNELL: Well, I think that's what we did today, and he said, I didn't get the bill. MR. ASHTON: -- here, I'm going to pay it. You know, I just got here today, and I have the money, then, you know... MS. BUSHNELL: That's what we've been doing. I think today we did that. MR. ASHTON: I think we should ask them the question why it hasn't been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We could put that on our little roundtable discussion also. You're not going to discuss it in great detail now. MR. ASHTON: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those are the only two items that I had. MR. LAVINSKI: One thing further on my position about establishing. If we have a page and a half, which we've had for almost nine years that I've been on the Board, talks about guidelines for fines, why don't we have a set of guidelines for abating fines? MS. NICOLA: Well, there is. I mean, it's written into the rule, just like Jeff was talking about. MR. LAVINSKI: It's not. We just talked about having a level of severance of the fine, of the violation in relation to -- this here tells me, if I've got this, it's X. If I've got that, it's Y suggested, and that works pretty well. I don't know why we don't have the same thing for abatements. Page 95 March 26, 2015 MR. KEZESKE: I think you're going to run into an issue of fines will be different size, and then you're going to get into discussions of, well, I had a $2,000 fine, but my total fine was 50,000, I got a $48,000 break, and the other guy had $2,500 fines, and he paid $2,000. I only got a $500 break. I got cheated in this whole situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's at the end when you're doing the imposition of fines. I think what you're referring to is the guidelines for fines is when you're proposing a motion to fine somebody, if it's a pool violation, we have down on here, we generally, on here, give seven days, and if you don't have it fixed in seven days, it's $250 a day, and there's a reason for being so short, because that's a telephone call to a pool company to have it fixed. And a green pool is a big nuisance to a neighbor. So that's why it's -- it is what it is. And I think some thought went into all of these. So I agree with Jimmy that this is a very good help to us when we are making a motion for an imposition -- for a fine, so... MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LETOURNEAU: Mr. Lavinski, when you gave your numbers, that was for the abatement of the imposition, right? You were -- like you said, it was $50,000. Whatever the gravity was, you'd reduce it down to 5-, 2,000, or whatever. I think maybe a percentage might be a better idea than that right there on something like that. So if you have $50,000, our normal abatement would be a 10 percent, so you'd be paying 5,000. If it was 5,000, you'd have to pay 500, maybe. I don't know. It's just something I'm throwing out. But I'd like to say that when this whole thing was brought up maybe a few months ago, we started telling our investigators on the impositions that were already abated, that to come up with your standards, at least what we could come up with, whether it was Page 96 March 26, 2015 moderate, how many violations had been on that property before, whether or not the violator had, you know, worked diligently to fix the problem. You can certainly ask our investigators during this process their opinions on that matter while we're going through it, at least how many violations on the property and whether or not they thought that the violator was working diligently. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I think that you went the extra mile when you stopped, when the violation came before us and it was abated, that it wasn't an automatic statement from the county that since it's been abated, we recommend that you abate all the fines. I know that's stopped, and that's good, because that puts the discretion back on the Board, which is where it belongs. MR. LETOURNEAU: Because, like you're saying, there are people that know the game out there. You'll have a hoarder that will sit on a piece of property and gather fines for years and -- whatever, as long as he can, and then when he has to abate it, he'll come -- before the imposition, he'll abate it right away. Well, in the meantime, the neighbors have had to sit next to this stuff for a year or whatever, and just throwing out the total fines to me wasn't fair, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it possible that we can come up with some time two months down the road or so to get together when we're all here to have a little discussion in greater length on this -- MR. WRIGHT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- since we don't have any specific word changes that I'm aware of on the rules right now? MS. CURLEY: I think that's helpful, especially for the new people. Because somebody had asked a question today about, well, were neighbors offended? And you certainly want to take action and, you know, set a precedent when somebody's had to tolerate something Page 97 March 26, 2015 that would be, you know, not typically what he would expect out of a neighbor to that. I think bringing up those things to newer Board members is very helpful. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. Okay. Moving right along. Next on our chart is elections. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a nomination for Mr. Kaufman to be chairman, Mr. Lefebvre to be vice-chair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a nomination. MR. ASHTON: I'll second that nomination. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Are there any other nominations? MR. LAVINSKI: Just a little discussion. Is there -- I'm getting an inkling that Gerald may have other fish in the pan. Does anybody -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think that there's anything imminently coming up with Gerald; not this year, anyhow. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. I think he mentioned he's on some governmental board at the Board of Realtors. Other than that, I have no objection. MS. CURLEY: Is he aware of the nomination, Gerald? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. I spoke with him recently. MR. LAVINSKI: And he's in agreement that he has nothing conflicting down the road? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LAVINSKI: Good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing no other nominations, what do I do, hit myself in the head with this? MS. NICOLA: Vote yourself in. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Congratulations, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, boy. Now I get to take everybody out for lunch? Page 98 March 26, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, starting right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know you're anxious to run. Are we done now? MR. LAVINSKI: No. We haven't voted on sending the foreclosure collection authorization. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. ADAMS: We've moving the rules and regulations review to another hearing; is that correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no. Just, like a secondary- roundtable discussion on that for our purpose. We still do the rules and review. I don't think we're changing any of the rules -- MS. ADAMS: Okay. No changes, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- but how we handle things and, especially, we have three new people on the Board this year. Okay. Do we need a motion to send the authorizations forward? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. I'll make a motion that we forward the March 26th dated foreclosure collection authorization to the BCC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second? MS. BUSHNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BUSHNELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. KEZESKE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 99 March 26, 2015 Okay. And I think that's it. Jeff, do you have anything? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I was just trying to pull up our monthly report, and it's still spinning, so I was going to log online. I can email that to you separately. The big headline is we're getting a ton of requests for lien searches, still getting over 200 a week. I think last week we had 226. And if you do that five days a week, that's over 40 per day. It's like chop, chop, chop. We're constantly turning those over, and then that results often in releases going to the Board of County Commissioners, which ties into the number over the past five or six years. Since July of 2009, the Board's released over $23 million in liens. Kind of ties to your previous discussion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, Mr. Lavinski read that to me this morning on the minutes from -- part of the consent calendar that the BCC has, what they're releasing. MS. CURLEY: Well, and to that, it's $100 every time -- I mean, the county charges $100 for that lien fee, right? MR. WRIGHT: Twenty-five dollars per search. MS. CURLEY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you raise it? You don't want to do them anymore. MR. WRIGHT: Oh, we're happy to provide that service. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the discussion on the NABOR side of the house was, the problem with Code Enforcement Board doing that is when they go to a property and find the violation, they have to file a violation against that property owner; is that correct? MR. WRIGHT: You're talking about the property inspection services? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Page 100 March 26, 2015 MR. WRIGHT: That's something that we've cut back considerably for that very reason. We found that it didn't serve the public like we thought it might, and there's a private industry that performs that function, and we don't want to interfere with that. We're an enforcement agency. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. I was interviewed for a publication that will be out next month that has to do with that, and we mentioned the six current companies that are out there that are providing that service. So hopefully that will relieve some of the work that you guys are doing. MS. CURLEY: Well, and if you're getting 40 a month and you're only charging $25, that's $1,000 a month. That's a full-time job for somebody. I mean -- MR. WRIGHT: Well, and I would add, these are -- there's two separate things here. If somebody wants to know, let's just say in their diligence phase, I'm wondering if this property has any Code Enforcement Board liens, they can submit a $25 request for that specific property to see what comes up. And if they see a specific lien that they don't like or they want to find out more about, they'll send a separate request. It's a lien search request for $25, again, to get the current amount due on the specific code lien that they've identified. So there's payoffs and there's lien searches. Each are $25. And in the lien searches, those are the ones that we're doing 40 a day every day. Not 40 a month, 40 a week, 40 every day. So 225 last week. So I just wanted to clarify that for you. It's a couple different services. And a third service is the property inspection service. We used to change, I think it was 200 bucks for that, and we found we did four last year, $800 in, and the amount of headaches that it causes to prospective sellers and buyers and agents even. We had some issues with Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It killed some sales. Page 101 March 26, 2015 MR. WRIGHT: Yes. And we looked at the balance, what does the public get out of this versus the detriment, and we said, let's just pull back on that and leave it to the private industry to take care of inspection services. MS. CURLEY: Well, and then the lender -- on a new purchaser, the lender's going to require a home inspection for a loan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Depending upon who they -- there's a special class that's been given to -- I know six vendors that are out there doing it -- to know that if I walk in a house and I step down a step and it's bedroom, maybe that was a garage conversion, to know those type of things. You don't pick that up on a normal inspection where they turn on every water faucet, open the windows up and down to make sure they work, the toilets flush. That's a different scenario. (Mr. L'Esperance left the Boardroom for the remainder of the meeting) MS. CURLEY: I mean, the retail value for the search that you're providing to the -- as a vendor is being up-charged typically. All over the state different counties charge less and more. So your retail value of that is higher. So to the pleasure of the county, they could absolutely get more than $25. You could do the complete search for -- I mean, that's just my personal thought, because I see it being charged more. MR. WRIGHT: And my understanding of fees is that they should be no more than the service that's being provided, so we can't just crank up that knob and make more money. MS. CURLEY: No, not like -- yes. MR. WRIGHT: So it should be 25 bucks worth of work each time. And if all of a sudden we charged $100, that wouldn't be a legitimate fee, so -- but it might be true that we're spending more than $25 worth of work on those. Page 102 March 26, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if you don't have the people to do the job and do code enforcement, then you'd have to bring on more people; then it would be more than $25. MS. CURLEY: Well, yeah, because the people will rather hire the county to do it than go and do it themselves because, as a company, it's cheaper to pay you because you -- MR. WRIGHT: And there's a full-time worker in our department; that's all she does. MS. CURLEY: So that's only $12,000 a year. She makes more than that? MR. WRIGHT: She does. MS. CURLEY: Forty times 25 times 12. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We could do the arithmetic on it. It's -- I don't know what you do. If you're tying people up to do that type of administrative, they don't have to be a code enforcement -- it's a clerical function, really, to look up and see if something is there or not. As a matter of fact, anybody can do it themselves. I mean, you do searches all the time. Where do you go? Go on the records. MS. CURLEY: Different people -- the larger, more busy companies go to a lien search company who does all permits, all open permits, all liens, all fines, everything, all HOA, condo association, it's a one-stop shopping, and then they pay a flat fee and then you're billed an invoice. So it depends on the -- how home-towny the company is. If it's a big corporation, a national corporation, they're not even going to the county. They're hiring a company that is backed/insured that what they're doing is right, and then there's another secondary company that's providing all those services for one flat fee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I mean, you can see the -- Reliable permitting, for instance. I think that's -- MS. CURLEY: They don't appear to be very reliable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They do -- because they know the Page 103 March 26, 2015 ins and outs of the county, when they walk up to the county counter at Horseshoe to do something, they know everybody by their first name, and they can certainly process a building permit through a lot faster than you or I could. They know all the ins and outs, what needs to be done, what doesn't need to be done, and here you have a case of somebody who's doing it all the time; they can do it a whole bunch faster than you or I could. Not that we can't do it. I mean, you go on CollierCounty.gov, or whatever, and you can search till your heart's content and find out all kind of interesting pieces of information. Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Jeff, just one thing, on these issues we talked about today about the establishing a minimum fine or establishing -- we don't address anything if the fees haven't been paid. Can we kind of make sure that happens in the next couple of months? One thing that keeps eating at me is this, you know, not having that minimum fine. If you look at the Collier County agenda that just happened this past Tuesday, they rescinded 59 code violation liens. Now, I got a funny feeling that if we had a 1,000, 2,000, or some minimum instead of sending them 11,000, 21,000, 8,000, that we would get away from them abating 59 code violation liens. MR. WRIGHT: And that was a unique one. I think most of those were nuisance abatement on the lot mowing program, which is purely -- most of those are all taxpayer money, so there's a couple out there that we had to compromise, so we put them all together. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do they review each case before they put it on the consent agenda? MR. WRIGHT: Does the Board of County Commissioners? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Who makes that decision that 55 of these should have gone on there? MR. WRIGHT: Well, what happens is, typically somebody will do a lien search and see that there's 55 on here, and sometimes those 55 Page 104 March 26, 2015 liens will encumber a different property that never had a violation. I don't recall the specifics. So they'll come to us, and we have to make a straight-face recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that it serves -- it's in the public's best interest to handle it this way. And we would never go to the Board unless we have an explanation for it. And in this case, I think that there were some properties that -- some violations spilled over onto a property that they're trying to get clear title on. And, you know, they tell their story, and we put that in the executive summary, a blip about why -- some color to it so the Board can make an informed decision. And there should be an explanation within that executive summary, but it sounds to me like they were doing a wholesale cleaning up the title, and that was cluttered with a bunch of nuisance abatement liens. And for us to get in the way of that, we kind of weight it. You know, we could throw the book at them and not go to the Board with this and get every single dime out of them, or we could facilitate them clearing title and getting it into some good hands and taxpayer and all that. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I think the only thing that made me feel good out of the 59 was 56 of them were from the magistrate's office and only three were left, obviously, coming from us. So that made me feel a little better; not a hell of a lot, but... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A think a lot of those are traffic citations also. And I think that's where your -- what's her name, Tooley -- she went there to the citations department, you said. So they want to keep her in business. MS. BUSHNELL: Are we adjourned? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, somebody has to make a motion. Page 105 March 26, 2015 MS. BUSHNELL: I make a motion that we adjourn. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion that we adjourn. MS. CURLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :56 a.m. - FORC , ENT BOARD � , Alp&i.✓ 2 :ER 41/ AN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on 1-.3, 2 Zo las presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 106