Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/23/2015 April 23, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, April 23, 2015 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Excused) Sue Curley Ronald Kezeske (Resigned) James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director Tamara Lynn Nicola, Attorney for the CEB Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 23,2015 Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY(20)MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman,Chair Ronald Kezeske Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Robert Ashton Tony Marino Lisa Chapman Bushnell,Alternate Sue Curley,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MARCH 26,2015 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time 1 B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CELU20150001475 OWNER: BARRY NICHOLLS,PARADISE GEMS&FINE JEWELRY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 26,ARTICLE 1, SECTION 26-1(B)(4).COMMERCIAL USE OF THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. FOLIO NO: COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY(NO FOLIO NUMBER) VIOLATION ADDRESS: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PINE RIDGE/AIRPORT RD,AND NORTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT/PINE RIDGE RIGHT OF WAY,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CEOCC20150001572 OWNER: ELIZABETH LAVIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 5.02.03(C) 5.02.03(F)AND 5.02.03(I).EMPLOYEES PICKING UP AND DROPPING OFF WORK VEHICLES, GOODS AND MATERIALS BEING DELIVERED,SAW AND OTHER EQUIPMENTS BEING RUN THROUGHOUT THE DAY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES,STORING MATERIALS OUTSIDE. FOLIO NO: 38397880002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5010 TALLOWOOD WAY,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20150002007 OWNER: CRAIG DANIELS&MARTHA DANIELS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME STAGED ON UNIMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 01132880003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 223 GLADYS CT,COPELAND 4. CASE NO: CESD20140009331 OWNER: SOUTH NAPLES CENTER LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 726440009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 13255 TAMIAMI TRAIL E,NAPLES 2 5. CASE NO: CESD20150000879 OWNER: TOTAM LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 5.06.04(FX4)(E). WINDOW SIGNAGE EXCEEDS 25%. FOLIO NO: 56200000087 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12355 COLLIER BLVD UNIT D,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CESD20140009842 OWNER: KELLY LYNN ROMINE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A COVERED WOODEN DECK IN THE FRONT AND REAR YARDS OF IMPROVED OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 01132240009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 241 GLADYS CT,COPELAND 7. CASE NO: CENA20140018964 OWNER: NASH S NELSON&JANE NELSON CAHELA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D).PRESENCE OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,CARROTWOOD,AIR POTATO,BRAZILIAN PEPPER,WOMAN'S TONGUE,AND JAVA PLUM ON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL WITHIN 200 FOOT RADIUS OF IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62581280002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 682 105TH AVE N,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CELU20150001259 OWNER: NAPLES DESIGNER SERVICES,OWNER PHIL WEST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 26,ARTICLE 1,SECTION 26-1(B)(4).COMMERCIAL USE OF THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. FOLIO NO: COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY(NO FOLIO NUMBER). VIOLATION ADDRESS: NORTH/WEST CORNER OF AIRPORT RD/TRADE CENTER WAY(RIGHT OF WAY) AIRPORT/PINE RIDGE RIGHT OF WAY,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CELU20140018067 OWNER: ROBERT FULOP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03 AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,SECTION 130-96(A).A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE BEING USED FOR LIVING ON A PROPERTY NOT ZONED FOR SUCH USE. FOLIO NO: 102080009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1720 SANCTUARY RD,NAPLES 3 10. CASE NO: CESD20140018722 OWNER: MICHAEL RAINS&LINDA RAINS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A POLE BARN(APROXIMATELY 30'X 50')IN THE REAR YARD OF IMPROVED OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 01134800104 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 537 HARMON TERR,COPELAND 11. CASE NO: CEVR20140018858 OWNER: MICHAEL T JOHNSON&LORI R JOHNSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.01(B); AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 22-108. REMOVAL OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE VEGETATION BY HEAVY MACHINERY WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT;PLACEMENT OF LIME-ROCK FILL AND MULCH/CHIPPED MATERIAL ON CLEARED SITE WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT OR AUTHORIZATION,EXCAVATION OF EXISTING GROUND MATERIAL TO A DEPTH GREATER THAN 3 FEET OVER A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY,THEN REPLACEMENT OF THE REMOVED MATERIAL WITH FILL BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 00341440002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2220 CRAWFORD AVE,NAPLES D. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 1. CASE NO: CESD20130008592 OWNER: BENITO RAMOS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RAPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).REPAIRS TO THE ROOF,STUCCO APPLICATION TO THE WOOD STRUCTURE,AND AN EXPIRED PERMIT TO ENCLOSE THE LOWER PART OF THE STILT HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 39654080007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1750 47TH AVE NE,NAPLES,FL 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CEROW20140002814 OWNER: JULIO SOTO&PATRICIA P.SOTO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A).NO PERMIT FOR DAMAGED CULVERT THAT REQUIRES REPLACEMENT. FOLIO NO: 762560008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11230 TRINITY PL,NAPLES,FL 4 2. CASE NO: CEPM20140020730 OWNER: RBSHD 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 3. 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),1NSPECTION(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 4. CASE NO: CESD20130008592 OWNER: BENITO RAMOS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RAPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).REPAIRS TO THE ROOF,STUCCO APPLICATION TO THE WOOD STRUCTURE,AND AN EXPIRED PERMIT TO ENCLOSE THE LOWER PART OF THE STILT HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 39654080007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1750 47TH AVE NE,NAPLES,FL 5. CASE NO: CESD20120000189 OWNER: JORGE G.RODRIGUEZ&SUCET RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A).GARAGE AND CBS GUEST HOUSE WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40579120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1165 EVERGLADES BLVD N,NAPLES,FL 6. CASE NO: CESD20140003770 OWNER: EUROWEST PROPERTIES FL LLP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A).NO BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 62645640009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 594 98TH AVE N,NAPLES,FL 5 B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 1. CASE NO: CESD20140012494 OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHIRLEY GARCIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-236 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS IN POOR CONDITION AND AN UNPERMITTED TWO-STORY STORAGE STRUCTURE IN POOR CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 74413200009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3417 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES,FL 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- May 28,2015 12. ADJOURN 6 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order, and start out with the pledge. If you'd all rise. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, for all of us that have cell phones, including me, make sure they're silenced so that we can continue without any disturbance. Why don't we start with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Ms. Lisa Chapman Bushnell has an excused absence, and Mr. Ronald Kezeske has resigned. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So Sue Curley, you will be a full voting member today. Okay? Do we have any changes that anybody would like to make to the minutes from our last meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. Page 2 April 23, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Which brings us to any agenda changes. MS. ADAMS: Number five, Public Hearings, Motions; A, Motions, Motion For Continuance. We have four additions. The first is going to be number one, tab one, Case CELU20150001475, Barry Nichols, Paradise Gems and Fine Jewelry. The second will be number eight from hearings, tab eight, Case CELU20150001259, Naples Design Services, Phil West. The third will be number seven from hearings, tab 7, Case CENA20140018964, Nash S. Nelson and Jane Nelson Cahela. The fourth will be number four from hearings, tab four, Case CESD20140009331, South Naples Center, LLC. Letter B, Stipulations, we have two additions. The first is number six from hearings, tab six, Case CESD20140009842, Kelly Lynn Romine. The second is number nine from hearings, tab nine, Case CELU20140018067, Robert Fulop. Letter C, Hearings. Number five, tab five, we have a small Page 3 April 23, 2015 correction to the case number. It should be CES20150000879. Number six, Old Business. A, Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens. Number one, tab 12, Case CEROW20140002814, Julio Soto and Patricia P. Soto has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, can I have a motion to amend the agenda? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. MARINO: Motion to amend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in -- second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Which brings us to? MS. ADAMS: Motions for continuance. The first one will be number one, tab one, Case CELU20150001475, Barry Nichols, Paradise Gems and Fine Jewelry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hear these one at a time for the continuance and go from there. Good morning. MR. NICHOLS: Good morning. (Mr. Nichols and Investigator Athey were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since you're requesting a continuance, can you give us a few words on that? Page 4 April 23, 2015 MR. NICHOLS: Well, I need a lawyer, and he's going to need a lot of time to go over the files. That's the basic part. It's just -- it's going to be time-consuming to put everything together so it's coherent and works. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you'd need to -- MR. NICHOLS: Well, I had been told that if I got a continuance, it would be 'til May 28th, and that sounds like I should be able to get everything together before then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any concerns, comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to move that we grant the gentleman's request for a continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. MARINO: Is 30 days going to be enough for him? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I asked that, he said yes. MR. NICHOLS: I think so. MR. LEFEBVRE: If I could just make a comment. He's been noticed that there was a violation back in January. So I would think that he would have had time -- is my mic not on? I would think that he would have time actually to hire an attorney. He was noticed back on the 27th of January, which was seven months ago. I'd be willing to grant the continuance, but he's been noticed of this for a while now, so I think 30 days would be more than sufficient. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments on the motion? Page 5 April 23, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. May 28th. You understand on a continuance we'll hear it at the next meeting on May 28th? MR. NICHOLS: Correct. 8:30 in the morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 8:30. We start at nine. You can start before we get here, let us know what's done. MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Steve. INVESTIGATOR ATHEY: For the record, Stephen Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. By the way, we don't oppose the continuance, just for the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance will be number eight from hearings, tab eight, Case CELU20150001259, Naples Design Services, Phil West. (Investigator Athey was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that the previous case and this are very, very similar. INVESTIGATOR ATHEY: There are similarities. You know, we don't oppose a one-time continuation 'til the next scheduled Page 6 April 23, 2015 meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved to grant the continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to grant the continuance. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the reason for a continuance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe that Jeff had some comments on this. MR. WRIGHT: We just -- these two cases, the first case and the eighth case involve a lot of similar issues. And they're contentious issues that have been going on for over a year. And we think that in the interest of efficiency and consistency we want to keep these cases together. We may have to have experts that testify to both matters, so we think that we want to keep these two cases on the same track. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 7 April 23, 2015 Thanks, Steve. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance is number seven from hearings, tab seven. Case CENA20140018964, Nash S. Nelson and Jane Nelson Cahela. (Investigator Crowley was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement, Environmental Specialist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I was looking for any letters requesting a continuance on this. And either I'm missing it or they didn't submit any. MS. ADAMS: There is one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There is? MR. ASHTON: There is a continuance letter. MS. ADAMS: It should be with the documents that was left this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I have been in constant contact with the owner throughout the duration of this case. Unfortunately her contractor had some serious health problems, has been hospitalized several times. She was under the impression that he had finished the work. It's approximately 75 percent done, so she's requesting a continuance. And I believe she's hiring a new contractor and it will be done and will not have to come before the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: How long is that continuance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: May 28th. MR. ASHTON: May 28th. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay, May 28th. Okay. Motion to approve. Page 8 April 23, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the continuance 'til May 28th. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance is number four from hearings, tab four, Case CESD20140009331, South Naples Center, LLC. (Investigator Bosa was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Ralph. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's been a long time since I saw you. This was improvements made on the property without permits? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have an email requesting the continuance. Do you have any problems with granting a continuance on this? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: No, sir, the county does not have an objection to the continuance. Page 9 April 23, 2015 There were other issues on the property which they took care of which we had concerns about. The permits have been C.O.'d. They've been vigilant on trying to fix these issues, and there's just one issue left that they need to resolve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The only thing I have on this when I look at it, it says the date the violation was first observed is this coming October. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It should have been last October. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes. MR. ASHTON: That's been revised. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, good. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: I revised that. It should be -- sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the county has no problem with granting a continuance. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. ASHTON: Motion for a continuance. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for a continuance. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 10 April 23, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Ralph. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from letter B, Stipulations, number six from hearings, tab six, Case CESD20140009842, Kelly Lynn Romine. (Investigator Lopez-Silvero was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Steve. I see this was a case that was a wooden deck that was put in without permits; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have the stipulation. And my machine doesn't work. MR. LEFEBVRE: You can look at it. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of 64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number two: Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Number four: That the respondent -- that if the respondent fails to Page 11 April 23, 2015 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. Respondent is not present; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board on the stipulation? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Steve. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you, sir. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is number nine from Page 12 April 23, 2015 hearings, tab nine, Case CELU20140018067, Robert Fulop. (Mr. Fulop and Investigator Eric Short were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mic so we can -- MR. FULOP: Robert Fulop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have the stipulation? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I do. For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by: Seize the prohibited use of recreational living, sleeping, housekeeping and storage on the agricultural zoned property within 21 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator 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: Thanks, Eric. I have a comment. The date the violation was first observed is August 29th, 2014? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So close to a year. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yeah, there was a little bit understanding with the definition of a mobile home and an RV with a Page 13 April 23, 2015 building permit on agricultural property. You can live in a mobile home. He was in the process of doing that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a difference between a mobile home and an RV? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: There sure is. And I have a definition here, if you'd like to see. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this was an RV violation, not a mobile home. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: A recreational vehicle, that's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is one registered and the other one isn't? Is that one of the things? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: One is described as a -- per the Land Development Code definition, one is described as a vehicle and one is described as a structure. Just a short definition there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why they named you that. Okay, do you understand the stipulation that you agreed to? MR. FULOP: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And no problem -- it shouldn't take 21 days to drive it off the lot. MR. FULOP: No. The only problem, the trailer had some damage to it. Some of the side panels and the roof was damaged. So I'm working on fixing that up. And as soon as it's done I'm going to remove it right away. So in 21 days is plenty of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So by the next meeting this won't be back. Hopefully. MR. FULOP: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to Page 14 April 23, 2015 approve. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Eric. MR. FULOP: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: We have another change to the agenda. There's been a stipulation added. It's number five from hearings, tab five. Case CES20150000879, Totam, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion to amend the agenda from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to amend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 15 April 23, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Hi, Colleen. INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to read the -- yeah. (Yackeline Bravo and Investigator Davidson were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and you're the representative from the LLC? MS. BRAVO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're the keeper of the stipulation. INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by: Remove any and all non-electrical, non-reflective window signs in excess of 25 percent of each window area within 30 days or a fine of 150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator 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, you understand the stipulation that you agreed to? Page 16 April 23, 2015 MS. BRAVO: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have no problem clearing it in 30 days? MS. BRAVO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Terrific. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from letter C, hearings, number two, tab two, Case CEOCC20150001572, Elizabeth Lavin. MR. MOORE: For the record, Michael Moore, the Attorney for the homeowner, Elizabeth Lavin. (Investigator Davidson was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Attorneys don't have to swear in. MR. MOORE: I like to be factual. Page 17 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We trust attorneys. Right, Jeff? Oh, he's gone. Oh, I'm sorry, Tammy. We trust you also. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. MR. MOORE: Again, I just hate to kick the can on one more case, but I'm only recently involved in this one, probably 24 to 48 hours since I've had all the facts. For two reasons: One, so I can get up to speed and two, I think we can reduce the issues that are actually in front of the board if I can have 30 days and push this off to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're -- MR. MOORE: I would like to put in a verbal -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're asking for a continuance? MR. MOORE: Yes, sir, to the next hearing date on the 28th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Colleen? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: For the record, Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county has no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this was a -- the description of violation, employees picking up and dropping off work vehicles, et cetera, et cetera. MR. MOORE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're building our next month's meeting rather well. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Being that this is the first time before us, again, this goes back to January. And as Mr. Lefebvre said before, it's a lot of months between January and April that stuff can be done, but -- MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Page 18 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shoot. MS. CURLEY: Who complained -- did somebody complain, a resident complain about this? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: This was a complaint base, yes. MS. CURLEY: So it's offending the community? INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: We received one complaint for the property. We haven't received any more than one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And one is good enough to bring it here. Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board relative to granting a continuance? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm assuming that you're asking 'til May 28th, our next meeting? MR. MOORE: Yes, sir. That will give me sufficient time to meet with the code enforcement agent and see if we can reduce the issues. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Can we at least ask if some of these items which don't require the assistance of an attorney have been managed? MR. MOORE: That's one of the issues here. We'd like to arrange an on-site inspection. There were four initial violations in the initial complaint. We feel that we've satisfied most of them, but the code enforcement agent disagrees. I'd like to meet her on-site and actually get a clear indication of what she feels is a violation. INVESTIGATOR DAVIDSON: There has been at least one violation that has been taken care of. MR. LEFEBVRE: We don't want to hear the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we're not hearing the case now. Page 19 April 23, 2015 If we grant a continuance we'll hear it all May 28th. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion for a continuance. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to grant a continuance until May 28th. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number three, tab three, Case CESD20150002007, Craig Daniels and Martha Daniels. (Investigator Lopez-Silvero was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Steve. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning once again, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you do your presentation. It looks like the respondent is not present. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20150002007, dealing with the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.2.6.(B)(1)(A). Observed a single-wide mobile home staged on unimproved residential property without first obtaining the required permit, inspections and certificate of occupancy. Page 20 April 23, 2015 Located at 223 Gladys Court, Copeland, Florida, 34114. Folio 01132880003. Proof of service was given on February 18th, 2015. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two pictures taken by myself on March 3rd, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to accept the exhibits? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: On February 2nd, 2015 I conducted a site visit and observed a single-wide mobile home staged on unimproved residential property without first obtaining the required permit, inspections and certificate of occupancy. Spoke to Mrs. Martha Daniels, the co-property owner who stated that she has been trying to acquire the required documentation to have the mobile home permitted but has been unsuccessful due to missing and/or uncategorized wind load certification. Ms. Daniels mentioned that she would have the mobile home removed from the property. Weeks later I met with Mr. Craig Daniels, the co-property owner, Page 21 April 23, 2015 who explained that he has decided to keep the mobile home on the property and has recently hired an engineer to upgrade the dwelling to the proper wind load in order to commence the permitting process. After several site visits, the mobile home remains on the property -- correction, the mobile home remains on the property and no permits have yet been obtained. As of April 22nd, 2015 the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board or motion to find them in violation or not in violation? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion in violation. MS. CURLEY: Second. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. So all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. A violation exists. And you have a suggestion for us going forward? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Recommendation is 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: Number one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permit inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy or Page 22 April 23, 2015 removing the mobile home and returning property to unpermitted state within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, did you get any indication from the owners of the property how long it would take them to do either of those, either remove the trailer -- the mobile home or to get the permits? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Within 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They thought they could do it within 120 days? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think I would take it that this is not secured, strapped down at all? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct, it's just staged on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 120 days is a long time. We're coming into hurricane season and this could be dangerous if there's a storm. So I don't think I can agree to 120 days. I think we should have a much shorter window. They haven't made it -- sounds like one party's saying we're going to keep it, another says we're going to get rid of it. They haven't made up their mind what they're going to do with the property. But we should definitely put some pressure on them until Page 23 April 23, 2015 they do make up their mind. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have they applied for the permits? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Not yet. They're trying to upgrade the mobile home that they do have to the current wind load standards. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the issue that they probably can't get any information from the manufacturer stating what the wind loads are? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, we've had mobile homes -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we've had this before. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- before where they can't even find the manufacturer, let alone if they could find the manufacturer they're not able to get the wind loads. So they'd have to have an engineer go out and either certify that it meets the current wind loads or upgrade it, replace the windows and strap it down the roof and so forth; is that correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have they given you an indication that they've done anything to resolve the situation? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Just that they've hired the engineer and they're working on upgrading the mobile home to a Category 3. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they did hire an engineer. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or they said they hired an engineer. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you know the name of the engineer? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: They didn't give me a name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I have a problem with that as well. If I hired an engineer, I'd give you the name of the engineer, the company that they work for to show that I'm attempting to do Page 24 April 23, 2015 something. I tend to agree with -- I don't tend to agree, I agree with Mr. Lefebvre about 120 days coming into hurricane season. So if somebody on the board has any other comments or would like to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose the operational fees in the amount of$65.43 to be paid within 30 days, 45 days, and a fine of$250. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just ask, on the 45 days does that cause us any grief since we meet every 30 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, that would give time for us to hear this in the June -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: In June, to either impose or to continue or find out what they're doing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, and I would -- I agree with you. Okay, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 25 April 23, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I would suggest that you mention to the respondents that we did ask for the name of the engineer to show good faith that they're actually doing something to resolve the situation. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you, sir. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number 10, tab 10, Case CESD20140018722, Michael Rains and Linda Rains. (Investigator Lopez-Silvero was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Been busy this month, Steve? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's the Steven show. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140018722 dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Observed a pole barn approximately 30 feet by 50 feet in the rear yard of improved occupied residential property without first obtaining the required permits, inspections and certificate of completion. Located at 537 Harmon Terrace, Copeland, Florida, 34114. Folio 0113400104. Service was given on January 8, 2015. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three pictures taken by myself on July 25th, 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos as evidence. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, motion -- all in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 26 April 23, 2015 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: On July 25th, 2014, I conducted a site visit and observed a pole barn in the backyard of the property. I met with Mr. Michael Rains, property owner, who confirmed that the pole barn has existed for many years and no permits have ever been obtained. I advised Mr. Rains that permits are required for site improvements. After several site visits the pole barn remains and no permits have yet been obtained. As of March 22nd, 2015 the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did Mr. Rains indicate that he knows it's in violation or -- INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, he tried to -- actually, he hired an engineer -- or, excuse me, a surveyor that determined that that pole barn was built on -- or over the property line. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To add to the problem. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: There's no way he can have it permitted. He would either have to move it or demolish it altogether. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or get a variance. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a motion from the board whether it's in violation or not? Page 27 April 23, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Motion for violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that the respondent is in violation. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So Mr. Rains is in violation. And you have a suggestion for -- to remedy this? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, the recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number one: Obtain all Collier County building permits and/or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: Shutting off electricity to the unpermitted pole barn at the circuit breaker and remaining off within 24 hours of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be -- per day until the building permit or Page 28 April 23, 2015 demolition permit has received a certificate of completion. Number 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 bring this violation to 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, it sounds like what you said, that this is encroaching -- that it would have to be demoed, or at least that portion that's over the property right-of-way easement line is resolved; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So pulling permits -- he'd have to pull a permit, a demo permit, to do that in full or partial. And you're giving him 120 -- your suggestion is 120 days to do that or a $200 fine. Turning the EL off, I guess there are multiple outlets out there, within 24 hours or a fine of$200 a day on that portion; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the rest we understand from doing this for a while. Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, what I'm reading on my screen doesn't appear to be what you've just read. MR. ASHTON: Right. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: I'm sorry, for the recommendation? MR. LAVINSKI: No, the whole thing. You were talking about a paragraph three and then some other fines. I only have a paragraph two. And it doesn't talk anything about fines for turning off the Page 29 April 23, 2015 electricity. Do we have the wrong -- INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: I apologize, I made last minute corrections. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put the new one on the screen? The one you're reading, can you put that on the screen? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I didn't notice it because my screen doesn't work. MR. LAVINSKI: There we go. That's what you just read, right? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if you go through the numbers, it's $65.01 within 30 days, a demo permit. I guess that's the only type of permit they'd be able to pull. And that to be done within 120 days. And turn off the electric, remove the circuit breaker or turn the circuit breaker off within 24 hours or a fine of$200 thereafter. And you would go back, I assume, after 24 hours to ensure that the EL is turned off? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this being used as a storage area? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, just only storage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has he ever said what his intentions are with this pole barn? Are his intentions to take it down or is it his intention to try to get a variance? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Now that he's discovered that that pole barn's over the property line encroaching, et cetera, he's just going to demolish it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you talk to him about the amount of time that you were looking to have this completed by? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. Page 30 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He understands 120 days? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, he believes 120 days is sufficient. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Let me understand something. You want him just to turn off the electricity by hitting the circuit breaker? Is that what we're talking about? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir, just -- MR. MARINO: I mean, he could just flip it back on. Why can't the wires to the circuit breaker just be taken out, that line taken out? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He'd have to pull a permit for that. We've done this in the past where the respondent turns it off and we trust them to do that. In the meantime, the code enforcement can go back there to verify that it's turned off. I don't think they want to be cited for that in addition to all the rest. MR. MARINO: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion we accept the recommendation as written. MS. CURLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 31 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Steve. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a procedural question. Typically we're not giving time frames. We were at one point and then we stopped giving time frames and dollar amounts. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: But we're doing that today here. MS. ADAMS: I believe that was not supposed to be on there. That should have been blank. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ADAMS: That's up to the board to make that decision. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, okay. I just want to make that clear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As we did in the previous case where we changed the recom-- MR. LEFEBVRE: We changed it, yeah. But I'm just saying that typically we don't put in -- or the investigator doesn't put in dollar amounts or time frames. We usually come up with that. I mean, if you have a -- if you've talked to the owner and they've agreed to 120 days, that's good information to have, but it's typically not spelled out in a recommendation. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number 11, tab 11, Case CEVR20140018858, Michael T. Johnson and Lori R. Johnson. (Mr. Randy Johns and Investigator Crowley were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. You are representing Michael Johnson. Do you have a certified -- MR. JOHNSON: I'm here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, you're here. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, you're hiding back there. MR. JOHNSON: No, I'm not hiding, just being quiet John. Page 32 April 23, 2015 MR. JOHNS: He wasn't planning on being here. He did send me an email to allow me to represent him at this, but he canceled. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's fine. Okay, why don't we begin. MR. JOHNS: We're here today to ask for a continuance. We found some common ground to work with the code enforcement but we need more time. We'd like to ask for 60 days to be able to resolve the issues we have. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Your Honor, for the record, Michele Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have no objection. We actually met on-site with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Johns last week, and they are pursuing some other avenues at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: How long do you think it will take them to get within compliance? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Getting into compliance might take a while, but they're -- at this point they need to determine which avenue they're going to take. There's a couple of different methods. The most time-consuming might be applying for a Conditional Use. That would be the most lengthy. Because that would have to go through the planning review stages, Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Once this is -- I don't want to hear the case now, but this was a lot that was cleared and it's hard to unclear it? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Yes, that is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's hard to put the 50-foot trees back on there, whatever it is. Do you think that in 60 days you're going to know where you're Page 33 April 23, 2015 going, what direction, so that it can come before the board and we can make a determination where we go from there? MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have no problems with that, the county? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: That is correct, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: I'm just wondering, what has happened since September of last year? Did you make any decisions? MR. JOHNS: Well, we've got a lot of ideas on the table. We met with the Property Appraiser's Office, we've met with Mark Strain, we've spoken with Jeff We've also spoken with the Agricultural Department, and we're just waiting to get the answers back on whether or not we're protected by the Right to Farm Act. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? INVESTIGATOR JOHNS: The Right to Farm Act. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to extend 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 34 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. 60 days. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is letter D, Motion for Reduction of Fines/Liens. It's from tab 15, Case CESD20130008592, Benito Ramos. (Mr. Ramos and Investigator Bosa were duly sworn. Diana Tejada was duly sworn to interpret from English to Spanish.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this is the imposition of fines. And if you want to request something, why don't you do that now and then we can discuss that. MS. TEJADA: Okay. We'd like to request that the fines be waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you pull the mic down. Either that or you have to grow a foot. MS. TEJADA: We'd like to request that the fines be waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Abated, okay. MS. TEJADA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And Ralph, do you have any comments on this? It looks like it's in compliance and the operational costs were paid in the past. Today's operational costs, if it's abated, will disappear as well. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. Let me just read it for the record, then I'll make my comments. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: This it is in reference to violations of Page 35 April 23, 2015 Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location of 1750 47th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio number of 39654080007. Description of the violation is repairs to the roof, stucco application to the wood structure and expired permit to enclose the lower part of the house. Past orders: On September 25th, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5086, Page 2267 for more information. The violation has been abated as of April 7, 2015. Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for the period between March 25th, 2015 to April 7th, 2015, for a total of 14 days. Total fine amount of $3,500. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.43 have been paid and the operational cost of today's hearing, $63.75, for a total amount of$3,563.75. The respondent has been working vigilantly on getting this fixed. This is something they inherited when they bought the home. They, you know, applied for the permits, all permits have been approved and of course C.O.'d. So the county does not have any objection as far as CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, it looks like it was a September case and the board granted six months at that time, which came to March, et cetera. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the fines. Any discussion on the motion? Page 36 April 23, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. TEJADA: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Number six, Old Business, A, Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens. Number two, tab 13, Case CEPM20140020730. RBSHD 2013-1 Trust. (Supervisor Snow and Gary Hains were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are the representative of the trust? MR. HAINS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: You might want to pull your mic up here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are here to -- you want to read it into the record and we'll go from there? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, not yet, sir. The -- if I can refresh the board's memory, this was a case where there was a broken part of the door. He asked for a continuance to get it done last time. He accomplished what the board wanted to. It was just a case that it was caught within the bank system and once they found out about it they corrected and moved very quickly to abate the Page 37 April 23, 2015 violation. And they've done everything that they needed to do. They've gone above and beyond. They attempted to board it and that wasn't sufficient. And they had the contractor go out and do it again correctly. And they've done everything they need to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are requesting? MR. HAINS: We're done and the fines to be abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HAINS: We've paid all the hard costs and operational costs too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion to abate the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. HAINS: Thank you. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. MS. ADAMS: Next case is number three, tab 14, Case Page 38 April 23, 2015 CESD20130005831, Eva A. Guerrero. (Ms. Guerrero and Supervisor Perez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mic so we can hear? MS. GUERRERO: Eva Guerrero. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This one reads like a book, started in February of'f 14, just a little bit over a year old. This was a case of permits. And it appears that the violation has been abated at this time. Do you have any comments on this? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, sir, just that the violation has been abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any requests from you regarding this case? MS. GUERRERO: Just for the fines to be waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. ASHTON: Yes. How come it took -- you know, this goes way back to February of 2014. What took so long to bring it into compliance? MS. GUERRERO: Just the previous owner had the violations. And when I went to try to get permits for it, I had to get permits for an addition that was added to the trailer plus a shed in the back. So I tried to keep the addition and it just got rejected twice. Then I just ended up knocking it down. When -- the previous owner had told me when I knock it down I could keep the floor, and so all that was -- I tried to get permits for that. And it just never was met up to code and I had to remove that. Then I had to start with the shed in the back. So ifs just permits -- MR. ASHTON: When did you purchase the property? MS. GUERRERO: March of 2013. Page 39 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this is similar to our discussion from the last meeting about severities of penalties, how they tend to accrue quite quickly, et cetera. But it is what it is. So anybody like to make a motion from the board? MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion to abate the fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the fines. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Good day's work. You saved $32,000 for coming in this morning. MS. GUERRERO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number five, tab 16, Case CESD 20120000189, George G. Rodriguez and Sucet Rodriguez. (Investigator Tony Asaro, Sucet Rodriguez, Bob Lockhart were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can everybody identify themselves on the mic? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Sucet Rodriguez. Page 40 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name I see in here. MR. LOCKHART: Robert Lockhart. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are? MR. LOCKHART: Their engineer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: For the record, Tony Asaro with the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, everybody sworn? Why don't we begin. This was a garage and a guesthouse that was built with no valid Collier permits. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In September of 2012. I don't know when it was built, but that was when it was cited. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea when it was built? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Again, this goes back to what we wanted to have a meeting on. So I assume that since there were no building permits pulled in 2012, this has just gone on, as far as assessments and all the rest of that stuff has not happened. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. Basically Ms. Rodriguez inherited the problems when they purchased the home. But to date everything has been -- permits have been applied for and have been finaled. MS. CURLEY: I think Mr. Lockhart had something. MR. LOCKHART: Yes, the original building permits were pulled by the prior owner in 2006. He I guess walked away with a garage that was about 90 percent complete. There was also a gazebo that was about 90 percent complete. And then the guesthouse was just Page 41 April 23, 2015 a CBS shell with a roof on it. The Rodriguez's inherited the property when they purchased it. The -- it also has a main structure which was permitted properly. They were not aware of any violations, so to speak. They were not apprised by a realtor that, you know, they have these unfinished structures. And when it finally came to their attention, we tried to initially reopen the permits. That had some confusion at the county building department. Then there was the -- we did proceed to get the gazebo C.O.'d and the garage C.O.'d. The guesthouse, it was initially desired to be redesigned from the original plans that were pulled. That took some additional time. And make a long story short, we've been here before, as you're aware. We asked for an extension of time of one year. You granted us six months. We came back I guess in November of last year, asked for a continuance at that time. We were -- the owners were having a problem getting financing. A bank wouldn't give them a loan. They had to get a private investor to give them a loan to finish the project, which they did it one day before the time required that you gave them additional three months. And they just at this point are overspent on the things that they didn't know about and would humbly appreciate having the fines waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. I'm a realtor, and several board members are realtors. When you purchased the property, nobody mentioned lien searches or open permits, et cetera? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, we spoke about this in the meeting prior to this and no. MR. LEFEBVRE: When did you purchase the property again? MS. RODRIGUEZ: December, 2012. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) Page 42 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? It appears to me that the respondent has in good faith gone down the road to resolve everything. MR. ASHTON: I make a motion we abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second to abate the fine. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LOCKHART: Thanks. We won't be back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not Clint MR. LOCKHART: No. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number six, tab 17, Case CESD20140003770, Eurowest Properties Florida, LLP. (Supervisor Santafemia and Mr. Craig Blume were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Blume, you're representing -- you have a -- MR. BLUME: Yes, our owner is Canadian, lives in British BC. And we were involved with the -- from the Realty Company from the Property Management Group to resolve this issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have permission from the Page 43 April 23, 2015 respondent to -- MR. BLUME: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, according to what I'm reading here, unless there's an update on it, the violation has not been abated. This was a no building permit? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: There is an update. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There is? Okay. MR. ASHTON: Revised. MR. LAVINSKI: Just the costs haven't been paid. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Actually, the costs have been paid also. They were paid this morning. MR. LAVINSKI: They have been? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In cash. I witnessed that. MR. BLUME: We paid cash. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the violation was abated, the fines have been paid. The fines were initially imposed at $200 a day between November 22nd, 2014 until April 23rd, 153 days, for a total amount of$30,600. MR. BLUME: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And your comment on what you would like to ask for? MR. BLUME: We'd like to have the fines abated. I certainly have an explanation, if you'd like to hear it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would. MR. BLUME: Again, back to the same story, our owner inherited this issue. We had a non-permitted kitchen area. This was internal to the house. The utility -- the realty company did not tell her that you could not have a private residence. This is a single-family residence. So we were involved in the beginning of removing that and bringing it into compliance. In the process of going through that, we found out that there was Page 44 April 23, 2015 an outstanding permit from 1997 for a pool that was in the back. And so we inherited a second problem that we didn't know about, and that's what really took us the time to take care of. We had to get some fencing and grounding and some things that had to be done. And again, even in the good faith of both the county and us, we came in with some permit numbers that were from 1997. There was a great deal of effort to try to find out actually what even applied in those days, and that took a good deal of time. We had brought everything into compliance and we have C.O.s for all the permits that were pending or needed to be issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. County? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement Board supervisor. Just to correct the record, Mr. Chairman, the corrected statement should actually read that the fines accrued at a rate of$200 per day between March 22nd, 2015 to April 17th, 2015, for only 27 days for a total fine amount of$5,400. As previously stated, the operational costs of$76.90 have been paid as of this morning, which would make the total fine amount -- MR. LAVINSKI: How did we get from the 30,000 down to the -- INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: The November 22nd, 2014 date was incorrect. That was put on there incorrect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's March instead of November. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: It's March 21st, 2015 is the correct date that's on your order here. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So the real number we're looking at is $5,549.01. MR. ASHTON: Minus the $76.90. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Minus the $76.90. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. Page 45 April 23, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. This is the third case that we've heard today where the message from a realtor is not being shared with a purchaser, which is not right. I've been trained and I think the other board members who have their real estate license have been trained. Maybe something should be transmitted, if you will, to our friends at NABOR to find out why it's not. Or maybe it's, you know, a particular company or individual. It shouldn't be difficult to find out who handled these cases, if it was done by a licensed realtor or not. And I think that maybe going forward that should be part of what we do is to refer that to somebody at NABOR to say, what's going on? MR. MARINO: Chairman, I thought we discussed this last year and that was being done. They were looking when people were buying these properties and they were looking for the liens or whatever, violations against them. You got people coming into town buying houses that were built in the Seventies and Eighties with no permits and they get stuck with the fines. I thought that was taken care of. It Page 46 April 23, 2015 was supposed to be taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, what you have is, and it's a brochure that's even given out to everybody that purchases a home to say that they recommend that they do a lien search on the property before they purchase it. It's up to them whether they do it or not. But from what I've heard for the last three cases here, that the respondents were never told. And that's the problem. That's the whole reason for having that program that was instituted probably five years ago or more. MS. CURLEY: I do have a comment on that. That sometimes the trickle down takes a little bit of time. Not all of these people are from 2012, maybe '13. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's over five years ago. MS. CURLEY: The landscape now is significantly different. Most attorney law firms or title agencies are not closing a transaction without doing a full-scale lien search. Before it was an option that they would ask you, do you want to spend an extra $150 when you buy your house. And most people would say no. So now most legitimate agencies won't do the transaction closing unless they can provide that at the table for all parties involved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This goes prior to it going to a title company. This goes -- before that happens, the salesperson, the licensed real estate agent, if they're -- if that's what's the purchase is being handled by, is obligated to provide the buyer with the information that these folks were not provided with. And that's before it goes to the title company, before they even are purchasing the property. That's why it's before the title company. The title company would be like the backstop after that happens. Do you have a comment, Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, I do, certainly. I'm very discouraged that we continually hear cases. I'm also the Page 47 April 23, 2015 Chairman of Governmental Issues. And I think what we need to do is work with Code Enforcement and maybe have some more educational classes once again. Because when this first started we had some class and so forth. But I think there's a large amount of people that are still not aware -- when I say people, I mean realtors -- that are not aware that this brochure is available. I run across it in my business daily where I have people that have violations, and I bring it up to them that there's violation on their property. And unfortunately most of them neglect to do anything about it. And that is not showing professionalism. And we need to sit down with -- we have a group called professional studies or professional -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Standards. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- standards, thank you, that we need to sit down with them and coordinate with them and maybe governmental issues within the board to bring back people to train us to hand that document out and the process that a buyer should go through. Because these cases should be diminished, and I don't see them diminishing. So I'm very discouraged that we hear three cases today, and every month we hear these cases. MR. MARINO: I have a -- MS. CURLEY: This isn't just a Collier County issue. It's the Florida Real Estate Commission, so you need to speak to your governing -- the FREC are the people who enforce the ethical rules and teach the realtors and the associates how to follow the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me give you a little background on this. When Diane Flagg was the head of Code Enforcement, the County Commissioners wanted to do something to alleviate this problem. So they had Diane meet with a group of people from NABOR, the Naples Board of Realty, and they came up with the language to put in a brochure to eliminate this problem. It had nothing to do with DBPR, FREC or anything. It had to do locally, because a Page 48 April 23, 2015 lot of this was happening. And it was, as Mr. Lefebvre says, it's not professional that you put customers in jeopardy, if you will, because they didn't know about if you buy a property that has a lien on it, et cetera, et cetera. So that was done as a goodwill gesture, if you will, between the county and the real estate community. Now, if you have an agent out there that's not a member of NABOR, it wouldn't count, but the agent in the beginning has a brokerage relationship form that's filled out. There's all kinds of paperwork that goes on. And lead base paint is another one. And this was part of that same handout. So that you don't wind up with people saying I never knew. And it's good for those folks as well. So probably what needs to happen, and it's very easy, to pull those cases, for instance, and find out who sold it and did they provide that information. I know when I hand the brochure out to a prospective customer, I have them initial that they received it, the same as they would with a lead base paint disclosure. So I just think that we should take it -- I guess you might be the one that brings it up as the chair of one of the committees -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to take a look at some of these cases to see if we can stop this from happening. It's not fair to the buyers of the property. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments, if I may. We had updated that brochure last fall, working with I think it was Jim Pilon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct, he's one of the attorneys there. MR. WRIGHT: It's up to date, it's out there. And I just wanted to point out, there is the possibility, we don't know enough about the facts Page 49 April 23, 2015 of the transaction, but there's the possibility, I've seen it happen, where the buyer gets a stack of paperwork in conjunction with the closing. One of those items is this code enforcement brochure. So I've seen this happen at a closing where the buyer kind of flips through the stuff and says, okay, and they go forward with the closing and they may or may not -- you may lead the buyer to the water but you can't force them to do anything beyond that. So in deference to -- it's possible that these realtors did everything that they were supposed to do and the buyer didn't act on that information. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On top of that, there's one other thing. If I go into a property and I notice that I have to step down to go into a bedroom or something that's an obvious -- MR. WRIGHT: Defect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- an obvious violation, I am obligated by the ethics of being a realtor to let somebody know about that so that the next person doesn't run into that. So there's more to it than just a brochure, but I think maybe that needs to be stirred up, if you will. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the transaction -- MR. MARINO: I have a question. Not being a realtor, not knowing anything about your paperwork and everything else, when you do go to your closing you have a whole list of items that are taken out, monies taken out and everything else. Somebody mentioned that they're asked to spend $150 for this search. Is it not ethical to include that in your closing and do this search for the people? You know, you ask somebody to spend the extra $150, they go, oh, I've got to spend an extra $150. But if it's already included in their paperwork and the search is done for them prior to closing, can that not be done? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's no different than doing an inspection on a property. You can do an inspection or you don't have to do an inspection. Most people do inspections on the property and Page 50 April 23, 2015 make sure the windows go up and down and the faucets turn on and off, et cetera. So it's hard to make that a requirement. It's just one of those other things that are done. The banks require termite inspections -- not all the banks but most of them -- termite inspection, regular inspections. MR. MARINO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- but it's not set in stone that it has to be done. And the same thing for the code review. MR. MARINO: You've got people who are coming in and buying these houses, spending good money and everything else, then they get hit with these violations and the cost of everything else, and they're really not aware of it. But I mean, like I said, I don't know anything about it. But if it was put in there automatically done on this property, would that not solve some of these problems? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The problem is you can't automatically do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also, Jeff, you said the documents within the closing package. That's way too late for this. MR. WRIGHT: I misspoke. I should say in conjunction with the sales contract. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: And in that diligence period they have an opportunity to look at that brochure, read it, order the stuff that's outlined in that brochure, and a lot of times they just don't. It's too complicated. MS. CURLEY: And to Jeff s point, a lot of these people that landed with these homes were from the real estate owned, you know, sales portion. So you already had a 20-page disclosure that stated that the lender or the seller had no idea what occurred there, they never lived there, they never occupied the property. So they already are saying we don't know anything that occurred here, and then you sign Page 51 April 23, 2015 off saying, yeah, but I love it and it's cheap, so I'm going to buy it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Bank owned, you're saying. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. So if you have -- it's just a very overwhelming scenario at the time of purchasing and closing when it's a real estate owned, because you don't have a family to say anything like that. But again, now on a go-forward there is a stop gap in place that requires that most people will -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's the due diligence when you purchase a property. MR. LEFEBVRE: But one thing is saying as an owner or a seller, an institutional seller I don't know anything about the property. But another thing, they're not saying go -- this is where you can go to find out if there's an issue. That's what we're trying to bring across, is there's one thing saying I don't know anything that's wrong with the property as an owner, but the other thing is here's a document, here's a way to go find out if there's something wrong with the property. I came across a lady buying a property just within the past couple of weeks and luckily the closing agent did find that there was some outstanding issues with the property, and they didn't close until they were corrected. But it shouldn't get that far. We as professionals should tell people when and if there is something wrong with the property, first of all, and number two, if there's a resource to find out a way to see if there's an issue with the property. And I think we have to do a better job at training people. And if the people are unwilling to learn or are constantly offenders, we need to do something to make sure that they don't. I've had cases where I went into -- about three or four years ago, showed a property, the land was cleared. And I called the realtor and I called the broker and they refused to do anything. It was cleared more Page 52 April 23, 2015 than the one acre. And that is just not acceptable. We have to hold people that are professionals accountable. MR. LAVINSKI: I think that just in the system somewhere there ought to be a system of checking. I'm not sure I totally buy -- it's easy to come here and say I didn't know it and then right away they plead on our sympathy and that turns our decision, in my opinion. I just think that not all the things that are said at that microphone over there are necessarily true. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you. But a certain amount of them are. And even if it's only half, it's half. So it's -- I just thought I'd bring that up, after hearing the cases today with three of them here. These have happened over the past years that have come before us and I get on my hobby horse and talk about them. Yes, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: I just want to make clear that we're available and ready to work with you in any capacity to get this thing straightened out. MR. LEFEBVRE: We will have another session. I will make sure that we -- I get in touch with the proper people to have another training session, or maybe several of them. Maybe it might be something where when people first are licensed and we're now having larger licensing classes, maybe have a little five to 10-minute section where we talk about this, someone gets up and speaks about this. I think it's monthly they have this. And there's like 65 plus people now per month. So it might be better to catch the new people. Because again, a lot of times I hear agents, well, I'm new, I didn't know. Well that's a month into the business or 10 years into the business, the liability is the same. And when you go to court and you get sued, it doesn't matter. So -- MS. CURLEY: It's also true because the local title agents who, most of their customers are realtors could do session and perhaps have Page 53 April 23, 2015 somebody from the county come into that agency and speak to their group of realtors. If you have to do a grassroots, that's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The larger companies have meetings every month, maybe someone going into the meetings where there's 40, 50 agents from that particular company. There has to be a way, and I'll talk to the professional standards chair and see how we can set something up. And it might be just a reoccurring thing where every few months there's some kind of training session so we can catch people as they come. And maybe it would be -- I don't have a problem calling up an agent that isn't doing something right and telling them there's a class coming up, you might want to go to that. Because ultimately it's going to be their liability. And their broker, I don't have a problem calling up their broker. Because it's going to be ultimately them that are going to be responsible financially. So thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Maybe we should impose the fines and let that respondent go back and get it from the realtor. MS. CURLEY: That's a little off putting. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, it would solve the problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: It would. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we postponed enough cases this month to fill our calendar up the next month, I'm sure. Where does that put us right now on our agenda? MS. ADAMS: The consent agenda. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve the Code Enforcement Department's Foreclosure Collection Authorization. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we've got a motion to approve. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to forward the foreclosure collection authorization. MR. MARINO: Second. Page 54 April 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: Next case is from number nine, reports, Case CESD20140012494, Lynne V. Cadenhead. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Kitchell. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was one of the papers that were dropped off, or am I missing something again? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Gentlemen, this was -- I'm sorry, Board Members. This was heard before you at the beginning of January, and Mr. Cadenhead gave a very long, soliloquy about why he hadn't been in compliance at that point. You continued the case. And part of what you wanted is after 90 days you wanted us to come and report on what Mr. Cadenhead has done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I recall. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Mr. Cadenhead has not done anything officially at this point. He assures us that he's going to have a Page 55 April 23, 2015 submittal done early next week by his engineer. And I think he told you that in January that we would do the same thing next week, but there's been nothing official. There's been weekly communication by Investigator Garcia and she's been very active with Mr. Cadenhead, but there's been no official progress as of-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we request that that be brought back at our next meeting? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, sir, you could. But you already -- that's a point for the attorney. You already gave him an 80-day contin- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But we also said that we would check in between -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to make sure something was being done. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Correct. But he is being fined daily, sir, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. But as we saw today, those fines quite often are abated. And we are all about compliance, not fining. SUPERVISOR SNOW: That is true, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And maybe this individual needs a little bit of motivation to get busy. Even a call to say if you don't have anything going on it's going to have to come back even before the 180 days. Because if you come back after 179 days and say gee, I'm tied up or whatnot, the board doesn't look too favorably on things of that nature. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, he is assuring us that he's going to submit on early next week. But -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, give him to early next week. Give him to end of next week, and if he doesn't do it then I would Page 56 April 23, 2015 suggest that -- the board has asked for the case to be brought back prior to the 180 days based on the original agreement. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Original violation, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Okay, we can do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's your thoughts on that? MS. NICOLA: I don't really know what authority we would have to bring him back within the 180 days unless there's another violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was in the initial order. In other words, do this, this, this and this. He didn't do this. MS. NICOLA: Right, but then we gave them 180 days to do it; is that right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Total. Yeah, but we also said that it would be reviewed down the path to make sure that he was working on compliance; is that correct? SUPERVISOR SNOW: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so? MS. NICOLA: I'd have to take a look at the order. I mean, it just seems to me that it's like if you say to somebody you've got 180 days and then you say all right, well, I'm going to bring you back within that 180 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But that was part of it. MS. NICOLA: To bring him back within the 180 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To bring it back in 180 days. But we also said that we would review it -- he would review it with whatever progress he's made -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: After 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- after 90 days and to see that there's been progress. Well, according to Mr. Snow, no progress has been made, 90 days has elapsed, and it's tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow. So I have no problem with bringing it back. Page 57 April 23, 2015 SUPERVISOR SNOW: I don't either, sir. I'll follow whatever direction this board is given. MR. MARINO: Motion we bring it back. MR. LEFEBVRE: You want to bring the case back or do you want to just bring him in and find out what's going on? It seems hard to -- unless we spelled out that we would rescind our order after 90 days, I think it's going to be hard to change. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- then why would we -- and we've done it many times, why have we said we would like this reviewed in 60 days. We'll give you 120 but we'd like it reviewed in 60? All those cases that we do, it's the same argument. MS. NICOLA: I think you can bring him in and ask him what he's done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. NICOLA: But I don't know that you can rescind a prior order. I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, I understand that. But I -- MS. NICOLA: And then what do you do if he comes in and he says well, I haven't done anything but I still have another 90 days left? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. NICOLA: You know, so what -- so we just bring him in here, "what have you done?" "Well, I haven't done anything but I have another 90 days." And it just seems to me to be a little bit futile, truthfully. I mean, he could be in compliance at 179 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And he could not be in compliance in 179 days and come back and say I need more time now, when you've done nothing for the previous 180 days. And that was the point of reviewing it after 90 days. MS. NICOLA: But what is the remedy? I mean, if we bring him Page 58 April 23, 2015 in in 90 days, what remedy do we have? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, as we've -- MS. NICOLA: What can we do with the guy? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- as we said to many respondents, we're not going to look favorably at granting any special requests if you're not working on it. Again, we're in the business of compliance. MS. CURLEY: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. CURLEY: I have two comments. So I just have --just to refresh my memory, was this a safety issue? SUPERVISOR SNOW: There's no one there. The building has been declared unsafe. MS. CURLEY: And so there isn't any other course that the county's going to take subsequent to these charges? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Not until it's remedied coming back from this board, that's correct. And just to get to the point, I think the board already told Mr. Cadenhead that he's not going to get any more time. And in historic cases with Mr. Cadenhead, he traditionally waits 'til the last minute and then does do some action. So he assures us, and he knew this was coming. Investigator Garcia called him and he assured us that it's going to be done Monday. So I agree with your attorney, if you bring him back and just talk to him and ask him what are you doing, I think that's fine. But if he says, well, I've got another 90 days to do that, if you want to just reinforce the board's premises you're not getting any more time, that's up to the board to do. MS. CURLEY: Another comment. Wasn't this his ex-wife's property? I mean, this gentleman was speaking on behalf of his ex-wife? Page 59 April 23, 2015 SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, ma'am, he did have an affidavit from her saying he has the authority to do so. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think -- MS. CURLEY: I think that's enough -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think in the future orders, if we give someone six months and we want to review in 90 days, we might want to spell out that if-- we'll review it in 90 days and if no work has been -- no progress has been made, we can rescind our order and something, some language -- MS. CURLEY: I agree. MR. MARINO: Sounds good. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- to that -- so there's some -- it's like almost saying you need to fix something but there's no fine after the 90 days. MS. NICOLA: I don't know why we don't just say we want you to do this within 90 days. I mean, why say we're going to do it in 180 days and then in 90 days we're going to review it? Because there's no teeth in that order, in my opinion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the reason we do that is because we know it's going to take more than 90 days to complete. But we want to see some progress. So it would be almost like a two-step process. If there's no progress -- we used to have orders where it would say you have 30 days to apply, you have certain time frames, but then we went away from that. But we used to have it where there's certain time frames that do certain things. MS. NICOLA: All right. I'm just thinking that the job of the official here is to check up on them and to see what progress has been made, and then when the person or people come in front of the board and they haven't complied within a certain amount of time, then the investigator's going to come in and he's going to say, I checked in with him in 30 days, I checked in with him in 60 and they kept saying I'm going to get it done in a week and I'm going to get it done next week Page 60 April 23, 2015 and my dog ate my paperwork, and those are the kinds of things that the board is going to consider when they ask to abate the fines. And we didn't hear that here today because we, I think, had people that truly along the lines were doing every effort they could to get things done. And what the investigator is saying with Mr. Cadenhead is that kind of thing, excuse after excuse after excuse. Which when you come in at the 181st day, that's what you're going to consider. I just don't know why when you have an investigator involved who's doing his or her job that it's necessary to bring the person in, because that's what's going to happen when they fail to complete it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What was the purpose then of Mr. Snow bringing it before the board today? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, the board wanted a status report on what Mr. Cadenhead had done related to that property. You were concerned, I believe, that you wanted to see the progress because of the severity of the issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. So either it should not be brought back to us because he's got 180 days, or when the initial order was issued that we wanted to see that there's some progress being made during that period of time, whatever the time frame is, that that's what we mean. Otherwise why bother? And you brought it back because the board asked you to bring it back. SUPERVISOR SNOW: That is correct, yes, sir, I followed your order -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's here right now and what do we do with it. Jeff, do you have a comment? MR. WRIGHT: My only comment is I think the simplest way to look at this, what you have before you, is we're just simply giving you an update on the case. And if at any time you want an update on any Page 61 April 23, 2015 case, we can put it on the agenda and give you an update. In this case you asked for the update when you entered the order, and here's our update. So that's a simple way of looking at it. I don't think there's any order to rescind, there were no teeth in that provision anyways. It was just please come back with an update. So if the next order has teeth and says if you don't do anything by then, then we'll address those facts then. But for now what's before you today is a simple update on a case as you requested. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's either that or, in a case like this, you give somebody -- you know it's going to take 180 days, you give them 90 days, and if they come back in 90 days showing some progress, you grant them an extension. MR. WRIGHT: On that note, I'm not sure what kind of progress you would look for, but I would say apply for the permit would be the one landmark -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: -- that you would look for at that interim time period. So just throwing that out. MR. LEFEBVRE: Approved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In this case has the respondent applied for a permit? SUPERVISOR SNOW: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has he done anything? SUPERVISOR SNOW: He's hired an engineer, and the engineering assures us that there will be a submittal early next week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. SUPERVISOR SNOW: But nothing -- to answer your question, there's been nothing official submitted. MR. LEFEBVRE: In these cases, couple -- you know, one solution would be that -- staggered. Just like when you build a house, Page 62 April 23, 2015 you get paid for pouring a slab, you get paid for this, you get paid for that. Same thing. You've got to get this completed, permitted pulled and in -- you know, applied for and pulled or whatever the case is, in this time frame. So have time frames. We did that, we got away from doing that. We started just giving people six months. And again, like you said, he'll probably the 179th day -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kitchell, on May 28th could you come back and let us know if there's been any progress on this? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody on the board have a problem with that? MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the point? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just for Kitchell -- he's going to be here anyhow, just let us know if there's been any progress on it. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I'll be here. No, I'll be happy to give a report, just a brief report to the board on what's happening. I know from experience that -- Mr. Lefebvre, you are correct, we used to do orders that appeared to be very complex. And I think we got away from that because sometimes it got a little convoluted. So the onus was just to make it a little bit simpler. Now, however the board wants to craft the orders. I believe that was demonstrated today, Mr. Lefebvre was concerned that there were some fines entered that -- and you were quick to note that. So this board can craft an order whatever way they want it. And certainly code enforcement will follow that order. And if you want me to appear next month and the month after to give you a report, I will be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good, thank you. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which brings us to? Are you trying Page 63 April 23, 2015 to sneak out, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: No, sir. MR. MARINO: Got nailed. MS. CURLEY: We're going to fine you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have anything else? MS. ADAMS: No, nothing else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nothing else? MR. MARINO: Make a motion we adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we'll take that off line, my comment that we spoke about earlier about the upcoming seminar, or whatever. MS. CURLEY: I'd like to make a motion to let Jeff leave. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yeah, second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have a motion to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second on that? MR. LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. MS. NICOLA: Wait a minute, I want to leave too. ***** Page 64 April 23, 2015 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:33 a.m. OL ER CO TY CODE :.440-%i ! g, BOARD 41_:. AN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on (1 2 E, 20 ( c- , as presented ✓ or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 65