Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/28/2015 CEB MEETING MINUTES MAY 28, 2015 May 28, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, May 28, 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 Ron Doino Susan J. Curley Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Robert Ashton (Excused) Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Wright, Code Enforcement Division Director Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the CEB Board Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 30, 2015 at 9:00 A.M. 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 Ron Doino 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. MAY 28,2015 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time 1 1. 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 2. CASE NO: CESD20150001847 OWNER: YASIEL RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO SUPPORT MARIJUANA GROW OPERATION FOLIO NO: 37345920009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1120 27TH ST SW,NAPLES B. Stipulations B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20150004720 OWNER: RICARDO DE JESUS&KATHLEEN DE JESUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).AN UNPERMITTED SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME ON IMPROVED OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 01132520004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 222 SWAIN ST,COPELAND 2. CASE NO: CEPM20140025426 OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE,SECTION 22- 231(12)(Q)AND SECTION 22-236.A VACANT RESIDENTIAL HOME DECLARED DANGEROUS BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL. FOLIO NO: 74414040006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3414 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES 2 3. CASE NO: CEN20150002834 OWNER: HERITAGE SQUARE REAL EST LLC, OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2,ARTICLE IX COMMERCIAL AMPLIFIED MUSIC IN RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONING.COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 54 ENVIROMENT,ARTICLE IV NOISE,SECTION 54-92-(F)(2)AND (B)MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND AND VIBRATION LEVELS BY ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR USE OCCUPANCY.(1)NO SOUND SHALL VIOLATE ANY SOUND STANDARD PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE(TABLE1).BEACH TAVERN SOUND LEVELS EXCEEDING THE ALLOWABLE DECIBEL LIMIT FOR THE TIME PERIOD READINGS WERE PERFORMED. FOLIO NO: 152480002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 13514 TAMIAMI TRL N,NAPLES 4. 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 5. CASE NO: CESD20150007843 OWNER: CHANDLER AYOTTE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).AN UNPERMITTED SHED ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38906000008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4330 64TH AVE NE,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CESD20140017065 OWNER: DAVIS CROSSING VIII,LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS.COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).PERMIT 2009120450 EXPIRED WITHOUT INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 34690080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8770 DAVIS BLVD,NAPLES 3 7. CASE NO: CESD20150007433 OWNER: RICK LYNN WHITE&VICTORIA JACOB OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).ABOVE GROUND POOL WITH A WOODEN DECK INSTALLED WIHOUT THE PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. FOLIO NO: 36517680000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2972 41sT ST SW,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CELU20150004809 OWNER: THE CLUB AT LA PENINSULA INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03. OUTSIDE STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS(ROCKS). FOLIO NO: 1050000004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 802 LA PENINSULA BLVD,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CESD20140018880 OWNER: MARK D HUNTLEY&JUDITH V HUNTLEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 40070080007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4290 31ST AVE NE,NAPLES 10. CASE NO: CESD20150003265 OWNER: WILLIAM T.CABAL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN THE REAR YARD. FOLIO NO: 38166040002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5941 COPPER LEAF LN,NAPLES 11. CASE NO: CESD20150002839 OWNER: KENNETH M&JANET M SECHRIST&MARJORIE A CUNNINGHAM TR M.A. CUNNINGHAM REV TRUST, OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN ENCLOSED LIVING SPACE ADDED TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS, AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 30055001422 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 414 PAPAYA ST UNIT C,GOODLAND 4 12. CASE NO: CESD20150002056 OWNER: REG8 BERKSHIRE COMMONS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).UNPERMITTED INTERIOR RENOVATION CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO:EXPOSED STRUCTURAL STUDS,ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING ADJACENT TO THE FIREWALL BETWEEN THE NAIL SPA AND SUBWAY RESTAURANT. FOLIO NO: 23945007103 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7063 RADIO RD,NAPLES 13. CASE NO: CEROW20150001263 OWNER: 5681 DOGWOOD LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROAD& BRIDGES,ARTICLE II.CONSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY SECTION 110-30.CULVERT PIPE HAS FAILED AND IS RUSTED THROUGH. FOLIO NO: 38341320000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6 81 DOGWOOD WAY,NAPLES 14. 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 C. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CELU20150004921 OWNER: ROSELENE ELOI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 2.02.03 AND 4.05.03(A).AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR ACTIVITY AND VEHICLES PARKED ON THE GRASS OF IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62205600007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5361 HOLLAND ST,NAPLES 5 2. CASE NO: CESD20130008321 OWNER: ANTONIO LOUISSAINT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPERMITTED ADDITION BEING USED AS LIVING SPACE WITH A THREE FIXTURE BATHROOM TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING.ALSO INSTALLED NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTION(S)AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 00134120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 610 S 5TH ST,IMMOKALEE 3. CASE NO: CES20150000879 OWNER: TOTAM LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 5.06.04(F)(4)(E).WINDOW SIGNAGE EXCEEDS 25%. FOLIO NO: 56200000087 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12355 COLLIER BLVD UNIT D,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20140020715 OWNER: MIRIAM R JEWELL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).CONVERTED THE GARAGE INTO A THEATER ROOM WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 80640001528 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6596 GLEN ARBOR WAY,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD20140000248 OWNER: CHRISTOPHER S.ESENBERG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHIRLEY GARCIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).EXPIRED PERMIT FOR A POOL AND PERMIT FOR A POOL ENCLOSURE WITH NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 47871360000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3301 GUILFORD RD,NAPLES,FL 6. CASE NO: CESD20130001292 OWNER: CHRISTOPHER S.ESENBERG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHIRLEY GARCIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).ADDITION/ALTERATIONS MADE TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 47871280009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3315 GUILFORD RD,NAPLES 6 7. CASE NO: CESD20120000572 OWNER: JUAN CAMPBELL&NORA CARRILLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). BUILDING PERMIT EXPIRED WITHOUT THE COMPLETION OF ALL RELATED INSPECTIONS AND ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 63912040001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1101 N 11TH ST,IMMOKALEE 8. 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 9. CASE NO: CESD20150001847 OWNER: YASIEL RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A). UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO SUPPORT MARIJUANA GROW OPERATION FOLIO NO: 37345920009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1120 27TH ST SW,NAPLES 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 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- July 23,2015 12. ADJOURN 7 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time at that time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Although she has two ears, she can only hear one conversation at a time. 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. I'd like to have everybody silence their cell phones and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Before I forget, has everybody reviewed the minutes, and are there any changes in the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll approve those as bulleted. Let's have the roll call now. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? Page 2 May 28, 2015 MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton has an excused absence, and Lisa Chapman Bushnell has an excused absence, and Mr. Gerald Lefebvre is going to be late. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, with two folks out, Sue, you will be a full voting member of the Board this morning. Let's go to the agenda. Do we have any changes? MS. ADAMS: Yes. Number 5, public hearings, motions, A, motion for continuance, we have five additions. The first will be No. 1 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CELU20150001475, Barry Nicholls, Paradise Gems & Fine Jewelry. The second will be No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CELU20150001259, Naples Designer Services, owner Phil West. The third will be No. 3 from hearings, Tab 4, Case CELU20150005363, Liberty Tax Service, owner Chris Autry. The fourth will be No. 12 from hearings, Tab 13, Case CESD20140004241, NKY Acquisitions, LLC. The fifth continuance will be No. 10 from hearings, Tab 11, Case CELU20150002426, Roger J. Gemmen, M.D., Trust. Letter B, stipulations, we have two additions. The first is No. 7 from hearings, Tab 8, Case CESD20140022228, Nancy Simmons. The second is No. 8 from hearings, Tab 9, Case CES20150002111, Nazdar, Incorporated. Letter B, hearings, No. 9, Tab 10, Case CESD20140023599, Christopher Tomei, Lenore Brakefield Tomei, and Jeanine H. Page 3 May 28, 2015 Brakefield has been withdrawn. (Gerald Lefebvre entered the boardroom.) MS. ADAMS: Number 11, Tab 12, Case CEVR20140016015, Nature Point Homeowners Association Incorporated, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion to accept the agenda as modified? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Let the record show that our latecomer has arrived just in time. Sue, you're still a voting member. Okay. We did the approval of the minutes. That brings us to our first case. MS. ADAMS: The first motion for continuance is No. 1 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CELU20150001475, Barry Nicholls, Paradise Gems & Fine Jewelry. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, if I may begin? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Page 4 May 28, 2015 MR. WRIGHT: This is the county's request. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WRIGHT: You may recall last time we were here Mr. Nicholls requested more time. We didn't oppose it. And since then we've -- there's a lot of interest involved here; there's a lot of businesses that could be affected by these cases. And they're the first three that you're considering for continuances this morning. They all involve the same interest. Basically, on the one hand, local businesses trying to advertise in the right-of-way, trying to make commercial use of that space, and on the other hand, the public and the aesthetic impact that this has, and there's also employees of these businesses that are affected, and there's been a lot of public interest, and we don't want to take that lightly. There's been some technical issues raised with respect to survey lines, and we don't have the luxury of a full-time surveyor to assist us, but we have enlisted county surveyors to assist. And some of the issues that they've raised at a couple of the locations in these cases involve some technical surveying testimony and review. So given the significant interests involved in these cases, the technical issues that have arisen, and the likelihood of an appeal, we think it's in everyone's best interest to continue these to the July hearing, that's July 23, 2015, in order to get it right and make sure everybody has an opportunity to be properly heard and the technical information properly reviewed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Nicholls, do you have any problem with postponing this till the next meeting? MR. NICHOLLS: I'm not opposed. If it results in a more perfect resolution for everyone concerned, I'm all for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Just for clarification, it would be a July Page 5 May 28, 2015 meeting, because that's what you stated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: July 23rd. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yep, not the next meeting. MR. NICHOLLS: So we're talking two months from now, not one month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. The Chairman said next meeting, but it's actually two months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, July 23rd. I forgot about June. Must be a busy month. Okay. Could we get a motion from the Board to grant the county a continuance -- a postponement on this? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion that we postpone it for the -- what is it, 60 days or until the July meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Okay. We have a motion. MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Mr. Doino. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance, No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, CELU20150001259, Naples Designer Services, Owner Phil West. Page 6 May 28, 2015 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WRIGHT: We want to keep these cases together. And for the same reason as the last case, we're requesting a continuance till the July meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a problem by postponing this till the July meeting? MR. WEST: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a motion from the Board to -- MR. MARINO: I'll make the motion to continue it till the July meeting. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And a second? MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance is No. 3 from hearings, Tab 4, Case CELU20150005363, Liberty Tax Service, owner Chris Autry. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PATTERSON: Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Page 7 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, are you going to request a -- MR. WRIGHT: Well, this is their motion, as I understand it, for a continuance, and we do not oppose it, and it's really for the same exact reasons I've stated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And they're not here, so... MS. PATTERSON: They are not, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, for the same reasons on the other ones, can I get a motion from the Board to postpone this till July 23rd? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion that we continue it till the July 23rd meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: At this rate, we'll be out of here by 9:30. MS. NICOLA: You said all day. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance is No. 12 from hearings, Tab 13, Case CESD20140004241, NKY Acquisitions, LLC. Page 8 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's hold off for one second till -- MR. LAVINSKI: Clear the room. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you start us off. MR. BOSA: Sure. Good morning. For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. They are requesting a continuance. I'll leave it up to the Board to decide on that. But just to give you a quick synopsis of what's transpired in the past year, this company here recorded their deed back in July 2013. The violation was found almost a year later, March 2014. And they pulled permits in August 2014 which didn't expire until March of 2015. Since then, they haven't had any inspections at all and -- for six months. They just pulled a permit, and that was it. Based on the letter, it sounds to me like they're trying to pretty much dump the property before they can, you know, spend more money on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does everybody have the letter that NKY Acquisitions provided the Board? It says Tab 13 up in the right corner. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that in the package from today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Did they receive this? We sent it out certified -- we -- the county, sent it out certified on this past week; is that correct? MS. ADAMS: Notice of hearing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. ADAMS: It would have gone out at least 10 days before the hearing, before today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because the letter says we received a notice of hearing for the above case on Wednesday this week. I assume this week was the week where May 21st was. Page 9 May 28, 2015 MS. ADAMS: That may have been when they picked up their certified mail. It was mailed on May 13th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My problem with this is this -- and we have heard many cases like this in the past few months where a property is sold, and I don't know if they notified the new buyer of what the situation is. And what happens is they walk away, the new buyer shows up, finds out that they have a problem, and they're responsible for it, and that's my major concern with them selling this property before a determination on this violation is received. I'd like to know what the Board thinks. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to deny the request for continuance. MS. CURLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to deny the continuance. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. It actually says in the letter that someone's interested in purchasing the property which is contingent on having the current residence removed. Applying for a variance to allow for two lots to be separated in order to have new houses constructed. It doesn't say if the residences are going to be removed prior to closing or after, which would clarify -- would take care of the violation. Do you have any idea -- have you talked to them at all? MR. BOSA: My investigator has been in constant contact for the past year with these people, and we've informed them that if this does not get resolved, it would go to hearing. So it's not like they just found out about this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not a surprise. MR. BOSA: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have they indicated if they're going to be removing the residences prior to closing or after the closing? Page 10 May 28, 2015 MR. BOSA: After closing; that's what my understanding is reading from the investigator's notes. From what I understand from the investigator's notes, they don't want to do anything until they sell the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. My concern is not whether they remove them, or no matter what they do, is that the prospective buyer of this property will now be responsible for this violation. And I don't know if they know that there's a violation. And the only way they will know that there's a violation is if we find that their violation exists or doesn't exist, so... MR. LEFEBVRE: The question -- the reason I asked that question if the property's going to be -- the house is going to be removed prior to closing, then the violation would not exist anymore. But now that you're telling me that it's after closing, don't know what the new owner's going to do with it or, like you said, if they're aware of the issue. So I make -- we already have a motion, but I would agree to move this case forward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BOSA: Thank you. Page 11 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the motion for postponement, actually, is denied. We'll hear it at the appropriate time during the agenda. MR. BOSA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance is No. 10 from hearings, Tab 11, Case CELU20150002426, Roger J. Gemmen, M.D., Trust. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Again, we have a letter that was in the package that was distributed today. It says Tab 11 in the top right-hand corner. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give us a minute to read the letter. Just one of the sentences it says, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend this appeal hearing, but Mr. Elie Stern will represent me at the hearing; however, Mr. Stern is out of the country, so he won't be here, so... Why don't we hear from the county. Do you have any questions or thoughts about whether we should grant a postponement or a continuance on this? MR. KINCAID: Sir, based on the code case details of the report, we would like to leave that, whether we proceed or not, to the discretion of the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If memory serves me, this sounds very familiar to me. Is this something that came before the Board in the past? MR. KINCAID: Not to my knowledge, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: There was a property on Immokalee Road across from Gulf Coast High School that came in front of us that had U-Hauls there. But what concerns me is line -- or Paragraph No. 3, Mr. Stern is requesting a code revision concerning this property allowing Page 12 May 28, 2015 him to display U-Haul trailers on this property. This isn't the venue for that. MR. KINCAID: Sir, the case is a land use case based on the fact that the trailers and some unlicensed vehicles or vehicles for sale are being stored on the property illegally. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But we don't revise code. We enforce code. We don't revise it is what Mr. Mr. Stern is requesting a code revision concerning his property to allow him to display used -- U-Haul trailers on his property. Again, we're not -- that's not this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you, however, at this point what's before us is do we grant an extension of time to the respondent or not. Any thoughts on that? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to deny the request for a conditional. MS. CURLEY: I second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we deny it, do you know if they're in front of the Planning Commission or variance -- trying to get a variance or any other venue to get a variance for this property? MR. KINCAID: There was a prehearing for a continual use. It was agreed at the conditional use hearing that the paperwork or the application for that conditional use would be submitted within 30 days from the date of the hearing, and it has not been submitted, and that's basically why we're here today. The county had agreed, based on the fact that they didn't want to create a hardship for Mr. Stern, that they would allow the business to stay there during the permitting process. But no application have been filed, so we're before you today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could I ask, when was the last time you had a conversation with the respondent? MR. KINCAID: It was, I believe, the day that I posted the property for the court hearing, and he called to let me know that he was going out of the country, I believe, to Cuba, and he would not be here Page 13 May 28, 2015 for the hearing. I think at that time he contacted the property owner, and the property owner did send the request for a continuance to Kerry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a case where the violation goes against the property, not the person who's actually violating the code. MR. KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Can we call the question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to deny the request for a postponement. Any more discussion on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We'll hear that at the proper time today. MR. KINCAID: Thank you, sir. MS. ADAMS: The next case, motion for extension of time, Tab 1, Case CESD20140015359, Bernardo Barnhart. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. O'NEILL: Good morning. My name is Maria O'Neill, and I'm the attorney for Bernardo Barnhart. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 14 May 28, 2015 MS. O'NEILL: We are requesting an extension of time. As something you were discussing just earlier, Mr. Barnhart purchased the property -- recently acquired this property without any knowledge of the code violation. Since then, he has made an effort to get a permit to demolish the area of the building that is in violation. That permit was rejected for -- in need of more detail, so we'd be asking for actually 60 days. I was talking with him about that. We think 60 days would be appropriate just to make sure that everything's done, instead of having to come back here 30 days from now and say, oh, we just need a few more days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board or the county? MR. MUCHA: The county would not oppose an extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend for 60 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you change that to extend it to July 23rd no matter how many days that comes out to be? MR. LEFEBVRE: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and second, grant an extension of time. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. Page 15 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. O'NEILL: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Letter B, stipulations, the first one is No. 7 from hearings, Tab 8, Case CESD20140022228, Nancy Simmons. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to let the record show that the respondent is not present right now. So why don't you read the stipulation into the record. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: No. 1, pay operational costs in the amount of 64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of occupancy and/or completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Page 16 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is this a stilt home that they enclosed -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the bottom? Do you see any safety problem there at all? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did they add water and electric? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's always a concern without permits or inspections. Okay. 120 days is sufficient time, you think, to remove all of that or to get a permit? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, didn't we decide last month that the conditions in Paragraph 2 should be left up to the Board's discretion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not on stipulations, on -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Recommendations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- on the recommendations. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to -- and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 17 May 28, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. Have a great day. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 8 from hearings, Tab 9, Case CES20150002111, Nazdar, Incorporated. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sir, could you give us your name on the mike so we -- MR. CHLUMSKY: Dale Chlumsky. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Dale. Thank you. Do you want to read the stipulation? MS. PATTERSON: Sure. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: No. 1, pay all operational costs in the amount of 65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate violations by obtaining a Collier County demolition permit and all required inspections and certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, must remove or cause to remove the abandoned sign structure making it flush with the ground. Removal is to include the sign cabinet, the sign pole or post and all elements and electrical components belonging to the sign, including the broken sign panels littering the ground nearby within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 4, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within Page 18 May 28, 2015 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Number 5, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using the (sic) 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: Thank you. Mr. Chlumsky, are you the owner of the company? MR. CHLUMSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you have given yourself the right to request this? MR. CHLUMSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you think 30 days is sufficient time to get everything done? MR. CHLUMSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 19 May 28, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a comment. Typically don't we just have one fine and say demolition permit has to be pulled and also the work has to be completed instead of two separate? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's generally the way it's written. MS. PATTERSON: Bring me back to that again, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's two separate fines. One is you have to pull the demo permit in 30 -- or he has to pull the demo permit in 30 days, and then the second section says that it has to be demolished within 30 days. So the total time frame is 30 days, or is the total time frame 60 days? MS. PATTERSON: The total time frame is 30 days. I see what you're saying, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, typically what I remember seeing is it says demo permit must be pulled and everything must be removed within 30 days. There's usually not two fines attached to it. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. All right. I agree with that. Do we need to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I mean, we already made a motion so -- to keep it like this. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Typically what I'm saying is it's not done this way. I was going to bring that up as a comment, but we voted on it a little too quickly. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. MR. MARINO: So total time is 30 days, not 60 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. And as long as the respondent is comfortable with it, then we're fine. Page 20 May 28, 2015 MS. PATTERSON: Mr. Chlumsky and I have discussed how long it would take him to get this done, and he feels that he could probably get it done, I think you agreed, within the next couple weeks at the very most. MR. CHLUMSKY: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: I think -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if it doesn't get done in 30 days, he can come back here and request more time. MR. MARINO: The permit's been pulled and everything already? MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. To answer your question, I think it doesn't take very long to pull a permit for a demo. Probably a couple days at the most. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Tab 5, Case CESD20140017894, Jose F. Garcia. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you both identify yourself on the mike so -- MR. JOSE GARCIA: I'm Jose Garcia, the owner of the property. MR. PILAR GARCIA: I'm Pilar Garcia, no relation, with the engineer's office. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASARO: Good afternoon. Tony Asaro with the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. I had no knowledge that Mr. Garcia was here, so I would allow him to explain his situation before I start, if he would like. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you going to testify to something, Mr. Gar -- well, Mr. Garcia or Mr. Garcia? MR. PILAR GARCIA: I would like to say that the plans was submitted to the county for the -- Page 21 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you're going to testify to that, okay. MR. ASARO: Again, Tony Asaro with the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. This case is in reference to Case No. CESD20140017894 pertaining to a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Property is located at 2087 DeSoto Boulevard North, Naples, Florida, 34120; folio number is 40420400004. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: One photo taken May 27, 2015. Basically, the property is just a shell. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen that photo? MR. ASARO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you show that to the respondent? MR. ASARO: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this the only exhibit that you're going to have? MR. ASARO: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you do that, do you have any problem with that photo? MR. JOSE GARCIA: No. That's the way the property is right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine. We have a motion to accept the exhibit and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 22 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. ASARO: This case was originally brought to our attention in 2012 as a public complaint. Since then ownership has changed twice. The current owners took ownership on August 1, 2014. The current owners attempted to reapp the original permit, No. 2005053885, on November 5, 2014. The reapplication through Permit PRBD201411313 81 was rejected on November 20, 2014, and corrections -- a correction letter was sent. Comments stated, must meet the current FBC, and the Health Department needed details of the septic system. The application is now under review. To date, the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was supposed to be corrected, according to our writeup here, by October 18, 2014. So that's a long time ago. MR. JOSE GARCIA: I was given six month, if I'm not mistaken -- I think I have the letter over here -- to get new permits and the new revision of the drawings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The letter is from whom? MR. JOSE GARCIA: From the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From the Building Department? MR. JOSE GARCIA: Yes. MR. MARINO: It's past six months anyway. MR. JOSE GARCIA: Just a second. I've got it right here. It's this letter over here. Page 23 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you seen that letter, Mr. MR. ASARO: No, I have not. I've had no contact with Mr. Garcia. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No? MR. ASARO: No. MR. JOSE GARCIA: I spoke to Ralph, I think it was, like five months ago or something like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we look at that letter, we have to enter it into evidence. If we enter it into evidence, we have to take it. MR. JOSE GARCIA: Okay. I was given 120 days to finish the permits and the review of the drawings, and I couldn't comply with it. MR. PILAR GARCIA: I'd like to say that the reason why he couldn't comply was totally our fault. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Talk into the mike so -- MR. PILAR GARCIA: I would like to take responsibility for that issue because it was an extremely rare case where we have an existing property, we have to do various inspections to make sure that the concrete is still good, and we -- we're taking responsibility now. So then the plans have to be recreated and, unfortunately, it happened at the time when everybody -- you know, it got busy, and no other excuse than that. The permit -- the plans have been submitted now into the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They were submitted and -- were they rejected? MR. PILAR GARCIA: No. They were just submitted. We haven't heard anything on it yet. We should hear something from it in a couple days. MR. LEFEBVRE: The original app was rejected because it didn't meet the Florida Building Code and several other -- the septic system, you said. Page 24 May 28, 2015 MR. ASARO: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So then they decided to just go for a new app, start fresh, update the plans with the new Florida Building Codes and everything, and submit --just submit it in a new application; is that true? MR. ASARO: Right. And it's still under review with the Collier County Building Department. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, before we get down the road too far, it's a building that has been there that is in violation, it appears; the Board will vote on that, and then we can go farther into that if we find a violation exists. MR. ASARO: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, do we need to consider the letter that he's given us? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The Building Department -- I don't think that letter really is apropos right now. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it is a violation or it's not a violation, and then we can get into how much time would be required to bring the structure into compliance, et cetera, et cetera, should we find a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: That letter might be relevant depending on when it's dated. If it's 120 days and it was dated back in November, he's past his 120 days. If it was dated just a month ago, he might be under the impression that he had up to 120 days. So I think that letter is somewhat relevant to see if Mr. Garcia thought he had time to get everything submitted. MR. ASARO: It's dated November 20, 2014. MR. LEFEBVRE: So -- and it says six months or 120 days? What -- I mean, we might have to enter it into evidence, but -- Page 25 May 28, 2015 MR. ASARO: Would you like to enter it into evidence? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like it entered into evidence, that letter? It's over six months old now. MR. JOSE GARCIA: I know. It's older than six month, and he explained why it took more than six month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But, unfortunately, the engineer is not the one that would be fined. It's the owner, the property owner. So it's up to you -- MR. JOSE GARCIA: I understand that, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- to make sure he does his job and gets what you need done within a time frame, or find another engineer. MR. JOSE GARCIA: You're more than right about that. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's your responsibility. I think there's a violation that does exist, but he's making an effort to move forward, and with an existing structure, depending on how old it is, could have some issues that need to be addressed. It's not starting from scratch, so you have to do extra studies and tests and so forth. So I think there is a violation, in fact. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You going to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 26 May 28, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. A violation exists, which you probably already knew. Now -- MR. JOSE GARCIA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- how do we fix it? So you put in plans. MR. PILAR GARCIA: Yes. He has the money to finish the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any idea how long it's going to take until the plans come back and then you can start construction, complete it, and everything is done? We'd like to certainly entertain enough time to get the job done. MR. PILAR GARCIA: The way the county's running is not too bad, so we should hear something sometime middle of next week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how long to complete the construction, till you get a CO? MR. PILAR GARCIA: Well, actually, since we have the head start on -- the concrete is basically done, so we shouldn't be bad for six months to be done with that house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if we were to grant a year, would that be more than enough time to get this thing done? MR. PILAR GARCIA: Absolutely. MR. JOSE GARCIA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: How big of a house it is, and do you have a -- MR. JOSE GARCIA: Five thousand thirty-three square feet. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much? MR. JOSE GARCIA: Five thousand thirty-three square feet. Page 27 May 28, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Whoa, you're going to need a year. MR. JOSE GARCIA: It's kind of a specialty. MR. LEFEBVRE: And do you have a contractor lined up to build it? MR. JOSE GARCIA: No. I'm going to build it myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think you can it -- you can get it done? MR. JOSE GARCIA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on what the next step should be, or would anybody like to make a motion? MR. MARINO: I have a question. In the photo it looks like the shrubbery or the vegetation is overgrown. Is that an issue? Should it be cleaned up, or leave it like that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be a separate case if it's got that problem. MR. MARINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Want to stick to what we have right now. I don't know -- as part of the permit requirements, I see a big tree right next to it. That may need to go. I don't know. That would be up to you and the Building Department. MR. PILAR GARCIA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: The county have a recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. ASARO: Yes. The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Page 28 May 28, 2015 The respondent must notify the Collier County 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 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. Anybody want to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that the operational costs be paid in the amount of 65.85 within 30 days and that you'll have 360 days to complete it and get all permits and everything, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have lots of seconds. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that will give you a year to get it done. If you thought you could get it done in six months, you can make it even nicer now. Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. Page 29 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Good luck. MR. PILAR GARCIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You should have the biggest house out on DeSoto. MR. JOSE GARCIA: Yeah. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5, Tab 6, Case CEOCC20150001572, Elizabeth Lavin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How are your fingers doing? You're okay? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MOORE: Michael Moore for the respondent. This is Elizabeth. Michael Moore, M-o-o-r-e. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are? MS. LAVIN: Elizabeth Lavin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And, Mr. Moore, you are the... MR. MOORE: I'm the attorney for the respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we'll drag our feet a couple minutes until Ron gets back. MS. CURLEY: What tab are we on? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? MS. CURLEY: What tab are we on? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're on Tab 6. MS. CURLEY: I apologize. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Our traveler has returned. Okay. Why don't we begin. MS. DAVIDSON: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Page 30 May 28, 2015 Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEOCC20150001572 dealing with violations of 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 equipment being run throughout the day for business purposes, storing materials outside. Located at 5010 Tallowood Way, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio No. 38397880002. Service was given on January 28, 2015. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken on January 28, 2015, one photo taken on March 3rd, one photo taken March 27th, one photo taken on April 9th, two photos taken by complainant on March 31st, and 6 photos taken on May 1st. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you seen the photos? MR. MOORE: We have, but we'd like to go one by one as they're presented. We'll stipulate to the admission, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to accept the exhibits? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. Page 31 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. DAVIDSON: I'm going to present the details of the case, and then if we want to go through the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. DAVIDSON: On January 28, 2015, I was on site and spoke with property owners. I went through the home occupation ordinance with them and explained which sections they were in violation of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I stop you one second? You spoke with specifically who? MS. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Lavin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. DAVIDSON: They did admit that they are running saws and other equipment throughout the day for businesses purposes. I served a notice of violation on January 28, 2015. On March 3, 2015, I drove by and observed a truck parked on the side of the road at their property. March 26, 2015, spoke with property owners via phone, who stated they are unable to rent a commercial or industrial space. March 27, 2015, while on patrol I observed another vehicle inside their fence. March 31, 2015, on site at a neighboring property at 8:30 in the morning, I heard sawing. I also observed work vans in the yard and cars, a Kia and truck, along with a canopy that appears to have a workbench under it with wood and other construction items. April 9, 2015, I observed Daydid Construction vans leaving the property at 7 a.m. April 17, 2015, I met with the neighbor -- I met with the neighbor at their property to sign the notarized affidavit. When leaving their Page 32 May 28, 2015 property, I witnessed a Daydid Construction van leaving 5010 Tallowood Way. While on site May 1, 2015, I met with Mrs. Lavin, her attorney, Mr. Moore; I observed saws and other pieces of machinery are now in a detached garage. There was wood, a pool safety fence, wiring, and other miscellaneous items laying outside the garage. Attorney Mike Moore stated the sawing and other machinery is being used between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. only. Mr. Moore also stated there are no business vehicles coming and going from the property; instead they are dropping off children or there for personal use. On May 22, 2015, we attempted to conduct a noise rating. There was a lot of extraneous noise, and the decibel level did not exceed the allowable limit; however, this was done as a courtesy, and they were not cited under a notice -- they were not issued a notice of violation under this noise ordinance. They were cited under the home occupation ordinance which states the home occupation shall be clearly incidental to the use of the dwelling purposes. The existence of the home occupation shall not change the character of the dwelling. The dwelling is a single-family residential. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it zoned RSF 1? MS. DAVIDSON: It is Golden Gate Estates single-family residential. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. DAVIDSON: And these pictures are the vehicles that I observed at the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, before you go past the first one, do you have any problem with the first photo? MR. MOORE: No, sir, as long as -- it's up to the Board if we can rebut one by one or if you want the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You might as well just do it one by Page 33 May 28, 2015 one while it's up on the screen. Is that a true picture of the property and the vehicle parked on the property? MR. MOORE: It is, but it's not a work vehicle. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Next? MS. DAVIDSON: On January 28th when I was at the property, that was outside storage. They have since cleaned that up, and that has been taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MOORE: No objection to the photo. It's important to realize that the ordinance only prevents the storage of business materials. You'll have evidence today that that's not business materials. And there's been no violation except on the occupation -- home occupation license statute. No objection to the photo. Again, no work vehicle. I think that's a family member's vehicle. No objection to the photo. I'll have to confer with my client as to who owns that vehicle, but it's not a work vehicle. That's her daughter. I'm sorry. MS. DAVIDSON: This picture is a little fuzzy. This is the one I took on April 9th. I was at the end of the street, and they were driving by. That is a Daydid Construction van leaving 5010 Tallowood. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I say that that picture is inconclusive of anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you exclude that. Well, any comments from the Board about that photo? You can't really tell what it is. So why don't you just pull it from the package. Do you have any problem with pulling that photo from the package? MR. MOORE: No, sir. No objection to the photo. It shows two work vehicles. The ordinance doesn't prevent the parking of work vehicles on the property. You'll hear testimony that those two vehicles are driven by the owners of the property, which is permitted by the Page 34 May 28, 2015 ordinance. No objection to the photo. Similar comments. MS. DAVIDSON: These photos were taken on May 1st. MR. MOORE: Again, no objection to the photo. It doesn't indicate any business materials. You'll hear testimony today from Ms. Lavin that those materials are not used for business purposes. And, again, there's been no notice of violation to the owner other than under the business use ordinance. MR. MARINO: I have a question. What type of business is it? We haven't been told what kind of business has been running out of the home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we wait until Colleen gets finished with her presentation, then we can ask questions, and the respondent can ask questions as well. We can go from there. MR. MARINO: I ask that question only because of the material and everything else was being stored out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you can probably go back to the trucks that are there. What do they say on them? MS. DAVIDSON: They have a business tax license for maintenance service and a general contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Thank you. MR. MOORE: No objection. That looks like a repetitive photo. Again, no objection to the photo. No objection. No objection. MS. DAVIDSON: March 31st, this is the white canopy that I observed construction material previously under. I would now like to introduce the property owner of 5020 Tallowood Way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. Page 35 May 28, 2015 MS. AUSTIN: Good morning. My name is Diana Austin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just ask, have you been sworn in? MS. AUSTIN: I was, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. MS. AUSTIN: Okay. So very briefly. Our neighbors moved in three years ago. About six months later we started hearing excessive noise. The noise kept getting progressively worse. The noise was metal saws, drill drivers, hammering, and numerous power tools. We can even hear the noise in our home. And the noise would start from 7:30 a.m. until dark and sometimes even after that if they had a project that they had to complete, I assume. It went for seven days a week, holidays, and most weekends. For instance, last Easter, last year we had our kids and grandkids over for the entire weekend, and all we heard the entire weekend was power saws. The employees that we've seen, there's normally two to five workers with their cars. Those were their cars. Also, three business vans would be coming and going throughout the day. The deliveries that are being made are of metal and glass, because it's a sliding glass door business. At one point in time I personally observed an 18-wheeler making a delivery. We live -- he couldn't turn around. We live down a -- about three-quarters of a mile down the street. He had to back out down the street for three-quarters of a mile after he made his delivery. We kept hoping that this was going to change, that's why we gave them three years. The final straw was a weekend in December we were walking down our driveway, we started coughing, we had stinging eyes, our throat was scratching. They had put up a paint booth where noxious fumes were now coming into our property and giving Page 36 May 28, 2015 us these stinging eyes and coughing and everything. And that is -- at that point we decided to get code involved because it was just out of control. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was in December? MS. AUSTIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What were the fumes coming from? I didn't understand. MS. AUSTIN: A paint booth that they had put up to paint their -- whatever they paint. Oh, yeah, and I do have pictures that I would like to introduce. One of them does actually show the Daydid van leaving the driveway. If I may? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you do, has the respondent seen those photos? MS. AUSTIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with those photos? You want to treat them the same way we did the others? MR. MOORE: One by one, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion to accept the photos? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. Page 37 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We'll do them one at a time. MS. AUSTIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And then you can say what's up on the board. MS. AUSTIN: Okay. Well, here we have a large van, one of the larger vans that's leaving the driveway with a trailer. This was taken January 2015. These are workers' cars. They are workers' cars. They would be parked outside of their gate until we got code involved, and then they started parking them inside the gates, and inside the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that in focus, or are my eyes going? MS. AUSTIN: No. It is kind of blurry, isn't it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just wanted to know if I had to go to my eye doctor. MS. AUSTIN: I think that's better. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MOORE: No objection to the photo. I would reserve the right to cross-examine the witness after she's completed her testimony. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sure. MS. AUSTIN: These are just some of the items that they were -- you know, part of the excessive noise that we would be hearing all day long. It involved metal, so that's really loud, you know, when you're sawing metal. And then there's more of the metal that they were sawing. MR. MOORE: No objection to the photos. I do ask you to note that's labeled December 14. That was prior to any notice of violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was prior to what? MR. MOORE: Any notice of violation. Page 38 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does that have anything to do with -- MR. MOORE: It will become a little more clear as we go on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. AUSTIN: Okay. This is, again, their work area, so -- we did start documenting this because we saw that it was becoming a big problem. So we decided to document it on our own in case that we at one point in time would need to involve code. MR. MOORE: No objection to the photo. Again, note the date of November; November 2014. MS. AUSTIN: That's kind of dark. It's just more of the work area, yeah. And that's recent. That's April 11, 2015. And that's that white tent that Colleen was talking about which happens to be right -- well, it happened to be right on our property line, so it was -- we heard everything all the time. MR. MOORE: A little dark, but no objection. MS. ADAMS: Yeah, a work table, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We won't cite her for being a bad photographer. MS. AUSTIN: More of the vans. I think it's well established they run three vans, yeah. Large van. Okay. Well, that was taken recently, too. And, you know, we don't object to vans, we don't object to cars coming and going. We do object to the fact that our home is not a sanctuary anymore. It's not quiet. That's what we object to. Large and small vans. Those were taken April 20th. So these are rather recent, these. There's the work table that we were talking about right next to the garage, and that's where all the sawing, the hammering, everything would take place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Where is your property in relation to this photo? Are you -- MS. AUSTIN: Right next door. Page 39 May 28, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: The photos are being taken from your property, correct? MS. AUSTIN: That is correct, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: The last photo. So you said their property line -- or where that tent structure was was very close to your property. MS. AUSTIN: Exactly. It's almost directly on the property line, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, it can't be right on the property line because you have a slab there. MS. AUSTIN: Yeah, the -- sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This -- you have what size property, just for my visual? MS. AUSTIN: Sure. We're all sitting on about, I think, 2.73 acres, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Both properties? MS. AUSTIN: I don't know about theirs. MR. LEFEBVRE: Her's is 150 feet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's two and a half, okay. MS. AUSTIN: Yeah. Okay. The large -- that's kind of dark, too. Large van. Yeah, so just -- you know, everyone gets the picture here. There's vans, there's metal, there's glass, there's -- they're sawing, and it's nonstop. Two small vans, 2015 April. Oh, more outside storage, and that was April (sic) 28, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: March 28th. MS. AUSTIN: Yes, sir. And, honestly, we don't even care about that, because we don't have to see that. We just care about the noise, the excessive noise. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. AUSTIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, Mr. Letourneau, would you Page 40 May 28, 2015 like to say something? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would. At this time I would like to also submit one, two, three, four, five, six pages. The first page would be the actual ordinance that we've cited, the home occupation ordinance from the Land Development Code, a definition of excessive from Webster's dictionary, the actual Estate zone district ordinance that we're dealing with, and also a page that I printed off Angie's List describing this company's activities. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any problem with that submission? MR. MOORE: No, sir. I've seen the documents. No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we have a motion to accept the documents? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. On the first document, the home occupation, if you read -- go down a little bit and -- hold on here. MS. CURLEY: Could we shrink it a little bit? MR. LETOURNEAU: If you see under standards, the first Page 41 May 28, 2015 sentence says, the home occupation, which Colleen already said, shall be clearly incidental to the use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes. And I think the intent of this ordinance was made so when people had home occupations, that they didn't conduct business such as this that should be in a commercial or an industrial area at people's residential areas, and obviously -- MR. MOORE: Objection to the extent he's trying to read intent into the statute without further background. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think, Mr. Letourneau, you could read it, and we can understand it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Going down to -- and let's go down to the -- keep moving up that way. Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: F? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. I like F, the on-site use of any equipment or materials shall not create or produce excessive noise, obnoxious fumes, dust, or smoke. Our contention, and I believe the complainant's contention, is that the noise is excessive. It's a residential district, which I'm going to get to after I get done with this page. Excessive could mean too loud, too much frequency, too long of duration. In a residential district, I think you can expect people to work on their properties, work on their houses for a short duration, one or two hours on the weekend or whatever, but we're talking excessive Monday through Friday business-type noise. Okay. The next one I'd like to go is the Webster's dictionary explanation of excessive. It's very sort. Exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal. And I would contend that it is none of those when it comes to the Estates zoned district. Now we go to the Estates zoned district. I'm not going to get into the whole ordinance. Obviously, I just want to get the first part where the -- it gives a general description of the Estates. The purpose and Page 42 May 28, 2015 intent for the Estates district is to provide lands for low density residential development in a semirural to rural environment. Basically what it is is people live there, do a little bit of farming. It's not meant for any kind of manufacturing or business of such type as this. If you want to look over the whole ordinance, it's not a conditional, permitted, or accessory use anywhere in the Estates zoned district. Moving on to the -- no, go down to the Angie's List. Yeah, right there. I just want to get a description that they have on Angie's List that I assume that they submitted as an advertisement for their business showing what they do. They -- I guess it's windows -- what else does it say -- screen doors, sliding glass doors, obviously, probably a lot of aluminum work and stuff like that. It also says we have just under 20 employees between our district offices. The only district office I could find advertised was this residential property right here. Now, their service area, as you notice, to me, is huge. I mean, look at all the counties they're listing; Broward, Miami Beach, Miami-Dade. If they're running that type of business that services this many areas, to me, that's just not something that should be allowed in the Estates zoned district. You've got 20 employees. I question how they're getting in and out and getting all these materials to these job sites throughout, basically, all South Florida by just the employees that are actually living at that property. That's about all I have to say at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Colleen, do you have anything else? MS. DAVIDSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would you have -- does the Board have any questions of the county? (No response.) Page 43 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Counsel, you have questions of the county and the respondent -- the complainant? MR. MOORE: I do. With your permission, I'd like to address it in three different stages. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MOORE: First, I think it's important to clarify what the actual notice of violations are, because there's been some confusion -- or misleading information presented on the county's side, on the Code Enforcement side. Secondly, after that, I'd like to give Ms. Lavin -- I can either ask her questions or let her speak by monologue to present an idea of what actually is going on at the property, and then I'd like to cross-examine both Colleen and the witness that was present today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MOORE: First and most importantly, I'd like to clarify what's in front of the Board today, and that's a notice of violation. Originally it was four different violations. I only counted three today. The fourth, which I believe may have been dropped, was that they were receiving deliveries to the property. Currently, there's no evidence presented that they are receiving any deliveries of business supplies or goods to the property outside of what's permitted by the ordinance, which is by United States Postal Service or the owner himself bringing materials to his garage. So unless the Code Enforcement wants to supplement their argument, I don't believe that's an existing violation in front of the Board today. MS. DAVIDSON: I have not seen any more dropoff. MR. MOORE: Number 2, another one -- that's pretty easy to dispose of-- would be the violation of outside storage of business goods. You'll hear the testimony today of Ms. Lavin that all the pictures you saw today have nothing to do with the business. The Page 44 May 28, 2015 business is concentrating, at least in the last six months, on screen doors, windows, and none of the materials you saw outside, for example, the wood lumber, is associated with that business. Of course, that would be a pyrrhic victory, because I imagine Code Enforcement will come out and issue a separate violation for outside storage of goods for home. But right now in front of the Board today, I don't believe you've seen any evidence, at least as will be clarified by my client's testimony, that there's outside storage of business goods. Again, that's not in front of the Board today. So I think the arguments today are going to be centered on two large arguments, or issues. The first you've heard repeatedly, that there may be excessive noise, so we'll have to have a bit of a skirmish on what's considered excess. Number 2 is, there's been testimony as to the comings and goings of employees. We rebut that, and you'll hear testimony today that there may have been past issues in 2014 about those employees coming and going, but in '15, after they were advised of the statute, they took the necessary steps, and employees don't come and go. And to clarify one thing, this is not a business of 20 people. I think there was only four or five employees. So with that in mind, I'm going to first make a legal argument then present the witness, Ms. Lavin, who will testify about the use of the property at least over the last four or five months so you can make a determination whether there's an existing violation or not. Excessive noise is the most important issue before the Board today. Mr. Letourneau's testimony is that any noise associated with this business is excessive. I'm going to make a very unique argument that you've never heard before, but I think that that position is patently unreasonable. In this case, the statute, if you look at Subsection F that was quoted by Mr. Letourneau, it says the on-site use of any equipment or Page 45 May 28, 2015 materials should not create or produce any excessive noise. So, obviously, some noise may be acceptable. It's up to the Board and the rest of us to figure out what is excessive and what is not. I'll also cross-reference Subsection G, the on-site use of any equipment or tools should not create any amount of vibration. So the word "excessive" is left out of G. So what I'm proposing to the Board is that some level of noise associated with this business is permissible. It's up to the collective board to decide whether in this instance the noise is excessive based on the activities going on since this notice of violation. In particular, I'll give -- offer one example. Under the Code Enforcement Board's arguments, if I had a landscaping business -- which there are many landscaping businesses on that street and in that general neighborhood. I think that Colleen will admit that -- there's no prohibition against an owner getting in his truck and going to and from his property with plants every day. Based on the Code Enforcement Board's argument, if that owner also cranked up a tractor and loaded it onto his landscaping truck and then took it out, the cranking of that diesel engine would probably create noise which they would deem excessive, and I think that's clearly against the intent of the statute here and the ordinance. So in this case, since a notice of violation -- I want to distinguish two distinct periods. One is prior to January 28th, which is when the notice of violation was issued, and after that. I think you'll hear testimony today that since the notice of violation, the owners were advised what they could and could not do. They've done everything reasonable they can to bring their business within compliance and that there's no longer any excessive noise. There's really no coming and going of employees for business purposes. No outside storage of goods, and certainly no deliveries coming to this property. Page 46 May 28, 2015 So Mrs. Lavin has been sworn in, so I will ask her a few questions and let her speak by monologue, if that's okay with the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MOORE: Mrs. Lavin, can you describe your relationship to the property and the business? MS. LAVIN: I'm the owner. MR. MOORE: The owner of the property? MS. LAVIN: The property, yes. SPEAKER: Who owns the business? MS. LAVIN: My husband. MR. MOORE: What type of business is it? MS. LAVIN: Windows and sliding doors, repair and change. MR. MOORE: What percentage of service is really your business? Out of every 100 jobs or 100 percent of the activity, how much of that is manufacture and how much of that is service on site at the homes and condominiums? MS. LAVIN: In the house, none now. MR. MOORE: I mean, when you go to a customer's residence, how much activity is done at your house or how much is done at the customer's residence? MS. LAVIN: At the customer residence, 99 percent of it. MR. MOORE: So your testimony is about 90 (sic) percent of your business -- MS. LAVIN: Yes. MR. MOORE: -- is service related on site at the customer's house? MS. LAVIN: Yes. MR. MOORE: The other 10 percent, what type of activity do you do that would be done in your garage by your husband? MS. LAVIN: The wheels that we put in boxes, and at one point Page 47 May 28, 2015 we have the railings that we buy already painted and deliver them. We don't do that anymore since the problem that we have. We have to not take any more jobs like that. Other than that, it's all little stuff. MR. MOORE: When you do cutting, do you cut any wood, or is it mostly metal? MS. LAVIN: Wood. The metal was before when we did the screens for the house, the sliding screens. We don't do that. We buy them from a provider now. I can give you all the orders that we have. MR. MOORE: When you -- the wood that you saw in the pictures -- and let's just group all pictures together. Of all the pictures that you saw, did you see any pictures showing supplies being stored on your property that are related specifically to your husband's business? MS. LAWN: One of the pictures was the first one that she took, and that time I explained to her, my husband went to get a piece of furniture and put the things out by chance, by coincidence, or whatever you want to call it, she came. And I explained to her, if you want to see -- the furniture was too big, and he put it on the side. That's the pictures she took. Other than that -- MR. MOORE: So it's your testimony that of all those pictures, there's one instance where there were -- MS. LAVIN: Yes, yes. MR. MOORE: -- materials found on site related to the business, and those materials were being stored there or merely kept there temporarily while the trailer was in use? MS. LAVIN: No, no. Just temporarily, because it was one day -- one or two days when she came. And I explained to her. So never -- we don't store any of the materials. There is -- we have a big garage there. MR. MOORE: Regards to the noise, you've heard testimony today that you're sawing and the noise is going on seven days a week, Page 48 May 28, 2015 24 hours a day, essentially. You're at the home most of the time; is that correct? MS. LAVIN: Correct. MR. MOORE: So you're there Monday through Sunday unless you're doing errands? MS. LAVIN: Correct. MR. MOORE: How many hours would you estimate that actual manufacture of property or business goods is being done in your garage, just on average? MS. LAVIN: You mean cutting, if we cut -- MR. MOORE: Cutting or assembly. MS. LAVIN: -- if we used to cut -- yeah, one hour, and it's all done in a period of time. MR. MOORE: How many days a week is that activity done? MS. LAVIN: Only five days, from Monday through Friday. On the weekends we do yardwork, my husband. MR. MOORE: Is it fair for the Board -- to tell the Board that -- again, looking at the period since the notice of violation -- that your husband is not manufacturing materials in his garage more than -- MS. LAVIN: No. MR. MOORE: -- a few hours a day and certainly not on the weekends? MS. LAVIN: No, no, not at all. MR. MOORE: In regards to the coming and goings of employees, you saw a lot of pictures regarding vans. Do you have employees coming and going for business purposes? MS. LAVIN: No. MR. MOORE: Do you have family members who work for the business? MS. LAVIN: Absolutely. MR. MOORE: And do those family members come visit you Page 49 May 28, 2015 almost on a daily basis? MS. LAVIN: Daily basis, seven days a week, 24 hours a day sometimes because my grandkids like to sleep over, believe it or not. MR. MOORE: And, specifically, your son-in-law works for you; is that correct? MS. LAVIN: Correct. MR. MOORE: Okay. And does he come to the property every day to drop off either children or animals? MS. LAVIN: Absolutely, every day. MR. MOORE: And he comes every afternoon to pick them up? MS. LAVIN: Absolutely. MR. MOORE: So to your knowledge, when you saw these pictures, is there any indication on those pictures that there's a worker who is not related to you who's coming to the property for primarily business reasons? MS. LAVIN: No, no. MR. MOORE: Is there any coming and going of your workers and your vans for business reasons right now? MS. LAVIN: No, absolutely not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Counsel, you have exceeded your time by 10 minutes already, so I hope you can speed this up. MR. MOORE: I will do my best to talk faster. I was told to slow down by your transcriber. I'll allow Colleen to cross-examine if she wants, and then I'll have a few questions for Code Enforcement. MR. LETOURNEAU: Hi. I've just got a couple questions. So you said that 99 percent of the materials were prepped at the actual site that they were going to be installed at and maybe one percent was done at your property; is that correct? MR. MOORE: To clarify, it was 90 percent. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, 90 percent, okay. Are there any other locations that Daydid preps these materials besides the site or your Page 50 May 28, 2015 house? MS. LAVIN: We don't prep. We buy them. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. So there's no preparing anything for your business at your property? MS. LAVIN: Right. MR. LETOURNEAU: No tools are used to prepare any kind of things? MS. LAVIN: Right now, no. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. All right. I think -- I want to point out also, I think that was a pretty bad analogy about the commercial vehicles by Mr. Moore, because commercial vehicles are allowed in the Estates and, obviously, if they're allowed in the Estates, you can start them up and take them off and on your property. Tools that are used to -- according to the complainant and testimony by the investigator, tools used to manufacture or prep aluminum or whatever they're prepping, that's not something that's allowed or should -- or is -- under the code is excessive as far as -- MR. MOORE: That's a legal conclusion. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, all right. MR. WRIGHT: And, Mr. Chairman, I have one follow-up question as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. WRIGHT: I would call it continuing cross-examination. Who's coming to the property 24/7? I just need clarification. I think you said it was relatives? MS. LAVIN: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Are those relatives -- do they reside at the property? MS. LAVIN: No, they don't reside there. MR. WRIGHT: Are they employees of yours? MS. LAVIN: One is my son-in-law. He's my -- he works with Page 51 May 28, 2015 us, and he has the van at his house. He drops off my granddaughter and a dog, and I take care of the other kids, so everybody's in the property all the time. MR. WRIGHT: So how many people are visiting the property 24/7 that are also employed by your company? MS. LAVIN: One. MR. WRIGHT: One? MS. LAVIN: The rest is all family. MR. WRIGHT: And they come and go at all hours? MS. LAVIN: Yes. As I explained to Mrs. Davidson -- when she took a picture of my son-in-law's truck that you saw and my daughter's car, I explained to her my parents were visiting. They visit once a year. So you can imagine all the people come over to our house different times of the day trying -- they were there for a month, and I explained to her, that's all the vehicles that come in and out of the property, because my parents are 80 years old, but they make the effort to come and visit us once a year. And so everybody comes over the house, family and friends. MR. WRIGHT: And I understand the family and friends. I'm more focused on those people that you call your employees. And you say -- MS. LAVIN: One. MR. WRIGHT: -- there's one employee is 24/7, stopping by the house? MS. LAVIN: Twice a day. MR. MOORE: It's a son-in-law. He's coming to drop off for personal reasons, not business reasons. MS. LAVIN: No business. MR. MOORE: But he's driving a work van because he's an employee of the firm. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. And so he regularly visits the property Page 52 May 28, 2015 for business purposes as an employee of the firm just to engage in family business? MR. MOORE: To drop off kids and animals, yes. MR. WRIGHT: To drop off kids. So he's an employee of the company that's there 24/7, and the only reason that he stops by is to drop kids; is that correct? MS. LAVIN: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MOORE: Ms. Davidson, I'll ask just a few questions in -- to respect the Board's time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MOORE: Number 1, have you ever personally witnessed excessive noise coming from the property? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes. I was on site at -- March 31st, and I heard sawing. I didn't physically see someone sawing, but I did hear someone in the -- on the property. MR. MOORE: So you're certain that that was coming from the property? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes. MR. MOORE: Just a quick rebuttal. Mrs. Lavin, was anybody working at your property on March 31st? MS. LAVIN: No. MR. MOORE: I believe in the Board's package we had a GPS for the workers. I may submit that at the very end if you feel it's necessary showing all workers were gone. There was nobody on site at the property. Is it possible, Ms. Davidson, that you heard the noise emanating from some other property? MS. DAVIDSON: There are other properties in the area. I don't Page 53 May 28, 2015 know. MR. MOORE: So according to the complainant's testimony, this was going on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and in looking at your report, you were by this property quite often. So you're saying that between the time you got involved in January 28th and today, that you've never -- you've never personally witnessed excessive noise coming from this property? MS. DAVIDSON: The first thing I would say is I don't believe the complainant said 24 hours a day. MS. AUSTIN: No. MR. MOORE: Okay. I'm sorry, 12 hours a day, seven days a week. MS. DAVIDSON: The second would be that after I had served the notice of violation, they actually had submitted -- and they moved their fence more towards the front of the property, so I didn't have as much access to pull in and speak with them. So when I did drive by, I was -- I was driving by to see if I observed any vehicles on the property. I was not driving by stopping. I did get out a few times, and I did not hear anything, but there were other times that I was at the neighbor's property and did hear machines being used. MR. MOORE: But you couldn't say for certain they were coming from the property, the respondent's property? MS. DAVIDSON: I was standing on -- at 5020 Tallowood, and I could hear something very loud very nearby, and I was on the side of their driveway. MR. MOORE: And you were invited to the property to do decibel reading; is that my understanding? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes. MR. MOORE: And what did that decibel reading reveal? MS. DAVIDSON: We were unable to conduct a complete Page 54 May 28, 2015 decibel reading because there was extraneous noise. There was -- planes were coming over every few minutes. There was also lawnmowers going by. They were mowing the neighbor's property, so we were unable to do a complete decibel. But, again, this notice of violation was issued under the home occupation ordinance. It was not issued under the noise violation for residential. MR. MOORE: But, again, you're saying that when you were out there doing a decibel reading, there wasn't any crazy noise that you could distinguish, apparently, because there were other noises going on, so it wasn't out of the ordinary? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If this is not a violation that has a reference to noise, why are we discussing it now? MR. MOORE: It is. They've alleged that there's excessive noise CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But your client wasn't cited for that. MR. MOORE: Yes. It's a part of their violation notice of violation regarding excessive noise arising out of the business. MS. DAVIDSON: They were not cited under noise ordinance. They were cited under noise for occupational, under the occupational ordinance for excessive noise. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MOORE: And it's my argument that there should be really no difference between the two. It's similar noises coming from the same neighborhood. If I can -- if you want to rebut, then I'll cross-examine. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I'd like to say that, you know, we do a lot of noise readings from the noise ordinance, and we never tell a bar that we're coming out to do a noise reading because obviously they're going to have the volume turned down to their legal limit. You know, if you want to go there, that was a staged time. It would be more accurate if we came out there and you guys didn't know we were Page 55 May 28, 2015 out there; I just want to say that. MR. MOORE: And I'd like the Board to take that into consideration because, again, this is a hearing to decide if the Code Enforcement Board has sufficient evidence to demonstrate a violation by my client or by the respondent and their business. So far, they've dropped the allegation that there's been any delivery of business supplies. There's -- she admitted that there's no evidence of-- actually, she's claiming that there's outside storage of business goods, but there's no evidence before the Board that says this has anything to do with the business, and you heard evidence of Ms. Lavin that it's not. Now we're down to the noise ordinance -- not the noise ordinance, I'm sorry, an excessive noise complaint. My client has made every effort in the last four months since they were originally notified -- they had no idea that there were any issues arising out of this business until they received this complaint from the Code Enforcement Board. Since then Ms. Davidson has been out there numerous occasions, and she has never personally witnessed this type of noise coming from their business. There is no noise violation. In fact, we encouraged that decibel reading. It wasn't staged. He's doing the exact same thing, cutting wood or cutting -- using saws they would be doing on a daily basis. No more than a few hours a day. Certainly not on the weekends. That leaves the last notice of violation, which is the coming and going of workers. Basically, if it's the -- it's the code enforcement's position that just because you have a named business on your vehicle, you can't come and go unless you're the owner of the property. That's not the case. You cannot come and go and have employees coming in only for business purposes. In this case, they're not coming and going. It's a son-in-law. Even if you shut down this business, he's going to be there every single day, Page 56 May 28, 2015 probably driving the same van, because he owns it, dropping off kids, dropping off animals. So, again, I'm trying to respect the Board's time. I'd like to cross-examine the witness. We have a -- upon information and belief, we've heard comments -- I know it's hearsay, but I'd like to question her -- that they believe the noise has gone way down since the original notice of violation. So, again, from a legal standpoint today before the Board, it's whether or not there are violations; you originally named four. I haven't heard sufficient evidence today to say that there are any violations currently going on. In the past, before this complaint, the client has some objections. They didn't know they were doing anything out of ordinary. Once they were delivered the ordinance, that was explained to them. Since that January date, they have -- they have done everything they can to bring themselves into compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think you're saying the same thing over and over. MR. MOORE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get to the point. MR. MOORE: I'm going to step back for a while. MR. MARINO: The violation has nothing to do with the noise. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want -- did -- you wanted to cross-examine the complainant? MR. MOORE: Yes. Just a few questions, again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MOORE: I'm way over my time limit. Hi. MS. AUSTIN: Hi. MR. MOORE: Two distinct time periods. I understand that prior to January of 2015 this was crazy excessive nonsense, and you and Page 57 May 28, 2015 your husband had reached the end of your limits; is that correct? MS. AUSTIN: From 7:30 in the morning until 7 o'clock in the evening, yes. MR. MOORE: Let's talk about April, May. In April, May, do you consider the noise to be excessive? MS. AUSTIN: When there is noise, we consider it to be excessive. This past week there hasn't been noise. The week -- two weeks ago, there was noise. We assume it's when they have a project in, they just go nonstop, and -- MR. MOORE: How many hours would you consider that they have been working or manufacturing in the last two weeks? MS. AUSTIN: I don't know. MR. MOORE: If she doesn't remember, it can't be that excessive. MS. AUSTIN: Well, it is excessive. Okay, I'm going to say, what's seven -- I'm going to say 40 hours -- MR. MOORE: Do you and your husband -- MS. AUSTIN: -- for the week. MR. MOORE: -- dislike your neighbor? MS. AUSTIN: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, when we talked to them, we said -- MR. MOORE: You are under oath. MS. AUSTIN: -- this is not a personal thing. We wish them well. We wish their business well. We wish -- we hope they do very well, but we wish that they would take their industrial business to an industrial unit, which is where it belongs. It does not belong in a residential neighborhood where not only us as neighbors can hear them but everyone around them within a one-mile radius can hear the noise that was coming out of that home. MR. MOORE: I don't think there's any evidence on the record that the noise -- MS. AUSTIN: Well, obviously there is. I'm standing here today Page 58 May 28, 2015 talking to you. MR. MOORE: There's no evidence that -- other than this neighbor, there's been no complaints registered in the neighborhood, as she's indicated. MS. AUSTIN: I don't know if that's true. MR. MOORE: Again, for the Board's sake -- MS. AUSTIN: I think there were other complaints. MR. MOORE: I have a -- I would like to cross-examine. I could go on many minutes, because I think there is some personal issues here, but I don't want to bring this hearing to that. What I'd like to do is two steps. If you need additional information to make a determination whether you deem there's a notice -- or a violation by the owner now, and if so, I'd like one or two more minutes to work with the Board to figure out what standards we can impose on the owner so that we can avoid any future violations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we can't do that until we would get to that point. Now, does the Board have any questions of either the county or the respondent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have. Mr. Letourneau, you said that on the allowable list on the zoning there, is manufacturing one of the -- MR. LETOURNEAU: It is not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is not, okay. And I go back, when you were cross-examining Ms. Lavin, you asked and she said that you manufacture for one hour a day, five days a week. So I find this -- something that's not adding up there. Is it a manufacturing location, whether it's an hour a day or 10 minutes a day? MR. MOORE: The business is -- consists of maybe two saws, Page 59 May 28, 2015 three saws, a jigsaw, a circular saw -- I'm not a construction guy, forgive me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's not my question. My question MR. MOORE: And it's no more. Since the notice of violation, no more than two hours, probably not even five days a week, probably two to three days a week is what the activity is limited to. MR. WRIGHT: I would object to the attorney testifying and to refute his own client's testimony. What she said was very clear, that they do manufacturing three to five hours per week at this location -- MR. MOORE: We're defining what's manufacturing. MR. WRIGHT: -- and for her attorney to step up here and refute it is improper. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I wrote it down. When you were asking your client, does any manufacturing occur, she said one hour. You asked how many days; she said five days. That was -- and then I asked Mr. Letourneau, is manufacturing one of the allowable things that can be done on the Estates zoned property. That was my question. That's kind of simple. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think we've allotted a sufficient amount of time for this portion of the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any additional questions from the Board? (No response.) MR. MARINO: Isn't the whole thing the violation has to do with the business operating out of the house? Isn't that the actual violation? MR. LETOURNEAU: You're allowed to have a business at a house. Obviously they give out home occupational license for that purpose. I'm saying that they're violating the actual ordinance mainly, at this point, the noise part of the ordinance. They can have that business as long as they follow all the rules underneath that ordinance. Page 60 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They have a business tax license? MR. LETOURNEAU: They have two business tax receipts. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Can that license be revoked if MR. LETOURNEAU: That's not really our jurisdiction. I'm not really sure. They really never do that. I imagine if there was severe -- MS. CURLEY: If you violate -- if you have a license, it's a privilege. And if you don't abide by the rules -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think if you don't abide by the rules, you come before code enforcement. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. And we do it -- that's a -- the Clerk of Courts is actually who issues the business tax receipt. And, yeah, we're going the venue of if found in violation and it continued, we'd ask for fines at that point, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are there any other questions from the Board? From the county? From the respondent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, I'll entertain a motion from the Board as to whether a violation exists or not. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Just that from what I've seen, the pictures that the county presented, the testimony of a neighbor -- and I believe back in the testimony there was a second -- Colleen alluded to a second complaint, there's no doubt in my mind -- if this is a business that's supposed to be within the four walls of a residential unit, it's a stretch of my imagination to think that it's not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I tend to agree with you. A Page 61 May 28, 2015 manufacturing business. I mean, there are many, many people who run real estate offices out of their house. They're a broker -- MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and they have a client come from time to time. There's no outside intervention, et cetera. This is different, and I'm just agreeing with you and the motion because of the statement by the respondent that manufacturing exists. MR. MARINO: I agree with that also, that they're operating a business, which is fine, but the business is not going according to the rules of the code and everything else. It's manufacturing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Now, Counsel, you said you wanted to have a few minutes. MR. MOORE: Can I have some clarification on the motion, just to -- you're finding that there's a violation of the excessive noise, which I believe is Subsection F, or are there other violations that the respondent needs to address? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're finding in violation of the ordinance that's listed on the Statement of Violation. MR. MOORE: So that would include C, F, and H? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 5.02.03(C), 5.02.03 (F), and Page 62 May 28, 2015 5.02.03(I). MR. MOORE: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All three of them that are on the document in Paragraph 1. Okay? MR. MOORE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, let me ask, Colleen, do you have a suggestion of where we go from here? MS. DAVIDSON: I do. The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$68.37 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, cease all occupational activities which create or produce excessive noise, obnoxious (sic) fumes, dust, or smoke, and cease all outside storage of goods or products on the confines of the home occupation, and cease all traffic that is not associated with allowable residential use to include travel or parking of employees or customers within blank days, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody from the Board want to take a shot at this? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Based on the evidence that I saw presented here today, I'd like to make a motion that the 68.37 administrative fees be paid within 30 days of this hearing, that the business -- manufacturing business cease and desist the next business Page 63 May 28, 2015 day, which would be tomorrow, or a fine of$150 a day be imposed. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the time frame is short, and the fine is somewhat low. MR. LAVINSKI: I think the timing and the fine goes along with our guidelines that we've had presented for several years on this board. MR. MOORE: If I may, this is the livelihood of the client. I think having it cease and desist tomorrow does more damage than harm, especially given all the measures that they've taken in order to abate almost all of the other complaints that the complainant had. We would ask for a minimum of 60, because they need to establish a rental or a lease of an office space off site if we would genuinely want to move this business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wasn't that brought up at the beginning of the discussion that you had a -- Colleen, did you have a discussion with the respondent regarding them trying to rent a place in January? MS. DAVIDSON: January 28th, when I met them on site, we did discuss that. When they called and I spoke with them on March 26th, they said they're unable to rent a commercial or industrial space. MR. MOORE: That's due to two reasons. One, the timing of the year because everything got busy. Now we're in the slower part of the year. Secondly, there are financial limitations. They were coming through a slow season. They need to establish enough reserves in order to establish a leased premises. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to second the proposal made. I think that's an adequate time frame and an adequate financial penalty. Page 64 May 28, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One opposed, okay. It passes. MR. MOORE: One last time. Could you clarify the two paragraphs for me, please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The what? MR. MOORE: Could you clarify the two recommendations, please. MS. DAVIDSON: I can give you a copy of this if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Okay. Thank you. MR. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How's your kidneys doing there fellow? You ready? MR. LAVINSKI: I was so excited, yeah. Let's take a break. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're going to take -- we're going to take -- we'll be back at 45 -- at 50, eight minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Just so everybody remembers, the next code board meeting in Page 65 May 28, 2015 June is on a Tuesday. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Ooh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ooh is right. What day is that? The 30th. MS. CURLEY: Pizza day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. Next? MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6 from hearings, Tab 7. It's actually a stipulation now. Case No. CELU20150004921, Roselene Eloi. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, sir. MR. KINCAID: I've already been sworn in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It wears off. You have to get sworn in each time. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. KINCAID: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Jim Kincaid. The respondent in this case has entered into a stipulation agreement with Collier County. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs in the amount of$64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and abate all violations by ceasing use of the property for any automotive repair that would not be consistent with an incidental use of improved residential zoned property and park/store vehicles only on stabilized surfaces in designated parking areas of the lot within seven days of this hearing, or a fine of$250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance, and that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the Page 66 May 28, 2015 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. Any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Is this a case, Jim, of this particular site is an auto repair, or is it next door and they're just parking on this residential property? MR. KINCAID: No, sir. They're just basically using the -- I wouldn't say that they're running a business for profit, but they're actually using the business consistently to repair I don't know whose vehicles. We weren't trying to establish that. We just want the repair work to stop. So there are numerous vehicles. I have pictures if you would like me to go that direction. It can verify that over an extended period of time that on a regular basis there are vehicles undergoing major repairs on the driveway that are not owned by people that live at the property. So we're just contesting the fact that they're using the property for other than a residential zoned use. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're parking on the grass also. MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir, and the backyard, side yards, with licensed as well as unlicensed vehicles. MR. LAVINSKI: So this stipulation is going to cease and desist that activity at that site. MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir. That's what they tell us. Time will tell. MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion to accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 67 May 28, 2015 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Kincaid. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 10 from hearings, Tab 11, Case CELU20150002426, Roger J. Gemmen, M.D., Trust. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Kincaid again. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. KINCAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20150002426. It's dealing with a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. This case deals with the unpermitted vehicle sales and trailer rentals from C4 zoned property located at 11315 Tamiami Trail East; folio is 62250160000. Service was given on February 27, 2015. I would like to take -- submit four photographs as evidence in this case. These pictures were taken by me on different dates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to accept the -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 68 May 28, 2015 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. KINCAID: This is a picture of the front of the property just showing that there's a row of vehicles there with for sale signs in the front windshield. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you go back one photo on that. Is Capri -- that's the place that sells the motorcycle -- the lawnmowers and stuff? MR. KINCAID: That is the adjoining property to this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's not part of this? MR. KINCAID: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KINCAID: This is a picture of the U-Haul trailers or at least part of the U-Haul trailers. This is another picture taken from the rear of the property on May the 7th, and it shows a whole line of vehicles parked on the property. None that have license tags. And this was a picture taken yesterday of the front of the property of the number of U-Haul trailers there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KINCAID: On February 9, 2015, code enforcement made a site visit to the property located at 11315 Tamiami Trail East in response to a complaint dealing with the unpermitted, unlicensed sale of vehicles from C4 zoned property. Page 69 May 28, 2015 At the time of the investigation, several vehicles were observed parking at the front of the property that were for sale. Also noted were U-Haul trailers and a banner sign stating trucks and trailers for rent. A search of the Collier County Tax Collector website showed no business tax receipt for these uses. Operations of these uses on C4 property would also require the acquisition of a conditional use permit. Notice of violation was posted and mailed on February 27, 2015. On March 25, 2015, a conditional use pre-application meeting was held and attended by zoning; code enforcement; Elie Stern, the person leasing the property; and his wife. Collier County agreed to allow unpermitted businesses to continue to operate provided applications for the conditional use permit were received within 30 days from the date of the hearing. No additional contact was made with Collier County, and no application for conditional use permits were received as of May 15, 2015. Notice of hearing post -- the notice of-- excuse me. May 15th, notice of hearing posting date. The property owner requested a continuance of the hearing on May 19, 2015. As of May 27, 2015, the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you just go back over what you said. The county said that they would allow the use? MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir. The county did not want to create a hardship based on the fact that he was already involved in these businesses and he was drawing income from them. So they agreed that probably -- it is my opinion that the county felt a conditional use probably could be issued on this piece of property for this use because there was a similar conditional use issued to one of the property owners previously. I think when it was used as a -- I believe as a tool rental place and it had some kind of rental truck tied into that kind of use, so it was -- had a conditional use which expired, and it could not be renewed, so Page 70 May 28, 2015 the new conditional use permit was required. And so the county, rather than to create Mr. Stern a financial hardship and interrupt the business that they, I assume, figured it would probably be allowed, they gave him -- or it was agreed upon by all the parties at the meeting that the applications would have to be submitted within a 30-day period. So that's kind of where we are today. We've got, basically -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And those applications were not submitted. MR. KINCAID: No, sir. They have not been, to my knowledge. And I checked this with Renald Paul that is the permitting go-between between the Code Enforcement Division and the Building or Zoning Departments, and he tells me that there is no applications on file. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And when was -- when was he notified that he had to do that? MR. KINCAID: It was at pre-conditional use, the hearing for the CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And do you know the date of that, by any chance? MR. KINCAID: March the 25th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that well over 30 days has transpired. Have you been in contact with the respondent at all? MR. KINCAID: Only with Mr. Stern. The day that I posted the property for this hearing, he called me and informed me that he would not be able to make the hearing because he was going on vacation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you ask him about the -- applying for the permit? MR. KINCAID: I think he thinks that he somehow has made some kind of contact with somebody, but he -- I don't think he went any further than that. I mean, there was nothing that he said I have submitted this application, and I gave it to -- it was just -- Page 71 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I had written my notes down, it says, if it doesn't say it, it's not allowable. That's the typical mantra of the zoning. MR. KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And C4 does not permit those sales; is that correct? MR. KINCAID: Other than by a conditional use permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KINCAID: And would be on a per-case basis. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So first things first. Is the respondent in violation? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have -- MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And do you have a suggestion for us, Mr. Kincaid? MR. KINCAID: 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 Page 72 May 28, 2015 30 days and abate all violations by ceasing use of the property for vehicle sales and trailer rentals and use of the property for any use not specifically identified in a zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use, or accessory use within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered 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. Anybody like to take a stab at it? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Is it reasonable to think he could get a conditional use permit in 30 days? MR. KINCAID: Sir, I have not ever gone through that process. I could not say for sure, but I'm guessing probably not. MR. LAVINSKI: Probably not, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about 60? MR. LAVINSKI: All right. I'll make a motion, then, that the 65.01 be paid within 30 days of this hearing, that the respondent be given 60 days in which to get his conditional use permit, or a fine of $200 per day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a second for that motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to ask that the fine be 150 per day. MR. LAVINSKI: I would agree to that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to second the motion then, please. Page 73 May 28, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The motion maker and the second agree on 150 and the 60 days, 65.01 to be paid within 30 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. KINCAID: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 12 from hearings, Tab 13, Case CESD20140004241, NKY Acquisitions, LLC. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Ralph. MR. BOSA: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're on. MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140004241 dealing with the violation of Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), major remodeling to interior structure including framing, plumbing, electrical renovations, and/or replacement without obtaining a Collier County permit. This is located at 795 102nd Avenue North, Naples, Florida, Page 74 May 28, 2015 34108; Folio No. 62760840001. Service was given on March 31, 2014. And I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: 18 photos taken on March 3, 2014, by my investigator, Investigator McGonagle. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion to accept the photos? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second it. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BOSA: This particular photo here, you can see, is the finished product. It looks like a washer hookup. They're going to put a washer and dryer there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know whether or not that EL that's there is hot or not? That's 220. MR. BOSA: No, I'm not sure whether that's hot or not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOSA: Here we have the interior of the structure. Most of it is down to the studs. Some junction boxes there for -- electrical junction boxes. Same scenario. Page 75 May 28, 2015 They did start doing the ceiling there, but that was -- we put a stop to that. And more electrical wiring and studs, everything down to studs. This complaint originated from contractor's licensing. We had an open case of possible unlicensed contractors working at the property. Our investigator conducted his investigation and found that a permit had not been applied for the work being done at this location and so subsequently issued a stop work order on any further construction work being done on this site. On April 17, 2014, the investigator received a call from a representative of NKY Acquisitions who assured us that he would apply for all necessary permits. The permit was applied for August of 2014. And our investigator kept in contact -- communications with the owner of the property and continued to receive updates as far as the property. On March 30, 2015, the permit expired, and no inspections were ever completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you say -- you say that the investigator stayed in touch with the respondent. MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To keep them apprised of anything that was going on? MR. BOSA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was anything going on? MR. BOSA: No, just that they were applying for the permit, and they just kept giving them stories as far as, you know, yeah, we'll do this soon, we'll do this soon, we'll do this, but never -- nothing really transpired except for the application of the permit itself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOSA: So on March 30th, 20 -- the permit expired -- of this year. Permit expired. No inspections were ever completed. Page 76 May 28, 2015 We received a letter from the owner saying they wanted a continuance. In the letter they indicated they have an interested party who wants to purchase -- wants to purchase the property. To this day, the violations still remain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one. And my comment has to do with the discussion that we had at the last meeting where something like this could change hands to another owner who would then be saddled with the violation and may or may not know that the violation even exists. So I'm glad that it was brought before the Board before anything happened. Now, we need to find them in violation or not in violation. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion a violation exists and a -- MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, Ralph? Page 77 May 28, 2015 MR. BOSA: Yes, sir, I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. When we find the respondent in violation, how long does it take before that goes on the record so if somebody were to purchase it a week from today or two weeks from today, that that would show up? MR. WRIGHT: I would think the normal recording time would be however long it takes for you to prepare and sign the order and probably five days after that, but there is a provision in both the statute and our ordinance that if you have -- if you're the subject of a pending proceeding, a code enforcement proceeding, you're obligated to tell the prospective buyer about that or there's a presumption of fraud that you're trying to get rid of it without being up front about the code violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the Board's concern, I think, that someone doesn't get stuck, because we've heard their cases many times before the Board. Okay. Anybody like to take a shot at this? Page 78 May 28, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I have a question here. Ralph, did you say this earlier that this NKY had already started work with unlicensed contractors? MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. They started work with unlicensed contractors, so -- yeah, they didn't start on the right foot there, as far as MR. LAVINSKI: All right, yeah. I'll take a shot at this, then. I make a motion that the 65.43 be paid within 30 days and, under the circumstances, I think that this should be started at least in 60 days or a fine of$200 per day be imposed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Ralph. MR. BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6 old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1, Tab 14, Case CELU20100021891, Kenneth R. Tannassee, Sr. Page 79 May 28, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be recusing myself on this case since I have a business relationship with Mr. Tannassee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'm also going to recuse myself on this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Two down, five to go. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. DAVIDSON: Good morning. MS. MacALISTER: Good morning. My name is -- for those of you who don't know me, my name is Colleen MacAlister. I'm here today representing Mr. Tannassee. It was my motion that I wrote for a continuance of time for consideration of re-imposition of fines. I've gone through and familiarized myself with the whole history of this case. And it's my understanding that when Mr. Tannassee was last here in February -- on February 26, 2015, you granted -- the Board granted a 60-day continuance for him to go ahead and get his notice of commencement filed and begin construction on the residential dwelling that would ultimately cure the noncompliance on the property. Just for recollection, this was a property that he bought with a code enforcement violation already in place, and it had a structure on the property but not a residential structure which made it in noncompliance with Collier County Land Development Code. He is in the process of doing that. We have trusses on site. We should have a truss inspection done in the next couple of weeks. We are still on target, as he said to you in February, to have a CO sometime in November. I believe the Board's preference at that time was to have it done by Thanksgiving. The real issue here, of course, is the issue of the fines that have Page 80 May 28, 2015 been accruing during the construction. You all made it very clear that you were not going to really talk about the abatement of the fines until the property was in compliance, and to be in compliance he needs a CO. So -- that was code enforcement's statement. So what I proposed in the motion to continue was that we leave everything status quo, you give Mr. Tannassee 210 days. That actually brings the property up to November and gives us time to get the certificate of occupancy, get the motion filed, and come before the Board in December to have the substantive conversation on whether or not the fines should be abated as he has brought the property into compliance. So that's why I made it 210 instead of 180. And as I understand, the county does not oppose that arrangement, so that we can just have one more appearance before the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As you know, this has been going on since March 24, 2011. MS. MacALISTER: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And anybody on the Board who has followed this, as many of us have, looked at this as the ultimate gaming of the situation. I hold onto it. I don't come into compliance, don't come into compliance, and you see extension after extension after extension without coming into compliance and, boom, the property is sold. Now the property is sold. Did you know of the violations when you bought the property? MR. TANNASSEE: We came before you to find out what the violations were. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can't hear you. MR. TANNASSEE: We came before the Board prior to purchasing the property to understand what the violations were. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you were familiar with the extent. And you bought the property when? Page 81 May 28, 2015 MS. MacALISTER: October of last year, the end of October of 2014. And I understand the Board's frustration with this. I would suggest to the Board that the sins of BQ Concrete should not be visited on the man that's actually trying to bring the property into compliance, but I certainly understand your frustration. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I understand that this respondent is just trying to cure the ills of the prior owner. MS. MacALISTER: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It just doesn't -- it doesn't sit well that the county residents, in actuality, are subsidizing this. I mean, the fines that show 28,200, had they been implemented initially, would be so much that nobody would ever buy the property. MS. MacALISTER: I agree, but they weren't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand, but I'm just giving you the -- MS. MacALISTER: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the Board has been more than understanding on this case to go case after case after case after case bringing it to the Board, giving extension after extension. So I personally don't have any problem with bringing it back at some time in the future, but I don't know -- you can't talk about abatement until the violation has been abated. MS. MacALISTER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that would be a separate discussion for another time. MS. MacALISTER: That's correct. And I would point out that since Mr. Tannassee has purchased the property and appeared before the Board, he has -- he has promised this board that he would do things by certain dates, and he has satisfied each and every one of those promises. So all I'm really trying to do here is, you know, the county is well Page 82 May 28, 2015 aware of all of the inspections that they've already passed. We brought pictures today. I don't know that you really care about the pictures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unless you have a picture of the CO. MS. MacALISTER: Well, we don't have that just yet. But he said last -- he said last November that it would take a year for the CO, and his person that he's hired to help him get through the permitting and inspection process still feels they're well on track, you know. Barring some terrible hurricane season that we're not supposed to have or something, we should be on track to comply completely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Colleen? MS. DAVIDSON: For the record, Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. The permit has been issued, and they have completed multiple inspections, and they have been passed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's good. So you're asking right now for a continuance? MS. MacALISTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Until? MS. MacALISTER: Actually, until the December meeting, so it would be 120. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There is no meeting in December. That worked out well. So you want a continuance until the January meeting? MS. MacALISTER: I suppose, yeah. You know, of course, the fines are accruing through all of this. My concern was that I wanted to be able to come before you and say, here's our CO. And I don't know what the November date was, but just suppose we were on track and the county said, oh, no, one more little thing. I don't really want to come back and start quibbling with the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: I don't know what the November date is either. Page 83 May 28, 2015 I'm looking at November 26th, and that's Thanksgiving, so it's obviously not that date. It's probably the week before. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can ask our expert. MS. MacALISTER: Which might be a little soon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kerry? MS. ADAMS: Twentieth, November 20th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 20th is the date in November. And in January it's -- MS. ADAMS: I don't have next year's schedule yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: I have January 28th on my calendar. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: That's a Friday, yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: It's exasperating is what it is. I guess, in my desire to see that this comes to fruition -- and, Colleen, you say there has been progress made and -- MS. DAVIDSON: There has been progress made. MR. LAVINSKI: We're chugging in the right direction? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, we are. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I would support a continuance but, I mean -- yeah, a continuance, because I think, in all fairness to everybody involved, the fmes should continue to accrue. And if we're sitting here 210 or whatever days from now and we're still looking for another extension, I certainly can't support it, and I'm nervous about doing it now. But I would make a motion that we continue this until, what is it, the January meeting -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: January. MR. LAVINSKI: -- January 2016 meeting and that it be a continuance so that the fmes continue to accrue until that date. Page 84 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: We can't alter the amount of fines that are accruing from this point forward? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can alter the fines at the end, but before it becomes into -- it's not abated, so the fines -- MS. CURLEY: So for now it's 150 per day from today until the January -- we can't change that to $10 a day or something like that? Just -- I'm just thinking -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We could probably do whatever the Board wants to do. I don't know that anybody wants to do that, though. MS. CURLEY: I'm just asking, because this becomes a massive amount of money. And in the event there's some sort of financing or something, and then this is laying on the -- in the way of finishing the project -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't think the fines there affect anything at this point. They already have their ducks in a row to get it all done, so -- but ordinarily, unless -- I've never heard of it personally. We don't kind of change boats in the middle of the river with changing the amount of fine that was the order that was granted initially. I mean, this thing goes back -- the fines did not start to accrue in 2011. Had they started to accrue in 2011, they'd be astronomical by now. MS. CURLEY: No, I understand. I was just curious. MR. LAVINSKI: Actually, the longer this continues, the fines Page 85 May 28, 2015 ought to go up. MS. CURLEY: I'll second the extension to January meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: (Abstains.) MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. DAVIDSON: Chairman, just to clarify, the fines will continue to accrue until they receive their certificate of occupancy. At the point that they receive that, the fines will stop accruing. So even if the hearing isn't until January, if they come into compliance in November, the fmes will stop accruing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. When they come into compliance, it would be in their best interest to come back before the Board as quickly as possible to say it's done, and then they could probably request some reduction or abatement of the fmes at that time. Okay. Good luck. MS. MacALISTER: Okay. I'll see you then. Thank you. You have a good day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You too. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2 from imposition of fines, Tab 15, Case CESD20120002439, Konstantine Komninos and Merrill Page 86 May 28, 2015 Komninos. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I used to listen to a station up in New York, WCBS-FM, where they played all the oldies. Another oldie. Okay. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MUSSE: For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 130, Article III, Section 130-96(A), 2007 Florida Building Code Chapter 1, Section 1110.1, and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location of the violation is 6161 Spanish Oaks Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 41933010003. Description of the violation: No certificate of occupancy for a garage conversion, CBS 3-car garage, or shingle re-roof, and an 8-by-38 addition to the single-family home, wooden fence, and three accessory structures were added without permits. Past orders: On July 26, 2012, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation reference ordinance (sic) and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the Board, OR4825, Page 899 for more information. On February 28, 2013, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the Board, OR4895, Page 2424 for more information. On March 27, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time to comply. See the attached order of the Board, OR5025, Page 151, for more information. Page 87 May 28, 2015 October 23, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See attached order of the Board, OR5092, Page 3969, for more information. Violation has been abated as of April 17, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$250 per day for a period between September 24, 2014, and April 17, 2015, 206 days, for a total fine amount of$51,500. Previously assessed operational costs of$145.46 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $67.53. Total amount: $51,567.53. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't recall. I know we've -- MR. KOMNINOS: I've been here before. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've talked before. MR. KOMNINOS: Yes, we have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You purchased this -- the original violation back in 2012 was with Roger and Tammy McHale; is that correct? MR. MUSSE: It's been a while. MR. KOMNINOS: Yes. I still get some of their mail, so I recognize their name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have the original order that's on there. You purchased the property when? MR. KOMNINOS: In January of 2014, so about 16 months ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KOMNINOS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was my only question. And you entered into a stipulation -- no, you didn't. They did -- back then. This was another one of the cases of-- were you aware that there were violations when you purchased -- MR. KOMNINOS: Not to the intent of-- I had known from -- and I didn't buy them directly from that seller. I think it had gone into Page 88 May 28, 2015 some kind of distress sale, and I bought it from a trust that wasn't anywhere near the names that you just mentioned. They did disclose some of the violations, which was the extension and the shed, but there was more after I met with Renald Paul down at the town. And after opening the can of worms which was to take the extension down, we found mold, all kinds of illegal trusses in the ceiling because of the extension, so we had to put on a new roof, new septic, so it turned out to be a much bigger project and much more costlier renovation than what we initially had signed up for. Nonetheless, though, the Board was kind enough to grant us some extension over the course of the year. We had hired a general contractor. We remediated all the infractions of the previous owner. And I think part of the reason why this is still showing up, even though I did the work and paid the contractor in full last July, he didn't close out a couple of the permits. I only found out about them when Jonathan actually posted it back in, I believe, February of this year. I then had to go through the process of taking those permits back in my name since they were under the general contractor's name and then bringing out the inspectors and finalizing them and closing everything out. But since then, everything's been remediated; all permits are finaled. The property, I believe, is fully compliant as far as -- I went to the town and found out, and we have no open issues, no open permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to abate. Generally speaking, we like to have the respondent ask for something. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, under the circumstances, he took possession of a property that -- Page 89 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- had a lot of issues, and he worked diligently to correct it, so -- MR. KOMNINOS: Thank you, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you'd like us to abate it? MR. KOMNINOS: Please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can stop meeting like this every two months. MR. KOMNINOS: Thank you. I'll stop by, though. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2, Tab 15, Case CE -- I'm sorry. The next case is No. 3, Tab 16, Case CESD20100006940, Michael Facundo and Amy Facundo. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're back to the oldies but Page 90 May 28, 2015 goodies. This one started November 18, 2010. MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. Before I get into reading all this, I do want to just say that the property is in compliance as of yesterday, and I think Mr. Facundo wanted to speak. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. MR. FACUNDO: I did. I would like -- first of all, I want to just -- I'm allowed 20 minutes, but I'm hoping to only take two. It's been a long journey for my wife -- sorry if I get emotional. But it's been a long journey for my wife and I. And I just -- first of all, we got everything. It was a process that we started with the contractor, really, building the house in the wrong spot, putting us in a real financial bind. And so she and I went through a lot trying to get this process moving. So, anyway, I -- in the same tone, I really want to thank Cristina and Joe and Weldon, and even Alamore (phonetic) out in Immokalee, believe it or not, that they have staff there that were encouraging and understanding but at the same time forceful to get this thing moving. So I thank these guys for that; really appreciate it. But I would like to see if we can get these fines abated fully because we are, you know, out-of-pocket a few thousand dollars. I mean, I have an Excel sheet, if you'd like to see it, that what we -- you know, what we paid out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. You probably have to read case and -- MR. MUCHA: So, yes. This is Case No. CESD20100006940. You need me to read the fine part or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It probably should be read into the record. Page 91 May 28, 2015 MR. MUCHA: The whole -- the whole thing? Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what your predecessors have done, so -- I'm not going to stay up at night reading this, but -- MR. MARINO: Can't we just read the part of fines? MR. MUCHA: The fine part is fines and costs to date are as follows: Order Items 2 and 5, fines have accrued at a rate of$200 a day for the period between March 1st of 2014 to May 27, 2015, for 453 days, for a total fine amount of$90,600. Previously assessed operational costs of$146.99 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing would be $70.47. So total amount to date is $90,670.47. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second the motion, please. MR. MARINO: I make -- the motion was already made, wasn't it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, it was, and seconded. Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. FACUNDO: Thank you very much, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good luck on your house. MR. FACUNDO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4 from imposition of fines, Tab 17, Case CESD20130019399, Dorothy K. Gill. Page 92 May 28, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just on that last case and actually previous cases, I really think we have to or someone has to take a look at these fine abatements. There's a lot of time, effort, and costs that went into these. And we keep kicking the can down the road and abating the full fine when I don't think it's justified based on the circumstances and the costs and efforts that have gone into bringing it to this point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you, and we were going to at some point have a little workshop here after the meeting, not today's meeting, but after a meeting and discuss that. I noticed that on one of those -- let me look at the last one -- give us a minute -- where it says the gravity of the violation is moderate. Any action, et cetera, et cetera. So that's the step in the right direction as to doing what you're saying. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll discuss that after. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. GIANNONE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. GIANNONE: For the record, Joseph Giannone, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20130019399. If we can, Ms. Gill would like to comment on the case prior. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, sure. MS. GILL: Hi. I just want to tell Mr. Giannone thank you very much for helping me out. I wasn't getting what was happening, because the house was built by my parents, and I didn't have anything to do with building it or permitting or anything. So I'm finally now understanding what exactly I have to do because, obviously, they can't. So I have everything understood now what I need to do and the permits that I need to get and the different violations that we have, that Page 93 May 28, 2015 I just have to figure out how to fix them. A couple of them we found out that the permits were taken care of. I actually have a certificate of occupation (sic) for one of the problems. So we're trying to get it taken care of, and I understand now what exactly I need to do to get it taken care of, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we're at the point here where it hasn't been abated. MS. GILL: Right. There's, like, four different -- the violations, the sheds -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you asking for a continuance? MS. GILL: For an extension of time to finish getting the rest of those different things that need to be permitted and -- MR. GIANNONE: We're willing to offer a continuance, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sir? MR. GIANNONE: We're willing to offer a continuance, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time do you think you would need to -- MS. GILL: I'm thinking 45 days. I really don't know. I'm -- they said that -- the one of them was the shed that we have to attach to the house. They said that it would take, like, two weeks to get the permit for it. I did, thank goodness, found a permit that my dad had actually gotten the permit but it, obviously, expired a long time ago. So I just have to take that information and go down and get a new permit, obviously. So they said it would take about two weeks. I don't know if it will now but, you know, and then we have to get -- MR. MARINO: Do you think 60 days will be enough for you? MS. GILL: I think 60 days would be wonderful, actually, now that I understand exactly what I'm supposed to do, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to make a motion? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we continue it for 60 days. Page 94 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DOINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for a continuance for 60 days. MS. GILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. GILL: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: One other thing. Mrs. Gill, when you were here last -- in January, you said that the house was possibly going into foreclosure and everything? MS. GILL: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I did is I went to this group that helps people out like yourself, and they were supposed to get in touch with Jeff. They never did. But I actually have the name of the organization and phone number, if you would like. MS. GILL: Yes. I was trying to look it up on the Internet, but I couldn't find it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have a pen? Page 95 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can sell you one. Got to make some money here somehow. All these abatements. MS. GILL: I've got, like, four of them in my bag. MR. LEFEBVRE: The name of the organization is HELP, and it's Housing Education Lending Programs. And they do assist people that are going through the foreclosure process. MS. GILL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: They are located at 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 109; Phone Number 434-2397. MS. GILL: 2397. Now, that's for the foreclosure? MR. LEFEBVRE: For the foreclosure, yes. MS. GILL: Yeah. We have a family friend who's an attorney who's been working on that for us. So thank goodness for him. But they have offered us a modification. We're just trying to get all this stuff taken care of so that they don't see these fines and go, whoa, wait a minute, how are you going to -- you know, so we're trying to take care of that. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if they can be of any help -- MS. GILL: Yes. So I will definitely give them a call, because we had done a modification many years ago, and one of those groups had helped us a lot. So I will call them, definitely. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GIANNONE: Thank you, sir. MS. GILL: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case is No. 5, Tab 18, Case CESD20140021849, George J. Sorbara and Jennifer Tarvin Sorbara. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Ralph. MR. BOSA: Good morning. Yes, still good morning. Page 96 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BOSA: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 2, Article IX, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location of 151 Burning Tree Drive, Naples, Florida; Folio number of 24021600009. Description of the violation was Permit No. 2007060198 for the pool and for fence, never received a certificate of completion. Past orders: On March 26, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5138, Page 1204, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of May 28, 2015. And fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between April 26, 2015, to May 28, 2015. Total of 32 days for a total fine amount of 3,200. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.43 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.75, for the total amount of $3,263.75. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with them? MR. BOSA: No. My investigator's been trying to get ahold of them, and they haven't responded back to her, which I don't understand because they renewed the permit. The permit's still valid till July of this year. They have probably -- out of 12 inspections on this permit, six of them have been completed, and we just were kind of dumbfounded as far as why. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just don't have the CO. MR. BOSA: Yeah, just don't have the CO. Page 97 May 28, 2015 MS. NICOLA: The odd thing to me is that he seems to appear at almost every code enforcement hearing. I mean, he's been well known to be here, so it's surprising to me that he's not here. Not only in his own capacity for this violation, but he's been here several times before the Board representing other people. Isn't he a contractor or something? He's got a construction business of some sort. MS. CURLEY: This house was -- we've heard this case under a lender's name, and then they re-foreclosed it and gave it back to these people, and that's why he was here last time. Now they're -- maybe he thought that they were going to keep the house. But it's back in foreclosure again because of a -- some technicality during the original foreclosure. So maybe that's why he's not here. MR. BOSA: Once he gets ahold of us, we'll be able to tell him, you know, if you do impose the fines, there's other routes we can take as far as -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would, on this particular case, like to give the county an extra 30 days to find him, because it looks like he had the permits, et cetera. The only thing he's waiting for is the -- I don't know if any inspections have been done or not. MR. BOSA: Yeah. I was just looking at it, and I have the inspection card here. About approximately 12 inspections, half of them have been done and have passed, and I have about six more that need to be completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think there's any hope if-- MR. MARINO: When was the last one done? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the date of the last inspection that was done? MR. MARINO: Date of the last inspection? MR. BOSA: Last inspection is -- I have one here as recent as April 28, 2015, passing inspection -- Page 98 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOSA: -- that is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's a case of he's missing. Where's Waldo -- to find him to -- MS. CURLEY: But if we don't get these fines -- if we don't assess these fines today -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can postpone it. MS. CURLEY: -- and make them of record, if another owner does take it, then we're not going to get paid. MR. LAVINSKI: Plus he signed a stipulation that he was going to correct this. MR. BOSA: Exactly. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to impose the fine. MS. CURLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I guess we'll find him after this. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed. Okay. It passes. I wanted to give him more time, but the hanging judge over here. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6, Tab 19, Case CESD20120000572, Juan Campbell and Nora Carrillo. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Page 99 May 28, 2015 Enforcement. This is in regards to Case CESD20120000572. Before I get started, I believe Mr. Campbell is going to request an extension. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. I would like to ask for another 30 days, and I'll be done with the -- with the final. We'll have the CO. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: CO? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. County have any problem with that? MR. MUCHA: The county does not have an objection to 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The Board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. MR. MARINO: I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to extend 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Continue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance for 30 days, is that what you said, Lionel? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. Page 100 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 7, Tab 20, Case CESD20140005957, Yislen De La 0 and Roesmel Rua. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. GIANNONE: Joseph Giannone, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140005957, violations of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location: 2883 50th Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio No. 36451600007. Description of building of a rear dock without the proper Collier County permits. Past orders: On June 20, 2014, the Collier County Code Enforcement Board issued the findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5058, Page 2021, for information. On January 22, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5118, Page 2302, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of May 28, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for a period between October 19, 2014, and May 28, 2015, 221 days for a total fine amount of$44,200. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operation costs of$126.04 have been paid. Page 101 May 28, 2015 Operational costs for today's hearing: $64.59. Total amount to date: $44,264.59. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent at all? MR. GIANNONE: Periodically, yes, I have. Not in the last week or so. I had seen him on the street, and he said that he's going forward with it. But his demo permit, which expires on 8/29 of this year, I haven't seen any work. I took pictures yesterday, and the dock is still up. Once again, if you recall, this dock was put on his neighbor's property, and it goes into a lake, if you will, a large canal in Golden Gate City. And he was here, I guess, a month or so ago -- well, two months ago he was here with the gentleman whose property that he had built it on, and his plans were to sell the dock to the gentleman whose property it's on, but then the plans changed, and he was going to have a demo permit, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. He signed a stipulation June 17, 2014. He's had a year to do whatever he's going to do. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. So is the person who's being fined the one that didn't build the dock? MR. GIANNONE: No. The one that's being fined is the person that did the work on the dock. MS. CURLEY: So the neighbor? MR. GIANNONE: No, it hasn't gone to the neighbor, no, ma'am; no. MS. CURLEY: I just want to make sure you're not fining the neighbor. MR. GIANNONE: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. Page 102 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: This dock is built on the neighbor's property, correct? MR. GIANNONE: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Then how can you fine -- the fines run with the property, not with the owner. So how can we -- MR. GIANNONE: Well, we're fining him because of he did the -- he built the dock without the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but -- MS. CURLEY: On someone else's land. MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on. Let me finish. If you're leasing a place and a tenant builds something that's not -- that's illegal, the tenant doesn't get fined. It's the owner that gets fined on the property. I don't understand why -- I know he didn't have any fault in this, the guy that the property's on, but wouldn't the person -- it's like a homeowners association. If the property or condo association -- it's the condo association that is fined if someone builds -- like we had a case years ago that a spa was built within a common area, limited common area, Page 103 May 28, 2015 and the association was the one that was fined. MR. GIANNONE: Yes, sir. Joe had recalled that it is partially on the neighboring property and partially on his. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, partially. MR. GIANNONE: But my apologies on that. MS. CURLEY: Thanks, Joe. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. MR. GIANNONE: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8, Tab 21, Case CELU20140016851, Peter Helff. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All right, Ralph. You're up. MR. BOSA: Again, for the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1.04.01(A) and Section 2.02.03. Location of 2080 21st Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; the folio number, 45965080007. Description of violation is previous storage of recreational vehicle on a property not owned by the property owner. Past orders: On January 22, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5121, Page 1478, for more information. The violation has been abated as of January 26, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Previously assessed operational costs of 65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.33, for a total amount of$128. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if we impose the operational costs for last Page 104 May 28, 2015 hearing, then the operational costs for today's hearing will be imposed also? MR. BOSA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. BOSA: He was here this morning, and I have been in contact with him, but he's going through a hardship right now, and he could not pay the operational costs for the last hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, he would have saved himself$63.33 if he paid, so it doubled. MR. BOSA: Exactly, yeah. I told him that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BOSA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next item is the consent agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have Kitchell. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is Lynne Cadenhead. MR. SNOW: You remember -- if I may refresh the Board's Page 105 May 28, 2015 memory, you may remember Mr. Cadenhead brought at the last minute an affidavit that said he represented Ms. Cadenhead in this matter because he was not listed on the deed. He also made various claims of what was going to happen on the property. This is the same case that was heard last month where the Board was disappointed there was no action. There is still no action. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SNOW: Nothing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you are looking for a motion to -- MR. SNOW: No, sir. I'm just giving you a report as requested. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay, gotcha. Okay. MR. SNOW: It comes back to you in July. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SNOW: You just wanted a report because of-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I remember. MR. SNOW: There were claims the engineering -- he was going to have engineering look at it and refute the county's claim that it was a dangerous building. There was a bunch of things that were suggested would happen, and you were interested in finding exactly what has happened on the property up to this date, and I can quantify that by saying nothing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's easy to understand. Okay. I think we're done for today. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, it looks that way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Record breaking time considering. MR. MARINO: I make a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Too quickly. Just I want to remind everybody June 2nd -- June 30th is the next meeting. It's on a Tuesday. The county, in their ultimate wisdom, has seen fit to pony up the money to go to the thing over at the hotel for code enforcement, Page 106 May 28, 2015 okay. You aware of that? MR. MARINO: No. MR. DOINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's aware; you're not aware. He reads his emails, and you probably don't. MR. MARINO: Yes, I do. I didn't get it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You didn't get it? I hear that out here a lot. MS. CURLEY: She sent it to us twice. MR. MARINO: Okay. Would you like to explain what it is? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It came twice. There's a -- I'll tell you what. Kerry, could you send him -- when is that at the hotel? MS. ADAMS: It's the week of the 23rd through the 26th. I'm not sure which day -- which particular day you guys would be signed up for. I believe it's the 25th. MR. DOINO: Thursday. MR. MARINO: What is it? MS. ADAMS: Thursday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a class. MR. MARINO: I have no idea what's going on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a class that's being put on that people from all over the country come to from code enforcement to meet and see -- and meet each other, et cetera, et cetera. MR. LEFEBVRE: Training session. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a training session. MR. MARINO: Fine. MS. NICOLA: I have it all morning of the 26th on my calendar. MR. LEFEBVRE: 8:30 to 12. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. 8:30 to 12. They'll even give you breakfast. Okay. So -- MR. LAVINSKI: One of the subjects may be how to abate fines. Page 107 May 28, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the other subject -- how to abate fines and how to read your emails. Okay. Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and a second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. MR. DOINO: Third. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :58 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE •RCEMENT BOARD 0 :E 'I1I' FMAN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on (0-3 k 5 as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 108 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS L'"ANA E—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE ME " NAME OF BOARD,CO CIL, MMISSION,AUTHORITY, OMMITTEE S e k..aN1C7_ ,L(OV c '7 61'1(- l� b•�1 t�'it '('t/)11� 4t j C����� MAILING A SS ^ ( THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON ' �� ��1�7^^Q^ /� WHICH I SERVE IS A U OF: CITY r / r F it / ' C1D1 U ly ❑CITY COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 1 \( 1, /'j �I ' ca NAM OF POLI ICAL SUBDIVISI DATE ON WHICH TOTE OCCURRED l ` `— I I 1 11 �)1.��"\ � ^-`CJ MY POSITION IS: ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which es to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- ,..e which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ELECTED OFFICERS: . In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made '--you or at your direction. Ir YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, —((Me / -,C D-Q-A.(eM re , hereby disclose that on (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) ❑ inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent of anization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Ca C (A .-?-0/00D2, 1 81'1 g Cu v r I I 17-v\ cu) y c''A (C. 't ice% <7 AINA i L l / ( ` rty Date Filed , ! e NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE —INSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, .I MOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS -T NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE /� MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON /''/ `'�f�i/ �i WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY i 1 1 7 C J_ar►.�c—�C_OGU_NTY OCITY COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: / DATE ON WHICH VOTE occuIREq �`I/ ��IO L �� ' ,(�� '7 Q MY POSITION IS MJ�Yi 'at5 / -.� ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which -es to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- -e which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made • you or at your direction. YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, j') J. G, s ✓0 whereby disclose that on /14/ E z o ,2V : (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) ❑ inured to my special private gain or loss; k- 1 Gj,/ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, •tt inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE �°ONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, .I MOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2