The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 06/30/2015 June 30, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida June 30, 2015 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Ron Doino James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Alternate) Sue Curley (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynn Nicola, Attorney for the CEB Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist 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 1 Motion for Extension of Time 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 27111 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(TABLET).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 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. If anybody has a cell phone and it's on, it's better that it's off. Put it to vibrate. We'll all stand for the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And now for the disclaimer of the day. 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 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. Why don't we start out with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ron Doino? Page 2 June 30, 2015 MR. DOINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Lisa Chapman Buschnell? MR. BUSCH: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're all here. Okay, anybody have any changes to the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, I'll accept a motion to approve the minutes. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Which brings us to the agenda. Do we have any changes? MS. ADAMS: We do. Number Five, Public Hearings/Motions, A, Motion For Continuance, we have one addition. It's Number Nine from hearings, Tab 9, Case CESD20140018880, Mark D. Huntley and Page 3 June 30, 2015 Judith V. Huntley. Motion for Extension of Time, Number Two, Case CESD20150001847, that's Tab 23, has been withdrawn. Letter B, Stipulations, we have four additions. The first is Number Fourteen from hearings, Tab 14, Case CESD20140009331, South Naples Center, LLC. The second is Number Eleven from hearings, Tab 11, Case CESD20150002839, Kenneth M. and Janet M. Sechrist and Marjorie A. Cunningham, Trustee. The third is Number Ten from hearings, Tab 10, Case CESD20150003265, William T. Cabal. The fourth is Number Thirteen from hearings, Tab 13, Case CEROW20150001263, 5681 Dogwood, LLC. Letter B, Hearings. Number One, Tab 1, Case CESD20150004720, Ricardo De Jesus and Kathleen De Jesus has been withdrawn. Number Five, Tab 5, Case CESD20150007843, Chandler Ayotte has been withdrawn. Number Eight, Tab 8, Case CELU20150004809, The Club at La Peninsula, Incorporated, has been withdrawn. We have one emergency case added to the agenda. It will be Case CEPM20150011894, Talia Chavez-O'Bourke. And that's all the changes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the agenda with changes. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as modified. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 4 June 30, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The first case will be Motion For Continuance, Number Nine from hearings, Tab 9, Case CESD2014001880, Mark D. Huntley and Judith V. Huntley. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see you're here alone today. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a letter on this requesting -- INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, we do. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's an email in today's package. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Okay, this one, what bothers me most about it is the date, March 18th, 2014, when the violation began. But how does the county feel as far as an extension is concerned? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I don't have any issues granting an extension. I know they purchased this home with these issues and they were trying to rectify the problem. Last conversation I had with Ms. Huntley, she was contacting her contractor and working through the issues. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I'll leave it up to the board's discretion whether you would like to grant the continuance or proceed with the case. Page 5 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did the -- when did they buy this property; do you know? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Let me see here. MS. CURLEY: July. MR. LEFEBVRE: July 14th, last year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A year ago. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: A year ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And they were cited -- the property was cited in March of 2014. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see that she's asking for two weeks, which we don't do because we meet once a month. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we continue it 'til next hearing. It sounds like they corrected a lot of the issues, they paid cash for the house, so obviously they're acting in good faith, so I think we should give them another 30 days or until next meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second, Tony. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 6 June 30, 2015 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Tony. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Thank you. MS. NICOLA: Can I get a point of clarification on that? Is it 30 days or until the next hearing? Because the next hearing -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Next hearing. MS. NICOLA: Next hearing? Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case, Motion For Extension of Time, Number One, Tab 22, Case CESD20150002007, Craig Daniels and Martha Daniels. (Martha Daniels and Investigator Lopez-Silvero were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see you're requesting an extension on the imposition of fines, the case that's before us? MS. DANIELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to give us a little brief-- MS. DANIELS: Sure. We purchased this and didn't know we were going to run into all this. And so we're diligently working on it since the last meeting. As June 3rd, I had request in writing to the Code Enforcement Board for an extension of time because I had ran into all these overlaps. On June 8th, I explained to him my goal was to be in compliance before this meeting, but as you see it hasn't happened. But I am Page 7 June 30, 2015 diligently working on it. And so on June 9th I had the mobile home contractor submit all the documents for permitting. Everything was submitted. It was reviewed by the GMD. And then the GMD had said they had went through the whole review except they had to not approve it, stating that I needed an ST permit and an ROW. So I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know ROW, but help me with some of the alphabets. ST. MS. DANIELS: I'm just trying to hurry so I don't take up your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, take your time. MS. DANIELS: Okay. So the ROW is right-of-way -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. DANIELS: -- for a driveway that I really don't want, but -- and then the DMD is -- or I mean the growth management that reviews all the permitting and everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the ST? MS. DANIELS: And the ST is a special treatment permit, an environmental issue. And the environmental review of, you know, how you have all the different departments. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. DANIELS: So from my understanding, all the departments in growth management, after their review, everything was okay except stating that I need to pull an ROW permit, which is a right-of-way to build a driveway. And I submitted that as soon as I was told. The following day I went straight to the department, I paid the $200, I filled out the application. I've not heard nothing back on that. That was on June 15th. But backing up to the other, on June 18th is when the review board actually came back in writing, stated they reviewed all documents but they could not issue a permit because of the fact that Page 8 June 30, 2015 environmental review stated that I needed to pull a special treatment permit and pay $400 nonrefundable. Well, at this time I wanted to fight a little more because it was more money. And because knowing and living down there and being a native of the area, I didn't want to argue and -- with the county, but I knew this was getting a little too much. So playing phone tag and going back and forth with them as of yesterday, the environmental review agreed with me that it was a mistake, that I did not need to pull that permit. But I did need to write a letter to them. So as of yesterday I did do as they requested and I sent the letter to Mr. David Anthony, which is in the environmental review, which is who I'm working with. And he had told me to do this letter. I don't know what good the letter's doing, but I did it. Ifs in reference to the above job description, after our conversation via telephone on June 29th, '15 it is my understanding that building permit number such and such serves as our petition on the special treatment permit in the above property located at 223 Gladys Court is exempt for an SD permit. Thank you for your prompt attention to this job. I can be reached at the above, and it was a pleasure working with you. So I just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me help you out. In other words, you're working on this thing -- MS. DANIELS: Yes, diligently. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- diligently. Do you have any idea when you think you'll be in -- MS. DANIELS: When the county gives me permits I can have it done and call for a CO in two days. But I'm requesting -- because as you can see how it goes back and forth, I'm requesting 90 days so I don't have to come back and ask for another extension. I'm sure that's more than what I need, but this is out of my hands. I can't do it as owner/builder. I've had to hire a contractor to do it, which I have. Page 9 June 30, 2015 I am waiting -- the contractor and I both are waiting on the county to give us permits. I talked to the contractor yesterday to give me a kind of a time table to report to you today. She says well, if I can get a permit this week I can have it done in two days and call for a CO. She said now next week or the following week's a different story because I have other jobs. She says I can't tell you for sure but normally on the average if her calendar is open, she told me that once they get permit in hand they could bring down a crew and do it in two days and call for CO. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, let me just stop you a second. Does the county have any objection to granting an extension on this case? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: No objection, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the respondent has been working diligently to get everything done? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody from the board like to make a motion? MR. ASHTON: I make a motion we give her -- you wanted 90 days? MS. DANIELS: I'm requesting 90, hoping it doesn't take that. My goal was to have it done before this meeting. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion we extend it for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we make that to the meeting in September that's around 90 days? MR. ASHTON: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Is this unit occupied? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: It's vacant. Page 10 June 30, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: It's vacant? Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Hope we don't see you in September, which is the name of a song, See You in September. MS. ADAMS: First stipulation is Number Fourteen from hearings, Tab 14, Case CESD20140009331, South Naples Center, LLC. (Investigator Ralph Bosa was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Ralph. INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Good morning. For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm just going to read the stipulation agreement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$67.11 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections or certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 Page 11 June 30, 2015 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation, using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this case goes back to October of 2014, so it's quite a long time ago. They've been working on this and you feel that they'll be able to meet this in 90 days? INVESTIGATOR BOSA: Yes, sir. They had a laundry list of things they had to do, pull permits and stuff. This is one -- the last thing on their list. It's taken a little longer than usual. They did hire -- I spoke with the managing member yesterday. He said they've hired an engineer to put in some plans to get the permits and everything permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the stipulation as written. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 12 June 30, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Ralph. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is Number Eleven from hearings, Tab 11, Case CESD20150002839, Kenneth M. and Janet M. Sechrist and Marjorie A. Cunningham, Trustee. (Investigator Lopez-Silvero was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Steven. You look very familiar. I think I've seen you earlier this morning. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. The stipulation reads as follows -- for the record, good morning, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$67.11 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number two: Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Number four: That 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, Page 13 June 30, 2015 and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this was a mobile home that was a single wide and they put an addition on it; is that it? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that space occupied? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Steven. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is Number Ten from hearings, Tab 10, Case CESD20150003265, William T. Cabal. (William Cabal and Investigator Giguere were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Page 14 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Good morning. For the record, Vickie Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Vickie, would you like to read the stipulation into the record? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I would. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$63.75 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, can you just give us a heads up on why it will take six months to do this? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: This stipulation was actually entered into between my supervisor and the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I'll repeat the question. Is there any reason why -- (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. In a meeting with one of our staff members, Renald Paul, and the property owner, he expressed a hardship was his primary issue. He is Page 15 June 30, 2015 disabled and lives on a limited income. And it is one of his children, his daughter, I believe, who is trying to obtain a loan to be able to get the money to be able to purchase -- pay for the plans and get the permit for the two structures that are in the rear yard. And I'm sure Mr. Cabal can emphasize on that if you need more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are the structures occupied? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, they're just a -- it's an open trellis. Is when it -- to provide shade for the -- he has a well and water system. And the other structure, refresh my memory? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I believe it's the same. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Oh, it's for where you put your car. MR. CABAL: It's like tall enough to park my truck. And it's like a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carport? MR. CABAL: -- carport where I can park my equipment, the car and everything. It's open walls. It's just a roof and -- SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The four posts. MR. CABAL: -- posts is all it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You think you can get this done in 180 days or six months? MR. CABAL: Hopefully, yes, because it's not very much left to do. It's just to finish the floor and finish the roof That's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it an expensive thing to finish? MR. CABAL: Well, right now like she say, the problem is the money. It's not -- I try to really want to finish it. And my daughter is in the Army and she's trying to get a loan so I can finish it. MR. MARINO: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: His first and last name are reversed on the first line of the stipulation. Does that mean anything? He signed it one way. What is the name, Cabal William or William Cabal? Page 16 June 30, 2015 MR. CABAL: William Cabal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's how it's signed? That's what the case reads. Okay. Good question. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the stip as written. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Good luck. MR. CABAL: Thank you very much. Bye-bye. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is Number Thirteen from hearings, Tab 13, Case CEROW20150001263, 5681 Dogwood, LLC. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I met with a Mr. Gary Haines who is the owner of 5681 Dogwood, LLC. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$66.27 incurred in the Page 17 June 30, 2015 prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County right-of-way permits and inspection through the issuance of a final approval to bring the right-of-way access to a permitted condition within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number three: The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And number four: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, is this culvert causing any problems up or downstream from -- with the water? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Not as of yet. If you look at the culvert, it is -- there is some deterioration to it. He does have a permit in apply status, but it's still going through county review. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 18 June 30, 2015 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Two from hearings, Tab 2, Case CEPM20140025426, Lynne V. Cadenhead. (Bobby Cadenhead and Investigator Santafemia were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, John. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement. This matter is in reference to code case number CEPM20140025426, relative to the violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(12)(Q) and Section 22-236. Description of violations are: A vacant residential structure with extensive roof damage declared dangerous by the Collier County Building Official. Violation location is 3414 Cherokee Street, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 74414040006. Service was given on April 15th, 2015 by signed certified mail, return receipt. At this time I would like to present evidence in the following exhibits: I have one copy of a dangerous building determination, along with three photographs dated December 23rd, 2014. All the photographs were taken by Property Maintenance Specialist Ambach and were stored in a file which is accessible to me. Page 19 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those photographs? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Not yet, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those photographs? MR. CADENHEAD: No, no. That's what the Building Department has also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the evidence presented by the county. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: On the screen is the determination from the Building Department Building Official determining that the structure has been deemed dangerous and hazardous. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 20 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: This issue was brought to our attention by a neighbor who was concerned about the safety of the structure. On January 8th, 2015 Property Maintenance Specialist Ambach completed initial inspection and observed the dwelling in disrepair with extensive roof damage with visible buckling of the supporting components. A request was sent to the Collier County Building Official for a dangerous building determination. On January 12th, 2015 a determination supporting the findings that the structure was dangerous was received from the Building Official's office. A violation notice was completed and mailed certified to the owner in addition to the property and courthouse being posted. Contact was made with the owner's ex-husband Bobby Cadenhead, present, who stated he wished to make repairs to the structure and requested additional time for permitting. On June 12th, 2015 I completed a site visit and observed no change in the hazardous condition and was unable to locate any permits for repair. The case was then prepared for the CEB hearing process. On June 29th, 2015 a site inspection was made, which revealed the violation remained. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you put the last picture up, please. I see the date on there is 12/23/2014. And it says the date the violation was first observed was January 8th, 2015. Am I missing something? Or do you have a camera that takes pictures into the future? Or into the past. MR. LAVINSKI: He might need new batteries for his camera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a picture of the structure right now? I guess that's what we need to know. Page 21 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Yes, it's unchanged. The -- this was apparently a two-part case. And the initial case that these pictures were taken for, which was a different case altogether, that's not the case that we're here for. But these are the pictures that were taken in the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But it hasn't changed since December of'14. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Right. I went out there myself this month and it's unchanged. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Cadenhead has been before us before if I'm not mistaken, correct? MR. CADENHEAD: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Cadenhead? MR. CADENHEAD: We received the April 13th citation. May 13th we applied for a permit from the county. And at that time we were told we had to have an additional certification of-- it's called elevation certification to go with the applicant. And we have obtained the elevation certification and now are ready to reapply to the county for the permit to make all the repairs. We -- it's basically a catch -- in other words, to comply with the county, they came -- we were there to apply for the permit, signed, in other words, by the county, in other words, that we were there on -- at 13th of May, 215 (sic) the owner/builder statement of affidavit and the permit was submitted to the county. And at that time in order to have a complete application, they asked for the elevation certification. So we contacted Bartell & Associates to do an elevation certification. The elevation certification is ready today to pick up, and the permit is ready to go back to the county to be submitted to have all the work done. And we're looking like 30 days to get the work completed and over with. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just start with this: We want Page 22 June 30, 2015 to see -- if you are in violation, the board will vote whether you're in violation or not. And if you are in violation, then we can go further with your explanation of dates and times and whatnot. MR. CADENHEAD: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So would anybody like to make a motion from the board? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, now, you think that your elevation certificate is ready to be picked up? MR. CADENHEAD: Elevation certificate is ready to pick up as of last night by telephone call. And once we submit it to the county, the work that has to be -- the repair and stuff has to be done can be done in 30 days. And we're looking to be in compliance. We're not looking to -- in Page 23 June 30, 2015 other words, this thing sit over there on the other street. My big house burnt down about three years ago, and it is through neglect and that's part -- we're going to get it straightened out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you think, and knowing how things sometimes get delayed -- MR. CADENHEAD: With the county? In other words, there's two ways that this can happen, is that they will take the owner/builder's permit that we've issued they said that they will approve. I would say if we had 60 days, in other words, we would have a complete C.O. on the house from the county for the work that's completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, let me -- so 60 days you should probably have everything done. MR. CADENHEAD: Yes. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: I actually was able to obtain a copy of the permit application that Mr. Cadenhead is referring to. My concern with it is that in the description of the work, it only quotes repair siding and repair interior, it does not speak to the hazardous condition that is noted in the Building Official's document. So I'm not sure he understands the seriousness of this. The other thing is, if I just might add, that the ordinance is specific about the time for him to abate this violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And -- MR. CADENHEAD: After sitting down with John yesterday reading through the total description, in other words, the way the description -- there's two little words in the bottom of the thing that comes into a 22.236. And when you go back and you find out what 22.236, it says that the building is not just needing siding, it's got to have the structure repairs also that needs to be made. Page 24 June 30, 2015 So that would be part of the new submittal that we will put in with the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have a contractor to do the work? MR. CADENHEAD: We're applying for this one here under owner/builder. And if we have a problem, we will go to contract with affidavit using -- using a company to pull it. So, in other words, I don't see no problem in getting it. If for some reason -- the affidavit we went in for allows you as owner/builder to make a repair of a house, the one house per year on this. So that's what we applied for under owner/builder. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. John, what does the code say as far as the amount of time granted to have this type of problem resolved? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: For the dangerous structure or hazardous structure section of the Property Maintenance Code it says if the -- this would be 22.236: If the owner fails to repair the hazardous condition within 30 days of service of the notice -- which was back in April, I believe, so we're well beyond that -- or within 15 days of the final determination by the Code Enforcement Board or Special Magistrate that a hazardous condition exists, then the Housing Official shall, in ordering the repair or demolition of dangerous building, be guided by the following. Then it lists the different sections that come straight out of the Building Code. And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand what John has just -- MR. CADENHEAD: I went over that with him yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's probably the reason that this isn't a case where a stip would happen, because of the dates. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Correct. MR. CADENHEAD: And what John suggested, that I had to come before the board and present what took place, and that's the Page 25 June 30, 2015 reason we're here today, to get the thing resolved and do what we need to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the concern that I have is it's a dangerous structure. I don't know, are there any kids that hang out there or possibility of it falling on somebody? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: I'm not familiar with the residents on the street but it is a residential street in East Naples. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the code does call for it to be fixed immediately. Our next meeting is in a month, even though the code requires 15 days. Is there any possibility of-- it's not the siding so much, unless that's on another case that we're aware of. It's the roof. MR. CADENHEAD: The dangerous repairs can be done within the next -- before your next meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CADENHEAD: Okay. In other words, here's what John and I discussed. In the county's ordinance they require everybody to get a permit. But you can also make a $1,500 worth of work without -- so we can go ahead while the permit's in process and fix any dangerous part to the building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks as though that portion that's bowed there, it needs to be -- MR. CADENHEAD: It's a carport that has weathered and -- if you don't check on something and you don't go and pay attention to it, in other words, the weather will deteriorate it faster than what you think about it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. So the first part of doing what you need to do is probably going to be a demo on that portion of the property that is dangerous. MR. CADENHEAD: Well, the demo -- the demo -- I think it's more repair of the structure of the property that is dangerous, to make the proper repair to it. Page 26 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you put that last picture back up, Kerry, please? I mean, that looks to me like rotted wood and whatnot that needs to be removed before you can repair it. MR. CADENHEAD: No, you're correct, sir. In other words, the wood's got to be removed and new wood put in its place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so that would be like a demo, if you would. MR. CADENHEAD: That would be a demo of that part. But -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And demo permits you can generally get quickly. MR. CADENHEAD: I'm a demo contractor, so in other words, the demo of that particular deal we can obtain within a two-day period. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and then you could make it so that it's not dangerous anymore if you -- MR. CADENHEAD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- demoed that which can fall on someone's head. Yes? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: I switched -- Mr. Chairman, I switched the photos out to show the actual main structure. The roof, it's a little difficult to see there, but the roof on the left side of that picture, that is also buckling. That's not the carport. MR. CADENHEAD: That's a little front porch that is -- can be done also at the same time. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: It's all tied in with the roof members. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like there's extensive need to replace probably the whole roof. And the under -- MR. CADENHEAD: No, no, the whole roof is -- the basic part of the roof is in good shape. In other words, we have a porch that Page 27 June 30, 2015 you're looking at there now and we have a carport that needs to be replaced. Between the two -- that's the only thing, the structure -- the Building Department made an application, in other words, they went out and made a declaration that the house was off the foundation, which is not a true statement. Other words, there's some things that the Building Department made a stipulation that the person in the Building Department is no longer there that I take total exception with, as being a structure mover in the county. What we can do is in 30 days we can have everything repaired that has to be repaired that is structurally flawed on the thing. We've been waiting to go do it with a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, my concern is this: You may not agree with the county's inspector, but we need to. So what it looks like, you can have most of this problem resolved by the next meeting that we have. MR. CADENHEAD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I'd like to hear from the board if anybody has any suggestions. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I don't -- MR. MARINO: This building is vacant, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this building vacant? MR. CADENHEAD: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to see that letter again from the Building Inspector. I think I saw something that said the ground supporting this is unstable? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Yeah, that's the foundation he's referring to. That's number one. MR. CADENHEAD: I make exception. In other words, this building inspector is no longer with the county. And the letter that you got was finally signed on 6/17. The foundation of the house is totally solid. It is a framed built Page 28 June 30, 2015 house and is sitting on the same foundation that it was built and it's not buckled or is nothing else. There's no problem with the structure of the house. What you see on the carport and what you see on the front porch are the two parts that has to be repaired. And we're not arguing no point on that. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to see that from the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the problem is that I understand what you're saying and I'm reading the letter that we have to take as gospel because those are the people who are the inspectors that do this type of work. That's a problem. I mean, if this is not situated on the slab, if you will, that's a big problem. MR. CADENHEAD: Their statement is a total incorrect statement, and I have no problem in saying that in front of this board. The part that has to happen is they've got to come back and certify the rebuilding of the carport and they have to recertify the structure of the front porch. At that time they'll have to come back and recertify that the building is sitting on the foundation that it was placed on. That's never moved off the foundation and the building has never collapsed. So these are -- and if we have to hire an engineer to disapprove the county, I have no problem in hiring a professional engineer to disprove it. Now, my simplest deal is to get it all done in the 30 days before the next meeting. And John and I have talked about what we've got to do and get it cleared up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So in 30 days -- before the next meeting you'd probably have to have somebody from the county go out there, somebody from the Building Department, inspect the structure to make sure it's not a danger anymore, that's one thing. MR. CADENHEAD: I welcome anybody from the county to come back out, make an inspection with me there on-site and have them show me anything where this one inspector came and he just Page 29 June 30, 2015 checked the blocks on a form. He didn't get up underneath the house to see if it was off the structure, he didn't do nothing. Now, in other words, that's where I've got the exception with the county part. My part is basically I should have never let this happen. In other words, it happened, it was a vacant piece of property, it happened, it needs to be corrected, and in other words, in 30 days I can have it corrected before we come here next week -- or next meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next month. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe he can have the statements in item number one on this document corrected in 30 days, the lack of support of the ground necessary to support it. MR. CADENHEAD: It is -- if I have to have an engineer in the next 30 days to certify that statement number one is incorrect, I will pay to have an engineer go there and make the certification. Because this as very false statement. And that's where there's a difference. This thing here was put up by this Tom Germain (phonetic), and he never went and made the inspection of the foundation. The foundation is the same foundation sitting there as what has always been, and the ground is the same ground. So the statement is -- and it's not off the foundation. In other words, what he's talking about -- I don't know what he's talking about. But what I do know is what needs to be happening is that we need to be in compliance with the house, and we can do that within the next 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I think we're hashing the same thing over and over. One of the things I think that might be a solution is we bring this thing back next month. We can vote on it now giving him 30 days, you can give him 15 days as per the code, but we don't meet until next month. And next month the county will have the opportunity to go out there and inspect whatever needs to be inspected to make sure it's in Page 30 June 30, 2015 compliance as far as being a dangerous building. And if it's not fixed at that time, part of our motion today can be to bring it under a fine per day or demolish the building. MR. CADENHEAD: I have no problem with that. Because I'm not sitting here telling you that we're going to get it done within the next 30 days without having it completed, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You just said before that you could have it completed. MR. CADENHEAD: No, I said in the next 30 days, in other words, we're going to work under the premise -- right now while we're submitting the permits, we're working under a deal to go in there and correct what needs to be done. We'll submit a demo permit to take out the carport and while it's being rebuilt. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One suggestion, for whatever it's worth. It's like painting a wall before you pull it down, not a good idea. The main thing, as Mr. Lavinski has pointed out, is if the building -- if you can't get an engineer and the county to agree that the building on the foundation is secure, then anything you do to the roof doesn't matter. MR. CADENHEAD: No, I understand what you're saying. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The roof could remain, but the -- MR. CADENHEAD: And I'm very confident that the foundation is not as described in number one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. MR. CADENHEAD: In other words, I'm more than confident, and more confident that if it takes an engineer's certification, then I'll pay for the engineer's certification to disclaim the county. MR. MARINO: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Two statements in there: Moved off its foundation or lacks the support of the ground necessary to support it. That's two different -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. And unfortunately Page 31 June 30, 2015 that individual is not before us so we can't question them. There seems to be a disagreement between the respondent and the county. To resolve this, I think 30 days is -- it's been this way since January of'f 15, I don't think 30 days is going to make a whole lot of difference to give the respondent enough time to do what he says he can do. We need to structure a motion that would do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. This letter is dated January 9th, 2015. You're very adamant that the structure is not ready to collapse. Why hasn't this letter been disputed sooner than today? This letter should have been -- as soon as you received this letter, you should have went down to the county and -- MR. CADENHEAD: Here's what we received. In other words, I received a thing that was prepared April 13th, 2015, okay. In other words, we didn't receive it April 13th, it came in certified mail. After that, in May -- in May the 13th we were at the county applying for a permit to take care of the problem. At that time we were told that our permit was incomplete because we needed a certification of-- an elevation certification. We went and hired a professional surveyor to make that determination. He's made the determination that it's above the floodplain and that it meets that requirement of FEMA. So we did what the county asked at that point. Now it's come to a deal that it needs to -- the problem needs to be corrected, and if we could have 30 days, in other words, we can get it done. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess a question to the county: Why did it take three months from the date of the violation being first observed to the Notice of Violation for a dangerous house? That seems like a long time. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Well, in reading the notes from the investigator who started this case, they had made contact with Mr. Cadenhead right away, and he had indicated, just like he is now, Page 32 June 30, 2015 that he would get on this and take care of this right away without any problems. And they were trying to give him an opportunity to bring this property up to code or demolish it, one or the other. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I notice from the pictures that were taken in December, which is prior to the January 8th date on today's case, that somebody had something to do with the property. So -- INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Yeah, it was probably a separate property maintenance case that was called in for less serious violations. But once they determined that it was a dangerous structure, that's the case that took priority. But like I said, according to the investigator's notes in the case, along with his supervisor at the time -- actually Ralph Bosa, who I think is here -- you know, Mr. Cadenhead was contacted according to this case, on February 13th. It was explained to him what the situation was and he stated that he would get with a contractor and get -- address all the issues immediately. The investigator -- MR. LEFEBVRE: When was this letter given to him, this January 9th letter? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: All I know is the investigator sent all the information out with the Notice of Violation, the corrective action required, which also has that same language in it that that letter does. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was sent out -- the date on the -- it says April 15th here. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: I think April 15th it was signed for. MR. LEFEBVRE: Observation, from my point of view is this case should have been brought forward and moved forward sooner than it did, being a dangerous building in a residential neighborhood. I don't think it should have languished almost six months. I think it Page 33 June 30, 2015 should have been brought to us much sooner. But we're here now, but in the future just personally I'd like to see these come in front of us sooner than this. I think we should structure it for 30 days and with a fine that's going to motivate him to get this fixed. Because it's been six months, he was notified in February, so he's had four and a half, five months to get this fixed and nothing's been done, so -- MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I still think that if you read one and two, that's prima facie evidence that this building in this inspector's opinion appears to be uninhabitable. I think until that's resolved, nothing should be done on that house to further its existence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, and it's just money wasted if you're going to repair a roof and have to rip the house down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why I said that the first person I would contact is an engineer who's going to certify that the foundation can support the house. And I think 30 days, given the amount of time that it's been sitting there right now, we could structure a motion that would basically say we'll grant you 30 days and if it's not in compliance in 30 days, "X" amount of dollars will accrue for each day after our next meeting. And I think the respondent is aware that this is a serious case, and that those dollars add up very quickly. MR. CADENHEAD: I understand that. In this deal, and I appreciate you gentlemen, James' comment on this. The one of two has to be addressed. In other words, basically the county's made a statement, and the county's made a false statement. So I have no problem in the next 30 days having an engineer visit the site and doing an affidavit that one and two are not correct. I agree that the outside looks of the carport and the front porch has to be corrected and is there. So the house -- in other words, or either we bring the county back out and have an inspection done by the Page 34 June 30, 2015 county on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me try this. We're just saying the same thing over and over. If you're going to get an engineer out there, and you're going to need to, the county can arrange, I'm sure, to have their person meet the engineer out there where they both will agree, or they may disagree, I don't know. If they disagree, then it's the county that will probably carry the most weight. MR. CADENHEAD: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you understand that. MR. CADENHEAD: Yeah, I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we granted a motion, let me just throw out some -- for 30 days or until the next meeting. What's the date of the next meeting? MS. ADAMS: July 23rd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: July 23rd? My older brother's birthday. Okay, if we gave 'til the next meeting and during that time you will make arrangements for an engineer to certify that what you say is true, along with the county getting somebody out there, I know it's vacation time and whatnot, but given a month, I think it can be done, if we order it. Does anybody on the board have a problem with that line? MR. MARINO: The only problem I have with it is that it should be taken care of right away. Coming into bad weather, rainy season, hurricane season, the bad wind can take that whole thing and take it away. So sooner the better. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But they can't repair a roof if in fact the structure -- MR. MARINO: Exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I think an engineer -- it's actually three Page 35 June 30, 2015 weeks. That means three weeks from now. So I would support that if that's going to be a motion that by next meeting an engineer in the county -- if this is refuted, then they can move forward. And I would agree with a motion that 30 days after our next meeting that the work be completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to word that motion and we'll see how it flies. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's see if I can word it. By our next meeting, which is July 23rd, an inspection is completed either -- or by both the county and also by Mr. Cadenhead's engineer, refuting the January 9th letter from -- is it the Building Department? INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Yes, it's the chief building official that signed it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And the two statements in there that the -- regarding the structure not being safe. Once that's done and if in fact it's deemed that the building is not ready to collapse, he will have 30 days after our next hearing to complete all work to bring the structure into compliance. That may have to be reworded or changed. MR. MARINO: Sounds good. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: So essentially we're talking seven weeks from today for him to address this? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it's possible -- INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: We have to put plans in there, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why not limit it to the next meeting? MR. LEFEBVRE: Everything? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, just to see whether this thing is complient or not. And then you're saying another -- Mr. Cadenhead Page 36 June 30, 2015 has said that he can get everything resolved actually in 30 days. But obviously the first thing that needs to be done is to have an engineer and the county looks at the structure. It's either safe or it's not safe. If it's not safe, don't waste your time. MR. CADENHEAD: We understand that, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but if-- I don't think we've ever given a recommendation, an order, and then came back and modified it to that degree and come back and say okay, now that you've got it inspected, the next step is -- I think we do it all in stage one, that if the home is not deemed dangerous, then it can go ahead and be repaired. If it's deemed dangerous, then it has to be demolished. MR. CADENHEAD: I agree with what you said. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll agree to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So your motion is to grant the respondent -- go ahead, I don't want to put words in your mouth. MR. LEFEBVRE: Until next meeting. As I stated, it was pretty long and lengthy. That if the building is not deemed dangerous that he will have 30 days to complete all work to bring it back into compliance. If it is deemed dangerous, then he will have 30 days to demolish the building. And the fines, if you do not have it inspected by 30 days, then it would be $250 and then $250 after the next 30 days, if it wasn't demolished or fully repaired. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Any comments from the board, just to -- MR. DOING: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that solves -- and Mr. Cadenhead, you have no problem with that. MR. CADENHEAD: No, I totally agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, John? Page 37 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: I'm just wondering if it would have been easier just to grant him an extension 'til the next meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think this kind of puts it on -- done. We found him in violation, we'd like to finish. MR. LEFEBVRE: We've given him -- or the county's given him several months. So if there's no fines or anything attached, how do we know that in 30 days from now we might not be in the same position? So I think to attach a fine to it to let him know that it has to be done is the best -- INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: And the ops cost for today? MR. LEFEBVRE: And operational costs to be paid within 30 days, thank you, in the amount of$67.95. MR. MARINO: And $250 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: $250 a day, if the inspections are not done within 30 days. And then after the 30 days if the -- either demolishing the building or all work completed and the certificate of occupancy is not obtained, $250. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know that doesn't quite line up with your proposal, but it seems to work out best for the board. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: I'm just trying to figure out, so am I bringing this back at the next meeting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In 30 days, at the next meeting we should know whether or not -- on the 23rd of July, we should know whether or not the foundation is suitable for this structure. At that time. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: If it is deemed -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If it is deemed -- INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: -- suitable -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If it is suitable, then Mr. Cadenhead has the next 30 days to bring it into compliance or will either demolish Page 38 June 30, 2015 it or 250 a day fine accrues. INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: And if it's determined -- if there's a discrepancy between the building official and his engineer? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The county is what we have to go by. MR. LAVINSKI: The county wins. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The county wins. I mean, I can -- INVESTIGATOR SANTAFEMIA: Does he still have the 30 days for the same thing or does it expedite that process? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, as long as Mr. Cadenhead knows that the engineer and the county have to agree, and if the engineer and the county don't agree, that we are going to use the county's letter as our marching orders, if you will. Because, I mean, I can go out and hire someone to say that I look like a ham sandwich. You know, we understand that. You have an engineer, we have the county to go out there. I would think that they could both agree. If they don't, we know what comes next. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cadenhead. Page 39 June 30, 2015 MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Three from hearings, Tab 3, Case CEN20150002834, Heritage Square Real Estate, LLC. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This is one of the complainants on the property. He'd like to speak at the end after I give my -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Swear everybody in, that way it doesn't cost anything extra. (Mr. David Hoffman and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator and Certified Noise Specialist. This is in reference to case number CEN20150002834, dealing with the violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article IV, Section 54-92(B)(1), no sound shall violate any sound standard provision of this article, table one. Located at the Beach Tavern on 13514 Tamiami Trail North. Folio No. 00152480002. Service was given on February 23rd, 2015. Notice of Violation was signed by the owner, Ms. Joseph Magdelana (phonetic). I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: First, noise readings conducted on April 24th, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you go through all the exhibits that you're going to introduce and then we'll vote to accept them. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Excellent. Noise readings conducted on May 22nd, 2015. An aerial photo showing my locations of my readings. And three pages of the noise ordinance that show tables one, two and three. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, get a motion from the board to accept? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. Page 40 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. On February 15th I conducted several noise/sound readings with the Sheriffs Department. The readings were between 9:30 p.m. and 10:05 p.m. I recorded an average of 78 decibels, which is six decibels over the allowable level of 72 decibels for that time. The ambient level, when the music was off, averaged 63 decibels. So that is a 15 decibel difference from when the music was playing and when the music was off. I conducted those readings from site A at a named complainant's house. This is the first site, A. Can you see there? That is to the north of the Beach Tavern. I then set up a meeting with the owner of the strip mall and he signed the Notice of Violation on February 23rd, 2015. I was still receiving several complaints from the residents directly behind the Beach Tavern and residents to the north of the Beach Tavern. On April 24th, 2015 I found my second violation from directly Page 41 June 30, 2015 behind the Beach Tavern at site two at the named complainant's house. Which is right here on the map. Wait, where am I? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We got it, we see the star. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I consistently was obtaining readings of 73 decibels after 10:00 p.m. when the allowable limit after 10 p.m. is 67 decibels. So that was six over the allowable limit. From the ambient sound from that location, it was 60. So again, it was 13 decibels over from when the source or/music was on rather than off. The third time I found a violation was on May 22nd, 2015. This time I was consistently obtaining readings of 72 decibels after 10:00 p.m. Again, the allowable level after 10:00 p.m. is 67 decibels. On that night when the music was off I was getting ambient sound readings of 54 decibels, meaning that there was a consistent 18 decibel difference from when the music was on and off Right now I'd like to present my complainant in the area, one of the complainants, if that's possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me see if we have any questions of you from the board right now, and then we can go forward. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No questions at this time. Why don't you have your witness, if you will, testify. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Mr. David Hoffman. And he is speaking on behalf of the -- well, he can tell you, the people in San Marino and the people in the area. I have had several complainants from the noise at the Beach Tavern. I personally have had six complainants, named complainants in the area for this. Mr. Hoffman? MR. HOFFMAN: Good morning. I just thought I'd -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you move the microphone down so we -- there you go. Page 42 June 30, 2015 MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you. I just thought I'd bring some evidence, if I may submit it to you to support what's going on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you submit it, that means we keep it, you don't get it back, is that okay? MR. HOFFMAN: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HOFFMAN: I paid 15 bucks to get this one. So from the Collier County Sheriffs, my complaints started November of'f 14. Repeatedly -- many times repeatedly in the same night a sheriff would be sent out, the sound would go down for a little bit, half an hour later back up. You know, they simply don't care. Proof right here. Many of the Collier deputies have said they've never heard music louder. They just shake their head, they can't believe it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What time does the music end? MR. HOFFMAN: Well, this is interesting. Because one of the people that lives in my community said even after it's closed there may be some cleaning people in there and they're still blaring the music. So it's not just when the place is open for business. So sometimes up to 3:00 in the morning, you know. And here's another example. Now, I live in Caribbean Park, which is one community. This is a letter from the manager of San -- Lake San Marino Resort. May I read it? It's short. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. HOFFMAN: To whom it may concern: I have been made aware that there's a proposal of hearing for the case at the Beach Tavern's noise complaint. I would just like to add that our community has been affected by this problem also. We have made numerous -- we have many police complaints and have spoken to the owners and the landlord. Most of the residents of our community are back at their northern homes at this time so they're not available to attend this hearing. I have a file of correspondence from our residents to the Page 43 June 30, 2015 police and if necessary can be obtained. I also have residents talking of putting their homes up for sale, you know, which would cause income loss for this community. I hope these hearings result in a good outcome for our community as well as the surrounding communities. Please feel free to get in touch with me. Susan Jackson, Resort Manager, Lake San Marino Resort. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you tell me what time the music starts? MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, gee, it's been going on for eight months with me, so -- I go to bed early. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What time it starts, 7:00, 8:00 at night? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I can speak to that, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Depending on if they're having live music, sometimes acoustical, sometimes band at happy hour. This can go on any time between 5:00 and 6:00 at night to 10:00 at night. Then typically after 10:00 p.m. they have a deejay come in, and that's what a lot of the residents are complaining about as well, which he could speak to, about the violation of their walls. And 500 feet away from the deejay's bass blaring. And that can go on 'til 2:00 a.m. Some of the people have complained after 3:00. But what the Sheriffs Department has found out is it's mostly people in the parking lot. That's actually not the Beach Tavern or it's people in the area with their bass booming inside the parking lot, and that's something that we cannot enforce. But the music really does start anywhere -- I got a violation before 10:00, my first violation before 10:00 p.m. when the allowable level is 72 decibels, so that's pretty high. I was getting them for 78 decibels at that time. Then I got them after 10:00 when it goes down to 67, and they were still at 72, 73 decibels. Page 44 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you spoken with the landlord? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I have, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what does the landlord say? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The landlord is very frustrated. He said he'd pass on any fine or anything to the Beach Tavern, and he feels like he was duped because that wasn't the type of establishment that he thought was going in there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you spoken to the proprietors of the Beach Tavern? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they say? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: They have a noise meter and they don't think that they're breaking the noise code. Their noise meter is an app. on a cell phone and it's a -- or it's a $50 Radio Shack machine. The machine that I'm using is an $8,000 certified machine that's calibrated every time I go to the location. MR. LEFEBVRE: This establishment has a large outside patio area to the south of it with a bar outside and chairs and everything. I've been there before. Not when it was this place, but prior. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Were you making -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Where is the equipment that they're using? Where are they playing this music? It must be outside then, correct? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sometimes it's outside. I've gotten them for a violation -- the first violation was outside. Second violation, they had a band inside. Now, when I was at my second violation, I was here behind the thing, and I could hear every single word that was playing in the music. It was an AC/DC song and I could sing along with the music. In my eight years of being a certified noise investigator for the county I've never been able to hear the whole song that loud that late at night at 11 :00, pretty much you'll see in the evidence just before 11:00 at Page 45 June 30, 2015 night. MR. LEFEBVRE: That is pretty amazing, because in this establishment, the public area is in front. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Except for on the side where this outdoor patio is. But if you're inside, there's only a couple doors on the side that you can go out. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's the amazing part. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Prior to when we first got these complaints I met with the proprietors of the business and I said, you cannot open those back doors no matter what. You open those back doors, it's going to get even louder. They're aware of that, they've even tried to soundproof that, but they're not regulating the noise inside. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do you have any other evidence to provide? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: That's all the evidence I have. I don't know if Mr. Hoffman still -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have the noise readings? Did you want to talk to those that you had on a sheet? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yeah, I gave those in my testimony, but I just gave those to submit the data that comes from the machine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN. Okay, Mr. Hoffman? MR. HOFFMAN: I have one more letter, if I may. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. HOFFMAN: Again, just to reiterate, I found more than one time -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Microphone. MR. HOFFMAN: I'm sorry. I've called -- they're loud, I'm quiet. I've called numerous times in one night. I mean, the police will Page 46 June 30, 2015 come. What's it costing the taxpayers? The police come, say turn it down. They turn it down maybe 'til the police leave. Half an hour later it's back up. Police come, same night, it's in here, you know, they leave, down, up, down, up. They do not care. Last night one of my neighbors gave me this which substantiates the same problem. To whom it may concern: This is to register a formal complaint against the Beach Tavern located at the intersection of Tamiami Trail and Wiggins Pass. I have on numerous occasions contacted the police throughout the fall and winter season and now into the spring and summer. So the music was loud, she told me last night. Yet after even being cited twice it's still loud. And I started calling last November of 2014. The music is extremely loud and in the fall and winter season and now into the summer. It says: Starting at approximately 10:00 to 11 :00 at night. My residence is located several streets behind this location and the noise rattles the dishes in my cupboard. May I add that the San Marino Manager and me as well have used the words it vibrates our walls, it's (indicating), coming into our homes. I have to get up and go teach. I work in the elementary school system. You know, I can't do this. And I asked Patrick one time, do I have to sell my house? Do I have to sell my house? This is November 14th, you know. And it says that she spoke with Officer Colon (phonetic) concerning this matter and she informed me that there are several of my neighbors that have also lodged complaints against the establishment. I've endured many sleepless and wakeful nights because of their disregard of the noise ordinance rules. They have been told and warned repeatedly, sometimes several times in one night by numerous visits from the police, and they have continued to ignore Page 47 June 30, 2015 these warnings. And there's more to the letter. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't understand why the police can't go back -- if they go back the third time and say now this is past causing a disturbance and have, like, the manager arrested. I mean, I just don't understand why that's not enforceable in that regard. Why is it in this venue? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Typically Code Enforcement handles the commercial to residential complaints. Unfortunately a lot of the residents in Collier County are mostly seasonal in this area and they just call the police. They didn't realize that code enforcement Department handled it. So code enforcement -- I mean so the Sheriffs Department would go out there and they would just address it at that time. Once they learned that they could call code enforcement, we went out there quite regularly. At that time during the past season we only had four noise investigators that could go out. Right now we have more certified noise investigators. I think we're up to about 10 certified noise investigators. So at this time I was handling the case I couldn't be there all the time when the complaints. Mr. Hoffman and five other complainants would call me and saying were you there last night? No, sorry, couldn't be there last night. Because it was really loud. But I said, just give me time, give me time, and over time if it's that loud and everyone's saying it, I'll get them. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion that a violation does in fact exist. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? Page 48 June 30, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Before you go on, do you have a suggestion? We're going to treat this as a repeat violation; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: It can't be repeat because it hasn't been adjudicated, so I would say recurring? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I have a recommendation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you put it on the -- thank you. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The Beach Tavern -- description of violation: The Beach Tavern sound levels exceeding the allowable decibel limit for the time period readings were performed. Recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$70.89 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One: Must confine sound levels to all live performance music and/or amplified music to be pursuant to the Code of Laws Section 54-92.(B)(1)(2), and must not exceed sound levels in table one and two within blank days of this hearing or a fine of "blank" dollars per day Page 49 June 30, 2015 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 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: You spoke with the landlord, you told him the case was coming before us today? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I did not. I called a representative of the landlord, and he said that he might still be out of the country. He wasn't quite sure, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about the owner of the business, were they notified? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The owner of the business was notified. I notified their manager as I was posting the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they said they'd be here, wouldn't be here? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: They told me that they notified the owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the maximum that we can fine in a first violation? MS. NICOLA: Good question. MR. LAVINSKI: Our rules don't list a specific noise. I've been looking for that. I can't find noise. However, where it's reoccurring, whatever number we come up with, we can go one and a half times that. MR. LEFEBVRE: But we have to have heard the case before, correct? MR. LAVINSKI: Well, not according to this. Page 50 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me give you a suggestion. They don't seem to listen. Maybe it's because the noise is too loud. But if we were to impose a $250 a day fine and Code Enforcement goes out there in a week and fines them again, this would be a second case; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: There is a set fine in the ordinance. Unfortunately I don't have it in front of me here and I'm not familiar with the set fine. But most importantly, we'd like to get an adjudication. Once we get one adjudication, then we can come back here and we can ask to remove the amplified sound permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In my spare time I was reading -- and short life, I was reading Florida Statute 162 which does provide, contrary to something we learned this week, a maximum of$500. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, well -- MS. NICOLA: Article 9 says 1,000, that's how I'm reading it, of the rules. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, our rules say 1,000, but I was going to the Florida Statute 162.1.2. MR. LEFEBVRE: What page? MS. NICOLA: What is it, 162.02? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, let me find it for you. MS. NICOLA: I could probably pull that up. MR. LAVINSKI: That will teach the county to send us to school. Now we're really sharp. MR. MARINO: I would go with our rules. MR. LEFEBVRE: I wouldn't go with our rules, I would go with the state rules. MS. NICOLA: Florida Statutes. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Section 54-83, violations, penalties and enforcement. Any person violating any of the provisions Page 51 June 30, 2015 of this article shall upon conviction therefore be subject to a fine not exceeding $500. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. LAVINSKI: That's in 54.92? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. Or imprisonment not exceeding 60 days it says as well. Or both. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So filling in the blanks on your -- how much time -- Gerald, are you doing this one? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll do this one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It shouldn't take much to lower the sound in one day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Since July 4th is coming up, I would give them three days or a fine of$500 a day will be imposed. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then operational costs to be paid within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Of$70.89. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, thank you. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: $500 per violation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Per day the violation occurs. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Typically on a noise case I would go out, I'd let them know you violated -- I'd write them a citation $500 there. The next day could I go back and write them another $500 if they violate it again the very next day? MR. LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it would be $500 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Per incident. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- per incident that you'd go out there instead of per day. Because you want to have it verified. So $500 per incident. Does that -- Page 52 June 30, 2015 MS. NICOLA: Well, I have to pull the statute. In reading the rule, it talks about the amount per day, so I'm not comfortable without looking at the rule with giving an opinion on whether it should be per day or per violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I mean, per violation is less than per day. Because if a neighbor just called up and said the music's loud, we can't verify that. We can verify if a violation exists, like the previous case with -- we can verify that no work's been done. But we can't verify -- if someone called up every single day and said the music's loud, the music's loud, how do we know that? We can't verify it. MS. NICOLA: That's true. Well, they can have the Sheriffs officers going out there, obviously. And that's what it sounds like -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Do they have a meter too at the Sheriffs Department? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The Sheriffs Department now has certified meters and do they have certified deputies, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think what we're trying to do is to make them aware that a problem exists and will not be tolerated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Period. MS. NICOLA: Here's the difficulty I have. I think there's a misdemeanor noise ordinance and I don't know why the Sheriffs Department isn't enforcing it. And my guess is -- and I hate to guess as an attorney, because we like to deal in more black-and-white, but probably the way that that violation reads in the criminal statutes is that the Sheriffs officers have the opportunity to go out and give them misdemeanor violations on a case-per-case basis. What I don't know is whether our particular code enforcement sections allow us to do a per violation or whether we have to do what we've normally done which is a per day ongoing violation, which is what the Code Enforcement official here does, he goes out and checks Page 53 June 30, 2015 it and says it's an ongoing violation, it hasn't been corrected. I mean, it's a difference. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you look at Florida Statute 162.09, paragraph one -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we put that up? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: May I approach? MR. LEFEBVRE: It might be good for all of us to look at that. Unless do you need it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who, me? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, do you need the reference? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I memorized it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. It was very fresh. We went to a course back on Friday for four hours to find out what the Florida law is, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you look down, it says that the fine in imposed in section (sic) shall not exceed $250 a day for the first violation and shall not exceed $500 a day for repeat violation. My question is, if you go out there on a Monday and cite them and then you go out there on a Tuesday, is that the second violation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, if you read the next: However, if the Code Enforcement Board finds the violation to be irreparable, or reversible, which this is reversible, it may impose a fine not to exceed $500 per violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's if you cut down a tree. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a different story. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sir, I think ultimately the main goal here is if they continue to break the noise code and keep upsetting the residents, I'd like to bring them back here again and ask for the removal of their amplified sound permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: And I think that's primarily -- I Page 54 June 30, 2015 don't want to close down a business, but if they're going to break that noise code again, I think the residents would be happy if they didn't have an amplified sound permit. There are other restaurants in that area that don't have an amplified sound permit and they're not breaking the ordinance. MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead, Tony. MR. MARINO: He's called out at 10:30 at night. You got the first violation. 12:00 at night he's called back out again. Second violation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not sure of the answer, Tony. But I think what we're trying to do is to put them on notice that we are looking at them very closely. And if you cite them once and show them a copy of the order -- I'd like to get this order out before the weekend. MS. NICOLA: All the orders are going out before the weekend, because I'm leaving this week. So they're all going out. MR. LEFEBVRE: I got a couple questions. First of all, it says -- in 2(A) it says, a fine imposed pursuant to this section shall not exceed $250 a day for the first violation. So we're saying that it's $500. So will we have to drop down to $250? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what it says. MS. NICOLA: That's what it says. And here's my concern. You know, we're giving him three days. And if this is an ongoing violation then, I mean, it's going to be ongoing for a month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, here's a way to correct this. Not to cut you off. But we can do $250 a day and it would have to be verified by a device, sound device, and it would not -- it would be $250 a day no matter how many times someone goes out there. So if you go out three Page 55 June 30, 2015 times it's $250 a day. Instead of doing it per time. So the maximum could be $250 a day. MS. NICOLA: Well, you know, you could say too that you give them three days to cure it and charge a fine of$250 a day until, you know, say the 4th of July weekend. And then if it's not cured by that time it would be considered to be a repeated violation and an enhanced fine of "X" amount of dollars up to $500 a day. I mean, I think that you could clearly do that under provision 2(A). Because he's going to have to go back out there anyway. I mean, it's not going to end the 4th of July. If my order goes on out on Friday, that's kind of the date we're giving him. We're giving him 'til Saturday. MR. LEFEBVRE: Either that or he can physically deliver the order. MS. NICOLA: Which would be good. We'd give the order to you to deliver to them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Of course. MS. NICOLA: Okay. MR. MARINO: You know, I have something else to say. I used to own a club before. $250 a day, I'll pay that any time if I got a cover charge and I've got money rolling in the door. So you better put it the way you want it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think this place can afford 250 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's only the first day. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Well, with the repeated violation CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then it goes to -- we're going to make the order. Then it goes to 500 a day. Tony, do you think they can afford $500 a day? MR. LEFEBVRE: Repeat violation, does that mean it has to come back in front of us and we have to again -- Page 56 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'm just thinking, if I find another violation, I would bring them directly back to you guys and I'd ask for the removal of their amplified sound permit. I'm not worried about the fine -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What venue do you have to go in front of to request their permit to be pulled? Who grants the permits? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I think Supervisor Letourneau can speak on behalf of that, but I believe we come back to you guys for that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I think we can put that in our order. So we can say $250 the first violation, $500 subsequent violation, and after the second violation we're going to request that the amplified facilities be removed from the establishment. We can put that in the order. I think if you show that to them, going back to what Tony said, $250 may not scare them. $500, that's debatable. It's quite expensive. But if they lose their ability to use an amplifier, I think that would really be a problem for them. So Jeff, did you try to sneak out on us? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I did. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: The question was who would we go to get the amplified permit? Well, that would be the zoning department, that's who issues it. I'd also like to point out that there's even stiffer penalties. Once you remove the amplified sound permit, we could go -- and they do it again, we could go in there with the Sheriffs Office and actually confiscate their equipment at that point. I think -- I've kind of been listening. I think that maybe -- I hate to bring this up now since you guys have been debating this for so long, but maybe we should ask for a civil penalty upfront and then, you know, the abatement. And then in the future if they do it again, Patrick Page 57 June 30, 2015 can come back here, get the second adjudication and then we would ask the zoning department to -- I think they revoke the permit for a year after the second adjudication. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think by doing it the way we're doing it, I think they're going to get an indication that we find this to be a problem and that they need to turn down their equipment. If they don't understand that after the first violation, the second violation should show it. And if we show in the order that we are going to request the zoning folks to revoke their amplified music ability, the Board's power, if you will, is strong enough to have them do that. So I think once they see that, they will adhere to the law. And that's all we want them to do is to come into compliance. That's it. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I guess if we do have a repeat violation, we would ask for a civil penalty upfront next time we bring it back in here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay, so wording this. First violation, $250, giving them three days. Court cost is $70 and change, I don't recall. $70.47. Whatever it was on the -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: $70.89. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: After a second violation, the Code Enforcement Board is going to request the zoning folks to revoke their amplified equipment permit. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Amplified music or sound permit, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. And we will get that order to you. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Can I interrupt you, sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: And also we'd like to add on a civil penalty for the next time they violate the noise ordinance. Page 58 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't really think that's necessary. I think this should do it. If you can get these orders, I'll sign it on Friday MS. NICOLA: I'll have them done by Thursday. I won't be here Friday. I can get this one done today. As long as we're not here all day. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: County offices are closed on Friday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on, one person talk at a time. Go ahead. MS. NICOLA: I said I could probably get this particular one done today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, if you get this one done today and we can get it to you, how do we -- I'll sign it, then I'll go up there and make noise. No. MS. NICOLA: We could email you a copy of it that you could deliver to the establishment. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Excellent. MS. NICOLA: If you give me your email. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Right now? MS. NICOLA: Or whenever. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the owner local? MS. NICOLA: Or come over here and give it to me. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the owner local? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The owner lives in Marco Island, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because I think he should have -- since it's going to be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They should be aware of it. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. Page 59 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's who we have to notify is the owner, the property owner. The proprietor of the business, you're just going to show him a copy of that as -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: A courtesy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a courtesy, but the portion that has to do with removing the permit for the amplified music, I think it will affect him directly. So probably he should be given a copy of the order as well. Do you agree with that, Tammy? MS. NICOLA: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: My email is PatrickBaldwin @Colliergov.net. MS. NICOLA: Okay, got it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll get it to you sometime today and you can hand carry it to them in time for their 4th of July celebration. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Whatever the motion is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Only person than knows is Cherie'. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 60 June 30, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Time for a break. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And with that, we're going to take an eight-minute break. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Okay, that takes care of that case. Moving right along. MS. ADAMS: The next case -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michaelle? MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Four from hearings, Tab 4, Case CEVR20140018858, Michael T. Johnson and Lori R. Johnson. (Mr. Johnson and Investigator Crowley were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement Environment Specialist. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20140018858 dealing with violations of removal of native and non-native vegetation by heavy machinery without required Collier County vegetation removal permit, placement of lime rock fill and mulch shipped material on cleared site without required county permit or authorization, and excavation of existing ground material to a depth greater than three feet over a large portion of the property, then replacement of the removed material with dirty fill brought in from outside without required county permit or authorization. The parcel is located on Crawford Avenue. The property has no site address, but is west of and adjacent to the owners' residence at 2220 Crawford Avenue. Folio No. 00341440002. Posting of the Notice of Violation on the property and at the courthouse was perfected on February 2nd, 2015, and drop service was Page 61 June 30, 2015 also perfected on February 2nd, 2015. Certified mail service came back unclaimed. I would now like to present case evidence on the following exhibits: Three photographs taken by me on September 26th, 2014, one photograph taken by me on January the 8th, 2015, and 16 aerial photos from the Property Appraiser's website showing the progression of the vegetative clearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, has the respondent seen the -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: He has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection? MR. JOHNSON: No. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the photos. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Thank you. Code Enforcement received a complaint alleging the property owner was digging and screening dirt from the property and also selling the excavated dirt. My site visit on September 26th, 2014 revealed a five-acre parcel Page 62 June 30, 2015 virtually cleared of all vegetation except around the outer perimeter and the presence of three dump trucks transporting the dirt. Those were shown on the first photograph. The existence of multiple deep holes in the ground that contained water and fill, some of which consisted of litter and trash-like paper and plastics and two very long piles of dirt taller than 12 feet. A man drove from the back of the property to where I had stopped at the entrance gate and identified himself as the owner, Mr. Johnson, who is here. I explained why I was there and asked what was going on. He said he planned on putting in a plant nursery and that he had to bring in fill to raise the elevation so that the plants didn't have soggy roots. He denied selling the dirt but said he was trading the dirt for stabilizer lime rock fill from a friend that he was going to place on top to raise the elevation three inches to protect the plants. Mr. Johnson invited me to get into his vehicle where he drove me approximately halfway back on the parcel, and that was where I took the photographs. No, do the first three again. I'll explain them. So the first photograph is what is visible from the roadway. I'm in Mr. Johnson's vehicle at the time; it was taken from his truck. And the three dump trucks are visible in the back, and the heavy machinery is there and to the right. Okay, the next picture. We are stopped and now approximately halfway back on the property. And this is the first, which would be the northernmost, of the long piles of dirt that had apparently been excavated from the large trenches that were parallel with the piles of dirt. So you can see the trash from the heavy equipment. And it's a very dark picture. It had rained earlier that day and it was still going to rain, so I apologize for the clarity, but that's what you see. Page 63 June 30, 2015 And then the third picture was also taken while I was in Mr. Johnson's presence. And this shows the first of the filled with water stabilizer and then you can see some floating trash material, papers and plastic on the top. And there's one of the 12-foot-high piles of dirt. You can just leave that on for now, if you want. We were continuing to talk about what his plans were. I was just trying to find out some facts about what had taken place on the property. He indicated that he wanted to find another source of work besides a painting business that apparently there is a home occupation from that location. I began to explain that county -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Home occupation from the dwelling that's adjacent to this property? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Correct. His home, which is immediately to the left as you're looking at this property, which would be to the east. I began to explain that county approval was needed, and at that time he became more reluctant to speak with me. He agreed not to dig another shovelful until he figured what needed to be done to satisfy the county. He then drove me back to my vehicle and said code enforcement had enough photos with the person who was there the day before. Which was news to me to find out that another investigator had been out there the day before on a second complaint dealing with the same alleged violation. I determined that Investigator Christopher Ambach had been out there the day before, along with contractors licensing. As part of his case investigation Mr. Ambach obtained a determination from the Planning Review Department about the screening of the dirty fill, which he had also observed the day before. The determination from the planning department was that, quote, the collection of dirty lime rock and soil that includes garbage which is Page 64 June 30, 2015 processed to filter out the garbage is a type of resource recovery and recycling. The Agricultural Zoning District requires a Conditional Use to permit a collection and transfer site for resource recovery. The on-site activities described do not appear to be accessory to an approved permitted agricultural use, which is also a violation. However,the property owner can wholesale the dirt as part of a wholesale plant nursery while the retail sale of soil and plants requires a Conditional Use. And that determination was made by Mr. Ray Bellows, Comprehensive Planning Manager. By the time of my subsequent site visit on January the 8th, the dirt piles were gone. This is a photograph that I took on January the 8th. The dirt piles are now gone. What is in place of it, however, are piles of mulch approximately 15 feet tall. Again, stretching in the same location where the dirt had been -- presumably the dirt had either been sold or pushed back onto -- into the excavations that had already existed when I was there back in September. Further research and consultation with environmental review staff found that this property is within the rural fringe sending lands area, specifically to protect and preserve natural resources and providing for large areas of open space. In short, effective in 2002 with the adoption of the Rural Fringe Sending Lands, this property would allow the owner to clear only up to 20 percent of the parcel and would require that 80 percent of the parcel remain forested with natural vegetation. The clearing for a driveway access road and a metal building that is now on the property that now exists constitutes that 20 percent. An after-the-fact exotic vegetation removal permit would need to be obtained to get approval for that 20 percent of clearing that would be allowed under the rural sending lands for the driveway and the building; however, nothing would allow further clearing of the Page 65 June 30, 2015 additional 80 percent such as exists now unless and until the owner would obtain a Conditional Use for something that the county would approve of or another authorization. If a Conditional Use or other official county approval cannot be obtained, the owner would be required to hire an environmental consultant to prepare and submit a mitigation plan to restore the vegetation that was removed. I'm now going to show, this is the history of the Property Appraiser's aerials showing what the property looked like. The yellow box indicates the five-acre parcel in question. This is what it looked like in 1985. It appears to have just a horse trail or some kind of manmade path from north to south. And then these are just going to be a series of follow-ups. In 1995 there's a slightly larger path. The house to the right of the picture is the home that Mr. Johnson lives on, on Crawford. This next aerial is in 2002. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson purchased the property, both properties in 2001. So this was a year after they had purchased it. The home is there on the right. And there's now additional clearing that's starting to take place along the left edge of the parcel. 2003. Again it's still almost completely vegetated except for those openings to the left. 2004. This is when there starts to appear to be some things missing from the center of the property. 2005. There's been additional clearing, additional trails, pathways. 2006. There's now a distinct driveway along with some equipment or storage containers that are now stored on the property. 2007. Again the cleared space is getting larger. 2008. Now you can start seeing that the canopy is missing, that the actual trees have been removed along the outer portions on either Page 66 June 30, 2015 side of the driveway. Again, there's further clearing. And now it appears to be devoid of green vegetation in the entire, I'd say, the rear three acres of the parcel. 2010. Again, the only vegetation exists on that very perimeter and a small cluster in the front closest to Crawford Avenue, which is at the top of the page. 2011. This is when we start seeing additional items being placed upon the property, which Mr. Johnson tells me today were -- what do you call them? MR. JOHNSON: They're empty containers. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Yeah, storage containers that he was allowing a friend to store there. MR. JOHNSON: Yahl Mulching was building their new plant and they didn't have enough room to store their containers, and they asked me if they could put them there while they were building. And I let them do it, because she helps us with the roads and everything out there all the time, so I was just being a neighbor, you know. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: 2012. The containers are still on-site. Some had been moved. They're not all there. 2013. The containers are mostly gone, the road is more pronounced, and you're starting to see at the end that's where the building will be placed. 2014. The white colored pad at the bottom center of the picture is where the building will become, or will be situated. And again, there's just no vegetation except on the outer perimeters. And this is the most recent, 2015. This aerial actually shows the two parallel rows of the dirt and/or the mulch, depending upon when the picture was taken. The excavated area was in the center between the piles. And that was where we stopped and where I took my photographs. Page 67 June 30, 2015 So this is pretty much how it exists now. The mulch has been removed. It is no longer there. So the area is now flat. Mr. Johnson has planted I think three oak trees -- MR. JOHNSON: There's five oaks. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Five oaks in the front along Crawford Avenue. But that is the only revegetation that has occurred. And that's how it exists now and the violations remain as of today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Johnson? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you let us know what is occurring on that property. MR. JOHNSON: I'm -- basically I have -- I'm getting older and I want to, you know, raise some animals and maybe put a nursery in, you know, do something. Because to be honest with you, a year ago I was crippled, I was paralyzed on my right side and I realize that I'm not going to be able to paint the rest of my life. I can't climb ladders no more. So I basically want to do something on my property. Well, I was told, and evidently I was told wrong, that it being an agricultural land, that I could clear it and not have to have a permit, beings I was not, you know, making a business out there. And so I did it. And I'm guilty as hell. I mean, what do you -- I did it, I cleared the land. I didn't know I needed a permit. And, you know, now I know I need a permit. They asked me not to dig. I filled it in. I did everything they asked me to. The only thing I need to know is what they want me to get as a permit and I'll take care of that. MR. LEFEBVRE: What fill did you use? MR. JOHNSON: I put the fill back in that was there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was it the fill that you brought on-site with all the plastics and everything? MR. JOHNSON: They were -- that was probably 10 loads, Page 68 June 30, 2015 maybe 20 loads. I know that, Lori, I know. That was just some cups and papers and stuff. And I cleaned that out. I got two guys in there with a dead net, we cleaned it all out, put it in trash cans and I put it up at the road and the trash man come and got it. And that's the God's honest truth. I don't know what to say, you know. And I filled it back in with dirt. The dirt that was there, I mean, I'll show you, I've got a picture on my phone with where the dirt is and what dirt I put in it, you know. They asked me to fill it back in, I filled it back in. The licensing and permitting gentleman called me on the phone, asked me if I would fill it back in, I said no problem. I filled it back in. And he told me, all right it's closed, I won't be bothering you no more. And then Ms. Crowley come back and says that I was still in violation because I cleared the vegetation without a permit. And so I guess I'm still in violation, you know, even though I tried to correct it, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not in violation until we say you're in violation. We have to vote on that. But you're saying that you were in violation, so why don't we -- MR. JOHNSON: I guess so. I mean, I don't know what to say. I mean, I did do it, but I didn't do it with intent of doing anything wrong, you know. And I did trade 10 loads of dirt for 10 loads of lime rock. And that's what she seen the trucks doing. And that's the truth. I mean, I can't do -- tell you nothing other than that, you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation does exist. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Page 69 June 30, 2015 Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Yep, you're in violation. Okay. Now, Michaelle, have you discussed with Mr. Johnson what needs to be done to resolve this situation? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: To some extent. A lot of it depends on what he ultimately wants to do with his property. You know, I could tell him you could do this, but if that turns out not what he wants to do -- I've met with Mr. Johnson multiple times, other staff from code enforcement has met with him and other representatives who are trying to work with him to trying to resolve it. I know he's at this point pursuing a possible -- he's applied for an ag. exemption from the Tax Collector, but that won't be effective until January of next year. But that doesn't resolve the clearing violation that has occurred. Because it's a part of the rural sending lands and legally under the ordinances he cannot remove more than 20 percent of the vegetation. So, you know, one resolution to satisfy or to allow the 20 percent removal for the driveway and for that building in the back is to get an after-the-fact exotic vegetation removal permit. But that still leaves us with the additional 80 percent of the five-acre parcel that is cleared of Page 70 June 30, 2015 all vegetation, including natives. There was considerable Brazilian pepper, there's a lot of that in the ag. lands. But it's also a cypress area. There are still I believe one or two cypress trees standing in the front that are very visible. And that is indicative of his indication why he wanted to bring in the fill, because the water level -- the ground was too low to support the plants at its natural elevation. MR. JOHNSON: Excuse me, you can go look right now on either pieces of property on either side of me, 90 percent of it is pine trees. There are cypress trees. I can go anywhere in Naples, Florida and show you cypress trees. And I didn't take out the cypress trees. I actually like them. The majority of the trees I did take out were dead pine trees. I had mules in there and they stomped the roots on those pine trees. And I'll show you on any place that you want to go where they have animals, animals when they stomp the roots of the pines they get bore bugs in them and the trees will die. And I had a ton of dead pine trees over there. Which I should have took them out with a chain saw but I didn't know that, I took them out with a machine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. Right now you're in violation and you're asking what can I do to make this all go away. MR. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's what I'm asking, because I don't know yet what can be done to make this go away. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I'm not sure that it can go away. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: There are other avenues, for instance, like a Conditional Use as a plant nursery, for instance. That's one of his options. But he's got to apply for it, he's got to go through the review process, satisfy the other end of the building, the environmental review and the planning services people, so that they can give the authorization for whatever it is he wants to do. At one point when we first were on-site, it appeared as if that's Page 71 June 30, 2015 what it was, it was going to be some kind of a recycling station, that he was -- he had a screener on, and there was a screener there to remove -- pull out some of the litter. And that's why the determination was given by the planning department that a recycle transfer station would also require a Conditional Use. But I guess -- I can't tell him what he wants to do with his property. He has to either put it in use where he can do what he has done on the property and get it approved and signed off by everybody in the county who needs to or, and this is an expensive proposition, he has to do a mitigation plan and revegetate 80 percent of the property, as well as get the after-the-fact vegetation removal permit for the driveway and the pad for the building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so it seems that in order for you to do what the county would like, the first thing you have to do is decide what you want to do, given the options that have been discussed. MR. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I ask, what's the most palatable solution? MRS. JOHNSON: We have a gentleman -- MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Ramsey and I was talking, I'm going to actually raise some goats. And he'll explain to you -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you swear him in. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning, board members. My name -- (Mr. Ramsey was duly sworn.) MR. RAMSEY: Good morning. My name is Michael R. Ramsey. I'm the President of Ramsey, Inc. I'm an Ecological and Environmental Consultant. Mr. Johnson and his wife have contracted me to help him assist with the situation to come up with solutions and options. And on the property they're on, the only options that they do have Page 72 June 30, 2015 that he'd like to -- that we've been talking about that he would like to pursue, under the rules in the LDC for sending lands there is an agricultural option that you could clear the entire property if you agree to engage in a 25-year agreement if you go into a bona fide agricultural operation. And so discussions with Mr. Johnson, he's indicated that he would like to pursue going into grazing of livestock that is deserving of agricultural exemption, and they would like to pursue that option. And there is provisions within the LDC in the operations to allow for that. And I think we would -- he has indicated he'd like to pursue that. Because the agricultural area out there, it's kind of confusing what you can and can't do. There's a whole lot of rules and regulations, and probably some misinformation being spread out there. So in our conversations I try to make it clear that where he's at right now, this would be probably the best solution for him, to pursue the grazing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And what would that require as far as the violations concerned to abate it? MR. RAMSEY: My understanding of the LDC and the rules involved with it, if he wants to pursue that, the first thing he'd have to agree is to the 25-year agreement with the county. That would allow him to then pursue a vegetative clearing option with agricultural exemption. And he'd have to stay in that for 25 years. If he didn't, he'd have to restore it back to its initial natural condition. And he would -- he's already approached the Property Appraiser about his proposal. The way the Property Appraiser works, the ag. representative comes out, he reviews the property, he looks at what he wants to do. If it's deserving, the next following year he is deserving of ag. exemption on that property, which is a confirmation of the activity. And only certain activities are deserving of ag. exemption, and this would be one. Page 73 June 30, 2015 So it would take until next January 1st to be deserving of the ag. exemption. From now 'til that point he'd have to undertake all the activities to acquire the permits necessary, get the vegetation clearing permit, sign the agreement and then acquire the animals to begin the activity. MR. JOHNSON: I've already bought two. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you come up to the mic. MR. JOHNSON: I've already purchased two of the goats. They've just been born, but I can't get them for another two months. They won't separate them from the mother and stuff for 12 weeks. So I got two months to wait to get the two goats. And then I would like to say start building a pen on there, but I don't know what to do because anything I do, it seems that it's wrong. So, I mean, I asked Ms. Crowley if I could build a pen for my goats and she says I don't know. I mean, I ask people things and I get an answer that I don't know, you'll have to look into that. So I tried looking into it and I'm getting nowhere with an answer. But I would really like to have the -- if I want to take and have animals, I want them taken well care of I want to have a pen. I don't want panthers coming and eating my animals that I spend time and money on to raise, me and my grandson, and they be eaten by a panther. So I've got to build a fence up high enough for them not to be able to eat my goats. But yet I don't know if I can or not, you know. I don't get an answer to do anything, so -- I do want to raise the goats and let this thing go away. Like I say, I never did it with any intentions of doing anything wrong, so, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michaelle, based on what we're hearing, if that's a direction that Mr. Johnson wants to go in, what would need to be done to have that work out from the county's perspective? Page 74 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: He's taken the first step. He -- on one of the times that I was on-site, he handed me one of the signed copies that he had gotten of his application for the ag. exemption from the Tax Collector. So he gave me a copy of that. He has to satisfy the other end of the building. Now, he did ask me, could he put rolling goat pens on the property. You know, I don't know, I'm not the one who makes that decision. That would be the permitting department. Fences would have to have a permit. So there's a lot of staff on the other side of our building that he's going to have to meet with and follow through with what -- he's actually met with at least two of them already. That was several months ago. But he's got to follow through with it, you know, and work with a consultant that maybe he's got one of-- Mr. Ramsey can do it and help assist him. You know, I can't answer all of his questions because, you know, code enforcement is the enforcement arm, we don't issue the permits. So what the requirements -- MR. JOHNSON: I stopped getting the per -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: -- are, I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, one at a time. MR. JOHNSON: I stopped with applying for the permit for the fact is I got a notice to come to a hearing. So I never followed through with anything because I didn't know what was going to happen and where I would be having to spend the money. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So one of the things that you need -- I'm trying to cut through whatever I can, not an easy chore -- is you need some time to do what Mr. Ramsey has earmarked. You would need some time to do that. MR. JOHNSON: I have no issues -- excuse me, I have no issues of going down and getting that after-the-fact permit at all. I have none. But I just didn't do it. I stopped doing it because I didn't know what was going to happen in here, what I had to do in here. Page 75 June 30, 2015 I will follow through with that, I'll go down and get the permit next week, you know. That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know how much time this would require. I mean, obviously this would bring us into January, if he is granted the exemption. It would bring us into January of next year; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Correct. He would also -- yeah, for the ag. exemption. With regard to the 25-year contract with the county, I've seen those, the other end of the building does issue those, but he has to commit to doing I believe a commercial ag. use. It cannot be private agricultural use like having five pet goats on there. That's not going to do it. It has to be a commercial ag. use. And he has to work with representatives from the planning review services side as to what he needs to do or what his commitment is so that he knows if he deviates from that within that 25 years then he's violated the terms of that agreement. MR. RAMSEY: If I might add, I work a lot with agriculture in this issue. The property appraiser is a representative of the Department of Revenue comes out and inspects operations for agricultural. They only afford an agricultural exemption for a bona fide commercial ag. product that produces an income and revenue. For instance, in Hendry County you can get an ag. exemption for timber production, but you can't in Collier, because they don't allow it. So when the ag. appraiser goes out and looks at the property and he looks at the animals intended to be used, he makes a determination if they're going to produce revenue. In this case goats and cattle will produce that. And it's been done before. In regards to agriculture, generally agriculture has been deemed not to be -- not to have to be permitted. It is a right to do agriculture on your property. The county's been through this issue before. So Page 76 June 30, 2015 agriculture is a right of the landowner. But he does have to undertake certain steps to perfect that activity. He has to agree to a vegetation clearing, he has to agree to a 25-year commitment. And when the representative from the Property Appraiser comes out and confirms that he's done a bona fide ag. operation, that is an outside confirmation of that activity. So everything we're talking about has been done and can be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it appears that the most viable option for Mr. Johnson is to go down that route. Not three goats, it will be more than three goats to be a commercial venture. And based on what Mr. Ramsey has just said, are you agreeing to do all of those things? MR. JOHNSON: I have no issue with that at all. I have a two-year-old grandson and I want him in 4-H, and that will be a perfect way for him to get into that. I don't want him out here in the street running around causing trouble. I want to raise him properly. I help my daughter and son-in-law with him. They live with us. And, I mean, that's why I live where I live. You know, I don't bother nobody out there, you know. And if you go around Naples and look at the places that are 10 times worse than mine, especially in my neighborhood, but nothing gets said about it. The only reason why this is here is because someone made a complaint on me. Otherwise I wouldn't even be here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, well -- MR. JOHNSON: But I will do it. I will agree to the solution. I mean, I have no issues with that. And I told her that. I want to resolve it. I want it done and over with. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so what we need from the board is to come up with an idea of how much time would be required to do this. Michaelle, do you have a suggestion for us, by the way? Page 77 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I do have a recommendation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That will be -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: It doesn't, however, include a time frame, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$66.69 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations within "blank" days of this hearing or a fine of "blank" per day per violation to be imposed until the violations are abated by: Number one: Ceasing all land clearing, excavation and/or landfill operations and preparing and submitting a mitigation plan which meets the criteria pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(E)(3), and obtain approval of said and complete the installation of required plan. The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in Section 3.05.07(H) or Chapter 7 of the Administrative Code. Or the owner must obtain any and all applicable permits to include vegetation removal or vegetation removal and landfill permits pursuant to Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) that may allow this vegetation removal. If removal permits cannot be obtained, the native vegetation must be restored or replaced as above described. Number two: Must obtain any required excavation permit from the Growth Management Department and comply with all excavation requirements of the Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article IV, Sections 22-106 through 22-120, or must cease all excavation activity immediately until such activities are approved under a valid permit. Any unpermitted fill material, including but not limited to mulch and stabilizer must be removed from the site. Page 78 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what I'm looking at is the beginning of one probably won't happen. That would be extremely expensive mitigation. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: It would be very expensive. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Plant all of the dead pines back, et cetera. Probably the second part after the word "or" to get all applicable permits to qualify the property as a commercial -- what Mr. Ramsey said. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Agricultural use. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Agricultural use. That seems to be the way that Mr. Johnson is leaning. And to do that he would probably need sufficient time to bring him past, we wouldn't know if that was agreed to until after January or -- I don't know exactly when they would make that determination. Is it the first of the year or is it subsequent to that? MR. JOHNSON: It's the first of the year. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: First of the year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is the first of the year? Okay, so -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: The application is actually already dated January 1 of 2016 and signed off by the representative. So post -- they date them ahead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if anybody would like to take a shot at this? If not, I'll try something. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I just wanted to make sure that one of the things that he needs to do is he and any representatives need to meet with county staff between now and January 1st so that everything's in order, he knows what he needs to do. You know, perhaps they've even executed and they have a provisional agreement, the 25-year agreement. He just needs to meet with the other end of Growth Management to make sure that what needs to be done is being Page 79 June 30, 2015 done, and if there's any obstacles we'll know about them before January the 1st. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Johnson, do you have a problem meeting with the county -- MR. JOHNSON: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we're going to make that part of the order. So filling in the blanks and adding some language, 66.69 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days. Now, the time limit to get everything done? Probably the meeting would -- the meeting where the exemption would be granted will be January 1st, so it would be our January, 2016 meeting date would be the date that I would put in there. Or a fine of$100 a day imposed after that. So let me just do a quick review. The respondent will meet with the county to determine what is required for the exemption and follow through on that with the 25-year agreement. And that should occur within the next 120 days. And then should follow up with the required paperwork and permits to bring the property into compliance by -- I don't know what our January -- MS. NICOLA: 28th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: January 28th meeting date would be. Fines would be $100 a day after January 28th. MR. MARINO: 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 2016. 2015 has come and gone, January. I don't know if you noticed that. But I have a calendar back here for you. Okay, have I missed anything? MR. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Page 80 June 30, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Is he going to be allowed to bring the goats and all in there even though he doesn't have all the permits or anything? MR. JOHNSON: I don't know what to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think that he could probably -- if he's talking about two goats right now, he could have that on his own property. He doesn't need anything for that out there. Is that correct, Michaelle? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I belie-- I haven't researched his adjacent parcel, but I believe it's also zoned ag. and there are allowed uses for animals, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: Just to help with that answer, sir, the Property Appraiser, he likes -- the way they operate is they want you to prepare the property, get it ready and bring animals on there to show and provide evidence so that when he comes out there in January he wants to see them, he wants to see activity in evidence. So yes, he would like for you -- they want you to go ahead and get them on there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, you're going to meet with the county and go over that in the next 120 days to see what's required. And Mr. Johnson, you'll be able to do all of that? MR. JOHNSON: I'll do my best. I've been trying to do everything to cooperate anyway. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I think unless there are any other questions from the board on that I'm looking for a second. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. MR. LAVINSKI: Michaelle, has this last four-minute dissertation by our Chairman, has that solved the issues that may have brought up by the original complaints? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: It has. The original complaints primarily were excavating dirt and selling it. And I believe that that was also the complaint that had gone to Mr. Ambach who at that time Page 81 June 30, 2015 was the area investigator. When I met with Mr. Johnson and explained, you know, that we had gotten a complaint about this activity, he indicated that he believed it was somebody who had asked to buy some of his dirt and he turned him down. Whether that happened or not, I don't know, but he was excavating -- some of the dirt was being hauled off and that's what was going on when I was there. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So if he ceases and desists that -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: He has ceased and desisted. MR. LAVINSKI: -- we've satisfied his original -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: That is correct, he did that almost immediately. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: It was at that point that whoever I saw that the acreage had been cleared, that's why my case kind of waited for Mr. Ambach's determination to see was he going to put it into a legitimate permitted use that would have allowed the clearing. And when that didn't take place, then that's when I had to serve my notice for the vegetation. MR. JOHNSON: Excuse me, he asked me to fill it in and I said I had had no problems with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me get the vote on this done so we know where we are. Any other comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: I just want to see if he's going to get the goats and that that he doesn't continue another violation by bringing two goats on that parcel if he's not allowed to do that. Now we got another citation. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: To my knowledge he can use animals on that property. MR. LAVINSKI: On that -- Page 82 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: They're not going to clear anymore vegetation that's already gone. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. Yeah, I just hate to see him go further down the rat hole. MR. RAMSEY: Just to confirm your question on that. Ag. zoned property, you're allowed to do any agricultural activity without a permit. MR. LAVINSKI: Whether you have buildings or not. MR. RAMSEY: That's a different issue. That's different. But bringing animals, code enforcement even in the Estates and ag. zoned property, you can have animals out there without permits. But Estates zoning, you have a limit per acre. But on ag. you don't. Depends on the zoning. MR. LAVINSKI: How's he going to get his fences and the shed to keep these little goats from becoming supper? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those are other permits. MR. RAMSEY: That's a fencing permit. The county does that regularly. And then once you have ag. zoned property and you have a legitimate ag. activity, you can have accessory structures to support that ag. activity. And actually with ag. zoned property you don't have to have a permit for a building. MR. LAVINSKI: That's interesting. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: There are certain conditions. It can't have electric, you know, there's -- and I've never been inside the building, I don't have if it has electric or not. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other question I have -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: That's not part of my case. MR. LEFEBVRE: You said there's accessory buildings that you can have. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Page 83 June 30, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: You do not have to have a primary structure on this property, correct, like a residence? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: That is correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, so you can have these structures without being -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I'm not going to commitment to -- though building that's in the back now, I'm calling it a pole barn. I don't know what else to call it. MR. JOHNSON: It's a shed. It is a metal shed. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: It's a large metal shed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, call the question, please. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I haven't inspected to tell if it's legal or not. MR. JOHNSON: Well, you're more than welcome, Ms. Crowley. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN. Okay. MR. JOHNSON: In fact, there's no power on the property whatsoever, no plumbing, nothing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Call the question. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So hopefully you'll get everything done, you'll meet with the county in the next 120 days and then they'll guide you to wherever you Page 84 June 30, 2015 want to go, and hopefully in January you'll have a whole bunch of goats there running around taking care of the property. Thank you very much. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: Thank you for your time. That was interesting. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, from this side too. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Six from hearings, Tab 6, Case CESD20140017065, Davis Crossing VIII, LLC. (Investigator Ford was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR FORD: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR FORD: For the record, Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CESD20140017065, dealing with violation of building and land alteration permits, Collier County Land Development Code 01-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). Permit 2009120450 expired without inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy. Located at 8770 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 34690080008. Service was given December 29th, 2014. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Permit 2006012408. Application date January 18, 2006. Permit 2009120450, application date, December 9th, 2009. And that's a reapplication. Three photos of the structure taken on August 28th, 2014 by Investigator Kincaid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that it? INVESTIGATOR FORD: That's it. Page 85 June 30, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to accept. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR FORD: On January 8, 2006 a permit application was made by the Benderson Development Company, LLC, owners of Davis Crossings VIII, LLC. On October 4th, 2007, Permit 2006012408 was issued for commercial businesses, one-story retail shell building. On December 9th, 2009 a reapplication was applied for by the same company for the same site development as previous permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you one second. 2006, is that the permit we have in front of us? It is. And either my eyes are going or it looks real blurry to me. This was a permit for what? INVESTIGATOR FORD: The commercial businesses, one-story retail shell building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And then in 2007? INVESTIGATOR FORD: That was issued. MR. LEFEBVRE: It was reissued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Reissued in 2007, okay. Page 86 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR FORD: No, it was reissued -- actually a re-app was done in 2009 for that 2006 permit which expired. Where was I? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 2009. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Okay. All right, 2009, December 9th, 2009 reapplication was applied for by the same company for the same site development as the previous permit. On July 1st of 2010 permit 2009120450 was issued. A two-year extension was granted December 14th, 2012 with an expiration of February 9th, 2015 for that 2009 permit. On February 9th, 2015 another 90-day extension was granted with a new expiration of May 11th, 2015 which expired without inspections and/or certificate of completion or occupancy. To date the violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have pictures also. INVESTIGATOR FORD: I believe the Board's aware of this property. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's on the corner of Davis and -- INVESTIGATOR FORD: 951. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- 951. Southwest corner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's one, two -- it's a big project. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Sure is. MR. LEFEBVRE: I can't believe it's taken -- INVESTIGATOR FORD: Seven or eight-year project in the making. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What has the respondent said on this? INVESTIGATOR FORD: Well, it appears to me -- I'm one of several investigators that have had it through the years, and it appears to me the only real time they're interested in doing something with the property is when their permit's about to expire. I haven't seen a piece Page 87 June 30, 2015 of construction equipment on that place in four years, so -- and they're not here today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When was the last time you had contact with them? Jeff knows. INVESTIGATOR FORD: I have Supervisor Letourneau up here. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I actually was on the phone with the attorney for the company probably a half an hour ago, and I explained the situation to him. I told him that if they -- they're trying to get an engineer right now to say that the existing structure is viable to continue the work on it. That's what their goal is, to get the permit reissued. But the chief building official, Jonathan Walsh, has told them that they need to get an engineer to sign off on what's there because of the weathering and what else went on in the last five years. So they're well aware that the hearing's going on right now, because I was on the phone with them a half an hour ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So Board, does a violation exist? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation does exist. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 88 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, Art? INVESTIGATOR FORD: Yes, sir. That 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: One: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within "blank" days of this hearing or a fine of"blank" per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: 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, so the main thing we want to see from a county perspective, from a board perspective, is that they start -- INVESTIGATOR FORD: Do something with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do something with this place, build it or tear it down, one of the two. Now, they are going to get an engineer out there, according to Jeff. That's a good start. Now, to do this order within blank days of this hearing to get a CO, you're probably talking about well over a year. You can't build a house in a year, so this thing will probably take several years. So we need to have something, some sort of an order Page 89 June 30, 2015 that shows that progress is being made on that product within so many days, so it would probably be a two-part order, recommendation. Comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree with that totally. Because it seems like they're waiting until the 1 l th hour, and in this case past the 11th hour. We're here today and Jeff was on the phone with them. I think we do need a tiered order stating that permits have to be submitted, maybe a two or three tier, but it's going to take time for this to be completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, inspections have to occur. If they redid the permit you have to do so many inspections in a given period of time to know that progress is going on, otherwise the permit also expires again. MR. LEFEBVRE: If an inspection's done then a permit's good for another six months, correct? So one inspection. INVESTIGATOR FORD: It would be nice just for the residents and visitors of Collier County to at least see some construction equipment out there. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's a very high profile corner. And with other people -- with other developments going on to see this languish for as long as I can remember driving by there is not a good impression upon visitors and so forth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What was this going to be? MR. LEFEBVRE: Strip retail. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just a strip retail? INVESTIGATOR FORD: A strip mall, you know, kind of shops and things like that as far as I can tell from the construction. MR. LEFEBVRE: Benderson owns multiple corners down there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They have a lot of money tied up in this obviously and it's just sitting there. So would someone like to take a shot at putting together a two-tiered motion? Gerald? Page 90 June 30, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Seems like I'm getting all the complicated ones. I'll start it and Bob will finish it. Just trying to think of what amount of time we'll need to be done for permits to be submitted. Because the permits to be submitted is in the control of the owner. How long it takes for review and everything and changes or corrections is not. MR. MARINO: Gerald, one of the permits, if you look at the date, took one of them 10 months to get approved from the time it was put in until the time it was actually approved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I'm sure it's probably some rejections due to different things. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the submittal is something that can happen. You can have an engineer look at it, the engineer says the steel's okay, the ground's okay, now we need to start the whole process, submit a request for permits. That can occur in -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think that should be -- if an engineer is looking at the building, if it's found deemed to be suitable to move forward, they should have the plans already with some modifications probably to the new building code from when this was originally designed to now, which would be pretty minor. So once it's deemed that it's okay, we can go -- INVESTIGATOR FORD: That's providing an engineer will sign off on the thing. It's been sitting out in the weather for seven -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if they don't sign off on it, it becomes easier. Then demolish it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right. MR. LAVINSKI: So we could make that 60 days to get that determination. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think Mr. Lavinski should probably -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to try it? Page 91 June 30, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Not really. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you want, I'll try it. Okay, I give him 120 days to submit permits. And if they don't submit a permit or permits in 120 days, $250 a day fine lien -- fine. The $65.85 to be paid within 30 days. This is tier one. Tier two, that they continue until completion. And completion with a CO should occur within two years from today. I think that's being fair. If not, $250 a day thereafter. Two years would be July of '17, 2017. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on, hold on. A section is not -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, go ahead, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: Regarding the demo, if the building is deemed not to be able to be completed or move forward, then demo in what period of time? MR. LAVINSKI: Can't we make that part of the first phase so that we don't give them 120 days to get an engineer to decide that the thing is a bunch of junk. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. They have to apply for a permit, whether it's to complete the place or tear it down, in 120 days. So we'll make that part of the motion. Apply for permits to continue work on this project or if the engineer says that you can't solve -- save the existing structure that a demo permit be pulled within 120 days or a $250 fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, that sounds better. As long as there's some words in there that say that if it's a pile of junk, let's tear it down. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll accept that amendment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The second accepts that. It's an Erector set. Okay, discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think two years is extensive. I think that's Page 92 June 30, 2015 too long from today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To get at CO on that building? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What would you suggest? MR. LEFEBVRE: 18 months max. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You twisted my arm. 18 months. I'll change it if the second will change it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I will accept the change. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Art. MR. LAVINSKI: Could we call that guy who made that Statute of Liberty disappear to come down and do something to that building? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have to send him a subpoena. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Seven from hearings, Tab 7, CESD20150007433. Rick Lynn White and Victoria Jacob. (Investigator Giannone was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Page 93 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: For the record, Joseph Giannone, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CESD20150007433 dealing with the violations of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), an above ground pool installed with a wooden deck without the proper Collier County permits and inspections. Located at 2972 41st Street Southwest, Naples Florida, 34116. Folio No. 36517680000. Service was given on April 13th, 2015, on the date when the proof of service was received. I'd like to now present case evidence in the following exhibit: A photo taken by Investigator John Connetta on April 13, 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was that your only piece or do you have more? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: I have two pictures, one taken by myself today, and the one from Mr. Connetta. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so you have two photos? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, because we have to vote on it, might as well combine them. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Cherie', pick your choice. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 94 June 30, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Flowerpot. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: That's the photo by Investigator Connetta. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this one was taken in April? MS. GREEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a fence around that? I don't see it. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: In the back there is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: And that's the picture I took yesterday myself, sir. And you see a deck in the foreground. Where you see that chair? It's getting a little difficult to see, but that's the deck that's of issue too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is anybody living at this residence? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: No, sir. This is lis pendens. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a safety hazard, do you think? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Is it what? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably not if it's four feet high. Is it empty? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: No, sir, I believe it's probably about three feet full. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it's four feet. If it's more than four feet, you don't need to fence it. But I may be wrong. My insurance company said I can't even have that, so -- okay, any Page 95 June 30, 2015 discussion from the board? Is this in violation? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second a violation exits. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, Joe? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Yes, sir. Recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board order respondent to pay all operational costs of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demo permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within "X" amount of days of the hearing or a fine of "X" amount per day will be imposed that 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 by 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 Page 96 June 30, 2015 owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask a couple of quick questions. Number one, have you been in contact with the respondent? MS. GREEN: Yes, we've tried to get in touch with the bank which is HSBC. And we tried to get them to abate it. And not only myself, but I think one of the other ladies that are -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So are the respondents Rick Lynn White and Victoria Jacob, or is it the bank? MS. GREEN: It's the bank, sir, that has the lis pendens. But this was with Rick and Lynn (sic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They owned it. The banks generally don't want to get involved in that until they foreclose. MS. GREEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the actual respondents right now remain Rick Lynn White, et cetera. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: We've done everything we can to try to find them and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're gone, whatever. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: -- and Notice of Violation as such has never been responded to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll give it a shot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that the admin. fees of 65.01 be paid within 30 days. That the violation be corrected within 30 days or a fine of$200 a day be imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? Page 97 June 30, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Twelve from hearings, Tab 12, Case CESD20150002056, Reg8 Berkshire Commons, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If possible, after this case why don't we take the people who are here and we can change the order of agenda so that we don't keep people too late. (Aile Tran, Lisa Hall and Investigator Giguere were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you give us your name also on the mic. MS. HALL: Yeah, Lisa Hall, and I'm with Regency Centers. We own the shopping center. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can't hear you. MS. HALL: Lisa Hall, H-A-L-L. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're with? MS. HALL: Regency Centers. We own this building. I'm the Property Manager. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: And just so the board knows, the other lady standing up here is the wife of the business owner for the nail salon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 98 June 30, 2015 INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Good morning. For the record, Vickie Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CESD20150002056, dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). 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 located at 7063 Radio Road, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio No. 23945007103. Service was given on February 18th, 2015. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photo taken on January 30th, 2015 by Investigator Michele McGonagle, and six photos taken on January 31st, 2015 by Investigator Michele McGonagle. And these files are stored in a data base accessible to us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you seen the photos? MS. TRAN: Yes. MS. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to the photos? • MS. TRAN: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're going to have to speak up for us, by the way. I can barely hear you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ms. Hall, have you seen them? MS. HALL: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 99 June 30, 2015 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously, thank you. Okay, I assume that that's the nail salon? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the wall in question is the one on the right? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: So on January 30th, 2015, Investigator Michele McGonagle observed drywall had been removed, along with some plumbing work that was conducted and part of the ceiling was removed. Electric wires and HVAC ducts were hanging from the ceiling. On January 31st, 2015 Investigator Michele McGonagle conducted permit research and did not find any further work being done. She returned to the business to issue a stop work order and noticed that overnight a wall had been framed. The case was then referred to contractor licensing. They did not find a violation because they were told the work was being done by the business owner's family members. MS. TRAN: Yes, it was -- the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. Wait 'til we go through them. And then we'll go through it. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: On February 20th, 2015 Page 100 June 30, 2015 Supervisor Joe Mucha received a call from Lisa, who is here, with Regency Centers who manages the property. She let them know that they were aware of the violation and the tenants would be obtaining the necessary permits. On March 5th, 2015 Supervisor Mucha spoke with the nail salon owner, Michael Tran, and he told Joe that he and his contractor were still planning on submitting for permits. Between April to May I reached out to the contractor multiple times to touch base and get an update on the submittal of a permit but received no response. So the case was prepared for Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Were they ordered to stop work? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: They were, and they did. Yes, it looks the same now as it did in the pictures from January 31st. They've just covered the framing with drapes so that it's not such an eyesore. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there exposed electrical or plumbing? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: There is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it live? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay, you had a couple of comments, so why don't we start out? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Well, if I could? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: There was a permit submitted for, but it was not done until May 26th, and we had already prepared the case to come here. And as of June 29th, yesterday, when I checked on the permit, it has been rejected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TRAN: The plumbing and electrical, there were already Page 101 June 30, 2015 existed. We just were -- we were trying to partition for the walls. And I have -- my family did it because they're from California so they just came over. So that's why we had to do it quickly. But we thought that because it's already existing so we didn't need to get the permit. But once we got the stop order, I tried to get -- we tried to get the contractor and the architecter (sic) to draw up the plan. But it took them a while. We tried to get it as quickly as possible. That's why we contact them, you know, to let them know that we're working on it. So finally they put it in and then we got this letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Questions from the board? MR. ASHTON: You said the permit was rejected? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Yes. MR. ASHTON: Basically there is no permit. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: At this time, correct. Yeah, it was rejected by the plumbing and handicap review. The existing bathroom with the new adjoining rooms no longer complies with the maneuvering clearances, so they rejected it on that basis. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're aware that your permit was rejected? Or are you aware that your permit was rejected? MS. TRAN: Yes, right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what's plan B? MS. TRAN: Oh, well, plan B is to get it approved and then get it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have to go back to the architect -- MS. TRAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to redraw it? MS. TRAN: Redraw it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Move walls or whatever. MS. TRAN: Yes, whatever it takes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are any of the -- is any of the Page 102 June 30, 2015 electric live, or is it turned off at the -- MS. TRAN: It's turned off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- at the panel box? MS. TRAN: Yeah, even the plumbing was not used. We don't use -- MS. HALL: It's capped. MS. TRAN: It's capped, yeah, so all of it is capped until our ones that is done by the general contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, when was the permit -- INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: It was just rejected on the 26th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the 26th. So this past week. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you've already contacted the architect to -- MS. TRAN: Uh-huh, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was there any drawing done before? MS. TRAN: Drawings done? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Of the architectural -- when you started the process, did you submit it to an architect to do a drawing so that you could submit a permit? MS. TRAN: Before we did this or after we got the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, when you went for a permit you have to show a design on what you're doing. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: If I may, Chairman, there was scopes submitted with the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But they didn't realize when they issued that that it was in violation before? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Well, when they went to apply for the permit they had their drawings and a scope of work submitted along with that. When it was under review, it passed all the other departments except for the handicapped plumbing review. Page 103 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily that would have been picked up by an architect who -- INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: It may have, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're in a position now where we have a rejected permit. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have the architect looking at redrawing it so it comes into compliance. Have you any idea -- well, to begin with, does a violation exist? Let's go through that first and then we'll see what we can do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion a violation does exist. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, now -- I wonder if I can say that any faster. Did you keep up with me, Cherie'? How long do you think it will take to have it redrawn and resubmitted is my question number one. MS. TRAN: The problem we have is that the architect and the contractor, we don't have control over how fast, but I just talked to the Page 104 June 30, 2015 contractor and he said that it would be done within -- you mean the redrawing and then the submitting only? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right, for the permit. MS. TRAN: For the permit. I would think the redrawing should be like about a week or -- about two weeks, give it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So once that is resubmitted, that has to be approved by the people at the county who denied it. And then once they issue that then the contractor can complete the work. Does that sound logical to everybody? Okay. So now what we need is your suggestion and then we can see what numbers to plug in based on what's required. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: That 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. That 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, somebody like to take a stab at this? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll do it. Make a motion that the $65.85 be paid in 30 days. And where this project is chugging along, or was, that it be completed in 120 days or a fine of$200 per day be imposed. Page 105 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that should be more than enough time, I would guess. MR. ASHTON: I think we should go to 90 days. I think 90 days is more than enough time. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd be willing to go to 90 if that's the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's better. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would agree with 90. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have a second? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I was going to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you want to second it. MR. LEFEBVRE: You seconded it already. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What we're looking here, this should give you -- if we pass this, should give you all the time you need to get everything done, okay? All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 106 June 30, 2015 So you have three months to have the architect redraw it, submit it to the county, have the county issue the building permit, complete the work and get a CO. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is the emergency case, Case CEPM20150011894, Talia Chavez-O'Bourke. (Elido Chavez and Investigator Garcia were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are the husband of Talia Chavez? MR. CHAVEZ: Father. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Father? Okay. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CEPM20150011894, dealing with the violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulation, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(1), and section 22-231(2), compliance with housing standards. It's an occupied single-family dwelling with no water connection, and also a child inside the dwelling. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you have any pictures or anything else to present? INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: No, there's no pictures, I'd just like to present my case. I went through the utilities department. I originally got the complaint on June 11th for illegal electric hookup and no water and a family living there. I approached the residence and nobody was at the door, so I left my pink door hanger and a business card. I also contacted FP&L. Had Page 107 June 30, 2015 to leave a message, and I contacted City of Naples Water Department. They got back to me on June 12th. Towards the end of the day FP&L said they did have regular service hooked up and there was usage in the home, regular usage every month. City of Naples got back to me and she said no, they do not have water connection. They haven't had water since January, 2015. I went back, it was -- June 12th was a Friday. I went back, issued a Notice of Violation on the door. I talked to the occupant of the dwelling of the mobile home and she was with her daughter there. I asked if she was a tenant, she explained yes, she was. And I asked her if I can enter in to see if there was water. And she said no, she wasn't allowed to let me in but she would give Mr. Chavez my business card and have him call me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Chavez, can you tell me what the situation is? MR. CHAVEZ: I went to the City Hall to find out -- I owe a lot of money over there, $4,000. To put connection water have to pay $4,000. I don't got this money. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, well, let me just -- this is an emergency case. We cannot have a residence without water. So let me just explain that should we find this in violation, that mobile home will be empty. Nobody would be permitted to live there without water. Do you understand that? MR. CHAVEZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have anything else? It's $4,000, you don't have the $4,000, do I understand you correctly? MR. CHAVEZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Board, any comments? There's a -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Had there been previous water service at this address? Page 108 June 30, 2015 MR. CHAVEZ: Yeah, he got water in 2011. Around 2011 my daughter came, he cut out the service. No water. But I don't know, the money is still rising, rising, rising. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they had water in 2011, probably -- no bill -- INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: The reason why the daughter -- it was originally Mr. Chavez's mobile home. He got in some legal issues and was sent away for a little while. His daughter -- the lawyer put the daughter's name on the title because due to his legal issues, and he was not there at the dwelling. When the daughter got the deed into her name, a quitclaim deed, she went and shut off the water because her father wasn't living there. In 2012 or '13, I believe, he returned back to the home and got behind on the water payments and the City of Naples allowed him to make partial payments until January, 2015 when they completely shut it off because it was over $4,000, $4,500. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Quitclaim deeds states that transfer from a Gerald T. Berry and a Catherine J. Berry -- INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: That was his attorney. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, on October 31st, 2014. To Talia Chavez-O'Bourke. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, does a violation exist? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation does exist. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 109 June 30, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, do you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board order 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: Connecting water through an approved distribution center connected to a potable water supply within "blank" hours or day of this hearing or a fine of "blank" per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it sounds as though if there's a $4,000 bill, unless Mr. Chavez can find a way to come up with the $4,000, they're not going to turn the water on. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: And if I may add, the City of Naples did provide him with some assistance programs that may help him. Because they're willing to waive half of the whole bill. They already explained that to him. I spoke with Monica in the utility billing department in the City of Naples. And I've been working with Page 110 June 30, 2015 her to try to help Mr. Chavez be able to obtain those assistance programs. And, you know, a substantial amount of money is willing to be waived by the city. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My concern on this is that nobody should be in there even for the next day. It should be vacated immediately. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: And unfortunately the ordinance is very specific, occupied or unoccupied must have -- all dwelling units, whether occupied or unoccupied, shall comply with the requirements of the section as hereinafter set forth. And it is stating that it should be connected to an approved water and sanitary sewer system as approved by Collier County or the Collier County Public Health Department, as applicable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're saying that if this was unoccupied you'd still need water connected to it? INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: I mean per ordinance. But I would not seek out any kind of enforcement on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is there's somebody living there and a child and there's no water. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's unacceptable. So I don't know about the first portion of the water, we'll certainly fill in the blanks on that, but I think that the other remedy in this situation would be to have any residents vacate the premises immediately. So let's just see how we go. Anybody want to take a stab at the numbers on this? MR. LAVINSKI: Where is the daughter in all of this that owns the property? INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: She lives up in Tennessee, and she's been calling me back and forth. She doesn't want anything to do Page 111 June 30, 2015 with the property. Originally the only reason why she took possession is because the attorney -- money was actually owed to the attorney, the attorney took possession as collateral for the payment. She paid off the attorney and then he signed the deed to her for payment for his services to help Mr. Chavez. That's originally how it all -- and she said that she does not -- because once her father returned, he just went back to the trailer, assuming that, you know, he would start taking responsibility. MR. LAVINSKI: So is he living in the trailer? INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: With the -- INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: And others. The complaint came in actually as multiple families living there, multiple people in the home. I could not substantiate that. And illegal hookup for electric and no water. The only thing I could prove was no water in the home. And then I did talk to the occupant and I observed her daughter in the doorway, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And FPL has no hookup to the -- INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: They do. And it's ongoing usage every month. That's how I know there's other occupants in that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This ongoing usage, is it being paid? INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Yes. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Somebody want to take a stab at this fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll do it. Make a motion that the 65.45 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 43. MR. LAVINSKI: 43 be paid within 30 days. That the residents be vacated within 24 hours or that a fine of$200 per day be imposed. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Or water hookup? MR. LAVINSKI: Or water hookup, yes. Yeah, throughout the Page 112 June 30, 2015 approved -- yeah. Yeah, get a water hookup or vacate. As that says there, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right, within 24 hours. MR. LAVINSKI: Yes, 24 hours. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any second on that motion? MR. ASHTON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Mr. Chavez, you either need water in there or it has to be empty. Everybody in there has to leave. MR. CHAVEZ: Right now it's empty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's empty now? That's a good start. MR. CHAVEZ: Right now empty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, you're aware of the help that the code enforcement officer has been trying to get you to get the water bill paid? MR. CHAVEZ: I went to the City Hall, I asked for a payment plan. They tell me you have to go -- I go for help to the church, nobody can help me, it's too much money. But if I got a payment plan, Page 113 June 30, 2015 I can do it. Because of my retirement is a little bit. With the payment plan I can pay. I want to pay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You said that they had offered substantial reduction and -- INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: 50 percent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 50 percent. So if the original bill was $4,000 -- MR. CHAVEZ: Right now they lower it to $2,400. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And could they work out a payment plan on that 2,000? INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: He could go in there if he wants. I can go in there and assist him with the utility billing finance manager to see if they could work out -- but he would have to agree not to occupy that dwelling and not have usage in the home until they are able to catch that payment. Because they were paying payments in 2012, I believe. They were taking partial payments. That's how the -- they were accepting partial payments, and then when it got up to 4,500, that's when they disconnected completely, because the partial payments wasn't equaling out to the usage of the water. And it was compiling. MR. LEFEBVRE: It wasn't catching up. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And there's more than just two people in the unit. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what also causes -- so if you would assist Mr. Chavez, the board would greatly appreciate that. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anything that can be done to -- we'll see if we can get you some help to resolve your bill. But during that time you know nobody can be in there. Page 114 June 30, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask this for the record. Are you willing to let the investigator enter the premises and verify that no one is living there? MR. CHAVEZ: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you make arrangements within the next 24 hours? INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Good luck on getting the water. MR. CHAVEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: How do you want to handle this? You said whoever is present you'll take -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. What's the next case? Are they here? MS. ADAMS: All the next ones in line are here, according to the agenda. So -- the next case will be from Number Six, Old Business, A, Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens. Number One, Tab 15. Case CELU20150004921, Roselene Eloi. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cherie', how are your fingers doing? THE COURT REPORTER: Good, thank you. (Roselene Eloi and Investigator Kincaid were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Sir, there's some changes to the document that you have. So I will read them. And I don't know if you all need to change your copies or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem, we'll just write it in. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm an Investigator. Page 115 June 30, 2015 This is in reference to violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 and 4.05.03(A). The location of the violation was 5361 Holland Street, Naples, Florida. The Folio No. 6220560007. Automotive repair activity and vehicles parked on the grass of improved residential zoned property. The past order: On May 28th, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5163, page 1478 for more information. The violation has been abated as of June 10th, 2015. Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for the period between June 4th, 2015 to June 10th, for a period of 7 days, and the total fine amount for that is $1,750. The previous assessed operational cost of 61 -- $64.17 have not been paid. And the operational cost for today's hearing of$63.33 are due. And the total amount is $1,877.50. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. ELOI: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, it's afternoon already. The -- typically until the operational costs are paid we do not -- we would like to probably abate the fine if the operational costs are paid. MS. ELOI: I paid it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You did? Okay, well -- MS. ELOI: You want me to show you the receipt? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Show the young lady over there, Ms. Adams. MR. LEFEBVRE: You can put it up on the monitor. MS. ADAMS: It was paid on June 23rd. I wasn't aware of that. Page 116 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was this package prepared? MS. ADAMS: Whenever you guys got the packets. I don't know when that was. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just curious, maybe it was prior to -- MS. ADAMS: Yeah, it was before the 23rd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. All done. MS. ELOI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you want to take your receipt with you, in case somebody asks you for it. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Two, Tab 16, Case CESD2013 -- Page 117 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we hold on a second? Take a quickie five-minute break? (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement back to meeting. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Two from Imposition of Fines, Case CESD20130008321, Antonio Louissaint. And it's Tab 16. (Jesula Francois, duly sworn as translator, Antonio Louissaint and Supervisor Mucha were duly sworn.) MS. FRANCOIS: I'm the daughter and I've been handling all the paperwork. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Joe. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I guess so. Go ahead. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I was going to say, for the record, Joe Mucha, Code Enforcement. I believe they have a request they would like to make. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. FRANCOIS: Basically everything is done. All the time you all gave me to do everything, I did everything. Only one thing is my dad thought he could put the flood vent by himself He didn't want to pay somebody money to do it. And he tried -- he put it upside down and crooked and everything, so we're just going to have to fix that. I just need like 45 days or 30 days to get that done. I was not here, I was in the hospital. That's why everything is kind of creeky. But he tried to do it himself He's 84 years old, he tried to do it himself He didn't want to pay that money. MR. LEFEBVRE: What was the last item that needs installation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Vent. MS. FRANCOIS: Flood vent. Very easily. I got them at Lowe's and you just put them in there. But you have to put it in a way so that Page 118 June 30, 2015 if the house ever get water it would just open by itself. And by my dad putting it upside down, it wasn't able to open by itself. MR. LEFEBVRE: That takes 45 days to fix? MS. FRANCOIS: It will take less than that. Probably -- because he don't want to pay the money. I'm just going to have to pay the money and get it done. Because he thinks he could do it by himself But I was in the hospital, I didn't have time to go back and forth to the property, and I've been doing -- I've been handing all the paperworks in and I could get that done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Instead of doing another order, should we just continue this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just withdraw it and bring it back next month instead of doing a whole other order? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I'd be okay with that. I mean, I reviewed the permit. There's only one thing that's left, this flood vent relief. But they've passed their final electrical, their final plumbing and the final building, so it's safe, it just needs this flood vent. MS. FRANCOIS: And he didn't want to pay the money to get it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't blame him. I think he should put the flood vent in, just turn it upside down. MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah, he got it upside down. He did a good job putting it, it's just upside down. You have to put the flood vent in a way when the water come it elevate by itself CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, tell him to put it in upside down now and it will be right. MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah, it will be right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've got a motion to continue this 'til the next meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we continue it, do we do -- hold on a Page 119 June 30, 2015 second, please. MS. NICOLA: I'd love it if you just withdrew it. It would make my life so much easier. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: We withdraw it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, done. Fix it and you come back next month. MS. FRANCOIS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Tammy owes us lunch. MS. ADAMS: Next case is Number Three, Tab 17, Case CES20150000879, Totam, LLC. (Yackeleine Bravo, Rose Rochasse and Supervisor Perez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the other young lady is? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: She's the tenant, the business owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a window signage, et cetera? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes. And I'd like to start off by saying that I will read along and some of the items have changed as this property is now in compliance. So as I read it, if you could note those changes, please. This is in reference to -- for the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case Number CES20150000879. Violation, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.06.04(F)(4)(e). Location: 12355 Collier Boulevard, unit D, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 56200000087. Description: Window signage exceeds 25 percent. Past orders: On April 23rd, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Findings of Fact and 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 OR 5147, Page 3687 for more information. Page 120 June 30, 2015 The violation has been abated as of June 29th, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$150 per day for the period between May 24, 2015 to June 29, 2015, 37 days, for a total amount of$5,550. Previous assessed operational cost of $64.17 have not been paid. Total operational costs for today's hearing would be $63.75. Total amount to date, $5,677.92. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything else? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: That's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning -- good afternoon, actually. You have a request, I would assume. MS. BRAVO: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BRAVO: Okay, one request that we have is I will pay the $64.17 as soon as I get out of the court downstairs. The reason why we didn't pay the money, it was because I assume, that was a bad thing, that she have to pay that. And I sent the letter and then I didn't go forward with the payment. But I will take care of that today. The last time when the inspector was there, they said that it was a different 1.96 percent of the window. And I just wonder if you can waive of any of the charge, because we already fix everything; she's already taken care of that, so everything is corrected by now. And that's my request. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One question that I have on today's cost. Are they in -- add those two together? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, we're abating them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you're going to pay the $64.17. MS. BRAVO: Today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're asking for the board to consider abating the $5,600 and some odd dollars fine. Page 121 June 30, 2015 MS. BRAVO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so -- any motions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: She has to go to Horseshoe Drive to pay that, right? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes, so it would be at the citation office at Horseshoe Drive. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to abate with the understanding that the $64.17 will be paid today. If it is not paid today, then the fine of-- MS. BRAVO: $5,000 dollars, 650. MR. LEFEBVRE: You know it. So the fine of$5,650 plus the $64.17 will be imposed. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the $63.75 you mean. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the $63.75. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes. So it would be a total of $5,677.92. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 122 June 30, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Next case is Number Four, Tab 18, Case CESD20140020715, Miriam R. Jewell. (Mr. Jewell and Investigator Musse were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And your name, sir, for the record? MR. JEWELL: Thomas Jewell. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thomas Jewell. Gotcha. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: For the record, Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is reference to Case Number CESD20140020715, in reference to violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location of violation is 6596 Glen Arbor Way, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 80640001528. Description of the violation: Converted the garage into a theater room without first obtaining valid Collier County permits. Past orders: On February 26th, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5128, Page 157 for more information. The violation has been abated as of June 2nd, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for a period between May 28th, 2015 and June 2nd, 2015, six days, for a total fine amount of$1,200. Previously assessed operational cost of$66.27 have been paid. Page 123 June 30, 2015 Operational costs for today's hearing is $64.17. Total amount to date, is $1,264.17. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was going to ask you what's playing there and do you have popcorn. MR. JEWELL: We do have a pop-- it's just for the grand kids, so we've got lots of popcorn. MS. NICOLA: I figured it was a man cave. Isn't that what they call it now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Absolutely. MS. NICOLA: Man caves? I don't know why don't say anything for women, that's what really bothers me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can have your own cave. MS. NICOLA: Do you have a wife? Has she asked you for one? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a wife but she asks for more than caves. She wants rocks, clear ones that you put on your finger. MS. ADAMS: The next two cases are for the same respondent, Page 124 June 30, 2015 Number Five, Tab 19, Case CESD20140000248. And Number Six, Tab 20, Case CESD20130001292. Christopher S. Esenberg. (Mr. Esenberg and Investigator Garcia were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: This case is in reference to CESD20140000248 and CEB Case Number CESD20130001292, the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). And the location of this violation is 3301 Guilford Road. Folio No. 47871360000. The description of the violation was an expired permit for a pool and a permit for a pool enclosure but no certificate of occupancy. The past orders were on July 24th, 2014 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. On November 21st, 2014 a continuance was granted and the book and page are -- the violation as of June 15th, 2015 have been abated. The fines have accrued at $100 per day between October 23rd, to June 15th for a total fine amount of 23,600. The previously assessed operational cost of$62.84 have been paid. The operational costs for today's hearing, $65.01 is going to be due. Total amount to date is $23,665.01. The gravity of the violation is moderate. Any actions taken by the violator was he voluntarily complied, it just took a lot longer than he anticipated. He does have a sister case which is the 2013, which took a little longer to abate. And his extension of time was granted. And he did come into compliance after that extension time that was provided from the board. In the 2013 case this started before then, he bought the property with violations. Page 125 June 30, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Ifs a separate case. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Yeah. Do you want to do them separately? Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Esenberg has been in front of us several times. He's always been, from what I remember, working towards correcting whatever issues he had. So I make a motion to abate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Which brings us to the last case. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: This is in reference to Case Number CESD20130001292. The violation was Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location of the violation was 3315 Guilford Road. Folio No. 47871280009. The description of the violations were an addition and alterations made to the structure without first obtaining a Collier County building permit. The past orders: On June 27th, 2013 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 Page 126 June 30, 2015 ordered to correct. On January 23rd, 2014 extension of time was granted. And on June 20th, 2014 another extension of time was also granted. On January 22, 2015 a continuance was granted. And the violation has been abated as of June 15th also. Fines have accrued at the rate of 250 per day between October 24th and June 15th for a total fine amount of$58,750. Previously assessed operational cost of$207.12 have been paid. The operational cost for today's hearing is $68.37. Total amount to date, $58,818.37. MR. LEFEBVRE: Once again, Mr. Esenberg has been in front of us multiple times, he's always been willing to work with the county to correct the violations, so I make a motion to abate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. ISACKSON: Thank you very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think this might be the last time we see you, hopefully. Have a great day. MR. ESENBERG: Thanks. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Seven, Tab 21, Case Page 127 June 30, 2015 CESD20120000572, Juan Campbell and Nora Carrillo. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: They're not present. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to violations county Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 1101 North 11th Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 63912040001. Description: Building permit expired without the completion of all related inspections and issuance of a certificate of completion/occupancy. Past orders: On January 22nd, 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 OR 5118, Page 2287, for more information. On May 28th, 2015 a continuance was granted. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5163, Page 1496, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of June 30th, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period between April 23rd, 2015 to June 30th, 2015, 69 days, for a total of$13,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$67.00 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.75. Total amount is $13,863.75. And that permit is due to expire today and no inspections have been called in as of about 30 minutes ago when I looked at the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with them? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: There's another investigator that's working this case. I did talk to him previously when he was here Page 128 June 30, 2015 before you and did express that this needed to be completed. There's still a couple of inspections that need to be done on the inspection card, when I looked up the permit. I know one of his biggest issues was a garage door that he could not afford to purchase. And he was encouraged to make revisions to his permit to not include the door so he could finish his project. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd almost like to do something that I don't think we've ever done, is to give him another month. Because it looked like he had been working on getting this done and I don't know why he's here and he's from Immokalee. That would give us a month -- give you a month to see if you can get ahold of him and see if he's going to do this or not. MR. LEFEBVRE: So after all this, you're asking for the county to withdraw the case? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Or continue it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or continue it. We can continue it. That way the fines continue to accrue. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The property's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, yeah, you've got to make Tammy happy. Can you withdraw this and -- with the board's concurrence, and bring it back next month? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yeah, the county has no objection. I know the final electrical was improved so, you know, electrical issues are usually a hot topic. And his electrical inspection was finalized. The final electrical was approved in 2013. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let him know we had a long meeting and we're very benevolent today, so even though he wasn't here to ask for it, we thought it was a good idea to give him additional time to get back to us. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Okay, the county withdraws. Page 129 June 30, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Number Nine, Tab 22, Case CESD20150001847, Yasiel Rodriguez. (Investigator Short was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 1120 27th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37345920009. Description is unpermitted alteration to support a marijuana grow operation. Past orders: On March 26th, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5138, Page 1202, for more information. The violation has been abated as of June 29th, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between May 26th, 2015 to June 9th, 2015, 35 days, for a total fine amount of$7,000. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are $64.17. Total amount to date is $7,064.17. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the violation has been abated. Anybody like to make a motion from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, has the respondent asked for the fines to be abated? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, he's not here. That's a concern. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: He was under the assumption, though. He really pushed and pushed to get a CO yesterday. Page 130 June 30, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: If we impose the fines -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He was here at the last meeting, I remember this case. Anyone want to make a motion? If not, I'll make a motion. I make a motion to abate. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Here, you want to hit me? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no. MS. ADAMS: The next item is Number Eight, consent agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The consent agenda. We're up to the memorandums. So Kerry, what are you looking for on this, a motion to -- MS. ADAMS: It's a request to send the cases to the County Attorney's Office for foreclosure. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to forward those cases to the Page 131 June 30, 2015 County Attorney's Office. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. They're listed on there, three out of the four. MR. LEFEBVRE: So how can we do that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We send them and let the attorney, the County Attorney, handle that. MR. LEFEBVRE: According to state statute -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 162. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. It states that code enforcement lien cannot be filed if the property's homesteaded. MS. ADAMS: The County Attorney is aware of that. They may send it for collection, either collection or foreclosure, depending on what the situation is with the homeowner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the one -- MR. LEFEBVRE: For foreclosure? How could it be foreclosed on if-- MS. ADAMS: Or a collection agency. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, either/or, depending on the situation. Page 132 June 30, 2015 MS. ADAMS: If it's homesteaded, we cannot foreclose on, that's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, that was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we amend that to same either foreclosure or collection, the consent agenda? MS. ADAMS: It says it on the summary that you guys are given. That's what it says. It doesn't say that on the agenda, but on the summary that you're given it does specify either collection agency or foreclosure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, fantastic, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why he gets paid the big money. This is the Wendy Fong decision. That's what it was, that you can't place a lien on -- I'm not making things up. MR. LEFEBVRE: We just sound way too smart. MS. NICOLA: A little bit of information goes -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's what happens when they send you to school. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to adjourn. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:03 p.m. Page 133 June 30, 2015 COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD of. /RO E f, A A MAN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on .1-23- i as presented ,/or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 134