Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/23/2015 July 23, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida July 23, 2015 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Ron Doino Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Alternate) Susan J. Curley (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Wright, Code Enforcement Director Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the CEB Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 23,2015 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. June 30,2015 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20140004266 OWNER: CARMEN B CINTRON EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).FOUR STRUCTURES ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 63858720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 908 GLADES ST,IMMOKALEE Motion for Rehearing 1. CASE NO: CEOCC20150001572 OWNER: ELIZABETH LAVIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.02.03(C) 5.02.03(F)AND 5.02.03(I).EMPLOYEES PICKING UP AND DROPPING OFF WORK VEHICLES, GOODS AND MATERIALS BEING DELIVERED, SAW AND OTHER EQUIPMENTS BEING RUN THROUGHOUT THE DAY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES,STORING MATERIALS OUTSIDE. FOLIO NO: 38397880002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5010 TALLOWOOD WAY,NAPLES B. Stipulations B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CELU20140007940 OWNER: RICHARD CLARKE&CATHERINE CLARKE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. USE OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA OF PUD AS TRANSIENT LODGING/RENTAL. FOLIO NO: 56430072542 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 9011 SHENENDOAH CIR,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CELU20140007938 OWNER: RICHARD CLARKE&CATHERINE CLARKE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. USE OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA OF PUD AS TRANSIENT LODGING/RENTAL. FOLIO NO: 56430072102 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8957 SHENENDOAH CIR,NAPLES 2 3. CASE NO: CELU20140007918 OWNER: STEVEN M DIPERI&CARROL E DIPERI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. USE OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA OF PUD AS TRANSIENT LODGING/RENTAL. FOLIO NO: 56430070366 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8943 SHENENDOAH CIR,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CELU20140007890 OWNER: NICHOLAS KARRAS&KAREN KARRAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03. USE OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA OF PUD AS TRANSIENT LODGING/RENTAL. FOLIO NO: 56430070641 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8858 SHENENDOAH CIR,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CELU20140007945 OWNER: JAMES H WEBB&KRISTA WEBB OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. USE OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA OF PUD AS TRANSIENT LODGING/RENTAL. FOLIO NO: 56430073143 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 9012 MEDINAH CT,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CELU20140007941 OWNER: ARM HOLMBERG&MIRJA HOLMBERG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. USE OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA OF PUD AS TRANSIENT LODGING/RENTAL. FOLIO NO: 56430072584 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 9019 SHENENDOAH CIR,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CELU20150001475 OWNER: BARRY NICHOLLS,PARADISE GEMS&FINE JEWELRY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 26,ARTICLE 1, SECTION 26-1(B)(4).COMMERCIAL USE OF THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. FOLIO NO: COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY(NO FOLIO NUMBER) VIOLATION ADDRESS: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PINE RIDGE/AIRPORT RD,AND NORTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT/PINE RIDGE RIGHT OF WAY,NAPLES 3 8. CASE NO: CELU20150001259 OWNER: NAPLES DESIGNER SERVICES,OWNER PHIL WEST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 26,ARTICLE 1, SECTION 26-1(B)(4).COMMERCIAL USE OF THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. FOLIO NO: COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY(NO FOLIO NUMBER). VIOLATION ADDRESS: NORTH/WEST CORNER OF AIRPORT RD/TRADE CENTER WAY(RIGHT OF WAY) AIRPORT/PINE RIDGE RIGHT OF WAY,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CELU20150005363 OWNER: LIBERTY TAX SERVICE,OWNER CHRIS AUTRY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 26 BUSINESSES, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 26-1(B)(1)(3)(4).COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. FOLIO NO: COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY(NO FOLIO NUMBER). VIOLATION ADDRESS: INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 53RD ST SW,NAPLES 10. CASE NO: CESD20150004962 OWNER: ROBERTO GERARDA CONTI&GIUSEPPA DAIDONE CONTI REV TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHIRLEY GARCIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E). INSTALLED ALL NEW WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 48170120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2836 BAYVIEW DR,NAPLES 11. CASE NO: CEVR20150005196 OWNER: THOMAS R WILLIAMS&MARY C WILLIAMS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.01(B). REMOVAL OF NON-NATIVE VEGETATION FROM UNIMPROVED PROPERTY USING HEAVY MACHINERY WITHOUT THE REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 38455320006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 12. CASE NO: CESD20150002302 OWNER: ROMEO LEASING,INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS MADE PRIOR TO OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 76560000082 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1852 40TH TER SW,UNIT D,NAPLES 4 13. CASE NO: CESD20150009085 OWNER: JOANNE BAKER ET AL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).UNPERMITTED LIVING STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET SETBACKS ON EITHER FOLIO NUMBER 00435240008,6905 JOHNS RD.OR 00434520004,6917 JOHNS RD. FOLIO NO: 00435240008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6905 JOHNS RD,NAPLES 14. 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 15. CASE NO: CESD20150003296 OWNER: PATRICIA ANNETTE ISON&MABLE WINDRELL ISON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).UNPERMITTED LIVING STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET SETBACKS ON EITHER FOLIO NUMBER 00434520004,6917 JOHNS RD. OR 00435240008,6905 JOHNS RD. FOLIO NO: 00434520004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6917 JOHNS RD,NAPLES C. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CEVR20140007649 OWNER: PIOTR&JOANNA BANSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.05.08(C).COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION ON PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38280080003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 731 LOGAN BLVD S,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20120000572 5 OWNER: JUAN CAMPBELL AND NORA CARILLO 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 3. CASE NO: CESD20140012494 OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHIRLEY GARCIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-236 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS IN POOR CONDITION AND AN UNPERMITTED TWO-STORY STORAGE STRUCTURE IN POOR CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 74413200009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3417 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20140006549 OWNER: TIMOTHY J&DONNA A O'MALLEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).UNPERMITTTED BATHROOM REMODELING AT THIS RESIDENCE. FOLIO NO: 61280240001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1290 GOLDFINCH WAY,NAPLES B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS Workshop Scheduling Discussion. 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- August 27,2015 12. ADJOURN 6 July 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call theCode Enforcement Board to order. And I'd like to start out with the Pledge of Allegiance, if you'll all stand. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time 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 have the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN 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? MR. DOINO: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. Page 2 July 23, 2015 MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Lisa Chapman Bushnell? MS. BUSHNELL: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think we may have a change or two on the agenda. Why don't we handle those now. MS. ADAMS: Number 5, public hearings, motions, motion for rehearing, No. 1, Tab 2, Case CEOCC20150001572, Elizabeth Lavin, has been withdrawn. Letter B, stipulations, we have four additions. The first is No. 10 from hearings, Tab 12, Case CESD20150004962, Roberto Gerarda Conti and Giuseppa Daidone Conti, Revocable Trust; The second is No. 13 from hearings, Tab 15, Case CESD20150009085, Joanne Baker, et al; The third is No. 15 from hearings, Tab 17, Case CESD20150003296, Patricia Annette Ison and Mable Windrell Ison; The fourth is No. 12 from hearings, Tab 14, Case CESD20150002302, Romeo Leasing, Incorporated. Letter C, Hearings, No. 1, Tab 3, Case CELU20140007940, Richard Clark and Catherine Clark, has been withdrawn. Number 2, Tab 4, Case CELU2014000793 8, Richard Clark and Catherine Clark, has been withdrawn. Number 3, Tab 5, Case CELU20150007918, Steven M. Diperi and Carrot E. Diperi, has been withdrawn. Number 4, Tab 6, Case CELU20140007890, Nicholas Karras and Karen Karras, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Tab 7, Case CELU20140007945, James H. Webb and Krista Webb, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Tab 8, Case CELU20140007941, Arnie Holmberg and Page 3 July 23, 2015 Mirja Holmberg, has been withdrawn. Number 7, Tab 9, Case CELU20150001475, Barry Nicholls, Paradise Gems and Fine Jewelry, has been withdrawn. Number 8, Tab 10, Case CELU20150001259, Naples Designer Services, owner Phil West, has been withdrawn. Number 9, Tab 11, Case CELU20150005363, Liberty Tax Service, owner Chris Autry, has been withdrawn. Number 14, Tab 16, Case CESD20140018880, Mark D. Huntley and Judith V. Huntley, has been withdrawn. Number 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, we have one case that needs to be taken out of order. It's No. 4, Tab 21, Case CESD20140006549, Timothy J. and Donna A. O'Malley. That will be moved to the front of the agenda. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion to accept the modified agenda. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You figure out who. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 4 July 23, 2015 Almost ready to adjourn. MR. MARINO: Give us time to get our books in order. MS. ADAMS: First case will be from No. 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 4, Tab 21, Case CESD20140006549, Timothy J. and Donna A. O'Malley. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we take a minute till everybody clears out. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And good morning. MR. BRYANT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have on our desk the operational costs for today have been paid, so that's done. And you're here to request? MR. BRYANT: Yes. My name is Brad Bryant. I'm here on behalf of Tim and Donna. I'm just here to request a waiver of the fine imposition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'd like it abated? MR. BRYANT: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 5 July 23, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Did we get you out in time for your meeting? MR. BRYANT: Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. MARINO: What did you do to the room? You emptied it out. MS. ADAMS: The next case, motion for extension of time, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20140004266, Carmen B. Cintron Estate. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WALKER: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name on the mike so I can hear it. MR. CINTRON: Luis Cintron. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have your letter -- I think we all have it as part of our package -- that you're requesting a six-month extension -- MR. CINTRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to bring the property into -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- into compliance. Okay. This started, actually, I guess, in February. Why don't you talk to your letter. MR. CINTRON: Okay. What I -- you know, I want an extension because since I've been looking for somebody, a contractor to do, you know -- and I had two, and then they backed out in the end. But I have one right here. I got the number and everything, Imperial Homes, Incorporated. And he's ready to -- you know, he's supposed to be here Page 6 July 23, 2015 today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CINTRON: I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you probably -- unless I'm guessing, you don't need six months to get a contractor. MR. CINTRON: Not really, but, you know, just in case, you know. Like, he's already, you know, ready to come in and start, you know, working on whatever's supposed to be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what actually needs to be done on the property to bring it into compliance? MR. CINTRON: Demolition, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? MR. CINTRON: A demolition and clean it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county? MR. WALKER: Yes. For the record, Weldon Walker, and good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WALKER: Yes, he has two remaining structures that need to come into compliance. He's actually -- with the time that he's had, based on his situation, has done pretty well. He, again, just needs the additional time to demo the last two structures, and I have no doubt that he will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: All operational costs been paid? MR. WALKER: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Is it really going to take the six months? MR. WALKER: I would rather defer that to you. I don't know his financial means. I can only project that if he gets a contractor and everything being equal, he's able to provide the contractor what he Page 7 July 23, 2015 needs, I'm sure that he should be able to demo it, probably, I would guess, maybe three months. But, again, I don't know his situation, and I would rather defer that to you to make that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What kind of structure is it? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, that was my next question. MR. WALKER: It was actually a structure that was converted into living quarters and another structure there, it's actually used to store things in. It's a fairly nice-size structure. And, again, the structure that was used as living quarters, which is not being used for that now, does have to have the plumbing removed, the electrical removed, everything else. So he would need to make sure that everything was in compliance, so that may take him a little more time. But, again, I would rather defer that to you because I'm not exactly sure. I would hate to make that judgment call for him. MR. MARINO: You know, if his contractor didn't show up for the meeting, who knows if he'll show up for work also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good point. Anybody like to take a shot at a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the six-month extension. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the extension. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 8 July 23, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. MR. CINTRON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hopefully you'll have everything done in six months, and we won't see you again. MR. CINTRON: Before that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Except on the street. MR. CINTRON: Have a nice day. MS. ADAMS: Next case, Letter B, stipulations, No. 10 from hearings, Tab 12, Case CESD20150004962, Roberto Gerardo Conti and Giuseppa Daidone Conti, Revocable Trust. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. GARCIA: This is regarding Case No. CESD20150004962. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of occupancy within 60 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of$100 a day until the violation has been abated. Number three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation, and request the investigators perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. THE COURT REPORTER: Could I get your name? MS. GARCIA: That was the stipulation agreement. Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement, for the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was going to ask that. Page 9 July 23, 2015 MS. GARCIA: Sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You beat me to the punch. Okay. Do you have any comments other than the stipulation? MS. GARCIA: No. I think he's had enough experience with getting the permits and hiring a contractor. He's had numerous permit violations on other properties of his, so he went ahead and agreed to the terms. He's out of town, so he sent me FedEx the original stipulation agreement, and he went -- I'm going to meet him on the property when he gets back into town with his contractor to ensure he knows everything that he needs to have done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 13 from hearings, Tab 15, Case CESD20150009085, Joanne Baker, et al. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 10 July 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we begin, this is a little complicated. We have two tabs that are involved in this, I believe. MR. BALDWIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tab 17, for the board's -- there were two properties involved, so whoever would like to -- Patrick, you want to explain what's going on, on this? MR. BALDWIN: Sure. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. It's two adjoining -- want me to just read the stipulation, or do you want me to give you a little background? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just a quick overview. MR. BALDWIN: Two adjoining properties. There's three structures on the two adjoining properties. The third structure sits right directly in the middle of both parcels, and it's been unpermitted for years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now you might as well read the stipulation. MR. BALDWIN: Okay. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$74.25 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and complete -- and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Page 11 July 23, 2015 Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, let me --just as a side note. Is -- what we have on Tab 17, do you want to hear that case next after we vote on this? MR. BALDWIN: That's up to you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. We have a stip here. Anybody want to take a shot at the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand the stipulation? MR. JOHNS: I do understand the stipulation. The only question I have regarding that, this house that crosses over onto my sister's property, we have no authority to go remove that house. We signed a stipulation saying, yes, we will -- we agree to remove it. We'll agree to whatever. We'll even agree that if you guys want to give them a variance to that property to adjust their setbacks, but we can't be held to tear the house down because they won't allow us to. We've been trying to remove it since 2007, and they won't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me check with -- I believe that we have the authority as a Code Enforcement Board to require that. Is that correct, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Well, it's a unique situation. It's a house straddling two properties. And I'd like to think that -- I mean, you can separately find both of them in violation, but as far as their ability to get together on the permitting and get the thing demolished together, I think it's probably in their best interest to work together to get it done; otherwise, they'll both have fines running. That's the way I see it. Page 12 July 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. JOHNS: Our party is willing now to do that. We'll do whatever to get rid of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that house occupied? MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it's occupied, I'm guessing, by the other party? MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. THE COURT REPORTER: Can I get your name? MR. JOHNS: Randy Johns. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now it all makes sense to me. Okay. We have a stipulation. Anybody want to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I think I made a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you? Okay. And it was seconded, right. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's your relationship to the owner? MR. JOHNS: It's now my cousin. It was my grandmother. It was my grandmother's house until she passed away, and then through Page 13 July 23, 2015 deceased, other family members, my cousins wound up with the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, do you have the authority to be here and represent them? MR. JOHNS: Oh, representing this party? No, that was my parents' property that I'm -- we're here for. My sister's here. She's one of the owners. And they -- yes, I do have the authority to represent them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I would like to suggest, this case is done, why not hear the adjacent property case next. Is that a problem? MS. ADAMS: It's the next one anyways. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, there you go. Thank you very much. MR. JOHNS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll probably stick around for this case, too. MR. JOHNS: I probably will. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 15 from hearings, Tab 17, Case CESD20150003296, Patricia Annette Ison and Mable Windrell Ison. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. ISON: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're Patricia? MS. ISON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$72.99 incurred in Page 14 July 23, 2015 the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand that stipulation? MS. ISON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you agree to it? MS. ISON: Unfortunately. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That solves the problem here? MS. ISON: Yeah. He pretty much put us in a financial position that we have no choice. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you going to be going for a variance, or are you going to be going -- are you going for a variance on this property, or are you going to go and tear the property down? MS. ISON: I was not made aware that there was an opportunity for a variance, but the best thing we can do is find another place for my mom to live and tear it down, because he won't stop at this. He won't stop. He's tortured our family for years. He won't stop until we're done. So he wins. He wins. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess a variance -- okay. I guess a variance Page 15 July 23, 2015 probably wouldn't be allowed because it's straddling both properties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: What they would have to do is acquire some property from him, correct? MR. BALDWIN: Correct, but also there would be a problem of two principal structures on agricultural land on five acres. So they become a zoning issue after that, so I don't think a variance would work in this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unless it would be a guesthouse or something of that nature. But the whole point is maybe you guys can get together and resolve this as inexpensively as you possibly can. We have a motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. ISON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I hope you can work out your Page 16 July 23, 2015 problems so that everybody's happy. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 12 from hearings, Tab 14, Case CESD20150002302, Romeo Leasing, Incorporated. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike. MS. ROMEO: Julie Romeo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. ROMEO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a stipulation to read to us. MS. PEREZ: I do. Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of$64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation 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 agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand that stipulation? Page 17 July 23, 2015 MS. ROMEO: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you agree to it? MS. ROMEO: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Is this doable under these -- whatever is there? MS. ROMEO: Yeah. It's just a door that was -- there was a door, and he drywalled it. MR. LAVINSKI: Oh. It's that simple? MS. ROMEO: Yeah. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ROMEO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 11 from hearings, Tab 13, Case CEVR20150005196, Thomas R. Williams and Mary C. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Hello. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 18 July 23, 2015 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm Thomas R. Williams. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WILLIAMS: How are you all this morning? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So far so good. MR. WILLIAMS: I was told there was a pre-discussion meeting at 8:30. I never saw anything or heard anybody, and we do have a little paperwork to hand out. No one said anything. Any idea where -- it said to bring 13 copies. I got 13 copies. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michaelle? MS. CROWLEY: I didn't even know he was here, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Surprise? MS. CROWLEY: We've never actually met. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Nobody said a word about -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you go meet, shake hands, see what Tom has to hand out. MS. WILLIAMS: You want the 13 copies? MS. CROWLEY: I only need one, but that's okay. Let's go out in the hallway. MR. WILLIAMS: All right. MS. CROWLEY: Is that what you want to do? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we put this on the side until they have an opportunity to -- MR. WILLIAMS: I shall return. MS. ADAMS: The next case, then, will be from No. 6, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1, Tab 18, Case CEVR20140007649, Piotr and Joanna Banski. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we move on, do we have to do anything to suspend this case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we just change the agenda? Page 19 July 23, 2015 MS. NICOLA: You're just recalling it, so... You just asked him to step out in the hall and to recall it. I don't think -- I mean, you're not continuing it or anything. We're just moving it on the agenda, so it's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. NICOLA: That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give me a motion to modify the agenda, and then we'll -- MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion to modify the agenda. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. KAWANA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Your name for the record. MS. KAWANA: For the record, Teal Kawana, Collier County Page 20 July 23, 2015 Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think you're new. MS. KAWANA: I am new. I took over David Jones' position as Environmental Specialist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I knew that because we met during the week, but that's fine. MR. BANSKI: My name is Peter Banski. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, Peter. We're at the point of imposing the fine. MR. BANSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you tell us what you'd like to say. MR. BANSKI: I pretty much cleared the whole property already, whatever was supposed to be done, and removed a structure which was in the back which happened last year. I had a company actually come in and rip all those trees out. And just most recently I cut extra trees and just left three trees there which are leaning towards my neighbor's property. I need to wait for the water to be gone, because it's a little wet in there, and then he can actually come in. I can have somebody come in with a truck and get rid of those trees and brush, which is cut down already and just laying there to be removed. So all I need is for the dry season to come here. If you give me six months, it's plenty of time for me to make it perfect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And from the county, have you been to the property? MS. KAWANA: Yes. He's about 98 percent done with this. He just has those few trees left to remove, and after that he'll be done, so I think six months would be reasonable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? (No response.) Page 21 July 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll give you my comments. I have no problem granting a continuance for six months if he's done 98 percent of the work. I can understand when it's wet, it's wet. MR. MARINO: Is that your motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, no. I'm looking for a motion from the Board. Would you like to make it, Tony? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we extend it for six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance? MR. MARINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to grant a continuance for six months. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BANSKI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hopefully in six months you'll have it done, come back, and we'll deal with it at that time. MR. BANSKI: I will. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 22 July 23, 2015 MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2, from imposition of fines, Tab 19, Case CESD20120000572, Juan Campbell and Nora Carillo. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning again. MR. WALKER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have before us a case of a county versus Carillo and Campbell. It has not been abated, if I'm correct. MR. WALKER: Yes. The permit is -- it required a revision. The revision was to remove the garage door or the need of the garage door that was holding up some of his inspections, and he was unable to do that due to financial costs. So he worked with the permitting people. They put together a revision that he submitted. The revision has been accepted, and now what remains is just his need to -- once all their paperwork gets in a place where they can enter it in, to enter in that final inspection so that he can get the inspection to close out the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see the fines are up to $18,000. This was -- I guess dates back to January, January 22nd. Comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll give you my comments. If the county feels that there's been progress on this and we're waiting for the county to pass the paperwork where it needs to go, we could probably continue this to such time where that happens. MR. LAVINSKI: And how long -- do you think that might happen 30 days, 60 days? Page 23 July 23, 2015 MR. WALKER: From what we understand, he should be able to begin to call in that inspection within the next 48 hours. MR. LAVINSKI: Oh. I make the motion, then, that we extend this -- or continue this until the next meeting, 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it might be a good idea for the respondent to show up at that meeting as well. MR. WALKER: Exactly. Understood. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second to that motion. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Weldon. MR. WALKER: Thank you. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3 from imposition of fines, Tab 20, Case CESD20140012494, Lynne V. Cadenhead. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. CADENHEAD: Good morning to you, sir. MS. GARCIA: Good morning. For the record, Shirley Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is regarding Case No. CESD20140012494. The violations Page 24 July 23, 2015 were Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 dash -- 22-236, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location of the violation is 3417 Cherokee Street, Naples; Folio No. 74413200009, and the description of the violation is a primary structure with unpermitted alterations in poor condition and an unpermitted two-story storage structure in poor condition. On September 25, 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; OR5086, Page 2271. On January 22, 2015, a continuance was granted, and the OR is 5118, Page 2282. The violation has not been abated as of July 23, 2015. Fines have accrued at a rate of 400 a day for the period of October 11, 2014, to July 23, 2015, for a total fine amount of$114,400. The fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of 64.17 have been paid, and the operational costs for today's hearing is $64.17. Total amount to date is $114,464.17. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. GARCIA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Cadenhead. MR. CADENHEAD: Good morning, sir. What we're asking is that we've got an ongoing deal -- it's just like I was here with you last meeting -- on the dangerous building. And at that time I hired an engineer to go in and inspect the buildings and to give me a clean bill of health. The fines that we got going on here -- in other words, the -- what has happened from the beginning in July 18th, 2'14, we get a thing from the building department that the building structure has collapsed, moved off foundation. Same thing as we went through last week on Page 25 July 23, 2015 the other house. Well, what -- we went in to get a permit to start the permitting process. They told us that we had to have an elevation certification. At that time we went and got an elevation certification in November 10th. Submit it to the county, and -- in other words, they found that the elevation certification, that the building met the floodplain. So -- and in May of this year we went to get a permit, and with doing that, the building being deemed a dangerous building, the per -- in other words, said we had to resolve the problem of it being a dangerous building. July 17th, an American engineer came in, made a total evaluation of the building; the soil that it is sitting on is adequate. The foundation is adequate. And I met with the Building Department head yesterday, Jonathan Walsh. And due to a termite report that the building had termites, and due to some rotted wood, Jonathan wanted more before he cleared this house. He cleared the one on 2'14 that it was not a dangerous building. Before he cleared this, we agreed that I would go in and remove all interior walls to where he could come back out and make another inspection. All I'm asking from the Board today, until he gets his final -- till Jonathan Walsh makes his final determination -- and that's what I agreed with him yesterday, is that we would remove the interior walls to where he could make a total inspection of the building and at that time -- to where he could either deem it safe or not safe. So at that time all I'm asking the Board to do is postpone the levy and the fines until we get a determination from the Building Department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One -- the last time you were here, I recall you were having somebody come to find out whether the foundation was okay or not, and the determination on that was? Page 26 July 23, 2015 MR. CADENHEAD: The determination, the foundation was in place, foundation was good. And on that house, Jonathan Walsh was there yesterday, he made an inspection, and he deemed the house to be in good shape. In other words, it wasn't a dangerous house. That's two -- 3114. And we have until August 22nd to have all the siding on and have that house back into a very presentable presentation for this board and for the county, and we intend to meet that. This house here, after meeting with him yesterday -- we spent two hours on site reviewing all the houses. Due the severity of what he wrote on his letter, due to the severity of what my engineers wrote, that the house is in compliance, he asked me at this point, before he signs off one way or the other, if I would remove the interior walls to where he can make that total inspection of everything, and so I agreed to that. All I'm asking today is -- in other words, if you're going to impose the fines, you're going to impose them, and we're going to argue about them in court someplace down the line. But instead of imposing them today, wait on this particular one until I get with Jonathan and we comply with what he's asked us to comply with. That's all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When do you think you're going to meet with him again? MR. CADENHEAD: We -- our criteria yesterday was to -- instead of doing a thousand things at one time, we'll concentrate on the two -- on the house at 314 (sic), to go ahead, get the siding on it, get it up to county specs, code, and get it approved, and then put the effort on this building here. So we're looking maybe 60, 90 days or so before he'll make the determination on this here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're going to do the siding before he determines -- MR. CADENHEAD: Oh, no, no, no. This is on the building yesterday that he cleared for us to go to work on. Page 27 July 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CADENHEAD: In other words, he cleared one building to go to work on. We're going to get that building totally done, all the pavers put in, everything put in to where we can show the county basically that we got good faith in trying to get something done also. So we get that one done, get it CO'ed to county specs, and then come back and get the -- get this report out to where he can make his determination. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: We keep saying 314. Is he talking about 3417? MS. GARCIA: It's 3414. No. He's referring to last month -- we shouldn't have included that. 3414 is across the street from this property today before you. And he had to get -- both of the properties are deemed unsafe. So what we're talking about today is strictly on 3417. We're getting confused with the other address. He was just using that as an example of why the building official was there, and he went and determined on both of the sites. On this 3417 that's before you today, he needs -- Jonathan Walsh, the building official from Collier County Code Enforcement, he needs him to open up -- take all the electrical -- and all the walls need to be removed so he can look at the jalousies and see if they're not rusted out and that the structure is deemed habitable. So if it's habitable, they will issue a permit in this case. If it's not, then he will make him tear it down. MR. MARINO: So he's just taking the walls down to the bare wood or bare -- MS. GARCIA: Exactly, so he can see the jalousies that are connected at the bottom of the -- into the foundation of the home, because it was deemed unsafe, and he couldn't really see. Because the walls are half there. There are some walls that are there that are Page 28 July 23, 2015 attached to the bearing walls, and so that's why he said, listen, I'll approve you to go in and remove all the electrical and all the walls so I can go and see if they're all rusted out. If they're rusted out, you're going to have to demolish it. So he needs some time -- he's asking for some time so that he could do that after he takes care of his other issue across the street. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're asking for 60 to 90 days to remove the walls, et cetera - MR. CADENHEAD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and get Mr. Walsh back to take a look? MR. CADENHEAD: The main reason is that we've got a certified and a signed, sealed report from American Engineering Consultants that says the house is not unsafe, that it's on its foundation. It's everything. And Jonathan -- Jonathan asked yesterday, due to the termite report and other things, that he wanted some more investigation done, so I agreed to that. And all I'm asking you today is to work with us to where we see if the building is -- because basically the county come in -- if the county come in in July 18th, 2'04 (sic) and deemed the building unsafe and it was safe, then we've been fighting something all this time -- in other words, these fines shouldn't have been accruing anyway if the building was safe all the time. So this is where we're trying to get to right now, to make everybody happier. MS. GARCIA: Well, this was before you for an unpermitted structure, actually. It wasn't -- but when they threw in the mix of the dangerous building -- later on after the investigator was able to gain access, he was like, whoa, I think I need a determination so that way he wasn't able to go in there and be in unsafe -- Page 29 July 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we cross this bridge at the proper time. MS. GARCIA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This probably is not the proper time to do it. Either we impose the fines, or we grant a 90-day continuance. MR. LEFEBVRE: The question I have is you were in front of us back in January 22nd meeting and you asked for an extension of six months. MR. CADENHEAD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then you said there's a report from May 22nd regarding America Engineering. When did you retain that engineering firm? Because there's many months between January and MR. CADENHEAD: We obtained another engineering firm to come in there and -- right at the first of the year. Their report -- they came in, decided they didn't want to do nothing until it got to -- the football got kicked down the field again, in other words, until there was a termite report. So the termite people come in and made their report. And as any good termite inspector would do, they're going to tell you there's termites someplace. So he came with his termites. And then they made -- Torvio Group made -- drew up plans and stuff. And at that time -- when I met with you last month, you made a very plain statement. In other words, if either the property -- either the house, the foundation is good, the dirt underneath there is good or whatever. So at that time I went and got a civil engineer that deals nothing (sic) with structure, and there's two of them that investigated this and signed off So, basically, it's just getting to the point of keep moving along with the county here. So if we could get the 90 days, I think we can be in -- have what we need to do by that time. Page 30 July 23, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: As I remember the case, wasn't there a difference of opinion between the county and the respondent? MS. GARCIA: Not on this one, not on 3417. MR. LAVINSKI: Oh. MS. GARCIA: So I don't want to go back and rehear the 3414 address that was there last month. So you'll have an opportunity to hear that one later on, I guess, but -- MR. CADENHEAD: There was -- when you-all -- when we left the meeting last time, you said that we needed to have a meeting of the mind between the engineer and the county. MR. LAVINSKI: Correct. MR. CADENHEAD: As of yesterday, on 3114, the county signed off that this is a safe building and it's okay. On this building, Jonathan Walsh did not feel comfortable without doing more investigation of the building to see where he could sign off to have that meeting of the mind. So between -- you're totally correct on what you're saying, sir, in other words. And that's what you asked me to do last month. I did it. The one building signed off. Now we're on this other building with the same problem. And due to Jonathan's request, in other words, we just need a little bit more time to get where we're going here. MR. MARINO: I'm a little bit confused. Are we talking -- is this whole conversation about 3417 or a different building? MR. LAVINSKI: Seventeen right now. MS. GARCIA: That's correct. MR. LAVINSKI: So you say the building is safe. Now we just need the county to confirm that -- MR. CADENHEAD: That's correct. MR. LAVINSKI: -- so that's why you need the time on this. MR. CADENHEAD: And he's asking to remove all interior walls Page 31 July 23, 2015 to see what termite damage it is, to see what rot has occurred, and I agreed to that. So with that -- in other words, he basically deemed that the structure -- the substructure, the floor joists and everything else was safe yesterday, but he wanted more time before he came with his order, so -- MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MR. CADENHEAD: He was very gracious. He spent -- Jonathan spent time, the engineers have spent time, and so -- in other words, if we keep this thing -- in other words, after a while you get a fine of$118,000 on a piece of property that's worth 50,000, who's who, right? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. MR. CADENHEAD: I mean -- MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that we continue this for 90 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to continue it 90 days. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: We're going to continue it, but there's not going to be any resolution to this case in 90 days. It's just going to -- MR. CADENHEAD: Oh, no. There won't be -- if at the time -- within this 90-day period, if the county deems it, we can pull the permit to rebuild it, or I will agree to pull a permit to demo it. One or the other is going to have to happen in the 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I still don't feel comfortable with is in January you were in front of us asking for an extension. I think at that point you said I need to get an engineer out there, and you're telling us that May 22nd is when you got a report from the engineer. That's a four-month period. Page 32 July 23, 2015 MR. CADENHEAD: It's like anything else. The one engineer we got was not capable of doing the job, and the other engineer, in order to do -- to certify what needed to be certified and like it needed to be certified for the county -- in other words, it took two engineers out of the other firm, one over each other, to come up with the certification to make sure that they wasn't stepping on the county's toes, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I just see that you're going to be in front of us multiple times. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, at least that allows us to take, you know, steps in the right direction, hopefully. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. My comment on this is that Mr. Cadenhead has spent a lot of time, and a lot of money to this point. I think the least we could do is to grant the 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ninety-day continuance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Just refresh my memory. Continuance, the fines still -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continue. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 33 July 23, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. ADAMS: I think we're ready to recall the case for Mr. Williams. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was Tab No. 14? MR. DOINO: Thirteen. MS. ADAMS: Tab 13. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thirteen. Welcome back. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning once again. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have to re-swear? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Do we make sense of the 13 copies or... MS. CROWLEY: Yeah. He -- Mr. Williams has to present and bring in some documents that he intends to present. And I have reviewed those, and I have no objection to those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you going to provide them or show them on the jukebox? MS. ADAMS: There's quite a bit. I can bring a copy up for each of you if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you have the copies already, sure. Michaelle, I have one question for you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have to make a motion to approve? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. We need a motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 34 July 23, 2015 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Is your name spelled incorrectly on this, M-i-c-h-a-e-1-1-e, or is that you? MS. CROWLEY: That is me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because I have a Michelle of my own and -- MS. CROWLEY: That was how my mother thought you spelled Michaelle. Do you want me to proceed? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement Board environmental specialist. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20150005196 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.01(B), the removal/clearing of nonnative vegetation using heavy machinery without first obtaining Collier County permit. Folio No. 38455320006, Naples, Florida, 34109. The parcel has no site address and is located on Bottlebrush Lane. Service of the notice of violation was given on March 30, 2015, by posting the notice on the property and at the Collier County Courthouse and via certified mail on the same date. Page 35 July 23, 2015 I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: An aerial image from the Property Appraiser's website showing the area in question and four paragraphs taken by me on March 17, 2015, showing the cleared path along the left side of the parcel. And I have shown those photographs to Mr. and Mrs. Williams. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. Code Enforcement received a complaint from an adjacent property that trees were being removed on a weekend with no visible permit posted. My site inspection on March 17, 2015, revealed an absence of trees in a swath approximately 15 feet wide and extending 400 feet northward. Can you turn it sideways. No, the other way. The north is at the top of the photograph. Yeah, you may have to zoom out to show the whole thing. Bottlebrush Lane is at the bottom. The parcel in question is the area outlined in yellow that encompasses it, and the area that was Page 36 July 23, 2015 cleared is the skinny strip bounded by the red markers on the left extending back behind where the property cuts off back to the east. And then I also observed some cutting back along the property line along that north end where it abuts the property to the south. I went to the house to the left where I talked to a tenant who confirmed that clearing took place the previous Saturday, that it was done by two men on a brush (sic) hog clearing machine. Because that was a tenant, that person did not feel comfortable giving permission to go on their property so that I could access this property. I then went to the property to the right where I did meet with the owner of that property at 6581, and a Mr. Patrick O'Connor (sic) walked me along the side and rear of his property so that I was able to take additional photographs of that particular cleared swath. Mr. Connor, the neighbor, stated that his property used to belong to a larger parcel owned by Mr. Williams but that that parcel had been split off and sold to Mr. Connor decades before. He also confirmed that the work had taken place on Saturday the 14th before I was there. There were no stumps visible. The ground is graded flat. The vegetative debris had either been chipped on site -- there was one small pile of chipped material -- and had been spread along the length and width of the cleared swath or had been removed. Now you can show the next photographs. This is what it looks like from the roadway. The driveway, the concrete to the right, is the driveway to 6581, the property that is developed that had been split off by Mr. Williams and sold decades ago. MR. WILLIAMS: That happens to be my driveway, by the way. It's on my property, and he uses it to get to his house. MS. CROWLEY: Okay. The existing driveway is there. I mean, you'll see it in the aerial as well. The clearing angles off from that bend in the concrete and heads Page 37 July 23, 2015 due north straight back. There is also a small trail partially cleared parallel to the road and running just north of the property line where it abuts Mr. Connor. The cleared path extends beyond -- or the swath extends beyond a storage shed sitting on the property that's diagonal to the left. I did post a stop work order because I determined before arriving that there are no permits and were no permits for the clearing. I eventually made contact that day or the -- no, the next day with Mr. Williams. He stated that he was under the belief that he could automatically clear an access road to his property. I advised that land alteration or clearing cannot be undertaken without county approval. He then said that the only native vegetation removed was regrowth of 4-foot-tall slash pines and palmettos that came back -- MR. WILLIAMS: That's not true. MS. CROWLEY: -- after the swath -- MR. WILLIAMS: I never said that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll have a chance -- MR. WILLIAMS: There's not a palmetto or a pine on that property and hasn't been for 35 years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You'll have a chance to cross-examine. MR. WILLIAMS: I hate hearing things wrong, and there's so much of it going on here that I feel I need to speak up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: I'll continue. He said that the only regrowth was 4-foot-tall slash pines and palmettos that came back after the swath was originally cleared eight years ago. I agreed with him that much of what had been removed was exotic vegetation. He said that the mulching and chipping in place on the access path was from Brazilian pepper. He stated he wanted to make the parcel appealing to potential buyers. Page 38 July 23, 2015 He asked me how quickly a clearing permit could be issued, and I advised him to speak to the other side of the building, that they were the ones who actually issued the permits. A re-inspection, however, showed that no changes have been made. There had been no permit applied for. There had been no additional clearing. And, in fact, some of the native plants and weeds, vines, as well as exotics are starting to grow back now since March because there has been no further clearing. On May 1st, I called Mr. Williams again. He stated that the cost associated with the after-the-fact vegetation removal permit was his obstacle, and that he should have known that he needed a permit for mechanical clearing using a forestry tractor, but he said he didn't get a permit. He said that the cost of the permit was too high. He asked if I could give him an escape and not charge the after-the-fact fees because he said what he did was negligible. I cautioned him again against removing any native trees by any method and against removing any exotics using heavy machinery. I also warned him that a building permit would only allow clearing of one acre. This is a 1.14-acre parcel. No vegetation removal permit or other authorization for clearing has been obtained for any of the clearing that's been done on this swath over the years. And, according to Mr. Williams, he has owned it for 40 years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: Yeah. Show the additional pictures. This is the swath as seen from the driveway that curves back to 6581, the house that's in front of this. This shows the width and depth of the cleared space. MR. WILLIAMS: That original swath was made by Florida Power and Light for a power line that runs down that same easement. That easement was formed to get to the back lot when the lots were re- platted to make two bigger lots rather than the two 75-footers that were Page 39 July 23, 2015 there before. The street is lined now with million-and-a-half-dollar homes or so, and I felt way back then that the lot needed to be a bigger one rather than a smaller one. They're very small lots on that street. Ever since it was reconfigured -- we live -- Mary and I lived in that house. Were you finished? I'm sorry. MS. CROWLEY: No, I'm not, but let me -- MR. WILLIAMS: You're taking too long, Michaelle. Hurry up. I've got a lot to say here. MS. CROWLEY: Okay. I'll show the rest of my pictures. MR. WILLIAMS: Hold your hand up when it's my turn. MS. CROWLEY: This is the one -- the only pile of mulch that was on site when I was there -- and that is a Melaleuca tree behind it and Brazilian pepper. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not. That's a ficus benjamina. And those roots are exposed because the tree blew over in the storm, and that's not on my property. That's on the neighbor's property. MS. CROWLEY: Correct. MR. WILLIAMS: You're wrong. MS. CROWLEY: Mr. Connor told me that that was his property, that that was the dividing line, so... MR. WILLIAMS: Oh. It sounded like you were going to act like it was mine. MS. CROWLEY: That was -- I'm not going there. Okay. I believe -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, children, play nice. MS. CROWLEY: That's my last photograph. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't play with her. She's not nice. MS. NICOLA: This feels like court. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 40 July 23, 2015 MS. CROWLEY: That concludes my testimony. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I ask one question? You cannot clear over one acre? MS. CROWLEY: With a building permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you had a hundred-acre parcel, you could go in and clear how much without a permit? MS. CROWLEY: Nothing without a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nothing? MS. CROWLEY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: With a building permit, you can clear up to one acre, whether it's a 1.14-acre parcel, whether it's a hundred-acre parcel, unless you get county approval to do so in advance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So raise your hand so -- are you done now? MS. CROWLEY: Oh, yes, I'm done. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. A lot of what she said is true in our conversation back and forth. She was informing me of things like that acre deal that I had never heard of before. But she embellishes things to such a point where she has me to using heavy equipment to do something that I mowed with. All that was done there from the very beginning was mowing that property, as FPL asked me to do when they put the power line in for the house that's there. We haven't done it for several years, and the Brazilian pepper on the neighbor's side grew over my width, the whole width of that property, and was taking it over to such an extent that -- I had a builder interested in the lot possibly, and I wanted him at least to get back to it to see it. He said he wasn't even interested because he couldn't even see the lane to the property, and that's the only reason why I cleared the easement. And I had no intention to do anything more than clear the Page 41 July 23, 2015 easement, and I did nothing more than clean (sic) the easement, and it happened to be 340 feet in the property, not 400 feet. It stopped at the property line. And if I had planned to do more, I certainly would have had larger equipment and taken care of it. That's what I do for a living. On every document that's sent to me it says how important it is for every owner of real property within the unincorporated Collier County, that they're required to maintain their property in a manner so as not to violate the provisions of these ordinances. All of these say that anything over 18 inches has to be mowed or kept on mowable site. It's repeated 14 times through these three pieces of paper they sent me. Since 1982, before the county knew that road had people living on it, I mowed that road with my -- the swales of that road with my equipment, a Bush Hog on the back of a tractor, even under water sometimes because it was so wet out there at that time in '82, '3, '4, '5, '6. And I had four friends who lived on the road, and we just hated for our kids to come out to go to the school bus without it being mowed. I mowed it personally. Many times we'd sling walking catfish out on the road that were alive in the ditch. And it looked so strange to see them all over the place. At any rate, I mowed it until 2002 on a regular basis, including this easement that we're talking about today, because that lot was where we planned to retire to one day if we can get rid of that nut on the right-hand side with all the mess. You'll see pictures of his mess that finds its way over in our property. Every time it grows up, cement mixers, barrels, all manner of tile, junk, and stuff gets piled on our property. So I made an effort to get it clean, to keep it clean, and I don't feel that -- in any way that I should have to get a permit to do that kind of work on my property when I look at all the requirements that the county has about keeping your property clean. Page 42 July 23, 2015 It is an easement back to the lot. I don't see any problem whatsoever. And every time I ask or tried to clarify it with her, it was, you've got to buy the permit, you've got to buy the permit, you've got to buy the permit. I don't think you have to mow your right-of-way to your property. And that pretty much is my case. I did not use heavy equipment. I used a small 25-horsepower tractor. My son and I used pole saws, which is a chainsaw on the end of a pole, to cut the Brazilian pepper. The flail mower chewed up the debris. We hauled most of it away and left it as clean and neat as we possibly could, being a good neighbor to both the creep on the side that turned us in for no reason whatsoever -- he thinks he owns our property in the back -- and the good guy on the left-hand side. So that's really my case. I don't feel we need a permit for that, and I don't want to pay for one. So I wish that you would oversee that and help me out in that situation. You'll find in this little packet my notes about things. We didn't leave a track. There's not a hole where a tree was dug out, a stump where a tree was removed. We did nothing there but mow, period. We did not penetrate the ground anywhere on the property, and the pictures in there will clearly show you the grass that's growing on the property from that day till this. MR. LEFEBVRE: When were these pictures taken? MR. WILLIAMS: You can also see that there are round brown areas at the front of the picture that show where the Brazilian pepper grew over and covered the ground which kept us from getting on the property. There, again, we weren't there to strafe the property, or we would have brought heavy equipment. And, believe me, I can get heavy equipment if I need it. I just mowed it. My son and I mowed it. I don't need a permit for that. MR. LEFEBVRE: When did you mow it, and when were these pictures taken? Right up here. Page 43 July 23, 2015 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: When did you mow it, and when were these pictures taken? MR. WILLIAMS: I mowed it -- I don't forget (sic). She told you the date. When was it? MS. CROWLEY: March the 14th. MR. LEFEBVRE: And when were these pictures -- MR. WILLIAMS: March the 14th, the day before my wife's birthday. MR. LEFEBVRE: That should be a date you remember. MR. WILLIAMS: I should have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You didn't ask his wife's birthday. You asked when he mowed. MR. WILLIAMS: And the pictures -- my pictures were taken now, but her pictures will show you the same thing. MR. LEFEBVRE: But when were these pictures taken? MR. WILLIAMS: Those pictures were taken three days ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: Three days ago, okay. MR. WILLIAMS: And, still, nothing's growing where the peppers were, and the grass was actually mowed again for those pictures by my neighbor on the right-hand side. MR. MARINO: The good one. MR. WILLIAMS: So he can push his crap over there on my property, I guess. But there's even a picture of his mower there that he mowed it with. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question on -- MR. WILLIAMS: And he left tracks. My equipment didn't even leave any tracks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the picture here that says lot showing easement -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. Page 44 July 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- there is a red line on that that goes back. MR. WILLIAMS: That's a 25-foot -- it's 75 feet at the street by 25, and then it makes that L shape back to the lot as a 25-foot easement for the power line and for the property in the rear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the entire lot is actually from the left-hand, where that strip is, all the way over to the -- MR. WILLIAMS: All the way to the street. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's forward. But on Bottlebrush Lane, the width of your property there is how much? MR. WILLIAMS: Seventy-five-feet wide. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's 75-feet wide there at the road? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the portion that was an easement, in your words, is about 15-feet wide. MR. LEFEBVRE: Twenty-five. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Twenty-five. MR. WILLIAMS: Where we cut it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. WILLIAMS: We cut it 17-feet wide. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seventeen feet, okay. MR. WILLIAMS: We meant to cut it 25, but it just -- 17 was enough. I didn't take any more because I didn't want to open up that ugly sight to the house on the right that's not being maintained. And I left the trees big and covering that. So I really didn't even interfere with the neighbor on the right. Did I mention he's an idiot? Excuse me. I just happen to have one there. MR. LEFEBVRE: We all have one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The property to the right, is -- do you have any idea how wide that property is? Looks very narrow to me. MR. WILLIAMS: It's 25 feet off a hundred -- it's 125 feet wide. Page 45 July 23, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: And it has 75 feet at the street as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Which is where his entrance should be, but he uses my entrance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Originally they were 75-foot lots. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see how they did it. MR. WILLIAMS: There was no destruction of trees or plants other than the weeds and the grasses that grow in that area from the air, the seed. It was planted with grass at one time, but the Brazilian pepper's covered it over. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, you said that the area that you mowed was originally an FPL right-of-way? MR. WILLIAMS: It is a right-of-way. I don't know whether it's a deeded right-of-way, but the feed for the house, I think both houses, comes in on the left-hand side of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The feed for the two houses -- MR. WILLIAMS: Right-of-way. That is the property line is the power line. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that goes all the way back to those two houses in the rear? MR. WILLIAMS: In between the two houses, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: About halfway between the two. MS. CROWLEY: The two houses on the rear have frontage on the road to the north. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: So they would have -- you know, all of their utilities would come in from the north. MR. WILLIAMS: They don't have -- are you sure of that? I don't think they -- the ones on the left? I think the only entrance -- Page 46 July 23, 2015 MS. CROWLEY: No, no. He's talking about -- he said the ones in the rear, meaning to the north of where your property is. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh. The ones to the north, of course, do. It abuts another property back there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you checked at all with FPL as to whether that right-of-way is maintained by them or supposed to be -- MS. CROWLEY: It's not an official easement dedicated like the one on Radio Road, you know, those big wide ones that you see where they have the transmission lines. It has just the utility pole service, and it is on the leftmost property line, so that the clearing took place to the right of the telephone wires. They do go parallel with the property line and service, I believe, this property to the left and possibly the property to the right. But it's not a dedicated, platted FP&L easement or right-of-way. It is not. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask you. Does the Land Development Code distinguish between trimming of exotics versus removal of exotics? Because Mr. Williams has stated that he went and mowed the lawn and trimmed the Brazilian peppers, I think is what he said, on the right side, if I was correct. MR. WILLIAMS: Correct. MS. CROWLEY: Well, when you call it a lawn, I guess I would take issue. It's not a lawn like you would have in your front yard. And the 18-inch reference he made at the beginning to all the ordinances, the exotics ordinance is part of the nuisance abatement. It's part of weeds, and grass cannot -- on undeveloped -- correction. On undeveloped lots, mowable lots cannot exceed 18 inches. This is an undeveloped lot, so the 18-inches doesn't even apply here. The answer is -- and Mr. Williams and I did discuss this -- that if somebody wanted to clear -- remove exotics from their property, you do not need a permit to do it by hand. Page 47 July 23, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. CROWLEY: You get your lopping shears, you get your pruners. You can get a chainsaw if you want to to cut down -- MR. WILLIAMS: Or a chainsaw and a pole. MS. CROWLEY: -- exotic vegetation. MR. WILLIAMS: Pole saw, chainsaw, same thing. MS. CROWLEY: The minute you use machinery, it requires a permit. MR. WILLIAMS: The term is "heavy machinery." It's not just simply "machinery," Michaelle. MS. CROWLEY: It is heavy machinery. MR. WILLIAMS: Mention the word "heavy" -- MS. CROWLEY: It is heavy. MR. WILLIAMS: -- because that changes the kind of machinery from little tinker toys to machinery. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm trying to get to that. I'm trying to help you here. MR. WILLIAMS: Please. I need all the help I can get. She's tough. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if you stop, I can -- MR. WILLIAMS: She's doing her job, but she's doing it too good. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm done asking questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? MS. NICOLA: I have a question. And maybe you guys know the answer to this because I'm still relatively new. What would be the difference between what's considered to be heavy machinery and what's considered to be mowing? Because I'm in a quandary, listening to both of you, trying to figure out what the difference is. I mean, obviously, there must be some significant difference if one's a code Page 48 July 23, 2015 offense and one isn't. Because we have lots of people out in the Estates that we probably could hear from this a lot. MR. DOINO: What kind of machine, Michaelle, was this; do you know? MS. CROWLEY: According to the neighbor to the left -- correction -- the tenant to the left, it was a brush hog clearing machine, is how she described it. When -- MR. WILLIAMS: It was not, but go ahead. MS. CROWLEY: That's how it was described. There was no equipment on site when I was there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me settle this. MR. WILLIAMS: On this charge here -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Excuse me, Mr. Williams. I'm ready to not vote in your favor because of your mouth. I'm trying to be courteous and try to get to a point, but you're not letting me get there. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, pardon me, sir. I'm sorry. I'm on fire here. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, you're not. You have an advocate here -- MR. WILLIAMS: It's all I can do to keep my mouth shut. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask -- MR. WILLIAMS: This is wrong -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. Hold on. MR. WILLIAMS: -- and I'm here to try to keep it from being wrong. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. Mr. Lefebvre -- MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- without interruption. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll try to be good. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would hope. Page 49 July 23, 2015 My question is, or my statement to be made is you have a person that lives to the left that's a tenant that doesn't want to give a formal statement that -- nothing in writing. She -- MS. CROWLEY: No. She didn't feel comfortable because she was just staying there, I think, over a week and didn't feel comfortable giving me permission -- her giving permission on behalf of the owner to the left to walk on her property so that I could see what was going on on -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But what I'm trying to get at is, the thing is, you state that it's heavy equipment. There's -- you didn't see any heavy equipment. I don't see any written statement from a person verifying that there was heavy equipment. We have testimony from Mr. Williams on record stating that it was not heavy equipment, that he used a pole chainsaw to trim some trees. I don't see any pictures of roots being cut or anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No stumps. MR. LEFEBVRE: No stumps or anything, thank you. I make a ruling that there is no violation, and that's what I was trying to get at. So my -- I make a motion -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Chairman, I second that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there's no violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, and we have a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I tend to agree, and my main reason for agreeing is there's no witness here -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to corroborate anything that happened. The only thing -- there's no evidence, no stumps. Page 50 July 23, 2015 MR. DOINO: Or even a picture of the big tractor unit, whatever. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. So I tend to agree. Any other comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're now free to -- MR. WILLIAMS: Get out of here and leave you guys alone? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I wanted to make a one-minute quick thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. WILLIAMS: I worked with Clemmer, who was the code enforcement agent here years ago. I was on the board of Jaycees who helped out, make and write a lot of these little ordinances and laws and rules. I worked with Morrison, who was also the code enforcement man here for many, many, many years. I worked with Ed Garing (phonetic) who was just, not too long ago, the code enforcement man in trying to clarify and make these things simple. These laws are written so confused that I don't know how anyone makes heads or tails out of them or defines -- or how Michaelle even Page 51 July 23, 2015 does her job with that blatantly over-worded, repeated, insane amount of information. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, thank you for your comments. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But you need to go to the commissioners to change the LDC. This is probably not the venue for that. But we understand. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. She's nudging me to go. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next item on the agenda is No. 7, new business, the workshop scheduling discussion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All the cases are done. We -- the county, in their ultimate wisdom, permitted us to go to an excellent training course that was held a couple weeks ago -- actually more than a couple weeks ago, about a month ago -- and I think that -- and we were all there. And I think we learned a lot. And some of the discussion and what was covered at the meeting dealt with Florida Statute 162 that I believe some of our rules that we have maybe need to be clarified, modified, or whatever based on what we learned at that class. So what I was suggesting is that we spend some time at some point in time, not necessarily today -- not today because we're not prepared -- to review what we learned at the class, go over our rules again to make sure we are in compliance, and pick a time that would either be after one of our meetings that's a light meeting, like today, or maybe take a break, have a sandwich or something, and then have a discussion on that after. So comments from the Board regarding that? MR. ASHTON: I think that's a good idea because there's a lot of confusion going on lately with the new changes in the rules and Page 52 July 23, 2015 everything, I think we've got to update ourselves because we have had a problem about making a ruling. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Well, if you have a meeting like today that ended at 10:19, it would probably be good to have it after a short meeting rather than extended or something. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have any idea what next month looks like? MS. ADAMS: Unfortunately, no; I can't tell at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, one of the things I'd like to do before we have it -- and I don't know which way to do it -- to get a copy of the statute, 162, either via email -- I don't know how thick it is. Do you have any idea, Jeff? Have you read it? MR. WRIGHT: I have. It's pretty thin, actually, relative to some other statutes. I'd say it's probably 10 pages, give or take. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Great. MR. WRIGHT: We could easily round it up and email it to everybody. I think everybody should have a current copy of the latest legislation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we do this so that we're prepared, whether it's next week -- we'll see how the meeting goes. If we can get a copy of that and maybe a revised copy or the latest copy of our rules. I don't think there were any changes in the rules in the past six months or so, and then we could discuss that at that meeting. MS. NICOLA: I would say that those of us that were at the seminar, that 162 was included in the blue packet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that -- MS. NICOLA: It's at the end. And it's -- it looks to be pretty complete even including the history notes, but -- and it's maybe eight pages. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We can use that. Page 53 July 23, 2015 MR. MARINO: That's a good idea. I suggest that you bring the Reuben sandwich, being that you said we could have sandwiches. So you could bring the sandwiches. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll be glad to bring them if you'll be glad to pay for them. MR. LAVINSKI: The one drum, you know, that I've been beating for a while is the partial relief on these fines. I guess we all learned that we can't call them costs. If we want to say let's do everything except $1,000, we can't call that -- that $1,000 a cost to process, because Jeff would go bananas trying to prove that we spent $1,000. So what I'd like to suggest everyone to think about -- I still want to do something here -- is that possibly we can say, okay, the fine is abated except for 10 percent and just leave it at that. So we're going to have a 10 percent minimum fine on every fine that we decide to relieve the people of, but there still is some cost. There's some effort. There's a lot of effort going into this, and I think there ought to be a piece of a fine that remains in place every time we abate a fine. MR. MARINO: Well, you've got Mr. Cadenhead who's got a $114,000 fine. So you're looking at an $11,000 cost. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But it will be a lot more in 90 days, too. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. MR. MARINO: That's right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But -- I understand that. And the other thing that we can also discuss at that meeting is we have -- and I don't know how many people have it. I know that Mr. Lavinski uses it. We have a guide for fines so that we don't fine somebody for a green pool $100 and somebody else $200. So we try to, as best we can, use this as a guide, and maybe we Page 54 July 23, 2015 need to review that as well as far as the fines are concerned. And, again, the minimum -- not minimum. The maximum fines are listed in Florida Statute 162. So we can go over that, compare it to our rules, and go from there. So does everybody on the Board have the latest copy of the rules? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Okay. So if you can email those out at some point. Does everybody have their copy from the meeting we went to on Florida Statute 162? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not everybody. So if you could email that out as well. You don't have it, Jeff? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have it. I have one. MR. WRIGHT: Yeah. We'll send it your way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I do have my copy, but there was somebody on the Board who lost theirs, and I won't mention Sue's name. Oh. MS. CURLEY: I recycled it last month by mistake. MR. LAVINSKI: Not me. MR. MARINO: We won't mention her name? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I won't mention Sue's name. Okay. Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Well, we have some numbers. Are you ready for those? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Absolutely. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six, three, two. MR. WRIGHT: A quick little report on where we're at in this year. You may recall that we've been keeping track of the waivers of fines between this board, the Special Magistrate, and the Board of County Commissioners, and we've been keeping track since this Page 55 July 23, 2015 month, July of 2009. So we have a six-year snapshot now, and we just are approaching -- this is as of the 19th of July, a few days ago -- almost $28 million in fine waivers. So that's pretty monumental. And we keep getting requests daily for more fine waivers. There's more going in September to the board meeting, so I expect that that's going to be continuing as we go forward. So far this fiscal year, which started October 1st, we have 7,189 code enforcement cases. So we're going to be close to 10,000 for the fiscal year. By comparison, we have 8,674 educational patrols. So you can see we're putting our priorities on educating people on the front end. We think it's worth the resources and the effort because it tends to get people to comply before having to deal with a hearing. And so we're working with the people out there, and investigators are working very hard. Over 20,000 inspections so far this year, so they really are hammering it out there. We continue to get a lot of lien searches, about 200 a week. That's about 40 a day. And that's continuing. We're on schedule to get about 10,000 of those for the fiscal year, and those are the ones that are 25 bucks a pop, and so that generates revenue for the General Fund, but there's a lot of money at stake, a quarter million dollars is what we've been doing the last couple years. And then, finally, we have just over 1,091 open cases right now as of July 19th, and that's my report. Happy to answer any questions. MR. MARINO: I have a question. How do we come up with the costs, like $64.17 or $24.13? How do we come up with the costs? MR. WRIGHT: Well, my understanding of it is -- and we have two different tribunals, so there might be some slight differences, but the idea is the costs of preparing the hearing, the copies, everything that goes out, is divided, and apportioned among the respondents that are on that agenda, so there is some -- is that consistent with -- Page 56 July 23, 2015 MS. ADAMS: And it's also the number of pages that we mail out to the respondent, plus the certified mail cost. There's a few different things involved. But we count the pages that we send, and that's how it ends up with the odd cents amount. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the Magistrate's salary in her bailiwick, so that's why their costs are higher. MS. ADAMS: Yes. MR. MARINO: Well, no. I thought that it was not enough of a cost -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they don't -- MR. MARINO: -- based on the amount of time that's spent out there and everything else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much they pay us. MR. MARINO: Yeah, especially us. We're due for a raise pretty soon. MR. WRIGHT: It should be just -- it should reflect the actual hard costs for presenting that matter for a hearing. As far as our time goes, there's a case; it's the Burns Stratton case. Not favorable to local government, but it does say that you can't factor in your time of your people when you're assessing fines on a code enforcement case. Sometimes we think that would be a fair way to do it, but when a binding court says you can't, you can't. MR. MARINO: I can't make a motion for a raise then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can make a motion for adjournment. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion for adjournment. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. Page 57 July 23, 2015 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:28 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD e11 TIN. ' • C ERT . A 7 MAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 58