Loading...
CEB Minutes 08/27/2015 August 27, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, August 27, 2015 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Alternate) Sue Curley (Alternate) Ron Doino James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynn Nicola, Attorney for the Board Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: August 27,2015 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. July 23,2015 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CELU20140016371 OWNER: KEVIN P. MCCORMICK&KATHY MCCORMICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED SECTION 1.04.01 (A) AND SECTION 2.02.03.PROHIBITED OUTSIDE STORAGE OF CAR PARTS,LAWN MOWERS, BICYCLES,CANOPY TENTS,VEHICLES,PLASTIC CONTAINERS,WOOD,YARD FURNITURE,WOOD TIE BEAMS,METAL EQUIPMENT,ETC. FOLIO NO: 36714040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3575 3RD AVE NW,NAPLES 1 Motion for Extension of Time B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20150008643 OWNER: ALBERTO TOMBO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES(ANIMAL SHELTERS)ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 39393960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2341 6TH AVE SE,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20150008639 OWNER: NIOSVEL CABRERA&STEPHANIE GASSIOT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02,06(B)(IXA).SEVERAL UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES LOCATED IN THE REAR PROPERTY AREA. FOLIO NO: 39394000004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2331 6TH AVE SE,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20140000965 OWNER: MARICELA PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN ADDITION WITH ELECTRIC,A CARPORT WITH A WOODEN DECK ALL ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATES)OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 34750000025 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4755 VIREO LN, 1MMOKALEE 4. CASE NO: CESD20150007374 OWNER: DONALD R WARD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I).STEEL BUILDING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS, FOLIO NO: 41611680001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3480 36TH AVE SE,NAPLES 2 5. CASE NO: CESD20150000041 OWNER: TONI AMEER ALI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).WALL CONSTRUCTED TO CREATE ANOTHER BEDROOM CANNOT BE PERMITTED BY COLLIER COUNTY. FOLIO NO: 79904708086 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7827 IONIO CT,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CELU20150010274 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS& VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.0101 OUTSIDE STORAGE OF ITEMS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL,VEGETATIVE DEBRIS,PALLETS,TIRES,APPLIANCE(S),PLUMBING FIXTURE AND SCRAP METAL ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62042080000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MCCARTY ST,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CEV20150009209 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS&VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 130-97(2)AND 130-97(3).COMMERCIAL TRUCK(S)AND TRAILER(S) STORED/PARKED ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCES. FOLIO NO: 62042080000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MCCARTY ST,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CESD20150009967 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS&VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(I)(A).UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES/IMPROVEMENTS ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO ADDITIONS TO REAR OF PROPERTY, NEW STRUCTURE AT FRONT OF PROPERTY AND CANOPIES. FOLIO NO: 62042080000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MCCARTY ST,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CESD20150002065 OWNER: RANDY HOLTON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).UNPERMITTED SHED AND ANIMAL CAGES ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62098320002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MARTIN ST,NAPLES 3 10. CASE NO: CESD20150009975 OWNER: JOHN L ROBERT CIPOLLA& LESLIE RICCIARDELLI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND(E).ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION AND NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 24120480007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 264 BURNING TREE DR,NAPLES B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CELU20140016371 OWNER: KEVIN P. MCCORMICK& KATHY MCCORMICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED SECTION 1.04.01 (A) AND SECTION 2.02.03.PROHIBITED OUTSIDE STORAGE OF CAR PARTS,LAWN MOWERS, BICYCLES,CANOPY TENTS,VEHICLES,PLASTIC CONTAINERS,WOOD,YARD FURNITURE, WOOD TIE BEAMS,METAL EQUIPMENT,ETC. FOLIO NO: 36714040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3575 3RD AVE NW,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20140009469 OWNER: GEFFTER R GONCALVES&ANA MARIA GONCALVES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). PERMIT FOR SHED/CHICKEN COOP NOT PERMITTED. FOLIO NO: 37747480008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 531 18TH AVE NE,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20140025741 OWNER: STEVEN R CUIFFO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A MOBILE HOME TYPE STRUCTURE WAS ADDED TO THE PROPERTY BETWEEN 2012 AND 2013 WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 436720006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 308 MORGAN RD,NAPLES 4 4. CASE NO: CESD20150007433 OWNER: RICK LYNN WHITE&VICTORIA JACOB OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(BX1)(E).ABOVE GROUND POOL WITH A WOODEN DECK INSTALLED WIHOUT THE PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. FOLIO NO: 36517680000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2972 41ST ST SW,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD20130008321 OWNER: ANTONIO LOUISSAINT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). AN UNPERMITTED ADDITION BEING USED AS LIVING SPACE WITH A THREE FIXTURE BATHROOM TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING.ALSO INSTALLED NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTION(S)AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 00134120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 610 S 5TH ST,IMMOKALEE 6. CASE NO: CESD20150001640 OWNER: PINE RIDGE HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A). UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO THE LOWER ASPECT OF THE HOME. FOLIO NO: 37995000007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 930 39T"ST SW,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20140004241 OWNER: NKY ACQUISITIONS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).MAJOR RE-MODELING TO INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING FRAMING,PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL RENOVATION AND/OR REPLACEMENT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 62760840001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 795 102ND AVE N,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CESD20130019399 OWNER: DOROTHY K GILL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(A)AND 10.02,06(B)(1)(E),AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE II,SECTION 22-26(B)(104.5.1.4.4).TWO UNPERMITTED SHEDS ON RIGHT SIDE OF PROPERTY,POSSIBLE GARAGE CONVERSION AND ATTIC CONVERSION TO SMALL APARTMENTS AND THE STAIRCASE MOVED TO RIGHT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM REAR OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 36455080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5009 31ST AVE SW,NAPLES 5 9. CASE NO: CESD20140015359 OWNER: BERNARDO BARNHART OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A COMMERCIAL BUILDING ALTERED AND ADDED TO WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 25630440002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 208 BOSTON AVE,IMMOKALEE 10. CASE NO: CESD20120000572 OWNER: JUAN CAMPBELL&NORA CARRILLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.06(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, 1MMOKALEE B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS CEB Workshop. 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- September 24,2015 12. ADJOURN 6 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. If you have a cell phone, now would be the best time to turn it off. I even took that advice myself. I'd like to start with the Pledge of Allegiance, if everybody will stand. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And now for the disclaimer. 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 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 a record that -- verbatim record of the proceedings which is made which 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. Okay, why don't we start with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 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? Page 2 August 27, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Ms. Lisa Chapman Bushnell is absent and Mr. Gerald Lefebvre is going to be late. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So Sue, you're a voting member today until Gerald shows up. Okay, we have -- I'll do the approval of minutes first. Any changes to the minutes from the last meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, accept a motion to accept the minutes. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. (At which time, Mr. Lefebvre and Ms. Bushnell enter the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you two are going to stay after Page 3 August 27, 2015 school and clap the erasers. Okay, so now it looks as though you're not going to be a voting member. MS. CURLEY: For a minute. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you got one vote in. Okay, why don't we start with the agenda. Any changes? MS. ADAMS: Yes. Number five, public hearings/motions. Letter B, stipulations, we have two additions. The first is number three from hearings, tab 3, Case CESD20140000965, Maricela Perez. The second is number four from hearings, tab 4, Case CESD20150007374, Donald R. Ward. Letter C, hearings, number one, tab 1, Case CESD20150008643, Alberto Tombo has been withdrawn. Number two, tab 2, Case CESD20150008639, Niosvel Cabrera and Stephanie Gassiot has been withdrawn. Number five, tab 5, Case CESD201500000041, Toni Ameer Ali, has been withdrawn. Number six, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number seven, Case CESD20140004271, NKY Acquisitions, LLC, that's tab 17, will be taken out of order. This case will be taken after the stipulations. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion to approve the agenda as modified? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 4 August 27, 2015 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. ADAMS: The first case, number five, public hearings/motions, A, motion for continuance, it's from tab 11, Case CELU20140016371, Kevin P. McCormick and Kathy McCormick. And we also have a speaker for this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When do you want to hear the speaker, before or after the county? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: He can come up before, if you'd like. Mr. Liscio. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a speaker on this. (Mr. Liscio and Investigator Short were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this is an imposition of fines. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me, Jeff Wright for the record. The matter before you right now is a request for a continuance. Just didn't want to get those two separate hearings muddled. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If we want to hear the argument for the continuance first or the speaker first, doesn't matter to me. It might be better for the board to hear the matter first before we hear the public speaker. MR. WRIGHT: And I don't have a preference, as long as you get all the information you need to make a decision. But I just want to make sure that the speaker that speaks is going to speak to the Page 5 August 27, 2015 continuance, not as -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not the case. MR. WRIGHT: -- to the penalty that should be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would you mind waiting until we -- MR. LISCIO: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Eric? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. For the record Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe you have a copy of the email. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right, we're reading it now. Okay. They're requesting a continuance. I'm looking here as far as the actual case is concerned, and it says the violation has not been abated. Is that still correct? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That's correct. The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Question for you. What's the relationship between getting a permit for construction and all the debris? Is all this stuff going into what they're building? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. With the building permit being approved, the items on the piece of property would be allowed to stay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the outside storage of car parts, lawnmower, bicycle, canopy, tents, et cetera, et cetera, they're building a facility to hold all those things? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: The permit is for a primary structure. It's a single-family home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And they'll all wind up in the home somehow? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: A lot of the items I think that are listed there on the description have either been removed or concealed Page 6 August 27, 2015 from our view. Maybe Mr. Liscio can speak a little further on that. However, what remains there is bird fountains, bird feeders, lawnmowers. The way it stands now, it's an Estates zoned property. It should be used completely as a vacant property until the permits are in place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And this began January of '15. So eight, nine months ago; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That's when it was brought before you. But the case has been open longer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has there been some problem on getting the permit on this? You've been in contact with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes, the permit has been rejected twice. So, I mean, he's going through it. He has resubmitted. It's under review. The next review is scheduled for today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was it last rejected; do you know? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: He resubmitted on the 5th of this month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Seems like a long time from when we heard this case to now to try to get a permit. I mean, even if it took two months to get a permit submitted it should have been approved and this process should have been moving along. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is the respondent is not here to argue why he wants a continuance. So that is a concern that I have. Okay, do we need to hear anything more from the board or shall we hear from the public speaker? Why don't we hear from the public speaker now. Sir? MR. LISCIO: Thank you for allowing me to speak today. Page 7 August 27, 2015 My name's Tom Liscio. I'm the neighbor to the east of Mr. McCormick, 3571 Third Avenue. I've been dealing with this for -- since '08. I brought it to the board's attention, enforcement board, back in May of 2013. And that's when the original complaint and the original trash has continued to be on the property. And a continuance, I asked that it be denied due to the fact that he's been noncompliant on every inspection that the board has had. He has done numerous other improvements to the property but is in total defiance of cleaning up the trash on my side of the property. I've kept a log since you guys heard the hearing in January, and he has put out over 161 recycled green trash, and he can't clean up the trash. And this is why I'm asking you guys to deny his continuance and ask for something to be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LISCIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But I have to correct you, it's guys and girls. MR. LISCIO: Guys and girls. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments or questions from the board for the speaker? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to deny. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to deny and a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one. I agree with the respondent and I agree with Mr. Lefebvre. Ordinarily when we hear cases that have to do with trash, trash is something that unless you're talking about old bulldozers or boats or something, that should be able Page 8 August 27, 2015 to be handled quickly. And if this thing goes back as far as the public speaker has, as Thomas said, that is a problem. So I concur with the motion that's been made. So what -- all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So we will hear this case as far as imposing the fine or not in its proper order, if that's okay with the county. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any problems? So look forward to hearing this a little bit later on. Thank you, sir. MR. LISCIO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case, letter B, stipulations. Number three, tab 3, Case CESD20140000965, Maricela Perez. (Ms. Perez and Investigator Rodriguez were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you identify yourself on the mic. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Maricela Perez. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to read the stipulation into Page 9 August 27, 2015 the record, Maria? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have heard this. You have worked with the -- MS. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- county to come up with this and you have all confidence that you'll be able to take care of this within 120 days? MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve and a second. Any comments on the motion? Page 10 August 27, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hope be don't see you in 120 days. MS. PEREZ: I hope not. Thanks. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is number four from hearings, tab 4, Case CESD20150007374, Donald R. Ward. (Mr. Ward and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mic. MR. WARD: Donald Ward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and would you like to read the INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick, would you like to read the stipulation into the record. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sure will. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent Page 11 August 27, 2015 shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$65.85 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/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Ward? MR. WARD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You understand the stipulation? MR. WARD: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you agree with it? MR. WARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you think that in 120 days you'll be able to get everything done that you need to get done? MR. WARD: Yes, we will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board or motions? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) Page 12 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. WARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to hear the case that's out of order now? MS. ADAMS: Oh, yeah, sorry, I forgot about that. The next case will be from number six, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tab number? MS. ADAMS: It's number 7, tab 17. Case CESD20140004241, NKY Acquisitions, LLC. (Ms. Lisa Hans and Investigator McGonagle were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I heard the first name. Okay, this was a -- this is an imposition of fines case where it appears that the -- unless I'm reading something that's not correct, that the violation has not been abated; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are asking for? MS. HANS: A continuance, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you give us a little background and reasons for requesting the continuance. MS. HANS: Right, I understand there's quite a bit of history with Page 13 August 27, 2015 this case. I began working for NKY Acquisitions in May of this year -- actually, I'm sorry, I began working in June. And when this -- the notice of-- I'm sorry, the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Take your time, we're not going anywhere. MS. HANS: Okay. The imposition of fines, when I became aware of this, I was in contact with Michele McGonagle. And when we came down -- I'm from northern Kentucky, we came down to take a look at the property. And because this is new to me, I'm trying to get the problem taken care of. I just want a little more time to figure out what we need to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you'd need as far as a continuance is concerned? MS. HANS: 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like three months. MS. HANS: Yes, three months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, does the county have any problem with that? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I don't have any problem with that, but I think that six months would probably be a little bit better, knowing the situation with the property. They do have a permit that had been approved back in I believe it was January. It expired in March. It wasn't issued, but it's ready for issuance. So they can re-app the property -- I'm sorry, they can re-app the permit and get it reissued. But the building itself has been gutted, so there is extensive work that's going to be needed on the property just to allow them enough time for all the inspections and everything to take place. I think that six months would be a little bit more reasonable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you'd like to continue this for six months. Page 14 August 27, 2015 MS. HANS: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We got the hint. Yeah, things sometimes take a little bit longer than people expect from time to time. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to make a motion from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to continue for six months. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to continue this for six months. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the fines keep on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, with a continuance the fines would continue to accrue. But it looks a lot better when you come back at some point in the future when -- that line that says a violation has not been abated, if that says it has been abated, things go much smoother at that time. Page 15 August 27, 2015 MS. HANS: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the operational cost. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the operational costs should be paid. They were paid for 65.43. Today, 66.33. MS. HANS: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MS. HANS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All righty, thank you very much. MS. HANS: Thank you very much. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: And for the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michele doesn't get paid unless she identifies herself. MS. ADAMS: We have one other change to the agenda. It's from number six, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number 5, tab 15. Case CESD20130008321, Antonio Louissaint has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Take a motion from the board to modify the agenda. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 16 August 27, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next three cases are all together. It's number six, tab 6, CELU20150010274; number seven, tab 7, Case CEV20150009209; and number eight, tab 8, Case CESD20150009967. They're all for Antonio Barajas and Virginia Barajas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're going to hear them and vote on them individually, but we're going to hear them together. And it looks like, just as a quick summary, one is for -- the first one is for debris, the second one is truck and trailer parked on the property, and the third case is unpermitted structure. So that's just to let everybody know what's coming up. So why don't we start out with the first case, which ends in 274. Everybody been sworn? (Ms. Barajas, Mr. Barajas and Investigator Kincaid were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you could identify yourself on the mic. MS. BARAJAS: Virginia Barajas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? MR. BARAJAS: Antonio Barajas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're on. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to present the case? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20150010274. It's dealing with a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of the violation is prohibited outside storage on Page 17 August 27, 2015 residential zoned property. Property is located at 5341 McCarty Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. The folio No. is 62042080000. Service was given on May the 20th, 2015. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two pictures taken by me at the initial investigation on May 13th, 2015, and one picture taken by me on August the 26th, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the pictures? Have you seen those pictures? MS. BARAJAS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show the respondents first, and then I'll ask you if you have any objection to those pictures. As long as they are the pictures of your property, that should probably be sufficient. Do you have any objection to those pictures? MS. BARAJAS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion from the board to accept the -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 18 August 27, 2015 INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: This is a picture of the partial rear property line or side lot line I guess in this property case, because it's a triangular piece of property. This is yesterday. And this is what can be viewed from the street that is remaining on the property. These two pictures were taken at the time of the initial investigation and just shows like on the fence line there's pallets all up and down. That's the front of the property, I believe. And the other picture is just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you go on, that previous picture, are those tires on top? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. All that was stacked on the property line in the hedge or behind the hedge. And the other picture is just kind of the extent of the violation at the time of the initial inspection. There was a good deal of recyclable I guess -- I don't want to call it trash, but just stuff that can be sold as scrap metal located in the driveway or on the entry part of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this property zoned RS-1? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: It's RS-4. It's in Naples Manor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Same as RS-1, except four family. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anything else? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I can read the details. Just during the investigation of a complaint about unlicensed vehicles, commercial trucks and trailers on property and unpermitted construction at 5341 McCarty Street I observed outside storage of materials consisting of but not limited to construction material, vegetative debris, pallets, tires, appliances, plumbing fixtures and scrap metal on approved residential property. The property owners have removed some of the items from the property. As of August 26th, 2015 Page 19 August 27, 2015 the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, if you would -- if you have any questions of Mr. Kincaid, now would be the time to ask him any questions. If the board has any questions on the county's part. If not, why don't you present your side of the story. MS. BARAJAS: Thank you. We have been living in that property for more than 20 years. Never had any issues. Like he said, Mr. Kincaid, he had come the first time and we have removed some of the debris from our property. And also Mr. Kincaid was aware, because I had spoken with him, that I wasn't going to be there, I was going to be out of town. And we just recently just got back. So we haven't -- we've been trying to take some more of the debris out. And when we got back, we recently removed a whole bunch also again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And right now the picture that you showed, one of the pictures was from yesterday? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so the picture that the county provided of yesterday, that -- MS. BARAJAS: That's where that stove and all that stuff was there, that was removed. The tires have been removed. And we use the pallets as kind of like a fence type. But other than that, that's -- we've done -- that's what we have done so far. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. ASHTON: Yeah. All that like we saw, it was a stove and all that, were you trying to recycle that, is that why you were storing it there? MS. BARAJAS: Yes, we were trying to recycle. But then when he said that it needed to be removed, we just put it out so Waste Management could take it. MR. BARAJAS: I have a picture here. All the stuff, like the -- Page 20 August 27, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, we can't-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we really can't -- I can see from here actually, you put it at the curb. MS. BARAJAS: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately if it can't be entered into the record, meaning given to our court reporter, we can't enter it as evidence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the problem -- we understand that you've been working on it. First thing we have to find out is whether a violation as far as the debris is concerned is valid. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that the violation exists. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, now we know that the debris that you have there right now is a violation, and that needs to be removed. Do you have any problem removing that? MS. BARAJAS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how long do you think that would take you to remove it? MR. BARAJAS: 30 days. Page 21 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So within 30 days you should have it all cleaned out as far as the debris is concerned. MS. BARAJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we see your recommendation, please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a recommendation on this case, Mr. Kincaid? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One: Ceasing use of the property for any use not specifically identified in a residential zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use or accessory use within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may use -- may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County's Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions of this order. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anybody like to take a shot at a motion filling in the blanks there? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: That the operational costs in the amount of 65.85 be paid within 30 days and they will have 60 days to remove the remaining debris or $100 a day after the 60 days will be imposed. Page 22 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second on that motion. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Did this come in as a complaint, Mr. Kincaid? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: I think the 60 days might be a little on the long side. MR. LEFEBVRE: It is, you're correct. It is a little on the long side. But the reason I did that is because they have been diligent in trying to remove a lot of the materials. And also we have other cases that are coming up, so the thought was maybe make all the cases the dates the same. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would agree with your comments. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So that means on this one, instead of having 30 days to clean Page 23 August 27, 2015 everything up, you have 60 days. So that's that first case. We're done with that. The $65.85 needs to be paid on this particular case within 30 days. Okay? MS. BARAJAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which moves us to the next case. We have to swear everybody in for this. It wears off after one case. ((Ms. Barajas, Mr. Barajas and Investigator Kincaid were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And Virginia, you're still Virginia, right? MS. BARAJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have that, okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: This is in reference to Case No. CEV20150009209. It's dealing with a violation of Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, Article 3, Chapter 30, Sections 130-97(2) and 130-97(3). It's a (sic) commercial trucks and trailers stored parked on improved residential property in violation of Collier County ordinances, located at 5341 McCarty Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. The folio is 62042080000. Service was given on May 20th. Case evidence: I'd like to present two pictures taken by me on May 13th, one picture taken by me on May 20th, and three pictures taken by me on August 26th, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the pictures? So the respondent hasn't seen the pictures yet, okay. MS. BARAJAS: This was taken on my property, inside the Page 24 August 27, 2015 property. That has been removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problems about those pictures? MS. BARAJAS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion from the board to accept the photos in evidence. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: These are just pictures before and after of the different vehicles that are located on the -- or stored on the property. There's commercial trucks and trailer that were there at the original investigation, and then yesterday there's a piece of commercial equipment, a Bobcat that's located -- or a small skid steer loader and also a commercial truck. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you ascertain if these are registered to the respondents or not? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I do not have access to the property. So to go in and take pictures of tags -- I just know that Page 25 August 27, 2015 they've been on there since the initial investigation, I believe on the 13th of May. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll ask the respondent when they testify. That's a picture of the Bobcat? I can't really -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a structure there -- okay. That's the next case, I'm sure. MR. LAVINSKI: What is that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a picture of-- it's a green thing to the right of the van there I see. MR. LAVINSKI: Oh, okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: That's the rear end of the -- I guess that's -- as you go in the property, that vehicle is parked parallel to the hedge. So that's the back part of it. And then there's another picture that shows you the cab part of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: That would be the cab of the truck. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: And that's a picture of the Bobcat still remaining on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that being run? The lights seem to be on on it. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I believe that was just the direction of the sun. It was about 7:00 in the morning and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You get up early, okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: 7:30 in the morning. So it was kind of the direction of the sun. As you can tell by the shadowing in the picture, some of them are a lot darker and some of them are lighter. Page 26 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Some of the leaves are lit up, okay. Is that the last photo? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: That's basically the case. We just got commercial vehicles and they're -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They come and go. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir, I believe they're used on a daily basis. And I believe actually there are others besides these that come and go from the property. But -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been able to identify any of the writing on the trailer? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: No, sir. They're always parked inside of the hedge. And like I say, we don't have access to the property, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And this hasn't changed since May. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: No, sir, just during routine investigations. And I'm in Naples Manor almost every day. They're in and out on just a regular basis. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. I mean, I'm there on a regular basis. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Barajas? MS. BARAJAS: Barajas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My pronunciation is not very good. MS. BARAJAS: It's okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll call you Virginia and Antonio, how's that? Okay, your testimony. MS. BARAJAS: Well, we've had -- that's our company. We own Antonio Barajas Lawn Maintenance. We've had our vehicles there since we purchased our home. Never had any issues. A long, long time ago we had a code enforcer come to our home and they told us as long as it's not visible that I'm advertising I am okay Page 27 August 27, 2015 in having my vehicles there. And every single vehicle -- because on the report somebody had put on the report that I had vehicles there with no tags. That is incorrect. Every single vehicle that I have there has their tag and it's up to date. And the reason why it's visible, we have been trying to cover it up because like they told us, as long as it's not visible we're okay with it. As you can see, the ficus, they had a plague and they dried up. We tried planting some more, they dried up. That's why you can see a little bit of it. But as far as we know, we've never had any issues. And like I said, they had told us as long as it's not visible, you're okay with your vehicle there. And when you see the picture there, we have a carport where we close it at night when we get home -- when he gets home. We cover it up so it cannot be visible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments and questions from the board? MR. ASHTON: Yeah, I have a question. She's saying the inspector told her she could keep it there as long as they can't see it or she doesn't advertise; is that true that you're allowed to do that? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I cannot testify as to what somebody else told them. I know that I have been in that area for approximately five and a half years. I know it wasn't me. The code makes no stipulation for storage of commercial property anywhere except in the rear yard, and then it would have to be shielded by vegetative shielding from any of the neighboring properties. This is obviously stored in the front. You know, there may be -- I'm not saying that they didn't have a discussion with the previous code enforcement investigator, but there is evidently -- they were either misinformed or they misunderstood what the investigator said. Because clearly there's no way from the code that they would be able Page 28 August 27, 2015 to store these on the front or the sides of their property. And there is an issue here, because they have a very small area in the rear because of the unique shape of the lot. The lot is kind of in a curve and it's basically a triangle. And the house is long ways on the street frontage, so it makes for a very small rear yard. And unfortunately that's just the situation. I mean, code doesn't distinguish between five-acre lots and residential areas or 0.19 acre, whatever this lot is. Most of them are about that size. It just strictly says they have to be stored in the rear yard and shielded from all adjoining properties. And it clearly is not the case here. And I wouldn't have an issue with that if it was stored in such a manner, then that would possibly be a different story. But it's not, and the situation is what it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they parked on impervious surfaces? Are they on grass, or what? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: In the rear I'm not sure that it has to be on an impervious surface. I don't know that the code makes that distinguish -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not the rear, where they are parked right now. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: In the front there is graveled area. Which brings up another issue, because gravel, depending on the base that's under it, it may or may not be classified as a stabilized surface. So that would open up a whole different issue. But in the current location that they're parked or stored, it's just not allowable under the code. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: Well, the ordinance that we have in our package, it says it shall be unlawful to park a commercial vehicle or commercial equipment on any lot in any residential district unless one of the following conditions exist. Page 29 August 27, 2015 INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct, it can also be -- MS. CURLEY: So it's either number two or number three, or are we just missing the whole ordinance? Because number three says rear of the main structure; number one doesn't speak to the rear structure. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: It can be stored in a completely enclosed structure. MS. CURLEY: Or vegetatively screened and cannot be seen from adjacent properties or the street. But it doesn't look like rear is a requirement. It says one or the other. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct. It has to be stored in the rear yard and concealed with screening. MS. CURLEY: So then number two doesn't apply then. It says one of the following, not both. It doesn't say number two. MR. WRIGHT: I might be able to chime in here. I think that unless one of the following conditions exist, it's on them to show that one of those conditions exist. And realistically I don't think that there's any possibility that they would have a garage -- you know, number two like you're saying is not a realistic defense from what I've heard so far. Maybe they could come up with number three, but it sounds like they haven't done that either. So they have those options and they have not chosen either to date. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question regarding a business. This typically is somebody who is in business and brings his work vehicle home and parks it. And that vehicle has to adhere to the code. In this particular case, is that one of the problems? I know you can't see if there's any writing on it. And this is obviously a complaint from I'm assuming a neighbor or so. So it's a commercial vehicle that is in view. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct. It's a commercial vehicle by definition. MS. BARAJAS: There was no complaint on the commercial Page 30 August 27, 2015 vehicle. Not on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the -- what's written up here on this says that the -- description of violation, commercial truck and trailer. Is that truck trailer a commercial vehicle? And it appears that it is, it's used for your landscaping business. And it says stored or parked on an improved residential zoned property in violation of the county ordinances. That's what the inspector has written down on this particular case. The rules for what you do are on the writing that goes with it that I'm sure that you -- you've provided that to the respondent? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. See, the code that says -- and what Ms. Curley said was the vehicle or equipment parked, it can be. This is when you're not in violation. If it's parked in a garage -- it's not parked in the garage -- or fully enclosed structure -- which it's not parked in -- or carport, which is structurally or vegetatively screened. So if you had a carport and you had a screening or planting or whatever that obscured the vehicle, then it would be in compliance, it wouldn't be a violation. MS. BARAJAS: Well, like we had our whole property was covered with ficus and you couldn't see it. But like I said, there was a bad plague on the plants and it dried out and you could see through it. We're trying to cover that up again. MR. LAVINSKI: But even if that happens, the vehicle can't be in the front or the side yard. MS. BARAJAS: But like he said, our property's on a corner. We don't have a back. MR. BARAJAS: Place in the back. MR. LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately the code, as the investigator said, it doesn't define the lack of a backyard. It doesn't say number four, if you don't have a backyard, you can park it on the side. Page 31 August 27, 2015 MS. BARAJAS: I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's the unfortunate thing here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, because you have it and you've been doing this for years, that doesn't really affect the case today, okay. That's the problem. So the first thing we need to do as a board is to determine whether a violation exists or not based on the testimony and evidence provided. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any comment on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Now, do you have a suggestion for the respondents on how to abate this? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Complying with all requirements of Code of Laws 130-97 including Page 32 August 27, 2015 commercial vehicle equipment size, parking location, screening and ladder and pipe limitations. Store commercial vehicle equipment in rear yard and conceal from view, or store commercial vehicle equipment within a completely enclosed structure or remove offending vehicle equipment from residentially zoned property within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.54 Okay. We try to find ways to handle a problem that are the least painful for you. And I've peeked ahead to the next case which has to do with buildings and whatnot. If you had -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Kincaid -- a structure that was permitted that was large enough to hold the Bobcat/trailer or whatever, and the sides were closed in, I don't know what the exact code is on those type of, if you will, carports, and I don't know how it would work out as far as the setbacks are concerned, that would be one way of resolving this issue so that they can't be seen. I'm not quite sure that if the hedge all the way around your property was so thick you couldn't see through it if that would be -- I don't think that would be a fix. Although it might be, I don't know. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I believe the code stipulates on carports that the vehicle cannot be viewed from the street. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: So it would have to be shielded I think from the neighboring properties and also the view from the Page 33 August 27, 2015 street. And that's kind of difficult on a small lot to obtain, because you can't get the vehicle into the carport and at the same time screen it from the street. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you have the one vehicle that we saw in the picture that was parked parallel to the street. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If that had a carport of some manner -- they sell them in Home Depot and whatnot, the four posts with the sides -- you couldn't see that from the front. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: But it would be located in the front yard, if it was constructed where the vehicle is currently parked. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I guess you can have a carport in the front yard. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: If they would permit it through the Building Department, as long as it met the property setbacks from the property line, the front property line, then if it could be permitted through the Building Department, Code Enforcement would not have an issue with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I was just rambling on with possible solutions to the problem. This is where you're going to have to put your heads together and come up with a solution that -- and I'm sure that Mr. Kincaid would work with you to advise you on what is a violation and what isn't a violation. MS. BARAJAS: Well, if that were the case, I'm sorry, but he would have to take half of the neighborhood out. Because we do our best to cover our business trucks and everything, and there's a whole bunch of vehicles out there that they're parked right in front and you can see their business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fortunately or unfortunately, we only have this case that we're hearing, we don't have the others. MS. BARAJAS: I understand. Page 34 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would anybody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks on this -- MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We did that. MS. NICOLA: Can I make a quick comment for the record, everybody? I think that the recommended order should include the language in the statute that includes the language or carport which is structurally or vegetatively screened and cannot be seen from adjacent properties or the street serving the lot. Because as this recommended order is written, it doesn't include that language, so I think it should be, because it's part of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the ordinance was provided to the respondents. MS. NICOLA: Correct, but the order that is proposed only includes the language about a fully enclosed structure and does not include the additional language that would allow them to come into compliance by obtaining the carport or the other things the board has just discussed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about if it said as per Collier code, whatever the number is. MS. NICOLA: That would make sense, sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says complying with all the requirements of the Code of Laws 130-97. MR. ASHTON: It's the same for the parking. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's there. MS. NICOLA: Okay. I just -- you know, they have to understand what they need to do to come into compliance, and it has everything else except for that language written in this order. I just thought because we've discussed it, it might make sense to include it. That's just a thought. Particularly if they're able to do that, which they might be able to. Page 35 August 27, 2015 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that perhaps at some point if the board agrees that we have this slight amendment done to this particular order, maybe Mr. Kincaid can speak with the respondents and see if they agree to this or if you agree to this or if the county agrees to this? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: That would be fine. However you want to word it. I know that the respondents have been into Code Enforcement and have talked to Renald Paul, who is the permitting -- he's the go-between between Code Enforcement and the Building Department, and it is my understanding that he discussed with them all of the options for abating this violation and also the violations in the next case. I did not sit in on the entire conversation. And they might be able to testify better as to what they discussed. But I believe he's fairly thorough and I think he probably delineated all their options to them. So I can say that at least they have discussed with Mr. Paul the possibilities of permitting to abate the violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: As our attorney was mentioning, I think it's perhaps a good consideration for it to also be in writing so that it's perhaps easier to accomplish in the future. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the -- I asked that earlier, Lionel, that was the code provided to the respondents. So the page that we have here does delineate that. You still have that page that -- the Notice of Violation that shows the code? And about halfway down it gives you sections 130-97(2) -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put it on the screen so we can -- this is what we're talking about. It's up on the screen there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have that page? MS. BARAJAS: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you acknowledge that you have Page 36 August 27, 2015 been talking to -- MS. BARAJAS: Yes, I did go over there and I asked, you know, what can I do and everything. And -- but like he was trying to help me out how to do it. But like I said, our property's on a corner, and it's hard for us to try to build anything because they say it's got to be a certain amount of feet away from the other property, and there's no way. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, can we move along with the recommendation and like we did in the past case, make it 60 days, give them a chance to talk to Code Enforcement and the builders can resolve what their issues are? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, would you like to take a shot at filling in the blanks on this? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I make a motion that the 65.85 be paid within 30 days, that the violation be corrected in 60 days or $100 fine per day be imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: That will give them time to, you know, work with Mr. Kincaid or whoever they have to at the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a second from Mr. Lefebvre. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have another second from Mr. Ashton. No, we're not taking anymore seconds. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 37 August 27, 2015 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, so you have time to see what can be worked out. And I'm interested in hearing the next case, because they're all kind of together. Other than the debris, you'll take care of that, I don't think that will be a problem. Are we ready for the next case? (Ms. Barajas, Mr. Barajas and Investigator Kincaid were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: For the record, James Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD0009967. It is in violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The description of violation is unpermitted structures/improvements on improved residential property. Located at 5341 McCarty Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 62042080000. Service was given on May 20th, 2015. Case evidence: I would like to present two pictures taken by me on May 13th, 2015, three pictures taken by me on May 20th, 2015, and one picture taken by me on August 26th, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you'll show those to the respondent. MS. BARAJAS: Yeah, that was removed. Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Take a motion from the board to accept the photos. Page 38 August 27, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Case details: On May 13th, 2015, during an investigation of a complaint about unlicensed vehicles, commercial trucks and trailers and unpermitted construction on the property at 5341, I observed unpermitted structures, improvements on improved residential property consisting of but not limited to additions to the rear of property, new structure at the front and canopies. As of August 26, 2015, the violations remain. This was the -- the initial complaint, I believe this was the structure that initially it was called in for. It's kind of a lean-to situation on pressure treated I believe posts. It is located at the front of the property and it does not meet property line setbacks, in addition to the fact that it's not permitted. No kind of permit was pulled for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that the front of the property where the vehicles are pointing towards? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: That -- right after you pull in the driveway to the property, that is on your immediate left. MR. LEFEBVRE: An aerial would have helped out Page 39 August 27, 2015 tremendously. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir, I apologize. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's -- what we're looking at is it's covered on half of it. In other words -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: At that point, yes, it was half completed and it has since then been completed. So the roof is now complete and I believe the construction is finished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, had that met the setbacks and had that been enclosed on the side -- the picture's been taken from where, from the driveway? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: From the entry to the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would that have met the code? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: From my experience as a Collier County Building Inspector, I would say that that would not have been permittable. That type of construction would not meet the Collier County wind loads. It would certainly have to have independent engineering to substantiate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other photos? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: This is a picture. If you're looking at the property facing the front of the property, on the front facing the property, this is an addition that is built on the right side rear. I can find no permits for that addition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's where the dish is on top of the MR. LEFEBVRE: And the window. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the window? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. Where the satellite dish, the plywood siding and the radius window. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Was the fence permitted? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Can we back up? I'm not sure if Page 40 August 27, 2015 I'm -- that fence I believe is on the property to this side of their property. So I don't think it's their fence. If we're talking about -- MR. LAVINSKI: Back up one picture. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. The fence sits right on the front of the property, but that does a lot to shield the property from -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct. The fence on the front of the property was part of the original complaint. Because the ficus hedge that the lady explained had died out and they had taken various forms of pallets and solid material and tried to block the view. And that was part of the original complaint that came in about the litter on the property. And we agree that they have removed a lot of that. And in the process of the last 90 days, we've gone through the summer growing season and you look at the vegetation, on the fence you see a lot of exotic what they call potato vine, which is not -- is an exotic vegetation in Collier County and it is not allowed to be there. And if nothing had happened, if no improvements, the property had not been altered or improved in any way because of the age of the property, that would be grandfathered in and the county could not make them remove that. But once the property has been altered, whether it's a legal alteration or illegal, then it does fall under that. So even using that, if there was no debris, no litter, no trash, no nothing, all of that illegal vegetation would have to be removed, which would give you a clear shot right through the property on all sides. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was just trying to hunt around for some means of resolving the problem. That's why I asked. Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: In the future, I wonder if it's possible for us to make it kind of like an SOP to get an aerial perspective. As we were saying earlier, it's hard for us to get a really good perspective of what this lot looks like. MR. WRIGHT: That makes perfect sense to me. I do have an Page 41 August 27, 2015 aerial on my iPhone. I don't necessarily want to make it part of the record, but it would provide I think some context for the board just to take a quick look at the snapshot of this aerial. If it's okay with the Chairman, I'll do it right now. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: If we can see this. MR. LAVINSKI: How did you get an aerial, Jeff, did you jump up there? MR. WRIGHT: I've got some friends up there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we show it just for procedure, do you have any problem with us showing an aerial view of your property? MS. BARAJAS: No, I don't. I even also brought -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A picture. MR. LEFEBVRE: Like a survey. MS. BARAJAS: -- a survey. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. Can we get a motion to accept the aerial view of the property? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Well, we're looking at it. I want to make sure that we took care of Page 42 August 27, 2015 that. So what I'm looking at now is the street. It looks like -- is that the front of the house where it says McCarty Street? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And is that a fence that I'm seeing along the perimeter on that side? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I think it's just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In a little bit from your finger. Put your finger back. Go a little bit left. A little more. More. A little more. Deeper, towards the house. That right in front of your -- your finger's on it now. Is that a fence going all the way up the line? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: It's just markings from the property appraiser. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, okay. I see it, it's on the other side of the street also. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I'm guessing it's the right-of-way setback lines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So their hedge that was there is actually behind the right-of-way. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct. Well, in that photo, which is -- they're aerials so they are skewed, depending on where they're taken from. So within a few feet one way or the other, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the buildings that are there, I see a red line going through one of the structures. Those red lines are not accurate, I understand that also. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: We'll print out a copy and make it part of the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I'm looking at the structure of the house. The thing that they showed, whatever you want to call it that had the top put on it, that's in the back right side. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Back up in here. Page 43 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You don't have to stretch so much. MR. LEFEBVRE: The structure that was partially built and then fully completed, is that the structure where with the white roof with the line going through it in the bottom left? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: This is actually a canopy. The structure would be right here. It's not shown on this aerial. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, when was this aerial produced? Was it January? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: It's from this year. MR. LEFEBVRE: January, probably, right? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The notice was served I believe on May the 20th. So -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It was prior to construction -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: -- the end of April, beginning of May. So it's not even shown on it. What you're seeing there is a canopy structure or canvas PVC pipe or some type of plastic pipe frame type structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know the approximate size of this lot? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I believe it's close to 0.19 acres. Most of them in Naples Manor are that same size. They vary from there to 0.23 acres. But that's pretty much standard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the square foot of the home is probably 1,500 square feet or so? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I believe it's smaller than that. I think it was 11 or 1,200 square feet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It seems to me -- okay, why don't we go on to the rest of the pictures, unless anybody has another question on the aerial. (No response.) Page 44 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next to the last. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: This is showing another addition or some kind of a structure that's built on the rear of the house. That would be this structure -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you point to it on the -- there you go. Okay, back there. So what I'm looking at, the truck and the structure to the left of the truck, that's the neighbor? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So is that the left -- that's the left side of the house. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Left side of the house, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see a tarp stretched over. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: On the previous picture, this is the canopy structure that you were seeing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you. MS. BARAJAS: Which that was removed already. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Just to simplify things, I have one picture from yesterday, and this is showing -- if you're looking from the right side of the property back at their property, it's showing the gable -- part of the gable end of that house, but it's also showing the illegal structure that was just built. The pole structure, it is now covered with it and part of the adjoining property, or part of the adjoining area of that property is covered with a tarp, so it's a pretty large area that's now covered with a tarp. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: That was a structure with the poles? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: And half completed now -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: It's completed and it's covered Page 45 August 27, 2015 with that tarp which I guess is draped off and then brought down to the ground and tied some way where it won't blow off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you say that that structure was gone? MR. LEFEBVRE: The white one was gone. MS. BARAJAS: The white one. MR. LEFEBVRE: That would be in front of this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I gotcha. Okay, I understand. Anymore pictures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, anymore questions of the county from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do you have any questions of Mr. Kincaid? MS. BARAJAS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you -- we'll move over to you now to go through this. MS. BARAJAS: The structure of the additional in the back, we are using them for storage for our equipment because we recently had some equipment stolen, so we're trying to put them all into a storage where we can have them locked up. Yes, I understand we didn't get a permit for it. And when I spoke to a person in permitting, they just told me that I just needed to get -- if I wanted to keep it and I'm going to use it as a storage, I just need to get those paperwork taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that will solve part of the problem. MS. BARAJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about the other structures that were not permitted? Page 46 August 27, 2015 MS. BARAJAS: The canopy thing? If it needs to be removed, we will remove it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What does that leave us with? I'm trying to do this piecemeal. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I'm just trying to bring up one more picture. This is the back of the property. And we did show it one time previously. But these canopies are tarp -- MS. BARAJAS: Which can also be removed. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: -- are between the two additions. So if you're looking down on an aerial photo, it looks like it's a huge structure. But these temporary set-ups are between the -- now that we've looked at the aerial and you kind of have a little better idea of how it's all set up, those are actually between the two additions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a question. How many vehicles do you have there? MS. BARAJAS: Including our own vehicles? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a Bobcat, you have personal vehicles and you have the vehicles from the business. MS. BARAJAS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seems like you have a substantial amount. It's very difficult to put that quantity of vehicles on such a small piece of property. So you have approximately how many vehicles? MS. BARAJAS: Four vehicles that we drive around with and two of the commercial vehicles with the trailers. MR. LEFEBVRE: Plus employees vehicles probably come -- MS. BARAJAS: Yeah, they park inside, because they told us they're not allowed to park on the side, so they park inside. (Beeper sound.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Could you turn that off, please? MS. BARAJAS: It goes off. He can't -- Page 47 August 27, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: He can't turn it off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I had one of those, yeah. It took me weeks to figure it out. I left it in the drawer. So there's a lot of vehicles going in and out and -- MS. BARAJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very, very difficult. MS. BARAJAS: And they're all up to date with their tags. None of them are expired or anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. That's good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately I think the only solution is for you to find a commercial location where you can store your equipment and your vehicles. I think that's the end result of this. It just seems like there's way too many structures on this property. And it's not fair -- I wouldn't want to be a neighbor to step out my backyard to look at that. So I make a motion -- unless you have anything else to say, I make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second it. I'd like to remind the board, I don't know how much you watch the commission meetings, but Commissioner Fiala is working with the Naples Manor Association and the people in that area, they're really trying to raise the appearance and the integrity of the Naples Manor area. And I'd like you to keep that in mind when we look at this and not kind of be swayed empathetically toward this. Because it doesn't fit in with what the commissioner and her staff is trying to accomplish in that area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you seconded the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes, I seconded the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I knew we'd get to that. Page 48 August 27, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Wrapped into the discussion all at once. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other discussion on this motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And do you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining all permits and inspections through and including a certificate of occupancy/completion required for described structure/improvements or applying for and obtaining all permits and inspections through and including a certificate of occupancy/completion required to remove such structures/improvements, including materials from property and restore to a permitted state within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Page 49 August 27, 2015 Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: To move some of these structures, i.e., the structure that has the wood and the window, wouldn't require a demo permit, correct? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I know it says applying for and obtaining all permits. We may want to add in there including demo permits. We might have to work on that language a little bit so that it's clearly understood that you just can't go in there and yank -- rip that stuff out and then ask for an inspection. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Right. I think we give them the option of doing one or the other in the recommendations. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Occupancy/completion required to remove set of structures. Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, would somebody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. LEFEBVRE: James, you had some good comments. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay, I'd like to make a motion that the 65.85 be paid within 30 days. And to get some of this resolved, I'd like to make in my motion that the violations as best can be removed within 60 days or the fine of$100 per day be imposed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: The only thing I see is I think this violation may be a little more grave than the other ones and may warrant a higher fee per day if it's not abated. MR. LAVINSKI: I would agree with that, but I was hoping that the 60 days would at least get some of these things that are obvious and blatant could be removed within the 60 days. And then if in two months we have to work the issue of permits for demolition, you Page 50 August 27, 2015 know, it could be addressed at that time. That's the reason for my 60 days, to get some action moving along with the other two cases. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What amount are you suggesting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I just reviewed the guidelines that we have. $100 is what the guideline shows. So I don't think that's a problem. I'm just wondering, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be done. You have to take this into consideration with the other two cases that we heard. And I don't know if 60 days is sufficient time to meet with everybody that you have to meet with and garner any permits and then do whatever needs to be done. I would think that maybe a little bit longer time to do it would be helpful to the respondents. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think quite a 3 things could be done within a 60-day period. Like there's quite a 3 of the structures that are -- you removed one structure already. I think some of these structures can be removed pretty easily, probably with demo permits. So I think 60 days would be sufficient and that way they can come in front -- at least for this case they can come back in front of us and look for more time. But I want to see some kind of progress being made. Because these items here in this case is very unsightly compared to the other cases. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 51 August 27, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. If you want to leave the Bobcat at my house for the next weekend, I have some -- okay, I suggest that you get together with Mr. Kincaid and anybody else that he can find that might be helpful to you to get this situation resolved. Okay, case closed. Now we're going to take an eight-minute break -- seven-minute break, excuse me. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Are we going to change the agenda now? MS. ADAMS: Yes, there's a slight change to the agenda. The next case will be taken out of order. It will be from number six, old business. A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number 9, tab 19. Case CESD20140015359, Bernardo Barnhart. (Ms. O'Neill and Investigator Mucha were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this is an imposition of fines. It looks like the violation's been abated. And why don't we go from there. You have something that you would like to request? MS. O'NEILL: We're requesting that the fines be waived. We worked very hard with Code Enforcement to submit the proper paperwork for the permit. And we went back and forth a lot. And then once it was submitted, it took a bit of time to be processed. As soon as we obtained the permit we went and remedied the whole thing and had it inspected right away. So we really did try to accomplish this in as little time as possible, but it did take a little longer than the continuance that we had had before. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And Joe, would you like to read this case into the record? Page 52 August 27, 2015 INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor, Code Enforcement. This is Case No. CESD20140015359. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you going to read all of it? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Oh, you want me to read it all or do you want to consider her request? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, even though -- you should read the whole case in before we do whatever we're going to do. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Okay, gotcha. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended. Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location is 208 Boston Avenue, Immokalee. Folio No. 25630440002. The description of the violation is a commercial building altered and added to without first obtaining the authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificates of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Code. Past orders: On January 22nd, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5118, Page 2284, for more information. On May 28th, 2015 an extension of time was granted. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5163, Page 1486, for more information. And the violation has been abated as of August 13th, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between July 24th, 2015 to August 13th, 2015, 21 days, for a total fine amount of$4,200. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.85 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $65.43. Total amount, $4,265.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Page 53 August 27, 2015 board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, one question. Joe, has that last NOV been resolved that's listed way down at the bottom? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: For the sign issue? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: It hasn't been resolved. I mean, a permit's been applied for. And I think there -- was there a revision that needed -- MS. O'NEILL: There was a revision which was submitted and so we're just waiting for the inspection and approval. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I mean, they've basically been working with me. I mean, I see them on a weekly basis as far as the issues with these properties. Because we've been dealing with some other issues there as well. Not code violations, but other issues as far as getting other licenses for the businesses and stuff. So I've been working with Ms. O'Neill for about a couple of months now. MR. LAVINSKI: So they're not a bad person. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, not a bad person. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, somebody like to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the fines. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 54 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. O'NEILL: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number nine, tab nine, Case CESD20150002065, Randy Holton. (Investigator Kincaid was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You look familiar. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case CESD20150002065. It's dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). It's an unpermitted shed and animal cages on improved residential property. Located at 5341 Martin Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio is 62098320002. Service was given on May 5th, 2015. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One picture taken by me on February 11th, 2015, and one picture taken by me on August 26th, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to approve? MR. ASHTON: Motion to approve. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 55 August 27, 2015 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: And this is another Naples Manor case? MR. LAVINSKI: Right. I was going to mention that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Beat you to it. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. As long as it gets mentioned. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Excuse me, I'd like to make a correction. The one picture I want to submit is from March the 2nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Bird house. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: These are pictures of before the initial or close to the initial part of the case. Then one was taken yesterday. And the case was about there were numerous wooden structures constructed in the back that would have required permitting. Those structures were erected by the tenant of the property, and those have since been removed. The complaint also dealt with the shed, and the shed is the remaining portion of this case. It hasn't been abated. It is the responsibility of the property owner to remove the shed. It actually was there when the current tenant moved in. So the property owner was served the notices, and the violation on the shed still remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: No, sir, we have had no contact from him at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does he live out of state or locally or INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I think the Property Appraiser lists that address as his address. I believe that the notice and everything was mailed to the Martin Street address. But there is a tenant in it. Page 56 August 27, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: The tenant wasn't able to give you any contact information for the owner? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Sir? MR. LEFEBVRE: The tenant wasn't able to give you any kind of INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The tenant did come in and talk to Renald Paul and discussed permitting the animal cages that he built. And because of the requirement for independent engineering on each structure and also for surveys to locate them on the property, the tenant opted to remove his structures. But I haven't had any contact. I have some here I can tell you -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The question I had was did you ask the tenant if he had any contact with -- INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, the tenant has told us on a couple of occasions that he would attempt to contact the property owner and inform him that the shed was in violation. We believe from our view of the shed that it's also in violation of the property side lot lines. And so in permitting it would also have to be moved from its current location, if it could be permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What am I looking at at this photo here? I'm looking on the left-hand side of this property? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: You're looking at the shed from the front of the property. The other picture was taken from the neighbor's property. And I can -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The original visit, one of the -- and I do have a picture if you wish to see it. But in front of that shed there was a huge animal cage that also had birds in it. And that's been taken down. So we've got once again a rainy season growth which almost obstructs it now from the street. But that is the side of the shed that you were looking at in the other picture. Page 57 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Again, aerial pictures would be helpful in the future. Any questions of the county from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: So we're only addressing Jim the -- this unpermitted shed. All the cages have gone, whatever? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's the first picture; is that correct? The first picture you showed us? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the shed right there? Okay. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: The other picture is looking at the shed from the street. That's from the neighboring property on the right. And I do have the Property Appraiser's report, and all our mailings go to the owner of the property, Randy Holton, at 5341 Martin Street. That's the only address we have for him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation does exist. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 58 August 27, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, James? INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining all permits and inspections through and including the certificate of occupancy/completion required for described structures/improvements or applying for and obtaining all permits and inspections through and including a certificate of occupancy/completion to remove said structures, including materials from property and restore to a permitted state within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody -- before you fill in the blanks, I think it should be stated that nobody -- the respondent is not here, A. B, this goes back to February and you've had no contact with him whatsoever. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So giving a long time to fix this will just be a long time, it won't help matters. So with that being said, Mr. Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to make a motion that the 65.01 be paid within 30 days, that the violation be corrected within 30 days or a fine Page 59 August 27, 2015 of$100 a day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any seconds on that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Mr. Kincaid. INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Thank you, gentlemen, and ladies. MR. LEFEBVRE: There you go. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number 10, tab 10, Case CESD20150009975, John L. Cipolla and Robert and Leslie Ricciardelli. (Mr. Robert Ricciardelli and Investigator Pulse were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to proceed with the case? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Okay. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20150009975, dealing with the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as Page 60 August 27, 2015 amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and (e). Active construction of an addition and no Collier County building permit obtained. It's located at 264 Burning Tree Drive, Naples, Florida, 34105. Folio is 24120480007. Service was given on May 27th, 2015. I would like to present into case evidence the following exhibits: Two photographs taken by me, one on May 14th, 2015 and one taken on July 6th, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those photos? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with those photos? MR. RICCIARDELLI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: I also want to present into evidence Page 61 August 27, 2015 an aerial view of the property which is this year from the Property Appraiser website, and a sketch of the property as well from the Property Appraiser website. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you seen those items? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have any objection to those? MR. RICCIARDELLI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would you like to -- MR. LAVINSKI: She gets a star for her aerial. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: She does, okay. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'd like to make a motion for that? MR. LAVINSKI: For the star? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, the star is included, but the -- MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the aerial view and the other documentation. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: While on patrol I observed an addition being constructed to the rear corner of this property. No Page 62 August 27, 2015 permits observed posted on the property. I researched our data and no permits were found. I contacted contractor licensing to check the site for unlicensed contractors. The conclusion of that case was it was being built by the owner. I made contact with the owner and as of today the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you want to go through the photos and the other documentation? Is that the addition you're referring to in the back left right there? Okay. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: This is a view from the street, what I could see from the street. And this was in May. And this is a closer view; I zoomed in on my camera. And this was in July. So further work had been done, painting and that type of thing. The roof still just has tar paper. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that whole structure where the door is and the high window on the left-hand side, that's all part of that structure? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Stretched across the back of the residence? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: I've never been in the rear. I don't know how far in the rear it goes, so I can't say. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: So this would be on the top part of the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It would be on the top right side. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Right there. This is the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know what the setbacks are there? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: No, sir, I don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay, garage is in front, Page 63 August 27, 2015 squared straight back from the garage to the pool area. Okay. Okay, they don't show the setbacks on these properties? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem. Okay, do you have anything else? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Nope, that's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does anybody have any questions of the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any questions of the county? MR. RICCIARDELLI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you begin? MR. RICCIARDELLI: It's a shed, basically. And it's approximately eight-by-eight. And it does fit within the setbacks. And I just ask for a little bit of time to go ahead and do a permit by affidavit for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sheds require permits? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you agree that you did this without a permit? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Can I ask why? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Without placing blame anywhere, it's -- we own the house with my father-in-law, and my father-in-law can be old school at times. And -- MR. LAVINSKI: Wait a minute, I represent that. MR. RICCIARDELLI: I will take responsibility and make sure that it is done correctly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's generally the wife that causes Page 64 August 27, 2015 that, but that's all right. MR. LAVINSKI: The mother-in-law, right, for the record, Bob. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So why don't we accept a motion from the board whether a violation exists or not. MR. ASHTON: Motion a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Do you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Recommend that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number one: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to Page 65 August 27, 2015 bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to ask one question before we go further. Is there any reason why this wasn't resolved as a stipulation? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: I haven't been able to be in constant communication with Robert. I made initial communication and then all further communication has failed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Generally speaking, I think we ask people to come in around 8:30 to see if they can resolve things. Just a curious question on my part. Anybody like to take a shot at -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I had the same thought. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You had the same thought? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, why it couldn't be stipulated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You wouldn't have seen it though because you were late this morning, but that's okay. Somebody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion maker over there. MR. ASHTON: Everybody's looking at me. I make a motion that the 65.01 be paid within 30 days and all Collier County building permits be obtained within 30 days or a fine of $100 a day imposed. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is 30 days sufficient to obtain the permits? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think it's going to be quite short, because now you have to have an engineer look at it -- MR. ASHTON: All right, I'll amend that to 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll agree. Page 66 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we vote on it, just a comment from -- do you think you have a problem with -- MR. RICCIARDELLI: No, sir. I work for JC Kosinski Engineering. I've already prepared the construction documents and I'm prepared to submit them as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So 60 days should be plenty of time? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Make your father-in-law pay any fees. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yeah. MS. ADAMS: Next case from number six, old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number one, tab 11, Case CELU20140016371, Kevin P. McCormick and Kathy McCormick. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tab 11. This is the one that we denied the continuance on earlier today. (Investigator Short was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you start, Eric. Page 67 August 27, 2015 Do you want to be a public speaker on this case as well or not? MR. LISCIO: If you need any questions answered, yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we swear you in just in case, that way we're all ready. (Mr. Liscio was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Mr. Short? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Regarding violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended. Sections 1 .04.01(A) and 2.02.03. The location is 3575 Third Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 36714040003. Description was prohibited outside storage of car parts, lawnmowers, bicycles, canopy tents, vehicles, plastic containers, wood, yard furniture, wood tie beams, metal equipment, et cetera. Past orders: On January 22nd, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5118, Page 2298 for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 27th, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$75 per day for the period between July 22nd, 2015 to August 27th, 2015, 37 days, for a total fine amount of$2,775. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational cost of$65.01 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $63.33 for a total amount of $2,838.33. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent at all? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: I have. Page 68 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: He's relying on getting the permit issued, the building permit issued to resolve this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Unfortunately he is not here to speak for himself. Any comments from the board? Any questions of the county? MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I think this has gone on for what, seven months now? And reading his request for continuance, I think the only reason he specifies here is kind of on the thin side. So I don't think he's really put much effort into trying to get this resolved, and I'd like to make a motion to impose that fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. The -- I guess we have to make a -- get a motion first. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we need a second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a second. Now, discussion on the motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: A permit will not make this -- or abate the fine. It would be the completion of a home and this material being removed, correct? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Most of the material that is listed in the description has been removed or concealed, from what code enforcement can see. The materials that remain there are building materials or a decorative type of structure like a bird bath or things of MR. LEFEBVRE: So it would be ancillary to a home. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the bird bath could be put in the front driveway. If there's a roundabout in the driveway put the bird bath there and it's acceptable. Page 69 August 27, 2015 INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: But as a vacant lot, you just can't store stuff on a vacant lot. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the house would have to be C.O.'d for the violation to be abated? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we're talking about a long time from now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sir, would you like to say anything or -- before we vote? MR. LISCIO: Yes. Again, thank you for allowing me to speak. Most of the trash is not construction material you would use on new construction. The material and trash that's laying on the property line is from an old shed that was unpermitted that was knocked down and they're old joists, old hangars. There's still hurricane straps, there's old fencing, there's old piping. And this has been going on. The original complaint goes back to May, 2013. And he's been skating every inspection. And I've been putting up with this since 2008 and it finally arose where I had to call and make a complaint in 2013. So this is not just something that's been going on since January, it's been going on for years. And I tried to approach Mr. McCormick. He's unapproachable. He knows more than everybody, and he's just defiant. The only time he reacts is when the board pushes him to do something. And I live next door, and I've been very patient, and I think it's come to a point where something has to be done. Whether he builds a house or not, he could build a castle, I don't care, please clean the trash Page 70 August 27, 2015 up. That's all I ask, from day one, from the original investigator 'til now, that's what I ask, please clean the trash up. And within the last month I had a confrontation with him in the side yard and it's not worth it. I don't want to lose everything I've worked for in my lifetime to my neighbor. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has he done any cleaning up of the property? MR. LISCIO: He has done nothing but clean up his greens. He decides to go out and plant flowers instead of picking up any trash. He's been defiant not to pick up the trash. And since your order in January, I have made a copy and a list. He has put out green trash, recycled trash, 161 cans. The big Brute cans full of green trash. MR. LEFEBVRE: You mean like yard waste? MR. LISCIO: Yard waste. He does nothing but rake leaves, and he does not want to clean the trash up. MR. LEFEBVRE: But according to the investigator, you're saying that a lot of the stuff that was there before, the litter, trash, has been moved out of site? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Correct, from what I observed. MR. LISCIO: Yeah, he conceals things at the northwest property line. So it is out of view of the investigator from my property line. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it is in view from your property? MR. LISCIO: He has everything up and down on my property line between my property and his property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you let the investigator on your property to -- MR. LISCIO: Oh, absolutely. But he will not allow the investigator on his property. And he conceals everything in a wooded section in the back. One time when they were asked to move, I think he looks for my truck. If it's in the driveway, he does not do things. He conceals his Page 71 August 27, 2015 activity. And one day my daughter had my truck and he decided to move lawn furniture back to that corner when I believe he didn't think I was home. And I have photos documenting every trash day since your hearing in January, and I've documented it on paper and in photographs, every Wednesday when he can put out 10 cans, 12 cans of green but cannot clean up the trash. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second to impose the fine. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number two, tab 12, Case CESD20140009469, Gefter R. Goncalves and Ana Maria Goncalves. (Mr. Goncalves and Investigator Asaro were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't we start -- you want to read this case into the -- oh, you have a request for us, I guess. MR. GONCALVES: Yes, sir. I do have a request of abating the Page 72 August 27, 2015 fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask a question before -- I have previous operational costs of 64.17 have not been paid. Have they been paid? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: They have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This thing goes back a long time. You signed it, Gerald, way back when. MR. GONCALVES: I just bought the property last year, so the property came with the problems. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: Were you aware of the problems? MR. GONCALVES: No, I was not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this was -- well, why don't we let you read the order and we'll discuss it at that time. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Okay. Board of County Commissioners versus Mr. and Mrs. Goncalves. Violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 531 18th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37747480008. Permit for shed/chicken coop not permitted. On August 28th, 2014 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5078, Page 3533 for more information. On March 26th, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5138, Page 1194 for more information. The violation has been abated as of August 8th, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$100 per Page 73 August 27, 2015 day for the period between February 25th, 2015 to August 8th, 2015, 165 days, for a total fine of$16,500. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.17 have not been paid. The operational costs for today's hearing of 64.59 have been paid. The total amount to date is $16,628.76. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, let me go back a second. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.17 it says here have not been paid. You said they were paid. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: He just paid the total cost of the operational cost, the new cost, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the new cost would be 64.17 and today's is 64.59. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Right. That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what did he pay? MR. GONCALVES: I do have the receipt for my -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What did you pay? MR. GONCALVES: I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the receipt say? MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put it up? MR. GONCALVES: Can I go walk there and -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, put it up on the screen, please. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: We have a new total. It's 16,564.59. MS. ADAMS: The operational costs were just paid this morning. We just got a text on that. So that's why it's not on your sheet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the operational costs of$64.17 were paid. MS. ADAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that was the question. So the have not has been changed to have. Okay. Thank you. And if the fine is abated, today's cost will disappear, so we're together with our stuff. Page 74 August 27, 2015 I have a question of Jeff, I think. How did this property -- let me ask you, did you get a mortgage on this property? MR. GONCALVES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did they do a title search? MR. GONCALVES: They did everything. And they squeeze these over there, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is not your problem, this is -- I have -- how does this happen where there's a lien or this over the property, a cloud, if you will, that it goes through and someone sells the property? MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on second. When did you purchase the property last year? What date? MR. GONCALVES: April 15th. MR. LEFEBVRE: This case wasn't heard until August. So there wasn't a lien on it. There might have been an open case, but there wasn't a lien on it. MR. WRIGHT: So it's not really for you, but when you're selling the property, you have to disclose defects. And that might be considered one -- MR. GONCALVES: They were after to solve this problem since 2012 when Wells Fargo owned the house and then an investor bought the house and they tried to get the investor to solve the problem. And what's his name, Renald, he told the investigator he could not sell the property without fixing this problem, you know. And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He did. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, unfortunately without it coming in front of code enforcement, there's no physical lien on the property. So if you do a lien search it doesn't show up if there's a problem. MR. GONCALVES: Exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: It kind of falls upon the owner or the seller to disclose. Or you go to -- if you went to Code Enforcement and did a Page 75 August 27, 2015 Code Enforcement check, you would have found out that there's an open case, correct? MR. WRIGHT: It depends on when you checked. As long as it was after the case was opened. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. WRIGHT: When he bought the property, had he made that check, he probably wouldn't have seen it. MR. LEFEBVRE: But he's saying that 2012 Wells Fargo owned it. Then an investor bought it and ran -- what was his name Rand-- Paul, Renald Paul -- I'm think Rand -- Renald Paul said that it shouldn't be sold, so there should have had been an open case. MR. GONCALVES: Exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if there was -- if you went to Code Enforcement to do a search, you would have saw that there was an open case, which probably didn't occur. MR. GONCALVES: My realtor, he said he checked everything, he didn't saw (sic) anything there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, there's a process that you can have done and you can do a search to see if there's any -- it would show open cases, correct? MR. WRIGHT: Presumably, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, it might be a good idea to see -- is there a way to check and see if in the past -- well, last year was there a search done on this property? MR. WRIGHT: I'm not sure whether -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not asking you to answer that question, but it might be good to look to see, to see if this came up or not. MR. WRIGHT: Whether the previous owner knew about it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, or as a buyer did you pay for a search through the county? MR. GONCALVES: Yes, I did. Page 76 August 27, 2015 The truth is that the rope always breaks on the weaker side. MR. LEFEBVRE: I honestly think that we can -- if there was a search done on it, it should have pulled up -- and if the case was open it should have pulled up that open case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's a procedural thing that maybe should be looked at to see if in fact that was done. MR. WRIGHT: I think this case has a long history. The prior owner had a long history, and I'm not sure exactly the details of that history, but I'll be happy to look into it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not asking to have an answer today, but maybe that might be something to look into to see if in fact a lien search was done and it came back that there was no open cases that there's an issue there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It appears that you have done everything that you could possibly do to resolve the problem is the end of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What we were just discussing back and forth here is how do we keep people from being in your shoes having to come here and all the rest of this -- MR. GONCALVES: Oh, my gosh, and believe me, it was a lot of work. It was a huge construction I had to put it on myself. I got all the permits that I needed to. It was a lot a lot of work. Plus the loss of the construction. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to abate. That's ultimately -- MR. GONCALVES: Thank you. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate all fines. All those in favor? Page 77 August 27, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So it actually works out in the end. You're done. MR. GONCALVES: Thanks God, I'm clean. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. GONCALVES: Thank you. Have a great day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You too. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number three, tab 13, Case CESD20140025741, Steven R. Cuiffo. (Mr. Robert Ricciardelli and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Violations: County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 308 Morgan Road, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 436720006. Description: A mobile home type structure was added to the property between 2012 and 2013 with no valid Collier County permits. Past orders: On March 26th, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order, and the respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 5138, Page 1190, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 27th, 2015. Page 78 August 27, 2015 Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between July 25th, 2015 to August 27th, 2015, 34 days, for a total fine amount of$6,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.33. Total amount, $6,863.33. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. You look familiar. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. Four months ago is the amount of time that you allowed for this to be permitted. It was actually the day before that my company JC Kosinski took this job on. And at that time it was our understanding that there was something in the zoning that would allow this structure, it's a mobile home, to be allowed on the property. And in our investigation and trying to get the correct permitting, we found out that that wasn't so. And as we've gone through getting all the correct paperwork, trying to find the original installer, floor plans of the original mobile home, septic engineering, surveying, et cetera, plus there were some problems with sizes of structures that were on the property and how we could make it so this would be considered a guesthouse, and the fact that the opener is still in Iraq, it's just taken a lot longer than we originally thought it was going to take. Since we've come to the determination that we're going to temporary use permit this mobile home, because his original use for the mobile home was for personnel that worked for his business, which is -- he has honeybees. And I guess there's over two million honeybees on the property. And some of the workers -- I guess a worker's going to live there, something to that effect. And we have all the construction documents ready. We lacked one piece of paper that he wasn't able to find, and we just got it this morning. And if we can have a little more time, we're actually ready to Page 79 August 27, 2015 submit for that temporary use permit as soon as tomorrow. And that's where we are right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is he in the military? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you state your name for the record? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Robert Ricciardelli. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have the authority to speak? MR. RICCIARDELLI: I was an agent for the owner in the last hearing, so I assume I'm -- MS. NICOLA: He showed me an email the last time that gave him permission to speak at the code enforcement hearings, and I remember seeing it and I remember discussing it with him at the last hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: And your capacity at the engineering firm? MR. RICCIARDELLI: I'm an employee. I'm not an engineer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much time do you think that it would take to -- you said you're ready to submit it tomorrow. So if we put this on the shelf until next month? MR. RICCIARDELLI: My only worry is that I don't know how long it's going to take to go through permitting. And if there's any kind of revisions, obviously any revision takes another two weeks, you know. So obviously I'll try to do whatever you guys feel is correct. But I just -- knowing what it takes to get something permitted, it's usually two or three weeks just in permitting and then if there's revisions after that they're usually two weeks, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the agent? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Well, I think since it went to this -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: He was in contact with the previous investigator. I'm the investigator now. So we will be in contact. Page 80 August 27, 2015 MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is this something that the county would like to consider withdrawing for a month or so? Any comment from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Why don't we just continue it. MR. ASHTON: Continue it, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we can continue it. And the reason I say that is because more than anything it's somebody who's in the service and they're in Iraq. MR. ASHTON: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: When is he expected back? MR. RICCIARDELLI: That's a good question. A lot of the times -- we've just started being able to text each other. I don't know exactly where he is. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was he deployed? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Another good question. He can't always tell me exactly where he is. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, when was he deployed over to Iraq? MR. RICCIARDELLI: He was gone when I got the case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Not answering my question. MR. RICCIARDELLI: I don't know. I know he was gone then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would someone like to make a motion that we continue this for 30 days? MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion we continue it for 60 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So even with two weeks here and two weeks there, 60 days, you should have some sort of a resolution at that time. MR. RICCIARDELLI: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RICCIARDELLI: It was my understanding that there were Page 81 August 27, 2015 no fines during that four months that we were allowed to work on it in the first place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I haven't read the actual order. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Because that's going to be a surprise to the owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: He had until July 25th, 2015 to correct the problem. So March through July 25th. MR. RICCIARDELLI: So those are before I was hired. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know when -- MR. RICCIARDELLI: Four months ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: So he had until the 25th of July. And starting from then is when the fines started at $200 a day. So starting July 25th through the 27th of this month at $200 a day. So he did have a period of time to fix it, which just like in your previous case you'll have time to fix it. And then after that there's the fines. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so we have a motion for a 60-day continuance and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So we'll see you in 60 days. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. Page 82 August 27, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: That's not the same father-in-law, right? MR. RICCIARDELLI: No relation. MS. ADAMS: Next case is number four, tab 14, Case CESD20150007433, Rick Lynn White and Victoria Jacob. (Investigator Giannone was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: For the record, Joseph Giannone, Collier County Code Enforcement, in reference to case number CESD20150007433, violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). The location is 2972 41st Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 36517680000. Description: Above-ground pool with a wooden deck installed without the proper Collier County permits and inspections. Past orders: On June 30th, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violations. See the order of the board OR 5179, Page 249 for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 27th, 2015. The fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for a period between July 30th, 2015 to August 24th, 2015, 29 days, for a total fine amount of$5,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.33 for a total amount of$5,928.34. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you had any opportunity to talk with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: No, sir, it's in lis pendens at this point and we've -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to impose. Page 83 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Thank you, sir. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number 6, tab 16, Case CESD20150001640, Pine Ridge Holdings, LLC. (Ms. Falconi and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are the owner of Pine Ridge Holdings? MS. FALCONI: No, no, I am here on their behalf. I work for Kaye Homes, and we are helping them with this project. The owner of Kaye Custom Homes is Stewart Kaye. He's out of town, so he told me to come on his behalf. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: He was here last time, Mr. Kaye. MS. FALCONI: I think he was here, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you read through the order and we'll go from there. Page 84 August 27, 2015 INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Code Enforcement Investigator. Violation: County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 930 39th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37995000007. Description of the violation: Unpermitted alterations to the lower aspect of the home. Past orders: On March 26th, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5138, Page 1198, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 27th, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period between July 25th, 2015 to August 27th, 2015, 34 days, for a total fine amount of$6,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.43 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are $62.91. Total amount, $6,928.34. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick, has anything been done on this since it started? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. Actually, they submitted a permit. They have a current building permit right now and it's been going through revisions. Just within the last couple of days on August 25th we received a packet from Pine Ridge Holdings stating -- I guess asking for an extension of time. And it shows the complete revisions and how they submitted the permit back in -- well, back in July they submitted a permit. Page 85 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: So they're in the process of taking care of the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is that the operational costs have not been paid. So this is -- it's not been abated and the operational costs have not been paid. So what has -- who is the owner, Mr. Kaye? MS. FALCONI: Well, he's the opener of Kaye Homes, not the owner of Pine Holdings. But we are helping them with the permitting. I was just hired on the permitting department. And what I see here is that they put the permit on the Building Department and they have some rejections. Some they were approved and some they have to make some corrections. We are with the architect doing the corrections for the house to show that we are not going to have on the lower part of the house as a guesthouse, and also we are waiting for the Health Department. In order to have that approved we had the drain field plan and the evaluation done showing if the actual septic is going to work or we have to get a new tank. That has been done and we are waiting for the results. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there any reason why the operational costs have not been paid? They were given 30 days to pay those and they haven't been paid. MS. FALCONI: That I can't answer. I will get back with you, you know, when I get to the office. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: We typically don't give any continuances or extensions unless the operational costs have been paid. Do you have the ability to pay the operational cost within 24 hours? MS. FALCONI: I can't give you an answer. I have to call -- I will make them, you know, call -- I don't know with whom I have to Page 86 August 27, 2015 contact. As soon as I leave, I will call Stewart Kaye and make him know that they need to pay this in order to get the 90 days extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think we explained that to the respondent when he was here. MS. NICOLA: Mr. Kaye was not the respondent, that's her boss. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not the -- the representative for Pine Ridge Holdings, whoever it was. MS. NICOLA: It was Mr. Kaye that was here last time. And, I mean, it's like what is it $65 that have to be paid? With all these fines that are accruing, I would think he would pay them immediately. MS. FALCONI: Oh, he will. I have to call him and say -- but I have to go and get the check and make the payment. Can we pay online? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, you can pay online. MS. FALCONI: Okay, that is better. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it appears that if-- to answer Mr. Lefebvre's concern, if the fines are paid within 24 hours then we would have the ability to -- MS. FALCONI: Give me the extension, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- grant a continuance on the case, that's correct. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: In the package they submitted before, again two days ago, she's requesting for 90 days. MS. FALCONI: Yeah, it's here 90 days, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: It would be a 90-day continuance, probably. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaye you said represents the owner in trying to fix this issue. He's acting as the builder then, correct? MS. FALCONI: Yes, we are the builder. MR. LEFEBVRE: The contractor, correct. MS. FALCONI: And we are next door to that place, yeah. Page 87 August 27, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: I don't see much of an effort on the respondent to solve this issue. I make a motion to impose the fine. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think that we have an opportunity here to resolve this in a positive way and I do see progress by Stewart Kaye and his company. And unless there's any health or welfare or any type of other danger that I'm not aware of, I recommend that we consider a 90-day continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have dueling motions here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. We have to take -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's just drop back one notch before we do that. Anything that you want to -- as far as a 90-day continuance would be based on the respondent or whomever sending in the operational costs. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chair, we have a motion and we need to either have a second, then we can go to discussion. If we don't have a second, then the motion fails. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, let me ask Mr. Lavinski, you want to hang on to that until we -- MR. LAVINSKI: Well, no, I want to put it forward, the motion, impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 88 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Fine is imposed. MS. FALCONI: So I have to pay until tomorrow? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no, no, we imposed it. Now his next step, whomever, is to go to the county commissioners and say I'm working on this or whatever it is, and they have the ability to do whatever they want to do with this, okay? MS. FALCONI: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Patrick. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number eight, tab 18, Case CESD20130019399, Dorothy K. Gill. (Ms. Gill, Mr. James Gill and Investigator Giannone were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: For the record, Investigator Joseph Giannone, Collier County Code Enforcement, in reference to Case No. CESD20130019399. Violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22-26 B(104.5.1.4.4). Location: 5009 31st Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 36455080005. Description: Two unpermitted sheds on the right side of the property, possible garage conversion and attic conversion to small apartments and a staircase moved to the right side of the structure from the rear of the property. Past orders: On April 24th, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued the Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. Respondent Page 89 August 27, 2015 was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 5039, Page 3250, for more information. On September 25th, 2014 a continuance was granted. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 5086, Page 2277, for more information. On January 22nd, 2015 a continuance was granted. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 5118, Page 2294, for more information. On May 28th, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5163, Page 1492 for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 27th, 2015. The fines and costs to date are as follows: The fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for a period between August 23rd, 2014 to May 28th, 2015, 370 days, for a total fine amount of$74,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$192.98 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $66.27. Total amount to date, 74.66 -- $74,066.27. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. I must be missing something. Why did the fines stop accruing on May 28th? Do you know? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: I don't know. Gary? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, maybe they didn't and maybe it's a typo, I don't know. MS. ADAMS: It's incorrect. The fines should be right up to today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, because August 23rd to today is 370 days. MS. ADAMS: That was the date of the hearing. So yeah, it should actually be up to today's date. Page 90 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so it's just a typo. MS. ADAMS: Another three months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hi. Why don't you start us out and let us know what you're -- MS. GILL: Okay. The shed, the one shed, the smaller one, that one, that's been taken care of. We got the C.O. for that. I don't have that with me, I couldn't find it when I was coming here. But I did receive the C.O. for that being the demolition permit and everything, so it's been taken off the property. The staircase, we found the information of the permit of the staircase. It was in the original certificate of occupation (sic). It was a relocation of the staircase. And I have the permit, the approval, and it's shown on the certificate of occupation for the house when it was originally built. We have that. And also the two additional bathrooms were also on that same permit and also with the certificate of occupation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Certificate -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Of occupancy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- of occupancy. MS. GILL: Of occupancy. Sorry about that. Certificate of occupancy. And so all we have left is the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you continue, just so I can keep things clear in my head, are you aware of those items? INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: Some of them, sir, yes. Some of them are a little bit -- we have an issue with the permit for the upstairs accessory apartment. MS. GILL: Yeah, that's next. INVESTIGATOR GIANNONE: We did not find permits for the electric or the plumbing for that room. And I must say she's in the permitting process on the tie-down for the other shed. Page 91 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was just trying to eliminate some of the stuff that was not there. MS. GILL: So we've gotten some of them taken care of We know what happened with those. There wasn't a violation, they were actually taken care of when the house was built, the certificate of occupancy, they were both there. The room upstairs, I have the original blueprints ordered, they're waiting for me down at the records department, so that we can see -- I have my brother here with me, because the house was originally built in his name for my parents. And then eventually my parents got out of refinance and put into my name. And that's where I had no idea what I was doing. So I finally understand when I signed the stipulation, my father's friend, an attorney, said sign this and you're fine. I signed it and I wasn't fine, so now I understand. So the room upstairs we believe -- because he was there and he knew more than I knew about the house, that the room upstairs was finished to what we understood, the plumbing and the electrical. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was finished at the same time as the original construction? MS. GILL: Exactly, yeah. They're not able to find any paperwork regarding this or permit regarding that. So we're waiting to go get the permit. Because I just talked to my brother like a week or two ago and he's like no, no, it was done. It was done then. So I ordered the blueprints. They got them from storage, they're there waiting for me. I spoke to them this morning, or yesterday. And the lady in records said that they're waiting for me. So we just need a little more time to find out what the deal is with that, if it was with the original certificate of occupancy and where to find it. And if it's not, then I have to get the permit for the plumbing and the electrical. Page 92 August 27, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: After the fact. MS. GILL: After the fact, exactly. Exactly. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was this house constructed? MS. GILL: '96, '97. It took a year to finish it. It's a big house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Question for you. Let's say there were five items. Without going into what the five items were that was part of the original, and this thing goes way back. If the records that have been found now show that three or four of the five items, whatever number it is, really that are not in violation because they were part of the original paperwork permits, whatever, and the fines that were accruing are based on all five things, it seems a little difficult to handle what the actual accrual of fines would be since -- and we may find out, depending upon how this works out, that the whole house was in compliance. So do you have any comments on that? MR. WRIGHT: One thing that comes to mind is the affirmative defense that's within our ordinance that says if you can prove by a preponderance of evidence that the thing as built was built in accordance with the applicable codes when it was built. We haven't really seen that yet. The appropriate time to raise that defense, I think, would have been in the original hearing when they were trying to get them for the violations. Now as your -- MS. GILL: I didn't have them. MR. WRIGHT: They may exist. And we hear this and we've heard it before, but if there were five items on an order, each with a dollar amount, and they were able to show even today or any time that those should not have ever been charged, then we would probably seek to have that portion of the order, the fines that accrued under that line item, removed from the accrual. We want to be fair to them. And if they can show us or we stumble upon something in our research that indicates that they were Page 93 August 27, 2015 aboveboard the whole time, we'll re-send the case and seek to re-send the fines through you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But in the meantime right now you need time to gather up the rest of the paperwork, et cetera. MS. GILL: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea how much time you would need? MS. GILL: I'm requesting 60 days, if it's possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, there's two ways. This could be resolved next month if the plans show that yes, in fact the second floor I guess is what it is -- MS. GILL: Yeah, the house story. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- was part of the original submittal. Next month it's done. But if it doesn't then you have to go to after-the-fact -- MS. GILL: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- permitting, which probably will be I would say 90 days would be reasonable. MS. GILL: Okay. All right. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion -- MS. GILL: I don't know how long it takes to get permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you were trying to refinance this house too, right? And that's the reason -- MS. GILL: Modify. MR. LEFEBVRE: Modify, sorry. How did that work out? MS. GILL: We're going to trial with the judge or magistrate with the mortgage company on November 19th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, 90 days -- MS. GILL: They have offered me a modification, but they did it with a five-day notice, if you pay your mortgage amount in five days by Christmas. It was Christmas Day we were supposed to pay it. I Page 94 August 27, 2015 was like I don't have the money on Christmas Eve, so I couldn't do the modification then. So the attorney, he's a friend of the family, he's taking the case for me, he has it set to go to trial because he's been trying to work with the attorneys for the mortgage company. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did that group ever help you out? MS. GILL: No, actually that is what I needed the last time I did a modification -- I'm sorry, I'm still dry mouth -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Why don't you take a minute. There's a water fountain right outside if you want. MS. GILL: Yeah, I've been drinking. MR. LEFEBVRE: But do you want to run out for a minute and just grab -- MS. GILL: I just grabbed my soda real quick, because I tried to get water and I couldn't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Since you came here, you might as well say something. MR. GILL: Yeah, I'm her brother, so I'm going to help her now make sure everything gets taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you were involved when it -- MR. GILL: Yeah, when it was originally built, I'm almost 100 percent the upstairs, because that's where the air handlers are for the air conditioner and everything up there, so we put the plumbing and electrical in. And if for some reason it's not, then I'm going to help her get the permits and stuff to take care of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we continue this for 90 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think that would be prudent. MS. GILL: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: And that would -- 90 days, would that take Page 95 August 27, 2015 you through? MS. NICOLA: It's November 25th. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's before the trial. MS. GILL: No, that's after the trial. MR. LEFEBVRE: When is the trial? MS. GILL: The trial is November 19th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, so then you'd have a resolution on that part too. MS. GILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When is our November meeting? Oh, we don't have a November meeting. MS. ADAMS: It's on the 20th. We don't have a December meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you'll be here in this complex two days in a row. MR. LAVINSKI: Are there any items in here that are going to be hanging after those issues are resolved? MS. GILL: There shouldn't be. The shed is the other one. That's in progress -- MR. GILL: Yeah, I'm going to help them finish the shed. MS. GILL: Finish the shed. MR. GILL: Her fiancee. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the two unpermitted sheds -- MS. GILL: One has been removed. MR. GILL: One is gone. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other one's going to be permitted. MR. GILL: It just needs to be tied to the house. I'm going to help them do that, make sure it's gets all done. MS. GILL: Right. And then we have to order the inspection once that's done. Page 96 August 27, 2015 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So that will be taken care of in a relatively short period of time. Getting the plans -- MS. GILL: That I'm getting together today, and I'm going to have -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. And looking at them will solve the possible garage conversion, correct? MS. GILL: No, the garage conversion was actually a bathroom that was in that room. And that was one of the additional bathrooms they had listed on this permit and on the certificate of occupancy. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that was -- that's already been -- MS. GILL: That's been -- right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the added conversion will be what will -- MS. GILL: What we're doing with the plans. MR. LEFEBVRE: The plans that are down there, okay. And the staircase moved was on the original plans also. MR. GILL: Yeah, that was under -- still that room, so obviously the stairs to nowhere. MS. GILL: The stairs went -- they were on the plans. They originally had them in the back. MR. LEFEBVRE: I remember you talking about that, yeah. MR. GILL: They didn't like the direction they were when they built the house. They had us turn them for some reason. MR. LEFEBVRE: Could you have gotten in touch with the original architect for this information? MS. GILL: I haven't been able to. Called Waterford Construction. MR. GILL: Well, my father had a stroke and so a lot of this information is lost. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is missed. MS. GILL: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Page 97 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to grant a 90-day continuance. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We'll see you after Thanksgiving. MS. GILL: Thank you. MR. GILL: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or right before Thanksgiving. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or right before Thanksgiving. MS. ADAMS: Text case is number 10, tab 20, Case CESD20120000572, Juan Campbell and Nora Carrillo. (Supervisor Mucha was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hello, Joe. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Hello again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to go through this one? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor, Code Enforcement. This is dealing with Case No. CESD20120000572, violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location is 1101 North 11th Street, Immokalee. Folio Page 98 August 27, 2015 number is 63912040001. Description is a building permit that expired without the completion of all related inspections and issuance of a certificate of completion/occupancy. Past orders: On January 22nd, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Findings of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5118, Page 2287, for more information. On May 28th, 2015 a continuance was granted. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5163, Page 1496, for more information. On July 23rd, 2015 the board continued this matter until the next meeting held on August 27th, 2015. See the attached Order of the Board OR 5179, Page 193 for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 27th, 2015. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between April 23rd, 2015 to August 27th, 2015, 127 days, for a total fine amount of$25,400. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational cost of$67 have been paid. Operational cost for today's hearing, $65.43. Total fine amount, $25,465.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with these folks? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: We did the day before the last hearing, and they were under the impression that everything was done, and it wasn't. They've reactivated the expired permit but they just haven't gotten any inspections done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that was the question I had, how many inspections were done on the original permits. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I know they had to resubmit their Page 99 August 27, 2015 permit because they made a change to it. And it finally was accepted, and it's reactivated but they haven't done anything with it yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They signed the stipulation, I believe it was in January, giving 90 days to get everything done. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: And we've called them on several occasions. Unfortunately you lead a horse to water, you can't make them drink, you know, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: And this case is from 2012, correct? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, this has been a long -- very outstanding. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Most of the cases that I think I've seen, has nothing to do with this case, where you have no C.O. and everything is done before it, could have been a I forgot to do this or I forgot to call for that or I didn't know I had to do that. But they would come in with all of the inspections, I did this, I did the final electric, I did the final whatever it is. In this case I don't know what inspections have been done. What we know is that the final hasn't been done, that's all we know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 100 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Joe. MS. ADAMS: Next item on the agenda is number seven, new business, CEB workshop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know if we want to do many things. I was thinking about that. One of the items that I wanted to see if we can put on board was when we went to that class with all the code enforcement training that we had, one of the things that came up were the maximum fines. And they seemed to differ. Florida Statute 162, the fines in that statute I don't believe agree with the -- our rules. And I think maybe someone needs to take a look at in particular to make sure we're in compliance as far as that's concerned. You know, the maximum fines. I believe that Florida statute, and this is from memory now, was something like $500 a day, and our rules show 1,000, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. MARINO: It was 500. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we could just review that; we don't have to take a lot of time today. We'll just put it on, you know, for a little research project. Does anybody have any other things that they would -- the one thing that I -- another one thing that I have, I have a lot of number one things -- was when you -- on the Wong case, I forgot her first name, where if you are -- if a court in Florida comes up with an edict that -- Wendy Wong. And one court did regarding people whose homes are homesteaded. And if your home is homesteaded you cannot foreclose Page 101 August 27, 2015 on it. And you cannot even lien it as far as a homestead. Do you have any comments on that, Jeff? Is that what you understand also, or -- MR. WRIGHT: I'm not sure how you're going about determining whether a property is a homestead. Are you basing it on the appraiser's homestead exemption or is it where the guy lays his head? Because if it's the latter, that's an amorphous concept that's hard to pin down. One day it can be your homestead, the next day it might not be. So that case that you're referring to has a little snippet, and I don't have the case in front of me, that suggests that if they lose the homestead status then sure, go ahead and file the lien. Well, that's kind of what happens anyways, because if you file a lien against a homestead, you can't enforce that lien against the homestead. But the minute it loses its homestead status, which is a moving target, the lien's immediately enforceable. So I think that that decision, we can take a look at it and, you know, discuss it in more detail. But I think what's suggested by that decision that you shouldn't record the liens at all, I think that's probably -- I would recommend against it. I think it wouldn't be to the county's benefit, just because to not impose those liens, these liens encumber all real and personal property owned by the violator. So if you just hold off or you carve out the homestead it's a moving target I think would be impossible to hit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I don't know whether they're talking about -- and I read it myself. If they're talking about a property that's homesteaded, there's a date, January whatever the -- January 1st or whatever. If you own the property, you can apply for homestead, you can homestead your property. MR. WRIGHT: You can get the tax exemption. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. Now, is that the same homestead? Is is is or is is not? Page 102 August 27, 2015 MR. WRIGHT: No, it's not. It's not. Because you can -- I don't think it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because that lasts one year. MR. WRIGHT: Yeah, the exemption. It's just like the senior exemption or the other exemptions that the appraiser gives you. It's just a -- it's a paper thing that gives you a break on your taxes. But that's separate from what are you picking as your homestead for creditor exemption and creditor -- you know, fending off creditors, using that homestead as a defense. It's not -- just the fact that you've registered your homestead with the appraiser isn't really dispositive of whether that's your homestead for creditors. It's complicated, but I think the suggestion that don't record liens against homestead, I don't think it's a good idea, because the homestead is constantly moving and constantly changing. But it's not in dispute that you can't enforce a Code Enforcement lien against the homestead, period. So anybody's looking at it close enough and sees somebody trying to do that, it's unlawful to do it. So I think it's better to be above the law and record the records, still record the orders. And then Mr. Chairman, as to your first question about the liens, I did a quick little look here, and I just want to put on the record a couple of references maybe for our ongoing research project on the fines? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: We have a section of our ordinance, Section 2-2030, that mimics the statute. It basically -- the statute is 162.09(2)(D). And that basically says the county having a population greater than 50,000 may adopt a greater schedule of fines. And we've done that. Several years ago we did that. Obviously we have more than 50,000 people there. And in that increased Page 103 August 27, 2015 schedule of fines is shall not exceed $1,000 per day, 5,000 per violation for repeats and 15 for irreversible or irrepairable. So it's one, five and 15. That's what the statute says for counties over 50,000 that have adopted an ordinance. We're a county over 50,000 that has adopted an ordinance. And our ordinance 2-2030, section A, has the same numbers in it, 1,000, 5,000 and 15,000. So we can research it some more if you think so, but I think that might close the issue. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing, if we don't record liens on homestead properties, if someone were to come along and buy a property and do a title search on that property and not go through the county code enforcement, they would not see that there's an issue with it. So I think that's a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good point. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- something that should be continued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll just continue what we've been doing. We haven't caused anybody any lawsuits going up the line, it appears. The size of the county determines the size of the board also. If you're under 50,000, I think you have seven members, which includes the alternates. And if you're over 50,000 you have a full sized board that we have. Okay. Maybe we can do this in the future. If something else comes up that we want to discuss after the meeting that we don't take three hours to do, I think it serves its purpose better do it that way. That's all I have as far as that's concerned. Anybody have anything else? MR. LAVINSKI: When are we going to discuss the possibility of a minimum fine? MR. ASHTON: Soon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can discuss it right now, if you Page 104 August 27, 2015 want. Or if you want to do a little research on it. This was brought up a while ago. And Mr. Lavinski and I are of the same mindset on this, that it almost makes sense for somebody who was doing something that is improper to do it and they may not get caught. But if they get caught and then they come into compliance, quite often we abate the fines. And I realize we can abate them or not abate them. We could actually, if there's a $50,000 fine, we could make that a $5,000 fine. We can adjust that. And we were trying to come up with some sort of a rule on that for people who are trying to beat the system, if you will. Now, I know that causes all kinds of headaches, and I guess ifs something that we should think about going forward. Jim? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I was wondering if we just couldn't put that in our rules or whatever, any other documents, Jeff, that you have that govern us to say an arbitrary number like 10 percent, the minimum fine would be 10 percent. If they owe 75,000, like one today, we could just say okay, I'll abate that all but the minimum of 10 percent or $5,000 or some number. Just to, you know, let the respondents know that they have a responsibility that they should have done two, six, 10 months ago. And we understand that and we're willing to relieve 90 percent of those fines. However, the minimum is 10 percent, or whatever the number is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't disagree. However, there are cases that come about where you do want to abate the entire fine. So you still have to have that ability as well. There are cases even heard today that there are certain things that happened that you should abate the whole fine. We are again here as a Code Enforcement Board to gain compliance. That's our charge, if you will. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree. But if it took a respondent two and a half years to gain compliance -- Page 105 August 27, 2015 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I agree with that, certainly. MR. LAVINSKI: -- that's worth some number. MS. NICOLA: I think you guys can consider that on a case-by-case basis. I think that's what the board is for. And I think if you guys take a subjective standard and you change it to an objective standard by saying we're going to impose 10 percent every time, I think we're going to have a whole bunch of problems going forward. We have to determine who's intentionally doing it, who's not intentionally doing it, whether it's egregious, whether it's not egregious. And that's what you guys do anyway. I mean, when somebody comes before you and says -- I don't remember his name today -- I inherited this problem and I've spent all this money and it's been a big headache but I did it, you have to look at this guy and go well, is he telling us the truth? You going to impose the 10 percent? I just think that as a board that you guys have the opportunity to do that already. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We do. And on the bottom of some of the orders it does give a little -- MR. LEFEBVRE: History. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- history of that to determine that. MR. MARINO: It's like the one guy with the chicken coop, right? MS. NICOLA: Right. Or the guy that wanted to keep the place for his little girl because she had a horse, you know. I mean, some of these people come in here and their livelihood depends on it. The people that were before us today, I mean, they move those trucks out and that might be the end of them. I mean, it's sad in some case. I think you have to determine the whole situation. That's what you guys do. If you impose an arbitrary number, I think it's going to be a very slippery slope. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing too is I think what will Page 106 August 27, 2015 happen is a lot more people will be going to commissioners to abate that 10 percent or whatever and that might overwhelm them too. MS. NICOLA: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I think that we should keep it within the board where we can have the discretion to abate or not. And if we see that someone did not follow through and it's their own fault that they went past their date of compliance, then we -- MR. MARINO: You can tell who's trying and who's not trying. Who's trying to beat the system or not, you can tell. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, on the paperwork that I have before me, one of the things that we have to vote on is the foreclosure collection authorization. There are three cases there. MR. LEFEBVRE: One's homesteaded. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And one is homesteaded. So that column that's been put there, homestead, must have been put there for a reason. Just another question that comes up. MS. ADAMS: When it gets to the County Attorney's Office, then that's when they determine what they're going to do with it from that point. We provide the information. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we do our thing and we'll let the County Attorney do his thing. MR. ASHTON: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any -- do we need to vote on this to forward these? MS. ADAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: We'll say we do, yeah. Motion to approve the forwarding of the foreclosure collection authorization. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Page 107 August 27, 2015 All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I think that does it for today, except for Jeff would like to say something, I'm sure. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I just -- I saw the reports, so I didn't want to leave you hanging. We just hit the 28 million mark in fines waived between the two tribunals and the BCC. That's a big deal. I think looking back -- in the future look back and that was probably a historic thing, $28 million in fines and counting. And we've got about eight or 10 releases going to the Board of County Commissioners September 8th and more. Coming in the 22nd, this all ties to what you do, it's the next step when the lien's imposed. And we're educating more than we're formally enforcing. We've got about 9,500 educational cases versus 7,800 code cases open. So the rate shows a little bit like 58 percent to 48 percent education over formal enforcement. And we're proud of that, because it takes I think more effort to do that than it does to just throw the book at people. That's pretty much all I have, unless you have questions. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, one question. What did you say, 28 million in fines? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. Page 108 August 27, 2015 MR. LAVINSKI: Is there any way you can relate that to the number of cases? MR. WRIGHT: Well, it depends on -- if you say 28 million is a ratio of total cases that code enforcement did, or 28 million as a ratio of those cases that were involved in the 28 million. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. Does that equal 100 cases or 1,000 cases? MR. WRIGHT: Oh, the 28 million? I don't know offhand. I would say hundreds -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thousands. MR. WRIGHT: Maybe thousands, yeah. Hundreds, thousands. I mean, you add up -- like today, for example, you waived a bunch of fines, but how many cases was that? Maybe five cases that you waived fines today? That's 12 times a year, that's 60 for you guys annually. Just a rough estimate I'd say hundreds. It might be thousands. But we could find out. We could -- because obviously that number, if anybody asks us where is that number coming from we would have to substantiate it. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. What's it equate to, one case? MR. WRIGHT: Yeah, we can find that information. MR. LAVINSKI: I think it would be interesting and it would be a good backup number. I mean, somebody is liable to say hey, where the hell did you get that number, Jeff. MR. WRIGHT: And maybe what we could do is since the 28 million's the one number that's stable we could provide a handful of denominators to say, you know, per case the average was $50,000 lien release. But we'll run up some numbers for you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody have any last comments before we adjourn? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. Page 109 August 27, 2015 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:49 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFOR E ENT BOARD r ROB ' R UF AN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on rj l S as presented i/ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 110