The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 01/29/2016 January 29, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, January 29, 2016 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 Sue Curley Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Ron Doino (Excused) Tony Marino (Excused) Lisa Chapman Bushnell (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Anisley SanRoman, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 29,2016 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,Excused 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. November 20,2015 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS Motions Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CESD20140012494 OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-236 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS IN POOR CONDITION AND AN UNPERMITTED TWO-STORY STORAGE STRUCTURE IN POOR CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 74413200009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3417 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES 1 2. CASE NO: CEPM20140025426 OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(Q)AND SECTION 22-236.A VACANT RESIDENTIAL HOME DECLARED DANGEROUS BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL. FOLIO NO: 74414040006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3414 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20150003296 OWNER: PATRICIA ANNETTE ISON&MABLE WINDRELL ISON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).UNPERMITTED LIVING STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET SETBACKS ON EITHER FOLIO NUMBER 00434520004,6917 JOHNS RD. OR 00435240008,6905 JOHNS RD. FOLIO NO: 00434520004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6917 JOHNS RD,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20140000965 OWNER: MARICELA PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO 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 CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 34750000025 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4755 VIREO LN, IMMOKALEE 3. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JON HOAGBOON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), I0.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES 2 4. CASE NO: CESD20150002903 OWNER: DIAPAZON USA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND(E). WALL INSTALLED WITH ELECTRIC,DOORS AND CEILING TILES INSTALLED AND NO PERMITS OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 76720002464 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3573 ENTERPRISE AVE,UNIT: 73,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD20150003476 OWNER: DIAPAZON USA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND(E). HYDROLIC CAR JACK INSTALLED AND NO PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 76720000602 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3435 ENTERPRISE AVE, UNIT: 30,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CESD20140017973 OWNER: GEORGE CALDERON& CRISTINA CALDERON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).AN ADDITION/STORAGE ROOM WITH ELECTRIC ATTACHED TO PRIMARY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY. FOLIO NO: 00061560000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4725 VIREO LN, IMMOKALEE B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20150017447 OWNER: DANIEL HERRERA& GLENDA GONZALEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS ON A WOODEN STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF ELECTRIC, DRYWALL, INSULATION,FRAMING,TRUSSES,PLUMBING,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 30733560007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1316 ORANGE ST, IMMOKALEE 3 2. CASE NO: CESD20150014619 OWNER: PETER WESSELL AS TRUSTEE OF THE PETER WESSEL IRREV TRUST UTD 2/14/06 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A SHED TYPE STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE YEAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY WITH NO PERMITS ON FILE. FOLIO NO: 49582200004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6 DERHENSON DR,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20150013010 OWNER: YVES GABRIEL&ROSELUNE GABRIEL-MERTUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).ENCLOSED LANAI PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 35769440002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4591 18TH PL SW,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CEN20150021339 OWNER: FAIRWAYS TRADE VILLAGE LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ENVIROMENT ARTICLE IV NOISE, SECTION 54-92-(B)MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND AND VIBRATION LEVELS BY ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR USE OCCUPANCY. (1)NO SOUND SHALL VIOLATE ANY SOUND STANDARD PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE(TABLE 1).PLAYING OF LOUD MUSIC THROUGH OPEN BAY DOORS AT CROSSFIT BLAZE, UNIT#8,THAT EXCEEDS SOUND LEVEL STANDARD OF 67 DB(C)BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 PM AND 7:00 AM AS MEASURED FROM RESIDENTIALLY-ZONED SOUND-AFFECTED SITE. MEASURED SOUND LEVELS WERE 79.7, 73.4,75.9,AND 77.8 ON NOVEMBER 9,2015 BETWEEN 6:30 AM AND 6:40 AM. THIS IS A RECURRING VIOLATION. FOLIO NO: 00253920005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6561 TAYLOR RD,UNIT:8,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CEVR20150006979 OWNER: DEMETRIA L CHADBOURNE,AS TRUSTEE OF THE DEMETRIA L CHADBOURNE REVOCABLE TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED SECTION 4.06.05(K)(1)GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS,PRUNING. SEVERE OVER-PRUNING AND HAT-RACKING OF TWO NATIVE CANOPY OAK TREES AND SEVERE OVER-PRUNING OF 2 PALM TREES WHICH LEFT FRONDS ONLY ABOVE 11 O'CLOCK AND 1 O'CLOCK POSITIONS. FOLIO NO: 22597004762 ADDRESS: 6432 AUTUMN WOODS BLVD,NAPLES 4 6. CASE NO: CESD20150015787 OWNER: SCOTT WAGNER AND DAWN WAGNER 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: 214280001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1220 MINGO DR,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20140010962 OWNER: JONATHAN D BURT& SYBIL J BURT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.1.ARTISITIC CABINETRY HAS REMODELED OR IS IN THE PROCESS OF REMODELING SHOWROOM WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE PROPER COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS AND SUBSEQUENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 241360004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1673 PINE RIDGE RD,NAPLES B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20140019519 OWNER: STEPHEN SHANE CLARY&CHRISTOPHER JASON CLARY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03.AN UNPERMITTED SECONDARY MOBILE HOME WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS. FOLIO NO: 110480002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 18960 IMMOKALEE RD,IMMOKALEE 2. CASE NO: CELU20100021891 OWNER: KENNETH R TANNASSEE SR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03.ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. FOLIO NO: 37925940001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4790 PINE RIDGE RD,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CEAU20150003345 OWNER: BRADLEY GOODSON&LEIGHA WILSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,PART 1, SECTION 105.1 AS REQUIRED. ALTERED THE FENCE PERMIT BY ENCLOSING BOTH PROPERTIES AND ADDING A PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT WITHOUT A VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 75760120006 ADDRESS: 2448 FLORIDA AVE,NAPLES 5 4. CASE NO: CELU20140025168 OWNER: BRADLEY GOODSON& LEIGHA WILSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 2.02.03. OUTSIDE STORAGE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO,NUMEROUS HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, WASHER,DRYERS,METALS,PLASTIC, WOOD,GLASS, SIDING,TIRES,ETC. FOLIO NO: 75760160008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2432 FLORIDA AVE,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CEAU20150003344 OWNER: BRADLEY GOODSON& LEIGHA WILSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.105.1 AS REQUIRED. CHAIN LINK FENCE INSTALLED AROUND THE PROPERTY WITH A PRIVACY FENCE IN FRONT WITHOUT A VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 75760160008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2432 FLORIDA AVE,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CELU20140025432 OWNER: BRADLEY GOODSON&LEIGHA WILSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 2.02.03. OUTSIDE STORAGE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO,NUMEROUS HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, WASHER,DRYERS,METALS,PLASTIC, WOOD,GLASS, SIDING, TIRES,ETC. FOLIO NO: 75760120006 ADDRESS: 2448 FLORIDA AVE,NAPLES 7. 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 8. CASE NO: CESD20150009975 OWNER: JOHN L ROBERT CIPOLLA&LESLIE RICCIARDELLI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA 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 6 9. 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 10. CASE NO: CELU20150010274 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS&VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. 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 11. CASE NO: CEVR20140007649 OWNER: PIOTR&JOANNA BANSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TEAL KAWANA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.05.08(C). COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION ON PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38280080003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 731 LOGAN BLVD S,NAPLES 12. CASE NO: CEROW20150001263 OWNER: 5681 DOGWOOD LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110 ROAD& BRIDGES,ARTICLE II.CONSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY SECTION 110-30. CULVERT PIPE HAS FAILED AND IS RUSTED THROUGH. FOLIO NO: 38341320000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6 81 DOGWOOD WAY,NAPLES 13. CASE NO: CEV20150013943 OWNER: JACK O'CONNOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III, SECTION 130-95.SEVERAL UNLICENSED VEHICLES AND TRAILERS ON THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 37164160008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 230 5TH ST SW,NAPLES 7 14. CASE NO: CESD20150002302 OWNER: ROMEO LEASING,INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS MADE PRIOR TO OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 76560000082 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1852 40TH TER SW,UNIT D,NAPLES 15. CASE NO: CEVR20150017400 OWNER: SALVATORE AGRUSA&VIVIAN AGRUSA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 3.05.08(C).PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,BRAZILIAN PEPPER AND AIR POTATO,UPON A PROPERTY DEVELOPED AFTER 1991,AND FOR WHICH THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO KEEP THE PROPERTY EXOTICS-FREE IN PERPETUITY. FOLIO NO: 41933880000 ADDRESS: 6157 GOLDEN OAKS LN,NAPLES 16. 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)(1)(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 17. CASE NO: CESD20150007374 OWNER: DONALD R WARD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). STEEL BUILDING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41611680001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3480 36TH AVE SE,NAPLES 18. CASE NO: CESD20140009842 OWNER: KELLY LYNN ROMINE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A COVERED WOODEN DECK IN THE FRONT AND REAR YARDS OF IMPROVED OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 01132240009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 241 GLADYS CT,COPELAND 8 19. CASE NO: CESD20140012494 OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-236 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS IN POOR CONDITION AND AN UNPERMITTED TWO-STORY STORAGE STRUCTURE IN POOR CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 74413200009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3417 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES 20. CASE NO: CEPM20140025426 OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(Q)AND SECTION 22-236.A VACANT RESIDENTIAL HOME DECLARED DANGEROUS BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL. FOLIO NO: 74414040006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3414 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES 21. CASE NO: CESD20150003265 OWNER: WILLIAM T. CABAL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN THE REAR YARD. FOLIO NO: 38166040002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5941 COPPER LEAF LN,NAPLES 22. CASE NO: CELU20130003963 OWNER: JORGE A.HERRERA&MYRIAM HERRERA OFFICER INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03 AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 126, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 126-111(b)PROPERTY IS BEING USED FOR WEEKLY RENTALS/ TRANSIENT LODGING AND ONLINE ADVERTISMENTS FOR WEEKLY RATES FOLIO NO: 65321520000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 469 GOLFVIEW DR.NAPLES 23. CASE NO: CESD20150013679 OWNER: LIN LIN WANG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).UNPERMITTED STRUCTURAL,PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL AND HVAC ALTERATIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 193560004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1747 ACREMAKER RD,NAPLES 9 24. CASE NO: CESD20140000965 OWNER: MARICELA PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO 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 CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 34750000025 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4755 VIREO LN, IMMOKALEE 25. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JON HOAGBOON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES 26. CASE NO: CESD20150002903 OWNER: DIAPAZON USA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND(E). WALL INSTALLED WITH ELECTRIC,DOORS AND CEILING TILES INSTALLED AND NO PERMITS OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 76720002464 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3573 ENTERPRISE AVE, UNIT: 73,NAPLES 27. CASE NO: CESD20150003476 OWNER: DIAPAZON USA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND(E). HYDROLIC CAR JACK INSTALLED AND NO PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 76720000602 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3435 ENTERPRISE AVE, UNIT: 30,NAPLES B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 10 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- February 25,2016 12. ADJOURN 11 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. If you have a cell phone, this would be the absolute perfect time to turn off the ringer. Let's all stand for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we start with the roll call. MS. SanROMAN: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. SanROMAN: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. SanROMAN: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. SanROMAN: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. SanROMAN: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. SanROMAN: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. SanROMAN: Ron Doino has an excused absence, and Lisa Chapman Bushnell has an excused absence, and also Tony Marino has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That means that, Sue, you'll be a voting member of the Board today. Do we have any changes on the agenda? MS. SanROMAN: Yes, we do. For No. 5, Public Hearings/Motions, Letter A, Motions -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you bring the mike closer to you, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Bring the mike a little closer. MR. LEFEBVRE: We can't hear you. Page 2 January 29, 2016 MS. SanROMAN: Oh. Now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. SanROMAN: Okay. So the changes are No. 5 from Public Hearings/Motions, Letter A, Motions, Motion for Continuance, we have two new additions. From Imposition of Fines, No. 14, Tab 21, Case CESD20150002302, Romeo Leasing, Inc. The next change is No. 2 from Hearings, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20150017447, Daniel Herrera and Glenda Gonzalez. We have two on Letter B, Stipulations. We have No. 6, Tab 6, CESD20150015787, Scott Wagner and Dawn Wagner; and No. 7, Tab 7, CESD20140010962, Jonathan D. Burt and Sybil J. Burt. On Letter C, Hearings, we have No. 3, Tab 3, has been withdrawn. Number -- MS. NICOLA: Which one? I'm sorry. Was it Tab 3 that's withdrawn? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. SanROMAN: Yes, from hearings; Tab 3 is withdrawn. MS. NICOLA: And the other two, Tab 6 and 7, are those requests for continuance? MS. SanROMAN: They submitted a stipulation. MS. NICOLA: Ah, thank you. MS. SanROMAN: Okay. Number 6, Old Business, Letter A, Motion for Imposition of Fines, No. 3, Tab 10, has been withdrawn; No. 4, Tab 11, has been withdrawn; No. 5, Tab 12, has been withdrawn; No. 6, Tab 13, has been withdrawn; No. 9, Tab 16, has been withdrawn; No. 10, Tab 17, has been withdrawn. On No. 15, Tab 22, we have a correction. The new owner, it's Deutsche Bank Trust Companies America as trustee for Rali 2006-QS4. The one they have marked on the agenda, those are the old owners, but the notice of hearing and everything was received by the Page 3 January 29, 2016 new owner. It was sent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SanROMAN: Mailed out, too. Number 22, Tab 29, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Would you repeat the first -- the first one? MS. SanROMAN: The first one from? MS. CURLEY: The first one you said at the very beginning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those are the requests for -- are you talking about the requests for an extension of time? MS. CURLEY: Yes, ma'am. Ma'am? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can call me "ma'am." MS. SanROMAN: It's for a continuance. MS. CURLEY: Okay. MS. SanROMAN: It's No. 5 -- no. No. 14, Tab 21, from Imposition of Fines. They requested a continuance, and No. 2 from Hearings, it's No. 1, Tab 1. They requested a continuance. MS. CURLEY: Okay. Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to change the agenda? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to the changes in the agenda. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 4 January 29, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Anybody have any changes on our minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none. They were so long ago. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept them. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. We'll be busy today. Let's start it off. MS. SanROMAN: Number 5, Public Hearings/Motions, Letter A, Motions, No. 1, Case CESD20140012494, Lynne V. Cadenhead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you bring the mike even closer. MS. SanROMAN: One, two, three. MR. LEFEBVRE: You've got to talk a little bit louder. MS. SanROMAN: Is this louder enough? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. What tab are we on Page 5 January 29, 2016 now? MS. SanROMAN: Tab 26. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle. We received a letter from the respondents, the Cadenheads, requesting a continuance. I don't know if you'd like to have me read it into the record or if you want to just review it. MR. LAVINSKI: You might have to read it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it's -- this is with Tab 26 and 27 together; is that correct? MS. SanROMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The second page should be the letter. MR. LAVINSKI: Got it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Got it? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: At this time I'm requesting that the hearing scheduled for January 29, '16, before the Code Enforcement Board be postponed. I'm asking -- am I speaking too quickly? I'm asking for a continuance on the above code cases due to an unforeseen conflict. I take that that's both the Tab 26 and 27. I have obtained permit number so and so for 3414 Cherokee Street, on 3417 Cherokee Street. I have completely -- I completed removing the drywall, as requested, and it goes on and on and on. Okay. Michele, what do you have to say? I'd ask Mr. Cadenhead, but he's not here. MS. McGONAGLE: The county feels that he's had more than enough time to come into compliance. He's had numerous continuances. They all started back January 22, 2015, and he's had continuances going forward since then. Page 6 January 29, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Wasn't the drywall removed the last time he was here? MS. McGONAGLE: I wasn't here for that case, but when I read through the case notes, that was my understanding. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MS. McGONAGLE: And he was to remove some other material in order for the building official to make a site visit and inspect the property, and. that was never done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Today is January -- MS. SanROMAN: Twenty-nine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- 29th. And he is in federal court today; is that what this says? MS. McGONAGLE: I don't know. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Could you put the letter back up, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what the letter says, the second. I have to be in court February -- on the 29th of January 2016. MS. CURLEY: Ms. Cadenhead could be here. There's more than one owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe that she was here in the past at some point. MS. CURLEY: He's not even an owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michele, I go back, way back here. I mean, '14 -- this is -- 2014. This is 2016. This has just been going on and on. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MS. CURLEY: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to deny and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I look at this letter, and I Page 7 January 29, 2016 understand what you're saying about him having adequate time in the past to come into compliance; however, with this letter disclosing that he does have this hearing, I would rather err on the side of being cautious and give this case maybe one month. MS. CURLEY: He isn't the owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: His wife (sic)? MS. CURLEY: Lynne is. MR. LAVINSKI: No. I'd like to disagree with that. We was here in November. He assured us that if we went along with that continuance, that by this meeting it would all be done and taken care of and resolved, and I think this is just a continuing saga that we should not go along with. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: John, do you have something that you'd like to enlighten us with? MS. CURLEY: I also have a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: That Lynne is actually the owner of this property, not Robert. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And she has been here in the past. MS. CURLEY: So she didn't say that she was in another appointment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Court, yeah. John. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. I actually handled the second case, the 3414 Cherokee, across the street. In that case you had granted him a 60-day extension so that he could get a CO on that permit that he obtained. Just so that you're aware, that the permit was issued, but he has not had -- it was issued in October. He has not obtained any inspections on the property at all. So for him to get a CO at this point Page 8 January 29, 2016 would probably take him another six-plus months. And, you know, he always does have the opportunity after to come back and request that the fines be waived if he's in compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question on this is we have two cases here. I have some comments on the second case as well. So we're going to vote on each case individually. We have a motion. Any more discussion on the motion and the second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have one "nay." So this will be heard today. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, the next one, which is in the same letter, on this case it says that the violation has been abated; is that correct? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one correct from you and one shaking your head no from -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: You're referring to 14, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm referring to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: 3414? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Last three digits, 426. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which is 3414. Page 9 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. It is abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So he's not looking for a continuance on that case if it's been abated, right? MR. SANTAFEMIA: He was granted -- that's the one where he was granted a 60-day extension at the imposition hearing, in November, and he was granted 60-day extension to come back with a CO, because he wanted to know if he could have the fines waived, and the Board felt that he should get the permit CO'ed before they would consider that. MR. LEFEBVRE: So was it CO'ed or not? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: So then it's not in compliance. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Well -- but that wasn't part of the order. The original order that the Board had issued was for him to get a permit. He got the permit. It was late. It was beyond the compliance date, so there were fines accruing, but once he got the permit issued, then it's in compliance. But when he came to the hearing, the imposition hearing, because the fines had accrued, he requested that the fines be waived, but the Board at that time felt that he should get a CO before you would even consider listening to that argument. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern here is this: Had he been here and had he come before the Board to ask for a reduction or an abatement of the fines, it would be considered by the Board. He's not here, neither is Lynne Cadenhead, to ask for that. That's a problem. MR. SANTAFEMIA: And I do believe he does have power of attorney for his sister, Lynne. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, she has been, I believe, before us in the past. And she's probably not -- I don't know whether she is or Page 10 January 29, 2016 isn't part of the federal meeting that they have with the Court on the 29th, today. So that case -- we have to decide whether we want to hear that one today or not. That's before us based on the request for both of these in his letter. MR. LEFEBVRE: This one's a little different, because our original order did not say that he must receive a CO, but in November we asked for that. I would be more inclined to grant him a continuance on this one so that he can come in front of us and explain, well, first of all, why he did not get the CO within the 60 days, and if he does get it within the next -- between this meeting and the next meeting, then we can maybe consider waiving these. But I think we should continue this. Continue it -- if you continue it, it's still -- the fines still run, correct? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. It's abated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, sorry. MR. SANTAFEMIA: They're stopped. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sony. Extension of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to make that as a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. I'd like to make a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Not continue, correct? Not to continue. Because if you continue, the fines are not running. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Except it was abated, so it doesn't matter. The fines will not continue but we'll hear it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Correct, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hear it next month. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Give him another 30-day extension on your original 60-day extension? Page 11 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. That's the easiest way to do this. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you clear? MS. NICOLA: I'm not clear at all. So am I doing an order for extension of time or an order of continuance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Make it for an extension of time because that's the easiest way to do this. MS. NICOLA: The easier order to draft is a continuance, but okay. I'm just messing with you. That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're going to have to stay after school and clop the erasers. MS. NICOLA: I know. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So any more discussion on this particular case? MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have a second? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second from Lionel. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have one "nay." MR. SANTAFEMIA: Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Moving ahead. MS. SanROMAN: Number 5, Public Hearings, Motion for Continuance, the new addition, it's from impositions, No. 14, Tab 21, Case CESD20150002302, Romeo Leasing, Inc. Page 12 January 29, 2016 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: The respondent is not showing up today. She couldn't make it, but she did write the letter requesting for more time. MR. LAVINSKI: Do we have that letter? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Is that letter on our desk or -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't see it. MS. SanROMAN: Tab 21. MS. CURLEY: Can we have the letter on the screen? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you put the letter up on the visualizer. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I don't have that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't have it either. MS. CURLEY: We don't have it. MS. NICOLA: I have a copy of it. Do you guys want it, the letter? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's okay. It's on the screen. MS. CURLEY: It's clipped here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you make that bigger or clearer or give me glasses? MS. CURLEY: Got it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we are an inspection or two away from this being in compliance; is that correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. She's waiting -- she just did the corrections for the fire department, because it had failed. Now she said she had the corrections but she has to wait, and it's going to be sometime, like, in March before fire department can go out there and Page 13 January 29, 2016 inspect those inspections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they busy putting out fires that it will take till March to get out there? MS. RODRIGUEZ: They do a lot of inspections, and it takes a long time for them to get out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they sensitive that this is in front of the Code Enforcement Board? Could we let them know that? MS. RODRIGUEZ: We can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to give an extension of time for 60 days. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to extend 60 days. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thanks, Maria. MS. SanROMAN: Number 2 from Hearings, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20150017447, Daniel Herrera and Glenda Gonzalez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. O'NEILL: Good morning. And I'm Marie O'Neill, attorney on behalf of Ms. Gonzalez. Page 14 January 29, 2016 MS. GONZALEZ: I'm Glenda Gonzalez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a case that dates back to, I guess, September; is that correct? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're here to request? MS. O'NEILL: Yes. We're actually requesting a little bit more time, Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Herrera, they were -- had a common-law marriage for many years, but they were never actually married in the court, and now they've separated. Unfortunately, family law -- family court will not allow a partition of properties so we're going to be suing to partition property. Ms. Gonzalez is not involved with the renovations on the property that were done without a permit and is the cause of the code enforcement violation, but she is technically on the deed. So we'd be asking for six months, if possible, to allow the civil court to take its toll and get her off that deed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What about Mr. Herrera? MS. O'NEILL: He's not present today, and we have not had communications with him regarding this other than that it needs to be fixed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Herrera is aware of the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And has he done anything to correct it? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: He advised me he's hired a contractor, but no permits have been obtained as of yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is the scope of this? It says new electric, drywall, insulation, framing, blah, blah, blah. Electrical work has been done there, and there's been no inspection. That kind of Page 15 January 29, 2016 indicates to me a possible safety problem. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The dwelling is currently unoccupied, but he is doing interior renovations to the dwelling. MR. LEFEBVRE: He's currently doing renovations? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: As of now, not yet, not till he obtains a permit and starts the inspection process. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. O'NEILL: But he was making renovations previous to the code enforcement issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Has a stop work order been issued on the property? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Not as of yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has this been referred to contractor's licensing at all? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. When this is all divided, is the property going to remain with one party or the other, or is it going to be divided? MS. O'NEILL: We're petitioning to the Court to have this particular property stay with Mr. Herrera, given the code enforcement issues. And there's other properties that are in both their names, so we went through family court, and now we're going to be going through a civil court to do that. But Ms. Gonzalez has not been involved with the renovations or any of these other issues, so -- MS. CURLEY: So I have a question. So if she's not going to financially gain or want to settle property, what's the point of the extension for her? MS. O'NEILL: Well, we're just asking because, technically, now if there were fines associated with the property, it would be in her Page 16 January 29, 2016 name as well. MS. CURLEY: But if she deeds herself off that? MS. GONZALEZ: We're going to try to separate -- I'm going to try -- because we -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you go in front of the mike? MS. CURLEY: Separate what? MS. GONZALEZ: We have other properties, so we're going to try to divide everything, and we have to sell. But he doesn't want to. He wants to stay with that property. So, you know, I'm going to try to get at least the other properties. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. So I was just speaking about this property today. MS. O'NEILL: Well, part of the issue is, because they have other properties, it depends on what the Court decides to do. The Court might order that all the properties be sold, including this one, and the proceeds divided. Obviously, given this code enforcement issue, they may order that this particular one stay with Mr. Herrera. But that hasn't been decided yet, and -- MS. CURLEY: Do you know if this one is their homestead? MS. O'NEILL: It is not their homestead, neither party's homestead. MS. NICOLA: I'm going to chime in here. I'm going to tell you guys, I've tried a few partition cases with people who are not married. It is not a simple proceeding. It's very complex. In a divorce you do a simple partition where they've been married and they're considered to be part of a whole, but in a partition action you actually have to part out their respective interests based on their contribution. It's not something that's going to be resolved quickly or easily. It could take a very long time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is almost like a "get out of jail Page 17 January 29, 2016 free" card, which I'm reluctant to do. I'd like to see Mr. Herrera here. And I would suggest that we grant a continuance for maybe 30 days and request him to be here because since -- you can't answer. You haven't been involved with the property. What's he done to get a building permit? MS. GONZALEZ: The thing is, he's not communicating with me at all, so I don't know what he's doing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- that's okay. He'll get a certified letter from the county, so he can communicate with them. But I would -- that's the way I think we could handle this right now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the other thing is, I do not want to see this property sold with a code enforcement case on it. Is there something recorded currently on record showing that there is a code enforcement case against it? That's the -- MS. O'NEILL: There is not. MS. NICOLA: Yeah. I was going to say, I doubt it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Until an order -- until there's an imposition of fines, there's no -- see, that's the biggest problem I have because if someone goes -- and if neither party discloses that there's an issue and if they don't do a search through the county, now a new owner has this property. MS. CURLEY: And to the point the valuation of the property stand as whole, unless there's a fine on it. Then it reduces the value. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So talking about selling -- possibly selling and divvying up these properties, there's no lien by the county on this property so, therefore, it could happen, and someone would inherit these problems. That is not something that I'm going to be willing to agree to. And I had parties -- I'll finish up. I have had parties in front of me saying, well, we won't sell until we resolve the case, and they have been sold. So I will not entertain a long-term extension where the Page 18 January 29, 2016 possibility of selling this property is there without something being recorded. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about a short-term? I don't think it can be sold in the next 30 days, especially since -- MS. NICOLA: Especially since they're fighting, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think that's somewhat reasonable. Any other comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: I think we ought to deny the request and hear the case, and if there is -- find that there is a violation, which it appears there is, then we can get that on the record. MS. CURLEY: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to make that a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion we deny the request for extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. CURLEY: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 19 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So we're going to hear it. And if we find in violation, we'll have a remedy at that time. MS. O'NEILL: Our only request would be some sort of wording in that perhaps that it is Mr. Herrera who's the one who's not cooperating, not showing up, the one who did the renovations as well, because it makes it -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you make that point when we hear the case. MS. O'NEILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this will be on the schedule to hear it. It's one of the first cases. Do we have any more requests for extensions, continuances? MS. SanROMAN: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No? So we go to the stipulations. MS. SanROMAN: We have a new stipulation added to it. Do I have to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SanROMAN: It's No. 4, Tab 4, CEN20150021339, Fairways Trade Village, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion to modify the agenda? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Moved and seconded. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 20 January 29, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So we have another stipulation. Do we have any more continuances, extension of time? MS. SanROMAN: We have extensions of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's move into those then. MS. SanROMAN: Motion for Extension of Time, Number 1, Case CESD20150003296, Patricia Annette Ison, Mable Windrell Ison. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tab? MS. SanROMAN: There's no tabs. They only requested an extension of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, I remember this. It's at the end. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. ISON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think I remember reading this where somebody owned the adjacent property, if I'm not mistaken. MS. ISON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they want this thing resolved. That person has since moved away from that property. MS. ISON: And sold it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The new person has come in who has no problem with the situation. My first thought on this, was looks like an ideal thing to extend for about 20 years, but why don't you tell us -- MS. ISON: We did obtain -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has everybody been sworn in? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. ISON: I'm sorry. My name is Patricia Ison. Page 21 January 29, 2016 We did -- right after the last hearing when I went home and told mom that we had to tear the house down, she had a really bad anxiety attack, and she ended up in the hospital. And then, of course, the holidays came, and we ended up not getting the permit for the demo until December. And then it was Christmas, and it just -- her health has been really bad. And then the new owners came over and extended their sincere apology, that they would have never had an issue with it. The home has been there over 50 years. It was built by her dad, and she just wanted to live there until she passed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. County? Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe that the demolition has started on the -- MS. ISON: We took down -- I'm not sure the exact footage, but two rooms on the far end that crossed over to the neighbor's property. We took down, I would say, it was probably about 40 percent over -- of the part that was over into their property, we took down two adjacent rooms, so now all that's left is her bedroom, a kitchen, living room, and bathroom. MR. LETOURNEAU: And as far as the county's concerned, we have no issue with extending the time they're requesting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know what time you're requesting. I just wonder if there is some sort of lawyer letter that can be written to say exactly what you had said in your agreement here that would resolve this whole situation. That -- MS. NICOLA: They need extra land in order to bring the home into compliance; is that what they need, the owner to sell them a portion of their land so that they could bring it up to code? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think their ultimate goal, I mean, eventually, is to demolish the whole structure, but they want -- I'm sorry. I don't Page 22 January 29, 2016 know -- MS. ISON: Mom; Wendy. MR. LETOURNEAU: They want her to live out the rest of her years in that section that's still on their property. They have a demo permit ready for issue to go and remove the side that I believe is on the new owner's property, correct? MS. ISON: We have the -- we already have the permit. We do have the permit. It's paid for, and we do have the permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. So I think, long-term goal, building's going to be demolished, they just want this woman to live out -- for the rest of her life in that section that's on their property, and the new property owners have no problem with that situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are the new property owners here? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. MS. KEPLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have no problem with -- MS. KEPLER: I have no problem with that. THE COURT REPORTER: I need your name. MS. KEPLER: Phyllis Kepler. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you hop on the mike so that it's recorded then. MS. KEPLER: My name's Phyllis Kepler, P-h-y-1-1-i-s. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Why don't you have mom sit down. MS. KEPLER: Kepler, K-e-p-l-e-r. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: So the question is, if they agree to it, is there a problem? Is there a violation? If the new owners agree to allow them to stay on their property in the structure as it exists, is there a problem? So, I mean, from my end, what do I do? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, theoretically there still is a Page 23 January 29, 2016 violation, because that particular structure is still probably going to be encroaching on the new -- on the new neighbor, the new owner's property, and that structure that remains is still not permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm searching to find out what's the longest extension that we've ever granted. I think we've granted two, three years. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, we never granted that long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That long? I thought we did that with one of the cases where there was a house in the middle of the forest. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about granting a continuance for 360 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then we can -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then we can grant another one probably. MR. LEFEBVRE: But something has to be formalized that you agree to that. I mean, that's -- MS. NICOLA: Well, I think she put it on the record. Isn't that good enough? I mean, she's under oath on the record. We do that in court all the time. It's a sworn testimony that they agreed to it. That doesn't mean that she couldn't change her mind six months from now and say "I withdraw my consent." But at least for today's purposes, I think the sworn testimony under oath with a court reporter, we could get a transcript of it, it would be acceptable. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me make a very pointed question. Would you accept that they live on it at least another year if we grant a continuance? MS. KEPLER: Yes, I agree to that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Which means that no fines will be incurred between now and next year. Page 24 January 29, 2016 MS. KEPLER: I agree to that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, if that's a motion, I would like to second it. MR. LEFEBVRE: That is a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, and we have a second. MR. LETOURNEAU: Could I point out one thing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LETOURNEAU: There still is a sister case that's on their property that's going to be still extended. I guess we can bring that up next month and have the same thing take -- done, or we can do it now. I don't know how you want to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't want to impose bringing people back if we can avoid it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So they're subject -- because there was two different properties. They had the one case, and now they have the other case. And until this structure is eliminated or permitted, both these cases are not going to be in compliance. So I've got that case number I could read on record, and I don't know the procedure for that if we could -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't -- why don't we vote on this case and then move on to that case. We'll make a motion on that and vote on that, and that -- yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: That case isn't to be heard today, correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: It is not, no. But, you know, like he's saying, do we want to bring them back next month? Or we can do it while they're here, if they're agreeable to it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess we would have to have them waive notice of the meeting and everything if they would agree to that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Well, let's, yeah, carry on with this case, and then we could figure out -- Page 25 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So for one year it's a done deal, and after a year, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. MS. ISON: Our original deadline was the 19th, and the county said that our fees would start the 19th and accrue until we got the continuance. Can they be abated or removed, the fines that started on the 19th to today as well? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think by giving you continuance, it stops any fines. MR. ISACCSON: Does it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MS. NICOLA: I don't think it does. If they're already -- if they've got a court order that says that they're accruing, they're accruing. They'd have to be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does someone want to make a motion to abate the fines that were currently accruing? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's a sister motion to the other motion that we just passed. Page 26 January 29, 2016 We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So that takes care of that. MS. ISON: Thank you very, very, very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we'll see you next year. Got that, Mom? MR. LEFEBVRE: We've never done -- well, I've been on the board for 14 years, and I've never done this before. MR. LETOURNEAU: The other case, before they go, can we -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on. Before -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. Don't go yet. MR. LETOURNEAU: Do I have to be sworn in again or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you mention the case number so it can be added to the agenda. County has a right to do that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll modify the agenda, hear it, and be done with it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. The county would request that we hear this case. It's Case No. CESD20150009085. The property record address is 6905 Johns Road, and we have the owners here, if they would like to waive their -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, first we put it -- we need a motion from the Board to add that case to our current agenda. Page 27 January 29, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Motion to add. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So that -- now we have a case. Now, what's the case number and what does it involve? MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, the Case No. CESD20150009085, it involves half of a structure that is on this property that does not have valid Collier County building permits. I believe that there is a demo permit in place right now to remove that part of the structure; however, it hasn't had any inspections or COs yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there any fines accruing? MR. LEFEBVRE: I believe there are fines accruing from the same date as the last case. I'm not sure exactly -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we could put a motion together that includes both abating the fines and extending it one year? MR. LETOURNEAU: Same as the last case, yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Continue it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continue it. Did you want to make that motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, let's have your names on record, please. MS. KEPLER: Phyllis Kepler. Page 28 January 29, 2016 MR. TISDALE: And Michael Tisdale. MR. LEFEBVRE: And, again, you, first of all, waive the notice for next meeting so you won't have to show up for the next meeting, but you waive your notice? MS. KEPLER: I waive my notice. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I just want to make sure that you're -- I don't know if that's the proper way of doing it, but -- MS. NICOLA: I'd say so. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- they're here. So I'd like to make a motion to abate any fines that have incurred (sic) in this case and also continue it for one year, and I think that would be the motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second from Lionel. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. That does it. Thank you. MS. KEPLER: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you, Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: See you next year. So complicated today. MS. SanROMAN: We have No. 2, Tab 31. Are we -- continue? Page 29 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Start out with the tab number. It makes it easier. MS. SanROMAN: Okay. Tab 31 . CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SanROMAN: Number 2, Case CESD20140000965, Maricela Perez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike. Pull it down so we can hear you. There you go. MS. PEREZ: Maricela Perez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was a case that came in. Originally there was an order on August 27th, and it has not been abated. And you are requesting? MS. PEREZ: Thirty to 60 days. It says 30, but I think I need more time than that, because my affidavit -- Antonio just got back into town, so I'm just waiting on his forms to get -- he completed all the -- because it got denied, of course, and then he had to fix some stuff in the affidavit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're doing a -- MS. PEREZ: Permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- permit by affidavit; is that correct? MS. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So since August, what has been actually done? MS. PEREZ: We requested (sic) it in. It got denied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You requested it in what time frame? MS. PEREZ: In August. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In August. MS. PEREZ: Yes. And then it got denied, and then the -- Christmas and all that stuff went in, and he went -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We're in Page 30 January 29, 2016 August. It was hot, you remember? MS. PEREZ: Yeah. And it -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Christmas was hot, too. MS. PEREZ: He was so busy, you know, and he was trying to get it fixed before, but it didn't happen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is he the person who's doing -- MS. PEREZ: Antonio. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the permit by affidavit, okay. MS. PEREZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So Christmas came. MS. PEREZ: Yeah. And he went out of town, so now he's back. He's called me. So now he's requesting a little bit more time so I can submit it back again. He already fixed all the stuff that he had to fix. And I have to resubmit it for a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one question. Has there been an electrical inspection? MS. PEREZ: No. Nothing has been done due to the -- for him bringing -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's he fixed then? MS. PEREZ: He has fixed all -- something to do inside the papers (sic). I'm not sure what -- it was a couple of things, which I have them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask the county, if you would, maybe -- Steve, are you familiar with this case and the process and what's going on? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. The permit's currently rejected pending corrections. That's probably the paperwork the respondent's speaking of. MS. PEREZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So there was a permit by affidavit issued? Page 31 January 29, 2016 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was denied, and now they're waiting for the paperwork to be fixed or the dwelling to be fixed? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Is that correct, Ms. Perez? MS. PEREZ: The paperwork to get fixed. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was it denied? MS. PEREZ: It was denied -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Was it October? MS. PEREZ: October 1st. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's four months since it's been denied. That's plenty of time to be in the office and make a paper correction. MS. PEREZ: That's why I was telling him about that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend until our next meeting but no more. MS. PEREZ: That's fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: For a clerical error, or whatever it is, the correction should not take four months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was your request o your letter, 30 days. We have a motion to grant a 30-day continuance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Extension, okay. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second, Bob Ashton. MR. LAVINSKI: Why would we do an extension and the fines stop? MR. LEFEBVRE: A continuance, the fines stop. An extension -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Continuance, the fines accrue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Continuance then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you changed your -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, continuance, continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And, Bob? Page 32 January 29, 2016 MR. ASHTON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And he seconds the change. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. See you next month. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get on his back. MS. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the expression, sometimes I feel I'm herding cats? MR. LEFEBVRE: Point of order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I ask this every month. I should remember. But a continuance, the fines -- because we just gave that -- MS. NICOLA: Don't ask me. MS. CURLEY: I just gave him a Post-It. MS. NICOLA: I'm the newest person. MR. LEFEBVRE: We gave this last -- last two people a continuance which, if the fines keep accruing, that means -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We abated the fines, A, and then we granted a continuance on hearing the case, so... Page 33 January 29, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to just keep that. MS. CURLEY: Keep that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to keep her next to me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Keep that sticker, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: You've got to have some humor, because we're going to have a long meeting. MS. NICOLA: So we're going to continue the fines and abate them at the same time. MR. LEFEBVRE: The humor's just going to get worse. MS. CURLEY: Yep, what she said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SanROMAN: Tab 32, No. 3, CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Radenkovich, and Aleksandar H. Radenkovich. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This case has been going on now, I guess, 32 months. Okay. Good morning. MS. VUKOVIC: Morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You look familiar. I think you were here in November. MS. VUKOVIC: Well, I did what was suggested by the county, and a gentleman suggested that maybe I should speak with the attorney or -- and at this point what we did, we did what's suggested by the county and what's suggested by the planning, because the zoning meeting had not been scheduled yet. But what we did on our side, we hired a contractor, Sanchez Enterprises, LLC, and he hired the architect to make drawings of existing condition and to resubmit the plans for approval of guest suite in case zoning department decides whatever they decide. So they said, so not waste anymore time, that's Page 34 January 29, 2016 the way to go. And that's where we are right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The county says? MR. HOAGBOON: For the record, Jon Hoagboon, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have no objection, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This --just as a quick summary, and this is from memory -- and I am getting older, so my memory is not -- this was a case -- I think it's in Naples Park -- MS. VUKOVIC: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- where you have a home that's been redone, and -- MS. VUKOVIC: Original condition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's original, and it's zoned for, was it RS4; is that correct? MS. VUKOVIC: In Collier County Appraiser's Site, and when I purchased it, it was zoned for a duplex, but then after complaints, somebody said it's not a duplex. And that was in 2012. And we still -- we gave the application as soon as we had that complaint, because when I purchased it, it was a bank foreclosure, and that's what it is. But now they're saying in case they cannot accept it again, they will make us try to make it as a single-family home with a guest suite. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm not wishing to be -- drag things out. There's a house that's next door to this house; is that correct? MS. VUKOVIC: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it zoned the same as this house? MR. HOAGBOON: It's multifamily in that zone, but originally -- the original plans were single-family, but that zone has since changed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's zoned for -- MR. HOAGBOON: Multifamily. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- multifamily. And this whole case Page 35 January 29, 2016 is based around that it's -- MR. HOAGBOON: Originally was zoned for single-family, so that's why they're trying to get that variance because, you know, it has changed over time but -- you know, that's why they're trying to get that changed to go -- to add those duplexes, but that's been since retracted, and they said it's easier to go back to the original state as single-family. And it's -- now it's just a matter of a permit versus a variance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The variance, I think they charge $500. Boom, boom, boom, all done. MR. HOAGBOON: This will be an easier resolution, should they just -- it's just a matter of a permit now, and that was suggested. There's going to be no public hearing involved. Just go back, get it permitted for single-family, should be good to go. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how long do you think that's going to take? MS. VUKOVIC: Well, in that case hopefully we will not even need the zoning meeting, because we're waiting for that still. So I think, like, 90 days. But, again, that's what they suggested. I'm not -- MR. HOAGBOON: Once they get the process started, you know, 30 days, roughly, to get the permits, you know, initiated, but it's going to take, you know, a little longer, obviously, to get everything CO'ed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So what has happened is the original zoning was single-family. They changed it to multifamily, and you were caught in the middle with the property that you purchased? MS. VUKOVIC: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have no problem with extending it 90 days, and hopefully this will be the end of it. MR. LAVINSKI: Now it's going back to single-family? MS. VUKOVIC: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, single-family with a guest Page 36 January 29, 2016 suite until it gets rented out with very, very close friends. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, is that a motion that you've just made? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: What's the time frame on the motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ninety days. MR. ASHTON: Ninety. MR. LAVINSKI: For a continuance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Good luck. MS. VUKOVIC: Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: Tab 33, No. 4, Case CESD20150002903, Diapazon USA, LLC. MR. LAVINSKI: What's the tab? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thirty-three. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Page 37 January 29, 2016 MR. KORCHAGIN: Good morning. Nice to see you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike so we -- MR. KORCHAGIN: Ilya Korchagin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, this is your request -- MR. KORCHAGIN: For an extension from 30 days because we sent in all paperwork. We got permits. We had engineering company hiring different contractor. We pass fire inspector a couple of days ago and supposed to pass two additional inspection. It's electric inspection and final building inspection. Probably we need a couple of days, but I think 30 days it will be great so that -- finish this case completely and close this deal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is both Tab 33 and Tab 34. MR. KORCHAGIN: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hear -- we'll vote separately on the individual cases. MR. KORCHAGIN: Yes, but it's absolutely same situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're within one month of this thing all being done? MR. KORCHAGIN: I promise. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You promise? MR. KORCHAGIN: Absolutely. MS. CURLEY: Whoa. Careful. MR. LEFEBVRE: I've heard that before. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have that on the record? Okay. This one began in December, so it's not three years old anyhow. MR. KORCHAGIN: Absolutely. Not same, like -- MR. LEFEBVRE: September. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: September, okay. Page 38 January 29, 2016 Okay. What would the county have to say on this? MS. PULSE: Good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Investigator, Code Enforcement. We have no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And from the Board, any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a promise of 30 days. Somebody want -- MS. CURLEY: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You will? Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold it. What's the motion? MS. CURLEY: Motion to continue for 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. KORCHAGIN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll see you next month. Page 39 January 29, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Wait, wait. We've got the next one. MR. KORCHAGIN: No, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have to vote on the second case now. MR. KORCHAGIN: Sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. On the second case. Would the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We have to read it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Read the numbers in and -- MS. SanROMAN: Tab 34, No. 5, CESD20150003476, Diapazon USA, LLC. MR. KORCHAGIN: Absolutely similar situation. Engineering plans submitted. Different contractor got permit. Pass fire inspection. Working from similar inspection, electric guy and final building inspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could we get another 30-day promise on this one? MR. KORCHAGIN: Absolutely, absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How's our motion maker at the end there doing? MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I'll make a motion for a continuance for 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 40 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Now we'll see you in a month. MR. KORCHAGIN: Thank you very much. MS. PULSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't forget your promise. MS. CURLEY: Don't forget to come back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SanROMAN: We have No. 6. No tabs. It's just a request for Extension of Time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the tab that the original case was in is where? MS. SanROMAN: It's just an extension of time, so there's no tab, but you have the letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it's from whom? MS. SanROMAN: It's -- let me read the case. It's CESD20140017973, George Calderon and Cristina Calderon. You should have the letter with your package. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, I've seen that. Now my case is, where did I see it? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's right on the screen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see that. MS. CURLEY: EOT means extension of time. I get it. I didn't know that. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CURLEY: It's like the fifth one from the top, EOT. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was a stipulation that was entered into 3/24/15; is that correct? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're before us now Page 41 January 29, 2016 requesting an extension of time. MR. CALDERON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tell us what's happened. MR. CALDERON: I did all -- I finished all my paperwork, and I turned it in, and I'm -- right now I'm waiting for this -- for the results. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was a -- the work that was on the house, what was the scope of the work that was required on the -- on this job? You don't have to look it up in particular. Was this a remodel? What was it? MR. CALDERON: It was an -- MR. LAVINSKI: Addition on the -- MR. CALDERON: An additional (sic) to the -- attached to the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: An addition to the side of the house. MR. CALDERON: A small storage room. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CALDERON: And I'm -- I was going to -- I need to -- I need to have an electrician add to it -- electrician -- the doors and windows. Two windows and one door installed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did this -- let me ask the county. When did this case begin? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. I have September 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So over a year, over -- a year and a half, and what's been done in a year and a half? MR. CALDERON: Nothing has been done, sir, because I was in the belief that I couldn't do anything else to the building until I get -- until I got the -- a permit, and that's what I'm working on right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did you get the permit? MR. CALDERON: The permit? I would say about two months ago. Page 42 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- MR. CALDERON: The permit number -- I don't have the permit right now, the permit permission. I'm working on this. MS. CURLEY: Can we help him? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor with Code Enforcement. I was just looking at the permit application. He had some corrections that he had to resubmit, and they were just resubmitted on January 8th. They're going through the review process right now. Looks like it's past some of the stuff that he had issues with before, so I'm hopeful that this permit will now be issued and maybe he can finally finish the job. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question, before us is, this has taken so long for a simple addition. You could build a skyscraper in that time. MR. MUCHA: Well, he started the permitting process in September. There's been some rejections and, you know, it's going through the process, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He started it in September of 20 -- MR. MUCHA: Fifteen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fifteen. So it was a year before he started. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. That's why we brought him here. MS. CURLEY: Well, we have some movement now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me. MS. CURLEY: We've got some movement now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're asking an additional 90 days. Page 43 January 29, 2016 MR. CALDERON: Yes, sir, that's what I'm requesting, because I'm not sure how much longer it's going to take for this to complete -- get it -- to get completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think 90 days is -- given the history of this, is too much time, personally. Any other comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: How long does it take for the county to review corrections in these circumstances usually? MR. MUCHA: I think there's a review actually set up for today, and it should -- I'm hopeful the permit will be issued maybe next week. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then they can go -- he can go ahead -- MR. MUCHA: He can go ahead and do the work and get the inspections. I think there's about three, maybe four inspections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What are they? MR. LEFEBVRE: There's work that needs to be done? MR. MUCHA: There's framing, electrical, and then I think the final building, and maybe windows, sir? MR. CALDERON: Two windows and one door. MR. MUCHA: So, yeah. I think four inspections -- there's plumbing? MR. CALDERON: No plumbing. MR. MUCHA: No plumbing. So four inspections. MR. LEFEBVRE: Four inspections. But does work have to be done prior to these inspections? MR. MUCHA: Mr. Calderon could speak to that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Does any work have to be done prior to these inspections? MR. CALDERON: Yes, sir, the electricity and the windows and the doors. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has to be installed? MR. CALDERON: They -- no. Page 44 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What has to be done? MR. CALDERON: They have to be installed, windows -- two windows and one door. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How long does it take to install -- if you got the permit this -- next week, how long would it take to install two windows and a door? MS. CURLEY: An hour. MR. CALDERON: I'm guessing -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Couple weeks. MR. CALDERON: -- two months or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two months? That's the -- that's the old schedule where it took you a year to start the permit. These are not cut-glass doors -- you're not putting this in Port Royal, are you? MS. CURLEY: It's, like, ten screws. MR. CALDERON: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we set the schedule for you, okay. So we'll tell you how long we'll give you, and then you'll know how fast to work. Is that fair? MR. CALDERON: That's fair. MR. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. ASHTON: Only two windows and a door? That's all you have left to do? MR. CALDERON: And the electricity. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the electric. MR. ASHTON: How much electric do you have to do? MR. CALDERON: I would say one main wire to run to the -- from the main box to the room. MR. ASHTON: I mean, the electrical -- the switches and receptacles are there. You just have to feed the panel box, correct? MR. CALDERON: Correct. Page 45 January 29, 2016 MR. ASHTON: And you've got two windows and a door. MR. CALDERON: Correct. MR. ASHTON: I would say 30 days, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that a motion? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion we give him a 30-day extension. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to grant 30 days. Now, hopefully you'll get your permit right away and you'll get the work done as soon as you get the permit, and next month you can come back, tell us everything is done, it's been inspected, and everything is fine. MR. CALDERON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Can I clarify? Was that a continuance or extension? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. That's what I thought. I just wanted to be sure. MS. SanROMAN: We've got Letter B, Stipulations, No. 6, Tab 6, CESD20150015787, Scott Wagner and Dawn Wagner. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Page 46 January 29, 2016 MR. WAGNER: Good morning. Hi. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike so I can hear. MR. WAGNER: Scott Wagner. MS. WAGNER: Dawn Wagner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And, Eric, you have a stipulation to read into the record? MR. SHORT: I do. For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You heard the stipulation. You signed that. You agree to that. MR. WAGNER: I did have one question. I heard where he read "prosecution of the case." We bought this house, and it had the building code violation on it, so we're the new owners. Agreed to take care of it. You know, it was a real obvious violation, but does that Page 47 January 29, 2016 mean that we've agreed that we got prosecuted and lost the case, and now we're correcting it? Is that what this means? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You haven't paid a fine. The only thing you're paying are the operational fees. Should you not finish the work in 90 days, then you would have -- you'd be paying a fine. MR. WAGNER: Gotcha. I understand now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you really have a "get out of jail" card free for 90 days. MR. WAGNER: Right. I just wanted to make sure it didn't look like we were the ones who did this and we were found guilty of it; now we've agreed to this -- you know, this -- what we're doing here today. MS. CURLEY: No. We see where you bought it in July. MR. WAGNER: Okay. Yeah. We're just taking everything they did -- we're taking everything they did out, and then we're going to call you up and let you see it's gone. MS. WAGNER: It's an easy fix. Demo's easy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you agree to that? MR. WAGNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 48 January 29, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. If you can't get it done in 90 days, come back ahead of time so we can work with you. MR. WAGNER: Will do. Appreciate that. Thank you. MS. WAGNER: Thank you. MR. SHORT: Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: The next one, No. 7, Tab 7, CESD20140010962, Jonathan D. Burt and Sybil J. Burt. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Musse? MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. 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 $100 per day will be imposed until the violation's abated; Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you state your name on the mike? MR. BURT: Jonathan Burt. Page 49 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MULKAYHE: Shane Mulkayhe (phonetic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you've heard the stipulation; you've signed the stipulation; you agree with the stipulation? MR. BURT: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would somebody from the Board like to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second from Mr. L'Esperance. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MULKAYHE: Thank you. MR. BURT: Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: We have No. 4, Tab 4, CEN20150021339, Fairways Trade Village, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement. I did want to indicate that Page 50 January 29, 2016 the complainant was here as were two other residents of Autumn Woods, as well as one of the board members for Autumn Woods Homeowners Association, and they concur in the resolution of this matter via stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have one question. Is this a first offense? Second offense? What? MR. LAVINSKI: Sounds like a third. MS. CROWLEY: It's the first time it's been before the Board. In September of 2014, I assigned a case on the same business, which is CrossFit Blaze Gym, and I did observe and measure a violation, so I sent the notice of violation at that time, and then corrective steps were taken, and that case was closed. New complaints came in, and a new violation was determined on this new case in November of 2015, more than a year later. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: So it's a recurring violation? MS. CROWLEY: It is a recurring violation. Not a repeat because it has not been before the Board. It's a recurring violation. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: The stipulation: Now come the undersigned, Elizabeth Anderson, owner of CrossFit Blaze, and Charles C. Whittington, attorney for the respondent, Fairways Trade Village, on behalf of themselves or as representatives for respondent, and enters into this stipulation agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of the notice of violation in Case No. CEN20140016368 dated the 4th day of September 2014. In consideration of the disposition of resolution of the matters outlined in this notice of violation for which a hearing is scheduled for today, the parties agree as follows: Number 1, the violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate, and CrossFit Blaze stipulates to their existence, Page 51 January 29, 2016 that is the playing of loud music through open bay doors at CrossFit Blaze, Unit No. 8, that exceeds sound level standards of 67 decibels on the C scale between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. as measured from a residentially zoned sound-affected site. The measured sound levels were 79.7, 73.4, 75.9, and 77.8 on November 9, 2015, between 6:30 a.m. and 6:40 a.m. This is a recurring violation. It is agreed between the parties that CrossFit Blaze shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$66.27 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by immediately taking corrective steps to minimize noise including, but not limited to, keeping bay doors closed during hours of operation and/or cease playing of loud music that exceeds maximum sound level limits of 67 decibels on the C scale between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and 72 decibels, C scale, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., or a fine of$250 per violation shall be imposed; That CrossFit Blaze must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And I would indicate that the representatives from CrossFit Blaze have agreed to meet with me, and we'll take some concurrent noise readings. They have a piece of equipment to measure noise, and I will show them and use our -- my equipment to show them so that they have a comparison to see how accurate their machine is, and hopefully that will prevent any future occurrences. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll tell you, if I lived nearby where this was waking me up at 6 o'clock in the morning -- being as lazy as I am, I don't get up before that -- it would really tick me off. I think that $250 is a very low fine, especially since this occurred before. And should this come back to this board again, it will be noted. Page 52 January 29, 2016 So I wouldn't play games with "we're at 61 dB versus 67" or whatever. Everything should be done to make sure that this does not occur. MR. LEFEBVRE: Why is No. 4 crossed out? MS. CROWLEY: Because there's nothing that the county can do or will do to step in, and the attorney, on behalf of the landowner, felt more comfortable if we deleted. With the noise violation, it's not as if we can mow the grass or, you know, hire a contractor to do something. It will be before the Board if-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can nail the door shut, right. MR. LAVINSKI: We can pull their plugs. MR. LEFEBVRE: Pull their business -- MS. CROWLEY: I'm not sure we have the -- MS. CURLEY: Well, isn't this a gym that operates open-aired? MS. ANDERSON: It is a warehouse space, yes. MS. CURLEY: There's no air conditioning in this gym? MS. ANDERSON: There's no air conditioning, no. And it's in a commercial area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's adjacent to residential. That's the problem. MS. CURLEY: So ear buds is a good idea in the morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I heartily agree. You understand the stipulation? MS. ANDERSON: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you understand the Board's feeling on this, that we don't want to see you guys back. It's a hassle. MS. ANDERSON: Absolutely. And we are doing everything in our power to take care of this. We have posted notices on doors. We have adjusted the stereo so that it can't be turned up that high. I mean, we're doing every -- we're training our coaches so that they don't turn it up that loud. So we are doing everything in our power to correct this, Page 53 January 29, 2016 absolutely. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: What happened since 2014 that would -- knowing that it was a violation then, that here we are a year-and-a-half later, two years later? Didn't somebody understand that you violated the law before? Why would it happen again? MR. ANDERSON: Jason Anderson. We had other coaches that were employed at the time that have since left our employment, and it was their -- they made the adjustments, and they were -- they have left since because -- partially that reason. So we're just trying -- we have adjusted all the equipment so that nobody can make those adjustments now. MR. LAVINSKI: Are you going to have someone supervise this now to ensure that we're not here in another six months talking about this? MR. ANDERSON: I'm personally overseeing as much as I can possibly. I'm in there every single days, seven days a week. So I'm making a lot of the sound measurements myself. And I spoke with Ms. Crowley a few times about it, trying to get with her and just make sure that we are in complete compliance with everything that we need to be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you've read the stipulation, and you agree to it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. MS. CURLEY: Second. MS. CROWLEY: Just for the record, I didn't know if you wanted to hear from the attorney on behalf of the landowner. He's also Page 54 January 29, 2016 present. MR. WHITTINGTON: For the record, Charles Whittington on behalf of the landlord, Fairways Trade Villages. We take this issue very seriously. One way or another this matter will get addressed. We've put the tenant on notice that this violation is not acceptable, so this will be addressed, and we agree to the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Who were the parties that signed to this -- signed the stipulation? MS. CROWLEY: Mrs. Anderson, the owner of the business, and Mr. Whittington on behalf of the landowner. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. As long as we have the landowner. MS. CROWLEY: They're both on there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. Thank you. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. MR. WHITTINGTON: Thank you, all. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. Page 55 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have to do a finger check. How you doing? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm good till 10:30. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You good? 10:30, okay. MS. SanROMAN: Continue? Letter C, Hearings, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20150017447, Daniel Herrera and Glenda Gonzalez. MS. CURLEY: Tab number? MR. LEFEBVRE: The original case. MS. CURLEY: Oh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. I'll share. MS. GONZALEZ: Good morning again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You look very familiar. Why don't you state your name on the mike for the record. MS. GONZALEZ: Glenda Gonzalez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you need to be sworn in again because the swearing only lasts, like, five minutes or so. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. O'NEILL: Maria O'Neill. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Steve, why don't you present your case. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20150017447 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you pick your mike up a little bit, too. There you go. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Excuse me -- dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), interior improvements on a wooden structure consisting of new electric, drywall, insulation, framing, and/or trusses, and plumbing were observed. All improvements were Page 56 January 29, 2016 constructed without first obtaining the required permits, inspections, and certificate of completion. Located at 1316 Orange Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142; Folio 30733560007. Service was given on October 15, 2015. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: It's going to be 11 pictures taken by Investigator Maria Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have the respondents seen the pictures? MS. GONZALEZ: I have. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: You have? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you seen the pictures as well. MS. O'NEILL: I have not, but it's okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You'll get to see them now. We need 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 to accept the photos. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: It's eleven pictures, and an aerial map of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a single-family home? Page 57 January 29, 2016 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's being held up by two cinder blocks on the corner. Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: On September 11, 2015, a site visit was conducted by Investigator Maria Rodriguez where she observed interior improvements in an unoccupied framed dwelling consisting of new electric, drywall, insulation, framing, and/or trusses and plumbing. The co-property owner, Mr. Daniel Herrera, was advised of the violation -- correction -- was advised of the violation and provided with the correction -- corrective action needed for compliance. To date, no permits have been obtained for mentioned improvements as of January 29, 2016. The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Where's the violation? In the back -- the back shed, or that whole building? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's the entire interior of the building. MR. LEFEBVRE: The interior being gutted. MS. CURLEY: Oh, the whole -- okay, sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Counsel. No games on your cell phone while you're here. Your turn. What we do, just in case you haven't -- the county presents, then you can rebut it, and then we decide whether a violation exists or not. If a violation does not exist, that's the end. If we find that a violation does exist, then we go into that to see what can remedy that violation, okay? MS. O'NEILL: Well, we're not disputing that there is violation. In fact, we're in agreement that there is. And as previously stated earlier, our only position is that, if possible, it can be articulated in writing that that violation is not the fault of Ms. Gonzalez but rather Mr. Herrera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you there. Let's take this -- it's how you eat an elephant -- one bite at a time. So can we get a Page 58 January 29, 2016 motion from the Board that a violation exists? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Now we're there. MS. O'NEILL: Thank you. So we are not -- you know, we're in agreement that there is a violation, and that has been found today. So we are only asking that -- Mr. Herrera is not here, and he is obviously not communicating with my client, Ms. Gonzalez, who's currently trying to partition the property or have it sold. It kind of depends on the Court. So we're just asking for understanding on behalf of the county in that she was not involved in these renovations, although she is on the deed. So if there can be any type of articulated responsibility, even though if there were fines assessed it would still be her responsibility since she's on the deed, but it would be equitable and helpful for us if it was specifically named to Mr. Herrera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I see Joe there. Joe, do you have something to inform us of? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 59 January 29, 2016 MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor with Code Enforcement. I just wanted to put it out there that we did meet with Mr. Herrera last Friday, and he did at that time sign a stipulation agreement to complete this work within four months, and then -- but he had also signed it on her behalf, and then we ended up meeting with her that afternoon and she said, wait a minute. No, he's not able to -- I don't want him representing me. So, I mean, we have had discussions with Mr. Herrera. I've talked to a contractor that he's been in talks with. So, I mean, there is a possibility that Mr. Herrera will take care of this. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. If a week ago a stipulated agreement was signed by one party, have you seen that stipulated agreement? MS. O'NEILL: I was only sent the copy of the authorization that Mr. Herrera signed to stipulate on behalf of Ms. Gonzalez, although she never consented. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do you have that stipulated agreement here? Because maybe you can step out, look at it, and if you agree to that stipulated agreement, she can sign it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then you have four months to -- before this -- MR. LEFEBVRE: That would -- that would -- MS. CURLEY: It's an olive branch. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have the stipulation with you, Joe? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Why don't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I wish this was brought up before, because in the meantime you could have talked about the stipulated agreement. But why don't you step out, we move on to the next case, you come Page 60 January 29, 2016 back in, and if you can agree to a stipulated agreement, we're done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. This is better than granting you a 30-day. This is four months. And he's agreed to do the work, so MS. CURLEY: Increase the value of the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's a win-win for you. But you take a look at it out there and see if that meets your needs, and you can go from there, okay. So we'll suspend this while you're out there in the hall. And since it's 10:30, it's break time. Your fingers are okay? We're going to take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. I guess our reviewers in the hall are still reviewing, so we'll pass this by. When they come back, we'll handle that at that time. MS. SanROMAN: Okay. Case 2, Tab 2, CESD20150014619, Peter Wessell as trustee of the Peter Wessell Irrevocable Trust, UTD 2/14/06. MS. CURLEY: What tab? What tab number, anyone? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is Tab 2. MS. SanROMAN: Tab 2. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a violation, a shed without a permit? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, just one little notation. We have a little bit of a typographical error in the spelling of one word. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I do find those from time to Page 61 January 29, 2016 time, but spelling doesn't count, thank goodness for me. Good morning. MR. ODOM: Good morning. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ODOM: Good morning. Michael Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. The gentleman for this case is actually here. He stepped out, and he wants a continuance as of just a little while ago. So I don't know if you want to -- want me to wait and have him come back in in a little while. He actually wrote a letter. I believe he's in the bathroom or right outside or something. He wrote a letter for a continuance as he was sitting here, so I apologize for not knowing about this beforehand. But this is -- oh, here he is right here. MR. WESSELL: I'm Peter Wessell. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have copies for the Board on this letter? MR. WESSELL: I do. MR. ODOM: Yes, he does. Yes, sir. MR. WESSELL: May I approach? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Okay. The rules generally prohibit asking for this without some notice. But why don't you do your presentation, and then we will go to the respondent, and he can request whatever he'd like. MR. ODOM: Okay. Yes, sir. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20150014619 dealing with violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Section 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e)(i). Violation description: A shed-type structure located in the rear yard of the property with no Collier County permits on file. Violation located: 6 Derhenson Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114; Folio 49582200004. Page 62 January 29, 2016 Service was given on July 29, 2015. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Due to the fact that we didn't have time to talk, I don't think Mr. Wessell has seen these photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show them to him now. Mr. Wessell, you'll take a look at the photos and see if it's okay for him to share them with us. Do you have any problem with us seeing those photos? MR. WESSELL: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the photos. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. ODOM: Okay. The first photo was taken by me on July 29, 2015, which shows the structure in question. One aerial photo obtained via Property Appraiser website, which shows the property and the shed from the Year 2015. Additionally, 10 more photos of the shed, both inside and out, taken by me on November 19, 2015. Lastly, one photo taken on January 28th, which shows the violation remains. Concerning the details of this case, on July 21, 2015, Code Page 63 January 29, 2016 Enforcement received a complaint that there was an unpermitted shed in the rear of the property which is being used illegally for living purposes. On July 22, 2015, a site visit was made by me, and no one was home. I was able to see the structure in question from the street. Next, I began researching the property via county records department databases and on site at Property Appraiser's Radio Road location in order to find out the origin of the structure in question and its permitting status as well. After conducting extensive research, it was determined that there are no Collier County permits on file for this structure. For further clarification, a case determination was sent to and received by John Walsh of the Collier County Building Department on December 11, 2015. The result being that a violation did exist and that the structure did need to be permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are there any violations in respect to setbacks? MR. ODOM: It appears that there are. That would be -- the property owner would need to get with the Zoning Department on that. It appears from the Property Appraiser aerial that it is actually encroaching on the rear setbacks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You observed electricity in the -- MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Plumbing? MR. ODOM: There was plumbing at one point, but it had been reverted back, so there's pipes that connect to it, but they're filled with foam. So I believe they are not functional at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Wessell? MR. WESSELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What say you on this? MR. WESSELL: My first request was, could I have the Page 64 January 29, 2016 continuance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like this thing started in July. MR. WESSELL: Actually, I was in the hospital on the date, July 29th, and I didn't actually -- by the time I got out of the hospital, I had a -- was something there saying I had certified mail, but it said that the certified mail would be returned to sender after a certain date, and that certain date had come and gone before I got out of the hospital, so I never got the certified mail. So it was August before I learned anything about it, and -- somewhere in August. I know it was about the middle of August. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was the property ever posted? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you see the posting on the property? MR. WESSELL: I saw the one that Mike had posted relatively recently. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You posted it originally? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In July? MR. ODOM: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WESSELL: That one I did not see. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WESSELL: And I called Code Enforcement and said that I received a thing to pick up certified mail, but that mail was no longer there. And I think Mike would vouch that I've been every bit forthcoming and cooperative and haven't tried to dodge anyone or anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you using that primarily for storage? MR. WESSELL: Exclusively for storage. Page 65 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I think what we should do as a board is to find out whether or not a violation exists, and then we can go from there, okay. And then you -- that would -- MR. WESSELL: I can -- I admit that a violation exists. Well, I, you know, don't have access to the permits. I can't disprove that one was never taken out. What I do know, and Mike knows, is that I was a tenant at 6 Derhenson Drive, a renter, when Code Enforcement got involved 10 years ago, and Code Enforcement had the prior owner rip out a certain amount of the electric, but not all of it, and rip out all of the plumbing and rip out the tiled bathroom in the kitchen, rip out all the walls. It's just a shell now. And Code Enforcement did that, and there's an extensive file on the prior owner. I was living there and was willing to buy the place, and I asked the Code Enforcement employee -- when he was there, I said, is everything okay now with this building back here? And he said, yes, everything is okay with this building now. And based on that, I went ahead and bought the property. And I -- in my opinion, Code Enforcement missed the boat. They blew their opportunity to -- that I've been prejudiced, I've been hurt by their lack of action 10 years ago when I wasn't the owner, and I asked them about it. And why they had this guy rip all this stuff out and let him sell me the property and then come after me 10 years later -- I mean, I did do a little bit of research, and I read some cases that -- where people use an affirmative defense of laches and equitable estoppel and other things, and they seem to have won their cases before county code enforcement boards, and it's just not fair to me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, from the Board's perspective, do we want to find whether a violation exists and, if so, would someone like to make a motion to that effect? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, is he here for a continuance? Page 66 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if there's no case -- if we vote that there is no case, then that becomes moot. MR. LEFEBVRE: But do we vote on a continuance first and then move forward with the case? MR. WESSELL: I'll stipulate there's a violation. I mean, I'm -- the building's there. There's no permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think that -- MS. CURLEY: To the point, he purchased it in 2006 -- MR. WESSELL: Uh-huh. Code Enforcement was there in 2004/'5 when I was a renter there. MS. CURLEY: -- and would have gotten, you know, lien searches and all off the appropriate things to transfer title. So the history of it really is insignificant. The narrative doesn't -- MR. ODOM: If I may, the county has -- I've spoken to Mr. Wessell about the stipulation, and the county has no problem with time, 90 days, 120 days, or even more. If time is an issue, that's not a problem, if he is willing to stipulate. No problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's going to happen, if I can see into the future, is that he has admitted that a violation exists. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If he hires an attorney, to pay the attorney to come in here, he's really starting in the hole, because the respondent has already admitted that -- and the evidence certainly shows it, especially with encroachment on other property, et cetera. It is a big problem. I agree with you that if this was looked at many years ago, why -- do we have a case -- case information from back then? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, we do. It was, like, a rental registration housing case, and what had happened was, that shed/garage-type structure was converted into, like, an apartment of sorts. Walls were put up. Those walls were taken down. The case was closed. And this Page 67 January 29, 2016 particular case came about as a complaint. And when I started researching the entire structure, there were no permits whatsoever, which opened the door for this case based on -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There were no permits 10 years ago either then. MR. ODOM: No, sir, and I can't speak to that because I wasn't here 10 years ago, but I will say -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a record in Code Enforcement -- MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I have it right here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that -- what was done 10 years ago? MR. ODOM: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Was that part of the documentation that we were given or not? MR. ODOM: No, sir. MS. CURLEY: He wasn't the owner then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. I'm just trying to find out, if somebody went out and looked at it, if they only did -- and that's what the respondent is saying. Somebody came out there, looked at it, said everything is okay, and he purchased the property, so -- MS. CURLEY: Well, that's not due diligence for purchasing real estate in this state. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I didn't say it was, but I'm listening to what the respondent is saying. Jeff? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, record -- for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This actual case that this gentleman brought up actually went before the Code Enforcement Board, and a violation was found for the Page 68 January 29, 2016 interior renovations. I believe at that time they were abated. And the county's not arguing that at that point the investigator should have looked more closely at the whole structure rather than just the interior; however, that doesn't alleviate a violation at this time. The way I look at it is they had 10 free years of that building being there unpermitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. It doesn't matter to me, personally, whether you entertain this request for an extension or you vote on whether or not a violation exists. If no violation exists, this case is dead. It goes away. If a violation does exist, then you could bring it back or, you know, grant a continuation on it. So it's up to the Board. MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion we deny the extension and address it under the hearing. We can do the same thing. We can do the 90-day issue, but we've got to start establishing that a violation does exist, especially when this came in as a bonified complaint. We're just allowing the violation to continue after someone brought it to our attention. And it's obvious by the material presented there's a violation. So why would we want to extend something that is extending a violation? MR. ASHTON: Don't we have to confirm that there is a violation first before we even look at extending or doing any other? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. You could do it either way. My point is that if the Board were to vote that there is no violation, then extending it doesn't do you any good. Then it's done. So I would think that that would be the proper way to go. Is there a violation or not? If there is a violation, if that's the way the Board votes, then I would certainly entertain the letter that the respondent wrote requesting additional time. MR. ASHTON: I'll make a motion a violation exists. Page 69 January 29, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: We already have a motion on the table. I second that motion. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. What, the one that's on the table or the new one? MR. LEFEBVRE: The initial motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Repeat your -- MR. LAVINSKI: Right. I made a motion to deny the request for an extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. MS. CURLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's the letter? MR. LAVINSKI: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. At this time? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, we have a motion; we have a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Now, do we want to make a motion whether or not a violation exists? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: I'll second it. Page 70 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So now we know there's a violation. Of course, we knew that probably 10 minutes ago, but we have to go through the process. Now, we have a letter requesting some additional time. Would anybody like to discuss the letter at this time? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MS. CURLEY: No. MR. LAVINSKI: No. I say we disregard the letter and address it in the order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Good idea. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: What are you looking for on a motion now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. LAVINSKI: Do we have a recommendation from the county? Page 71 January 29, 2016 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ODOM: 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 -- excuse me -- abate all violations by one: 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-- per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement; If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One comment before we fill in the blanks. Do you intend to hire an attorney to look into this case? MR. WESSELL: I talked with Mike about the stipulation, and the only problem I had with the stipulation was he said I waived all affirmative defenses if I sign that stipulation, and I believe that I have a legitimate, justifiable affirmative defense in that Collier County should have done something 10 years ago when I specifically asked a Code Enforcement employee if that building was good to go now. They came out there multiple times. The prior owner was belligerent with Collier County. He dragged his feet. He didn't do things he said he was going to do, and so on, so on, so on. It's in the record. And I bought the building. Now Collier County wants me to Page 72 January 29, 2016 spend $30,000, or whatever the heck it costs, to get variances and inspections and all this stuff on the shed. And as far as a legitimate complaint, it's some crackhead that complained that doesn't live in the trailer park. None of my neighbors have a problem with it. In fact, all of my neighbors are encroaching on my property as much as I'm encroaching on theirs, and -- I mean, I don't know if the aerial photographs show any of my neighbors' property, but the trailer park is full of sheds on -- encroaching on setbacks, and none of my neighbors care. I go to church with my neighbors. None of them care. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As Mr. Letourneau said, even though somebody did look at it in the past, this is not for us to decide what they did or didn't do 10 years ago. What we're looking at is the case right now. Is it in violation? Yes, it is. And to remedy that violation, we're being asked by the county to give you X amount of days to resolve the situation, and if you don't resolve it in that time frame, then to place a fine along with that that would accrue until that is resolved. Now, would anybody from the Board like to fill in the blanks on this? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I'll give it a try. I'd like to make a motion that the 65.85 be paid within 30 days. And in consideration of his request for 90, I'd like to make that 120 days, or a fine of$200 per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a second. MR. WESSELL: Sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Yes. MR. WESSELL: I'm sorry. I want to step back to your earlier questions. I -- you know, the stipulation, I understand that it requires my signature. I don't know if it does or does not. And if by signing it Page 73 January 29, 2016 I'm waiving my affirmative defenses, then I don't want to sign it. I do want it -- I would like a continuance and consult with an attorney. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's no stipulation. What we're voting on here is how much time we're going to give you to resolve the situation. You asked for 90 days, and 120 days was granted, so -- MR. WESSELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if you were, for instance, to hire an attorney, he could get ahold of Code Enforcement and do whatever he needs to do to try to resolve the situation. So we're trying to work with you to help you resolve this situation in a fair and equitable way. MR. WESSELL: Yeah, that's what I want, equity. And I just want to make sure that the Board understands that I am asserting an affirmative defense of, I think it's called laches, equitable estoppel limitations. The cases all have different terminology. And there's -- you have to meet specific guidelines. There's like -- for laches, there's four of them that you have to meet, and I've met all four of them. And I'm just not legally prepared to -- so if I could get that 120 days and come back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll have -- as soon as we vote, that's what you'll have. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Page 74 January 29, 2016 You have 120 days. Should you not have -- what? Should you not have everything resolved in 120 days, you can come back and say, this is what I did in the past 119 days to resolve this situation, and at that time -- actually it works out better if you would request it before that time -- you could request an additional amount of time that the Board would consider. But that should be you looking out for yourself as far as getting an attorney involved in resolving the situation. MR. LEFEBVRE: But I want to be very clear. You're not going to come back in 120 days and expect to hear a case -- hear the case or talk about the case. You have 120 days to correct the problem. MR. WESSELL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you clear with that? MR. WESSELL: No, I'm not. My -- no, I'm not. MR. LEFEBVRE: He thinks he's going to come and have a hearing in 120 days. MR. WESSELL: Yeah, I don't want to -- I guess I'm -- I'm asserting the affirmative defense of laches, equitable estoppel, and limitations. I don't know how to legally phrase that or whatever, but I think you know what I'm saying. I'm being treated unjust. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have an attorney that's assigned, and we can -- MS. CURLEY: We're not lawyers. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not attorneys here. MS. CURLEY: We're a volunteer board of peers here. So I don't really know what you mean. MR. WESSELL: Does it sound just to you guys? I mean, does it sound fair to you guys? MS. CURLEY: I'm not that smart. MS. NICOLA: He can assert those equitable defenses here in front of the Board, and the Board can consider them. I mean, I think once they're raised, they have to be considered. I mean, the difficulty Page 75 January 29, 2016 is that, you know, we don't have -- we don't have the law on that in order to -- to analyze it, but I think what he's saying is he's saying that as a result of the delay in bringing forth the matter before the Code Enforcement Board and the promises that were made to him a long time ago, that this board should be estopped or prevented finding him in violation due to his equitable defenses. And it -- what he's saying -- and I'm a little impressed because pro se people that come before even the Court don't know these words. But what he's saying is, is that as a result of the inaction, he's been damaged and that the Board should not be able to find him in violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think we're at a point where we might consider referring this to the County Attorney's Office. MS. NICOLA: I think that's a good suggestion, in my opinion, because he has a valid point. And if it were me and I were sitting over there, I would say, we want to look at this. We'd like to investigate this. Why don't we recall this case next month or something. That would be erring on the side of caution, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you can always come back and ask for a -- MS. NICOLA: Rehearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- an appeal -- yeah, a rehearing on the case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 30 days, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Within 30 days. I would suggest getting legal assistance to do that. You're not in a position to argue that. MR. WESSELL: I am. Maybe, maybe. I have some case law down in my car right now in the parking lot that I'd like to give to the Board and then come back next month after you guys have had a chance to look at the case law. Page 76 January 29, 2016 MS. CURLEY: That's not for us to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think that if you follow what you're suggesting, this is -- the case is -- you have 120 days now. Get ahold of-- my suggestion, for whatever it's worth, get ahold of an attorney, explain your case to him. He knows how to come back here and get a rehearing, he or she, and you can go from there. MR. WESSELL: I have a money problem. That's why there's not an attorney here today. Could I please ask the Board to reconsider my original request for a continuance, and I'll present case law to the Board at that hearing, please? MR. LAVINSKI: We gave him 120 days instead of 90. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, he wants to come back to argue his case. I don't even know if we're in a position to -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Ms. Nicola, what is your recommendation for my suggestion? MS. NICOLA: My recommendation would be to allow him the time to speak with an attorney and to assert the defenses and then to -- have the Board clearly be able to understand what those defenses are and rule on them. There are -- at least there was a real estate group that was taking pro bono cases that could meet with him, but I think he would have to call the Collier County Bar Association. I just -- from where I'm sitting, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with having the Board make a decision that doesn't address at least the elements of the things that he's suggesting and make a decision based on that. I don't know. MR. WESSELL: Which is why if I could have now 30 days, 90 days, 120 days, any -- come back one more time, and I'll supply you and every member of the Board with the case law that I have that is very, very similar to what we're talking about. MR. LETOURNEAU: I just got off phone with the county, and Page 77 January 29, 2016 he agrees that the county would like to take a look at this issue at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you want to withdraw this? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, we'll withdraw it at this point if that's still an option. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have to vote to withdraw this? MS. NICOLA: I think so, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Someone want to make a motion to withdraw the case right now? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, who was the first? And who was the first and who was the second on this? Wouldn't -- they would have to withdraw it? MR. L'ESPERANCE: You mean the original motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think he was the first. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And second, I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know who does know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. If you don't mind, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I think it was Mr. Lavinski's motion and Mr. Lefebvre's second. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to -- if I'm the second, then I'll rescind my second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: No, I'd like -- my motion stands. I think we're going about this wrong. I think the 120 days is more than he asked for Page 78 January 29, 2016 to work the issues. I don't want, as a board member, to be put in a position to try to make a decision based on torts and everything else that might be going around. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's why the County Attorney wants the case -- MR. LAVINSKI: We haven't done that in the past, and the County Attorney can look at it after our order. MS. CURLEY: So we all -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's take it to vote, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we need a second then. Since Mr. Lavinski made the original offer, do we have a second on Mr. -- you withdrew your second. Does Mr. Lavinski have a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, the motion fails. Now, would somebody like to make a motion to withdraw the case? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would like to make that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. Page 79 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're going to take this up with the County Attorney and -- MR. WESSELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good luck. MS. CURLEY: If you happen to have your package from when you bought your house, that would be helpful if you could have all those documents. MR. WESSELL: Yeah, I do, and it mentions title insurance from MS. CURLEY: If you have a survey -- and lots of things in those documents would be helpful for you to collect. MR. WESSELL: I'll get everything I have, and then everything -- yeah, I'll get everything I can. MS. CURLEY: Good luck. MS. SanROMAN: We go to No. 1, Tab 1. Can we go back to that one? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, yes. This is a complicated day today. Welcome back. MS. O'NEILL: Good morning, again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. It's almost -- getting close to afternoon. Okay. So you met with Mr. Mucha out in the hall? MS. O'NEILL: We did, and we agreed it would be appropriate for my client and myself to sign the stipulation at this time, and I believe that's for 120 days, and then we will do our due diligence to encourage Mr. Herrera and work with everyone to try and remedy this problem if possible; otherwise we'll be back here after that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now -- so for processes of documentation, the county will withdraw this case then; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Withdraw? Page 80 January 29, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Stipulate. MR. MUCHA: Stipulate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the stipulation is from another stipulation you have, which is not part of this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Herrera -- Mr. Herrera the stipulation. MR. MUCHA: He signed it on -- last week, January 22nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that in this package? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's regarding this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know it is. Is it in this package? No. That's why -- if this package is withdrawn because you have, already, a stipulation, that would work out. Am I nuts or what? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we wouldn't hear the case. We wouldn't physically hear the case, I think is what Mr. Kaufman's saying. MR. MUCHA: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if you withdraw the case, then we just go to it as a stipulated agreement. MR. MUCHA: Correct, correct, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So let's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So withdraw the case. MR. MUCHA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you going to do that? MR. MUCHA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Did I get my way? Good. MR. MUCHA: Do I read it into the record? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that never came before us, that stipulation, but why not. Read it into the record. MR. MUCHA: All right. Now you've got me really confused. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, you know how to read. Page 81 January 29, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: How can we have a stipulation if we don't have a case? MR. MUCHA: Yeah. No, that's where I'm lost. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who -- he signed the stipulation? MR. MUCHA: He signed the stipulation last week. She's now agreeing to the same stipulation that he signed last week, today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did she sign it? MR. MUCHA: So she signed it. We're all on the same page now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: They're in agreement they're in violation, and they've -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this should have come to the Board, then, as a stipulation? MR. MUCHA: Correct, correct, but we just realized that she wanted to sign the stipulation this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what we would need now is a motion from somebody to accept the stipulation that you're about to read into the record, to accept a stipulation as written. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's the stipulation that you see in front of you. We have a motion to accept that stipulation. Do we have a second? MS. CURLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. MR. LAVINSKI: To my question, though, can we have a stipulation if we don't have a case? MR. LEFEBVRE: We do have a case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We do have a case. MR. LEFEBVRE: We would never hear the case -- Page 82 January 29, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: We just withdrew it. MR. LEFEBVRE: We would never hear the case if we had a stipulated agreement. So what you're doing is you're removing it from today -- the case is being removed from today as a hearing -- MR. MUCHA: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- but we're still going forward as a stipulated agreement. We're not withdrawing the whole case from today. We would never hear a stipulated agreement in its entirety like we would have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me see if I can try. This was the original case that you presented. Prior to this, Mr. Herrera signed the stipulation. MR. MUCHA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And now you have signed that same stipulation. So what probably should have happened is this didn't get presented, the stipulation got presented, we accepted it, and we move on, okay. So you have the stipulation in front of us. The only thing we didn't do was to change the agenda to include this stipulation out of order. MR. MUCHA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So can we get somebody to make -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation out of order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 83 January 29, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So now we have the stipulation there. You read that to us; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: I didn't read it word for word, I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to? MR. MUCHA: Yes. Let me get it on the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: Okay. Met with, as I stated, Mr. Herrera last Friday, January 22nd. He signed it. I met with Ms. Gonzalez today and her attorney, Marie O'Neill, and they both signed it, and they're in agreement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, to abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates 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. Page 84 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And now this was accepted by a motion from Mr. Ashton, seconded by -- MR. LAVINSKI: What's her name? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's her name? By Sue. He said that; I didn't. Okay. And we voted affirmatively, so that's done. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So good luck. MS. O'NEILL: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Could I ask one question of the respondent's attorney? Do you -- I'm a little nervous that you don't really think this is accomplishing what you'd like to accomplish for your client. MS. O'NEILL: That's okay. I'm hopeful we can make something happen in that amount of time. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. Even though you may not believe it way in the back of your mind? MS. O'NEILL: Right. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it will, because there's a $120 -- $200 a day at the end of the road here, if it's not done, that they both stand to lose. So I think that's a good carrot to put in front of someone to get the job done. Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: But if she can't get her client off the hook in this 120 days -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The property will be worth less, and it will get divided however the Court seems fit. MS. O'NEILL: Or I'll be back here with new ideas. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Good luck. MS. SanROMAN: The next case is No. 5, Tab 5, CEVR20150006979, Demetria L. Chadbourne, as trustee of the Page 85 January 29, 2016 Demetria L. Chadbourne Revocable Trust. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Michaelle. It's still morning. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record again, Michaelle Crowley, environmental specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20150006979 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 4.06.05(K)(1), general landscaping requirements, severe over-pruning and hat-racking of two native canopy oak trees and severe over-pruning of two palm trees which left fronds above 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock. Property is located at 6432 Autumn Woods Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34109; Folio 22597004762. Service was given on April 20, 2015, by certified mail. Posting at the courthouse occurred on April 14th and on site on April 17, 2015. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Five photographs taken by me on April 9, 2015, and on January the 28th, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record show the respondent is not present. I'll take a motion to accept the pictures. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 86 January 29, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. Code Enforcement received a complaint from a neighbor about two oak trees being cut down. My inspection on April 9, 2015, revealed that while no trees had been cut down, the two oak trees in the front yard had been very recently stub cut. If we can show the first picture. This was a photograph that I took on April 9th. This shows the tree on the left. The tree on the left was less severely pruned than the one on the right. It still had multiple stub cuts and torn bark. The next picture is the tree on the right. The foliage you see is from the trees on the back from the neighbor's yard. This tree has maybe 10 leaves left on it. The rest of the branches are naked. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does that generally kill the tree? MS. CROWLEY: It is not very good for the tree, and I'll explain that in a second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: These are the two palm trees and, again, the foliage in the background kind of disguises it, but you'll see that all of the fronds from the horizontal plain up to the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock position have been cut back. Okay. We'll wait for those. Both trees are described as being hat-racked. That's a term used because, pretty much, the stubs leave nothing left for the tree to do but serve as a place to hold your hat. I did speak with the occupant of the home who was the brother-in-law of the owner. I provided him with a tree removal -- a Page 87 January 29, 2016 tree trimming guide, asked him to have the owner call me. I did not receive any response, so I prepared the notice of violation and mailed it to the owner at her residence in Maine. On April 21 st, I did receive two phone messages from the owner advising me that she had an arborist, quote-unquote, do the work, but when I called her, she declined to provide to me the name of the person or contractor who did the work. She stated that she didn't like the oak trees because they shaded the small lawn and were messy. I explained why an inspection by a certified arborist was necessary because of the lack of any viable foliage remaining on the trees, and that the code required that that take place, and that if the trees were determined to be irreparably damaged, that they would need to be replaced. I was pretty certain that the palm trees would recover, and they have, but I was also fairly certain that these oak trees had been irretrievably compromised, which was confirmed on June the 1st, 2015, when a certified arborist report came in from Elite Arbor Care, Mr. Santiago Roman. His report concluded, quote, both trees have been drastically reduced well beyond the 25 percent a year required. They are nearly completely defoliated. Improper pruning, i.e., topping and not pruning back to a lateral has left numerous stubs. In my professional opinion, both trees should be removed, end quote. I made multiple attempts to reach out to the owner and got little beyond promises until November the 10th when she called me and stated that her daughter had sent her photographs taken that day showing that the tree had leafed out. And that she believed it was still viable and still living. And I explained to her that just because it has leaves, that was the emergency response that the tree sent to itself. I have no more leaves. I can't photosynthesize nutrients, and they do tend to flesh out with these leaves that are very weakly connected to the tree, and it's very Page 88 January 29, 2016 bad for the tree, and it endangers any branches that would continue to grow therefrom. So I reminded her again that the arborist's report conclusion, the trees had to be replaced. The trees were replaced yesterday. So I have two photographs here. This -- the other way. This is a new tree in the front yard. It's a holly. You can see it does have the dirt embankment so it can retain water. There is a sprinkler head at the base of the tree as well. This is a photograph of the tree in the backyard. She had to get the homeowners association approval for both the variety of the tree and for the placement of the tree. And the reason why the matter was brought before the Board is because neither one of these trees meet the minimum size dimension as far as height that the county ordinances require. The county ordinance requires a 10-foot replacement tree. The tree in the front is 9 feet. The tree in the back is 8.9 feet tall. When the owner called me yesterday late afternoon to advise that the trees had been cut down and replaced, she told me that it was with the largest trees that could be found. I said, let me go out, take a look at them. I did go out. I took those photographs yesterday, measured the trees. And while they meet the width requirement, they meet the root ball size requirement and the caliper, that is the width of the tree trunk, it -- neither tree meets the size height limitation of 10 feet minimum. I called her. She's back in Maine. And she indicated that she had called eight nurseries, that this was the best she could find. I can't confirm that. I do know that this is a busy time of year for all of the nurseries and landscapers because it's season, so it doesn't surprise me. But I don't have the authority to sign off and say this is in compliance because the size of the tree, of either tree, does not meet the county's requirements. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the palm trees have recovered, correct? Page 89 January 29, 2016 MS. CROWLEY: They have recovered. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you take any pictures of those? MS. CROWLEY: I did. I wasn't really -- I did not bring one of that. They've -- palm trees are very resilient. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, all intents and purposes, the tree has been abated. If we extend this for a year, it definitely will be abated. MS. CROWLEY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: The trees will grow about a foot. MS. CROWLEY: And one of the reasons why I would ask the Board -- and it would be in my recommendation that the owner be ordered not to prune any tree on the property beyond what's allowed by county ordinances for the health and safety of the tree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're restating the code. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what we could do is we can find, in fact, there was a violation, but then on the flip side say it has been corrected so that if they come back in front of us, the fine -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There will be a second violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: There would be second violation. MS. CROWLEY: Yes. MS. CURLEY: But she accomplished her ultimate request. MR. LAVINSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: She's got less shade. MS. CROWLEY: Unfortunately, that is the case. I'm -- MR. LAVINSKI: I'd make a motion that a violation does not exist. MS. CURLEY: What do you mean? MR. LEFEBVRE: A violation did exist at one point, and what we're trying to do is, if it happens again, there's fines that would be -- additional fines. It was a little more of-- MR. LAVINSKI: Well -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: However, at the time of hearing, we're Page 90 January 29, 2016 talking about a difference of one foot, 12-inches. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So technically -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: The trees have been replaced. I'd like to second your motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Technically there is still a violation because they are not within the county code. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion and a second that a violation does not exist; is that correct? MR. LAVINSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second from Mr. Ashton. MR. ASHTON: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion on the motion? Oh, it was on Lionel? I'm sorry, Lionel. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You can rename me. That's okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: It still is in violation, as stated by the inspector that the -- investigator that the trees are not within the Land Development Code. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We need to count up the votes. I think the motion failed. Page 91 January 29, 2016 MS. CURLEY: We're not big into not telling the truth here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would the -- would you like to -- MR. LAVINSKI: It's just two inches over the line or four inches? Give me a break. There's no violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think that maybe the remedy for the violation will come out and resolve the situation. Mr. Lefebvre, would you like to take a shot at the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MS. CURLEY: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Opposed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes. Now, you have a suggestion for us, Michaelle. MS. CROWLEY: I do. The recommendation would be that the code board order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations within blank days, or a fine of blank shall be imposed by: No. 1, ceasing any and all excessive pruning on required landscape trees and follow the pruning practices referenced in the standard practices for trees, shrubs, and other woody plant maintenance. Those are known as the ANSI, the A-N-S-I, Standards, Page 92 January 29, 2016 300, as adopted by the Collier County Land Development Code; Two, replacing the two oak trees that were found to be irreparably damaged, as determined by a certified arborist, with two trees that meet the minimum standards. I'm willing to -- I understand that those trees, within a relatively short period of time, will both grow to over 10 feet tall; however, as -- by myself, I don't have the authority to deviate from the code, so I had to bring it before the Board, but -- so No. 2 has actually been completed. Those trees have been replaced. MR. LEFEBVRE: So let's strike that from this. MS. CROWLEY: We can, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you get to the end, and then we'll -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Sorry. MS. CROWLEY: Well, I would strike the last one because she notified me yesterday that it was abated, and I confirmed it, so that's no longer necessary either. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that leaves us with No. 1. MS. CROWLEY: Correct, just to prevent the problem from happening again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I'm sure she's having lively conversation with the Autumn Woods Homeowners Association also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. CROWLEY: Well, Autumn Woods is the development that makes more complaints about over-pruning than any other development. So I'm not surprised that it took her a while to work with them. You know, they pride themselves on the way it looks. And, you're right, she got her goal of getting rid of the oak trees in the front yard. MS. CURLEY: Very nice. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what we could do is we could strike No. 2 Page 93 January 29, 2016 and 3, and then we also can strike anything past 30 days because the violation has been abated. MS. CROWLEY: Correct. If-- yes. Because the Board can order that this is in compliance, so that's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. CROWLEY: I'm okay with that, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to take a shot at the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just as I stated, we're going to strike in the first paragraph "after 30 days," and then strike No. 2 and 3. So then it would be a repeat offense if it came back in front of us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the 65.43 paid within 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, which is what the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second on that motion? MS. CURLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two opposed. It passes. Thank you, Michaelle. MS. SanROMAN: That would take us to Old Business, No. 6, Old Business, Letter A, Motion for Imposition of fines, Case 1, No. 1, Tab 8, CESD20140019519, Stephen Shane Clary and Christopher Page 94 January 29, 2016 Jason Clary. MR. CLARY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ASHTON: Question, Mr. Chairman. It says that the operational costs have not been paid. Have they been paid? MS. SanROMAN: They have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it says the violation has been partially abated. MR. SHORT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are here to -- if you would, state your name on the mike. MR. CLARY: Stephen Clary. Christopher Clary's incarcerated at this point in time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have his permission to -- MR. CLARY: I do not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But you are one of the people that are named? MR. CLARY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. And you are here to request what? MR. CLARY: A little more time till he gets out and he can get all of his affairs in order, and then we can proceed with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's left on this? It says it's partially abated. MR. SHORT: It's the actual removal of the secondary mobile home. The first part of the order was to have the utilities disconnected and it be vacated, and that was done on April 6, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was done on April? MR. SHORT: Yes. Page 95 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: So what's before us now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The respondent is asking for more time to remove the -- MR. CLARY: The mobile home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the mobile home. MR. LAVINSKI: So we're still looking to remove a mobile home? MS. CURLEY: How much longer until your -- MR. CLARY: He gets out May 9th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Will he be able to -- I mean, is anybody living in the mobile home? MR. CLARY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it requires, what, just have it trailered off? MR. CLARY: Demoed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is there any particular reason why you have to wait for him to come out? MR. CLARY: Well, yeah. All of his possessions. Every -- it's his property, everything, the mobile home, all the possessions in it. MS. CURLEY: So the mobile home is titled to him? MR. CLARY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you, okay. MS. CURLEY: So the property -- MR. CLARY: No, not me, him. Ifs his. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. The dirt is owned by the both of you. MR. CLARY: Correct. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. Got it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. He gets out May what? MR. CLARY: May 9th. MR. LEFEBVRE: It might be cheaper to move his stuff into Page 96 January 29, 2016 storage than to pay $100 a day. MR. CLARY: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, right now the fines are $12,900. MR. CLARY: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if it's -- if we extend this until May, that's -- $100 a day adds up real quickly. MR. CLARY: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was he incarcerated on the 22nd of October? MR. CLARY: Yes, he was. MR. LEFEBVRE: When this case was heard, correct? MS. CURLEY: Yeah, I've only seen him. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or no, March 26th. Sorry, March 26th it was heard. MR. CLARY: Yes, and we was following through with the processes, and then he got incarcerated. MS. CURLEY: I think we should extend it. MR. LEFEBVRE: And on the 22nd of October you said he was incarcerated, but that wasn't brought up back -- it wasn't brought up then. MR. CLARY: Yes, we did. We did mention it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then why did we just extend it for a few months? MS. CURLEY: We're being nice. So if we extend it till his release date, do you think a month after that would be enough time for him to manage that? MR. CLARY: Yes, yes. MS. CURLEY: I mean, he can only do so much. It's not his property. MR. CLARY: Him and his wife's going through a divorce. They've got all their belongings in that place, and she's not in town. Page 97 January 29, 2016 He's incarcerated. MS. CURLEY: Was the complaint from a neighbor? MR. CLARY: Yes. MR. SHORT: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. There's nobody living there now? MR. SHORT: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The utilities have been disconnected? MR. SHORT: There's no imminent life-safety issue at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: The county -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, are we looking for a continuance then, perhaps, till June 1st? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, our meeting in June is whatever day it is, so -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: The end of June. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. SanROMAN: The 23rd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 23rd of June. MS. SanROMAN: June 23rd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- MR. LAVINSKI: Can we extend this so fines would not accrue any further? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can. MS. CURLEY: And we want to make sure that when he comes home, he doesn't move in there. MR. CLARY: He won't, no. He's moving out of state. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which means how is he going to take care of this issue? MR. CLARY: As far as? Page 98 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All the stuff that's in the trailer. MR. CLARY: It's going with him, I would imagine. MS. CURLEY: Rent a U-Haul. MR. CLARY: Selling it, a yard sale. I don't know what he's going to do with it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make that motion that we -- are we continuing or extending? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Extending. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Extending until -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: June 23rd. MR. L'ESPERANCE: June 23rd of this year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. CLARY: Thank you. MR. SHORT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't let him sit around the end of May. Get him busy. MR. CLARY: Okay. Page 99 January 29, 2016 MS. SanROMAN: We've got No. 2, Tab 9, CELU20100021891, Kenneth R. Tannassee. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself, as the -- one of-- my employer -- Ken, is a subcontractor for my employer. So I'll be recusing myself and stepping down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself in a similar fashion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we have enough people. MS. CURLEY: You've got a lot of friends here. MS. NICOLA: Do we have a voting quorum? MR. TANNASSEE: I'm a nice guy. MR. LAVINSKI: Do we have a quorum? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. We have enough people to vote on things. Okay. This one goes back to March of 2011. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are here today for the imposition of fines of$65,170.05. And you are requesting what? MR. TANNASSEE: I'm requesting -- we're at the point with the project -- Maria -- I asked Maria and Cristina Perez to meet us on the property Wednesday this week to look at the progress we've made from -- in one year since we purchased the property. We've constructed an entire home. We're at the point of paint, and the drywall is complete. They're finishing the drywall. We just need to do the wet areas. And I met with Jonathan Walsh with the county, the Building Department, asking the minimal items we need to complete to get a CO. We're nearing that now. We just need paint. The house is completely done; stucco. We've had a lot of issues with the rain lately. Page 100 January 29, 2016 When Maria and Christina was out Wednesday, it was pouring rain. We had a small portion to complete with stucco. I wrote a letter addressing the items we've dealt with. We have a lot of issues with getting materials. There's thousands of homes being constructed. And delivery of material, windows, doors, we originally were told three to four weeks. We're running close to 16 weeks with getting windows, doors, and just basic materials. They're -- the suppliers, Naples Lumber, Raymond Lumber. We're dealing with local suppliers, reputable suppliers, and just getting materials is tough. They're delivering to the large companies. But, you know, we were able to get it done. We're at the point now where the home is done. We're doing interior finishing, finishing the drywall to go to paint. The stucco, we have a tiny bit to do. I think we're -- things are drying up now. We -- the stucco needs, I think, 28 days to cure before we can paint it. We're told that we can do a hot primer after seven days, but we don't want to do anything to sacrifice the finished quality of the home. We need about 28 days for the stucco to dry. We can paint. The interior's pretty much -- we're just -- the wet areas are being done right now, tile, and we can paint the interior right after that and get our CO. But we just need a little -- little bit more time. Maria was on site Wednesday. She has pictures of, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maria? MS. RODRIGUEZ: They are asking for a continuance. And me and Cristina did go out there, and they are at their finals. I have a copy of the inspection for the permit for the single-family home that they're building, if you'd like to see it. They're just a few away. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Just read the permit number into the record, I think, should be sufficient. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Permit No. PRBD20141235759, is the permit number. Page 101 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many inspections are left? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He's got all the finals, of course. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've got final electric, final framing, final plumbing. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Plumbing, yeah. Final roofing, final plumbing, final A/C, or A/C final, electric, site drainage, because that's done toward the end, and the landscaping, and the TV/telephone final, and septic. That's about it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what's left is -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: All his finals. All he has to do is just finish up whatever, you know, they're asking for here, and he should be done. MR. TANNASSEE: I don't want to interrupt you. The paint, we have to paint the exterior in order to do the grading, you know, to bring the dirt. So as soon as the stucco cures, we paint the exterior. We can do all of our exterior work and call for final inspections. We can't get our finals without the exterior paint and the grading on the outside. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When do you think you will be finished? MR. TANNASSEE: We expect in 28 days from now we get our paint done -- 30 days let's say -- and we can go to paint. Paint should take about a week to do, so we're figuring about two months. I just hate coming in here, you know, time after time asking for some time. We're pushing everyone hard, and I don't want to sacrifice the quality of the finished product. So we're there, you know. We're figuring in two months we should be able to get our CO and stop the fines, and we'll present that. You know, we can have code enforcement come out every two, three weeks, a month, and look at the progress. I sent them -- we're expecting 60 days we should be able to get everything completed, but I don't want to -- I just wanted a little extra time in case we run into any problems. Page 102 January 29, 2016 MS. TANNASSEE: With the rains, there's also a lot of rain involved. So if we paint -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We realize that you've put a lot of work into this. This is one of the cases that Mr. Lefebvre mentioned where someone said, just give me some time, and I won't sell it. That got sold. And -- MR. TANNASSEE: If I can say -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know you've done a lot of work to get this done. MS. CURLEY: So you're not moving any time soon? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they're going to finish it and get a CO for the house. MS. CURLEY: How big's the dining room table? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I make a motion to extend 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: I second that. MR. LAVINSKI: Are we going to extend or continue? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Continue. MS. CURLEY: I beg your pardon. Corrected. Make a motion to continue it 90 days. MR. ASHTON: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for a 90-day continuance. Hopefully that's 30 days past. You should be able to have a party in there in the ensuing months. Okay. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: (Abstains.) Page 103 January 29, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: I have one question, though. On here where your stucco cracked because of the concrete seams, BQ (sic) didn't do that concrete work, did they? MR. TANNASSEE: No, he did not. And I'd like to say that I know a year ago when we came before you, we did a -- well, we're doing our due diligence. The previous owner is deceased now, so we can't sell the property back to him. I know you made that comment that we were going to flip it back to him. So that's out of the question now, right? MR. LAVINSKI: Right. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. TANNASSEE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sure you'll be back in 90 days because the -- MR. TANNASSEE: The fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the fines look to be somewhat substantial. MS. CURLEY: Bring us pictures. MR. TANNASSEE: I will, I will. Thank you. MS. CURLEY: It's like we've lived through this whole thing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Five years. MS. SanROMAN: We've got No. 7, Tab 14, CESD20140025741, Steven R. Cuiffo. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I assume that you're here to ask for something. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yeah. MS. CURLEY: Every time. MR. RICCIARDELLI: I apologize for my voice. I've been sick Page 104 January 29, 2016 for a couple weeks. Yes, a -- and you have to give me a sticky. Continuance, I believe. MS. CURLEY: Continuance keeps the fines rolling. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RICCIARDELLI: That's fine, because I'll probably have to come back at the end and ask for an abatement anyway. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What do we -- what are we doing here? A mobile home -- MS. CURLEY: Oh, this is the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- was added to the property between 2012 and 2013 with no permits. MS. CURLEY: We have a gentleman in the military. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. If you want me just to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, just a quick -- MR. RICCIARDELLI: I work for JC Kazinski Engineering, and I was tasked with figuring out a way to get zoning to allow him to keep the building. We went through that for about a year. Ultimately, zoning would not allow it. So Mr. Cuiffo then was asked to remove the trailer. That has been done. We have a demolition permit that I personally put in my personal contractor's license for him to be able to do that. He was given a power of attorney to pick it up, and he has not been able to get back into the country to be able to do that. And I was sick, or I would have done it myself. If I have a little bit more time, I'll go get it. All I have to do is make one inspection, and everything is taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you need? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Honestly, if I had the permit in my hand, I would make the phone call now, and it could be done Monday. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about 30 days? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir, perfect. Page 105 January 29, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: That was quick. Make a motion to continue for 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Maybe you caught what he has. MR. RICCIARDELLI: I hope not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. I should have let you speak. I'm sorry. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. It's okay. I think we're fine now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Easiest case you had, huh? MS. SanROMAN: The next one, it's No. 8, Tab 15, CESD20150009975, John L. Robert Cipolla and Leslie Ricciardelli. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You look familiar. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yeah. This is my personal house. I don't know if you remember or not. There's a little storage shed that my father-in-law had started. I have the permit. The roofer that's involved doesn't want to take responsibility for Page 106 January 29, 2016 just that part without doing the entire roof. In the meanwhile, my wife has decided that she wants to put tile on instead of regular shingles. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't grant divorces here. MS. CURLEY: We're not making decisions for your marriage either. MR. RICCIARDELLI: The permit by affidavit, all inspections have been done except for the roofing in progress. And, once again, I ask for a little more time so that -- you know, the roofer was ready to do it this past month, and rain caught him every time he was going to get ready to go out and do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If I'm not mistaken, roofing in progress means one shingle; is that correct? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Not necessarily because now the code is that -- regardless of what you do to your roof, they have to take everything off the entire roof and check the nailing patterns to make sure that everything's been nailed correctly with a certain pattern of nails. So that's part of the holdup also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So on this, you are requesting? MR. RICCIARDELLI: Whatever amount of time the Board feels. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would 30 days be enough since you're already going to be probably here in 30 days? MR. RICCIARDELLI: If I could get 60. I just don't want to come up and see you guys any more. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you'd be coming next month potentially. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yeah, but that's for something that doesn't have anything to do with me. MS. CURLEY: He doesn't want to pay us $64 unnecessarily. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you don't want to come here and Page 107 January 29, 2016 see us again. You're going to hurt our feelings. What does the county say? MS. PULSE: We have no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion for a 60-day continuance. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second for a 60-day continuance. Any conversation on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. RICCIARDELLI: I appreciate your time. Thank you. You guys have been awesome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Feel better. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have a good day. MS. SanROMAN: The next one, No. 11, Tab 18, CEVR20140007649, Piotr and Joanne A. Banski. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. KAWANA: Good morning. For the record -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. And as I have said so many times today, have you a request of us? MR. BANSKI: Well, I've seen you here a couple months ago, and I was sure that I was going to clear the trees that had been cut Page 108 January 29, 2016 down on my property, the back of my property, by January, or end of January, but the company that was going to do it told me, you know, come back in January because we're too busy to do it. And when I had no response, I hired a different company to do it for me. He came back in there with the front loader and mentioned to me that he has to get a special rake in order not to get rid of the nice dirt that I have under those trees, because I put a bunch of-- you know, truckloads of nice dirt so I can put more sod in there. I think that the rake already came in, so he's going to be able to start next week to take care of it, take care of the problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you'll be done in? MR. BANSKI: Hopefully February, but with so much rain now, it's not 100 percent sure. He told me by February 29th, weather permitting, of course. So if I get two months, I'm 100 percent sure it will be finished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county says? MS. KAWANA: For the record, Teal Kawana. I visited the property the other day. It's still pretty much in the same state as it was the last time we heard it. He has about 98 percent done. He only has a few more things to do, so we're kind of leaving it up to the Board to make a decision. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: So what's happened since July? MS. KAWANA: I guess, Piotr, the contractor you had, he wasn't able to follow through. MR. BANSKI: Yeah. I mean, he was too busy doing other work. It's BJ Excavating. And I know the owner personally. So he told me he just had too much work in order to come into my house and get rid of it for me. He's the one -- they're the ones that took out the trees and took out the shed that was in the back of my property back then. So I wanted to have the same guys take care of it for me. But since they Page 109 January 29, 2016 were so busy, they wouldn't have the time for me. So after, you know, trying to get them in there, I noticed they're not going to do it, so I hired a different person to take care of it for me. And he already came with the front-loader. He pushed some of the stuff around, just to kind of see and get a feel, and when he did that, he told me, give me a week, I'm getting a rake, not to damage the dirt that's under those branches that have been cut down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You hired Pee-Wee to haul, that's the letter. MR. BANSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: And the date of this is January 9th, so had they had all the right equipment, it would have been done by now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolley car. MS. CURLEY: That's exactly right. I make a motion to extend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long? Try 60. MS. CURLEY: Sixty days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BANSKI: That's plenty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: I'll second. MR. LAVINSKI: This is an extension? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a motion for continuance, correct? MR. LAVINSKI: Or an extension? MS. CURLEY: Fines keep rolling? Continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Page 110 January 29, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have your 60 days. MR. BANSKI: Thank you. It will be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't get stuck in the mud. MS. SanROMAN: The next one, No. 12, Tab 19, CEROW20150001263, 5681 Dogwood, LLC. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. GIGUERE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think your respondent is not here; is that correct? MS. GIGUERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. GIGUERE: I did receive an email from him asking that the fines not be imposed, or be waived. He is a new owner of the property and has inherited quite a few different issues, and he has been working diligently to correct everything on this property. And between the weather and the permitting process, this culvert issue took a little longer than expected, but it has now been abated. Vicky Giguere with Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this has been abated? MS. GIGUERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have spoken with them, Page 111 January 29, 2016 and they've asked you to ask the Board to abate the fines? MS. GIGUERE: Yes. I spoke with him yesterday. At the last minute he found out he would not be able to make it here today, so he sent me an email asking if the fines could be waived. I can give a copy of that email to you guys if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think if I had to go to some meeting that was going to give me $6,200, I would go to that meeting and not send somebody an email, but that's just me. MR. LAVINSKI: How long ago did you notify him of this hearing? MS. GIGUERE: The notice -- MS. SanROMAN: Certified mail was sent on January 6, 2016. The courthouse was posted on January 7. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I agree. He's had ample time to take this under consideration. I'll make a motion we impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second it for purposes of discussion. And one of the things that I'd like to discuss is the total amount. The total amount listed is $6,214. Do you think maybe there'd be a compromise? This was a moderate violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: He just took ownership of the property in November, so -- MS. CURLEY: Oh. MR. LEFEBVRE: And he is working towards abating several other issues on the property, so I don't see how imposing -- MS. CURLEY: I also agree that not being here probably wasn't the best decision; however, I think there's less of a penalty for that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Page 112 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd almost like to see us abate all of it except for maybe $500 just to make a point. MS. CURLEY: So we have to vote on the motion on the floor? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I seconded it just for the purposes of discussion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Bring it to a vote, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Opposed? MS. CURLEY: Nay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I think -- what do we have? MS. CURLEY: We're split. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Split. Yeah, one, two, three, and one, two, three; 50/50. MS. CURLEY: So it fails? MR. LEFEBVRE: So the motion dies. MS. CURLEY: So I'd make a motion to abate all of the fines with the exception of$500. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second on that mo -- oh, you have a second. MR. ASHTON: It's seconded. MR. LEFEBVRE: And is that inclusive of the operational costs for today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or it would be 500 plus the -- Page 113 January 29, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Plus operational costs. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- operational costs. Okay. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MS. GIGUERE: Thank you. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. That's more than fair. MS. SanROMAN: The next case is No. 13, Tab 20, CEV20150013943, Jack O'Connor. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike. MR. O'CONNOR: Jack O'Connor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. O'Connor, could you tell us what you'd like us to do? MR. O'CONNOR: I need a continuance for about 60 days. The -- this has to do with vehicles that are unregistered being on property. They belong to a tenant who I'm evicting, and it's just going to take some time to get rid of him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why wouldn't that just be a telephone call to a tow company and have them towed off? MR. O'CONNOR: Because you get thrown in jail if you do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You do? Page 114 January 29, 2016 MR. O'CONNOR: I can't do that. I tried that. MS. CURLEY: Have you started the eviction? MR. O'CONNOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I just went to a seminar run by Dwight, our Clerk, and we talked about evicting people. I know it's a hassle. We didn't talk about removing vehicles. MS. CURLEY: Did you hire a company, or are you doing it yourself? MR. O'CONNOR: No. We've hired a company and somebody to handle the eviction. And I spoke with Emerald Towing. I'm from the other coast. I drove over for this meeting. And he said, no, it's his. If he were to hook to it, hook to his vehicle, then I would get arrested for theft because, technically, until he's thrown out, I don't have any right to touch anything in the property. It would be as if I were to enter the property and throw his furniture out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So he has a lease right now? MR. O'CONNOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And that's his property, that he has an active lease that hasn't -- eviction hasn't been finalized. MR. O'CONNOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: But he's hired a firm to -- MR. O'CONNOR: To evict. MS. CURLEY: -- manage that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. If I had somebody park their car on my front lawn, I wouldn't have to wait. I could just have it towed away, but the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Because they don't have a right to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Page 115 January 29, 2016 Mr. O'Connor and his wife have been emailing me throughout, after we had signed the stipulation, constantly, and the residents of the property right now, the renters, will not let me on the property. I can still see from my legal vantage point that there are unlicensed vehicles on the property, but Mr. O'Connor -- from what he's saying, it is true that the people vehemently will not let me check the rest of the property. But the vehicles in question are still there as well as the trailer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask a question. Can you see if these are unlicensed vehicles? MR. BALDWIN: I see that the trailer -- I can see this one blue vehicle in the front of the property is still unlicensed. Two -- other two that were cited before previously while I was able to access the property, I could not tell if they are still licensed (sic), but Mr. O'Connor has agreed with me today. I don't know if he was on the property or if the renters agreed that those still two, both, are unlicensed. MR. O'CONNOR: I was on the property this morning. They're not licensed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought that unlicensed vehicles are different than licensed vehicles by tenants, but I could be wrong. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've got a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 116 January 29, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR: Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: Our next case, it's No. 15, Tab 22, Deutsche Bank Trust Company America as trustee for Rali 2006-QS4. MR. ASHTON: Question. Has the operational costs been paid? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What tab? MS. SanROMAN: Yes, they have been paid. Tab 22. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CROWLEY: For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement. Just a little bit of a background. This one's a little bit different. The Code Enforcement Board hearing was held on November 20, 2015, and the order was issued. Deutsche Bank became the owner of the property after the foreclosure sale when the certificate of title was recorded on November the 24th, four days after the Code Enforcement Board hearing, which is why we didn't have to start all over again. We just changed the name of the owner on the caption of the imposition of fines. The other interesting thing is, for the record, I will indicate that I did go out to the property yesterday and verified that the violation did remain. It was pouring down rain, and the significance will be revealed in a moment. I got a phone -- or an email and a phone message this morning while I was here from the neighbor, who's also the complainant, that somebody came to their property yesterday and turned the water on and that water is pouring out of the garage unabated. So I was able to send an email this morning to the servicer Page 117 January 29, 2016 and to the Deutsche Bank representative that we had on our contact list, and hopefully they'll be able to take care of it. I just wanted to put that on the record. We're trying to do what we can to minimize any damage to the property. This was a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, Section 3.05.08(C). Location: 6157 Golden Oaks Lane, Naples; Folio 41933880000. The past order was on November the 20th, 2015, the code 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, OR5217, Page 2231, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of January the 29th, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$150 per day for the period between December the 21st, 2015, to January the 29th, 2016, 40 days, for a total fine of$6,000. The fines continue to accrue. The previously assessed operational costs of $65.01 have not been paid. MS. SanROMAN: Have not. MS. CROWLEY: Has not -- have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $64.17. For a total amount, $6,129.18. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to impose? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 118 January 29, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Typically, when the operational costs are not paid, that's what we generally do, impose. MS. CROWLEY: Okay. I don't think anybody from the bank has been to the property. When I was there yesterday, I could see that my notice of hearing and my business card are still taped on the front door. Nobody's removed them and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably need a boat to get there. MS. CROWLEY: It's running downhill, so it's running down onto the road. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was it a broken pipe, or someone intentionally -- MS. CROWLEY: No. According to the neighbor, somebody came to the property yesterday, went inside, presumably turned on the water. The property's been vacant since early November when the tenant moved out, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Someone's trying to get even. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: The next case is 17, Tab 24, CESD20150007374, Donald R. Ward. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike. MR. WARD: Donald Ward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are here to request? MR. WARD: That the fines not be imposed. Page 119 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because? MR. WARD: I've corrected the problem and demoed the building that was in violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says on our paperwork that the violation has not been abated, so let me -- MS. SanROMAN: Tab 24. You have a revised. MR. ASHTON: It has been abated. MS. PATTERSON: Yes, it has been abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't know why I didn't get that one. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's in our package. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. So you have all the permits. Everything's done? MR. WARD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: This is the one that -- well, I'm looking at the wrong one here. Not been abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here's the revised. MR. LAVINSKI: This is Tab 24, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. And that's the unrevised. MS. CURLEY: So the building's gone? MR. WAGNER: Yes, it's gone. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And the operational costs have been paid? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What we're talking about now, the fines that have accrued total $6,463.75; is that correct? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I make a motion to abate the entire amount. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. Page 120 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. WAGNER: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: The next case, 18, Tab 25, CESD20140009842, Kelly Lynn Romine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How are your fingers? You're good. How's your kidneys? Okay? Okay. We're set. MS. NICOLA: I just want to say on the record I have a conflict at -- I have to be somewhere 1 :10. I don't know how close we're going to get to that, but it's something I can't cancel. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And I have the same conflict. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm leaving shortly, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unlikely story. We should be done by then. MS. NICOLA: Okay. Hope so. Thanks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I'm leaving. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 121 January 29, 2016 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says that the violation has been abated and the previous operational costs have been paid. And you say? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: We agree. The county agrees. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to abate and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we call the people that are here now so -- call their cases so they don't have to wait any more. MR. CABAL: William Cabal. MS. SanROMAN: Number 21, Tab 28, CESD20150003265, William T. Cabal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are here to request? MR. CABAL: More time to get it -- finish the building that I need to finish because I was not able to get the permit, but -- it's a long story, if-- I can tell you a little bit. Page 122 January 29, 2016 Last time I was here, they give me six months to do the repairs and everything, but I'm on disability. I don't have a lot of money, but I try to do all the paperwork, the drawings, everything myself. I was not able to do this, so I hired an architect, which he did these blueprints, and they were not good enough to do -- get the permit. So I had to do -- I went over there to get a permit for demolition on 1/14, and I explained to them what was the problem, so they told me to talk to somebody else, which I did, and when I talked to Mr. Ronald, I believe his name -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Renald Paul. MR. CABAL: -- from FEMA, he tells -- I explained to him what was going on, because the architect say I had to raise my -- it's a carport. It's nine poles with a roof That's all it is, a carport. He said I needed to put, like, 20 loads of dirt to raise this building to be the same height of my house. So I said, I can't afford it. I don't have all the money to do this. The intention, it was only to repair and make a -- so I get the permit and pass inspection. Well, I talked to the gentleman from FEMA. He say I don't have to have all this dirt. All I need to do is pour four inches of concrete and get a permit to do whatever need to be done, and that was it. So they give me the permit. I said all this -- I've been trying to get a permit and hire an architect, which I have here that it was no good. I have now the permit right here for the carport, and now I'm waiting for them to tell me what do I need to do. So I hired another architect, so he look at it and tell me what I need to do. So all I need is more time to be able to -- the other architect sent to the Collier County the right blueprints to do the repairs, but I already got a permit, and I need more time. I'm sorry. But I'm getting kind of sick. My throat's killing me. But I've done everything I could. I took a long time, and I Page 123 January 29, 2016 apologize, because I don't have a lot of money. I'm on disability. And I was doing all this myself. I did a lot of blueprints, drawing all this thing. It didn't work. And this is what I got. It didn't work. I pay $1,500 for this, and it was no good. So now I have another architect. But they give me the permit. And I have it right here, the permit numbers, if you want to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the permit is going to allow you to... MR. CABAL: The permit is going to allow me to do -- because I learned that I have to do additional work to be able to pass the inspection because I hire another architect -- this architect told me what was the problem, but he didn't do it right on the blueprints. So the other architect already went down there, and he told me it was no problem. As soon as he gets from the -- they explain what needs to be done, he will go -- he's going to do the right blueprints so I can do the repairs, and hopefully I will pass the inspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long is it going to take you? MR. CABAL: I would appreciate if you give me as much time as possible, because I need to do it slowly, because I'm on disability, and I want to do it. I just want to do it and pass the inspection. It's just a carport, and if you licensed to be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When I ask you how long do you think it will take, we can't write down on the order "as much time as possible." MR. CABAL: If you could give me three months, six months, that would be -- that would be good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This has been going on since June. MR. CABAL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To do a carport can't possibly take a year. MR. CABAL: I understand; I understand. The problem -- if I Page 124 January 29, 2016 had the money, I'd do it within a week. It would be done in a week. The problem is really, I'm on disability, and I have to do it slowly. My daughters are helping me. Friends are helping me. And like I say, it's nine poles. This is all it is, nine poles and the roof. That's all it is. And just -- whatever it takes, it's -- give me as much time as possible, and I promise it will be done, because I don't want to pay any fines, nothing. By the way, on the 1/14, when I went down there and they told me this blueprint was no good, the reason I went down there is to get the permit for demolition. And I have all the paperwork. And I was going to do that demolition so I had to -- the case will be over. But when I went to talk to Ronald from FEMA, he say, no, you really don't have to do it. I took pictures and everything. They saw it, and they look at it. They say, the building is not much. So they told me, no. He give me a document where -- also that I don't have to put any dirt. It's high enough so I can put just a floor and redo whatever I have to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're repeating yourself. So we'll go to the county. MS. GIGUERE: For the record, Vicky Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. There's actually a couple of accessory structures and some exterior lighting that's all being worked on at the same time. So it's taking some time, you know, with not getting approved for the permits and then needing different drawings and all that. He does have permits under review at this time. So he's already received one letter to submit some corrections and is working on those. But, like he said, he can only do so much with the financial situation he's in. But he is working towards keeping these and permitting them. And there's no health or safety issue with these structures. Page 125 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You said there's lighting. Lighting to me means electrical. MS. GIGUERE: Not necessarily lighting in the carport themselves. He would like to add that, and it will be listed on the permit, but there are some lights that have been somehow hooked up to trees in the rear yard, so those are all going to be encompassed into the permits and everything and whatever doesn't pass for him to keep, he will be removing those. MR. CABAL: I am -- excuse me. I am a licensed electrician from the state of Virginia. I have it from 11 cities. And so what I did, I have pine trees, and within 20 feet, I put a security light, and I run PVC and switch and the light. I have, like, three or four on all the trees close to my house. Like I said, I'm a licensed electrician. I did it for many, many years, and I doing it properly. And I'm going to make sure that, like she says, it's going to be included within the permit. It's required -- whatever has to be done, I'm going to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. From the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: One question on this lighting. Is the result of this violation on the lighting the fact that the lights are shining onto the neighbor's property? MS. GIGUERE: No. It's just simply for no permits. MR. LAVINSKI: Oh, okay. But that wasn't part of a complaint? MS. GIGUERE: No. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody care to take a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: What are we looking for, 60 days? MR. CABAL: I would see if I could get a lot more just because Page 126 January 29, 2016 of the money issue. And the building is almost 75 feet away from my house. I have two-and-a-quarter acres. It's very far, and it's not bothering anybody. It went through the storm. I wish I would have bring you pictures. There's trees all over my house, my neighbors, and the building is still standing. I was sure I made it properly, but I just didn't get a permit, that was all. But it went through -- MS. CURLEY: You could have got a free demo from the storm. MR. CABAL: Right. That would have been nice so I didn't have to worry about nothing else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He asked for as much time as possible. MR. CABAL: It's really the money issues, really, because it probably is not going to take a lot of money, but slowly I want to do it because I have friends and family willing to help me. I'm on disability. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to grant a -- make a make a motion for continuance for 90 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Page 127 January 29, 2016 You have 90 days. MR. CABAL: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Don't come back in 90 days and say you need 90 days more. MR. CABAL: I move out of Naples. Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: Our next case is 23, Tab 30. I believe they're present. CESD20150013679, Lin Lin Wang. Tab 30. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. WANG: Hi. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name for the microphone purpose. MS. WANG: Lin Lin Wang. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are here to request? MS. WANG: Remove the final (sic). And I don't -- the language -- English is not my first language, and you guys have a little bit patience with me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your English sounds fine. MS. WANG: Thank you. And I asking for remove the finals (sic) because when -- last time I was here, the company not help me to do -- we already -- I already paid company to apply the permit for the house. And the reason I want to do the own building myself, and that's why I signed the agreement with the county say I will finish everything end of December. And then at the time the company already get the permit for me, it's already end of December. I just get a permit from county. The county helped me to apply the permit. I get them end of December. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. How long is it going to take to finish the work, or is the work done already? MS. WANG: Most of the stuff is already done because -- I just Page 128 January 29, 2016 find out yesterday they have the original print and the new print where I get the drawing. It's a little bit different. There's a lot of things the last owner they did it. So I want to do -- so most of the thing is already done. Only one more is the backyard. I cannot -- it's not under my knowledge. I do find a builder to help me to knock it down whatever we have on the backyard, and they redo it from a new print. So we're still discussing with the company, the builder can help me with the building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What we're trying to find out is -- which would be helpful -- MS. WANG: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- if you have some idea, not an exact date, how long it will take to get permits completed and inspected so that everything is done. MS. WANG: I want do soon as I can. Anything I can do is no problem. But for -- from the company help me to apply the permit, they say have 150 day -- we have 150 day to finish everything from the county permit. This was required by county. So we try -- I try to finish it 30 day, couple months. But I need someone help me with that because this over (sic) my knowledge. It's a lot of thing I don't know how to appeal (sic) that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Steve, why don't you give us a quick rundown. MR. ODOM: For the record, Mike Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry. MR. ODOM: I believe that the direction they may actually go is a demo permit, because costs are getting too high, as they're seeing. So one of their options was to get a demo permit, which they may actually tear the structure down and start new. Page 129 January 29, 2016 And I was speaking to their agent yesterday who may be retaining a new contractor to look at things and see what's going to be cost effective. So they're looking at going in an entirely different direction now with demo, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was a house? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I'll ask you. If you were a betting person, how long do you think this would take? MR. ODOM: Well, I mean, I would say I'd give them at least 60 days. The county doesn't have any objections to that. If they want more, the county doesn't have any objections to that either. If they're going to move forward with the demo, that doesn't take long, but, you know, I would say 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion for 90. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to grant 90 days of a continuance. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Three months. MS. WANG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if it's not done, come back. MS. WANG: Thank you. Page 130 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because you still have -- you have to come back because the fines are still here. Okay. MS. CURLEY: When you're done, come back, because we have to talk about the fines. MS. WANG: Oh, okay. Do I -- may I know how much is the fine? MS. CURLEY: Don't look. MR. LEFEBVRE: Don't look. Don't worry about it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seven thousand -- MS. CURLEY: Come back in 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $7,463.75. MS. WANG: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll be back. Okay. MS. CURLEY: See you in ninety days. MS. WANG: So after three months, okay. Thank you. MS. SanROMAN: Our next case is 19, Tab 26, CESD20140012494, Lynne V. Cadenhead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What number? MR. LAVINSKI: Twenty-six. MS. CURLEY: I've got 28. MS. SanROMAN: Tab 26. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tab 26 I have is Lynne Cadenhead. MS. SanROMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. This is the companion to the other one. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. McGONAGLE: Afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, afternoon. We owe you a break, okay. We have a case here that started in September of 2014. Without Page 131 January 29, 2016 going through all of this, we're here now to impose the fine. It has not been abated? MS. McGONAGLE: No, it has not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And there's nobody here to argue. MS. McGONAGLE: Correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move to impose the fines. MS. CURLEY: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. McGONAGLE: Would you like me to read it into the record? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. McGONAGLE: Violation for Collier County Land Development -- oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation is Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 3417 Cherokee Street, Naples, Florida; Folio 74413200009. Description: Primary structure with unpermitted alterations in Page 132 January 29, 2016 poor condition and an unpermitted two-story storage structure in poor condition. Past orders: On September 25, 2014, 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, OR5086, Page 2271, for more information. On January 22, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5118, Page 2282, for more information. On July 23, 2015, a second continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5179, Page 187, for more information. On October 22, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR5210, Page 268, for more information. November 20, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR5217, Page 2219, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of January 29, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$400 per day for the period between October 11, 2014, to January 29, 2016, 476 days, for a total fine amount of $190,000 -- $190,400. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operation costs $64.17 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.75. Total amount, $190,463.75. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you, Michele. MS. McGONAGLE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are we getting close to the end? MS. SanROMAN: We are close. The last item is No. 8, the Consent Agenda, forwarding cases to the County Attorney. Page 133 January 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we need a motion for that? Someone make a motion to forward the -- whatever. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to forward whatever needs to be forwarded to the County Attorney. Do we have a second? MS. CURLEY: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Next meeting is February 25th. We are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:40 p.m. Page 134 January 29, 2016 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 14,,„„,„,„ • • '' r UFMAN CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented v` or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 135